“Do not be concerned about whether or not others know you; beconcerned about whether or not you know others.”
I read 'The Art of War' recently and there was similar advice repeated time and time again - know others/your enemies as well as you can so that you can predict their every move in times of war.
If for three years he does not alter the ways ofhis father, he may be called a filial son.
Does this refer to customs that say the ways of a father should be carried out by the son after the father's death, until a certain point has been reached/time has passed and the son can take up a higher status in the the family?
badtra nsmi gr ati ons
I am curious to understand more about what exactly bad transmigrations refers to here.
The r e by t h e six c onstit uent s1*are selfless
I am confused here because it is mentioned earlier that the aggregates (I'm assuming feelings, discriminations, etc. are included in that) are nonexistent. So does selfless mean nonexistent here?
W h e n t he r e is long, t her e is short
I suppose this connects to the idea of yin and yang? - They must exist simultaneously?
O n e who sees how cause a nd effectAre produce d a nd destroyedDoe s no t r egard t he wor ldAs really existent or really non-exist ent
My takeaway from this explanation is that the crux of exiting the cycle of birth and rebirth is in a complete and total belief that it and everything it comprises is nonexistent. Upon arriving at the conclusion that is it nonexistent, there is no way to truly verify if it exists or not. It's a situation where you have decided that it is nonexistent and that action is what removes you from it altogether. So it makes sense that the person who understands all this ultimately becomes indifferent to whether it is "really existant or really nonexistant" which in action is as good as saying you believe it does not exist.
But like t he i mage o f one ’s faceT h e I does no t a t all really exist.*
This is interesting, but what if we switched the analogy from the face/I being a reflection dependent on a mirror, to the face/I being perceived by another person. Would this logic still hold steady? How do we reconcile this with one human perceiving another? Would we then say that the I is nonexistant but the other is?