Vmarco

That can be a tricky subject for many, who believe that the perceived now, as in smell the coffee, is the real Now. There is no coffee in the Now. There is no Now in time. V

Actually, if you read the Sky Dancer topic, most females today are "posers," something the world could use less of. http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/20285-sky-dancers/

What could be considered mindless, is restricting a valid example of what love is not, to point to what love is. I'll let you in on a very despised truth,...when one thing is understood, everything can be understood. And yes, that most certainly implies, that unless you understand one thing, you understand nothing. All other inquiries is useless, never fully satisfying, masterbation. V

"Berasith bara elohim" is considered to be the first phrase of the Bible. Most believe the translation as "In the beginning god created..." This subject was broached during the end of a recent conversation,...and entered my thinking again a few moments ago. I studied this subject in the 1980's and still have the same view. To me, Berasith translates to "In Wisdom." The theosophical glossary said, Bere'shith, B'raisheeth (Hebrew) The first two words of the Hebrew Genesis. As Hebrew was originally written from right to left in a series of consonants, without vowels, several renderings may be made of any passage, according to the manner of inserting vowels and of dividing the consonants into words. Thus the original Hebrew {Hebrew char} (b r ' sh th) may be divided as be-re'shith, as is common in European translations, and rendered "in the beginning" [be in + re'shith beginning from re'sh or ro'sh chief, head, first part, summit]; a second translation could be "in the first part." If the meaning "head" be taken, then as head signifies wisdom, the rendering "in wisdom" follows. But this same combination of letters could be rendered "by arrangement" or "by establishment," by dividing it as bare'-shith [from bare' forming + shith establishment, arrangement]. The second word is "bara," which I define as manifest, or more correctly, was manifested. The third word is "elohim," a plural, meaning "gods", has long been mistranslated by christians and Bible translators. The word ELOHIM (plural for gods) appear 2570 times in the OT. The singular version El (appears 226 times) and Eloah (57 times, 41 of which in Job). Modern scholars say its etymology has not thus far been satisfactory explained. However, the christian faithful claim that ELOHIM is really singular because it is near singular verbs. Here's a few examples for you to judge: Gen 1:26 "And ELOHIM said, let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness" Gen 3:22 " And ELOHIM said, behold, the man is become as one of US". Gen 11:7 "let US go down and confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech". The first time a singular god is mentioned in the Bible is in Exo 2. OK,...now let's put those three words together correctly,...that is, using their most probable translation, and just as important, in their correct order. In Wisdom/was manifested/the gods. Or, as Lao Tzu said, "The Tao gives birth to One [Wisdom]. One gives birth to yin and yang [Elohim]. Yin and yang give birth to all things." Why contemporary religionists put bara after their god is simply due to the delusion of their faith. V

What so-called divine word do you mean? If the word is elohim,...well, that word is plural,...and according to Hasidic Jews I've spoke with, is plural because it refers to both a male and female god,..or god and goddess,....the Elohim (plural for god) made man in their image, after their likeness, and let Them (male and female) have dominion. Male and female, the Elohim created them,...Genesis 1:26-27 Of course, this wasn't adam and Eve,...Eve was not "formed" until Chapter 2. The word ELOHIM (plural, meaning gods) appear 2570 times in the OT. The singular version El (appears 226 times) and Eloah (57 times, 41 of which in Job). Modern scholars say its etymology has not thus far been satisfactory explained. However, the christian faithful claim that ELOHIM is really singular because it is near singular verbs. Here's a few examples for you to judge: Gen 1:26 "And ELOHIM said, let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness" Gen 3:22 " And ELOHIM said, behold, the man is become as one of US". Gen 11:7 "let US go down and confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech". The first time a singular god is mentioned in the Bible is in Exo 2. "And when Gaia expressed through one language, the people were One and in Peace, and nothing was restrained from them, which they had the imagination to do. So the Elohim said, let us create beliefs in their thoughts, which will confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech, so they shall know Peace no more". Genesis 11:6-7 "Anyone who gives you a belief system is your enemy"

I have no desire to rid the world of every single dog,....and absolutely nowhere can such be reason-ably implied from anything I've posted. My point is in inquiring to this Taoist forum,...and who has considered the relationship between vicious dog ownership and Taoist practice. What is the fundamental need to own a vicious breed,...and what is the fundamental consideration towards others that an authentic Taoist (or Buddhist) pivot upon. Most here argue in favor of their internal neurosis, and few bring up the External Considering that Lao Tzu (and Buddha) pointed to. V

From my understanding of English, Aaron said: Hopefully I've honored that in every post. Let's review the quote however: Why do people, as an example, vicious dog owners, not only block their own love, but block the ability to allow their core love to radiate to others? Of course, owners of vicious breeds will argue that they do not separate themselves from love, however, how can love radiate through the fear, anguish, need for protection, etc.,...and thus the question, "you must understand why you give them your love" is unanswerable, because they cannot give pure, unconditional love to another, while simultaneously radiating the vibrations of fear, hate, competition, needy protection, aggressiveness to their neighbor. In my opinion, Aaron needs to be more open about the quote,...and less focused on his "me story" regarding what he believes is permissable in directly discussing the lead topic. V

why,...vicious dog ownership is a perfect subtopic for what is, and what is not love,...loving one's neighbor, considering others, etc.

Sorry to upset you,...allow me to rephrase,...wolf hybrids. Yes,...wolves have every right to exist in the wild. I wish there was more wild for them exist in. There may even be people who "rescue" wolves,...good for them. They likely do out of love for the animal,...not because they feel they need protection, at the expense of lack of love towards their neighbor, as their vicious bred barks, annoys, threatens, terrorizes, their neighbor. I think Pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios, wolve-hybrids, German Shepard, Malamute, Husky, chow, and their mixes, would make great zoo animals. Perhaps a Cultural Zoo,...with display yards that have signs like Beware of Dog.

Dogs make for a very good analogy about whether a vicious dog owner can actual love their neighbor, simultaneous with their dog terrorizing, annoying, offering a vibration of fear, aggression, and hate to their neighbor,...while exclaiming, Oh, my dog is such a baby.

Yes,...something like this: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/20285-sky-dancers/page__p__287298__hl__sky%20dancer__fromsearch__1entry287298

Ah! I was wondering when this thread, Posted on 06 May 2012 - 10:20 PM would show up,...and here it is, on May 9th. Perhaps it will dissappear again.

Have you ever considered researching for some non-biased data? Between 2000 and 2011, Pit Bulls were reported in 32% to 53% of all attacks. There are over 150 registered dog breeds. Pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of all reported attacks on humans,...not poodles and labradors. Labradors were not bred to be vicious,...although for the most part, all dogs are inherently dangerous. However, if only the following vicious breeds (Pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios, wolves, German Shepard, Malamute, Husky, chow, and their mixes, which are responsible for 95% of fatal dog atttacks, were Considered as incompatable with Human and Planetary harmony, that would be a huge step towards World Peace.

Don't recall saying that "I suspect you're a Kabbalist." Merely speaking impersomnally. Actually, Kabbalists, as suggested in their Zohar, interpret the order of Berasith bara elohim (or, B'raisheeth, if the former insults you) as Berasith bara elohim. I could buy-into a reverse form, such as "elohim bara Berasith." But the Christian interpretation of "Berasith elohim bara" seems contrived to fulfill their current beliefs. Perhaps you should ask a Hasidic Jew why they prefer "In the Beginning was created g-d"

That appears relevant to me,...only the Internal is Needed,..to Consider Externally always. Or as Shantideva said, "those desiring speedily to be A refuge for themselves and other beings, Should interchange the terms of I and Other, And thus embrace a sacred mystery." Or as Lao Tzu said, "If you wish to unite with the heart and mind of the Mysterious Mother, you must integrate yin and yang..." Integrating yin and yang is ultimately an integration of the perception of self and other. To integrate with Other necessitates External Considering Always,...which does not imply that External Considering is needed,...only the Internal is needed. External Considering always, arises from an Internal that is Externally Considering Always, and Internally Considering Never. Lao Tzu said, "...the world's religions serve only to strengthen attachments to false concepts such as self and other, life and death, heaven and earth, and so on. Those who become entangled in these false ideas are prevented from perceiving the Integral Oneness." Shantideva said, "The truth, therefore is this: That you must wholly give yourself and take the other's place. The Buddha did not lie in what he said, You'll see the benefits that come from it." It's about the Internal, Externally Considering,...or as it is said, putting oneself in anothers shoes. The vicious dog barks and intimidates a passer-by,...it's the vicious breeds job,...the owner says, oh, he doesn't bite (which is a fallacy), instead of putting himself in the terrorized persons shoes. The terrorized person isn't needed,....it is a fact,...what is needed is the Internal to Consider Externally.

Of course, it's the "stupid owners." That's why loving Pit Bull advocate Clifford Wright was mauled to death by his faithful pet while watering his garden the other day. http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/05/08/abqnewsseeker/pit-bull-from-fatal-mauling-being-put-down-this-morning.html

Sounds like Gurdjieff,..."...consider externally always, internally never." Or Shantideva saying, "All the joy the world contains, Has come through wishing happiness for others. All the misery the world contains, Has come through wanting pleasure for oneself." Unfortunately, individual fears, perceived needs, competition, protection, etc., takes precedence over any meaningful impluse towards cultivating harmony within collective humanity.

Yes,...the purpose or answer of a koan is in the dissolution of the question. Knowledge can be a tricky subject,...most believe that knowledge is power,...when in reality it's meaningless. The Hua Hu Ching says, "he who desires admiration of the world will do well to amass a great fortune then give it away. The world will respond with admiration in proportion to the size of his treasure. Of course, this is meaningless." More correctly put, the Path to Gnowledge is an Unknowing. Gnowledge does not arise from the monkey mind,...the human brain. The topic however is who can even get to such a Path of Gnowing while attached to Internal Considering for their identity? To dissolve that question brings a recognition of External Considering. In the context of this thread, no one who has realized External Considering would possibly own a vicious dog breed. V

Russian Roulette is Russian Roulette,...vicious breed advocates focus on the empty chambers,...honorable Taoists understand that these animals are "inherently dangerous" to the well being of Others. It happens millions of times a year,...with predominately vicious breeds,...devastating peoples lives. I've enjoyed the discussions though,...it shows who the real Taoist and Buddhists are. No honorable Taoist or Buddhist would own a wild and/or vicious animal. It is indisputable,...although those who don't have the least consideration of others will believe they can. It is totally insane to to even imagine that a harmoneous person "wishing to unite with the heart and mind of the Mysterious Mother" would support such violent, fear-driven, territorial, aggressive vibrations, as all vicious breeds are bred for. V

Unconditional love has no opposite. Christian, Muslim, and Judeao love has opposites. "being fully responsible for your actions"...that is, External Considering, is a good start,...but who wants to do that? We live in a post-modern world where individuality is the flavor on society's pedestal. Recent studies show that 2/3rds of men and women believe that a successful career is the most important thing in life. Most do not believe that love lies in their essence,...most believe that sin lies in their essence. Tell a lie long enough, and that is who the majority become. There will be very little unconditional love on this planet as long as people have a need to own vicious dog breeds,...for no matter how much they believe their love to be unconditional, ownership of vicious breeds brings fear, suffering, aggression, terrorism, death, and hate to Others, V

Here's more on stupid Americans. After pit bull mauls kids, the police are investigating whether the vicious bred had agressive tendencies LOL. All pit bulls and pit bull hybrids have aggressive tendencies. As the State of Maryland said, all pit bulls and pit bull cross-breeds as "inherently dangerous." http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11596559-family-pit-bulls-maul-2-california-toddlers-in-separate-incidents?lite Anyone who brings or allows a pit bull near a child should be ashame.

Uncovering the mechanism (the Tao), without understanding what the mechanism (the Tao) is not, is folly. Lao Tzu said, "The Tao gives rise to all form, yet is has no form of its own." The "subjective worlds," if Lao Tzu was honest, if Buddha was honest, if the Mahasiddhas were honest,...the subjective world is not part of reality. To understand that, must we not dissolve the blueprints first, in order to uncover the mechanism? The authentic seeker of truth does not seek truth,...but the false. As Eckhart Tolle said, "we need to draw our attention to what is false in us, for unless we learn to recognize the false as the false, there can be no lasting transformation, and you will always be drawn back into illusion, for that is how the false perpetuates itself"