Stosh

Ok , youre thinking along the lines of evil-me and nice-me, right? One side of the face is the Billy Joel 'Stranger' side Well we all have a face That we hide away forever And we take them out and show ourselves When everyone has gone Some are satin some are steel Some are silk and some are leather They're the faces of the stranger But we love to try them on

Ominous and poetic very nice

Only what happens happens , so that which one calculates as "likely" may happen but that doesnt mean that it is the way things are going to come to pass , the same term 'likely' infers that the situation may not turn out as you predicted. Predicting wrong is either due to prejudice on a persons part, they prefer one answer over another, or, there may not be enough information collected, to make a good prediction.

I already told you the fix ya idjit.

Oh , are you talking about the nihilistic abyss where there is no meaning and one gets all bummed out , horrified at the emptiness of the world , that there is no basis to themselves theyre just an agglomeration of zippo, that they have no soul ,, sort of abyss ? Ahh , well if so, THAT I can explain.

Ill witness to the fact that I dont know about there being a deep dark place in my mind. But yknow, Im curious , is there a quick way to get a peek ?

In terms of conversational back and forth, its not entirely passive or active or neutral as I see it , one is 'effecting' according to their way of seeing and acting , which is active, and then theres things you just arent dealing with at the time , which is neutral , and there is accepting the stage is set which is passive. Ill ask a question , which some might see as the passive part, but , it can be a very assertive thing to set a stage. If Mh opts to respond , you could say thats a passive thing , but actually its also an assertive thing , and he resets the stage , for my next question. Now, I dont want to be bored , and dont want to bore him by asking what his favorite color is, so if were investigating something interesting, it should at least make us pause and reflect on what the other is saying asserting asking , and what oneself is saying asserting telling.

I liked the book, think the subject is interesting ,and I dont know what anyone is talking about except Iam, If I remember it right He was describing an archetypal paradigm , the hero, which this repeats in many cultures and may have underlying meaning psychologically. There can be variation of this theme, but the general form seems to remain consistent. I personally wouldnt put too much weight on the significance of it though, but it does provide a nice smattering of crosscultural reference. (The statue of Kali is a favorite)

Very interesting , well said , thanks.

I equate the yang and yin thing with practical thermodynamics rather than a polemic about life opposing itself or promoting itself. Because life always promotes itself , sometimes by resting. This self promotion of life is one certain thing one can call 'natural'. An unnatural act would then be one which , due to illusion or confusion , fails to be beneficial to the living thing. Taking this view , and applying it to TTC or Chuangtze is what renders in large part the meaning I attribute to the works. Ever notice how little on TTBs has to do with the life of critters , ecology , life modes, evolution , or any given kind of animal at all? Ironically I see a new thread , praising all the nature stuff here.. well it aint the life sciences I grew up with.

Good answer! This seems to imply that both wake and dream awareness are both conscious , both the result of subconscious calculation which we are unaware of because its "non linear". Now if a person can compute a threat and physiologically react before they are conscious of it, what would be the need for awareness at all? Could direct awareness of subconscious ever happen?

If one learned much , how then could it be that he never came to find out?

Your picture is accurate though. Ill draw the scenario at hand and youll see so from my perspective. I thought someone smart that I like was making a boo boo, which would suit me fine to be altered , so I can get more answers closer to my own concerns. So I say where and why, I say its off the mark and then find out he is getting hammered elsewhere, which I dont really want to add to,, but on the same token , I dont want to support the boo boo either. Now I could as a general rule not say anything, but thats a stance of not even trying to be of help, of self concern foremost , and essentially retreating to a secure little unchallenged and unchallenging stance that offers no opportunity for either of us. Now Buddha in a pdf, associated with someone in the thread there, said one should be mindful of what they are saying at all times and that words which lead to unhappy circumstances are unfit for me,, which doesnt really work if circumstance alters the results of what I do say. And then other guy says well you should do what comes natural rather than learned, and the learned behavior in this case would be to be sparing in speech and highly self monitoring. Id like these knots to melt away like spring rains on parched sand.. hoping for too much?

Like you said , ignorance is just fine for some, Im not knocking the idea either that one doesnt really have to always know everything about everything , if they are already in the good place they want to be. But then its also no use to ignore that some questions a person might have really do matter to them , in how they look at things or move forward. THAt my friend is something on the individual nature of folks I think is true. And yes , I think there may be a healthy amout of concern for the welfare of others even ones we dont know , that we hope we can be of help to, by expressing what we think we know. There can also be benefit in keeping ones thoughts to oneself. My reading of TTC suggests the wiser course it to refrain from saying anything substantial (in its opinion). but thats never been my strong suit. I wasnt raised to be that way and always disliked it. So how would I reconcile the two ? It tells me to keep my mouth shut, and I think its ummm ugly.

Is it natural to go with the tongue and say it , or is it natural to refrain? Im really am asking opinions on this I cant ask if its good or bad, and I cant ask if its logical or illogical

If youre dreaming , are you aware of your subconscious?

BTW -I read and liked that thing you posted about Buddha the other day. Ironic thing about those training books, generally the thing that needs training is the owner. The other book looks interesting but , is it about nihilism? ... Ok , The country is run by supposed nihilists

No, < If It seems like Im stirring the pot , one should notice that all I did was begin to assemble what was already being posited in the thread , nothing more. or if the assemblage seems to annihilate its elements.. then either the original author didnt know what he was implying with various sentences or the interps are too literal. So I mentioned the all life is suffering thing, what kind of religious inspiration would that be? How would that idea lead to a better life? clearly the word suffering surrounded by that little sentence ,doesnt explain what ideas are being talked about. the sentence is too abbreviate, and therefore it ends up misleading- whether its a perfect linguistic analogue for whatever ?pali? word it was found to contain originally or not. Why pursue? , well , honestly, there are some things Id really like some help detangling , and frankly , either many arent anywhere near the subject , and ones who'd get the issue , get evasive. Yeah its silly to have any hope for a change in the situation , but , I just havent let go just yet.

"Those who follow and cultivate Tao's principles are considered to have the virtue(Te) of Tao" "Tao is impartial and has no mercy but follow her own nature." "Sometimes when we break up the parts we forget they are a unity" So clearly what is being said is that heaven, earth, man, tao , are all one thing without mercy and they all are following whatever it is nature that they have. That should be very helpful going forward , its right up there with the other groups idea that all life is miserable. Bump

Slick response, I approve

Well one must decide whether to push or pull , if you want something to move, SO ,spoken In a strong clear and certain voice ,,, " I didnt come here to talk about Islam , so ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,," and you can fill in the blank - I think the sages would follow with , lemme know when X is gone. The yang version includes threats and ultimatums, like- Youre out of here X . Look, X has been kicked out of things before , and he is again bringing the same cycle to fruit. Odds are, that he isnt going to kill himself this time either. You personally dont sound very wound up over this meetup thing as it stands, to the point where you would really be pressed to go the way of conflict. Walking away should be a reasonable choice.

Why distract the troll ? But first , if he is popular , then the 'troll' epithet might be undermined . Two its typical taoist advice ,or so I hear, for one to avoid center stage, and he is willing to take it. Three sometimes,, no make it very often, , you need a person with a bit of self promotional tendencies to get a thing going and maintain it thataway. So dont worry about it , trying to 'fix' everything all the time is a pain in the arse.

The answer is most likely no , if one expects things to work as they are imagined ,, thats to say , person A types some words , and then person B learns a valuable lesson that translates into thier life in some meaningfully altered way. The idea people garner at face value , has a relatively small effect on the way they live. Folks generally accept that which they already believe , and reject which they dont have a propensity to believe. I took a little questionaire this weekend to see what faith would be presented as a good match,, it told me an answer and I promptly took no more interest in it since I didnt already agree. Im sure folks will see this Ive written and attest that "it aint so" for them , but I have yet to be convinced that this principle is flawed statistically (with exceptions allowed to prove the rule ).

I think Im pretty empathic that is to say, I read people accurately , at least I think so , I dont really know But considering that ,, would yall say its natural , or is it unnatural , to keep ones sentiments to oneself. To control what we say and do , in light of what we think someone else would like to hear or believe. ?

I may have seen that same episode , its a fun show ,,