What is Dao?

[Michael Sternbach]

I understand this differently.  I believe you are speaking of De.  Yes, there is human De and Celestial De.  I think it is an error to suggest that there is human Dao.  This feeds back to the concept of not trying to reify Dao.

 

That is taking a radical position on the Absolute/Anarchist side (surely Dao nature is anarchistic in important respects). Thanks for having the guts to always be yourself, MH.

 

One of the few rocks in our ever flowing cybernetic Dao river.

[opendao]

I understand this differently.  I believe you are speaking of De.  Yes, there is human De and Celestial De.  I think it is an error to suggest that there is human Dao.  This feeds back to the concept of not trying to reify Dao.

 

In learning any Tradition there is no space for blind beliefs....

 

DDJ 77

天之道，其猶張弓與？高者抑之，下者舉之；有餘者損之，不足者補之。天之道，損有餘而補不足。人之道，則不然，損不足以奉有餘。孰能有餘以奉天下，唯有道者。是以聖人為而不恃，功成而不處，其不欲見賢。

 

The way of heaven,

Is it not like stretching a bow?

What is high up is pressed down,

What is low down is lifted up;

What has surplus (yu yü) is reduced,

What is deficient (pu tsu) is supplemented.

The way of heaven,

It reduces those who have surpluses,

To supplement those who are deficient.

The human way is just not so.

It reduces those who are deficient,

To offer those who have surpluses.

Who can offer his surpluses to the world?

Only a person of Tao.

Therefore the sage works (wei) without holding on to,

Accomplishes without claiming credit.

Is it not because he does not want to show off his merits?

(English version by Ellen Marie Chen)

 

So Lao Zi suggests that there is Human Dao (人之道) and he says clearly that it's not the same as Celestial Dao (天之道), but you think it's an error? Well, ok and good luck with that.

 

Btw such distinction cannot "reify Dao".

 

Carry on as you want.  LZ was born a human.  His past life, like all of us, accumulates something... of human existence... like each of us.  The accumulation does finally effect something in each of us...  That is when it gets really interesting... no more "following" is needed...

 

Even if Lao Zi was born as an ordinary human (there are various opinions), he received, practised and obtained the Great Dao. And he taught that by "accumulation of human existence" it's impossible to repeat. Again, just by reincarnating and following the human Dao it's impossible to obtain the Great Dao, it's impossible to get to the stage when "no more following is needed".

 

-----------------------------

I think it's clear that based on various beliefs, rumours, "common sense" and by following natural flow of things it's impossible to obtain Dao. There is a lot about it in texts, but really everybody can look around and realize that in the modern world we see no people who attained Dao. As we'll see later, we even don't know what to look for... When a person obtains Dao and becomes a Sage (shengren), what changes? What is the result of the Dao practice?

Edited February 27, 2016 by opendao

[Michael Sternbach]

Marblehead said:

 

Dao gave birth to One,

One gave birth to Two,

Two gave birth to Three,

Three gave birth to the Ten Thousand Things.

 

 

I am, of course, remembering that One was Singularity.  Dao gave birth to Singularity.  In other words, the De of Dao caused Singularity to exist even though it was only One, undifferentiated.

 

One had to give birth to Two before things really started happening.

I fully agree with you.

 

Dao (or whatever equivalent philosophical or cosmological concept you wish to employ - a couple of options here ), alright, Dao started its career as Nothingness or a dimensionless point, Dao, Dao formed the One circle (Wu chi) and, quite instantaneously split itself up into the Two opposite forces, Yin and Yang. These two, through their antagonism, but in ultimate aim, aspire to reunite and renew the One by creating a new circle that is congruent with it, thus the Third). In this state of absolute harmony (and remember that it permeates time and space in a state of timelessness, so it's always there ), either progression is possible (on towards the Ten-Thousand Things), or regression to Wu chi, Pralaya, Chaos, En Soph Aur, Pre-Big Bang quantum vacuum, whatever the heck you want to call it, from where, well, a new Creation will take its place away (retaining more or less of the foregoing cycle).

 

Thus the DDJ presents us with nothing less but a vista of the whole universe both in space and time, bot does so on a very abstract, even mathematical level that allows its translation to probably any kind of emergence out of a state of void, may it be occurring on the level of the cosmos, or of this planet, of biological nature, or even of the human history and human individuality. All in that a nutshell! To say that Lao Dzu was an abstractionist would be an understatement.

 

In this regard, he is close to the Kabbalists, but what both saves from truly being reductionist is their vivid acknowledegment and appraisal of the living nature as the child of Dao that will one day reunite with it.

 

On an individual human level, the lack or presence of the subtlety by which you are able to exist and act in accordance with that eventual reunion (which really transcends time and space, as it were, and is omnipresent) will determine the degree to which you are "in the Dao." It's as simple as this, mates, really.

[Marblehead]

 

In learning any Tradition there is no space for blind beliefs....

 

DDJ 77

天之道，其猶張弓與？高者抑之，下者舉之；有餘者損之，不足者補之。天之道，損有餘而補不足。人之道，則不然，損不足以奉有餘。孰能有餘以奉天下，唯有道者。是以聖人為而不恃，功成而不處，其不欲見賢。

 

The way of heaven,

Is it not like stretching a bow?

What is high up is pressed down,

What is low down is lifted up;

What has surplus (yu yü) is reduced,

What is deficient (pu tsu) is supplemented.

The way of heaven,

It reduces those who have surpluses,

To supplement those who are deficient.

The human way is just not so.

It reduces those who are deficient,

To offer those who have surpluses.

Who can offer his surpluses to the world?

Only a person of Tao.

Therefore the sage works (wei) without holding on to,

Accomplishes without claiming credit.

Is it not because he does not want to show off his merits?

(English version by Ellen Marie Chen)

 

So Lao Zi suggests that there is Human Dao (人之道) and he says clearly that it's not the same as Celestial Dao (天之道), but you think it's an error? Well, ok and good luck with that.

Please note the words used above in translation.  It spoke to:

 

The Way of Heaven

 

and

 

The human way

 

Both these, in my opinion, are speaking to the processes - how it works - De.

 

 

As to:

 

Only a person of Tao.

 

Yes, this is speaking to the concept of Tao.  However, even this is speaking of the way of human being equal to the Way of Tao.

 

And yes, the Sage would be one who reflects the Way of Tao.

 

 

 

Please consider that this is a recent modified understanding I am having that has been brewing for some time.  I know what I feel but the proper words don't always present themselves.

 

My point is:

The Tao that may be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

 

But we can speak of the Way of Tao.  Those are the processes of nature.  And we can speak of the way of humans which is not always in accord with the processes of nature.

 

 

I'm glad that you agree that Dao cannot be reified.

[Geof Nanto]

My point is:

The Tao that may be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

 

And so the discussion returns to the non-beginning....

 

No-Beginning continued, "He who, when asked about the Way, gives an answer does not understand the Way; and he who asked about the Way has not really heard the Way explained. The Way is not to be asked about, and even if it is asked about, there can be no answer. To ask about what cannot be asked about is to ask for the sky. To answer what cannot be answered is to try to split hairs. If the hair-splitter waits for the sky-asker, then neither will ever perceive the time and space that surround them on the outside, or understand the Great Beginning that is within. Such men can never trek across the K'un-lun, can never wander in the Great Void!" 

 

(Zhuangzi chapter 22, Burton Watson's translation.)

[Marblehead]

Yep.  That's one of the passages that reflect this modified understanding I am trying to establish.

 

Here is another point:

 

Dao gave birth to Wu,

Wu gave birth to Yu,

Yu gave birth to humans.

 

My words:

 

Dao gave birth to Mystery,

Mystery gave birth to Manifest,

Manifest gave birth to humans.

 

We cannot speak of Mystery (Wu), let alone Dao, as, really, it is a mystery.

The reversion, and therefore the immersing with Dao, would require transcending first the human and then the Manifest.  Here we are in Wu (Mystery).  From here we can experience Dao, as Michael pointed out above, the dimensionless point.  (Beyond space/time.)

 

However, our body is still alive.  We must return to it as in:

 

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain. then there is.

 

 

But then, let me add that we can sometimes speak of Mystery because it is my opinion that this is where our spiritual inspirations arise from.  But they are experiences, not something manifested physically.

[opendao]

And so the discussion returns to the non-beginning....

 

No-Beginning continued, "He who, when asked about the Way, gives an answer does not understand the Way; and he who asked about the Way has not really heard the Way explained. The Way is not to be asked about, and even if it is asked about, there can be no answer. To ask about what cannot be asked about is to ask for the sky. To answer what cannot be answered is to try to split hairs. If the hair-splitter waits for the sky-asker, then neither will ever perceive the time and space that surround them on the outside, or understand the Great Beginning that is within. Such men can never trek across the K'un-lun, can never wander in the Great Void!" 

 

(Zhuangzi chapter 22, Burton Watson's translation.)

 

So do you think that Lao Zi, who did answer when asked about Dao, didn't understand the Way? I hope you don't think so ))

 

The answer is very simple if we know how Dao is taught... "Teaching without words" it's called. And it's very important.

 

Remember: "Dao is unknown source of life". We cannot know it, but we can realize it. All texts and words are just to help people to start the way and follow it, not the Dao itself.

 

The Tao that may be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

 

Just a completely wrong translation of the first line of DDJ. People repeat it endlessly without any efforts to read the Chinese text...

 

Obviously it has no logic: Lao Zi couldn't claim that Dao might not be spoken and then spoke about it in 81 chapters 

[Marblehead]

Just a completely wrong translation of the first line of DDJ. People repeat it endlessly without any efforts to read the Chinese text...

 

Obviously it has no logic: Lao Zi couldn't claim that Dao might not be spoken and then spoke about it in 81 chapters 

I don't often reference Red PIne's translation but I will this time.

 

Chapter 1

 

The way that becomes a way

is not the immortal Way

...

 

In his footnotes he includes:

 

Ch'eng Chu says, "A sage doesn't reveal the Way, not because he keeps it secret, but because it can't be revealed.  Hence his words are like footsteps that leave no tracks."

[Geof Nanto]

I don't often reference Red PIne's translation but I will this time.

 

Chapter 1

 

The way that becomes a way

is not the immortal Way

...

 

In his footnotes he includes:

 

Ch'eng Chu says, "A sage doesn't reveal the Way, not because he keeps it secret, but because it can't be revealed.  Hence his words are like footsteps that leave no tracks."

 

The Yellow Emperor said, "Only when there is no pondering and no cogitation will you get to know the Way. Only when you have no surroundings and follow no practices will you find rest in the Way. Only when there is no path and no procedure can you get to the Way."

 

Zhuang Zhou

[Geof Nanto]

Just a completely wrong translation of the first line of DDJ. People repeat it endlessly without any efforts to read the Chinese text...

 

Obviously it has no logic: Lao Zi couldn't claim that Dao might not be spoken and then spoke about it in 81 chapters 

 

How would you translate this line? To my mind paradox is essential to hint at the incomprehensible. It's not about logic.

 

 “Oddly enough the paradox is one of our most valuable spiritual possessions, while uniformity of meaning is a sign of weakness. Hence a religion becomes inwardly impoverished when it loses or waters down its paradoxes; but their multiplication enriches because only the paradox comes anywhere near comprehending the fullness of life. Non-ambiguity and non-contradiction are one-sided and thus unsuitable to express the incomprehensible.”  Carl  Jung

[opendao]

How would you translate this line? To my mind paradox is essential to hint at the incomprehensible. It's not about logic.

 

 “Oddly enough the paradox is one of our most valuable spiritual possessions, while uniformity of meaning is a sign of weakness. Hence a religion becomes inwardly impoverished when it loses or waters down its paradoxes; but their multiplication enriches because only the paradox comes anywhere near comprehending the fullness of life. Non-ambiguity and non-contradiction are one-sided and thus unsuitable to express the incomprehensible.”  Carl  Jung

 

In the first phrase, paradox appears only if we translate dao as a verb "to speak". If we translate it as "to walk", which is more correct, then we get something like: "The Dao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Dao." (Legge)

And no paradox any more...

 

Dao is incomprehensible fully. But it doesn't mean we can't formulate some important basic ideas about it. If it would be impossible, what would be the point for Lao Zi to write any books? Therefore he thought it's possible, and the text were useful at least for his students.

 

Many people think they are close to Dao, but they've never even started... For them to get some words and start looking in a right direction is very helpful. But words are not Dao, and by words it's impossible to obtain Dao.

Edited February 28, 2016 by opendao

[Geof Nanto]

@ opendao

 

I most definitely agree that words are useful to formulate important basic ideas pointing towards the Dao, and there's been some worthwhile discussion here. However I get the impression there's more you want to add. 

 

As to the Daodejing, I like reading a wide range of translations and particularly value terse, enigmatic translations that don't try to iron out ambiguities and retain paradoxes such as by Addiss and Lombardo....

 

TAO called TAO is not TAO.

Names can name no lasting name. 

 

Or even better; one my favorites.....

 

No way is the WAY

No name is the NAME

Edited February 28, 2016 by Yueya

[flowing hands]

it's not a transmission, but misinterpretations of mistranslations.

 

 

There is Human Dao (Ren Dao) and Celestial Dao (Tian Dao).

 

Being one with the natural principle of things is Human Dao, that's what Dawei tries to be one with. 

 

To lost Dao is to lost Human Dao first of all. It means people stop following the changes of Nature, they lost something what allows them to do it. It's not a philosophy principle or some mind concept though.

 

Neidan is just another name for Celestial Dao, and Lao Zi's Great Dao is not the same as Human Dao. Moreover, it's totally opposite.

 

So what is the Celestial Dao then? What realy Daoism teaches to follow? There are clear definitions in Dao De Jing, but people prefer to sing same songs about being one with nature...

 

I really do feel sorry for you, I have read a lot of your posts throughout the Dao Bums and you come across so arrogant and all knowing, ready to debunk everyone apart from anyone who agrees with you. I have shown you and others that you are indeed very lacking even in your basic knowledge of traditional Daoist practises and yet you remain convinced of your own 'authority' to make judgement on others and myself included, mocking my title of Holyman and now my DDJ that My teacher Li Erh Xian Shi taught me in 1986.You have not met me, you know very little about me or to my history, but you are ready to criticize and to debase what great treasure I was given. This treasure gives the English speaking world a far greater insight into Daoism than any other, because it talks of real neidan and a true path to finding the Dao which can be found. 

Holymen/women are very dangerous and powerful humans, their connection to the spirit world is one that is fixed and consolidated. The spirit world is a world that ordinary people should never dabble with, for the spirit world will interfere with the mortal world when things have gone too far. Don't go too far is my advice to you, you are treading on toes that most knowledgeable people would never go near. Over all the years of being a Holyman I have experienced them and seen the Immortals in Heaven give people real lessons that they need to learn. It may be a harsh way of learning but it certainly is real. Don't debase that which is pure and comes from the mouths of Immortals, for there lies a path for a true lesson to be taught.

[Marblehead]

Yeah, we all have lessons to learn in life.  Some lessons are harder to learn than are others.

 

We each have our own understandings at any given point in time.  But time changes and so do our understandings.

 

We each have the right to present our understandings without being debased by others.  And besides, who knows what we can learn if we give fair consideration to what others say?

[Michael Sternbach]

Yes. An accomplished Zen master once said that he is ready to learn a lesson from a seven year old child.

 

Believing that we have found The Truth will keep us from asking further questions. If we are no longer open to answers and perspectives outside the box that define the limitations of our mind, we have stopped growing.

 

Whatever knowledge we may already have, it shouldn't keep us from seeking our truth anew every day. Therefore Lao Dzu teaches that Dao cannot be defined once and for all.

 

Such is the spirit of Daoism. This is what I would call open Dao.

[dawei]

@ opendao

 

I most definitely agree that words are useful to formulate important basic ideas pointing towards the Dao, and there's been some worthwhile discussion here. However I get the impression there's more you want to add. 

 

As to the Daodejing, I like reading a wide range of translations and particularly value terse, enigmatic translations that don't try to iron out ambiguities and retain paradoxes such as by Addiss and Lombardo....

 

TAO called TAO is not TAO.

Names can name no lasting name. 

 

Or even better; one my favorites.....

 

No way is the WAY

No name is the NAME

 

I always liked what my wife once told me. Chinese can present you with five characters and the sentence has ten meanings.

 

What is said is only half the story; Then other half lurks in that realm where nothing was said..

[opendao]

I really do feel sorry for you, I have read a lot of your posts throughout the Dao Bums and you come across so arrogant and all knowing, ready to debunk everyone apart from anyone who agrees with you. I have shown you and others that you are indeed very lacking even in your basic knowledge of traditional Daoist practises and yet you remain convinced of your own 'authority' to make judgement on others and myself included, mocking my title of Holyman and now my DDJ that My teacher Li Erh Xian Shi taught me in 1986.You have not met me, you know very little about me or to my history, but you are ready to criticize and to debase what great treasure I was given. This treasure gives the English speaking world a far greater insight into Daoism than any other, because it talks of real neidan and a true path to finding the Dao which can be found. 

Holymen/women are very dangerous and powerful humans, their connection to the spirit world is one that is fixed and consolidated. The spirit world is a world that ordinary people should never dabble with, for the spirit world will interfere with the mortal world when things have gone too far. Don't go too far is my advice to you, you are treading on toes that most knowledgeable people would never go near. Over all the years of being a Holyman I have experienced them and seen the Immortals in Heaven give people real lessons that they need to learn. It may be a harsh way of learning but it certainly is real. Don't debase that which is pure and comes from the mouths of Immortals, for there lies a path for a true lesson to be taught.

 

such a humble messiah... full of rubbish and empty of arguments.

 

Yes. An accomplished Zen master once said that he is ready to learn a lesson from a seven year old child.

 

Believing that we have found The Truth will keep us from asking further questions. If we are no longer open to answers and perspectives outside the box that define the limitations of our mind, we have stopped growing.

 

Whatever knowledge we may already have, it shouldn't keep us from seeking our truth anew every day. Therefore Lao Dzu teaches that Dao cannot be defined once and for all.

 

You see, you suggest others what to do, but you don't do it by yourself. You claim things, but don't ask questions.

 

But I'm always ask one simple question: what is the source of your knowledge? You said: "internal daoist master". Unholy-man said: "I spoke to Lao Zi in 1986". Others just repeating words from books they don't bother to read carefully...

 

Do you really think such people can teach something comparing to those who understand texts and practically obtained Dao?

 

All the concepts here were questioned many many times by many many people in our school. But we choose carefully who to ask, because in 99% of cases people cannot answer, because they simply don't know.

 

"7 years old child" knows something Zen master doesn't. What is that?

 

Therefore Lao Dzu teaches that Dao cannot be defined once and for all.

 

No he doesn't teach it. He teaches that Dao cannot be defined fully, and that for practising and teaching it's not needed. Do you see the difference?

 

Dao is a "teaching without words". How it can be possible?

[leth]

We can't really talk about Dao itself but we can talk about how to experience Dao.

Here is a video of someone talking about that in modern terms.

 

Edited February 28, 2016 by leth

[Michael Sternbach]

You see, you suggest others what to do, but you don't do it by yourself. You claim things, but don't ask questions.

 

It was you who asked a question, and I gave you an answer. Did I miss something?

 

But I'm always ask one simple question: what is the source of your knowledge?

 

Do you ask this question to yourself sometimes? (Let me guess: Books?)

 

You said: "internal daoist master". Unholy-man said: "I spoke to Lao Zi in 1986". Others just repeating words from books they don't bother to read carefully...

 

Do you really think such people can teach something comparing to those who understand texts and practically obtained Dao?

 

Yes. And who said that I didn't read the books carefully?

 

 

All the concepts here were questioned many many times by many many people in our school. But we choose carefully who to ask, because in 99% of cases people cannot answer, because they simply don't know.

 

If they could really answer, they would not know (Chuang Tzu).

 

"7 years old child" knows something Zen master doesn't. What is that?

 

Ask the Zen master.

 

No he doesn't teach it. He teaches that Dao cannot be defined fully, and that for practising and teaching it's not needed. Do you see the difference?

 

No, he meant that Dao cannot be fully known because it changes from moment to moment.

 

Dao is a "teaching without words". How it can be possible?

 

Well, what can you say when words are not enough?

[flowing hands]

such a humble messiah... full of rubbish and empty of arguments.

 

 

You see, you suggest others what to do, but you don't do it by yourself. You claim things, but don't ask questions.

 

But I'm always ask one simple question: what is the source of your knowledge? You said: "internal daoist master". Unholy-man said: "I spoke to Lao Zi in 1986". Others just repeating words from books they don't bother to read carefully...

 

Do you really think such people can teach something comparing to those who understand texts and practically obtained Dao?

 

All the concepts here were questioned many many times by many many people in our school. But we choose carefully who to ask, because in 99% of cases people cannot answer, because they simply don't know.

 

"7 years old child" knows something Zen master doesn't. What is that?

 

 

No he doesn't teach it. He teaches that Dao cannot be defined fully, and that for practising and teaching it's not needed. Do you see the difference?

 

Dao is a "teaching without words". How it can be possible?

 

I am going to educate you:

 

Fact: A Messiah does not come into the Daoist Pantheon, a Messiah is of the Jewish/Christian religions, where they believe in one God and a Messiah is the messenger from this single God. 

 

Now the Daoist religion believes in many gods and spirits and has a leader only to oversee that things are not going too wrong (Yu Whang Shan Ti). So on my website you have read that I was once an Immortal. That is not a messiah, wrong religion, and sure since an adult I have been landed with the knowledge of the future which I have endeavored to tell people for all our sake's, but of course there are many of my brothers and sisters who practice what I do. They may not have been an Immortal in their last life and landed with the job of telling everyone what the future holds, but they are the same as me. We are not messiahs.

 

Fact: I come from a genuine sect of which temples can be visited, I was baptised by another shaman in a trance after first being accepted. What I say comes from the teachings I have received from my Immortal Masters. Many people have benefited from these over the years when I have given them. You have not had the benefit of my teachings personally so I think you are not even in any position to judge whether they are rubbish or not.

 

Fact: "un-holyman". Personal insults show a high degree of inadequacy, that's why I felt sorry for you. 

 

Fact: You are displaying the countenance of someone who is very arrogant, you misquote peoples words for your own ends, an example as above, I did not say as you quoted:

 

"Unholy-man said: "I spoke to Lao Zi in 1986".

 

No I said quite clearly "and now my DDJ that My teacher Li Erh Xian Shi taught me in 1986"

 

Please note that you have used quote marks to indicate to others that that is exactly what I said, but it wasn't, was it. How many times in posts have you done this?

[opendao]

Fact: I come from a genuine sect of which temples can be visited, I was baptised by another shaman in a trance after first being accepted. What I say comes from the teachings I have received from my Immortal Masters. Many people have benefited from these over the years when I have given them. You have not had the benefit of my teachings personally so I think you are not even in any position to judge whether they are rubbish or not.

 

Thanks Heaven and all saints I haven't got any direct experience with you...

 

Rubbish or not is easy to see: real Immortals wrote books, they left students. That students became Immortals as well. So we have books without rubbish. Then some day dreamer wrote his interpretation of Dao De Jing, where all major ideas were defined upside down. And it became rubbish. How to prove? Simple: by results. If Dao is not obtained, then it's not a Daoist tradition, but something else.

 

Fact: "un-holyman". Personal insults show a high degree of inadequacy, that's why I felt sorry for you. 

 

Fact: You are displaying the countenance of someone who is very arrogant

 

I just have no respect to those who fool people about Dao and lie about their holiness.

 

dictionary: holy, sacred, hallowed refer to something that is the object of worship or veneration. holy refers to the divine, that which has its sanctity directly from God or is connected with Him.

 

You said you're not messiah? Well, it seems you're confused about own titles... But I think everything is clear that you're not a holyman, even you self-proclaimed to be so.

 

, you misquote peoples words for your own ends, an example as above, I did not say as you quoted:

 

"Unholy-man said: "I spoke to Lao Zi in 1986".

 

No I said quite clearly "and now my DDJ that My teacher Li Erh Xian Shi taught me in 1986"

 

you said: "Lets use Li Erh's version that he dictated to me in English for the English speaking world."

 

Dictate = "say or read aloud". 

 

So fool somebody else by messiah twists. 

[opendao]

Do you ask this question to yourself sometimes? (Let me guess: Books?)

 

wrong guess, my source is obvious: the traditional school of Dao, that trace back its practical methods and understanding to Lao Zi.

 

So I asked you, and got the response that you're allergic to dust and learn from "internal daoist".

Did I understand something wrong?

 

Yes. And who said that I didn't read the books carefully?

 

I did say it about other people, because you said you don't read classics at all ))

 

If they could really answer, they would not know (Chuang Tzu).

 

Same as in the phrase "who speaks doesn't know, who knows doesn't speak".

 

It's all about "teaching without words". 

 

Ask the Zen master.

 

So you use words, but don't know what they mean? Ok, let's skip it.

 

No, he meant that Dao cannot be fully known because it changes from moment to moment.

 

It changes, but there are principles how humans can change with it.

 

Lao Zi explained that, and this explanation is still valid while human body inner laws are the same.

 

There are some external changes in the teaching since that time, but the principles are the same.

 

Well, what can you say when words are not enough?

 

"When words are not necessary at all" is better. 

 

There is a big difference between teaching Dao to someone and make hints about Dao.

 

In teaching there is no need for words.

 

In guiding to a right direction it's hard to avoid words, especially using texts / internet.

Everything has its time to use.

 

What is said is only half the story; Then other half lurks in that realm where nothing was said..

 

those who get to the realm of no words, can use words and explain how to get there... People love to speak about void, but when asked about how to get there start answering various no-sense. 

 

We can't really talk about Dao itself but we can talk about how to experience Dao.

 

Right. And it is the only thing worth to talk about 

[Geof Nanto]

Inflation

 

When a person becomes so identified with a particular spiritual archetype that they fail to separate their own ego from the archetype we call this inflation. A preacher or teacher, feeling that their insights and passion come from beyond them becomes a prophet proclaiming the words of God, a religious leader may develop a messianic complex and identify as a guru or as an incarnation of a god.

 

Not all inflation is a bad thing! It can allow us to become more than our fragile selves. Every priest needs to become inflated with a priestly archetype to be effective, every healer needs to portray the confidence that the divine energy flows through them to be effective. These experiences of inflation, of course, are initiations of the soul – they send us off on some sort of divine quest. Inflation is common when we start on a spiritual path –  we seem to be infused with divine energy, meditating and praying are easy, spiritual experience floods our souls.

 

Inflation can be a wonderful and helpful experience but it is also dangerous. All religious traditions have techniques and ways of teaching their followers not to become inflated and these are important if we are to guard against dangers on the spiritual path. So Jesus can proclaim “Whoever wants to be my disciple me must take up his cross and follow me.” These allow the spiritual person to be in the presence of the holy and not to get carried away by it. Buddhists try to get disciples to focus on the impermanence of the self as an antidote to religious ego inflation.

 

One aspect of this inflation is the sense that one knows the truth which is hidden from others. This is a kind of gnosticism (gnosis = knowing). It is common when we start on a spiritual path to think that we have found “THE TRUTH” and that we are somehow above others who do not have that same insight. This comes about because of the excitement of the “AHA” moment when we realize a  deep truth about life. The ego can seize upon that feeling a use it to feel superior or part of a select special group.

 

When we recognize the nature of inflation we can use it to expand ourselves. In the presence of an archetype we are temporarily inflated which means we expand as a person, we engage the divine and we feel deeply. But that is not our doing – it belongs to the archetypal realm and in the quiet of our our minds we can deflate again and become our human searching selves again.

 

(from http://archetypalspirituality.org/archetypal-energy/inflation/ )

[opendao]

 

Inflation

 

When a person becomes so identified with a particular spiritual archetype that they fail to separate their own ego from the archetype we call this inflation. A preacher or teacher, feeling that their insights and passion come from beyond them becomes a prophet proclaiming the words of God, a religious leader may develop a messianic complex and identify as a guru or as an incarnation of a god.

....

 

(from http://archetypalspirituality.org/archetypal-energy/inflation/ )

 

Modern people lost direct understanding of what is good and what is bad.

 

Liberal approach, acceptance of any ideas, tolerance to evil - with such baggage it's impossible to learn Dao.

[Marblehead]

Nice reference.  I sure am glad I decided to not go the religious path when I first started reading Taoist texts.

 

 

Oh!  And BTW, we Materialists have that inflation of ego problem too.  It's not just for religious people.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Marblehead