Chang San Feng

Is there anyone among the clever Tao bums whos an author? Any of you written something?

edit

too much ego here

yeah I like this guy, im waiting to see this documentary when it comes out

http://quantumactivist.com/

http://books.google.com/books?id=12SDdsoHS...;q=&f=false

From the back cover:

The Book Of Thou Does: The Virtuous Way As Human In A Worldly Life

 

The book Tao Te Ching is available almost everywhere, it had been translated into more than 140 languages and the publication of it was just next to The Bible during the past 2,700 years, thousands of current publications could be found in the major book stores, with explanation written by different famous authors.

 

However, there are readers that complained; "Who really knows what is Tao and can please tell us? We have studied the books for years and are sorely perplexed." These are the people who have the right scent in study.

 

Tao Te Ching is in fact the first and greatest puzzle that was created by St. Laozi more than 2,700years ago in Chinese words.

 

It is the time for St. Laozi to tell people in the world about "Tao" by himself with the complete contents which consist of Yang (visible) and Yin (hidden and invisible) parts in"The Book of Thou Does.

Ive just picked up this book as im researching the Dao De Jing and wanted to know what this guy Xiaozi had to offer by his addendum to this classic.

However there is no indication of his credentials, or what his wider agenda is. Can anyone here shed any light on Xiaozi and what hes about. I have suspicions as to his motives. He calls Lao Tzu, St Laozi for instance, is this just a translation/semantic issue or is he approaching the Dao de Jing from some sort of Christian (or sect of) perspective?

Xiaozi has added extra content to the Chinese version of the Dao De Jing (not a commentary but an addendum, a re-write), he is honest about this and makes it quite clear that which is original text and what which he has added. He has then attempted to translate this new work into English, his English is passable but not perfect. Nonetheless there is no indication of how he obtained the extra text he is adding, it is not made clear. Are they from historic documents, are they from esoteric sources, passed down word of mouth or within a secret society of some sort. Is it that he has just added his opinion? He seems to imply that he had some sort of "calling";

During the year 2000. Xiaozi experienced a phenomenal feeling, which made him picked up Tao Te Ching again. It was then that he found hidden secrets and finished his examination to complete The Book of Thou Does on behalf of St. Laozi.

I havnt completed the book yet, having only just received it. Giving a quick flick though I was disappointed that the actual book does not shed any new light as to my questions regarding the work and who this Xiaozi person is.

The overall message he is trying to put across dosnt seem harmful however, as he seems to be asking for people to live in harmony with nature. This is just the jest that im getting.

Can someone tell me how to download this video? I looked everywhere on the page the second link links to but couldn't find it anywhere. Right-click > Save Link As didn't work either.

go to the google video page. at the bottom under the film is a download link for iPod etc. it will download an .mp4 file to your computer (right click if you have to). You can play this file in VLC.

VLC:

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

will play just about anything

[delete]

Whoever is interested. It was Taoists that brought up the argument.

 

I was just posting in the spirit of the thread, that is all, not arguing against anyone. Though, I would consider Taoism as Monism myself, as in "one-ism". So, I am in personal disagreement with it's main tenet. Even though, I do support many of it's practices and divination text the I-Ching which can be interpreted in a Buddhist way because of it's open ended-ness as using the term Tao to not mean an ineffable source, but rather just a label for the dynamics of nature, "the way" things move. I am also in full support of the more Buddhist interpretations of Taoism.

 

I'm not a big fan of the Tao De Ching though, except that I do see some wisdom in it, but for the most part it's just a whole bunch of vagueness to me. I like Chuang Tzu better. Very much so in fact!! I find his teachings to be more realized.

You are in personally disagreement with your delusion of Tao.

Buddhism is a Tao.

If you wish to be truly wise, you would forget everything you have learnt about anything.

do the Buddhist scriptures describe everything there is to know about the believes it talks about?

Hello,

 

I have been away and come back again - to find the discussion not much advanced.

 

I have a question though, which I hope Taoist scholars can clarify.

 

There is much talk here of the Tao as the 'mother of things', or so I understand and this is one reason why Vajraji accuses (I think that is the right word) Taoist of reification. However when I look up the first chapter of the TTC I find it does not say this at all. This is the Chen translation:

 

"The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.

The Name that can be spoken is not the eternal name.

The Nameless is the beginning of Heaven and Earth.

The Named is the mother of all creatures.

Observe the mysteries of the Tao without longing.

Survey its appearance with desire.

Both mysteries and appearance come from the same origin but wear a different name;

they are enigmatic.

The greatest mystery is the gate to all mysteries."

 

It is saying (famously in fact) that the Tao cannot be named (or spoken) ... it is ineffable. We can talk about it - but we cannot say what it is because it is beyond definition. Heaven and earth arise from it but the 'mother of all creatures' is "the Named". As soon as we begin to identify, name and define then we perceive the 'creatures' i.e. the things. So what it is saying, I think, is that Heaven and Earth arise by virtue of the Tao and that the 'way' can be seen reflected in the laws that govern them ... but what it does not say that the Tao is the mother of anything ...

 

I realise there are lots of translation and nuance of the words may be missing so if there is a Chinese speaking scholar out there please let me know.

 

The reason I raise this is because this is not reification because the Tao is un-named as such and cannot be made into a 'thing' or a roof top concept (whatever) because it is indefinable through words and therefore concepts.

I concur

Then whats the reality? The Tao?

Think of each point as being a circle with lines coming out of it too... endlessly. All gaps are covered. Now imagine a sphere in a 3d universe and then make every other point a sphere in a 3d universe.

The thought game illustrates the inherent problem with the concept of infinity. Then you help prove my point by making yet more infinite possibilities, youre extra "spheres" (your addendum was rather crude and dosnt serve, but I get what youre trying to say)... missing the point entirely. That if something is infinite, how can yet more infinite possibilities come from it, for if that is possible, then, it was not infinite in the first place now was it. 3D, 2D it dosnt matter the problem still exist.

Infinity does not exist. Theres always... more than infinity

"Buddhist" "Taoist" are just labels and are meaningless to ultimate truth.

Yes I study Buddism, but I follow the Tao

Taoist text have a lot to teach about nature, the cosmos etc, but that is not Tao. This is what these two Buddhist fail to see, Buddhism is a Tao in itself. Theyre trying to make mystery of something that is not mysterious when we speak of the meaning of the word 'Tao' and are just misunderstanding the meaning of Tao (like there is a meaning beyond the word 'tao' itself). Understanding that, is the first epiphany one should have. lol

the universe IS, the void IS, it is the WAY things are, it is TAO, it cannot be explained, its simple yet profound.

im no one and you should not listen to me, good night

No no, you are again getting it wrong. It is the approach of ambiguity that is important. Not the transcendent or self luminous light or whatever. As a result there are no dogmas in Taoism. Only practitioners.

HAHAHAHAHA,

 

You just...you just might be a Buddhist!

And you get it?

 

Have you had the epiphany?

Very good, I was going to write something along those lines just now. Infinitude is potentiality. The universal cycles have existed since beginningless time, there never was a non-existence you could say.

true. but.

let me describe infinity in a simple thought experiment.

lets imagine a perfect circle, in a 2D universe.

around that circle we put an infinite number of dots, or points. Infinite remember, no spaces, no gaps.

Now lets draw a line from the centre of the circle to one of the dots, and continue drawing that line outward and beyond the circle to an outer extremity, let say a mile out from the centre, and the circle is a metre wide (it really does not matter just so long as you get the point, no pun). We do this for each of our infinite dots.

We come across a problem, because if we look at the ends of each line drawn out from the centre of the circle, we have gaps between each line.

this little simple thought experiment hi-lights the problem inherent with infinity.

of course youre a Buddhist and infinitly more wiser

Infinity exists only in potential probabilities. Like dreams. They come to fruition through an illusionary process. So it's an infinite of "what if" possibilities acting themselves out according to this ghost like mind! It is endless and without center because nothing is actually happening. .

if all possible probabilities existed.

then,

it would be like there are not possibilities at all.

See this is what the Buddha avoided, ultimating an experience and calling it true, transcendent and self luminous. For a Buddhist, no experience is beyond dependent origination and all experiences can be explained through both the formula and understanding of dependent origination which is "right view" of the first of the 8 fold noble path.

 

This type of mysterious ambiguity we consider part of the erroneous views or misinterpretations of meditative experiences.

i'm not saying it cannot be experience, that is to know the ultimate. Im saying that language in and of itself its not sufficient to describe that experience. But thats besides the point. While you are having this experience, of everything, everything that ever was and everything that ever will be... Where do YOU reside?

the truth is, there is no YOU, YOU seise to exist, because YOU is an illusion, SELF is an illusion.

Not to a Buddhist. To a Buddhist, the Tao is part of a Samsaric view of the cosmos.

of course it is, otherwise Buddhism would lose its essence.

BTW infinity does not exist. I can prove it to you very simply

then what does it mean then? the mother of all 10,000 things? i think every translation says basically the same thing.

 

"there is no meaning. it just is". the Tao has no meaning? or the Tao Te Ching? nobody is saying that the Tao has meaning, rather that Laozi says its the source of all things.

define exist

are you here or not?

Look to complicate the Tao with lengthy descriptions is just going to confuse you. No one here can tell you what the Tao is.

You either get it or you dont, it cannot be expressed in words.

so the Tao is not just the process of change/flow. its actually the name given to the All, the grand Whole. Everything. the Tao then is no different than the Hindu Brahman.

 

there is nothing beyond Shunyata as emptiness is the condition of all phenomena, to go further is to cross the red line. there is no Grand whole according to Buddhism. there is no Birds eye view. there is infinity. lhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedean_point Buddhists do not take the position that such a point exists

No, stop trying to label the Tao, to summarize, to conceptualize in words. It cannot be done.

the comment that you either know or you don't? lol mmm ok.. settle down now Chang. maybe it's best you don't participate if you're getting so defensive. it's obvious you're attached to your beliefs.

You are wrong again. Im not being defensive, you are being offended at the truth that im telling you.

Either you get it or you dont, I cannot write words to describe the Tao like you are after, its impossible. Im not trying to be rude, just stating a fact. Its an intuition, or a epiphany that you have... a realization. That cannot be put into words.

You cannot pick up a book and know the Tao.

what does that even mean? you either know or you don't.

You do not understand this very simple statement? I'm sorry but the arrogance you guys have been showing is just ridiculous in light of this comment.

most of the time you are actually confusing the concept of yin and yang as being Tao.

the fact is, everything you describe as being Buddhist... is a part of Tao.

Just like your 'name' is a part of you... but it is not You is it. You are more than a name. Just as a the Tao is more than yin and yang, and more than Buddhist theories of reality.

The Tao De Ching say's the Tao is the source and mother of all things. What all you guys are saying is that this is a lie? It's a mistranslation?

 

No, you misinterpret its meaning. Like many westerners you miss the point, there is no meaning. It just is.

youre trying to say that Tao is synonymous with God in the eyes of a Taoist, which it is not, maybe some, but they also have miss interpreted the Tao Te Ching, and if you rely on English Translations, remember that the views and believes of the translator have influenced the text, to call them translations is misleading, more of an interpretation.

Lets put it this way, do you exist or dont you?

We have a member called Bean Curd Turtle, perhaps they can help you

 

Welcome to TTB

I meant in regards to Buddhism, nothing else. He was the first to regard the Buddhist doctrine as superior to all others. I don't believe him to be right, I know him to be right.

That's Theravada, not Mahayana.

 

Id like to point something out to you. Buddha was not a Buddhist.

no, but since Buddhism is alien to Western languages unlike Sanskrit or Tibetan... it's difficult to find proper words and usages... gotta do the best we can.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29

 

"Reification is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. For example: if the phrase "holds another's affection", is taken literally, affection would be reified."

 

what Vajrahridaya is saying about reification is not simply making an abstract idea into a reality.. but rather taking that definition one step further. because in Buddhism, ideas make up your reality. they are a filter. therefore having an abstract idea about reality will interpret your experience according to that abstraction and thus make that abstraction concrete and real. The abstraction and conceptualization pertaining to the nature of things is seen as an error in Buddhism specifically due to this point.

So your friend is saying that 'Taoist' make real something that is not real. Well the whole point of Taoism is that you cannot reify the Tao. There is no abstraction and conceptualization of the Tao. So why would a Taoist do so, only in so much as a Taoist, like a Buddhist is a human experiencing existence and creating his own reality through his own belief filters... but a wise Taoist knows that is not Tao... does a Buddhist? It would seem this one does not.