It's not that big a deal

[deci belle]

So there is that special brand of taoist that considers enlightenment a thing it is not and also claims taoism is not about giving birth to immortal enlightening beings.

 

This is like living off your parents even after they're dead and claiming that all their inconceivable effort that now provides for your "day-care" taoist life-style isn't all that big a deal. Consider the peerless ancients who accomplished complete reality and entry into the tao before actually writing the classics.

 

Who never bothers to wonder how they could have actually arrived at the understanding of complete reality to accomplish the task of leaving the secrets of the knowledge of the Causeless behind for those with the audacity and character to follow their footsteps?!! I assure you that not a single one of those people passed off spiritual enlightenment as "not all that big" a deal.

 

Utterly unconscionable is what this kind of person is, wallowing in one's own conceit of ignorance and doing absolutely nothing to requite an inconceivable debt and all the while throwing around terms like yellow sprouts,cultivation and the like.

 

What a comfortable little spot that rat's nest is.

 

And now I can see how this had no place in Madame Random's Taoist Lineage thread.❤

 

 

 

 

ed note: add that last little line with somebody's new pseudonym

Edited July 15, 2013 by deci belle

[dawei]

I assure you that not a single one of those people passed off spiritual enlightenment as "not all that big" a deal.

 

I sense there was no differentiating it from life itself... Like breathing; it was inherent to their being.

[deci belle]

I sense there was no differentiating it from life itself... Like breathing; it was inherent to their being.

 

 

Then should we not aspire to this nondifferentiation as the definition of our own lives expressed in terms of inherent nature?

 

This would naturally require that we first discover what is inherent in our being no different that life itself.❤

[zerostao]

naturally

[dawei]

Then should we not aspire to this nondifferentiation as the definition of our own lives expressed in terms of inherent nature?

 

This would naturally require that we first discover what is inherent in our being no different that life itself.❤

 

If one feels there is differentiation and wants to get to non-differentiation, then they might say they want to aspire to it, or set some sort of goal to get there. They might even see it as starting a practice or something to get them from A to B.

 

But I am not sure there is something to aspire to when it is simply already there... possibly just dormant. I guess there are methods to wake it up and for some, practice is one path.

 

I think a person's worldview is part of the issue as they often holds lots of layers and filters. So maybe it is that, what is trapped in our mind-body needs to be cleaned up.

 

Not sure if I am on the same wavelength as you state in your OP but it rang like a primordial low pitch gong in my ears.

[dawei]

Consider the peerless ancients who accomplished complete reality and entry into the tao before actually writing the classics.

 

This is another comment which reverberates with me. I have never understood the almost universal belief that Taoism started with Lao Zi's DDJ book. Although I guess I have to accept the reverse criticism I get for being anachronistic and applying the term before the word was used... but I think that is the great conundrum of Dao... if we simply look at it as a horizontal timeline then we'll end up with lots of discrete parts.

[deci belle]

it rang like a primordial low pitch gong

 

When self is refined away to nothing, there it is as it has always been all along within the real body which has no location.

 

Realizing this is the discovery that right now is as close as one can function in harmony with the tao in reality. It has no timeline. Those who enter this and arrive in terms of authentic presence are perpetually refreshed within potential inherent in ordinary situations as a result of there being no differentiation in fact between absolute and temporal. Reality is neither.

 

Tao has never begun. Nonoriginated itself is the meaning of beginningless. It is immediacy already present. Lao Tzu started nothing of the sort. Tao is not a thing invented by people, much less a people. The Flower Ornament Scripture says that Universal Good is the source of civilization, not by a country.

 

It is the source of people's aware nature; not by people nor limited to them. Tao is not culturally bound. It may be the source of Chinese culture, but not the other way around. The Unborn is universal.

 

It has no identity. Enlightening beings know no identity. People who would identify with or as anything do not know tao.

 

Discovery of one's inherent nature is literally older than sin because there have ALWAYS been people born with the knowledge, people who are naturally imbued with discipline and insight, people who's perception of reality is clear. Then there are those who have the natural aspiration and unstoppable will to discover their essential nature. Humanity is indebted to their potential that has kept the knowledge alive in spite of the critics bound to convention.

[dawei]

When self is refined away to nothing, there it is as it has always been all along within the real body which has no location.

 

You had me at your first line... the rest was great inspiration.

[deci belle]

Yay!!❤

[林愛偉]

This is another comment which reverberates with me. I have never understood the almost universal belief that Taoism started with Lao Zi's DDJ book. Although I guess I have to accept the reverse criticism I get for being anachronistic and applying the term before the word was used... but I think that is the great conundrum of Dao... if we simply look at it as a horizontal timeline then we'll end up with lots of discrete parts.

 

 

:-)

 

Daoism didn't start with Lao Zi. The cultivation of the way was practiced long before Lao Zi, and in various countries throughout the world. It just so happens that the Chinese language has a word that describes a path, a way. It not really mysterious at all. A Dao Shi was one who cultivated the way, and taught it. Lots of terms came along later on. Mostly in the past, this manner of living in accords with nature, was called Fang Shi, lifestyle, a style of living.

[penfold]

So there is that special brand of taoist that considers enlightenment a thing it is not and also claims taoism is not about giving birth to immortal enlightening beings.

 

This is like living off your parents even after they're dead and claiming that all their inconceivable effort that now provides for your "day-care" taoist life-style isn't all that big a deal. Consider the peerless ancients who accomplished complete reality and entry into the tao before actually writing the classics.

 

Have you actually read the classics?

 

While the Lao-tzu is silent on the issue of immortality both the Chuang-tzu (esp Ch 6 though also Ch's 3, 4 & 5) and the Lieh-tzu (Ch's 1 & 6) expressly advocate against the notion of immortality; rather they see reconciliation with death as merely part of inevitable change (hua).

 

To take only one of myriad examples: the opening of Ch 3 Chuang-tzu expressly makes the following argument; life is confined, if we use it (life) to pursue the unconfined that is purest danger (tai). Throughout both the Chaung-tzu and the Lieh-tzu people are criticised for their inability to accept the inevitability of death.

 

The cult of immortality seems to enter into 'taoism' during the period of Han Synthesis in about 200AD about half a millennia after the writings of Lao-tzu and Chaung-tzu. It seems to have its roots in Shamanism; which itself is mocked in the Chuang-tzu; Lieh-tzu (see for example the story of the meeting of Lieh-tzu the shaman and Hu-tzu) and is not discussed in the Lao-tzu.

 

As for enlightenment; it is certainly true that the classics talk of 'sages', 'men of old', or 'utmost men'. However it is interesting that these figures are usually murky often absurdly mythical; in the Chuang-tzu they are often given 'silly' names 'Nobody's-there'; 'No-name'. In other passages talking about 'sages' the stories are introduced as 'reckless speech' or 'wild words like the milky way'. In the Lieh-tzu we find similar motifs and, moreover the 'sage' is at a couple of points compared to an automaton - that is explicitly non-human.

 

I think it is entirely plausible to read taoist texts on the basis that sage-hood; while an ideal to aim it; is not, in fact, attainable (moreover there is good contextual evidence for this reading as we know that the use of 'sages' is common to almost all philosophical schools of the warring states - Confucianism, Mohism, Yangism etc... and no-one would accuse these schools of advocating anything as 'spiritual' as 'enlightenment').

 

The notion of 'enlightenment' as you seem to be describing sounds far closer to the later religious taoism (道敎) which developed after 200AD not the philosophical taoism (道家) of the classics written c.600BC-200AD.

[deci belle]

Have you seen your nature?

 

I know what you are talking about more than you do.

 

When you know what I'm talking about, you'll know not only where the classics derive through the work of others who found out for themselves and wrote those words …you will be able to dispense with your notion of history altogether.❤

 

 

 

 

ed note: added the bit after the first sentence

Edited June 6, 2013 by deci belle

[Yellowsky]

Not everyone is intersted in their own truth.

Some are only interested in logic, minds, and stuffing holes in their head.

 

You could feel sorry for them, but why bother?

No point in arguing with a mind. It only understands understanding.

You can't get a being to look for itself sometimes.

It just wants to listen to it's mind chatter away and tell them what it all is about.

[Yellowsky]

THAT DOES NOT COMPUTE!

THE TAO DOES NOT COMPUTE!

LOL

 

LEGO PEOPLE EVERYWHERE!

[Stosh]

How can you be in non-differentiation mode if I am in a rats nest mode and you are not?

Ha

[deci belle]

The point of enlightening being is just this. The point of this thread is just this.

 

The point of pointing out reality and the real effect of actually seeing it for yourself outside of history and puny psychologies is just this.

 

Ignoring ignorance is unconscionable for enlightening being in this instance because this forum is just this. Penfold's message is a convolution of literalism compounded by the sickness of attachment to historical teachings.

 

I do not talk about historical teaching.

 

When I say I know more about what Penfold is talking about than Penfold does— I'm talking about Penfold's psychological posture~ referring to anything outside of that would indeed be illogical, seeing as how this individual has yet to orient himself in a way that would open himself up to the most rudimentary of subtleties.

 

I appreciate your input, Yellowsky, but as this is neither a psychological nor intellectual affair dependent on opinion or belief — it is necessary for me to clarify this literalist's position. If Penfold cannot reply appropriately at this point, it will then be the time to zero out further dialog with this individual.

 

There are those who choose incalcitrance as a strategy for invincibility …it is correct to let these go. But it is necessary to ascertain one's psychological make-up first.

 

So, if you don't mind, right now is not the time time for taking it easy…

 

 

 

ed note: typo "cho(o)se" in penultimate paragraph

Edited June 6, 2013 by deci belle

[Yellowsky]

Well if Lao Tzu said nothing I suppose I could do the same thing.

I can see the wisdom in keeping his mouth shut about it.

 

Still I covered the lust for life, and the fear of death in other threads.

I assume that is the pursut if imortality.

It is dangerous. Fear being the attractive force it is. And largly it is ego.

 

The soul seems to be something quite different from the ego.

My observation and last word,

 

Sorry if I butted into a fight or something here guys,

I'm new here, I'm out.

take care

[deci belle]

I don't blame you, Yellowsky. Why don't you start a thread on soul/ego? That is certainly a worthy topic!

[deci belle]

This is the threadstarter. Adhere to this topic. If anyone wishes to comment, perhaps they ought to interview SereneBlue first so they know what the hell this is about.

 

As for you Penfold, why don't you waste your time with the other literalists and recreational philosophers. This topic is beyond your ken. If you believe that is possible, there is hope for you.

 

It seems in the recent past if a mod didn't like a comment pertaining to the title of their personal thread, it was no big deal to remove the offending thread and post it somewhere else behalf of the offending poster (of course, mods don't have the authority to do that unless it is for themselves or another mod— how convenient). The comment about enlightenment not being a big deal for taoists was made by another mod on SereneBlues "Taoist Lineages" thread.

 

You won't find my comment on that thread because my response to the utterly forgettable mod who was offended by my certainty might as well be this:

 

 

So there is that special brand of taoist that considers enlightenment a thing it is not and also claims taoism is not about giving birth to immortal enlightening beings.

 

This is like living off your parents even after they're dead and claiming that all their inconceivable effort that now provides for your "day-care" taoist life-style isn't all that big a deal. Consider the peerless ancients who accomplished complete reality and entry into the tao before actually writing the classics.

 

Who never bothers to wonder how they could have actually arrived at the understanding of complete reality to accomplish the task of leaving the secrets of the knowledge of the Causeless behind for those with the audacity and character to follow their footsteps?!! I assure you that not a single one of those people passed off spiritual enlightenment as "not all that big" a deal.

 

Utterly unconscionable is what this kind of person is, wallowing in one's own conceit of ignorance and doing absolutely nothing to requite an inconceivable debt and all the while throwing around terms like yellow sprouts,cultivation and the like.

 

What a comfortable little spot that rat's nest is.

 

And now I can see how this had no place in SereneBlue's Taoist Lineage thread.

 

 

 

 

 

ed note: delete "on" in the third paragraph

Edited June 7, 2013 by deci belle

[zerostao]

i am not in the usual habit of entering a thread only after checking with a mod or another member to see what the hell it is about.

i like to use my own ideas and opinions. and experience and start from there. interesting use of the word, hell.

 

deci,

does someone enlightened and can see complete absolute reality hold hostilities towards others that dont see exactly the same thing?

and i am really liking the new avatar, it is so you..

 

i often edit, hehehe

hell, is hell like an abyss that threatens to swallow up the subject that fails to maintain a proper distance from it? this is the context in which hell is used here?

Edited June 7, 2013 by zerostao

[Wayfarer]

Have you actually read the classics?

 

While the Lao-tzu is silent on the issue of immortality both the Chuang-tzu (esp Ch 6 though also Ch's 3, 4 & 5) and the Lieh-tzu (Ch's 1 & 6) expressly advocate against the notion of immortality; rather they see reconciliation with death as merely part of inevitable change (hua).

 

To take only one of myriad examples: the opening of Ch 3 Chuang-tzu expressly makes the following argument; life is confined, if we use it (life) to pursue the unconfined that is purest danger (tai). Throughout both the Chaung-tzu and the Lieh-tzu people are criticised for their inability to accept the inevitability of death.

 

The cult of immortality seems to enter into 'taoism' during the period of Han Synthesis in about 200AD about half a millennia after the writings of Lao-tzu and Chaung-tzu. It seems to have its roots in Shamanism; which itself is mocked in the Chuang-tzu; Lieh-tzu (see for example the story of the meeting of Lieh-tzu the shaman and Hu-tzu) and is not discussed in the Lao-tzu.

 

As for enlightenment; it is certainly true that the classics talk of 'sages', 'men of old', or 'utmost men'. However it is interesting that these figures are usually murky often absurdly mythical; in the Chuang-tzu they are often given 'silly' names 'Nobody's-there'; 'No-name'. In other passages talking about 'sages' the stories are introduced as 'reckless speech' or 'wild words like the milky way'. In the Lieh-tzu we find similar motifs and, moreover the 'sage' is at a couple of points compared to an automaton - that is explicitly non-human.

 

I think it is entirely plausible to read taoist texts on the basis that sage-hood; while an ideal to aim it; is not, in fact, attainable (moreover there is good contextual evidence for this reading as we know that the use of 'sages' is common to almost all philosophical schools of the warring states - Confucianism, Mohism, Yangism etc... and no-one would accuse these schools of advocating anything as 'spiritual' as 'enlightenment').

 

The notion of 'enlightenment' as you seem to be describing sounds far closer to the later religious taoism (道敎) which developed after 200AD not the philosophical taoism (道家) of the classics written c.600BC-200AD.

 

Hi everyone,

 

Both those who are Awake and those are not are the Tao, so to me, a post that appears to lack understanding is of equal importance to one that seems to understand. It is our cogition that gets in the way of our 'knowing' but also can help lead us there - to that which is ever present and cognition also is.

 

Penfold I think you ask fair questions. There is a difference between immortality and avoiding death. In Chuang Tsu for instance people who take up the Way to avoid death misunderstand what it means to be immortal so in essence their striving for it obstructs their view of what is ablaze before them. While it is true in Taoism there is the practice of 'immortality' i.e. to live longer, to improve and maintain our energy etc there is also realising we are immortal which is different. The latter refer to a person who has realised that what they thought of themselves as 'self' is actually inside and outside of the body - a single oneness established everywhere. It is all places at once and all things at once simply because all places and all things are IT. When this is 'seen' or the illusion of 'self' is overcome we realise we are that which never alters.

 

If for instance I cut off my hand we may think something has altered but it and I are still the same IT. Much of Taoism talks of stillness and tranquillity. These are important for the thing we overlook is present as a Settledness - that quality can be noticed everywhere within and without us. When we become aware of the One we instantly realise there is neither enlightenment nor not-enlightenment, there is just the dropping away of an ignorance of what we are. Being ignorant does not alter that. A dog being ignorant that it is a dog does not make it something else.

 

In noticing Original Nature or the quality of that which is Present we also draw closer to a Knowing, a Wisdom that underlies our thinking and is rooted in that timeless, spaceless, empty-fullness. So a sage is one who lives, breathes and speaks through that knowing, that settledness, that tranquillity.

 

Finally, this 'state' of Original Nature, our Being, is the Way, for it is the Original Nature of all, it is the Way of all, for all is the Way. So a sage is not different than a river or a cloud. Nothing being better or worse, the sage is untouched. All being a Sameness the sage responds through that Sameness.

 

So yes, there is enlightenment. To realise that it doesn't exist one must first experience it! I've rattled on - I'll stop now.

[Wu Ming Jen]

However it is interesting that these figures are usually murky often absurdly mythical; in the Chuang-tzu they are often given 'silly' names 'Nobody's-there'; 'No-name'.

End Quote

Mr Wu Writes.....

 

Wu Ming Jen, Human No Name,what a silly name, I forgot all the words. I realized all those words are just clutter in the homeland of nothing whatsoever. Lets talk about complete reality there is no difference in difference. If buddhist talk about enlightenment and taoist talk about immortality and confucius talk about emptiness those who think they are different do not realize that the water in the homeland has just one flavor. Big and small, short and tall with these things we take a fall while walking on the path.

 

Essence, no physical location, calm, tranquility,balance and harmony with all things, beyond all borders, sounds like a nice place to live but when it is not a place at all how do you get there,there is no coming or going, not a here or a there but if you're quiet, very quiet with nothing obstructing the way we can "be", whatever obstructed our view before is there and not there, big and small, short and tall.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Wu Ming Jen

[johndoe2012]

.

Edited August 18, 2013 by chris d

[hydrogen]

In noticing Original Nature or the quality of that which is Present we also draw closer to a Knowing, a Wisdom that underlies our thinking and is rooted in that timeless, spaceless, empty-fullness. So a sage is one who lives, breathes and speaks through that knowing, that settledness, that tranquillity.

 

Is that personal experience, or being told by a "sage" in person, or pure speculation? Thanks.

[Wayfarer]

Is that personal experience, or being told by a "sage" in person, or pure speculation? Thanks.

 

Personal experience. I practise Taoism because it is the most honest reflection of what I have experienced. While it sounds koy, the only teacher I have had is nature. Books haven't taught me a thing worth knowing...but I'm open to learning still, if it doesn't seem that way. It is why I am here as it is clear others have also had similar experiences.