Daniel

The Dao Bums
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    2,393

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Everything posted by Daniel

  1. Before I answer, to be clear, this is speaking in general and about ideas, not individuals. And understanding it requires considering the extreme stereotypical example, which naturally will be rare. The reason why is one ideology claims all others are **delusional**. Then, right-or-wrong this invites pointing out the delusions of the ideology itself. The ideology justifies making these claims about all others, because delusion is considered the root cause of suffering and malignant behaviors in each and every human. The ideology employs several methods to shield itself and avoid any outside criticism regardless of its merit, and sets up a system of teachers of the ideology who are tasked with spreading the ideology for the purpose of identifying the delusions of all others. These teachers cannot tolerate considering their own delusions. The ideology has convinced them they are absolutely immune to any delusional thinking as a consequence of being included in the "awakened/baptized-teacher-category". When it is phrased in these general terms, this model is well known in western civilization as 'evangelical'. Most people who have been exposed to evangelicals understand why it is considered by many to be repugnant. It's the absolute certainty of the derogatory assertions made about all others. It's the inability to have rational discourse. It's the hypocrisy of the position which denies its own delusion while making accusations of all others of these same delusions. Most critics of evangelicals do not deny the benefits that are reported by its adherents. Nor is the concept of the delusion being rejected. The ideology is popular for reasons. So it's not that "non-dual" is actually repugnant. It's the evangelical approach which is starting essentially endless ideological conflict against all others but will never admit it, because that would be attachment and doctrine to which it claims immunity.
  2. It seems like there's been an evolution. What exists now is a desire to become or identify as a buddha which ironically seems to be something which buddha would discourage.
  3. Yes, it happened, and I did not react ideally. But, it doesn't really matter, because... I did not react ideally, so, how can I judge?
  4. You're messing with me? the 99 button?
  5. On my editor it's a little glitchy, what's been working for me is placing the cursor directly under a line of text, then rapid "enter-enter" two enters. Maybe it will work for you?
  6. I understand that, and yet, those ideas somehow creep into the conversations, specifically that there is only one way, their way. Ew.
  7. I think I need to rewatch it now.
  8. Classic. This is the point. I assert that you are far more than than what is on the surface. That you have an essence, which is eternal, timeless, absolutely unique. You bring something to reality which absolutely cannot be brought by anyone or anything else. And it's not just you, it's everyone and everything that exists. Because of this, I greatly value the opportunity to interact with you, and them, and everything. To be in your presence, to listen to your words, to share your ideas when you choose to share them. To visit the realm-of-luke whn I am invited. But not just you. Everything is like this for me. When I am able to hold this idea and maintain it, it's an ongoing blissful state, and it's close, oh. it's so close, it's like th air i breath every second of every day. I don't need to do anything, its just happening. When Ajay asked about my experience, I went to the store and reached out with my peripheral vision, and just basked in the blissful tempo of life and all it has to offer. That way I could write about it. Someone comes along and says, "nah... you're nothing, they're nothing, your family is meaningless, you're meaningless. you have no soul, they have no souls. I'm enlightened and my bliss experience requires the denying you your identity." That's a bit of a buzz kill. Generally, I would avoid discussing it with people whom I know, for certain, are adherents to this sort of mindset. But here we are on a public forum, and a kindred spirit pops-in to say, "Hey, have you noticed that this so-called-enlightenment is kind of a shell-game. it's not what it appears to be on the surface?" So, I'm here supporting that person, because, if they are like me, then these ideas of sunyata as the only-way are kind of distracting. And knowing they have friends who relate and understand out there can cut down on the noise.

  9. Lotus Nei Gong process; how long?

    Daniel replied to galen_burnett's topic in Systems and Teachers of

    best wishes wherever you roam
  10. It's a handheld computer. Here's a very strange, kind of fun, movie about the multi-purpose human. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Army_Man Have you seen it? It looks like it might be on Hulu. But I don't have that service, so I cannot confirm.
  11. Nothing changes about the "non-deformable-heavy-head-attached-to-a-rigid-lever" if we change its label. That is the basis of language. None the less, it-is-what-it-is. Yes the label is meaningless. Semantics. My favorite example? A dog ( דג ) is a fish in hebrew. So what? The only benefit to pointing this out is the one who is claiming "enlightenment" is able to reject answering any challenging question because they have selectively denied that words have meaning. Who said anything about magic? Oh yeah, I did magically 'poof' when asked to "put-away" the two truths. My question was, very simply, did I misunderstand the intention and the application of "moving-beyond" and/or "putting-away" the two-truths. And I thought I asked respectfully. I think it's an honest question. Even if it remains unanswered. Even if it's best remaining unanswered. It's still an honest respectful question. And, quite honestly, this is what it seems that Nagarjuna is teaching. It can't be answered. And the consequence of this is, it cannot ever be described as good, beneficial, useful, skillful, healthy, pleasant, or an ideal. It cannot even be described as "moving-beyond". No gestures are appropriate, a knowing smile, a nod, a wink, none of that is true. Which can be defined as a statement of conjunctions, disjunction, and/or negations (boolean AND, OR, NOT) in any language you choose. The word "hammer" is a convention, but nothing is changing about those fundemental qualities. Sure it does. Once it's melted it doesn't have those qualities. And yes, hammer-ness remains. The attributes which define the hammer are always and forever. So, we've just agreed on conventional reality. So what? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The question is about "moving beyond" the two truths. I think I understand the desire to deny any and all defining attributes ( what's being labeled as ultimate ) when it is partnered simultaneously with acknowledging each and everything's fundemental qualities ( what is being labeled as conventional ). What I don't understand is what it means to move beyond this other than "catatonic, vacuous, sunyata". I understand including it as a fundemental quality / attribute of the "two-truths" concept, because, if the concept exists, then its partner, the negation, "no-two-truths" also must exist. But this still cannot be lifted up as an ideal. As soon as that happens, then the two-truths are no longer being negated.
  12. Ah. No, I've never experienced anything like that. The closest analog would be pure reflexive actions or decision making lacking any rational thought. But my mind is active and the inner voice is still narrating. It's just not 'driving'. Ok. thank you. I suppose my objection is to the notion of "you cannot..." because I expect that from the non-dual perspective each and everyone already has, and is. The word "cannot" the concept of "you cannot, but I have" is self-contradictory in a non-dual environment. This is because if all is one, literally, if any has achieved, then all have achieved. If any have not achieved, then all have not achieved. Put simply, am I misunderstanding? From the non-dual perspective: any=all? From the non-dual perspective: if you cannot, I also cannot because there is no 'you' or 'I'. There is only 'US'? simultaneous? From the non-dual perspective if I have claimed attainment of the non-dual perspective then absolutely everyone has attained it with me? Otherwise non-dual does not exist? If so, if a person says, "you cannot... " relating to a non-dual perception, that indicates the speaker, themself, has not achieved the non-dual themself. If they did, then the one they are speaking to "has already" by virtue of the speaker's attainment, because...if they had... there would be no distinction between the speaker and the one to whom they are speaking. And then... they would never-never say "you cannot..." because that would mean "I have not..." Do you see what I mean? Am I making sense?
  13. Well. I disagree. In my faith-tradition these ideas are discussed and contemplated most often in the micro as "a word before it is spoken" or "an idea before it is expressed", and in the macro as "God before creation" and "how God creates". Although, those last two are controversial. These ideas can be applied to the example you brought, the hammer. And I feel confident that the hammer has specific unique attributes which exist while in use, when it is in the toolbox ( in potentia ), lying on the floor as a door stop, as it exists as a concept or idea, or even as it exists in a fictitious reality where there is only one solitary hammer and literally nothing else. For example, I have used rocks as hammers. And while it seems that maybe this would confuse the attributes which define the hammer ( basically a non-deformable 'heavy' head attached to a rigid lever ), the hammer is produced when the rock is held firmly in the hand which is attached to the rigid lever which is my forearm. The same tool is not produced if I firmly hold a sea-shell, for example. I vote no. It's always and forever a hammer. Or, it could even take on more significance if it's my parent's hammer, or my grandparent's hammer, or maybe my grandparent's favorite hammer. What if it's my child's very first hammer, and this was an early indicator that they had a natural talent for making and fixing, and they carried it everywhere, and gave it a name? And then there's the story when the dog snatched it and hid it under the couch and we couldn't find it for a week? We tried to buy a replacement hammer, same exact thing, same size, shape, color, handle... everything. But of course... the child would not accept it. Anyway... OK, well. Sadly, I don't feel like I've made any progress. This is where I was when I asked the question. Ignoring my preconceived notions about the hammer. I'll put that down, put it away. Poof. Bye-bye. There's two truths. Conventional / unconventional. Both are true. Now, just as I put away my ideas about the hammer, if I "put away" the two truths, poof, bye-bye. Those two truths are gone. They're not true at all. They don't even exist. I've never heard of them. Hammer? what's that? I've never heard of it. I have no idea what that is. I have no words to describe it. Showing me a hammer produces zero reaction. Showing me a snowflake produces zero reaction. Putting the hammer on my tongue produces zero reaction. Putting the snowflake on my tongue produces zero reaction. Nothing produces a reaction. There is no distinguishing difference between the hammer, a snowflake, you me. And I am completely catatonic. That's how I would apply this idea of "to go beyond" and to "put away" the two truths. But, I feel like this is incorrect based on what others are telling me. Yet, if I recall the scripture associated with Buddha's words, it seems consistent with what I have read. But I understand that these teachings have been expounded and developed for hundreds of years by various wise and accomplished individuals. So... I'm kind of stuck on this concept. But it's not too important. I'm confident whatever I need to know and undertand will be learned and understood in due "time". ( in quotes, because time is wonky ) But I enjoy learning, if you wish to share more, I will certainly appreciate it. But, there is no pressure from me to do so.
  14. Hee. "cool". Nice choice of words. Depending on the experience, I'll actually go take a cold shower. Because my brain feels squeezy and hot and the cold helps a lot with that.
  15. @galen_burnett, Just quick note; I saw your earlier reply. I'll respond soon
  16. Woohoo! We're getting somewhere! Hendrick's commentary says the dao is a womb... but also says it's not that simple. Now I can finally see where all of this is coming from, the chapters that are in focus are listed!
  17. It looks like Hendricks lists this as significant in chapters 38 and 71. The translation chosen by Hendricks for "綿 =" does not deviate from the standard. The issue is "womb". It's not represented in either DDJ5 nor DDJ6 in this author whom you have chosen. It doesn't mean you're wrong to assert it. Although, it is, so far, completely unsupported, and there isn't justification of any kind to correct someone else using the word 'bellows' because the movement of air (emptiness) is included in the verse. Here's a picture of the "=" sign for those who are curious what we're talking about:
  18. From the Hendricks book on DDJ 6: no signficant differences are identified between these versions and the standard text. Here's DDJ 5: The choice here is bellows which is somehow empty but inexhaustible while fullness of learning is frequently exhausted. Which I can confirm. I feel like it's naptime. Or maybe tea-time.
  19. Any other variants that are important to consider elsewhere in the verse?
  20. It depends on what sort of experience you're asking about. I wouldn't describe anything in my "current" life experiences in terms of acheivement of any sort of non-dual perception. I would instead use the words: expanded awareness. During the experience of expansion, on a small scale, it feels like using peripheral vision and focused vision simultaneously. No, I don't have trouble communicating during those episodes. Probably because I am at ease. But also since it's dualistic ( or perhaps a better word is diverse ), all the tools of language are available.
  21. No worries. I didn't feel you were being rude to me. I liked the questions. It's good to get the feedback. I wasn't meaning to grill you, just explain what I meant to say. Regarding the extistential crisis, please remember? I agree with what you said in the OP.
  22. OK. From the link: "these are the two truths, not the one truth and one lie. Both truths are true.... the sages tell us that enlightenment actually is going beyond both." I would very much appreciate elaboration on "going beyond both". Does this mean both truths are abandoned? left behind? are they both still considered true? Thank you,
  23. Sorry. 'often' not 'only'. The way to proceed for this specific verse is: 1) confirm what you mean by 'womb' 2) see if it fits in the verse 谷 Valley 神 [of the] spirit 不死 immortal， 是 Truly 謂/胃 _______ 玄 mysterious 牝 female 。 玄 Mysterious 牝 female 之 she is a 門 gate， 是 Truly 謂/胃 _______ 天地 heaven-and-earth 根 roots/rooting。 綿綿 Streaming-continuously 若 seems 存 to issue forth， 用 Therefore 之 she [is] 不勤 effortless. Feel free to cross out and replace any of the translation choices I made, ok? This is just a first attempt to facilitate making some forward progress.
  24. OK, thank you. This is what I found in the wiki link: The Chinese characters in the silk texts are often only fragments of the characters used in later traditional versions. Many characters are formed by combining two simpler characters: one indicating a general category of meaning, and the other to guide pronunciation. Where the traditional texts have both components, the silk texts frequently give only the phonetic half of the character. There are several hypotheses to explain this... If the silk texts only give partial characters, that explains why you're seeing 胃, and I'm seeing it as 謂. In addition to partial characters mentioned above, the two-silk texts sometimes use characters different from those in later versions. This is similar to the English "She flowered the table" compared with "She floured the table", and the older version provides insight into a text's original meaning. This encourages me to compare the silk texts to the others. I see some tools in the other link to help in that pursuit. Thanks again,
  25. A musical interlude inspired by the above: A little out of place, A little out of tune Sorta lost in space, Racing the moon Climbing the walls, Of this hurricane Still overall... I can't complain. I got nothin' to lose, 'Cause there's nothin' to gain It's like a one-way ticket to cruise in this passing lane I can't complain.