Stosh

I think I do , at least most of it , but I can google a hundred interps of chaper one alone in under thirty seconds. my view is rather mundane , that is I do not read the lofty otherworldly interps in it. I see practical advice which meshes quite nicely with everyday circumstance. Like if your spouse isnt happy with your bedroom performance , you might hand her the reins for a change. It may just be the lenses of my own perceptions , or those of the three versions which Ive gone through in full ,,which color it all in the way that I see it ,but even if that is true , and it wasnt the intended view to be taken ... I dont care , Its been the best presentation of things , given me the clearest advice and seemed the most honest evaluation of the human condition Ive come across. The first time I started reading it , I didnt get a darn thing . I put it down for several years , read commentary about it and then picked it up again , which made all the difference to me. One can find many interpretations in the very same characters , but thinking that there is not more than right read, or that there are no wrong reads ,, is a boo boo. IMHO Stosh

Ummm what would the destruction of a thing but an alteration in its presentation , for instance mass converting to energy and particles , energy then would only have to be changed in its presentation to be considered 'destructed' and conversions of energy happen all the time. One either has to admit that energy can be actually destroyed or that mass cannot be. What can be altered is the relative distributions and configurations of mass and energy and space. (Since even the local negation of two forces is the inverse of not having negated them on a larger scale energy isnt destroyed but the same can be said for mass which is an alternate expression of energy. ( remember they are convertible))

Me ? I just found it a curious question. You have some experience with old documents no? Id ask you , Is the current naming tradition similar or not ? and do you see any implications in the name used.

Jews have historically used Hebrew patronymic names. In the Jewish patronymic system the first name is followed by either ben- or bat- ("son of" and "daughter of", respectively), and then the father's name. (bar-, "son of" in Aramaic, is also seen). If Joseph wasnt being considered the actual father of Yeshua ben Yehosef , essentially that Mary had a virgin birth event the naming might be difficult ,, (but I have no idea whether his contemporaries shared that opinion regarding him.)

Among preliterate peoples, the act of naming is a bestowal of a soul on the one who receives the name (Charles). In either case, though, the effect is the same: the person who receives a name thereby receives an identity and a place within the society. This bestowal of name and identity is a kind of symbolic contract between the society and the individual. Seen from one side of the contract, by giving a name the society confirms the individual's existence and acknowledges its responsibilities toward that person. The name differentiates the child from others; thus, the society will be able to treat and deal with the child as someone with needs and feelings different from those of other people. Through the name, the individual becomes part of the history of the society, and, because of the name, his or her deeds will exist separate from the deeds of others. Perhaps Jesus was being considered outside of the normal societal paradigm or was already in possession of a 'soul' ?

I hope you can refind what you feel youve lost but the sentiment in your post reminds me of the lesson in the wizard of Oz they pretty much had what they were seeking already.

The Zen 'garden of the leaping tiger' demonstrates that nicely ( in both its limitations and expression)

That would kind-of knock out any reason to read it , wouldnt it?

By returning one would going back to the -potential -origin- stage- Tao From dust to dust Trancending that ?,,, I think not.

You arent butchering , it is already butchered. INTENTIONALLY

dis·so·lu·tion play_w2("D0290300") (ds-lshn) n. 1. Decomposition into fragments or parts; disintegration. 2. Indulgence in sensual pleasures; debauchery. 3. Termination or extinction by disintegration or dispersion: The dissolution of the empire was remarkably swift. 4. Extinction of life; death. 5. Annulment or termination of a formal or legal bond, tie, or contract. 6. Formal dismissal of an assembly or legislature. 7. Reduction to a liquid form; liquefaction. Ahh now I see! But I dont want that for myself, Im very much in favor of its reverse.

Well Id agree dreams are real , they just arent materially- objectively real. as for feeling a smack being a 'consequence of a desire for things being other than they are ..... ' I really cant see how that shakes out to be so , Youd feel it too , denying it is not being OK with the truth of the smack. All the prophets that ever were also would feel the smack , although I suppose some would be OK with the sensation and others would find it objectionable. At least thats my take on it , but I am not sure if you are calling the dreams 'real' or if you are considering them to also be illusory. I need to read up more on the skandhas to get your point. In the mean time please consider my point here is to demonstrate that although my senses cloud my impressions of what IS They indicate that something IS , and I consider it faulty reasoning to conclude that no non lies are there to be gleaned Deny the reality of your feelings if you want to , but you have 'em

I Wouldnt dream of it ! ..... maybe ( besides you are already materialist )

As long as I can smack someone in the head and they can feel it ,there is material reality I might have to see it through faulty senses and infer things regarding it , but the reality of material things is true. If mass turns out to be a type of wave form on a miniscule scale.. so be it., I can still smack you in the head with that wave form. And even if time is actually an extension of spacial geometry so be it ,, you will feel that smack in the head after it happens. even if you are an illusion floating in a sea of Brahman or Tao or space or undivided light. You will say Ow!. (Do not attempt this test at home ,it should be obvious -without having to actually do it.)

Im surprised and a bit confused at what you mean by that Zero, can you elaborate in everyday terms?

I see the conceptry and wording similar but I was trying to tease out whether Mh was actually making a different assertion or not. Things would be so much easier to discuss is we were all using the same dictionary- terminology , I suspect half the discrepencies folks have isnt really based on any substantial disagreement.

Dynamic equlibrium in a sense that one puts money into an account and withdraws money from the account and the net change over time is zero. The difference Im asking about ,is whether you see it that there should be as a positive goal- net change or ...not. If a person were to be trying to have no net influence to a system Id see it as in keeping with Tao principles , but on the other hand -change is inevitable so fighting change over time would be contra indicated as well. If you can phrase the idea in a threadworthy form you can shift this there.,, I was just making a brief digression in a 36 page thread.

Hmmmmn, dynamic equilibrium is a balance of sorts ,, still deathly?

Though I wouldnt have chosen those associations myself ,but , going along with it... what is the point of either trying for balance or working out a harmony ... as you see it?

Good point , but dont drive anywhere

I sense the street smarts.

An explanation there as useful as teats on a bull. Like recep said in-sufficient It draws no line between Neodaoism, Religious daoism, lord of the flies, or greenpeace

Maybe K you want input from elsewhere but Id agree myself that the dichotomy between the two things isnt a perfect cleavage. For one thing the objective world interacts with the subjective perception of it and the subjective perceptions we have get translated into objective realm through our actions. examples being drug use and construction projects. Thusly I consider them both to be real ,,,and interactive in various ways But while I do think physical laws are not subject to our whim .. our subjective perceptions are fungible and highly unconstrained.

Religion is a mirror of spirituality not its enemy. If the religion is screwey its because the collective spirituality of the members is so. The crusades never embodied the philosophy of jesus , maybe judaism , but not jesus and the early christians. Religion standardizes and coordinates a people, which can be a double edged sword , but it is the people that breathe life into it. If someone sees a god as originator of all including Tao , fine, It can never be disproven-- beyond the lack of a face to put on the 'one'. But the tao itself has no compassion, no plan, no favorites , and no rules that can be trangressed. If a god interfered with our lives he would be impinging on the greatest gift he could've given living man. Freedom Without full freedom one would be stacking the deck toward a result , and thus , the true measure of human spirit would always be skewed. Believing thusly ,, I conclude that if there were a god, his input would be moot , the belief would be moot evidence of his existence would not be found , and that would be as she- he wanted it.

Still brief but ,, I can go with that.