dawei

Now that you have life, what is your purpose ?

This seems to be just a local mind approach... study more to understand more... of course we can do that... Is that the Way that LZ suggests? The logic-bots on the site are just spinning their hamster wheel of life... let them run. If your serious to understand what LZ says to pursue... it is... well... first stop... the self. This topic title along suggests that... that is why I suggested this is about simplicity... the uncarved block

I agree a bottom-up is more natural; some may experience a different way and that is their path to find. So, for me, I would say bottom-up is correct. My chakras have opened/activated 1-5; so I am at an expected location. I will tie back to the LDT. This tie back, for me, is via the TaiJi Pole which connects all the chakras.

I've re-read your comments and in general, I can re-direct the pressure; usually over the top of my head and down the spine. I can't explain why I would not take it down the front; I am just following an energetic instinct in the moment. It does arise like a buildup; sometimes not even meditating, as Spotless talks about but I'll reply to that later. Next time it is that intense, I'll try to flow with it.

When this is translated as to the masses, then when one asks "how?"... your translation suggests the Way; it starts with the ruler.

Interesting point... time to have a read Added: MH needs to read this... It is sometimes argued that tzu-jan is a principle or reality higher than Tao. He seemed to suggest this in some discussions...

I would probably say it is a Manual for Simplicity.

Nice work I am not sure if you have seen this link else where: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE GUODIAN LAOZI by Jennifer Lundin Ritchie https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/23748/ubc_2010_spring_lundin_ritchie_jennifer.pdf?sequence=3 The Guodian edition is the oldest known copy of the text, and it is surprisingly different from the received edition. It is ostensibly ‗incomplete‘ and confusingly ‗disordered.‘ Many ‗characteristic‘ themes are absent. The majority of the material is focused on rulership, but it is not discussed in traditional terms or sequence. This thesis ties together archeology, philosophy, history, and cognitive science to support the idea that the Guodian Laozi was meant to be a tool for rulership, and specifically used for instructing the crown prince Qingxiang of Chu, who was preparing to assume the throne near the end of the Warring States. Since the dominant theme of the Guodian Laozi appears to be rulership, I developed a new lens through which to read it, based on the embodied experience of Verticality, which includes the entailments of power and authority. There was another thread about this text and the supposed 'tutor' who was buried with the Guodian books. It seems logical to me that the tutor picked those chapters as used for teaching... not to teach farmers I think translating as 'non-interference' is not useful in some cases... it is a relative idea. I liked how Flowing Hands has stated it in a few other threads: "Remember wu wei is active intent not non action" "the world is ruled by not interfering" But the world is brought back to balance by interfering. This is why Li Erh tells us not to hold onto a set concept of what 'wayism' is and is not. The way that I tread is not the way that someone else may tread and so taking 'noaction' is not the taking of no action that someone else may not take. It is therefore futile for anyone with even a modicum of real understanding to try and define and pin down an exact definition of the suggested 'wu wei'. I think it is important to remember that Li Erh talked about the 'way' as his personal observation of the natural laws that cover both matter and spirit, of the cultivation of wisdom and spiritual perfection and within this, is cultural understandings. But the 'way' is certainly not limited by culture or race and is easily understood by simple observation without concepts that are tied up in culture. Active intention/awareness. When one is aware of the interaction between all life and this is what is happening, then there is no reason to act. When the world is out of balance then wu wei would mean to act with balance to correct the imbalance. Taking 'no action' would not make any sense considering everything else.

Shen Dao first employed the idea as 無事... Laozi seems to borrow this idea.

Ch. 20 is the closest which comes to mind I would be inclined to quote ZZ and find something in LZ... as most probably know LZ more... or switch back and forth... or just don't listen to me.

The claim is almost outrageous... so be it.

I mean that they are not so dissimilar as they are simply using different modes of language to basically say the same thing... I think they express it on different levels though. IMO, in regards to Dao: LZ tends to construct and ZZ to deconstruct. One example would be cosmology: I think ZZ who tries to deconstruct Dao by showing no priority of 'this' or 'that' duality (it is interdependent and thus always requires both so there is no need to talk of either one), in the process he mentions 'that which is beyond'. This is what he seems to call the non-existent of the non-existent.

And I feel like ZZ may tend to support my other thread that Dao is not The One ... */ Exit stage left Yea, the idea of 'dissimilar' or 'at odds with' are not really proper way of showing simple differences in their language. Youru Wang wrote: Zhuangzi evidently favors a kind of paradoxical language, which he calls diaogui in chapter 2. No matter how bizarre it appears, a great sage, according to Zhuangzi, understands such a language. Elsewhere he also indicates that he is good at “absurd speech” (miuyou zhishuo), “extravagant words” (huangtang zhiyan) and so on. A more comprehensive characterization is Zhuangzi’s use of language as “goblet words” (zhiyan), namely, as those that are like a goblet that tips when full and rights itself when empty. They adapt to and follow along with changes in things and people. They are not fixed signifiers or signifieds. Therefore, though they seem outlandish or absurd, deviating from common sense or formal logic, they are in harmony with what is natural (what is spontaneously so), with the flux of all things and circumstances. These characterizations of the peculiar use of language confirm that Zhuangzi does allow for a positive role that language plays.

This article? RenTianZhiDao 人天之道 The Way of Man and Nature

I think we should leave Confucius out of it... ZZ was fond enough to show that he deviated widely from The Great Way. As for LZ and ZZ: LZ = Both/And = Emphasizes duality within the One; Thus one gets: One, Two, Three. Some priority to Yin. A major theme is the source and the ten thousand and the return to the source. Source and Parts. ZZ = Neither/Nor = Deconstructs Dualism and Dao ; Neither 'this' nor 'that' has any priority nor relative importance. Dao cannot be One (or even non-being) as naming it would make it a thing and it becomes really Two (Dao as One is Two). A major theme is the transformation [itself] of things. Process of the whole. Your Wang wrote of ZZ's Dao, that it does not claim it's own existence. Chan famously said of ZZ. that his way is "equalizing all things and all opinions" So it may be time to discuss how they are dissimilar... I'll relate some quotes from ZZ who treats names (including Dao) as simply representing 'things' and not a representation of reality. He tries to express the wholeness without giving it a name but rather describing it and negating it. Heaven [tiān] and earth were born at the same time I was, the ten thousand things are one with me. So [the person of far reaching vision] has no use [for categories], but relegates all to the constant. The constant is the useful; the useful is the passable; the passable is the successful; and with success, all is accomplished. She relies upon this alone, relies upon it and does not know she is doing so. This is called the Way The True [person] of ancient times knew nothing of loving life, knew nothing of hating death. He emerged [from nature] without delight; he went back in without a fuss. He came briskly, he went briskly, and that was all. He didn't forget where he began; he didn't try to find out where he would end. He received something and took pleasure in it; he forgot about it and handed it back again. This is what I call not using the mind to repel the Way, not using man to help out Heaven. This is what I call the True [Person] There is a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. Suddenly there is being and nonbeing. But between this being and nonbeing, I don't really know which is being and which is nonbeing. Primordially, it is the nonbeing of nonbeing, which is nameless There is that which comes before heaven and earth, but is it a thing? That which treats things as things is not a thing. Things that come forth can never precede all other things, because there were already things existing then; and before that, too, there were already things existing – so on without end. I have heard of letting the world be, of leaving it alone; I have never heard of governing the world. You let it be for fear of corrupting the inborn nature of the world; you leave it alone for fear of distracting the Virtue of the world. If the nature of the world is not corrupted, if the Virtue of the world is not distracted, why should there be any governing of the world?

The problem I see is shown in such a writing as Rachel See: The Dao which cannot be named now has two names... this is commonly mentioned here as well. Laozi is not without his Singularity statements: Ch. 39- Ta-Kao From of old the things that have acquired Unity are these: Heaven by Unity has become clear; Earth by Unity has become steady; The Spirit by Unity has become spiritual; The Valley by Unity has become full; All things by Unity have come into existence; Princes and kings by Unity have become rulers of the world. If heaven were not clear, it would be rent. If earth were not steady it would be tumbled down. If the Spirit were not active, it would pass away. If the Valley were not full, it would be dried up. If all things were not existing, they would be extinct. ZZ would simply say: “A road is made by people walking on it; things are so because they are called so" And: So [the person of far reaching vision] has no use [for categories], but relegates all to the constant. The constant is the useful; the useful is the passable; the passable is the successful; and with success, all is accomplished. She relies upon this alone, relies upon it and does not know she is doing so. This is called the Way. Language is a shifting of perspectives and the only thing realized are 'things'... not reality: "No thing is not “that”; no thing is not “this”. If you take the standpoint of “this,” from the standpoint of “that,” “this” still cannot be seen; but from your own standpoint, “this” can be realized."

Now you're making ZZ smile

Yes, I appear to have gotten it backwards which didn't make sense... now sense has returned Yes symmetrical opposites (but you rarely speak of the practical application which has to do with how these opposites are in constant movement toward balance.) I find simple, natural [energy-spirit] sense is easier to use than attempting some kind of [physical-material] dualistic immersion. I consider the latter more like the secondary system.

Another example of reductionism... one less word and you get to the source of what it means. Added: A better word then reductionism is deconstruction [of Dao]. If a thread gets setup I can probably add some links too. In either case, the point is that words step on each other and create immediate contradictions. ZZ was a master of tearing down dualism (call it reductionism or deconstruction).

The OP did "not anticipate this kind of comment from an administrator". I am happy to share the philosophical acumen of Zhuangzi's reductionism of Laozi. For ZZ, Dao is even excrement... and thus, while Dao is even in language, it is actually a bit messier. For ZZ, one should get rid of "this" and "that"; and "It" should get discarded as well. Get rid of these and get closer to the Source [of "it"]. Thus, if LZ says, "F' This", ZZ's reductionism would be simply "F' ". LZ has shown that if we focus on the words then we don't really understand the meaning. That is a principle of the TTC

I was recently saying the exact same thing... but to say "millions of years" may be taking some liberty. But the ascension of man and yet 'moving away from the Dao' is my similar point. Our ascension is from simple to complex.... and our attempts to 'get back' are similarly, in time, simple to complex. Yes... I agree... simple to complex. I often use ripple effect for my points, so I get this. I think this is where we probably differ... If you have every been a teacher/master/instructor of... say 20 students, you will easily see the problem herein. You can have a base instruction but that does not mean that it is truly applicable to all 20 students... in fact, the truest measure is 20 paths for 20 students. But 'schools' wish to force students to integrate to a mold, whether or not it is applicable. There is a moment of ancient rhetoric coming through without regard to the individual. I'll just finish by saying: Who really cares if there are false teachings and teachers... Unless it is our mission to force-feed the masses such an admonish. This is simply a negative approach to development. The positive approach to development is to encourage folks to find their destiny; to find their path and which method it syncs with. What modern day seems to lose site of is that 5,000 years of energy exchange/practice/transmission is available to everyone but it depends on where each person is. If their destiny is not to do neigong, then they should do qigong; if their destiny is not to do qigong then maybe another energy practice like Tai Ji or Yoga, or another such practice; if not this, then maybe planet fitness or the local YMCA... and if not, the local pub is a great way to enjoy life... or just with your family... or alone. So many paths, so little understanding into the application to the masses. Face it: You're called to a level or your not. You'll never get beyond the level of your destiny as your previous lives have already defined what is next.

I am not sure the basis for logic is sanity because we would have to first define the basis of sanity... but I will say I follow the second half of this point (duality illogic) much more. Let's just take a transcendental example... communication or travel to/with spirits. Who decides on logic and sanity?

The ancient cosmograph, 式, was a divination device mentioned by ancient texts... and also mentioned by Laozi in three chapters: 22, 28, 65. As Sarah Allen has noted, "On this device, a round heaven mounted on a square earth rotates around a central pole or point, represented, notionally at least, as the Pole Star"... and further, "what was most significant about the cosmograph as a conceptual model was the importance it gave to the center as a focal point that did not move, but controlled all else." The Pole Star.... was "The Great One"... The Center.

Let the teaching flow from the heart of knowledge/connection like your painting in front of them.... then show them how you mix the paint and flow with the strokes... Give them something new, deeper, and also something present they can connect to. Lead the group but monitor the individual. Each is unique. Pair them on sides as needed to help them develop. Move some forward and some to the back line. Let them demonstrate their learning... this is intimidating for most but finds ways to let them break that barrier to truly express their movements. BTW: I truly love Yuen Biao (little brother)

Is this "mind" for some the heart or intuition or simply a 'knowing' ? I am not sure if his idea of 'mind' is just more like an internal signal.