BigSkyDiamond

I wholeheartedly recognize that translations are fraught with, well, mistranslations or misrepresentations which then yes get propagated and spread widely. There is a book in Judaism that is something like 72 chapters long. The subject matter for that quite lengthy book is the first three words of Torah in Hebrew. These three words have a specific meaning in Hebrew, but when the sages were ordered to translate the Torah into Greek for the Egyptian king Ptolemy (the translation known as the Septuagint), the sages changed the opening verse to read differently. This was done intentionally.

yes, that is certainly true. always good to be aware of this here on Dao Bums!

Yes, that is certainly the case. For me however, in the interpretation that I choose, and in formulating and clarifying my own beliefs and framework, I do take into account and it carries significant weight for me, that some of the oldest traditions all have a strikingly similar list of attributes, for Brahman (Hindu) and God (Judaism) and mentioned in Buddhism: unborn, unformed, uncreated, unchanging, no space, no time, no form, no beginning, no end, indivisible. (those with knowledge and learning from other paths can share if desired a list from those, or indicate if there is none.)

So then it is a difference in translation and interpretation. I accept that. There are a whole bunch of translations which use "Dao begets one." So some of the differences in interpretation might reflect: "Dao is one" focuses on a fundamental undifferentiated source, a unity from which everything flows or emerges. While "Dao begets one" emphasizes a creative origin that "backs it up further" to a stage even prior to that. For me, the interpretation that resonates is the Dao begets one. (Primarily because it corresponds exactly to the process of tzim tzum). As always i appreciate having the voice and learning and expertise showing the actual Chinese and actual characters. Thank you.

but it says Dao begets One. which indicates a distinction between Dao and the One. also, if one accepts the attributes of the Dao to include "unborn" then it follows that the Dao is unborn; and the One is born. and yes i agree that the Absolute is unknowable within our limited human understatnd. Which is why the attributes are usually conveyed by what it is NOT rather than what it IS. for instance: unborn, unformed, uncreated, unchanging, indivisible, no beginning, no end, no time, no space, no form. (And we can recognize and access the part within us that is a spark of the Absolute) (Divine spark). Other paths also express that same (or similar) list of attributes (for example Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism)

yes, the Absolute is always present. However the Absolute has very different attributes and characteristics than that which is bound by time space form.

there is duality. there is not-duality. there is one. there is not-one. none of those are the Dao. none of those are the Absolute. that is the framework i am using. In "The Dao begets One" the difference is indicated. it may be that Dzogchen does not cover this. i'm fine with that.

,

a. use your words please. what is it that you are trying to say or express? b. and since your own posts often have a level of shall we say detail specificity and complexity to them, then what might your reaction or impression be of someone remarking to you "Earth to Mark Foote....Earth to Mark Foote...come in please, Mark" as you discussed this or that fine point or nuance of your particular area of interest?

it is not philosophizing. it is discussion of the practice. and it is discussion of the framework used which can and does directly affect the practice. and it is seeking to share and understand how others understand and experience the practice and the framework.

i never said i was going to leave. I said i was going to remove my haikus. which i did. As non-AI conversations and posts occur in this thread then yes i still participate in those.

the difference in our framework (S. and B.) might also be a reflection of Buddhist compared to Taoist. From what i understand (as explained to me by people on this forum who know far far more about Buddhism than I do) is that in Buddhism there is no "in the beginning" , that we sort of jump in the middle of the process. Whereas the Tao Te Ching does indicate an "in the beginning" sequence (for instance chapter 42). And other paths have an "in the beginning" creation type of sequence also (Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism I am aware of; could be others i am not aware of). That comes to mind for me. How the experience we have of the path we practice may be affected by the framework presented to us which we learn or follow.

Thank you so much! ❤️ I will savor going through every bit of this. I really appreciate it. This is wonderful! and sending Chinese moon cakes! 🥮🥮🥮🥮🥮🥮

that is your grouping. my grouping is time space and form. and yes those are all duality. time space and form are not attributes of pure awareness. pure awareness is not duality. and it is not non-duality. it is not one. it is not not-one. it is none of those. in the framework i use. I am seeing that we may be talking about two different states. referenced in the first 4 lines chapter 42, Tao Te Ching The framework i use, pure awareness is at the level of the Dao, before it begets the One. Whereas the One (which the Dao begets) may go by "unity" "wholeness" "One" "All That Is". A distinction is made between the Dao; and the One it begets. Not everyone makes that distinction or sees them as any different. That may explain why i see the Absolute (pure awareness, the Dao) as not including or having the characteristics of time space and form. While you see the One as yes including time space and form. For me, the Dao alone is Absolute and all the rest are Relative meaning they are all mental constructs (One, Two, Three, 10,000 things). includes time space form. The Dao begets One. One begets Two. Two beget Three. Three beget the ten thousand things. ---from chapter 42, the Tao Te Ching: and again, thank you for the in depth discussion. On a favorite area for me.

while still in human form, the closest to seeing the Absolute being the Absolute is the experience of pure awareness. (we don't see the Absolute, we are the Absolute) just like clouds are not needed to see the sky (outer sight of physical human) time space and form are not needed to recognize being the Absolute (inner being, pure awareness)

yes, useful guidelines, and useful practice. (Note: this is not an intellectual exercise for me, it is a daily boots-on-the-ground practice, or more accurately a sit-on-the-floor practice; and also a walk-in-nature practice and go-through-my-day practice.) and for me it is this (see below). Yes, I am agreeing with what is put forth above. And expanding upon it. What are the past and future? And present, too. Time is a package deal. it includes past, present, future, and "this moment." My answer? Time is an artificial construct. It has no existence of its own. Pure awareness is outside of time, beyond time, not bound by time. Time is not an attribute or characteristic of pure awareness. [This is "experienced" during practice (not always, but regularly) as say sitting for 40 minutes by the clock, but having it feel like only 3 or 4 minutes passed. Or any activity that is deeply absorbing. Starting a book at say 10am, and then looking up to see it is getting dark and is now 8 pm. "lost track" of that time; a sense of "no time" passed] Is there any other moment or place except what arises in thought? No. And that includes all moments and all places, and all forms in all those places. They all just arise in thought. Time space and form are also a package deal. I am not seeking to argue or challenge. This is just sharing and walking through my own practice as I experience it. It in no way shape or form diminishes any other practices that anyone else does. Just comparing notes for increased clarity and understanding and nuance. Thank you. For me, simply through the act of discussion and articulation, it helps me to see more clearly. Another form of observing.

OK. Thank you for the time spent on this! Much appreciated.

i typed it wrong, my apologies. Here is the color key i am using: yes EB in day pillar is dog and is confirmed earth

i am wondering about: without the paid version the longitude shows 0. It does show time correction though. So wondering if the whole chart is going to be wrong without a latitude showing. I know the latitude, it just did not let me enter it, need paid membership. It's only $4, i will spring for that and run chart again. since i am curious. and this is interesting.

Dog is in two columns: both hour and year. For year column, they are both earth (HS and EB) For day column, the HS= water, and EB= earth CORRECTED: the "key" i am using for color-to-element is the Na Yin row (i.e. green= wood, red= fire, etc)

got it, four animals total, color (element) from Earth Branch (EB row). thank you!

OK, a very beginner question here: above shows five animals. And I see the daymaster block. How do we find and identify five animals from this? On the four pillars. In the searches and reading i have done online so far, not finding it, not understanding this. My daymaster block shows Ren Water. How do i get an animal out of that? Feeling slow here Thank you. OK, now i see it. It is the animal for the year I was born, so then my daymaster is Ren Water Dog. But i still want to verify that for the other four animals, yes they are the animals on the EB row of the chart (earth branch) but do i use the color from that same block, or the color of row above it (HB) to identify element. Thank you.

OK i think i found it. Phoenix instead of rooster. I actually like her names better. They have more dignity. I am going to use these instead. Feels like they are more primal, less domesticated. Rat, Ox, Tiger, Hare, Dragon, Serpent, Horse, Sheep, Monkey, Phoenix, Dog, Boar

Wow that does include a lot of information. And drawn from many different resources. I especially like seeing the at a glance list of upcoming years. Thank you for all of that. Two questions. 1. I am seeing Phoenix listed in some of the "reveal contents" boxes (i.e. from the Susan Levitt book). But it is not on this generic list of the Chineze zodiac animals. Is Phoenix in lieu of any of these animals, or are there different lists used. Thank you. Rat, Ox, Tiger, Rabbit, Dragon, Snake, Horse, Goat, Monkey, Rooster, Dog, and Pig 2. OK, now I am curious. What does it show for Water Dog as day master? I am reading on my own, but can't resist the in depth profiles you are providing Thank you!

the only "importance" of duality for me is in recognizing all the ways it is a barrier and obstacle to wholeness. I experience it as fragmenting, fractured, and divisve. An analogy might be in medicine, healing. Treating the "whole person" (far more effective) instead of parsing them into bits and pieces (far less effective). One of the most powerful things i ever heard from a pracitioner was saying the treatment they provide is the same, regardless of whatever the "pain" or "problem" is that the person presents with: emotional pain, financial pain, physical pain, mental pain, relationship pain, career pain. Same treatment for any of them. treating the cause, not the symptoms. for that practitioner it all stems from the same cause so it all has the same treatment, the same remedy: restoring wholeness. This includes recognizing we are whole and not seeing ourselves as broken, that includes not being broken into a bunch of different parts.