Stigweard

*passes napkin*

LOL Dawei ... are you suggesting we try and be organized??? Good luck with that

Yup

Immortal4life an important question for your consideration. If you think that there is no such thing as evolution then why are you trying so hard to force other people to evolve their thinking?? Just a thought.

LOL you misread what I posted Dao is "eternal" but descriptions of Dao are not. My opening two lines says that quite clearly.

LOL on the contrary Aaron, in my poorly educated opinion it is important. Now I don't mind you expressing your opinion at all, and I love having people challenge my views so that I don't get overly fixated in my perception of things. But I really would like to know the true motivations as to why you chose to wade in on this topic with your opposition. I would like to know why you have chosen to try and elevate your own opinions by claiming your view is supported by Laozi but when challenged to verify it you backflip away with more pseudo philosophical rubbish. I would like to know why you made such an ardent case that what I was suggesting in the OP "wasn't part of Tao", only for you to admit in another thread that you thought it was ludicrous to try to determine what is and isn't Tao. I would like to know why you assert that Laozi is saying there are two Daos but when once again challenged to verify this you have been incapable of doing so. Now I understand why you have chosen to think that there are two Daos as Laozi references that there is a named and nameless aspect of reality. But they are not separate Daos in any way, shape or form. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the subtle view which is the "gate of all wonders" is the perception that embraces the unified intercourse of the unknown and the known. But I will offer this to you as a point that perhaps we can agree on. As I have outlined in the OP and also in another similar thread, The Dao within The Dao, I believe that Laozi, Zhuangzi, et al. certainly were advocating that within Da Dao, great Dao, there is the way (or Dao if you wish) of the Shengren or sage. Now, with many thanks to Ya Mu, I have come to realize that the modus operandi, or Dao within the Dao, that I suggested in the OP is not the "high virtue" that Laozi is promoting. This high virtue is in fact the non-conceptual dance of Wu Wei, to act through natural spontaneity of ones integral nature. That spontaneity may see the sage nourishing an organized garden, or it may see the sage picking wild fruits; it may see him impacting on another persons path, or it may see him observing with quiet dispassion. So to provide us an opportunity for at least one area of reconciliation here Aaron, I would like to submit that both my analogy of the gardening sage who nourishes life and your analogy of the wilderness sage who thinks gardening is folly both fall short of the sage who simply dances with Wu Wei. And on that note I will repeat one of your comments that I do agree with: "The true sage endeavors to allow what is natural to happen, to act without acting, to do without doing."

Nice dawei, I'm picking up what you are laying down.

"Respect those threads" Hahahah!! Just like you have respected my topics by pretty much inventing conceptual hogwash, which you have subsequently admitted you don't really believe to be true, just so that have you something with which to launch a disagreement. Here's a selection of your comments Aaron: This is followed recently by: Aaron you are either confused, hypocritical, or deliberately obstructive. Which is it?

There is always inherent danger in assuming that we know exactly what Laozi is saying. I believe Steve said it beautifully that conclusions are dead, only questions are alive

Graci *** deep bow ***

You are welcome to compare your translation of Ch1 with mine: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/16267-stigweards-daodejing-%26%2336947%3B%26%2324503%3B%26%2332147%3B/page__view__findpost__p__222458

Thank you Steve

LOL undoubtedly because we all render our own translation and associated implications of the original text based on our conceptual world view. For instance there would be a few points in your translation that I would query. Not that my understanding has any more value than a piece of horse dung mind you.

Excuse me for reinforcing a point, but I felt the inclusion of this quote was appropriate and relevant to the exchange of views that have occurred in previous posts: ------------------------ Also I found an old topic of mine that is synonymous with the OP: The Dao within The Dao - The Tao Bums

Aaron, Well I am glad that you are now realizing how ludicrous and baseless your previous arguments were and why I have been so ardent in my challenging of them.

Actually Aaron I think your OP is both well written and shows a great degree of vision. I wonder though, how does this compare to your emphatic assertions in The Dao within The Dao that you can conceptually designate "what is Tao" and "what isn't Tao"? Shouldn't we be looking for the common thread that ties all things together instead of creating opposites of "this is Tao" and "this isn't Tao", wild foraging is "good" and gardening is "folly"? Shouldn't we be looking for your "pristine greyness" of no attachment to one opposite or the other? Isn't that what you are promoting here Aaron?

Yes we have discussed this already and, just as I did before, I challenge you to provide specific chapters and lines that supports your proposition that Laozi is advocating the existence of "two Daos". You have already admitted in past threads Aaron that your Tao is not the Taoist Tao; it is your personal subjective rendition that has been heavily influenced by your Vedantic ideology. You have also demonstrated in Dao within the Dao that you believe you can conceptually divide the world into "this is Tao" and "this is not Tao"; a proposition that I find lacking in clear vision. Truth be told I like you Aaron, for the most I like your cadence and your style of writing, and undoubtedly you have an abundance of beneficial wisdom and insights. But if you intend to pimp your version of Laozi and Daoist ontology without providing any more support than "this is what I assume", then please prepare yourself for your views to be appropriately challenged. As to your footnote, yes 道 dào has been used in contemporary use for a process or method. Thus a craft could be called a "dào", or yes "the way to cook a chicken" could be a "dào". So where will you take this??

I hear you Steve and agree in principle with your sentiments. However, in terms of how it directs awareness, there is a world apart between Dao which is alive in each moment and a reified, transcendent spirit that is conceptually abstracted from each ordinary moment in life.

And you have already seen them The "state" of Wei Wu Wei is when the shackles of conceptual fixations of self have been dissolved to allow true sponteity to "flow". So let's forget the overlaying of other ideologies. These are just more conceptual decorations to that which, to be truly Wei Wu Wei, necessitates none of these.

Hiya Matt, I am no expert of Vedanta in any way shape or form, neither am I any expert of Dao. But perhaps if you share your thoughts of what Brahman is and what Dao is then we might find an interesting discussion arise.

LOL thanks for the ego stroke, but you probably had better not use my comments as any sort of definitive measure of Daoism. I doubt my understanding would rate any more than a pea-brained maggot It is truly nice though to see some balance in your comments.