Walker

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0985958855/ref=tsm_1_fb_lk This book is fantastic in Chinese; the preview on Amazon suggests that something of the original prose's art was lost in translation, but as a resource for anybody who would like to learn more about the way in which Chan is a child of Laozi and Zhuangzi's Daoism--as well as glimpse some of the ways in which Chan, centuries later, helped give birth to Complete Reality Daoism--I suspect that it may well be the best book out there. The author liberally quotes from primary sources, provides clear explanations of obscure Tang and Song Dynasty-era Chan teachings, and gives many examples where Chan teachers expanded upon Laozi and Zhuangzi's original teachings. Given how closely these two traditions are intertwined, it is difficult to find sources that pick them apart and place the historical and philosophical threads in a clear light like Professor Wu does. I think that cultivators, scholars, and the curious will all find Wu's book extremely useful. For those who read Chinese, the original is called 《禪與老莊》, and the author is 吳怡.

恬淡虛無 真氣從之 精神內守 病安從來 《皇帝內經 - 素問 -上古天真論》 From The Yellow Emperor's Inner Classic, Basic Questions, "On the Celestial Truths of the Ancients" (or however you wanna translate into the title... from, most likely, the Warring States period). Rough translation: "[Being] without a care [in] empty nonexistence/ [It is] this that true qi follows/ Holding jing and shen within/ From whence could illness come?" The ancients were terse; those four lines are to this day in China and Taiwan considered to be a complete meditation instruction. In my opinion, even Yangzhu (楊朱)'s supposed utterance that he would not pluck even a single hair from his body to save the world is a complete meditation instruction. If what I'm saying makes no sense, try sitting in such equanimity that you would not do anything to change anything, including within your own mind and body--I mean not even the slightest physical movement to remove pain or the slightest mental movement to affect thought. If you succeed, then what happens to you?

Anybody who tells you that the principles and methods of cultivating the Dao are only transmitted from Han Chinese to Han Chinese is deceiving you. That is not the rule now, nor was it the rule before. For instance, in the 1600s an Indian Buddhist emigre known to history as "the Chicken Foot Daoist" (鷄足道者/Jizu Daozhe--"Chicken Foot" is the name of the mountain in Yunnan where he settled) entered the Dragon Gate school, receiving teachings from such luminaries in Dragon Gate history as Wang Changyue (王常月) and Min Yide (閔一得). As for what is the case today... let's just say that Chen Yingning's words did not prove prophetic.

Having affinity for Daoism has nothing to do with one's financial situation. I know some Daoists who came from what we could probably call grinding poverty, deep in very poor parts of China's countryside where people to this day still make do on a few hundreds dollars a year. I also know practitioners who come from backgrounds that, by comparison, qualify for the word "rich." I can't say I know any mega rich Daoists (USD millionaires and up), but I don't see why there couldn't be any. "Living life in a simple way" and "living in hardship all one's life" are not contradictory things; nor are "living life in a simple way" and "living in material comfort all one's life." Simplicity is by and large a mental state, which, maintained, affects jing, qi, and shen. The question is how poverty or wealth affect a practitioner's mind. I think... -If a person is poor to the degree of being unable to stave off hunger and the elements, and faces an inability to mix in with society (i.e., no clean clothes, no place to shower, no transportation, way to find work or an education, etc), then it is probably unlikely that this person will be able to quiet his or her mind enough to practice well, unless this is a very rare person who has chosen a renunciate path, a Sun Bu'er, Ma Danyang, or Qiu Chuji type. -A person who is poor in comparison to his or her society but has no problems with nutrition, housing, and satisfying the human need for social contact could be in an excellent position for cultivating the Dao. -Ditto for a middle class person or a rich person. But if the mind of the middle class or rich person cannot find rest, then again, it will always be difficult to practice. No matter what your background, entering into Daoism in some way or another will not sever your ties with your past, even if you become a monk or a nun in China. I know monks and nuns whose families are poorer than they are who feel pressure to make money in this or that way or help their family members get menial jobs or at least meals and bedrooms at their temples or what have you. Whether or not this sort of thing affects one's cultivation again comes down to one's mentality; certainly family and societal issues can be challenging for even richly experienced practitioners. I also know monks (I can't think of any nuns in this category off the top of my head, but I'm sure they're out there) who, upon realizing that talismans or fortune telling can be very lucrative, get carried away by the paper chase. Again, their troubles boil down to mentality. Regularly reading and reflecting upon the classics with a sincere mind helps tremendously in keeping one grounded. As for studying, well, there are teachers out there who charge an arm and a leg for their techniques. There are teachers out there who charge very low tuition fees, are by donation only, or who teach for free. There are even teachers out there who, identifying needy and sincere students, give money to those students to help them on their paths. I have encountered more than one teacher in each category. Ultimately it could be argued that most of the "real teachings" are already out there for free, but there aren't many people who can see them for what they are, put them into proper use, and take the path to fruition without the help of teachers. It certainly helps not to be indigent while you are on the path of a seeker and then an early- to mid-stage practitioner. But it also helps to view money with some detachment. This will sound New Agey, but I learned it from a Daoist twelve years ago and experience has borne out truth in these words: money is just another form of energy. So, let some flow away, more will flow towards you. An empty vessel is easily refilled, eh? But if you're starving or can't afford heating in the winter, then a more yang approach may be necessary.

Like Steve, I think you're on the right track. Chinese-speaking Buddhists don't typically speak an awful lot about shen unless they've also been steeped in the milieux of Daoism, Chinese medicine, qigong, and/or folk religion, all of which tend to use the word shen quite liberally. On the other hand, Daoists of the last 1,000 years do talk about Buddhism quite a bit and their definition of "buddha" would include the notion of a perfected shen. What is often called "Complete Reality Daoism" (全真道) in English could potentially also be called "Complete Perfection" Daoism (for the bilingual nerds: note how the 真 here is translated by many scholars as "Perfected" in the name of "真武/Zhenwu/The Pefected Warrior"). One explanation is that this "complete perfection" refers to a completely perfect jing, qi, and shen. As for how the three treasures are affected "if someone suddenly attains enlightenment," the answer is that they are one. I think you can fairly say that "complete perfection," then, implies this merging (or returning) into oneness. As for your final questions, jing, qi, and shen are in fact never not one. We speak about them as separate entities for the purposes of transmitting theory and certain practices, but that is only one way of doing things. We can at the same time also speak of them as one. Both perspectives are accurate, as they're just perspectives--they can contradict each other without cancelling each other out. However, as to whether or not devas have them, I have no idea. There seems to be disagreement within Buddhism as to whether or not devas can cultivate; Daoists, on the other hand, seem to be generally open to the idea that deities can and do continue to cultivate. I suppose that, being deities, they have only or mostly prior heaven jing, qi, and shen. My Daoist teachers have said much the same. I've only viewed Dzogchen from afar by occasionally dipping into Longchenpa's books or listening to Chokyi Nyingma lectures and so forth, but I think you're quite right.

I agree that Marblehead should get out more often. Way more often. But it is important to be careful with "dependent arising." In Buddhism (I cannot speak about any other tradition that uses this concept), nothing arises nor disappears. There is only the illusion of the arising and disappearance of things from the standpoint of un-awake minds. The Buddhist teaching on the "12 links of dependent origination" does not tell us how actual things come into actual being; it tells us how we reify the objects our minds create. Because emptiness and form are one and the same, awakening does not end this process in the mind, much less transport one to a different universe or change the way this one functions. Awakening is being aware of how the illusion functions. Thus, when the Heart Sutra states, "no ignorance or ending of ignorance, up to and including no old age and death or ending of old age and death," this is a reference to 12 links of dependent origination (see Red Pine's book on this sutra). A teaching so penetrative most certainly does not--if understood correctly--put the student in the position at the whims of what you call "a major tool of control of the masses." While there are certainly plenty of Buddhists who believe in the "karmic punishment, heaven/nirvana for the pious/obedient and hell /samsara for the sinners/heretics/dissidents" you identify, such beliefs do not find strong support in the actual sutras. That so many Buddhists don't realize this isn't really that surprising--sutras are often long and usually require much contemplation; simplistic, moralistic rubrics seem to get more traction with a great many people. But since we here aspire to be more than parrots, we should look at the opening and closing statement of the Lonaphala Sutra: "Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life, there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress. But for anyone who says, 'When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way, that is how its result is experienced,' there is the living of the holy life, there is the opportunity for the right ending of stress." The sutra then goes onto explain that the way and degree to which things are experiences is a measure of one's wisdom, not a measure of one's actual actions. "Karmic punishment, heaven/nirvana for the pious/obedient and hell /samsara for the sinners/heretics/dissidents" is not at all what this sutra teaches await us. Do the teachings on pratītyasamutpāda and yin-yang contradict one another? Do true sages contradict each other? Laozi said sages undertake to teach without words. On his deathbed, Shakyamuni said he never once spoke the Dharma. Where is there room for contradiction? If there is, why did Qiu Chuji's master instruct Daoists to study the Heart Sutra and the Daodejing side by side? Returning to the initial post, if one's mind can house pleasant dimensions, one's mind cannot not be home to home ugly dimensions, too. The teachings of pratītyasamutpāda and the simultaneous arising of yin and yang are both present here.

Starry eyed shit on a stick, I'm afraid. I attended two TCM universities in China, interned in hospitals in Beijing and Shanghai, and also visited numerous hospitals and clinics as a patient, guest, or to accompany patients in second- and third-tier cities as well as the countryside. Nothing like this is going on, and I kinda doubt it ever actually did. Sounds far too idealistic, and in ten years I certainly never heard any Chinese people waxing about the good old days when you paid your doctor to keep you healthy. Given that Chinese medicine enthusiasts as a whole looooove to yarn about the olden times, if there were something to this story, I'm pretty sure I'd have had to listen to endless retellings, right alongside the legends of Bianque's x-ray vision, Sun Simiao's pet tiger, etc, etc, etc. Even the whole, "western medicine masks symptoms while Chinese medicine treats the root," thing is something of a fantasy, too, I'm afraid. Sadly for everybody, Chinese medicine often fails too, even when the diagnosis seems clear and when, according to theory, the prescription should work. Who can really say what the "root" is, and amongst those who can, who can reliably treat it? To be sure, there are degrees of skill, and some excellent physicians remain, but by and large Chinese medicine--like western medicine--involves lots of shooting shotguns into the dark. Which is not an indictment. Just the way things are. The human body-mind is a mystery, and shit on a stick is Chan, shit on a stick is Dao.

That is not what I "explained." You project your imagination both onto internet discussions as well as ancient writings. You have failed to grasp fundamental aspects of the philosophy that you dismayingly claim to have mastered and be capable of teaching. Now. It is the same xing. Before cultivation, during cultivation, after cultivation, only one xing. They call it 佛性/foxing/Buddha nature, they call it 真性/zhenxing/true nature. Same thing. If you really knew Liu Yiming "chapter and verse," you could not make this mistake. You would know that in the exact same book that we're discussing, just a few pages after the quote I presented you with, there is the following passage, which deserves to be translated for those who would be led astray by your gross mischaracterization of Quanzhen teachings: 我性佛性，万国九州，诸方人类之性，无有两样，处圣不增，处凡不减，如一轮明月，千潭普现。此性也可小可大，可高可低，可方可圆，可浅可深，可长可短。不落大小高低方圆长短深浅之迹。但百姓日用而不知之耳。 "My nature [is] Buddha nature. It is the nature of [all] humanity in all directions in the myriad nations of the nine continents. There are no differences. Being a sage does not add [to it]; being a common person does not subtract [from it]. It is like a bright moon, [reflected] in each of a thousand pools. This nature can be small and it can be great; it can be high or it can be low; it can be square or it can be round; it can be shallow or it can be deep; it can be long or it can be short. Still, all people use it every day without knowing it." Had you the good sense and humility to actually find a teacher instead of prematurely ejaculating your conclusions into the public realm, you would have been told that this xing common and fundamental to all humanity is revealed by practice, because it is original and eternal; it is not the "end result of long arduous practice." It is not different for sages and common people. It is what is. Knowing full well the rules of the board and that I am being plenty impolite, I here publicly protest that Taoist Texts is a delusional contrarian fuckwit whose mistakes are too fundamental to be written off as "just differences in opinion." It is truly too bad that on more than one occasion Exorcist has attempted to share highly valuable insights here, only to have his threads derailed by a "me too me too I speak Chinese too look at me" shitbird who wants to nitpick at phantoms that have nothing to do with what Exorcist is even talking about. Anyway, there will be no convincing the master who read a whoolllllllllleeee 1,000 pages, so, goodbye.

That you're making the mistake you're making here is the reason I suggest you read the whole of Liu's book on the 悟真篇 cover-to-cover.

From the book I mentioned, Liu Yiming's 《悟真直指》: 真性本体，如地之不动不摇，同之异之。虽境遇事物万殊，而总以平等之心应之，如千灯之照，无非光照之，灯不一而光则一。这个性无所增，无所减，无所取，无所舍，火焚水漂，俱皆不能妨碍，亦如地之山重也能载的，水冲也能受的，万物伤损，俱皆容的。地如是，性即如是。闻见知觉，一无所有，强而名之，惟空而已。空非寂灭之谓，乃因物付物，随方就圆，以无心应之也。 An empty mind is 性/xing.

No, he doesn't. You misread this passage. In the first sentence, "空无/kongwu" is being presented to describe an extinguished void state, also called 顽空/wankong, which he is admonishing readers not to conflate with the real meaning of empty mind, which is described thoroughly and repeatedly throughout the book I just directed you to. In the second sentence he is echoing the spirit of both the Laozi as well as the Heart Sutra (texts which are both indispensable to Complete Reality Daoism, of which Liu was an adherent, a fact that will remain an obstacle to understanding Dragon Gate teachings for people with aversions towards what they perceive to be Buddhism) saying that being attached to emptiness (着空/zhaokong/zhuokong) leads one onto a false path (假途/jiatu). Key to understanding these texts is being clear that an empty mind is not the same thing as being attached to emptiness. If it's a real Daoist practice then 1. of course it's got its backwards parts, and 2. of course it is likely to elicit laughter. 無咎。夏蟲不可以語冰。

Start with Liu Yiming's commentary on the 悟真篇. If you can't see an empty mind being defined there, you won't see it anywhere.

Back you come to make a fool of yourself. What Exorcist is talking about is defined and detailed in exacting, penetrating detail in text after text after text after text after text after text. That you have failed to grasp this just proves the point many Daoists and Buddhist love to make: the world is covered by beggars who've become so accustomed to extending their palms that they never think to fish for the gold nuggets in their pockets. 呜呼哀哉.

高.

The best thing I've heard about this video--which has created such a stir in China that I've overheard complete strangers going on about it excitedly more than once--is that the distraction it provided on the PRC internet was taken advantage of by Xi Jinping, et al, to quietly topple a few more "corrupt" adversaries while everybody was busy babbling about martial arts and sharing a plethora of videos of guys with a bit of MMA experience embarrassing IMA fellows who fight like they've never been in a single fight. Now that's Chinese gongfu for you. Not that it's much different from the gongfu of leaders around the world, mind you. Regarding traditional Chinese martial arts' typically poor performance in the ring, I stopped thinking about this question sometime around 2010 or 2011 when I was talking about it with a teacher of nearly 70 in People's Park in Shanghai. His point was simple: traditional Chinese martial arts, regardless of whether they were internal or external or whatever, were really about killing and maiming in quick, surprising, and effective ways. The idea, he said, wasn't to sign up to bounce around a padded ring with gloves and a cup on following rules that force you to avoid ending things quickly and nastily; the idea was to pick up the nearest nasty object (if you didn't already have one in your pocket) and shove it into somebody's eye. One day I wanted to "push hands" with this teacher and for a moment thought I was getting the upper hand, when he feinted, reached around behind me, and then jammed four of his fingers right up my ass crack with such alacrity and force that I damn near jumped into the branches of the tree above me. He then made a few moves to indicate slapping me in the crotch, sticking a thumb into my eye socket, smacking my windpipe, whathaveyou, as he reminded me that preferably he'd do those things with a weapon rather than bare handed. I had a Japanese friend back then who'd previously spent several years in one of the bigger cities in China's northeast as he searched for a proper bajiquan master by fighting his way around the parks of the city. Being a young, cocky Japanese guy, he found plenty of fights--there remains a palpable hatred for the Japanese simmering up in that part of the country. Eventually he found a master, and then even more fights with locals jealous and angry to see a Japanese guy getting trained by the local eminent bajiquan master. I told him about the hand-up-my-asshole story, and asked him if he thought the old guy might've been a little, you know, maybe, off or something. He replied in total seriousness, "nooooo, this is a good master, that's the real way to teach Chinese martial arts!" Moral of the story, in my opinion: if you don't allow a master of "traditional Chinese martial arts" the opportunity to pick up chairs, stab people in the ass with a teapot, or produce a knife from his or her boot during "competition," then you're not really assessing traditional Chinese martial arts. You're assessing sports. Perhaps things are different with masters who possess the sorts of abilities supposedly once possessed by guys like Sun Lutang and Wang Xiangzhai, but I've never seen such things.

The inescapable irony in posts like these, as well as many of Daeluin's, is that they are ultimately poetic and artful ways of illustrating which stance is correct, and which is incorrect. A value judgement has been made and stated... one way of doing things is painted as better, another as worse. Excellent! how could we have a teaching that never points at some things and says 是, points at others and says 非? The sage is already achieved. Indeed, nothing to do, say, teach. That is Dao. The student is not achieved. Still, much to do, hear, and learn. That requires the "ism," 道教, the Daoist teachings. The tendency of expression in Daoist teachings is loaded with explanations of goals, warnings, and delineations of what is and what is not. There is no contradiction in using contradiction to point the student to the realm beyond contradiction. This is why even very nice guys like Liu Yiming felt it necessary to again and again say very mean things like, "如此惛愚迷誤後學，罪莫大焉!" They cut, to cut the crap.

It is rather pertinent that the same exact character you point to in the same exact novel blows up somebody's heart with his bare hands because the guy was acting too out of line. Talk about a stark counterpoint to your argument. The perspective you suggest is not practical for somebody who really wants to learn. Daoists I have met have no trouble speaking very directly to those they're willing to teach. Thus, On the one hand, if a student comes to a Daoist teacher and declares, "I have discovered that holding my breath as long as I can and thinking about the space inside of my navel will surely make me an immortal," the teacher may simply nod and say, "ok." But on the other hand, if the student describes his or her "discovery" and then asks the teacher for his or her opinion, there's no sensible reason to think that a Daoist teacher wouldn't simply say, "well, I'm afraid you're incorrect." Simple, straightforward, down to earth, pragmatic. Your "everything will sort itself out naturally in the end" stance might be right from a certain perspective, but it strikes me as impractical for those of us with limited life spans--is it, practically speaking, serviceable as anything other than chicken soup for the everybody-gets-a-gold-star, conflict averse soul? You quote Laozi and Zhuangzi to try and make your case, but really, both of their texts are laden with admonition. The texts exist, in fact, to help people see how they are mistaken. You will find admonition all throughout the writings of greats like Zhang Boduan, Wang Chongyang, Li Daochun... actually, the list is endless. Notably, one of your personal faves, Liu Yiming, practically SCREAMS at his readers to stop repeating their mistakes. Why? Probably because to a Daoist who believes in reincarnation (as the latter four names probably did), the "everybody will float right on into the Dao like a water molecule" result might take kalpas to achieve. Finally, if you really believe what you write, why even interfere in this discussion?

The body can have marked reactions to this "shift," i.e., cessation of the (perceptible) breath, and I know not what else. I suspect that you are right that the body is important, and that we may be able to some extent gauge whether we have entered into the philosophy or just grasped it intellectually by some of the ways the body reacts to shifts in consciousness. Furthermore, many classics (things I've read from 劉一明 白玉蟾 recently spring to mind) seem to suggest that a qi/ming gong that can resolve the questions you allude to is based on a mind that has made this "shift." Then again, 開口便錯, eh...

This thread contains the word sunyata, a helpful pointer that is worth following up on. Sunyata is an especially important concept with notable variations in its elucidation in Buddhism; it is also a concept that made its way deep into Daoist thinking. Sunyata is not necessary the same as what you might make of Laozi's comments about emptiness, and it's important to know that when Daoists write of 空 they're probably directly referencing Buddhist teachings on sunyata, whereas if they say 虛 or 無 they may be talking about something other than sunyata. In the Buddhist lexicon one finds living intermingled with Daoism in China, if one asks about sunyata/空, one will invariably start a conversation that touches upon the Heart Sutra. This text is of course of massive importance to Chinese Mahayanists and Quanzhen Daoists, but in its brevity it doesn't explain the particulars of emptiness in this context--much confusion and imaginative analogies about the empty space in atoms is a frequent result that misses the point. An important point we must grasp is that these teachings are telling us that all objects and phenomena (事物; also, dharmas with a lowercase d/i.e. 法) are "empty of" something we tend to mistakenly behave as though all objects and phenomena possess. Indeed, physical objects might be empty of solidity just like physics seems to inform us, but that insight does not resolve the questions of birth and death, correct? So what are the things Buddhism wants us to realize that objects and phenomena lack so that we will free our minds from the falsehoods that prevent us from resolving the issue of birth and death? They are: -An independent self -An independent origination Sunyata teachings go further to elucidate the ephemeral and non-independent nature of all phenomena in a variety of ways--all of this is worth studying. To all of us here, none of these concepts will seem too hard to wrap a philosophical mind around; most of us have already heard these teachings or close variations. The key, from a cultivator's standpoint, is to meditate upon them such that they go from being understood concepts to being an expression of an actual shift in your cognition. When that happens to you it may become clear what the relationship between these concepts and actual practice could be. To put this another way, if one sets out to "empty the mind" without realizing that the mind, by very nature of being full of phenomena that are inherently empty is therefore itself also already empty then one is going to be frustrated by finding it impossible to use an imaginary broom to try and sweep up illusory dust in a non-existent room. So, best just to do nothing, no? @Marblehead: of whom, other than yourself, do you speak, when it comes to Daoists who talk about "fullness?"

Would you please elaborate?

Slightly over two years ago at the White Cloud Monastery in Beijing I met an elderly Daoist monk who said he was soon to relocate to Seattle to open a Daoist temple there at the request of his students there. Was a very nice guy. I have no idea if anything became of this or not, but might be worth looking into.

By breaking my words apart to find something to disagree with you end up creating a straw dog. That is lazy and dishonest contrarian behavior. In whole I said: The key term is "a certain framework." Within Daoism there are numerous "certain frameworks." There are also subtle points that link some of these "certain frameworks," and divide others. It takes a lot of study and practice to begin to understand these subtle points. I believe that it would be very, very difficult for a person whose exposure to Daoism comes from book study of a handful of translations, internet discussion to identify those subtle points. To even know where they might be is not easy. I realize that finding things in my words to throw stones at is a sport with you. This is a public place and there is obviously nothing I can do about that. But show some self respect by reading more carefully, thinking more thoughtfully, and putting as much effort into your posts as the person you're attempting to debate does. Otherwise you're just like some over-exuberant guy who's jumps onto the pitch to chase after the soccer ball during a proper match. Which is just selfish and disruptive. Cherry picking copy-and-paste, then a sentence or two fired off at your keyboard... lazy.

Exactly. One of the most traditional and 正 Daoists I know had only this to say about sexual cultivation: "I have transmission in these methods, but I will never teach them. They are far too easily abused; in the past, everybody I knew who gained some degree of proficiency became drunk with power." I discussed the issue once with a Buddhist monk from Tibet and he shared similar ideas, although he did not claim to himself have learned these methods. Ormus: remember, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Even today, in the post-sexual revolution modern world, responsible Daoists and Buddhists are extremely reticent to talk about these methods. Why would we expect Daoists to have written openly about these things in books they penned during the Ming and Qing dynasties? To conclude from any Daoist book to know the entirety of what the author knew, believed, practiced, and taught is both extremely presumptuous as well as naive--one doesn't need to spend much time around Daoists to learn that they are big on keeping secrets!

This is a good maxim. Without this kind of thinking, peace and justice can't exist in human societies. But this kind of thinking also has serious limitations. For example: If a man tells me that he believes 1+1=3, I will say that it is his right to believe that, and leave him alone. Or, If a woman tells me that the best way to plant wheat is to burn the seeds, grind their remains into dust, and scatter these ashes into the wind, I will say that it is her right to believe that, and leave her alone. I think it is right to let these people happily have their beliefs. But I also think that the vast majority of us who are sane and sober will instantly agree on two points: One, it is essentially impossible that the man who believes 1+1=3 will be able to learn algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, and any other higher mathematics. In fact, it would be difficult for him to make inroads into subtraction, multiplication, and division with his beliefs about addition. Two, it is also essentially impossible to envision that the woman who incinerates her seeds and scatters the ground up ashes into the wind will be a successful farmer. A portion of the people on this board were introduced to the basic ideas of Daoism by teachers who view these teachings as basic knowledge that much be apprehended in a certain way--a contextually correct way--if people wish to use this basic knowledge as a foundation for progress in Daoist practice. Another portion of people on this board encountered Daoism much more informally. Are their ideas wrong? From a very broad perspective, no. In fact, from a broad enough perspective, Daoists (and Buddhists) will happily confess that all ideas are wrong. But returning to the importance of having one's basics right if one wants to progress in a certain framework of practice, these people's ideas are likely to be contextually incorrect. Drawing conclusions about Daoist teachings that don't fit the context of Daoist praxis means building obstacles to one's progress that one probably won't even be aware one has. Blind spots cause us so much trouble because we usually don't even know we have them. Concluding that "1+1=3" means never learning algebra. But not learning algebra won't spell death for too many people, and so if the man is sufficiently attached to his notions, he can devote a lifetime to defending them. Perhaps a long, happy, healthy life! Unless she's a subsistence-farming hermit, the woman who burns and crushes her seeds will probably never starve due to her misconceptions, leaving her plenty of years on planet earth to spend talking about her personal views on horticulture, while she is kept full and healthy by the food she buys in the supermarket. By the same token, a person who is a partially-informed autodidact or misinformed dilettante but who decides, "I am a Daoist; this is what Daoism taught," will never starve. He or she might even live a long, happy, healthy life. He or she might moreover even perform certain marvels. Even so, the person would nevertheless be presenting ideas about Daoism that any initiate would see as contextually incorrect, just like any middle-schooler would scoff at the above ideas about addition and farming. To learn about Daoism in a traditional manner means being open to having one's teachers, "Dao friends," and the classics repeatedly say, "you're wrong." To the cultivator, the whole point of having teachers, classical texts, and "Dao friends" is to increase the chances of being told where, how, and why one is wrong. Here we arrive at a very sneaky conundrum: The statement, "he's not wrong, he just has a different perspective," very likely reflects the speaker's open mind. But the statement, "I'm not wrong, I just have a different perspective," might very well reflect something that's quite the opposite of an open mind.

Sorry to say that I can offer no answers to any of your questions. I will say, regarding your last sentence, that this is no surprise--grandiose claims like this are a dime a dozen out here. Doesn't mean they're all false, but...