Theory by Bruce Lee

[Boundlesscostfairy]

I have heard once the Great Master having said..:

 

Absorb what is useful

 

Neglect or discard what is not..

 

Is this the true heart of Daosim in a nutshell?

 

If you agree do you have any thoughts to add...? Like the ideas or concepts, structures that you find useful..on your quest to Find or continue the path of the Tao?

 

If you disagree that this is at the heart of Daoism..then what do you think is a simple truth that you think is universally true for a Daoist?

[ralis]

53 minutes ago, Boundlesscostfairy said:

I have heard once the Great Master having said..:

 

Absorb what is useful

 

Neglect or discard what is not..

 

Is this the true heart of Daosim in a nutshell?

 

If you agree do you have any thoughts to add...? Like the ideas or concepts, structures that you find useful..on your quest to Find or continue the path of the Tao?

 

If you disagree that this is at the heart of Daoism..then what do you think is a simple truth that you think is universally true for a Daoist?

 

You won't find absolute answers here! Why not read and think for yourself. The Dao is not what you think.

[welkin]

4 hours ago, Boundlesscostfairy said:

I have heard once the Great Master having said..:

 

Absorb what is useful

 

Neglect or discard what is not..

 

Is this the true heart of Daosim in a nutshell?

 

If you agree do you have any thoughts to add...? Like the ideas or concepts, structures that you find useful..on your quest to Find or continue the path of the Tao?

 

If you disagree that this is at the heart of Daoism..then what do you think is a simple truth that you think is universally true for a Daoist?

 

I believe that it is true, but only after one has developed the understanding of what is useful and what is not. That means that every time you believe you know what is useful and what is not. Test that theory by doing what you don't believe is useful, and see if it really wasn't.

 

And yet, to prove it to yourself you would need to develop an honesty and integrity to truly know if something is useful. That can mean testing that same idea or concept, multiple times to really know. That can mean that it doesn't work now, but works later, because you didn't have the maturity to make it useful.

 

All these things allows one to develop the subtle of the subtle intuition, feelings, understanding. all that are hard to come by. Because it's unique to yourself and your own journey within. The only way you'd be able to converse of it is if the other person is on a similar level of development or much higher. And even then, you still wouldn't know because it is very easy to imitate what one believes is conscious or enlightened. Only the true seekers and finders of the truth within, know if another has found the same. But don't look to find others with the same for now. Develop it first.

 

What does this all mean?

In a nutshell, you need to test. Testing is the #1 principle of life, in marketing, and undoubtedly this. The secret is testing with an honest heart. And then, you will know what is useful or a waste.

 

Yet, at the end you realize, nothing was ever useful or a waste. It was as simple as required.

 

So it's the right concept, but how to do it is the hard part.

 

And you're talking about a 'natural', 'gifted', 'sage', a 'Dragon'.

They already know all this instinctively and intuitively. Which is why make sure to pay attention to the first part and don't take shortcuts. Because the truth does exist. I'm not giving you some bullshit answer. What Bruce Lee said is true. But you need to be humble enough to understand that you may not know intuitively or instinctively these things yet. So you must test, just as him and every other human has done.

 

In a smaller nutshell,

 

It's true and not true.

You would only when it is true or not true when you are able to understand many, most, or all the variables.

 

I have not read the Tao, but the Tao is not in the words of a book or your mind, but in yourself. But i'm not saying don't read it

 

Edited November 26, 2019 by welkin

[Earl Grey]

30 minutes ago, welkin said:

 

I have not read the Tao, but the Tao is not in the words of a book or your mind, but in yourself

Not reading the cornerstone philosophy makes it a lot harder for someone to digest the misinformation that comes with what you’re saying, which is rather ridiculous given that you’re commenting on what you just admit you haven’t read. Not reading it then becomes a means of giving your own interpretation and review of a book or film after not even reading a Wikipedia article, but conjecture from other people talking about it—the kind of feel good new age agenda that tries to make everyone feel good and like a master without actually fulfilling the criteria that the many appropriated traditions have set. It neither imparts the wisdom of the philosophy or helps either the speaker or listener with any understanding.

 

To the OP @Boundlesscostfairy, stick to reading the Tao Te Ching and Zhuangzi and the different translations with commentary, then sit on it a bit. Bruce Lee cited Buddha more often but had very Taoist insight from martial culture, so his exposure was both scholarly and through cultural osmosis.

Edited November 26, 2019 by Earl Grey

[welkin]

3 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

Not reading the cornerstone philosophy makes it a lot harder for someone to digest the misinformation that comes with what you’re saying, which is rather ridiculous given that you’re commenting on what you just admit you haven’t read. Not reading it then becomes a means of giving your own interpretation and review of a book or film after not even reading a Wikipedia article, but conjecture from other people talking about it—the kind of feel good new age agenda that tries to make everyone feel good and like a master without actually fulfilling the criteria that the many appropriated traditions have set. It neither imparts the wisdom of the philosophy or helps either the speaker or listener any understanding.

 

To the OP @Boundlesscostfairy, stick to reading the Tao Te Ching and Zhuangzi and the different translations with commentary, then sit on it a bit. Bruce Lee cited Buddha more often but had very Taoist insight from martial culture, so his exposure was both scholarly and through cultural osmosis.

'

Yet you speak to no specific ideas or points i made. You debate and judge based off of "Judgement" alone.

 

And you seem to imitate a dog who's attention was caught by a squirrel, aimlessly chasing and barking. How silly.

 

Is there something specific you disagree with?

Edited November 26, 2019 by welkin

[Earl Grey]

5 minutes ago, welkin said:

'

Yet you speak to no specific ideas or points i made. You debate and judge based off of "Judgement" alone. How silly.

 

Is there something specific you disagree with?

That you didn’t read the text of the philosophy you cite or demonstrate any sort of understanding of it. You’re not even talking about Tao, but your idea of Tao, besides the fact everything you wrote is totally inaccurate (as usual). It’s simply put your uninformed opinion.

 

Seriously, go read the texts or actually take a class before you give out this misinformation.

Edited November 26, 2019 by Earl Grey

[Earl Grey]

7 minutes ago, welkin said:

 

And you seem to imitate a dog who's attention was caught by a squirrel, aimlessly chasing and barking. How silly.

What is silly is that you’d rather ignore any actual research or reading because you hold your opinions sacred and before you vent your spleen further, understand that I write this for the benefit of others who shouldn’t be subject to misinformation, no matter how idealistic and well-intended. You could benefit from actually understanding than just making things up.

[Zork]

11 minutes ago, welkin said:

'

Yet you speak to no specific ideas or points i made. You debate and judge based off of "Judgement" alone.

 

And you seem to imitate a dog who's attention was caught by a squirrel, aimlessly chasing and barking. How silly.

 

Is there something specific you disagree with?

Can you comment on the Quran or the Bible without having read them at all?

Is the commentary of others which interpret something in their own personal way sufficient for you to form your own opinion?

 

Example: I haven't been to Mars but the weather there, at this time, is terrible.

Can you spot what is wrong with the above?

[welkin]

12 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

What is silly is that you’d rather ignore any actual research or reading because you hold your opinions sacred and before you vent your spleen further, understand that I write this for the benefit of others who shouldn’t be subject to misinformation, no matter how idealistic and well-intended. You could benefit from actually understanding than just making things up.

 

So me stating i haven't read the tao is a point?

 

Again, i'm asking you debate any of my points.

[welkin]

9 minutes ago, Zork said:

Can you comment on the Quran or the Bible without having read them at all?

 

Example: I haven't been to Mars but the weather there, at this time, is terrible.

Can you spot what is wrong with the above?

 

If you believe the ideas in all these texts are different. Then i will assure you, that you don't understand what any single one of them mean.

 

If you believe these texts are meant to decipher with your logical mind, then i have nothing to say to you.

 

Quote

Is the commentary of others which interpret something in their own personal way sufficient for you to form your own opinion?

 

If i have gotten to a level where i understand ideas or concepts. It is easy to identify whether what they say comes from true knowledge.

 

So basically the point you're making is that, even if what a person says makes sense or is true. If they haven't read text, their ideas are false.

 

So basically, you're telling me and everyone in here, that the only way you know if someone knows anything is if they learn information from reading. And if they don't, then they don't know anything.

 

Thank you for your opinion.

[welkin]

Here i just chose to read one part. Why don't i feel you ya'll reflect any of this:


Therefore the sage puts his own person last, and yet it is found in
the foremost place; he treats his person as if it were foreign to him,
and yet that person is preserved. Is it not because he has no
personal and private ends, that therefore such ends are realised?

 

I'm going to read it all tongiht. And prove, just how fucking dumb your way of arguing is.

[Earl Grey]

56 minutes ago, welkin said:

Here i just chose to read one part. Why don't i feel you ya'll reflect any of this:


Therefore the sage puts his own person last, and yet it is found in
the foremost place; he treats his person as if it were foreign to him,
and yet that person is preserved. Is it not because he has no
personal and private ends, that therefore such ends are realised?

 

I'm going to read it all tongiht. And prove, just how fucking dumb your way of arguing is.

“Before, man studied to learn more. Now he studies to show off how smart he thinks he is.”

Edited November 26, 2019 by Earl Grey

[Zork]

42 minutes ago, welkin said:

If you believe the ideas in all these texts are different. Then i will assure you, that you don't understand what any single one of them mean.

How do you know? Have you read them all to point at the similarities and the differences?

I mean if they are all the same then what is the point of reading something lengthy and complicated? All religions would require reading a 4 page max leaflet with the tenets of all the faiths and be done with.

42 minutes ago, welkin said:

f you believe these texts are meant to decipher with your logical mind, then i have nothing to say to you.

Then what is the point of the texts being written and dispersed ?

 

42 minutes ago, welkin said:

If i have gotten to a level where i understand ideas or concepts. It is easy to identify whether what they say comes from true knowledge.

So a person has a limited perspective and he sees the tree instead of the forest and his opinion is enough for you to understand the whole pine forest from the single birch tree.

You don't understand that you are replicating the other's opinion not forming your own.

 

42 minutes ago, welkin said:

So basically the point you're making is that, even if what a person says makes sense or is true. If they haven't read text, their ideas are false.

Nope. That is you making conjecture again.

 

42 minutes ago, welkin said:

So basically, you're telling me and everyone in here, that the only way you know if someone knows anything is if they learn information from reading. And if they don't, then they don't know anything.

Seriously?? What are you doing right now?

If someone quotes a text from an unknown source to you, doesn't his opinion require you to read?

42 minutes ago, welkin said:

Thank you for your opinion.

Don't mention it!

Edited November 26, 2019 by Zork

[welkin]

33 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

“Before, man studied to learn more. Now he studies to show off how smart he thinks he is.”

 

But your quote reflects yourself more than it does me.

[Earl Grey]

55 minutes ago, welkin said:

So me stating i haven't read the tao is a point?

 

 

Yes, because you are making shit up and have no formal basis to talk about it when you have no understanding of it besides what you're assuming and making up. 

 

55 minutes ago, welkin said:

Again, i'm asking you debate any of my points.

 

None of your points are valid because they aren't about Tao but rather your personal conjecture, and the OP is asking about the "true heart of Tao in a nutshell" as said above.

 

"If someone calls it Tao, that doesn't mean it's Tao, and just because it's not referred to directly as Tao doesn't mean it's not Tao" in a nice little summary of the first two lines of the first chapter of the TTC, which I can quote because I've read it and many translations of it multiple times.

 

48 minutes ago, welkin said:

If you believe the ideas in all these texts are different. Then i will assure you, that you don't understand what any single one of them mean.

 

And you've read all the texts to know this or are you going by this made-up pattern that many New Agers talk about in their attempt to appropriate and amalgamate it all into their feel good philosophy that eliminates nuance and context for the suburban industrial economy's privileged?

 

49 minutes ago, welkin said:

If you believe these texts are meant to decipher with your logical mind, then i have nothing to say to you.

 

 

Deciphering text with the logical mind is only part of it, you're not even grokking the meaning. It's also in the TTC when it is written about a mediocre man laughing at Tao, an average man studying it, and a great man living it. All is Tao, and you may argue, "Aha! You prove my point!", but you wouldn't have known this without reading it, and even then, you are a parrot repeating a phrase which you don't even grok yourself. 

 

51 minutes ago, welkin said:

If i have gotten to a level where i understand ideas or concepts. It is easy to identify whether what they say comes from true knowledge.

 

Level of understanding varies between people--you might think you understand, but what you demonstrate is that you frankly don't, honestly. 

 

52 minutes ago, welkin said:

So basically the point you're making is that, even if what a person says makes sense or is true. If they haven't read text, their ideas are false.

 

In science, they call it, "Independently arriving at similar conclusions" but the methodology is as important as is the answer. How does one learn mathematics if they know the problem and look in the back of the textbook to see the answer, you won't know how they arrived at it without struggling and appreciating the process, which can then be applied to other similar questions. 

 

54 minutes ago, welkin said:

So basically, you're telling me and everyone in here, that the only way you know if someone knows anything is if they learn information from reading. And if they don't, then they don't know anything.

 

No, it's from having an informed opinion, which often comes from reading and formal study--none of which you have. 

 

Do you have a tertiary education? It doesn't matter if you do or not because I know many well-read and fantastic individuals who don't have the college degree, but they applied themselves and studied hard for their craft--my teachers in particular in Taijiquan. 

 

I know a guy who talks about how there is a conspiracy to create a world of elites based off of degrees that mean nothing when he looks at how many morons come out of university--an observation that isn't totally wrong when I consider whom I met in my university in undergraduate and graduate days, but the counterpoint is, he wouldn't make those strong criticisms and hold delusions of grandeur if he 1) had a degree, 2) had anything to show at the age of 40 where he is still stuck in the same dead-end job and living with his parents and nothing to show in skill or achievement. 

 

 

[Earl Grey]

2 minutes ago, welkin said:

But your quote reflects yourself more than it does me.

 

And your response shows you don't understand the quote or the points being made.

[welkin]

1 minute ago, Earl Grey said:

 

And your response shows you don't understand the quote or the points being made.

 

no my response proves, that people like you judge and study based off ignorance.

 

I can't even imagine how long it takes you to make improvements. Such a closed mind.
 

 

Do you know what Tesla meant by understanding the numbers 3,6,9?

 

Of course you don't, don't feel bad. Most don't

 

 

You know about Kabbalah right?

 

Do you know what these represent and how it connects to us?

 

 

Of course you don't. If you did you'd realize how this is what represents us. I don't only understand what those this is, i've felt it.

 

Keep practicing, weak minded monkey.

[welkin]

What's funny about both you knuckle heads is that if you look at your arguments, you repeat the exact same ideas i've convicted you guys from several months, weeks, days ago. And you impose that on me, as if i'm a victim of those fallacies.

 

 

[welkin]

And yet Earl Gray, still fails to debate or argue any specific idea spoken about.

 

Which is my very first point. You don't debate anything really.

 

Also since you think that reading means that you somehow know more. Why don't you debate any one of my points, as you should be able to deconstruct and prove them wrong.

 

Still Waiting....

Edited November 26, 2019 by welkin

[welkin]

Cool. Another part of The Tao Te Ching that just happens to coincide with something i mentieoned:

 

"The work is done, but how no one can see;
'Tis this that makes the power not cease to be."
 

"He constantly (tries to) keep them without knowledge and without
desire, and where there are those who have knowledge, to keep them
from presuming to act (on it). When there is this abstinence from
action, good order is universal."

---

 

"We should blunt our sharp points, and unravel the complications of
things; we should attemper our brightness, and bring ourselves into
agreement with the obscurity of others. How pure and still the Tao
is, as if it would ever so continue!"

Edited November 26, 2019 by welkin

[welkin]

You guys reflect nothing of the above.

 

SMFH

[moment]

Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

People with narcissistic personality disorder may be generally unhappy and disappointed when they're not given the special favors or admiration they believe they deserve. They may find their relationships unfulfilling, and others may not enjoy being around them.

 

Edited November 26, 2019 by moment

[Starjumper]

3 hours ago, welkin said:

 

I believe that it is true, but only after one has developed the understanding of what is useful and what is not. That means that every time you believe you know what is useful and what is not. Test that theory by doing what you don't believe is useful, and see if it really wasn't.

 

And yet, to prove it to yourself you would need to develop an honesty and integrity to truly know if something is useful. That can mean testing that same idea or concept, multiple times to really know. That can mean that it doesn't work now, but works later, because you didn't have the maturity to make it useful.

 

All these things allows one to develop the subtle of the subtle intuition, feelings, understanding. all that are hard to come by. Because it's unique to yourself and your own journey within. The only way you'd be able to converse of it is if the other person is on a similar level of development or much higher. And even then, you still wouldn't know because it is very easy to imitate what one believes is conscious or enlightened. Only the true seekers and finders of the truth within, know if another has found the same. But don't look to find others with the same for now. Develop it first.

 

What does this all mean?

In a nutshell, you need to test. Testing is the #1 principle of life, in marketing, and undoubtedly this. The secret is testing with an honest heart. And then, you will know what is useful or a waste.

 

Yet, at the end you realize, nothing was ever useful or a waste. It was as simple as required.

 

So it's the right concept, but how to do it is the hard part.

 

And you're talking about a 'natural', 'gifted', 'sage', a 'Dragon'.

They already know all this instinctively and intuitively. Which is why make sure to pay attention to the first part and don't take shortcuts. Because the truth does exist.   ...  What Bruce Lee said is true. But you need to be humble enough to understand that you may not know intuitively or instinctively these things yet. So you must test, just as him and every other human has done.

You would only when it is true or not true when you are able to understand many, most, or all the variables.

(quote edited slightly for clarity)

 

This is correct.

 

Bruce got his philosophical wisdoms from Mr. Yueng, which he was parroting, which is not wisdom.

 

Mr. Yueng told me several times: "Take the best from each system and leave the rest"

Edited November 26, 2019 by Starjumper

[Earl Grey]

38 minutes ago, welkin said:

no my response proves, that people like you judge and study based off ignorance.

 

 

"Ignorance" you say? Hmm I not only studied it formally and am able to apply them to my arguments, but you're making shit up as you go along. Who's ignorant now? 

 

38 minutes ago, welkin said:

I can't even imagine how long it takes you to make improvements. Such a closed mind.

 

Improvements with regards to what? If you're talking about skill, it's daily. If you're talking about acquiring knowledge, I read many books and the newspaper while engaging with other intellectuals of all walks of life around the world. 

 

38 minutes ago, welkin said:

Do you know what Tesla meant by understanding the numbers 3,6,9?

 

Of course you don't, don't feel bad. Most don't

 

Normally, when we reference something, we give it context and explain and apply it to the argument. Here, you sound like one of those hipsters talking about esoteric bands nobody has heard of and acting like they have more "indie cred" for listening to more "underground" acts that aren't the mainstream. 

 

You have yet to explain what the context is or how it applies here, because it's open-ended and you give no room for an answer. I could ask you, "Do you know Mark Twain said at a party?" and there would be no right answer because I didn't tell you which party or to whom he spoke with and for what this example has to do with our dialogue (or in this case, your diatribe).

 

38 minutes ago, welkin said:

You know about Kabbalah right?

 

Do you know what these represent and how it connects to us?

 

Posting the Tree of Life and the Sephiroth, nice. Do you know that the common understanding of it is still very much the tip of the iceberg because Hassidic Jews themselves don't even study until they are in their 60s due to how complex it is, and this is from people who speak Hebrew too? A Google search won't give you any insights nor will YouTube videos and a few memes demonstrate your understanding, and what is publicly available is still quite laughable according to the Hassidics I know in Queens.

 

38 minutes ago, welkin said:

Of course you don't. If you did you'd realize how this is what represents us. I don't only understand what those this is, i've felt it.

 

 Reword this because it sounds like you failed grammar school. 

 

38 minutes ago, welkin said:

Keep practicing, weak minded monkey.

 

And you are a monkey-spanker now, I take it? 

 

37 minutes ago, welkin said:

What's funny about both you knuckle heads is that if you look at your arguments, you repeat the exact same ideas i've convicted you guys from several months, weeks, days ago. And you impose that on me, as if i'm a victim of those fallacies.

 

If you only knew how many fallacies existed in your weak arguments.

 

36 minutes ago, welkin said:

And yet Earl Gray, still fails to debate or argue any specific idea spoken about.

 

 

I did successfully debate you, you just aren't willing to give up the ghost. 

 

Ignoratio Elenchi; Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc; Ad Hominem; Non Cause Pro Causa; Reductio Ad Absurdum....The list goes on, little Welkin.

 

Here's an article that shows how your lack of language and experience or even actually reading the damned text is why you are so passionate about proving your point: 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-will-win-in-a-landslide-the-mind-behind-dilbert-explains-why/

 

Donald Trump needs no facts because he makes emotional appeals, and your main focus is on feeling good and assuming anyone attacking you is making you feel bad, and in going with emotions, facts are irrelevant because emotions trump all. 

 

You're now involved in a cult: a cult of ego and self-importance. Here's the danger of cults: 

 

Quote

Third, conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others. For conspiracy theorists, the masses are a brainwashed herd, while the conspiracy theorists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters' deceptions. (Wikipedia article on Conspiracy Theories, Psychological Interpretations)

 

So you are following the masses over the cliff because you believe you know more while rejecting the pillars which hold up knowledge and knowing. Have you read any Platonic or Aristotelean theory? Any Zhuangzi or Laozi? The Kojiki or any of the great conversation? 

 

Develop an informed opinion or dedicate yourself to a stagnant bog of mediocrity, with one extreme being one who needs others and their opinions to make up his own, or one which rejects all other forms of knowing in favor of his own assumptions. 

 

I will leave you with several examples relevant to you: imagine someone whom you met, an Anglo lad, who says because he dated a Chinese girl, he knows how all Asian girls are like, whether they are Japanese or Indian or Burmese, completely disregarding the nuances not just among those national cultures, but within even the borders themselves are their differences in cultural groups from language to class (or caste) and histories.

 

Now, think about this: another lad applied to our program in history for China and said that he had perfect authority because his parents are from China, having studied no Chinese language, history, or culture, and speaking only English at home, coming from an economics background. He was quickly rejected and couldn't understand why a bunch of academics rejected him when "only a few of them are Chinese and the rest were white and Latino plus a Japanese guy" even though they all spoke and read Mandarin, they know Classical Chinese. 

 

Saddle up, Welkin!

Edited November 26, 2019 by Earl Grey

[Earl Grey]

11 minutes ago, Starjumper said:

Bruce got his philosophical wisdoms from Mr. Yueng, which he was parroting, which is not wisdom.

 

 

How much of what he said that was mere parroting and how much of it was actual insight from understanding is up for debate. What is constant, however, is people love to attribute to him things he said that he didn't actually say, and things he said that were actually said by someone else.