Daniel

What's that? What does it stand for? Is there a place I can look at it online? If there are different versions, did you choose this one for a reason?

The goal, as I understood it from Buddha's teaching is emptiness and a realization ( which I would describe as denial ) of any self. My self, any other self, and anything unique and spiritual, for lack of a better word, is the enemy of Buddha's teaching. Technically, I suppose a proper word would be detachment, not denial. But from this detachment is the realization that every "thing" including "me" is empty, aka 'void'. That's what I was thinking. And then, I employed a little word-play, "a-voiding all sensations." edit to add: continuing to explore this, I found the following under mahayana in the nirvana entry on dharmawiki. LINK "When the Hīnayāna speaks of no self, it is in reference to the manifest forms of presently existing life; the intent is to alert people to transcend this level, and attain Nirvāṇa. But when this flowed into the world of learning, especially when it was disseminated in the West, some people thought that the Buddhist idea of no self was nihilism and that it denied the soul, and they maintained that Buddhism is atheistic. This is really a joke."

I think I was making too much of the word "void" in my reply to th OP. But, it's nice that it brought some interesting fuel for a deeper discussion.

First, I think it would be good to know what you think is indicated by a "womb". I understand that as an incubator. A vessel that holds a seed and developes it. But I do not think that fits at all with the DDJ 5 nor 6. Perhaps you are understanding it differently? Or perhaps all that you are saying is, "it's not male and pointy"? Second, DDJ 6? This is the version I am looking at. 谷神不死，是謂玄牝。玄牝之門，是謂天地根。綿綿若存，用之不勤. - Source Are we using the same version? You're saying the 6th character is 胃, I'm seeing it as 謂. They appear similar, but, are they? Since you still haven't brought your own translation of the remainder of DDJ 5 which seems to clarify the meaning of 橐 籥, I'll go ahead and do my best to translate DDJ 6 and maybe you will correct it using whatever resources you choose to use. 谷 Valley 神 [of the] spirit 不死 immortal， 是 Truly 謂 _______ 玄 mysterious 牝 female 。 玄 Mysterious 牝 female 之 she is a 門 gate， 是 Truly 謂 _______ 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. So, DDJ 6 is describing a valley, which is continuous, a gate, which is long and slender. 謂 is generally translated as "named" or "called" which fits nicely. At the very least, the stanzas need a verb, don't they? ...truly it is named, 玄牝, lady-of-mystery. ...truly it is named, 天地根, root-of-heaven-and-earth. or ...truly womb lady-of-mystery. ...truly womb root-of-heaven-and earth. Is a womb streaming-continuously? 綿 is wool or silk. Is a womb like a root coming off the bottom of a plant? 根 are literally roots. Is a womb like a valley? Is a womb like a gate? A womb incubates then in a sudden furious ordeal delivers with contractions. That's not what's happening here. This is smooth and effortless. The challenge is: A chinese text of this vintage making the comparison that you made: The bellows is a euphemism for 'willie', and 橐 籥 is a euphemism for a womb. From what I'm seeing, there is maybe some feminine imagery in 4 verses. But this depends on what is considered feminine. Are we talking about open/closed? full/empty? pointy/round? provider/reciever? My understanding is the philosophy brought in the DDJ is about coexisting, coequal, codependent opposites. But I'm not seeing anything womb-like in these descriptions.

Thank you CT. I very much appreciate the information.

thank you, steve. that's very helpful for me.

@C T and @steve, If possible can either of you bring some clarity on the buddhist attainment of something akin to "perpetual bliss"? Did buddha teach about something which would match these words in english? An attainment of "bliss"? Also, anything in writing attributed to buddha I can read and review relating to Luke's qustion above and the question I asked is greatly appreciated. Thank you,

That would be great. Ideally they would bring some of buddha's teachings in support as well.

Galen, please understand the delay in my response. I wanted to reread what you wrote originally to be sure I didn't misunderstand what you were saying. My initial reaction to the OP was that it resonated deeply with me, and I agreed with virtually everything you said. And on review, I still agree, and I still relate to what you're saying. I still think I understand your point of view and the argument you are making. My concern about vague definitions is best described in this quote from the OP: "The notion of attainment of ‘perpetual-bliss’ is common throughout Eastern spiritual-practices and philosophy: it can be found in Buddhist philosophy...". I disagree here. I'm not a buddhist, it doesn't speak to me even in the smallest way. However, from what I read in their canon, Buddha did not advocate at all for attaining perpetual-bliss. Instead, I would label it, attainment of death or a void, literally avoiding all sensations including suffering. However, I do think that buddhists acheive a form of bliss from their practice, but, I think they are actually achieving sat-chit-ananda from the hindu tradition. Of course, all of this depends on proper rigorous definitions. And as you pointed out these definitions can be denied, or shifted, like goal posts undermining meaningful discussion. None the less, without the rigorous defintion to begin with and agreement among the interlocutors no logical discourse can occur. So, what are we ( you and I ) really talking about? And what are those in opposition to our position really talking about? I propose that when the objection is coming from a buddhist, there is probably a disconnect between what buddhism is preaching and what the practioner is experiencing. And this is the fault, at least part of it, that you have identified in the OP where an individual denies the duality of their process to temporary experiential bliss like someone who has climbed a tree but denies the branches they are using (present-progressive) to get there. I didn't read those comments that way. But to answer the question, my intention was to highlight the value of being contrarian in any logical discussion. "That", was intended to be the "contrarian" or contra-positive attitude when responding to a logical proposal. It, the contrarian, is responding naturally and normally because "logic" in spite of being formal it is also natural. Contrarian, in my opinion is not hostile in this context. But, it sounds like maybe, my observation is shared between us, or irrelevant to you, so please disregard. Here, I was reacting to what appeared to be pitfall along the way to making your point. The pitfall is, logic is not perfect. It is in many ways "rules" based, and those rules can be bent or broken. The breaking and bending is what produces the paradoxes in that link. What I was trying to convey is that logic has some issues. Big picture, my concern was that in the same way that the non-dual claimant defeats themself, the argument you are bringing defeats itself if it makes the same mistake. From my review of your argument in the OP, what you are identifying is an inherent duality which cannot be denied. ( of course, I'm summarizing. There's a lot more detail there. ) If logic/rational understanding is lifted up and its own partner supra-rational/experiantial/emotive understanding is being denied, then the original argument of inherent duality collapses. If this is what is happening, and being completely honest, that's how it appeared to me, then what resonated with me in the OP is greatly diminished. If i understand what you are saying in the OP, there are inherent natural violations of the law of non-contradiction. Suffering does not cancel joy, one cannot have one without the other. Or, from my point of view, in general, one cannot annihilate one without anihilating the other. My camp is mobile and from what I have noticed round here. Solitary. Which is perfectly fine with me. I am inspired by the rear guard, the clean-up crew. But, yeah, other than that, defeat isn't so bad at all. It's just another opportunity. I agree. What seems to be happening is talking past one-another. But, if your argument hinges on inherent duality, if that duality is abandoned ( "nothing defeats classical logic, all contradictions are false" ) then your argument has refuted itself. Please note, I said 'IF'. I view it differently. It seems to me that each and every scienfic discovery produces several new unanswered questions. This produces a one-to-many relationship between what is known and the unknown. As a result there will always and forever by much much more that is unknown compared to the known. If so, then, science will never explain everything. It can't. Not that humanity should give up on this pursuit. Look how much has been accomplished! Instead, I appreciate parallel pursuits which are more comprensive; where each and every individual's talents are included. We are a wildly diverse species. This diversity is a natural advantage. Personally, I think the push-back on what you're saying is because the master/disiciple guru/adherent relationship is extremely spiritually rewarding for both the master and the disciple. Getting either the master or the disciple to articulate the mechanism dispells the illusion which undermines the potential reward an the time spent pursuing it. They do not want anything interfering with access to their honey. (swarm imagery intended) And, honestly, I don't want to interfere with it either. Even if it's a lie, as long as people are enjoying their honey, who am I to object as long as innocent people aren't being hurt? Although I do get a bit miffed when ancient authors are misquoted and their texts revised or if morality is being erased in favor of a free-for-all. Those are slippery slopes which I think are important to guard against. Agreed. I learned it more literally as a maxim for execution of a carefully coreographed team objective. Not preparation, execution. Slow is fast. literally. But it's from a team environment, not self-cultivation. My intention here is to bring an example where the law of non-contradiction fails. I have no idea how Aristotle would react to this idea. I'm saying, non-contradiction is not a universal law. Regarding ultimate bliss, I think it exists, but it has nothing to do with non-duality. Folks may get a glimpse of the bliss, but as soon as they claim it's non-dual, I pretty much disregard anything intellectual they have to say about the mechanism which is producing their blissful experience. If they describe it as a relief? OK, ok, that's different. Well, my intention was to show that non-contradiction is not universal, not a law. It sounds like we agree here. And, if I understand, your argument against non-dual-perpetual-bliss requires the contradiction that suffering and joy co-exist. The problem I'm identifying is one cannot use the argument "suffering and joy co-exist" while at the same time arguing for universal law of non-contradiction. Ad it sounded like that's what was happening. However, even if the argument against non-dual-perpetual-bliss breaks down, ( is defeated ), my approach returns the propostion to agnosticsm. IOW, if the argument breask down, my conclusion is: "Maybe non-dual-perpetual-bliss exists." Althought that's not my position. My position is, "non-dual oblivion exists, and if that's your cup of tea, be grateful people like me exist to cover your backside from tryannts who wish to stomp on you. Oh yeah.... there's no room for grateful in oblivion. Never mind. Feel free to be oblivious. My reward doesn't come from your gratitude." The point I was trying to make is that different logical systems exist and the choice of which to use is important. I use a blend. Maybe you could answer this? When you are considering this specific logical propsal: "Perpetual bliss does not exist" do you assume it's true unless it is proven false? Do you assume it's false unless it's proven true? Do you assume it's unknown unless it's proven true or false? The answer to these questions are important to determine what it means when an argument is presented in support or in opposition to the proposal. I'm in the agnostic camp, which is a essentially a combo of connexive logic and modal logic. Modal logic includes an all inclusive paramater, necessary truth is true "in any possible world". One of the features of connexive logic is that is adopts Aristotle's theorum, "from falsehood... nothing." Which is another way of stating the principle of all modern justice systems, "innocent till proven guilty". Suprisingly, classical logic has adopted the opposite, "guilty till proven innocent", and that is the basis of the material conditional, aka formal "implication". But the amatuer logician will never admit it. This is what produces all the paradoxes I mentioned from the material conditional. People love it, though, because it permits maximum creativity. Anyway, From this, if a valid argument is made in opposition to a proposal I'm making, it generally results in a negation in one of many possible worlds. In all other worlds, the proposal is still innocent. The reason I adopt this method is that I believe **one way** that the perpetual bliss is achievable is from exploring any and all possible worlds. If a person brings me a model for a possible world I have not considered, it is a blessing if I can lift myself up out of myself and visit that possible world in my mind. All of those are external phenomena. And, what I was trying to say before about quantum mechanics is that the non-contradiction is a result of the observer effect. So, there's an inherent sympathetic paradox. Logical non-contradiction requires systems in isolation, but the observed non-contradiction is produced by being constantly bombarded by interactions with others. Meaning that heirarchy of significance and relevance cannot be established in classical logic. It doesn't have tools for weak and strong evidence, for example. There is no spectrum. It's on/off, binary, true or false. The idea was not to validate what Luke said, but to avoid the pitfall which you identified in the OP. Yoga, if I understand, is not a linear progression. People practice and then jump, quanta, to another concsious state. There is not perfect recipe for this, and like quantum particles, they absorb energy then jump. My assertion is that they also emit energy and collapse as well just as the quantum particles do. And there's probably a corresponding observer effect as well. Th notion that 0=1 in a quantum domain is well established. I'm not sure that it will be corrected. The thing is, it's not a contradiction in the quantum domain. It's perfectly natural. It just doesn't follow the rules of observed phenomena. And this example is intended to support my position that non-contradiction in classical logic is not appropriate for understanding the mechanics of internal processes. Sorry. I'm trying to describe an objective difference between inner processes and external phenomena. Internally, in my experience and conversations with others, the contradictory nature of internal processes can be objectively felt. And this is because they are not bombarded by electromagnetic interference in the same way as exernal phenomena. External phenomena, while it can be modeled as isolated systems, nothing is actually isolated. These quantum interactions produce non-contradiction. So like I said earlier, the benfit and the liability of logic is its rigidity. It assumes that everything is in an isolated system, which is a benefit because almost everything appears to be distinct on the human scale. And as it is observed, all contradictions are resolved. This is a benefit The liability is assuming this is the case internally and universally. I wouldn't call that logical. I would call it harmony with yin and yang. ( apologies for the semantics, but I think it's an important distinction. )

With the highest respect, whenever someone says "you cannot ... " when it comes to a non-dual or unitary perspective that indicates, at least to me, that they have not achieved the non-dual / unitary perspective. "You cannot..." is a consequence of a dualistic perception. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_peak

Thank you, the articles seem to be consistent on this topic with everything I'm reading about the etymology of "yue", and it seems to match what is brought in the DDJ including the radical "bamboo" at the bottom of the character. Which, if the source is like wikipedia, should render credibility to the article. Judging the entire site seems unfounded. If it is crowd sourced, then each article has its own credibility. In order to undermine the Baidu article, there would need to be some indication of an inconsistency with other sources. I have found none. Ultimately, the goal, I think, should be to understand what the DDJ intends to convey rather than rewrite it with an individual's desired revisionist interpretation. This is something I personally have seen repeatedly in other religious contexts particularly in the western christian religion. The indicator of revisionist intent, I have seen, is cherry picking then extreme reluctance to include context from the text itself. And this should be the most important source for understanding what the characters 橐 籥 were intended to mean. From what I am seeing, the DDJ intends 橐 籥 to be an open ended tube flute, of some sort. There is something cool about the innovation of the box-blower, but, that doesn't change the original etymology of the characters. Most people don't realize the earliest fire bellows was nothing more than a tube which is why I posted the pictures of the egyptian engraving. All of this is consistent with the articles I posted. What's inconsistent so far is the correction "it's not a bellows, that's a euphemism for masculine genitalia. It should be a womb." A womb? an incubator? recieving a seed, holding it, and developing it over time? Regardless of this being out of place in the DDJ 5, If this is true, I would very much like to see any chinese text of a similar vintage making that comparison. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.china.org.cn/english/culture/94027.htm Few Chinese people have heard of the yue, an ancient wind instrument that belonged to the flute family. However, the enigma of the mysterious yue and the bone flutes seemed to explain one another in the eyes of Liu Zhengguo, a scholar of Chinese music history who is also skilled in playing the transverse bamboo flute (dizi) and its vertical twin the xiao. Liu is convinced that the gudi is, in fact, the yue. "The gudi should be called guyue," said Liu, who is a professor in the music school of Shanghai Normal University. "It is the ancestor of the dizi and xiao." https://www.mdbg.net/chinese/dictionary?page=chardict&cdcanoce=0&cdqchi=籥 https://baike.baidu.hk/item/籥/7002680 籥, a third-level character in Chinese, [3] pronounced as 籥 (yuè), is a mysterious braided wind instrument in ancient China, which is related to the origin of the rhythmic scale and even the source of the Chinese ritual and music civilization. Its shape is recorded in historical documents since the Han Dynasty. It is a flute-like "single-pipe" musical instrument. It is the ancestor of Chinese flute-like instruments. In folk. https://www.mdbg.net/chinese/dictionary?page=chardict&cdcanoce=0&cdqchi=橐 https://baike.baidu.com/item/橐/5874987 橐, a second-level Chinese character, [2] pronounced as 橐 (tuó), refers to a pocket, and also refers to a blower in ancient times. 3. An ancient blowing fire blower: "with furnace ~, ~ with cowhide". Here's something fun: Notice that he discovers by oblique/indirect blowing the fire bellows becomes a musical instrument. This oblique blowing is something highlighted in the article above quoting the Chinese scholar of music history. So... what's happening with 橐 籥 in DDJ 5? Isn't this another example of the dissimilar being brought together? A fire-blower which is also a musical instrument? Is it wrong to say this is the Dao? I vote no. I think that is what the DDJ brings consistently which means @manitou is 100% correct.

Thank you. Most people like wikipedia as a first stop for beginning research on a topic. And I'm a fan of crowd source / open source. Often the quality is better. Can you share your general impression of the 2 articles I linked to?

@Cobie, what's your translation of the remainder of verse 5?

For this... see below: They're encyclopedia entries.

And before that, they wuld have used something like this which matches the meaning of 橐籥 from DDJ v.5. Where are you getting 風箱? Human breath blow-pipes: If it's important you, so be it. The DDJ 5 seems to be focused on the air that is moving and it is inexhaustible not the shape nor the gender designation. Which is why I keep asking for your translation of the remainder of the verse. I am sure that it is the title of the book. In reviewing the verses which use this specific character in the DDJ, I'm nt seeing much relevance in the variations you brought. For example: 道士 isn't in the DDJ 道場 isn't in the DDJ 道教 isn't in the DDJ And the kroll dictionary is covering a large time range 500 BCE to 1000 CE. I think the DDJ should be used to understand what it intends to be meant by 道. Which is why I keep asking for your translation of the remainder of verse 5.

... with a capital T, and that rhymes with B that stands for Bums...

https://quatr.us/history/bellows-invented-bellows.htm By 400 BC, people in China used ox-hide bellows. They were using more efficient double-action piston box bellows by the early Han Dynasty, about 200 BC. These bellows blow air both when they’re opened and when they’re closed, so they’re more efficient than the pot bellows. The double action ( simultaneously closing and opening ) is a rather important improvement, especially for metalurgy ( alchemy ) and producing consistent even smooth temperatures for tempering.

Verse 4 sets up verse 5: 道沖而用之或不盈... And the remainder of verse 5 is important, is it not?

This might be helpful... https://baike.baidu.com/item/橐/5874987 https://baike.baidu.hk/item/籥/7002680

Here is the verse: 其猶橐籥乎？虛而不屈，動而愈出。多言數窮，不如守中。 The part in blue seems to clarify the intention of the part in red. I'm curious how you are translating the part in blue. Please?

cobie, how would you translate the remainder of the verse?

👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼

...every atom belonging to me as good, belongs to you. Walt Whitman 1892

Thank you, and please forgive me if the question seemed silly.

Welcome @Neirong, I am not asking for details, just a simple clarification: is the Year 1 Semester 2 course-work producing a literal fireball?