Informer Posted July 24, 2011 The intent has to be initiated from the mind of an individual for whatever reason. e.g. Let's say that I don't like the line of your questioning. The reason that I am telling you this was intended to offend you. Regardless, you were offended or not, it was the intention that caused me for not being Wu Wei. Closer, mind in and of itself is the reason for violent action? Yet that is also the cause of compassionate action, so it didn't narrow it down. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 24, 2011 It's OK.... I just want to keep the record straight. So it won't be misleading. Hehehe. Yeah, I have been known to make the record crooked at times. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted July 24, 2011 Closer, mind in and of itself is the reason for violent action? Yet that is also the cause of compassionate action, so it didn't narrow it down. I believe that your question was "what caused the violent action?" Is compassionate action a violent action...??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) I believe that your question was "what caused the violent action?" Is compassionate action a violent action...??? The purpose is to narrow down the cause. It is desire and wanting, which can be attributed to the ego/attachements. Edited July 24, 2011 by Informer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted July 24, 2011 Hi, all It's about time someone ask this intelligent question...!!! "Wu Wei" means "doing nothing and accomplish nothing". That is the direction translation from this compound characters 無為. Again, by LaoTze's definition with his stand alone thinking and wisdom, Wu Wei was his patented term, so to speak. LaoTze had written the whole Tao Te Ching based on the concept of Wu Wei. Wu Wei was his philosophy which include all these meanings: 1. Let Nature take its course. 2. Take no abusive action. 3. Do nothing to interrupt or cause harm to Nature. Hence, his idea was always giving us the notion that he was more concern with the negative attributes than the positive. Informer... LaoTze's idea was always giving us the notion that he was more concern with the negative attributes than the positive. If we stay within his definition, it will narrow it down to just the NEGATIVE attributes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted July 24, 2011 I see where you are going and I think there is validity. Wu Wei does not mean to do nothing at all. To me it is saying more that the conditioned mind is not doing the doing because the conditioned mind will always get in the way. The violence comes from attachment or resistance. Dao De Jing advocates that we drop both. It is asking us not to choose because it is our conditioning that creates preferences. We can be active without interfering as long as we prevent our biases, desires, and resistance from changing the natural course of events. So I think the nature of Wu Wei is basically the same as living a life of Buddha mind. Both have dropped that which interferes, the preferences, the attachments, the resistance. To me, allowing both Daoist and Buddhist perspectives to help hone in on truth is more skillful than limiting one's perspective to one or another dogma. That was taken directly from the Chinese character dictionary online. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted July 24, 2011 1. To me, allowing both Daoist and Buddhist perspectives to help hone in on truth is more skillful than limiting one's perspective to one or another dogma. 2. That was taken directly from the Chinese character dictionary online. 1. It is OK only if you knew the difference between the two philosophies at the beginning before combining them together. Of course, this is only my impartial opinion. 2. I know you got it online. Unfortunately, any errors found cannot be corrected and it is very misleading and confusing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted July 24, 2011 1. It is OK only if you knew the difference between the two philosophies at the beginning before combining them together. Of course, this is only my impartial opinion. 2. I know you got it online. Unfortunately, any errors found cannot be corrected and it is very misleading and confusing. Could it be that these are different descriptions of the same experiences? Of course changed over the years a bit fue to the ineffable Murphy's Law. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted July 24, 2011 It is the subjective nature of perspective, your own is not fixed, but able to relate to other's if you so let it, bringing forth the compassion from love with the intuitive nature of the mind. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted July 24, 2011 Could it be that these are different descriptions of the same experiences? Of course changed over the years a bit fue to the ineffable Murphy's Law. It can be done if you are willing to keep track of it like I do. Of course, you cannot do it from the internet because they were contaminated beyond recognition. It is hard to unlearn something that was in one's mind already..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted July 24, 2011 So if someone is saying nasty things to you, can you sit by and let them tell you about thier-self? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted July 24, 2011 So if someone is saying nasty things to you, can you sit by and let them tell you about thier-self? Why not....!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doc benway Posted July 24, 2011 1. It is OK only if you knew the difference between the two philosophies at the beginning before combining them together. Of course, this is only my impartial opinion. 2. I know you got it online. Unfortunately, any errors found cannot be corrected and it is very misleading and confusing. I agree it is more skillful to have some grasp on individual perspectives before combining. On the other hand, I'm not really combining, I'm looking at the same "reality" through the different perspectives and seeing the similarities between the views and how each reflects the same truth. On the other hand, I defy you to show me pure Buddhism, Daoism, or Confucianism in China. They are as combined as one could imagine and have been so for centuries... Thanks for the clarification of Wu. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) I agree it is more skillful to have some grasp on individual perspectives before combining. On the other hand, I'm not really combining, I'm looking at the same "reality" through the different perspectives and seeing the similarities between the views and how each reflects the same truth. On the other hand, 1. I defy you to show me pure Buddhism, Daoism, or Confucianism in China. They are as combined as one could imagine and have been so for centuries... 2. Thanks for the clarification of Wu. 1. If you are talking about people's thinking, yes, they are confused as hell just like the rest of the world. However, in the actual practice of each individual religion, it is NOT true. There is a big distinction between them. 2. You welcome. Edited July 24, 2011 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
