Stosh

Oh, sorry, umm, the sage is under heaven , and so he , would be, part of the 'no one' , that can practice or delineate the way of dao. Then to do anything in accord with it , he has to either adjust his attitudes or goals. ( which leaves one flexible about the behaviors , while remaining adamant about abiding by his nature - like water which may be flexible about where it flows , but not at all being flexible about its tendency to go to earth. ) Being colloquial in speech , the 'no one' ,then, means the general folks of society that one is aware of , and leaves out the sage .

Often , I would agree , if one does indeed , consider it to say not a single person at all ! .., the grouping would then include the sage and the ubermensch ,and meaning then that the sage isn't a 'practiticer' of a formula , nor can he describe the parameters of what to do , as specific , rules.. (as we discussed already. ) which leads me to thinking along the lines of attitudes and goals.

Interesting , I suppose this means you see the 'no one' phrase in the colloquial sense. I took it in the more literal one .

Does this iteration render reasonable to you ?

So what do they think wise behavior is?

I Didn't read it , and probably won't , but that's not a disparagement. In fact I want to give it a little support , sight unseen.. Zigging when one should zig , and not zagging , (if you get the idea) may not be the stuff of legends , but its really pretty important. How could someone tell this kind of thing in a book ? Dunno How could one transfer values and attitudes of a lifetimes accumulation in a book , again ,,dunno. But I will say that it might be worth a read, for people to simply read something which was specifically not ... designed to be precipitous , edgy , transformative ,, heavily laden with ,,, anything ! A long time ago , when my mother was living , and with my sister and her kid , she told me that as part of her therapy that she had to write a story,, to relate , I wrote a little one for my niece , and my mom read it. Well she critiqued that it didn't have any conflict , and said that stories needed conflict for people to have a reason to read them. I know this was a normative attitude , but 1) its just for a little kid , and 2), why wouldn't it be nice to just not include conflict... Science books and stuff aren't conflict based , and , they're still interesting yadda yadda. If the sage teaches without words , I imagine that would include just being and living as an object lesson , that folks might see what it is to not be so wrapped up in dramas, what its like to live simply and genuinely , and perhaps if it was acceptable , to maybe osmose a bit of that habitude themselves.

I dont know anyone like that personally, and probably couldn't sustain it ,if I did.

Yeah, I agree about different strokes... Sadhguru , said he knows the minds of others because he knows his own... it puts him in a confident situation but at the same time the inferences one might make can potentially be way off mark for others. Chuang also used inference though.. as we may all tend to do.. but there is the chance for twists to the motivations. I always presume that the persons desire is for things to work out better somehow, than to leave things as they are. .. essentially a proactive measure despite appearing self destructive to everyone else.

On the other hand, though its not as much true for all, the modern world brings us squarely in touch with so much and so many.. everything and everyone. We hardly know most of those we talk with, get embroiled in dramas we play no part in, depend on interpreters of facts and stories we cannot touch nor hear.. We do not know all the rules we are expected to abide by and have no trusted guides for most of it. I expect they were already sensing these societal pressures a long time ago. Traded for civilizations advancements our lives content has changed.

As far as I can read in, to me, Lao and Chuang were suggesting that one could be well invested in ones life, simply by playing the cards dealt to them . Finding the point of balance where needs were met, fitting in with others happened , and attending the ride. We either expect too much or too little, and think some mental contortion , magical threshold , or act of will is going to CHANGE everything for us. That suddenly the Goldenrod flowers will smell suddenly sweet. This idea can pervade for a lifetime , even when examined at length while we 'miss the starting gun.' The other difference to the suggestion of Sadhguru, is they felt that lifting the moment by moment burden of ones fears of failure and death ,one became freed. Who really wants to have death always on their mind? The weight that each moment needs to be some kind of momentous joy or they are failing.They said that humble roles ,moderate goals, warm relationships and playing through life , were what made it richest. As I read Chuang on the happiness of fishes, he is just goofing with his friend strolling around by the river. He isnt making a logical error.

Well, I don't actually know if he ever tried to plant a tree there. But, Predictions are often not reliable , and one needs to keep that in mind esp. as relates to 'after death' events. and , I'm not so sure the abundance of facts nowadays, is going to cut the population in half,.... but understand the point he is driving at. That life without a spiritual component may not offer sufficient reason , in and of itself, to support itself, on cold fact alone. I have found his discussions interesting before , but , his thing is 'a whole nother can of worms'. He continued , that it was fear of ones mortality , which would naturally bestow a sense of enthusiasm to ones life,,which might or might not be 'the ticket' or the only 'ticket'.

I was told we were going to all have flying cars by now.

No , what happens, is not a matter of belief , it is a matter of belief , what will happen.

If you don't do anything in the physical realm to change events , no.

..according to ones nature ,within the constraints imposed.

We will not go quietly into that sweet goodnight..but.. If anything , the quote suggests karma which applies to all.

I forgive you .

Thats not a rule, and its not Taoist per se, and some just don,t want to slide into sneaky oblivion anyway!

Oh. ThanksI lose track ,

I think we all do , ,, but they did a really nice job of packaging and promo

sorry Tt , I dont understand this.

Effort, a cost , is often used to establish value, therefore a thing which is useful , and reduces cost , may be seen to reduce value,, and so the useful might be said to be useless. EX.. Back in the old days , it was hard and expensive , to get a good photo of a flying bird. With the advent of digital cameras, its relatively easy to take a thousand shots at virtually no cost .. so the value of a good bird photo is pretty much nil.

quantification of impact on reward, as determined by the end user , is value.

I've never heard it before, but imagine that it speaks to the ordinary processing one already uses on sights and sounds, in the case of following this advice, sounds exist but are neutral , as are sights. but thats just guessing.

Just fine with me , I'm just in a bit of a mood and I will go too far, too easy, and harry folks I like.