While in the World

[三江源]

Non - attachment doesnt mean 'not giving a shit'....one of the most commonly heard words in relation to Buddhism is 'compassion'... non - attachment is about not being a frog in a well, not being so caught up in the story that you dont realise that the twists and turn of the plot you are following arent The All and Everything.

 

Lin, thankyou for your response to my question about how do we distinguish between Good, Evil, the shades in between and the masquerading shades.

 

I guess it is down to our instincts. And our instincts are down to our 'teh'.. and.. if I hypothesise for a bit:

 

If my 'teh' leads to me to drink and dance and fornicate, then that is fine and good. If I am a reveller and a barefoot taoist that enjoys the world, that is my way. My purity lies in being authentic and compassionate, having an open heart and unclouded intentions, never doing ill to another, and healing others how and when I can. If I want to rip meat with my teeth and have sex according to free desirings... if my heart is pure and my honouring of living creatures is in place, then my teh remains. I can equally call on the four directions for assistance and fall in love with a tree. My wisdom lies in the light of truth that resides in my clear energy, purified by taoist practises.

 

This isnt how it works for a Buddhist, is it..

 

except that what the Taoist above has, is an 'undefiled mind'.. an 'undefiled heart' in my words, and so is at one with the Tao and exhibits teh in all things..

 

And so a Taoist Immortal is different from a Buddha...

 

except that there is no difference, at that level, such distinctions become part of the cosmic joke..

 

 

Or not?

[Starjumper]

Non - attachment doesnt mean 'not giving a shit'....one of the most commonly heard words in relation to Buddhism is 'compassion'... non - attachment is about not being a frog in a well, not being so caught up in the story that you dont realise that the twists and turn of the plot you are following arent The All and Everything.

 

I agree with what you are implying with seeing or not seeing the big picture. I think that feeling compassion is natural and that it is also a type of attachment. There's nothing wrong with it in my view, as I tried to portray earlier that attachments are fine if you understand them and accept them (a taoist viewpoint). The way I see it is like this: to feel compassion for someone means we are empathic to their suffering and want to help in some way to relieve their suffering. We are attached to their feeling better and this is a natural human reaction. If I'm not attached to another's wellbeing then I won't feel compassion for them.

 

In the final analysis though, I'm not sure how the Buddhists look at it =)

 

If my 'teh' leads to me to drink and dance and fornicate, then that is fine and good. If I am a reveller and a barefoot taoist that enjoys the world, that is my way. My purity lies in being authentic and compassionate, having an open heart and unclouded intentions, never doing ill to another, and healing others how and when I can. If I want to rip meat with my teeth and have sex according to free desirings... if my heart is pure and my honouring of living creatures is in place, then my teh remains. I can equally call on the four directions for assistance and fall in love with a tree. My wisdom lies in the light of truth that resides in my clear energy, purified by taoist practises.

 

Beautiful!

Edited November 30, 2008 by Starjumper7

[Aetherous]

If I give a shit about non-attachment so much that I stop caring about what happened in India, then I'm just deluding myself.

[JackSquat]

I don't mean to be confrontational, I'm just trying to figure a few things out and I didn't get an answer when I asked these questions in another thread a few days ago .

 

There's more, much more =)

 

 

I have a small confession to make . What I really meant by that was I never saw a reply from Mak Tin Si. I was trying to goad him into an actual debate (as opposed to listening to him preach) in part just to see if he would do it and he promptly disappeared from the thread. How about you, Tao99, are you up for it? I don't especially care that you have absolute faith in your particular brand of Taoism, I would just like to argue the point like adults. If you make no effort to convince me, how do you ever expect to get your point across?

 

 

"The Tao is not apart from virtue (Teh)

and virtue is not apart from the Tao.

 

Those who would practice the Tao,

must first bring about virtue.

 

Liu I-Ming, Awakening to the Tao"

 

 

Just because the Tao is not apart from virtue and is virtue doesn't mean that negativity is apart from the Tao and the Tao is not negativity. Why are they mutually exclusive? The Tao is beyond these concerns entirely, is it not?

 

 

Edit: unclear wording, added quote

Edited December 1, 2008 by JackSquat

[林愛偉]

In response to all of the comments here, just two words should do it:

 

Quan Zhen.

 

 

I wonder how many on this board know what "Tin Si" means.

 

I have met two in body. Both have high powers, and one of them lives in Hawaii. A bit of advice on this,

in the world we live in, 低调=Di Diao...keep it on the low. For if you are, so what? If you aren't so what?

Telling people only causes doubt. Not telling people does not let doubt arise.

 

 

Peace and Blessings,

Lin Ai Wei (Human)

Edited December 1, 2008 by 林愛偉

[Starjumper]

I don't know what Tin Si means, but I did recognize him as authentic and powerful.

 

Hey Lin, I have a question for you.

 

Earlier in this thread you spoke of people who have been compromised or 'poisoned' by accepting teaching from someone who is dishonest.

 

So here's the big question: would you accept one of these people as a student? My intuition tells me it would not be good.

[林愛偉]

I don't know what Tin Si means, but I did recognize him as authentic and powerful.

 

Hey Lin, I have a question for you.

 

Earlier in this thread you spoke of people who have been compromised or 'poisoned' by accepting teaching from someone who is dishonest.

 

So here's the big question: would you accept one of these people as a student? My intuition tells me it would not be good.

 

Under strict conditions.

 

Oh I wasn't saying he isn't powerful, or powerful. Just that whatever high level has been attained, in our world, its best to keep it low, and off public radar. Our world is full of people who want to hurt high level beings. And there are people who want to be high level beings. Either way, regardless if one is or not, its best to play the a fool to a degree, and not let one's cultivated state be known, ...unless they are about to die. Keeps things ..."authentic", and saves people from wasting time paying respects when they can be cultivating.

 

Authenticity can be felt off someone, it radiates and permeates. Its effortless and attained by proper effort.

 

Peace and Blessings,

Lin

[seadog]

Under strict conditions.

 

Oh I wasn't saying he isn't powerful, or powerful. Just that whatever high level has been attained, in our world, its best to keep it low, and off public radar. Our world is full of people who want to hurt high level beings. And there are people who want to be high level beings. Either way, regardless if one is or not, its best to play the a fool to a degree, and not let one's cultivated state be known, ...unless they are about to die. Keeps things ..."authentic", and saves people from wasting time paying respects when they can be cultivating.

 

Authenticity can be felt off someone, it radiates and permeates. Its effortless and attained by proper effort.

 

Peace and Blessings,

Lin

Absolutely.

Humility seems to have been at the core of every great person

I have had the privelage to meet.

That and a true sense of innocense.

[Tao99]

From THE TRUE TAOISM Thread:

Reason, to remind oneself straight up every day that death can come at anytime, so quickly attain enlightenment, cut off afflictions and end birth and death or one will never be free.

Peace,

Lin

 

Buddha - someone who has attained enlightenment.

 

The only way to read this is that you are claiming you are a Buddha. Have you quickly attained enlightenment? Are you claiming you are a Buddha? Talk about sowing doubt. You tell others to shut up and lay low yet you not only wordily wax about your own Buddhism but about other's Taoism. Shouldn't you be following your own advice and lay low to keep thing authentic? Or are you about to die?

 

PS If you claim you are a Buddha, and since you imply you have something important to teach Mak Tin Si and I "under strict conditions" please give us your summary gatha for verification. Feel free to be as obscure as you like. Thank you for your time ... and your blessings.

 

PSS "cut off afflictions and end birth and death or one will never be free" is a Buddhist formulation having a Buddhist meaning. It's not a Taoist formulation. My concern is that people will read phrases like this that you put in threads about the Tao, and they will think they have learned something about Taoism instead of Buddhism thus confusing them. May I suggest you begin such formulations with "In Buddhism ..."

Edited December 1, 2008 by Tao99

[林愛偉]

The only way to read this is that you are claiming you are a Buddha. Have you quickly attained enlightenment? Are you claiming you are a Buddha? Talk about sowing doubt. You tell others to shut up and lay low yet you not only wordily wax about your own Buddhism but about other's Taoism. Shouldn't you be following your own advice and lay low to keep thing authentic? Or are you about to die?

 

PS If you claim you are a Buddha, and since you imply you have something important to teach Mak Tin Si and I "under strict conditions" please give us your summary gatha for verification. Feel free to be as obscure as you like. Thank you for your time ... and your blessings.

 

 

No, you claimed I think I am a Buddha. I never said I was and deny I am a Buddha. I am not a Buddha, no where near the Buddha's level. And firstly, if one came up to one of us right before our eyes, could any of us even recognize him/her?

 

You are distorting what I write. I never said I will teach anyone here. I never said I was a Heavenly Master, and never proclaimed to have the unsurpassed teachings, nor to be a Budha, Bodhisattva, Immortal, etc. Only Human.

 

Nor have I claimed Daoism is worst than Buddhism, vice verse. Obviously, you have misunderstood what I have writen. If I were to disrespect Daoism, that would be disrespecting my Daoist teachers. I am too close to them to do that.

 

 

Peace,

Lin

Edited December 1, 2008 by 林愛偉

[seadog]

Just to throw a spanner in the works.

Jesus is quoted to have said:

"Why strain at gnats and swallow camels."

[Tao99]

 

"The Tao is not apart from virtue (Teh)

and virtue is not apart from the Tao.

Those who would practice the Tao,

must first bring about virtue.

 

Liu I-Ming, Awakening to the Tao"

Just because the Tao is not apart from virtue and is virtue doesn't mean that negativity is apart from the Tao and the Tao is not negativity. Why are they mutually exclusive? The Tao is beyond these concerns entirely, is it not?

Edit: unclear wording, added quote

Hmm OK. If I were to debate this point at some sort of conference, I would politely propose:

 

Taoist master Liu I-Ming found his first Tao teacher when he was 17. He then wandered all over China his entire life moving from one Taoist teacher to another in his single-minded quest for the Tao. Finally, in his 80's - after 63 years of learning and practicing - he wrote his magnum opus, Awakening to the Tao.

 

So we can be sure that this master of the Tao described it as he knew it, and if he knew it some other way, he would have described it that way. So how did he describe the Tao? "The Tao is not apart from virtue."

 

What does this mean? If the Tao is not apart from virtue, then logically where there is the negative, the opposite class of virtue, there is not the Tao.

 

Why? Because then it would be apart from virtue, being in the opposite non-virtue, negative class.

 

As a supporting citation I would point to #42 of the Tao Teh Ching, Chan translation:

 

"Tao produced the One. The One produced the two. The two produced the three. And the three produced the ten thousand things. The ten thousand things carry the yin and embrace the yang, and through the blending of the material force they achieve harmony. "

 

So the Tao produces the achievement of harmony, which is positive and not negative, so it's result is something positive, and not the negative.

 

But Liu I-Ming's phrase makes it most clear by saying the Tao is not apart from virtue, and so clearly is not where there is the opposite. the negative.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Tao99

[goldisheavy]

From the point of view of traditional Taoist cosmology, the pairs of opposites and myriad things were spawned from the original oneness of Tao.

 

Not quite. Those myriad of things have never departed or separated themselves from Tao. In other words, the Tao is as whole as it ever was and nothing was damaged or improved.

 

If our path of Taoist reintegration is one of 'return' then is it concievable that the pairs of opposites, like good and evil, are at some stage dissolved back into the oneness of Tao?

 

It's possible, but the process is not one of integration but one of questioning. As you question your understanding of good and bad and your core beliefs, gradually the boundaries begin to blur under the power of your own wisdom. So it's not like you take one side and smear it with some glue and attach it to another side. That's not how it goes. What happens is a transformation of vision. It's like you've had a finger on your eye ball pressing all your life, because you were taught that if you stop pushing your eye ball you will go blind. And due to this pressure everything appears to be split in half. Then you remove the finger, even thinking you might die from it, but instead of dying, the vision of halves dissolve into the vision of whole. No parts were there to be glued together. There was nothing to integrate. Just take off the pressure and wholeness appears as a vision.

 

Both wholeness and separateness are visions of mind. There are no chunks of yourself or of the world or of your energy that have to be glued together.

 

The process is so easy and simple. Just contemplate. Just examine your beliefs. It's not esoteric even if it does gain you entry into an esoteric realm. In other words, a simple and straightforward process results in all the mysteries.

 

Now that I said this, it's all a bunch of hearsay. For anyone who reads this, if you don't feel it in your own wisdom, it's all just pure speculation and fanciful daydreaming.

[Stigweard]

Firstly your statement of 'hearsay' is quite right. It is possibly true that none of us have lucid awareness of the beginning of Universal life so anything we comment on here is alot of conjecture and theorising. Even so models and mental pictures can be helpful in pointing our minds in the direction of truth.

 

So with the spirit of philosophising in order to lead us to experiential awareness let us explore...

 

Those myriad of things have never departed or separated themselves from Tao. In other words, the Tao is as whole as it ever was and nothing was damaged or improved.

 

Quite so ... expressions of Tao are still Tao. Isn't it also so that life has been given birth through the spontaneous expressiveness of the creative nothingness we oft-times like to call Tao? So the pairs of opposites and the myriad things were spawned of Tao but are indeed still Tao ... yes?

 

It's possible, but the process is not one of integration but one of questioning.

 

Is it?

 

The discovery of Tao through Taiji for instance is one of integrating the mind, body and spirit; unifying movement with the breath; coordinating the left and right, the upper and lower, the front and back; stringing together the 'pearls' to generate intrinsic strength and fluidity etc etc.

 

Inner peace can come about through collecting all the dissparate emotions that pull us out of our centre.

 

Internal alchemy involves fusing the five elements and unifying the Kan and Li into the Golden Elixir, the Sacred Immortal Medicine.

 

Whilst I agree that self-inquiry and examining one's beliefs can help to a certain degree to resolve the limiting and seperating elements of ones mind, if we only insist on questioning aren't we always creating seperation between who is asking and the subject of the inquiry?

 

I have heard that resolving the contradictions of the mind cannot be resolved by the mind. This would like waging war in order to create peace.

 

Surely the questioning mind must resolve it's dichotomies eventually and dissolve into pure awareness?

 

There are no chunks of yourself or of the world or of your energy that have to be glued together.

 

Do you really think so? If this were so then I would be a completely ascended master right now. True it is that I believe that all the energy I need is available to me right now, the fact remains, however, that I am not right now soaring amongst the Heavenly Clouds which is proof enough for me that there are indeed parts of myself that require a touch of the Divine Glue.

 

It is my understanding that our spiritual ancestors, in their endeavours to resolve this very same issue, have passed down to us practices like of qigung, nei dan, doa in, etc, etc, so that we can harmonise and integrate the dissparate elements of our being in order to recreate the model of wholeness exemplified by our understanding of Tao.

[Starjumper]

 

Earlier in this thread you spoke of people who have been compromised or 'poisoned' by accepting teaching from someone who is dishonest.

 

So here's the big question: would you accept one of these people as a student? My intuition tells me it would not be good.

 

Under strict conditions.

 

OK then, I myself don't do strict very well so I guess for me the best thing is avoidance. There are some conflicting ideas I have about this, as it says in the TTC: the sage is also good to the bad person, but I don't want to expose myself to the energy, nor do I want to help the unethical become powerful.

 

Sooo ... if you have the time could you expand a bit on the "strict conditions" and what the smiley face means?

 

Oh I wasn't saying he isn't powerful, or powerful. Just that whatever high level has been attained, in our world, its best to keep it low, and off public radar. Our world is full of people who want to hurt high level beings. And there are people who want to be high level beings. Either way, regardless if one is or not, its best to play the a fool to a degree, and not let one's cultivated state be known, ...unless they are about to die. Keeps things ..."authentic", and saves people from wasting time paying respects when they can be cultivating.

 

Authenticity can be felt off someone, it radiates and permeates. Its effortless and attained by proper effort.

 

Peace and Blessings,

Lin

 

 

Thanks Lin, I saw the posts in the other thread, whichever one it is, and figured out what Tin Si stands for. It could also be written tien shi can't it. Tien as in heaven and Shi as in teacher? I know the tien word

Edited December 2, 2008 by Starjumper7

[goldisheavy]

Firstly your statement of 'hearsay' is quite right. It is possibly true that none of us have lucid awareness of the beginning of Universal life so anything we comment on here is alot of conjecture and theorising. Even so models and mental pictures can be helpful in pointing our minds in the direction of truth.

 

My intent was not so much to discredit your perception or your wisdom, but rather to shift the emphasis back to you.

 

Is it?

 

I don't know. But since you are questioning, I like to think that question is not a waste of time. And if so, simply by asking that question you confirm what I am saying in some way.

 

The discovery of Tao through Taiji for instance is one of integrating the mind, body and spirit; unifying movement with the breath; coordinating the left and right, the upper and lower, the front and back; stringing together the 'pearls' to generate intrinsic strength and fluidity etc etc.

 

Right there in order for you to make a statement like that and be honest while making it, you must sincerely believe that mind, body and spirit are 3 separate parts. This is a problematic assumption that somewhat constrains your perception of Tao. What you see is still Tao, but you don't see all that it could be if you cannot move beyond the assumption of separateness.

 

Imagine I put in front of you a bucket of water. Then I tell you, look here, there is water at the top of the bucket and there is water at the bottom, and there is water in the middle of that bucket. We need to integrate this water so that there is just one water and not 3 parts of water. What am I doing wrong? Well, first I have erected a mental boundary that doesn't actually exist in the water. Second, since I now hold this mental boundary in my mind as if it were a fact, I have now created the conditions in my life and in my mind that make it seem possible and that make it seemingly necessary to reintegrate the split up water parts. You see, the need to integrate was a creation of my mind. It's not a real necessity. It's a necessity born of delusion. Should I cure myself of thinking that water has some kind of real boundaries in it, the need to integrate the water will vanish together with that delusion. I hope this makes sense.

 

All boundaries are mental. If you don't believe me, please show me a physical boundary. The concept of a boundary is that boundaries have no extension in space. Since they have no extension in space, they are mental. I hope this is clear. It's like having meridians on the Earth. How thick are they? They have no thickness, therefore we cannot see the meridians, but you can see them on a model of Earth, like a little rotating globe you can buy at the store. Those lines on it are drawn by men, they are not actually on our Earth. The lines have thickness. And if you zoom in, those lines are not even solid, they are just dots of paint. If you zoom in further, those dots are not dots either, they are splotches. If you zoom in further, the edge of the splotch is not clear. And if you zoom in even more, you cannot even be sure where the atoms are. The point is, the crispiness of boundaries is an illusion. You should investigate the nature of boundaries and see for yourself.

 

Inner peace can come about through collecting all the dissparate emotions that pull us out of our centre.

 

It only makes sense to collect something if it comes as separate parts. If you are one whole, there is nothing that needs collecting. Also, having a task before oneself, such as a task to collect something, is a recipe for a busy life that will be far away from peace that you seek. To find peace you have to enter, authentically and not by trying to pretend your way into it, a state of mind where there is nothing that NEEDS to be done. Nothing to collect. Nothing to disperse, etc. That is a state of effortlessness because in that state you don't have mandatory tasks. You can still invent tasks, but they will be ornamental and not seen as dire necessities. When you perform tasks for purely ornamental reasons, life is so very different. Then you will taste what it means to be an immortal. Immortals don't fear death and do not do anything to preserve themselves or any aspect of themselves. Immortals have no need to protect their egos or bodies or energies or any such thing. If an immortal felt a dire need to conserve energy, that would imply a threat of death should that conservation effort be abandoned. An Immortal is someone whose mind is not occupied by threats of any kind. I hope I make it clear. Someone who perceived a condition under which his life ends is a mortal, not an immortal. An immortal is someone who cannot find a condition for either birth or death and therefore has nothing to protect and nothing to dismantle either.

Edited December 2, 2008 by goldisheavy

[JackSquat]

So we can be sure that this master of the Tao described it as he knew it, and if he knew it some other way, he would have described it that way. So how did he describe the Tao? "The Tao is not apart from virtue."

 

My impression is that many religions have been twisted to favor the positive as a way to preserve society. Just my thoughts, I have no way to back that up.

 

 

What does this mean? If the Tao is not apart from virtue, then logically where there is the negative, the opposite class of virtue, there is not the Tao.

 

Why? Because then it would be apart from virtue, being in the opposite non-virtue, negative class.

 

If something exists and yet the Tao is not there, where is that thing? "The Tao is not apart from virtue" does not say to me "the whole Tao is comprised only of virtue"; to me it just says "virtue is a part of the Tao". Difference of interpretation I guess, or maybe there's something lost in the translation.

 

As a supporting citation I would point to #42 of the Tao Teh Ching, Chan translation:

 

"Tao produced the One. The One produced the two. The two produced the three. And the three produced the ten thousand things. The ten thousand things carry the yin and embrace the yang, and through the blending of the material force they achieve harmony. "

 

So the Tao produces the achievement of harmony, which is positive and not negative, so it's result is something positive, and not the negative.

 

The Tao is achieving harmony through the blending of yin and yang, not the exclusion of either -- just because the word harmony makes us feel good doesn't mean it's entirely positive. Think of it this way; chaos also represents potential, just as harmony also signifies an end. To call harmony "positive" and therefore chaos "negative" is not a complete picture. Besides, yin and yang are defining features of the ten thousand things, which came from the three, which came from the two, which came from the one, which came from the Tao; I read this and yin and yang sound very much like negativity and positivity, and it sounds very much like both came from the Tao and thus are part of it.

 

What say you? (Thanks for humoring me, by the way )

 

 

 

 

It only makes sense to collect something if it comes as separate parts. If you are one whole, there is nothing that needs collecting.

 

I think what Stigweard meant was that the process of realizing that the water in the bucket is all flowing together IS the process of unifying the self; unfortunately, it is easier said than done, and human beings are not born complete. If there were no work to be done we would not be here. The way an immortal can think of himself is a goal that must be achieved by working through karma and blockages accumulated through many lifetimes, not just by sitting still and quieting yourself, although that is an important part.

[goldisheavy]

I think what Stigweard meant was that the process of realizing that the water in the bucket is all flowing together IS the process of unifying the self; unfortunately, it is easier said than done, and human beings are not born complete. If there were no work to be done we would not be here. The way an immortal can think of himself is a goal that must be achieved by working through karma and blockages accumulated through many lifetimes, not just by sitting still and quieting yourself, although that is an important part.

 

That's very charitable of you. The way he was talking he didn't strike me as someone who sees it as a process of recognition, it seemed to me that he really believed that he had to reattach separate parts of his being back together to form a whole, like gluing together a broken vase or something like that.

 

I don't like this "working through karma" talk. It's nonsense. Karma just means intent. What does "Working through intent" mean? It means nothing. Intent is what motivates the work so how can the motivating force behind work, work through itself. It just makes no sense.

 

However what you reasonably can do is to understand the nature of your intent. This is a contemplative process where you ask yourself questions like these:

 

Does my intent have a beginning? Does it end? If yes, then when intent ends, are you in a state of unintentionality, and if intent begins again, is that beginning an intentional or an unintentional one? If intent starts unintentionally, how is it intentional, but if unintentionality can be entered into intentionally through relaxation how is it still unintentionality? If intent has no beginning and no end within a person, can we say that multiple people have multiple intents? If that were the case, how would they be resolved to one reality? Etc.

 

Asking questions like this would also be accompanies by actually doing experiments with your intent. You can make a hypothesis about your intent and then use your intent to test it. Etc.

 

After a long while of this the limiting ways in which we allow our minds to structure the intent begin to melt away (but don't take my word for it, you really have to investigate intent for yourself in order to have an authentic experience).

 

The last thing a questioning spiritual person will do is to use their intent to move some energy around. Instead, the first order of business is to investigate intent. Maybe after you investigate it you will realize that it just makes no sense to shuffle the energy around. It's like if you have some object and you pick it up and start hammering away. But what you should do is to take a look at it. Is it a hammer? Maybe it is a feather or scissors or maybe it's a pen, and if so, you are dumb to be hammering away in a hurry. Before you use a tool, examine the tool. Intent is a tool. Examine it. Don't just use it to shuffle energy this or that way. That is not wise.

 

This is the process of clarifying one's intent. It's a very deep and transformative process. "Working through karma" is a completely wrong way to put it. Putting it that way just obscures that which should be examined. It mystifies something that shouldn't be mystified. There is mystery of course! But you don't have to create mystery with confused language! The mystery is there even if you use simple and clear language that edifies and elucidates instead of obscuring the meaning behind the foreign words few people understand properly.

 

Do you know the difference between karma and karma vipaka? Without looking it up? If not, you should not be using those terms.

Edited December 2, 2008 by goldisheavy

[JackSquat]

[Stigweard]

[Tao99]

My impression is that many religions have been twisted to favor the positive as a way to preserve society.

 

-- just because the word harmony makes us feel good doesn't mean it's entirely positive.

 

Think of it this way; chaos also represents potential, just as harmony also signifies an end. To call harmony "positive" and therefore chaos "negative" is not a complete picture.

 

I read this and yin and yang sound very much like negativity and positivity, and it sounds very much like both came from the Tao and thus are part of it.

 

 

The Tao is "not apart" from virtue. A fire is "not apart" from smoke. Where there is no smoke there is no fire. Where there are no legs there is no walking. Walking is "not apart" from legs. The words are clear for those who wish to see.

 

I've tried the advancing method. Now I will try the oldest trick in the Taoist way, the withdrawing method. I will allow you to follow your "tao" to negativity and chaos, and reap your karma. And what will be my reaction when you do? So be it, and let it be done.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Tao99

[JackSquat]

The Tao is "not apart" from virtue. A fire is "not apart" from smoke. Where there is no smoke there is no fire. Where there are no legs there is no walking. Walking is "not apart" from legs. The words are clear for those who wish to see.

It's not that I don't understand your metaphor, it's just that I don't see how negativity doesn't count as smoke and legs too. I read your words and I remain unconvinced that you wish to see mine. What is negativity if it is not part of the Tao? If "yin and yang" and "the thousand things" do not encompass "positive and negative", then I am very confused. After all, inclusion does not indicate exclusivity.

 

 

I've tried the advancing method. Now I will try the oldest trick in the Taoist way, the withdrawing method. I will allow you to follow your "tao" to negativity and chaos, and reap your karma. And what will be my reaction when you do? So be it, and let it be done.

You misunderstand my intentions. I did not claim that negativity was my path, nor did I recommend it to anyone else, I just wanted to know why you believe as you do as opposed to how wrong you thought everyone else was. I guess I'm wasting my breath, though, if you have withdrawn from the debate already. Ah well, it was worth a try. I hope that as you follow your Tao that discovering that negativity and positivity are two sides of the same coin was not as painful as it was for me. Just like so-called "orthodox Christians" where I live, you seem to spew confrontational and derisive energy in the same breath as you preach about virtue. Since you are done talking, can you reread all of your posts on this thread and honestly think them to be free of negativity even as you tried to convince people that only positive things are real? It seems to me you said a lot of things out loud that could just as well been left unsaid. But then again, you don't have to be perfect just yet, do you?

 

 

 

Sorry everyone, I really thought something productive might come of all this. Carry on!

[goldisheavy]

By working through intent (karma) I meant the the actual work of quieting yourself (your intent) and ending your resistance to reality,

 

What if being loud is your reality? Then if you try to quiet yourself, you are resisting reality, aren't you? Reality is inner as well as outer (I say it like that because you use this kind of language, otherwise I wouldn't necessarily be splitting it into inner and outer, unless of course I also wanted to use similar language for ornamental reasons).

 

See, the problem is this. You conflate reality with shapes. You think quiet is a shape that's closer to reality, but in reality shapes have nothing to do with reality. All shapes are baseless upon the ultimate analysis. So being quiet is no more closer to reality than being loud. Listening is no more attentive than screaming with ear plugs in your ears. To understand this correctly you cannot avoid contemplation. There is simply NO WAY to understand it without directly challenging certain (core) beliefs within.

 

the whole emotionally painful, exhausting, mind blowing process of changing yourself that doesn't necessarily take place in calm meditation and contemplation.

 

Aren't you giving a too-narrow a definition to meditation and contemplation?

 

You seem to have a very clinical viewpoint, although this is close to what I meant. It seems to me like you make it all sound very neat and clean. This process uncovers things about yourself that seem unsavory, frightening, dark, etc.;

 

That's the juicy stuff. Without this, where would the glory be? Who would care? This is the feast of the spirit. Enjoy it! Drink up. Obstacles are blessings. All is good in moderation, even a little bit of an extreme here and there, in moderation, is also good.

 

Some people do not have the capacity

 

All people have the capacity but not all people have the sincere aspiration necessary to activate the latent capacity. If your aspiration is sincere, have no doubt your capacity is equal to the utmost, to the unexcelled! And if anyone asks you about their capacity, you should reply to them exactly how I reply to you. In other words you should tell them their capacity is equal to the utmost, quickly and without hesitation. If you hesitate, it means you have doubts in your own capacity.

 

to examine their own intent objectively

 

There is no such thing as "objective" examination. Of course there is no such thing as subjective examination either, but if you insist on subjective-objective duality, then all perceptions are subjective by definition. Objectivity is an abstract quality that people (incorrectly) deduce using their intellects and playfully impute onto the "external" phenomena. The direct perception is never objective.

 

because their karma (their accumulated unhelpful modes of intent over many lifetimes) is in the way.

 

See how confused you get? Don't use "karma"! Say "because their intent is in the way" and then you will know you are wrong. Intent is ONE element of your being that is NEVER in the way. Intent is that which SEEKS WAY. Intent is conditioned, that is to say, structured, by deeply seated beliefs. It's the beliefs that get in the way and never intent. Once you begin to aspire for enlightenment, for wisdom, your intent becomes your number one ally. If you cannot trust your intent, you cannot trust anything at all. It is by the grace of your own intent that baseless beliefs begin to unwind over time.

 

Let me state for the record that if you expect me to adhere to one single system of jargon/dogma/philosophy you will be disappointed;

 

I'm glad! I hope you remain your wild and wooly self! Good call! Good call!

[goldisheavy]

Edited December 3, 2008 by goldisheavy

[Tao99]

It's not that I don't understand your metaphor, it's just that I don't see how negativity doesn't count as smoke and legs too. I read your words and I remain unconvinced that you wish to see mine. What is negativity if it is not part of the Tao? If "yin and yang" and "the thousand things" do not encompass "positive and negative", then I am very confused. After all, inclusion does not indicate exclusivity.

 

You misunderstand my intentions. I did not claim that negativity was my path, nor did I recommend it to anyone else, I just wanted to know why you believe as you do as opposed to how wrong you thought everyone else was. I guess I'm wasting my breath, though, if you have withdrawn from the debate already. Ah well, it was worth a try. I hope that as you follow your Tao that discovering that negativity and positivity are two sides of the same coin was not as painful as it was for me. Just like so-called "orthodox Christians" where I live, you seem to spew confrontational and derisive energy in the same breath as you preach about virtue. Since you are done talking, can you reread all of your posts on this thread and honestly think them to be free of negativity even as you tried to convince people that only positive things are real? It seems to me you said a lot of things out loud that could just as well been left unsaid. But then again, you don't have to be perfect just yet, do you?

Sorry everyone, I really thought something productive might come of all this. Carry on!

Um, expressing opposing points of view and criticism isn't negative. It's free speech, and you will find it all over this forum and all others. No biggie. The negativity this thread has been referring to - as you know - has to do with something specific in relation to virtue. I'm not "spewing" (what a critical insult lol) energy. I am denying the proposition that the Tao is apart from virtue. I am expressing an opposing point of view.

 

The Tao is the path. You said "I hope that as you follow your Tao that discovering that negativity and positivity are two sides of the same coin [meaning your path] was not as painful as it was for me." Maybe that's why it was painful. You may not be promoting the path of negativity to others but you clearly are to yourself. The Tao is not "the real" or the flow of the real. It's something much deeper, and found in the words of the ancients. However they are often obtuse and secretive and leave it up to your hard study/practice and good fate to find it.

 

I'm sorry you didn't find anything productive in this. I found this productive: "I did not claim that negativity was my path, nor did I recommend it to anyone else," Anyway I agree this going around in a circle, so I will opt out.

Edited December 3, 2008 by Tao99