taoistYawa Posted December 20, 2012 I read the list of questions, but I did not understand the point of asking them. If the journey is to go to the source, how could we attach ourselves to anything less? I find the temperament question to be equally pointless, because morality is subject to perspective. The only thing matters is if your temperament will adjust to the path, or leave the path. All that kindness, and not so kind nonsense is social indoctrination. Taoism gives me hope, so I signed my name on the dotted line. Sincerely, taoist yawa. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) 道德 = Morality of Confucius 道德 = Virtue of Tao(The definition becomes different since the principles of the Tao Te Ching was advocated) "Morality of Confucius" is different from the "Virtue of Tao". The Virtue of Tao is inclusive with the Morality of Confucius. So, when you are speaking of "morality", what did you really mean....??? Edited December 20, 2012 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
taoistYawa Posted December 21, 2012 What is the point of clarifying meanings, when we have yet to grasp understanding? I'm not here to cling to my idea of intelligence or to gravitate towards another's. Both directions are delusions. I'm only here to experience the way. Sincerely, taoist yawa Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) How can someone try to understand something without clarity....??? Delusion is only in the ambiguous eyes of the beholder. Edited December 21, 2012 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted December 21, 2012 I read the list of questions, but I did not understand the point of asking them. If the journey is to go to the source, how could we attach ourselves to anything less? I find the temperament question to be equally pointless, because morality is subject to perspective. The only thing matters is if your temperament will adjust to the path, or leave the path. All that kindness, and not so kind nonsense is social indoctrination. Taoism gives me hope, so I signed my name on the dotted line. Sincerely, taoist yawa. If you are so sure of the direction the source is , and you know how to get to it ,and thats all you want , then your description of other things -being of no importance to you , is undeniable. On the other hand not everyone- is so sure of those things , or is really out for finding 'the source', and so for those folks , your own dismissal of everyone elses means and goals- seems "not so kind" in itself. If one has to experience the way , to grasp it , and to find the way, one must learn something of it, text seems viable as a step. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
taoistYawa Posted December 22, 2012 How can someone try to understand something without clarity....??? Delusion is only in the ambiguous eyes of the beholder. If I was to knock over a cup, one could understand the force (my hand for example) that knocked it over. If I then asked this person did I knock over the cup. He would have enough clarity to say "Yes" However, if I asked this person what accumulation led me to knock over the cup? This person's clarity would dissolve. So yes, I agree that clarity, understanding, and delusion are only in the ambiguous eye of the beholders. Sincerely, taoist yawa Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
taoistYawa Posted December 22, 2012 If you are so sure of the direction the source is , and you know how to get to it ,and thats all you want , then your description of other things -being of no importance to you , is undeniable. On the other hand not everyone- is so sure of those things , or is really out for finding 'the source', and so for those folks , your own dismissal of everyone elses means and goals- seems "not so kind" in itself. If one has to experience the way , to grasp it , and to find the way, one must learn something of it, text seems viable as a step. A fundamental problem with language is that it has to be understood by the person you are talking to. I see how you translated my text, and I apologize for my part in that. hopefully you understand that translations don't necessarily reflect the opinion of the originator of the text. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted December 26, 2012 A fundamental problem with language is that it has to be understood by the person you are talking to. I see how you translated my text, and I apologize for my part in that. hopefully you understand that translations don't necessarily reflect the opinion of the originator of the text. I do, go ahead and clarify further if you wish ( but I think my input will still fit reasonably well, even if your sentiment was gentler than taken ). Theres just a lot of variety under the headings Taoism, source etc. For instance I think life is short confused and of significance only to the experiencer then one goes back to the source anyway. Im in no rush to experience death, but if there is something good to naval gazing, to have even now,- living ...great. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
