On the Secret of the Golden Flower and on ancient Chinese philosophy

[Guest allan]

There is no further point in discussing the Secret of the Golden Flower with members who are full.

 

For those who really want to learn a touch more about the Secret of the Golden Flower, Neidan (inner alchemy), Tao and the Book of Changes (Yijing), Daoist celestial immortals and Buddhas, they are welcome to visit my blog. (Do not simply comment since it is not a forum. Also see later for reasons why.)

 

Written over a spate of seven years, the blog contains almost six hundred articles on these various subjects of interests where I share some of my knowledge and experiences with readers.

 

Articles on Tao and on various chapters of the Tao Te Ching have been discussed with and/or had been reviewed by my Quanzhen friend of more than twenty years and with whom I still share experiences.

 

Whether you are a student or fancy yourself an expert, a master or scholar, of these profound subjects; what is written in the blog could highlight some awareness of your own limitations.

 

A point to note is that several articles on Tao, and on the Book of Changes, are written specifically for very deep thinkers which will go above your heads, even if you happened to be an expert or an eminent scholar of ancient Chinese philosophy. Yes, Yijing experts and scholars from both the West and China come to read my blog. Some have become followers of the blog. When you have acquired the requisite knowledge and experience over time, you can reread them again.

 

The blog is named, ‘A touch of Ancients, Buddhas, Immortals and Zhouyi’ because of my own limitations. The link to it for those interested is appended below:

 

http://atouchofancie...i.blogspot.com/

 

Regards,

 

allan

[adept]

There is no further point in discussing the Secret of the Golden Flower with members who are full.

 

Oh dear ! This is just your opinion of course.

There are TWO versions. You work from the Wilhelm and I choose the Cleary.

Edited December 12, 2012 by adept

[deci belle]

Sounds like a pretty full blog, allan!!❤

[Guest allan]

Oh dear ! This is just your opinion of course.

There are TWO versions. You work from the Wilhelm and I choose the Cleary.

 

 

Do not flatter your knowledge. In my opinion, you only count among the misled.

 

While Thomas Cleary remains the most prolific translator of Daoist texts into English, and I have thanked him for the I Ching Mandalas translation, he tends to ‘adulterate’ some of his translations with Buddhist meanings because of his training.

 

Now that is not the right way to directly translate Daoist texts and therefore considered misleading.

 

If you look at the Tao Te Ching sub forum, you can find at least one member, without the necessary accompanying Daoist practice or knowledge, who is ‘adulterating’ translations – but at least more knowledgeable members who know his tendency, wisely ignore his various chapters translations in the TTC forum. Yet he continues to try!

 

Many people forget that the mentor of Richard Wilhelm who helped in his translations was a top eminent Chinese scholar of ancient Chinese philosophy of the time. Do you really think that Cleary is of that caliber?

 

All the five Northern Patriarchs of Quanzhen, where Lu Dongbin ranked third, are celestial immortals. Quanzhen is known to have several disciples who went on to become Daoist celestial immortals. They had practised the backward flow meditation -as described in the Secret of the Golden Flower [W/B translation] - or similar for the Return. But how would I know that?

[Guest allan]

Sounds like a pretty full blog, allan!!❤

 

 

Whether the blog is full or empty would not concern you; since you already know so much about Tao and the Book of Changes, about what Lu Dongbin taught in his Secret of the Golden Flower and his Hundred Character Stele, and about Quanzhen teachings.

 

Your knowledge of those subjects already overspills therefore thanks but no thanks for trying to teach me something you really know nothing much about; since you have not mentioned any real signposts of the Way in any of your posts.

 

Therefore, just refrain from misleading Taobums with your so-called Secret of the Golden Flower experiences.

 

You really do not know what Heaven and Tao can do. Do you?

[Practitioner]

lol. this dude is really "bringing" it to the other members. I enjoy the in your-face manner in which he writes, however, I think it would be wise if he didnt overdo it. Thats how people get banned; I've seen it time and time again. I would definitely like to see what he has to say, and will be checking out the blog.

[Aetherous]

You really do not know what Heaven and Tao can do. Do you?

 

Please elaborate...

[idiot_stimpy]

You really do not know what Heaven and Tao can do. Do you?

 

What can it do?

Edited December 13, 2012 by idiot_stimpy

[joeblast]

Whether the blog is full or empty would not concern you; since you already know so much about Tao and the Book of Changes, about what Lu Dongbin taught in his Secret of the Golden Flower and his Hundred Character Stele, and about Quanzhen teachings.

 

Your knowledge of those subjects already overspills therefore thanks but no thanks for trying to teach me something you really know nothing much about; since you have not mentioned any real signposts of the Way in any of your posts.

 

Therefore, just refrain from misleading Taobums with your so-called Secret of the Golden Flower experiences.

 

You really do not know what Heaven and Tao can do. Do you?

One may still pour water into a mug of coffee, and eventually pouring enough will leave almost all water and no coffee - so long as you dont have a problem losing the coffee, of course. Who among us is so rigid in their belief system so as to truly have a full cup?

 

/pours water over head

 

You took a compliment and talked down to the person that gave it to you - if you had something positive in that I'd see something redeemable about the comment. Heh. Who among us has truly dropped their ego.

 

[adept]

Do not flatter your knowledge. In my opinion, you only count among the misled.

 

I wasn't flattering my knowledge. I just prefer the Cleary version.

Please don't insult people just because they don't agree with everything you say.

This is a discussion forum for Christ's sake. We all don't have the same preferences. It would indeed be a stale world if that was the case.

The way you express your beliefs suggests to me that you are not like the Tao at all. Soft, yielding and pliable and open to all expressions. Instead you come across as rigid, brittle and unmovable. Please see the other person's viewpoint before hastily responding. We're all here to learn from each other.

Peace.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Allan,

 

though I respect your will to keep things "unadulterated," you cannot completely separate Quan Zhen from some of it's Buddhist and Confucian roots in it's use of terms and concepts. Of course, these concepts were likely to have been influenced by Taoism as well; however, one cannot fault a translator for citing Buddhist origins of terms when they are in fact referred to in this text and others of this lineage.

[deci belle]

You really do not know what Heaven and Tao can do. Do you?

 

It seems you may be of two minds here, allan. Or, perhaps it is only the construction of the grammar. But it is obvious what you are getting at.

 

What is not less in ignoramuses and not more in buddhas is our nature. Before we see our nature, we don't know. After we see our nature, it is clear there is nothing to know, other than the knowledge that selfless unified awareness is the nature of creation, therefore all people are just this. Heaven and tao do not do, because heaven and tao is not created. It is natural for one who has witnessed this truth by being the truth of nonoriginated nonbeing to do the same~ therefore, I do not either~ but I shouldn't let you off so easy.

 

Bodhidharma's reply to the emperor who asked who was speaking to him said, "Don't know". If a realized being could say that to an emperor, why shouldn't I be able to say that to you? …after all, saying yes might mislead you into believing that there is something else to realize other that your mind right now. There is no other mind, no other heaven, no other tao. Your own ordinary mind is just this same light.

 

Turning the light around is effortless. You don't need a book to turn the light around. However you do it, just do it. If you can, and are then able to follow the substance of your own awareness by virtue of not using it to create illusions, you will finally see for yourself what has never known creation, perpetually on the brink of action.

 

It does not matter what you adhere to, mon ami… adherence to anything prevents realization of unity.❤

[deci belle]

Actually, I must admit, you sounds exactly like me, allan!!❤

 

But I don't attack booksmarts with booksmarts. Impersonal objective knowledge is adamantine. You aught not stand up for a book, though. The authentic teachings are all like a talisman, once you enter the inconceivable. Before you enter the inconceivable, the classics have more of a shimmering quality. You just work with what works for others after that, that's all. I HOPE YOU STUDY OTHER BOOKS TOO!!

 

Try to grasp this, allan: the classics of all the authentic teachings of the world were left behind by enlightened beings as a way to contact, guide and clarify potential illuminates in order to keep the knowledge alive. Do you believe there is any value for enlightened people to read the classics simply do to the fact that they share the perspective of the documentarians who left clues to assist in not only the realization of the potential hidden in the mind, but to clarify its application in created situations in the aftermath of realization? *Nod head in the affirmative*

 

Just following the light in reverse is a figure of speech. Enlightening beings function by virtue of employing the light in reverse in order to adapt selflessly to situations without entering into conditioned energy. That's why we reverse the light. Following the ordinary course of creation is where we find ourselves in intolerable situations. Enlightening being is not finding intolerable situations intolerable. The situation is the same.

 

The light is not about you. It's just how you go about reversing the ordinary way you relate to your own adherence to conditioned awareness and being stuck in the matrix of created energy.

 

Whether or not you are enlightened, if you can operate in reverse through the viscitudes of ordinary situations, you are not different than a person who is. All the alchemic teaching show people how to do this in order to arrive at this. Sudden enlightenment is just the singular event of the uncreate sucking the uncreate into itself due to one's own uncreate function lessening one's adherence to condition being. Everything resolves in the Unborn. That is the meaning of the words, "entering water without getting wet and going through fire without getting burned".

 

Even if people see an enlightening being getting burned and drowning in situations, it just doesn't stick and no one knows why. Enlightening being is neither here nor there. Both Samsara and Absolute are empty. A complete human has no delusion within delusion. Creation has no existence, that's why birth and death are nonexistent. I suppose anyone could get that out of a book. Why anyone would …I don't know.

 

That's enlightened being in a nutshell. I hope I avoided your question successfully— not because the answer is immaterial to your realization, but because an enlightening being is free to never ever have to decide. And why not~ Heaven has never ever decided either.

[Guest allan]

I wasn't flattering my knowledge. I just prefer the Cleary version.

Please don't insult people just because they don't agree with everything you say.

This is a discussion forum for Christ's sake. We all don't have the same preferences. It would indeed be a stale world if that was the case.

The way you express your beliefs suggests to me that you are not like the Tao at all. Soft, yielding and pliable and open to all expressions.

Peace.

 

There always is a time and occasion for yielding or firmness. That is the Way of Earth.

 

After reading the Cleary version it's quite obvious that the 'method', if it can be called that, has nothing whatsoever to do with breathing tecniques, moving energy around the body, sitting cross legged etc etc.

 

 

Thomas Cleary has produced some wonderful translations of Taoist and Buddhist texts.

He has a fantastic reputation.

The thing is, he's not just a translator/author. He's a practitioner also and has spent decades cultivating.

So, I wouldn't say he has no integrity, nor is he misleading anyone. In fact it is the Wilhelm text that is way off the mark, and Jung's commentary is even more so.

 

Your opinions are colored by your own bias.

 

Have you not seen postings of the students of Wang LiPeng of Quanzhen in the forum that this Chinese neidan master also teaches the Secret of the Golden Flower meditation? Are they telling you a fib?

 

Check out on the Web what the Western literati said about some of Cleary’s translations.

 

How would you know for certain that Wilhelm’s translation is way off the mark? How would you know that Carl Jung’s commentary is further off?

[Guest allan]

Heaven and tao do not do, because heaven and tao is not created. It is natural for one who has witnessed this truth by being the truth of nonoriginated nonbeing to do the same~ therefore, I do not either~ but I shouldn't let you off so easy.

 

Bodhidharma's reply to the emperor who asked who was speaking to him said, "Don't know". If a realized being could say that to an emperor, why shouldn't I be able to say that to you? …after all, saying yes might mislead you into believing that there is something else to realize other that your mind right now. There is no other mind, no other heaven, no other tao. Your own ordinary mind is just this same light.

 

Turning the light around is effortless. You don't need a book to turn the light around. However you do it, just do it. If you can, and are then able to follow the substance of your own awareness by virtue of not using it to create illusions, you will finally see for yourself what has never known creation, perpetually on the brink of action.

 

It does not matter what you adhere to, mon ami… adherence to anything prevents realization of unity.❤

 

Damn. You seemed to know more about Tao than Laozi and what is written in the Tao Te Ching by saying that Heaven is not created. And if it is your truth, fine. At least members would get to know if you are actually lucid or deluded.

 

I suppose it would be impossible to reconcile the differences between the two volumes.

 

Cleary isn't shooting in the dark, allan. He is actually a "voice" for those who would keep the knowledge alive. Jung actually was several thousand years late in the "deep psychology" game and never knew it.

 

Drop your bullshit non-issue soon, hmmmmmm?

 

Actually, I experienced the the opening of the Golden Flower more than a few years before reading the Cleary volume, allan.

 

Seen from the perspective of realization, I don't see any discrepancies in the text of the teaching I read.

 

You must accept the fact that the two translations are from two different documents, the one you prefer was brought out by complete outsiders ignorant of even the rudiments of the Chinese literal contexts in which the teaching is embedded.

 

It is you yourself who have been muddling about for so long clinging to the words of sectarianism.

 

Don't shoot the piano player— shoot yourself and drop the skinbag.

 

 

 

ed note: add second sentence

 

You certainly can talk a lot of bull with recycled stuff, what with the claim on the opening of the Golden Flower experience.

 

To disparage the renowned Carl Jung whom many in the West and some in the East consider a sage, you definitely would not know what Tao and Heaven can do to you. It also depicts your level of Tao cultivation, if any. Therefore stop grasping for straws to try to explain something you will never know until experienced.

 

Meanwhile I am still patiently waiting for you to indicate at least one signpost of the Way to uphold your spurious claims on the Golden Flower experiences.

[Guest allan]

Allan,

 

though I respect your will to keep things "unadulterated," you cannot completely separate Quan Zhen from some of it's Buddhist and Confucian roots in it's use of terms and concepts. Of course, these concepts were likely to have been influenced by Taoism as well; however, one cannot fault a translator for citing Buddhist origins of terms when they are in fact referred to in this text and others of this lineage.

 

Citing Buddhist original terms to further clarify what is taught are perfectly acceptable; but certainly not this misleading claim by Cleary and again I quote a post from the thread on the Secret of the Golden Flower:

 

The Cleary translation states many times throughout the book that this is NOT a meditation practice per se, but a search for the source. A Taoist/Buddhist inward looking self inquiry method especially written for the layperson, and probably for one without regular contact with a teacher.

I'm glad I've re-discovered this book. It's probably going to save me a lot of wasted time on meditation 'methods'.

[Taomeow]

~~~~Moderator's note~~~

 

Here's the Secret of the Golden Way to Avoid Suspensions/Bans (actually, it's no secret, it's posted in this forum's guidelines): Please no ad hominem attacks and no personal insults. It's OK to challenge, question, dispute opinions, ideas, beliefs, etc.. Never OK to attack, belittle, humiliate members. I humbly suggest you contemplate the difference and cultivate comprehension thereof.

 

~~~Taomeow for the mod team

[Guest allan]

One may still pour water into a mug of coffee, and eventually pouring enough will leave almost all water and no coffee - so long as you dont have a problem losing the coffee, of course. Who among us is so rigid in their belief system so as to truly have a full cup?

 

/pours water over head

 

You took a compliment and talked down to the person that gave it to you - if you had something positive in that I'd see something redeemable about the comment. Heh. Who among us has truly dropped their ego.

 

 

In my books, telling someone his blog is pretty full is not a compliment.

[joeblast]

Yet were your disposition a little more amenable, you could have taken it that way, smiled, and moved on. So are we going to get to some of your blogstuff in this thread or is this going to wind up as OT fodder?

[Jeff]

I for one, would be interesting in hearing about some of the signposts. Then the discussion can be about something interesting.

 

[Practitioner]

forget the bickering, and on to the meat of the discussion, yes?

[rain]

you will finally see for yourself what has never known creation, perpetually on the brink of action.

[deci belle]

you will finally see for yourself what has never known creation, perpetually on the brink of action.

 

Nice signpost, rain!!❤

[deci belle]

The Golden Flower teaching, if you can adapt it effectively to your own situations, is no different than Bodhidharma's Chan, the Complete Reality or the Dragon schools attributed to Lao Tzu's students or what I do, for that matter.

 

Is there something wrong with surpassing LaoTzu, allan? If so, I'd like to hear about it. Only a student who can surpass her teacher is the teacher's equal. Either way, it's all the same to me. I've only been opening my Dharma Eye for 20 years now~ not that I've managed to clear all the sleepiness yet…❤

 

Would you like to penetrate the teaching itself and leave your aversions for a certain translator who some other professional translators would like to criticize— as if that bolsters your pet opinion in anyone's eyes. Have any of them have seen their nature, hmmmmm? You haven't.

 

I only talk about seeing your nature, allan. When are you just goona drop the pretense? It's just a procrastination ploy that doubles as a way to whet your sassy-assed fighting spirit— changing your unborn awareness into a spinning karmic roulette wheel.

 

Perfection is easy for those who have no preferences.❤

 

 

 

 

 

ed note: fix penultimate line's "an" to "a"

Edited December 14, 2012 by deci belle

[Guest allan]

The Golden Flower teaching, if you can adapt it effectively to your own situations, is no different than Bodhidharma's Chan, the Complete Reality or the Dragon schools attributed to Lao Tzu's students or what I do, for that matter.

 

Is there something wrong with surpassing LaoTzu, allan? If so, I'd like to hear about it. Only a student who can surpass her teacher is the teacher's equal. Either way, it's all the same to me. I've only been opening my Dharma Eye for 20 years now~ not that I've managed to clear all the sleepiness yet…❤

 

Would you like to penetrate the teaching itself and leave your aversions for a certain translator who some other professional translators would like to criticize— as if that bolsters your pet opinion in anyone's eyes. Have any of them have seen their nature, hmmmmm? You haven't.

 

I only talk about seeing your nature, allan. When are you just goona drop the pretense? It's just a procrastination ploy that doubles as a way to whet your sassy-assed fighting spirit— changing your unborn awareness into a spinning karmic roulette wheel.

 

Perfection is easy for those who have no preferences.❤

 

 

 

 

 

ed note: fix penultimate line's "an" to "a"

 

 

Earnest and serious students of the Book of Changes and/or the three doctrines – Daoist, Confucian, Buddhist – would know that the Junzi (superior persons) stand in awe of sages.

 

Name me a student of Laozi, Confucius, or the Buddha who has had surpassed his sage teacher.

 

If you are considering yourself a sage, pay heed to the Buddha’s warnings in the Shurangama Sutra (Lengyan Ching).

 

Your other comments and future ones would not be answered until you mention a real signpost of the Way.