Stosh

I am reading this similarly , dawei,and am looking to see if this ambiguity about immortals is ever dispelled. I don't recall it ever to have been. Mh says Zz is more a mystic ...maybe .. but he may be playing to an audience which is predisposed to seeing the abstract issues discussed in terms of what we call supernatural today. Ill be looking with an eye to find accord with other views,.

I read it from the angle that people suffer due to their biased illusions rather than see him suggesting that one bias can be consistently maintained successfully. The acceptance of ALL rather than a WIN. But acceptance of all, is not saying there is nothing bogus. It is accepting that which is not illusion as such, and trying to overcome that which is -so as not to suffer "at our own hands"

Compassion as a subject in daoist writing appears to me just an incidental aspect that people may have in their nature -rather than a thing to be artificially magnified or endorsed specifically , any more than a prediliction for sweets.Buddhist infuenced strains appear more complimentary of it ..that may be compatible -if in the pursuit of it one is encouraged to butt out , or allow chips to fall where they may without imposing ones bias beyond ones business.

Well I see zero change in the way the section reads making Cds correction..like dawei is saying- -however! ... Cd may have a rather different idea about what an immortal is was or is described to be so for him, it does change the meaning . Having in brief- established the stances on the issue and If that subject can wait ,we can get on with the significance of the section as our host- Mh in this case ,wishes to cover it because there is more.

I don't care why I exist , but I'd like to suggest that y'all probably exist for my benefit. PM me and Ill let you know where you can use some improvement in that regard.

I'm thinking the useless thing in this section is supposed to be concern for the welfare or concerns of society . Conversely though, the pale dudes perspective is useless to everybody who doesn't share in it. This section defies the pro-compassion crowd ,I'd say.

I like that, for some reason, but , what is it that you think the ego arises in?

If by move beyond our senses you mean that we can look within for or to a source of peace rather than to external intermediates like excess food etc..then I think it may be another valid concept being put forth, yes.

One can however ,see that the peon doesn't think the station of king to be actually better than his own. He happily drinks from the ho just enough. He refuses to be sucked in by the lofty title. The illusion of king ship is of no usefulness.

Well there are transfomations , but the idea that one is better off bigger or faster king or peon Is a subjective illusion we have already seen Explained in ttc..it is a view, that a glimpse of Non-duality ,is supposed to dispel, or an understanding which approaches said removal of illusions. It is another example of the irony I employed (that all the opinions vere equally valid but my own more so)

If you have concluded that good and evil are arbitrary tems , I agree If you feel you have opinions on what those are, I agree If you think situation dictates what is right , I agree If you think those things have some validity beyond opinion I don't agree.

Besides , If I was the innocent in the disclaimer ,, I could hide behind silence. No, the innocent are those who dont understand, but wish to keep their structures intact. Its the only reason why the originals could have chosen to extra cryptic with the difficult to accept thoughts, they proposed. If they wanted to ,they could have obviated 2000 years of argument. I somewhat disagree as of yet about that , so I am willing to lay the thing out and I expect , ...that now done one step further, anyone might write the next stanza and finish off the poem. if they wanted to.

Since I was born , the rest is everyone elses fault.

Perhaps, but I wouldnt have said that myself , like in the disclaimer, "only the names have been changed to protect the innocent" Think in terms of 'infinite regression'.

Pizarros men must have been busy! conquering the Inca And killing upwards of 14 llamas per day each , for three years. and yet failed in their mission! . Today, native people of Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Chile, and Argentina still herd llamas, which are used primarily for their wool. Llamas are gentle by nature, but if they are mistreated they can react by hissing, spitting, kicking and refusing to move.

The peng has an illusion , it thinks it is something different , and that it has somewhere to go. It thinks that the obstacles are high and that it is wonderful to accomplish so much. He takes a long path and looks marvelous doing it, if you know where to look. The quail thinks the tree is better than where he is , and sees no reason to go to the ends of the earth. A couch potato is he. Lowering the bar to be assured and easy, And so < the quail bypasses all the bullshit that the peng is dealing with , He soars right over and past it all ! and looks amazing doing it , if you know what to look for. The quail flies a thousand li The peng wallows as a kun by unresistance I drift the faster peaceful waves, and softly nod unconcerned, the quiet stars beckon to dreams.

If you-one can Accept that more than one reading is probably intended correct.. then you havent earned a conflict , you've overcome one, and yet you still get to have your favorite view No blood - no foul Since you're both wrong or right since the actual issue is relative perspective. The peng or quail each see from their own perspective and neither really opposes or exceeds the other they are both reasonable from their own point of view . If you dont accept my point , you missed the instruction altogether. IMO

Knowing that folks are all basically the same , That children are innocent from your daily life experiences and hard won insight should suggest that the idea- that a person reincarnates to a situation which Fosters the attatchments they had in a previous incarnation.. May not be a correct .

The gentle breeze it flows,and only I know it , by the pull of the sail and the tilt of the rudder I press. If I but lift my hands ,to what rocky shores or sargasso seas shall I be drawn? From this swaying perch I see but blue unchanging sea and sky. So question I ,this vessel most untested. All answers in dumb reply , say "yes ", and in saying so say nothing. Speculating birds float aloft ,deciding if to rest, and ride along unfed a bit , biding time , till unknown random stirs their wings. Let sails be full , and drag me on? For I will never know till I am there, what destiny for me does hold. What choice is there between seeming same, and,which seems the same? Count provisions for trips of unknown span, while setting anchor lonesome?, bristling cannon brought to bear ,against imagined enemies unseen? So choiceful action removed from me, by unresistance I drift the faster peaceful waves, and softly nod unconcerned, the quiet stars beckon to dreams.

I leave the stage to you Till my temper turns mild good hunting Cd.

I am certain there are Urob . But if the ones who can best bring it forth are stuck in a chinese grammar lesson, ... I don't see any way to coax it out correctly ..I need a little distance for perspective.

That's the ticket! Discuss this work but constrain yourself to the most mundane and literal translations. Pretend that the author isn't using symbols. When he talks about a tree he is really dicussing trees! Just understand that these types of trees have no significance whatsoever, because one wouldn't want to possibly imply TCM because ironically, he doesn't mention the medicinal properties of things. If he mentions a peng in one section and then replaces it with an albino in another passage it really is an albino because he used the chinese symbols for an albino or a peng or a human master of some type. And then there's the chi which is just wind and although all chinese agree with that , some persist in associating the term with other things..as if mythological beasts actually are constrained by physical properties like lift to drag ratios. The proper thing to do is box the figurative writing ino facts that can be proven like a li is a standard unit of measure which it may be now but wasn't always! So I shouldn't get confused and misapply associations because I don't speak chinese. What however Is correct is that someone who speaks chinese should make the error and say that I wasn't correct. If that's the general flow of things ,there is little I need to hear on the subject, and neither is there anything left to appreciate or consider by anyone else.

If you say that- that which my preferences are ,dictates. Then you agree its illusion but won't admit it. If that's a thing that Chinamen share , I am no chinaman.

Which they aren't because although they are all men 'China' is a subjective illusion suggesting false homogenaity.All I would have to do to prove it is point out some stereotypes.

It doesn't imply why they the mediocre scholars burst into laughter. The highly instructed scholars are too wrapped up in arriving at some conclusive fact . The modest scholars have no faith in their conclusions or don't come to solid ones The mediocre scholars laugh because they find that it never wasnt all that complicated to begin with. I'd agree Zz also says this, just not in such a misleading manner.