...life can be translucent

Menu

Imho

solun

visitor
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
265
Reaction score
3
Oh well!

Each of us has our own chronology. There is more than one source of wisdom, and many windows into each. Study and discipline and variety and focus are all necessary and come to a person in their own time, as needed. If someone displays a level of spiritual understanding different from yours, how can you take offense? At what? That they are different from you? And if they are in great error about something, it would be just as great an error to correct them harshly or on the basis that you know everything, and they nothing, because you don't even see how prideful you are and uncreative in your approach to life. But now see here I am, doing just that it seems!
There are some who want to 'lord it over' others. It's unfortunate they don't see this.
There's so much grasping for power and recognition in these areas. But some are out for gain and attention. No judgement here, just recognizing that this can get out of proportion at times.
Maybe it's a question of learning how to communicate and converse with decency and civility, if we can't muster humility. Life is hard, for all of us.
Still, I respect those who are earnest scholars and concerned for the integrity of the artifact overall.
 

bradford

(deceased)
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
2,626
Reaction score
410
Jack Balkin, a Yale professor of constitutional law and author of the worthy Yi study
"The Laws of Change : I Ching and the Philosophy of Life" wrote in another book, "Cultural Software: A Theory of Ideology", about how we make up our minds over the years through a process he calls bricolage. We slap it together with what is on hand at the time and what gets built is ever a function of what has gone into the structure before. Clearly we all use widely different sources. It seems that just about every individual here has their very own Yixue planet all to themselves, and I don't believe that the Yi's plentiful ambiguities and multivalencies alone are enough to account for these huge differences. Our sources come from all over the place. There are also many of those who can't distinguish the different qualities of information, as between a reliable translation, a carnival psychic and an LSD trip. This to me underscores two things, if we are to be able to communicate with each other from across these interplanetary spaces: 1) There is a huge value to constructing a relatively classical foundation unless we never want to care about distinguishing the Yijing from "and so much more" and 2) There is value in at least getting some the known facts straight, validating what is known to be right and questioning what is thought to be wrong. Without these two the gulf will just continue to widen until we are mostly just babbling to ourselves. Rest assured, therefore, that I will not become overly shy or tactful in pointing out what I think is erroneous, as prideful or arrogant as that might make me seem. Much worse to me would be sloppy new age thinking.
 

fkegan

(deceased)
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
2,052
Reaction score
41
Hi Bradford,
Much worse to me would be sloppy new age thinking.

Is only 'new age' thinking sloppy? Most New Age thinking, I noted in the '70's was antique and out of date millennia ago. Isn't sloppy thinking a drag in any context? And isn't there a general injunction in Scripture to apply one's corrective invective first and foremost to your own sloppy thinking? Seeing other views as sloppy from your perspective often misses that they are just strictly following rigorous rules in their own perspective.

Tough to claim a law school prof as authority in the study of I Ching, when the essence of the Law is the battle of personal egos embodied in the Socratic method (who is able to persuade best that they are most like Socrates in this case).

How about an alternative, since too often we are just "babbling to ourselves" before, during and after anything else at all. Let us start with the clear dividing line between the traditional academic and all of us here in this community. We use the I Ching for Oracle divination and therefore each have our own personal check upon getting too far afield into abstract nonsense.

From that premise it follows it is more important to find how each view represents our own unique experience. Especially, as some (such as you) can not be trusted to even quote the OED accurately when it interferes with your ego desire. To rely upon scholarship requires that you obey the rules of the library citation to claim any credibility.

Perhaps it is best to notice just your quote
I will not become overly shy or tactful in pointing out what I think

and realize that there is no justification for such conduct, especially when you rely solely upon your own individual perspective and call it scholarship. So you are saying that somehow your musings about how you react badly to other folks musings are somehow special since they are personal to you.

Frank
 

bradford

(deceased)
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
2,626
Reaction score
410
I must have dialed the wrong planet.
 

heylise

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 1970
Messages
3,128
Reaction score
202
And it seems to me you keep defending that translations can be extremely different and still all make sense. So basically you like what translators have put into the text, not the original text itself. In that sense you actually don't show much respect for the original text do you?
...
even if we could translate it almost perfectly...

I think the entire problem in this thread is the difference in view of what a good translation is. According to Bob there is (or can be) one single 'best' translation. A perfect one, or at least as close to perfect as possible.

I will speak for myself, but I am quite certain that I am not the only one. I think the perfect translation does not exist. As soon as a Chinese character is defined in an English translation, a big part of that character is discarded. Choosing for one English word which makes the most sense in a sentence-and-context, narrows the Chinese character down. To see that as the only way is for me unacceptable. Every translation is always just one of many possibilities.

It is not for nothing that the most famous and most ancient oracle book is Chinese. The language itself is wonderful for oracles. With al these meanings in one character, as if you get a complete rainbow of colors in every word. No Western language has this capability. A hexagram or a line answers to many different questions, from the most profane to the most spiritual, from simple facts to deep philosophical contemplation.
The more precise translation we use the more precise answers we get!
I disagree. For many questions that precise translation will not at all be a precise answer.

I think everyone here is open to dicussing 'good' translations for characters. But as soon as you claim that it has to be 'one single right' one, you get protests. I for one refuse to let my beautiful free-flowing river of an oracle getting narrowed down to a straight one-way canal. If anyone offers a 'perfect' translation, I will embrace it enthused, but then put it on my shelf next to the other ones, and use all of them.

All this does not mean that I think every translation should be accepted. I agree completely with Bradford, there has to be a sound foundation. I look in an interpretation now and then, just for getting some more ideas when I cannot make sense of a line. But that happens extremely seldom, and only when all my 'real' translations cannot give clarity. When I cannot understand a line, I go from character to character for a 'feeling' for all meanings of each character. It is a hex.50 work: putting them all together, and cooking them in my mind until an image arises. Very often it is not one possible meaning which gives the clue but a mix of meanings. In English that also happens now and then, a word which has two different meanings, and both make sense. But this rich image, which Chinese characters have, hardly exists here.
 
M

meng

Guest
I must have dialed the wrong planet.

Y'ain't alone.

Your comments remind me of a jazz trumpet player's remarks on improvisation, saying that even accomplished jazz musicians are only purely improvising about 5-10% of the time. The rest of the time they are recalling proven patterns which fit into the chord progression. That's how I experience it too. The wider your musical vocabulary, the more patterns you have to draw upon. 'Course then there's the danger of playing to show how much you know. But knowing isn't necessarily a hindrance, if you stay near your roots. And it's those roots which distinguishes music from packets of digital information.
 

bradford

(deceased)
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
2,626
Reaction score
410
Perhaps it is best to notice just your quote and realize that there is no justification for such conduct, especially when you rely solely upon your own individual perspective and call it scholarship. Frank

I really don't understand why you're complaining to me, Frank. I've made a concerted effort to avoid being critical of your errors. Oh, sure, maybe I've pointed out a few, but at most that's only a very, very small percentage of them. I really have no incentive to encourage you to post any more than you already do.
 
M

meng

Guest
I for one refuse to let my beautiful free-flowing river of an oracle getting narrowed down to a straight one-way canal. If anyone offers a 'perfect' translation, I will embrace it enthused, but then put it on my shelf next to the other ones, and use all of them.

:)
 

bradford

(deceased)
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
2,626
Reaction score
410
Y'ain't alone.
Your comments remind me of a jazz trumpet player's remarks on improvisation, saying that even accomplished jazz musicians are only purely improvising about 5-10% of the time. The rest of the time they are recalling proven patterns which fit into the chord progression. That's how I experience it too. The wider your musical vocabulary, the more patterns you have to draw upon. 'Course then there's the danger of playing to show how much you know. But knowing isn't necessarily a hindrance, if you stay near your roots. And it's those roots which distinguishes music from packets of digital information.

I think that might be the best analogy I've heard here. I don't really "get" most jazz, especially the soulless showoff stuff, but I think I've heard the theory often enough. Aren't Ragas in Indian music similar in concept, where you're dancing improv all around some kind of formal core?
 
M

meng

Guest
I think that might be the best analogy I've heard here. I don't really "get" most jazz, especially the soulless showoff stuff, but I think I've heard the theory often enough. Aren't Ragas in Indian music similar in concept, where you're dancing improv all around some kind of formal core?

I like not getting it and just seeing where it's going. That's improvising, and I like any improv or testing of ideas. Sometimes it's so off that everyone might spontaneously laugh; that's part of it too. I think the hard to follow stuff is when they're playing to each other, which really is over most folks' heads. Plus it can get competitive for some, each one outdoing the other. It's, for them, sport.

Only vaguely familiar with Indian music. The drumming especially is interesting to follow, as though speaking a rich and complex language. I think it's very much like western jazz in regard to dancing around the central core.

Even ordinary garage jam bands are the same way. Everyone knows the core 1-4-5 progression, throw in a couple interesting twists and turns, count it off and go. You can tell a lot about a person by how they improv, do they stick to safe places, do they know when not to play, do they show off, can they support the solos of others, etc?

Band joke: How many lead guitarists does it take to screw in a light bulb? Just one: he holds it while the world revolves around him. Maybe that's how the perfect Yi does it too.
 

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,120
Reaction score
107
I look in an interpretation now and then, just for getting some more ideas when I cannot make sense of a line. But that happens extremely seldom, and only when all my 'real' translations cannot give clarity. When I cannot understand a line, I go from character to character for a 'feeling' for all meanings of each character. It is a hex.50 work: putting them all together, and cooking them in my mind until an image arises. Very often it is not one possible meaning which gives the clue but a mix of meanings. In English that also happens now and then, a word which has two different meanings, and both make sense. But this rich image, which Chinese characters have, hardly exists here.

Great observations, IMO. Being stuck in interpretation has nothing to do with one's ability to master Chinese but in finding a contextual common theme between the oracle and a given question posed to it and then develop an answer from there. No amount of mastering of the language will ever readily provide anybody with the glue to match question to oracle.
 

sergio

visitor
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
396
Reaction score
0
Hello Meng and Bradford;
The subject of improvisation in Jazz or,better,in music is highly misunderstood and/or romantisized.For example,I agree with Meng in that no Jazz musician is really 100% improvising when they are playing-but then again that is not the essence of improvisation.Improvisation is a product of hard work at mastering the instrument so it can become the expression of your ideas without having to resort to thinking about its mechanics while you are phrasing a solo.Imagine you tying your shoelaces and having to think and process each step-it will take you forever to do it but if you just let the action(S)run by itself then it's a matter of seconds.Same with improvisation.But it also has to fit with the chord structures of each particular song and ,of course, you study both harmony and also patterns to go through them in many combinations, finding the ones you resonate with or struggling to develop new ones until, when improvising ,once again they will come out in a coherent and personalized way-your interpretation or style.Imagine you talking to other persons.You have a vocabulary and a set of stock sentences that will carry your message clearly to othe people thus communicating effectively but you would not improvise new words for no one will understand what you want to say.Same with improvisation.Billy Cobham once told me 'My drumming has to be complex enough for me to enjoy it and simple enough for people to understand it"
I think the I Ching should be approached the same way.We are force to improvise our way or understanding through each divination we practise-we cannot just go through it applying automatically what is written in a translation but allow the symbols to act us the frame improvisers use to string their musical ideas while at the same time not losing sense of the music and making sense both to us and everybody else .So in that way each divination will be different but the same,same as My Favorite Things played by someone like John Coltrane will be essencially the same song but not exactly the same each time he played it.
Sergio
 
Last edited:

lindsay

visitor
Joined
Aug 19, 1970
Messages
617
Reaction score
7
How about this for a solution: Forget about translations, and learn to read the Yi in Chinese. No one can seriously study the Bible without learning Hebrew and Greek. Why should the Yi be different?

However, let it also be said that the Bible's spiritual message shines through almost any translation, and almost any version of the Yi will do for divination. As the Buddhists say, it's reaching the other shore that matters, not the boat you use to do it.

Lindsay
 

bradford

(deceased)
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
2,626
Reaction score
410
How about this for a solution: Forget about translations, and learn to read the Yi in Chinese. Lindsay

Certainly doing that was the best decision I ever made, even though it meant years. And I'm sure LiSe and others would agree. There's one really big pitfall to watch for though. You shouldn't be content with using any less than a dozen dictionaries. Almost by definition, definitions of words circumscribe them and Chinese words usually have a whole lot of facets that a single dictionary will overlook. They warrant a lot more perspectives than an English word, which is usually a lot more narrow or specific in meaning. The modern scholars are the worst with this one - they settle on a really narrow definition and plug it in everywhere, even where it makes no contextual sense. This also suggests still using translations, in conjunction with the Chinese original, to study further perspectives on the Chinese words.
 
M

meng

Guest
Let me present the word "seeing". In English, seeing can refer to seeing a tree, seeing an idea, going to see someone, seeing a vision or dream. Understanding that context drives the meaning, is there anything from the translation of seeing, which might be relevant to this thread?
 

lindsay

visitor
Joined
Aug 19, 1970
Messages
617
Reaction score
7
Let me present the word "seeing". In English, seeing can refer to seeing a tree, seeing an idea, going to see someone, seeing a vision or dream. Understanding that context drives the meaning, is there anything from the translation of seeing, which might be relevant to this thread?

One problem that is widely mentioned about working with the Yi is that there isn't enough text to establish an internal context. Sentences tend to be very brief and unrelated to each other. It's very difficult to guess what flavor of "seeing" is meant, since several fit well enough in the scanty context of short, stand-alone phrases.

And there are few external sources of the same age and type and provenance to use for comparison. We don't have a lot of 3,000 year-old divination manuals hanging around to look at. So scholars trying to resolve disputed passages have very little evidence to work with when trying to decide which meaning of many possible meanings is intended. Maybe they all were - divination thrives on ambiguity.

I think Luis posted this link a while back, but Kidder Smith's little essay on "The Difficulty of the Yijing" is a nice summary of the scholarly problems of working with the Yi. Someone asked, Why don't the professors like to write about the Yi? Well, here's your answer:
# www.tc.umn.edu/~cmedst/gmap/uploaded/The%​20Difficulty of the%​20Yijing.pdf

Recently, when discussing the problem of context in translating the Yi (or even simply understanding what it is saying), it has become more common to talk about the context of the translator. That is, where is the translator coming from? What ideas and opinions does the translator have that affects his translation? What is the historical and cultural context of the translation?

These questions are resolvable and enlightening, whereas similar questions about the Yi itself are not. At least not yet. But if the Chinese keep digging, who knows?

Lindsay
 

bradford

(deceased)
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
2,626
Reaction score
410
One problem that is widely mentioned about working with the Yi is that there isn't enough text to establish an internal context. Sentences tend to be very brief and unrelated to each other. It's very difficult to guess what flavor of "seeing" is meant, since several fit well enough in the scanty context of short, stand-alone phrases.
Lindsay

Unfortunately the scholars will often use this as an excuse to give up entirely, while the believers have used it as an excuse to add new context by inventing new interpretive algorithms (like correctness, ruling lines, etc.). There are a few things that expand context within the Yijing itself though. Like remembering what Gua you are in when working on a line (my previous 40.1 example). Using concordances to identify different grammatical uses and help cluster them . Zhi Gua, and occasionally Fan Yao can help a lot. As for the hapax legomena (words used only once) you can sometimes look to nature as context. If a word is describing a pig's behavior, you can "see" a pig or ask a vet.

Recently, when discussing the problem of context in translating the Yi (or even simply understanding what it is saying), it has become more common to talk about the context of the translator. That is, where is the translator coming from? What ideas and opinions does the translator have that affects his translation? What is the historical and cultural context of the translation? Lindsay

But unfortunately there's been a whole lot of black-and-white fallacy going on here too. Anything Yijing but not Zhouyi is Confucian and so it all must be dismissed as Confucian. Anything by Missionaries is Christian. While a significant chunk of these accusations might have some merit it isn't a reason to discard a whole corpus without examining it for legitimate context. Then too, when looking too hard and closely at cultural context, the larger context of human nature is often ignored, and to the extent that the Yi is identifying or using archetypes and such, the broader and more useful meaning of the text is not seen.
 
M

meng

Guest
Thanks, Lindsay. I guess it's no different than any other word case.

Yes, it sounds honest to disclose the translator's background and influences, though I'd think that would take an unusual amount of candor, since most, if not all, see themselves as being objective.

Even in English, there are so many nuances of so many words. It's a wonder people understand each other at all. Kudos to our species for that.

It's like reconstructing the dinosaur to the best of our knowledge. We have the skeletal structure, and estimate the mass and shape it carries, but we have no idea of their colors (nuances), other than to surmise. Chances are good, based on the evidence, the estimates would be pretty accurate, i.e. based on prevailing climate etc, the animal most likely would have been brown or gray to blend in with their background. But nature is full of surprises, things which seem to exist in another context other than reason - some creative madness or something. God and man always seem to be playing tricks on each other.
 

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,120
Reaction score
107
But unfortunately there's been a whole lot of black-and-white fallacy going on here too. Anything Yijing but not Zhouyi is Confucian and so it all must be dismissed as Confucian. Anything by Missionaries is Christian. While a significant chunk of these accusations might have some merit it isn't a reason to discard a whole corpus without examining it for legitimate context. Then too, when looking too hard and closely at cultural context, the larger context of human nature is often ignored, and to the extent that the Yi is identifying or using archetypes and such, the broader and more useful meaning of the text is not seen.

Great point. It does beg the question though: Where is the point of balance or rather where is the proper vantage point to be found? The middle way, so to speak. I mean, personally, I don't discard anything offhand on the account of being this or that but the result is that it makes me omnivorous of all the material I can get my hands on. I resigned myself to the fact that I will never exhaust the material or cease to study it--which isn't a complain, mind you. Perhaps I'm deluding myself but I believe I keep a very fair and even keel regarding my views of the Classic as a result of it. On the downside, the consequence of reading so many perspectives and researched opinions, is that lately I find myself increasingly frustrated by the opinions of those that believe to have found THE key to the Yi under some random upturned stone in their heads, and even more so by those that suggest that curbing study and keeping it "simple" is the right approach.
 

bradford

(deceased)
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
2,626
Reaction score
410
Great point. It does beg the question though: Where is the point of balance or rather where is the proper vantage point to be found? The middle way, so to speak. I mean, personally,

I think the middle way passes through this gate: "It will never be perfect"
and this one: "It has to make sense"
and this one: "Never give up, for thousands of years"
 

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,120
Reaction score
107
I think the middle way passes through this gate: "It will never be perfect"
and this one: "It has to make sense"
and this one: "Never give up, for thousands of years"

Encouraging. I do indeed try to keep as close to that gate as possible. Thanks!
 

44bob123

visitor
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
115
Reaction score
0
I had originally intended to leave the forum after being publically humiliated by Bradford, ( a touch of hubris there?), but seeing the recent posts I feel I want to add a few observations.
Following the Dao isn't solely an intellectual exercise but involves the heart as well. Most spiritual paths place great emphasis on repect for others and life in general. The Yijing even comments on how the Junzi should act in this respect. The Dao moves in the whole world not just in rational thought. To ask a question about relationships, for example, cannot be a purely mental exercise. Even a reading will involve the emotions. I think my dog, Toffee, knows more about Dao and how to live than I ever will, because she isn't seduced by her intellect and lives spontaneously.

Most of this IMHO discussion has focussed on the rational / intellectual aspects of the Yijing, and to some extent the "senior" members have vaunted their knowledge without really being concerned whether newbies are gaining anything. It really does give the impression of being a closed club.
I am a trained counsellor, at one stage I was a Franciscan novice, and have read extensively for the last 40 years. I find the lack of humility and respect surprising, and wonder what it might indicate about those purporting to follow the Dao ????
The motivation for starting this thread was to say the Dao is alive and well and not restricted to this forum, nor to the Yijing. Our attempts to tie it down to rigid orthodoxies is bound to fail. The most perfect translation is mediated through the imperfect human being, me and you. We can never understand what another writes or says completely. So lets relax a bit and "go with the flow with joy"

My recently adopted motto, from a classic graffiti:
How happy is the moron,
He doesn't give a damn.
I wish I was a moron.
My God, perhaps I am !

Bob-the-iconoclast ( is that the right word? )
 
Last edited:

fkegan

(deceased)
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
2,052
Reaction score
41
Hi Bob,
Leaving the forum because Brad was snarky is always and all ways not the best. Especially as Brad has time and again shown himself driven first by his emotions and only in a minor way any sort of academic scholarship. He has attacked me for correctly citing sources and then compounded his error by misquoting those sources when they didn't back his views. But the same can be said more generally.

The bottom line is that divination is NEVER supported by the academic sources. And academic sources are never objectively correct in terms of the I Ching because of that blind spot.

Although these various quibbles are a set of insights into each of us, the arguments just keep going around and around and in general the arguments about what is error and what is just difference of opinion just showcase how much differences of opinion challenge folks.

However, on the topic of exploring divination, any such exploration must leave all claims of academic scholarship with the snarky humiliation of those in the next cubicle for being there not somewhere else behind, since divination is verboten to the academics from their original Scholastic monks to current brethren.

In any event, it is far more intriguing to note how folks using the most simple and even simplistic rules and perspectives manage to obtain remarkable divination insights for themselves. That is a laudable achievement unattained by any academic scholarship no matter how long or extensively footnoted. So what really matters, quibbles or success, results or jibes?

Frank
 

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,120
Reaction score
107
Most of this IMHO discussion has focussed on the rational / intellectual aspects of the Yijing, and to some extent the "senior" members have vaunted their knowledge without really being concerned whether newbies are gaining anything. It really does give the impression of being a closed club.

I am a trained counsellor, at one stage I was a Franciscan novice, and have read extensively for the last 40 years. I find the lack of humility and respect surprising, and wonder what it might indicate about those purporting to follow the Dao ????

Don't tell me you'll talk about "senior members" too... Seriously? The only real merit in the moniker is to point to the fact that most of us "seniors" have been here for years and some even from the beginning. No more, no less. I would further add that my opinions about your original posting were prompted by the implicit desire to -- pardon me but that's how I interpreted it -- dumb down some of the dialogue and "follow the dao" by reaching some vaporous higher level of consciousness and also follow the heart more than the mind in interpreting the Yi. Well, my cat is a Zen master of the highest level but I do not want to become a cat to achieve those levels, thank you.

My response to that what you proposed is that different people have different interests. We discuss many different things here and no one is obliged to read any of it. I've no problem whatsoever with the way you'd approach and interpret the Yijing or will I ever come to you and say what you are doing about it is wrong--interpreting divination is a very personal thing and little "academy", if at all, is needed. But why would people that like to discuss certain aspects of the Yijing be chastised and looked upon with a little contempt because they do so? I believe this forum is a very good place to share and discuss things one reads and come across in our studies. Those discussions are not meant, as far as am concerned, to enlighten any newbies. Newbies, on the other hand, must realize, sooner rather than later, that the Yijing is a vast field of study for those interested in things other than divination. Divination is just the freebie of the Yijing. At some point, after accepting the gift, some of us find that there are very interesting things to study beyond divination. But again, if there isn't any interest in the nature of those discussions, why waste the time in reading them?
 

bamboo

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Mar 9, 1971
Messages
1,485
Reaction score
49
Bob, I think people tend to see the "senior members" as a clan of long bearded intellectuals who hold court. in reality, it's just a bunch of people who have been hanging out at the well here for god knows how long.
well, some of them are intellectual. but mostly, it is more like a tea party from alice in wonderland. dont take it too seriously ......

speaking of taking it too seriously....
I think this thread got a little mixed up from the start...people talking at cross-purposes. it doesnt seem like it was ever meant to become the debate it turned into!!! lets pass the peace hookah:p
 

bradford

(deceased)
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
2,626
Reaction score
410
Luis is a señor member
But not sha li - sha li wei tu yong
 

lindsay

visitor
Joined
Aug 19, 1970
Messages
617
Reaction score
7
Hi Bob -

Some people like to use their heads, some prefer their hearts. I haven't noticed one approach gets you any closer to enlightenment than the other - or, rather, both potentially lead to the same place. I think this is true, although who can say for sure?

One thing I do know for sure is that we all die in the end. And the end comes sooner than most of us expect. So what do you want to do before that happens? How are you planning to spend your time? Personally, I enjoy talking about ideas. That's why I come here every so often. I always learn something - about other people, about myself, and about all of us together.

I think you should stick around and see how it goes. There are people here who know about dao. And Zen. And dogs. And a lot of other things too. People from all over the world - but still, it's no big deal. Nobody is all that special or distinguished. Some are more courteous than others. But usually you can find someone who will listen and respond. You may even find a friend.

Lindsay
 

bradford

(deceased)
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
2,626
Reaction score
410
I'm tired of hearing the incredibly stupid assumption that head and heart are exclusive and that thinking folk must be heartless. It's moronic and insensitive.
 

lindsay

visitor
Joined
Aug 19, 1970
Messages
617
Reaction score
7
Bradford -

Judging by the tone of your postings lately, I would say the assumption is correct in your case.
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top