3bob

Cool late night ramblings.... I see the summation in your first sentence differently. To me the Self already is and needs no becoming per-se... thus becoming as you've brought up is to me really a manifesting of Self through the evolution of a matrix for such to happen. (as far as that is possible for certain and various matrices which are not the Self Itself but more like vehicles that drive or are driven)

Very interesting Dawei, thanks for the research...I've read something like those principals being implied by another school but that was many years ago and it escapes right now.

so a Jeff can make assumptions and or put words in my mouth?

in Hinduism man as Satguru could be said to be great, thus not just as a movie of the mind playing out like many other movies do, (so to speak). Btw, you used a different translation of chapter 25 than I did, also The 'Eternal Tao" is not really nameable nor can its power really be delineated by or limited to human beings, earth spirits, or heavenly spirits as related to the part of the saying that you pointed out. Anyway, the three lines I highlighted earlier do have correlations just as many other lines do...but I'm not going to go there much more in this string.

I'd say non-existence and existence have complications like those of life and death (which we often assign)...a complication that the Eternal Tao does not have. Btw, lets not forget the quote below: (hehehe) "There was a beginning. There was a beginning before that beginning. There was a beginning previous to that beginning before there was the beginning. There was existence; there had been no existence. There was no existence before the beginning of that no existence. There was no existence previous to the no existence before there was the beginning of the no existence. If suddenly there was nonexistence, we do not know whether it was really anything existing, or really not existing. Now I have said what I have said, but I do not know whether what I have said be really anything to the point or not."

...not really or all that challenging, for instance there is a saying in : TTC. 25 "THERE was Something undefined and yet complete in itself, Born before Heaven-and-Earth. Silent and boundless, Standing alone without change, Yet pervading all without fail,..." Which happens to be quite similar to (some of the) pointers about Brahman.

I dare say that Buddhists and the historic Buddha do not understand "Brahman" as noted by (most) of their own teachings of Its denial....although that could also be debated indefinitely ! Anyway, Brahman is not and was not a god. (while Lord Brahma is) Btw, there is the concept of the "Eternal Tao" in Taoism which some might correlate with the Eternal Brahman - which I'd say would be on the right track even if not totally kosher per either school. Throwing Buddhism into this mix and along these lines will drive many people nuts.

...and what is localized is only a local -matrix- in time and space for Brahman to use so to speak, while the singular Brahman is in no way limited or localized Itself, whether in time and space or by any type of matrix. (and for those that may want to correlate this concept/point with the "Eternal Tao" and Brahman I wouldn't disagree - although such is taking liberties with two different systems or schools that may not consider such to be kosher.

There are not multiple independent Brahman (s) in Hinduism, nor multiple independent Tao (s) as pointed to in chapter one of the TTC in Taoism...I would agree that in a sense the universe does evolve but only within itself and per the process of the Two, The Three, The Ten Thousand etc... thus there can be no "One" that is superseded by another "bigger" One. Btw, where did you get such an idea? For even so-called "multi-verses" are still contained within the "One". As for the term "born" I agree that it is not the best and emanation as you imply could also be used in its place.

agreed except for that "immortal" that was never limited by birth or death and who knows it...namely the Tao (oops, namely the Tao which can not be named )

In Taoist terms the "One" is "born" (and lasts for an extremely long cosmic cycle if we stick with the said implication of it being born) after which the "One" also "returns" or undergoes dissolution of any type form no matter how subtle, then the whole cycle starts over again. Thus if only the Tao remains after the dissolution of the One (and never really went anywhere) could there be other beings remaining unique and independent of such a cycle that takes the "One" which they exist within? (via the process of the 'Two", The "Three' and the "Ten Thousand"? Further is there any type of immortal that we often hear about that exists outside of and or outlasts the "One".

the way I see it right now is that evolution provides matrix for the non-evolving "Self" to mirror as much as possible into creation. I'd also say per my limited experience that soul/consciousness is also a form of matter/energy - even if it is of woven light, thus it exists inside the cosmic cycle so to speak. (a subject on which there is a tremendous amount of fancy foot work and double takes ranging anywhere from A-Z) Anyway there are not bunches of evolved "Self"(s) beyond evolution, for if Self (as pointed to in the Upanishads) ever evolved in time or space then it could also devolve at some time or place...

repeated suffering with the same hard lesson is not necessary unless we haven't learned the lesson...

.

I forgot the details but there is a Buddhist related story about an old, worn and simple looking woman who put some younger know-it-all monk to shame for not recognizing her advanced state...

Why, because some of them work their asses off trying to help dummies like many of us...

mind can verify one thing, its inherent doubt about that which it does not have the power to verify.

Jeff no one said anything about "forcing" will egotistically...if that is your take? Our whole off the op topic tangent could or should be moved. (where further tallies might be more kosher, lol)

this is probably redundant but those sensors (if I understand the situation correctly) were largely added to protect kids or smaller people who could be crushed by the door coming down or to prevent damage to items left in its path.

instead of human will carrying out the bidding of ego, human will can carry out (I'd add follow) the ways of Spirit...thus will is not dropped per-se but can used for a greater purposes than only basic survival or self-centered ends. This is very simple. All human beings have an 'x' amount of will-force (so to speak) to exist as a human being, if our will is used in destructive ways and or weakened then that form of existence will be shortened, so we don't just drop our will-force which is a basic part of life, what needs to drop is what harms the will-force/life-force so that our part, place and design in creation is fulfilled.

why delay if that is a safety device, the feeling could get much worse if something unsafe happens!

there are some relations but lets not get desire and will mixed up or will-fullness for that matter.

haha, so you tried...or maybe not. (really)

I don't have that much experience with all these paints that have primer added into them, I still like and trust (old school) of using latex primer. (for latex paint) Btw, we had a nightmare experience of a contractor not using enough primer after finishing a mud job which resulted in poor adhesion of paint which we painstakingly removed after the contractor was gone. (and who we didn't want back!) Thankfully the area involved was rather small.

As far as i"m concerned Jeff you don't get the context about will as I brought it up - which you have your right to. I think I do get your drift about the different context concerning will that you have brought up - although I don't believe the quotes you are using support that.