Aetherous

That's how Tibetan Buddhism works, so that you can make real progress. That's the whole point of this discussion on dzogchen...because it's the highest method in Buddhism, and talks about the highest attainment, rainbow body. In order to reach the highest, I think you'd want the highest method of doing so...the most effective, safest, quickest, etc. Perhaps (as I assert) the only way that actually works.

They don't receive some intense transmission, but they are more capable to understand the teachings than someone who is just learning through books. The written word is very different from listening to someone talk in person, in any subject matter. Also, if there are empowerments and practices given, that does a lot toward helping us get it. By practicing afterward, you gain that personal experience (and thus, revelation) which is impossible by only learning through books. The books are there to supplement learning, not to be the primary source.

The gurus also make clear that you need a guru. I was simply trying to offer some truly helpful advice on the path. Why waste your time?

The mind on its own simply can't grasp the essence of Buddhist teachings from books. It needs blessings in order to realize through some direct experience of what's being spoken of. It's like that idea, how could you understand what chocolate is by someone's description without ever having tried it? Once you try it, a moment later all prior descriptions become very clear, and then you can talk easily about it with others. Without actually understanding the teachings in this way, what seems like accuracy from reading books is very far off from the truth. This is even the case when a realized and qualified teacher writes the book...the problem is our own minds, not theirs. Having an actual qualified teacher in some form (I think online teachings work), and also doing the practices they tell you to do (for instance, which deal with the bodhisattvas), brings that blessing and taste of it. This is just how I've noticed that Buddhism works...I'm far from the level of dzogchen practitioner. But better to go this route than to waste time only reading books and thinking you get it; go the route that the qualified teachers prescribe. The more you can listen and learn from them directly, the better.

Exercise, especially lifting weights. If you do martial arts, avoid internal styles...be practical and realistic. Set goals and more importantly, make them happen. Work hard and do your absolute best at your career. It helps to develop somewhat of an addiction toward having this type of personality that conquers things and is indestructible...a yin person tends to base their decisions on how they feel in the moment, but a yang person ignores feelings and uses reason above all else.

Coincides with the OP.

Gatito, Coincidentally, I recently spoke with an Arab immigrant friend, a non-Muslim, who has been experiencing some pretty bad racism against her. I can see how it was making her feel very isolated in America, and where it could potentially get to the point of causing a person to despise all Americans (if she had a tendency toward broad generalization of people, and didn't have any redeeming friends to bring relief) and think of them as less than human. In light of that, I could see how a person might be tempted to join a group that is opposed to Americans, which also happens to be part of their previous cultural identity which they might easily relate to. Still...that's an indirect cause, and not a direct one. The direct cause is a person choosing to become murderous based on an ideology. People isolating them simply contributes to that decision...other people who are isolated/discriminated don't make the same decision. There is personal responsibility for our actions, and everyone has free will to make their own decisions. Speaking out against Islamism (which is not a race) should not be enough to create a terrorist.

There is a tendency in some to be forgiving of guru figures who misbehave...calling it crazy wisdom, and thinking there's a good lesson for them in it. There might be some truth to that in some sort of context, in some sort of twisting of the mind...but something more true which requires no twisted logic, is that teachers should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one than the average person. The ability to confound people's minds with esoteric sayings, to make them feel energy vibrations or various cathartic emotions, or to basically be charismatic and mysterious, does not make a guru-figure "spiritual". To be truly spiritual, you have to have integrity. A true guru has the highest integrity possible. And they should be held to that by others, and scrutinized...and if found to be lacking, their reputation should be ruined...or if they had halfway decent integrity, they would step down immediately, or admit fully what their faults are to every student while continuing to teach if necessary. This way of approaching the subject upholds what is good, and prevents what is bad...that is one of the main functions of spirituality. Brian summed it up excellently, by saying that all humans are human. A person who is spoiled in certain ways, such as being put on a pedestal and having followers do pretty much whatever they say, will have a tendency to degrade in their true spirituality and end up doing horrible things against others. The ego never dies. This is something that has to be consciously held in check. Everyone has the dark side of them, just as dark as anyone else...I read once that the saints know more about this than the average person, and that temptations increase as you ascend the heavenly path. It doesn't get easier...you do somewhat well, and gain some authority to teach, but then you find yourself truly failing at spirituality. You're worse off, despite all appearances. It takes a really strong person to decide what is right, and do that irrespective of everything else, at all times. That would be someone who I would call a true spiritual teacher.

The only reason this isn't completely over my head (only partially) is because of being able to plug things into Wenlin, and use Kroll's classical dictionary as an add on to the free Pleco app.

Just a heads up that there's a discrepancy between their Guodian Laozi and their comparison chart for this character in particular. I also wonder where 分 came from in the version I was using on ctext? On ctext, the source says it's from James Legge's translation from 1891...perhaps that version was rewritten from word of mouth. 紛 is pronounced just like 分, at least in modern times. As for the daoisopen site's discrepancy, the comparison has Guodian as 塵 instead of 紛, whereas the Guodian section which shows the bamboo slip has what looks something like 紛. This makes me question all of those comparison charts of theirs! Hard to see what's written on the Guodian bamboo at that page...anyone have a better source for viewing those bamboo slips? Apparently it was written in a type of seal script, but the tiny blurry image doesn't really look like the seal script for 紛 or 塵, or even 分. This has become quite an enlightening thread for me! edit: whoops, apparently this quoted Marblehead, instead of opendao who said it. My bad.

http://ctext.org/dao-de-jing

It's not simplified and traditional...they are different characters. 紛 simply contains the phonetic of 分. The Shuowen records them as different. Interesting that it was apparently used in the Guodian version though.

解其分 is exactly about that...once again, it seems we're using different versions of the Daodejing here.

Lets consider the argument that it only describes something which happens automatically at a high level of practice...what about the part where you basically "cut off your discrimination" (解其分)? To say that these are an automatic result, an attainment of an adept, implies that such a person loses the ability to discriminate between things. Something which any normal person can do. Attainment should not be a disability... edit: If you look at my notes on the previous page you can see the grammar considerations. What more are there? If you have something to contribute to the analysis of this chapter, please do. You must be using a different version of the Laozi than myself, since those characters are different...

It's definitely an instruction for people who are capable of doing it. It uses verbs!

One of the primary means of injuring the lower back is applying force when the lumbar spine is rotated. Doing little waist twists on their own is probably a good means of internal massage of the fascia in the area, but applying it martially isn't good.

There are various notions of attainment. Sometimes ideas about them just end up looking like a bunch of meaningless words to me. The clincher, at least personally, is the Buddhist teaching of the two obscurations: that actual attainment is when there are no negative emotions whatsoever, and the notion of self vs not-self doesn't bind you. That gives us a good and safe barometer for attainment. Do I have negative emotions and suffering? Yep...not attained!

Research into the beginnings of Daoism and Laozi is very good for those who identify as Daoists to do...perhaps this is not the thread for that discussion, since it's supposed to be about this chapter. Here is one person's research. I haven't personally read the historical annals (aside from reading that the existence or personage of Laozi is debated), but am aware that "Daoism" began hundreds of years after the Laozi was written...China had gone through big changes during that time, with the hundred schools and the Han synthesis, prior to the beginnings of "Daoism". It's apparent that the beginnings of Daoism were quite different from what's written in the Laozi...for instance with the Tai Ping Jing...as well as being different from what Daoism has come to be today, with its internal alchemy practices that had their origin in external alchemy pills. To me, it seems that early Daoist lineages claimed to be direct descendants of Laozi the person, although their teachings show that to be questionable. A lot of Chinese history is muddled by white lies like this...it's part of Chinese culture to make big claims that aren't accurate. For instance, attributing the Huang Di Nei Jing to Huangdi, who had nothing to do with it.

Okay, here are my translation notes. It's natural if people will disagree with my thought process. It's kind of cool to look at the behind the scenes of how people translate, and come to our own conclusions... 知 zhī = know, recognize, reveal, have mastery over...shuowen is a person speaking who hits the mark or is correct 者 zhě = when suffixed to a single verb, it makes a noun indicating a practitioner of the action...KNOWER 不 bù = (pre-verbal negative..."not")...shuowen is picture of a flying bird 言 yán = speak...shuowen is flute with a mouth blowing into it literal = "knower not speak" Translation: One who could reveal the truth to you - they do not reveal it through talking (it’s interesting that the character for “know” implies someone who talks about a subject with accuracy, but in this chapter it says that they don’t talk. So how can we say that they know, without them demonstrating their knowledge? On the other hand, the character for speak implies someone simply making sounds. I include this subtlety of meaning in my translation…) ……… 言 yán = speak...shuowen is flute with a mouth blowing into it 者 zhě = when suffixed to a single verb, it makes a noun indicating a practitioner of the action...SPEAKER 不 bù = (pre-verbal negative..."not")...shuowen is picture of a flying bird 知 zhī = know, recognize, reveal, have mastery over...shuowen is a person speaking who hits the mark or is correct literal = "speaker not know" Translation: The words of someone who claims to be revealing the truth to you are inaccurate - such a person doesn’t truly know it. (Why add in “the truth” in these lines? It refers to the accuracy of speech that the knower has. “The truth” could be referring to any subject we could discuss, so it isn’t problematic to add in order to increase the meaning in English…in Chinese, it’s implied.) ……… 塞 sāi = obstruct, block, plug, close up, restrain, check, forbid, fill, stuff, pervade, saturate with, satiate, satisfy, supply, compensate, recompense....shuowen: an empty place filled with materials introduced by hands. 其 qí = grammatical particle…anaphoric adjective, meaning that it’s referring back to someone who was being spoken of previously; “their”. 兑 duì = glad(ness), joy(ous), delight. one of the 8 trigrams (lake), and also name of 58th hexagram (joy). open a passage, get through, opening, hole, cave...shuowen: perhaps words coming out of the mouth of a person who is excessively joyful. literal: plug/fill their joy/speech Translation: As for those who would know, they replenish themselves by maintaining quietude (I added “as for those who would know” because it makes sense in English, and the Chinese meaning of “their” in these phrases is obviously not referring to the person who speaks but doesn’t know. I said “replenish themselves by maintaining” because sai indicates making an effort to fill an empty place in order to plug it up. “By maintaining” implies the effort. “Replenish” implies the filling. It’s in the sense of a person talking or being excessively joyful draining themselves of qi, their open mouth being the empty place, whereas a person who is calm and not babbling incessantly is not draining themselves. Instead of this passage basically meaning that a person shuts off their joy and shuts their mouth to stop talking, it could also imply that the person pervades with delight…that what they’re filling the space with is a kind of bliss. I think the English word quietude can imply all of these things simultaneously. That they are literally shutting their mouth, that they aren’t excessively joyful, and that they have an inner peace.) ……… 閉 bì = to bar a gate, lock, doorbar, barricade, obstruct, block off, close off, shut away, hide, stop, put an end to...shuowen: to shut a door by locking it. 其 qí = their 門 mén = gateway, portal, outer door, entrance, access, key solution to a problem, means, way to do something, orifice or sense organ...shuowen: picture of double doors. literal: lock their doors Translation: lock the doors of their spirit (the senses, thoughts, emotions) and keep it within (Why do I add “of their spirit (the senses, thoughts, emotions) and keep it within”? In Kroll’s Classical dictionary, one of the meanings of men is orifices or sense organs (plural because the door is plural). This line of the chapter could be saying basically, stop using your senses…stop looking, stop hearing, etc…if that was the only definition of men, which it isn’t. Obviously, the purpose of not using your senses is to keep one’s spirit from being dissipated…this ties in with the replenishing concept of the previous line…in this line, the way they don’t drain themselves is by locking the sense doors. To take this further, it’s not merely the senses that the spirit or one’s attention moves by…it’s also thoughts and emotions. That’s an extrapolation by me, to interpret men as being any means by which the spirit could go out, and not simply the senses. It translates as “portal”…well, portal for what? This whole discussion ties into the alchemical concept of mercury, which is spirit (a concept which didn’t exist at the time of the writing of the Dao De Jing). The alchemical process requires it to be fixed in order to use it, or in other words, to not let it evaporate out. This line is about centering and not dissipating the spirit, and it instructs how, without using that precise terminology.) ……… 挫 cuò = crush, press down, raze, crush the spirit of, break up, destroy, check, arrest, frustrate, weaken, cripple, put under strain, abase, humble, bring low, take down, humiliate...shuowen: hand radical with people sitting on ground phonetic. 其 qí = their 銳 ruì = sharp (no entry in classical dictionary)...shuowen: comprised of the characters for metal and joy/speech. literal: weaken their sharpness Translation: sit still and allow their mind to rest without focusing on anything in particular (Sharpness can refer to being quick witted or clever, because it includes the character for speech combined with metal…a sharp tongue. So this passage says to basically not be quick witted in terms of your speech…what does that imply? Don’t be quick witted implies that you dull your wits…so it’s actually referring to something that happens with the mind, and is not merely saying to keep your speech simple. The line being about the mind rather than simply about conduct in speech is a deeper meaning. Why do I add “sit still”? Because the character of cuo contains the phonetic of people sitting on the ground. At times the phonetics add meaning to the character, and I think this is one of those times. The hand radical can imply making an effort, in this case, by sitting…and in doing this, you’re weakening your cleverness. Furthermore, what is the opposite of a clever or cunning state of mind? To be unfocused rather than focused. Focus is a sharpness, whereas un-focus is like a dullness. Cunning is a lack of rest, whereas a lack of cunning means the mind is at rest. This interpretation is informed by Buddhist meditation instruction and experience, but is accurate in terms of the characters used.) ……… 解 jiě = untie, unknot, loosen, release, take off, remove clothing, disjoint, dismember, dissect, analyze, take apart, remove, eliminate, resolve or find a solution, work out a problem, deliver from, release, liberate, free oneself from, dissipate, dissolve, disperse, open out, unfurl, unfold, reveal, explain, expound, exposition, understand, comprehend, know about...shuowen: to cleave with a knife the horn of an ox. 其 qí = their 分 fēn = divide, separate, split, divert, differentiate, distinguish, discriminate, demarcate, discernable, make out distinctly, apportion, parcel out, mete out, equinoxes, measure word for 1/10th...shuowen: a knife cutting something into two pieces. literal: remove their discrimination Translation: free themselves completely from the mind's tendency to discriminate between anything (Like the last line, this line also includes things that have to do with sharpness…knives in both jie and fen characters, which is interesting. It again has to do with the sharpness of the mind. How the characters are interpreted isn’t so challenging here…multiple English translations could come up with the same basic meaning of the line. In the Buddhist context, it would even go as far as discriminating between self and other…duality. I think this is the same meaning here. Fen implies dividing of any sort. With a “knife”, like “cutting off the horn of an ox”, you slice off your ability to cut up the world into dualistic concepts, and liberate yourself from it. Or we could just say, “don’t discriminate between things”.) ……… 和 hé = harmonious, in harmony with, accordant, accord with, be attuned to, bring into harmony, balance, temper, congruent, compatible, agreeable, mellow, pleasant, gentle, comfortable, calm, peaceful...shuowen: means either plenty of grain to eat which is harmonious conditions, or people singing together implying harmony. 其 qí = their 光 = guāng = light, shining, glowing, sheen, glossy, luster, lustrous, aura, cast light on, illuminate, glorious, splendid, time or a moment of time...shuowen: fire over person. literal: harmonize their light Translation: let their inner light become harmonious and at peace (What is the light that’s being referred to here? It’s hard to say. The character for light shows the fire radical over the person radical…it’s a light that has to do with the individual. What “light” do we have? Awareness. Spirit. Qi. Aura. We could interpret it as many things…in order to imply that it’s about the individual, I simply say “inner light”, and I think the inherent meaning is conveyed well.) ........................... 同 tóng = share with or in, join, coincide with, conform with, similarity, likeness, of like mind, sameness, identity, coequal, identical to, no more than, together, in concert, name of 13th hexagram...shuowen: picture of a lid covering an opening. 其 qí = their 塵 chén = dust particles, smallest amount, traces, worldly, mundane...dust of the world...shuowen: dust cloud after running deer. literal: coincide with their dust Translation: and blend into oneness with their surroundings. (Tong implies blending and being one with something, or being one with something as in a lid covering an opening, despite being different parts. In this context, it’s about them becoming one with something, not simply being it. A person is a different part from their surroundings. Why do I say “surroundings” for dust? Dust of the world is one definition. Dust also implies material…so our bodies, the chair, the air, the room, the outdoors. It’s all material, in contrast to our light, the immaterial aspect that is what we are, which was discussed in the previous line. The two, the light and the dust, are like the lid and the opening…they are one despite being different. The English terminology I used here simply gives a palpable sense of what’s implied.) ……… 是 shì = demonstrative pronoun referring to a type: these 謂 wèi = speak to, address, say, followed by something something...speak about, tell of, followed by something something...to call, term, refer to as, to mean...introduces condition situation... 玄 xuán = quality of permitting the passage of light but without making visible what's on the other side, translucent, semi-transparent such as the sky, not able to be fully known or described in detail, mysterious, arcane, dark of the mind, often used as a synonym of the Dao, blackish color, dim, murky, opaque, associated with heaven as yellow is associated with earth, state of original qi of heaven, symbolic color of the north and tortoise....shuowen: to put thread in green dye, as in referring to the color of opacity. 同 tóng = share with or in, join, coincide with, conform with, simiar, likeness, samness, identical to, together, in concert, in 13th hexagram....same character as in last line...shuowen: lid covering an opening. literal: these (phrases) tell of mystery joining Translation: These words instruct on how to attain oneness with the Mysterious Dao. (Shi is “these”, referring to the previous lines. Wei says that the lines speak to a subject. The subject is xuan tong, directly translated as mystery joining. A grammar rule is “that which modifies comes before what is being modified”. So, xuan is modifying the meaning of tong. This basically means, what type of “joining” are we referring to? The mysterious type. Xuan is a synonym of the Dao…therefore, I chose to translate that as “the Mysterious Dao”. It’s the type of joining or becoming-one-with that has to do with the Mysterious Dao.)

There are literal word for word translations, which some might assume are accurate...but the truth is that Chinese uses words which don't have a direct translation into English. Chinese words can contain multiple meanings, or also hint at multiple different things, at the same time. There are also the grammatical particles which are characters that don't even have a word, but sometimes can modify words before or after them. The correct way to translate Classical Chinese is to consider all of this at once, in order to ascertain the meaning...and then take that meaning, without altering it, and forge an English sentence out of it. There is benefit from having literal word for word translations, but they do end up leaving things out. This is why we must add words in order to have an accurate translation. I'm not saying my translation is 100% correct...actually I just found something wrong with it when looking at it again. I'm just a beginner, but have a good teacher who is a sinologist. I am thinking about sharing my translation notes with the board, so people could easily see how I came to what I did...not much was added of my own interpretation. It was mostly in the etymology of the characters themselves. That is one part where my translation fails...because I haven't studied/translated the rest of the text to compare it. The other passages that talk about xuan/mystery or other aspects might give further hints about the meaning of this one. I noticed that chapter 4 was very similar. It's a good point, that coming to this chapter with ideas about it being about meditation might skew the results of the translation. However, I think that's exactly what it's about...other translations that point to something else don't make sense, such as ChiDragon's translation earlier in the thread. At the time it was written, Daoism and its schools and initiates didn't exist. The Confucian tradition did...Laozi was its own thing, though. People never really grasped it. I realize that sitting empty meditation conflicts strongly with what your school teaches, but it doesn't conflict with what the majority of Daoism throughout history has taught. Other Daoist lineages don't have a problem with such a practice. This is true. I'm just going to disagree with you, considering that I'm able to read the text and think for myself. I appreciate that your school has a different interpretation of Daoism than most of Daoism has, which might be legitimate within its own context, but I don't think it's appropriate to apply that interpretation to the rest of Daoism as absolute truth...especially when it contradicts.

Please refer back to post #24 and watch the video of Islamic history, and also read the hyperlink in my posts that refer to the violent passages in the Quran. It's great if an Islamic country is totally peaceful for non-Muslims to be in...it's very unfortunate that Iraq and Afghanistan are in such bad shape today, and it's also very unfortunate that non-Muslims are in greater danger than previously in Muslim countries today. Also, I didn't plan on getting into a discussion in this thread. I will probably bow out now...what more can be said? Although we disagree on this issue, Gatito, there is no bad blood outside of this discussion on my side.

I'm not frightened at all. I'm realistic about a problem. I'm also not afraid of being called a bigot or frightened, as is typical of the behavior and mentality of people on your side of the argument, despite the opposite being true of me. Actually, there's the idea that what you see in others is the flaw that's in your own perception. If you see people who confront reality and problems head on as being "frightened", then look at what you're too afraid to confront. Perhaps it's just your own issue that you're seeing in the mirror. Or to put it simply, "When you're pointing your finger, there are three pointing back at you." I'm not the one who buries their head in the sand when confronted with an enemy. First of all, calling them Daesh is not really as offensive to them as the media has claimed. Second...they don't strive to simply make people afraid. In my case, they also don't strive to make people more aware and responsive. How I am is actually opposed to their plans. They would prefer if everyone was apologetic toward Islam, despite what they do...that way, they can easily slip in and (attempt to) dominate us. Their overarching goal is to spread Islam across the globe and get rid of all secular or other religious governments and people. That's what they want to achieve, not simply to make people alert.

It wasn't an attempt at misdirection at all. How is it more complicated? What on earth could Trump do that would cause a normally thinking Muslim to go and join a terrorist organization where they murder innocent people? We are responsible for our own actions. These terrorist groups they throw gays off of rooftops to their death, behead women, have young boys as prostitutes...in addition to mass murdering innocent bystanders. Trump not wanting to allow Syrian refugees in the country? Wanting to monitor mosques? That's enough to tip a person over the line and strap a bomb on their chest? Please think clearly about whether anyone's actions are truly causing otherwise rational and peace loving people to become terrorists. If the religion is peaceful, then its adherents won't do these things...you know the tree by its fruit, to quote the Bible. Actually I think that's the very opposite of helpful, because it's people still insisting that Islam is a peaceful religion despite there being ample evidence that it's not. To insist that Islam is peaceful permits Islamic terrorism to easily fester in the background of our society. It's too tolerant and apologetic of an attitude to have...it's like burying your head in the sand after seeing a predator. On the other hand, to confront reality and admit that Muslims have this tendency in their group which we don't tolerate as a society, makes it quite a bit more challenging for their terrorists to operate in the midst of us. It's harder for a terrorist to do anything if they're carefully watched and monitored, versus if everyone is apologetic to them out of fear of being considered a bigot or something, and everyone gives them total freedom equal to any other person. They then have the freedom to plot and act out any act they desire.

Because you're capable of critical thinking... It's hard to discern the truth of that, since we don't know who terrorists are apart from a few. How are they creating terrorists? By being critical of Islam? Having your religion criticized causes otherwise normal people to turn to terrorist groups for support? Is that really your perspective, or if he creating them another way?

I mean everyone who can speak rationally and honestly. This thread has nothing to do with the Bible. It's always an incredibly weak argument to detract attention away from what's being discussed onto another matter entirely. Furthermore, while the Bible contains some violent verses, there aren't really any adherents who follow them, even though there do exist fundamentalist Christians and Jews...whereas with Islam we have too many who do follow violent verses. One is a problem, which we're discussing, and the other isn't at all (but could potentially be). There's also the fact that the violent verses of the Quran are worse and more numerous. Are there verses in the Bible that call for what we could consider as "terrorist" acts? Or just violent acts. And finally, in terms of Christianity, it's a matter of following the teachings of Jesus first and foremost. While his teachings don't erase the violent verses from the Bible, they do negate them with verses of peaceful and merciful behavior. Most of the teachings of his disciples are similar, and seeing as how they as the next in line in terms of interpreting Jesus' words, they are taken as priority above other verses in the Bible. Although this isn't a very strong point I'm making in this case, since those violent verses still do exist, it's also a fact that influences how Christians behave, in comparison to Muslims.