Marblehead Posted May 20, 2015 As long as there is veneration, there is separation. JMO That is one hellova closing statement to your post. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C T Posted May 20, 2015 sacred... deserving veneration Food deserves veneration.... or better the actual animal or plant... or better biology deserves veneration... or better evolution deserves veneration... or better the celestial galaxies deserve veneration... or better cosmogony deserves veneration... or better the original immaterial spirits deserve veneration... or better [the unfolding engine of] Dao deserves veneration.... or better The collective ONE deserves veneration... As long as there is veneration, there is separation. JMO sacredness is what remains when all the layers of illusional separation falls off. Its essence. Venerating or not venerating does not alter essence's primordial purity in the slightest. A fish has no need to venerate water to make it more fish-like; Birds do not venerate flight, worms do not venerate the earth. Likewise, humans have no need to venerate transcendence and higher nature to become virtuous and spiritual. Thinking otherwise is what creates the idea of separation. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted May 20, 2015 sacredness is what remains when all the layers of illusional separation falls off. Its essence. Venerating or not venerating does not alter essence's primordial purity in the slightest. A fish has no need to venerate water to make it more fish-like; Birds do not venerate flight, worms do not venerate the earth. Likewise, humans have no need to venerate transcendence and higher nature to become virtuous and spiritual. Thinking otherwise is what creates the idea of separation. When all the layers of illusional separation falls off.. what remains... Sacredness? What do the deities call it... when they want to give it a name? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted May 20, 2015 What do people mean by sacred? This word is overused and not defined. As in 'all life is sacred' = more or less meaningless statement which sounds nice. Same with 'everything is sacred' ... oh really ... what about straw dogs (dogs and grass if you prefer)??? To say the Dao is sacred implies a special category for it. Why then do people laugh when they hear of it? If they didn't it wouldn't be Dao. The I Ching commentaries say the Dao is denoted for its uselessness ... square that with sacredness can you? Ha! 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Geof Nanto Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) Obviously, from reading these posts, there are many authentic perspectives on sacredness. For me, cultivating sacredness forms a gateway between my separateness as an embodied human and the Dao. It’s a way of working with my human emotions. I personally don’t consider the Dao as either sacred or not sacred because the Dao is "that by which all things become what they are" (including sacredness). But I respect and value the perspectives of those who use the expression differently; in the final analysis the differences come down to semantics. “The Dao is sacred and unnameable, not religion or philosophy; it is the great mother of all things including humanity. Its teaching is a combination of meaning (about life and all reality), and a guide to living. The two most important kinds of relationship in life are, firstly, those between the Dao and people and, secondly, those amongst people themselves, the second being always contingent upon the first. The Dao, and how we treat it, is what determines our human-ness. Our connection with the Dao is sacred and must be looked after, the relation between people and the Dao becomes the template for society and social relations. Therefore all meaning comes from the Dao.” Edited May 20, 2015 by Darkstar 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted May 21, 2015 Okay. Your understanding has been expressed. Where do we go from here? Yes, Tao is the Mother of the Ten Thousand Things. But does this make any of them sacred? If any one of them is sacred then all must be sacred. In real life we do not consider everything sacred. There are things we despise or hold in disdain. Wouldn't this beg the question: What are we to hold as sacred and what are we to hold in contempt? And are we to hold Tao accountable for giving us things of contempt? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silent thunder Posted May 21, 2015 To me, Sacred is sort of nonsensical and useless term. It implies a value that is assigned by humans valuing one thing over another and relevant only to the person saying it and anyone who identifies with their cultural biases. As i experience life now, everything is vibration and everything affects everything else, so where does the sacred part come in? From our perspectives. For me, everything is sacred, and so nothing is... I just can't chase the 'special' any longer, nor am I interested in seeking for truth somewhere outside of me. It's tiring and leads to more searching. For now, I'm content with being, breathing and authenticity. Most words are like thoughts for me, they may engender great feeling, but the vast majority of them are not true, real, nor important, or even relevant; they are merely thoughts. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idiot_stimpy Posted May 21, 2015 Is the idea of God sacred? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted May 21, 2015 Is the idea of God sacred? Is the Pope Jewish? This from online etymology: sacred (adj.) Look up sacred at Dictionary.com late 14c., past participle adjective from obsolete verb sacren "to make holy" (c. 1200), from Old French sacrer "consecrate, anoint, dedicate" (12c.) or directly from Latin sacrare "to make sacred, consecrate; hold sacred; immortalize; set apart, dedicate," from sacer (genitive sacri) "sacred, dedicated, holy, accursed," from Old Latin saceres, from PIE root *sak- "to sanctify." Buck groups it with Oscan sakrim, Umbrian sacra and calls it "a distinctive Italic group, without any clear outside connections." Related: Sacredness. Nasalized form is sancire "make sacred, confirm, ratify, ordain." An Old English word for "sacred" was godcund. Sacred cow "object of Hindu veneration," is from 1891; figurative sense of "one who must not be criticized" is first recorded 1910, reflecting Western views of Hinduism. Sacred Heart "the heart of Jesus as an object of religious veneration" is from 1765. I like this ... An Old English word for "sacred" was godcund. I shall be using godcund from now on cos it sounds rude. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idiot_stimpy Posted May 21, 2015 Is the Pope Jewish? Is the idea of The Dao sacred? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted May 21, 2015 Is the idea of The Dao sacred? Does a frog have wings? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted May 21, 2015 Does a frog have wings? Even if the answer is no .... ... the answer is always yes. 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LAOLONG Posted May 21, 2015 According to the dao de ching , the dao that can be defined,or named is not the dao. So how can it be defined or named as sacred. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted May 21, 2015 The Dao is Sacred. I think this is one of those great truths wherein the opposite is also a great truth. thus The Dao is not Sacred. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LAOLONG Posted May 21, 2015 If you define dao=a+ not a ,the outcome is dao=not(a+not a) so dao is not ,scared and not sacred in the same time 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted May 21, 2015 If you define dao=a+ not a ,the outcome is dao=not(a+not a) so dao is not ,scared and not sacred in the same time not scared of nobody 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C T Posted May 21, 2015 there is really no need to assign sacredness to a force. Sacredness is an individual thing, an attitude, a mindset. It is the quality of one's relationship with that force - so if needs are to be looked at, then look at that relationship, keep that focus beneath and within, not to the Dao, or Buddha nature, or Higher Anything, as if these were some sort of external power that grants things wished for. Such views are sloppy and disempowering. Just as an example, most of us have tasted and felt something positive, something nurturing and more loving by being here, thats why we show up and get involved. We hover in this little space to share, to learn, and to grow. Being here is not an avoidance of another space that is filthy or profane, its just that this space feels right, and we choose this space to dance, to connect with that ineffable rightness, for some of us, among equals. This prompt, this quiet urge to be present here, to be in this communal space, one which has a particular quality about it, a comforting quality perhaps, is how a sense of sacredness can be understood. Sanctity is like a quality of our intent and motivation. There is no need to contrast it with something else to see its relevance. We already have it firmly in place, we see it clearly when we become present, but sometimes its easier to just ignore it, or take it for granted. Look at tea-preparation as another example. Some can turn a simple act into a ceremony, a ritual, while others couldn't be bothered. They say, oh, its just tea, whats the big deal. The whole point is missed altogether. Same with everything else we do in life... motivation and intent is key. Freedom is determined by little else. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LAOLONG Posted May 21, 2015 The idea that the dao can be at the same time a and not a, is from a miss understanding of the taiji symbol,it is not a static symbol of yin and yang in the same time,but a symbol of motion from yin to yang,and from yang to yin. From a logical point of view the quantum theory in physics is wrong,it cannot be at the same time a particle and a wave,but when a particle is in the speed of light it change rapid between particle to wave to particle to wave,like the taiji symbol of motion . 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taoist Texts Posted May 21, 2015 there is really no need to assign sacredness to a force. sure. until it comes onto your bod tangibly. people who try to deny or trivialise sacredness have never experienced it. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LAOLONG Posted May 21, 2015 In daoism there is the one (when it is motionless) that become 2 in motion ,yin and yang. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C T Posted May 21, 2015 sure. until it comes onto your bod tangibly. people who try to deny or trivialise sacredness have never experienced it. my point is that sacredness goes far beyond mere experiences; it is, in some sense, a term that describes the quality of relationship that one forms with whatever one's attention is directed to in order to derive the intended result. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted May 21, 2015 Even if the answer is no .... ... the answer is always yes. I have a hard time thinking of webbed feet as wings. But then, ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted May 21, 2015 I have a hard time thinking of webbed feet as wings. But then, ... really? cos wings are exactly adapted webbed arms and legs. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted May 21, 2015 (edited) really? cos wings are exactly adapted webbed arms and legs. Well, yeah, I still have a problem with them and bats and flying (gliding) squirrels. Edited May 21, 2015 by Marblehead 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
