Qi breathing will not slow the aging process

[Taoist Texts]

I see Dao everywhere, it is in my mind, likewise the concept of use is in my mind aswell.  

 

Well it is because you made up something that you call by a Chinese name to validate your made up concept.

 

If you see it everywhere then it is not the Chinese dao which Lao-zi could not see anywhere.

 

14. Look for it, it cannot be seen...

視之不見、名日夷。聽之不間、名日希。 

Look for it, it cannot be seen.

It is called the distant.

Listen for it, it cannot be heard.

It is called the rare.

[leth]

Well it is because you made up something that you call by a Chinese name to validate your made up concept.

 

It is a mental construct, yes, but so are all words we use.

 

If you see it everywhere then it is not the Chinese dao which Lao-zi could not see anywhere.

 

We can never know whether our mental constructs are similar to any mental constructs that anyone else has, but we do have the facility to analyse our own concepts and the language we use to compare complex structures of interrelations between concepts. As such i think it is fair that I am seeing that which is written about laozi as far as I can understand.

 

14. Look for it, it cannot be seen...

視之不見、名日夷。聽之不間、名日希。 

Look for it, it cannot be seen.

It is called the distant.

Listen for it, it cannot be heard.

It is called the rare.

 

I do not see Dao, yet I see Dao.

 

Do you see your own self, it is also abstract and can not be seen. The concept of we is also abstract but cannot be seen, yet we can see these things, because seeing is not the same thing as seeing.

 

 

There is a form that developed from primordial chaos

That was born before heaven and earth.

Silent and still, it stands on its own and does not change.

...

 

It can be regarded as the mother of all under heaven.

Not yet knowing its name,

We refer to it as the Dao.

Were I forced to give it a name, I'd call it the Great.

 

The "Great" means "overflowing";

"Overflowing" means "going far";

"Going far" means "to return."

 

Heaven is great; the earth is great; the Way is great; and the king too is great.

In this realm there are four greats, and the king counts as one of them.

 

Humanity takes as its model the earth;

The earth takes as its model heaven;

Heaven takes as its model the Way;

And the Way takes as its model that which is so on its own.

 

I can see this, just as I can see my self, or my own thoughts.

[Taoist Texts]

It is a mental construct, yes, but so are all words we use.

Not really, most words correspond to tangible things.

we do have the facility to analyse our own concepts and the language we use to compare complex structures of interrelations between concepts.

Again not quite. Some of us do have it, while the rest of us are considered deluded, mentally ill, or having a mystical experience.

 

As such i think it is fair that I am seeing that which is written about laozi as far as I can understand. I do not see Dao, yet I see Dao.

There is a 3 point check list to see if we see and/or understand something for real. 1. can it be defined in words? 2. is it tangible? 3. is it usable?

 

things, because seeing is not the same thing as seeing.

This 'same word is not the same word' thing could be a problem when trying to create a reasonable worldview.

[Wu Ming Jen]

What is totality how many descriptions are there to describe totality. when we reduce totality to a single thing with description we are negating much of its existence. The thing is like the Tao

 

The earth is not caring yet cares for all living things who among us can be like earth. Heaven is not kind but shows kindness to all living things who among us can be like heaven. 

[Uroboros]

I rarely comment anymore simply because it is rarely productive. In this case, I feel the need to make an observation without giving any further communication on the topic.

 

In our spiritual and cultivation minded world, it is very common for discussions to become arguments. Defending views, proving others wrong, stabilizing superiority, etc. This thread originally peaked my interest as it started off talking about a topic I find worthy of deeper contemplation.

 

Shortly after its creation it became consumed by a feud of opinion and lineage. Now seven pages later, it is just filled with pointless insults on character and knowledge.

 

This is petty. It is pointless. If I was a newcomer interested in these arts, I would be led astray by posts and threads such as these. Reading this, I feel ashamed for the cultivation world. That this is the current state, of one of the only forums on the internet where people actively involved gather, is depressing.

 

No wonder these arts are being lost. We are throwing them away. Spending our days fighting over who is right, instead of having actual discussions and deepening our knowledge. I use to enjoy reading this forum because there were intelligent conversations, sharing of knowledge and wisdom. Now.......This and masturbation.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Uroboros

[opendao]

I rarely comment anymore simply because it is rarely productive. In this case, I feel the need to make an observation without giving any further communication on the topic.

 

In our spiritual and cultivation minded world, it is very common for discussions to become arguments. Defending views, proving others wrong, stabilizing superiority, etc. This thread originally peaked my interest as it started off talking about a topic I find worthy of deeper contemplation.

 

Shortly after its creation it became consumed by a feud of opinion and lineage. Now seven pages later, it is just filled with pointless insults on character and knowledge.

 

This is petty. It is pointless. If I was a newcomer interested in these arts, I would be led astray by posts and threads such as these. Reading this, I feel ashamed for the cultivation world. That this is the current state, of one of the only forums on the internet where people actively involved gather, is depressing.

 

No wonder these arts are being lost. We are throwing them away. Spending our days fighting over who is right, instead of having actual discussions and deepening our knowledge. I use to enjoy reading this forum because there were intelligent conversations, sharing of knowledge and wisdom. Now.......This and masturbation.

 

I agree with you about the nature of this forum and its discussions. Maybe moderators will hear you one day.... Strange though, that I see no your posts here. "If you want to make it good, do it yourself", right? So maybe write something you suggest others to do?

 

Harsh discussions and personal insults are not the worse parts of any "spiritual forums", but the real issue is an unlimited flow of dangerous, wrong and misleading methods out of incompetent seekers, who "just want to share their experience". 

 

So for newbies, how to understand what is good and what is bad?

By trying everything with a high risk to destroy their health?

 

In Daoist tradition such questions were solved long time ago. Daoist classics criticize false methods and describe in details various signs how to find a true teaching, without revealing real techniques that can harm people. You can disagree with such strict approach. But it's pointless to do if you're looking for Dao.

 

Going back to the topic, the first post is about what I'm talking. It criticises false views and practices. So the circle is locked. "Uroboros" ))

[leth]

Not really, most words correspond to tangible things.

 

This does not make them any less a mental construct.

 

All concepts we have are mental constructs, ontologically speaking ther eis no such thing as a cup, sure the cup is tangiable, and sure ontologically that which the cup is made of does exist, but ontologically speaking it is not a cup it is simply a part of reality. The cup exists only as a mental construct yet it is tangiable. And so it is with many things, they are tangiable, but they are not in any way ontological objects. In fact with our current understanding, ontological objects are but an abstraction and are in no way tangiable.

 

 

Again not quite. Some of us do have it, while the rest of us are considered deluded, mentally ill, or having a mystical experience.

 

Who are we to say who is mad and who has a sound reasoning?

What is it about certain kinds of reasoning which makes it superior to other kinds of reasoning?

Only if we can agree that some sort of reasoning is unreasonable can we really come to terms with what is to be called mad and not.

 

There is a 3 point check list to see if we see and/or understand something for real. 1. can it be defined in words? 2. is it tangible? 3. is it usable?

 

This is a very flawed way of reasoning.

 

Whether something can be defined with words does not in any way say anything about it's ontological status.

We can form words for anything, i could make up the word gobbledygook and claim it is an actuall ontological object but that doesn't make it so. Likewise we must first conceptualise soemthing to be able to form words for it, and considering how many things we have historically been unable to conceptualise that are now accepted as part of reality it is unfeaseble to say that we must be able to conceptualise seomthing or form a word for it if it is real. Before copper as a material was conceptualised was there no such thing as copper in reality?

 

Whether something is tangiable or not is not a very good indication of whether it is real either. Molecules are not tangiable yet we take them as real, nor is light tangiable yet it is real to us. On the other hand Softness is tangiable, but is but an attribute and not in any way a real thing.

 

As to usefullnes it is far from a good indicator, of course we can make up uses for anything if we so wish, but most would agree that a cloud is not very usable, yet we consider it real. And on the other hand many abstract concepts are very usable yet they are not real, math is very usable but it is not real it exists only as abstracta, similarly words thoughts are but mental constructs.

 

So why would a combination of these three things be a good indicator of ontological status?

 

Take softness for instance, it is a word, is tangiable and usable. Yet it is not considered real.

 

And is not infeasable to say that there are discoveries to be made about reality that are not yet conceptualised and thus has no words for them, nor would they be tangiable or usable yet they would be real. A molecule or a quark for instance are modern discoveries which before their discoveries fitted this category.

 

This 'same word is not the same word' thing could be a problem when trying to create a reasonable worldview.

 

Not really, it's more about understanding context, words with more than one meaning is more or less abundant in most languages. To differentiate between different context might sometimes be hard but most people do seem to have this ability to some degree.

[leth]

I rarely comment anymore simply because it is rarely productive. In this case, I feel the need to make an observation without giving any further communication on the topic.

 

Perhaps we would benefit more from your opinions and thoughts on the subject if you care to share them.

 

The best way to make conversations more productive is to be a productive part of it.

[Antares]

 

 

So for newbies, how to understand what is good and what is bad?

By trying everything with a high risk to destroy their health?

 

In Daoist tradition such questions were solved long time ago. Daoist classics criticize false methods and describe in details various signs how to find a true teaching, without revealing real techniques that can harm people. You can disagree with such strict approach. But it's pointless to do if you're looking for Dao.

 

I totally agree with your opinion. It seems to be easy to understand but to me it seems that many people can't realize this simple notion of that fact that there is only one real way to genuine health, longevity and spirituality which is strict traditional approach whether it is neidan or neigong if we talk about Daoism. Some people  want to find shortcuts by practicing suspicious and corrupted methods which they take from different sources. I used to do it myself but now I have been practicing some traditional methods for some period of time and I can see clear now how I was stupid and blind before and how much harm I did to myself practicing wrong methods. It was waste of time, money and life energy! Traditional approach is something very special and can not be compared to methods like qigong especially with self made or recently invented methods. The difference is like Heaven and Earth. It is very stupid to practice anything without CONSTANT supervision of the knowledgeable teacher in legit traditional lineage. Even experienced students get some deviations sometime. But Qigong for itself is recent invention and can not be the legit way to superb health and real enlightenment because it does not nourish Ming which is the foundation of real daoist approach to longevity and enlightenment. Another point that it is not easy to find nowadays and people want to substitute it with something else. I myself was in these shoes and I practiced methods from books and I trained with suspicious teachers, and only now I understand how i was wrong with that approach

[Taoist Texts]

This does not make them any less a mental construct.

 

All concepts we have are mental constructs, ontologically speaking ther eis no such thing as a cup, sure the cup is tangiable, and sure ontologically that which the cup is made of does exist, but ontologically speaking it is not a cup it is simply a part of reality. The cup exists only as a mental construct yet it is tangiable. And so it is with many things, they are tangiable, but they are not in any way ontological objects. In fact with our current understanding, ontological objects are but an abstraction and are in no way tangiable.

 

I understand but disagree. For some reason you insert something you call ontology between the reality and our minds.

 

And i dont think it is this

 

Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Ontology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

ontology either.

 

 

 

Who are we to say who is mad and who has a sound reasoning?

Reasonable Person legal definition of Reasonable Person

 

  A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society

who exercises average care, skill, and..

 

What is it about certain kinds of reasoning which makes it superior to other kinds of reasoning?

Only if we can agree that some sort of reasoning is unreasonable can we really come to terms with what is to be called mad and not.

Absolutely;)

Whether something can be defined with words does not in any way say anything about it's ontological status.

We can form words for anything, i could make up the word gobbledygook and claim it is an actuall ontological object but that doesn't make it so.

Of course. Because there is no something tangible for it. Remember its a 3 point check list;)

Likewise we must first conceptualise soemthing to be able to form words for it, and considering how many things we have historically been unable to conceptualise that are now accepted as part of reality it is unfeaseble to say that we must be able to conceptualise seomthing or form a word for it if it is real. Before copper as a material was conceptualised was there no such thing as copper in reality?

No, there was no copper before that. There was something called 'that funny reddish stone'.

 

Whether something is tangiable or not is not a very good indication of whether it is real either. Molecules are not tangiable yet we take them as real, nor is light tangiable yet it is real to us.

Molecules and other particles are tangible in large quantities. Light is tangible to our eyes.

 

On the other hand Softness is tangiable, but is but an attribute and not in any way a real thing.

Softness is not tangible. A soft object is.

 

As to usefullnes it is far from a good indicator, of course we can make up uses for anything if we so wish, but most would agree that a cloud is not very usable, yet we consider it real.

Umm, rain, shade, agriculture?

And on the other hand many abstract concepts are very usable yet they are not real, math is very usable but it is not real it exists only as abstracta, similarly words thoughts are but mental constructs.

Yes. Pls remember, all 3 points.

 

And is not infeasable to say that there are discoveries to be made about reality that are not yet conceptualised and thus has no words for them, nor would they be tangiable or usable yet they would be real. A molecule or a quark for instance are modern discoveries which before their discoveries fitted this category.

of course. The reality is changeable. But what not yet happened is a construct not a reality.

 

Not really, it's more about understanding context, words with more than one meaning is more or less abundant in most languages. 

I disagree that the words have more than one meaning. What you talking about is  called 

 

Homonym - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

In linguistics, a homonym is one of a group of words that share the same pronunciation but have different meanings, whether spelled the same or not. A more ..

[Taoist Texts]

"All those who want to live a long life, but do not obtain the Divine Elixirs (shendan) and the Golden Liquor (jinye), merely bring suffering upon themselves.

 

Huangdi jiuding shendan jingjue

 

 

"It is clear that if the present-day coarse and rustic practitioners do not obtain the great methods of the Golden Elixir, they will not obtain a long life.  ." (Baopu zi, chapter 14. Translated by Fabrizio Pregadio)

 

These 2 texts are waidan, external alchemy texts. These 2 excerpts show that the authors of these 2 texts regarded all other practices , such as neidan as false and/or  inferior. There is an irony somewhere in there.

[leth]

I understand but disagree. For some reason you insert something you call ontology between the reality and our minds.

 

Ontology is not something put between reality and our minds, it is the study of existance and reality. I do not insert it, it is merely a description of what it is we are doing when we study or discuss the subject of existance and reality.

 

It is a field of study which have arisen because we have inquires about existance and reality, and thus must figure out what it means to exist, or what it means to be real. And as it turns out this is a very complex subject, because our language uses the word exist in many different ways and it can become unclear what is meant with existance unless we specify which form of existance we are talking about.

 

For instance dragons can be said to exist in one sense, because we have concived of them in our minds, and thus they do exists as figments of our mind. But they do not exist in reality, and therefore they are not real. The do not really exist in that sense. As we can see existance as a concept that comes in many shapes, a dragon both exists and does not exist depending on the context used or even our views of mental constructs and reality. And if we are to talk about what exists and what is real we need to define what we do consider existing or real and differentiate between these various uses of the word existance.

 

That is why we use expressions such as mental constructs, physical and real.

 

Likewise we must look at concepts such as object and thing which are often that which is said to exist.

 

Ontological objects are such things that exists as independent objects in reality, and not such things that we have made up mental constructs of to be objects in our mind.

 

And the cup is a common object often used to demonstrate that our conceptions of objects does not translate to ontological objects even if they can be said to be real, that is that the demarcation of the cup as a distinct object is not ontologicall but just a mental construct because we define the object by it's function to us and not by any sort of ontological demarcation. Thus we differentiate between physical objects and ontological objects.

 

This is a convinent distiction if we are to talk about destinctions between reality as it is and how our minds percieve reality.

 

Molecules and other particles are tangible in large quantities. Light is tangible to our eyes.

 

No, molecules can not be said to be tangiable becase they are tangiable in large quantities What we do feel is the effect of a larger quantity of molecules, but never any molecule. In terms of physics masses are not even tangiable, but rather the interaction of the fundamental forces are. In no way are we able to distinguish this as a molecule, thus it can not be said that a molecules is in any way tangiable. It exsits as a mental construct to describe a certain phenomens of reality, and a substratum of that which is tangiable. Light is an interesting contrast to this, because it is the direct perception of one of the fundamental forces as we know them. It is however also just a mental construct that describes the behaviour of reality. Whether it is tangiable however depends on our mental constructs of light, we often think about what it is we are seeing rather than the fact that we are actually just percieving light reflecting from it.

 

Softness is not tangible. A soft object is.

 

Actually i would say that softness is tangiable, an object is as much a mental construct as a property, but what we do immediatly percieve is not really the object but rather the properties of the object, we then determine the object by it's properties. If we are talking about tactile perception then an object feels soft, in terms of visual perception we see a form and a color, and we then translate this to the object itself. If we are to claim that we do not percieve properties of objects then we can't claim that we percive objects either, because percieving properties is a requirement for percieving objects.

 

 

Umm, rain, shade, agriculture?

 

These are not uses of the cloud, we do not actually utilise the cloud itself, we utilise concepts which we have associate with the cloud, or effects that are related to the cloud. We utilise the water of the rain, we utilise the shadow of the cloud, never the cloud itself. If utilisation is to e defined to be so wide as you seem to do, then it does not really distinguish between anything att al, because it would be possible ot define a usage for anything, thus the distinctin is irrelevant and you are left with only two rules in your definition.

 

Yes. Pls remember, all 3 points.

 

I have demonstrated how these points in combination are not a reasonable way to distinguish between what is real or not.

 

Here are some more examples.

 

Aspects that are commonly understood to be real that your rules does not apply to:

 

Limitation of the speed of light.

The interaction between molecules.

 

Things that your rules apply to that are arugably not real:

 

Shapes

Holes

 

 

of course. The reality is changeable.

 

Reality itself does not change, it is our view of it that changes. Of course we can describe reality as changes but besides that, the factuality of reality does not change, it is our understanding of it that might change.

 

Or are you to say that reality is only made up of what we percive it to be. Is reality then not subjective?

The problem with this is that if we define this to be reality then it really loses it's function. It makes little sense to talk about reality as something external and we might just talk about it as reality. We might instead just use words such as I think, or for me it is. But this ofcourse is problematic becase we do communicate with other beings, and if we are to asume they are in fact not only figments of our own mind then there must exists something external, something we might call real, and it must be have some form of fundamental objective aspect.

 

But what not yet happened is a construct not a reality.

 

How can it be a construct without also being a reality?

 

 

I disagree that the words have more than one meaning. What you talking about is  called 

 

Homonym - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

In linguistics, a homonym is one of a group of words that share the same pronunciation but have different meanings, whether spelled the same or not. A more ..

 

No I was refering to polysemy, some would say that polysemes are a form of homonyms but others would say is distinct from homonyms.

Either way I am refereing to how a word can have different semes. And it is commonly known that words do have several semes. Colloquialy this is known as different definitions of the same word. Take for instance the word 'Tangiable' that you used. It might signify either somehting which is touchable, or something which is considered factual. There are plenty of examples of this and it can be noted if you read a dictionary.

 

It's a common phenomena in language, and it doesn't really make any sense to disagree with it.

 

A lot of misunderstandings arise because of different interpretions of polysmes and that is why metacommunication is important to defeat misunderstandings.

 

It is my opinion that studying Daoist works without an understanding of polysemy is bound to lead to misconceptions.

[Taoist Texts]

just a great quote for a time being;)

 

Schopenhauer expressed his dislike for the philosophy of his contemporary Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel many times in his published works. The following quotations are typical:

• If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right.
• Further, if I were to say that this summus philosophus [...] scribbled nonsense quite unlike any mortal before him, so that whoever could read his most eulogized work, the so-called Phenomenology of the Mind, without feeling as if he were in a madhouse, would qualify as an inmate for Bedlam, I should be no less right.^[115]
• At first Fichte and Schelling shine as the heroes of this epoch; to be followed by the man who is quite unworthy even of them, and greatly their inferior in point of talent --- I mean the stupid and clumsy charlatan Hegel.^[116]

In his Foreword to the first edition of his work Die beiden Grundprobleme der Ethik, Schopenhauer suggested that he had shown Hegel to have fallen prey to the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Schopenhauer suggested that Hegel's works were filled with "castles of abstraction," and that Hegel used deliberately impressive but ultimately vacuous verbiage.^[117]

[Taoist Texts]

Ontology is not something put between reality and our minds, it is the study of existance and reality. I do not insert it, it is merely a description of what it is we are doing when we study or discuss the subject of existance and reality.

 

It is a field of study which have arisen because we have inquires about existance and reality, and thus must figure out what it means to exist, or what it means to be real. And as it turns out this is a very complex subject, because our language uses the word exist in many different ways and it can become unclear what is meant with existance unless we specify which form of existance we are talking about.

so why dont we specify and do away with it?

Ontological objects are such things that exists as independent objects in reality, and not such things that we have made up mental constructs of to be objects in our mind.

yes. it is crystal clear. what seems to be the problem?

 

And the cup is a common object often used to demonstrate that our conceptions of objects does not translate to ontological objects even if they can be said to be real, that is that the demarcation of the cup as a distinct object is not ontologicall but just a mental construct because we define the object by it's function to us and not by any sort of ontological demarcation. Thus we differentiate between physical objects and ontological objects.

 

This is a convinent distiction if we are to talk about destinctions between reality as it is and how our minds percieve reality.

See there is your problem. You constantly bring back mind objects into the reality. Why? The cup is real  and its attributes do not exist independently of it. thats all there is to know for our purposes.

 

Or are you to say that reality is only made up of what we percive it to be. Is reality then not subjective?

Absolutely. It is.

The problem with this is that if we define this to be reality then it really loses it's function. It makes little sense to talk about reality as something external and we might just talk about it as reality. We might instead just use words such as I think, or for me it is. But this ofcourse is problematic becase we do communicate with other beings, and if we are to asume they are in fact not only figments of our own mind then there must exists something external, something we might call real, and it must be have some form of fundamental objective aspect.

No, no problem becouse the rest of the humanity shares our subjective reality.

How can it be a construct without also being a reality?

Simple. The human mind has a miraculous power to think up new  constructs out of external stimuli. Its called consciousness.

 

It is my opinion that studying Daoist works without an understanding of polysemy is bound to lead to misconceptions.

I donno about that;)

Edited February 21, 2016 by Taoist Texts

[leth]

so why dont we specify and do away with it?

 

Because it's not as simple as using an established term, epsecially if your are yourself used to it.

 

That is why we have so many words for so many things.

 

When the first drill was invented poeple might first have described it as a thing that spins around a sort of cutting device which then makes a hole, but pretty fast people would start using a single word for it because it is far more convinient than having to use a long description of it all the time.

 

And in specific contexts many words exist that are not very usable outside of this contex. This is usualy refered to as jargon, something that exists in many different settings, certain types of work or industries, certain fields of study. And most people outside those contexts simply don't know the associeted jargon.

 

And in philosophy there is a lot of jargon. In daoism there is also a lot of specific terms that are not really used outside of their daoist context.

 

yes. it is crystal clear. what seems to be the problem?

 

See there is your problem. You constantly bring back mind objects into the reality. Why? The cup is real  and its attributes do not exist independently of it. thats all there is to know for our purposes.

 

I didn't bring them back, I just explained to you what the terminology was. That the cup is not an ontological object means that it is not really real. But what it means to say that the cup is real but not ontological, is that which the mental construct we call the cup referese to is a part of reality that defact exists even though it is not an ontological object. We know this because we all agree that we can experience the cup. That is what it means for it to be real.

 

This is generally agreed upon by most of the major schools of though throughout the world, and the cup example is even used by many different traditions, I've heard it used by both philosophers and Buddhists. Though the terminology I used is from philosophy because that is the tradition that is mostly interlinked wiht the english language. In Buddism a completely different terminology exist to explai the very same thing, but we are currently discussing this in english so it is most appropriate to use terms that are closer to the english language i.e. terms from philosophy.

 

Absolutely. It is.

No, no problem becouse the rest of the humanity shares our subjective reality.

 

If the rest of humanity shares it, then it is by definition not subjective, unless ofcourse you are a solipsist.

 

Simple. The human mind has a miraculous power to think up new  constructs out of external stimuli. Its called consciousness.

 

That does not at all explain why the future exists as a construct yet is not part of reality.

 

Furthermore that is not what conciousness is.

[silent thunder]

It's Greek I believe that uses separate terms for nouns.  I've always appreciated that...

 

One word would be used if you are talking about the idea, or concept of an apple.

Another word for apple is used if you are referring to an experiential apple you have in your hand, or that you are asking a friend to pass to you in order to eat.

 

Words are so powerful in one respect, in their formative influence on our mental process, and they become especially potent if you fall into the common trap of believing that you are your mind/thoughts.  Yet they are merely symbols and like thoughts they are not inherently real.  They convey and transmit all sorts of connotations and limitations along with their intended meanings, which often differ greatly from individual to individual even within similar social and ethnic conditions. 

 

It's good to remember that we are not our mind.  Thoughts, words, while helpful in certain situations, are not inherently real, true, or even important. 

[Taoist Texts]

That does not at all explain why the future exists as a construct yet is not part of reality.

Because constructs are not real?

 

Leth we started here

 

 

How are we things?

 

And how is Dao not a thing if we are things?

Then we found out that we do not know what things are. Perhaps by now you do and agree that humans are things?

[Taoist Texts]

 I myself was in these shoes and I practiced methods from books and I trained with suspicious teachers, and only now I understand how i was wrong with that approach

This basically says ' i was wrong every time before therefore i am right now'.

[opendao]

This basically says ' i was wrong every time before therefore i am right now'.

 

sick logic only for those who can't learn by own mistakes.

 

It is my opinion that studying Daoist works without an understanding of polysemy is bound to lead to misconceptions.

These 2 texts are waidan, external alchemy texts. These 2 excerpts show that the authors of these 2 texts regarded all other practices , such as neidan as false and/or  inferior. There is an irony somewhere in there.

I donno about that;)

 

so true. But irony of that is not what you can grasp.

 

知不知上；不知知病。夫唯病病，是以不病。聖人不病，以其病病，是以不病。

To know and yet (think) we do not know is the highest (attainment); not to know (and yet think) we do know is a disease.

It is simply by being pained at (the thought of) having this disease that we are preserved from it. The sage has not the disease. He knows the pain that would be inseparable from it, and therefore he does not have it. (DDJ 71, Legge)

[opendao]

Actually few words about reality and words: while European thinkers twisted own and readers brains by various sophisticate mental constructs, Daoist teachers just directed students to see the reality without words.

Edited February 22, 2016 by opendao

[opendao]

It's good to remember that we are not our mind.  Thoughts, words, while helpful in certain situations, are not inherently real, true, or even important. 

 

What is True and Real from Daoist point of view?

[silent thunder]

What is True and Real from Daoist point of view?

Great question, but I don't even attempt to answer questions of this caliber much any more.  My attempts invariably used to end in rage, or thankfully, recently with chuckling frustration with my mind and its words, the audacity of it... trying to convey what lies vastly beyond them, and quietly within the void and emptiness when the mind finally quiets is as moot to me as fucking for virginity, fighting for peace, or staring at pictures of sausages to sate my hunger.

 

It is felt, experienced, usually in moments when I'm fatigued to the point of exhaustion, or bored into a stupor and sneaks upon me so softly and is so intimate, if I twinge even a little, it's diaphanous touch evaporates into more maddening monkey mind.   

 

Simultaneous expansion and contraction perhaps...

 

It's so maddeningly nearly tangible and the moments where its felt shine in sense memory like sunlight through ice that shakes with silent thunder.  But to my mind stuff, it remains utterly untouchable, utterly beyond the ken of my thought forms and while imbuing all of them... and I'm so grateful for that... that even were I to somehow arrive at the most amazing capacity of mind and become a towering giant of intellect among all the history of men, I would still never even were I to achieve immortality and have all the eons of time, never would I be able to sully it with my mental clattering...  never leash it with my chittering words and thought symbols. 

 

She is beyond.

[Taoist Texts]

No, molecules can not be said to be tangiable becase they are tangiable in large quantities  

 

[Walker]

Actually few words about reality and words: while European thinkers twisted own and readers brains by various sophisticate mental constructs, Daoist teachers just directed students to see the reality without words.

 

Worth repeating!

[leth]

Because constructs are not real?

 

That really doesn't explain it either.

 

Leth we started here

 

Not really, no.

 

Then we found out that we do not know what things are. Perhaps by now you do and agree that humans are things?

 

Humans are only things because we designate them as things, and the same designation applies to Dao.

 

But truly humans are not things, in the same way Dao is not a thing.

Likewise Dao is a thing just as Humans are things.

 

But you claim that humans are things even though Dao is not a thing, therefore i wonder how you consider humans to be a thing without Dao to be a thing.