Stosh

Playing devils advocate here, Paradigm one , trial and error , following the paths of those who went before and recognizing the improvements along the way may point one to what they have not yet gotten to. Paradigm two , behaviors contrary to the dictates of the cultivation are also valid , but for other reasons. On the validity of all the various perspectives on Tao,, ummm, the people having the perspectives are entitled to their own opinion. Those who think someone elses ideas are wrong, are likewise entitled to that opinion. Whether person a or b understands what is meant by any given author can be shown to be true if they can remain consistent to the sentiment while making new statements about the subject. Its the same way one proves things in science , the principle or model ,once understood , points at solutions for problems elsewhere. When one doesnt understand the priniciples , they end up nonsensical facing new aspects of the subject.

Sense of self as an individual, is an effect of sensations , causality , and association. There is no 'Who' involved .

Well ,, the source of rain is the sea , the abyss or one can notice springs which also arise from the earth. and on a foggy morning you can see clouds rising from the lakes. So any one might recognize the 'source' is downstream as easily as upstream from anywhere a man might be. Water -liquid -seeks the lowest level , a gradient or vector brings it there. It doesnt jump out of constraints on its own it reflects the circumstance it is in Its true to iself and in an eternal attempt to come back to a balance between its own nature and its situation. That is certainly my personal understanding, And the reason I have come to that understanding , Is that the various sources of poetry , instruction etc make zero sense if the reverse idea is used as a hypothesis , that one is supposed to flow upstream, this contra normal passage would be full of difficulties , it would be aggressive , tiring , doomed. Consider as an example the exalted salmon , then reconcile what it does, with coming to a peaceful easy yin inspired lifestyle. Or coming to find the source of ones original being mediated by a reduction in ones mental gyrations. The obstacle here is the preconception that upstream is the source ! not understanding the cyclic nature of the patterns. And if one derives any meaning from the yin yang concept at all, its one of cyclical perpetuation , and the 'thermodynamic' approach toward the most stable state. Going WITH the GRADIENT is natural flow going against the gradient is struggle. Energy is put into the system , and the gradient restores toward the lower energy state.

They arent leaps (of faith) Im referring to. Just leaps of understanding which require (or sponsor) a different perspective from the ordinary paradigms. But either way , I didnt demand you make any leap about the issue. I just provided a consideration.

Re: harmony, and nature ,is a cat eating a mouse , harmony? If you can see how that would be so , ,,, Youve made a huge mental leap towards seeing the Tao as it is. IMO ( there are other leaps to be made as well)

Then doesnt the happy paddler take the directest route , and the ferry rider make the mistake?

............Hey ! theres a ferry?? Why didnt they just say so!!

If you thought something more accurate , Yes, you were more enlightened.

What trust is needed ? if one doesnt need to trust. All that would be is -following. Ill skip on the magic rocks.

Well, it works, if the water is frozen. But the rocks are a guide , which is supposed to be of assistance to folks wandering around in the swamp, dropping rocks around at random ,, confuses the issues , and leave persons guideless. One can choose to not blaze a trail , one can get rid of the misleading trails , or leave a clear trail. Option one, isnt of any help but it at least isnt obstructive , option two and three, attempt to be , but potentially are obstructive. Suggestions , and rocks are like bholes , everyone has them , theyre all over the place,, so trying to walk around without stumbling on some rocks doesnt happen.

Wherever one puts their foot , Something will be there. That is confidence. Having an expectation , that wherever one puts their foot ,,wont suck ,,, thats faith.

You posted this To an ordinary person, mindlessness is "notices nothing". For a cultivator, mindlessness is "lingers on nothing". I'm not quite sure that "lingers on nothing" fits the meaning of "mindlessness" in Dazuo(打坐) So ,,, It looks like youre disagreeing with your own position, but that probably just means Im not understanding your point , so could you reclarify? that would be helpful because ,, Using the same english word for two non-english-oriented considerations ,, which may not actually be distinctly different situations, doesnt lead to any clarity, its looking like ,,as Brian might say ,, splitting hairs ( which is creating divisions that have no significance) . Im just not seeing what you are indicating is a difference between Quiet and blank and Lingering on nothing except that blank would just be more 'lingering on nothing',,,-ing I guess my precept is that , the mind , in not connecting data points into structured imagery ,words, or emotions, renders a sensation of blankness . (To reword , that its a mentally homogenized state. )

Mindfulness can also be seen as emotionally embracing an even bigger perspective.. for instance, understanding and emotionally embracing that races and nationalities are arbitrary subjective illusions enables one to see individuals as just that.. and even bigger yet , understanding and embracing the idea that bodies are temporary assembleges of molecules which arise from dust and return to dust can foster an appreciation for the uniqueness and of a life while also coming to terms with the ebb and flow of generations wars etc. The petty confusions drop away as one gets a bigger more accurate perspective,, not as just an argumentative angle but in the form of wisdom about the way things really are. If you met some wise ancient who had somehow survived till the present , would you consider him worldly if he was still petty ? or ,,,, at peace, 'if he was still venting about how long it takes for the guy behind the counter to make a lunch? I think not , similarly ,,the bigger perspective you could take about perhaps some argument with a close relative might be that , ;;;in a year it will look stupid ! and meanwhile you deprived yourselves for that time of a closer relationship... time that doesnt return... and that time is no better kept by hanging on to silly illusions , griping to yourself , crying about ones misfortunes , getting embroiled in situations you really dont have any contol over , etc etc. That mindfulness can , and does become perspective, , ( perspective.. being a state removed of illusions) -- If one meditates to shed the illusions their brain is juggling all day long ,, this too removes illusions , and so upholds mindfulness too. Theyre Just different approaches , one dealing with the wider world , and the other dealing with the inner one.

What does the cormorant mean?

I think that does make sound sense GMP , I just take issues with the wording , which are wobbly steppingstones laid before fools like me. Id say a quieted mind is an appropriate term , or an unstructured mental state , or something else,... In fact ,... Id say from personal experience that unstructured mental state is the one which I like best , because it appears that the inherent structuring of language is extremely antipathic to any peaceful states Im in and it would fit with an injunction about spending too much time gabbing. (right speech) Drop the unspoken words and the mind becomes much more ,,, ummm unstructured.

Well , If CD wants to say that the mind lingers on nothingness , the proper word structure would appear to be mindlessness , unless you think you mind is the absence of structured thoughts, and thats not the conventional view of mind but rather the lack of one. He could have meant that the mind does linger on things but when its not , it is an experience of nothing. So I decided to tease a bit.

Wouldnt that be lingers ON nothing? and if a person had ADD they would then be highly cultivated?

I like that SC, though ,,,,I picture the sage is supposed to eschew greatness ,wisdom, ambition ,maturity, etc. and the term 'substantial reality' makes me think the direction pointed is towards materialism.

well any of those ,,essence, core, foundation, Do fit as better antonyms for superficial. Read that way , the subject matter is not reality versus unreality , and makes for a clear opinion of whats meant there. That youd still prefer the word 'real' , knowing its connotations may lead others , me , to feel that the passage means something else,, is your prerogative,though I would think effectual translation would attempt to negate inappropriate connotations if at all possible. Anyway,, in light of your reading it such as you do,, what specifically do you consider 'core' and 'superficial'. Specifically ,, as in'''' some precise words about what is at the core of a human ,or what is superficial for a human , in such a manner as someone could easily recognize immediately whether anything was 'core' or 'superficial , and take the appropriate steps about it. We can deal with subjective ideas about good and bad some other time.

My heart must be lighter than that, because I had momentary surprise at the idea of seriousness as an expression of the 'heart'

Great , that shifts the meaning a bit , now if you would just cover what is artificial , specifically. We'd be there.

I was still circling around the same question TTC 38 "Therefore the man of Dao dwells on what is real and not what is superficial." I only mentioned Zz because he also had something to say about the perspective of what was considered real., but Im finding I may be the only one who thinks so.

Ill take your perspective on the general regional opinion groupings as fundamentally true, I personally dunno ,but , if I was squeezed into making a bid Id say that either has its share of proponents of either. Leaping from there , am I correct to assume that the chapter, as you read it , is concerned with human nature , and has nothing to do with logic and physics of the universe? The possibly accurate assessment , of the basic Chinese pragmatism , could play into the scenario in two ways... one , that Chuang was just as biased towards the practical matters of being happy , and eschewing the metaphysics ,like everyone else.. OR , He,, being a troublemaker,, was instead driving a point ,which was contrary to the popular zeitgeist. Similarly. Lao ,, or Li could also be speaking to issues which were in need of being heard, not neccesarily what was already the unhappy paradigm in which he was immersed. ( I see you chose not to be explicit in this either ,whats up with that? )

I think I get your meaning Mh, but , not expecting the question to be a thread stopper, I was looking for an explicit answer. Depending how you look at the polemic of real vs superficial , they dont really line up. The usual pairings are real versus unreal, OR, superficial versus essential. comparitively .. Looking at Chuangs reverie, about being possibly a butterfly, his status as a man being therefore in question.. The idea of real versus unreal ,easily runs parallel , with material and immaterial. The material being suspect in that case , and the immaterial is possibly the verifiable thing opposite to it. So not knowing how this stuff is being seen , I can't conclude what is meant here , by others. Once that decision was made,, about what the subject is , one could approach the question of , just how is it that one should respond to that which is 'real' and how to consider that which is considered 'unreal',, ignore it? disrespect it? Because clearly ,the subject really isnt fruit. OR if the polemic refers to that which is essential versus that which is superficial,, then the whole reality issue isnt being considered here at all, and reality is being left unquestioned, but rather if people are being true unto thier nature.

So what is the stuff ,here considered, as 'real' versus 'superficial' ?