It's not that big a deal

[penfold]

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.

 

Possibly; I am always willing to consider the possibility that I am wrong. My question is, are you?

 

Tell you one lesson I have learnt from the reading the classics; those who profess certainty tend to end up looking silly...

[penfold]

 

 

he 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.

...

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.

 

I think this is a valuable insight - and seems to be very much in line with much of what I find in the Lao-tzu.

 

Where we part ways a bit is I don't agree that the Chuang-tzu has a notion of 'the One'; in fact I think in places it expressly speaks against such an idea:

 

"Now that we are one can I still say something? Already having called us one, did I not succeed in saying something? One and the saying makes two, two and one make three. Proceeding from here even an expert calculator cannot get to the end of it, much less a plain man! Therefore if we take the step from nothing to something we arrive at three, how much worse if we take the step from something to something! Take no step at all, and the 'That's it' which goes by circumstances [yin shih] will come to an end - Ch 2 trans. Graham.

 

It seems to me that the Chuang-tzu is more radical than the Lao-tzu it is not that there is the One but more so there is Nothing. So death and life are nothing, in naming them we bring them forth; it is this realization which frees us from death, but it does not make us 'immortal' (a claim is one Chuang-tzu explicitly rejects in Ch 4). A view, which if I understand your post, you seem to share.

 

As for the use of the concept 'enlightenment'; my only concern (and it arguably is a trivial one), is that it is really a Buddhist concept (none the worse for that!) but in labeling the classics with such terminology we will, to some extent twist them just as glass bends the light. Better, if we can, to read the texts without trying to classify...

 

Anyhow thank you for your thoughtful post

[Wayfarer]

I think this is a valuable insight - and seems to be very much in line with much of what I find in the Lao-tzu.

 

Where we part ways a bit is I don't agree that the Chuang-tzu has a notion of 'the One'; in fact I think in places it expressly speaks against such an idea:

 

"Now that we are one can I still say something? Already having called us one, did I not succeed in saying something? One and the saying makes two, two and one make three. Proceeding from here even an expert calculator cannot get to the end of it, much less a plain man! Therefore if we take the step from nothing to something we arrive at three, how much worse if we take the step from something to something! Take no step at all, and the 'That's it' which goes by circumstances [yin shih] will come to an end - Ch 2 trans. Graham.

 

It seems to me that the Chuang-tzu is more radical than the Lao-tzu it is not that there is the One but more so there is Nothing. So death and life are nothing, in naming them we bring them forth; it is this realization which frees us from death, but it does not make us 'immortal' (a claim is one Chuang-tzu explicitly rejects in Ch 4). A view, which if I understand your post, you seem to share.

 

As for the use of the concept 'enlightenment'; my only concern (and it arguably is a trivial one), is that it is really a Buddhist concept (none the worse for that!) but in labeling the classics with such terminology we will, to some extent twist them just as glass bends the light. Better, if we can, to read the texts without trying to classify...

 

Anyhow thank you for your thoughtful post

 

Hi I'm trying to respond via a Blackberry and can only read parts of your post while I type. A good post btw. I think we agree and I agree with Chuang Tsu...by describing it, we separate ourselves from it, at least cognitively. You and I are the same Tao, talking of itself...a distinction can only be considered if thoughts of One or not-one arises. When there is no delusion there is no thought of it.

 

The emptiness of Buddhism, the Nothingness of Taoism...non-duality, One-God are different descriptions of the same thing. It becomes a thing when we think that there is a 'me' and 'other-than-me' however it is the fact these are one that the world is both full and empty.

 

Imagine a body of water and nothing exists within or beyond it...would the water be full or empty? It would be both and neither would it not but who could say lol? Everything that is you and not you is the water.

 

Heath

[ion]

Isn't this why its no big deal?

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

 

Why is it a big deal?

[ion]

Nothing deserves praise, not enlightenment, not tao. If tao is praised then its a God. All things being integral and equal why should one thing be exalted above another? Thats an immediate imbalance. The nature of tao is to harmonize and bring to equalibrium.

Edited June 14, 2013 by ion

[Wayfarer]

Nothing deserves praise, not enlightenment, not tao. If tao is praised then its a God. All things being integral and equal why should one thing be exalted above another? Thats an immediate imbalance. The nature of tao is to harmonize and bring to equalibrium.

 

Although it could be argued there not even being one never mind 'things' so what is it that is brought into equalibrium? Good points all the same.

[hydrogen]

Isn't this why its no big deal?

 

Why is it a big deal?

 

Because knowing the path is different than walking the path.

[ion]

Although it could be argued there not even being one never mind 'things' so what is it that is brought into equalibrium? Good points all the same.

If there is at the most 1, but more realiticly not even 1, then whos doing the arguing with who and whats the point??? I suppose you could argue that the point of arguing is to establish equalibrium, but when egos are involved which they are in every case, then the point of establishing equilibrium by arguing is usually that the arguers like to think the foundation of balance is their point of view.

 

I should correct my last post and clarify. I said that"The nature of tao is to harmonize and bring to equalibrium" but that is riddled with falseness and wrongness interwoven into the language now that you bring it my attention.

 

The nature of tao is not to bring things to equalibrium or do anything at all; the nature of tao is stillness and rest, therefore all things are harmonized and brought to equilibrium by the everpresent stillness of tao without anything doing anything...more like nothing doing nothing.

[ion]

Because knowing the path is different than walking the path.

 

 

I think that not walking the path is a "bigger deal" then walking the path. I believe the natural tendency of a person is to walk the path, and when we did, things were balanced and in a state of perfection. It is that we strayed from the path that is a big deal and has caused all the imbalance that needs to be brought to equilibrium.

 

From reading the OP Id say that knowing the path is a bigger deal then walking it or being ignorant of it, at least in the mind of the knower. People that know the path tend to make an intellectual mystery out of its simplicity with the purpose of making a big deal out of themselves which results in a tangled mess of not really knowing anything except the details of a mental construct they've fixated on which also places them far from the path wrapped up in the confusing delusions of their own psychosis.

 

Id say the best example we have of what it means to walk the path is to look at an average member of an indigenous group of the people of the Amazon basin.

 

Is that a big deal? The tao is simple and unpretentious. It has no image to live up to, no role to fullfill, no pedistal to place itself on. We're born with it.

 

To make a big deal out of it is to say that the chaos and disorder of current state of things is normal, and that normality and what is natural is out of the ordinary.

[ion]

Because knowing the path is different than walking the path.

 

 

I think that not walking the path is a "bigger deal" then walking the path. I believe the natural tendency of a person is to walk the path, and when we did, things were balanced and in a state of perfection. It is that we strayed from the path that is a big deal and has caused all the imbalance that needs to be brought to equilibrium.

 

From reading the OP Id say that knowing the path is a bigger deal then walking it or being ignorant of it, at least in the mind of the knower. People that know the path tend to make an intellectual mystery out of its simplicity with the purpose of making a big deal out of themselves which results in a tangled mess of not really knowing anything except the details of a mental construct they've fixated on which also places them far from the path wrapped up in the confusing delusions of their own psychosis.

 

Id say the best example we have of what it means to walk the path is to look at an average member of an indigenous group of the people of the Amazon basin.

 

Is that a big deal? The tao is simple and unpretentious. It has no image to live up to, no role to fullfill, no pedistal to place itself on. We're born with it.

 

To make a big deal out of it is to say that the chaos and disorder of current state of things is normal, and that normality and what is natural is out of the ordinary.

[Wayfarer]

If there is at the most 1, but more realiticly not even 1, then whos doing the arguing with who and whats the point??? I suppose you could argue that the point of arguing is to establish equalibrium, but when egos are involved which they are in every case, then the point of establishing equilibrium by arguing is usually that the arguers like to think the foundation of balance is their point of view.

 

I should correct my last post and clarify. I said that"The nature of tao is to harmonize and bring to equalibrium" but that is riddled with falseness and wrongness interwoven into the language now that you bring it my attention.

 

The nature of tao is not to bring things to equalibrium or do anything at all; the nature of tao is stillness and rest, therefore all things are harmonized and brought to equilibrium by the everpresent stillness of tao without anything doing anything...more like nothing doing nothing.

 

Fantastic post. Spot on.

[hydrogen]

I think that not walking the path is a "bigger deal" then walking the path. I believe the natural tendency of a person is to walk the path, and when we did, things were balanced and in a state of perfection. It is that we strayed from the path that is a big deal and has caused all the imbalance that needs to be brought to equilibrium.

 

From reading the OP Id say that knowing the path is a bigger deal then walking it or being ignorant of it, at least in the mind of the knower. People that know the path tend to make an intellectual mystery out of its simplicity with the purpose of making a big deal out of themselves which results in a tangled mess of not really knowing anything except the details of a mental construct they've fixated on which also places them far from the path wrapped up in the confusing delusions of their own psychosis

 

Everyone needs to look into mirror more often.

 

Deci Belle wrote an excellent posting to state her real life. I've learned a few things.

[penfold]

If there is at the most 1, but more realiticly not even 1 ...

 

[...]

 

...I said that"The nature of tao is to harmonize and bring to equalibrium" but that is riddled with falseness and wrongness....

 

[...]

 

...more like nothing doing nothing.

 

This reminded me of the Ch'ung Hsüan ('double mystery') school of Taoism; the idea that not only should we reject the distinction between 'something' and 'nothing' (有 & 無) but we should also reject the distinction between 'not-something' and 'not-nothing' (無有 & 無無).

 

On this understanding the Tao is neither reality nor illusion, not moving nor still; neither having a nature nor not having a nature. All these assertions are equally absurd!

Edited June 19, 2013 by penfold

[ion]

I suppose we shouldn't make distinctions about absurd and not absurd, and not absurd or not-not absurd.

 

It would have best and not best to just say that all those assertions are indistinguishably equal.

 

This reminded me of the Ch'ung Hsüan ('double mystery') school of Taoism; the idea that not only should we reject the distinction between 'something' and 'nothing' (有 & 無) but we should also reject the distinction between 'not-something' and 'not-nothing' (無有 & 無無).

 

On this understanding the Tao is neither reality nor illusion, not moving nor still; neither having a nature nor not having a nature. All these assertions are equally absurd!

Edited June 20, 2013 by ion

[deci belle]

It is pointless to speculate on the inconceivable. Anyone can do that. It is irascible to proclaim that Taoism (as if there is such a thing apart from your intellectual apparatus) isn't a matter of seeing your own nature. As if there is nothing but a vague idea that the classics of wizards, buddhas and adepts have based their authentic teaching on.

 

All the authentic teachings are based on really seeing your own nature yourself. Sudden enlightenment is the entry-level experience. All the authentic traditions are based on the discoveries of real people who had the unstoppable aspiration to find out for themselves what the source of awareness is.

 

The Tao is not a thing. It is all you. Your own mind is just this. It has never come into being. You do not actually exist. How do you reconcile the real mysteries with your own apparent wonder? Would you dare?

 

People who do not know the nonpsychological is spiritual can come up with specious concoctions contriving speculations that the wisdom of the ages is not all that important to experience personally. Yet they do not even consider how the authors of the classic teachings of the authentic traditions the world over came to leave the knowledge behind for others with the audacity to discover the matter of life and death for themselves.

 

This is the conceit of dilettantism.

 

This is the delusional disfunction of those who are content to confuse the culture of taoism with the source of taoism. The source of taoism is not taoist.

 

The Tao is you and you are the world itself. This is the reality. It is not taoist.

 

The world exists by virtue of karmic momentum. This is the matrix of creative evolution. It is possible to be free of this if you dare to aspire to enlightening being. If you can still the world, then you will cease to exist. When you can interrupt the beginningless flow of conditioned conscious knowledge you will see the essence of nonoriginated selfless aware nature.

 

Stepping over eternity, you will never belong to the legions of speculators and dilettantes.

 

There is no argument for those who have seen their nature. There is nothing to explain. Descriptions are vague. Words are not it. The homeland of nothing whatsoever is the true dharma-eye. It is not apart from your own everyday ordinary mind right now.

 

If you can turn the light of conscious awareness around it instantly turns into the real. Then you will no longer be satisfied with convoluted philosophical arrangements suited only for polite conversation.

 

One must be able to dispense with attachment to teachers and traditions to find the source within oneself.

 

 

 

 

ed note: All the authentic teachings are based on really seeing your own nature yourself in bold

Edited August 22, 2013 by deci belle

[deci belle]

If seeing your nature isn't a big deal, how can one who has not say so?

[Ish]

Hi Deci belle

 

We often hear about twin cultivation of nature and life, how cultivating only one or the other leads to incomplete attainment.

 

Any comments from your perspective?

 

Ty!

[deci belle]

I could start a thread about it, Ish❤ …or not €];·))

 

I'll mention some bits here and see what comes up.

 

In general, buddhists start with fire and taoists start with water.

 

That is to say, one starts with essence and the other with life.

 

But the most natural and direct way is to enter into self-refinement by cheerfully accepting your lot in life in terms of everyday ordinary responsibilities without burdening the self with even the most subtle of cravings.

 

Other than that, the twin cultivation of nature and life is none other than seeing through circumstances without denying characteristics.

 

Seeing through the conditional realm as void of substance is cultivating essence. Not denying characteristics is selflessly adapting to circumstances which is the way to save/create/free energy. Energy in this sense is the energy of vitality: this is life.

 

Here one uses essence to gather life. This is the direct and explicit exposed kernel of alchemic practice. Using Earth (open sincere intent), one clarifies conscious knowledge by seeing through the conditional. When you know it is empty (and act on that knowledge by not acting or non-doing), then polluted habit energy turns into unrefined potential energy. This frees potential (the energy otherwise stultified by virtue of karmic evolution), from creation. You enact this natural process.

 

To put it in other words, one's own potential and that of others is freed from the matrix of karmic evolution by seeing through the temporal yourself. Seeing through the temporal is turning the light around to shine back on its source. This is itself working directly with essence with no intermediary. Well, in strict alchemical terms there is an intermediary: Earth (intent).

 

This is the immaterial Center of the real body which has no location.

 

This is also the secret of the highest understanding of the Golden Flower teaching.

 

Looking at it in this way, twin cultivation of essence and life is taken up together from start to finish. So in real terms, essence and life are one already. Enlightening activity is just forgetting feelings and self-reifying views of self and other in everyday ordinary situations.

 

When one uses essence in this way to enter into situations without minding, one encounters Difficulty, the third hexagram. One naturally gathers unrefined potential by activating open sincerity within the essence of conscious knowledge (this is also known as the child giving birth to the mother). This is just your mind right now without entering into habitual views of self and other.

 

There is always a critical juncture in each situation's cycle (or many within many cycles within one cycle). The critical juncture I'm speaking of is called the Yin Convergence. When yang waxes and wanes and the killing energy of polluted yin energy comes to the fore, this is when alchemists withdraw the fire and store the heretofore gathered potential in utmost innocent Darkness, the fourth hexagram, without letting so much as a spark of intellectualism leak from the pot pairing water and fire. Just forget about it altogether— as far as you are concerned, just lay low and avoid further friction.

 

In this way, it is actually possible to master the third and fourth hexagrams.

 

I recommend it highly.❤

 

 

 

 

ed note: add "this is also known as the child giving birth to the mother"

Edited August 22, 2013 by deci belle

[deci belle]

It is said that for both taoists and buddhists, seeing essence is done oneself.

 

After that one needs to seek a teacher to confirm one's understanding and ascertain the depth of one's achievement.

 

The general rule is that the science of life must be taught. I do not consider energy work to be essential for immortalists because in the course of my experience of entry into the way, all manner of strange and wonderful inner transformations of the body, organs, bones, luminous bodies, etc, has evolved naturally with no intention on my part. It's just not my job to be concerned about these things. I have never practiced any formal zazen or tai chi or MCO anything. I know nothing about it from any formal or casual training.

 

Most (young) people decide that the science of life involves energy work, but this is not true. The science of life taught by authentic traditions involving a student and a teacher in the aftermath of sudden realization depends on the student and the situations encountered. The science of life involving "grafting" was designed in ancient times for people of advanced age and working with the highest caliber teachers of exemplary tradition in the Southern School of Complete Reality.

 

To be sure, certain disciplines involving meditation and energy-work is effective and a regular process of working with a teacher, but this was always implemented only after years of study of the classics and generally advanced and formal types of education in the sciences and humanities.

 

In my experience, the science of life is about bringing the absolute to bear in terms of harmonizing the light in actual situations.

 

I did not have the benefit of a physical teacher. I only have had real-life ordinary situations and a highly simplified and disciplined approach to living. I suppose it would be safe to assume that having a teacher would accelerate the refinement process, but it doesn't matter. Chang Po-tuan didn't find his final teacher until he was 80. One's authentic teaching is wordless at any rate. But since the science of life involves the subtle operation according to the timing of actual events, some students would naturally require a certain amount of coaching— especially if one's predilection was helping future students in the esoteric traditions.

 

In my own experience I found that the celestial design and the alchemical process is almost the same in its application before and after the sudden, so, for me, it was a matter of slightly different emphasis.

 

For me, before and after really aren't any different. Essence and life are one from beginning to end.

[Wayfarer]

Some excellent writes Deci Belle. Nothing to add.

[Ish]

Some excellent writes Deci Belle. Nothing to add.

+1

 

[deci belle]

oh thank youzez❤