dawei

I think it depends on the type of sage you're referring to. Would we say that Shamans were sages too ? Or Buddha's who choose to remain within the world to help mankind? The sage follows heaven and earth in viewing without partiality the arising/returning of the dualistic world. That is like universal mind at work. The subset of the local mind understands the manifest life and how people do not understand the universal mind truth. The sage can bridge the local and universal understanding of mind. I've long wanted to research this further and maybe we can. I've mentioned it before and recall it was the Celestial Master's commentary on LZ that talks about it. So it was easier to google and get one link for now: http://bhoffert.faculty.noctrl.edu/TEACHING/REL275/CelestialMasters.html

I will thank you for the indepth comment to this very troublesome chapter... but will quickly share my thoughts without any research at the moment. If LZ is a polemic here... it could be: Heaven does not view all things as objects to manipulate... which would otherwise imply an intention within Heaven to steer a course. That creates a separation of subject and object with Heaven which I think the chapter rejects. Maybe more like; Heaven and Earth pay no heed to the Confucian concept of Ren (Bu Ren) They view the ten thousand as even with the lowest function of the straw dog ; [all things arise and fall in their Way] Heaven, Earth, Sage are without partiality as to arising and returning. It is all a straw dog...

Interesting ! He first defines matter as outside of consciousness and says consciousness is a temporary window of our waking state mind. Laws of physics are laws of mind. Mind is each infinite mind in the field of consciousness. Dreams are mind; Subject knows itself as mind ; the world is matter then disagrees with scientist who says flies, fish, and humans are consciousness. So his argument seems to be that any experience is within consciousness. Prior to thought or perception, is just potential without form (empty abyss) but then takes form which is consciousness. An object is different than the space. That knowing is consciousness. You are consciousness. "Has anyone experienced anything other than their knowing of their experience?" This last statement shows his weak position. Because HE HAS NOT experienced it, it doesn't exist.

or Kill man

I tend to hold the same opinion... In a multi, you think you get a lot but you get a little of each. Just take what you think your body needs. In most cases, it needs nothing that we think it needs so take that into consideration too. As a story: I've taken tonics which made good on what they claimed... this rabbit turned lion but at what point should a rabbit remain on lion's food? I'm back to a rabbit who knows he can eat lion food but chooses not to

Interesting personal post. Thanks for sharing. I don't meditate. I do other things. There is a vast variation in the impact of our practices on our personal relationships. I think this is a profound point. It will ultimately depend on the framework unfolding within you realize you are flowing within. As a general piece of advice: No practice is higher than family/relationships. If you put as much effort in family as you do in meditation, you will find a lot more outcome in family because family is a meditation. If you find a state beyond that, then you will find you don't need to ask or justify or explain it... except others won't understand what you do understand. But you should be able to answer their question of why this has occurred and what it all means. I think what happens is some feel a departure, a separation or release from existence. The fact is, we are still 'here'. We just realize that 'here' doesn't really mean anything substantial except within the framework of our existing 'here'. We live in a world of labels. Beyond labels is yet another world.... but our mind will remind us we are 'here'.

Ok, quickly, a great point. I visited a friend this last weekend, while we were outside we were both eyeing a creature crawling around on the ground... he eyed it for some time and then just stepped on it and killed it. I was eyeing it's ability to exist and then saw its destruction in the same moment. We don't generally compare our family in such a way. And that may be part of the point Maybe our categorizations are not so separate.

Here are my comments: He follows no volition because there is not "I" . "Moreover, people identify each other as 'I,' but how do we know that what we call 'I' may not really be 'I'? He is unaffected by grief, so there is not going along grief's path. "We cannot determine whether we who are speaking now are awake or dreaming." He resides in the present situation. Repose in what has been arranged for you and leave transformation behind, then you will be able to enter the unity of vast heaven. He is responding without reacting. He is doing without actionable intentional.

When I see this kind of line, in bold, it tends to say it is a very old saying. I'd like to see the chinese for this as the follow up lines talk about being 'bound by things'. And wondering if there is some historical thought on this. Prior to their time, what emancipation would be alluded to here ?

This section didn't seem to generate much discussion but has some oddities to me... I deeply respect Mair but am questioning his translation or at least how we interpret the meaning 1. You have already returned to the true, - True what? Just say it... true form, which includes non-form 2. Beyond and within are incompatible. - Confucian to the core... can't see past ethical junzi 3. Fish delight in water, said Confucius, "and man delights in the Way. - Oh please... fish and people walk around with smiles all day long because they delight in water and Way ?

Except what he called 'friends' were anatomy parts and it suggests a metaphor as they became friends. ZZ is the ultimate tease... what is really a 'friend' ? A label ? They became friends over the idea that they agree? I should look at the chinese as I'm just quickly commenting on the quote.

The mosquito vs mother thing seems an attempt to place value arbitrarily in the end, or maybe it is placing value in such a way to diminish another's value. I would of said, reversed, the mosquito is as valued as my mother. They are not competing for value stamping from me (in a sense they might be on a emotional level) but that means value is what we want it to mean... maybe the 'ism' mentioned.

Cutting both ways means dualist thinking, yes? I find the issue is with non-value as if that is dual to value... in dualistic thinking. How to characterize non-value to mean non-dual aspect of value ?

too much dualistic thinking... but consider this: If no goal = goal , then what is the meaning of 'goal' ? Just this or that, as Zhuangzi says. So, they are both meaningless. Forget both. There is Dao... not a goal...

Finding a HSG commentary is hard to come by. I have one by Richard Bertschinger in PDF that is no longer available. When Dan told me of his kindle offer, I hoped others might find it useful. I've enjoyed discussions with him. But Richard Bertschinger's works can be found on Amazon, and his HSG is 'Treasuries of the Tao' (Vol 3). https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss/147-5464527-4120845?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Richard+Bertschinger

PPD created here: http://www.thedaobums.com/forum/509-nature-beeing/ Thread moved as well.

Or using another phrase, living non-dual in real-time. But once there is a subject vs object, it is dual thinking going on. I'm not into meditation... But the caveat is that we should deal with where we are and where we are lead or are most non-dual. For some that will be contemplating on meditative practices and so that is a phase to pass through. I might only say: If you are 'trying', 'forcing', 'wanting', 'seeking', or 'attaining' is within the mind... then your path traveling a terrain it has to eventually overcome, in this life or another. When I turned my thoughts to figure out what was nagging me, internally, I first found Buddhism but knew to keep moving on... found Zen Buddhism and laughed for a while but knew to keep moving on... found the TTC and understood something immediately. While most of my last several decades have been appreciating Taoism, it is still but a finger pointing onward. Books, silences, autopilot, trance... these are all grasping on objects with you as subject. You alone can only resolve where to go, where it leads, and realize subject=object. There is good and bad as long as we use words... The place of no more good and bad doesn't use words. Think of your intuition. When you follow it, you are on a kind of cruise control beyond the sense. It is like a meta-sense. What you experience in work is your experience, perception, and emotional response. What actions you take are yours. They define you within society as a person. You feel sorry based on your vantage point but it might be different from their vantage point. Can you adopt theirs to see them? In your search to understand yourself, I also hear there is room to understand others.

I had the same question.... so thanks for asking

This is definitely one chapter that I tend to view your transmission as making it more clear. For me, Valley is more just a landscape character; Spirit is the message and point. Ames and Hall translates this as 'the life-force of the valley'.

One's path is simple and doesn't require words; just follow or flow. Follow/flow with (ie: listen/accept/integrate) that light/beacon/inner-direction. Words and Talking makes it messy. I am not following anything... it is more like flowing in what is already moving. This is different from awareness where you may see and experience things differently.

Follow where you are lead... not where you are leading... If you feel lead to devote time to meditation on the TTC.. then that is where you are lead... but at some point you'll realize that you don't have to meditate on it as it is in everything around you. That is sometimes something for this lifetime or another. Just follow as natural a way as possible... just my advice

what a cool topic and well received title... I think it was said before... 'listen' I would postulate that as energy is always in a loop (going out - sending/transmitting vs going in - receiving), we need to be open to that return process. Our 'sending' stance is more like: LISTEN TO ME. Our 'receiving' stance should be more like: LISTEN TO YOU. This really just means to receive from you. The 'you' will include the universe, stars, deities, other beings, and other people. Listening is akin to accepting. Not in terms that it must be correct but that it is there. It can be a great lesson.

I've always wondered about this abstaining from grain thing (bi gu 辟谷) . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigu_(grain_avoidance) Can you comment to this? Why or what purpose or historical reason, etc ?

My advise... find a translate that seems to speak something, however small.. and then stick with it for now: https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html Then just read and repeat and mull certain passages... but no need to stop life to meditate on it... ponder as you live. Find applications of the meaning in real life. Carry one with living and find the applications as you arise and fall (wake up and go to sleep)