Mig

Here is an example of a so common case that is much prevalent in this world today, view of what happens when inequality shows:

7 hours ago, Master Logray said:

Inequality is a rather modern western concept.  There are teachings in the Asian religions which mentions equality in one way or the other.   But these are never the main directions.   Inequality is still a minor issue today comparing with the more pressing issues in Asia.

Inequality as a modern concept? If we read Chinese history, isn't inequality all over both socially or economically, it is a fact of life and I am trying to tackle from different angles to understand the Daoists texts.

9 hours ago, freeform said:

It was more like a ‘Daoists don’t care about inequality - prove me wrong’

Hmm, not sure I want someone to prove me wrong, it is a simple inquiry about how Daoists act in this kind of situations and in which Daoist text they support their beliefs or explanation as inequality has always existed.

9 hours ago, freeform said:

 

Sometimes when I answer, it’s not an answer to that person’s direct line of inquiry, but to the lines of inquiry that spin off the original for other readers. Changing resistant minds is not a fun game. Sharing my perspective to open, inquiring minds is delightful. Hearing other carefully considered, nuanced perspectives (especially when they disagree) is also delightful.

 

Politics is a big hot topic at the moment and I think it’s interesting to see the true perspectives of other cultures and ways of seeing the world.

 

Me personally, I don’t 100% agree with the pure Daoist view. I think that there’s room for taking some political action to move society in a better direction. I think the Confucian approach definitely has some merit - especially to the ‘vulgar’ class of people. I firmly believe that spiritual cultivation is not right for the majority of people. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

But I 100% agree with them that however nuanced my understanding of how societies function, it doesn’t come close to the reality of the matter. I’m well aware that my view is severely limited - and that my own ideologies (I do have them) are not necessarily ‘right’ and will invariably have unintended consequences when applied at the societal level.

 

My political action is simply to voice my opinion, vote and make changes in my behaviour after considering the full picture as best I can. Then I leave it be. As I say - trying to change resistant minds is one of those foolish games that I’m not interested in playing. Getting emotionally involved in opinions, to me, is also the silliest thing imaginable. It invariably creates divisions, narrow mindedness and the sort of ‘self’- idolising drama and wilful ignorance that I find really distasteful.

 

In my opinion it’s never politics that changes society to any great extent - it’s technology.
 

The abolition of slavery is seen as a big win for politics, but in reality it came about when a much ‘cheaper’ and easier form of power became available (oil). 
 

It’s things like metallurgy, medicine, printing press and internet that create big change - politics just plays in the sandpit created by these big society shifters.

 

No wonder that the Daoists were the ‘scientists’ and advisers of their time (rarely the politicians)

6 minutes ago, Paradoxal said:

 

The "problems" of the modern world are no different to Taoists than the "problems" of the ancient world. What you are describing as "problem", Taoists see as "natural". It is not wise to attempt to "solve" nature, so those with power and wisdom will not attempt to solve the "problems" of today. 

 

To me, it sounds like what you are asking for is some specific Taoist dogma. While I'm sure that Taoist dogma exists in many different forms, I'm not entirely sure why you would seek dogma in the first place, and I'm not sure if you'll find the answer you are looking for among dogma. In regards to the answer you are seeking, you have gotten plenty of responses that have the same message, but it doesn't seem that that message is what you are looking for, as you simply ask the same question once again. 

 

I would suggest emptying your mind of preconceived notions, ideals, and desires, and reading the responses of Riversnake, Wu Ming Jen, thelerner, liminal_luke, Freeform, and Mithras once more. All of these fine folks have been saying something that seems to answer your question over and over again, but the message seems to be lost because it is not what you want to hear. 

In the beginning I asked to understand what Daoists say and where those thoughts come from. It certainly possible that I don't understand what they say and clearly I am not looking for to hear what I want to hear. The situation we live today is nothing new in human history and I was trying to find out in which text Daoists follow the thought relating to this situation of inequality so I can understand the point of view of those texts or from those who are Daoists.

It seems that Daoists through the ages have developed various forms of community and proposed numerous sets of behavioral guidelines and texts on ethical considerations. Thus the importance of ethics in a world of disparities, not the nature but the human construction of our worlds. It seems to be also the central part of Daoist religion on ethics and morality in the creation of a community.

And here I found some notes:
Taoist ethics are concerned less with doing good acts than becoming a good person who lives in harmony with all things and people.
Taoists tend not to initiate action - but wait for events to make action necessary - and avoid letting their own desires and compulsions push them into doing things.
The Taoist ideal is for a person to take action by changing themselves, and thus becoming an example of the good life to others.
But more careful thought suggests that Taoism might not offer happy solutions to the problems of the modern world.

Something to ponder and let see what you wise bums think about this

22 hours ago, freeform said:

Where do you see equality? In what natural system have you seen equality?

 

A plant sends out hundreds of seeds... some of the seeds land on deep, fertile soil, with good sun and humidity... some land in a pond... some land on concrete... some land on barren sandy soil... some land in the shadow of a mature plant... the ones that do grow to maturity invariably cast a shadow that will stunt the growth of other seeds.

 

There is no such thing as equality in nature.

 

We think that concepts in our minds should make perfect sense in the real world - but our concepts are based on a very limited perspective, they’re biased by everything from our emotionally reactive subconscious preferences to our upbringing, our language, our parents and their beliefs etc...

 

Reality is always far more complex than any ideology.

 

Political movements that have attempted to create equality have proven to be some of the most brutal. Yet the ideology that started them sounded so good.

 

If you truly wish to understand Daoism, or any other ancient tradition that has stood the test of time, then you need to approach it with humility. If you come to it with preconceived notions, then all you’ll see is a distorted reflection of yourself.

I am not sure why talking about equality and I don't think I implied if there is inequality there is equality. This is not the point, the more I see around the world, my little world living in a large cosmopolitan city where corruption reigns, the more I see inequality, there is an imbalance and chaos reigns until manu militari becomes the norm. Inequality is a man made issue not nature problem to solve. I don't see my emotions involved in what I see individuals who have to struggle to end meets and have to survive and it is not a small percentage of individuals. Granted, I practice minimalism to minimize cost of living but I can see other people who have to struggle because they cannot find a job to make it better and got to find whatever job minimum wage and still just barely surviving. And all this is not ideology, class struggle dialectics or political rhetoric, fake news or what have you, the problem is that there is an issue and one of them is inequality. Back in the days, people would ignore and nobody will say anything because of what they believed, so far I have not seen a Daoist being a leader to propose or show in actions for changes. Could you tell me which preconceived notions? How to apply humility in this context? Is it in the DDJ? Or DDJ Ch 67 line 7?
I have three treasures
I hold on to them and protect them
The first is called compassion
The second is called conservation
"The third is called not daring to be ahead in the world"
humility - the awareness that seeing oneself as being above or ahead of other people can only lead to failure.

Derek Lin  translation and comment.
 

54 minutes ago, welkin said:

 

precisely the way I feel about it so I can understand what Daoists or Daoists schools or Daoists religions say about this. Every time I have mentioned this type of questions, it seems that nobody wants to answer. Very true in the past, there were Daoists who were involved in helping society for a better society (I guess) but never mentioned their accomplishments. Also, I cannot find a Daoist text or canon that say at least something about inequalities in society, where there are more poor than those who have something or more than others.

On 10/12/2020 at 1:25 PM, liminal_luke said:

I know I´m at my best when I´m more disciplined about spiritual practice.  To worry about societal issues, like inequality, before working on oneself is to get things backwards: it doesn´t work.  When we work on ourselves first, right action emerges spontaneously.

And what do you do after? Understood to work on yourself first but again, don't we try to do the best we can though we live our lives comfortably? If you have experienced to live in the streets, you know the world is different when you are privileged and it is not an experience to enjoy. What is the right action?

I am surprised about the responses as it seems that nobody sees inequality in today's societies but everybody knows it and they are quite aware, just don't want to talk about it, not to confront the issue that in many societies, inequality is a real issue whether is a third world country or an industrialized country. Let us take an example of large cities, cosmopolitan city in the world, i.e. Paris, Los Angeles, New York and a poor country as Bangladesh, Tegucigalpa or Manila. Don't you think people see inequality where corruption reigns and there are those who cannot make it because of different reasons, some reasons are out of their control, some other reasons they are responsible of their actions. So what do Daoists say about this situation? Do they do something to make changes or just keep doing their thing and play ostrich, head in the ground and everything is okay? Which Daoist text can help me to understand what are my options based on their guidance as they guide in other things as being like the water, be content, be compassionate, etc. Where?

On 10/4/2020 at 6:39 AM, silent thunder said:

To me, 'go with the flow', seems a modern mind's paraphrase of the conceptual idea of wei wu wei.

in which way the wei wu wei is equivalent to go with the flow? Any examples to provide to support that concept?

It seems that if we look at history, especially in China, all you can see is famine, misery, wars, revolts and much more inequality. The religions of China have been an essential element in all the conflicts you read in Chinese history and the more I read the more I see how much the regular people, the poor people have been victims of a flagrant inequality. What have Daoists done to make changes or where in the Daoists scriptures mention about how to deal with inequality in society or in their community?

Just like other proselytizing religious movement, churches or temples, I have not seeing them in impoverished areas, always where the money is, well off areas. In Taiwan I guess is a different story because of the social strata and community cohesion. I guess during Chinese history there were power struggles between Daoists and Buddhist in the imperial court but not sure their involvement in impoverished areas of the empire.

5 hours ago, Master Logray said:

 

I have no idea.  But I suppose they are confined to China towns.  Their deities are totally unknown in western countries.  Who would go to worship there?   Furthermore Taoist don't really preach like other religions.  They are rather passive and mostly serve the communities (not free).

It made me think about this:

https://www.taoist.org/50years/

5 hours ago, Master Logray said:

 

It is not true.  In Hong Kong and Taiwan there are temples everywhere.  Actually no temple is built in well-off areas except some historical ones.  Hong Kong has many temple on upper stories of tall buildings. plus very small temples.  Taiwan has more magnificent temples.  China Taoist temples are now flourishing with money.  They make a lot of money and the government subsidize for tourist sake.  Temple is part of the "industries".  China is all internal tourists. 

 

If you mean temples like Buddhist monasteries, have Taoist residing, then they are very rare.   One of the main reasons is that ZhengYi Taoist is actually the majority.  They can eat meat, raise family and live as normal persons.  So living quarters is not that necessary.  Cultivators don't have temple.

 

What about those in western countries, i.e. USA, Europe or others places around the world?

I have posted some questions about Daoists in general regarding inequality, their precepts, etc. to understand how it is perceived or understood by fellow Daoists or well educated individuals in this forum. One thing, I keep noticing is that Daoism as well as other religious groups, they tend to lean where the money is. I don't see their temples or congregations in low income areas or impoverished neighborhoods. It seems in the past Daoists where in full battle against buddhists for the sake of power. Am I wrong or can you give examples of the contrary?

On 10/1/2020 at 6:38 AM, lrn2livorlive2lrn said:

Honestly this story is not the clearest in  message. It’s spoken by Confucius making it even more unclear about the intentions of the whole thing.  Different translations also really change the overall intention of it. 
I wonder where those misquotes start and become valid and taken for granted

the original quot you posted, attributed to zhuangzi, seems like an overall simplified paraphrase of zhuangzi.

 

My feeling about “go with the flow” is that it’s in a way accurate and also so broad that it could apply to many philosophies. 
Where in this quote says go with the flow in the original text?
 

 

I highly recommend Eva Wong's book to give you an idea and better understanding. Easy to read and understand. HTH

I still don't understand the translation nor the message. I have trouble with the saying go with the flow as being Daoist or new age saying and not meaning what was in the original text and the way is understood.

23 hours ago, lrn2livorlive2lrn said:

The different translations can  vary pretty dramatically but this snippet kind of fits the last line of a story in chapter 6 . 
 

When one rests in what has been arranged, and puts away all thought of the transformation, he is in unity with the mysterious Heaven."  
 

The story is roughly giving the advice of the quote, but it’s not what one would expect from the quote alone. 
 

I can see how you could turn that into that quote. Your quote is much more broad and immediately relatable though.  It could be somewhere else in there.

Indeed, it seems this is what Mair translations say:
Repose in what has been arranged for you and leave transformation behind, then you will be able to enter the unity of
vast heaven.

大宗師  7: 造適不及笑，獻笑不及排，安排而去化，乃入於寥天一

9 hours ago, Anzhi said:

I have read this a while ago. I haven't a copy now. And I am not sure which edition it was. But the edition I read, was valuable and written well. It is not a big book, but is serious writing on themes the author sees in the Yi.

In which way was valuable? How helpful is this book to understand the philosophy of the Yijing? How this reading helped you to understand better the book and the impact of those ideas into Chinese culture, language, philosophy, religion, traditional medicine, among many other fields?

On 9/26/2020 at 7:05 AM, Anzhi said:

Thank you for your interest in this rather impressive man. His site is well worth a good explore. His grasp of detail is very good. His two YiJing volumes are excellent in my opinion. One his translation, the second the fully referenced script of the Chinese version. You can download both of these free. He has also presented a similar with the Lao Tzu. His writing is very articulate and temperate, while his aquaintance and intimacy with the works becomes quickly obvious. I only know his written acquaintance of the language, but I would be very surprised if he wasn't a confident speaker. A remarkable man. 
https://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/answers/2020/06/19/bradford-hatcher/

What makes them excellent? Is there a reason why he's not been well know in the book of changes enthusiasts or scholars, just wondering

37 minutes ago, Hannes said:

My personal though is that it is misguided to look at Dao for the answer about getting rid of ants or not.

Borax works well.

 

on the topic of insects,

From the gimps of understanding I have, insects belong to a kingdom equal to plants.

And we should be in wonder of the beautiful part they play in the being that is our planet.

 

We tend our garden as we tend our house.

 

Thinking too much is a problem that stands in the way of being, and any teaching that speaks about keeping bugs alive suffers from thinking.

 

 

I still don't understand the rationale of Daoists or Buddhists about no killing precepts where in many instances you need to kill insects because of their intrusion. I am learning to live with them in the garden and so far we were in good understanding that I wouldn't bother them if they are in their territory in the garden but then sometimes they go to flowers in an orange tree or flowers and damages it, so have to find ways to diver them and indeed Borax works marvelous. I don't think too much as in the garden, I let nature do its thing, birds, insects, racoons, skunks, possums, coyotes and domestic pets do their thing. Just finding the balance and everyone is living their thing.

All I can say is that Karlgren had worked on the archaic Chinese pronunciation based on old texts and rhymes dictionary as guanyun to reconstruct old pronunciations but I haven't seen old texts in archaic Chinese except excerpts in textbooks.

And what is the difference with the Prajñāpāramitā version?