Daniel

Exactly. It cannot be known, but it can be understood. Learning increases understanding. BTW: The Pentecostal fire is in Acts 2:1-3.

Declaring that there is only one way is Christian. Daoism is the way which includes all ways and therefore is not a way at all. It's the no-way way. In the west, most individuals are raised in a Christian cultural context which is one-sided, dominant, and demonizes the other side. People here in the west, even if they're not identifying as Christian seem to continue practicing it, because they aren't aware of what Christianity is or what Christian practice is fundamentally. It's psychological splitting. Daoism doesn't do that. Christianity does that.

What I'm trying to say is: Reversing is not a point. Reversing is an action. It would be better written, imo, this way: "sealing and reversing the senses is an action of shedding ( the opposite of accumulating )." The natural consequence of shedding is having an open mind and heart. This cannot occur if the individual is rigid. They need to be flexible in order to have an open mind. Declaring that there is only one way is rigid. That won't work.

What sort of learning? DDJ 20 when it is quoted in total does not discourage all learning. When we renounce learning we have no troubles. The (ready) 'yes,' and (flattering) 'yea;' Small is the difference they display. But mark their issues, good and ill; What space the gulf between shall fill? What all men fear is indeed to be feared; but how wide and without end is the range of questions (asking to be discussed)! The multitude of men look satisfied and pleased; as if enjoying a full banquet, as if mounted on a tower in spring. I alone seem listless and still, my desires having as yet given no indication of their presence. I am like an infant which has not yet smiled. I look dejected and forlorn, as if I had no home to go to. The multitude of men all have enough and to spare. I alone seem to have lost everything. My mind is that of a stupid man; I am in a state of chaos. Ordinary men look bright and intelligent, while I alone seem to be benighted. They look full of discrimination, while I alone am dull and confused. I seem to be carried about as on the sea, drifting as if I had nowhere to rest. All men have their spheres of action, while I alone seem dull and incapable, like a rude borderer. (Thus) I alone am different from other men, but I value the nursing-mother (the Dao).

Cherry picking.

Reduced. What if the reduction isn't what is conventionally considered a reduction? Inclusion is a form of reduction. The more that is included, the more the category expands, but the contrast is reduced. Imagine it like colors. In order to get to brilliant white, keep including more and more and more and more. The increasing produces a reduction. The same is true for pure black. In order to get to pure black, keep excluding more and more and more and more. Either way the number of colors are increasing. The valence is irrelevant. The reduction is produced by inclusion or exclusion by steadily increasing orders of magnitude. This is category theory. The more that are included in a category, the number of categories is reduced. Accumulating and reducing simultaneously naturally produces a singularity. And this is precisely what the the DDJ has in the previous chapter 47 leading up to this one. The sage doesn't need to go anywhere, because they have mastered the art of "getting nowhere" which takes an individual everywhere, simultaneously. "Without going outside his door, one understands (all that takes place) under the sky; without looking out from his window, one sees the Dao of Heaven. The farther that one goes out (from himself), the less he knows.Therefore the sages got their knowledge without travelling; gave their (right) names to things without seeing them; and accomplished their ends without any purpose of doing so."

Interesting. That sounds like a state of division to me. "getting nowhere" is the desired outcome in this chapter. ^^ Getting Nowhere ^^

If nothing is accumulated, then there is nothing to reduce? If there is nothing to reduce, then there is nothing to practice?

... which requires its oppositional partner: accumulation? In other words: I think that the DDJ chapter 48, and quite honestly, the entire DDJ can be misinterpreted is when an individual splits the pair and decides that they prefer one side of the taiji, and the other is evil, super-imposing a Christian paradigm onto something which is not at all Christian. For me, I'm looking at the characters in the verse, not the English translation. The verse, it seems to me, is emphasizing a simultaneous accumulation-and-reduction. This is indicated by the repeated characters: 為 and 日 . This is an on-going action. Day-to-day the sage is doing both, simultaneously. This is a literal reversing, not a reversal, but an ongoing action which requires both sides accumulation and reduction. I think it's tempting to choose one side or the other, but, if an individual does that, they will never achieve their fullest potential. And this ignores the fact that choosing one side and demonizing the other ( in this case demonizing learning ) is ... Christian not Daoist.

Thank you. I am familiar with the concept. The Encyclopedia of Daoism's entry on this was written by Livia Kohn. Her book on the matter is available for free on archive.org. The link is posted below for any interested readers: https://archive.org/details/sitting-in-oblivion-daoist-meditation-livia-kohn

.

Historians don't make assertions in the manner you are doing in academic settings. But I have seen them become overly enthusiastic on YouTube. What's published in academic peer reviewed journals is much more measured and reasonable.

Correction: You shall post incomplete information.

Your lack of attention to detail is not my problem.

~eye-rolls~

Why the "but"? If the individual is talking to a projection of Self, not to YHVH, then YHVH is not the Self. There is a correspondence, but it is not equivalent. We're in agreement? IF YHVH corresponds to the Self but is not limited to the Self ... THEN when they report they talked to God in the context of a spiritual experience, they talked to a projection of Self. All communication is the product of adoption-and-projection. Let's assume this is true. If so, then, there is nothing that can be rationally asserted about YHVH. Agreed? If there is no way, then YHVH is not bestowing a way. If what you write is true, then, YHVH's will is not to reveal itself to its creations. This is the opposite of Abrahamic scripture, and that's fine. There is nothing wrong with taking this point of view. Agnosticism is the rational choice here, if what you wrote it true. And, IF what you wrote is true, then, the entire Abrahamic construct and our literature is false. Again, that's a perfectly fine approach. A person can do everything they need to do, and more, without anything relating to Abraham or the Jewish stories. Perhaps, one reads the stories for inspiration and illumination, but, none of this is actually describing a God that exists outside the human mind-and-heart. The aspects of the story which resonate with the individual are nothing more than projections of their own self ( individual soul ). The aspects of the story which resonate as universal truths are still nothing more than projections of the individual's perception of the world which is being shaped by their own life experiences as they are perceived in their mind-and-heart. Again, this is a completely self-centered, self-contained approach. Self... contained... Question: Is the Hebrew bible telling a story about a people chosen to be free? Or Is the Hebrew bible telling a story about a people chosen to be contained? Or is it something else? What happens if the knowledge is incomplete, and, the individual is relying only on knowledge? Knowledge is always and forever incomplete. That's the nature of knowing. No one knows what they don't know. Because of this, releasing oneself from the rat-race of needing to knowing is the first step, a necessary step, to opening the mind, and escaping from the limitations of the self/Self projections. Hypothetical: Let's suppose that you're an unlimited God and you would like to help a finite human mind escape from the limitations of self/Self projections. OK? Would that outcome be encouraged by a revelation of divinity in human form? Would that outcome be encouraged by revelation of divinity as a "Self"?

This supports what I wrote.

YHVH corresponds but is not limited to the Self. It is the Self and more. If you disagree, I can show you if you define the monad and/or the Self. How do you evaluate Prophet or not? How is clarity of the revelation produced lacking contrast? If there is contrast, then there are counter-example which need to be sifted from the others. If there is no contrast then YHVH does not will to be clearly revealed. Therefore, if there is no contrast nothing can be clearly asserted about this concept called: "YHVH". Do you see the dilemma? Unless some distinction is made among these mystical experiences, somehow filtering out false positives, there's no reason to make any conclusions at all. Agnosticism is the only rational choice. Agreed. There's no "one-size-fits-all" answer to this. There's a "one-size-fits-all-and-more" answer to this. Always more. Forever more. Forevermore = eternity = YHVH

No. Not all. See below. Revealed religions don't do that. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/revealed_religion Confirmation bias. Texas Sharp Shooter fallacy.

All archeological evidence is dated TAQ, "the latest beginning" I didn't write that. Archeological evidence is irrelevant to the topic of your thread.

Yes. That's included in omnipotence.

Then you know that archeological evidence is irrelevant to the construction of Judaism. The dates are "the latest beginning", but could be much earlier.

If a person has a mystical experience, how else will they describe it other than using motifs and allegory which are readily understood in that time and place?