Stosh

Its hard to understand your overall point in this post. Am I to take it you essentially agree, that going all the way back to Shang dynasty and beyond, there were those who believed in gods, Gods which had names already ? That much later a philosophical branch evolved out from those original beginnings and leaning on the teachings of Lao ? And that alongside this philosophically oriented group , there is another group which is believing of that which is mystical , gods and so forth? which still exists? Because that is in fact what I indicated , right? You see, the confusing part is why you would consider the ,more educated , less numerous, Daojia , to be wrong for two thousand years. That , they couldn't read the Chinese language of their own era. That the DDJ explicitly says , in their language , the name of a Supreme god , and yet they decided that they would consider the texts not to be mystical and religious, but in fact philosophical. You say that , in China , this is a very clear distinction , so this is not, in your view , a subtle departure of opinion. Frankly I don't see how 1) one can reconcile , a sentence like "The humble, open-minded and receptive God incessantly nourishes the livelihood of all forms of life and He does not drop this role. Let’s call Him ‘Xuanpin'[1]." with the idea "There is nothing mystical about DDJ. " You clearly differentiate religious reading from philosophical ." The other branch is 道教 （dao jiao） or Taoism (English) which is a religion akin to Christianity. " 2) How is it they were not able to read their own language ? and why would they not use the name of the god they already had? Is "Xuanpin" a proper name for the god which appears in some other text , maybe in conjunction with some pre Laoist symbol .. something like that ? Maybe a poem ?

"Second, I would like know more about (Tao) Sages. Are there any Sages today and if so how does one access them? " Call your Mom or Dad , and take em out to a nice dinner on a random convenient day.

The Laoists diverged from the original mystical traditions , just as you pointed out Christianity diverged from the Old Judeo tradition of being the exclusively 'chosen people' to being an open option. This made Christianity a handy vehicle for Rome to be inclusive of its many provinces , but unifying everybody on the same page.

I'd vote for the word not-whimsical . The world is causal , things cause other things , the rules remain absolutely inviolable. While one can make a plane , it doesn't defy gravity. Gravity doesn't 'turn off' . Even classical persons wouldve noticed this.

As I see it , differences are just fine , certainly better than homogeneity . I indeed can tell what was in Lao's mind , he wrote about it, I don't have to guess.

I'd rather stick with Yin and Yang meaning , yin and yang rather than layer another dualism on top of it. But hey, that's just me.

Well , you put your finger on the central problematic issue , yin and yang are not man male and woman female. People obviously have both aspects to their personality and behavior. For some reason , many seem to get stuck on that wrong simplification. Where I come from there is a saying, ' The moon has no boobs' which really says it all in a nutshell.

You think I am largely wrong, like everybody else does. I didnt say anything I havent said before in smaller doses and so I know the responses that it gets.

I doubt they knew women made eggs ,( I'm open to being notified otherwise though). From that view, femaleness is not egg producing but the ' formless-undefined' setting in which the manifest ( male generated formed-specific) was nourished. So the universe is formless blackness setting in which the yang-formed specific is nurtured. The creative force is male, in a setting that is female. IMO This obviates god , as do all the rest of the explanatory passages , because a sentient god need not be explained, in terms of rationale. And a non-sentient god , is the same as just saying Universe , without the non functional anthropomorphism. One can translate the texts in multiple ways , Like ,, 'The black recycling tortoise never gets tired ', so one needs to check which translation actually makes sense from a perspective removed from the text. You can't just plow the text back on itself and expect a single translation to stand out as the writing most perfectly rendered and go..' AHA! ' Gods don't exist , they wouldn't have met one either, they wouldn't be more informed than us in regards to that. Spinning a human generated logical explanation of the universes workings , into a mythical god based pile of hocus-pocus Chinese folklore suitable for children , does a genuine disservice to the greatness of the minds who got past the superstitions to make sense of what really was going on as best they could determine . There's nothing to gain from more folklore , the world has plenty of that , in all sorts of flavors. But a fresh look at the universe mans meaning and place in it , is fertile ground. Sorry , that's just how I feel about it and will drop out having said as much.

Most people seem not to be at peace with ad hominem insults . I figure most of y'all would prefer a degree of respect , and in the absence of that , would prefer for moderation to defend ones position in such a circumstance. I haven't looked up ' butthurt' to find what some dictionary writer might have decided to say about the term,( I don't care either.) BUT when I heard that term , it seemed to me like it has some kind of derogatory slant about one's posterior. Perhaps that they are not happy to have been roughly dominated . It certainly would appear to about someones rectum. Otherwise one might say something like 'upset' or 'disgruntled' or foiled or thwarted .. etc. Any way one slices it , it is rude , and in the face of rudeness its very normal not to feel kindly about that. Nor would it be strange to feel like one has been abandoned , when one is told they should just withstand the personal attack to their dignity when there is supposed to be moderation. If the attack is public , then the correction should be public ,1 because the dignity of someone has been impugned , and 2 , when justice is done it needs to be seen to be done if the effect is to go beyond that particular instance. As a matter of people just trying to get along , it would be great if offenses were minimized by the offended , but including or barring that , it would be nice if the person who did the offending self corrected merely out of a desire to have a harmonious forum. If things go too far , just make nice and forget about it. Take a deep breath ,and just STOP.

I agreed to that already , yes I need awareness to hold mental objects , but inference was an allowed method of knowing , and that is not direct apprehension. Its is the interaction of objects in the mind which model an external reality. The external reality is just unknowable as a direct apprehension. Your moods are directly apprehended , you know them , and they are always true. The model you make of the external world may not fit the external reality , and in that sense , it is your inference which would be incorrect. Again , inference was a sanctioned method of knowing, un-sanction it , and its a more difficult proposition to handle.

Yes it is I do indeed need the awareness which allows inference , to infer,,, but inference is not direct-apprehension-style-awareness. Proof , is a requirement I might place on input, but that is simply a means by which I might come to accept an inference. The reality of the hole or chair , its character , its impact on anyone else who wanders into the room , etc , is still independent of my acceptance.

True again , yet it is already a sanctioned method of knowing -potential error included. Errors are akin to not not being aware of the state which does exist, errors are manifestations of awareness, So , that which one considers themselves to be aware of , may or may not be true. It is the awareness which is not provable as true , not the state of the existing reality , which by definition is true.

Again , I have to agree , that what I infer , is a matter of my awareness, but I am not compelled to accept that awareness creates the reality , if the reality is independent of it. I already proved the independence of the character of the state of that which exists outside my awareness. Inference was allowed. You can't back out of it now.

True , but what matter is that?

Testing if things can 'exist' outside of awareness ?, Very simple. (Presuming that inference is an allowed method of knowing , which was already /previously- included in the stuff called called - paramana ..... where one infers, fire from smoke ) , One may just go ahead and logically infer that things persist whether one is actively aware of them or not. Blindfolded , Tim tripped over a chair he was not aware of, If instead , Tim had fallen into a hole , he was not aware of , the condition which persisted, is that of a hole and determined what Tims experience would be. Tim doesn't fall down into a chair. So one infers that the condition is not reliant on awareness to determine its character.

I'll go ahead and make the case for it, as far as anyone can tell animals are rather self centered. What is of interest to them is mainly themselves and if showing ones wares , is what brings in the chicks .. ya give it a go. However in humans , one is supposed to have concern for others beyond pure personal gain , have values which center upon more core issues, like role , and commitment. Since,, In humans these traits are relatively more important because of the long length of childhood dependency , need for social cohesion , and the capacity for empathy.

Why seek for this?

IMO if you bypass your self protective instincts , you will undermine your trust in yourself. .....Wouldn't you ? Doesn't that make sense? Instead , perhaps it would be reasonable to examine the roots of whether the decisions are really important , whether they really are ones that can be predictably relied upon for specific results. I can tell you without any doubt whatsoever , that there is indeed reasonable doubt in just about everything. The future is gray and unformed . In this realm of uncertainty you have freedom. For to have certainty you would be existing enchained. The problem IMO is not your doubts , but your misled desire for certainty , and that thinking that there is a clear right and wrong that one is supposed to fulfill. Over time , Train yourself to accept doubt, and move forward anyway, in the most secure fashion that is in fact reasonable. THEN you will be enacting the truth of you. Along that route you will screw up , and then the task , is to forgive yourself, by virtue of your innocence. But that's just my humble opinion , it's for you to judge , because its your lot and consequences.

Master -- slowly turns around , cracks his knuckles . "You wish to lock horns with teacher?" He smiles in a discomforting manner , too many teeth. " condition One ! , No question from teacher is to be considered rhetorical. Agreed ? " ( This isn't exactly a question in the normal sense. ) "Two ! Student will be honest and brief when being grilled by teacher. Yes?" ( again , its not really a question ) Three ! .... I am waiting for a faster response on one and two... speed it up. Yes?

Its an easy trend to get caught up in. Its not like I am satisfied if I see or photograph just any bird , I want to know what it is and so forth. BUT that's an indulgence I allow , that's the game , otherwise its all just one big formless and uninteresting mish-mosh. The trick- is to not get caught up in believing ones own press.

Not content just to be Emperor, one now needs to believe that they have superhuman virtues, musical powers of discrimination beyond ordinary men. The position allows one this illusion to prosper. So in pursuit of musical acumen , the emperor now has gone farther and farther afield until he has lost sight of basic musical beauty. The music now has to support the ego and status of the YE. And in the esoteric , gradually the mundane has been lost , until anyone must concede privately that he has no soul left at all.

"Being a fan of the mundane , the sage prefers music that doesn't suck." Old Proverb - anonymous

Un-bullied by your own passions , there's a sense of quietude. And I think this is the point they were making. Its not that you cant elevate now and then with some fun , or recognize that things ain't all a bed of roses. But one who can appreciate this middle ground sense of stability , clarity , ease, has it to return to. It is a place from which one can sally forth , or not, but one must unlearn the attitudes and habits which yank you from it. I think the hedonist conversely relies on sustained input or output.

Quite right. According to Classical chinese music , there are the three musical sounds . Ping Bang and Clash And this is why they are known to have said that -the three sounds deafen the ear.