Stosh

Is it this?

Moving here just to this last bit, Good, Im glad its not jinxable , my day took an abrupt about face , synchronicities and good vibes all over the place, the sun is out now , cool breeze , my pad phet was perfectly hot and spicy.. I think Im supposed to just keep the stuff sotto-voce though so, Ill just leave it there. thanks.

Me too Fh , sorry.

Very very weird Mh, prophetic , , I was thinking on it -the spirit of the valley , and a frog appeared , I let it go outside. Then I was thinking about low hanging fruit, and a piece of tiramisu appeared and it was very tasty . Very very weird. I hope I didnt just jinx it though. Very very weird.

Me too , I just dont know where the hell she is.

This is a bogus subject here. because,, to put up a vigorous refutation of some of the claims, and conclusions one would be censored and possibly subject to punitive action.

Morals exist because humans invent them , coming to grips with them is advisable, whatever they turn out to be. But they can be based on silliness , OR the handed down wisdom of ages.. ( which could still be silliness,, just old silliness) The natural world is all tied together , on a finite earth, eat and be eaten in turn. The arbirtary and theoretical innocence of plants , goes out the window , when you watch time lapse struggles between them. But even so , would it make more sense to eat the innocent than the guilty? COuld being vegetarian to be a ' better person" if betterment was illusory ? My cat knows no 'betterment' , no good or evil ( as we look at it) but if I forced her to eat only vegetables The result would only be cultivating a vegetarian cat. How pointless would that be?

need .. restraint ........ need restraint.......

I'd say theyre All good answers and considerations... Whew ! Im glad thats all settled.

Why is this repost here? Comment or illustration? I dont agree that Mitchells translation of that chapter requires that his own preconception be Judeo Christian , as I read it , the point is anti-'good-bad paradigm' , so the presentation is just using the normal speech paradigm, to explain this point to someone who is not already enlightened about the unreality of 'good vs bad'. One doesnt wisely choose to speak Tagalog to an Eskimo.

In looking at various sources Id say that there is long standing confusion regarding what the one would be if it wasnt Dao, or if the Way was the non material manifestation of All. Im not saying here which I think is which logically speaking , just that there is long standing confusion on that issue , and thats because one can look at it any way one wants to , it doesnt make any difference ANY way you look at it. My take .. or presentation.. is that the parts make up the all, and the 'parts' require differentiation to be 'parts', and differentiations are required for events to happen , and that brings one back to events and happenings making up the whole 'ONE" or all. We be- hoist by our own petard.

I checked the wikipedia definition , (yes its an imperfect source... but anyway .. ) which seemed to indicate it ,jing medit., was in fact also a methodology with a physically still body , generally speaking. Involved with considering ones roles in the universe etc perhaps. Checking on the other thread , I didnt see much antagonism to the idea either. It seems to me , anyway , that both present opportunity to gain a broader perspective and see things as they really are. I dont have a direct point in this post , just tossing words out there.

Well one has to do SOMETHING as leader , right?

It reminded me of that phrase, 'damned with faint praise' but with modification to , 'damed with faint damning.'

" a man can dig himself a hole, with his mouth ,faster than with just about anything else, " one can wisely leave that alone

Yeah I think we are in basic agreement , I was saying that they dont have to perfect buddha examples , you said that one doesnt have to be to post ,but they should be trying for that . Which is a little bit disagreement , but not much , and I was figuring that an insider would be most acceptable , and you said something along the lines that possibly someone from outside could also set a fresh example , and so I end up back at the start where I said I dont really feel that a different example need be set , and just to leave em be becasue it should be up to them how it is they want to be within the basic guidelines of the subforum. Or something along those lines. . but I dont really care one way or the other.

No, Its not easy to get right , is it, but you are at least somehow 'feeling' the layout,, right ?, so its just a matter of practice now ( and maybe some fresh insight if it comes along) dont forget though they they are usually intended to be viewed from a particular vantage , and birds eye may not be the one you want,, which I suppose would be the tendency for a small board. Oh and maybe use a bit of your native creativity other than rely on the overly brief instruction posted.

Quite right, I was expecting just that.

Ahh its nothing , a mere bagatelle, Ive been at my thing a long time. but I dont know what you can do for the tender. A forum of this style is just not a conducive format to shape anybody into an exemplary.. anything. That is mostly homework , so if they tell me to go read a book instead of dragging the thread back to a more basic level ,, its not exactly off-base even if it ticks me off. I believe the learner would like to know more about buddhism , as do I , but for me its ancillary to where I am already at , I'm not looking for discipleship. So , I say live, and let live ,without having to hide.

Maybe , its valid to say the issue is with non-believers versus believers , duking it out, but I know that when I stopped by and tried to ask a simple unpointed question - not make a statement , umm I was told basically to 'go read a book '. I took the hint. Thats fine , its a subsection for them to do their thing, I just accepted that if they say something interesting its just a dead end, and I should just go somewhere else.

Fair enough, but if a person is one of those types who are expressive of certain values they can still do that too right? It takes two to tango, and if those who frequent that subforum wish to quell the troubled waters , one of 'their own' is the best person to do it by such an example. Support kindness puppies are nice things , no doubt. Maybe a cloister fosters a settled spirit , I dont know , a zoo certainly doesnt , perhaps a balance is best.

Yeah , theyre just people too , why do they need to be Buddhas incarnate?

I respectfully disagree, like in any art form there is reason for what is done. Some of them have clearer messages than others , some are more puzzling and some are just designed to ring true to an aesthetic sense. Copy-cats often dont understand whats going on , and yes ,the result is just rocks in a gravel pit. They arent for everyone , but even done wrong , they can be a low maintenance pleasant alternative for your outside space. ( or they can be a maint. nightmare )

I figure ,The whole point of having the buddhist subsection is so those in there have a place to wrestle each other about their subject , they like the intellectual wrangling , Why change that ? Besides ,its not like the other subsections arent similar. I havent made a precise count ,but at some number of back and forth posting something less than ten and probably closer to four ,any given dialogue starts to deteriorate unless an implied platform respecting boundaries is embraced. But the general process of talking about things ,as an art form , has been largely untaught for a long time. I dont want to support a, 'goody two shoes' dictate which squashes the vigor of any discussion down to " I had a nice day , did you have a nice day? , maybe tomorrow will be a nice day. Heres a poem I wrote about nice days and puppies.." and so forth. Just leave it up to the regular posters of the subforum to manage their own style, On the other hand , you could add a subforum and label one as "The Argumentative Buddhist subforum" , and the other as the "Less Argumentative Buddhist subforum" with an appropriate mod for each.

For some people , the belief in a controlling god , is a comfort. It assuages lonliness, confusion, doubt , bestows meaning and purpose etc , it is a response to the ultimate question. But the way that religions usually describe things oftem makes no sense and undermines the basic message that is potentially a pleasant prospect. If you can hold the good part you are a step ahead , but , to have the confidence and understanding to refute that you have knowlege of what you really just do not know at the same time , without just lying to yourself.. is rather tricky. What makes you so sure the author, of some book or other, has your relationship with god worked out so that he can trace your destiny? Listening to him , may not be as convincing as embracing your own sentiments about god , the meaning of everything , what happens after death etc. Or you might fall into the trap of trusting it BECAUSE you did not come up with it. What he does provide for you, is some leadership which implies that its OK to have a relationship with God , a Creator ,etc. But beyond that you shouldnt take any of what he says as 'gospel' Pardon my crass expression , but if what he says disturbs you , tell him to go take a flying leap ( figuratively speaking) since its not for him to unsettle what could be good. Take ownership. None of that is my dao now , but it once was, and if things had been different ...