Five Important Themes of the DDJ

[OldDog]

Hmmm. Perhaps the operative word is true.

[rene]

13 hours ago, flowing hands said:

 

 Neidan does not involve loads of rituals etc etc. True neidan involves quiet inward/outward looking, involves the cultivation of energy and of the self.

To me, rituals are adornments of natural simplicity... words and terms and even ideas seem extraneous.

For me, tao is easy and as natural as breathing; just living is ritual enough, lol.

[dawei]

On 1/20/2019 at 1:21 PM, OldDog said:

Hi everyone,

 

Saw this thread awhile back and thought it was pretty much dead ... extict ... bereft of activity. Noticed it active again ... and having interest in the topics, read through the thread. This would appear to be the third revival.  So far, I have heard ...

 

Discussion of self. While I understand there is little use of the term "self" in the received DDJ, I think its fair to say that the self is the target of many of the points in DDJ ... most especially if we are talking about practice. (Lately, my interests have been captured by Daaoist meditative practices and how they take one from thinking about Dao to doing something that informs one's understanding of the world.)

 

Discussion of the feminine. I have to say I have a lot of trouble with this. In a Marbley sort of way I feel like having "feminine" as line of analysis and discussion is sort of unbalance. I feel like we are walking a fine line here. Probably just my own modern western male point of view feeling a bit disenfranchised but I'll get over it as best I can. Buried in the detail of discussion of the feminine context I see a lot thst rings true. But I do have to reject the bold assertion that the Dao is feminine. I have struggled to long to dispell male/female, light/dark, right/wrong images and arrive at an understanding of Dao as undifferentiated potential to want to yeild to the notion of Dao as Feminine. I rather like Dawei's ... I think ... charaterization of Dao as process of potentiation enough to want to stick with that for the time being.

 

So, where does thay leave us. ... or find us ... in this thread. Have we worked these two concepts enough to move on?  Is there enough of an ember of interest for this thread to flame up again?

 

I have to apologize for bumping the topic without commenting much.  I've got a conference presentation that I'm caught up in preparing. 

 

So I appreciate those that kept the topic going as i think it is an important one.

 

I completely agree with the point that 'self' as a word may not show up much in the DDJ but it is the target of of many points.  Thank you for that simple point.

 

Dao as undifferentiated vs female:  Dao is a kind of black box of emptiness, through which it defines how things unfold naturally;  it is not a gender.   Now, it seems, once we start talking about Dao's unfolding, we are talking about life itself, the great unfolding.  The feminine principle as a dominant one over a male principle arises.  One that is able to create (ie: give birth, nurture).

 

I have still not yet gone back through the discussion to review the thread as I want to do... but I found the ongoing discussion to be very interesting! 

[OldDog]

2 hours ago, dawei said:

The feminine principle as a dominant one over a male principle arises.  One that is able to create (ie: give birth, nurture).

 

I don't think it is a question of dominance. In trying to understand what is represented by the female and male principles, I go back to the I Ching discussions on Qian and Kun. (Any I Ching will do but I found Alfred Huang's the most illuminating) 

 

In discussing these principles in terms of Heaven/Earth or yang/yin I found that it was easier to avoid much of the inherent gender bias in the terms male/female and allows the discussion to get closer to the core principles ... by thinking about the principles as the creative and nurturing principles.

 

I think the important thing here is the parity and interdependence of the two principles. It makes no sense to talk about creation if there is no nurturing/fulfillment, and ... no sense to talk about nurturing if no creation/initiation. 

 

In this sense the Dao is that which has the potential to provide for both creation and nurturing in that which it manifests.

 

 

[Stosh]

4 hours ago, dawei said:

 

I have to apologize for bumping the topic without commenting much.  I've got a conference presentation that I'm caught up in preparing. 

 

So I appreciate those that kept the topic going as i think it is an important one.

 

I completely agree with the point that 'self' as a word may not show up much in the DDJ but it is the target of of many points.  Thank you for that simple point.

 

Dao as undifferentiated vs female:  Dao is a kind of black box of emptiness, through which it defines how things unfold naturally;  it is not a gender.   Now, it seems, once we start talking about Dao's unfolding, we are talking about life itself, the great unfolding.  The feminine principle as a dominant one over a male principle arises.  One that is able to create (ie: give birth, nurture).

 

I have still not yet gone back through the discussion to review the thread as I want to do... but I found the ongoing discussion to be very interesting! 

The Yin and Yang principles , IMO , are close to the ideas of undifferentiated and differentiated.

 I agree also, that its not a male vs female dichotomy.

Which one should be considered dominant , I consider to be a false argument

,since the principles are codependent joined as they are, in a complementary pairing,, neither of them should be considered as being greater. 

[dawei]

2 hours ago, OldDog said:

 

I don't think it is a question of dominance. In trying to understand what is represented by the female and male principles, I go back to the I Ching discussions on Qian and Kun. (Any I Ching will do but I found Alfred Huang's the most illuminating) 

 

In discussing these principles in terms of Heaven/Earth or yang/yin I found that it was easier to avoid much of the inherent gender bias in the terms male/female and allows the discussion to get closer to the core principles ... by thinking about the principles as the creative and nurturing principles.

 

I think the important thing here is the parity and interdependence of the two principles. It makes no sense to talk about creation if there is no nurturing/fulfillment, and ... no sense to talk about nurturing if no creation/initiation. 

 

In this sense the Dao is that which has the potential to provide for both creation and nurturing in that which it manifests.

 

I don't disagree as I have elsewhere argued that using gender polarity is not the best one to use... but in the end, whatever we use as the polarity is just sides of a spectrum, IMO.   So it is a singular pole with two ends: A compass points towards magnetic north for a reason. 

[rene]

44 minutes ago, Stosh said:

...

 I agree also, that its not a male vs female dichotomy.

Which one should be considered dominant , I consider to be a false argument

,since the principles are codependent joined as they are, in a complementary pairing,, neither of them should be considered as being greater. 

Agree. And, whichever arises to the fore - the other is always there, unboundaried, in full support.

[rideforever]

Taoism is a path of energetic sensitivity, and it is from that place that the Taoists speak.

It is quite rare in that regard and that is why the Taoists speak with a very different flavour than other traditions.

Each tradition develops a different aspect of the mountain, energy, heart, consciousness or other.
There are many parts of the mountain and many more to be discovered.

Edited January 31, 2019 by rideforever