Stosh

This article is about training halls. For other uses, see Dojo (disambiguation). Dojo A kendo dōjō.Japanese nameKanji:道場Hiragana:どうじょう[show]Transliterations- Revised Hepburn:dōjō- Kunrei-shiki:dôzyô A dojo (道場, dōjō?) is a Japanese term which literally means "place of the way". Initially, dōjōs were adjunct to temples. The term can refer to a formal training place for any of the Japanese do arts but typically it is considered the formal gathering place for students of any Japanese martial arts style such as karate, judo, or samurai,[1] to conduct training, examinations and other related encounters. The concept of a dōjō as a martial arts training place is a Western concept; in Japan,[citation needed] any physical training facility, including professional wrestling schools, may be called dōjō because of its close martial arts roots.

Im not trying to convince you of anything But I have an introspective question for you to ask yourself Once you have removed the ( 'attatchment' or loyalty) to the stuff mentioned How do you feel about that which is left ? Could you function well , your 'world' still holding together? Do you feel -free and comfortable- or -confused and alone? To put 'us' to the task of shifting you from your resultant state doesnt make much sense , because if you are ' good with it ' we wouldnt be helping ,,, and if you werent pleased you could- would already choose the other path. Suggestions might help resolve individual points of dissatisfaction but the general game plan is really for your personal introspection foremost. Maybe youre just fine as you are!

I thought Dojo was a conflict based paradigm for operating a forum Please dont keep this stirring , we all have other things to do. Ok?

Once you responded as you chose to , you took part responsibility for the chain that followed Im responsible for my part agreed The fault ? I dont know what my portion is here or what it is. But Ill take ownership of that too. "Momentary interest' refers to your personal opinion on the subject , not the subject of self. I was trying to follow the thread and it came to a point that I needed clarification on what you were saying . Ill just look elsewhere.

Since originally I was asking about the subject being discussed here , and not inserting my own subject matter , I dont consider the invitation to leave to be based on subject matter. My momentary interest though, has dropped considerably now, so Go ahead, carry on, You can have the pulpit back.

Wrong sir If the unwritten X value is a half then the answer is still four X Cmon, you can put up a better argument than that ! Have a nice weekend though all , Im outta here

Yeah its often visual but not always he never said , I guess that eidetic memory sure isnt what its cracked up to be if you still need to draw him a map Heck I can use one of them thar things

I thought you said you had eidetic memory ??

Then ...Agreed !

Nothing is in-effable I know folks that can eff anything up

Doesnt anyone want to concede that self -in -consistency undermines a point ? That abstracts like numbers and math are actually self consistent and therefore are a basis that one can call true ? All one has to really do to say a thing is true is to define the pespective the point is taken from. It is true, that I think , that saying nothing is true, is self defeating mumbo jumbo. Who should care if its universal or not?

Yeah , thats possibly reasonable , but 1) I may not be as young as you are assuming (I figure Im older than Gattito looking at his picture.) 2) you may or may not have noticed , but I only mess around here on weekdays between actively working. I have small chunks of time to kill. 3) what one man can do another can too , I really dont care for double standards theyre hypocritical by nature BUT I can also see that the desired product may not be what I am offering here , far more folks want to spin chakras or engage in what I think Gattito was referring to as Siddhis (rather than find rational basis for harmony with the external realities of things or actually seek to escape attatchments) You said you are a Medium of sorts , that it sells , its what the folks want and I suspect that is exactly true. I dont think of myself as pontificating , Im just not beating the same drums.

If Im one of the "Young lads" you may be right about the spring Funny thing about respect though , it tends to swing both ways Show it and you should get it Being dismissive and disparaging and not exactly correct all at the same time doesnt really earn it. and older folks can be smartie pants too !

I agree with that , so the proper thing to do, is give a person the opportunity to bring together - that which doesnt seem to. It doesnt matter now , If a person will just not admit to the tiniest boo boo then its self evident ,,they are perfectly willing to stick with things that arent true And If a person goes to them and asks what they dont already know ,,, how can that person have faith in the level of intellectual honesty they will get. I dont expect I will be asking for more.

Gattito, you said post 18 Self (Atman) is that which is reading these words. wikipedia says this the self which is devoid empirical cognition, merit, demerit, and other mental modes is the transcendental Atman. Yes , Its my mistake to ask you what you meant , and if I understood it clearly. I should have asked ...Santa Claus? Nevermind , nothing to see here folks,

Aniruddha defines the Jiva, the empirical self, as the self determined by the body, the external sense-organs, mind, intellect, and egoism; the self which is devoid empirical cognition, merit, demerit, and other mental modes is the transcendental Atman.[10] When the Jiva breaks the shackles of Prakrti it becomes the transcendental self.[11] Isvara and the jivas are both empirical realities, the former is the ruler and the impeller , and the latter are the ruled the ones who are impelled.[12]Aadhyaatmik dukkh-haan: freedom from pain, disappointment, etc; arising due to lack of spiritual, metaphysical, mystic knowledge and experience, Aadhibhautik dukkh-haan: freedom from pain etc; arising by possessing and being attached to various materialistic gains, Aadhidaivik dukkh-haan: freedom from pain etc; caused by fate or due to reliance on fate, These ones dont seem materialistic to me , they appear the normal goals of spiritual pursuit , but maybe Im missing something. But if you are referring to shrinking to an atom stuff .... Ok I get the ironic point.- Its very.. sharp. Aniruddha defines the Jiva, the empirical self, as the self determined by the body, the external sense-organs, mind, intellect, and egoism; the self which is devoid empirical cognition, merit, demerit, and other mental modes is the transcendental Atman.[10] When the Jiva breaks the shackles of Prakrti it becomes the transcendental self.[11] Isvara and the jivas are both empirical realities, the former is the ruler and the impeller , and the latter are the ruled the ones who are impelled.[12] Did you just say that the empirical self has to recognice the materialistic folly of siddhis to become the trancendental self ? If so then it appears an ironic view that spiritual practices interfere with ...enlightenment ?

On second thought ,, Its been said deleted comment Nevermind

The number 6000 english words is in line with the spoken vocabulary size of americans , they recognize many many more , and along with technical terms slang and expressions etc the total verbiage of english easily passes half a million sequences

Agreed , (If folks who already are familiar with a subject can use specialist terms , it speeds-things-up If Im describing snow , I might want to have the Inuit words for it. But explaining snow to folks who dont already know the subject I can still describe it as crunchy or heavy or frosty dry squeaky or -pink like the old snow on the shady side of a peak.,, just substituting new words for an explanation = stingey effort)

Static use of language stands as both a barrier and a bastion for conveying ideas Subject specific terms are fine, but in my opinion ,should be relegated to footnote as often as possible As to the habit of redefining old words to new meanings , bad. Creating ones own new words , maybe not as bad , but it seems a lazy approach to expressing meaning. One shouldnt have to learn chinese to understand what someone means, describing universal truths. The humongous language of english works just fine at describing anything from quarks to supernovae If one cant use it to explain what they know or understand ,,, they dont know or understand it.

Actually I was thinking that it was you that was kind of quiet lately. But that just may be you have been posting to threads that havent been catching my attention. So I was just checking up on you. I havent been seeing Et either , and rbsb deleted his acct I think. but I didnt want to dig. I was watching the green mile the other day , I thought Tom Hanks part ,might pass exemplary for a Taoist Master which in its turn has me thinking whether posting opinions still has merit. Ive said my two cents on most things by now, and after saying "oh how pretty" what else is there?

Quiet lately. Stosh

Mostly any way that gets one to accepting things as they really are ...and be fine with that ..even happy with that seems a wise perspective.

I think you get to stay as long as you want to.

It came out harsher than I wanted. A lot of things dont validate ideas and concepts which folks ,nevertheless lend weight to. Who said it How long they have been saying it a lineage across time said it Why they said it How they said it. How many people say it. Coming from a christian background which I greatly reject now I dont believe those factors should be weighed heavily Someone had a little postscript they had tagged to thier posts I consider apt Which I paraphrase ,, one should check the soundness of such stuff ,not take other folks word for it blindly.. The tendency can also be had , to be too critical , to expect any statements to have zero exceptions , that if one can punch any hole at all in an idea that any construal that it might have had also should be rejected. Just as a matter of personal opinion I think it can behoove one to look instead for the KEYs to the riddle , How can this be seen as true? I find Taoism highly ironic Things that fly in the face of a hostile conventional approach can sometimes work out to have wisdom. But not always. and not always as stated. The all life is suffering thing for instance , how the heck can that be a viable premise for a religion ? The problem is- the word dukkha is a broader term than suffering ( I found out today) it includes the ephemeral joys which arent suffering per se Its just that these things are not up to the ideal of a total bliss remaining forever. Taken in this light , it makes sense that one would want the perfect version one day. Im sure there are some that really and truly think it means suffering all day all the time Even they could come to an acceptance of their state while living , as in "yeah life sucks , get over it "