Stosh

Iv'e been told that the "Do to others as you would have done to you, if you were them" goes back to Confucious." Its a pretty good fallback position IMHO

Some clarification may be in order, are you saying the person did spit on you, spit in front of you in threat , spit near you and you had issues with it.. or what? The responses suggested may differ depending on what you are getting at. If the event was insult, you might have a really low tolerance level,or there is a chance you deserve it, (I dont know you). If you are a seething cauldron underneath and all it takes is the 'slightest little thing' to permit you to behave like an animal, then maybe you're in love with the violence. If it was actually a threat of more serious things to come, responding more strongly may be the reasonable thing. But it is always easy to be nice to the nice, that takes little effort or integrity. What takes more integrity ,is to keep your cool under pressure. I see it all the time, one good broadside volley, and dudes dive for the gutter to drink a "bellyful of filthy water". It makes the warm and fuzzy talk look like a sham , whatever their convictions were.. they drop em like hot rocks. That aint everybody though, Ive come to respect those that hold their convictions till they dont have any good options left, other than take the Low road.

Great topic ,, Yeah you did lose your cool. You took the path opposite peace, the warpath. Sure is exhilirating though, but there is a catch, It eats you up too... Ive been ruminating today and I am working out a schema, something along the lines as follows, maybe you can straighten it up and make it sound good.. The internal dialog that a person has inside their mind, about themselves and to themselves , often plays out in the external stage and in the reverse as well. The harsh judgement that I sometimes point at other folks, is the same harsh judgement I impose on myself. And would it not also be fitting that, if I can find in myself a means to be gentler owtwardly, that I could ease up on myself as well. One thing seems clear though, faking it doesnt work.

However, you now appear to change your mind,...now you desire to have a narrow, limited conversation according to your dictionary, of which you have yet offered a year and title of. Perhaps the real problem is that Stosh desires: "Maybe we can meet in the middle on another post." While VMarco is interested in the topic of the thread. Whats up with that dude ? We couldnt agree on either language or point, you felt you had made yourself clear and I felt the same. Points made , subject handled. Additionally ..,I am just getting tired of folks intentionally ,or unintentionally, not "getting" points that seem as obvious as the nose on their face to me, folks whom I think have the wits to manage those points, but choose not to. It is tedious. Furthermore .. I just decided to 'let it go' and try to make nice. Futile and stupid of me I know,,, Stosh

I guess we just disagree, and since you do not wish to confine your use of english to the english definitions of words there is not likely any way for us to bridge the matter and find more common ground. Unfortunate. And no, I certainly dont think Shantideva is is even close to being accurate or right in that quote above for the reasons I mentioned way back in the thread. Maybe we can meet in the middle on another post.

Im distinct therefore I exist I am in turmoil therefore I live

The dictionary is compilation of words derived from speech, and yes many words have multiple meanings. English is a humongous language comprised of somewhere around half a million words terms and phrases,, if in that tentire gamut you can't find any way to describe a wish that is not a wish, then maybe you should reconsider the point you are making. You tried to escape the logic of my point by assuming my word to be "hope' so you could attack it... you still havent defined a 'wish' that does not imply desire or dissatisfaction, because those sentiments are central to wishing. P.S. Bro,suggestion, Lets address one point at a time, otherwise these things turn into a mess. Can you dig it?

German or Indian , Being true to ones self is best. SO be it:)

Agreed, enough for words to bridge.

Its not trolling, it is trying to get my friends to use words true and clear to their meanings. Would you think 'cognitive dullness' as a phrase considered complimentary? To me, the meaning appears quite as clear as saying a person is a "disseminator of half truths". My reduction conveys what it is I believed you said, If I got it wrong you could choose to clarify, if I do not let you know what it is I thought you said, how would you know that further clarification might be helpful.

I suggested the word 'alternative', rather than "plan B" because the term "plan B" ,suggests that the peace you would experience is inferior to "plan A". When european-american settlers were captured by native american "indians" they were often adopted into the tribes to supplement their strength, many found the "new ways" preferable to those they had known and chose to adopt the ways of their captors rather than return to their original people. So the "German CAN become the indian" and peace still could still be found.

If you are going to come up with your own (collective)dictionary of what common words mean , how can you expect to be understood?. If you have jargon which is situationally particular, (it only is used in the context in which you are saying it), like "Bodhisattva" its fine for you to define its meaning within eastern ontosophies,, but words like 'wish' arent in that category. Go ahead an rephrase, if you choose, or leave it as you did, but Do not consider me to have been informed of any truth by saying "it doesnt imply hope and dissatisfaction in this case", just because you just dont want it to." Oh, and since I never heard the word 'tremendum' before ,I looked it up, it's legitimacy as a word is not certain and what meaning it does appear to have is synonymous with the sentiment of 'awe', not 'wishing'.

I have sentiments regardless of whether I consider anyone else in the process. Sentiments are the combination of emotion with thought. Maybe the word would be better as empathy or sympathy? But , I agree, Sure, folks can be stupid and lively at the same time.

To everyoone else "wish" already has definition. wish (wish) Pronunciation: verb 1 [no object] feel or express a strong desire or hope for something that cannot or probably will not happen: 2 a desire or hope for something to happen: the union has reiterated its wish for an agreement and so.. this reads as agreement If you do not think hope is a thing you would choose to express , then pick another word so as to be understood. No, that is not what makes it true, what makes it true is that your will must be in accordance with what you do and therefore one always serves ones self. EX> You could want the whole world to be happy and at peace,, but it doesnt change the fact that it is your own desire to have that situation be.

It has been logically challenged that one does what one does for one's self always. That another can be intermediary beneficiary is besides the point. EX..If I do you a favor, then I wanted that favor done, and did it. Wishing is like praying, it is asking for things to be other than what they actually are.. this expresses dissatisfaction or a lack of acceptance. World happiness is outside of that which I can control,So, no ,it is not a barrier to world happiness unless I am the last man with unhappiness.

Very very interesting post Ill have to read it a few times,before I can ask about it. please! please do not drop into that "I cant explain anything" mode . ......... I consider 'contending without contending' construes in english to making ones argument because one wants things said, and not being desiring of defeat of the other side, that both sides can be , or come to agreement or mutual understanding is better. In that spirit I continue, do you consider that the sense of self resides in the ego?

Reasonable enough. I was looking around over in the Buddhist section and unfortunately came upon some "contrast I wasnt desiring of seeing' mainly in the form of disrespects for the Buddhists I hadnt seen over here, and although I wasn't any part of it I feel ashamed now although I was feeling feisty earlier. I need to do some reconsidering. I wont ever share their beliefs, of that I am pretty sure, it is just a bad fit for me, but I still consider it a very respectable tradition....( Im surprised to find myself so affected...)... Have a nice weekend though.

[quote)Many claims are made on this forum stating the worth of one system, method or teacher over another. How do we choose what is right, what is wrong. Good,bad,true or false. It depends on how you mean your question, The eternal Tao knows no 'good bad true false right or wrong',, they are all subjective.(illusory) If you are asking how one goes about deciding which subjective decisions would be most expedient for them ,then I would suggest that Lao tsu implied or said that mans true nature, his natural impulse ,was the truest determinant of virtue (though still subjective and circular in argument). If you are asking me as a random individual respondent, I would say they are all wrong and I am right:)

I could be considered an anti-theist because I dont believe in Gods, I think that such belief isnt helpful as a general thing, but I have no problem respecting those who do believe in gods. I consider my position to be an open minded one, in that it is accepting and respecting other folks. I do consider it closed minded and insulting to label folks closed minded because they do not believe in gods. I also think it wrong to imply that Taoists who argue arent "doing it right". And as a total of all the above points I consider a person who takes judgemental pot shots at folks and then wont stand and defend their points as having done an unfair thing. Moreover I feel that there is a qualitative difference to say that one does not believe in gods because they see no objective proof of them,, and between those who believe in gods 'proven' subjectively.

One thought really, I dont care for redirections and prefer a person to just say what it is they want known. Maybe thats a common view.

I get your predicament, I saw much the same, and can only speak from my own view... In the 2500 years or so that Tao has been around it has branched and merged and grown and been cut down enough that the result is a rather wide spread of opinions about Tao. Not everyone is being "devious" about their presentation. As I see it, Lao tsu for example, described some virtues he had extrapolated 'natural' man to have. I think he used the literary tool of a "Sage " to be an exemplar of those virtues. A sort of super perfect example. But I dont think he meant it as a 'constant dao'( always correct guide) I think it was a contrarian presentation meant to expand the mindset of his audience,, essentially saying that his 'retro view' of behavior can also be of merit so one should best not be so certain that strength was good and softness bad etc etc.. that it was circumstance which determined which would be expedient. The eternal Tao itself knows no virtue ..the sun shines equally on the wicked and the just.

I am not big on some of Freuds terminolgy etc either , but its the basis of western style understanding of the mind. Additionally, I see folks here using the word ego, which has freudian definition , and wrong usage ,both, in western terminology. Why does , say,, a Buddhist, use the word "EGO" if they are going to run away from Freudian comparison? How would a Buddhist ,or enlightened Taoist, in the field of psychology, speak of the mind ,to a Christian practitioner? By the way, isnt that an Ancient Greek style motif-avatar? Didnt the Greeks picture the mind likened to a charioteer and two horses equating roughly with Freuds tri-partition?

If that is the case, I apologize for that circumstance., Please Don't allow our other paths and views mess inordinately with your pursuit of yours. ...for whatever it is worth.

Where then, by what name, would heart equate to a psychical phenomena in freudian like terms ?

I see a few issues with the precept which you might consider, It would imply that folks in love would tend to actually lose their bad habits... I dont think so! It would imply that folks in already existing rich relationships didnt learn new ones as firmly. I dont think so! and lastly,, There may be things you want to un-learn , but there are probably things you don't want to unlearn.. So even if it was effective (meditation mediated oxytosin dosing)..would it not pose a problem in it's nonselective nature? Suggesting.. Meditate because meditation 'centers' you Love because you love it Learn new, to un-learn old Then you don't have to wonder whether the dude was just trying to sell books or something.