寒月 Hanyue

Thank you, I think, I'm glad you feel I'm "on the right track", do I get a badge with your seal of approval (that is a joke, I'm aware these things do not always translate on forums) Mmm, I thought I was clear and fair when I wrote; I will PM you later. See highlighted in BOLD, just the way you like it

Hey Otis I completely agree. I think plasticty is best, too many think in terms of static and fixed positions and then attach to them. Being able to shift between paradigms and points of views is valuable. I think the hard part is knowing how, and when to be able to shift. Look at Zhuang Zi and the Ch'an tradition Thanks, not sure where it came from but it seemed appropriate.

Yes, I can. First I should say that this thread is meant for fun, and while I stand by what I say I am allowing a more mischievous aspect of my nature in the way I am saying it. I also don't really want to take the thread in the direction of debating such things. That said, I will give an explanation of my POV as you asked nicely. However if you want to debate and discuss I would greatly appreciate it if you would start a thread to specifically allow and address such banter on "authenticity", and I will gladly participate, or if you would rather PM me and chat that is also fine. I just ask that it is not done in this thread. Authenticity (for me) is relative, simple as that. Without context it means nothing, it is an assigned value that has no objective reality. Therefore there is no 'substance' to it other than the importance attached to it and subsequently projected on to things by individuals. What is "authentic" for one individual is not for another, what measuring stick is there?, and whose should be used? and why? who is right who is wrong? usually both. It as a separate 'thing', as many try to treat it (and many other such things), is simply a fallacy. It is one of many such constructs that we all use daily to help process information, but when you stop and look at it, well its more of a slippery fish. Many get and understand this, many do not. I see this a LOT on the web, and I see it a LOT in academia as well. Only rhetoric? maybe. The hill does not move, but the sun and the shade do. You see many things suddenly become "authentic" or "inauthentic" simply because someone moves the yardstick, the thing itself doesn't change but the apparent authenticity does and the ascribed attitudes to authenticity. So where is 'it', where does 'it' lie, nowhere but in the eyes that are there to see it (or not). Actually in regards to Cultivation I think this is one of the MAIN reasons why a good teacher is worth their weight in gold. Of course, as Shakitmamma says, it's unfortunate that the ones who need the eyes to see, are the ones that don't have them. Anyway, I have answered as you asked. It is only ONE WAY of looking at things, I do not expect everyone to view things in the same way I do (god the world would be boring), I am also not trying to prosetylse, feel free to disagree. Please if anyone really feels the need to debate about "authenticity" and what it is or is not for them, please do so either in PM or by starting its own thread. Thanking you kindly. Best,

Thanks Rob Learning that ukemi literally means to receive with the body and not 'breakfall' was a big eye opener for me, and one of the things that led me to appreciate looking past the surface explanations that get thrown around about this stuff. Sometimes it even goes beyond the simple 6 blind men and elephant story, and you realise it's not an elephant its a giraffe!! Best,

I take it all back, you were right I was wrong, and I should have listened

THIS IS WHY I STARTED THIS THREAD!!!!! Best,

I know you weren't. Your post just highlighted to me that such thread drift was likely to occur. So I posted. Yes it was amigbuous, intentionally. I don't think everything should always be put on a plate and spelled out. That said, you then have to expect the unexpected, especially when dealing with forums and e-mail formats. So please take this as me saying I only have myself to blame for starting an amiguous(ish) thread and then having people post that don't get what the thread was intended to be about. Let me try to clarify, at least a little Important? no one said it was. Simply put and no offense meant, if you don't think it is important or 'fun' (I did mention the for fun bit didn't I?,) then browse elsewhere in the forum for something that suits your tastes. Importance I think lies with the individual, and it is up to them what they assign it to at any given time. Same with fun. Authenticity, yes it does run in to this, but in actuality authenticity is a fallacy and does not exist. Ha ha I have asked no questions!!! and I am NOT trying to discover THE TRUTH I HAVE POSTED SOME MISCONCEPTIONS AS A BIT OF FUN AND SIMPLY ASKED IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SHARE. IT IS THAT SIMPLE. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO JOIN IN, THATS COOL, IF YOU DO, THATS COOL TOO, IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE F' THIS THREAD IS ABOUT OR DOING ON TAOBUMS THEN THATS COOL AS WELL Some appear to be taking this thread as a serious academic excursion into trying to define/explore truth, history, myth, authenticity etc IT AIN'T MEANT TO BE THAT DEEP I did mention the FOR FUN no? Best,

Wow, OF COURSE THEY ARE "FLIP-FLOPPING", but they are not semantic arguments, no-one is arguing or saying anything about the definitions of a word. You may see that in what has been posted, but apart from someone posting about a misconception that has occured due to translation issues, there is nothing based on definitions and word play. No one said ANY of the statements were to be taken as a collective whole They are stand alone. And each is meant to be the tip of an iceberg that reflects the fact that each area is a murkier water than many want to tread, hence the gray. There are no absolute statements being made, THAT IS THE POINT. There are always multiple versions, that is what this thread is about, particulalry the versions that tend to get ignored and left by the wayside. You may not realise it but you are in fact arguing for the same thing this thread is about, you may just not agree with the words people have chosen to express it, that is fine, I don't expect everyone to read what I write the same way. So please, you are trying to trip up and argument that only exists in your mind and not mine How about sharing your own revelations of interest for others instead of just nit picking on what others have posted which is not what this thread is for. PLEASE, THIS THREAD IS TO SHARE ANY MIS-CONCEPTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE DISCOVERED. Best,

PLEASE, EVERYONE, DO NOT CREATE THREAD DRIFT BY GOING OFF INTO TANGENTS ABOUT WORLD MYTHOLOGY THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT. The use of the term "Myth" is not accurate, but is used in the context of common parlance regarding stories about things that are not 'true' but an amalgamation of repeated tellings. Thank you,

Awesome stuff, thank you for sharing. This is the kind of thing I had in mind. You learn these things, but they are often not discussed much, and yet the 'myths' are still what gets the most press. So if anyone has anything like this, how about sharing Best,

I am NOT talking about the cultural mythologies and stories of a culture. That is a very different topic. I am talking about supposed 'facts' that you were told/learned in your time of cultivation study that you subsequently discovered were not so written in stone. IE the are 'myths' or 'mis-conceptions'.

Sorry mate. I did wonder what would happen if the thread became a bit more 'debate' style. The only myths posted are the ones in the OP. I specifically did not want to use the format you suggest because the point of the post was to create an opening, not to seal it shut. It wasn't about 'this is wrong, this is right'. The point was simply to see if members of the forum wanted to pass on any interesting mis-conceptions or myths about Daoism, martial arts, cultivation and any other topic that usually gets discussed here. Not to debate each one to death to see who/which is more 'right'. That said, some debate is fun and keeps the thread entertaining. Best,

Ah, well you see. This is why I started this thread. There is NO SINGULAR DEFINITIVE understanding, explanation or perspective on much of this. The more you dig, the more you find that the actual evidence is thin and the rest is educated speculation by historians, or modern historians who speculate using the writings/accounts of 'history' written long ago. Many myths I have found debunked for myself over the years, are myths precisely because there is no actual truth within them, they are arguable and debatable and hence there is always an alternative view that can be taken. I find it odd though, why some stick firmly only to one side of things? Anyway back to the reply at hand. Thank you. I'm glad you are reading my posts in the spirit they were intended. Mmm Zhuang Zi. Well some say he was a Daoist 'thinker' called Zhuang Zhou, but there is, apparently, no reliable historical data that supports this at all. It can be argued that in fact the writings were created later by a 'commentator' called Guo Xiang. So Zhuang Zi's existence as an actual person is not established, let alone whether he had leanings towards mysticism. So maybe the Zhuang Zi as a text cannot be said to have been written by a 'Daoist', so much as an editor who liked the current burgeoning Daoist thought, and backdated it? Of course I am not trying to say either account is true, but it is interesting to know what do we actually know, what do we know to be actually true or false and what lies in between. Care to add any 'Myths' of your own? They do not have to be historical. Best,

Jesus was not a Christian Buddha was not a Buddhist Lao Zi (and Chuang Zi) were not Daoists What gets projected backwards and assimilated by emerging and self identifying groups is a different thing to founding something specifically and with intent. Where I said "I ching, Tao te ching, Chuang tzu are Daoist texts." I should have written, I ching, Tao te ching, Chuang tzu are not texts written by Daoists. The first statement can be read several ways, the latter is less ambiguous, thanks for pointing it out

+1 I think he is aware, and has a knack for communicating certain ideas, but thats as far as it goes.

You should read the ones that never even become "...." ha ha I am going to go back and re-post, I just didn't have time to re-edit it at the time and sounded overly harsh for no real reason so I pulled it. Best

"I.e. kunalini is a fire method and stillness meditation is a water method." Seems a bit too simplistic to me? Where is all the "smokey water", and the "watery flame" methods

Man, where to start? I have known Shaktimamma for a long time, simple answer to your queries (I'll take them as queries OK), her cup is empty. Sorry to disappoint you I mean, what, like if you do ONE thing you aren't allowed to go see other people do their thing? Over the years she has been sought out by people who know their stuff, and she has sought out others who know their stuff, why? Sharing of experience, mutual exchange with others who can sympathise, appreciate and understand. She has never failed to point out the other teachers she has experienced who are the real deal. And this hasn't stopped just because she is now teaching KAP along with Santi and Tao. Just because you know her in relation to "KAP", please don't stare at the peak of the iceberg and miss the glacier under the water! As for Sifu Dan, he is an interesting guy who has real juice and is certainly someone that many could learn a lot from. Best,

Simply put, no "K" no shaman. But just because there is "K" a shaman it does not make. Both are terms thrown around with SO many variations of interpretation that they almost mean nothing without any context. And many feel they know more about either than they really do, caveat emptor.

Hi Cat. Thank you, that is very kind of you to say. And it is greatly appreciated To everyone, I only post when I get an internal pull that I might be able to help. I realised that in fact I had missed Fatherjohn's real question, and as such my posts were not in line with that enquiry. So I've deleted them. I also had a feeling as to why Fatherjohn had not been explicit in his OP, so I PM'd Fatherjohn and we've talked instead. I'm glad I did. Best,

Never mind...

Never mind...

Never mind...

Never mind...