rene

Not sure if this has been reported or not, but, most times - clicking the 'sign out' button up top right - doesn't sign me out. I can see down below it's going through the process...all the ads, links, etc cycling through like they do when it works..but when it's all finished, I'm still signed in. I wait 20 secs or so, click 'sign out' again - same things happen, and I'm still signed in. It happens from different places (TB front page, general discussion front page, even tried from a PM msg.) so i just end up closing the window. This is no biggie, just thought you might like to know, especially since it's getting worse. A few months ago, it would fail maybe 1 out of 20 times; now it's at least 6 out of every 10.

of course, viator (nor I) will admit to knowing those lyrics by heart... :insert ancient smiley here: (-:

It is browser related. I switched to Firefox a few months ago, after IE kept crashing, and love it. Regarding this though - within Firefox (and IE) I use Tabs - to keep multiple work-resource sites open throughout the day. Opening and closing one 'Tab' - doesn't clear the cookies for the whole browser, and what I was doing was opening/closing a Tab to come in here. So, I can either be fine with the way it works (thanks viator!) or I can open a separate browser-window to come into TTB and then close it totally when I leave, after signing out. Either way, easy-peasy; I was just curious as to what was going on. Thanks guys

well - i just now tried to sign out again, and it wouldnt let me. i didnt clear cookies before coming in this time so that must be it. kinda sucks but oh well. i guess TB doesnt want you to leave. maybe its that Facebook infestation. thanks all. most appreciated.

silent thunder, thanks I read your post before signing in - and cleaned out EVERYTHING. If it doesn't let me sign out when I leave later, I'll come back in and post that. BKA : flo - they've probably been in here forever watchin and laughin edit: well, it worked. I almost hesitated to sign back in to say so. thanks st, most appreciated (-:

Warrants repeating in total. Especially the bolded bits. Well met.

No "but" needed, we're in agreement. My post was unclear, I was lazy. Should have typed: Quail = earthly, temporal; Peng=heavenly, ethereal; Master Lieh= numinous, the blending of both Quail and Peng - i.e. Both, i.e. spiritual attainment same same (-: edit: re above post, kind words, thanks!

Wu and Yu are never separate. Like standing in the colorado river and standing in it's water. No separation, no where to "get" to between one or the other. Perspective.

Agree. The openness of 'not knowing' enables the potentiality, imo, of hearing our true-self, that teacher of all teachers. Nice reply, Steve. Thanks (-:

Hi Wayfarer, thanks for your great reply! I agree with all your thoughts. Regarding the above, yes, it is superficial and thankfully so, imo. It might be that even though specific things are back-read into a text, the doing so of such will help the seeker come to understand the underlying idea. If it does not,however, the door is flung open to see anything in anything - which may actually lead them away from what they seek. And when the 'teacher debates' begin, about what something 'truly' means, that's when it gets really fun to watch. Kinda. At the very least, it spotlights where teachers are on their path. (-: warm regards

Apech, thanks for this thread. I've hungered to see something like this for a long time. And it is not generally available. Speaking as Canadian/Yank - though the perception of here is of being "Christian right", take comfort that for most people... involvement is for socialization reasons only. Those who don't attend, choose that because there was too much depth for them, or in my case, not enough. I look forward to reading what you (all) share on this subject. I have nothing to offer but deep interest and respect. You may hide this post if you wish. (-: warm regards

Hi guys. I'm going to re-title the other empty posts so they are less annoying. If you want to hide them that is fine too. Sorry again for my heated reaction. When Apech said it was a link to a 'screenshot' - my old-school mind thought it actually was a static screenshot, of my comments. I would have never imagined that a dynamic link could be active through a screenshot. Thanks, BKA, for getting what occurred through my head; apologies for the sailor-swearing in the Report, zerostao, and for your later help; thanks viator for understanding and later laughing with me over this; and thanks bubbles - for your kind PMs and level head. p.s...Apech is likely still laughing, as he should.

I'll be the one that eats Roast Beef.

And I try to inspire you to not read in to something - what might not be there. (-: Oh! That's another thing I didn't like about Zz ! He did that all the time with Lz's simplicity! Thanks for reminding me!

Could be, sure. I can only give my own take on what I see. (-:

To me, Zz used three actors (Peng, quail, Master Lieh) to represent 3 levels of spiritual attainment. Quail = earthly, temporal; Peng=heavenly, ethereal; Master Lieh= numinous, the blending of both. The overall 'message', I suppose, was don't go get up all actin' like you're Master Lieh - even if you're Peng - until you have the numinous well in hand. Maybe good advice. (I find nothing in idea or concept in conflict w/Lz)

like a flying goat butting heads against the clouds raining feta down

Now is the product. Tis nothing to sell but smoke. False advertising.

Right, my post was unclear, sorry. ZZ wants to make it only one; LZ leaves it as two: Both. This is probably my biggest beef with Zz, but it's early days. There might be something else, too. (-:

So..you're going to put Gile's concepts for the whole chapter in each section thread, rather than only the concepts for just that section?

Vitalii, hi, Thanks for the link to the rest of the article. It's no small feat describing these things; well met.

he don't ever rest now lays gently in her arms.. that's one smelly mate

One thing. As in, 'only One thing'. To me, Laozi stayed with Both - the whole and the parts. Nice post, dawei. (-:

Maybe Tao is meaningless. Maybe Tao is the only thing that means anything at all! We each have our own ideas about Tao, yes? Who could know for sure? warmest regards