The Dao Bums
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bindi

  • Rank
    Dao Bum

Recent Profile Visitors

1,378 profile views
  1. Gospel of Thomas

    This literal interpretation is not limited to biblical Christianity though, giving up possessions is also the Buddha's rule for himself and Buddhist monastics, and it is still practised by Indian Sadhus - both of these systems are highly respected and may even be considered to be the highest form of practice in their systems, above 'householders' who practise a softer version of non-attachment. I imagine the decision to 'sell all their stuff, and give the money to the poor' might in itself be a huge step towards non-attachment, though of course it's no guarantee of 'enlightenment.' Perhaps it just increases the likelihood of enlightenment. I think a real danger in the inwardly focused renunciation is that it is far easier to claim non-attachment to possessions than to actually do it, claiming I am unattached can be done today, but very few who claim to be unattached could actually go ahead and sell everything to give to the poor.
  2. Gospel of Thomas

    Does this mean actually renouncing possessions, or keeping them and just changing how you view them? In the bible it states unequivocally that renunciation is of actual possessions, but this is of course a lot harder: “There is still one thing you haven’t done,” he told him. “Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” At this the man’s face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions. Luke 14:33 "So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions."
  3. Attainment of the Tao

    I'd say by balancing the yin and yang energies in each of the 3 dantians.
  4. Gospel of Thomas

    Could this all be under the umbrella of the devolution of 'Goddess' to whore, you mentioned patriarchy in your earlier post?
  5. Gospel of Thomas

    Apart from word association is there any relation between child of a whore and menstrual blood of a sordid whore?
  6. Gospel of Thomas

    Have you successfully hated your physical parents enough to be born of the Spirit?
  7. Gospel of Thomas

    Though 'God' was understood to have male and female characteristics in the OT, he was still firmly referred to as 'He.' People who chose to see 'God' as mother and father might well have been insulted. But did Jesus refer to 'God' as mother and father in any biblical verse? Or is this usage only to be found in gnostic literature? Is it Jesus being called child of a whore, or gnostics finding that they are called the child of a whore for their mother/father God beliefs, which would be offensive to both Jewish and early Christian sensibilities?
  8. Gospel of Thomas

    It's gone from the OT's "Respect your father and mother" To the NT's 'He who loves father or mother more than me cannot be my disciple" To the #55 gospel of Thomas's "Whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be a disciple of me" And ends in the shamelessly derogatory "Whoever knows the father and the mother will be called the child of a whore." Gotta love the GOT
  9. From the wiki quote in the OP One of the two (c. 168 BCE) Mawangdui silk manuscript versions of the Daodejing... uses a rare textual variant character for pu 樸: wò 楃
  10. So to wildly speculate just a bit further, wò 楃 could conceivably mean something along the lines of 'simple room/house/tent', and the need to return to this.
  11. Is anyone familiar with the difference wò 楃 and wu 屋 from the Mawangdui "A" text make to the meaning of the lines where pu 樸 (translated as uncarved block) is currently written in the TTC? One of the two (c. 168 BCE) Mawangdui silk manuscript versions of the Daodejing, discovered in 1973 by archeologists excavating a tomb, uses a rare textual variant character for pu 樸: wò 楃 "a house tent (esp. with a wooden roof)", written with the "tree radical" and wu 屋 "room; house" phonetic. The "B" text, like the received version, uses pu 樸 8 times in 6 chapters; the "A" text uses wò 楃 6 times in 4 chapters and has lacunae in chapters 19 and 57. The (c. 121 CE) Shuowen jiezi defines wo 楃 as muzhang 木帳 "wood canopy", and the (early 3rd century) Guangya defines it as choumu 幬幕 "curtain; cover". These variant words pú < *phrôk 樸 "unworked wood" and wò < *ʔôk 楃 "house tent" are semantically and phonologically dissimilar.
  12. what does the transcendent desire?

    For us to eat from the second tree in the garden? For us to become like the Gods? Perhaps we're just unfinished projects, high in mental abilities but under-developed in the emotional/sensory side which is limiting further evolution.
  13. My mistake, it looks like we disagree then. True, even when perfectly cleared there is still darkness, and light is still needed. For various reasons though I am convinced that perfectly cleared is necessary for the lower dantians before looking for a source of light. What sources of light are available in your opinion? Do you think you are ‘enlightened' by following your method?
  14. The Daoists do with their initial focus on the lower dantian, I don’t know if Jungians do. I agree though, the LDT focus is primary and vital. Yes agreed CBT is psychologically unhealthy. The Jungian approach is a lifetimes work, it works towards engagement with the deepest and darkest layers of ourselves, the aspects that are most split off, and ultimately the true self that lies beneath the layers. Even shamans who were not isolated like modern societies tend to be had to undergo journeys into their own psyches, so it’s not just our society that keeps us away from our true selves.
  15. What sort of therapy was it? Not all therapies are created equal IMO.Though I didn't take this article as advertising a therapy so much as describing the workings of the subconscious, some of it's images perfectly capture the fundamental human problem IMO, my favourite being the 'spark of the divine cloistered in an autistic enclave, desperate to escape its prison.' This is psychological truth as I see it, not just a fanciful notion.