Stosh

I have an angle on that which may fit anybody , happiness is wanting -the situation one is experiencing -to continue and it does Even if one thinks the situation is one of dukkha (outright pain -conditioned paradigm- or ephemeral in nature) Lots of wiggle room , plenty of individual options , and explains the behaviors folks exhibit before during and after.

I just never understood this scenario-conclusion , it is said in a way that its supposed to be unrefutably obvious , but its not If unhappiness and happiness are both parts of life neither is permanent , many folks are just fine with the ebb and flow of joy and sadness. And even a devout buddhist has to have had fun at some point ,, At least for the time one has it one actually has joy , dont they? Or is the argument that no one is ever ever happy, and if they think they are , they are wrong? Who the heck can say Im not happy if I think I am?

Oh and beware of those peddling garbage for a long time too.

Our individual human nature is the narrative thread of our story only if we are personally empowered and self determining.( Without it we are slaves of a sort). How we go about life ,is that we can play ,and only play, just three of four cards ,that we are initially dealt from a deck of possibilities. Card 1 , We have some control of our thoughts Card 2 , We have somecontrol of our emotions Card 3 , We have some control of our bodies. That’s it , that’s all the direct control you get over anything. Card 4 , is the situation we find ourselves in at any given moment ,It’s a card that keeps changing ..we have no direct control over . (By playing the first three cards we can have an effect on the fourth but it is an indirect effect with many external factors playing into its totality. ) Some controls we don’t! have are as follows,, We cant actually foresee what will happen , (we guess)_. We cant ever be perfectly sure of anything outside our minds, (and some things inside it, not the size of a thing not the color of it not even the number of it, we are always limited by our senses and conclusions and associations. But don’t worry , just go ahead and proceed , its just a philosophical truth we can live with.) We cannot defy the laws of nature, but they can be worked with. We cannot will matter into existence, or , make things happen, unmediated by physical effort. We cannot embed experiences directly into each others minds, (so we are always a bit of a stranger, a bit misunderstood, and a bit misunderstanding. And we can’t ,both ,eat a cake ,and keep it intact at the same time We must choose.) Those are all cards which aren’t in the deck at all …but there are many others in there, so .. Play your cards well so you get indirect control of a lot more of them. There is a heck of a lot of power in those cards we do have. But it helps to remember that the only true control is self- control , the only mastery to be had is self mastery.

Vikram Seth - "God save us from people who mean well." No one can abide an angel for long

That too !

Theres places there where we can agree. But you also put your finger on the main point where we dont. That one-I shouldnt dismiss a theory which I dont understand, I dont think Im so stupid that I cant understand valid theories. So I do reject those things that I cannot reconcile in a way that makes sense. For instance I do think that one can cross reference the two 'world views' I can equate yin yang with say -entropy But it doesnt yield the info to make a car. I do think it can suggest relationships which may apply to quantum mechanics or maybe astrophysics because an investigator may be freed up from dogmatic mindset but I dont think it will yeild the info to make faster computers without scientific investigation following it up A man can imagine anything , but he has to discard the false , (which science is willing to do) And thats why I said that the two fields are complimentary.

Thats all calmly said , You would agree the form its in currently ,your post is really just assertion , right? Except for the last line , which seems more of an escape clause that says you have nothing to demonstrate the assertion with. If thats not true then you can do so , present away! Tm thinks phds and recitations are impressive , but they dont prove anything about the subject at hand. So I dont share the view. If the ancients has cars they would have driven them too. Learning that your favorite path of cultivation is strewn with false assumptions and confusion can be quite a shock , it is bound to leave you wondering how you are to know which is wise and valid and which is bogus. So the tendency is to suck it all up together and treat it all like it all has the same validity,, or toss the whole kit and look for another to trust.

Is that another of your personal translations for chapter one ? I just scanned fourteen others and they didnt look much like it (which is not to diminish this nutshell version , I like it ) Very nice

Well , they DO say that right speech is brief and on point.

If its an important endeavor for you then how could it be a waste of time to pursue it ? Thats not to say that the answers are for you here for certain how the heck would I know but look thoroughly and you will not have short-changed yourself Good luck

From wikipedia Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it. My earlier post was as follows It seems the general response to the question is that Lao-Tao advocates the innate 'moral' tendencies of individuals , in the belief that there is common ground there. Moral relativism seems to ignore this commonality and puts an unrequired behavioral requisite on the person considering the morals of another. In the end , You can judge - or not judge , but do understand that there is no objective point of superior validity ( you do still have your subjective point of view though) This stance places responsibility right back on the person doing judging , removing the shield of self righteousness, yet allows one to do what is expedient. Im not off base at all , still with ya , Its just a different angle is all Stosh

:0

To avoid the quotes competiton I might consider offing the dude He'd be reborn or not die or something anyway But assuming it was the right guy and not a faker or hallucination Id be just as tempted to ask some questions too , guilty as charged. Like how he felt about the various fat and skinny statues ,or the ones that make him look like a chick.

Sure dreams would be dreamt by a dreamer, and they could be called illusory since they could not be directly proven to exist outside the mind of the dreamer but that would not preclude that they have an element of reality since dreams can be made to influence objective phenomena via actions. the last three of the four lines together are self contradictory GMP line four must not be right --(or wrong) if 'stuff' and 'we'- individually and 'right-ness' are false distinctions like it says in line three about line two

I dont believe much is known on Mencius' early life compared to the oscillations of his popularity. Interesting stuff but a slow read.

Fair enough , but I dont really know what a dogs experience of existance is, so I cant ,fairly, rule them out of the party .

Im sure she was charming quiet and mild tempered. But maybe a bit clingy?

I thought it meant, that if the buddha you met was an external entity that it was not the authentic experience But I was never sure on that one if it was meant that way.

Dunno , but I guess it is at least one person I asked (who has no interest at all in these subjects) said she felt she was , is and always has been , as far as she can tell integrated regarding her subconscious and conscious mind even though she knows she isnt aware of all of it at the same time. Sometimes it appears quite unnatural to attempt to make any sort of divide between these aspects of experience The often described proceedures of meditation may make folks experience things differently , but the folks who say that persisted at it probably found it pleasant and the folks who found it unnerving tedious and unpleasant probably didnt ( self fulfilling situation there) The folks that seem to- indicate that they meditate significantly or have moved on to "higher states" - just dont strike me as being nicer or calmer or less neurotic than folks who dont make those claims. I am not knocking either here , Im just saying that they arent presenting any statistical difference from folks who dont practice any of this brain stuff that stands out to me. Having said that.. I would say there are a lot of nice bright people in general who are participating here . I chalk that up to folks trying to find their virtue -- fix the paradigms they live. Since thats where I see merit arising , thats where I find the merits to be. It makes me wince to read some things that just seem to be pushing these folks at confusions , away from acceptance. But thats just me , the majority seem to feel that enlightenment is an escape inward rather than an outward one (By that I mean finding a harmony with both the external constraints of thier human situation , and the mental topography they already are.) Its OK either way to me- objectively speaking-, that which others choose for themselves... If they want void ,or god ,or full spectrum light , But subjectively- for my own peace- I prefer if they end up ..wellbeing. (If that makes any sense) (( so I guess I am still 'clinging to likes and dislikes' too)) Stosh

Ive heard the.... koan..? , 'does a dog have buddha nature?' If you consider a dog which lives in the moment in a state as satisfied as it can be free of much inhibition guilt etc.. and many of the attatchments we can have survive at our own expense by being friendly satisfied to not be in charge wisdom wise, it may be a step up , even if they do lick their parts. Is not the popular refrain to become as the uncarved wood live by ones teh ? as Flol said ', but i have also contemplated on the thought that in losing understanding you gain a certain quality of living in the moment that would be favorable to some.' Does becoming human seem like improvement if the best one can hope for is an end to rebirth? Going the other way towards barnacles or slime one would become more elemental more in tune with tao simpler and complete in virtue ,, and one would still come to an end of rebirth We The general public, may flatter ourselves at the big brains we hoist but could it be that evolution may simply be counterflow to enlightenment ?

Well It sure is nice to hear so many folks stand up and admit it for a change, instead of just those who think they have telekinesis or can turn invisible or can change the weather with their minds, it allows me to drop into preferable obscurity rather than be a lone voice for the value of Science as a means to ends rather than an enemy of Taoism.

I cant speak for anyone else , but I figure reincarnation might actually work the other way around , you progress from the most illogical state of being a human to the most reasonable state ( like a barnacle ) Losing trash as you go.

Yes you have , thanks my underlying message is very moderate and its nice to know one or two people out there also see that Tao is not anathema to scientific understanding they are complimentary

You can but it would be a helpful supplement to add what it is I am supposed to learn from that I dont know what your point is.