The Goal

[Arkady Shadursky]

You seem to be very attached to being right and proving another wrong, which is the sole purpose of this thread and others. Additionally, I believe it to be the reason you became a member of TDB.

As far I've got direct accusation, I want to openly answer it and clarify my position.

 

My goal of being here is the spreading of Traditional Daoism (Ancient Dao). Showing it from every perspective and helping fellow members to find out more about it. So, I'd like explain my latest activity here with an example:

Let's imagine you are entering the shop and see several shelves with apples. All the apples are similar at the first glance but some of them are made of plastic while the others are natural.

 

Plastic apples look so real that it is almost impossible to distinguish where is the real one and where is plastic.

 

So you see that people come and choose an apple to take. And much of them are taking plastic ones (to be honest there are much more plastic than natural ones on the shelves).

 

Being a professional apple cultivator you start feeling yourself responsible to highlight that, saying "Please notice, this apple is plastic. It hasn't several attributes which natural apple has and regardless how does it look at the surface the result of eating it will be different to eating the natural one, so please be careful". It seems to be your natural desire to explain this to people...

 

We can continue the story with opinions from the store   . Like

 

(from buyers): 

"- It is said in the instruction to this (you say plastic) apple that you need to imagine that you feel very good and it is tasty. I visualize this really well and am absolutely satisfied with this (you say plastic) apple."

 

(from sellers):

"- Why you criticizing my apples! 

- You are bad! 

- You are only trying to sell your own apples!

- You should be tolerant to all kind of apples! 

- You are making money! 

- Then your apples are made from rubber!"

 

That's it.
---
Best Regards,
Arkady

 

[Stosh]

The dao of Lao and Chuang suggests that its the ambition to sell any apple which is problematic to the vendor. Though I believe this is indeed true, I am not entirely sold on the desirability of emptiness and dont know the solution to this conundrum. So the purchase is also problematic.

[Marblehead]

Fair enough Arkady.

 

But please keep in mind, a different perspective isn't necessarily wrong, it is just a different perspective.  Even word translations fall into this category at times.

 

And no, I don't buy plastic apples.

[sagebrush]

I do not think it is a simple as apples.

 

adam and eve will get dragged into the mix as well....

 

lets overlook the shiny apple for now.....because I am sure it is more wax.

 

although an apple a day keeps the doctor away..

 

maybe just add fiber

 

here is what I think it is:

 

because you can't go from an apple on the shelf to immortality without some serious questions

 

and just why would I be so cautious to just convey in simple terms that I never liked the ecstatic living book to begin with---

 

not a good read.

maybe I have it all wrong.

I certainly hope so.

[Marblehead]

I love the self-secure tone in your post Sagebrush.

[Mudfoot]

If these threads about translation actually spread information about actual practices, that would be useful.

 

As far as I can remember, most if not all threads have been not-useful seen from the above point of view.

 

So please, spread a little of that old-fashioned daoist practices.

[rene]

...Being a professional apple cultivator you start feeling yourself responsible to highlight that, saying.... It seems to be your natural desire to explain this to people...

It's natural to want to help where we can - yet who knows what would be 'better' for someone else? That's the core of it, imo. Pun intended.

[Stosh]

Spreading out a sample of  Daoist practice theory , The useless is useful.  Any takers? 

[Taoist Texts]

  If these threads... actually spread information about actual practices, that would be useful.

 all threads have been not-useful 

 

 

Informercials are not the product.

Informercials are for free, the product is for a price.

Informercials are the steak, the product is the sizzle.

[Starjumper]

... and then some apples are neither real nor plastic, they're popular world travelers, energy vampires of life energy, spawn of demons, they put dark energy into people, with strings attached, that they use to cause harm if one leaves their cult.  Of course no one wants to know who does this.

 

You seem to be very attached to being right and proving another wrong, which is the sole purpose of this thread and others. Additionally, I believe it to be the reason you became a member of TDB.

 

I used to do that on this forum and it's a waste of time, people who love the evil one will only get angry, they can't hear you.  Besides, it's their karma, isn't it?

 

There is also this to consider "He who would chop wood like the master carpenter will only hurt his own hand"  or something along those lines.   Do we know who the master carpenter is?

 

edit; the reason I brought this up is because someone on this forum messaged me today asking for advice on how to deal with one of these teachers.

 

edited to add "chop wood"

Edited March 2, 2017 by Starjumper

[Marblehead]

Spreading out a sample of  Daoist practice theory , The useless is useful.  Any takers? 

 

And for some the useful to others is useless to them.

[Rocky Lionmouth]

Somebody should drop a "How do you like them apples?" joke right about now, it's an open goal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See what i did there?

[Walker]

But please keep in mind, a different perspective isn't necessarily wrong, it is just a different perspective.  

 

This is a good maxim. Without this kind of thinking, peace and justice can't exist in human societies.

 

But this kind of thinking also has serious limitations. For example:

 

If a man tells me that he believes 1+1=3, I will say that it is his right to believe that, and leave him alone.

 

Or,

 

If a woman tells me that the best way to plant wheat is to burn the seeds, grind their remains into dust, and scatter these ashes into the wind, I will say that it is her right to believe that, and leave her alone.

 

I think it is right to let these people happily have their beliefs. But I also think that the vast majority of us who are sane and sober will instantly agree on two points:

 

One, it is essentially impossible that the man who believes 1+1=3 will be able to learn algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, and any other higher mathematics. In fact, it would be difficult for him to make inroads into subtraction, multiplication, and division with his beliefs about addition.

 

Two, it is also essentially impossible to envision that the woman who incinerates her seeds and scatters the ground up ashes into the wind will be a successful farmer.

 

A portion of the people on this board were introduced to the basic ideas of Daoism by teachers who view these teachings as basic knowledge that much be apprehended in a certain way--a contextually correct way--if people wish to use this basic knowledge as a foundation for progress in Daoist practice. 

 

Another portion of people on this board encountered Daoism much more informally. Are their ideas wrong? From a very broad perspective, no. In fact, from a broad enough perspective, Daoists (and Buddhists) will happily confess that all ideas are wrong. But returning to the importance of having one's basics right if one wants to progress in a certain framework of practice, these people's ideas are likely to be contextually incorrect. Drawing conclusions about Daoist teachings that don't fit the context of Daoist praxis means building obstacles to one's progress that one probably won't even be aware one has. Blind spots cause us so much trouble because we usually don't even know we have them. 

 

Concluding that "1+1=3" means never learning algebra. But not learning algebra won't spell death for too many people, and so if the man is sufficiently attached to his notions, he can devote a lifetime to defending them. Perhaps a long, happy, healthy life!

 

Unless she's a subsistence-farming hermit, the woman who burns and crushes her seeds will probably never starve due to her misconceptions, leaving her plenty of years on planet earth to spend talking about her personal views on horticulture, while she is kept full and healthy by the food she buys in the supermarket.

 

By the same token, a person who is a partially-informed autodidact or misinformed dilettante but who decides, "I am a Daoist; this is what Daoism taught," will never starve. He or she might even live a long, happy, healthy life. He or she might moreover even perform certain marvels. Even so, the person would nevertheless be presenting ideas about Daoism that any initiate would see as contextually incorrect, just like any middle-schooler would scoff at the above ideas about addition and farming.

 

To learn about Daoism in a traditional manner means being open to having one's teachers, "Dao friends," and the classics repeatedly say, "you're wrong." To the cultivator, the whole point of having teachers, classical texts, and "Dao friends" is to increase the chances of being told where, how, and why one is wrong.

 

Here we arrive at a very sneaky conundrum:

 

The statement, "he's not wrong, he just has a different perspective," very likely reflects the speaker's open mind.

 

But the statement, "I'm not wrong, I just have a different perspective," might very well reflect something that's quite the opposite of an open mind.

[Mudfoot]

In this context, the discussins about proper translations have been more in line with "should I wear my red baseball cap or my blue baseball cap when I go out".

 

No planting, no seed, no crop.

[Taoist Texts]

 

 . Drawing conclusions about Daoist teachings that don't fit the context of Daoist praxis  

Here we arrive at a very sneaky conundrum: 

 

 

Yes we do. Namely, there is no definition of daoism, let alone of its praxis. Thats why it is such a free for all.

No definition. Beyond of 'it is  some kind of a chinese mumbo-jumbo' it is impossible to put a finger on it.

[Marblehead]

 

 

... it is impossible to put a finger on it.

 

And if you ever found a way to put your finger on it you would likely lose your finger.  Heavy stuff.

[Stosh]

Just because a divergent family shares a surname, does not mean the members are bogus. Christianity, Islam , Buddhism , similarly have branches. Groupings and divisions are indeed mental fabrications but if youre going to entertain the grouping of Daoism It makes sense to entertain that there are subgroups. Daoism is defined by history, texts, and subject matter at a minimum.

[Walker]

Yes we do. Namely, there is no definition of daoism, let alone of its praxis. Thats why it is such a free for all.

No definition. Beyond of 'it is some kind of a chinese mumbo-jumbo' it is impossible to put a finger on it.

By breaking my words apart to find something to disagree with you end up creating a straw dog. That is lazy and dishonest contrarian behavior. In whole I said:

 

Another portion of people on this board encountered Daoism much more informally. Are their ideas wrong? From a very broad perspective, no. In fact, from a broad enough perspective, Daoists (and Buddhists) will happily confess that all ideas are wrong. But returning to the importance of having one's basics right if one wants to progress in a certain framework of practice, these people's ideas are likely to be contextually incorrect. Drawing conclusions about Daoist teachings that don't fit the context of Daoist praxis means building obstacles to one's progress that one probably won't even be aware one has. Blind spots cause us so much trouble because we usually don't even know we have them.

The key term is "a certain framework." Within Daoism there are numerous "certain frameworks." There are also subtle points that link some of these "certain frameworks," and divide others. It takes a lot of study and practice to begin to understand these subtle points. I believe that it would be very, very difficult for a person whose exposure to Daoism comes from book study of a handful of translations, internet discussion to identify those subtle points. To even know where they might be is not easy.

 

I realize that finding things in my words to throw stones at is a sport with you. This is a public place and there is obviously nothing I can do about that. But show some self respect by reading more carefully, thinking more thoughtfully, and putting as much effort into your posts as the person you're attempting to debate does. Otherwise you're just like some over-exuberant guy who's jumps onto the pitch to chase after the soccer ball during a proper match. Which is just selfish and disruptive. Cherry picking copy-and-paste, then a sentence or two fired off at your keyboard... lazy.

Edited March 5, 2017 by Walker

[Taoist Texts]

 . Daoism is defined by history, texts, and subject matter at a minimum.

 

Then it should be easy enough to come up with a sentence or two: 'Daoism is....'. right? Many have tried, none has succeed.

[Stosh]

Then it should be easy enough to come up with a sentence or two: 'Daoism is....'. right? Many have tried, none has succeed.

If I tell you , will you judge or believe? .... Be honest now

[Taoist Texts]

If I tell you , will you judge or believe? .... Be honest now

I will honestly try to comprehend

[Mig]

This is a good maxim. Without this kind of thinking, peace and justice can't exist in human societies.

 

But this kind of thinking also has serious limitations. For example:

 

If a man tells me that he believes 1+1=3, I will say that it is his right to believe that, and leave him alone.

 

Or,

 

If a woman tells me that the best way to plant wheat is to burn the seeds, grind their remains into dust, and scatter these ashes into the wind, I will say that it is her right to believe that, and leave her alone.

 

I think it is right to let these people happily have their beliefs. But I also think that the vast majority of us who are sane and sober will instantly agree on two points:

 

One, it is essentially impossible that the man who believes 1+1=3 will be able to learn algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, and any other higher mathematics. In fact, it would be difficult for him to make inroads into subtraction, multiplication, and division with his beliefs about addition.

 

Two, it is also essentially impossible to envision that the woman who incinerates her seeds and scatters the ground up ashes into the wind will be a successful farmer.

 

A portion of the people on this board were introduced to the basic ideas of Daoism by teachers who view these teachings as basic knowledge that much be apprehended in a certain way--a contextually correct way--if people wish to use this basic knowledge as a foundation for progress in Daoist practice. 

 

 

 

Concluding that "1+1=3" means never learning algebra. But not learning algebra won't spell death for too many people, and so if the man is sufficiently attached to his notions, he can devote a lifetime to defending them. Perhaps a long, happy, healthy life!

Well you are stretching too far although if someone tells me one drop of water is equal two drops of water, I will understand in math that is correct in real life, I will contest as one drop plus another drop makes only one big drop of water

[Stosh]

I will honestly try to comprehend

That isnt one of the prearranged answers ... The point being, that if youre going to judge my answer , youre looking to see if my answer fits your preconceptions to see if you believe it, basically I'd have to surprise you somehow, and I doubt I really could, " your cup is full", so to speak,, and if youve heard the correct answer you have already dismissed it.

 

Proof? Ok fine,, Daoism is a family of faiths and beliefs tied by source texts subject matter and historical association. ex Lao, Chuang , immortals , elements ,taiji , zodiac, IChing ..

What kind of answer were you expecting ! ? The character of this beast is just not narrowly defined.

[Taoist Texts]

  Daoism is a family of faiths and beliefs tied by source texts subject matter and historical association

Thank you. I totally agree and accept.)

 

 The character of this beast is just not narrowly defined

 

Absolutely)

[[email protected]]

Daoism is a family of faiths and beliefs tied by source texts subject matter and historical association.

I thought that Taoism is also a system and practices, practitioners. I hardly believe it is possible to create such texts only based on believes and having no achievements in practice.

Rgrds, Ilya