Origin and return

[nestentrie]

Return: returning to being absorbed in activity in every moment without self-doubt / self-monitoring.

 

Doing the right thing all the time since mind is destroyed.

 

Having an open heart by destroying all traces of suppression which hinders one's destiny.

 

 

I think this is the best description i've heard. WIth so much of what often feels like only implication, this remark cuts to the core of it.

[ChiDragon]

Responding to Marblehead:

 

With what does one analyze ones self, or "own knowledge," as you put it?

 

If Lao Tzu advises us (via author's translation) to "throw away knowledge," what is that ... something else that we can use to grow our wisdom?

 

Actually Lao Zi was saying "throw away (bad) knowledge," would make more sense. Don't you think....??? BTW, sometimes, the classics have to be interpreted with reverse logic. I don't know there was a character for bad(壞) during Lao Zi's time. I don't think I have had seen the character in the TTC.

[Michael Sternbach]

Marblehead,

 

So wisdom in your definition is approved knowledge? That's an interesting definition. But does it take into account that different things are true for different people, or for the same individual at different times? Even if you arrive at a conclusion that looks valid enough, how do you know it's final? The wisdom that can be spoken is not the ultimate one...

Edited December 3, 2014 by Michael Sternbach

[dust]

Actually Lao Zi was saying "throw away (bad) knowledge," would make more sense. Don't you think....??? BTW, sometimes, the classics have to be interpreted with reverse logic. I don't know there was a character for bad(壞) during Lao Zi's time. I don't think I have had seen the character in the TTC.

 

惡 亞 as 'evil' or 'ugly' be used as 'bad', right?

[Marblehead]

Marblehead,

 

So wisdom in your definition is approved knowledge? That's an interesting definition. But does it take into account that different things are true for different people, or for the same individual at different times? Even if you arrive at a conclusion that looks valid enough, how do you know it's final? The wisdom that can be spoken is not the ultimate one...

Excellent question and I doubt I can satisfactorily answer it.

 

For that process to work one must first empty one's mind of all prejudices and preferences. Not at all an easy thing to do.

 

Yes, a Bible Thumper will always hold the Bible as having the final word. Any religious person would likely behave similarly.

 

Thing is, anything we hold as fact must prove to be so each and every time. No exceptions. If it doesn't then the best (honestly) we can do is create a generalization. And these are sometimes good enough.

[dawei]

If Lao Tzu advises us (via author's translation) to "throw away knowledge," what is that ... something else that we can use to grow our wisdom?

 

Except he is saying to throw away both of these; not one to enhance the other.

 

Which to me means: It is not Knowledge, Wisdom, Sageliness itself the problem... but how they arise and manifest and are used. In our manifest, dualist world, these things exist/arise.

 

The idea of 'exchanging one thing for another' seems spoken against by LZ.

 

In proper awareness of duality, one can never get rid of 'bad'; that would be an imbalance. This is a moralistic approach of religions and even Confucius. So what to do?

 

Origin and Return... Let them flow back to their source, Unity. Let good and bad both meld into a state of true knowledge or wisdom or Sageliness (which by the way would not be a distinction as they would all be One).

 

Consider CH. 19 in relation to the previous, 18:

 

When the great Tao is lost, spring forth benevolence and righteousness.

When wisdom and sagacity arise, there are great hypocrites.

When family relations are no longer harmonious, we have filial children and devoted parents.

When a nation is in confusion and disorder, patriots are recognized.

Where Tao is, equilibrium is. When Tao is lost, out come all the differences of things. -- Chu Ta-Kau

 

So, IMO, CH. 19 is really explaining this last line of CH. 18... Follow Tao and not the manifestations of Wisdom, Knowledge, Sagliness...

[3bob]

MH, In case you haven't noticed you are not showing much difference from a so called Bible thumper with your Atheist thumping, which you have repeatedly and in effect said you will not "empty" your mind of along with the prejudices and preferences that go with it. hehehehe

 

p.s. also and imo the best "we" can do in the meantime is recognize an agnostic-like position when we are in it, a position which does not need to be created since such is often the present, although still workable and simply the honest fact for many of us - while we try to listen to and understand a Sage like Lao Tzu who points to an end of our consuming doubts and or its more subtle argumentive devices.

Edited December 3, 2014 by 3bob

[Michael Sternbach]

Excellent question and I doubt I can satisfactorily answer it.

I'm not sure then if you would qualify as the abbot of my proposed Swiss mountain Daoist temple. LOL

 

Thing is, anything we hold as fact must prove to be so each and every time. No exceptions. If it doesn't then the best (honestly) we can do is create a generalization. And these are sometimes good enough.

But actually, I find this quite a satisfactory answer (good enough for now, to be sure ).

[ChiDragon]

惡 亞 as 'evil' or 'ugly' be used as 'bad', right?

 

Thank you for your respond. This character only apply to human feelings. e.g. 惡意(malice) but it is not proper to apply that to knowledge like 惡智.

Edited December 3, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

MH, In case you haven't noticed you are not showing much difference from a so called Bible thumper with your Atheist thumping, which you have repeatedly and in effect said you will not "empty" your mind of along with the prejudices and preferences that go with it. hehehehe

That is an unfair and untrue assessment. I have never tried to convert a single member to Atheism. All I have done is express my understanding. I have never, to my knowledge, claimed that "my way" would be any good for any one else.

 

In my signature block is the sentence: I reserve the right to change my mind. But in order for me to do that I must be presented with a good reason why I should do so. If another person's understanding is not strong enough to convince me then I would suggest that they are not totally secure with what they claim to believe.

 

I really don't know what my belief system has to do with "origin and return" but apparently there are many who want another shot at life because they are dissatisfied with the present one they have.

 

Dust to dust. Origin and return. Nothing magical. The process is totally compatible with all other forms of life on this planet.

[Marblehead]

I'm not sure then if you would qualify as the abbot of my proposed Swiss mountain Daoist temple. LOL

Hehehe. No, I would not be a good choice even though I did love Switzerland every time I visited.

 

But actually, I find this quite a satisfactory answer (good enough for now, to be sure ).

Thanks. Good it is satisfactory for now because I did the best I could do at the time.

[manitou]

Sageliness is knowing how to manipulate people

 

Knowledge is knowing how to use people to benefit yourself.

 

Wisdom is knowing how to avoid these two types of people.

 

 

LOL. I am speechless. Ineffable, in fact.

[Marblehead]

LOL. I am speechless. Ineffable, in fact.

And that was off the cuff. Give me a couple hours to prepare and it's hard telling what I might come up with.

 

[3bob]

MH,

If you (or anyone else) make various negative generalizations along the lines of "bible thumpers", "fairy tale" believers, "as bad as Christianity", etc.. then in effect you are Atheist thumping whether aimed directly or indirectly at certain targets based on your personal truisms and as if such truisms should obviously be applied to same, Thus I suggest you do not play or proclaim an innocent position in your non-agnostic like statements (per said examples given in the first sentence above) against those that have practices or beliefs different from your self-stated "atheist" and "materialistic" type ones.

[3bob]

A lot of very foolish fiddling going on with Sages here !?. Anyone worth their salt either knows a true Sage is one with the Tao, or that they don't know and should thus be open minded and careful with their non-experienced and non-first hand opinions about same until otherwise. (and even careful afterwards)

Edited December 3, 2014 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

MH,

If you (or anyone else) make various negative generalizations along the lines of "bible thumpers", "fairy tale" believers, "as bad as Christianity", etc.. then in effect you are Atheist thumping whether aimed directly or indirectly at certain targets based on your personal truisms and as if such truisms should obviously be applied to same, Thus I suggest you do not play or proclaim an innocent position in your non-agnostic like statements (per said examples given in the first sentence above) against those that have practices or beliefs different from your self-stated "atheist" and "materialistic" type ones.

But do I not have the same rights as every other member here? You preach your beliefs. No harm there, Right? Even if I think it is BS I am supposed to keep my mouth shut so that others think that I have no disagreement with what you have said.

 

This forum (board) was established on the basis of free thought. You have your thoughts and I have mine. Many times we agree and other times we disagree.

 

What gives you the right to state that you are allowed to express your beliefs but I am not?

 

Prince Charming is a fairy tale. Any religion or belief system that has as many contradictions as does Christianity can be said to be just like Christianity. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck it is likely a duck.

 

Expressing my belief system is not Atheist Thumping. If what you say is true then everyone who expresses their belief system is "Thumping". That would include you.

 

My belief system is a truism to me. What is wrong with being secure with one's belief system? I intentionally avoid many threads because I don't want to be stepping on anyone's toes regarding their belief system. But when Buddhist and New Age belief systems are being presented in a thread in the "Taoist Discussions" I feel a responsibility to speak to these posts. And beside, I am a Steward of the "Taoist Discussions" sub-forum therefore I have the duty to keep the discussion within the realms of Taoism. I have lightened up a lot regarding Religious and Alchemic Taoism. But I will defend Philosophical Taoism as being an Atheistic belief system.

 

If others wouldn't try to make Taoism a New Age religion I likely wouldn't be posting nearly as much as I do.

 

I have never claimed to be innocent. I have claimed to be a Philosophical Taoist as well as an Atheist. I am also an Anarchist, BTW. I don't have to play by anyone else's rules as long as I don't violate Sean's rules.

 

So anyhow, members are free to discuss Buddhism in the "Buddhist Discussions" sub-forum and New Agers are welcome to post as often as they like in the "General Discussions" sub-forum. Why so many people want to tarnish the beautiful philosophy of Taoism I have no idea. Neither Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu attempted to establish a religion. All they wanted to do is to look at the world, observe the processes and try to live as much as possible within the processes of nature. One does not need and spirits ghosts, gods or aliens in order to do that. The founders of Philosophical Taoism saw no reason to have any of them.

[Marblehead]

A lot of very foolish fiddling going on with Sages here !?. Anyone worth their salt either knows a true Sage is one with the Tao, or that they don't know and should thus be open minded and careful with their non-experienced and non-first hand opinions about same until otherwise. (and even careful afterwards)

So in your previous post you were expressing all the things you know. Yes, funny thread indeed. Especially when neither you not I have first hand knowledge of anyone else's mind (brain).

 

So I think it would be only fair that you retract everything you said about me because you have no first-hand knowledge of my mind (brain). BTW, I have first-hand knowledge of it but I don't have first-hand knowledge of yours.

 

And if you are claiming to be open-minded but yet criticize me for my belief system then you have errored in contradiction.

[3bob]

One need not know all the mental particulars or "mind" of a true Sage if a Sage reveals their heart 1st hand to a student who can then see same. (which is a greater knowing than intellect or the knowing of one's or the others mental grooves - but will probably be taken as another "fairy tale" by those so inclined and should not be forced in any case anyway)

Edited December 4, 2014 by 3bob

[3bob]

MH,

In post 126 an often slippery slope is brought up and described by you some of which I agree with, but that does not make it really reasonable by those of us who would try to co-opt reason as a motive and or "the truth" when it is obviously not so when agnostic-like reasoning is not being applied. (which I would further describe as the inherently pending summation that the power of reason will reach when and if it is fully and correctly applied)

Edited December 4, 2014 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

One need not know all the mental particulars or "mind" of a true Sage if a Sage reveals their heart 1st hand to a student who can then see same. (which is a greater knowing than intellect or the knowing of one's or the others mental grooves - but will probably be taken as another "fairy tale" by those so inclined and should not be forced in any case anyway)

So we are still totally off topic but I will speak with you.

 

Yes, sageliness is radiated. The sage need not even speak but others will listen anyhow. But then, they listen because they "know" that if anything is said it will be important.

 

You want me to be Agnostic. I can't. Many years ago I called myself Agnostic but I was only lying in order to please others.

 

And besides, I do "know" quite a few things. And I know a fairy tale when I hear one.

 

I am far from being a sage therefore I talk a lot. Your post count is fairly high too.

[Marblehead]

MH,

In post 126 an often slippery slope is brought up and described by you some of which I agree with, but that does not make it really reasonable by those of us who would try to co-opt reason as a motive and or "the truth" when it is obviously not so when agnostic-like reasoning is not being applied. (which I would further describe as the inherently pending summation that the power of reason will reach when and if it is fully and correctly applied)

Well, I think it is better that someone else question our opinions and understandings if we have failed to do so ourself.

 

I know that many here are searching for a path. There is not path. We each have to create our own. Sure, we test what others have said. If it works for us, good. If it doesn't then we should avoid it and look for an alternative.

 

If a person says that they have been practicing for thirty-five years and still haven't found enlightenment then I would suggest that either they are on an incorrect path (for them) or there really is no such thing as enlightenment..

 

Keep what works and throw away what doesn't.

 

And to "origin and return", we begin at the origin and we end up at the point of return which is the origin of something else. And no, this we cannot know.

[3bob]

What I'm trying to get at is that one can not really make a reasonable and logically based final type of claim (whether theist or atheist) about that which reason and logic can not encompass... thus at such a point one can only and honestly claim an agnostic-like position while using such tools.

 

Thus if you, me or anyone else claims to be using reason and logic to make such final type claims then I'll point out that such can not be done... not unlike the idea that Tao that can be named is not the Great or quintessential Tao alluded to per Chapter one of the T.T.C..

Edited December 4, 2014 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

What I'm trying to get at is that one can not really make a reasonable and logically based final type of claim (whether theist or atheist) about that which reason and logic can not encompass... thus at such a point one can only and honestly claim an agnostic-like position while using such tools.

How many times have I stated that much of my life is lived spontaneously? Spontaneity is intuition driven, not driven by either logic or reason.

 

Regarding me, I think you are concentrating too much on the label "Atheist".

 

How many times have I stated that there are no absolutes? Many, I assure you. But for me, in my life, I have set absolutes. And when I speak many of those absolutes will be included. They likely won't be valid for most other people. That's fine

 

But I think there is honor in knowing what kind of thoughts, words and deeds best express who we truly are.

 

And true, there are some things we just cannot know. A good one: What is the purpose of life?

 

or

 

Why did Singularity go Bang!?

 

I know what I know until I have to change my mind. I don't care too much for saying "I don't know" and then just dropping the thought. If the thought was interesting enough I will find out if at all possible.

 

I think everyone should feel this way. There is no shame in saying "I know what works for me."

[3bob]

Thanks for your reply MH. My take on the questions:

 

"Why did Singularity go Bang!?"

 

Because of love that can not be encompassed or contained thus springing forth in unbounded joy, the eureka of eureka's!

 

"What is the purpose of life?"

 

To know and be that eureka without veils or doubt, thus ending further wanderings upon the winds of limited life tied to death, for then death dies and one fully lives.

Edited December 4, 2014 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

Well, I like your last phrase: for then death dies and one fully lives. ( Very Taoist. Hehehe)

 

And actually, the preamble to that phrase is pretty nice too, after reading it a third time.

 

I would be careful about putting human concepts on the universe though. (Answer to "Why?")