0. Communication
| Hi Peter, I added 3 more posts. In future I would like to haul over this whole site, as they have added more interesting possibilities. But then we should get together some time. Happy Valentine! :-) E. Plato . . . . . . . . . . A . . . . . . . . . B . . . . . . . . . . . C . . . . . . . . . . D Aristotle . . . Final cause . Formal cause . Efficient cause . Material cause J.G. Bennett . . . Goal . . . . . Direction . . . . Instrument . . . . Ground The Buddha .Right vision . Right thought . Right speech . . Right action Krishna . . . . . Atman . . . . . Buddhi . . . . . . . Manas . . . . . . Indriyas Lao Tzu . . . . "Tao(A1)" . "Heaven(Tn)" . . "King( E)" . . . "Earth(TI)" Astrology . . . . . Fire . . . . . . . Air . . . . . . . . Water . . . . . . . Earth Sociology . . Democracy . . Timocracy . . . Tyranny . . . . . Oligarchy. . .A . . . For letters A, B, C and D, see Desmond Lee's translation D + B . of Plato's Republic at 509d. Aristotle was Plato's student. . .C . . The Aristotelian tetrad is essentially his teacher's "Divided Line (509d)" wrapped around the cross. J.G. Bennett's sources are not in the same sequence I have put them in here. His tetrad is not aligned with the Aristotelian tetrad. For more details see pages 29 to 37 of Volume III of his Dramatic Universe. . Not every thought (B) is leading us into the right "Direction”. This is why the Buddha has said: “Right vision”, “Right thought”, “Right speech” and “Right action”. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna has taught raja yoga (C) to Arjuna. Raja yoga is essentially what J.G. Bennett's teacher, Gurdjieff, has called the Fourth Way. Raja yoga could only be taught to Arjuna after he had mastered karma, bhakti and jnana yoga in previous lives. In Vedanta philosophy, there are two types of “Indriyas”: Jnanendriyas and karmendriyas. The karmendrias are our organs of action, hands, feet etc. A simple definition of karma yoga (D) is: Whatever "Right action" you do with your body (D) is karma yoga. In the scientific process, it is the doers (D) that translate scientific theories (B) into "Practice(pr)" (D). If a theory works as predicted, then it is true. . The jnana yogis (B), or Brahmins, get their information from below through the jnanendriyas and from above through A which the Hindus call the "Door (Dasamadvara)". Whenever a person can use his or her intellect (B) to produce "Right thought" sh/e is doing jnana yoga. . Atman in the Gita or Tao in the Ching can mean two different things. The Tao can be the "Big undivided Tao (TAA1)" or the "Divided(@m)" Tao. Obviously translators have trouble with that. For Lao Tzu's students, difficult passages mean: Here is work for you to do! Also Working on Wayne Dyer's excellent interpretation of the Tao Te Ching is well worth the effort. . The most satisfying part of the work I have done here is the term in column D of the last two lines. But if everything were as easy as that, who needs us jnana yogis, philosophers (B) or "KnowErs(kner)" (B) to interpret the classics (Ching) for you? PetersTao.blogspot.com A fellow-member of the discussion-group I am attending slipped me a note: Change Your Tought -- Change Your Live by Dr. Wayne W. Dyer. The note said: It's about Lao Tzu. . It turned out to be an interpretation of the Tao Te Ching. In the "Acknowledgements", Wayne gives credit to ten translators. Among them is: "Tao Te Ching: The Definitive Edition, by Lao Tzu; translation and commentary by Jonathan Star". Also "John C. H. Wu" is there. . By means of Star's work, dictionaries, and other concordances, it is possible to be more accurate than some of the translations Wayne has chosen. To me this is most obvious with chapters three and 71. The knowledge (B) I have gained due to a more intensive study of some chapters can cause resistance to "accepting" the truth contained in Wayne's book. . He said in his "Foreword" to "Ask and It Is Given": You "can either summon that higher vibrational energy to yourself and allow it to flow unimpeded in every aspect of your life, or you can resist it, and by doing so stay disconnected from that which is all-providing and all-loving." . In order to benefit from Wayne's book, you have to forget what you have learned about the Tao Te Ching in this blog. Lao Tzu puts it this way: "Learn to UnLearn(ÜdPUÜd)". or "Know to UnKnow(knPUkn)". I guess I was supposed to tell you that, in order not to spoil your enjoyment of Wayne's book. . Let me repeat again: I need a Communicator (C) to help me more urgently now than ever. Not only because we are running out of time but because now, that this message should get out more professionally, I am bogged down by an information overload. I have reached chapter 11 of Wayne's book. There was an "Insight(72)" coming from Wayne's interpretation of the first chapter, but I decided not to bother. Now, again, there is an "Insight" should I skip it again? Maybe somebody can use it. So here it is. On the one-page flyer, I didn't have enough space to say more about the table, but here, thanks to our marvelous internet, we have all the space we want. I don't know how these geniuses handle all of this information but I don't have to. By them doing their job, I can do mine. Without my internet guru setting me up on blogspot, however, nothing of this can happen. Ching 1: When there is the “Naming, there is first the NamAble (MgptMg) and then comes its Opposite, the NamEd (FyCnMg).” Sept.14, 2007. Ching 3. Ching 14. . "DyAds(dyad)", "TriAds( 3ad)" etc. are "Units($1)". In other words, the "TriAd( 3ad)" has "Three( 3)" impulses but it is "One( 1)" "Unit". This is WHAT Lao Tzu is telling us here in this second paragraph and elsewhere. How much sense you can make of this paragraph depends on how much you know about the "TriAd( 3ad)". Ching 16.
We are now coming to the outline of our book: I think the Dictionary should be part of the introduction instead of an Addenda at the back of the book but what is best for your readers is for you to decide. Your job is to determine WHAT your readers can comprehend while mine is to figure out WHAT Lao Tzu has said. You look after the container and I look after the content. Here we have the division of labor, Plato, Lao Tzu and others have talked about. I'm back from Ching 16. Please read translations of Ching 16 and 18 and try to figure out which one of them is the “Positive( +)" pole and which one is the "Negative( -)" one in the "DyAd(dyad)" of this "Triad( 3ad)". November 13, 2007. I just came through a crisis this morning. Had the “Insight(72)” that solved the problem not come in time, this would have been the end of my attempt to participate in a collective effort to change our desperate social situation to the better. It also would have dealt a heavy blow to my faith (A) in divine guidance. Starting on Nov. 3, I got progressively more disillusioned with that book. Dropping it into my lap seemed more and more like a mistake to me.
. I have come back to this chapter [17] in order to shed light on Ching 38. There is more in 38 than I can chew but what I am doing there is the same I have done here. I have only worked on what I know, which is the tetrad. Now I can say a bit more about this chapter, but just reading it, wouldn't benefit you very much. You might not even be able to follow me without doing some thinking on your own. Thinking about this one will be more beneficial for you. Why? ... . . .A . . . . . Ching 18 is a tetrad. The sequence in which Lao Tzu has Chapter 22. Ching 25 If you are serious about studying the Tao Te Ching, my Dictionary - Concordance is a good study guide. It is the last file at DaoTeChing.blogspot.com So, the best way to get to it is to scroll right to the end of it. Then you are in it. I got a printout of it and it has served me very well in spite of the few errors and omissions in it. You can also get the two - digit identifyers for Ching 25 from that same blog but I will give them to you here next because I will arrange them in three lines which represent the last three paragraps. My two favourite translators, and I, up to now, have translated these characters as two paragraphs. The insight I had is that: The last 33 characters of 25, make up a "TriAd( 3ad)". If you use the identifyers of Ching 25, other translations and your own intelligence (B) or intuition (A) to come up with a triad, you will have prepared yourself for what comes next. If you wait until I give it to you, you will have deprived yourself of the opportunity of doing it yourself. ... I was going to wait a few days to get you to do your own thinking. There is a certain urgency in all of this, so I couldn’t wait. To help you figure it out yourself, let me repeat what I have said at the beginning of this Ching 25 section: “The triad consists of three monads called ‘impulses’. Two of these always form a dyad. The monad is always the reconciling impulse. …. If you were able to follow me up to here, then you are probably able to follow me the rest of the Way through this chapter.” Ching 28 Ching 31 Ching 32 Before I say more about Ching 66, let us figure out how "Stream .... River and Sea" can shed light on the tetrad, or how the tetrad can shed light on "Stream ....". "Stream" is to be "Compared" with the "Tao Which is In The-World (A1 ZÜpTn -)".
The paradox Lao Tzu has given to his students, to work on, is: ... The "Right vision" (A) is available to us through the Bible, the Ching, the Gita, the Republic and many other books. We can get "Enough(Zu)" messages from level A in books, to keep thinkers busy for a long time. All we need is "Right thought" (B). The truth can also be found on the internet, but you have to learn HOW to deal with the disinformation. It is put there by professionals, so: Let's not underestimate it. Ching 35 The way different translators have divided a chapter is worth paying attention to because if a chapter is divided into two halves, Lao Tzu might be talking about the "DyAd(dyad)". If we get three paragraphs, we can expect a "TriAd( 3ad)". If you know "Enough(Zu)" about systematics, you know that Lao Tzu knows it too, even though he doesn't call it "systematics". For instance, I am always looking for the tetrad first but this chapter isn't one, even though some translators have "Identified(Mg)" this one as a tetrad. You can "Use(us)" it. "SubtleTy, Tao'S Usefulness (JoadA1 Zus)." Ching 3.1,1 is Chapter 3 paragraph 1,sentence 1. ... I am trying to emulate the exellent work, Wayne has done on level A, on level B. I can't do it with all of the chapters because I don't know the Ching well "Enough(Zu)". But, where ever possible, I try to do the best I can do.
J. G. Bennett has suggested that systematics can be used as a thinking tool. Applying it to the Tao Te Ching is very useful because Lao Tzu has used it himself. Systematics enables us to formulate specific questions: ... What I have said here so far about this chapter was supposed to be a complement to the A-C-D "TriAd". What does that mean? ... Could those "Loyal Officers (äc@S)" get away with shooting the people if the people were armed? ... End of insert. At ching 23, Wayne said: "Here's what Lao-tzu says to you, through me, ....". And again, at Ching 32: "Here's what Lao-tzu seems to be saying to you, through me, about implementing the idea of this 32nd verse of the Tao Te Ching." It took courage for Wayne to come out with What he has experienced because he knows that many readers will scoff at it. He actually seems to have "Heard(^d)" some of the words that have found their way into print. Ching 37: The September 21, 2007, In my comment on Ching 18, I said that "Humanity(%5)" represents the government of the people in which the decisions are made by the people which are for the people. So "Humanity" here at 38 must also represent democracy (A). But at 18, "Justice(Üw)" comes along with "Humanity: There "Appeared Humanity and Justice (YU%5Üw)." 17.1,4: "In yoga one has to fight, it is the path of the warrior. On the path of tantra one does not have to fight at all. Rather, on the contrary, ...." 17.1,6: "Tantra says that whatsoever you see, the ultimate is not opposite to it. It is a growth; you can grow to be the ultimate. There is no opposition between you and the reality. You are part of it, ...." 17.1.7: "In yoga .... -- you as you are and you as you can be -- are two opposite things." With A, being the Door it is a monad. Thus the E1-E2-E3 triad is above it and the thought, word and deed (B-C-D) triad is below it. This is the 3 + 1 + 3 = 7 heptad. . In case you are not ready for Ching chapter 1 yet, let us continue with Steiner a bit more. The whole of chapter two of his Philosophy of Freedom is dedicated to the Monism versus Dualism controversy. I am using Lindeman's translation: 19.2,3: "Tantra says there is no duality; it is only an appearance. .... " 24.2,9: " .... You cannot surrender -- you are the hindrance. ...." . "You" as intellect, mind or body cannot surrender. It is not in "your" interest to surrender. For surrender to happen, "you" must cease to be. "Your" very existence prevents surrender from happening. 24.2,9: " .... When you are not, surrender is there. So you and surrender cannot cohabit, there is no coexistence between you and surrender. Either you are or surrender is. ...." . We still have the "All or nothing" principle here, but with a twist to it. Lao Tzu loves paradoxes. I hope you are working on this one. If only surrender is there, only surrender can happen; if only you are there only you can exist. This is not a "DyAd(dyad)" these are only two "separate" "Monads($1)". Logic tells us things we cannot experience. Only if, by means of one of the 112 techniques we can go to the other side at will does the other side become real to us. Then, if we don't sacrifice the truth for this experience, we have the two poles or parts through which the dyad, the whole can emerge and, having emerged, give meaning to them. Until we can actually experience this, this will merely remain a theory (B). __________________________________________________________________ |
_________________________________________________________
_____________________ Chapter 3 ____________________________
31.2,1: " .... Lao Tzu says, "Seek not; otherwise you will miss. Seek not and find. Don't seek and find." I don't know where he is supposed to have said that.
. Lao Tzu is a jnana yoga guru. So it is very unlikely that he would say such a thing. In chapter 62 he said:
"Why did the ancients prize the Tao?
"Is it not because by virtue of it he who seeks finds (PU73YI@ngt. Wu's translation.)"? A valid equivalent of Yi(YI) is: "by virtue of it". @n = Ch'iu85 "To entreat, seek, aim at". So "By-means-of Seeking you Get (YI@ngt)" the answer. How much clearer could he have said that?
. Since Jesus has said the same thing at Matthew 7:7, He would have to be wrong as well. What else did He say about that? "If ye continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:31-32)"
. If knowing the truth will set us free, what is wrong with seeking it? ...
The social engineers don't want us to find out the truth. If you don't seek the truth, then you will not find it. So Osho is actually helping them. But the question: Why did they kill him? keeps coming back. ....
On the other side of the Door (A), there is omniscience (E3), there is the truth. Suppose bhaktis (A) can go there at will to get specific answers to specific questions we ask them. And the reason they can do it, is not because they can think (B) but because they refuse to think.
. Now, again, I ask you to put yourself into the shoes of our rulers. ...
The truth, they know but don't want us to know, is right there on the other side for the taking for those who can get there. The truth, when known, will help us to take the power, our rulers have over us, away from them. Now, then, how would you feel? What would you do? ...
. There is also a possibility that some of the 112 techniques can work for yogis other than the bhaktis. ... Even for those whose dharma it is to seek the truth and to expose the untruth. ...
The 112 techniques come from Shiva and Shiva is not a bhakti yogi. Shiva is the destructive impulse in the Creator-Maintainer-Destroyer triad. Vishnu is said to have incarnated as Krishna. But then he says: "I am all-powerful Time which destroys all things (Gita 11.32 Mascaró)". As which Impulse did Krishna reveal Himself to Arjuna there? ...
. It can be expected that Osho has done an excellent job on the techniques that are suitable for bhaktis but, I suspect, that we have to interpret the ones that are not for the bhaktis ourselves. If I don't get help, or don't get called off, I will have to work on this book for a long time.31.2,2: "All these techniques of Shiva's are simply turning the mind from the future or the past to the present. That which you are seeking is already there [on the other side], it is the case already. The mind has to be turned from seeking to nonseeking. It is difficult. If you think about it intellectually it is very difficult. How to turn the mind from seeking to nonseeking?"
. For jnana yogis, the question is not " How to turn the mind from seeking to nonseeking .... The mind makes nonseeking itself the object! Then the mind says, 'Don't seek.' Then the mind says, 'I should not seek.' Then the mind says, 'Now nonseekimg is my object. Now I desire the state of desirelessness.' The seeking has entered again, the desire has come again through the backdoor. ...." Osho has put the problem, the Nuddhists are struggling with, very nicely. Lao Tzu puts it this way: "Desire Not to Desire (YÜPUYÜ)". But his students know that the sentence is not complete, that it is their task to complete it. How would you do it? ...
"Desire Not to Desire" what you are unable to attain. That is an avoidable waste of energy. Can you think of another Way to complete the same sentence? ...
If you did, you can also see how Lao Tzu can say so "Much with so Few (TO$q)" words. If you are able to attain it, should you attain it? ...
"Desire Not to Desire" what is not worth having. Why invest time and energy in what turns out to be useless or harmful to you? But what do you do if it is worth getting? ...
You use your intellect (B) to develop a plan, or algorithm on HOW to attain it. What then? ...
You use your mind (C) to break down the plan into a series of instructions the doers (D), or a computer, can execute.
. When the tetrad is understood, many of the problems the Buddhists take so serious don't even exist for the Taoists. They simply become routine operations for the thinkers (B), the Leaders (C) and their followers (D).
. When looking at some of the the questions the Buddhists are wasting their time and energy on and at some of the questions the Buddha has so adamantly refused to answer, it becomes clear to jnana yogis that Buddhism is not jnana yoga.
. Even though Buddhism is not jnana yoga, this doesn't mean that it is wrong. As the links of a chain, each component of a system is equally important. I must, again, remind you of the "all or nothing" principle. Jesus has mentioned it in the parables of the Ten pieces of silver and the One hundred sheep.
A coincidence happened last Saturday June 2, 2007. The last thing I said above, last Friday, was that we have to differentiate between three types of "Desire(YÜ): 1. Desires we are unable to attain. 2. Desires that are undesirable to attain and 3. Desires that are "DesirAble(ptYÜ)" to attain.
. I said then that there is a systematic Way to attain it. You can go back to the Dalai Lama section in this blog for more details. My blog is full of descriptions of envisioning( A), planning (B), organizing (C) and manifesting (D) a "Desire(YÜ)". I made it sound as if this is the only Way to go. It is not. ...
The systematic approach is only one pole of a polarity. The two poles are the parts and the "DyAd(dyad)" is the whole. To make it sound as if one part is the whole is a mistake that is described at Gita 18.22. Saying things that can be misleading, is bad karma. I hope that by confessing my sin, I can avoid some of the potential damage that any mistake can cause.
. HOW was this mistake brought to my attention? ...
I have written about synchronicity before. It is the answer to the question. A book was recommended to me so insistently and convincingly that I just knew that this is no accident, I knew that this was synchronicity. So I went that same Saturday and got the book and started to read it. What I read that very first day was already "Enough(Zu)" proof for me that this was no accident. So I could also see the law of attraction at work. The proof is valuable Enough to tell you about it:
. For instance, the title of the second chapter is: "Synchronicity in Nature". And on page 120 we read: "We must depend on coincidences to show us the will of the universe." It seems to me that the universe doesn't want me to mislead unsuspecting visitors to my blog.
. The last passage I have worked on is at 31.2,2. After I have put my work out on the internet, I read ahead to look for the next suitable passage. I have read ahead quite a bit, but I was at a loss. Even though I could see that this was good stuff, I had nothing worthwhile to add to it. Deepak Chopra's book gave me many relevant details that I will bring up when I return to Osho's book.
. The very title of his book refers to the complement of my: Systematic Fulfillment of Desires. It is : THE SPONTANEOUS FULFILLMENT of DESIRES. Take what I have just said about "Desires(YÜ)" and compare that with what Deepak has said: "We start to desire things that may not be meant for us; we begin to have intentions that do not match up with intentions of the universe. (pg. 151)" "Desire(YÜ)", or intentions in this context would be my will while the intentions of the universe would be God's Will.
. The way Deepak has described the complement to my systematic process of supplying a customer's demand has made it possible for me to see my mistake and to confess it to you here. I hope that having said this here will undo some of the bad karma that can be caused by presenting a half-truth as if it is the whole truth.
. This should also soften the stance I have taken towards The Secret. However, I still believe that the truth is used very skillfully to put unsuspecting readers into the victim state of consciousness or, if they can do it, to get them to misuse their power.31.2,3: "So .... you cannot desire nondesire. ... "
. The "Wise Man Desires NonDesire (wsmnYÜPUYÜ)". We have a paradox here, unless you assume that either Osho or Lao Tzu is wrong.
. Let us adopt Deepak Chopra's terminology to shed light on that paradox. There is a table on pages 100 to 103 in which "Local Mind" and "Nonlocal Mind" are contrasted. For instance: Local Mind: "algorithmic"; Nonlocal Mind: "nonalgorithmic". For those who are familiar with the 4-fold algorithm, this makes perfect sense. "When the intention of the nonlocal mind is served by the local mind, it is more holistic, and therefore more effective. (112)" When the local and the nonlocal minds cooperate, we have the synthesis of the two parts of the "DyAd(dyad)".
The nonlocal mind would be the E1-E2-E3 triad and then the local mind is the B-C-D triad. The two "TriAds ( 3ad)" form the "DyAd(dyad)" Lao Tzu has described at Ching 1.3. It is well to read different translations of the same Chinese characters. Better still, use the concordance and a dictionary.
. Deepak has verified what Osho has told us: The poles of the polarity are opposites.
"When self-concern departs, nonlocal intelligence enters. (117)" When Deepak and other teachers support a statement Osho has made, it gives credibility to it. This kind of work can be carried out most efficiently by a "WordEr(C2er)" - "KnowEr(kner)" team. As it is, I have to invest more time and energy to produce an inferior job because no "WordEr(C2er)" seems to think that this work is worth doing.
. Let me also repeat, that work that can be verified by, or by means of, Communicators (C) cannot be verified by the thinkers (B). All thinkers can do, is produce a theory (B). But, again, there are people who have had the actual experience, "existentially", and, as far as I can see, their descriptions of it are worse than what I am producing here. They can't understand WHAT they are experiencing and, thus, their description of it is confusing.
. Deepak Chopra's book is an en exception to the rule. In my 63 year long search, it is the most comprehensible description of the "Mystery(#1)" I have come across. However, for Lao Tzu's "KnowErs" it is not as useful as the Tao Te Ching because there is a difference between reading the answers and having to figure out the answers yourself. ...
When "Above average Students Hear the Truth ( +Ün^dA1) they Diligently study And Practice It (#6btpr Z)." Such students "Understand(kn)" the lesson. Average students merely believe (C) what they are told. To understand (B) WHAT is said (C) you have to find out the"Way(A1)" things work, and to do that, you have to learn HOW to think.
. "Those able to understand me are few (knmeer^e)" because not everybody is born to be a philosopher. The astrological air signs (B) have that love (philos) in them, at least as a "Potential(pt)".
. A university degree does not confer that love of truth (Sophia) upon graduates of philosophy. The word means one thing and the reality is something else. In fact, the social engineers, who are in control of the "Educational" system, do anything but "educate".
31.2,3: "So you cannot seek anything nonworldly. The moment you seek, it becomes the world. ...." This can be paraphrased as: You cannot seek anything nonlocal while being in the local world your mind (C) is identified with and your body (D) is in. In the world, first comes the "TaoAble(ptA1)" then comes the Taoing and them comes the Taoed. Now substitute name, knowledge or other words for the Tao: ...
First comes the knowable, then comes the knowing and then comes the known. That is the "Way(A1)" it is on this side of the Door (A); this is not possible on the other side, because there is no time and space. Where there is omniscience, there can be nothing "NamAble(ptMg)" or understandable because everything is already named or known. "If you try to understand intellectually, it will become a puzzle. (31.2,3)" for bhaktis (A) because learning HOW to think is not their dharma. "And do thy duty, even if it be humble, rather than another's even if it be great. To die in one's duty is life; to live in another's is death." Gita 3.35. Mascaró's translation. He has translated dharma as "duty". The bhaktis "do not know(13.25)" this. Still, they are as important as the rest of us. ".... they hear from others and adore." That is good "Enough(Zu)" for them. Trying to learn and do the yoga of another "is death" in the sense that you are not doing WHAT you came down here to do. Our soul (A) is our conscience: It can give us this feeling (A) that we are on the wrong path. So what are we doing here? ... The feeling, that you are not doing what you came here to do, can lead to frustration, depression, addictions and even to suicide.
32.2,4: "The first nine techniques are concerned with breathing. …"
33.2,5: "There are certain points but we are not aware of them. ..." But, intellectually, we can "Identify(Mg)" them: The "Wise Man does Not See (them) But he can Identify (wsmnPUoobtMg)" them.
35.1,4: "! Watch the gap between two breaths." On page 173 of Deepak's book, the in-breath is "so" and the out-breath is "hum". He also talks about the gaps between two thoughts. These are timeless, nonlocal, “points" within our local experience. By means of certain techniques, it seems to be possible to become "aware of them. (33.2,5)"
. . A . . . . Using analogy, the pendulum can help us to "Identify"
D . + . B . . points A, B, C and D:
. . C . . . . At A, the bob is at rest. All energy is "potential". At B potential and kinetic energy is in balance. At C the bob has reached maximum velocity. All energy is kinetic. At D the two energies are in balance again. This is the out-breath, deceleration. At A the bob is at rest again.
. If you understand this, then you are ready for Lao Tzu's description of the tetrad: Ching 25.1 is a long one. He talks about the "Big Tao(TAA1)" there: "I Don't Know Its Name (myPUkn HMg). the Character used for It Is Tao (Zi Z73A1). if Forced To give It another Name(57do ZMg), I-would-call-it Big(73TA). if we let Big Mean Going (TA73*e) out. having Gone Mean Arriving (*e73$t), having Arrived Mean Returning ($t73$l) Then((KU)" having returned must mean? ...
being back home again.
38.1,4: "We are divided into the center and the periphery. The body is the periphery; we know the body, we know the periphery. We know the circumference, but we do not know where the center is. ...."
. Osho now relates this to the breath. We have the third technique here. I can't comment on it because I don't know "Enough" about it. But this "center and the periphery" thing is a philosophical subject.
. Let me first quote what came to mind from the Tao Te Ching and then go into the details we get from Sutras 13 and 14 of THE HOLY SCIENCE.
. "Lumps of Clay are For Making Pots (*f*gYIdout). In-the-center (*d), where The Nothing in Something ( HWUYU) is, there is the Pot'S Usefulness (ut Zut)."
*d = Tang102. *f = Yen32. *g = Ch'ih32
. Sutra 1 is a heptad. The "Satyaloka .... the sphere of God. .... " The "Tapoloka" and the Janaloka .... werein the idea of separate existence of Self originates." seems to correspond to Mr.B's E1-E2-E3 triad.
. The "Maharloka .... This, the connecting link, is the only way between the spiritual and material creation and is called the Door, Dasamadwara."
. As far as I can see, this is Mr.B's "Conscious Energy E4". "Man's 'I', Will". In Sanskrit this would be the "Ahamkara", the "I" maker (A). These are hypotheses only. Please use them to refute or to verify them. As I said before, jnana yogis can only give you theories. That is our dharma.
. At this critical point in time, it is important to state the truth as boldly as possible, because we are running out of time. There is no time to beat around the bush. So let me go on: E5-E6-E7 (B-C-D) would be the "Swarloka", the "Bhuvarloka" and the "Bhuloka. The last and lowest sphere ...." There should be no problem with the "Bhuloka, the sphere of gross material creation, which is always visible to everyone." but let's not be too sure or careless. Let us look at Sutra 14 next:
. "Purusha is covered by five koshas or sheaths."
Steiner and Mr.B have a lot to say about the pentad, but I am unable to do justice to all of that. So let's continue with Sutra 14:
. "The first of these five is Heart, Chitta .... which feels or enjoys, and thus being the seat of bliss, ananda, is called Anandamaya Kosha."
. It is safe to say that this is E4 (A) because E5, the "Jnanamaya Kosha" (B) is right below it and below B is E6, the "Manomaya Kosha" (C). Things aren't always that clear, as you will see next:
. "The fourth is .... composed of the organs of action .... called Pranamaya Kosha" (E7 (D)). The karmendriyas are our "organs of action”. For details see Gita 3.42.
. We are talking here about the law of correspondence, about "Alignment(%8)". We need this law to "Align" our material body (E7 (D)) with "Gross matter, the 5th Kosha" (E8).
. We must differentiate between E7 (D) and E8. Let me paraphrase Gita .42: The senses Indriyas) are high(er than ...) Higher than the senses is the mind (Manas), higher than the mind is the intellect (Buddhi) and higher than the intellect is it (the Atman). So A (E4) is above B (E5), B is above C (E6), C is above D (E7) and D is above …
The answer is quite obvious, so I am not doing you any favor by giving the answer away. If you have trouble, go over Sutra 14 again.
. It is safe for me to say, that once you know the "Dyad,(dyad)", the "TriAd( 3ad)", etc. a lot of other things will make more sense as well. Mr.B was right when he implied that these number-systems can be used as thinking tools. When you do, you don't have to believe (C) that: He who has shall have more. You will know (B) it.
. Plato has reduced the tetrad to a triad in his Timaeus. We can do the same thing with the Heptad: E1-E2-E3 is the upper triad. E4 (A) is the reconciling impulse and B-C-D is the lower triad. Any number system is a "Unit($1)" and can thus be a "Unit" or part in other number systems. A contains the upper triad, as the lower, and more concrete, triad contains A. We have the law of correspondence again. We can now return to Osho's 38.1,4:
. Where A, the reconciling impulse, it has the "Nothing(WU)" within it and the "Something(YU)" around it. It is the "circumference" around the "Nothing". It is like the "Pot(ut)" that separates the space within it from the space outside of it. This is also the function of the five Koshas: Separating E3 from E4 (A), A from B, B from C, C from D and D (E7) from E8. Everything within E8 is ordinarily experienced as the subject and everything outside of our body (D) is ordinarily experienced as the object.
. By means of self-observation, or meditation, our body, mind and even our intellect can become objective to us. That is when the meditator says: Neti, neti, neti: I am not my body, mind or intellect. And now, will a Communicator (C) please say it better.
38.2,4: " .... partiality is always ugly. ...." . The Tamoguna causes people to mistake a part for the whole. See Gita 18.22. 39.1,2: ".... You are affraid. You are affraid to be vulnerable, so open to someone, to anyone. .... You are afraid to be so completely given to someone. You cannot breathe .... You cannot relax your breathing so that it goes to the center -- because the moment breathing goes to center your act becomes total." . Your intellectual (B), mental (C) and physical (D) actions become "Aligned(%8)" to your inner Self, the Tao, Atman or God. . The "You" in this quote refers to your outer, more concrete self. As long as we are identified with it, it will seem more real than our inner Self.. Right now, for most of us our body mind and intellect is the inner, and the world is the outer. we are the subject and it is the object. We are the local self and within us is the nonlocal Self. When interpreting Osho, we must remember that he can go to the other side of the Door (A) at will. From there the outer is the B-C-D triad The parts of us that produce our thought, words and deeds can be as objective to him as the outer world is to us. Some of his students who have learned to use their techniques can see it that way as well. They have no problem with WHAT Osho says, but the rest of us are bound to be confused. . Now, if we can move "the center" inward, to the other side of the Door (A), then we can see it his way as well. E1-E2-E3 is the subject and B-C-D is the observed object. When you are identified with the upper or inner triad, the lower or outer triad becomes the object.
. Just because jnana yogis can understand this, it doesn't mean that they can do, or see, it. If that experience prevents them from doing their own dharma, then, even if they could, they shouldn't do it. They shouldn't, because that will prevent the synthesis from happening. You can't deny the antithesis and still expect the synthesis to happen. I prefer to follow Lao Tzu in this.
39.1,5: ".... The more you are dead, the more you are secure. The more you are dead, the more everything is in control. .... you can control everything. ...." . If "you" are a capitalist (D), you can control the economy. For instance, bankers can issue money without being taken to court for counterfeiting. They can give you a loam that comes from nothing. In about seven years, you will have collected as much in interest as the original loan you produced from nothing. You have collected that amount of money for money that didn't even exist. Talk about controlling everything. . If you are a dictator (C), you have absolute power over life and death. That is totalitarian control. what you have to do is collect all the guns in the hands of private citizens, because when they find out the truth, which they will, they will shoot back. . If you are a timocrat (B), you don't have to get yourself elected. You have "the power of election" See The Protocols of Zion. Decisions are made for the decision-maker. And now you know why the people (A) get such a bad deal in a timocracy. In a democracy and in a dictatorship the people must know which political system they live under. If they don't know that, neither of these two systems will work. In a timocracy the people must not know which system they live under. If they do know it, then the system will not work.
. Self-observation means that the observing subject observes itself. As a result, the observed subject becomes the object. To understand this intellectually is easy for intellectuals, but to do it is hard, even for non-intellectuals. That's why Socrates, in Plato's Republic, said: Observing human society is easier than observing ourselves because society is outside of, or objective to, us.
. Then, after we have observed society, we will be able to understand the human individual better because society is made up of individuals. Therefore, society must reveal the (four) human characteristics to us.
. The Republic is essentially a description of the four human types by means of human society which is used as an example.
. One premise underlying the Republic is the law of correspondence: If we observe society correctly, then, by analogy, we can draw conclusions about the human individual.
. Now, what does Lao Tzu do at Ching 18? ...
I have already dealt with 18. in this blog, so I don't have to go over the details again:
. When the parts of the "Big Tao are Separated (TAA1@m)" first comes democracy (A), then comes "Hypocracy(*b = Wei9)" (B), then comes capitalism (D) and then dictatorship (C). We don't have the A-B-C-D sequence here. Why? ...
All efficient problem-solving activity begins with the right questions. At Ching 25.3, we have the same A-B-D-C sequence. At 25.4, the conclusion of 25, the sequence is "Reversed($l)". There we have the C-D-B-A sequemce. There we have our answer. But only if you had the question. No question; no answer.30.2,2: ".... Suddenly you take a deep breath. You may not have observed it."
. The you is breathed. The You breathes the you. Hey, that even happens to me. I have to become more aware of, and grateful for, that.
40.1,2: ".... Civilization, education, morality, they have created shallow breathing It will be good to go deep into the center, because otherwise you cannot take deep breaths."
. It must not be ignored that the social engineers are in control of our “education". By means of psychology, chemistry, electronics and other means, these professionals put us into the victim state of consciousness. They dumb us down. They cause us to feel helpless: They cause people to say "What can you do about it!", when the question should be: WHAT can we do about it? They know HOW to make us feel insecure. They know HOW to create fear in us which causes "shallow breathing".
. 85 % of Canadians didn't want the GST (General Sales Tax) we got it anyway with the results that were predicted. I signed a petition against the Chem-trails that are darkening our skies like clouds. They are still up there, still making us sick. Now "They're coming to take our water ..." If you can help The COUNCIL of Canadians financially, please do so. The fact remains, that in a timocracy decisions are made for the timocrats, not for the people. That makes some people angry which, again, causes "shallow breathing". In a timocracy, your anger will not deter our rulers from selling our water, because what is good for the people may not be good for the timocrats. They are simply doing what is in their own interest. By definition, a timocracy is not a government of the people, by the people and thus, for the people.
. There is no doubt in my mind that our rulers know what they are doing. They have been at it for a very long time. If we want to solve a problem, then we must first of all know WHAT the problem is. The social engineers know HOW to keep us in the dark, but I also know first hand, that, in spite of their efforts, a lot of people are becoming suspicious.
. I am only at the beginning of his book, but so far, Osho has not brought these facts to our attention. This makes the question: Why did they kill him, harder to answer, but it becomes more worth the effort. The search itself is good exercise. If they had not killed Osho, and if I had not studied Ching 41.1, then I wouldn’t be doing the work I am doing now on this book. I don’t know about you, but I think this book is amazing. This seems to verify that there is something in it that has our rulers worried.
40.2,2: ".... The breath passage is in the upper body and the sex passage is in the lower body. When they meet they create life. ...."
. Where "they meet", we have the synthesis of the opposites. "Existence and Nonexistence Mutually Create (YUWUmtSg" "Life(Sg)".
40.2,3: "Shiva says, Whenever in-breath and out-breath fuse, at this instant touch the .... center."
41.1,1: Here we have the term: "cosmic energy". E1-E2-E3-E4 is the tetrad of Mr.B's "Cosmic Energies". Osho and Mr.B can probably shed light on each other's "Energies" but for me, to elaborate on it, takes me outside my sphere of influence, or competence.
. One human being can't do it alone. We are not built for that. To put all of the pieces of this gigantic jigsaw-puzzle together, requires "Uniting Our Dust ($1 H@h). This Is-called the Mystic Unit (SiisSü$1)." Mystic, because it is a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
The "Total Sum of the parts of a Chariot is a Nothing Chariot ($0#5âsWUâs)." This is Lao Tzu's Way of saying: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Our rulers have learned HOW to make use of this principle. That's why they know that we must be "Without this Knowledge (WUkn)". Knowledge is power: If we know WHAT they know, we can do WHAT they can do. And there are more of us than there are of them. So they have good reasons to keep this knowledge away from us. Only after their "kingdom has come" can they introduce "THE DIVISION OF LABOR". See The Protocols of Zion.
. The fact is, that a critical mass of the people must understand THE DIVISION OF LABOR to make it work for us. One human being can't channel (A) it all, understand (B) it all Communicate (C) it all or do (D) it all. We have to become as organized as our rulers are. The task of our rulers is to keep the truth from us; our task is to seek and find the truth. That is why truth is the lifeblood of democracy. If a critical mass of us knows it, then the truth will set us free. This is not something we have to believe (C) because Jesus has said it. It is something we must understand (B) to make it work.
. The Internet makes our alternative education possible but only if the net-workers (C) are pulling their weight. This is why, I believe, that the social engineers have concentrated on them. They know that they don't have to weaken all four components of the tetrad to cause the system to fail. Weaken one link of a chain and you weaken the whole chain.
. I have to do my darnest to get these ideas across to you. They are absolutely vital. Until a "WordErs(C2er)" "Knows that he Doesn't Know (knPUkn)" it all, you have to put up with my poor communication skills. This is the best I can do. Let me tell you one more thing: If I were a social engineer, I would create the bottleneck at level C. When there is nothing to mediate between theory (B) and practice (D) the system can't work. Try to get a computer (D) to do what the programmer wants it to do without a computer language (C). And it doesn't matter whether the programmer (B) understands WHAT the customer (A) wants and knows HOW to develop a perfect algorithm for it. My hope is that not all water signs (C) have been dumbed down "Enough(Zu)" so that at least some of them can still see WHAT is being done to them and still understand what I have just said. When I typed the word "algorithm" just now, its opposite "Nonalgorithmic (from Deepak's pg. 103)" came to mind. Take it for what it is worth to you. To me it is a ray of hope because without divine guidance our situation looks pretty hopeless.59.2,3:L "5 Focus your attention on the third eye.
"The fifth breathing technique: Attention between eyebrows ...."
. " .... with inner gaze which is not restless, but rests still between the eye-brows; (Gita 6.13)"
Earlier in this blog I said that Krishna teaches raja yoga in the Gita. Arjuna was a raja yogi.
. At 13.24, raja yoga is "the Yoga of meditation". At chapter 6, Krishna talks about meditation. Raja yoga is also known as integral yoga. This is why Krishna also teaches karma (D), bhakti (A) and jnana (B) yoga.
. Because of my bhakti experience I know that it can't be taught in a book. It was also clear to me that what we get of jnana yoga in the Gita, is only an introduction. But until I read up to 59.2,3, I thought that the Gita is a textbook on raja yoga. Now I can no longer say that. Compared to Osho's book, the Gita is only an introduction to raja yoga as well.
. The four yogas are the components of a system called a tetrad. Behind such number-systems is the law of correspondence. This means that when you get deeper into any one of these four yogas you will notice the correspondence or similarity between them. However, to notice it, the other system must be understood and described well. Osho has done that. He gets into details on raja yoga you don't find in the Gita. For instance, he says: "First you will become aware of the passage, and when you have become completely aware of the passage, only then will you begin by and by, to be aware of the breath itself. And when you become aware of the breath, then you will be capable of being aware of the gap, the interval. It is not as easy as it looks. 48.1,3)"
. And just because I can copy that, it doesn't mean that I can do it. To learning any yoga, you, first of all, need the "Potential(pt)" for it. But notice the step by step process. Never bite of more than you can chew at any one time. “It is not as easy as it looks.” Learning one yoga takes lifetimes.
"At the end of many lives the man of vision comes to me. (Gita 7.19)". "man of vision" = jñãnavãn = "wise man, man of wisdom". The context tells us that this is the raja yogi. It takes "many lives" to learn karma, bhakti and jnana yoga before you can integrate them as raja yoga. This might shed some light on the question: Why did the social engineers consider Osho a dangerous person.
. There are many water signs in the world, but not everyone is material for raja yoga. Real raja yogis like Arjuna, and probably Osho, are rare. The only way you can prevent them from waking up too many people is to kill them.
With Osho still around, his organization would be much harder to infiltrate. Not all of his followers can be expected to be as "pure (62.1,3)" as Osho must demand. The power that comes through Focusing “your attention on the third eye” is there but, without purity, it is dangerous.
. This could be the answer to our question, but the book is too god to stop here. So let's keep going.I haven’t attended to my blog because I was reading the book: Ask and It Is Given. It hit nail on head so well that I couldn’t stop reading. The knowledge we can gain from studying it should help us understand “The Book of Secrets” better. So I will work on it now and return to Osho’s book when we are done.
. Whether we have here a case of synchronicity, or Divine guidance, is for you to decide. I will put this new section in front of file 2 - Text Commentaries.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
This morning, May 10, a thought came to me. It seemed so obvious to me that I thought that you must have thought of it already. So at first, I wasn’t going to put it out. However, I also know the law of attraction, which means that if I don’t act on what comes to me in this way, no more thoughts like that will come to me in this way. In short, to use it or lose it. (205)"
. So here it is: Instead of asking whether dogs or cats can bring about changes in “the subatomic world” ask whether sociopaths can do it.
. “ 1 in 25 ordinary Americans secretly has no conscience and can do anything at all without feeling guilty.” From the cover of Martha Stout’s “the sociopath next door”.
. Some of these citizens without a conscience and thus without a soul (A), or “Conscious Energy E4”, are very likely to be found in jail. If cooperating with you can get them out on bail for a while, they probably would be more than willing to help you with your experiments. Once it is established that by means of this test the presence or absence of a soul can be definitely proven, president Bush would be more than happy to demonstrate to the world that he is not the “devil” president Chavez of Venezuela has claimed he is. Don’t you agree?
_______________________________________________________________________
The guy that gave me The Secret to read, has now lent me What the Bleep do We Know. Since I have to give it back, I better start working on it now. Is changing the direction of my work, just because somebody tells me to read a book, logical? No. Is it syncronistic? That is for you to decide.
In the "Introduction" the authors talk about the film "What the BLEEP Do We Know? .... Our intent always had been to have .... 100 million see it. .... all those minds focused on a new reality would" .... Would cause what? "Would", could, is, is not, are connectives in a sentence. We have here the subject and the connective while the predicate is on the next page.
. Students of Lao Tzu learn to complete sentences because he leaves that work for us to do. That's how we become students, instead of being mere readers, of his words. Before I turned the page, I realized that here is an opportunity to do the same exercise with this sentence. Try! ...
The predicate the authors give us is: .... would "in fact shift something. We didn't know what,".
. Ah ha, I said to myself, that's why I got the book: I am supposed to let them know that when a critical mass of the people knows the truth, it will "shift" the morpho-genetic field of our planet and then the truth can set us free. Isn't that wonderful?
. I have finished reading the book and I can no longer say that that's why I got the book because on page 253, you can read about "Sheldrake's morphic field" yourself. Also what I could comment on has already been commented on by the authors and they have done a much better job than I can do. This is terrible, the authors have left hardly anything for me to contribute.
. I saw the movie, but I wouldn't have bought the book because I am too busy with the stuff I am better able to deal with. A lot of the book is above my head. And Lao Tzu said: Don't bite off more than you can chew. So I wouldn't have bought the book, but it was dropped into my lap, and that's the difference. So what am I supposed to do with it?
. On page 151, there are two diagrams: The first of them is the pentad and the other one is the hexad. Even though I have not specialized in these two systems, the "DyAd(dyad)", the "TriAd( 3ad)" and the tetrad are the parts of the more complex systems, and they can help us to understand them as words can help us to understand a sentence.
. Starting at the top and reading clockwise around the pentad we get: Science, Magic, Paradigm, Miracle and Spirit. Except for Spirit, there is a chapter devoted to each of the other four.
. The pentad I have dealt with most recently is: A (Conscious), B (Knowledge), C (Belief (pistis, in Greek)), D (Reality (or illusion (eikasia, in Greek, Maya, in Sanskrit))) and E8 (Matter or tangible reality). That pentad clearly was the Aristotelian tetrad plus E8 (Constructive energy). What the one on page 151 is, I don't know.
. Around the hexad are nine "Names(Mg)" or lables. Again, reading clockwise from the top, we have: Science, Belief, Magic, Conscious, Paradigm, Miracle, Knowledge, Spirit and Reality. There are only four monads, here, I know well enough to give me a better handle on this one than I have on the pentad, but to get a satisfactory "Insight(72)" on it, one that is good enough to write home about, might take some time.
. Essentially, what I have described here is a "Problem-Statement" (A) I have given to myself. But putting it out on my blog, others who are interested in this sort of thing and who know more about the pentad, hexad and ennead can work on it too. I will then put out what I have picked up, and put together, here. In the mean time, I will go ahead doing the easy stuff.
".... all the film distributors turned us down ....( x)" To students of the Tao Te Ching, this means that it is a good film: When
"Below average Scholars Hear the Truth ( -Ün^dA1) they will
Greatly Ridicule It (TA*a Z). if they do
Not Ridicule it, then we have Not Enough Means To find out the Truth (PU*aPUZudoA1)."
. Hsiao118(*a). The purpose of Hsiao(*a41) is to prevent us from finding out the truth. But when we know what we are not supposed to see or read, it has the opposite effect. They can't play a trick on us which we know. In fact, then it will do the very opposite of what it is intended to do: It tells us what is good for us to see or to read. Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic fields (253)" are a good example of this. They tried so hard to "Ridicule" or to discredit this theory and now, even "Lacerta" is talking about it. So what these "Below average Scholars" are telling us is: This is an important "Truth" and we don't want you to know about it.
"Then this film literally landed in my lap. Talk about the universe sending you a message! (xvi)"
. This statement also validates my own experience: Here I am minding my own business (dharma), working diligently on chapter 18 of the Tao Te Ching, and the Dalai Lama's book landed in my lap. This blog hasn't been the same since.
. There is this law of attraction: If you are aware "Enough(Zu)", of the universe sending you messages, then there will be more of them; if not, then, for you, there are no messages.
. When we get such a job to do, we must have "Enough" to put into it. Then we will get "Enough" out of it to know that this was not just an accident. When such a coincidence is meaningful "Enough" to us, then we know that it was a message from the universe.
. When a book is dropped in my lap, I normally read it first to find out if it is a job I am supposed to do. With all of the books I have commented on in this blog I knew that I had a worthwhile contribution to make to it. The Secret is a good example of this. The real intent of the book is hidden, like the hook is hidden by the worm. If this is not pointed out, the book can do much damage. The BLEEP is the exception to the rule: This darn thing is too perfect or too far above my head. Since Lao Tzu has told us not to bite off more than you can chew, I wouldn't have bought the book. I have seen the movie and I feel that there is more to it than I can chew. But I didn't have to buy it, it was given to me with the message that I have to read it. If I can't make a worthwhile contribution to it, then the universe must have made a mistake. Such a mistake would prevent me from working more efficiently on things I am better qualified to work on. It would also shake my faith in synchronicity. Not nice. Time will tell what comes out of this.
The title of the first chapter is: “The Great Question (1)”.
“What is a Great Question? Why should we bother? What makes it Great? (2)”
. The question (A) is the first phase of the 4-fold problem-solving process. It is the most creative “source” in that system. A source is a component of the tetrad. The other three sources are: thought, word and deed (B-C-D). Plato, his student, Aristotle, the Hindus, the Buddha, Lao Tzu, my teacher, J.G. Bennett and many others have described the tetrad. There is also much detail in the rest of this blog, so I don’t have to do it here.
. In general the dyad, triad, tetrad, pentad or the hexad is a whole that emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them.
. In the case of the dyad, its parts are always two monads called poles. In the case of the triad, its parts are always a dyad and a monad. In the triad, the poles and the monad are called impulses. In the tetrad, the parts can be two dyads or a triad and a monad. That is why, when analyzing a tetrad the first thing we ask is: What kind of tetrad is it? The same goes for the pentad and the hexad. From this you can see that the first step in the problem-solving process is asking the right question.
. What is the right question? The first chapter can speak for itself. What I might add is: If a question is dropped into our lap and it feels like a message from the universe, who are we to question it? But if you have a choice, don’t bite off more than you can chew. A question, the answer of which you are not ready for, can be a great waste of time and energy.
May 4, 2007
. The film distributors "never exclude (1-2)" you if they think that you are no threat to them. "But when things become significant .... that's when .... you want to exclude the other .... the alternative scientists are making a good case of their data .... And that is why the polarization is a very good sign that we are getting somewhere. (2)" Especially when we learn to interpret the efforts of those, who want to hide the truth from us, properly.
. "If you provide experimental data that violates their precepts, they want it to go away, so they sweep it under the rug. They will not let you publish. They will try to block all avenues for communicating (33)" the truth.
. And once a critical mass of the people knows "Enough(Zu)" of the truth, knows how to interpret the efforts of those that don't want us to know the truth, their efforts become counterproductive.
. Students of the Ching know that "Ridicule(*a41)" is a "Means To hide the Truth (YIdoA1)". But, as we understand what the people in power are trying to accomplish, they accomplish the very opposite of that. "Knowledge is power." And, thanks to Lao Tzu, they are giving it away.
. Having read the whole book now, I find one important principle missing. Plato, the Hindus, Lao Tzu and the Learned Elders of Zion have seen the importance of it and if that is the only thing I can make you aware of, it will do. It is THE DIVISION OF LABOR.
. I am on the path of knowledge. Have been for over 60 years. Whether I believe (C) what I know (B) is not that important. It is also unreasonable to expect me to communicate (C) what I know as well as a Communicator, or what Lao Tzu calls a "WordEr(C2er)", is able to do. What does matter, or should matter to Communicators (C) is whether they believe it. Then it can be tested. Communication is not my business, or dharma. "KnowErs are Not good with Words (knerPUC2).".That's the "Way(A1)", or HOW , it is. That's why Tao(A1) has also been translated as "Nature". Following the Tao means learning to live in harmonyy with nature.
. To my knowledge, the best description of the division of labor is in Plato's Republic, but you can also read about it in this blog. even though it is important, there is no need to go into it here.
. The chapter on paradigms is from page 25 to 35."Paradigm" is one of the five monads around the pentad and one of the nine monads of the ennead on page 151. Let me report to you how far I got with the hexad. After all, that's the one I have the better handle on.
. "From the following list of words, see how many above/below relationships you can construct. (151)" "Conscious" (A) is above "Knowledge" (B). Knowledge, or "Heaven(Tu)" (B) is above "Belief" (C) and the "King( E)" (C) is above tangible "Reality" (D). Students of the Ching know that the three horizontal lines in Wang( E) represent heaven, humanity and earth. So, in Chinese, we even get a diagram of that.
. There are "Above average Scholars ( +Ün) .... Average Scholars ( =Ün) .... and Below average Scholars ( -Ün)".
. The "Average Scholars ( =Ün)" are sitting on the fence, watching the game, without themselves getting involved. That probably was alright in the past, but in these last days this is no longer acceptable. As the man said: "I will spue thee out of my mouth. (Revelations 3:16)" If you are not on His team, then you are on the opposing team. The choice is yours. You got intelligence: Use it! Do you know what happened to the guy that has buried his talents? See Matthew 25:14. Our freedom of choice is a blessing if we use it wisely; if we don't, it is a curse. Even if you play stupid, you are still responsible for the decisions you make.
. "The ancient symbol for this is the six-point star of two intersecting triangles, (151)".
By doing the exercise the authors asked us to do on page 151, I came up with what is an "Insight(72)" to me, but the Communicators (C) and the Doers (D) should treat it as a hypothesis. They have to test it before they accept it as a truth.
You can think of the "triangles" as the tip of an arrow, one pointing up and the other pointing down. The one pointing up is also in the ennead. There "Conscious" (A) is at point 3, "Knowledge" (B) is at point 6 and "Science" (?) is at point 9. If "Belief" (C) had been on top of the triad, at point 9, I would have had no trouble because Plato said that "Belief (pistis)" is on level C of his "Divided Line (at 509d of his Republic)". Now, when the authors put something into their diagram that does not fit into my paradigm, all kinds of doubts arise in my mind: What the bleep do they know about systematics? etc. Considering what the authors have said about our personal paradigms, we can do something about them. We have some information that helps us to know what to watch out for. Let us not reject ideas that don't fit in right away. Stop and think about the problem: The arrow, which points up, is a triad. We have identified two monads, A and B. The third monad should be C. Do you remember how important the question is? Here it is: Can Science be identified as C? ...
. In computer programming, the customer is at A, the programmer is at B, the coder is at C and the computer is at D. The computer program (C) mediates between Theory, the algorithm (B) and the computer (D). Language mediates between theory and practice. Is "Science" a language? ... C is the connective or the reconciling impulse between the hpothesis (B) and the actual test (D). Can we say that of "Science"? What do you think? ...
The second chapter is: "SCIENCE AND RELIGION: The Great Divorce (11)"
. I like to think of the scientific method as a "TriAd( 3ad)":
1. Come up with a "Hypothesis(17)" 2. Decide whether it is worth the expense of testing it. If not; come up with another hypothesis; if yes: Approve the funding. 3. "test (17)" it.
. In systematics, the triad has four impulses. This has puzzled me, and the instructors at Sherborn House have not given me a satisfactory explanation. If they did, I wasn't ready for the answer then. Lao Tzu has given an answer that I could understand. Now, as I am trying here to find out about "Science", I came up with another explanation:
Step one is the affirming impulse. It is affirmed that the hypothesis is true. Step two is the reconciling impulse, it mediates between theory (B) and practice (D). Step three is the receptive impulse when the hypothesis is true and the denying impulse when it is false.
"Knowledge is Power. (18)" Where did I hear that before?
"The oldest known scriptures, the Vedas, talk about the physical world as illusion, maya. (20)"
. Actually, the Hindus talk about the sub-strata and the superimposition. This superimposition is the world of the "senses (indriyas (Gita 3.42))" In Plato's "Cave (514a)", the cave wall is the substrata, the screen, and the superimposition is the "illusion (eikasia)" that is projected onto it.
. In J.G. Bennett's dodecad the cave wall would be E8, which is his "Constructive Energy". Our senses are E7 (D). The mind (manas (C)) is E6. Our intellect (Buddhi (B)) is E5. And the Atman (A) is E4.
. In the heptad, A is the "Door, Dasamadwara" between the lower triad, B-C-D and E3-E2-E1 which would be the upper, or inner, triad.
. Mr.B has divided the dodecad into three tetrads The lowest one is E9 (+ +), E10 (+ -), E11 (- +) and E12 (- -). I have included here the Cartesian designations to let you know that personally I prefer the + +, +-, -- and -+ sequence. This is heady stuff, let us see if Lao Tzu can help us with that: + +, + -, - -, is the threefold premise we find in most chapters and many paragraphs. + -, is the connective between the affirming (+ +) and the denying (- -) impulses. One of the triads is in 25.2, but the best example is in 41.1. There we have the "Above( +)", "Average( =)" and "Below( -)" triad. In Ching 25, the affirming impulse (+ +) is unusually long while the reconciling and the receptive impulses can be read as one sentence each. It is the reconciling impulse(+ -), in this amazing chapter, that explains why I prefer the + +, + -, - -, - +, sequence. The "Therefore(KU)" in 25.2 separates the premise from the conclusion. This makes it an: If-then, statement. Lao Tzu is not always that explicit. Let's have a look at the chapter.
"It-was Something Undifferentiated, Complete, Before Heaven and Earth were Born (YUwUÜecm^7TnTISq). .... I Don't Know Its Name (myPUkn HMg). the Character Which Is-used-for-it is Tao (Zi Z73A1). if Forced To give It another Name (57do ZMg) then
I-would-call-it Big (73TA). if we let
"Big Mean Going-out, having Gone Mean Arriving and having Arrived Mean Returning Then (TA73*e*e73$t$t73$lKU) having returned must mean being back home again. the separated
"Tao is a part of the Big (A1TA) tao, Heaven is a part of the Big (TnTA) tao, Earth is a part of the Big (TITA) tao and the King is Also a part of the Big ( E08TA) tao.
"In the Universe (*f =) Are Four divisions of the Big (YU 4TA) tao And the King (bt E) is one of them (Cü H 186). ...."
. Shih162(*e).Yü32(*f). "in the world or universe (*f =)"
The Tao Te Ching is a textbook. Lao Tzu's words must be studied. So don't let me spoil it for you by giving you my thoughts on it before you have tried. ...
May 6, 2007
This is the chapter in which Lao Tzu defines the tetrad most clearly and ingeniously. Thanks to it, it is easy to relate his tetrad to the tetrads of the Hindus and Plato. There are not really any different tetrads: It's all the same truth. There are just different ways of describing it. Aristotle clearly understood his teacher's "Divided Line(509d)". The Buddha was a Hindu before his enlightenment. He knew that: Right vision, thought, speech and action corresponds to Atman (A), Buddhi (B), manas (C) and indriyas (D). And this again corresponds to Lao Tzu's: Tao (A), heaven (B), humanity (C) and earth (D). "Earth" in astrology, again, has the same meaning. And this is the paradigm I have "Held-on-to(40)" for a long time.
. So I am in good company, and the authors will have a lot of explaining to do if what they say about the triad or the tetrad doesn't fit into this paradigm. For instance Mr.B's tetrad doesn't quite fit in. and this might be the reason why his Systematics didn't take off the way one would expect it to. I can only speak for myself, but without his help I wouldn't be able to understand the basic number systems, and without them I wouldn't be able to understand Lao Tzu's "DyAd(dyAd)" or his "TriAd( 3ad)" and I might not even have seen the tetrad in Ching 25. So, in spite of being unwilling to fully agree with him and being unable to fully understand him, credit, for being where I am now, still goes to him.
. The sequence of the monads doesn't seem to be a major issue since Lao Tzu is changing it as well. For instance: At 25.2 the sequence is: A, B, D and C, while at 25.4 we have its "ReversAl($lad)": C, D, B and A. " Man Follows Earth (mnähTI), Earth Follows Heaven (TIähTn), Heaven Follows Tao (TnähA1) and the Tao Follows ItSelf (A1ähTuJa)." In other words, the separated Tao follows the "BigTao(TAA1)".
. This is why students of the Ching always have to ask: Which Tao is it? "Can it be Identified As Small (ptMgtosm)" or "Can it "Be(do)" Called Big (ptMgdoTA)"?
. Actually, I can think of three "Possibilities(pt)", but to verify that is not my job, isn't in my "Feldraum", isn't my sphere of influence, my responsibility, my duty, whatever you want to call it, it isn't my dharma. Here is what I got from Mr.B's dodecad: The Tao can be within us (E1-E2-E3), it can be between the inner and the outer triad (E4 (A)) or, and this is tricky: If the A-B-C triad is the inner Tao, then our body (D) is the connective, or reconciling impulse, and E8 to E12 is God, or the "Big Tao".
. Lao Tzu has compared our body to a "Pot(ut)": "In -the-center (*d11), where The Nothing in Something ( HWUYU) is, there is the Pot'S Usefulness (ut Zus)."
. Where the E1-E2-E3 triad is compared to a drop in the ocean, E4 to E7 is the film, Kosha or "Boundary(*1)" around it and E8 to E12 is the ocean around the drop. The water in the drop is the same water that is in the ocean.
. I am not a cardinal (+ -) air (B) sign but there is a lot of work for them in the job I have just described for them and on the pentad, the hexad and the ennead they have on page 151.
. The "coin remains split, with religion on one side and science on the other. (21)"
. If "Science(151)" is the B-C-D triad, then its opposite would be the E1-E2-E3 triad. This would then be the "Sprit(151)" while "religion(21)" would be what of the spirit comes to us through the "Door" (A), is interpreted by the thinkers (B) and communicated by the talkers (C). This is HOW Unintentionally, and intentionally, falsehoods can slip in, and be slipped in.
. "The materialist model of reality moved long ago from the ranks of 'theory' to become set in stone (28)".
. When we try to translate a "theory" (B) into practice (D), it may not work and then it should not be "set in stone"(C), it should be rejected.
"WHAT IS REALITY?(37)"
. According to Plato, the "prisoner" in the "Cave(514a)" believes that, what is projected onto the cave wall is "reality". This is what Plato calls "eikasia (illusion)". Then the prisoner is turned around. This "turning around of the mind itself might be made a subject of professional skill, which would effect the conversion as easily and effectively as possible. (518d)" Now the prisoner no longer sees the illusion but what causes it. Then he is "forcibly dragged up the steep and rugged ascent and not let go till he had been dragged out into the sunlight". Strange prison, but try to follow what Plato is trying to tell us here. Coming out from the dark into the bright sunlight, he can't see anything. His eyes are "dazzled by the glare of it that he wouldn't be able to see a single one of the things he was now told were real. (516a)" There you have a much abbreviated description of what Plato has meant by reality (A).
. Is the "Reality" on page 151 the illusion (D) we believe (C) to be real (A), or is it the reality (E8), our senses don't report to us but which science (B-C-D) and our unaided intellect (B) assert must be behind the illusion (D)? Can you see how important it is to come up with the right questions? Now we know what answers to look for in the book. For instance, read
"(the next chapter), which deals with what we perceive -- and take to be real (38)". When so much work went into the movie, first and then into this book, it is impossible to do justice to it with a few commentaries. If they give you the impression that now you know all about the book so that you don't have to read it anymore, then I have done a disservice to it.
"Consciousness creates reality. (38)"
. Is what is meant by "Consciousness" here, Mr.B's "Conscious energy E4" (A)? Somehow
"who we are, what life is, what is possible and what is not, is all based on what we think is real. (39)"
"Most people think reality is what our senses report to us. (39)" But the Hindus and Plato have told us all along that, that is not "reality", that is maya, that is eikasia. And now science is telling us the same thing. Maybe we are finally getting somewhere.
"Both Hindu and Buddhist seers taught, and still teach, that the world of appearances, the world we see with our senses, is maya, or illusion, and that something underlies this material realm, (41)".
. Our "senses(indriyas (D))" are projecting the illusion onto the real (E8). The "DyAd(dyad)" tells us that: Without an "Above( +)" there can be no "Below( -)". This also means that: Without the real, the screen, there can be no illusion projected onto it. You simply can't have one pole of a polarity without the other. That's HOW, or the "Way(A1)" things work. And, as the pragmatists (D) say: If it works, then it is "True(A1)".
“Aside from dyed in the wool materialists, the consensus seems to be that we are at the stage of analogy. (70)"
. That means that in addition to the law of attraction, we are now ready for another law: The law of correspondence. That's what the thinking tool called "analogy" is based on, that's why it works.
"Quantum Logic .... Process 1 was the decision by the observer to pose a question to the quantum world. .... This choice already limits the modes of freedom available .... posing any questions limits the response: If one asked what fruit you had for dinner, steak is not a valid response. (79)"
. There are three processes in Quantum Logic but I don't know enough about "Process 2" and "Process 3" to make any useful contribution to them, but what I have to say about "Process 1" might be of interest to you.
. We are not only back at the importance of the "question" but, here, we have to combine it with the law of correspondence. In other words, in order to understand "Process 1" better, we have to use "analogy(70)":
. As the customer (A) poses a question, or describes his demand, to the programmer or architect (B), so B describes his demand to the coder or contractor (C). And as B describes his demand to C, so C describes his demand (in the form of specific instructions) to D.
. There is a relationship between A and B, B and C and between C and D that is, not identical but, analogous. There is a universal law operating here that is worth taking a closer look at.
. The "question" to start with is: In what sense does B limit" the modes of freedom available" to C and in what sense does C limit the modes of freedom available to D? I have described the computer programming example in this blog before. There is no point for repeating it again, here. However, I will give you a hint: Level D is the most concrete level within the tetrad, there you will get the most concrete answer to the question (A) which starts the problem-solving process. No question, no answer. No problem, no solution.
"Every observation can be looked upon as a quantum measurement, because quantum measurement produces brain memory. These brain memories are activated every time we encounter and experience again a repeated stimulus. A repeated stimulus will always illicit, not only the original impression, but also this repetition of memory impressions . . . (84)"
. I have already done a commentary on this one when talking about Edward de Bono's jelly surface analogy. "A repeated stimulus" will move a thought (B) from the intellectual center (B) down into the emotional center where it becomes belief (C). C is more concrete than B and more abstract than D. It is the connective (+ -) between B (+ +) and D (- -).
"Memory (past) ®Perception ®Observation®(affecting) Reality (85)".
. Sense impressions elicit a corresponding content from our "Memory" (C) which produces our "Perception". The world produces a change in us. Then comes the "ReversAl($lad)". "Observation" with intent (A) and thought (B) changes "Reality".
. Thought with intent affects our "Desires(YÜ)" or "Expectations(YÜ)".
"Constantly Have Expectations By-means-of which you can Perceive your Boundaries (cnYUYÜYIKn H*1)." Kuan147(*1).
If these "Boundaries" are what the Hindus mean by Koshas, then we can read up on it in Sutra 14 of Swami Sri Yukteswar's The Holy Science.
"We're interested in the images of the movie, but we forget that without the screen on which the images play, nothing would be there. (90)"
. We need the reality to project the illusion onto. We can't have the one without the other.
" .... pure consciousness, .... creates .... the threefold structure of observer, observed and process of observation. (95)"
. J.G. Bennett has devoted more space to the triad than to any other number system in his Dramatic Universe. He has identified six of them. He uses + for the Affirming, - for the denying and = for the reconciling impulses. To identify the triads, he uses numerals instead. Thus the
1- 2- 3 triad is Plato's Father-Mother-Child triad. but, once you understand it, the thesis-antithesis-synthesis triad is a more useful example of this one. The other five triads are:
2-1-3, 1-3-2, 2-3-1, 3-1-2 and 3-2-1.
. + can also mean transmitting or giving, and - can mean receptive. The first impulse in any of these triads is always the "initial" or "initiating" component, the one in the middle is always the connective and the last one is always the "outcome" of the process. The triad is a process, as compared to the dyad which is a state, or static.
. At Ching 2.2 Lao Tzu gives six examples of triads: "Existence and Nonexistence Mutually Produce (YUWUmtSg)" "Live(Sg)". Shêng(Sg) means both "Produce" and "Live". That was the first example. The last one is: "Before and After Mutually produce Sequence (#c60mt#e)" or time. Try to identify the type of triad we have here. ...
If you can't tell whether the affirming (+) or the denying (-) impulse comes first, don't feel bad, "Right Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO$l)." Probably either way is right. It depends on HOW you look at it.
. Now, that even scientists talk about the triad, maybe the time for this idea has come. Whatever I understand of the "TriAd( 3ad)" comes mainly from Lao Tzu:
. The best description of the Tao(A1) comes from Richard Wilhelm: The Tao is like an algebraic variable. When leaving the "Tao untranslated, we get: the TaoAble is the Opposite of the TaoEd (A1ptA1FyCnA1). substituting Name for it, we get: the NamAble is the Opposite of the NamEd (MgptFyCnMg)."
"Constant Name (CnMg)" doesn't mean "NamEd". Lao Tzu doesn't spell things out like that. If he did, there wouldn't be a challenge for his students. And clearly the "TaoAble is the Opposite of the TaoEd."
. Now let us substitute "observation(95)" for the Tao: The observable is the opposite of the observed. First comes the observable, then comes the observing and then comes the observed. The object changes from potential to actual. Question: Does the subject change as a result of the object changing? ...
. There are two of the 1-3-2 triads in the tetrad, A-B-C and B-C-D. I know them best because I know the tetrad and the whole gives meaning to its parts. I have learned it from IBM and have used it from 1964 to 1973. If you use anything long enough, you can't help but know it.
. Clearly the designers of the original IBM programming system knew the Aristotelian tetrad. The tetrad is a whole like a sentence is. If you understand a sentence well, you necessarily also understand each word in it. You know that each word is like a link in a chain. If one link is weak, the whole chain is weak. If you break one link you break the chain.
. This is an important principle to understand. In systems theory this is the "critical path" component. This same principle is necessary to understand the "Intelligent Design" paradigm. Intelligent design is the synthesis of the creation and evolution theories. Somehow, Sheldrake's Morphic field, intelligent design and your quantum theory are all related.
"The Big Turnaround (131)"
. "Right Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO$l)" or turn around.
"As victimization is the strongest rejection of this chapter's premise, 'I accept responsibility' is the strongest acceptance of it. (131)" A victim is denying that s/he is consciously or subconsciously attracting whatever comes to him or her.
. In Eric Berne's The Games People Play, the payoff is not money but energy. To get the opponent's energy you have to get him into a negative state. That's when people lose energy. Experienced players know HOW to get people to feel bad or inadequate. A good example of this is the book: The Secret. It gets people into the victim state of consciousness so efficiently that it is hard to believe that this happens by accident.
"'Everything in your life is frequency specific to who you are. (130)"
. If you experience more failures than successes and you wonder why, "just look around; the universe is always serving up the answer. (130)"
. You can't have winners without losers. This is why a few people, that know the rules of the game, get good at getting their opponents into the victim state of consciousness. And the victims don't even know that they are in a game, or in a war. And if they don't wake up in time, they are on the losing team.
. If you have read my commentaries on The Secret you can see that it ties in with what I have just said. It so happened that the same guy that gave me The Secret to read also gave me the Bleep to read. Accidental, you can say. Between these two books, I stumbled onto The Handbook of the Navigator. Just another accident? To me it is the connective (- +) between these two books. The first being so negative that I felt compelled to warn people about it, the other one is the very opposite. Both books stand out: One as extremely bad, or dangerous, the other as containing the information we need to get out of this mess. It is amazing.
. Let me explain why the "Navigator" is a connective for me: After I did my commentary on the quote from page 95, I tried to brush up on what I remember about Mr.B's six triads. They are described from page 67 to 211 of Volume two of The Dramatic Universe. The pages are all marked up, so I must have tried very hard to understand it.
. On page 107 of Mr.B's book, we get into "The Law of Expansion
. The symbol 1-2-3, when expressed in verbal form, can be read: 'Affirmation, meeting with Receptivity and blending with it, issues as a Reconciling Impulse'. Furter development". At that point I made a note on that page: "'Further development' gets me nowhere. Following Lao Tzu, I say: to hell with it."
. That note expressed well what I felt then and what I felt again when trying to brush up on those triads. What I said there doesn't mean that what is said in those Volumes is false. What it means is that I can't understand most of it. In order to know that a statement is false, you must first understand it. This is one reason why Lao Tzu said in chapters 63 and 64: Don't bite off more than you can chew.
. Trying to understand something you are not ready for is not only a waste of time and energy, but it puts you into a negative state. This lowers your frequency and, by the law of attraction, the thoughts (B), emotions (C) and events (D) you attract into your life are of that frequency. See? If you don't let The Secret drag you down, if you stop reading as soon as you feel that negative feeling coming on, then there are some very valuable lessons in it for you. The bitter inside of the pill must always be covered by a sugar-coating, otherwise nobody would swallow it. As far as I can see, Mr.B's books have no dangerous poisons hidden in them but if there is somebody in this world that can understand them, then s/he should be able to make systematics work.
. Now, if it hadn't been for the "Navigator", I might not have been ready for the following question:
"What level of 'I-ness' is this [anything, good or bad] coming from? (131)"
. What level you are on determines what you are attracting. This is spelled out more clearly in the Bleep but, once you know what to look for, you can also find it in The Secret. The intent (A) to approach The Secret with this knowledge (B) actually increases your frequency. And with a bit of experience of this, you also know why truth is the lifeblood of Democracy. When a critical mass of the people knows the truth, the truth will set them free. The truth is there on the internet, but you must approach it the way you have to approach The Secret. If the hook is not covered by the worm no fish will swallow it. And there are a lot of hooks hidden in the internet.
. As materialists, or pragmatists, (D) find it hard to believe what they can't see, touch or measure, so philosophers (B) find it hard to believe what their intellect can't comprehend. That The Secret, the Navigator and the Bleep was dropped into my lap in that particular sequence can't be explained intellectually. And so the intellectual explanation of these coincidences is that it was just an accident. Study of the right books, or under the right teachers, can lead to the understanding that there must be a higher "level of 'I-ness'" these meaningful coincidences are coming from. By dwelling on these ideas, or struggling to describe them as I do here, this knowledge (B) will slowly become a belief (C). And then, simply because you start to believe in synchronicity, more of it will happen. And this brings us back to the law of attraction.
. Some of the stuff that is in the Bleep is easier for me to accept if I think of the "Navigator" as some kind of inner guru who gives me my lessons as I am ready for them. Some lessons have been very hard to appreciate. Lying in the Vladimir Lenin Hospital in Holgin, Cuba, and have the goon-squads come in and break my bones to make their ambush on me look as if I was run over by a truck and then putting a tube into my chest to make it look as if they tried to save my life. That was a terrible experience, and I still don't quite see the reason for having to suffer that much. However, I am able to see now that many bad things that have happened to me were important lessons I couldn't have learned in any other way. This appreciation of painful experiences is due to new knowledge.
. To gain more knowledge, requires knowledge. For instance, to understand Mr.B's books, a lot of knowledge is necessary and they must be understood to find any unintentional bottlenecks in them. To understand some of the ideas in the Bleep, the knowledge I got from the Navigator came in handy. He who has, shall have more.
. There is also the opposite side of the coin, the "Reverse($l)": Old knowledge (B), especially after it has become a belief (C), can also be in the way of new knowledge. That "Knowledge(kn)" has to be "UnLearned(PUÜd)".
"A Matrix of Words (151)"
. I'm back at page 151. As I just said, it takes knowledge to get more knowledge. As it turned out, even after taking a closer look at the "Words" around the pentad, the hexad or the ennead, the whole didn't emerge through its parts.
. I can now follow Lao Tzu's advise and not spend any more time on what is too hard for me to understand, or I can give some kind of job-description (+a) from me to those who put the diagrams on page 151. If I am the only one that can't "start tying them together . . . ", fine, don't bother but if I am not, try to make at least one of the three systems more comprehensible:
. There is a hexad that emerges partly through the tetrad. That one is comprehensible to me. Since it is quite different from your hexad, it may not be useful to you, but if you take it as a job-description from a mutable air-sign (-b) to cardinal air-signs (=b), we might be able to produce something more comprehensible:
. A picture is worth a thousand words, let's start with that. You can get a printout of this page and connect point A
. . -a A +a . . . . with points -d and +b. The two lines you have drawn and
+d ------ -b . . . the horizontal line between -d and +b form the triad
D . . .+ . . B . . . on page 151. That one has one monad correspond to
-d -------+b . . . each point.The other triad with points C, +d, -b has
. . +c C -c . . . . two words or monads correspond with each point.
If you connect point C with points +d and -b you get a rough picture of the hexad we have on page 151. The difference between them is that I understand this one and I might be able to help you to understand it as well. The one on page 151, I don't understand, and then, obviously, I can't help you to understand it. If you can, please do.
. The four lines you have drawn and the two horizontal lines I managed to draw represent the inner structure of this system; the outer structure touches clock wise all the 12 points of the dodecad. I have shown in this blog how the tetrad helps us to understand the diads and triads in it. The whole gives meaning to its parts. Now I am trying to use the dodecad to shed light on the triad, the hexad and the ennead we have in the second diagram on page 151.
. The inner structure of the ennead is from point 1 to 4, 4 to 2, 2 to 8, 8 to 5, 5 to 7 and from 7 back to 1. Its outer structure is clockwise from point 1 to 9. The outer movement in both systems touches on all points, the inner connectives in the ennead don't touch point 3, 6 and 9. On page 151, that is "Conscious", "Knowledge" and "Science".
. In the dodecad, the inner connectives don't touch point +a, B, -c, +c, D and -a. Starting now at point +a, I will use my knowledge of the tetrad and of computer programming to run through the job. Since I have been a computer programmer, I know the first quadrant best:
. +a is the job description of the customer (A). It is the Affirming impulse of A or the fixed fire sign. You can also think of it as as A's shipping department. -b is B's receiving department, it is the receptive impulse of B or the mutable air sign. That's me, a Gemini. Most input I use for doing my dharma is Plato's Republic, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching and some of it comes to me by intuition and meaningful coincidences (like having this job dropping into my lap). But, as you can see from the example I am using here, I am also using thinking tools like analogy. If it doesn't mean anything to you, well, you can't win them all, but if it does, how much of it was synchronicity and how much of it was just straight-forward thinking (B)?
. Notice that -b is connected to C. This means that I must not accept anything from +a that C can't handle. B develops the algorism. +b translates it into a flowchart and gives it to -c. -c is the Receptive impulse of C, but if it finds that this is more than C can chew, it becomes the denying impulse and gives the flowchart back. Then B or +b must break down the job into smaller tasks C is able to code.
. Look what the diagram tells us: The coder looks back to the job-description as received by -b and forward to the computer output. In other words, the supply (+d) must match the demand (-b). +c is the computer program which -d must be able to read and D, the computer, must be able to execute. If it can't, then that is the coder's fault. And that's it. You don't really need me to tell you that. anyone who has taken the 7 week IBM computer programming course can tell you the same thing. Many of them were assassinated because they still could program. The fact that those programmers that didn't get killed could prevent the Y2K disaster means that those that have planned it are not infallible.
. Within the tetrad, there is the law of correspondence operating. As C must look forward to +d, So B must look forward to +c, B must know WHAT C can do. +a tells -b WHAT it wants B to do and B knows HOW to do it. +b tells -c WHAT to do and C knows HOW to code it. +c tells -d WHAT to do and D is designed to carry out instructions exactly as given. Since D is the most concrete level, we can see the pattern working on that level in the most concrete way. I can't claim to have given you a perfect description of the hexad, but I hope that I have given you some work to do. For a "job-description" (+), this should be good "Enough(Zu)".
. For practical purposes (D), the seven Week computer programming course, that was taught before the system was corrupted, was good "Enough(Zu)" but, for a philosophical (B) challenge, as you have given us, a larger system, in which the tetrad is a component, has to be consulted. It's like adding the five subordinate phrases to the above sentence for greater detail. After the subordinate phrases are removed we are left with a sentence in which each phrase is like a link in a chain: The seven Week computer programming course was good enough but (now) a larger system has to be consulted (Why? Because of the philosophical challenge you have given us).
. The subject and the predicate of the above sentence are complete subject-connective-predicate sentences of their own. The connective, "but", turned them into phrases within the larger whole. As I said before: Language can be used as a thinking tool.
".... intention.... that act .... that chooses the effect that is to be observed in the outside world ... is the key, the (163)" WHAT is to be produced tangibly in the outside world. The "how that key is to be turned is up" to B who has to develop the algorithm, is up to C who has to write the program and is up to D who has to execute it.
. The "act .... that chooses the effect that is to be observed in the outside world" is the job-description in computer programming, it is the Aristotelian final cause (A) and it is +a, the demand, that has to be manifested as the material cause (D) which is the supply (+d) of the demand (+a).
. As we are using analogy with an excellent example such as computer programming we automatically bring clarity into our thoughts. That's what thinking tools are for. The very opposite of this is allowing yourself to be dumbed down. And, as I said before, all kinds of hooks are hidden behind a sugar-coating of truth. Social engineering is a science but if outsiders get to know it as well, they become a treat. If the social engineers can't subtly remove people by getting them into "Mental Health Facilities", then they put their names on flight lists to Cuba and have their Cuban counterparts do the dirty work for them. This is called "Out-sourcing". The fact that I am still here means that the social engineers are not infallible. Their problem is that, like thieves, they have to work in the dark.
. Let's get back to the dodecad. Mr.B told us that nothing is gained by trying to make things simpler than they really are. Maybe that's why his Dramatic Universe is so hard to understand. At least that's why I am afraid to overburden you with details. Let me simply elaborate on something I have already explained in the rest of this blog: Where B is the reconciling (=) impulse in the A-B-C triad, A is the affirming (+) and C is the receptive (-) impulse. Where C is the reconciling, B is the affirming and D is the receptive impulse. Both triads are of the 1-3-2 type but the monads in them are different. What we have just done is called "identifying the monad" in systematics. Take some time to digest that.
. Now we have to move from the tetrad, I am familiar with, to the dodecad, I am not. According to the law of correspondence the relationship of any three consecutive monads in the tetrad must be analogous to any three consecutive monads in the dodecad. Let us see: I am a mutable (-) air (B) sign. In front of me is an affirming or fixed (+) fire (A) sign, behind me is the cardinal (=) air sign. The triad would be 1-2-3. But if I become a reconciling (=) impulse in the middle position, +a would remain the Affirming impulse in the initiating position, but what was the reconciling (=) impulse in the end position, would have to become the receptive (-) impulse. We still have the same 1-3-2 triad we have in A-B-C, but the monads have changed. Remember: Analogy is not identity. I will let you chew on that. And: Don't bite off more than you can chew.
"Our purpose here is to develop our gifts of intentionality (204)".
. I will use this quote to say a bit more about the dodecad. In the tetrad, intent comes from the customer (A), s/he pays the architect (B), the contractor (C) the sub-contractors and for the materials (D) they need to manifest the Aristotelian material cause (D).
. The architect produces a 2-dimensional blueprint of the dream-house the customer might have seen as a 3-dimensional holographic vision. S/he can't give the vision (A) to the contractor (C) because he doesn't know what to do with it. This is why B has to mediate (=) between A(+) and C(-). As I said above, this is the 1-3-2 triad.
. To understand this abstract "Concept(B1)", we have to bring it down to earth (D) by means of analogy. Let us continue to observe what actually happens in the building trade:
. The contractor doesn't do the plumbing roofing or painting etc. himself. He tells his sub-contractors: What to do, when to do it and where to do it. At this point the 2-dimensional flow-char is brought down to a sequential, 1-dimensional string of instruction in computer programming. For instance, in the building trade, the plastering has to be done before the painting, the drywall has to go in before the plastering, the pipes and wiring has to go in before the drywall and the frames have to be there before the drywall can be put up.
. You may know a handyman who can do all these things by himself. Why break things down and complicate things? ...
There is this thing called efficiency. Aristotle has called the third cause (C) the efficient cause probably because he has understood his teacher's DIVISION OF LABOR. Plato has devoted much space in his Republic to the 4-fold division of society because we can't have a healthy society without it. The Hindus talk about dharma. Others talk about Feldraum, sphere of influence, "responsibility (here in this Bleep)" or duty. When asking the question:
"Why ARE We Here? (204)",
these details must be included. "intentionality" (A) is important, but so is thought, word and deed (B-C-D). Each of the four sources of the tetrad is like a link in a chain. Break one and you break the chain. And now apply, what we know, and can verify, about the tetrad, to the dodecad. To do that, you might have to return to what I have said about the second diagram on page 151.
".... we're here to .... make known the unknown. (204)"
. This is true of the jnana yogis, or air (B) signs, but the water (C), earth (D) and fire (A) signs have other duties. The blueprint alone is not the house.
. We must first "Actualize our Potential (A1pt)" and then we must find out what the people on the level below us are able to do and help them do their dharma. By doing this, we are doing our own. Maybe "KnowErs(kner)", philosophers, ynana yogis or air signs (B) can call themselves lucky because the Fire signs have given us such a nice job-description, in the form of the Tao Te Ching. etc. But how many people use their talents? "In short, to use it or lose it. (205)"
. If we don't use the job description that comes to us from the level above us, then we will end up with a global dictatorship. Guess why the truth is intentionally kept away from us? ...
Because knowing the truth will set us free.
. If the difference between the four human types can be detected in brain tissue, then we would be a step closer to the truth. In theory, the joy (ananda) for doing your own dharma should be greater than the satisfaction you get from doing somebody else's dharma even when done more successfully than your own. Worldly (D) and spiritual (A) success are opposites.
"So, in effect then, when one wants to focus intent, you want to be a singleness of mind. (208)"
. I intent to use this quote to elaborate on Gita 3.35 and on the dodecad again. In the dodecad, the intent of A is expressed at +a, of B at +b, of C at +c and at D it is expressed in tangible reality at +d. There are thus, four types of intent which originate at A and culminate at D.
. Speaking only for myself, I find that the more I get into my own dharma, the more I get out of other people's dharma. The law of attraction again. I can't imagine being "a singleness of mind" while doing somebody else's dharma.
. "And do thy duty, even if it be humble, rather than another's, even if it be great. To die in one's duty is life: to live in another's is death. (Juan Mascaró's translation)"
. Some people contradict me by saying that I communicate (C) well. Communicators (C) know better. If I get some ideas across, it is because I know WHAT I want to say. The WHAT and the HOW are the poles of one polarity. For instance, when the building inspectors closed down my small rooming house, I still had to pay my mortgage. That's when my former partner got me a job as a programmer. The original perfect IBM 1401 computer language has been phased out, so I had no language to work with but my friend did the coding for me in BASIC and I did the algorithm for him. This is team-work. There I have seen the division of labor first hand. the two of us were twice as fast as any two programmers at Atlas Electronics. Now I can say it: We couldn't hand in our finished job because we didn't want to get the other programmers into trouble. Now, it just so happened that there I learned another lesson. If one of the blocks in my flowchart was too big for my partner, he would ask me to break it down further for him. Some blocks were so small that they could be translated into a single instruction. This is how I learned the BASIC computer language very quickly. Instead of writing the instructions inside the block in English, I would write it in BASIC, just for fun. I hope that my own personal experience can explain to you how the WHAT is to be coded and the HOW it is done, are related.
. Question: Has my "Navigator" led me to that job so that I can explain this relationship to you now? Whether you call it an accident or synchronicity, this personal experience of the "efficiency" of THE DIVISION OF LABOR and of the relationship of the WHAT and the HOW certainly comes in handy now. Another verse from the Gita comes to mind:
"Ignorant men, but not the wise, say that Sankhya and Yoga are different paths; but he who gives all his soul to one reaches the end of the two. (5.4)"
. In the Gita, "Sankhya" is the path of knowledge (B) while "Yoga" is karma yoga, the path of action (D). Krishna is talking here about the more obvious theory (B) - practice (D) dyad, but any of the six connectives between A, B, C and D are a dyad. So, by giving all of your soul to your own yoga you eventually reach the end of all yogas. Even though I don't like doing this writing (C), I start to suspect that I was set up for this because, as I said myself: Language can be used as a thinking tool. And how do you learn about thinking or language? by using it or by practice. Practice makes perfect.
. I am doing some reading up on the intelligent design theory because I think that it must be integrated with your quantum theory and Sheldrake's morphic field.
. A few pages back I said that creationism, evolutionism and intelligent design form a thesis-antithesis-synthesis triad. First I learned about it from J.G. Bennett's Dramatic Universe Volume four. He used "photo-synthesis" to make the point: "If chlorophyll has always been necessary to support life -- and all evidence goes to confirm this -- where did the first chlorophyll come from? (pg.136)" The "hypothesis of fortuitous arising seems more untenable then ever. We can confidently assert that some organizing influence was at work. (pg. 137)"
. I didn't get the phrases, "intelligent design" and "irreducible complexity" from him. They came from a BBC documentary: THE WAR ON SCIENCE.
. Another interesting reference to the same general idea comes from Lacerta. Interview December 16, 1999: "You must know (some of your scientists have already supposed this) that your species had evolved in a naturally completely impossible speed within just 2-3 million years." The quote is from the first page.
. And then, out of the blue, Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe was lent to me to read. To me that means that I am to brush up on intelligent design.
. The "blood-clotting system fits the definition of irreducible complexity. That is, it is a single system composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system effectively to cease functioning. (86)" Like: Break a link and you break the chain. "It's all or nothing. (111)"
. There is a "distinction between conceptual precursors and physical precursors. .... In Darwinian evolution, only physical precursors count."
“Words Have an Ancestor (C2YU@4) Deeds Have a Master (D2YU#u)." Lao Tzu doesn't give his students answers to read but problems to solve. ...
In this blog, the three dots "..." mean: Please think before reading on. Try analogy with computer programming as an example. ...
The computer (D) can do nothing without the program (C). But Lao Tzu's students are not supposed to stop after coming up with the obvious. ...
Looking up the answer before you have done your homework is cheating. You are cheating yourself out of the opportunity of doing your own thinking. One way to prevent yourself of seeing my answers (and, without doing your own thinking, how do you know they are right?) is by scrolling down only to the line with the three dots at the end. After you have done your thinking, you can scroll down further and compare your answer with mine. That is healthier and can be fun.
. After the obvious answer, Lao Tzu "Wants(YÜ)" you to come up with a question. A creative process begins with the right question. ...
What are the precursors of "Words(C2)"? ...
And what are the precursors of thoughts (B)? ...
Without the customer (A), who envisions the end-product and who pays for it, there can be no purposeful intellectual (B), mental (or verbal (C)) or physical (D) action. For purposeful action, we need a purpose. To get the big picture we must even go beyond the intelligent designer (B).
. In order to make THE DIVISION OF LABOR work for us, we must understand the tetrad. It helps to know that there is something above level A and below level D but these other levels are outside “Humanities (%5)” Feldraum or sphere of influence. As Plato would have put it: They are none of our business.
. "To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and necessity, rather they were planned. The designer knew what the system would look like when they were completed, then took steps to bring the system about. Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity. (193)"
. The customer(A) must know "what the system would look like when they were completed, then took steps [B-C-D] to bring the system about."
. Even if we had twice the time to "evolve" a la Darwin, it couldn't have happened if left to chance. The way to translate the Aristotelian "final cause" (A) into the "material cause" (D) is by having the "formal cause" (B) and the "efficient cause" (C) mediate between them. The best example of HOW the tetrad works is the original computer programming system, because its designers must have known the Aristotelian tetrad. The point, here, is that the planning (B) alone will not do it. You need all of the four Aristotelian causes or nothing. Each link in a chain is equally important. And to see why this is so, you must see the tetrad in action.
. "When a question is too difficult for science to deal with immediately, it is happily forgotten while other more accessible questions are investigated. (251)"
. There is a lot of wisdom in that book, some of which could have come straight from Lao Tzu: Don't bite off more than you can chew. What is also included in this advise is: Stick to your own dharma! Don't try to do what you are not cut out to do! The fact that I have to do the writing here, which is not my dharma, is a sign that we live in an unhealthy society. Our rulers know that their politicians have to do the talking (C) and the unelected advisors have to do the thinking (B). Why don't they teach that in political science? ...
The rulers in an "Intelligent Man'S Government (wsmn Z85) .... Always Cause the People
(Cn%eMn) to be Without Knowledge (WUkn) and Without the Desire (WUYÜ)" to know. I believe that books like the Tao Te Ching and your BLEEP can kelp us to find the truth which, when known by a critical mass, will set us free. If that is not so, if knowledge is not power, if truth is not the lifeblood of democracy, then why do our rulers have to try so hard to keep us in the dark? ...
. Let's return to the Bleep:
"And although Descartes is credited with 'inventing' dualism, this dualistic idea of a God 'out there' predates Descartes by thousands of years. (229)"
. The separation originates in what the Hindus call the "Janaloka .... wherein the idea of separate existence originates. As this sphere is above the comprehension of anyone in the creation of Darkness, Maya, it is called Alakshya, the Incomprehensible. (Sutra 13)"
. The Janaloka (E3) is one level above the "Maharloka .... the Door, Dasamadwara." (E4(A)). In other words, the Janaloka is on the other side of the Door (A) and thus, outside the sphere of our influence and responsibility.
. But "the idea of separate existence" must have come through the Door into our playing field (Feld), or into our space (Raum). No matter HOW we got it, it is now in our sphere of influence and we have to deal with it.
. Things are most abstract at level A (E4) and we are told that they become "incomprehensible" on the level above that (E3). Let us then go to the most concrete level (D), where we can actually experience things:
. We know from computer programming that D (the computer) gets its instruction from C (the coder). We also know from business that the boss tells his workers WHAT to do. So we know for sure that C tells D WHAT to do. And If the worker doesn't know HOW to do WHAT s/he is told, then the boss should be fired, instead of the worker, because he doesn't know his job. So on the bottom level of the hierarchy we know what is happening in great detail. As we move up from D to A, things become more abstract.
. In my experience with my partner, I told him WHAT to code. Also, even though we elect and pay for our politicians (C), they work for their advisors (B). If the advisors knew HOW to lie as convincingly as the politicians can, they wouldn't need them. But, as Lao Tzu told us: "KnowErs are Not good with Words (knerPUC2)." We can see, then, that the relationship between B and C is analogous to the relationship between C and D. Does the law of correspondence hold as we move up to level A? ...
In Plato's timocracy and the corrupted Indian caste ststem the Brahmins (B) are on top of the hierarchy. But in a Democracy (demos = the people, archein = rule), the people make the decisions. As Plato already implied, this doesn't work if the Educational system is not also controlled by the people. We also know from business, that the customer (A) is king. If his demand is not supplied, s/he goes to the competition. While the supplier is not supposed to tell the customer WHAT to demand, advertisers seem to get away with it. Some people are telling God what to do, and He may even be liswtening. Still, in theory, B-C-D (the supplier) gets its instructions through A
. As we move beyond the Door (A), things don't just get more abstract, we are told that they become "Incomprehensible". Still, if the law of correspondence holds, then we know that the relationship between E3 and E4 (A) is analogous to the relationship between A and B. This means that many things that can't be explained without analogy, can be explained with it.
" .... Sheldrake's morphic fields are the crucial factor in deciding which emergent acturally emerges in complex systems and that the morphic field is a field of coherence with its source in something non-physical -- which is real. (254)
. " These morphic fields can be thought of as the blueprint .... (255)"
. We have the phrase "complex systems" in this quote: The whole "emerges" through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them. And this leads up to the "Concept(B1)" of "irreducible complexity .... where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system effectively to cease functioning. (86 (Behe))"
. The "blueprint" (B) is one of four components which are necessary to get a house build. There is the customer (A) who must know WHAT kind of house s/he wants and who is willing and able to pay for it. Then there is the architect (B) who produces the "blueprint". Then there is the contractor (C) and his sub-contractors (D) who do the actual building. While those who actually produce the house in tangible reality are the most obvious participants of the team, all four members are equally important. If one of these parts is missing, no house.
. I believe that the idea of "intelligent design" is important "Enough(Zu)" to be mentioned in your book. To tell you this could be a reason why DARWIN'S BLACK BOX was dropped into my lap at the time it was dropped.
. The next quote, from the same page, has led me to a most interesting "Insight(72)". As if to verify what I have just said. It came to me yesterday morning May 24, 2007.
"Is there something there I should listen to? Will it guide me where I want or need to go? I've begun to realize it's the subtleties that are so small ( I [BETSY] barely notice them); they are actually the big clues. (255)"
. For me, the "big clues" started to come in more frequently, or I started to notice them more often, after I took the message, that I have to read the Dalai Lama's book, seriously. You can read the story in the Text Commentary file, so I don't have to repeat it here. Since then I have learned more about the law of attraction and I know that it has something to do with it. In theory, I knew about synchronicity for a long time. The problem is, that, even when we notice an unusual coincidence, we are so used to writing it off as accidental that, without a special effort, we tend to ignore it.
. Once we realize that "the subtleties that are so small .... are actually the big clues", we start to pay more attention to them and, as we do, we get, or notice, more of them. He who has shall have more. The law of attraction again.
. "SubtleTy, Tao'S Usefulness (JoadA1 Zus)." Lao Tzu's lesson seems to be: Paying attention to the "Subtle(Jo)" is a "Useful(us)" thing to do.
. There is no way to prove that I got DARWIN'S BLACK BOX, when I got it, for the purpose of telling you that "intelligent design" is missing in your book. However, suspecting (B) or believing (C) that it was a message from the other side of the Door (A) will make a difference to your perception: You will notice more meaningful coincidences.
. However, yesterday an experience came to mind that can be taken as a demonstration of "irreducible complexity". For ten years I was wondering why I had to suffer that much in Cuba. Yesterday an answer came. Was it just accidental? ... You decide.
. The fact is, that I wouldn't be here in Toronto alive (still), without irreducible complexity. I will restrict myself to listing four components, each of which was necessary for my survival. If one of them had failed, I wouldn't be here to tell you about it.
1) First of all, there had to be a fellow tourist who had to see me on the ground, within walking distance of our hotel in Guardalavaka, with blood coming out of my left ear where I had been hit from behind and knocked unconscious. He had to return to the hotel, and phone my next of kin for which I have given my friend's name, Michael Green.
2) My friend got the telephone message and he had to be willing and able to take the right steps to get me back alive.
. Fellow tourist had traveled all the way to Holguin to visit me in the Vladimir Lenin Hospital there. They were not even permitted in. So how do you think my friend was going to get me out of there alive? . . .
Before he left for Cuba, he contacted the Department of Foreign Affairs in Ottawa.
3) Without the pull from the Department of Foreign Affairs, my friend could have done nothing. And if the department had been infiltrated by the "Neo-Cons", they would have ignored his pleas as they ignore warnings about bomb plots etc. You can see from this, that within each component, there have to be other components, each of which is necessary to make the system work. For details see DARWIN'S BLACK BOX.
4) The most memorable member of the rescue-team was the nurse that had to get me into a condition in which I could walk onto the Toronto bound plane. They won't take you if you are on a stretcher or have to be carried.
. Her task was like: Mission impossible: I had been given drugs to take my appetite away. Within days, I was down to 70 pounds, skin and bones. Eating was obnoxious to me. I couldn't feed myself, my collar-bones had been broken in the hospital. The accident report stated that I was run over by a truck in Holguin, so they had to make me look like it. I had lost the will to live. I didn't want any more of this. I have had "Enough(Zu)".
. Strangely enough, it was her pleading that caused me to change my mind: "You are going to die (morrir).". I knew that. Most of the suffering was behind me, I have worked hard in life and nothing I tried seemed to work out, why go on? I was fed up with that whole thing and this was a neat way to get out of it without having to call it suicide. Suicide is a dumb thing to do. But I also knew that in a dictatorship the goon-squads that got me, can do anything to the people. What would they do to her, or to her family, if I died while under her care? I didn't type the three dots, here, because only those who have lived under a dictatorship can answer that question.
. She fed me, patiently, one spoon at a time. But what an amazing instrument this body of ours is: Give it the right conditions and within days I was ready to hang onto my friend's arm and climb up the gangway onto the plane to Toronto.
. As you can hopefully see, all four members of the rescue team had to do their part. If any one had failed the whole rescue mission would have failed. It’s an "all or nothing" situation. If only one link is required, then Darwin's "evolution" is valid. As soon as more than one component is required in sequence or in parallel, then we are getting into irreducible complexity in which the probability of it happening by chance becomes too improbable. That's when we need a plan (B). That's where divine intervention is the more logical explanation.
. So my rescue turned out to be a demonstration of "intelligent design". But would I sign up for this job voluntarily? If I did, I must have been nuts.
. Having finished my report, my gratitude goes out to my four rescuers. I would like to personally thank that fellow tourist who just happened to see me lying there and who did the right thing. Many people couldn't be bothered to do anything like that for others.
. What my friend did for me, I might not be able and willing "Enough" to do for him.
. The minister of foreign affairs took a personal interest in my case. I had the opportunity to talk to her on the phone and to thank her for her efforts. But the one that stands out for me is the nurse. Suppose that, because of the pressure from Ottawa, the goon-squads now had to get me back to Canada alive, suppose they still wanted me dead or perhaps they didn't care one way or the other about whether I am dead or alive? Each of these three possible scenarios would put the actions of the nurse in a different light. Whatever the facts were, I wouldn't have eaten if I didn't believe that she was threatened.
. Can you see now, how complex, and outright ingenious, "complex systems" are? And that the designer of such systems must have His "source in something non-physical -- which is real"?
"Wat's the difference between belief and knowledge? (270)" ...
The difference between belief (C) and knowledge (B) is ... .
. Before I sign off from this Bleep job, I want to return to the first chapter we have started out with: What can computer programming, not "Computer Science", tell us about asking the right "QUESTIONS"? ... The three dots are primarily for those who have taken the seven week computer programming course, not the seven year "Computer Science" program. ...
. HOW to operate the quarter of a million dollar IBM 1401 computer (D) took only a few hors to show us.
. Learning HOW to talk (C) to the computer took less than a week. To show you how easy it was to use the original perfect, English-like, 1401 computer language, let me give you a few examples. I have written a slightly improved emulator of that language in Turbo BASIC. In it, telling the computer to: Add "1" to "3"!, reads: A"1""3" . The space behind the instruction tells the computer that it is complete. Move "abcd" to A!, reads: M"abcd"A . The A would ordinarily be called an indirect address, but in my emulator it works more like the "Notepad" on Word-Processors. There are only three such note-pads, A, B and C, in my prototype.
. In order to understand computer-programming (B) we had to know a bit about "Coding" (C) first. So let me give you just one more example: If "bcde" equals the "abcd" in A, then Subtract "2" from "10"!, reads: ="bcde"A S"2""10" . The ="bcde"A , is a conditional phrase. It makes execution of: S"2""10" conditional. Since "bcde" is not equal to "abcd", S"2""10" is not executed.
. In order to use the Customer's (A) "job-description" and to be able to help him with it, we had to learn to do it ourselves. It boils down to clearly defining the inputs and outputs. It may also include the price of the job and deadlines. So we can think of it as a contract.
. There are preprinted forms to be filled out and quite a bit of other detail, so that the "job-description" (A) took about a Week to learn.
. Most of the time of the seven Week computer-programming course was taken up by computer-programming (B) or the "job-analysis".
. The coder (C) needs a "flowchart" to do his job and the programmer (B) must know "Enough(Zu)" about coding to help the coder write (C) the program. A flowchart consists of four types of boxes with arrows between them.
. For the purpose of this brief description, we only need two of them. One box is a rectangle. It is called an "operation box". In it is stated in English, what operations, Additions (A), Subtractions (S), Incrementation (I (A"1" )), Decrementation (D (S"1" ) or data Movements (M), are required at that point.
. The other box is a diamond shape. It is a "decision box". One arrow leads into it and two arrows come out of it. One of the two arrows means "No match" or "No: Don't execute the following instruction! The other arrow, then, means: "Yes, you have a match: Execute it!"
. We have finally come around to the purpose of this exercise. For our purpose, we can call the "decision box" also a "QUESTION" box. If the answer is "Yes" it means: Execute the next instruction! If the answer is "No", it means: Don't execute it!
. There is a bit more to it, but I think you have "Enough" to chew on for now. And please remember that the course took seven Weeks. So don't get frustrated when you didn't get it in one hour.
Computer Scientists learn HOW to use “black boxes”. Such boxes are special purpose computer programs. Computer Scientists don’t learn HOW to design (B) and Code (C) black boxes. Since there was no black box to prevent the planned Y2K disaster, in theory, it should have happened. It didn’t happen because the computer programmers that didn’t get killed, knew HOW to program.
. To intelligently design and code black boxes, computer programmers are still needed. How was it possible to teach us in seven weeks what Computer Scientists don’t know HOW to do after seven years? …
. It is often better to leave good questions unanswered for a while. We are back at the difference between knowing (B) the answer and reading (C) it.
. Let's get back to my nurse: The three possible scenarios, one of which she must have known, were: Life-death-indifference. Because she was so desperate that I had no intention of going on with a life that just didn't seem to work out, I assumed that she must have been threatened. But that was only one of three possible scenarios. And if I was wrong, then being wrong has saved my life.
. Notice again, that what we know (B) or believe (C) to be true does make a difference. In my case, it was the difference between life and death. And somehow, in addition to this "DyAd(dyad)", there is thought (B) that makes the difference between the poles of this polarity.
. "Invisible before birth are all beings and after death invisible again. They are seen between two unseens. .... (Gita 2.28, Mascaró)".
. We have here a "TriAd( 3ad)" in which birth-death is the "DyAd(dyad)" and the "Invisible" is the monad. There is another triad in this verse. ...
If you don't think, the law of attraction will not work for you. You will not learn to think. Once you think about the triad you will see it all over the place because it is. He who sees will see more. In computer programming, you can not, not see them. Every time you compare a quantity, X, with a quantity, Y, you have three questions to ask: ...
Is X greater than Y, is it smaller than Y or are they equal? There is no other possibility. When comparing two quantities, there are three possible results, no more, no less. There are three specific questions you can ask, three specific conditions you can test for. Computer programmers are doing this kind of work regularly. There are a few other things they do, but this triad is at the heart of it.
. The triad is always the same, but its "impulses", its three components, can be different. Thus triads are not always identical, but they are always analogous. This is so because of the law of correspondence. Now, then, what is the other triad in Gita 2,28? ...
If you look up my answer before you have tried to come up with one yourself, you will hopefully kick yourself because it is so easy. You should kick yourself for having deprived yourself of the opportunity of doing some thinking on your own. Please read the verse again attentively with the question in mind. ...
If you really study great teachers like Jesus, Krishna or Lao Tzu, you will find that they don't cast pearls before the swine. They know that nothing is gained by doing that. The fact is that: Nobody else can do your thinking for you. If you burry your talents, if you don't use it, you loose it. ...
Here is my answer: Between "birth" and "death" is life. That is the monad in the second triad and the "two unseens" form the dyad: One unseen is within us and the other is outside of, or objective to, us.
. Even if you didn't come up with the same answer, if you have tried, you will have prepared yourself for the answer. Not being able to come up with an answer is one thing; not being willing to try, is another.
. Now you can apply what you have just learned to the original question: How could we learn in seven weeks what Computer Scientists are not taught in seven years? ... There are two questions here: One philosophical (B); the other political (C).
May 29, 2007
The political question has already been answered by Lao Tzu over two thousand years ago: The "People, They are Hard to Govern (Mn Zdf85) When They are "Too(TO)" Smart (YI H^cTO)." Chih72(^c) = "Wisdom, knowledge". So I could also have translated the predicate as: "When They Know Too-much (YI H^cTO)." but if Lao Tzu had meant that, he would have used "Know(kn)" instead of "Wisdom(^c)". And I think he has used that word facetiously. He does have a strange sense of humor.
. The philosophical answer is not as easy. I wish a "WordEr(C2er)", who has taken the seven week course, could help me with that.
. In spite of the difficulties I will try: Philosophically, what we have studied in these seven weeks is the Yes-No dyad, the "More-than ( +)" - "Equal-to ( =)" - "Less-than ( -)" triad and the Customer - Programmer - Coder - Computer (A-B-C-D) tetrad. These are universal laws like the laws of attraction and correspondence. These laws are not invented by the developers of the IBM system, but they were utilized by them. Some students are conscious of some of these laws but all of us, deep down, know them. Our instructors didn't have to teach us these things from scratch, all they had to do is remind us of them.
. There is a difference between just talking about a theory and actually trying to make it work and seeing it work or not work. Thinking can help you to know (B) some things but seeing it work is believing (C) it. That is the difference between "Knowing(kn)" and "Understanding(kn)" something. "Understanding" is not a dictionary equivalent of Chih(kn) but in some contexts it is demanded. At Ching 70, "Understanding" is associated with "Practice(pr)" which is associated with "Ability(ab)" which is associated with willingness.
. Deciding HOW to read a character, teaches students HOW, or the "Way(A1)", to "Differentiate (âo)" between its different "Possible(pt)" meanings. Good exercise.
. Lao Tzu has "Named(mg) the "DyAds(dyad)", and the "TriAds( 3ad)". But before you can do that, the monad has to be "Identified(Mg)", it has to be "NamAble (ptMg)" first. First comes the namable, then the naming and then comes the named. The three impulses of the triad are always in sequential temporal order. If three monads are not in sequential order, we don't have a triad. The order of the A-B-C and the B-C-D triads, in the A-B-C-D tetrad is: Affirming-Reconciling-Denying. The whole determines the meaning, or order of its parts. The "threefold structure of observer, observed and the process of observation (95)" is the subject-object-verb triad. See? The sequence is different but we still have a triad. Take anyone of the three impulses away and it is gone.
. In Mr.B's Dramatic Universe, the triad is called a DYNAMISM. The affirming-denying dyad, in the triad, is merely its "Potential(pt)", When "Actualizing the Potential (A1pt)", when bringing in the verb, it becomes a DYNAMISM, the "Potential" becomes the actual.
. It took me a long time to learn this stuff, and I am still just scratching the surface, but some pieces of the puzzle are klicking into place. About time. If you can understand what I have explained so far, then you will not need a seven week course for the rest of it.
. I came to Canada in 1956. After about one year, I joined the Toronto Theosophical Society. That’s where dyads triads and other natural laws are discussed. Then, in 1964, I took the seven week computer programming course. Now I saw the theory, we were discussing for years, actually work in practice. Without that experience, the theory (B) would probably have remained theory (B) for the rest of my life. I then began lecturing on the tetrad till 1973. So if the stuff, I have dished out, above sounds like Greek to you, please don't give up. Learning these things does take time. But intuition can do miracles for you, because you already know these laws, they are within you.
. What you don't know already is the IBM 1401 computer language. However, it is the most English-like computer language we have ever had. That's why the details I have to explain next, are best explained in that language.
. There are a number of problems I have that will make my explanation more difficult. I am putting out the following description in hope to reach a Communicator (C) who can fix the problems. If you take the following description as a "Job-description" you might be less critical of me.
. Above, I have given a few examples of computer language instructions and one conditional phrase. That's a good start, but there are really three possible types of conditional phrases but I can only use the equal sign (=) in this blog because the mathematical symbol for "Greater-than ( +)" and "Smaller-than ( -)" are commands in the http system that is used here. Because they cause trouble, I had to use the plus (+) and minus (-) signs as identifiers instead of the proper symbols.
. Many Chinese characters in the Ching are like algebraic variables and mathematical symbols. At Ching 41.1, ( +) - ( =) - ( -) represent the "Above" average - "Average" - "Below" average "TriAd( 3ad)".
. Another problem is that the spacing between the text you can read on line and the printout you get of it are different. The printout is closest to the blogspot editor, so the text doesn't line up. Ordinarily this is no problem but the 1401 language is based on the direct addressing mode. So the guide-line which I display above the program line gives you only an approximate location. But an approximate guide-line is better than no guide-line.
. Finally, another problem is that I can't do computer graphics which means that I can't show you the flowchart which would have been used by the coder to write the subroutine I will give you below. The flowchart shows the Coder (C) WHAT has to be coded, while I can only describe too you HOW it is coded. That's a pity, but a Communicator (C), seeing my plight, might take pity on us. So, here we go:
Note: The guide-line is much too long. It has worked before. Maybe a virus. There is also an extra blank space in front of this file which I can’t delete. If somebody wants to mess me up, there is nothing I can do about it. I only know, about networking (C), what I have to know. Investing more time in somebody else’s dharma than is absolutely necessary, to do your own, is the wrong thing to do. Read Plato’s Republic about that: He has called: Interfering in other people’s business, the greatest of evils, while minding your own business is the kind of “justice” that is necessary for a just society.. . . . 5 . . . . 1 . . . . 5 . . . 2 . . . 5 . . . 3 . . . 5 . . . 4 . . . 5 . . . 5 . . . 5 . . . 6 . . . 5 . . . 7
M"1"A =A"1" B19 BD IA =A"2" B36 BD IA =A"3" B53 BD IA =A"4" B70 BD BL
M"1"A reads: Move "1" into A! =A"1" B19 reads: If A contains "1" then Branch, or go to, column 19. If not, then Branch to line D. Letters represent line numbers. If the column you are addressing is on the same line you are already on, you don't have to precede it by the line letter. The instruction I am always branching to is the IA instruction. They are far enough apart so that even when I don't get right on top of the opcode (I) it should be close enough for you to see what I mean.
. IA at column 19 reads: Increment A! =A"2" B36 reads: If A contains "2" then Branch to column 36. If not, BD !
. Things are getting repetitive. Let's jump ahead to column 53: Increment A! If A = "4" B70 ! If you don't jump over BD to column 70 you are going to end up at line D. D is to be suggestive of death while L is to be suggestive of life.
. If you know the BASIC computer language, you can substitute an indirect address for each of the direct addresses which are given here in line letters and column numbers. You can think of these addresses as street names and house numbers.
. Ideally somebody would write an emulator in the Motorola or Intel machine languages. Such a program might have to be loaded like a virus but it would be a virus that ends all viruses. It is a relatively simple program. The above subroutine can be adapted as the main driver for it. The conditional phrases would look for special characters, or Function keys, to Branch to special routines. After you have tested for all of the special keys, you end up at, what in this example is, line L. There you are in the Line editor. The computer is waiting for you to enter a special key or to type a program like the one we have here. When you are done, you move your cursor to the first instruction of the routine you want to be executed and hit Enter. “Enter" is treated like the other special keys. They are called “Commands”.
. Now let us look at some of the philosophical implications of adapting this kind of a program to demonstrate what is required for intelligent design: ...
The operations that are carried out before you come to the conditional phrase, or the decision box, set up the conditions you are testing. If you did it is right, you go forward towards Life; if not, you are Dead. As in life: First come your actions and then comes the judgement.. If there were only one test, there is a 50/50 chance of making or breaking it. As the number of tests you have to pass through increases, your chances of making it diminish, unless the system is designed in such a way that your chances do not diminish. And that would require an intelligent designer.
. Actually, the Bhagavad Gita puts a slightly different slant on the, above, scenario: "Those who are in Sattva climb the path that leads on high, those who are in Rajas follow the level path, those who are in Tamas sink downwards on the lower path. (14.18, Mascaró)"
. The above subroutine only gives you two choices: up or down, "the level path" is equivalent to sitting on the fence. Certainly there are situations in which there are the three conditions but in my Cuba experience there were only two: Life or Death. If any one of my four rescuers had been sitting on the fence, twiddling his thumbs, I would be dead. If the customer (A), the programmer (B) or the coder (C) are unwilling or unable to do their job or if the computer (D) breaks down, then not only that component will not work but the whole system is dysfunctional.
. Here is some homework for you: In addition to the sequential arrangement, there is also the parallel architecture. Programmers are familiar with both scenarios. Simply alter the above program to simulate the alternative to it. ...
. If you are an electrician, then you know the difference between a parallel and a sequential circuit. Let me describe a sequential circuit to non-electricians: Instead of having one long cord between your electrical outlet at the house and your electrical appliance, at the far end of the backyard, you have three short ones.
. Now you plug in the first cord, cord A, into the outlet and test it with an appliance on the other end. The question is now: Do we have juice? If yes: Plug cord B into cord A. Test it: Do we have juice? If yes: Plug cord C into cord B. .... Do we have juice? If yes: Plug in your appliance. Does it work? If yes, you made it; if no, something went wrong. And it doesn't matter which component of the system is malfunctioning. In a sequential circuit it is either "all or nothing".
. To have a "DyAd(dyad)", you need two poles. To have a triad you need three impulses. To have a tetrad, you need four sources. Nothing less will do. The same goes for the pentad and larger systems. All sequential systems are analogous to each other. The law of correspondence is omnipresent which means that it is working everywhere, even within you.
. The reason I prefer the tetrad is because I know it best. In fact, anyone who has taken the seven week computer programming course can make the tetrad work (D) and that is better than theorizing (B) or talking (C) about it.What we have here, in the form of a subroutine, is a model, or example of a sequential circuit. All sequential circuits are analogous to each other.
. Desmond Lee has called Plato's "LINE (509d)" an "analogy": "Well, suppose you have a line divided into two unequal parts, and then divide the two parts again in the same ratio to represent the visible [C and D] and the intelligible [A and B] orders."
. In what sense is that an "analogy"? What is that an example of? ...
I have given you the above subroutine as an example of what Plato is talking about. He has used "THE SIMILE OF THE CAVE (514a)" to elaborate on the LINE.
. Plato was a Communicator (C) who has had a vision (A). Instead of me trying to explain it to you,, I am better off leaving well enough alone.
. Lao Tzu puts it this way: The "Tao Produced 1 (A1Sg 1), 1 Produced 2 ( 1Sg 2), 2 Produced 3 ( 2Sg 3) and 3 Produced All Things ( 3SgWnwU)." Again, it is often better to let Lao Tzu speak for himself.
. Let me, then, write a program that is the complement of the above:
M"1"A =A"1" BL IA =A"1" BL IA =A"1" BL IA =A"1" BL IA =A"1" BL BD. Both programs have to start with: M"1"A ! The "Tao Produces the One." That is the molecular basis of life in DARWIN'S BLACK BOX because it could never have arisen by chance. But now comes the difference: =A"1" BL If all went well, Branch to line L.
. Where in the linear mode you get to line L only after you have passed all the tests, here you get to line L after the very first test. What happens next? ...IA =A"1" BL If all went well, Branch to line L. Instead of being sent to line D after you failed, as you are in the linear mode, you are allowed to "follow the level path". In other words, you are allowed to try again.
. In the linear mode, your chances of survival are diminished with every additional challenge; here, in the parallel mode, your chances of succeeding are increased with every additional challenge. Only if you failed to pass all of the tests, do you fail at the end: BD ! Branch to line D!What we have here now, are two examples, in simplified form, that are comparable to Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)”. The “Line” is a simplified example of the four levels of abstraction: A, B, C and D, each of which is complicated enough to keep you busy for the rest of your life.
. The two programs, you have here, are similar to it in the sense that they are a simplification of the linear and the parallel conditions of life.
. Linear conditions are synchronistic. To program such conditions, an intelligent designer is necessary. And to make such a plan work, each component of the system must intelligently and responsibly do his or her work, or dharma. What my friend did, to get me out of Cuba alive, is a good example of that.
. To program the alternative to the above, still requires an intelligent designer, but to pass through most of the tests, under such favorable conditions, can be left to chance. Under these conditions, Darwin’s “evolution” does work.
. A few pages back, I have associated the creationism – evolutionism – intelligent design triad with the dialectic process. Historically, that is correct: First came creationism, then it was challenged by Darwin and now both are challenged by intelligent design. However, if you read up on “Dialectics” on my old website: NewAgeTao.org you will see the flaw in it. Also the question of freedom versus determinism came to mind. What does that have to do with what I have said here? …
. I am not just putting this question out to you, I am challenged by it myself. As we have seen from the very first chapter of the Bleep: Creative processes start with the QUESTION (A). The second step is thinking (B) about the question. Just as a Communicator (C) must know the truth in order to communicate it, so thinkers (B) must have a question in order to answer it. "WordErs Don't Know (C2erPUkn)" to think as well as thinkers (B) can. That's why they should learn HOW to listen. Listening is part of communication but "WordErs Don't seem to Know" that. The third step would be networking (C). That is, comparing possible answers, evaluating the validity of refutations, deternining whether financing is available for testing the hypothesis and if yes, deciding on HOW to translate the theories (B) into practice (D) and thus testing them. If a theory is true, then it will work as predicted; if not, then not.
. Many of the theories I have expressed here are in need of verification or refutation, but, without a net-worker (C) teaming up with me, that is not likely to happen. I am putting out this warning not just for your protection but for my own as well. Putting out false information, even if unintentionally, is bad karma.In Transactional Analysis, the Adult (B) is also called the “computer”. Let us, then, very computer-like, go about the answer. …
. According to my article on Dialectics, the first question to ask is: …
Is the apparent creationism – evolutionism dyad a real “DyAd(dyad)" that will work, that will “Produce(Sg)” the synthesis? …
Historically, it is true: The thesis came first, next came the antithesis and now it is only a matter of time that the synthesis will be generally accepted. According to Schopenhauer there are three phases in which the truth proceeds: “Ridicule, violent opposition (the stage we are in now) and acceptance as a matter of course: “Everybody knows that!”:
The “One Produced the Two ( 1Sg 2)” But do the “Two Produce the Three ( 2Sg 3)”? …
I can’t see HOW. There has to an Intelligent side opposed by an equally valid non-intelligent side. The light side has to be complemented by the “Darkside (See the “Navigator”)” In time and space, we can’t have the one without the other. If you don’t have both poles, you don’t have a “DyAd(dyad)”. The synthesis of this dyad would be the answer to the question: WHAT “Produced(Sg)” our “reality” and HOW? This is as far as I can safely take it alone. For me to invest more time and energy in Communication (C) is the wrong thing to do. It is like asking my customer why s/he wants me to write this particular program for her. I might as well tell him to ask for something else. If you do that sort of thing, the customer might rightly assume that you don’t know your own business well enough and go to the competition.
. Now, if we had a net-worker (C) to network this theory (B) we might get responses that might enable us to go further. As it is, the best I can do to ask Lao Tzu for help:
“Existence and Nonexistence Mutually Produce (YUWUmtSg)” “Life(Sg)”. Shêng(Sg) means “Produce” and “Life” among other things. At Ching 40, it means “Comes”:
“All Things Come From Existence. Existence Comes From Nonexistence (WnwUSgtoYUYUSgtoWU).” Doing an Aristotelian syllogism on this, we get: Therefore: “All Things …. Come From Nonexistence.” Where did I hear that before?
. Lao Tzu gives examples from our physical world (D), politics (C), philosophy (B) and religion (A) which, in this context, I would call cosmology.
The “Tao Produced the Monad (the molecular basis of “Life(Sq)”), the Monad Produces the Dyad, the Dyad Produces the Triad and the Triad Produces All Things (A1Sg 1 1Sg 2 2Sg 3 3SgWnwU).”
. If you go over the rest of my blog you might wonder why I didn’t put things together like this before? This is at least the question I asked myself: What took me so long? ...The answer came to me in a flash. Before I can give it to you I have to tell you a bit about myself: I love Afro-Cuban Jazz. I can’t listen to the radio and think at the same time. That’s too distracting. So I don’t normally liten to the radion while working. The only exception to the rule is the Latin Jazz program on Saturdays from four to six on Toronto’s JazzFM91. There the host announced that Jane Bunnett is at the Distillery that same day, Saturda June 2, 2007. It happened before: I hear Jane Bunnett, I go. Talk about addiction. The show was: "Salsa Meets Jazz. Afro Cuban Dance party. The show went from 8:30 to past midnight and I was enthralled. Music seems to be the only thing that can drive me out of my mind. I don’t know about you but that was my answer. You have to get out of your mind, to get into something else, or to let something else in.
After going over the last three lines again, Nai Yeh chapter eight came to mind. Let me start at line seven (g):
g Vital-essence Ye It-is Vital-energy'S Essence Ye (#SYead#E Z#SYe). when
h Vital-energy is Guided it Will Produce (#E?a$pSg) (the "Vital-essence"). when there is
i Production there Will-be Thought (Sg$p?b). when there is
j Thought there Will-be Knowledge (?b$pkn). when there is (too much)
k Knowledge, it Will-be time to Stop Yi (kn$p$iYi)
l All of the Mind'S Forms (?cHs Z@k), when they
m Gain (too much) Knowledge, will Lose Productivity (#jkn37Sg) or creativity
?a Tao41 "To lead, guide, teach". This character has replaced the Tao(A1) that was used in an earlier version. While the Tao(A1) can mean anything the context demands, the more specific Tao(?a) is definitely an improvement over the more general Tao(A1). We can, thus, see a parallel between the older Ma-Wang-Tui text and the Standard text of the Ching and what we have here. If you are interested "Enough(Zu)" you can get Roth's translation but I will only use the updated characters. __
?b Szu61. "To think, reflect; meaning". If I had a concordance for the Nei Yeh, I could give it to you here. When I have that, of if I find the same character in another chapter, I will replace the "?" with "&" because then we need a concordance, even if I don't have the phonetic or radical number for that character yet. If this character is only in this chapter, I would use the "*" as I do for the Ching. But without a Concordance I can only be sure after I have worked an all of the 26 chapters as I am working on this one now.
. Ye and Yi are both Final particles but to translate them as "Period" does not convey their meaning. They have no English equivalent because in the old Chinese no punctuation was used. The Yi at the end of line k marks the end of paragraph. The last two lines are the conclusion. Roth Has: "Whenever the forms of the mind have excessive knowledge, You lose your vitality. The message may be conveyed by a more conventional and readable translation. The objective of this character by character translation is to get to know these characters so that we can read these thexts ourselves. It does take some effort, but I am becoming more and more convinced that this is the way to go. It will save us time in the long run.
. The Nei Yeh Dictionary-Concordance will be closed for renovation. It has to be simplified. In the mean time you can use the Ching Dictionary for the characters we already have. A concordance for the Nei Yeh will take some time. I will improve it as I go along. If I try too hard, if I try to bite off more than I can chew, I would get messed up as I am with the Ching.Can you see now, why this chapter came to mind? ...
"Humans(%5)" have a soul (A), an intellect (B), a mind (C) and a body (D). These "Four( 4)" components are like the links of a chain: The whole can not be stronger than the weakest link. When the soul is missing, a person is not human, s/he is "InHuman(PU%5)".
. The opposite condition, where one link becomes too strong is also unhealthy but ...
depending on the date you are born, one link naturally predominates in us. Roughly 1/4 of humanity are fire signs (A), 1/4 are air signs (B), 1/4 are water signs (C) and 1/4 are "Earth(TI)" signs (D). This is our "Potential(pt)". And to "Actualize our Potential (A1pt)" is our duty, or dharma. If we don't do that, if we don't do what we came here to do, we feel unfulfilled and try to make up for it with booze, drugs or other "addictions".
. In the Indian caste system, before it was corrupted by the Brahmins (B), dharma meant your caste duty. It is your social responsibility, your duty to society or your duty to your fellow-humans.
. This morning June 5, I read in the Toronto Sun how a driver noticed a woman huddling on the Keele street bridge above the 401 , through his rear mirror. He was driving home from work. How many people would have just kept on driving, how many people have already "Passed-by(#i)"?...
This man didn't. He became suspicious, he parked his car, he held on to her and said: "I am not going to let you hurt yourself today." He held on to her until another good person came to assist and until the police could take over. What a story. As I leave through the Sun at breakfast, that's the stories I am looking for, the rest is just the usual crap. The problem is, if we go for the crap instead of the right things, then, we must not be surprised that our society is as sick as it is. It's been planned that way. Do some of us perhaps have other plans? ...
. People that help their fellow humans are yogis, whether they know it or not, they are Christians, whether they call themselves that or something else. It is unfortunate that it even has to be mentioned but it has become necessary to say that there are also very good Moslems. It is unfortunate that we allow the extremists to give Christians and Moslems a bad name.
. There is another point I want to make in relation to the last three lines: "Music" or Art (A) carries out a very important social function that must not be ignored: Poetry (A), truth (B), justice (C) manual skills, goodness and kindness in action (D) are the links of the same chain. The Buddha calls them: Right vision, thought, speech and action. Since a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, that is the one we have to work on.
. I think that level C is the weakest link: The mass-media is owned and the educational system is controlled by people that have no intention to informing us of what is really going on and in educating the yung in the true sense of the word.
. I believe that, with the help of the Ching and the Nei Yeh, we can "Fix(*a37)" that problem. The truth is within us, it is merely a matter of educing it. But the thinkers (B) can't do it alone. It is as Lao Tzu said: "KnowErs are Not good enough with Words (knerPUC2) WordErs Don't Know (C2erPUkn)" enough. That's why he said that we should team up, "Unite($1)", as the unelected advisors (B) and their politicians (C) are doing. Even though we elect, and pay for, politicians, they don't work for us. If we want to know the sad truth, we have to educate ourselves. And only then, when we know it, can the truth set us free.
____________________________________________. . . . . . . . The Nei Yeh Dictionart - Concordance
. . . . . The Text is in the next file, the "Introduction".
____________________________________________
. . . . . . . . . . . . Nei Yeh Dictionary - Concordance
___________________________________________________________________
. In the Ching Dictionary, the first identifers are: A1 B1 C2 D2, 1, 2, 3, 4, -. =, +, E, H and Z
. In the next group the first characters of the identifiers are in the following sequence: @ ä â, # Ü, $, % and ^. The & means that the character is not in the Ching.
. In the next group, lower case (l) and Capital (C) letters are combined in the following four groups: ll, Cl, lC (only for wU) and CC.
. In the next group, the character is identified by its radical number.
. There is one more type of identifier which is not used in this dictionary but which should be mentioned: For it the chapter number and line letter is used to identify the character that is in that position in order to refer to it without one of the above identifiers.
D2 Shih6. 10c __ - Chung2 8c 10a __ @l K'ou30 6b 10b __ @W Chia19 10c __
%8 Chêng77 Roth has "Alignment" for it. It is not a dictionary equivalent, but it fits. 7a . 8a . 11a,e . 13m . 16a . 19a . 21j,r . 22b . 25h __
^a Ching174 "Vital-essence" 5c,m 7c 8a 11c 13a 19p 26g __ Üp Tsai32 8c __
&a Fan16 "All ...." 1a 3a 6j 8l 21a 22a 23a 25a __ &b Ting40 (*a37) 8b,c __ &c Hou30 8b __ &f Literally, the character is "Alignment(%8) under a "Roof" __ & g She135 "Shed, Cottage, my" __ &h Hou30 8b __ &e Szu61 "To think, reflect; meaning". 5l . 13c . 14i,i,j,k . 19i,ij . 20f,k . 23m,q . 24d __ (*a37) 8c __ &i Tao41 "Guide"
&m Ts'ang140 (*a44) 14n,n __
ab Neng130 "Able" 3f . 8a,a,b . 9a,b,f . 13c . 14c . 15j . 16a,e . 22k . 24d . 26g .
Üp Tsai32. 2d,e 4a 8c 10a 13o 14b 18a 21k 26a __ to Yü70 This one means "To", "From" etc. It is the kind of character for which we don't need the concordance because "through(YI)" "Repetition(@1)" your "Mind(Hs)" "Does the Learning (doÜd)" for you anyway. __
Cu Ch'u17 2q 10b 21b,c __ Hs Hsn61 Literally this is the "Heart" but the "Mind" is usually intended. 3a,e,g,h 4k 5b,c,m 6f 8c,l 10a 11d 12e 13n,o 14e-p 21k 24a 26a,g . As translators of the Gita have trouble with manas (C), so translators of the Ching and this one have trouble with Hsin(Hs).__ Ja Jan86 8b 10d 11f 14r,s,t 15d 16o __
72 Ming72
___________________________________________. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9/11,
___________________________________________
The Oklahoma City bombing,
Hitler's burning down the Reichstag etc.
Are all inside jobs. And there will be more of them if we don't wake up.
Now, the "Virginia Tech shooter delivers .... message": "You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today". " But you decided to spill my blood ". "You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option. The decision is yours. Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off". "You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience". "You thought it was one pathetic boy's life you were extinguishing . Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people ... "
Is the death of his victims going to be in vain or are these words going to "inspire" enough of us to prevent more murders like that? Once a critical mass of people knows who is to blame for these murders, these crimes will become counterproductive for these criminals and will stop.
No other shooter got his message out before. Cho did. That's the REAL NEWS.
He had to outwit his tormentors. Now they must prevent us from getting the message. If we let them fool us again, then there will be more murders. How can you help to prevent that? By finding out the truth. Knowledge is power. Without knowledge we are “the weak and the defenseless people”. That’s why our rulers must prevent us from thinking.
How did Cho manage to get the truth out to us? He had to beat his torturers at their own game. Where did he learn that? In that "mental health facility" they had him in? Have the previous shooters been in mental health facilities? Have they left any messages? What do we know about social engineering? What can these professionals do to our minds? …
These are some of the questions investigative reporters must ask. I mean, here, real reporters, not the trained seals that try to make us believe that Cho did all of this planning, including his own death, to get attention. The fact is, that the social engineers don't want us to think about his words, and if we don't, then there will be more murders. And I am no prophet.
There is an excellent movie out: LIVES OF OTHERS. If you see it for no other reason than to find out a bit about social engineering, it will be well worth your time and money.
One way to find out what is going on in the world today is real investigative journalism. See the Toronto Street News, The Epoch Times or SaveTheMales.ca
Another way is good old philosophy. See PetersTao.blogspot.com Lao Tzu says in chapter 56 of his Tao Te Ching that thinkers and Communicators must work together. That still hasn't happened at my web-site. So you have to put up with my poor writing to learn some of Lao Tzu's lessons. But I know of no better teacher to help us understand this deliberately contrived "Confusion (Luan5)" which we are not supposed to understand. Why not? Please think!
. Above you have the most important flyer I ever did in my over 60 years of searching. There is much I would like to add to it, but there is only so much you can get on one page. I said in my second important flyer, below, that: Gun control and damage control are contradictories. Just read the papers now and see HOW gun conrol is promoted. Common sense alone should tell us why these killings have to be staged to attain their goal, as stated in the Protocols of Zion.
. The problem with knowing the truth is that it can be a burden. That's why some people don't want to hear it. And with some help from the social engineers, this fear, or reluctace to lisen and to think, is helping the globalists. In this game you have to take sides. In these last days you have to be either cold or hot, you can no longer sit on the fence. All you have to do is find out the truth and know it. That is all you have to do because if a critical mass of the citizens of this world knows the truth, the "Morpho-genetic field (See Rupert Sheldrake)" of our planet will change and then their lies simply become unbelievable to everybody. There is a reason why the globalists tried to discredit Sheldrake. Now if I don't do my best to prevent these murders I am guilty of the sin of omission. Not being a networker (C), I don't know whether I have any hits at all. But putting out these flyers there is a better chance of getting one of them into the right hands. So this is all I will do on this web-site for now, I'll be walking the strees of Toronto putting out the above flyer.
April 27. What happened on my walks, is described in front of the Syncronicity section below.
April 24, 2007. I will do a few commentaries on my own flyer now. I didn’t want to sacrifice the heading: “9/11” at 72 points, the next line at 36 and the third line at 26 points. Also the REAL NEWS, at 18 points, has to stand out in line eleven because: “No other shooter got his message out before” and the perpetrators of these crimes will make sure that this mistake will not happen again in the future. What social engineers can do to the human mind is simply unbelievable. It must be, otherwise social engineering will not work. That Cho has managed to outwit them is the REAL NEWS which the social engineers must delete from our memory as quickly as possible. On the flyer that has inspired this one, I said: “Damage control and gun control are contradictories.” Just look at HOW this carnage is used to promote gun control. There you have the motive for this crime. So HOW can they do damage control at the same time? The two are contraries. Did the globalists bite off more than they can chew this time? They want their pie and eat it too. Are we going to let them get away with that? Did we let them dumb us down that much? If they did do their thing on you: Let Lao Tzu help you to "DeProgram" yourself.
. If the friends and relatives of the victims knew who is responsible for these murders, they would start a class action against the perpetrators of these crimes, But look what some of them are doing instead: They are doing what they are intended, or programmed, to do. People that serve the globalists because they don't know better are called "lackeys" in the Protocols of Zion while those that serve them knowingly are their "agents".
. David Icke explains it best: Agents are to lakeys as the lakeys are to the rest of us. Agents are above the lackeys wile the lackeys are made to feel superior to the rest of us. That is why the lackeys that promote gun control are glorified by the mass-media. If these "Outstanding citizens" knew that they are really working for the instigators of these murders, they wouldn't feel proud about what they are promoting. We have here another example of were knowledge gives our rulers power over our minds, while ignorance turns us into "the weak and the defenseless people" Cho was talking about.
. “Once a critical mass of people knows who is to blame for these murders, these crimes … will stop.” Why? Not because these criminals are bothered by their conscience. How can they? They don’t have a conscience. It is only when their actions compromise their goal, as outlined in the Protocols of Zion, that these murders will stop.
. The following passage really made me think: Once we know who is responsible
"for these murders, these crimes will become counterproductive".
Instead of disarming the people, the people start to arm themselves, because now they know who their "Enemy(âb)" is and WHAT his intentions are. A critical mass of the people will start to deliberately inform themselves because now they know that their "Enemy" must "Always Cause the People (Cn %e Mn) to be Without Knowledge (WUkn) and Without the Desire (WUYÜ)" to know. They will study the Protocols of Zion. They will "Identify(Mg)" the "lackeys" and "agents" of these globalists, illuminati or servants of the "Darkside". For instance, once we know that a reporter or a columnist is an agent, we can use their work for something analogous to reverse engineering. I have done something like that with an article by George Jonas on my old web-site, NewAgeTao.org Unless an insider spills the beans, this is the second best thing we can do to find out about social engineering. We have to find out the truth. The truth can only set us free if we know it. I have not done the best job possible on Jonas' article but it was the best I could do at that time. And if you take my effort as a "job-description" for a more professional job, my analysis of the work of an "agent" can be quite useful.
. In fact, if you take my whole blog as a "job-description" for a more user-friendly web-site it will be more useful than this one is now.
. Again, once we know that our enemy has to put us into the victim-state of consciousness, we will be looking for Ways to get out of it. One Way that works for me is the "Way(A1)" or the "Truth(A1)". The truth is on our side as Krishna was on Arjuna's side in the battle that was described in the Bhagavad Gita.
. Many of those who are born under an air-sign (B) will study the Tao Te Ching and come up, independently, with similar "Insights(72)" I am coming up with here. Before the truth can set us free, we must know it. To my knowledge there is no better textbook, for those who are on the path of knowledge, than the Tao Te Ching. But I must give credit to all those teachers who have helped me to appreciate it. There is first my Sunday School teacher in Hamburg, Germany under whom I have studied from age nine to 16.Then there are my fellow lectures and members of the audience at the Toronto Theosophical Society, from 1958 to 1973, then comes J.G.Bennett under whom I have studied from 1973 to 1974 but with whom I have corresponded longer than that. Then came Jagad Guru Sri Kripalu Mahaprabhu who has helped me to understand Plato's Republic. He has also blessed me with two para-normal experiences. Without such experiences, it is hard for us to believe (B) that the para-normal exists. They called me the "Jnani" at his Ashram. Jnana yogis can know (B) that God exists but the experience (D) of the para-noemal is not part of our path, or dharma. It comes to us, and even to Arjuna, only "by grace (presannena)".
. Now, at age 71, "The Handbook of the Navigator" falls into my hands. Its author, Eric J. Pepin, said on page 43: "I wonder if you question what led you to begin reading it in the first place." Well, it just sort of fell into my hands. I have no problem with going along with Pepin and calling this something that has steadily led we from one lesson to the next, my "Navigator". Once we have "Identified(Mg)" something, once we know it exists, we can "Name(Mg)" it, and "Navigator" is a good name for it.
. “Knowledge is power.” There is a lot of space devoted to this subject, so I can leave well “Enough” alone since it is the best I can do, but I do need a writer to clean up my blog. Or, on second thought, to start a new one in which everything that is transfered from here, is cleaned up. The "Words(C2)" would be the networker's (C) own, only the ideas (B) would come from here. The following article was also turned into a flyer. It too needs editing.
CAMPUS CARNAGE Toronto Sun, April 19, 2007. "Virginia Tech shooter delivers .... message": "You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today ... But you decided to spill my blood [they re getting desperate to get guns off the street or have the names and addresses of responsible gun owners registered so they know where they are. If there are too many guns in private hands the people will shoot back. The right to bear guns is in the American Constitution for a reason. So they have "decided" not to avoid the rampage. Let's read on:] You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option. The decision is yours. Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off"
. "You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience"
"You thought it was one pathetic boy's life you were extinguishing [Obviously they made a mistake: The "boy" wasn't as "pathetic" and dumbed down as they thought he was]. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people ... Your Mercedes wasn't enough you brats. Your golden necklaces weren't enough, you snobs. Your trust funds wasn't enough. Your vodka and cognac wasn't enough. All your debaucheries. Those weren't enough. Those weren't enough to fulfill your hedonistic needs. You had everything."
. Where did he get that information from? David Icke? " Cho was evaluated by a local health health facility, and he was placed in for treatment after a temporary detention order was obtained. It's unclear whether he volunteered or was forced." What did he learn in that "mental health facility"? ...My job is merely to point out to investigative reporters (C) what work has to be done, and fast. As far as I can see, Cho was let out to do a job that was predictable in order to do away with the right to bear arms. When investigating a crime, we must always ask for the motive. That Cho was smarter than they expected him to be can be seen in that he managed to get his "meaasage" out. He second guessed them. Now the social engineers have their hands full with doing their damage control as they had to do with the Protocols of Zion and with 9/11. When will we reach the point at which social engineering simply cannot handle, what it was designed to do, any more? ... That point will be reached when WHAT people are expected to believe simply becomes too incredible. There is only so much that even dumbed down people can be conditioned to believe. My only hope is that Cho's victims will not have died in vain.
. My own close encounter with social engineering was over twenty years ago: Two building inspectors arbitrarily closed down my small rooming house and harassed me for one year three times a week (I am not exaggerating, it is rather more than less than that). It was like the Chinese drop torture. After one year of this treatment, suddenly and unexpectedly, I got a terrible stomach cramp. Fortunately, I already knew "Enough(Zu)" about social engineering to know that my stomach cramp was brought about deliberately. Even though I didn't know exactly HOW they did it, I knew WHAT they did. Knowing the truth prevented me from turning myself into the hospital. Instead I prayed. And, when you are desperate "Enough", prayer even works for ynana yogis. If they had succeeded to commit me to a "mental institution" would I have done the work I have done since then? ... When investigating a crime, it is always well to look for a motive. See my old website NewAgeTao.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE SECRET by Rhonda Byrne
The book was lent to me. Guess what I am supposed to do with it? ... The book should be quoted in full, but, since I am not a "WordEr", this is not what I am supposed to do with it. I will give a quote from a given page and comment on it. An unanswered question can detract an otherwise attentive reader's attention from the quotes and commentaries. An attentive reader would notice that I am doing here what I have done with the Dalai Lama's book. So: Why not put this article in the Text-Commentary file where it belongs? Because that file is already too long. When a file gets too long, blogspot slows down, and adding this article would cause it to slow down even more. And now, I hope, your attention is free to be directed to the following quotes and commentaries.
"To become aware of your thoughts, you can also set the intention, 'I am the master of my thoughts.' (23)" As far as possible, I let Lao Tzu do the talking: "Words Have an Ancestor (C2YU@4) Deeds Have a Master (D2YU#u)." In the Ma-wang-tui text we have: C2 YU #u, D2 YU @4. "Ancestor(@4)" and "Master(#u)" have been "Reversed($l)". This means: Don't get hung up on words! You can say it either Way or both Ways: ... Deeds have a master or an ancestor, words have a master or an ancestor and thoughts have a master or an ancestor. The question becomes now: Who or what is the master of thought? ... Please go back to the quote from page 23 and figure it out on your own.
"All power is from within and therefore under our control. (165)"
”Right Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO$l)”: All “Power (Te)” is from without.
. This requires an explanation: God is omnipotent and omnipresent. Thus his power is within us and outside of us. This power comes from within when a customer describes WHAT s/he wants to a supplier who knows HOW to supply the demand.
. To explain HOW we are controlled from the outside, we have to look at the larger picture first: Words (C) are containers by means of which ideas (B) are shipped from one place to another. When the container is shaped by the “Pattern(#t)” which is within, then it is “Aligned(%8)” to the inside; when the container is shaped by the “Form(@k)” which is on the outside, then
the container, or the mold, “Conforms(%8)” to the outside. I hope that you could follow me up to here, because now we come to the conclusion of the above pemise: …
The content takes the shape of the container. Due to the urgency of the situation, I have been prompted to put out ideas (B) that are in need of verification by specialists other than thinkers (B). Some of the ideas I am putting out here can be considered scientific (or philosophical) hypotheses. If they are true, then they should work for experts other than jnana yogis and if they work, then they are true. And only then should they be accepted. I am a jnana yogi and I can't test all of my theories. We have here another example of a "Reversal($l)". When it is true, it will work; when it works, it is true. This subject of verifying the "Truth(A1)" is important. Rudolf Steiner has devoted much space to it in his "Occult Science" He didn't make it clear that only those who are able to carry out his instructions are able to verify, what he has described in his book, in themselves. In this, Occult Science differs from Material Science. From the fact that Steiner has assumed that everybody can do it, I assume that he was a raja yogi.
. Jnana yogis can, and must, make use of all types of observation: spiritual vision (A), physical evidence (D) and the representations of raja yogis (C). More correctly, what comes through A is "Conceived(B1)" by B and verified on level D. But this is only possible when the communicators (C) listen to the thinkers (B). It is working for the elected politicians (C) and for their advisors (B) that "have the power of election". If we want a democracy then we must make use of the same principle that works for our rulers. Knowing the truth will set us free. Knowledge is power. To expect our rulers to give it to us is naive.
. The Theosophists and the Hindus say that the world is created from the inside out: A creates B, B creates C, C creates D and D creates E8 or the "Annamaya Kosha (Sutra 14)"
"If you can see it in your mind you're going to hold it in your hand. (9)"
. Ordinary people must create the algorithm on level B before they can have it manifested on level D. The emphasis on thought alone, leads to an oversimplification that can be misleading. Without language (C) to mediate between theory (B) and practice (D) ordinary people will not hold it in their hands. The idea (B) must be “Fixed(*a37)” in your mind (C) before it can be manifested (D). The algorithm (B) must be translated into a computer program (C) before the computer (D) can execute it. There are many examples of a working tetrad, so you don't have to be a philosopher (B) to know that these 4-fold systems are true. In pragmatism (D) the definition of truth is: If it works, then it is true.
"Every thought of yours is a real thing -- a force. (4)"
. In "Your Center you Have a Core-of-vitality ( H =YU#S) Your Core-of-vitality is Very Real ( H#S%t#m)." To prevent a possible misunderstanding, I have to quote from XIV 15 of the Nei Yeh: "Within the mind there is yet another mind. (Roth's translation)" B is real, C is "Very Real" and D, your body, is even more real to you.
"Your thoughts become things. (25)"
. The emphasis in "The Secret" is on thought (B). But it is not the only component in the tetrad. It is not the innermost, or most abstract(A), nor is it the outermost, or most concrete (D), it is one link in a chain which is no more, nor less important than the other links. A will attract B, B will attract C and C will attract D, if "Enough(Zu)" money, or intent, is there on every level. If one link in the chain is weak, then the system will not work efficiently; if one link is broken, it will not work at all.
. For the purpose of getting a better understanding of The Secret, let me "Identify(Mg)" and "Name(Mg)" the four "sources", links, or components, of the tetrad. ...
Try to figure it out on your own. ...
You would benefit more from your own thoughts (B) than from reading (C) about the thoughts of others. So, please think before reading on. ...
If you just read, all you can do is believe (C) or refuse to believe (pistis, in Greek) but you don't really know (B) it. The words I came up with are: intent, thought, word and deed. I have choosen "intent" because it comes up a number of times in this book. Just go back to the quote from page 23: "' I am the master of my thoughts.' Say it often, meditate on it, and as you hold that intention ...." ...
"Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions. (91)"
. If you are able to imagine that, what does not exist, exists, then it can become the Power of Intent. And if you are unable to do that you are bound to fail. It says at Gita 3.35: Do your dharma, doing the dharma of somebody else is "dangerous(bhaya)".
. "Actualize your Potential (A1pt)"! The "you (in lower case)" is an interpretation. I have inserted it because you can't actualize a potential you don't have.
"Expectation is a powerful attractive force. (93)"
"Constantly Have Expectations (CnYUYÜ)". "Expectation" is Wing's equivalent of Yü(YÜ). In philosophy it is the representation (C). It is indeed a more powerful activating force than thought (B), even though it is thought that produces it. It is a thought (B) that is "Fixed(*a37)" in the mind (C). And "Repetition(@1)" is a reliable Way to "Fix" it there. It is part of "The Secret" and it is also known by the social engineers. Repeat a lie often "Enough(Zu)" and the dumbed down masses will eventually believe it. That's Social Engineering 101.
"The knowledge of The Secret and the intentional use of the law of attraction can be applied to every single subject in your life. (98)"
. In the computer analogy, intent is backed up by money. If you go into a restaurant and order a meal you can't pay for, you are in trouble. In the building trade the customer (A) pays for the architect (B) who does the thinking, the contractor (C) who does the talking and for the sub-contractors (D) who do the physical work.
. As the customer decides on WHAT kind of house s/he wants, so the architect determines WHAT the contractor has to say and the contractor gives very specific instructions to the subcontractors. So, on each level, there is an intent. I am just filling in details for those who are not raja yogis. Those that provide the convincing examples for this book don't need these details. They know HOW to use The Secret. You must know these missing details in order to prevent becoming a failure because you are prevented from "Actualizing your own Potential (A1pt)". As the Tao Te Ching is a textbook for jnana yogis, so The Secret is a textbook for raja yogis. Do the "WordErs really Not Know (C2erPUkn)" this? Answer: Those who do the planing (B) don't have to do the writing (C).
You "have .... to .... convince yourself of the truth (144)".
To make use of The Secret, you have to convince yourself that, what does not exist on the physical plane, exists on the physical plane. And that is not convincing "yourself of the truth". In this sense the above statement is misleading. There is, however, a truth in it. If you are able to convince yourself that this falsehood is true, then you can cause it to become true. We have an interesting paradox here.
. One Way to convince yourself of the truth (or an untruth) is to "Consistently(Cn)" repeat it, like a mantra. "Repetition(@1) will move the idea from level B down to level C where the thought becomes a belief (pistis, in Greek). Another Way is by explaining it to others. Even though communication (C) is not my dharma, I know that explaining it, even imperfectly, has helped me a lot over the years. Perhaps that is why my higher Self (A) doesn't give me the "WordErs(C2er)" my lower self (C) wants. The higher Self has the whole picture, like a hologram; the lower self is primarily interested in itself, it has a short-term goal in mind: money, cars, houses, power etc. Even global power is a short-term goal because it can not last forever. Hitler's "Thousand Year Reich" didn't even get off the ground. See ddickerson about Hitler. The globalists have developed their plan over centuries. Parts of it, like the European union they have described in the Protocols of Zion in 1905, have been actualized but, even if their "Kingdom comes", how long can it last?
"Energy flows where the attention goes. (145)"
The energy "Fixes (*a37)" the idea (B) in your mind (C). The intellect (B) is two steps removed from physical action (D) The mind (C) is right next to it. Moving the representation from level C to D, is manifesting it on the material level. That is why what is described in The Secret works for the raja yogis. Raja means "King( E)" (C). The energy is first used to create the container on the etheric (D) level. That would be Mr.B's "Vital energy (E7)", or the "Pranamaya Kosha". The container, being empty, "attracts" the content, which would be Mr.B's "Constructive energy (E8)", or the "Annamaya Kosha". We need Lao Tzu to clarify this for us:
“Tao Produces It (A1Sg Z) Te Maintains It (TE@d Z) Matter fills “Its( Z)” Form (wU@k Z)”. The dictionary equivalents of Hsiang(@k) are: “Form, figure, to give form …. Substance, the body”. It is the holographic “Image Without Form (%4WU@k)”. The “Great Image (TA%4)” is above level A(E4). What of it comes through the Door (A) is given form by thought, word and deed. Only after that can the form, or mold, be filled with “Matter(wU)” (E8).
"To think there is not enough is to look at the outside picture and think that everything comes from the outside. When you do that, you will most surely see lack and limitation. You now know that nothing comes into existence from the outside, and that everything first comes from thinking and feeling on the inside. (148)"
. First comes feeling, (A), then thinking (B). But other than that, this statement is in perfect agreement with the Hindus, the Theosophists and Lao Tzu: "All Things Come From Existence (WnwUSgtoYU) Existence Comes From Nonexistence (YUSgtoWU)".
. The Atman (A) is within the intellect (B) and within the Atman there is something else. Let's call it omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience. That omniscience is, or is like, a hologram. This comes to us as poetry or art through the Atman (A). "This, the connecting link, is the only way between the spiritual and the material creation and is called the Door, Dasamadwara. (Sutra 13)". What is on the other side of the Door is within A. It is within us. It is "Small, within Heaven and the two levels Below it, but Nobody is Able to Master it Yeh (smTn -MOab@SYe) .... the Tao Which is Within (A1 ZÜp) The World (Tn -) is As a Stream in the Valleys (^5@qkU)".
. "My Words are Very Easy to Understand (^5C2%tezkn)." That should be reason "Enough(Zu)" to translate them as accurately as possible.
"Most of the leaders .... missed the great part of The Secret, which is to empower and share with others. (152)"
. The part that is "missed", or is not emphasized "Enough(Zu)" in this book, is: When you know HOW to use The Secret you must use your power "to empower .... others." "Do the governing Without Doing it yourself. instead empower the people and Then Nothing is Not Governed (doWUdo18WUPU85)". What is emphasized instead, is fancy cars, big houses the man or woman you are attracted to, or millions of dollars in your pocket. Sure, I would like some of these things myself, but if I had to give up, what I know now, for it, I would say: No, I don't want it, it isn't worth it.
. What good are these material possessions when our home, mother earth, can no longer support us? ... And what will you be allowed to do with all your money under a global dictatorship? ...
How much of it will they allow you to keep? In Germany, Hitler has decided that, and in Cuba Fidel Castro or his brother is deciding on what you can say (C) do (D) or have. Do you think that history is going to change with a global "despotism" that is to be modeled after the Indian caste system, as described at Gita 18.41-44"? ... Look at the corrupted caste system now, as it is disintegrating right in front of our eyes. What is "Not based on the Truth will Sooner or later Cease-to-be (PUA1Üq^k)".
. The globalists know The Secret. They have been working on the realization of their dream for centuries. .... We have some catching up to do but, since the truth is on our side, this shouldn't be too hard to do, if we get our act together in time.
"This is the best time to have ever been alive in history. It's the first time we've ever had the power to gain knowledge at our fingertips.(152)"
But with all the disinformation put out by professional social engineers, some of us have to learn HOW to think in order to weed out the lies that are disseminated through the mass media, the internet and the educational system. But once you know how to differentiate between truth and falsehood, you realize that, in these last days, there is indeed nothing hid, that shall not be revealed. All you have to do is think. But what the "KnowErs(kner)" have come up with must be disseminated by the "WordErs(C2er)". The thinkers can't do it as well because Communication is not their dharma.
There are a lot more passages to comment on, so HOW do I get out of this assignment gracefully and back to the Nei Yeh? ...
You put out the question to the universe, and here is the answer: Give readers the knowledge-base you use to interpret The Secret and thus , you "empower" them to do it themselves. Great idea. I am using J.G. Bennett's Systematics as a thinking tool. Systematics is described in Mr.B's Dramatic Universe. It consists of four volumes the average of which is about 350 pages thick. It doesn't look like such a great idea anymore. What now? ...
Concentrate on those parts of Systematics that are relevant to The Secret! That's better. Still not easy, but this blog is addressed to those that are interested "Enough(Zu)" in the "Truth(A1)". Why water it down for those that don't care anyway? All I have to do for those that care, is to give a brief outline and the right people will know where to go from there.
. "Systematics" is about "Number-systems": "DyAds(dyad)", "TriAds( 3ad)" right up to the "Dodecad, twelve-term system, 72-4 of energies, 122 of human society, 234 of values, 102. (Vol III page 309)".
"Everything is energy (155)"
Let's start with that. Mr.B has identified and named twelve divisions of the big, undifferentiated, unit of energy. He has called the highest energy (Level 1 or (E1)), "Transcendent Energy" while the lowest level (E12) is "Dispersed Energy". On the highest and the lowest level, energy is "Undifferentiated, Complete, that is Before Heaven and Earth were Born (Üecm^7TnTISg)". "Heaven(Tn)" and "Earth(TI)" are two of the "Four( 4)" divisions that appear when the "Big Tao is Split-up (TAA1@m)".
. On the highest and the lowest levels, that "one energy field" is undivided, it is one hundred percent potential or kinetic energy. Things get interesting between the extremes because the 12 units can combine in varied Ways. Mr.B has joined E1-E4, E5-E8 and E9-E12 to form three tetrads. E5-E8 comes closest to the Aristotelian tetrad, but it is not the same.
. . . .E4(A) . . . . Plato's student, Aristotle, has wrapped his teacher's "Divided
E7(D) + E5(B) . Line" around the cross, as shown to the left. This is the
. . . .E6(C) . . . . Atman(A)-Buddhi(B)-manas(C)-Indriyas(D) tetrad the Hindus are using. Lao Tzu is using the same four components but not always in the same sequence. At Ching 25.3, we have: Tao(A), Heaven(B), Earth(D) and the King(C). At 25.4 we have The Tao on top. The "Tao Follows ItSelf (A1ähTuJa)" because it is at the cross-over point in the figure 8. Then comes Heaven (B), then Earth (D) and then "Man(mn)" (C). We are last in the deductive process and first in the inductive, bottom-up, process.
. Over the years, I have become quite familiar with the Aristotelian tetrad. When I had the opportunity to talk to Mr.B, instead of asking him about the triad, I had trouble with, we would discuss the tetrad. I got the nickname "Peter Tetrad" at Sherborn House.
. For a Hindu and even for Lao Tzu's students it is hard to "UnLearn(PUÜd" something you have become very familiar with. That is why, in order to do that, you must first "Learn to UnLearn (ÜdPUÜd)".
. The Aristotelian tetrad was the kind of "Concept(B1)" I found hard to transcend but, when the need for it arose, I found that the "pentad", the five-term system, and the "heptad", the seven-term system, have helped me to do it quite painlessly. The pentad, we get at Sutra 14 of The Holy Science, is E4(A), E5(B), E6(C), E7(D) and E8. E8 is the "outer coating, which, becoming Anna, nourishment, supports this visible world and thus is called the Annamaya Kosha."
. As I understand it, this body of ours is, what the Theosophists call the "etheric body" It is like a mold that contains physical matter. It contains that part of the world we identify with. We call it "I". Philosophically it is part of the subject and the rest of the world is the object. Unless we get this clearly into our head (B) first, and then into our mind (C), the pentad is not going to be of much use to us. When Mr.B would explain these complicated things to us we would have a hard time with it, of course. Then Mr.B would say that: Nothing is gained by trying to make things simpler than they really are. When we try to understand a phenomena that requires a "TriAd( 3ad)" to make sense of, then the "Dyad(dyad)" will not do. If a carpenter wants to cut through a two-by-four, then a hammer will not do. We need the right thinking tool to do a given job.
. And so, when it comes to understand The Secret, not even the tetrad will do it all. By using the pentad, we have taken one step beyond the tetrad. To understand The Secret, we don't really need the dodecad. Mr.B said that there are more complex systems beyond the dodecad, but for us humans, the dodecad is the most inclusive and useful tool we have. For this summary of systematics, it serves us to "identify the monads", as it is called in systematics. For instance by saying that level D is E7, we have identified the monad in terms of the dodecad. And, since I don't have a good terminology for the monads above A and below D, Mr.B's terminology for the dodecad comes in handy.
. We now need the heptad to go above the tetrad. Usually it is symbolized by the square at the bottom and a triangle above it. The square has four points connected by four lines and the triangle has three point and three lines between them. and 4 + 3 = 7. The square represents the Aristotelian tetrad. Just see the diagram above. The upper triad is E1-E2-E3. As above, in "Heaven, so Below (Tn -)". God doesn't have to be told HOW to supply our demands. "Just say the word." An example we have of this in our worldly experience is the computer (D). Just give it the right instructions and it will carry out the most complicated tasks faster and more accurately than any human can do it. And we don't have to worry about HOW it does it, the designers of the computer have taken care of that.
. The 3 + 1 + 3 heptad is actually a more useful tool to help us understand what the author of The Secret and her coauthors are talking about. Here thought, word and deed (B-C-D) is the lower triad, E1-E2-E3 is the upper triad and A(E4) is the Door or the reconciling impulse between them. The two triads and the monad between them form one triad. in turn. I hope that this isn't too complicated for you. This is about all I can take myself. Still, Mr.B was right in telling us that: Nothing is gained by trying to make things simpler than they really are.
. Lao Tzu's advise on HOW to "Handle(do)" "Difficult Tasks (dfD2)" is in Ching 63 and 64.
"Everyone has the power to visualize. (86)"
but not everyone has the power to carry out the feats that are described in this book.
. Undeniably, everyone has a body (D), a mind (the instrument that gives us "Speech (C2)") and an intellect (B). Deniably, we have a soul. Without it we couldn't love, have faith or see beauty. Still, there are entities that don't have a soul or conscience. They look (D) like humans, talk (C) like humans and think (B) better than the average person, but they are "Not Human (PU%5)".
. One of these four, or three, components predominates in everyone. For instance thought predominates in "KnowErs but they are Not good with Words (knerPUC2) WorErs, on the other hand, Don't Know (C2erPUkn)" that they don't know. And as long as they "Don't Know that they don't Know(PUknkn)" they will not listen (C) to the thinkers (B). Listening is part of communication (C). This is why the elected politicians (C) listen to their advisors (B). The advisors are so smart that they "have the power of election", while the politicians are so good with words that they can lie more convincingly than their advisors can tell the truth.
. The Secret is essentially a textbook for raja yogis, or what in astrology are the water-signs (C). They can believe (pistis in Greek) what others can't. They can "pretend", "make believe" or "act as if" what does not exist on the physical plane, exists on the physical plane. Even if jnana yogis were able to do that, they wouldn't do it because such falsehoods prevent them from finding the "Truth(A1)". Falsehoods are like a monkeywrench in our machinery.
. Now, these communicators (C) tell Everybody that "Everyone has the power to" do what they can do. If they know that this is not true, then this is a lie; if they don't know it, it is a falsehood but the effect is the same.
. People without the ability to "visualize" strongly "Enough(Zu)" will fail in their attempts to materialize what they have visualized. Now they are told: You have not tried hard enough. You have not tried long enough, or you didn't do it right. This turns people that have other talents into failures. Instead of "Actualizing ther own Potential (A1pt)", they are trying to do somebody else's dharma. Their "feeling" (A), that tells them the truth about themseves, tells them: You are a failure. You are not doing what you came down here to do. You are burrying your "talents (Matthew 25:15)". This can lead to depression which in turn can lead to suicide.
. Turning people into failures is not only harmful to these individuals but to society as a whole. Having said this, I can see now why this book was dropped onto my lap. "Nothing happens by accident".
. Let me then sum up what I can say about The Secret after six days of working on it. I got it on Saturday March 17 and this is March 22, 2007.
. Reading this book is like going onto the internet. Unless you know HOW to differentiate between the "Truth(A1)" and falsehood the book can do more harm than good. Trying to do what you can't do is putting you into the mental (C) state the globalists want us to be in.
. The book can turn ordinary water signs (C) into raja yogis. He who has the potential for it shall have more. But I have come accross many passages in that book that will cause these raja yogis to misuse their "Power(TÊ)". The parable of the talents and of the tares (Matthew 13:24)" is relevant here.
. The Secret helps potential raja yogis to become real raja yogis. By their concentrated and sustained "visualization" they create a container on the etheric level (D). The container, being empty, "attracts" it opposite, its content (E8). The law of attraction works on every level "For unto him that hath shall be given .... but from him that hath not [enough] shall be taken away even that which he hath. (Matthew 25:29)".
. In jnana yoga the intellect predominates. Some of the knowledge gained, turns into thinking tools which, in turn, produce more knowledge. In boats we have what is called the breakthrough speed which means that when you have "Enough" speed you shall have more. If you have "Enough" money to start a business, you can get more money simply by providing a good service to your customers. You can also get rich by inventing, developing and marketing a better mousetrap which, again, amounts to giving a good service to others.
. To repeat, there is a lot of truth in that book. I don't want to discourage you from reading it, but I must warn you that among the good seed, there are the tares. and often you must wait for the harvest to tell which is which. You shall always know them by their fruit. We have to take the good with the bad. That's the "Way(A1)", or HOW, it works. We must not stop going to the internet, or reading the newspapers because professional social engineers have sown tares among the good seed. We are bound to get falsehoods along with the truth but there is also a good side to it. ...
because in this way the globalists are forcing us to learn how to think. And, to my knowledge, Lao Tzu is the best teacher to help us with that. "Learning to UnLearn (ÜdPUÜd)" is a Way of removing mental blocks authority figures and social engineers have installed in us. The three characters can also be translated: "Learn to DeProgram" yourself.
"LearnIng is Daily Increasing (doÜd%q$s) your knowledge;
TaoIng is Daily Decreasing ( do A1%q%w)" the falsehoods in it.
____________________________________________________________________________
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . End of The Secret section.
_____________________________________________________________________________
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Synchronicity
__________________________________________________________________________
As I was walking the streets of Toronto I saw a picture of Hugo Chavez on the front page of a program of "The Brunswick Theatre". I went there to check it out, because there was supposed to be a discussion after the film. That seemed like a nice format to me.
. The film on that Thursday happened to be "War on science". It was about three types of belief systems (C): Creationism, Evolutionism and Intelligent-design. Even though the name, intelligent design, was new to me, I was already familiar with the concept and agreed with the ideas as presented in that documentary. This is what my teacher, Mr.B, said about it in his Dramatic Universe, Volume four, page 20: " .... For example, sunlight alone cannot convert water and carbon diaxide into cellulose. It is the highly structured order of the chlorophyll in green leaves that, as it were, 'captures' the available order and turns it to account."
. The problem to be solved here is HOW to “convert water and carbon into cellulose.” Intelligent design is the flowchart, the algorithm or the blueprint. It is a part of a larger whole. The whole emerges though its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them. This can be seen very nicely in computer programming: The customer knows WHAT s/he wants. This is described in a “job-description”. It is also known as the problem statement. The programmer knows HOW to develop a theoretical solution to the problem. This is also known as the algorithm. But he doesn’t know HOW to talk to the computer directly. The coder knows HOW to talk to the computer. For routine jobs the coder can be replaced by “black boxes”. Black boxes or a coder give instruction to a computer and it knows HOW to carry them out. These four components are like the links
in a chain. Break one link and the whole process breaks down. This point was very nicely made in the movie.
. The "discussion" after the movie consisted of a two-way conversation between two ladies that didn't give me a chance to get my comment in edgewise. My struggle with that frustration might have been a necessary ingredient that caused me to wake up with a new "Insidgt(72)" the next morning and here it is:
. According to the Bible, God created the world in six Days. On the seventh Day He looked at his creation and saw that it turned out very well. That is the thesis.
. Along comes a man by name of Charles Darwin who said that, all of this could have happened purely by chance. That is the antithesis.
. Mr.B said on page 19 of the same Volume: "The level of order in the Biosphere within its own present is enormously improbable. The odds against its arising by chance are thousands of millions to one." And that's what the position of the advocates of intelligent design is based on. The book was published in 1966. So Mr.B was way ahead of his time.
. As I said before, Mr.B's, or Lao Tzu's "DyAds(dyad)", "TriAda( 3ad" or tetrads can be used as powerful thinking tools. And here I stumbled about a nice example of it.
. You can call the events I have described here, accidental or synchronistic, The facts remain the same. However, your attitude towards these facts, your interpretation of them, can make a difference.
Co-incidents are called Synchronicity when their occurrence is too improbable, or too meaningful.
. He who has shall have more. If you pay "Enough(Zu)" attention to "Co-incidents" you will have more (attention).
. By March 28 I had put out some flyers, titled: The Secret, to promote my blog. In it I said: "Unless the falsehoods in the book are pointed out to you, they can do you harm. When there is a lot of free promotion of a book or a movie, we have to be careful."
. On March 29, I saw the picture of Conrad Black and his wife, Barbara Amiel, on the front page of the Toronto Sun. Why are they in town? ...
To do some "free promotion of a book" by "Bab's ex". The intent of the globalists, as stated in the Protocols of Zion, is to destroy all religions. The book is about Islam. I don't know "Enough" about it to tell you how much, of what is said about it in the book, is true, but I do know what the intent of the book is. And so can you. Islam is the biggest obstacle to the One World Government. For more about its author, George Jonas, see my old web site NewAgeTao.org
. I said in the section about The Secret, above: " 'Repetition(@1)' is a .... part of 'The Secret' and it is also known by the social engineers. Repeat a lie often 'Enough(Zu)' and the dumbed down masses will eventually believe it. That's Social Engineering 101."
. If you go to my old web site, you will know why the picture on the front page of the Toronto Sun has caught my attention. If you pay no attention to synchronicity then, for you, there is no synchronicity; if you pay "Enough" attention to it then, for you, there will be more of it. If you pay no attention to "Reversals($l)" then, for you, there are no "Reversals". If you pay "Enough" attention to them then, for you, there will be more of them.
April 2, 2007. This morning I had an "Insight(72)" that answered a questions I had been asking for over 25 years. Jesus and Lao Tzu have told us that when you ask, you will "Receive(gt)". Just because the getting can take an awful long time it doesn't mean that what they told us isn't true. They didn't say how long it will take. Did they? If we ask for something that takes a long time to get, the fault is ours. When I got my answer this morning, the first thing that came to mind was: What took me so long? The answer to that one came much more quickly: You had mental blocks that prevented you from receiving the answer. The answer was there all the time, I just wasn't ready for it.
. The question arose from the following passage in Ching 10: When "Loving the People and Governing their Country (%0Mn8531) are you Able to do it Without Knowing (abWUkn)? Are-you(HU)"? The reason that this statement was a problem to me was also the reason that it took me so long to solve it. The problem was that I approached this question with certain preconceived "Assumptions(YÜ)" that prevented me from receiving tha answer. You can see that I already knew the answer if you read what I have said earlier in this blog. I was only blind to it here. Since not only I, but you too can learn from my mistake, let me describe to you how I have acquired those mental blocks.
. What has enabled me to appreciate and benefit from the Tao Te Ching was the Bhagavad Gita. Like The Secret it is a textbook for raja yogis. Arjuna was a raja yogi and Krishna was his teacher. Unlike The Secret, it also deals with the other three yogas. Raja yoga is also known as integral yoga or Gurdjieff's Fouth way Schools. Please read the better commentaries on Gita 13.24-25. In other passages Krishna will say that karma yoga is the best. In still other passages he says that jnana yoga is the best. all the while it becomes clear that he loves the bhakits the most.
. This can become confusing. So at 12.1, Arjuna asks his teacher: Who "are the best yogis", the bhaktis or the jnanis? A politician couldn't have done better than Krisna did at 12.2: The bhaktis are "the most devoted to me. But ...." The way to make sense of the seeming confusion is to read Gita 3.35: Do your dharma, the dharma of another is dangerous. The yoga that is best for you is your yoga. Don't waste your time and energy on somebody else's yoga.
. While there is an outline of karma (D), bhakti (A) and jnana yoga in the Gita, to specialize in any one of these yogas you have to find other gurus or books. For me it was only a matter of time (from 1944 to 1970) to get interested "Enough(Zu)" in the Tao Te Ching to keep going on it. But how can a teacher of ynana yoga say that to "Govern a Country" the path of "Knowledge(kn)" is not good enough? If you go over the rest of my blog you can see what my problem was.
. The statement goes counter to what I have said about democracy and still believe to be true: Truth is the lifeblood of democracy. Right now president Chavez of Venezuela is demonstrating it. He weakens some of the power of the mass-media by supporting the private and public media, by himself knowing and communicating the truth and by taking the control of the educational system away from the social engineers. In this way he is enabling the people to think for themselves. In this Way the votes will automatically go to what is best for the people in the long run, instead of voting for those that are very good at controlling the minds of the people. Their "tricks and stratagems (548a)" can only work as long as the people are dumbed down "Enough(Zu)" so that they don't know better.
. Social Engineering is a science that is necessary to make the people believe that they have a democracy when in fact they have a timocracy. All you have to do is read Plato's imperfect description of the four types of government, or read the Ching, and then ask yourself which one of the four predominates. Whoever makes the major decisions is the one in power. That should be simple "Enough(Zu)". For more details you can see the rest of this blog. The point here is that Lao Tzu's statement about the "KnowErs(kner)" is still too hard for me to swallow unless another "Insight(72)" can help me to make sense of it.
. What finally led me to the insight can be called a series of co incidents or synchronicity, the choice is yours, the facts are the same.
. In my flyer on The Secret I said that "The (*a37) means that the character is *a in chapter 37 of the Tao Te Ching". I had to inform newcomers to this blog of these details. Since there are mistakes in this blog, I went to chapter 37 to make sure that the character is really there. See? If it is possible to avoid errors. I try, but I am frustrated of being stuck with this kind work when I have better things to do, like reading chapter 37. Ting(*a37) is only in 37 but it appears more often in the Nei Yeh. As you understand a word better, you understand the sentence it is in better. So the authors of The Secret are right in saying that "Like attracts alike" They could also have spoken of the law correspondence or sympathetic vibrations. They didn't mention complementation but, either Way: He who has "Enough" shall have more.
. So I read the same chapter again, but I brought a bit more knowledge to it, and so it is reasonable to expect to get a bit more out of it. And this time what I got out of it solved my problem.
. The chapter starts with: The "Tao is Always Without Action (A1CnWUdo) But Nothing is Not Done (btWUPUdo) .... Whithout Name'S (WUMg Z)". Ming(Mg) is here followed by the "Sign of the possessive" Chih( Z). This means that Lao Tzu must have meant the mind (C). Whithout the mind interfering, the intellect (B) can help us to be "Without unrealistic or harmful Desires (WUYÜ)".
. Lao Tzu has said the same thing elsewhere in different Ways. So I already knew that, but in this context the lesson was that: Thought (B) can only bring about a change in our belief system if the representations on level C don't counteract it.
. Another "Co-incidence" must be mentioned here: Remember that above I said that the container on level C can either be changed from within or from without. Whithout interference from the mind (C), the intellect (B) can bring about a change in it. B is the higher and C is the lower component within us. The higher is more abstract and more inclusive while the lower is more exclusive and more concrete. Because C is more concrete than B it can prevent B from changing the container (C). This is important stuff and needs to be said better but Communication is not my dharma. "WordErs Don't (C2erPU)" care as much about the truth as they care about "Words(C2)"; "Knowers Don't care as much about Words (knerPUC2)" as they care about their content. If they cared about something other than their own (swa) dharma, they couldn't do it well "Enough(Zu)". If I tried to become a better "WordEr", I mean, if I spend more time and energy on cleaning up this blog, I would produce nothing better for Communicators to Communicate than what they can produce themselves. All I can hope for now is that some Communicator out there can see the logic of what I have just said.
The Way I came across: True Conspiracies, the Illuminati and One World Government,
sounds perfectly reasonable. It just doesn’t feel like that to me, that’s why I put it under this heading. Above, I used the Phrase “One World Government”. So I went to Google to find out more about it. And there was the above web-site. I didn’t have to read much of it to know that it is about the same thing I am talking about. It can shed light on what I am saying here. It is an excellent summary of the Protocols of Zion in which you can get the same information from the horse's mouth. But I wouldn’t add this message to my blog if I didn’t believe that my poorly expressed ideas can tie a lot of loose ends together.
April 5. Since this is important, and since no writer (C) seems to be interested in this, you have to put up with me trying to do the best I can. You have to take the good with the bad. This is not only true of The Secret but also of my blog. English is my second language and that doesn't help either, but I mean more serious errors in the content of my words. The "Insights(72)" I gain today can make insights I have gained yesterday obsolete and misleading. This is even true of the Tao Te Ching: The standard text of Ching 71 is definitely an improvement over the older texts. Concentrating on the content (B) rather than the container (C) can save us a lot of time and energy we might otherwise spent on speculating which "one" is the right text. In fact, different popular versions might be there for the purpose of getting us to think about it. By "popular" I mean not only historical causes of variants but that perhaps more than one copyist might have been inspired to make a change. This is a line of investigation that "WorErs(C2er)". might want to follow up.
. It has become my experience that if you are willing and able to seek, then you will find. One example of this is the fourth interrogative sentence of Ching 10. That one is an exception because over the years I have learned to ask questions the answer of which is easier to find.
. The answer has shed light on many other passages and given rise to new "Insights(72)". The problem that arises from this for me is: Describing it all to you. Communication (C) is not my dharma, that's why I don't like it. That is why before I get to the "important" insight of April 2, I will talk about thinking tools to enable, or "empower" yo to do the thinking (B) yourself.
. "WordErs Don't Know (C2erPUkn)." But to "Know that they Don't Know (knPUkn)" they have to be able to do at least some thinking.
. You shall know them [falsehoods] by their fruits. This is elaborated on in the parable of the "tares (Matthew13:25)". Once a parable is understood, it becomes a thinking tool which gives us more knowledge. "For unto every one that hath shall be given (Matthew 25:29)". "But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundred fold, some sixty, some thirty. (Matthew 13:23)". Same idea, different words. See what I mean by: Going after the content? ...
. Can you see what Lao Tzu means by: Make "Many Few (TO$q)"? ...
In a sentence there are many words, but the idea that emerges through these words is always one. A complete sentence always consist of a subject, a connective and a predicate; no matter which language is used to convey that one idea, no matter if one "impulse" of the "TriAd( 3ad)) is only implied, it is always there. In order to understand a sentence you must know what a sentence is. When I went to school over 60 years ago, this was still taught. Today this is probably no longer the case because the people have to be dumbed down in order to be controlled.
. From the fact that basic indicative sentences are triads, you can see that triads, and language itself, are thinking tools. With that knowledge alone, you can get more knowledge.
. Around 1970 I gave a lecture at the Toronto Theosophical Society on the parable of the Sower and the Seed. Around that same time Ching 71 happened to come to my attention again. The fact that I became interested "Enough" in the Tao Te Ching, as a result of that, can be called a coincidence or sychronicity. What you call it, doesn't change the facts, but it can change your perception of them.
. Above, I have described a few coincidents, so that you will know WHAT can happen between the lines you are reading here.
. Before I return to that "important" insight from April 2, I will describe a few thinking tools, I am using,, so that you can follow me better.
. "Other Teachers, What they Teach, I Also Teach (mn ZSO#lme08#l) if what They ( Z)" teach is true. If we accept Lao Tzu as our teacher, then he is advising us to not only use the Tao Te Ching, but to compare what he teaches with what other teachers teach.. I have learned that lesson already way back in 1957 from the Theosophists. So what Lao Tzu said here was already known to me. The advantage of knowing WHAT our teacher is talking about is that in this "Way(A1)" we find out about HOW he says things. In the early 1980th I did some work on Ching 63. You can see it in my old web-site NewAgeTao.org I credit that work with leading me up to where I am now. I am still only scratching the surface of this amazing textbook but as all the great teachers say: She, or he, who has shall have more. For instance, if you know one sentence well, that will help you to understand the words in it and the paragraph or chapter, it is a part of, better. In other words, the words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs and chapters, you understand well "Enough(Zu)", become thinking tools that help you to get more thinking tools.
. By studying the Tao Te Ching ,as instructed in chapter 63 and 64, you can personally verify that the law of attraction, as described in The Secret, is real.
. I said, above, that a word can become a thinking tool. A word is a "Name(Mg)" for an idea, a "Thing(wU)" or a principle. It can serve us as a mnemonic, as a reminder to "Make Use" of a tool that is required to solve a particular problem at hand. Not being reminded of using the tool at this particular time means that we missed the opportunity of using it.
. Take the word "Enough(Zu)": Lao Tzu has defined it at better at Ching 46 than you can find in any dictionary, or take the word "Reversal($l)". It is in chapters 25, 40, 65 and 78. "ReversAl ($lad), Tao'S Movement (A1 Z%k)." So you can see that this word refers to a very important "Concept(B1)". I just happened to notice the following sentences at 65: He who "By-means-of Cleverness Governs the State (YI^c8531) is the State'S Malefactor (31 Zâe); he who does Not By-means-of Cleverness Governs the State (PUYIâe8531) is the States Benefactor (31 Z@d). Know This DyAd (knTzdyad)"!", And notice, again, the "Reversal($l)". Chih(^c) is also in 18 which, in turn, sheds light on other chapters. Again, he who has shall have more.
The more you use a tool, the more often it comes to mind when you need it.
. "Work Without Doing (doWUdo)" it yourself. Let your mind (C) with its memory do it for you "Naturally(Tu)" on its own! Wei Wu Wei can be read as an instruction. When you know that the three characters can be read as an instruction, you have the choice of carrying it out. If not, then not. Did you notice the "Reversal($l)" here?
What is true of passages in the Ching is also true of the parables in the Bible:. The more relevant knowledge you can bring to them, the more knowledge you will get out of them. Let me use the Parable of the "tares (Mattheus 13:24)", because it is useful in exposing the lies that are hidden within the truth. "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way." The interesting twist to the story is that "the servants of the householder" noticed the tares and asked their boss: "shall we go and gather them up?
"But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
"Let both grow together until the harvest. ...." Can you see HOW Jesus, like Lao Tzu, teaches by paradox? If you understand this parable you will also understand the saying : You shall know them by their fruit. ...
The three dots "..." mean please think before reading on. The paradoxes are there for you to think about. Reading (C) answers is not thinking (B). ...
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, the proof of a scientific hypothesis (B) is in its successful and repeatable verification on the physical level (D). Repeatable unsuccessful tests will disprove the hypothesis.
. In his "Occult Science" Rudolf Steiner devotes much space to the proof of spiritual scientific hypotheses or descriptions of what can be seen on the spiritual level (A). Because of the law of correspondence, the same assertions can be made about philosophical hypotheses on the intellectual level (B). On the physical level (D) we need physical tools to prove or disprove a hypothesis, on the intellectual level (B), we need thinking tools to prove or disprove a hypothesis and on the spiritual level (A) we need spiritual tools to prove or disprove them. Very appropriately Steiner devotes much space to teaching the necessary spiritual aptitudes to his readers. Very inappropriately he claims that everybody can learn it. As Krishna and Lao Tzu said: You can't "Actualize a Potential (A1pt)" you don't have but raja yogis, (C) or "WordErs Don't Know (C2erPUkn)" that.
. If a hypothesis works, no matter on which level, then it is true. "True Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO$l)." If it is true, then it will work. However, the only level on which we can see the proof with our physical eyes is the physical level (D). That is why material science has the status it has today. But the proof bhakti, jnana and raja yogis can prduce within themselves is much more significant to such individuals. Anyone has eyes to see, but not anyone has "Actualized his or her Potential (A1pt)". With the dumbing down process in full swing, people that have managed to actualize their potential are indeed rare.
. The law of correspondence has come up a number of times, above. Is it a thinking tool? ...
Natural laws are intangible yet real. They are the principles according to which things work. The primary equivalent of Tao(A1) is "Way". Why is "Truth" another dictionary equivalent of the Tao? ...
Because it is the "Way" things work, and if they work, then the Way they work is true. That's HOW the pragmatists (D) have it, and in their own Way they are right. If you understand a natural law well "Enough(Zu)", the question, whether natural laws are thinking tools answers itself. If you understand the Way things work, then you know HOW to use them as thinking tools. The same goes for the law of attraction. You can use it to attract true concepts to you or to attract lots of money to you. In the end the question boils down to: What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world and loose his only soul? ... And if you didn't attract the answer to that question, then you are attracting a lot of trouble to yourself. The law of compensation works, whether we understand it or not. We have to reap what we sow, unless somebody found a Way to change the law of cause and effect, or karma. No amount of money or worldly power can change any of the natural laws. Ignoring them isn't going to do much good in the long run.
. We don't know who invented induction and deduction but we owe syllogisms to Aristotle. He has put a minor thesis and a major thesis together in such a Way that the two produce a conclusion.
. We owe Hegelian dialectics to Hegel. Very smart man. It consists of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis "TriAd( 3ad)". Substituting different "impulses" for Hegel's three components gives us different thinking tools. Impulses are the parts of a triad.
. Now we can return to deduction and induction. actually, these are operation, not tools. Deduction is the movement from the general to the particular, and induction is the movement from the particular to the general. You can still find these definitions in older dictionaries, but the social engineers make sure that the truth doesn't find its way into newer dictionaries..
. Deduction is also known as the top-down approach to problem solving. Thank God, some people still have to solve problems. It is a taking apart, an analysis, a movement from whole to part(s). "Right Words Likely Reverse." Induction is the opposite of deduction. It is the bottom-up approach to problem solving. It is an assembly, a movement from part(s) to the whole. Words like deduction, induction, attention etc. are not quite nouns nor quite verbs. They are somewhere in between, some of them leaning a bit more towards verbs, others leaning a bit more towards nouns. Nouns. For instance when we read:: "Energy flows where the attention goes.", or when we take the phrase "paying attention", it seems to be something we can pay with for something else. In this context attention seems to be something concrete like money. But is money concrete, or is it just an idea? ...
. Let's get back to deduction and induction. If these are verbs, they must bring about a change in something. The movement must be from somewhere to somewhere. This is where the whole-part polarity comes in. While, like othe natural laws, polarities are intangible we nevertheless all agree that "DyAds(dyad)", "TriAds( 3ad)" etc. are nouns. The suffix "--ad" tells us that they are. In my mother tongue, German, nouns are capitalized. That seems to "Fix(*a37)" these abstract notions more firmly in people's minds in whose language nouns are capitalized. Just as the whole-part dyad can be used as a thinking tool, so can other dyads be used.
. Edward De Bono has written a number of books on thinking. His flat yellow surface analogy is the one I value most: Since it is an excellent example of HOW the law of attraction works, let me go into it a bit further: Take a pot of hot yellow and pour it into a tray. As it cools, you get a nice model of our mind before any impressions are made on it. Drops of hot water will heat and thus soften the flat yellow surface. If you simply let it cool, it will just harden again without any significant change to the surface, but if you siphon of the yellow while it is soft, you get a lasting crater. This siphoning is analogous to paying attention to a soft spot in our mind. This is what "Fixes" it there. If you pay attention, you bring about a positive or negative change in your mind; if not, then not. Now, by means of this this simple analogy you can see HOW the law ao attraction works: The next drop doesn't have to hit the center of the crater again. Anywhere within the circumference of the crater is good "Enough". In fact, even if the drop hits the circumference, the water will still flow inwards because as the drop melts the yellow beneath it, it already increases the size of the crater. As your attention goes more to the big one, more and more drops fall into it. Other smaller craters are gobbled up. The yellow you have siphoned out of them no longer has to be siphoned out of the big one. Its been a long time since I have read Edward De Bono's book, but he must have done a good job explaining it, otherwise it wouldn't still be so vivid in my memory. What clearly can be seen from this example is that: S/he who has shall have more. Can you see now, from this example, how a flat yellow surface can become a thinking tool? Oh, there is another lesson in this. When reading what De Bono said about dialectics it turned out that he doesn't understand it. If I had allowed that realization to turn me off, I would have missed out on a valuable thinking tool.
. What I am doing here isn't a one-man job. We need a study group of different experts bringing in their expertise. We would have the division of labor in miniature. So please don't let the errors in this blog turn you off.
. A lot more could be said about the question from Ching 10 that has kept me busy for so long, but I will go to Ching 37 because the answer came from there.
. The last sentence of a chapter is usually the conclusion. Ching 37 is no exception. Ting(*a) is the last character in that sentence. Another character I learned more about from the Nei Yeh is Ching(^a). So I brought more knowledge to the sentence and, according to the law of attraction, I got more out of it. S/he who has shall have more. And now I will translate that last sentence as follows: "UnDesire By-means-of Tranquility (PUYÜYI^a) Heaven and the two levels Below it Will then Naturally Fix (Tn -41Tu*a)" themselves.
. Ting40(*a). Tzu(Tu) can also mean itSelf. Heaven (B), mind (C) and body (D) will align themselves to your soul (A) if it gets rid of some unrealistic and harmful "Expectations(YÜ)".
. Normally we assume that our soul is perfect, but we know from Transactional Analysis that the Child (A) in us can suffer from serious trauma. About that is the problem Lao Tzu was addressing over two thousand years ago before we had Transactional Analysis. Let us go to the beginning of the chapter to see how Lao Tzu is leading up to this conclusion.
The "Tao is Always Without intellectual, mental and physical Action (A1CnWUdo)
But Nothing gets Not Done (btWUPUdo). if
"Princes and Kings Were Able to Adopt This as a policy (Üa EJOab40 Z) then
All Things Will Naturally Transform (WnwU41Tuäo). having
"Transformed But Desires still Arise (äobtYÜ%c)
I Would Curb Them By-means-of (my41*b ZYI) the
Without Name'S Natural-state (WUMg Z^i).
"Without Name'S Natural-state (WUMg Z^i)
One Also Can Eliminate unrealistic and harmful Desires (he0841WUYÜ). therefore
"UnDesire By-means-of Tranquility (PUYÜYI^a) and
Heaven humanity and earth Below it (Tn -)
Will Naturally Fix (41Tu*a)" themselves.
. Chên167(*b) "To repress; protection". Followed by Shou(40), we get: "to guard; to keep watch." Followed by Ting(*a). we get: "to soothe; to calm; to settle down. Followed by Hsin(Hs), we get: "to quiet the mind. (6906)". We must pay attention to these words because Lao Tzu doesn't pick them randomly. As you can see, a good dictionary can be a "Gold (Rad. 167) mine for ideas.
The difficult phrase: "Without Name'S Natural-state", seems to be the equivalent of Tranquility(^i)". "Name(Mg)" is on level C. Without the mind (C) interfering with the intellect (B), the intellect can bring about desirable changes in the mind. The intellect, being "Weaker(Jo)" than the mind can only accomplish this if the mind is willing to change. The intellectual center is more inclusive but weaker than our emotional center (C). By means of self-observation we can see that. According to the law of correspondence, B is to C, as A is to B. Thus A has the big holographic picture, but it is not as concrete as B, and so it can only bring a desirable change in B with B's cooperation. The question at 10.4 can thus be rephrased as follows: Are you able to govern without your intellect exercising its "Natural-tendencies(^i)"? Are you willing to allow A to help you? Will you accept A's advise?
. We can only understand a sentence as well as we understand the words and phrases in it. The difficult phrase and its substitute, Ching(^i), make it difficult to understand the sentences they are in, more fully. It will help to look up Ching174 in dictionaries and in different translations.
. Any creative process begins with a problem to be solved (A). Then comes the intellectual analysis of the problem (B). Then comes the mental (C) work which can consist of deciding on how parts of the problem, as analyzed by (B), can be solved by trial and error (D).
. P'u(^i), Ching(^a) and Ting(*) are bottlenecks that prevent me to do as good an interpretation of Ching 37 as I would like to. These characters are in the Nei Yeh, and if I had a Dictionary-Concordance for it, I could do a better job.
. Actually, I have already imagined (A) how it would look like and I have "planed(*a63)" (B) HOW to do it. All I have to do is to take the time to let my "Mind(Hs)" (C) tell my fingers (D) which keys to press on my keyboard (E8).
. "He who finds it Easy to make Promises will Necessarily (he$j*XPI)" find it difficult to keep them. As much as I dislike work that is not my dharma, having "Committed(*X (No149))" myself in writing, I better start working on this darn job.
WELL, I QUIT that darn job, but I tried and I got some very valuable ideas out of that frustrating effort. It will take a bit of time to put it together, but it will be worth waiting for. What I can say already now is that: Without Lao Tzu's help you can't interpret that text. If it were possible, others would have already done it without his help.
Relaxing, and looking up ^a on Table Two, we first come to 5c: "When the mind is tranquil and the vital breath is regular (Hs^a8b5c)". When there is normal capitalization, I am using Roth's translation.
. We can verify the accuracy of the first three characters ourselves but to verify 5c,4 (the character at chapter 5, line 3, column 4) we have to accept Roth's equivalents. If you do the work required to verify the translation, you are progressinf from being a passive reader to being an active student. For me, doing that kind of work, means doing the work that is not my dharma. And as Krishna has told us at Gita 3.35, that kind of thing is "dangerous". Let me do it, just to show you what I mean: The left component of 5c,4 looks like Wang( E) to me. Its not the phonetic and not Rad. 95 Star gave us. But right next to it, Rad. 96, looks promising, and it is. We get Li96 on page 295 of "The Five Thousand Dictionary". We get: "To manage; notice; principles, reason, abstract right." You need this information to do your own interpretation. You also need a concordance to see how other translators have translated the character in the different contexts in which the poet(s) or Lao Tzu have placed it. Li96 is not in the Ching.
. After this work, we can say: If your "Mind is Tranquil and your Breath is Noticed" or observed, what then? ...
5d The "Tao Will Possibly Stop (A1$ppt$i."
The Way and the Truth is always in us but we don't "Stop" long "Enough(Zu)" to "Notice" it.
. Returning to Table Two, we get 5m next:
"Cultivate your Mind! make Tranquil your Thoughts (5mHs^a5m))"!
. On page 112, Roth gives us the Phonetic of 5m,1. It is Hsiu. The first thing I check is whether it is in the Ching. Yes it is. It is only in chapter 54, but there Star tells us that it is Rad 9. Even if a character is not in the Ching, it is still a good idea to look there first because it is much easier to find a character in the relatively small Dictionary-Concordance than in a regular dictionary. I am really grateful to Star for all the time he has saved me.
. Why can't somebody do the same kind of work on the Nei Yeh? Why do I have to invest time and energy in work that is not my dharma. That is time and energy I can't invest in my own dharma. And because it is not my own I have to invest more energy in it than a "WordEr(C2er)" has to for doing a better job.
. Because the poets and Lao Tzu have done such a good job, I can do my dharma. Because "KnowErs(kner) do their dharma Communicators (C) can do theirs, but as Lao Tzu said: The "WordErs Don't Understand (C2erPUkn)" that. Why can't Lao Tzu be wrong, just that one time?
. The bottom component of 5m,4 is Hsin(Hs). It is Rad 61. Maybe that's the radical of 5m,4. Yes it is. 5m,4 is Yi61. It means: "Thought, will, intention". 5m,4 is not in the Ching. Can you see from this example how much time Star is saving me. If I wanted to know whether an interesting character we have in the Ching is also in the Nei Yeh, I would have to go through a lot of work, and even then I can't be sure because I am not a "WordEr(C2er)". There is only so much time I am willing to spend on looking at a page to see whether the character is on it. That is why I am not sure whether my Dictionary-Concordance in the first file of this blog is complete. So Star is saving me a lot of time because he has done an excellent job. We can all save each other's time by doing a good job. And we can only do that by doing our dharma. By doing our dharma, we "enable" others to do theirs. A jack of all trades can never excel at any one of them. The "wicked and slothful servant (Matthew 25:26)" didn't get cast "into outer darkness" because he has buried somebody else's "talent" but because he as buried his own. We can't "Actualize (somebody else's) Potential (A1pt)" because we don't have it. And so we will not bee cast into outer darkness for not doing what we are unable to do. We have here an excellent example of the law of attraction at work.
. The next place we find "Tranquility(^a)" is at 7c. The connective in the first three lines of chapter 7 is %u. Roth has "Ruling-principle" for it and that seems to be the best choice in this context. %u is not only the connective in each of the first three sentences, but it connects the first three sentences. In fact, they make up the first paragraph of 7. The next three lines form the second paragraph. Then comes the "ThereFore the Wise Man (SiKUwsmn)" which is followed by a two-line conclusion.
. The three sentences that make up the first paragraph are each three characters long: We have there: The subject, followed by the connective, followed by the predicate. Here it is:
"Heaven's Ruling-principle is Alignment (Tn%n%8),
Earth's Ruling-principle is Uniformity (TI%n7b) and
Man's Ruling-principle is Tranquility (mn%n^a)."
Until I find 7b,3 in an earlier chapter, it will be 7b. It is only in Ching 35, so we have no other identifier for it. Star tells us that it is P'ing51: "Even, level, tranquil; to weigh; uniform, equitable". Since "Tranquility" is one of the choices translators have, the question arises: What is the difference between the human level (C) and the physical level (D)? ...
By taking the time to think about the question, you are preparing yourself for the answer. This preparation may attract the answer to you or, if that doesn't happen, you are better prepared for the answer I came up with, which may not be the right one. The only Way you can be sure is by doing your own thinking.. Here is my guess: ...
What is "Tranquility" to our emotional center (C) is evenness, ...., uniformity, or equitability, to our moving center (D). The last option brings liberty (B), equality and the brotherhood of man (C) to mind.
. In Ching 25 "Man(mn)" is equated to the "King( E)". If you look at Wang( E), you can see why I have picked E as its identifier: The top line symbolizes heaven, the middle line symbolizes man and the bottom line symbolizes earth. Since the Chinese speaking reader is expected to know this symbolism of their language, we have to familiarize ourselves with it as well, if we want to understand what the poet(s) or Lao Tzu are saying. Applying this bit of knowledge to Nei Yeh 7.1, we can say heaven is associated with %8, earth with 7b and man with ^a.
We went from here to chapter 37 to find out more about Ting(8c). We came back here to find out more about ^a and 8c. Let's go to 8c. Let us start reading at 8a: If you are
"Able to Align and Able to be Tranquil (ab%8ab^a)
Then you are a Prince who is Able to Fix (Ja8bab8b)" Fix what? ...
8c "Fix the Mind In your Center (8bHsÜp =)"! If we read line three as an instruction, then we can only execute if we understand it.
"Nobody who is unable to understand an instruction is Able to Execute (MOabpr)" it.
. 8b,2 is Hai30. It is not in the Ching. “This is [picture of] hou ( a man [picture] who orders [ picture of the mouth, K'ou30], a prince .... ) reversed to indicate the subordinate or servant who receives the orders. (ACC)." The dictionary tells us that. So, obviously, the Chinese speaking reader, student or translator is expected to know that. What does this bit of information from the dictionary tell us? ...
After I got "The Original Tao" by Harold D Roth, the Nei Yeh, I went to the internet to find out more about it. Since I am not a net-worker, I didn't get too far with that. But purely by "acident" I stumbled on something else. What do you expect from novices like me? It was information on "The Handbook of the Navigator" by Eric J. Pepin. It said there that it was available at Chapters. Indigo, The World's Biggest Bookstore, same thing,, same owners. .... The book wasn't even on their computer. Now, that is strange. The way they are putting the smaller bookstores out of business is having more books on their shelves than the smaller ones have space for. How come they don't even have this one on their computer, so you can't even order it through them. Actually, the did have David Icke's books on their computer, but they still will not order it for you. Even one of the smaller bookstores person told me that his books are banned. What does that tell us about books that are banned? ...
We are not supposed to read them. What can we find out about books that get a lot of free promotion and that are all over the shelves of the big bookstore conglomerate? ...
That we are supposed to read them.
. What can Lao Tzu tell us about people that buy up newspapers and bookstores? ...
"Below average People, when they Hear the Truth ( -Üp^dA1) will
Greatly Ridicule It (TA*a Z). if they did Not Ridicule (PU*a) it, then we would have
Not Enough Means To find out the Truth (PUZuYIA1."
. Hsiao118(*a41) means "To lough .... ridicule". To these "Below( -) average people "Ridicule" is used to discredit people that try to tell us the "Truth(A1)". Thei can help us to "Identify(Mg)" the truth because the know it. Just because they know what they don't want us to know doesn't mean that it isn't true. This is why, if they didn't ridicule it we don't have enough means to identify the truth. Lao Tzu said right at the begining of his book: "Identify the Identifiable (MgptMg)"!. Throughout his book, he tells us HOW to carry out his instructions. Readers will just read and perhaps comment on his words. He says: "My Words are Very Easy to Understand, Very Easy if you Carry-out (myC2%tezkn%tezpr)" my instructions. What good is just reading, or translating, instructions, imperative sentences, the purpose of which is to be carried out?
. If we have learned the above two lessons from Lao Tzu,, what can we learn from the fact that David Icke's books are banned? ... He works for the globalists in that he puts us into the victim state of consciousness, but ...
the truth in his books is doing more harm than good to the globalists. Coming back now to "The Handbook of the Navigator" ...
I am now half through Pepin's book. He doesn't like religions. There is some justification in that. Religions have been infiltrated for centuries, just read the Protocols of Zion, but to reject them altogether, is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The Parable of the tares (Matthew 13:24) tells us that falsehoods are bound to creep in there but it also tells us HOW to deal with them. If it were not for the bad guys, we wouldn't learn HOW to think, there would be no challenge to practice it. Today you can't go onto the internet, or read a newspaper, without using your head. I went over an analysis I did of an article by George Jonas in my old web-site NewAgeTao.org I did it because I knew where he was coming from. Reading it now, I find it hard to follow my thought, but I know it is there. It just takes a lot of work, even for me to refresh my memory. and I am not motivated to get back into that when no "WordEr(C2er)" is willing to make it worth my while.
. So we found out from the globalits that we are not supposed to read The Handbook of the Navigator, which means to me that I have to read it. Pepin's dislike of religion has to be compensated but other than that, I found nothing seriously wrong with that book. There are no dangerous lies hidden under a sugarcoating of truth. If there are, the sugarcoating is so thick that I didn't get there yet. If as many people read The Handbook as are reading The Secret, it will not only undo the damage The Secret is doing but it will do more harm to the globalists than good. Why else would they ban this book? ...
. In fact, when I came to chapter six I had no choice but to interrupt my work on the Nei Yeh to share with you what I have learned from this book so far.
. I will put that new section in front of the Text-Commentary file. That will slow it down, but being in front, I can still squeze it into the file in which this kind of work belongs.
. I may not have my first installment in there tomorrow, but just keep tuning into it once in a while.
___________________________________________________________________
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . End of new Section
___________________________________________________________________________
My latest insights are in the "Dictionary" file. Just click on it.
Hiya Pete, did you get the book via eBay?... I have to leave feedback.. (set your hearts on the greatest gift)...? or is it a different one? Give us a call plse :-) Friend is not having the car for a bit.. shucks!! GuruE
>>>>Hey Internet Guru: I got a different book. I went to the church you told me to go to but your friend was not there. What now? I want to thank you for twisting my arm to get me on this blog. Without you fulfilling your contract, none of this would happen!!! <<<<<>
