Stosh

Whoa ! dude , that just like , wow , makes it all so like consicuous Sure there is , they just like to pretend they arent describing it. Y'know , like if you described an elephant , and called it a bunny rabbit, we should be able to discern what it was anyway. Attatchment Merits Book of the dead Reincarnation 'Nuff said IMO

The antecedent is that there are hundreds of different interpretations as to what the texts actually say, and who the commentary is aimed at, including at least three broad schools of thought. Not usually , I would say we are often in accord with an idea before hearing it, and only accept it being said from another source , at the time. That isn't informing you , it is you taking guesses, because it was poorly explained. Well, you must at least think that the imprecision of word usage isn't a tremendous insurmountable hurdle , since you use them with some expectation of being understood, yourself. They're good enough , much of the time, to get folks on the same page about what is being indicated .. whether there is agreement as well, on the content, is a second hurdle. A majority agreeing on what I was describing as my lunch , may not agree on having the same ingredients on their sub, but if I am communicating clearly , they aren't thinking I am speaking of U-boats. ; hypothetically . In other words you don't care what the original intent of the author was, you want to invent meanings that suit you , and ascribe them to the reputable source. I Can't says I blame you, that's popular , its been done for two thousand years in China.

What is more indestructible than saying that there is a remnant of you ( soul) that continues to exist when you die, retains attachments like you did, needs to remember lessons from the book of the dead, gets reborn as another persona (but may even retain birthmarks and habits!) , ... indefinitely ? We all know Mh's credit card has an expiration date, but it exists as long as the plastic does, Everyone accepts that , and that mountains erode , Who is it that has the misunderstanding?

Ok, that would be an example of an accord , existing in the form of a mental model. But , they may or may not accept the card , and if they do not, its jack squat.

The illusion of saying something equivocal, equating to, making a statement.. is an illusion

Then a lot of Buddhists do not understand Buddhism. Because there is certainly a lot of denial of things existing going on. AND a presumption that my assumptions are wrong , about what does in fact exist. It is just that, a presumption on the part of the Buddhist. Illusion is the term used for a situation , in which one has a mental model , which differs significantly from the facts as they are , independent of the mindset. If the Buddhists are right, that there is but one mind, one reality , which is contingent for physical reality to exist.. then there can be no such thing as illusion , since the mind model and reality are , one and the same , mutually arising. Conversely , if you say illusions such as self exist , and the existence of this self can be different from the mental model , then the mental model is not the producer of existence. Mind is then apart from the rest of existence.

If someone is going to impact on your attitudes, then you are going to have to allow them to supercede the ideas you already hold, at least for a while. As long as you adjudicate, dismiss or challenge, each sentence.. youre going to arrive at the same summary conclusions. The way around that, is to consider HoW a thing is meant, the intended extent , to which an example is pointing. More than just a ten second benefit of a doubt. Take the idea that, everyone wants to be peaceful... the truth of that .. is SORT of. people love their fury too.. SORT of. Once you can really digest that, you know why people do not always be placid, nor is placidity ,, a polemically valid description of GOODNESS. So , if this is true, what could be wisely be being said to you by the Classical Taoists?

And that's on TOP of having everyone obey your advice ,everyone will like you , you live forever , manipulate the weather , fly , and amass riches. ... chop up meats.. Oh! and you'll be impervious to rhinos. The downside is that you have to sit and do nothing all the time , ..except stare south like the North star.

A spark of light in endless space is still a dualistic differentiation , although it is your analogy for awareness. So your awareness, in this case, is still a duality, you've described it as such. Same goes for awareness of openness, its comparative to closed-ness, resting vs activity, sleep undreaming vs that with dreams. Out of respect for your teacher , you just now define these dualisms as experience of monism ,and relieve the cognitive dissonance. Ze Problim is sol-ved. Clouseau 1975

Speech was just a handy example of a distinction. Any example would have been fine.

I like the block part , 'uncarved woodness' , would lack the irony and complexity of understanding , that although the form is not contrived, it still has form.

Well , the Daoist angle , whether many of aware of this, or not, is that ,, without having distinctions of some sort, then you just have a unity.,, the proverbial - drop of water in an endless sea, - the mind before the first object of consciousness. Its in the first TTC chapter. I happen to agree with the logic of it. And that it is a matter of perspective whether all equates to everything , or nothing, but for speaking purposes we can say that if there is anything, all is something,. not nothing. The issue is brought up in The Chuangtze as well (though I agree the excerpt is not an exact match for our discussion.. ) If then all things are One, what room is there for speech? On the other hand, since I can say the word 'one' how can speech not exist? If it does exist, we have One and speech -- two; and two and one -- three(14) from which point onwards even the best mathematicians will fail to reach (the ultimate); how much more then should ordinary people fail? Terebess Lin Yutang ( on leveling all things) So Yes, awareness needs phenomena to exist.

Sorry , I didn't realize I wasn't hitting the nail , Yes, you or I need to either be conscious or aware , to know things. Point being?

I do indeed infer fire from the smoke , there is simply far more to what is going on , than the incremental .. chunks , that we can know directly. We are forced to infer. If there is a 'hard problem' it is.. "Why can people be expected to arrive at similar conclusions , (have a common logic ), given the same data,and provided that they have no reason to balk?" Texts , personally,, I just do not assume they are right, everything goes through the mill , somethings come out smelling like roses , and others do not. Much I put on a back-burner, I temporarily suspend disbelief , so I can proceed. I expect this is true for most folks but in variable degrees. Adjudication may be held in abeyance.

I don't see this as a hard problem , for ME , its just a hard problem for someone else because they are operating from a position of bad reasoning. I agree theres a syntax issue , however , there are misunderstandings which can be detected apart from the words chosen. RE:point 1 -- Direct experience is awareness, its self evidentiary , but only lasts as long as the event is underway, it is knowing (and cannot be faulty , since it is not a derived conclusion or expectation ). You hear the bell , and when it stops ringing , you can say you heard the bell , but that's past tense. After that time , 'currently knowing' , is not going on , its remembering, and it can be faulty. RE:point 2-- Testimony of a reliable ,,, or unreliable witness ,,, is not knowing either. You are making suppositions , or, connections are being suggested , but again , this can be faulty , and its not Knowing. RE:point 3 Inference is not Knowing either , it is making a conclusion based on rationale , which may be correct or incorrect. Though colloquially we say we know things because we inferred them , it has not the perfect certainty, of Knowing, but in speech its used as a means of knowing. ............................. So when the monks ring the bell , or smack you with a stick , you are brought to a state of knowing something. You experience the shock or sound , and its free from suppositions recollections etc . This is you being aware. As the event fades , you're supposed to recognize the transition , the subsequent attribution of various sentiments and evaluations ,regarding the event, which has already passed or is passing swiftly away. You are being given a slow-mo opportunity to watch your mind do its thing.

I think my brain does the inferring. That which I infer , are those things of which I am not directly aware , yet suppose to exist , comparatively ,,, If I was aware , I would be having a direct sensory relationship regarding that thing. That which I am conscious of , are things of which I am aware , and those things which I infer. If at some point if I infer .. that there are gators in the pond, because all the ducks are gone,, I cannot say I am directly aware of them , nor have I ever been aware of them. I could in fact be wrong in my inference, the ducks may have just flown off to migrate,, I am not sure , but doubt,, that one can be wrong about--- that which they are aware of. Meaning , if you are sad , that's just the fact of it, its self evidentiary .

I would say I can and do know things to be existing , without experiencing an awareness of it, through inference. Kim Jong-un isn't going anywhere ,just because I close my eyes to the issue. I learned object permanence at 4-7 months of age, like everybody else. I will go with ..second hand knowledge , is predicated on an awareness held by someone else ,and is related to me by description. Fine. I don't think that makes a difference , the situation exists as it does ,without or with me being personally aware of it. I have become aware of things , which others tell me existed before I knew about it , like the Statue of liberty. As a toddler I didn't have that awareness, but the thing was still standing since at least 1886... which is before my time. And I have seen it many times , and been in it, literally touching ,the stone and steel.

Whoa , whoa whoa , Hold the phone , ain't that backwards ... Awareness needs phenomena to exist , the phenomena may exist without you knowing about it. To be actually aware of a candle , you have to see it. You could imagine one , but that's not really being aware of an existing candle. But when you leave the room , I can still see the candle , it doesn't go away , when you personally stop being aware of it, so it ,, regardless of your regard , it still has its existence.

Like what?

That's a fair stance, yes , I get the creativity angle , and I get the 'holding true to the original text' angle. So I must admit its largely opinion to say that one shouldn't use the same word repeatedly in the translation... however,, since there is ample evidence that such 'creativity' does not render a clearly understandable meaning , to which a majority would agree that the text claims, it is at least arguable, IMO, that this is not good translation , it is simply an act of creative writing.. fine as far as that goes.. and not fine when one is looking to inform.

Cleary at terebess has this most clearly presented IMO 71 To know unconsciously is best. To presume to know what you don't ,is sick. Only by recognizing the sickness, of sickness ,is it possible to be ,not sick. The sages' freedom from ills ,was from recognizing the sickness of sickness, so they didn't suffer from sickness. Which to me , looks like should be rendered yet farther ... since.. the repeated use of the word sick , is an incorrect habit in English , which renders the meaning in a passage poorly. And for the translator to actually finish the translating process , he has to get it as far as he can get it ,into proper English format. To intuitively be understanding of the facts , is the best situation. To be aware of the uncertainty one should have , regarding what one intuits, keeps one grounded in that which they truly know, so one may explore beyond their own personal intuition, without kidding themselves. In his actions , the sage is continuously aware of his own motivations and goals , he is not embroiled in complex machinations , and abides by the Kiss principle.. Not interfering in things outside his own purview.

What my mom used to say to me , if I was getting picky , was that if I didn't like that color candy , then I didn't really need to get any at all. And so , she would say, ' if you think the world is so bad , then leave it'. Moreover , if the world handed everything to you on a platter , and all of it was sugar and spice , there truly wouldn't be anything for you to do , nor reason to do it. The world would be rendered useless boring and totally pointless. If you think this is some kind of fake perspective.. consider the number of people that die right as soon they they retire. The rich and famous who burn themselves out, or consider the rich powerful exec, or brass , who goes to a madam for regular spankings. The world must be understood to be benevolent in that it is NOT all heavenly sweetness , that one does NOT have a guaranteed road-map ,, ( as handy as that might seem ) But , if you think benevolence is only served up an silver platter , and just as you like it ,, well you just aren't going to get this point in the intended manner. And you're going to think that everyone who takes the world as the package deal , that it is , calling it good just like that - a bullshitter.

The idea is archetypal , its been done for thousands of years , across all sorts of cultures. The gamut spans all the way from tatoos , my grandfathers St. Christopher medal, to buying a mandala from a monk. He can charge it just fine. It just needs to have a uniqueness, in his mind. It is not a thing replaceable like a soda bottle ,, unless that soda bottle came from someone significant, was made into something unique and personal , fortuitously fell into his lap on a deserted island etc.

Ize on any of it intentionally. If you do make a talisman for yourself, I would suggest you think it out well beforehand , what you want to bring at yourself. Sticking needles in voodoo dolls , seems pretty ominous and probably would be detrimental to the maker as much as to the target. Take it for a walk among the trees, under the moon, to the ocean ... see what is suggested about the vibes you want coming at and out from you. And for heavens sake, be sincere and listen to tje little voice you often may dismiss. Good luck.

Lemme state this outright, I am not enamoured with magic... but it has been related to me , as follows. Objects , by virtue of their nature, can be understood to embody an influence which is undeniable. A flag can inspire, a knife can cut, and so forth. Humans are far more plastic, we have moods learn, emote. What one does, to charge the amulet is associate it with a particular ... flavor.. which it will retain for us despite the fickle aspect of our own personalities. So as one refers back to the talisman one continues to exert the vibes over time, that would be diluted by our inconstancy. There are stangely inexplicable connections which show up, and I might call them coincidence, or I might explain as subliminal suggestion,, but these events are hard to explain simply with statistics etc. They happen to me all the time, but theres no predictability that presents me opportunity to capital