Stosh

"but are just deluding ourselves in thinking that our way is the way"

Whats PFL?

Oh So it was hanging out at the library ? I guess he liked to read.

Looks like a flame skimmer is that right? Looks like a finch of some type.

This is a reitteration of your original premise We gain pleasure from all that brings us truth, beauty, goodness and bodily bliss. God is beauty, God is truth, God is good and God is bliss. God is all these. Each pleasure, insignificant in itself, is a fragment of God. We call it a fragment because it is a specific and short-lasting experience - but in essence each pleasure is God. The purpose of life is to find God in ways that are as broad and and as long-lasting as we can. and I , still say it is ummm diverted from the definition of god that folks already have or is implied by the word god (I dont believe in such a being but I did once ) Why dont you pick another word , "ogd" ? or something like it ? because it seems like you possibly are borrowing from the god-concepts familiarity and bestowing your personal approval of hedonism onto it. There are many people whose highest moments of their life have been felt while drunk. But with the poor spiritual technique night swiftly follows day. When my mom went manic she said it was the best feeling in her life too , though she was devout Roman catholic , and I might assume the high of many things could be said to feel great ,, but alcohol is a depressant , folks consuming much of it tend to get beligerent ,lose coordination , get dizzy ,puke, and pass out. Yes in little doses it can brighten an evening. But thats small doses , its not the greatest joyful high one can experience. cold turkey from God. This would be the path to despair. Well , going cold turkey away from joyful rewarding experience could easily lead to despair ,, but joy aint god. We call spiritual that life which comes after an abrupt change of heart. In my OP I call this change of heart the beginning of expertise. If you leave that sentence to stand alone , I would say that it represents a point of view which has some merit. but could use some development in its description or implications.

You and I are in accord about existance but I would hold out to you that it may be very important for KU to maintain his worldview such as it is. Why that would be, I have no idea. I figure everything he says and does every day belies his contentions. Since what he claims has no bearing therefore on what he does I am fine with just leaving it that way. The stuff about atheism is also bogus and clearly they can't actually address points raised. Beyond where things stand there is no more undone. PS it takes three days to get over getting really torqued.

Wrong word God implies more or other than pleasure alone. Wrong assumption that alcohol is pure in its pleasure Wrong it is that folks only motivations are pleasure based. Wrong that a spiritual life is normal. I don't know why you would write such a post , since all of it is so far off the mark IMO But if that's what you really think , ummm That's up to You.

Tom Bombadil might not ,- ( nice reference ) , -and I dont really dissagree with the rest either , but I know plenty of folks who do view motivation for ,,new ,,and novel,, and better,, and bigger ,,etc as good and they see it as a bad thing to "settle" ,,, but just as you said , not 'everyone' . Some though- and maybe a majority- see things like, ambition !, a restless desire to see the world !, the struggle to climb the ladder ! ,to break through a glass ceiling ! to stand up for what you believe in ,, to act with integrity and sacrifice etc.. and never be content with just good enough ! ( and lots of other stuff similarly spun ) as virtuous. The TTC, as I see it ,stands contrary to those "normal" ideas ,, but it doesnt actively invalidate them , either! IMO and it cant rightly do so ! Why can it not?... Because if you remove --the ambition to be sagely and the desire to better your lot -- there is no point in reading any of it at all. Not Lao, not Chuang ,not Gautama ,not any of them! One must , if they wish to be reasonable about it , be left 'free to pursue' a better way, even if that 'new way is to one sidedly ratchet back on hedonistic impulse.

Are you guys still going at it over "existing " ? Man, I dont have that much patience. 35 pages ! on that thread ! I always want to toss this out " Well, if you dont exist , then I can bang your wife ,and take all your stuff ! " Ive been involved with a new photosubject , trying to identify dragonflies. Ive got most of em labelled. They are TOUGH , to name , they change colors over time and with gender. We've been taking shots of them in flight , which is good fun. Got this bass trying to catch some that way too.

Fact - is universal ,it doesnt depend on the subjective opions of some guy 2500 years ago , so no one can be said to be inherently blind to it.. Pretending all-most chinese speakers have some special understanding of the subject is boulderdash... and conclusively so ,unless you can show that all-most Chinese agree on the translations they do not. One can google up one hundred translations of Chapter one alone in under a minute all made by both chinese speakers and english speakers ,,, all different. False. You cannot rely on all-most Chinese speakers to reach your conclusion. Nowadays, there is a general consensus among the knowledgeable native scholars with a very precisive philosophical, not religious, interpretation of Chapter One. That doesnt disprove what you are claiming it does Cd. That there is an elite group that has come to concensus , doesnt mean their chineseness allows that concensus nor does it mean they are correct , nor does it mean that westerners cant come to the same conclusion nor does it mean that I am incorrect in what I said . Heck I personally came to that conclusion twenty years ago! ,, that doesnt make me have a 'Chinese mind'. There is no such thing as a perfect translation because the audience always hears through a filter of what they have already accumulated . False. It was not the fault of the translation but the fault of the readers with a false fiter in their ears. Again your declaration of why I could be seen as wrong doesnt discount what I said Your point suggests rightly that you can translate unsuccessfully to an idiot , but then you would have to conclude all westerners cannot understand the material. This (above ) fact doesnt mean your translation can be perfect , ( I said it cant be) it just means you havent gotten through to your target audience.. its just shifting blame for a bad act of communication. If you translated to me in Italian , I might get a little of it , but you used the wrong words to communicate the ideas. You were speaking, the burden is on you to use the correct lingo if I am judging your translation to english. It would be like selling a swahili english dictionary and it employs russian verbiage! If you speak both languages ,and cant get the point across, you either dont understand it , or you arent succeeding in your translation for other reasons. but you always have to work in concert with an audience.

Either you can or cannot pass-on the message . If you just put words together in the way that makes sense only to you , you haven't translated a darn thing, and you arent a successful translator. You have an audience and you havent communicated unless they understand. Chinese dudes , who supposedly "get the meanings" and speak english too translate for folks who dont speak chinese . So the Westerner would have both the english words ,and the tutledge on the meaning.

Trying to translate ideas of an ancient Chinese philosopher into concepts that can be understood by a modern-day English-speaker can understand is like trying to describe what the color blue is to someone who was born blind; some degree of interpretation False. Fact - is universal ,it doesnt depend on the subjective opions of some guy 2500 years ago , so no one can be said to be inherently blind to it.. Pretending all-most chinese speakers have some special understanding of the subject is boulderdash... and conclusively so ,unless you can show that all-most Chinese agree on the translations they do not. One can google up one hundred translations of Chapter one alone in under a minute all made by both chinese speakers and english speakers ,,, all different. After all, as I pointed out before, there is still a very significant separation in time between the author and the reader, so a perfect translation from words to concepts even in the same language is still quite difficult to achieve False There is no such thing as a perfect translation because the audience always hears through a filter of what they have already accumulated .

It COULD be.

Nicely expressed, yes that does really sound like living well. I was just being ironic to highlight the way the phrase appears to be taken wrong, but you drew a bright picture there, which is better. One small thing though, rights are also just subjective opinion, somtimes agreed upon and somtimes not. . So no one has a right to deny you your criticisms One just lives with the consequences of their choices.

The light is already bent , but if one knows where it is supposed to point , one can put it on target.

Go there then because enough folks suggest living in their head rather than feasting and enjoying life where they can.

Didnt Cz suggest to 'Do the small thing to effect the large' An empty jug of water isnt worth carrying

Nice try there Mh , but the idea, "the enemy of my enemy- is my friend" strikes me as more 'natural virtue' than compassion. but thats just my take on it . From what I've read of such an instance, in New Guinea the attitude about 'who their friends are' is still present even today on that issue. Standing the test of time well.

Funny how many folks of certain persuasions could be said to prescribe the exact opposite , to 'fill the mind' and 'empty the belly'.

That ,say lions, may respond to the compassion of saints is well known in every culture. In the manner of lions they do respond , and eat the saints.

There is that saying that goes along the lines of , ' not one in ten, knows the way.' So we're in appropriate company. He that is not against me , is with me , since I am not against me either.

Its probably about sex don't worry about it.

Great! I am so glad you entirely agree with my every word. That's nice

Thats fine , me too , but then,,, I wasnt trying to live the pampered situation of the wealthy urbanite,, because if I was ,, It would behoove me to have the cash to pay for it . ( and the sage would know enough to strive toward the high paying jobs ,if such was his nature) I dont know what to say , is that a question for me ? a rebuttal? agreement?

But seriously The sage is just a literary device , it is the personification of the idealized mind-person as SOME MAY SEE IT. Take the philosophy to its furthest extent , and that is what you get -a sage. The behaviors of the sage are supposed to ring true , valid . Its not that we should expect to achieve sageness in totality , (Since , as flexible material humans , we are just as prone to pick up 'bad' lessons as well as 'good'.) but the suggestion is there that potentially, sagely counterintuitive wisdom is a valid option , just as much so as "normal " behavior. The sage could be said to have many reactions to the spider, he could overcome temporary fear , possessing a clear perspective on what is and what is not illusory , he could act with aplomb and let it go outside, -because he didnt want to harm it , he could pass off the spider disposal to someone inclined to it - allowing them to be of service .. or he could just smash the thing, because he understands that there is no good or evil to satiate, or he could flip a darn coin and leave it to fate! So what WOULD ! be the mark of the sage in this instance? I figure , he would be in harmony with his nature rather than in discord , and he would be accepting of whatever he- or she ,did. Oh , , I think you can intuit which ones arent likely to have spiders breeding in the rooms. and so you'd avoid the ones that go for forty bucks a night.