Daniel

Thank you, I have the Encyclopedia of Daoism editted by Fabrizio Pregadio on my bookshelf. I've found it to be a good resource. But, hee-hee, I might not know if it is leading me astray. It seems to be complete. And I can do some keyword analysis, follow those leads, and maybe come up with something useful? Would posting my findings be helpful? Or would they interfere with your possible answer? I can see it both ways.

I respectfully disagree. I think it's supremely logical, rational, makes sense and adds up. But a person can also experience its truth, they can also feel it. I have no doubt. The limit of x/infinity as x approaches infinity is 1. IF x are the differences between all objects and "things" that exist, including events that bracket all moments THEN x is what defines significance in existence. As a person realizes that there is infinite diversity in existence, all of the significance of those differences, goes 'poof'. This produces a peaceful feeling and a singularity which is a commonly universal descriptor for a spiritual experience. Further, there is an opportunity for the conscious mind to become unbound, while this is occuring. There is a lot of wisdom collected by the subconscious mind which is accessible in this state, and, for those who are willing and able, even a higher divine consciousness becomes reachable. ( technically it is drawn down, like in a vaccuum ). Sadly, the indidivual who acheives these things even in a small way is susceptible to arrogance which sabatoges any future attempts to receive from anything outside of themself. And this "feeling of being wiser than others" is combined with the pleasant feeling coming from non-duality. But it is no longer non-dual, because non-duality is being lifted up as an ideal. This automatically produces a dualist mindset. And the entire philosophy collapses. Makes sense, adds-up, n'est-ce-pas? Are you or are you not ignoring context, and valid questions? Did you, or did you not again "proof-text" the Zhuangzi eventhough it seems clear that my path is different than yours? This is not an attack. I am stating facts. That's the point. This is not an opinion. Maybe-maybe not. It seems rather clear to me that non-duality is being brought as a part-of-the-whole. The challenge is to determine what is "pithy" and when is it "pithy". And that is the wisdom that is being expressed. Could-be. I haven't read it. All I know is what you quoted in the micro scale does not match what you brought in the macro. And this is what produces an illusion/delusion. My friend, this is what produces stereotyping and bigotry. Not that you're doing that, but, I think it's good to be aware of the root causes and avoid them. That said: whether or not dualism in the daoist cannon is "pithy" can be evaluated, rationally or supra-rationally based on the quantity and quality of dualist language, symbolism, and themes compared to the non-dualist language, symbolism, and themes. The rational mind can observe that non-duality is important in the proper context, just like almost anything. The supra-rational "heart" can feel it. But both rationally and supra-rationally if the entire book is read, how much do you want to bet that dualism far outweighs and brackets the non-dualism. This puts non-dualism in a box, in its place, in its context. If non-dualism is applied out of context, and in the extreme, then you have a "China" invading any and all "Tibets", over and over and over and over... until.... sure, it's non-dual. There is only 1, a dictatorship. It seems to me, that what is true and consistent is below: "I really like what the Zhunagzi says here, but you really can't trust anything else which is non-dual in the text even though the majority of it is dualist. And since this is a daoist forum, maybe you'll appreciate this little tidibit of what I find to be wholesome true and useful. If this resonates with you and you have any further questions I'm happy to help, but not as a master, just as a friend." I know, I know, please see above. Helpful, friendly, yes, yes. I'm not *actually* upset, just a tiny bit miffed. The only apology I think is appropriate, for me, would be for: disregarding my valid questions. And discouraging ANY future questions. And there is probably an apology warranted to the Zhuangzi for devaluing its words. I am interested in wu-wei, but not non-duality. I think non-duality, actually, is in opposition to what daoism is all about. It is choosing WU and denying WEI, basically.

Thank you I look forward to reading that thread and following the link(s) you brought.

Thank you silent-thunder. I love-love the screen-name. Can you help me understand "Tzujan"? What is it? I'm specifically curious what is produced if wu-wei is divided from it, both the implication on wu-wei and on Tzujan itself.

Most people agree that "proof-texting" only reinforces the individual's preconceived notions. The proof-text ignores context and detail, reducing precision for the purpose of forcing the desired conclusion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prooftext "Such quotes may not accurately reflect the original intent of the author, and a document quoted in such a manner, when read as a whole, may not support the proposition for which it was cited. The term has currency primarily in theological and exegetical circles" It's a technique used by preachers and charlatans. AND The individual is pretending ( knowingly or unknowingly ) that the intention of the author is aligned with their own ideals. By quoting a tiny portion, but ignoring all others, an illusion is produced. The proof-texter says: "This author is credible, and this is what they say, I agree with them and so should you." But the truth is, the proof texter is saying: "**I** am credible, and this is what **I** say, and here is a quote **I** found which agrees with **me**." Essentially the proof-texter is casting a net far-and-wide which gaurantees they will find a fish that satisfies their desire. Then they throw-out all the other fish, and proudly declare "This pond is the only pond, and it contains only one type of fish, and I know how to catch them." When anyone else produces a fish, the proof-texter objects "that's not the fish you're looking for." Or, maybe, you are choosing to ignore the woods. It sounds to me like you are bound, literally, to the WU and this is what is denying the WEI. Not true. I propose that the non-dual philosophy is doing precisely the same thing. Trying to "make sense", and "add it up". When someone is a rigid-adherent ( literally ) to this philosophy, it seems that they went through a process to arrive at the conclusion. And, because of the simplicity of the philosophy they are able to reproduce that "making sense" and the equation that produces "non-duality" extremely rapidly. It is the rapid onset that produces the denial. There's nothing wrong with this process. I think it's true and useful. But, not always. What perhaps is being experienced is pleasant. But the attributes that produce this pleasant feeling may be helpful or harmful, skillful or clumsy, depending on the situation. Let me ask you a simple question? Super-duper simple? Are you asking me to accept that non-dual philosophy does NOT make sense and does NOT add up? Now that you've told me that the Zhaungzi is easily accesible online, ( and thank you for that ) I can apply that to locate the actual quote in context. When YOU are quoting it the way you are, Zhuanzi is not telling me anything. These are your words culled from a library. Did you know that the bible says "There is no God!" Amazing! Do you actually think that's what the author intended? Think about it, that is, if you value using your brain. Do you?

The model I'm working from, idenifies wu-wei as a general category of actions or attitudes ( dispostions, if you will ) which I'm calling sympatheic paradoxes. A few that I mentioned in the other thread are: enforcing-freedom a helpful-demon a negative-role-model syncopation willful-submission ( assuming that submission is to something known to be benevolent ) But there's others which are antagonistic paradoxes, which would be wu-wei applied in a harmful way. true-lies ( illusions, deceptions, arguably pranks-and-trolling ) vain-glory fat-free-vinegarette ( kidding, kinda ) partial-circumcision ( more kidding )

Thank you. Sorry it took me an extra hour-or-so to read and reply to this.

@Taoist Texts, Please? Is your reaction mocking?

Thank you very kindly. I haven't read the Zhuangzi, but I understand, in general, it is a politcal treatise? Included there are some, powerful and important passages regarding self-cultivation? I would like to spend some time on chapter 11, perhaps the chapters which bracket it as well. What's interesting to me, just on the initial reading is, these are the words of the "dark concealment" which is advocating "undifferenitated chaos". The cloud chief considers this a "heavenly master", but I am not sure if this "master" is the "only master", and "master" of what? What are the motives of the cloud chief? Why would it consider the "dark concealment" its master? Do my principles and values align with the cloud chief? Maybe-maybe not. And then zooming out, big-big picture: how can a text which is a political treatise advocate consistently for a "dark concealment which is a master of undifferentiated chaos"? That does not add-up for me. I would expect that the source of a political treatise to favor order not chaos. Can you offer some insight on this?

What I see, sadly, often in a stereotypical western mindset, is creating a problem for the purpose of knocking it down, reinforcing a rigid-self-identity. The begining of the cycle, though, is accurately identifying a problem or problems. Those problems do exist. But once the rigid-self-indentity has solved the problem, it needs to create more-of-the-same or else its own self-indentity feels compromised ( eventhough it isn't ) I am not immune to this. I freely admit it. My sincere hope is that if I can sustain this acknowledgement about myself, and put it into action in my life, it will prevent the condition I've described above for myself. But it will be an on-going process. Hopefully with practice it will become easier, and more automatic, but I don't think I can trust myself to permit it to become fully autonomous and reflexive.

sometimes simple is good, sometimes it's not?

Excellent point, and thank you. I still like the album eventhough I'm what some would call a "straight-edge". At least that's what it was called in the rave-scene in the 90s. In college I had a different label, "The confirmed designated driver."

I feel like I understand it, and I feel like I can recognize it when I see it. But, in many ways I lead a sheltered life. More data is good. Sharing is caring

Thank you. If possible, are you able to provide more of this as a direct quotation from the Zhuangzi? In my studies, especially in daoism, the surrounding words/statments are vital in understanding the intentions of the source. Because of this, I am very cautious about one-line quotations. Even a chapter# would enable me to locate the entire passage for myself. Thank you again for your valuable input, btw. I sincerely appreciate it.

Thank you @Bindi and @liminal_luke :)

I love that song! I love the riff! I'm trying to think of something that I would consider producing the feeling of what wu-wei means to me. The first thing that comes to mind is Miles Davis "Agharta" - recorded live and improvised and no lyrics. But that's me, that's what just pops into my head. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agharta_(album) "Davis led a septet at the concert; saxophonist Sonny Fortune, bassist Michael Henderson, and guitarist Pete Cosey were given space to improvise against a dense backdrop of riffs, electronic effects, cross-beats, and funk grooves from the rhythm section"

Thank you, the feeling I get from the song, is, like I said, go,go,go. I think that's common. And seems to contradict what I would expect from wu-wei. And to be honest, I wasn't sure if you were taking my request for input seriously. Yes, he could play guitar like ringing a bell. Chuck Berry is also known for a famous song about looking for a volunteer to play with his ding-a-ling-a-ling. If I understand, the fundemental aspects that you are indentifying, are coming from the lyrics, not the feeling from the song. Those aspects are? lack of institutional indoctrination? spontaneity? doing what feels good to the individual as a method for success? If I have interpretted this correctly, thank you very much for your input. If not please correct me? I have no problem with listening to a song and appreciating the feeling that is being produced. Hopefully you can appreciate that "go,go,go" doesn't sound like wu-wei to me? The guitar riff is "pushing", isn't it?

~confused~ go johnny, go, go ,go ??? that's what wu-wei feels like to you???

Black-boxing. https://ismailouahbi.medium.com/black-box-thinking-learn-hard-things-a850bfb2dc94

It's a misunderstood phrase in a language many people don't understand containing profound wisdom cloaked under a children's story. Believe it or not, the microcosm you mentioned in the other post to me today is presented here as well.

Chaos cannot be God. Chaos and order are like darkness and light. Just as darkness is dispelled by a tiny spark. Chaos is dispelled by even a tiny amount of order. As soon as even the tiniest structure is appled, chaos becomes cooperative.

All of that is true of love in the right conditions. In the wrong conditions other less favorable things occur. As long as there are conditions, then the conditions are the higher law.

Love is just one law. Love in extreme becomes obsession. Love in the right time, in the right place, with the right people, in the right quantity is healthy. Lacking any one of those is a recipe for harm; to oneself or others. This indicates that restraint is the higher law compared to love. Everything in moderation is a true axiom. Everything incudes love. Moderation *is* restraint. Restraint is the higher law.

In my world, mandelbrot is a cookie. I learned something new today, thank you.

It's a broken vessel = missed opportunity