Stosh

Well OK , one can't properly hold my feet to the fire for that though , so do you want to express the other translation for comparison? now that youve spiked my curiosity, giving me a fresh chance to agree with him?

Sir , Ive seen your posts , you are no dull blade. Who is smartest, ? I have no idea ,and I dont even consider that to be a clear ,, thingie. He said ordinariness , was not sacredness and needed to be transcended . In '"low religion" the state of man is inherently faulty and requires the grace to be attained ( like in Christianity's Adam and eve and all that ) In "high religion" Like the eastern traditions, the general idea is that man himself ,by his nature is an expression of the sacred -whatever. Anyway , thats second hand speculation to an extent , because I have little to no personal knowlege of what "everyone" believes in either east or west... and also consider these divisions to be sketchy thingies. So thats supposed to be my response to your question-challenge , mine still remains, for you,, and even if its one we disagree on its an opportunity for you to clarify the basis for claiming a thing has merit according to your own tradition. What is it that can assign merit if not the man himself?

So far, I see nothing in your post that can counter the point I posted , so thanks for the implied admission of endorsement.

The ordinary inner nature of the man must itself be sacred , for what else is out there, to assign judgement of merit ? and his merit must lie in the man reflecting or adjudicating upon himself. So Mr Chuji is quite wrong, though he is saying something that many want to hear because people want to believe they have merit ,, so he has told them of a means to indicate it to themselves.

Right ! A cow is not dao a bear is not dao so where is the dow now? said paul to his pipe.

IT is ! theory of relativity Man! excellent you got it first try !

Too much coffee??

Ok but you are then basically setting parameters for the answer you would accept ..both choices are time considerations..you could as well ask how long it lasts .. but my response is aimed more at the relationship of what vs what is not. I dont think a taoist definition of the word need be any more contrived to fit a specific groups usages ...like redefining ego or self or real.Doing that just turns words to jargon and defies people who might find value in what you are saying . So they conclude the point is some incomprehensible claptrap.IMO... There are no Taoist sciences , that is anothet example of borrowing a word and applying it wrongly. Science is a methodology which is not subjective navael gazing , technically , theres no eastern versus .western science either. What there are is actual science disciplines, philosophies religions and fantasy afficionados. n

Potential as a prospect of what MAY be- but is not currently seems like a fair verbal description that might cover any of the points of view , Taoistically speaking ,or not.

Ooop too long, Ill have to add this post later. I went through point for point and had too many subdivisions of the quote I was responding to,, but retrospectively it was probably tedious anyway , we're just too far apart perspectively speaking at this point , since it seems to me your views reflect or promote a "mystical' worldview , whereas Im really just concerned with the more mundane stuff that CAN be explained ... so Ill leave it there for now , and if theres anything you really want to know specifically from the "other side of the fence" Ill address it then. hoping its not considered rude to leave such an extensive post unrebutted.

Theres a time it seems we all arrive at , when we note all the sweet juicy fruits we've dropped to rot about our feet , and decide we've wasted our energies far too long. So high time felt , to close up shop, we furl our leaves to quietly rest, having played our part well. But the sun's warm strength which was only passing through , now dapples the floor suggesting spring.

Oh, well yes its hard to lay out the rationale and framework of an overall perspective in this type setting. On impartiality..IMO no one is ever reflexively impartial , the catch is recognizing the difference between what one feels to be fact and the stuff thats objectively fact. I know my own framework considers Lz to have taken a biased perspective with the intent of supplying the inverse rationale to the normative view he considered to be SOP or SNAFU... and so could be just as easily described as unbiased. But, as I see it ,,it just doesnt matter to me as reader. He either is describing a truth independent of his personal biases as a man (or of compiled authors) ...which would make his opinions somewhat moot..Or he was describing a fairy tale to justify them..which would also render his views moot. Fpr Scholarly types like Flowinghands yourself Dawei Lienshan etc. The esoteric aspects may be the most motivating or provoking. But to me , Im grateful for that finger pointing at the moon, but , that being done,,Im thinking the responsibility of actually examining it falls back on us more importantly than examining the finger for its graces or flaws. Thanks for your patience.

Though some people do fall in love with people of the wrong gender,appearance,financial status age and worldview..there tends to be patterns which repeat for a given type. So the choices arent random.The common idea that love is blind doesnt match closely with statistical investigation. Weird things like the distance between the eyes , and relative length between fingers are startlingly good predictors.. though the reasons for a persons appeal may not be readily obvious. After initial assessment there is a phase of conscious assessment whether one is going to take the relationship seriously. So while there is an element of chance, one still defines the parameters of thier mate both voluntarily and subconsciously.(unless one wears beer goggles all the time) But Heck! why should anyone spend as much brain power as I just did, on such a subject so unimportant. Its much more flattering to have been picked at random than to have been Chosen with eyes open wide...right?

I believe you said this .in post 365 ." If Lao Zi didn't create Tao with his words, then, there was no Tao." post 360 had said the following "Understand the contents in the TTC is understanding the concept. Where do you think the concept came from....?" my question was asking how you meant posts 360 and 365,, currently , since you have possibly come to some fresh conclusions... So it could be read that you are saying the contents of The TTC are just fictitious ramblings,therefore the only explanations of the concepts lie entirely within the same seminal work. The redirect to the Impartiality post sheds no light on what I was asking.

One mans trash is another mans treasure, just because something has been given a form , which is to say, its character has become relatively defined , doesnt mean that it cant, in fact ,still represent potential. Energy and mass are convertible. A hammer can reveal its potential in the nailing together of a house...(which wouldnt get to exist without it ) the iron rusts,, energy if put back into the system , can burn off the O2 , the oxide returns to metallic iron. A man lives ,does things, dies and becomes fertilizer.. None of that, Im sure, is surprise to anyone , the point though is... that energies flux through the system so that things happen.,, Complete potential could be anything , but its NOT anything because it has to be something in particular. Same as money needing to be spent for its value to be manifest. It would be like claiming one has limitless choice in direction , but isnt actually free to choose to go in one. (trying to hoard potential) so living doing being whatever it is you do live be , makes things happen and represents an altered but undiminished state of potential. so theres some meat , DB

Could you flesh that out a bit CD , It could be very explanatory .

Now now now,, you ol snow leopard you,, hmmm ...nah, be free and hunt goats.. thats a finer thing. ..

The pregnant silence awaits ......

Didnt you say something somewhat contrary to that alchemywise once?There is no trying ..only doing There is no failure there is only what did happen and that is as gone as gone can be..

The dao doesnt change, manifestations subject to the Dao appear to change. For a thing to change it must become what it is not..and then what it was, would not be eternal ...and if it was finite what would follow in its wake? Which is why atom theory was concluded. The Dao cannot have a descriptive-name because it is all, and it is not finite. Not being finite, it cannot be defined...obviously. It would be like trying to describe the shape of someting you dont know about..what the heck could you say?

well then we are again same paged because Neither now do I have any idea where thats leading. I thought we were commenting on the phrasing of the passage to have it properly correlate with the pastel depiction. But now it seems you read the meaning in some way to indicate that one should let go of the idea of loving those unlovable to you. Maybe PC should define what he thinks it means , since the meaning may not be as self evident as a stand alone declaration of opinion should be. No? Maybe explain the X'ed- out phallic symbol as well. Since it looks to read , left to right ,Without penis ,bouncing off a springboard ,into the sea .. if not explained otherwise.

yeah Mh, we're on the same page here. Stick either into the original passage and it gets fixed. no conditions FOR love reads like it is an impossibility due to unfavorable circumstances , right?

...so yeah, I was looking at this pile of dirty laundry and said to myself, Self , how did all these panties get in such a wad? like wouldnt somebody be all uncomfortable and embarrassed about it? You know, Like alll that being stuff an adult should have grown out of? like when kids say, " sticks and stones may break my bones, but yall can go pound salt. Id toss it all in a pit to be left behind indefinately because I cant see it ever coming clean.

Possible or not, it could make for a good sci fi subject ,or drama with a touch of fiction. Like,, the baby is born, and soon after, starts turning into the original mother.

Nothing left to lose? or should it be ' pre-conditions FOR love'