3bob

MH, That is a good explanation of where you are coming from but it contradicts the T.T.C. thus one or someone in your position would have to say that they only see a need or a basis for some bits and pieces of the T.T.C. teachings while tossing the rest. (which is a common thing for us westerners to do when dealing with eastern traditions that are based on thousands of years of practice and results beyond just opinions... thus some of us think we know better. (and even toss an agnostic type of position)

"Karma has no beginning, because its only as real or as solid as the 'I'. Honor has a beginning, it starts with the gradual formation and a subsequent solidifying process of 'I', 'Me', and 'Mine'. The more fixated one is on the 'I', the greater the need to proclaim and defend one's honor (plus a whole list of other self-aggrandising concepts), which then spins karma into gear". by CT. The text above sounds like doctrine to me, whether your own or a variation of Buddhism which does not normally accept a real "I" thus resulting in or implying that every I is false or ego.

Since the TTC. obviously points otherwise you are contradicting it. Thus until you have irrefutable proof one way or another (say on chapter 16) then an absolute statement from you or anyone else is no different or more true than an absolute statement made by anyone else about anything else along these lines... thus imo and in such cases an 'agnostic type' position about absolutes or "immortality" is all one can really and honestly claim. (yes, I know you are not an agnostic per se but what the heck science is agnostic like until it proves otherwise in relation to various subjects). p.s. and even if one has proof it comes down to themselves because certain things beyond the so called normal can not be proven with or to the so called normal.

All I meant was something like linear time takes time, while the eternal moment is not linear.

CT, that sounds like a touchy trigger finger. "(but I don't mind the contrast)"

I don't know about that Dwaei, concepts are constructs but there is that which is not a construct.

I'm not a Buddhist and it sounds like CT is coming from doctrine that is around 180 degrees different than what I am... so there won't be much agreement between us. (but I don't mind the contrast)

well there are various examples but we might agree about the subject that its also like walking a razors edge?

"We are born, we live, then we die" How many times is this interpretation as the only reality refuted in the Tao Teh Ching? (for instance chapter 16)

with egotistic honor yes, while I'd say noble honor per dharma ends up equalizing or finishing karmas

perhaps, "behold I make all things new"

on the historic level we have countless examples of a person or movement starting out with honorable intent and ending up in dark karmas. Where the tipping points are is not always so clear.

a very good point

as I said before, they do not treat fools kindly.

a side note: some maps are marked with unknown or uncharted territory...

the "paint" program already in windows makes it is very easy to resize photos, just use the resize option and try inputting 50 or whatever, which will reduce the file size and its display size by 50% or as much as you want by repetition of said step.

my thoughts, tread there lightly and carefully.

thanks for the bytes, and those telepathic videos (or TV) make for a hell of a download

yep, the right map is half the location, or something like that...

I noticed in the Hobbit movie that the Elves (in comparison) could shoot more arrows from their small and compact quivers than Clint Eastwood shooting 20 rounds from his six-shooter.

hmmm, ok no bites.

...and one kind of map says to back-track your tracks, and if so where would you then be going to?

One might ask if or when dharmic battles are subject to karma? (with the often slippery slope of one believing or being told they are doing their dharmic duty and taking care of related honors in such battles and thus they will be free of incurring karmas) One might also ask if the wrathful deities defending dharma are free of karmas, and if so then why or how could they make use of violence as their method for doing so?

The tone of your first paragraph is nice but lets face it there have been far more battles fought than just for the purposes of truth and clarity! Terms: Ok, we agree about potential problems with same. Last paragraph: I'd put that a lot differently being that the Tao only has one possibility and that is to be the Tao, whereas all of the infinite variables and or possibilities are "born" of the Tao starting with and contained in "The One".

Buddhist doctrine points out the historic Buddha defending his teachings, thus I'd take that as a form of honor to him. It sounds to me like you are mostly limiting honor problems to ego type attachments and I can see that... btw seeing and realizing such problems may put a crack in karmas but I don't see such as being all that is needed to equalize it. I never use the term emptiness since ime it is more highly abused and misunderstood than the terms illusion and even God. I believe there is a Buddhist saying about "no blame", I like that one. As for free will I see that as really being relative will - since no will is free to or able to break Tao, the unbreakable.