|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 16, 2022 15:06:13 GMT -5
You know her? You just advanced a step.  She was friends with Heidegger and Jaspers, and lover of Heidegger. But when Heidegger became a Nazi, well...she couldn't buy that. How could anybody? My mom talked about her book. Mom is a voracious reader. The first book she gave me was "The Little Prince". Every week, she would take me with her to the library. I would help her lug bags of books back to the car. How could anyone read so many books? Apparently, reading is an American habit. If it wasn't for her, I wouldn't have picked up that Krishnamurti book from that pile on the sidewalk. I remember her reading Krishnamurti. She has a spiritual bent. It's a New York thing. She told me that she went to Findhorn. I think I love your Mother. If you have The Little Prince in you, if you have read it more than once or have had it read to you more than once, you are either OK or will be OK. It is a magnificent book. I have not read a lot of Hannah Arendt, but she had a magnificent mind. I'm not too much into politics, which she wrote mostly about. NY, NY or just NY (just curious). I had ordinary parents. You had at least one extraordinary parent, you are very lucky. Have you ever seen the film My Dinner With Andre? It's just two guys talking in a restaurant. Good film. Andre talks about visiting Findhorn. I had already read about Findhorn, the first book maybe. I've read both Eileen and Peter Caddy. I read a story by Peter, a wonderful lesson-story. It's a good story for you. Once Peter and two other guys were hiking in the mountains. A snowstorm came up. It got very bad. One guy got into very bad trouble, Peter told the other guy, we have to carry him out. But the other guy said, no, I have to make sure I'm OK. So he went on by himself, back toward safe territory. So Peter carried the guy in trouble. He wouldn't give up. And along the trail Peter found the guy who had gone on by himself, he died, frozen. Peter and the in-trouble guy both survived, as carrying the extra weight increased Peter's body heat. He survived only because he would not leave the in-trouble guy. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Aug 16, 2022 17:23:13 GMT -5
I don't have a vote, but here's my two cents regarding sree. Certainly my trolling skills have improved dramatically since rubbing elbows with him. Ask Andy.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 16, 2022 17:30:16 GMT -5
I don't have a vote, but here's my two cents regarding sree. Certainly my trolling skills have improved dramatically since rubbing elbows with him. Ask Andy.  I confirm. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 16, 2022 18:03:04 GMT -5
I don't have a vote, but here's my two cents regarding sree. Certainly my trolling skills have improved dramatically since rubbing elbows with him. Ask Andy. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Aug 16, 2022 18:04:59 GMT -5
Maybe that's sree's point, that we turn our back on those in need to avoid discomfort. But I honestly don't find him discomforting. He tries too hard, almost as if it is feigned. He's hard to read, but seems to unnerve most of us.
Sree, is this history repeating itself? Isn't there a lesson in that? Maybe for us too. The more I write, the less I want to write. Time to listen to some more good music.R.E.M.
Or not. We're always filling in the moment with something else, to avoid what? We'll never find out until we stop.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 17, 2022 17:39:36 GMT -5
So for sree, there is nobody who is responsible? I'm asking. When you say negative emotions are incited by the boatman, I don't know what you mean, as you said that boatmen are merely cardboard cutouts. How do negative emotions arise? Who/what sees there is no boatman? (Who/what sees what we consider the boatman are merely cardboard cutouts?) You seem to have shown there is a perpetuating loop (created by the consciousness). What is the way out of the perpetuating loop? I am not saying you are wrong (except you yourself don't seem very happy), I'm just saying I don't understand your view. You say humanity is one whole. It seems you are saying there is no individual change (for the reasons above and from past posts). I don't see the Whole changing, It Just Is. So I see no possibility of change, in your POV. So we are back to square one. I don't know why sree is here. Ok, you are asking a great question. I see the confusion. It’s not your fault. It’s the English language.
Perception of things. All things are cardboard cutouts: tree, sky, dog, people. Thought comes in to give “life” to things and thereby creates boatmen. There is no such thing as life as opposed to death. The body is neither dead nor alive. Apoptosis and mitosis are phenomena. The dead corpse and the living body. We differentiate one from the other. We are repelled by one and cling to the other.
Mickey Mouse is a cardboard cutout running across the screen. It’s “lifelike” movements conjure the presence of the “boatman”. It’s the same with the lifelike movements of your image in the mirror. The body’s image is just a cardboard cutout. No boatman. Most of this is nonsense. What we call tree, dog, people are living things. Thought comes in to make them dead, not alive. Thought takes living things and makes cardboard cutouts of them. Thought does come in and does create the boatman. The body is a living thing. All material-living things die. Yes, thought makes the cardboard cutouts that constitute the boatman. Yes, the boatman is imaginary. The sage finds that which is alive, and lives through that. The Tao Te Ching shows all this. The Little Prince says that which is most essential, is unseen, same as chapter one Tao Te Ching. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2022 17:48:14 GMT -5
Ok, you are asking a great question. I see the confusion. It’s not your fault. It’s the English language.
Perception of things. All things are cardboard cutouts: tree, sky, dog, people. Thought comes in to give “life” to things and thereby creates boatmen. There is no such thing as life as opposed to death. The body is neither dead nor alive. Apoptosis and mitosis are phenomena. The dead corpse and the living body. We differentiate one from the other. We are repelled by one and cling to the other.
Mickey Mouse is a cardboard cutout running across the screen. It’s “lifelike” movements conjure the presence of the “boatman”. It’s the same with the lifelike movements of your image in the mirror. The body’s image is just a cardboard cutout. No boatman. Most of this is nonsense. What we call tree, dog, people are living things. Thought comes in to make them dead, not alive. Thought takes living things and makes cardboard cutouts of them. Thought does come in and does create the boatman. The body is a living thing. All material-living things die. Yes, thought makes the cardboard cutouts that constitute the boatman. Yes, the boatman is imaginary. The sage finds that which is alive, and lives through that.The Tao Te Ching shows all this. The Little Prince says that which is most essential, is unseen, same as chapter one Tao Te Ching. Sree can only live through the alive, when alone. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2022 17:53:31 GMT -5
I came only to leave a couple of quotes, saw this. In January 1974 this translation was assigned for a class. I went to the college bookstore, browsed and bought. I sat in my car and read the whole thing. I'd say it's still in my top five all-time favorite books. The Gia Fu Feng/Jane English translation is still my favorite. I recognized myself in Chapter 20, that's still me, 48 years later. If the Tao Te Ching has meaning for you, you sure don't show it. What do you mean? Show what? How can you tell - from the posts I wrote - what the Tao Te Ching is all about? Gia Fu Feng's self-conduct was as unspiritual as Alan Watts' and neither were good minders of their respective bodies. I cannot fault Krishnamurti in that regard.
Time and again, I have pointed out that the western mind cannot grasp eastern philosophies. The Tao Te Ching is a western concoction. Jane English's version is not a direct translation but her interpretation of the Chinese text used by Gia Fu Feng. There are several different received texts pieced together from ancient scripts by native scholars. They are all inscrutable even to the Chinese. Do you know why? Every character has no specific meaning. Each verse can be read differently because they have no punctuation marks. This is the way classical Chinese was written. Some sections are easily accessible and do convey astute observations of human nature. And that's about it. The Tao that cannot be told, to me, is just a direct statement about mysterious nature of reality. Science (i.e. the western mind, namely you) rejects that finality. Holding Einstein in one hand and the Tao Te Ching in the other makes you look ridiculous. Do you understand?
Have you encountered the Tao? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 17, 2022 18:54:12 GMT -5
Most of this is nonsense. What we call tree, dog, people are living things. Thought comes in to make them dead, not alive. Thought takes living things and makes cardboard cutouts of them. Thought does come in and does create the boatman. The body is a living thing. All material-living things die. Yes, thought makes the cardboard cutouts that constitute the boatman. Yes, the boatman is imaginary. The sage finds that which is alive, and lives through that.The Tao Te Ching shows all this. The Little Prince says that which is most essential, is unseen, same as chapter one Tao Te Ching. Sree can only live through the alive, when alone. I would say, very perceptive. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Aug 17, 2022 21:30:35 GMT -5
What do you mean? Show what? How can you tell - from the posts I wrote - what the Tao Te Ching is all about? Gia Fu Feng's self-conduct was as unspiritual as Alan Watts' and neither were good minders of their respective bodies. I cannot fault Krishnamurti in that regard.
Time and again, I have pointed out that the western mind cannot grasp eastern philosophies. The Tao Te Ching is a western concoction. Jane English's version is not a direct translation but her interpretation of the Chinese text used by Gia Fu Feng. There are several different received texts pieced together from ancient scripts by native scholars. They are all inscrutable even to the Chinese. Do you know why? Every character has no specific meaning. Each verse can be read differently because they have no punctuation marks. This is the way classical Chinese was written. Some sections are easily accessible and do convey astute observations of human nature. And that's about it. The Tao that cannot be told, to me, is just a direct statement about mysterious nature of reality. Science (i.e. the western mind, namely you) rejects that finality. Holding Einstein in one hand and the Tao Te Ching in the other makes you look ridiculous. Do you understand?
Have you encountered the Tao? Do you understand the meaning of the line you have bolded above? It is in English, abscissa. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2022 1:33:25 GMT -5
Have you encountered the Tao? Do you understand the meaning of the line you have bolded above? It is in English, abscissa. Do you have a solid foundation of experience upon which to base the sentence.. The Tao that cannot be told, to me, is just a direct statement about mysterious nature of reality. or is it just a conceptual understanding? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2022 1:48:48 GMT -5
Sree can only live through the alive, when alone. I would say, very perceptive. There is much talk about Jnani principles and states when there are no other beings present in his life. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 18, 2022 3:54:45 GMT -5
I came only to leave a couple of quotes, saw this. In January 1974 this translation was assigned for a class. I went to the college bookstore, browsed and bought. I sat in my car and read the whole thing. I'd say it's still in my top five all-time favorite books. The Gia Fu Feng/Jane English translation is still my favorite. I recognized myself in Chapter 20, that's still me, 48 years later. If the Tao Te Ching has meaning for you, you sure don't show it. What do you mean? Show what? How can you tell - from the posts I wrote - what the Tao Te Ching is all about? Gia Fu Feng's self-conduct was as unspiritual as Alan Watts' and neither were good minders of their respective bodies. I cannot fault Krishnamurti in that regard.
Time and again, I have pointed out that the western mind cannot grasp eastern philosophies. The Tao Te Ching is a western concoction. Jane English's version is not a direct translation but her interpretation of the Chinese text used by Gia Fu Feng. There are several different received texts pieced together from ancient scripts by native scholars. They are all inscrutable even to the Chinese. Do you know why? Every character has no specific meaning. Each verse can be read differently because they have no punctuation marks. This is the way classical Chinese was written. Some sections are easily accessible and do convey astute observations of human nature. And that's about it. The Tao that cannot be told, to me, is just a direct statement about mysterious nature of reality. Science (i.e. the western mind, namely you) rejects that finality. Holding Einstein in one hand and the Tao Te Ching in the other makes you look ridiculous. Do you understand?
Let the mental giants take you to the edge of reason. Once there. Don't turn back.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2022 5:00:43 GMT -5
What do you mean? Show what? How can you tell - from the posts I wrote - what the Tao Te Ching is all about? Gia Fu Feng's self-conduct was as unspiritual as Alan Watts' and neither were good minders of their respective bodies. I cannot fault Krishnamurti in that regard.
Time and again, I have pointed out that the western mind cannot grasp eastern philosophies. The Tao Te Ching is a western concoction. Jane English's version is not a direct translation but her interpretation of the Chinese text used by Gia Fu Feng. There are several different received texts pieced together from ancient scripts by native scholars. They are all inscrutable even to the Chinese. Do you know why? Every character has no specific meaning. Each verse can be read differently because they have no punctuation marks. This is the way classical Chinese was written. Some sections are easily accessible and do convey astute observations of human nature. And that's about it. The Tao that cannot be told, to me, is just a direct statement about mysterious nature of reality. Science (i.e. the western mind, namely you) rejects that finality. Holding Einstein in one hand and the Tao Te Ching in the other makes you look ridiculous. Do you understand?
Let the mental giants take you to the edge of reason. Once there. Don't turn back. Ahhh look at you with the poetry. I think sree might just need a girlfriend. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 18, 2022 8:11:16 GMT -5
I would say, very perceptive. There is much talk about Jnani principles and states when there are no other beings present in his life. So is this accidental on his part? Practice is difficult alone, 20 times more difficult in the midst of people. |
|
