OldDog

This morning I was reading Chuangtse and it occured to me that this might be the best place to ask about something that has nagged me for years. My favorite translator of Laotse and Chungtse is Lin Yutang. In his writings, he mentions that his translation of Chuangtse is taken from the Sweeping Leaves Lodge version of Chuangtse. I have never heard of this version, no other reference anywhere I have encountered, probably because it is a relatively obscure or untranslated text. It sounds strangely Buddhist. Has anyone else heard of the Sweeping Leaves Lodge version of Chuangtse and can you provide any background on the text?

What is the relationship between the Yijing and Daoism, in general? This may seem like an odd question but one that I need some guidance on. Somewhere ... and I can't recall where but pretty sure in was in TDB ... I think I recall someone stating that the Yijing was really not a Daoist writing. This statement ... or my misinterpretation of some statement ... has been stuck in the back my head and been haunting my study. I have always considered the Yijing as part of the greater idea of daoism. Is there any basis for thinking it is not? What is the generally accepted sense of positioning the Yijing relative to Daoism? Any guidance, greatfully appreciated.

I would like to revisit Chapter 23. There have been some really good discussions in the past but there are couple of ideas I encountered that I think tie the two sections of Ch23 together in a different light and extend understanding a little beyond the usual interpretation. First Section In looking at first six lines, I noticed that they are often translated that winds and storms "cannot" last the whole day. But just as often are translated as "do/does not". That was critical for me as it seemed that "cannot" kinda implies that there is some external constraint involved; perhaps Heaven and Earth but then that suggests wind and rain are something separate. When rendered as "do/does not" it suggests that wind and rain are natrual expressions of Heaven and Earth; there is something intrinsic at work. I then recalled Ch40: Reversion is the action of Tao. (Lin Yutang) This led me to think of Heaven and Earth as representative of a cyclic process. Under Heaven and Earth, wind and rain arise, expend tthemselves and return to a state of calm. So, to be in accord with Dao, one should emulate the cycle of nature. One should arise to activity, then having accomplished (expended) return to a stste of calm and quiet. Second Section The remaining lines then might be taken to illustrate the state of one who is in accord with Dao. But what is it about having calmed down thst allows one to be in accord with Dao? I found a possible answer to this in the concept of ganying. Based on analysis of proto-Daoist texts by Dan G Ried in The Thread of Dao: Ganying is the phenomenon of mutual attraction that exists between things of the same type, This seems to suggest that by calming oneself (meditative state) that the unity of all under Heaven and Earth can be realised. Conclusion This was important to me because it suggests that being in accord with Dao is not purely a philosphical position; that being in accord can be understood as a process. That through the practice of periodically calming onself and experiencing the unity of Dao one can gradually come into accord. This was a real epiphany for me. It connects the philosophy with practice. So, I thought I would put this out there for comment and discussion.

It is not often that I initiate a thread but in light of recent discussions I thought it would be worthwhile exploring what we think we know. My hope ... and my request ... is that in his thread is that we limit discussion to how we know what we know ... rather than the content of what we know. Let this be an exploration ... a personal introspection ... of sources of knowledge, validation of truth and reality and mechanisms at work in shaping what we know. For some time now, I have been thinking about these things, as part of my own personal introspection, believing that a better understanding of such things will better equip me to deal with the world out there. One of the writings that helps set a launch point for of such introspection comes from Zhuangzi on The Futility of Argument. Granting that you and I argue. If you get the better of me, and not I of you, are you necessarily right and I wrong? Or if I get the better of you and not you of me, am I necessarily right and you wrong? Or are we both partly right and partly wrong? Or are we both wholly right and wholly wrong? Since you and I cannot know, we all live in darkness. Whom shall I ask to judge between us? If I ask someone who takes your view, he will side with you. How can such a one arbitrate between us? If I ask someone who takes my view, he will side with me. How can such a one arbitrate between us? If I ask someone who differs from both of us, he will be equally unable to decide between us, since he differs from both of us. And if I ask someone who agrees with both of us, he will be equally unable to decide between us, since he agrees with both of us. Since you and I and other men cannot decide, how can we depend upon another? The words of arguments are all relative; if we wish to reach the absolute, we must harmonise them by means of the unity of God, and follow their natural evolution to the end of our days. - trans. Lin Yutang Zhuangzi presents a fairly straight forward simple analysis, really quite basic, that we can all find some agreement in. But the world we live in is not so simple. It is highly complex for any number of reasons. Even relying on provable facts and well reasoned knowledge does not always serve us well. Very much leaves us feeling like we live in darkness ... and for good reason. So, how are we to know? How are we to find our way? I think we need to raise our level of sophistication in terms of understanding the dynamics involved in seeking and obtaining knowledge. This is where I think social philosophy or social psychology can be helpful. I don't usually tend to cross post from other sources (slap me back if I am violating a rule) but today I ran into an article that provided a framework for understanding the kind of dynamics we (TDBs) have been experiencing lately. I hope you will take time to read it. In spite of the title, it contains ideas that are universally applicable. https://aeon.co/essays/why-its-as-hard-to-escape-an-echo-chamber-as-it-is-to-flee-a-cult I look forward to hearing from y'all on these kinds of ideas. Kind regards.

I can certainly empathize with that. If find it very difficult to not become agitated and over emotional on certain topics. That is the pernicious part of some forms of discourse. In an agitated state one cannot see clearly. So, I must often let certain kinds of discussions pass. btw ... I grew up in part in western Washington state and remember the cold. Very vivid imagery for me. Lord, I hope not! (Initial reaction) I would like to think spirituality is somehow above what I see on the political landscape. But your assertion makes me stop and think ... do I have an appropriate view of spiritual? That's something I will have to ruminate on a bit. These are social values ... But I begin to see your point regarding spiritualism ... It or lack of it being expressed in society. Perhaps this goes back to the question of the inherent goodness of humankind. This seems to be the gist of Daoist thinking ... at least to the extent that naturalism can be seen as inherently good. One of the great leaps ... one that I struggle with a lot ... is the leap from individual development/enlightenment to social development/!enlightenment.

I find this an apt historical analogy. I greatly fear ... for the sake of coming generations ... that some great cataclysmic chain of events will follow that will lead to a lot of uncertainty, unpredictability and suffering. The world, as we know it, will certainly change but how fast and at what cost. This is a great observation. I think ... at least in part ... what we are seeing now is a result of this ... or something very near to it. We marvel at the progress of technology and celebrate great scientific breakthroughs and achievement. But many are under or unaffectively employed. They lack direction on how to gain meaning to their lives. We are not finding meaning in achievement. I think a lot of the self centered nastiness that we see on the internet is the result of that ... a lot of the concentration of wealth shows that we do not know what to do with what we are able to produce. What we might be seeing here may be a widening gap between technological ability and it's apparent benefit to an ever growing population. We lack a social sophistication that is comparable to our technological development. If such is the case continued technological development may not save us. My mind continually comes back to the ancient notion of the Mandate of Heaven. It is often thought of as applicable to the relationship of the governing to the governed. But I wonder if there might be broader more mystical imperative meaning to the phrase. Something more akin to the concept of reversion found in Daoist thought.

Your words reflect only the outer appearance of things. I fear it runs deeper still. It is not a case of left or right. If it were only that, then there could be a way to reconcile and find a way forward, as other countries with liberal and conservative elements have done. I fear that in American it is not position on social policy that drives politics but rather it is monied and power seeking interests which have their own agenda.

I just re-read my earlier comment and while I stand behind what I wrote, I think it needs qualification. It should not be taken as an endorsement of a left view. I very carefully worded the comment without direct reference left/right politics. I leave it to the reader to draw his/her own conclusions. And so I think it should be with any political discussion ... void of direct reference, nameless ... as neutral as possible. We should be discussing ideas and processes ... Looking deeper than the surface issues. How else will we be able to understand what is happening to us?

This is a very delicate subject. On the surface Steve's assertion is shocking, outrageous ... And probably gets a lot of people's backs up. But I think it bears a little deeper discussion. It is telling that the statement is qualified by ... in the US. I would expect that Chistians outside of US might take exception to the assertion. But I think there is a bit of truth in the assertion. Let me suggest a way to think about this. The current situation in the US began its rise in the early 1980s with the political coalescing of the Moral Majority. Christian communities had fairly strong sense of direction surrounding issues of morality ... public prayer, abortion, sexuality. This sense of Christian morality had served the country relatively well in terms of social behavioral guidelines and order. In many ways it was the US morality. So, what happened? Some very astute politicians realized that Christians represented a voting block that was already consolidated around a set of values. They needed no convincing. All that was necessary was that a political party, regardless of its agenda, adopt these moral values, at least superficially, and a large block of voters would swing their way. Ever since then, that political party has only had to agitate the moral block ... by way of threatening their core values ... in order to gain support each political cycle ... And their real agenda can ride the wave. So, every election cycle, the same "issues" arise ... prayer, religious imagery in public places, abortion, sexuality (now in the form of LGBT issues). Align these issues with American core values ... mom, Apple pie and the American flag ... And you have a very potent mixture indeed. In this way, Christian moral authority has been usurped. As long as the political party is able to identify with morality ... It has the high ground. This is because it is sacreligious to question an established religion. This is a very powerful position. Seen from this vantage point ... Steve's assertion makes sense. But where to place the fault. Is it Chistians that are at fault ... not from the point of view of a life guiding morality ... perhaps, though, by allowing themselves to be manipulated. Generally, as a country we (the US) share the blame for having allowed this situation to go unchallenged. And certainly, there are those master manipulators, who saw the potential and seized upon it. Small wonder our founding fathers took steps to try and keep religion and governing separate. They just didn't figure on political parties being so ... Machiavellian. Just sayin.

Down where I come from there an expression... You ain't justa woofin' ! ... that seems to apply.

Which always must be because in one sense we all operate within our own frameworks. It is important to develop the skill of being able to at least temporarily suspend our own belief system ... categorical framework ... paradigm ... in order to be able to see another. I think psychologists call this skill empathy. So, having exercised this skill, a common ground for discourse may be found ... And, more importantly, an agreed upon direction might be set that satisfies most of the values that are inherent in our individual frameworks. I think we are saying very similar things.

Wow! That tells a tale!

Not so much .. pramāńa or Proof ... which I can't argue with, but more of a call to the Bums to return to self as an original source ... And to put less stock in alternative sources whose authority may be questionable. One really has to test each idea against their own reality to see what fits. Won't be so naive as to assume there is only one reality ... common experience, maybe ... but not one reality. Had to look up Agama, as it is a term I am not familiar with. For a moment there I thought ... He can't be talking about lizards! Levity aside, I agree that we should be guided by the scriptures of whichever school we find meaning in. I think this is worthy to take note of. From a Daoist perspective, a meditative practice of quieting the discrimating mind might prove helpful in experiencing the truth of some things. Glad you said that. This is actually one of the points I wanted to see emerge from this discussion. If we do not see what are the truths that others adhere to, then not progress can be made. But truth is a hard notion to deal with. Everyone believes they have the truth ... And it is exclusive. If you don't accept my truth ... you are clearly wrong. This is polarizing and only ensures continued discord. Suppose, though, that instead of talking about whose truth is right, we side step that and talk about what is valued. It seems easier to acknowledge that the other may value certain things than to wrestle with whether their truth is valid or not. There's a lot less risk of provoking an existential crisis when dealing with what we value than with what is true. Much easier for me to acknowledge your values than your truths. I really think this is key in keeping the heat content of discourse down.

Mostly agree with the direction you are setting. Only one thought lingers in my mind ... wish I had said it earlier ... may be already incorporated in your design. The notion of letting form follow function. It's not so much what the different subs that have existed were intended to contain, but what they evolved to contain. Some subs having developed into a richness beyond original intent. Others devolved into quite something else. The wisdom of the site creator can certainly tip the scales in one direction or another. Kinda like This Floating World ... though I am a bit leery of combing Rabbit Hole and Off Grid. Seems to me Off Grid is where volitility occured, where as, Rabbit Hole was more a collection of benign eclectic lines of thought, not always serious. Time will tell where this consolidation leads. Meta Converse or maybe Meta Matters has a good ring to it ... Meta being the key word. Personal Practice might alternatively be called Reflecting Pool ... leaning a bit towards the whimsical, as some found desireable. Perhaps you might publish a bit of a road map, all on one single page to orient newcomers as to what the various subs are intended for. Keep up the good work.

I know its not Sunday but ... RIP, Jim

Whimsical names can be problematic ... interpretation might vary according to the individual understanding. For example, I , as a philosophically oriented Daoist might read Realm of the Immortals as leaning to the more lineage or religious end of the Daoist spectrum. Conversely, I, as a religious lineage holder might find a lot of philosophical discussion disappointing. Either way a rose by any other name... Such whimsicality might underscore the need for better navigation.

Yes, I believe you are right ... But possibly for different reasons. One, if as individuals we are over invested in one set of values, then a reboot represents an existential threat. We risk putting ourselves into a place where we lack direction and are overwhelmed by a sense of vulnerability. In that condition we are likely to grasp at the next thing to come along. Also, if there are multiple overlapping spheres of influence, we might not be able to distinguish between them ... especially if they contain a lot of false information. So, yeah, piecework. You have to start somewhere when dismantling complex structures. When I look back into my youth to my earliest recollection of questioning something I had been told, I may not be able to recall the exact details but will never forget the feeling. It was one of being on the inside looking out. Pretty uncanny. The point being though that was not a reasoned response ... It was visceral ... intuitive. It was like an alarm that was saying ... Hold on, this is something that needs to be looked at more closely. It focused the intellect. Since my youth, this has happened countless times ... and still does. Once felt, anything that is related to the thing thst triggers the feeling become subject to scrutiny ... critical review. And the fog of confusion begins to lift.

It's not .... as long as you are not accepting those ideas blindly ... without some degree of critical analysis ... which can/should include using non-reasoned intuitve response ... gut feeling, if you will ... and most especially suspension of current beliefs. One of the points of the linked article is that the world abounds with false information thst sounds perfectly legit on the surface ... But we have either lost ... or never had developed ... our ability to be critical at any level .... rational, intuitive or emotional. At any rate ... what we think we know ... regardless of source needs to be examined critically. I reached exactly the point you did. What about what my parents taught me ... my formal education ... my cultural beliefs ... my religious training. That's when I realized that we are ... from birth, without choice ... absorbed into what the linked article calls echo chambers ... and that their are multiple overlapping echo chambers at work in our lives all the time. At what point do we begin to question what we think we know and subject it to critical scrutiny.

Ok, here's a thought ... Perhaps what we need to do is to seek the truth, wherever it may be .... rather than wait for the truth to be presented to us on our own terms. Just sayin.

Mindfulness and meditation apps! Are you kidding me!? Who wrote those apps ... and for what purpose ... and am I going to turnover the nature of my meditations sessions to another party? Hmmmm.

So, whose criteria will we use ... ?

Sunday morning jazz...

... Ah, but there's the rub ... As I was reading last night (Smullyan, The Tao Is Silent) I came across a lesson that I think pertains to the question of what we think we know. There (Ch 35) he speaks about there being different schools of philosphy being roughly dviided into two camps. One being a absolutely serious, analytical, rational ... a sensible camp. The other being a less serious, free wheeling fun loving, spontaneous ... crazy camp. He subscribes to the later, claiming it to be closer to the truth. When asked by the other camp whether he an prove that, he exclaims ... "Yes, quite easily, provided I am allowed to give a crazy proof rather than a sensible one." Therein is the rub. When we are encamped, we will only accept proofs that are based in the context of our camp ... we won't hear arguments from the other camps ... even if they contain some truth.

Wow, just had a flashback! Back in my game playing days ... i.e. pre-computerization ... I cut my teeth on board games such as Panzerblitz and Panzer Leader ... and eventually spent a whole long summer playing the massive War in Europe once or twice a week for 4 or 5 hrs a session. Caused me to think about the migration from such games to ... reenactment groups and scenarios to ... reality gaming, paintballing and such. Each progression a step further into fantasy and alternate reality ... leading to what? How much of that mentality transfers to conspiracy theorists and right wing paramilitary groups ... even as far as neo-Nazi groups. But that's another thread. Although I look back on my board game playing days fondly, I did learn something from them. I don't play them anymore.

Ha! In my day it was Knights of the Roundtable and Viking invasions. Don't forget to grab a trashcan lid to use as shield.