Stosh

It might be nice to know what my true nature is. Different formulas for figuring that out get presented, and the existance of this true nature is proclaimed or suggested. But I am not at all unsure that my true nature largely depends on the circumstances I find myself in. I think the buddhists might say I dont have a true nature, or that its some sort of vague principle that I dont really get. Or my true nature could be be the personality I locked in on as a kid. Or some sort of secret subconscius origin. Dunno. The other possibility is that humans have instinct as animals do, but the big brain diverts us from that simple solution ,, though personally ,I think its a mutually exclusive situation.. instint was traded for the ability to adapt and abstract.

In either perspective , one never really knows the ultimate ramifications of our actions , nor all the causes for them. Whether you can be said to have responsibility for the death of the snake, birds ,dog , is debatable . The non-dual valuation , which you do know , didn't weigh as heavily as your concern for the dog, self , wife and birds. You chose what you ultimately considered the greatest- summed up -virtue to be. So really all there is to consider, is something which all must wrestle with, who are interested in this non-duality idea. And that is , when push comes to shove , do you kill the snakes or leave them alone. Since we live as people , and have the corporeal world to deal with , I think we can justify taking action. Those actions, literally, are our existence. You can't know if killing the snake , or feeding the birds , would ultimately be bad and while non-duality and non-action can potentially enhance our rapport with the world , mitigate problems , its not a perspective that people can really live up to totally , and remain. The most devout Jain , still begrudges the worms his flesh. Give yourself a break.

Having the choice to call everyone else, or ones self , the idiot ,, whichever one chooses will be correct.

I am not here contradicting anyone else's answer about ' intent ', but its my opinion that instead of looking at the word first , to decide what is being discussed as 'unnatural' , it makes equal sense to consider the unnatural choices one makes, including breathing habits , and have these be the intended unnatural things to be avoided . I'll explain a little to clarify what I am trying to suggest ,, if its helpful, .,, 1) I could describe a book , and you could append the word "book" , or if I described a newspaper , you could supply the name 'newspaper' , pamphlet etc, any of a number of things really , but you would not likely consider the thing described to be an orange. So when you see the word intent , I figure that you must investigate, to see if the things you are considering to be things are representative of the 'intent' being spoken of. So what might intended breathing be ?? possibly ,hyperventilation , speech , lies , fabricated emphasis , manipulation , pleading etc and so forth.

... according to ancient astronaut theorists, who are obviously on LSD.

FH hit this one on the head , yet again. .... but it is still possible to go the one step farther ,and blatantly clarify ,,though , admittedly ,it may do no good in the end.

No, the idea was already propounded by others , that the head of a dragon was depicting a hog's head , sometimes with the nose of a dog , antlers of a deer , even the barbels of a catfish, or carp. I like the fish ones I've seen. I'm just showing that the muzzle of a wild river hog is quite long enough to explain dragon portraits without requiring crocs to supply the long face.

I accept that modification.

Its an impression I have, that the legalist reading of taoist canon hinges on this very thing, that virtue either ,has a selfish core , or self interest leads to mostly the same conclusions or results , as public interest does. ( with a more genuine-uncarved foundation ) . Natural creatures , animals , operate out of instinct for self preservation, and so humans following the tao of nature , would also be. The paradigm that only some priestly caste can serve as the masters of , or teachers of virtue, is challenged. This pervasive idea that morality must be delineated and inculcated , from the hand of other men , relies on the idea that individuals are un-enlightened whilst society or a god IS.

Could you explain, its a play on his name? What was his contribution to society? ( I want credit for steamed blue crabs, though ,if no one took credit for that yet. ,, absolutely a marvelous feast food. )

While I put no stock whatever in Phds , they need to defend their conclusions like everyone else,, There's an eternal problem with any kind of rational conclusions, ,, one starts with unbiased factual data , and then, extrapolates something they consider equally factual and un-spun, but , people can put whatever meaning they want to on something ambiguous. Horses heads don't have antlers , and snakes don't have legs. Rainbows don't have scales , and the Cardinal directions don't need animals to defend them. Heres my hoghead model . It has a forehead , like starjumper envisioned, a long snout , formidable teeth , and theyre actually pretty intelligent , while being both dangerous and fortuitous, and creatures of mud.

Wikipedia, describes longwang ,, like a subject ,considering the four cardinal directions as dragons. It doesnt mention snakes. First millenium being hundreds of years after Lao , and many more since the origin of all Taoist lore, again snakes arent indicated as being dragons origin either. So I dont know what you are getting at.

I dont claim it, and am not, It doesnt prove anything. And anyway, thats just an opinion as stated theres no logic presented as endorsing this opinion, I offer, a refutation. A cop who says he is a cop , is. Moreover, Jesus, Ghandi, Confucius, Gotama, and others all took it upon themselves to teach others ,that which they felt they were qualified to say. Doing so, they labeled themselves. So ,, I think the rational conclusion is that ,whoever originally coined that idea, which I have heard before, was wrong. Dont copy wrong people.

This reads as a bit cynical. I dont know the reason for that. If what the man said enriched people ,,the sarcasm is misplaced, Imo, How would You define the, or a, true prophet? And would you be able to apprehend whether a person revealed truth in anything other than his words, considered in the context of your own understanding? To illustrate , If I parroted the words of your true prophet would the light be hidden from you? Or would you call me a fool. If so then theres no hope that you will know who to heed. Either you recognize the validity of that which you are not already thinking, or the only candidate you will have to learn from, will be yourself. You should examine in fine detail the reason why you made that commment ,and whether it makes you look sarcastic, because if you really dig to understand your own motivations you may be surprised, maybe favorably.

I suppose a middle ground is to say 'everything' and 'nothing' equate , so its a matter of view. I think its conventionally/grammatically easier to say that 'everything' does exist , and that love which exists , actually exists unquestionably, whether its generated by humans or the stars.

Nice quote seems perfectly clear and cogent to me, I'm wondering what ? is thought to somehow invalidate this Author...

The alignment with perfect truth, is a thing which one can say should hold precedence. Perfect truth is Certain. Yes? But we could also say that our certainty even about our uncertainty because the truth is independent of it , and we just might be right and not know it. No ?

The one who's perception of reality reflects the truth with the least distortion. ( presuming, " take precedence" means considering A thing to be, most true)

The work is being done by cows now.

This eloquent passage attempts to describe what we lose by pursuing conventional virtue, the sage here isn't the sage we think of as being ZZ or LZ , these sages are their brothers , these should be called 'great men of conventional knowledge' or something like that. To make this modern , we might consider oh,, Neil deGrasse Tyson/ Quotes of his.. The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. Curious that we spend more time congratulating people who have succeeded than encouraging people who have not. We are part of this universe; we are in this universe, but perhaps more important than both of those facts, is that the universe is in us. While the ideas still have brain behind them, the values are subtly different from Zz and LZ . The modern world becomes ever more elaborate , dynamic , incredible ,, and yet more and more complicated, relentless, un-graspable. The reason why Central Park In New York was built, was not just to raise property values but to provide escape from the environment we were- even then -creating. I'm from New York , ,and I sometimes miss it ,, but you might also understand why, I often would not , and This, is the paradox of "the sages of conventional wisdom'. .

Foods like eggs, do affect body odor , as do pheromones and testosterone, then again , people might perpetuate ideas about other races and dietary habits, as being inferior, for other reason other than fact.

Evidence suggests they were smart, strong ,lean, with healthy teeth, auburn hair, and big tits. The disheveled look is probably an artists concession to the ego of outclassed sapiens women.

Dude, that's going way way back , with European rhinos? Actually the subject has brought me to be considering some other things from that other thread, because ,some my folks come from , potentially , the homeland of either the Yamana or corded ware culture, and what is said of that , is ... very little ,, other than PIE culture had a sky god ,and an affinity for axes. Off the cuff , I am thinking , The Romans brought complex civilization to western Europe , ( this changes human dynamics , in both good and bad ways , ) initially pagan , by 185 AD or so, Rome and Christianity were already in France though Constantine hadn't made it his thing yet ( 325 ad) . If this is accurate , then Europeans were already adopting this new religion on their own, before Rome became its Patron through its church , and it will be difficult to discern what the uncontaminated spiritual context was. One might start thinking about the Celts and the Druid thing, but my ancestors largely displaced the Celts in antiquity in North Eastern Europe. So I would be wanting to be informed about the beliefs of the Yamana or the Corded ware folks , or the Vikings. Sorry thats all jumbled , I am not clear on much here.. but The Vikings weren't above killing Dragons, so I am thinking that the Roman Church would not be the instigator of demonizing the dragon, nor was it the civilizer of western Europe, and even pagans are fine with institutional crucifixion or defining good vs evil. "In Norse mythology, Níðhöggr (Malice Striker, traditionally also spelled Níðhǫggr, often anglicized Nidhogg[1]) is a dragon/serpent who gnaws at a root of the world tree, Yggdrasil. In historical Viking society, níð was a term for a social stigma implying the loss of honor and the status of a villain. Thus, its name might refer to its role as a horrific monster or in its action of chewing the corpses of the inhabitants of Náströnd: those guilty of murder, adultery, and oath-breaking, which Norse society considered among the worst possible crimes."

I just noticed I have no idea what the indigenous spirituality of Europe ..would have been. I would need to know what that was to compare, I am just supposing that the nature of people is what dictates the nature of the religion, , more so, than the reverse? And so the Chinese dragon is what people made of that archetype , and the European dragon is what Europeans made of it. I refrain from comment on the plague though. "“Nero punished a race of men who were hated for their evil practices. These men were called Christians. He got a number of people to confess. On their evidence a number of Christians were convicted and put to death with dreadful cruelty. Some were covered with the skins of wild beasts and left to be eaten by dogs. Others were nailed to the cross. Many were burned alive and set on fire to serve as torches at night.”Tacitus

I was going for the kindler gentler magical thing rather than the angry fire belching ,,, though salamanders were indeed considered magical fire creatures in some cultures. You do some art , post something of it ... but not a butterfly