dawei
-
Content count
12,597 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
87
Everything posted by dawei
-
No tricks up my sleeves... just an honest probe into your ideas about Karma while revealing a hint of my own. While this is a bit of a read, it most aligns with how I view it: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm "It was this important text, which states the belief that all physical circumstances and mental attitudes spring solely from past Karma that Buddha contradicted. If the present life is totally conditioned or wholly controlled by our past actions, then certainly Karma is tantamount to fatalism or determinism or predestination. If this were true, free will would be an absurdity. Life would be purely mechanistic, not much different from a machine. Being created by an Almighty God who controls our destinies and predetermines our future, or being produced by an irresistible Karma that completely determines our fate and controls our lifeās course, independent of any free action on our part, is essentially the same. The only difference lies in the two words God and Karma. One could easily be substituted for the other, because the ultimate operation of both forces would be identical. Such a fatalistic doctrine is not the Buddhist law of Karma. Just as every object is accompanied by a shadow, even so every volitional activity is inevitably accompanied by its due effect. Karma is like potential seed: Vipaka could be likened to the fruit arising from the tree ā the effect or result. Anisamsa and Adinaya are the leaves, flowers and so forth that correspond to external differences such as health, sickness and poverty ā these are inevitable consequences, which happen at the same time. Strictly speaking, both Karma and Vipaka pertain to the mind. Happiness and misery, which are the common lot of humanity, are the inevitable effects of causes. From a Buddhist point of view, they are not rewards and punishments, assigned by a supernatural, omniscient ruling power to a soul that has done good or evil. Theists, who attempt to explain everything in this and temporal life and in the eternal future life, ignoring a past, believe in a āpostmortemā justice, and may regard present happiness and misery as blessings and curses conferred on His creation by an omniscient and omnipotent Divine Ruler who sits in heaven above controlling the destinies of the human race. Buddhism, which emphatically denies such an Almighty, All merciful God-Creator and an arbitrarily created immortal soul, believes in natural law and justice which cannot be suspended by either an Almighty God or an All-compassionate Buddha. According to this natural law, acts bear their own rewards and punishments to the individual doer whether human justice finds out or not."
-
Can there be such a thing as a Nazi Dao?
dawei replied to Mark Saltveit's topic in Daoist Discussion
I did simply say that there are lessons that could be learned from both sides. I am not making any judgments or calling it wonderful. I would agree the legal process is good to understand as well. But what we know is the US has gone from weeks to years and our incarceration rate is incredibly high for our size. Again, no judgement but something is going on which may not be exclusively under the product of the legal system. -
Meaning you don't believe in cause-effect? Dao doesn't suggest this in/is life?
-
Can there be such a thing as a Nazi Dao?
dawei replied to Mark Saltveit's topic in Daoist Discussion
Not sure what you mean by this. Average time on death row. US=178 months; China=A matter of weeks. -
I think someone mentioned that master Ni's book is more like telling a story like master Waysun Liao did with Laozi in Nine Nights with the Taoist Master... maybe daoist masters have mastered how to tell wisdom in parables and stories Anyways, I prefer the parable and story approach as my mind can drift with the story. I don't need such direct talk as it is telling me what to do. I prefer to the art of discovery.
-
I find Derek's translation is rather good although I have found disagreement... and I've had a few exchanges with him to know that he considers etymology and is thoughtful for the reasons for his translation. That being said, his membership and position in that organization may raise motive in his translation.
-
Can there be such a thing as a Nazi Dao?
dawei replied to Mark Saltveit's topic in Daoist Discussion
I am not sure how long I'll last in this exchange if we're going to suggest that the modern virtue of individual liberty is required to have existed in 1000 BC across the globe as the yardstick comparison. Maybe you need to give examples of cultures who successfully employed that. The individualism of that era was the 'essential we' as one author stated. A collective individual was very successful. Re: Conformity: What country has a more stringent 'rule of law' than the US? And what speaks louder about conformity than law. The US is #1 in the world in incarceration yet China is 123 and India is 215 (the two largest populations which the US is but 25%). Why do people fight for their country? Think 'collective we' means 'I survive'. How about prosecution time? -
Can there be such a thing as a Nazi Dao?
dawei replied to Mark Saltveit's topic in Daoist Discussion
I think this point is best understood when one compares its longevity against the other ancient cultures. Of all the ancient civilizations, this has stood the test of time. One can't simply try to compare it to a more modern civilization alone. That may be a hard statement to make if we are looking at only the ancient civilizations in THEIR time. As Aaron may want to point out their rise and fall... it is their ability to always rise again which may come out of a sense of the individual freedom [and responsibility that brings] to exert the survival of a nation. Rule of law was in ancient china but for different reasons. But one distinction must be made about various concepts of Law: China's idea is one of punishment and modern US idea is one based on justice. They have tremendous implications towards freedoms and limitations but I would not simply give one or the other complete victory. There are lessons to be learned from both sides. -
In the past, that was my preferred translate... "not humane". I think it is much better than "inhumane". That seems to be similar to the Xiang'er manuscript commentary thought: "Heaven and Earth are patterned on the Dao. They are humane to all those who are good, in humane to all those who do evil. Thus when they destroy the myriad things, it is the evil whom they hate and whom they view as if they were grass or domestic dogs". -- Bokenkamp in Early Daoist Scriptures
-
If one traces the history of populations, they are roughly like; Plains > Tribes > Villages > State Formations > States > Country. It should not be that big a surprise that large scale movements did not occur until they evolved to be a Country as most of the previous periods are very strong xenophobia; and anyone not of your tribe is a foreigner. So the best we can say is there has always been beliefs in spirits and gods among various tribes and villages early on. And we know that tribes held common beliefs and practiced together, danced together, had shaman's as intercessors to the spirit world, etc. By the time of the Shang period, the kings took over the divination to a large degree and called upon 'the spirits and gods', including the west and east mother (female deities). This is all attested by archeology and oracle bones. There were many more deities than we realize. The reason we don't read so much about it is because there was not formal group called Daoist/Daoism... but if one looks at the State level, it is there. I think there is a very strong argument that LZ came out of Chu and if one studies Chu, it is full of deities and shamanistic beliefs. They were feared by the north and called 'superstitious' due to their beliefs. Archaeology has pictures of the gods and spirits in writings and poems of Chu. I don't disagree concerning how Daoism was partly (maybe mostly) a reaction to Buddhism and it is not coincidental that the movement took hold in the time it did. But let's not forget that ZZ talked of the Xian Ren (immortals). He also mentions the West Mother mentioned in the oracle bones. This is the Queen Mother of the West, Xi Wang Mu.
-
I see. It was not my point but one of neo-Confucism and traditions today of some religious daoism. I would let an advocate of it pursue an explanation. I am simply aware of it and sometimes meditate on a better understanding. I agree to a degree. All the thoughts which arose during the Warring States Period can be distinguished by one another on various points. But more and more scholarship shows that very early on, they were not so antagonistic. The Guodian discovery was a good reminder that people may of been editing LZ to be more anti-Confucian. The bundles contain mixes of Confucian and Daoist thought. Some Guodian chapters show no antagonism yet the received version we have does. So someone has been monkeying with the text. But the strongest indication I find an anti-Confucianism is Chapter 5: 天å°äøä» Many translate the last two as inhumane, not kind, etc. I think the key word is ä» (Ren). It's importance in Confucianism is too much to overlook to me. So I read this as "Not REN"; Thus, Heaven and Earth are Not of that cultural attachment of such things as Ren. As to your summarized message above: LZ lived during the Warring State Period. They were reduced to six states fighting for control. I would be inclined to say there was much more militaristic, legalism in most of the leaders than Confucianism. There is a very interesting book: "Sanctioned Violence in Early China" by Mark Edward Lewis. He does talk about sacrifice, and vengeance as a moral obligation and how the various 'thinker' dealt with this... but I don't think it was only Confucianism which felt that way as each state had their own agenda to become the emperor of the land.
-
This is why I trace Daoism back to Fuxi... He practiced Dao and once we had a well explained text like LZ, then we could see its historical roots and why Daoist look back to him as well. Your reference to movements would seem to include those who moved away from classical [philosophical] Daoism to the more religious variety. So there is some variation and even exclusion in what one might be following vs another, yet both are Daoist, yes? I see it as Yes and No but I don't push the issue. I only gave a link to a well defined movement (or thought) which exists to this day. That Sima Qian said the Daoist is one who takes the 'best of the rest' implies a very interesting observation that the Daoist were not so dogmatic that they couldn't see something good in another thought system, nor would avoid taking that good part. Obviously it implies they purposely did not take other parts. I also made to make sense of its usage by a few scholars and then it seemed to reconcile to my belief that what LZ provides is the first organized explanation which many others had told parts of. So it implies a tradition without any cohesive understanding at the time that they were writing under the same shade of a tree. I see it as exactly what Siam Qian stated: He took the best of the writings meanings about Dao and make it very simple by getting back to the source/base/foundation. Is that the one by Majors and others? I have that one... yes, it is longer than I expected and I've only read small parts. I hope one day to read more of it. As for some of the other texts, they are at least shorter. If there is interest, maybe they can be shared and discussed.
-
Can there be such a thing as a Nazi Dao?
dawei replied to Mark Saltveit's topic in Daoist Discussion
How do you explain in the DDJ where it seems to suggest falling away from Dao; or in ZZ where he says XX attained Dao. This latter one seems to imply they did not have Dao (or a way)? I don't necessary agree with that last point but that is one argument I have heard. -
Hi Jeff, Seeing your this close to an agreement to a meeting, I would have it. A second person would be useful but I don't think it has to be a MA person. They may come at it with some internal resistance. I would tend to see if he can do as I shared with my past experience of my Qigong master: Ask him to vary what he is doing without varying the movement, distance, contact, follow-through, recoil, etc. Purely physical push vs one with Jin. You could also see if you feel his energy at rest (touching his arm). Again, him doing nothing vs sending it. I think different people produce this issue differently. Someone may be able to knock one over but another is simply internally powerless. I don't see any difference if the effect occurs. You might also see if he is willing to direct the energy somewhere in your body. Then you tell him where you felt that force go to. Maybe this strays too far from what the original experience wants but this is how I would do it given someone is willing and I would want to at least test something besides if they simply knock me over.
-
I tried not to drag you into my quote but apologize as it was unavoidable. I respect your work and wish I could learn from you. I want to support what Stig is doing but sometimes a counter-post comes. I questioned the thread as I am also not sure what is proved. My gut feeling, and I don't want to offend anyone... is similar to seeking the elixir of life; in this case, the elixir of Fa Jin. I am not sure what we are trying to prove here.
-
I should thank you as you have shared a wealth of understanding on the topic which I think is important. --- Generally and not response post: My QIgong master does 1 hand push hands. The second hand is free to direct Qi to disable the other opponent. Has anyone tried this?
-
I hear your honesty... and appreciate what your providing to this topic which I question. And I am glad you send the short power footage as it proves my point: 1. In the short footage, he snaps. He does not attempt any follow-through 2. In the long: He pre-disposes the test subject with how his head will snap back; he sets him up emotionally... and then when he wants to effect the long power, he recoils back and then follows through the test subjects body. Sorry... No objective comparison can be made of that. That does not does mean I doubt he has something behind it. He simply has invalidated himself from a comparison between his own short and long. --- I once asked my Qigong master to show me an example of external Qi. I was studying Medical QIgong under him and he often talked of 'martial qi' in a medical qigong use... as he had martial full contact fighting in asia, special ops, and medical Qigong training from Japan and China. He has been practicing medical Qigong for over 50 years. He demonstrated three energies; Jing, Qi, Shen with a 'one-inch push'. Jing: I felt it like a good physical push Qi: I came off my feet as I fell backwards stumbling Shen: The breath was knocked out of me like someone punched me in the solar plexus So someone may want to see someone's ass knocked to the ground but if you can't even breath, that is 'game-over'. All there were delivered with the same exact force, distance, and pressure. No recoil and follow through needed.
-
This is not really directed at Ya Mu but his comments raise my post. So what is it we are trying prove here? Is it that Fa Jin exists or not? Or who has it and who does not? It sounds more like a witch hunt on some level... And I don't mean to make this so negative but what do we really gain in the end of all of this? And I am not suggesting that the motivation is not reasonable on some level from those who want to do this... but I just shake my head reading through these pages on what is it anyone hopes to really find out by taking videos of others. Added: I see Gary's video. That should be disregarded as showing anything useful.
-
I am not talking about hybrid beliefs or turning chocolate into peanut butter. I don't think the actual practice matters as that is just a means to an end. The point to me is they were all wise in their own way and they come together (in this life or the higher realm) as one. But your idea to break down the practices and compare them side by side might be an interesting exercise. I would look forward to reading it.
-
Agreed. Maybe we are not that far apart.I specifically said a "movement" to define what is a Daoist. I can see the argument for LZ work but his was not the first work on Dao. But he certainly provided a very organized thought about Dao in a succinct way. Too many words and stories are being thrown around. Let's stick to the ancient texts. My point was about a movement to define what is a Daoist. I see Sima Qian as wanting to define a Daoist. But I can see that if LZ was defining Dao it could be construed he was defining a Daoist... but I don't see his desire to be a 'movement'. I do see SIma Qian more in this light. If I was to bring in all three issues: Dao - eternal Daoism - started with Fuxi (naturally following Dao; no written words needed to teach) Daoist - start with Fuxi Earliest writings/writers about Dao ideas which influenced later Daoist texts, in order: Yang Chu, Shen Dao, Wen Zi, Guan Zi Tai Yi Sheng Shui, Lushi Chuqiu, Lao Zi, Chu Ci, Lie Zi, Zhuang Zi, Huainanzi. There are many others quoted by the early writers but the works are lost (ie: Yellow Emperor). It seems most plausible that the LZ is a syncretic text. D.C. Lau said LZ was an anthology of teachings of many masters. The Lushi Chunqiu (240 bc) mentions ten great thinkers/philosophers. Seven of the ten show similarities to the LZ. The Lushhi Chunqiu is said to have 2/3 of the topics of the LZ... Yet the work only mentions LZ by name, not the writing. And it has been noted that this work tended to quote books as its reference. Each ancient document above has been studied by someone who found parallels to the LZ. The LZ was not called the DDJ till the Han period called it a "classic". Although at one time it was see as the Dao Text and the De Text. But ancient writer's referred to it as simply the LZ. The Shiji (100 bc) is Sima QIan's work and the organizing of the "school of six". The Hanshu Yiwenzhi (50) talks of Daoist as syncretism; thus, following Sima QIan and what seems evident in the The Lushhi Chunqiu. Prior to Sima Qian, I don't see any definition of a movement of people called the Daoist. Only talk of a book which was in a tradition.
-
"The Three Teachings Are One" Have you heard of The Three Vinegar Tasters? http://www.alivenotdead.com/nstanosheck/San-Jiao-He-Yi-Three-Teachings-Harmonious-As-One-profile-1625407.html Or the Three Deities which embody the Three Teachings? http://cheetongtemple.weebly.com/deities.html
-
I will assume you essentially mean Lao Zi as early Daoism? The problem I have with that is as I stated in one of these threads: He quotes from others before him and references past sages. He looks to the past. Zhuang Zi does both of these as well. The first real movement to organize some thought about what is a Daoist was Huang-Lao period of Han. The great historian, Sima Qian, stated Daoist were a mix of the 'best of the rest'. Each of those other 'schools' are the formation of their own traditions. So I do not necessarily see a rejection of traditions. I will add that Confucius was probably very stuck in the past. And I will add this: IMO, Chinese history shows us there is a tendency to depend on the past for answers for today and tomorrow. While we might say this is nothing more than "learning from your mistakes and successes", IMO, the ancients saw some wisdom in looking to the past.
-
The Dao as a deistic, rather than pantheistic concept?
dawei replied to Phi92's topic in Daoist Discussion
The first half sounds like Deism and the second half like Theism... We're sure getting a lot of 'ism's thrown at Dao A few life examples and metaphors which I am sure someone will find lots of holes with but I think it's time we use get out of the abstract. 1. Our bodies put off heat and energy. Get enough people in a room and you have a natural heating system. Was our body actively participating to heat the room? I would say 'yes' as this is a physical aspect. But if we look at the theoretical aspect: Is the principle behind what makes our body generate heat participating? Or Is the principle explain cause/effect or suggesting various potential outcomes? 2. A car design is made up of 10,000 parts which arose out of manufacturing and flourish together. Each part is but a small object; yet once they make up the whole of the car something more arises called suspension, handling, power train, combustion, exhaust, transportation, etc.... you end up with another 100,000 principles now at work. Yet the car design itself has not changed. Is the overall design principle actively participating? Or is it like a guide? Whether we are aware of the principle or not, it is both there and it is not there. --- I will add this: I take Dao as a Whole-Part (singularity-multiplicity), but I think it is part of some larger Oneness aspect. If we only look at the physical realm alone, then I am more willing to see it as the Source Generative Principle of the 10,000. (sorry, I think I just got back to abstraction). -
I think that is inevitable... Maybe it is intrinsic to the singularity of Dao that the manifestation arise in multiplicity. We see it in many religions and even Buddhism. So I think the future may have many XXXX Daoist labels. I am coming to at least two conclusions: 1. What is a Daoist? Let each person decide 2. What is Daoism? Let each person decide I think the simplest idea is that no labels are necessary... but that is ironic as a Daoist has already accepted the label. So, best to let everyone label themselves. This would include not using labels.
-
The Dao as a deistic, rather than pantheistic concept?
dawei replied to Phi92's topic in Daoist Discussion
I think a few definitions should get shown. I am sure there is a lot more which could be said about each: deism: the belief that there is a god who created the universe, but who, after that, did no more. God is quite other than the cosmos and entirely transcends it. Having created it as a closed system, he remains aloof from its operations and lets it go its own way pantheism: the belief that everything is God, or, to put it in another way, that the universe is God. Unlike deism, pantheism is not theistic. It doesnāt include any supernatural entities; it just looks at the universe in a different way. panpsychism: The view that all matter has consciousness. the doctrine that each object in the universe has either a mind or an unconscious soul. One can replace soul with subjectivity, mentality, psyche or spirit. --- IMO... these all developed out of the western world view of life and it is unclear if they can completely explain Dao. deism is the furthest away... but when the Jesuits send back their explanations and translations to Europe, Tao was translated as God... and so basically deism. pantheism is the closest but still does not qualify. There is some criticism that pantheism is dressed up atheism. panpsychism - I knew nothing of this so it took a little reading. Based on my definitions above, I was left with wanting to look more as there is some connection. I read the below link, and you can search for the quote: http://www.nla.gov.au/openpublish/index.php/jasal/article/viewFile/1458/2205 "while the Way, the Tao, is the mechanism of ecological balance within the system, panpsychism suggests that if an organism reaches a level of consciousness so that it can free itself from the ecological order or the Way, such an organism may consciously enter a dialogical interaction with the One." Now that is an explanation one rarely hears in Taoist discussions... That seems to me to closely describe daoist alchemy and immortality, Xian Dao (ä»é).
