dawei

I'll give you a few comments on my research on Heng: 1. The Yijing and the Classic of Poetry usage of Heng seem to drive most of the translations of Heng as enduring, long, eternal, etc. 2. But these already shift from its most ancient use in divining (shamanism) and cosmology. The Chu script for Heng has two lines (heaven and earth) with a [crescent] moon 夕 or 月 [classic of poetry conveys this] and divination 卜. 3. Heng appears to maybe be an original meaning akin to Ji (極); Think TaiJi and WuJi. Another cosmology angle. Based on how it is used in divination and cosmology, anciently Heng means something akin to: Fullness; Completeness; Oneness; Ultimate; True; Authentic; Essence. If one is looking at a Guodian Bamboo chapter (16,32,37,46,59,64), then I would recommend one of these meanings above. If it is a Mawangdui version which added 13 more chapters with Heng (only 3 words occur more often: Wu, Dao, De), then the meaning has already loosened a little bit. After Heng is replaced by Chang due to the Emperor name taboo, it has essentially lost its original meaning and Chang has lost most of its original meaning too. I think Sarah Allen said it best: “Chang and Heng became irretrievably confused after the reign of Liu Heng”.

I am glad that you are sharing your work with us. I had read it many years ago and the discussions since you came here caused me to re-look at Heng again. Both your diagram and Rene's are very similar so I welcome comments from either as you see fit. But based on my readings over the last several months and comparing as many of the ancient cosmologies as I could, it is very clear that Heng belongs to the prominence you show; Dao is rarely the first cause. I will only share that I would different in your and Rene's diagram as follows: 1. True Dao / Dao is, IMO, the various arrows and lines; this is the self-sufficient, spontaneous, arising which happens from stage to stage. At the first position, should be Heng Yi ( 恒一), Da Yi (大一), Tai Yi (太一) Or True One. This is attested in the majority of the ancient cosmologies; 2. True Wu (Mystery) and True Yu (Manifest) appear to anciently be: HengXian 恒先; as (True Wu) WuXian 物先; as (True Yu) What I like about the unboundaried, "two manifestations of the same reality" is that this is more consistent to the ancient cosmologies. The Guodian Bamboo says the arising comes from Being and Non-being; Not Being from Non-being. And the most ancient and detailed cosmology (HengXian 恒先) clearly states that each produces only itself: Non-being can only produce non-being; being can only produce being. Interesting thread. thanks.

For what it is worth: I have come to the same conclusion in reading some sections. As the word means 'skill', what did it mean to have skill in very ancient times; 300 BC? This is not about a trade or job; it was the sage or true man... which is to say what? The doctor... was original a diviner and shaman. They were spoken of as "skilled"... thus "good" at what they can attain or do.

I would say he actually is more developed on some level as he seems to espouse a non-dual unity in a way that others did not. LZ is simply presenting a very simple description with little to no explanation. ZZ is willing to argue that being cannot come from non-being... wonder if he is actually critical of some ideas which we find in LZ... but he could not name who this originates with. Which may mean that the Mawangdui's addition of Chapter 1 opening lines are really a ZZ idea...

Of the three, only 16 is in the earliest Guodian bamboo slips... and Ji (極) does not exist. So it would seem most of the idea that might be found in later texts were possibly and simply added later. What is the idea of TaiJi at the time of the Guodian leading up to the next text, Mawangdui? What other ancient text mentions TaiJi anywhere? (or in other words, how did the notion of TaiJi arise)

I have compared 7 ancient cosmologies and it seems to me that LZ follows the equally brief outline in the Yijing. The other 5 are more detailed and closer. (Maybe for another thread).

It may be interesting to locate these three to their area and time; LZ in Chu, ZZ in Wei and SZ in Qi... If they were contemporaries or nearly so, should we really expect that they knew or had contact with each other? Would they of cared where an idea originates and with whom that much? I have been reading the Shen Dao and Shen Buhai and it seems to weave into similar themes of the LZ but I have not compared it to the ZZ.

Hi Rene, I wanted to give a more personal response: Ok. I hear you. heartfelt response. Maybe Sree's response is also heartfelt. But I get your point. I know you started this with the right understanding; and rightly so. In fact, you did what very few do: you understood Sree. I am personally making allowance towards an understanding... One needs to really feel the entire person. THat may be true. And I don't have the desire to investigate your point; which in fact I accept as I know you enough to present a valid point of view. I have also battled points of view in various websites like this. But I find in Sree a different 'cause'. I can't explain it but that is only my opinion. And I accept your view. In general, you are right on... and we can have a hug over this... But the bottom line is this: Is a poster really understood as to their point of view? As time goes on... I find this is the important issue.

Do you mean there is a corner store to buy bread... and some place to buy a beer... and what else... they want to buy some internet connection? What EXACTLY are they spending on?

IMO, this is where you stop asking questions and figure out how to bless your alter. Find someone to do it. Or less: Don't do it. End game times. Good luck.

Rene, You probably can clarify many issues to me... as I have chosen to not pay attention to some of the back-and-forth. While I have seen many take opinion at Sree's postings I have not tried to evaluate it all. I have let it go and then jumped back in at times; and maybe I am in the dark. I hear many echoes. To my fault, I have not pay attention to the issues I jump back into. But I like Sree and feel I understand the few messages I see, however on the attack they seem to others. I am detached for now. That Sree keeps talking also tells me that all the TaoBum counter-criticism and abuse does not create too much angst. As is usually: We are more often than not in sync. But I just have not had the energy to see some of the posting issues as I am busy with business travel. So I am glad to get some straight dope from you as I can trust it.

Are you sure about this? Why differentiate it? For one's self-esteem ? Jesus said the tax collectors and prostitutes will enter the kingdom of heaven. For whom was his whip for?

The responsibility factor may be true... but Lao Zi clearly shows it is an entropic cycle... fall from Dao leads to social and human chaos.

Sree: This is my take. Rene wanted to understand your motivation and approach. You expressed your position as resulting in a desire of devotion and an alter; This is, to Rene, an act to 'contain' desire in an alter. For Rene, there is no container; it is wholly free to arise without containment. It is just a matter of Singular/Unity perspective. Just to be fair: I see both sides of this. I think your idea of 'necessary devotion' is very true. How someone defines that may differ. Others may find that devotion as simply their being one with their understanding of Dao. She is not fighting you as much as she is trying to share a holistic perspective she lives; Which is really the same 'ends'. She has founds a more direct and personal path; Directly One with the Great Unity. If I expressed something wrong, I'll have to ask Rene to share.

It sounds to me like you are simply describing your path...

I think you are paying deeper attention to the thread than I am... I understand Sree. So I only come in occasionally to the thread. But you are wont to show the philosophy that 'two arise as one'...

Chapter 19 is about the "Fall from Dao"... It is a purely Confucian ideal which unfolds and is the point of the decay. Milton wrote about this in Paradise Lost.

If I understand the subtle difference going on here... it is like this: 1. Laughter means Dao already exists (to be, as in a cause of the laughter) 2. Laughter means a cause to show Dao exists this passage often makes me think of Zen laughter... where the laughter is Zen itself...

IMO, any path is certainly valid... whether it is ultimately of the symbolism and devotion in the end, is part of the path. If it is, then the path is confirmed. When does one get such confirmation? If it is not... then one is back at reflecting on what one just went through and pursue for what reason... and to recollect just exactly what they are going after or seeking.

I am at the same cross-roads with this; each has a clear mind as to what they want; Devotion vs Symbolism. If we pick sides and define it then we find some reason to argue the other side. But if we accept the attitude of the heart, whether in the end it is temporal or permanent, I think we need to accept that 'way'. I may be (and you may be) more inclined towards one way, but we should not dismiss another's way. Where each way leads is according to their own. I would hope we are here to comment on what we hear and what we may advise but in the end, we would want to encourage honest pursuits of individual paths; even if that is not my path.

Honesty is nice to read. Thanks. Your on a path which only you can clearly know. That path may have temporal or permanent symbolism and alters and doings. That is your path to find out. I truly respect that. Follow your path with all due respect and devotion and hopefully it is not temporal. Tomorrow may bring an unforeseen step.

On some level... symbolism is then not necessary except for the mind and tongue. I honestly think Sree was very close with his comments on the natural tendency towards devotion and that is definitely not symbolism... nor whatever follows. If it is simply a wishful thought for the moment... then try whatever you want to do.

A warm kiss of agreement... on both cheeks... just to give it an European sign of formal agreement

Hi Sree, You have strongly advocated an alter for western daoist. What is your suggestion? As to the Three Pure Ones: Can a westerner come to understand them and respect them in the way you suggest chinese can? Should a westerner choose one or two or three to their liking? I am simply curious as to what you would recommend in the end. Good stuck so far.

Can you share the immortal and deity names? And maybe you could share more about develop third eye.