Owledge

Shouldn't there be a couple of possible translations?`In the context given, surely one of them would fit. Like, could it be translated as something that means "paid agitators"? It's not from a book.

How can you know that you know the truth if you believe that you know the truth?

This modern interpretation kinda grew on me, and I am wondering how it is perceived by various people who have read different versions of the DDJ. Also wondering how known this one actually is by now, since it is many years old. Tao Te Ching - a modern interpretation (by Ron Hogan, 2002, 2004) http://www.beatrice.com/TAO-pamphlet.pdf Apart from this one I only read the German Richard Wilhelm version, but that was long ago and I never really compared the two.

The thing is, the guy IS thinking. Well OK, there is that claim that various people can still talk while in the state of no-thought. What an impressive advanced skill.

One person: "I think I heard something." Another person: "You must be imagining things."

I am still in the process of trusting my cynicism as accurate and accepting the speed with which I can often detect a hopeless case, a fool, someone who has a strong resistance to new insights and learning, who may not think what he says. I like to look at people's motivations, so that is what I usually see very early on, sometimes after one comment, sometimes after one sentence, sometimes after a couple of words. I came upon this picture and it expressed exactly that lesson in its most refined form - instant recognition, maximum avoidance of energy leeching: One of my teachers conveyed a lesson I still have trouble with due to its extremism, or maybe it was because he had so much energy that it was OK, or maybe he had it because he followed the rule: Send 10% energy out, keep 90% in. I guess the key understanding that helps to follow that rule is that the energy you keep in does not (have to) / should not just sit idly there.

He made it really easy for the other guy to choose to not answer.

Yep, that's a classic. ^^ And in the same spirit.

After you have read and processed that up there, here is a more digestible version, but it loses in original humor and richness, that is why I only add it below, for the more shallow audience, theheheh. A zen master and his wife awaken at night. Zen master: "I think I heard something." His wife: "You must be imagining things. There is nothing out there."

There is a ranking of virtues in the Dao De Jing that will vary depending on translation, but those differences are of minor concern for the intention to share my thoughts on the general idea and see what you think, whether you have made experiences that might match, contradict, or amend it. I tried to keep my thoughts for conveying the idea as concise as possible (because I also tweeted it, haha.) Everybody thinks less of that which is below them but also of that which is above them. Dao De Jing virtue ladder: righteousness < justice < kindness < integrity < Dao Just people are afraid of approaching life with kindness, since they might have to sacrifice justice for it, which they believe is necessary. They might falsely believe that kindness merely builds on justice, like a luxury you can afford once you have justice, and since they themselves see the world through the eyes of justice at their stage of development, believing that justice has to rule, they consider kindness a frivolous pursuit at that time, or maybe a strategy for managing weakness. (Which those of integrity might, too.) Kind people are afraid of approaching life with integrity, since they might have to sacrifice kindness for it. That which is unkind is generally perceived as harmful by them, since they themselves are yearning for kindness, i.e. to not get hurt. People with integrity will tendentially have an even harder life than kind people because even kind people will oppose them. Kind people can easily be kind to the just. To be kind to the righteous may be a bit harder. But when trying to be kind towards people who are acting from a core of integrity, they might tendentially resort to passive-aggressiveness and mistake it for kindness. And people of Integrity will see this. Such a clash of virtue can cause kind people to drop back down to justice level if they believe that their passive-aggressiveness is as much kindness as those people deserve. Basically, a higher-virtue interaction is potentially like a rocky shore that the ship might shatter at. This also shows that raising your virtue level is not a struggle like climbing a mountain. Since it is all about overcoming fear, it is profoundly related to surrender, to inner peace. If you struggle in interaction with higher virtue, it is resistance in action.

Eating a cake with a spoon.

And now you are in an alternate universe in which you did the unthinkable. Which is nothing like people would have imagined ... because you don't even really notice a difference. ... Even I am still here. ... Then again, are you sure you still remember the old universe correctly? Maybe you are in denial in order for your mind to be able to handle the dimensional shift. In any case, welcome. Always nice to meet new people. I am the new guy.

What hurts through is not the event itself, but how unexpected it is based on its whole apperarance. It disconnects from a basis of trust. It alienates. Some people like to preach how one has to be "self-reliant", but they conveniently neglect just how much they rely on many others. Especially those they exploit like sheep for their own gain. Unless someone is a dropout living in a cabin in the woods growing their own food and plants for clothing and tools, they shouldn't talk about self-reliance. It is ignorant and impairs empathy by realizing the interconnectedness of things. This is also a common trap in 'spiritual' circles that can affect even or maybe especially people who ascended in the ranks of teachers, the self-empowerment theme, which often stems from fear, due to its mindset of separation. One always has to look at what one caused and sacrificed on the path of that self-empowerment. And do they ever ponder the presence of "self" in those words?

Can you get a PhD in that? I'm pretty sure it's a BS.

As I said, they were quite versed. They even kept mentioning various spiritual teachers to me. I mean, I have certain cynical suspicions what could have happened, but that is very vague, and if true, then let humankind be damned because people are way too messed up. You could say I value opportunities religiously, while encountering many fake ones, and I also occasionally make experiences just how easily people can squander great true opportunities, which gives an impression of humankind being a bunch of confused, scared-shitless inept toddlers. It is hard to bridge such a gap when the intention is one-sided.

People tend to say such things once someone questions it. Before that it is silently implied to have some witty spiritual insight. Maybe you are not the philosopher type.

@dwai Apparently Nasrudin didn't consider the appointment important enough to note it down. If he is that forgetful. So while he could call the philosopher an asshole for not considering he could also have had an accident or such, Nasrudin himself also qualifies for that label for rejecting responsibility for his carelessness and turning it into an intellectual jerkoff (the latter which confirms the former). Instead he could have asked about the philosopher's day and life that caused him to get that upset about it. Because it can also imply that the philosopher valued the appointment so important for his life that that is why the missed opportunity infuriated him. It might also convey that the philosopher himself has higher standards of reliability, which is commendable. Nasrudin maybe should value the importance of such appointments higher if he is that prone to passive-aggressiveness. (Quite the overt type even.)

Fools are not really unpredictable to me. Probably because the skill of prediction comes with prolonged study. (I tend to lapse in judgment when I reduce my cynicism to replace it with a more cheerful mindset.) And I just realized why I still have a tendency to engage with fools at all. I want to keep the hope alive that I may encounter people who positively surprise me, for they would automatically become a beacon of hope. If I blanket-labeled someone as hopeless, I could become complacent. It probably is a kind of practice of not becoming blind to real opportunities that might not look like ones at first. But honestly, so far things look more like the opposite. Just recently I happened to encounter two people while on a bike trip. RARELY, it totally clicked. We were in an understanding in the spiritual area, we agreed to be open-minded and tolerant and could talk without feeling offended at every little thing, basically relatively mature. They kept expressing admiration for me and happiness to have met me. I gave them my card, they said to contact me later that day. ... Now it is weeks and I haven't heard anything from them. Makes me wonder whether I should have been more cynical and asked for mutual contact means, but I also didn't want to be pushy, since that could lead to problems, too. (Sometimes there just seems to be no winning.) Talk about the epitome of a demotivational life making cynical, where even a 99% chance signals near-guaranteed failure, and if something offers itself as 100%, it's probably a lie. This makes me wonder whether people further advanced in insight, maturity or whatever you want to call it, will provide more or easier tiny points of taking issue with that could put others off. Does being the best you can be result in greater chance of failure? It is said by people focusing on success in this sick society that if you conceil your strength and portray yourself as very flawed and clumsy, you will gain more sympathy from people you want to exploit; will be less likely to scare them, make them feel inferior. - I think this is what you get when a very intelligent person chooses to close their heart to anyone but themselves. And with that they will probably have an easier time finding likeminded people, but only because they are closed-hearted now, like so damn many other people. They may fool themselves then into thinking they found others just like they WERE before they decided to close their heart. That then makes them open their heart to that kind of mindset and that is how you get a sociopathic career-bullshitter giving 'inspiring' TED Talks.

Me neither, but it's not like people will see him and invite him for dinner, being like: Oh, what a virtuous man. They may very well say it, but then think "how nice that some fool is doing it so we don't have to" and definitely not want him around, since he would only make their life more difficult. As fools they will have no foresight and will see those with foresight as fools. He who sees two things that look, smell, sound and feel identical yet recognizes their profound difference holds the jewel that everybody wants to own but no one wants to touch.

@Aetherous When looking at those cards, they are both extremes, suggesting a middle between both might be the most ... healthy? ... Easy? ... Nourishing? The hermit would be someone who has been around too many fools for too long and thus couldn't move towards them in acceptance. Balance brings health. If balance is not found, one cannot just look at the individual. Those who do might be ... fools ... for neglecting the impact of the external world, practicing a self-serving lack of empathy. After all, the external world can have a powerful impact. It is part of the illusions we create. Empathy opens the heart towards acknowledging the validity of shadows. To cure them, but many people are quite comfortable serving them. And that ... folly ... needs to be detected, lest the hermit becomes an eternal fool wasting energy on those who will laugh about it.

I had a phase like that. Eventually transitioned into detecting driving intention. Closed-minded people are often by nature of it beyond help. They do not seek it. You can take any approach you want, your mistake will be to try and enlighten them. They just want to stroke their ego and/or comfort their fears. I do understand what fear makes people do. But interaction with some people is distraction. I have learned exhaustively in that segment. But I, too, have to keep practicing to not engage. And the tricky part is that I do not enjoy prolonged solitude, so avoiding all the fools is a problem, hah.

Good way to check whether you applied your sunscreen properly. Viewing a populated beach with this camera must be fun, especially outside of Africa. Even better: Make two shots, one with a regular camera, and then re-colorize it. Doubting whether glass blocks UV light that much though, or maybe it was the specific wavelength of the camera. Corrective glasses except the cheapest ones probably have a UV filter. Also wondering what the freckles actually mean. Just saying it is aging seems simplistic. And is it maybe temporary, like the invisible onset of a sun burn? "How the sun sees you" seems a stupid video title. And as for your thread title: Do bees ONLY see in UV? And if so, what wavelengths? And again, which ones does the camera detect?

@welkin Based on the OP mainly: You're comically deep in some self-pleasing phantasy world there. I say comically because you're even admitting it yourself without noticing. For me the cringe already began at "use my instinct". Also, talking to animals is the easiest thing in the world. Just don't expect to be understood, haha. While you apparently had an overwhelming want to be understood. Which ended up being satisfied very easily. You are an example of what Adyashanti meant when he said 90% of what's called spirituality serves the dream state. But there is of course potential for insight to be gained from any experience in life. Just keep observing your own motivations for your actions. Look inwards. Spirituality can be shockingly reminiscent of psychoanalysis sometimes.

And then there are the many people who do not entertain extremely polarized, generalized beliefs.

It's written yin-yang in the system, but several times now I have heard a Chinese say it, and yin sounded much more like "ying". Or maybe "yiñ" would be more accurate. Why is this so? Dialect? Flaw in the transliteration system?