3bob

Not sure what to share for there is a countless amount that I do not know, although I do know that without Grace and the purity of Life-force that a lot of it (as in concepts only without some level of inner trust) would be like packing around weights that in the end couldn't be borne. Om (edit:added to 'it' as in concepts only without some level of inner trust)

"Tip toe through the..."

oh, well a "woman's scorn" has laid many a man low, thus and perhaps it's more effective than MMA. (I could catch some hell for that foot in mouth)

do we have to turn in GMP for hitting his dear wife with a cheap brick shot?

found a really strange old music video from the Johnny Carson show but decided it would be really strange to post something that strange...

I see we are getting a share of misinformation about belief and also putting words into the mouth of Lord Jesus to boot,

...or if we will there are sources for study like: http://www.himavanti.org/en/c/himavanti-1/shiva-the-founder-and-owner-of-all-yoga-and-tantra

actually my earlier post was off since the hard wiring previously implied was only at the mind level, and the mind level can fail unless hard wired to the unfailing Spirit level... which may not be elaborating much which is fine since I'm not qualified to do so.

that is why the most basic spiritual aspects are always needed as the default in state of being, because when the basics are solidly hard wired in one can't hardly slip any lower... without first destroying such wiring (so to speak) for themselves whereas if such basics were never really hard wired in in the first place then it's far easier to slide to a lesser state. Btw CT my take is that the point of no return is the point of never sliding back, but most of us turn back from the point of no return being that such a payment is final and without refund.

I know that my take on the Upanishads (and related Vedic based texts) do not match the take of most traditional Buddhists regarding same, thus they have their take and I have mine. Hell, maybe I'm slightly anarchistic with a live and let others have their take to, more so when they let me have mine...

From Paul:

From The Doors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DTj_KLqp_s&list=RD-DTj_KLqp_s

Well it would be better to say something like "for those interested in my take" than "for those who don't get it"...

Seemingly strange but true is the fact that Lama's and Sat Guru's don't get together very often for a spicy tofu cook-out and a Bud light. Seeker of the Tao has re-given the traditional Buddhist POV, thus imo enough said here about an endless river of disagreement along the lines of Self and no-self. (so after whatever point it should become clear to let it go) Btw, we also wouldn't want to get Buddhism mixed up with Taoism would we?

Also "Grandmasters" shouldn't need much in the way of testing

Oh, but most of us have first-hand searching for that happiness that seems to be up around the next bend or grade in life somewhere, (otherwise and for example why would anyone be at this site or most any others for that matter?) Btw, You don't have to be a Sage, Master or pretty bug to have some first hand experience of essence - at least to an "x" degree which tends to be more easily seen in younger kids playing and singing without a care, which is why we can enjoy and appreciate them if our essence isn't totally calcified over or dominated by a hard-bitten, hard-ass ego .

The rightful master is essence grown up beyond innocence, and for that to happen the ego has to give way for essence to make a comeback (so to speak) after it normally gets covered over by constructed ego. (using a butterfly analogy if ego or the cocoon that it is does not give way the butterfly never comes out to fly free)

Ok MH and thanks for the feedback, though I'm not sure what you mean by the second line in your post above? (the ego has a place and purpose but will have drop away when the rightful Master of the house returns)

...that's right ego can never destroy ego but ego can die when put before a greater, more valuable truth and seen for what it is...which is not the root of oneself. also only Tao (the root of oneself) returns to no-space, while all the rest is somewhere in someplace that is under the One to Ten the Thousand. And yes, I to like billions of the rest of us have designs of our own, which is why a true Sage is so very, very exceedingly and exceptionally rare...

Not bad man, I can skip when my gout is in remission, or if singing, "Jeremiah was a bullfrog". Anyway, "If we were one with Tao we would be destroying a lot of things and creating new things. I think this would be going beyond our capacities and capabilities as well as placing ourself on the same level with Tao". by MH Good point, which is why in the end the ego must die thus killing any "designs" that same might have for itself...and being that by definition the true Sage has no designs of their own. Also there is a law that says, "Only Nothing can enter into no space" ( T.T.C. 43); thus something has to give and it won't be the Tao. Further, Chapter 16 speaks of being one with the Tao in the sense of and the condition that a true Sage has attained - namely not being at odds with the Tao: "...To return to the root is to find peace. To find peace is to fulfill one's destiny. To fulfill one's destiny is to be constant. To know the Constant is called Insight. If one does not know the Constant, One runs blindly into disasters. If one knows the Constant, One can understand and embrace all. If one understands and embraces all, One is capable of doing justice. To be just is to be kingly; To be kingly is to be heavenly; To be heavenly is to be one with the Tao; To be one with the Tao is to abide forever. Such a one will be safe and whole Even after the dissolution of his body."

...and it's good to be able to open or close those cracks when or as needed. (until the light completely takes over)

MH, It looks like you skipped a step? TTC 42: "Tao gave birth to One" Thus the "One" only exists through connection or "birth" from the Great Tao and in that sense the One is not standing alone without change as is the Tao per: "...Silent and boundless, Standing alone without change, Yet pervading all without fail,..." T.T.C. 25 This is a key point and alludes to a profound fact of non-change, .. For only the Great Tao (with the term "Great" being used by Lao Tzu in Chapter 34 and elsewhere) can know the Great Tao - which does not exclude the true Sage who realizes same and says: "How do I know the ways of all things at the Beginning? By what is within​ me." (or the Tao) Further, if a student applies these T.T.C.texts above then it should follow that they see the possibility that the Sage is not limited to just rational functions, methods or thoughts...and by taking that into account the Sage is or can ultimately discriminate based on perception from the point of Tao (so to speak) "that pervades all without fail... which by the way gives the Sage a tremendous first hand insight, advantage, virtue and anchor to deal with the ever changing yet cyclic universe. Anyway, those first two lines of chapter 72 seem open to more than one interpretation, and I don't know any Chinese which doesn't help with same.

Buddhism often speaks of change in their doctrines in one way or another along these lines (although they also have a major exception to that in their doctrine), Taoism speaks of the unchanging along these lines in the T.T.C., and if it did not then it would not be Taoism per the T.T.C.. Example from chapter 25: "...Silent and boundless, Standing alone without change, Yet pervading all without fail,..." This is what the true Sage realizes and ultimately identifies with via the direct statement of "by what is within me" from Chapter 21. Rocket science and or long interesting arguments about this can't reach It but the Sage and those on the Way in some way or another can.

What you are speaking of is the unique soul (or if one prefers mind, heart, and body(s)) and at that level I agree with your drift, my drift was of the source for such and that which a true Sage ultimately identifies with - namely the un-nameable root that they find themselves to be which has no different or conflicting multiples of Itself and which the T.T.C. is very often pointing to...

What one true sage finds within is the same as that that another true sage finds within which is why both know, prefer and are effectively and ultimately (at that level) the -same- within... (or along the lines of the unchanging singularity of Tao - if one relates better via those words) Thus there is really no "butt kicker" in 38 per-se with the words of: "Truly, he prefers what is within to what is without" which is also directly alluded to in chapter 21 by: "...The Core of Vitality is very real, It contains within Itself an unfailing Sincerity. Throughout the ages Its Name has been preserved In order to recall the Beginning of all things. How do I know the ways of all things at the Beginning? By what is within​ me."