the Tao isn't taoist

[deci belle]

No one knows Tao.

 

The unattributable is beyond culture.

 

Just the light of awareness itself is the source of all authentic teaching.

 

Can anyone say how many awarenessess there are?

 

The number one sickness of believers is attachment to teaching tradition.

 

The number one sickness among those who actually observe mind is taking a temporary emptiness of their thieving psychological apparatus as the shining mind.

 

Though there is only one mind, ignorance has covered over the light of awareness in such a way as to habituate ordinary people in a mode of consciousness that uses true awareness to create illusion where there is none to begin with.

 

There are those who insist that reality is the province of wonderful scraps of paper from a certain part of the world during a definite time period. These are the people who refer to wonderful scraps of paper.

 

These people bleed their lives away interpreting wonderful scraps of paper without ever finding out how the originators of those wonderful scraps created them in the first place.

 

They don't even wonder.

 

How much further from the source of the experience of the creators of the wonderful scraps of paper are these paupers of interpretation?

 

Then these same recreational philosophers can cough up a conceit so presumptuous, they must assure themselves that something else cannot be it (as well).

 

These people cannot conceive that the achievement of non-being which is the realization of nonorigination is none other than this self-same no one, whereby inconceivability becomes aware of itself. Is it Tao? Who knows?

 

No one knows.

 

 

 

 

ed note change second part of penultimate line

Edited October 8, 2013 by deci belle

[mYTHmAKER]

As the saying goes: He who knows knows not, he who knows not knows

[deci belle]

haha!!❤

[deci belle]

Not speaking about any ultimate sense, but outside of its name, Taoism isn't a thing. Ego isn't even a thing~ it is a natural function that has developed and no one knows why. It works. And that, is all it is supposed to do— Outside of fundamental teaching techniques early in a child's life~ training it (ego) to fulfill its necessary function, further validation ought not become a compensatory need, much less a habit that in turn continues to take over to the tune of its conditioned predilection.

 

The problem is when natural functions are made out to be things due to arbitrary activity in the name of reason. Reason is connected to rational thought. Self reifying concepts are built on words.

 

In terms of return, which is the operational function of the Tao, when one forgets words, the fundamental being that is going to die reverts to its source. It is that simple. No words, no person: poof. How hard is it to forget words?

 

No one knows.

 

When you see essence; your nature, you realize the implication of having forgotten words for an instant~ for beginningless kalpas your fundamental selfless identity has never had a reason for even the absence of nothing. This is the realm that Chuangtzu refers to as Nothing Whatsoever. This is not Taoism even if Taoist teaching names it. It is just a reference to a mystery that ordinary people are able to experience themselves. Do not become attached to names. They're w-o-r-d-s.

 

That the king of recreational philosophers can't see this~ and I'm happy for his short-sightedness, is due to a lifetime of resting his mind in thought. This is indicative of a mind habituated to rationalism. Nevertheless, even though I have to believe that Chuangtzu discovered Nothing Whatsoever himself, as I did~ this realm was not discovered by anyone for the first time. No one has always known this.

 

So marbles is exactly correct when he says (insert word here) isn't (insert word here). That's not philosophy. It's just being unable to support his mind on anything other than thought. For all his 20,000 posts, various titles and functions he has provided here on this forum, he has yet to grasp the fact that he has failed to plant that useless crooked-tree seed in the homeland of Nothing Whatsoever. I can say that with absolute authority because if the dear man had done so, he must have been able to see this realm. And what would there be to stop him from reporting it as I do? Let him eat his dead words to his dying day. Not Taoist indeed.

 

Nothing Whatsoever is the uncreated. Inasmuch as it does not exist, how could it be anything else? If marbles could be any more specific when he states that (insert word here) isn't (insert word here), in terms of what it is he is denying its inclusion in (his tidy little east-coast anglo-american bastardization of something he has no idea of in the first place outside of some narrow myopic concept copped from w-o-r-d-s), then at least people would be able to appreciate the extent of his specious grasp of what (insert word here) is.

 

But I digress…❤

 

Since the Tao isn't taoist, then all teachings attributed to it aren't either, ultimately. Though it is necessary to refer to them as such (and rightly so), nevertheless, it should not turn into a crutch for one who refuses to evolve out of sheer mental laziness.

 

The cause of mental laxity becoming a concretion of awareness is predilection evolving into habit-energy. It is efficient to name. Naming serves a valid function in that it saves energy and it saves time. It saves lives too. But outside of that, the predilection of most people is to sink into laziness turning an efficiency into a bloated back-log of conceptual detritus.

 

Self-refinement isn't Taoist.

 

Wisdom itself has left behind a secret for those who have the unbending aspiration, the will to enlightenment.

 

There has never been a wisdom teaching on the face of this earth that has been left behind by prior enlightening beings that wasn't the effect of the light of awareness itself, inasmuch as people themselves are just this light itself.

 

The Light of Awareness is not Taoist.

 

All the wonderful scraps of paper attributed to the originators of the authentic teachings of the entire world since time immemorial and beyond— that is to say specifically the mysteries of unwritten and wordless transmissions outside of doctrine and convention are the source of all the classics and there is no one here with authority to refute that.

 

How could anyone even begin to experientially refute the source of the esoteric and exoteric classics as there is nothing whatsoever to speak of outside of the living knowledge (not the dried-up dead words of rationalists) that fully enlightening beings matured in thoroughly circumstantial traditions are responsible for keeping alive and introducing adaptively into the world according to conditions.

 

When has just this not been the case?

 

It has long been acknowledged by adepts of the three main Chinese traditions and universally understood by anyone with even a nominally cultured upbringing on the street that their source is the same. This is completely lost on Marblehead. He never knew.

 

Some sheltered white boy in Florida knows WTF Taoism is and isn't.

 

No one knew.

 

 

 

 

ed note: add "(ego)" in first paragraph

Edited October 9, 2013 by deci belle

[林愛偉]

:-) Its a Brahmic cultivation, leading to the highest of pure states, which directly cause one to be reborn in the highest of pure heavens, the Brahma Heaven. Of course its an old tradition, predating China's cultural appearance of what is known as "Daoism".

[h.uriahr]

Then why put it in taoist discussion?

[林愛偉]

Then why put it in taoist discussion?

 

 

Because its expression nowadays through the Chinese tradition carries the name "Dao", and the cultural practices, and lifestyle of it in terms of philosophy and behavior, practice and lifestyle already have taken Chinese traditional mannerisms, thus it is a Chinese traditional cultivation lifestyle now. So, putting it in a "Daoist" forum/thread is okay

 

In the end, the practices of purity are the same, and the end result of those practiced here on Earth, as a human , will get one to the same place...

[deci belle]

In the end, the practices of purity are the same

 

And lets forget the part about whatever anyone cares to assert as the true earthly origins of enlightening practices as that is utterly unfounded hyperbole not to mention off-topic, ok dear?

 

Got that, mr buddha? That's because knowledge of subtle operation is not by a country and to discuss any culturally derived origin theory pertaining to the source of any wisdom teaching is ABSOLUTELY OFF-TOPIC.

 

The topic of this thread is the Tao is not Taoist.

 

I HAVE NOTIFIED THE MODERATORS TO REMOVE YOUR POSTS, mr buddha.

 

 

 

 

 

ed note: found out mr brahmic cultivation's title is a link

 

Edited October 9, 2013 by deci belle

[Celestial]

You like to abuse the report function often, don't you?

 

Calling someone mr buddha repeatedly offends me. Reported.

 

Edit: Oh and I know you reported me and got me suspended you little c***. Time to repay the favor.

 

~ Admin Edit ~

I edited the insult, above, to asterisks. I take such strong insults seriously.

This member's history of denigrating posts, including recent infractions and suspension, has been reviewed by myself.

Result: permanent BAN.

regards,

Trunk

~ /edit ~

Edited October 17, 2013 by Trunk

[deci belle]

Moving right along…

 

The subject of this post is not just the fact that Taoism isn't taoist …further to the point it is that as I have already stated above, that the source of the authentic teachings this planet has ever produced is by wisdom itself; that is, the selfless light of nonoriginated awareness. This is not by a country or time.

 

In most recent history it has been attributed to various personages and locales, but for those who have seen their nature and for those who will aspire to enlightening being, to be attached to teachers and teaching traditions, words and even the transcendent experience itself is to render the operational power and potential effect of enlightening activity stillborn.

 

For me to take the time and trouble to say so in so many words is in direct response to Marblehead's seemingly incredulous assertion that the inner teachings imbedded in and practiced before what has now become the recognized Chinese spiritual classics in their current form (i.e.: the formalized chapters of the TTC or the current King Wen sequence of the I Ching for example), ARE NOT TAOIST.

 

Marblehead asserts that real Taoism is only the literalist expression of these classics..

 

 

 

 

ed note: add "for example" in last paragraph

Edited October 9, 2013 by deci belle

[林愛偉]

Moving right along…

 

The subject of this post is not just the fact that Taoism isn't taoist …further to the point it is that as I have already stated above, that the source of the authentic teachings this planet has ever produced is by wisdom itself; that is, the selfless light of nonoriginated awareness. This is not by a country or time.

 

In most recent history it has been attributed to various personages and locales, but for those who have seen their nature and for those who will aspire to enlightening being, to be attached to teachers and teaching traditions, words and even the transcendent experience itself is to render the operational power and potential effect of enlightening activity stillborn.

 

For me to take the time and trouble to say so in so many words is in direct response to Marblehead's seemingly incredulous assertion that the inner teachings imbedded in and practiced before what has now become the recognized Chinese spiritual classics in their current form (i.e.: the formalized chapters of the TTC or the current King Wen sequence of the I Ching for example), ARE NOT TAOIST.

 

Marblehead asserts that real Taoism is only the literalist expression of these classics..

 

 

 

 

ed note: add "for example" in last paragraph

 

hahahaha

[deci belle]

And a big thanks for that contribution, mr buddha.❤

 

 

You know, people, the only thing that bothers me is that it detracts from the thread.

 

 

 

If you aren't conscious of that, it's not really my problem.

 

It's your forum.

 

Let me get a laugh in~ hahahahahahahhahaa!!❤❤❤

 

 

 

 

ed note: silly me

Edited October 9, 2013 by deci belle

[Unlearner]

Because its expression nowadays through the Chinese tradition carries the name "Dao", and the cultural practices, and lifestyle of it in terms of philosophy and behavior, practice and lifestyle already have taken Chinese traditional mannerisms, thus it is a Chinese traditional cultivation lifestyle now. So, putting it in a "Daoist" forum/thread is okay

 

In the end, the practices of purity are the same, and the end result of those practiced here on Earth, as a human , will get one to the same place...

 

 

Moving right along…

 

The subject of this post is not just the fact that Taoism isn't taoist …further to the point it is that as I have already stated above, that the source of the authentic teachings this planet has ever produced is by wisdom itself; that is, the selfless light of nonoriginated awareness. This is not by a country or time.

 

In most recent history it has been attributed to various personages and locales, but for those who have seen their nature and for those who will aspire to enlightening being, to be attached to teachers and teaching traditions, words and even the transcendent experience itself is to render the operational power and potential effect of enlightening activity stillborn.

 

For me to take the time and trouble to say so in so many words is in direct response to Marblehead's seemingly incredulous assertion that the inner teachings imbedded in and practiced before what has now become the recognized Chinese spiritual classics in their current form (i.e.: the formalized chapters of the TTC or the current King Wen sequence of the I Ching for example), ARE NOT TAOIST.

 

Marblehead asserts that real Taoism is only the literalist expression of these classics..

 

 

 

 

ed note: add "for example" in last paragraph

 

I think this is more of a confusion of language than anything. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that while Lin is speaking of the practiced Taoism, deci belle is speaking more generally in the terms of philosophical Taoism. While, culturally, Taoism is focused mostly in China, philosophically speaking Taoism points toward true wisdom, which is universal, is what it seems deci belle is emphasizing. So, in that sense, Tao is not merely restricted to Taoism, as all things tend to point toward the one universal wisdom. Rather than thinking of it in terms of right or wrong, think of it this way: by the nature of the universe, which is based on a singular "Tao"/"Truth"/"Way" etc, all things that are observed, analyzed, and interpreted are at some point an iteration of a reflection based on the true way of nature; it's simply a matter of what perspective you're viewing from and how many different "reflections" of the truth you're observing, and even the bias of the observer, that determines what the resulting conclusion would be. If a conclusion, whether it shows true wisdom or not, were reached by someone making an observation, it would be impossible to say that such a conclusion was impossible, since someone did indeed reach that conclusion it must somehow be a reflection of the original. Is this somewhat in line with what you were trying to say?

 

I believe this is mostly a matter of miscommunication, so it shouldn't be so serious as to warrant such anger.

 

You like to abuse the report function often, don't you?

 

Calling someone mr buddha repeatedly offends me. Reported.

 

Edit: Oh and I know you reported me and got me suspended you little cunt. Time to repay the favor.

 

I would like to say in regards to this comment: revenge is a futile aim, in my perspective. If there is a present problem that persists, try to solve that one rather than dwelling on a past occurrence. I don't mean this to be rude, although it seems we've already gone beyond that point, but there is no need for such a spiteful comment to get your point across.

[deci belle]

Dear, if you consider the topic of my threads for the last four years as "philosophical taoism", you are more clueless than Marblehead. Really!

 

How about sticking to the topic and not trying to pretend to portray yourself as some kind of objective peacemaker, ok?❤

[Unlearner]

Dear, if you consider the topic of my threads for the last four years as "philosophical taoism", you are more clueless than Marblehead. Really!

 

How about sticking to the topic and not trying to pretend to portray yourself as some kind of objective peacemaker, ok?❤

 

My apologies for not reading four years worth of threads, it seems I do not understand what you are saying after all. Perhaps you could elaborate a little more on that rather than simply insulting me? Are you disagreeing with what I said or simply my use of the term "philosophical taoism"?

 

Also, I think it should have been clear that my observations were not objective based on the entire point of my post.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Unlearner

[effilang]

Then these same recreational philosophers can cough up a conceit so presumptuous, they must assure themselves that something else cannot be it (as well).

[Isimsiz Biri]

No one knows.

 

 

No one knew.

 

Are you sure that no one knows?

[Apech]

Are you sure that no one knows?

 

 

How would we know if they know or not? Indeed how do we know that we know ... who assesses this and decides right from wrong?

[Brian]

So, deci, are you saying that the Tao (for lack of a better word) is not confined to the Taoist canon in just the same way that God (for lack of a better words) is not confined to the Bible? That truth/reality/whatever (life, the universe & everything?) is "bigger" than Taoism or Christianity or Hinduism or Buddhism or Judaism or Islam or Science or Magic or Voodoo or... or... or... -- and in fact is simultaneously more-and-less than all of them combined? Plus that it can only be experienced by experience, not by words?

[Isimsiz Biri]

How would we know if they know or not? Indeed how do we know that we know ... who assesses this and decides right from wrong?

 

Good question. You may only know from your heart. When you see a real master of heart, who captures from your heart, you understand that.

[xor]

Tao just is and has been "discovered" in various places and times. The laozi is however the best expression of it that I've had the pleasure of reading in translations of various accuracy. I try not to read too much so I don't forget the tao itself.

[skydog]

Good question. You may only know from your heart. When you see a real master of heart, who captures from your heart, you understand that.

yes

Edited October 9, 2013 by skydog

[9th]

A disciple of Lao Lai Tzu while out gathering fuel, chanced to meet Confucius. On his return, he said, 'There is a man over there with a long body and short legs, round shoulders and drooping ears. He looks as though he were sorrowing over mankind. I know not who he can be.'

'It is Confucius!' cried Lao Lao Tzu. 'Bid him come hither.'

When Confucius arrived, Lao Lai Tzu addressed him as follows:

'Ch'iu! Get rid of your dogmatism and your specious knowledge, and you will be really a superior man.'

Confucius bowed and was about to retire, when suddenly his countenance chanced and he enquired, 'Shall I then be able to enter upon Tao?'

'The wounds of one generation being too much', answered Lao Lai Tzu, 'you would take to yourself the sorrows of all time. Are you not weary? Is your strength equal to the task?

'To employ goodness as a passport to influence through the gratification of others, is an everlasting shame. Yet this is the common way of all, to lure people by fame, to bind them by ties of gratification.

'Better than extolling Yao and cursing Chieh is oblivion of both, keeping one's praises to oneself. These things react injuriously on self; the agitation of movement results in deflection.

'The true Sage is a passive agent. If he succeeds, he simply feels that he was provided by no effort of his own with the energy necessary to success.'

Prince Yüan of Sung dreamed one night that a man with dishevelled hair peeped through a side door and said, 'I have come from the waters of Tsai-lu. I am a marine messenger attached to the staff of the River God. A fisherman, named Yü Ch'ieh, has caught me.'

When the prince awaked, he referred his dream to the soothsayers, who said, 'This is a divine tortoise'.

'Is there any fisherman', asked the prince, 'whose name is Yü Ch'ieh?'

Being told there was, the prince gave orders for his appearance at court; and the next day Yü Ch'ieh had an audience.

'Fisherman', said the prince, 'what have you caught?'

'I have netted a white tortoise', replied the fisherman, 'five feet in semi-circumference'.

'Bring your tortoise', said the prince. But when it came, the prince could not make up his mind whether to kill it or keep it alive. Thus in doubt, he had recourse to divination, and received the following response:

"Slay the tortoise for purposes of divination and good fortune will result."

So the tortoise was despatched. After which, out of seventy-two omens taken, not a single one proved false.

'A divine tortoise', said Confucius, 'can appear to prince Yüan in a dream, yet it cannot escape the net of Yü Ch'ieh. Its wisdom can yield seventy-two faultless omens, yet it cannot escape the misery of being cut to pieces. Truly wisdom has its limits; spirituality, that which it cannot reach.

'In spite of the highest wisdom, there are countless snares to be avoided. If a fish has not to fear nets, there are always pelicans. Get rid of small wisdom, and great wisdom will shine upon you. Put away goodness and you will be naturally good. A child does not learn to speak because taught by professors of the art, but because it lives among people who can themselves speak.'

[soaring crane]

These people bleed their lives away interpreting wonderful scraps of paper without ever finding out how the originators of those wonderful scraps created them in the first place.

 

I think it takes no greater understanding of 'what really is' to create scraps of paper than to interpret them. Other than that, very nice

 

Simplicity isn't human. It just isn't.

[JustARandomPanda]

....

Edited October 10, 2013 by JustARandomPanda