Stosh

Just now, C T said:

Except that there will always be jesters who seem to take delight and comfort in causing rifts. 

 

Well, yeah   

17 hours ago, Phoenix3 said:

Personally, as a Daoist, I don't think desire is a problem. It's your unconscious trying to signal that there is an inbalance in the body. Also, I do believe there is such thing as the self, while Buddhism believes it is an illusion. But that's just my opinion. I have nothing that i'm certain Buddhism is incorrect about. Though I hope there is, because the Buddhist concept of Nirvana/Nibbana and enlightenment sounds awful.

 

Daoism and Buddhism have coexisted in China for a very long time, with notable Daoists disagreeing with Buddhism. I would like to know what about Buddhism they disagreed about.

The answer you would get is going to depend on a variety of factors ,

Buddhism is big , and Daoism has branches which are not always harmonious.

There is a desire not to offend or invalidate.

And negative arguments , tend to draw negative reactions. 

Obviously,  Buddhists don't think their end game sounds horrible , so one would have to come to understand the reasons why it is described , as it is. 

that being said. The two families of belief ,can coexist pretty easily.

5 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, nihilism, spiritualism, satanism, communism, intellectualism, and all the rest of conceptual systems are all good for certain people at certain times.

The point is they are all like castor oil.

Don't get addicted to it.

No they aren't c'mon satanism ,,, um no ,, communism ,, um no.

You can follow any of these time to time , or you can lead , (lead , by searching your soul , verifying what works , considering what has been said , seriously ,, and then steadfastedly holding on to that light you have found) .

Beyond bliss, there is a maintainable state of quietude , you can live it in small doses or in big ones , but regardless of that condiment , you still have a role to play , the essential human question , is  'What do I do now?', not How long can I sit in lotus position?  

3 hours ago, Gunther said:

To be truly individual you have to give up your individuality. To be free means responsibility, authenticity, integrity.

Like a leaf blowing in the wind same time an immovable mountain.

Can it be said in simpler terms? Maybe to understand one has to throw out that confused entangled heap of spaghetti-knowledge😀

It's all in the mind. You only need a bottle of castor oil on the shelf and never suffer from constipation again. Since you never use it, over time you forget about it. Peace

You sure you're a Buddhist ?, not a Taoist ,? that irony looks very familiar. 

Yes it can and should be said in 'simpler terms' , simpler terms,  being the ones,  that are accurate and particular to the message you are sending me. 

The knowledge they wanted us to ,, obviate ,, was the phony facade that they had to live with, in rapidly urbanizing China , the 'Honor code' , the insincere hierarchy of sucking up, and the rigmarole of  public ' face' . Things like 'actual respect' were becoming submerged in a pool of fake rituals. The 'knowledge to discard' was ones insincere persona and gets mislabeled as ego regularly. Ego is not a Chinese or Pali word in any language  , is not old , and actually has a particular definition.  

I don't need the castor oil if I eat correctly , which is for me,  less bread and wheat products , though I get the idea that having a safety backup seems to obviate itself. I know folks with hurricane generators purchased back a few years ago after some storms , which aside from maintenance , never have been turned on since. One pays a price for the idea of safety and security , which may or may not exceed the cost of an unprotected loss. 

Its not a no brainer, take your patriotism, thats not a pursuit of happiness, and even if manipulated, its still voluntary. Youve mixed in peace with happiness this time.

If you have eschewed your neighbors , then personally , your situation has not been to live in tight proximity with them.

You cant say human nature is perverted , till you define what it is , show that its the best candidate for describing human nature.

Anarchists live under an umbrella of safety provided by a govt. Failed states are not desirable.

8 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Of course you are right.

The great and very important art of making a sandwich, passed down through many generations, I will never know. But restraint and generosity I discovered ready made after throwing off the shackles of a excessive greedy society

You have never made a sandwich? !!

True , restraint and generosity can appear to be in short supply ,in a society such as mine. However , there have been times when it was on abundant display as well.  I look at it this way , , walking beneath a tall cypress, I might look up and see the branches waving gracefully in the wind. Down by me , there may be 'nothing to write home about'. SO,  when considering these trees , I have to decide whether they are things of grace , or obstructions, or both at the same time. 

I have spent many years being somewhat of a misanthrope, disliking what I see most of the time ,of people , when what I wanted to see was the grace that folks can show. I have been harsh on society , down on capitalism etc. It is still really easy for me to drop back to that view, thinking like the 'realist', but I would rather be emphasizing the good. 

It is People who have given rise to all the stories, music ,  art , culture , humor and creativity we see..so while gentleness and warmth may not be humanities strong suit, there is other stuff. 

I saw you said that happiness was the goal , I think you are referring to Buddhist practice , and that may be entirely true, but much of life has very little to do with that pursuit when you take a close look , and compassion also appears not to be humanities goal. 

If this is true , then expecting humanity to find happiness , and be gentle , and not have greed , not war , and so forth ...

is a wishful fabrication that society isn't even trying to live up to. It is a paradigm being taught , not the basic nature of humans. 

RE: Whether the Taoists of old , felt that humanity's basic nature must be good , I have argued must be so , for Cz and Lz to be making sense, in encouraging a return to ones nature. But Confucius, I believe, felt man was more of a blank slate , and I think the Legalists generally felt that man was a sort of loose cannon, requiring much control. 

1 hour ago, Gunther said:

Are you suggesting the ancient Taoists weren't capable of "higher brain function"😀😀

And where is your evidence that modern man is kinder and nicer if your system was working??

Any time you have witnessed restraint or generosity,  it has been a learned behavior , and is therefore higher brain function. 

Those old dudes , were brilliant , but there also have been many brilliant men building upon those origins.  

Whats your proof someone brain dead can even make a sandwich? 

6 minutes ago, Gunther said:

That's the theory. And the state of today's civilization proves it wrong. Easy to see.like I said, maybe check out the old Taoists what they say in this matter

The old Taoists didn't have much to go on. You might as well ask Copernicus how the solar system works. 

I am not wrong , you built an argument on an assertion that you were not influenced by higher brain functions , and proposed that your actions therefore were your true nature , proving that , higher brain functions were not a factor in mitigating your behavior.

This suggests your point is that ones true nature is nice and kind somehow, without being mitigated by social conditioning., but you havent shown how you can have these ideas without being conditioned to them. Moreover , if one believes one is reincarnated , there is never a blank slate , (as far as conditioning goes).

Humans just don't have instincts of the same ilk as bugs and birds.  

4 hours ago, Gunther said:

and: We are that mystery

I can discard all ethics, morals, social conditioning, fulfill no expectations, no promises, no meaning, no mission impossible 😀a bit like the old Taoists.

Lo and behold I am free and surprise, surprise, I am not a monster going on a shooting spree, eating little babies, no all the commandment of religion, the precepts of monks, the virtues of philosophers, are effortlessly and naturally already my true nature 😀😀

How about that? That can't be bad?😀😀

This is a Self fulfilling statement since it merely presumes that you are unaffected by social conditioning and so forth.

So even If you are not a cannibal , this can still be attributed to social conditioning.

Virtues of philosophers and monks include morality , which you claim to have discarded.

One is incomplete without the complement of higher brain functions , so yes , it can indeed be bad. 

When folks lose the higher functions of their mind , if not prevented by the effects of nurture and habit ,

they are capable of horrific acts , like a chimpanzee might do , without conscience,without remorse,

and may be unable so much as to keep themselves fed, read a book , or even be aware of their actions. 

The Hostage

Um, If I was walking around with my shoe untied , I think a friend would tell me. So in that spirit, Your avatar pic looks highly uncomfortable.  

But Good Morning.

Klingons

I forget how I did that. But it suggested to me , either a fish hook, or to signify an answer, rather than signify that I felt confused and was looking for answers. Looking at ones questions may reveal much, and I always felt that Dao was ,in practice, an inverted mindset where mystery , emptiness and so forth hold the answers to things. Rather than pursue physical forms its important to get a grasp of the context in which things happen , and the fish pursues the hook.... Either that, or the fish itself isnt so important. 

Prevailing theory suggests that in an expanding universe, no place can be said to not be equally valid as the center.  Or just being a drop of water in an endless sea, one cannot be estranged from the common circumstance. . Or Hi. 

Im not sure which thought floated this bubble.

16 minutes ago, david dharmabum lee said:

Nice to be here, wherever here is. Thanks

Im pretty sure youre at the center of the universe.

Religions tend to reflect the attitudes of the people in them.

Christianity is big and theres a lot of alternative ways of looking at it. 

Some positives, One can actually read the King James Bible. It has some great messages , language , and history.

It provides a common basis for people to get along, and a social venue.

The 10 commandments are explicit. 

Its inclusive overall, yet one can do the religion ,and have a relationship with a spiritual inspiration, directly.. A relationship with the divine that doesnt need to be mitigated by the interference of anyone else. No one can take that direct communication away, unless you let them. 

Understood to be loving tolerant and knowing what is in your heart at all times anyway,,  I dont think it matters much to him whether you profess as christian at all. 

4 hours ago, ljazztrumpet said:

Yeah man, absolutely. If I have more ease/clarity/wisdom/love within myself, I am better able to help someone else. To get to the place with everyone (not just loved ones) where I have the same level of concern for them as myself is something I really desire.

 

 I think it's definitely good to be skeptical of the 'mysterious stuff', especially in this day and age. If you are really curious, just ask Life/The Universe/Etc. to put you into contact with someone who has had those types of experiences. Hey, it's worth a shot and you might be surprised!

I would indeed be surprised , the only thing I have ever seen as mysterious , are what get called ' Big Coincidences ' , I see those all the time. 

Righto - But there are people who have overcome suffering and are able to take on others suffering without suffering themselves. Example - The most prolific healer I'm aware of, who healed tens of thousands of people in Germany and Europe in the 1940's and 50's, had two dots that showed up on his X-Rays at the end of his life. One was small, and one was big. The small one he said was from all the people he helped to heal and he said that was fine, it didn't bother him at all. The big one was the suppression of his energy as the German government kept trying to prohibit him from healing. That's what killed him. He predicted his death years before and how it would happen.

At the end of his life he was walking around and talking to people and his whole insides were burned out. The doctors at the time couldn't understand how he could possibly still be walking around. When he died, the doctors didn't know what to call it, so they said he died of cancer. When he died, there was very unusual weather phenomenon that happened at that moment with thunderstorms and the like just out of nowhere. Reminds me of some of the stories you hear about the big JC dying at crucifixion.

All of this reminds me of people who go through torturous deaths and are laughing and singing..or the buddhist monk types who self-immolate and sit there totally peacefully. It shows me that the suffering isn't there. They may experience pain, yes, but they don't judge it as 'good' or 'bad' at the deepest of levels within themselves..No thought of, 'The pain shouldn't be here..I wish it would stop, etc.' So no suffering.

At a much 'lower' level, I notice that, as I evolve in love consciousness, I am able to take on a friends suffering without having it effect me as much as it used to. 

Oh, here's a good clip of John Sherman (from justonelook.org) talking about this idea of having intense pain and not suffering from it.

OK accepted with caveat , You probably know already , or can guess, I dismiss most of that sort of mysterious stuff, I will agree otherwise ,especially  the implicit thing , that it can be easier to take on someone else's concerns with more ease, but with the same level of concern ,as one would have for themselves, and that's a nice thing too...,, just not while actually ignoring them   

40 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suffering is suffering.

The desire the end suffering is suffering.

Acceptance of suffering is the end of suffering.

Acceptance of the desire to end suffering is the end of suffering.

 

I think we're on to something here...

IMO , it is Just the end of MY suffering over, ' Your ' situation. 

Compassion is when one integrates another individuals welfare into their own realm of concern, therefore compassion is taking on more suffering oneself. If one is going to absorb some actual suffering , they have to bring it on themselves and either console the other , or fix the issue. This thing where folks just worry about whether they alone have issues , and pretend they are being compassionate IMO...  is a pretense.

One may be disposed towards compassion , sitting in a cave somewhere living off the handouts of -actually compassionate people , but they aren't fixing issues of anyone but themselves. 

The sun shines on the wicked and the just alike.

Since there is no static version of you , whatever labels someone used were somewhat correct and incorrect at all times.

You couldn't consider the labels incorrect, if you didn't have an opinion of what the correct label would be , Right? 

Lets say you trend towards being stuck up , well , is that really such a bad or unusual thing? In light of all the traits you could show? 

I think not , plenty of folks get through life like anybody else does , despite the characteristics , which they occasionally exhibit , called foibles. 

People think I am cocky sometimes , so , I tend to play that up till they feel more insecure about themselves ,

I know , I know, its a bad habit , but its like a consolation prize for labeling me. 

On the other hand , maybe they aren't so far off the mark , and I can live with that too. 

40 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

I agree with you but I still like to use labels.  They offer points of reference.

 

 

2 hours ago, allinone said:

  Hide contents

 

when i consume something i need know how i got it. Its important, if it comes through bad sources i better not take it.

Its also with when someone i know connected to me did something and got into debt, so do i can't use that source anymore.

 

 

I might use that same strategy, if I did not feel competent to judge the content , rather than the envelope it came in.

But Frankly, ones judgement of envelopes may not any better than of the content. 

If I am in a zen-ish mode , then I will not be so concerned about the lesser life-form , because I do not consider them to be lesser , we 'make our bed' , and have to be satisfied with what that is like. People often say , 'mind your own business' , and taking them to be saying what they mean , I take it that they prefer to live the consequences of their choices than have someone else intervene. Which is wisely respected. 

I do not consider it right to be lying or stealing things , such stuff as one can search out on the web , really isn't vital , it is not even significant. One can easily get along without most things , so even considering this apart from morality, it appears , either, to be condoning a needy ego, or creating a false reality to replace the reality that is true. 

Just now, allinone said:

 

Do you mean that it is hard to find these situations where i find someone to stomp on me? no it isn't hard if i do the prework all myself.

If you mean that in the forward direction , you are quite right , but if you mean it in reverse , , you won't always find people to play the part you might expect. Everyone has motivations and prompts which are invisible at any given moment. 

24 minutes ago, allinone said:

 

i am gradually shipping desire to suffering. Suffering is required to attract bully into contact with me. Bully will trample me till i get satisfied.

 

Don't count on it.