Apech

Yes, I probably didn't make it clear that I like the AH version a lot. But your question was if he was a reliable translator which some people question in the academic sense. A good thing he does is that when he sets out the Judgement or name of the sign he tells what Wilhelm and Blofeld called it too. I have a whole variety of translations including one by Kerson and Rose Huang (no relation I think) and also have you come across Stephen Karcher? - he's quite wild and wacky but I corresponded with him at one point and he seems a nice guy. Seems to me Alfred Huang was a genuine practitioner rather than an academic and that shines through his work. Its a beautiful book really. Hope you have great success with it.

Do you read threads before posting? I was questioning something Steve said - and I would add he and Rene are not in any sense my 'supporters'. I was not addressing anything you said previously or any of your views because I couldn't see any serious points you had made worthy of debate. Just thought I'd make this clear.

Was Wilhelm a fat slob? I didn't know that.

Yes and that is the worst case scenario - globally it would be 9.7 per 100,000 which is is less than 0.01 % so small in fact that it can hardly be called a propensity or even a characteristic of men.

I can't read Chinese but have studied the Yi Jing - I think the critique of Alfred Huang is in part justified although you have to bear in mind that he upset a lot of academics by purporting to produce and authoritative Yi Jing translation to replace Wilhelm/Baynes. Most people say you can't do better that Wilhelm as he was a true scholar of Chinese and his translation is probably the best you can get - even tho' it does have some weaknesses. The approach I use is to consult Wilhelm, Huang (because of the description of the original Chinese characters etc.,) and R. J. Lynn - to compare and contrast translations.

It is rumoured that they have cornered the market in online booksales.

Ok well watch this vid then:

Not sure why anyone would choose to be ostracised, beaten up, called a pervert and even possibly deemed a criminal (including death penalty in some places) - when it was not 'an instinct'. I think it's important to remember that what we call gender traits are statistical distributions across populations. So although on average men are taller than women there will always be outliers where say, some women are taller than some men. We have evolved this way to have population groups that vary quite widely and this must be an advantage to our species. We are not like termites with millions of identical drones. This is a good thing. But we also need to take into account that variations occur in generations which may not be advantageous. But if we look over a long period of time and say that homosexuality has existed in most/all cultures that we know of it is safe to assume that there is some kind of advantage to this and that it is has been selected for in a certain small percentage of the community. What that advantage is I'm not sure but I think it has been proven that gay men have a higher than average IQ for instance - so maybe it is some kind of mechanism whereby gifted people are freed from household responsibility to work on the creative fringes of society (just hypothesising here).

You could equally say 79% of men are the victims of homicide. I found this interesting from the report you linked to: The writer of the report seems to have forgotten that widespread gun ownership prevents crime as the NRA and Brian tell us regularly !?!!! Men are on average developed through evolution to be bigger and stronger than women - and are more likely to be recruited into gangs, more likely to serve their country in war - and suffer from PTSD etc. - and so on. This suggests to me that men are more likely to be manipulated into violence than women. But even then it is pushing it a bit to suggest that men have a 'propensity' for violence - or even that women haven't. It is actually very hard to get men to kill. Studies in warfare (this is from memory because I can't find the articles to link to) show that unless specifically trained out of their natural instincts only 2% of men can actually shoot to kill. Of these 1% are psychopaths and the other 1% are doing so to protect their comrades (which is the most common reason for granting the highest medals of honour). When they interviewed American soldiers returning from WWII they found only 25% had fired their weapon at all (during the whole campaign) and I think about 2% had actually shot anyone.

Yeah its a real shame in my case

Honestly is that how you see men, Steve? Most men would instinctively protect and save life.

It's certainly a widely held theory that for instance neolithic cultures were matriarchal - and another that men did not know the part they played - but I think the latter is based on early anthropological studies of cultures like the Trobriand Islanders and so on- and it may be that such knowledge was merely taboo to be spoken rather than unknown. After all you would have to be a bit dense not to notice the connection. The other factor is that in hunter-gatherer societies - for the tribe or group, women were much more valuable and men expendable in terms of survival and continuation. You could manage a few years with few men - but if women fell below certain numbers you would probably die out. So in terms of respecting the mystery of life and mysteries generally women would be placed in higher regard. Certainly through the historical period its Patriarchy all the way - and some cultures being very oppressive to women and others not so much so. To my feeling if we have a viable future then it will be neither one or the other - with individual freedom of expression whether male or female the key - but of course this does not remove the basic biological fact that we are sexually dimorphic.

Having given it some thought while I realise that the Left seem to have become obsessed with attacking men - white straight men in particular - I don't think my objection to girl boy scouts comes from a reactionary mind set. I think what is ignored is that it is psychologically necessary for men to learn to do things in groups together - going back presumably to the hunting parties of early man - no hunt = no meat = everyone starves and has no skins for clothes, bones for tools etc. Now I know we don't have to do this any longer but I take it as true that each human life recapitulates the life of the species. So it is still something boys need to learn - and with so many single parent families now, for boys contact with a father and indeed other men as well as other boys - in positive developmental scenarios becomes increasingly important to produce mature balanced human males. Incidentally in the light of the Harvey Weinstein thing - I think in normal healthy societies anyone behaving like him would be quickly dealt with by other men.

Ahhhh .... Vienna.

Which country is that?

I view it as a bad thing ... so what does that say about my sociopolitical viewpoint?

fascinating i thought

What do you call twelve particles....? Dozen't matter.....

"We are now passing over your adolescence you may experience some turbulence at this time - please ensure your safety belt is fastened at all time and no jerking off even if you are fourteen. Thank you."

"Your life has been delayed please remain in the departure lounge"

Just some feedback - the following are available . , ; : and if you hit the Return button occasionally you can create what are known as paragraphs.

I think also Chang makes some important points - and by the way you don't have to promise me to either post or not post you are free to do either (as I sure you know ). One question I think is - how much does the tantric/vajrayana reliance on the Lama actually encourage this kind of thing? While these types of scandals do happen everywhere in all walks of life - what disturbed a little me and other posters on here was the semi-justification by another Lama of Sogyal's actions - as I pointed out early on using quotes from the teachings that it is without question not ok. It's this sneaking allowance or permissiveness that makes me uncomfortable about the whole thing. It's a toxic combination of dodgy Lamas, naive students and tacit acceptance which ends up in a sorry mess.

Zen sex scandals discussion

If you like you could start one.