Taoweblog
Some things in life are bad
They can really make you mad
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you're chewing on life's gristle
Don't grumble, give a whistle
And this'll help things turn out for the best...
And...always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the light side of life...
If life seems jolly rotten
There's something you've forgotten
And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
When you're feeling in the dumps
Don't be silly chumps
Just purse your lips and whistle - that's the thing.
And...always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the light side of life...
For life is quite absurd
And death's the final word
You must always face the curtain with a bow.
Forget about your sin - give the audience a grin
Enjoy it - it's your last chance anyhow.
So always look on the bright side of death
Just before you draw your terminal breath
Life's a piece of shit
When you look at it
Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true.
You'll see it's all a show
Keep 'em laughing as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you.
And always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the right side of life...
(Come on guys, cheer up!)
Always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the bright side of life...
(Worse things happen at sea, you know.)
Always look on the bright side of life...
(I mean - what have you got to lose?)
(You know, you come from nothing - you're going back to nothing.
What have you lost? Nothing!)
Always look on the right side of life
The world today is absolutely cracked.
With nuclear bombs to blow us all sky high.
There's fools and idiots sitting on the trigger.
It's depressing, and it's senseless, and that's why...
I like chinese,
I like chinese,
They only come up to you knees,
Yet they're always friendly and they're ready to to please.
I like chinese,
I like chinese,
There's nine hundred million of them in the world today,
You'd better learn to like them, that's what I say.
I like chinese,
I like chinese,
They come from a long way overseas,
But they're cute, and they're cuddly, and they're ready to please.
I like chinese food,
The waiters never are rude,
Think the many things they've done to impress,
There's maoism, taoism, I-ching and chess.
I like chinese,
I like chinese,
I like their tiny little trees,
Their zen, their ping-pong, their ying and yang-eze.
I like chinese thought,
The wisdom that Confucius taught,
If Darwin is anything to shout about,
The chinese will survive us all without any doubt.
So, I like chinese,
I like chinese,
They only come up to you knees,
Yet they're wise, and they're witty, and they're ready to please
Wo ai Zhong-guo ren [Wo, I chumba run]
Wo ai Zhong-guo ren
Wo ai Zhong-guo ren
Ni Hao Ma? Ni Hao Ma? Ni Hao Ma? Zai zhen [Ne hamma? ... Chi Chen]
I like chinese,
I like chinese,
They're food is guaranteed to please,
A fourteen, a seven, a nine and lichese
I like chinese,
I like chinese,
I like their tiny little trees,
Their zen, their ping-pong, their yin and yang-eze
I like chinese,
I like chinese,
und
Meine Weblogs:
https://twitter.com/taoistic
http://taoist.gaia.com/quotes/lists/library
http://hawo.blogdrive.com/
http://fallobst.vox.com/
http://tao.log.ag
http://taoistic.vox.com/
http://www.xanga.com/taoistic
http://myblog.de/taoistisch
http://taohermit.blogspot.com
http://tao.blogg.de
http://www.livejournal.com/users/hans_wolfgangch/
http://www.hawo.twoday.net
http://taoist.gaia.com/blog
http://profiles.yahoo.com/blog/PZ6I5JSTJHSU5ILKBHTHYEHWU4?eid=g8dPn4Y6mXtIyiWuZj4HF0IlfZQFRzn4Ldh9W8iv3GDqxJyx4w
http://www.handshakes.de/index.php?page=blogs
http://www.tagtt.com/tao/
http://taoist.blogdrive.com/
http://www.blogigo.de/tao
http://20six.de/taoweblog
http://www.blogigo.de/taologisch
http://taoistic.blogsome.com
http://taoistisches.blog.de
http://tao.kulando.de
http://taoist.blogster.com
http://www.diarius.de/tao
http://www.liebefix.de/blogview.php?ID=14238&RefID=14238&MODE=U
http://taological.spaces.live.com/blog/
http://my.opera.com/hawo/blog
http://tao.20six.de/
http://taoist.mindsay.com/
http://www.icq.com/people/full_user_blog.php?uin=475716695
http://www.free-blog.in/tao/
http://www.chblog.ch/tao/
http://hawo.123log.de/
http://www.lastfm.de/user/hans-wolfgang/journal
http://www.opednews.com/author/diary/author28285.html
http://tao.over-blog.de/
http://www.ipernity.com/blog/tao
http://taoistic.wordpress.com/
http://www.thetaobums.com/blog/hans-wolfgang/
http://hawo.blog.mobile-website.mobi/
http://www.spin.de/hp/Hans-Wolfgang/blog
http://hawo.1on.de/
http://tao.blogage.de/
|
 |
Verfasst am 01.10.2009 23:38:16 Uhr
Striving is a product of a limited mind
Spirituality is about making a difference through perfecting one´s difference, and thus becoming unpredictable and unpredicted. We die to the extent that we do not make a difference – this is the meaning of the individuation principle. If we remain faithful to our soul, that is, to our difference, we do not dissipate into Pleroma, or nothingness and entropy. Difference means uniqueness, the differentiation from common streams such as egoism, fear, pain – and thus feeling the moment to its full potential which is a glimpse of infinity.
Spirituality is not change in itself, for the future is what we are now. It is not motivation, as motivation is a limitation; motivation is what encloses change and makes it but a completion of the present; meditation is possible when motivation is absent. It is not the striving for gratification, financial or otherwise, as the thinking in terms of reward and penalty makes us resemble trained dogs and thus is a product of a limited mind. It is not appraisal – the mind tries to subject its measures on the immeasurable and first when we free ourselves from the temptation to evaluate we can plunge into meditation. It is definitely not greed, incessant activity, desire of external achievement – leaving the person with a feeling of internal emptiness and loss. It has nothing to do with winning, we need to escape the common trap that makes us ignore our true character to accomodate to what society names as successful. Planned change, desire of gratification, desire for winning are the problems for the individual. The solutions can be found in spirituality. Human beings are expected to be molded to fit the needs of a society. Not so in spirituality. There, solving the problems of a living human being means change, though not change in itself, nor the planned change of science. Yet spirituality is change, though of an unpredictable, unpredicted and uncontained kind – that of transformation. This kind of change is sometimes called enlightenment and it makes all the difference. Enlightenment, satori, can be described through the following chief characteristics: irrationality, intuitive insight, authoritativeness, affirmation, sense of the beyond, impersonal tone, feeling of exaltation, and momentariness. Irrationality of satori means that it cannot be reached by reasoning or explained logically. The intuitive insight derives from seeing, as it embraces the essence of nature. Satori is concerned with something universal and at the same time with the individual aspect of existence. The authoritativeness of satori means that the knowledge feels final and it is not negative – hence its affirmation. All kinds of enlightenment are concerned by a sense of the beyond. However, as Christian mystics tend to speak of the personal dimension in their experience (love of God), the Zen satori lacks this coloring. Nonetheless, the feeling of exaltation typical of Christian mystics are common for Zen adepts as well. The momentariness of satori is its trait devoid of time yet powerfully transformative: satori comes upon one abruptly and is a momentary experience, it opens up in one moment an altogether new vista, and the whole existence is appraised from quite a new angle of observation. Enlightenment can be found through an inquiring mind, not by way of formal education or logical problem solving, development in the sense of training the logical mind, adopting of rational techniques. The mind should be absolutely free.
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-1416954694878235092&ei=ChvFSuL7KZPc2gK909GXAQ&q=
Verfasst am 06.06.2009 00:53:46 Uhr
zwischen Allgemeinheit und Person
Wenn die meisten Menschen sagen sollten, wie sie eigentlich sind, sie würden in Verlegenheit geraten, denn sie haben sich noch nie anders geprüft als an einer Aufgabe und im Verhältnis zu ihr. Der Unterschied zwischen dem Haben der eigenen Erlebnisse und Eigenschaften und ihrem Fremdbleiben ist nur ein Haltungsunterschied, in gewissem Sinn ein Willensbeschluß oder ein gewählter Grad zwischen Allgemeinheit und Personhaftigkeit, auf dem man lebt. Ganz einfach gesprochen, man kann sich zu den Dingen, die einem widerfahren oder die man tut, mehr allgemein oder mehr persönlich verhalten. Man kann einen Schlag außer als Schmerz auch als Kränkung empfinden, wodurch er unerträglich wächst; aber man kann ihn auch sportlich aufnehmen, als ein Hindernis, von dem man sich weder einschüchtern noch in blinden Zorn bringen lassen darf. Motor dieses Spiels ist das, was ein Korrelat des allgemein akzeptierten, ja geforderten „Wirklichkeitssinns“ darstellt, und zwar gerade auch im Hinblick auf die eigene Identität: der „Möglichkeitssinn“. So bin ich, aber ich könnte unter anderen Umständen auch ganz anders sein. So reagiere ich jetzt, aber ich könnte auch anders reagieren. Da begegnet uns die Frage als Ausdruck von Freiheit: Bin ich das? Oder das? Schließlich kommt man an den Punkt, ein Mensch ohne Eigenschaften zu sein. Dann hasst man heimlich alles, was so tut, als stünde es ein für allemal fest, die großen Ideale und Gesetze und ihren kleinen versteinten Abdruck, den gefriedeten Charakter. Man hält kein Ding für fest, kein Ich, keine Ordnung; weil unsre Kenntnisse sich mit jedem Tag ändern können, glaubt man an keine Bindung, und alles besitzt den Wert, den es hat, nur bis zum nächsten Akt der Schöpfung, wie ein Gesicht, zu dem man spricht, während es sich mit den Worten verändert. Die Frage: Wer bin ich? will man sich immer aufs Neue stellen, um sie jeder affirmativen Antwort zu entziehen. Ein mystischer Denker, Angelus Silesius (1624-1677) brachte die Unzulänglichkeit des Ich für das Ich in seiner Spruchsammlung „Der Cherubinische Wandersmann“ auf die knappste Formel:
Ich weiß nicht, was ich bin; ich bin nicht, was ich weiß;
Ein Ding und nit ein Ding, ein Stüpfchen und ein Kreis.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3664359489218547625&ei=kKApSqeAK5jg2gLr88WvCQ&q=
Verfasst am 30.05.2009 01:56:59 Uhr
Now I cannot help you
<>
In the forty-two years Buddha spoke, you cannot find a single inconsistency, no contradiction. Now it is so easy to make the whole living religion into a dead belief, a dogma. The religion becomes a cult.<>
Religion is religion only when the master is there continuously watching that you don't get into the head, that you remain centred in the heart. But when the master is gone, all that you have left with you is his statements. If they are consistent, then it is very easy for you to make a theology, a Christianity, a Buddhism, a Hinduism, Mohammedanism, and then cling to it. You have forgotten the master; now you have only words, which mean nothing. It was the man behind the words who had meant something to you. Can't you see the difference? When Gautam Buddha spoke, many hearts started melting into him. The same words are written in the books; the Buddhist theologian is not speaking any other words, he is speaking the same words Buddha used -- but nothing stirs in your heart. On the contrary, your head becomes interested; you start arguing for and against.
<>
No master has been self-contradictory, and because they were not self-contradictory they have all failed. Although Buddha goes on saying, "Don't believe in me," that does not make any difference. When Buddha is gone, they need some substitute -- a holy book, the DHAMMAPADA, the BIBLE, the KORAN -- they need something substantial to hold on to. They will make a belief, they will make a theology, and they will make a philosophy. And that's how all the religions have slowly slowly died.>
<>
<>
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8049926841891852078&ei=2XcgSqHHJ5_y2wLKmMGmBg&q=
Verfasst am 30.04.2009 02:03:38 Uhr
Time and Money
Time and Money matter for even the most chilled-out, laid-back and altruistic of givers. Once these two little demons are contained in their rightful place, neither worshipped nor denied but treated with appropriate respect, they become willing helpers.
How long should a treatment last? As long as it takes, say the wise old wizards, depending on the condition of the Receiver, the connection with the Giver, karmic influences and so on. Clients want more precise timings because of other things in life such as work, home, hairdressing appointments, parking meters, trains to catch/meet, kids to take/pick up from school or ballet/judo classes.
“How long, how many and how much” questions focus on the expectations, hopes and fears of your potential clients. How long should you spend on one treatment-session? And how many sessions in a day? An overlong treatment can deplete the Receiver, too many can deplete the Giver.
http://www.seahawkaddicts.com/2009/03/rethinking-russell.html
Verfasst am 25.04.2009 17:03:38 Uhr
the reason is clear
God and the devil are just theological hypotheses. It simply shows the weakness of the theologians that they could not manage the world without false hypotheses to support their systems. God they needed to create the world -- without ever bothering who created God. Their fundamental idea is that without somebody creating, nothing can be created; that's why they have accepted God as the creator of the world. But why stop with God? What happened to the original thesis?
The thesis was that nothing can be created without a creator. Who created God? According to all religions... the question has remained unanswered. They know that if they say God A was created by God B they will get into more trouble... then God C and God D, and the whole alphabet. Still, when they reach X, Y, Z, nothing will be solved -- who created God Z?
In fact they have started from a very wrong premise. Existence is intrinsically self-generated. It has always been here, so the question of creation does not arise. And it will always be here, so the question of destruction does not arise. It may pass through many phases of evolution, but it will remain.
|
|
|
| < | März 2010 | > | | So | Mo | Di | Mi | Do | Fr | Sa |
| | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | | | |
|
