C T

In Buddhism, 'I' is viewed as one extreme, and 'Not I' is viewed as the other extreme. It teaches the path that leads to cessation of clinging to all views. When clinging has been abandoned, even the teachings are abandoned. This is why Buddhism is sometimes called the path-less path. Or in Zen, to walk through the gate-less gate.

Just want to add some thoughts that came up today:

We sensate earth, but where did earth come from? Where does it go? Is there a source where earth essence arise from and return to?

We sensate water, but where did water come from? Where does water go? Is there a source where water essence arise from and return to?

We sensate fire, but where did fire come from? Where does fire go? Is there a source from where fire essence arise from and return to?

We sensate wind, but where did wind come from? Where does wind go? Is there a source from where wind essence arise from and return to?

We sensate the *I*, but where did this *I* come from? Where does the *I* go? Is there a source from where the *I* essence arise from and return to?

One is full, the other is empty. Each dependently arises and ceases, individually, collectively, instantaneously, simultaneously, conditionally.

It is not helpful that there are those who think Buddhists negate the existence of *I*, or that the person exists. Of course we exist. To say or think otherwise is ignoring the understanding of how all things arise and cease. Some may ask if this understanding is important, or relevant? It all depends on the individual's philosophical and spiritual inclinations. For some, the declaration "Know thyself" has deep significance, while for others it can mean "My name is Joe. I exist. I live in a hole. I will die and return to another hole. This is the meaning of my life." Such is the irony of existence.

Have a nice day. Btw, do you know where this *day* came from? hehehe.. Some will say the *day* comes when the sun rises...

I saw that and I want the drive through 30 min. special. He did say on the site that he teaches free of charge. Where did he get that hairdo?

 

ralis

Well, if he teaches free of charge, he must have got the hair done at the Zap Kapow barbershop down the road!

empty, contentment

tripping the light fantastic

ha ha, ha ha, he

ha ha, ha ha, he

he he, he he, he he, ha

still the robin sings..

As long as they have internet, I'm good with it.

An intelligent, self-actualizing person could say something like this, "I am in pain, but pain is different from suffering. Hence I am not suffering".

An intelligent person who has transcended the concept of an independent self to be actualized, could say the exact the same thing, "There is pain, but pain is different from suffering. Hence there is no suffering".

Non-self 101.

May all be wise.

:lol: One would derive more entertainment value from watching The Matrix!! hehehe

It says on the website that he can help one to attain rainbow body in 2 (TWO?) hours! Wow! This claim alone would probably make him his first million; after all, attachment to form is THE big thing of this century!!

Do you think that it is or ever will be actually possible for us to know with 100% certainty what happens after death while we are still alive?

Hello!

What an interesting question you have put forth here thuscomeone. It is not an easy task to attempt an answer, and it may very well be the subject of much ridicule should someone come forward to proclaim that they know the answer for certain.

At best, i think we can only speculate and contemplate on this up to a point, and then find that the final piece of the jigsaw cannot be found while we are still alive. Please understand that i am speaking from the relative here, since there will be those who would point out that at the absolute level, there is no death, but that is a different matter altogether.

I believe there is a reverence for elders of all the great traditions and faiths who have gained immense insight into this subject, and some have forwarded texts that offers very precise details on what takes place after death (and the final hours prior to this is also covered), and the two that springs to mind are the Egyptian Book of the Dead and the Tibetan Book of the Dead. These two volumes can be an interesting read if one seriously want to get a feel for the subject. Whether they can be regarded as authoritative or not is left entirely to the discretion of the reader, of course.

Having met and spoken to a few of these elders myself regarding this question, i can report that their conviction about knowing exactly what happens after death is pretty steadfast, and these same elders have presided over the final transitional phases of many dying people, so they would be deeply venerated in their respective communities.

I have attended a few Taoist funerals where ceremonial prayers are made by Taoist priests for the deceased, and this can last anywhere from one to three days, depending on how affluent the family of the deceased is! The services of these priests do come at quite a price i must say.

Here the priests would chant/pray ceaselessly (no breaks over the 1 to 3 days ceremony - there are usually 3 priests at every funeral, and they take turns to do the prayers) for the smooth transition from death to purgatory to rebirth, and would make offerings to The Keeper of the Underworld and his death-escorts, or henchmen, to ask them to look favorably on the deceased and not to exact any punishment on him/her for transgressions made, and to escort the soul towards an auspicious rebirth.

This is how its done in most Asian Chinese Taoist communities, so i just wanted to share this with you all on this thread. I know it does not address the question directly, but its slightly related i think. Hope some of you would have found this a little interesting...

Thank you for reading.

Well, I hate to weigh in here, but I think part of the issue here may be that V does come across as very evangelical, and many discussions devolve into the finest points of advanced Buddhist doctrine or dahrma, or whatever. It seems like an Buddhist Blitzkrieg because V posts about Buddhism an astounding amount... over 500 posts in October alone, and his pace is increasing. That to me seems pretty extreme, and amounts to someone establishing a platform to dish out his way, frequently putting down all other ways as less than Vajrayana Buddhism. Apparently there's a few people that enjoy his take on things, but it's beyond me why he doesn't start his own personal practice section, write some articles for this site or spread his knowledge among several other sites.

 

CowTao, I do not find TJL's comment "naaasty" in the least. V joined the end of May and has posted nearly 2,000 times in 5 months, almost all the posts touting the superiority of his way and guru over all others. If you go back and look at some of the threads from this summer, and the more recent posts, V claims to enjoy "discussion" and to be totally "detached" and above it all, yet regularly gets into arguments with many people and has some pretty pissy retorts. (Including one nasty reply to me that first soured me on the guy and his Buddhist campaign).Then he retreats and whines about how everyone is picking on him, trashing his gurus (like he didn't just trash Krishnamurti?) and claims that people are "following" him to give him a hard time. Well, if he's omnipresent on this site and pushes his agenda constantly, he should expect some opposition.

 

Sure, it's his right to be here and talk about Buddhism, but his derailing nearly every thread he posts on to another Buddhist discussion is obnoxious behavior and we also have the right to call him on his stuff and give him a hard time for preaching on this forum.

 

Happy Trails! ying yang swing swang don't mean a thing thang...

 

Songs

Hey there Songs!

The figures you presented does seem pretty weighty and naturally one can feel overwhelmed by V's seemingly dominant presence here, there and everywhere . I have no problems at all seeing his name pop up in all the right/wrong places, and if some of the things he say does not *resonate* with me, i just let it go, with the thought that it may perhaps resonate for someone else, and if it does, then his enthusiastic posts would have served some purpose.

Even though i do not know V personally, i believe i know enough to understand why he is such a *defender* of his teacher/teachings. If you have gone through the life/spiritual experiences of what V has gone through, you would probably not be here to tell the tale (trust me - i think i am quite sure of this). So from a wider perspective, i am glad that he is here, and here in a constructive sense, well, almost always anyways. I am sure we all have differing life stories, and looking at it from this angle, its really a blessing on TB because it makes it so much more interesting, do you agree?

As for the 2 Ks (UG and J) - i personally think we have much to learn from them, especially J, imo. If there is one book that is close to discoursing the relative human condition, i think *The Awakening of Intelligence* would be IT!

Thanks anyway for giving voice to your feelings. It is all good in the end...

Regards.

Greetings..

 

Hi CowTao: Thanks for the thoughtful reply.. it is my turn to apologize, and i do.. the 'jabs' you refer to are intended to incite a different perspective, not unlike the whack of the Zen stick.. Buddha, as a marketing genius, is simply an alternative perspective, one that should be included with any serious evaluation of the practical application of the teachings.. When appropriate, i will scrutinize Tao in the same 'nasty' manner.. i.e.: religious Taoism is a contradiction unto itself.. As for the forum, i appreciate deeply the contributions of those with curious intentions, regardless of their belief systems, but.. proselytizing in a forum like this is contrary to spirit of the forum.. and, a little embarassing to observe..

 

So, i apologize for being insensitive.. i very much appreciate my Buddhist brothers and sisters, i only caution them that 'programming' is a subtle process, be vigilant lest the Kool-Ade taste funny..

 

Be well..

Me thinks we can be friends TJL! You have humbled me with this appropriately gentle response. Whoever said water is stronger than the hardest rock is spot on! No doubt at all!

Thank you sincerely sir.

Have a good day..

Greetings..

 

Hi CowTao: Is it really 'nasty'? It's my opinion.. just like 'nasty' is your opinion, and.. at least V was able to detach emotion and respond appropriately, a quality i greatly admire..

 

Now, suppose Buddha never happened.. Consider the the numerous references in different belief systems to the 'child-like' qualities necessary for 'realization'.. the child doesn't create fantastical mind-scapes and Dharma Wheels or Yins and Yangs.. the child sees what 'is' and interacts according to its nature.

 

Buddha comes along, has some amazing 'insight', and.. convinces people they are suffering.. even if they aren't, they just don't know it.. so, the Buddha will teach them how to understand they are suffereing, then.. he will teach them to understand how to end suffering.. Marketing 101.

 

It bears noting, i am not a 'Taoist'.. i tend to avoid labels, they are a bit too confining.. i find deep resonance in the core philosophical concepts of Taoist understandings.. but, that doesn't 'define me'.. i have tested the core philosophy, found it to be without verifiable contradiction, and.. i continue to test it, i am eager to experience 'truth'.. so far, no contradictions to the understanding i have experienced from Taoist Philosophy are sufficiently compelling to inspire revisions.. but, show me the error in my understandings and i will revise without hesitation

 

Suffering, is the condition where unfulfilled desire is believed to diminish the idea you believe is 'You'.. i want it, if i don't get it i will not be the 'me' i want to be.. pain fits nicely into this concept, i suffer physically and people pay attention to me, if the pain goes away people will no longer pay attention to 'me', so.. i will 'suffer', the pain will serve me and my desires.. as pointed out previously, "pain is inevitable, suffering is optional"..

 

Be well..

Hello TJL,

Thank you for the response. Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's here. This is an open forum.

'Nasty' was used in reference to your misguided attempt to disqualify V's post by inferring that this is an exclusive forum for those who profess Taoism, which i am sure you are well aware by now that it was a misperception. It was not an emotional statement - it is a statement, nonetheless - if you feel undermined in the slightest by it, and make this known, i will apologize. If not, then an apology would not be necessary.

Its good to know you are beyond labels, something which you have made clear from the beginning. My curiosity is if you were truly such, why the jabs at Buddhism? I am not defending Buddhism as such, as i am not worthy to be its crusader. I am struggling with this understanding mainly because i have seen much sense in most of your other posts, and have acknowledged that to you more than once, i believe.

Your portrayal above of the Buddha and his probable motive for having presented the Dharma is an example of a 'jab'. I can understand where you are coming from, but i am sure there could be wiser means to forward your message. This frequent allusion to the possible basic flaw of Buddha/Buddhism/Buddhists i believe, may be a result of some preconceived notions you may have about its philosophy (which may be justified given your personal experiences), and if so, i am sure there are a few learned individuals here on TB who would be only too happy to address your sincere questions, should you have any. If this is a mistaken assumption, then it may be that you do not wish to harmonize with Buddhists, which of course, is your personal right too, and naturally these rights are not to be denied, but bear in mind others too, have this privilege. However, if its just a question of resonance, then that makes everyone here a happy camper, yes? Each resonates to a different tune, and together, there is music!! Why not?

There is absolutely no necessity to equate Buddha as a Bill Gates of Buddhism. This is not helpful at all. And if some guy makes similar remarks at the great Taoist sages, i will say the same to them. Not that it matters what i say, but to keep quiet is to deny common courtesy, which i am sure could be practically applied here.

Regards sir.

Greetings..

The thing is... you seem to believe that everyone else is concerned with the Buddhist teachings, it is not so.. what Buddhists fail to realize is that it is Buddha that is the source of their suffering.. Please notice that this is a Taoist forum, and those claiming to be Taoists are here, not in a Buddhist Forum telling the Buddhists what is not right about their beliefs.. that seems a bit 'evangelistic', eh?

 

Be well..

TJL - this comment is naaaasty! Pardon my directness. You have just lost all your brownie points!! Why nasty? Read V's reply - its pretty clear.

I agree.

I disagree.

Can you elaborate? What is your complaint, more specifically? Can you explain a situation where there could be harm caused by the last paragraph?

 

In any case, what I say is not dogma. It's just my opinion.

It was not a complaint. Just an observation, or more accurately, an opinion.

Ahahaha... oh you guys...!!

Just being a kid V...just being a kid, waiting for Santa's Clause!

Peace & Love!

...the reality of fullness which is full of emptiness!

In Buddhism, 'I' is viewed as one extreme, and 'Not I' is viewed as the other extreme. It teaches the path that leads to cessation of clinging to all views. When clinging has been abandoned, even the teachings are abandoned. This is why Buddhism is sometimes called the path-less path. Or in Zen, to walk through the gate-less gate.

Hehehe. I'm sorry, I can't help myself.

 

... or like graping at emptiness.

 

Peace & Love!

...only to get bitten in the backside!

Or like... shadow boxing, with yourself, in the dark.

...or grasping at rainbows!

the teachings of Shakyamuni were indeed about suffering and liberation, the goal being Arhat. but that s not the highest goal, and indeed it is known by Theravadins that Buddhahood is a vastly different goal than Arhat. Enlightenment is not the same as liberation. A Buddha is like a really powerful super hero. I know it sounds cheesy. and I apologize for my lack of eloquence in metaphors but in essence, that's what a Buddha is. Buddhahood = total omniscience, and having the power to help anyone by manifesting in whatever form is best. An Arhat no longer suffers but still has defilements, does not have omniscience, and does not have the means to help other beings.

 

the Rainbow body is the highest goal of Dzogchen, now technically someone who rests in Rigpa constantly does not suffer at all, and thus is liberated... but still practices to attain Rainbow Body because this is practically having infinite power of manifestation to help all beings.

 

V- correct me if i'm wrong

There is no highest goal in the practice of Dzogchen, just like there is no ceiling to realization.

The deeper practices of Mahamudra, Madhyamika and Dzogchen denounces "grasping" at any concepts and *signs*. If there were anything to be held on to, no matter how subtle, that is still 'form'. Hence there is no 'highest' attainment. This is mind-play. That is why the Buddha is called One Who Is Neither Coming nor Going, and the reason He is thus known is because He has shown the way to transcendent insight, the clear seeing of the illusion of opposing realities.

It is not helpful to think there is any ultimate realization. This would be like one who is unwilling to dislodge the raft from one's back after crossing the river, always on the lookout for the next bigger river where the raft could come in useful again. The practice of these paths negates such a mentality.

In the words of one writer, "Illumination is the discovery of the reality existing beneath appearances, and s/he who is enlightened will be aware of the place which s/he, in fact, occupies in this reality. That suffices; s/he will cease to be the dupe of a mirage - ceasing to create it, the chains will have been broken, and there is liberation".

Too bad. Mike is wrong. The reason he is wrong is that nothing ever enters into an extreme of any kind. For example, a fool is not extremely foolish -- had this been the case, there'd be no hope for wisdom. A sick person is not in the extreme of sickness -- had this been the case, there'd be no hope for healing. A wise person is not in the extreme of wisdom -- had this been the case, vigilance would no longer be necessary. A Buddha is not in the extreme of Buddhahood -- had this been the case, there would be no people like Vimalakirti.

 

You see, when we appear to be out of control, we are never totally out of control. Conversely when we appear in control, we are never totally in control.

 

Why not? Because to claim that some or other condition has gained totality is to denounce hidden unmanifest potential. It also amounts to claiming that identity (which you would need to rely on to identify the condition) is stable and substantial.

Man you are some word player you know that?

*I agree with your comment here, but i cannot totally agree - you know why? Because there is no totality in what you are pointing out. Neither this or that, neither here or there. Hence your assertions(?) are meaningless.

The last paragraph, for example - it appears like a *total* statement of fact, yet the earlier paras you reject totality.

Hello??

Buddhism is not about suffering? What the hell kind of buddhism have you been studying? I don't know about you but I've been studying the buddhism whose founder said "I teach one thing and one thing only: the end of suffering." Yes ok not every aspect of it is about suffering but it is pretty damn important and overcoming it is in fact the goal of the entire practice. Well omniscience too I guess. Compassion comes when one has abandoned the causes of suffering.

Well if you have never studied his teachings yourself, your criticisms are meaningless. period. You are operating completely on hearsay. You consistently ignore the understandings of his that I have laid out in this thread and the fact that they directly coincide with buddhist understandings but are just phrased in different ways.

 

And again I ask you, as you have still not answered this, what is buddhahood if not ending suffering?

 

 

 

 

 

Hey RR thank you for highlighting the comment i made regarding Buddhism being MORE than a path that emphasizes ONLY suffering. My comment was pretty clear btw, and so was yours. You said the Buddha said that He taught only one thing - The way OUT OF SUFFERING. He did not say that He taught a way INTO UNDERSTANDING SUFFERING. Hence i said the emphasis ought to be on the way out of suffering thru the cultivation of loving kindness, compassion and equanimity, and then you asked me 'What the hell kind of Buddhism have you been studying?'

I dont know, RR - you tell me.

Anyway, you are partly right. In some ways I never studied Buddhism... sometimes it feels like Buddhism is studying who *me* is.

Bee good.

Greetings everyone! Much have been learnt here, so thank you all for the questions and thoughts. Just want to include here an excerpt from *Rainbow Painting* (Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche) which i believe will further the understanding of liberation and mind essence to a small degree:

"Finally, the third analogy of the liberation of thoughts is described as being like a thief entering an empty house. This is called stability or perfection in training. A thief entering an empty house does not gain anything, and the house does not lose anything. All thought activity is naturally liberated without any harm or benefit whatsoever. That is the meaning of gaining confidence in liberation.

There is also what is called the four modes of liberation: self-liberated, liberated upon arising, directly liberated and primordially liberated. These are not exactly a direct sequence, but are more like different aspects or modes of how liberation is. For example, the fourth one, primordially free, refers to the awakened state of rigpa, that which is already free, it does not need (effort) to be liberated. Thats the idea. One of the lines in the 'Three Words to Strike the Vital Point' says: By recognizing dharmakaya in what is liberated, as in the analogy of drawing on water, there is unceasing self-occurring self-liberation.

'Primordially freed' means a state that does not have to be re-freed, because it is already free. With 'directly freed', 'directly' has the connotation of immediacy, meaning instantaneously. 'Naturally freed' means without an entity that needs freeing; there is no thing or essence or identity that needs to be liberated. Seeing this, it is naturally freed. 'Self-freed' means without even the need for a remedy. 'Freed upon arising' refers to thoughts that dissolve the moment you recognize the awakened state.

We could view these different types of liberation as a sequence of increasing subtlety. From another point of view, these are merely different modes, different expressions of the same face. Primordial liberation refers to the awakened state, but if you are talking about the dualistic mind, it is not primordially freed. It needs to be liberated. The moment of dualistic (arising) mind needs to be dissolved, purified. (I think he means purifying the clinging to, and aversion of - the illusion of separateness). The fully awakened state is not like this; it is already purified and fully perfected, so it does not need further perfection.

When a reflection appears in a mirror, you do not have to imagine it is there; it is vividly perceived. In the same way, you do not have to imagine basic wakefulness - it is naturally present. When a master perform the empowerment of enlightened mind, conferring the empowerment of non-dual wakefulness to your dualistic mind, your thought activity (at that moment) is seen as 'self-arising self-liberation'. All thought activity occurs as the expression of of awareness. By recognizing its source, it dissolves back into the state of awareness itself.

Thoughts occur as an expression of your essence, and not from anywhere else. They do not arise from the 5 elements, the 5 sense organs, from flesh, blood, temperature, the heat or breath of your body - not at all. Once you recognize your essence to be primordially pure, the thoughts that arise from yourself dissolve back into yourself, within the expanse of your own nature. They do not go anywhere else. This is what is meant by self-arising self-liberation. If you do not recognize your own essence, then what arises from yourself does not dissolve back within yourself. Rather than being liberated (instantaneously), it goes astray into the six realms of samsara.

This is really the key point here. The thinking of dualistic mind arises or takes place as the expression of [unrecognized] awareness. Once you recognize this basic awareness, the display of thoughts loses all power and simply dissolves into the expanse of buddha-nature. This is the reason to recognize mind essence.

(So what is mind essence?) Where does a thought come from? It occurs only as the display of your nature; it does not come from any other source. Look into this matter for a billion years, and you will never see a thought arise out of earth, water, fire or wind. Or out of a body - after all, even a corpse has flesh. There are cavities in the body, blood, heat and so forth, but these components do not give rise to thoughts. Neither do thoughts arise from the objects perceived, whether they be visual forms, sounds, smells, tastes or textures. We have the 5 sense objects, and our body's 5 senses acting as go-betweens. A corpse has sense organs - it has eyes, but it does not see, has ears, but does not hear, has tongue, but does not taste, has nose, but does not smell. It has a body, but it does not feel. A corpse notices nothing. So, can't we conclude that the basis for every experience is our own minds? Isnt it only mind which knows?

That which knows, is in essence, empty. It is cognizant by nature, and its capacity is unconfined. Try to see this for yourself and understand that this is how your mind essence is. Thoughts arise from yourself and dissolve into yourself; they do not arise from yourself and dissolve somewhere else. (Unless the mind functions dualistically). So, what is recognized, when we say 'recognize'? It means seeing that the nature of mind is unconfined(infinite) empty cognizance. This is the real condition, the natural state of the three 'kayas'.

Realize this to be the real condition of things as they actually are, not just how they seem. The seeming way is created by our normal, rigid and fixating thoughts. Recognize the real state, and this seeming way vanishes. These are the two aspects: the real and the seeming, the ultimate and the relative. The real is your essence; the seeming is your thoughts. Once you stabilize recognition of the real state, the seeming way vanishes without a trace. It collapses, dissolves, completely vanishes. This is what training the mind is all about".

Hope this can be helpful in some way.

Regards.

Searching for this Single Underlying Substance is now one of the biggest scientific endeavors happening in the 21st century, at the Large Hadron Collider (CERN). It is called the "God Particle" and it's a predicted part of the physics Theory of Everything. The God Particle is a particle that decays very quickly and in the process transmutes into the other sub atomic particles that give rise to the universe as we know it.

 

Experiments are underway at the CERN particle accelerator to finally detect this God Particle (Higgs boson particle).

 

SEE At the Heart of All Matter -- The Hunt for the God Particle

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/...chenbach-text/1

 

The Dalai Lama once said that if scientific findings contradict Buddhist findings then Buddhist fingdings should be abandoned for the scientific findings. I think its time for Buddhism to get out of the physics business. The Buddha (hopefully) had something other in mind when he saw human suffering then a simple physics lesson.

My humor is usually kept in check, in that if i read something funny, i would have a private laugh and that would be it, but i'm sorry to say this last paragraph about the DL and Buddhism/physics and Buddha's motive really amused me and deserved a mention here!

Some sense of humor this guy has!!

Greetings..

Hi Marblehead: Your Clarity shines crystal clear.. concise and consistent with the 'way' things are.. if i could make a humble suggestion, that the 'singularity' is only identifiable or referencable against a background of what is 'not' the singularity.. it has been my experience that this is the Original state of ..... well, i don't what to call it, i just don't know.. no word or phrase seems adequate.. but, the ground state of 'it', is the condition of ISness (singularity) and IS NOTness (Void).. the Prime Duality. I know this flies in the face of many people's preference for 'non-duality', but.. 'it works'. non-duality doesn't 'work'. I generally believe that people use 'non-duality' where 'Undifferentiated Whole' seems more appropriate.. Undifferentiated Whole represents the fully integrated Unity of all manifestations.. The Hindus understood this condition as the 'Prime Vibration' of Energy, Om or Aum.. a single direct experience of Om or Aum, is a thousand times more appropriate that every word spoken thereafter trying to describe it.. or, a practical analogy is how music is only 'music' as a relationship between sound and silence.. we/us/life are the music, the relationship between 'sound and silence', ISness and IS NOTness...

 

Be well..

Hello TJL,

When the river looks up at all the bridges while flowing gently downstream, the river sees the moving bridges.

When the bridges look down at the same gentle, flowing river, its the river that's moving.

When you say Non-Duality does not *work*, it brings up the question whether you are viewing Non-Duality from the perspective of a *bridge* or a *river*?

I suggest here that ND is not some super-mystical state of realization, or a secret formula adepts use to reach some state, or attain some union with the Nondescript (or the Nameless, or whatever one wants to un-call IT).

One of the ways ND is used in Buddhism is to describe a state of awareness where one no longer struggle with the view of separateness, of extreme individuality, and a false sense of what is * I * (and all that resides in this * I *) and the the world outside, which is not * I *. It is a practical description i think, and nothing more.

So it can work in the way its meant to work, which is as mentioned above. It will, however, cease to work if one misappropriate its significance, or insignificance, depending on whether one is the bridge or the river.

Happy weekend TJL, and thanks for all the sparkling comments. Most interesting perspectives you have. 5* wisdom!

Regards.