online daodejing

[Fa Hui]

It's funny how ignorance works like that really. Are you sure though that they dont just use it as a foresight window to self adjudicate the difference? again with dharma and translation.


Blooming tianshi lotus.

Uh?!?

Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

[blooming tianshi lotus]

I think you made some very important points onesp1ng, thank you. A particularly like the point in the paragraph I quoted above because people often utilize religion and philosophy to justify and rationalize their own selfish motives.

It's funny how ignorance works like that really. Are you sure though that they dont just use it as a foresight window to self adjudicate the difference? again with dharma and translation.


Blooming tianshi lotus.

[onesp1ng]

OK doc, i suppose it's cool to make the switch. i'll contact him again when it's done so he can approve it.

[onesp1ng]

doc, i sent sanderson beck's response to your gmail account.

[Fa Hui]

laozi (or whoever wrote the daodejing) was making observations. it political (even today), and seemingly complex, because of when it was written and how it contradicts traditional thinking. someone could make observations from his or her expression of “dao” in relation to today's world, and the language probably wouldn't change much. but basically, as i understand it, dependency on preexisting concepts/models and/or formulas inevitably limit “dao” (within their given constructions), and right action ("de") is subsequesntly restricted as a result. this is a paradox that we can’t really argue for or against, because the daodejing is pointing toward the ineffable. to speak abstractly (if this isn't already abstract enough.lol..), in effect we are debating against ourselves since speach itself is a convention that divides us from, well, in their typical usage, ourselves! to say, "look, the daodejing says this so we shooooould," only conceptualizes "dao" and implies purpose....not wholeness. there may be exceptions, but i personally feel the daodejing should be used, therefore, to point to “dao,” not personal beliefs/concepts (that ultimately contradict “dao.”) [/IMG]

I think you made some very important points onesp1ng, thank you. A particularly like the point in the paragraph I quoted above because people often utilize religion and philosophy to justify and rationalize their own selfish motives.

[onesp1ng]

as for why a person shouldn't use the daodejing to back up his/her beliefs, i will try to explain.

basically there are two main parts to the daodejing -- the daojing (道經) and the dejing (德經).

the nucleus of the daodejing is very simple: “dao”.. (this is widely acknowledged, yet often overlooked). it's the mind that seems to fudge everything up.

"dao," according to the author's description, has no special characteristics, is mysterious, and without form. now, if the dao is truly shapeless, as the author suggests, then using ideas based on words to understand "dao" is inherently problematic. unfortunately, this is because words contextualize “dao” (as a result of the relative meanings they imply). “dao,” being amorphous, is not really a concept at all, and thus can not be (entirely) contained in words/concepts/etc.. although the daodejing is made of words, words are just tools. they can point one to “dao,” but they can not substitute for “dao.” nothing can.

“de” (or “virtue,” as in the dejing), ironically, comes into existance only by first abiding in “dao” itself. this is because, in terms of the author’s observations/understanding, right action (ie. virtue) is a by-product, if you will, of that which only arises via a place of undivided, spontaneous existance, aka “dao.” sadly, it can’t happen the other way around either. “dao” comes first, yinyang, myriad things, and so on. including "de."

laozi (or whoever wrote the daodejing) was making observations. it political (even today), and seemingly complex, because of when it was written and how it contradicts traditional thinking. someone could make observations from his or her expression of “dao” in relation to today's world, and the language probably wouldn't change much. but basically, as i understand it, dependency on preexisting concepts/models and/or formulas inevitably limit “dao” (within their given constructions), and right action ("de") is subsequesntly restricted as a result. this is a paradox that we can’t really argue for or against, because the daodejing is pointing toward the ineffable. to speak abstractly (if this isn't already abstract enough.lol..), in effect we are debating against ourselves since speach itself is a convention that divides us from, well, in their typical usage, ourselves! to say, "look, the daodejing says this so we shooooould," only conceptualizes "dao" and implies purpose....not wholeness. there may be exceptions, but i personally feel the daodejing should be used, therefore, to point to “dao,” not personal beliefs/concepts (that ultimately contradict “dao.”)

i like how fahui used it the other day to point liutangsanzang to “dao.” he didn't say "do it because such and such are suffering, that is bad, we need to help them" etc etc... he made a motion to transcend ideas. that illuminates "dao" and negates the ego, in my opinion.

to put this into some practical scenario, let’s take ma for instance. some people who practice in the arts feel the mind should control the body. but, from the holistic perspective of daoist thought, the body must be free to move first. only then can it become healthy, strong, and whole. the body is free of obstruction; the subsequent result is a balanced state. (this is consistent with TCM’s view of the relationship between jing, qi, shen/five element theory/and so on). in contrast, when one uses the mind to move the body, they actually restrict it, and in many cases damage the body. the body comes first, not the mind. thus, it's apparently best when the body is free to move spontaneously. (a teacher once said this feeling is like having a hundred armies by your side. where is the need to fight?) additionally, from this perspective, there's also a parallel between man and society. the mind, devoid of wholeness, bases itself on the “outer,” and this emphasis of the “outer” by the mind creates the problems. problems arise because the mind is essentially attempting to fix itself, the body, and everything else…when the mind is, in most cases, actuality the obstacle which needs transcending. in short, conflict between the individual, himself, and his/her environment cease only when transendence begins.

thanks for bearing with me. i hope my explanation wasn't too long winded or dogmatic.

one

[onesp1ng]

i'll do that, doc. good idea.

[doc]

Onesping if you want, get his permission and we'll put it in here or on the main site. That's the problem with linking to these other sties sometimes, they come and go, unreliably, unpredictably, without care or concern.

Just like my girlfriends.

[onesp1ng]

the link works fine for me.

as for the daodejing on zhongwen.com, well, if be fine for people who understand chinese. but for people who don't understand chnese, especially classical chinese, clicking on each character is a wothless pursuit (in my opnion), and only adds to the confusion.

[renato]

That link doesn't seem to work anymore. You might try http://www.zhongwen.com/. click on read in the top left side. there's a version in Chinese and you're able to translate each character as you read.

[liutangsanzang]

No reactions about killing insects while walking on the Dao? Personally i always watch where i put my feet when i practice gongfu in nature.

Anyone would like to comment on Daodejing, 36?

"It is best to leave the fish down in his pool;
Best to leave the State's sharpest weapons where non can see them"

Sorry if translation is bad.

Something to do with vegetarianism and political non violence?

[Fa Hui]

Correct me if i am wrong but if jains starve to death it is to end up karma and not to be reborn. They dont think plants have a soul, jiva, so they cant hurt them.

That s an option i m considering but might be too Hinayana.

The practice is called Santhara:

Jainism believes that each and every action (eating included) may or may not become karma. Jains are strictly vegetarian, but a tree, even if it has only one sense, has life, and hence taking away a piece of it (vegetable, fruit, leaf) hurts it - thereby adding a negative karma to all who encourage this process.

Seems a little extreme to me, and the dumbest thing is to call this Hinayana since it has nothing to do with Buddhism. The Buddha detested austerities like this.

[blooming tianshi lotus]

you know, they say where there's water, there's life.

the buddha spoke in one the quotes I posted about meat eating, and he says sentience being qualified as being 'created "from moisture " ' amongst other things. are you familar with any branch of darwinism or physics or chemistry by any chance? do you know how life comes about physiologically? it's by one or other solute or combination ( heavier molecule or combination thereof disolved ) in water . that's it. that's the rocket science of it.


Maybe the idea is to find another way to look at it.

Do you know about the science of the nature of how things come together? the forces and laws that apply to that?

there has to be a matching polarity harmony . the "vacancy" always exists though and so does the potential to have it filled. if you look at orbital diagrams, and electrons you can see this for yourself.


Blooming tianshi lotus.

[liutangsanzang]

Correct me if i am wrong but if jains starve to death it is to end up karma and not to be reborn. They dont think plants have a soul, jiva, so they cant hurt them.

That s an option i m considering but might be too Hinayana.

[Fa Hui]

I m just a miserable ignorant imitating the jain path without even believing it. Excuse my weaknesses and tendancies to believe i hold some truth and non violence.

By the way, what about killing insects walking the Dao? I always like this idea of the Dao being a real road where you should not step on insects. Had a beautiful view of the path at Tiger leaping george in Yunnan.

Does that mean that eventually you will let yourself starve in an effort not to harm plants? That's what the Jains do.

Any chance of that occurring in the next 5-10 minutes?