takaaki

Your lumping me with other people now more than once; Where am I shifting my goal posts? (I coached soccer for 20 years so I tend to not shift goal posts unless they are movable) . I understand you like to have fun with words but why not just ask questions instead of creating your own interpretation of another's words.

 

 

You don't like to be lumped together with other people? Ok, I will keep that in mind and put you in your own box from now on. I know that I tend to lump people together and put them into different categories based on their mind-sets for faster targeting and speedier processing. This is the way the entrepreneurial mind works these days in any industry including the military. Case in point: soldiers are not taught to deal with Dawei or ChiDragon on an individual basis in the theatre of war. The enemy combatants, if Chinese, are all lumped together and psychologically profiled for neutralizing.

 

It is true that there is this pervasive belief in individuality that each person is special and unique. If you are in the top 1%, you could get away with indulging in this fantasy having your clothes tailored exactly, your cars hand-made to your personal specs, etc.. I didn't know I was dealing with ego-centric billionaires here at Tao Bum. Still, I will treat you special because I like high self-esteem. It is the mind-set of an American Taoist.

 

I am against the "received text"; that is Chidragon's preferred text because it was done by native scholars and they are the one's he'll listen to. To his credit, he is honest enough to say this. I tend to appeal to the oldest texts, as I did here. So it would be much better to address people and your charges clearly as you mixing people in their sources.

 

Why are you against the "received text"? Do you have any reason to doubt the judgment of the native scholars?

 

You just epitomized your idea of American Iiberalism... as 全作 is a later correction by Wang Bi (600 years later?)... Of all the main manuscripts, only he uses this; and your following suit by using his correction... It should be noted that Fuyi of Sui Dynasty manuscript (300 years after Wang Bi?) went back to the older manuscript characters.

 

Do not confuse American liberalism with pragmatism which is the Way of the American Taoist. The former is a cult-like close-mindedness while the latter is founded on common-sense. The Dao De Jing has to make practical sense or it's pointless regardless of textual form. I pick what works, the way Marblehead does, and and disregard what is unrelated, the way Chi Dragon does.

 

 

And I think you are once again putting words in people's mouth. Who said 'sexual erection' ? This tends to carry a connotation which nobody said.

 

Chidragon said 'sexual organs' which in context is synonymous with reproductive organs... Nothing sexual is implied... and when I said "simple display (erection) of natural essence"... I gave the source of the display as simply natural essence. Any man is probably aware of this meaning and various sources it can take... it can even be caused by a need to go to the bathroom. It seems your putting emphasis on 'sexual' without knowing context or just want to play word games.

 

Nothing sexual was implied? I wish. How would you read the lines below?

 

This is ChiDragon's received version:

7. Not knowing the copulation of male and female but self erected.

8. Because of the tremendous energy,

 

 

This is Hendricks whom you love:

6. He does not yet know the meeting of male and female, yet his organ is aroused—

7. This is because his essence is at its height.

 

Any man who studies the above and come away reflecting on a full bladder has got to be Chinese with no knowledge of English. Admittedly, the Chinese text makes no reference of a sexual nature of any kind. It's the English translations that are colored by Freudian fantasy.

BTW This is a Taoist environment after all; it can be putted in a nicer tone.....

 

Yangzi (揚子) said: 人而無禮，焉以為德？

I am an authority on the Tao Te Ching. I've studied it for over 20 years. I have a thorough understanding of its teachings. Now I might not have an extensive academic knowledge regarding the differences between the different tracts found, such as the Mawangdui and Guodian texts, but I do know what it's saying.

 

 

Ok, so what is Chapter 10 saying to you? I can accept your authority on what the Tao Te Ching says to you. But this Chinese Classic behaves like a woman who would say a different thing to each of her many lovers. You obviously think you are her one true love. Every bum in this cathouse does feel the same way. So, please tell me what Chapter 10 is saying to you.

 

 

You obviously don't know what the Tao Te Ching is saying and much of what you postulate in this topic has nothing to do with an examination of the Tao Te Ching, but rather your own opinion regarding Taoism. Please stop that, since that isn't what this thread and subforum are meant to be. This whole American Taoist crap needs to go somewhere else.

 

 

You are quite right about my lack of knowledge of the Tao Te Ching. This is because I have been unable to examine it directly. I can only opine on the Taoism that has been derived from the examinations that others like you have conducted on the Tao Te Ching. I will restrict my examination to what you bums have to say in this thread and subforum. Is that ok?

 

 

Now, in regards to you presenting yourself as an authority, well if you're not, then you certainly believe your opinions regarding it are the only correct ones. You are also quick to attack others and give them what you believe are clever put downs hidden in compliments.

 

 

No, my opinions are not the only correct ones. And I really think you ought to mind your own business with regard to what you perceive as my attacks on others. If I have been insensitively cruel in my interactions, I am sure the adults here are quite capable of calling me out.

 

 

Your understanding of America is vastly off base as well, especially in regards to the spiritual nature of our nation. The thing most people don't want to talk about is that the religions that did come to America to be able to practice without oppression, more often than not were the most ultra conservative that were being suppressed in Europe, not just because they deviated from popular religious thought, but were in fact, in many cases, cults. As a result of this spiritual legacy of ultra conservatism, we are one of the most sexually confused nations in the world. We also happen to be one of the most violent nations, as far as crimes per capita go. Your idealization of America is a bit unfounded and perhaps indicative of your actual knowledge regarding the topic at hand.

 

 

Off topic. No comment.

 

 

If you want to laude yourself as an American Taoist, that's fine, but be sure to clarify that it has little to nothing to do with Taoism, but rather is your own loosely defined ethos of materialism. I see a lot of people that want to deny that the Tao Te Ching is a moral text, that it advocates behaving any way you "feel" is right, but that's the furthest thing from the truth. These people have no knowledge of Tao, Taoism, or the Tao Te Ching, but rather look for a philosophy that will allow them to behave any way they choose to, without having any moral repercussions. The irony is that regardless of what one believes, there will always be moral repercussions, so long as we continue to define things as right and wrong, which you seem to be adamant about.

 

 

I am losing you here. What you say here about the moral text and moral repercussions sounds correct and I agree. But I take exception to your rejection of American Taoism as “illegitimate”. What about Wudang Taoism and Mao Shan Taoism? How come they are kosher and the American version is not? Each one has the right to pick up the Tao Te Ching and come away with what works for him or her. Self-determination is the grounding principle of American Taoism. No one gets to tell the American Taoist what is right for him or her without moral repercussions.

 

 

How great is the difference between "eh" and "oh"? Must I believe what others believe? But perhaps even more importantly, why the hell do people need to believe the way you believe?

 

They don’t, and they won’t. I wonder why you would need to point this out?

 

 

 

You are not that clever, nor are you that knowledgeable that you need to go around clarifying other people's errors, nor should you be touting yourself as someone who knows what Taoism actually is, when you clearly haven't got the slightest clue. Taoism is more than just folk lore, qi, and philosophy, which is something you have missed. You need not believe in the folk lore and spirituality to understand Tao, but believing in these things doesn't prevent one from understanding it either, if it did, then Lao Tzu would've been the first person misled by his own "superstitions".

 

 

Comment noted.

 

 

I hope that clarifies some things. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them for you, but please keep in mind, if it isn't directly related to Chapter 10 of the Tao Te Ching, they need to be directed someplace else. Send me a private message linking to your new topic if you want.

 

 

You have made yourself very clear. I look forward to discussing your views on Chapter 10.

BTW This is a Taoist environment after all; it can be putted in a nicer tone.....

 

Actually, I quite like Aaron's tone. He is speaking straight from his heart even though his view that the early settlers were crackpot Christians is shocking. He could be right, but even if he is wrong at least he is honsest about his perception. And that, for me, is the critically important thing for self-cultivation.

 

In opening and closing the Heavenly Gate, Aaron has given us his take on the going-ons here.

 

能為雌乎? Perhaps not to you because he was quite forceful. And I think I would like to discuss his views within the context of Chapter Ten right here in this sub-forum.

 

We sure do have a big difference in thinking. I thought it might be something like that. I don't it is just you or it is between the thinking of the east and the west.

 

What is the difference? Marblehead is an American Taoist who accepts material reality without necessarily being materialistic; he is not someone who monetizes everything and sees value only in dollar terms.

 

I think the American Taoist is the better form. He watches the Chinese Taoist light the joss-sticks, do the taichi, and doesn't say a damn thing. And he is kind to the western Taoist who isn't a materialist and somewhat off his rocker like his eastern counterpart..

BTW May I ask what version of the TTC are you looking at. The received version has been corrected "全作" to "朡朘作". "朘作" means the sexual organ of an innocent child has been fully extended.

 

Come on, guys (and I mean scholars ChiDragon and Dawei). You can't keep shifting the goal posts to fit your game, can you? Who corrected the received version? Your approach to fixing the Dao De Jing is making a strong case for Flowing Hands version received from Li Erh. This looks like American liberalism at work: throwing away traditions that cramp permissiveness.

 

At any rate, how do you read "sexual organ of an innocent child fully extended" into 朘作 ? I know classical Chinese is metaphorical but this is really stretching it. I prefer the original two characters 全作 which means one's uncompromised competency (even though one is untouched by the union of female and male).

 

I know what you are getting at. It would be incorrect if we try to interpret this terms with modern meanings.

8. 精之至也: The 精 does not mean "sperm" here. It means 精氣充足(full of energy).

 

I know that. I read it as the vital essence or inherent potential of one's being.

 

精之至也

精: 精氣; 精力(body energy)

至: to the extreme

 

Thus 精之至也 means the body energy has been reached to the extreme (causing an innocent child to have an erection). Anyway, that is what the intention of the meaning for 朘作 in this chapter.

 

As I said, the entire idea rests on two characters: 精 and 至.

You regard the 精 as energy (of a sexual kind) while I take it to represent potent power (of a human kind).

Consequently, while you have an erection, I get the full blooming of human magnificience.

 

This is why I read subject lines in Chapter 55 the way I did: Even though one is not initiated into sex, one's full competency to act as a human being is intact, one's potent power can expand to the extreme.

 

I feel my reading is consistent with the Chapter's context which is about an uncorrupted child-like way of being that protects one from life's dangers (bees and snakes will not sting, beasts will not devour, predators will not seize) and even in tenous circumstances (when bones are brittlle and tendons are weak) the clinging to survival will be strong. And Chapter closes with the warning that without the Way, one will not do well and come to a sad and untimely end.

 

Sexual erection seems out of place, I think. But what do I know.

7. Not knowing the copulation of male and female but self erected.

8. Because of the tremendous energy,

 

Lines 7 and 8 were an illustration of the innocence of an infant. Again, your attempt for the usage of these lines was out of context.

 

Let's discuss this.

 

Chinese text in Line 7 refers to innocence of female/male union and yet 全作. This does not mean only kids are virgins.

 

Line 8. 精之至也 is quite straightforward. Only two characters here control the meaning of the line: 精 and 至.

What does this say directly without the interference of English translation?

Sure I can. I wanted some stability in my life - in the path I walk - and to know if the path I was on at the time was a valid path. So yes, the cause was my desire for the above.

 

Manitou said that the need for abundance is rooted in fear. Do you think that the desire for stability is rooted in insecurity (which is a form of fear)?

 

 

No, we don't need to look for the cause of the above desire. All life is a series of "cause and effect"s. Being born was the first cause (for me).

 

Do you feel that you were born at the birth of the body? I am just asking. It's not a leading question.

 

Let's say you were born at the birth of the body. You came into existence and you peer through the Heavenly Gate (your five senses, said ChiDragon) at the world. What's the point? Is life some kind of a theme park that you wander through, taking your rides, eating pop corn and candy floss, and having fun until you head for the exit? We all have some scars to show, I'm sure. So, what's the point to all this? Do you know? This is also not a leading question. Just asking.

Isn't celibacy a deliberate/natural absence of sexual activity....???

 

I think we are having a communication problem here.

 

Abstention from sexual activity alone does not constitute celibacy. Celibacy is more than just avoiding physical sexual activity. It is a religious vow to stay unmarried and stay away from even thinking about sex for the sake of spiritual purity.

 

As I pointed out earlier, Chapter 55 mentioned a wholesome person who is able to function perfectly even without any carnal knowledge. Such a person would be nice to have around. He doesn't rape, or covet other people's wives. he doesn't mess around with interns in the Oval Office or maids in the hotel. He is like a gay guy around women. But he is as virile as James Bond.

Isn't the practice of celibacy which is a commitment to avoid having sex.....???

 

Yes. Monks practise celibacy. Some Hindu Brahmin men who have wives also practise celibacy and refrain from sex with their wives for spiritual purposes.

 

Isn't celibacy deliberate and willful act on the part of the practitioner messing around with his mind and/or body....???

 

Yes. For most men, astaining from sexual activity is a deliberate and willful act because they are driven by sexual desire. They have to struggle against this desire for various reasons.

 

If it is for religious or spiritual reason, then the committment to avoid sex is called celibacy.

 

If the reason is to stay faithful to their wives or girlfriends while they are away, then the committment to avoid sex with other women is called fidelity.

 

There are some people who are naturally undriven by sexual desire. They can do it but they are not possessed by it. They don't have to make a deliberate, willful, committment to avoid sex. Chapter 55 speak of such a human condition:

 

7. Not knowing the copulation of male and female but self erected.

8. Because of the tremendous energy,

 

Generally only once. Hehehe.

 

We wish. This planet is filled with wounded warriors. (Do you contribute to this?)

 

 

My reading of the DDJ keys in on the concepts "if you do this, that is likely to happen". In fact, my life is centered mainly within the concept of "cause and effect".

 

Yeah, for every effect there is a cause although sometimes we are unable to identify the cause or perhaps there are numerous causes and we can't see them all.

 

Your studying the Dao De Jing is an effect. Can you identify the cause, the true cause and nothing but the cause?

It seems to me that this scenario is kind of specious. Practicing semen retention is not celibate is very contradicting in my logical mind.

 

Where is the contradiction? The body does not retain semen which is continually produced and re-absorbed by the body if no sexual activity occur. A natural absence of sexual activity is not necessarily the outcome of the practise of celibacy which is a commitment to avoid having sex.

 

Practising semen retention is an unnatural, deliberate and wilfull act on the part of the practitioner messing around with his mind and/or body.

 

Under normal circumstance, having sex means ejaculation will occur which semen also will be released. Can this be considered that semen retention did not take place......???

 

Yes, it is correct to consider it so. But what is your point? Please clarify if there is one.

if the body doesnt need to have sex, why is it so hard to abstain for some and not tigers?

 

It is you who have the difficulty to abstain, not the body. Don't confuse the two and see them as one. You are not the body. The body has its needs which are sane and natural. Your needs are are something else. Below are some of needs which have nothing to do with the body.

 

1. Helping the poor.

2. Donate a kidney.

3. Having a girlfriend.

4. Sex with other men.

5. Tapping into the Tao.

 

You may list down more and I will point to those that have nothing to do with the body.

9. 天門開闔，

 

Annotation:

9. Using the five natural senses to communication with the outside world..

 

The Heavenly Gate is the doorway between the inner and the outer world? I would never have guessed this in a million years.

 

So, when someone look into your eyes, he would be peering into your inner soul? Also, if we close our mouths, we prevent the leaking out of secrets from our hearts? Is this how we hide from each other behind the Heavenly Gate?

 

Manitou talked about the ending of separation between she and another by tapping into the Tao to relax the muscle and empty the mind. Does the inner and outer world become one then as the Heavenly Gate disappear?

 

 

10.能為雌乎﹖

 

Annotation:

10. 雌(yin or female): Females are known to be soft and quiet which give the yin characteristic. Thus the femininity, here, represent the yin characteristics of softness and quietness.

 

Are such females real or metaphorical like the Heavenly Gate? American females are battle-axes. They are scary. The Yin seems to have gone to the men.

 

 

Using the five senses to communication with the outside world, can it give me peace and quiet for understanding what is going on in the world....??? In the contrary, people get perturb and insecure if they don't know what is going on in their environment.

 

Why do you think people get perturbed? Why this need to know and get connected the way its done through facebook and twitter? Or turning on the TV to get the news. Chapter 80 talks about not doing this:

 

11. Looking over the neighboring countries,

12. Hearing the sounds of chickens and dogs of each other,

13. People grew old until death,

14. Neither socialized with one another.

 

 

Is this a sure fire interpretation of this passage?

 

Every interpretation in Tao Bum is sure fire. You'd better believe it.

One even comes direct from Li Erh (aka Lao Tzu).

Semen retention is like not having sex at all. Do you consider not having sex violates the natural function of the body....??? Can you tell that to the Buddhist monks or some Taoist priests...???

 

Not having sex at all is not an issue. If a male tiger never meets a female tiger in its life, it lives out its life just fine. It's not celibacy and its not semen retention. Same for a man who never has sex, if he is as sane as a tiger. He is neither a celibate nor is he practising semen retention.

 

Buddhist monks and Taoist priests are not as sane as tigers. They struggle against the desire for sexual stimulation and this mental battle is called celibacy. They think they are practising semen retention but that is not true. The body recycles semen that is continually produced and re-absorbed.

 

Not having sex is not semen retention. Not emptying your bowels is faeces retention. The body doesn't need to have sex but it needs to empty its bowels.

Good point. Yes, observing the processes in nature is very important in my philosophy. I gain wisdom from these observations.

 

Observing nature is like watching a wise man. You can’t learn a damn thing about the dangers of living watching a wise man in action because nothing ever happens to him. But you can learn a lot watching a fool. He’d trip every booby trap there is in the battlefield and draw fire from every sniper holed up in Sadr City.

 

Sightings of the fool in action are reported in many chapters of the Dao De Jing. It speaks to the fool. This is why we read it.

I need to speak to this. What you say is true in many cases. But I do not hold to this.

 

I would replace the word "abundance" with "knowing when one has enough". I learned that from Taoism - from Loa Tzu and Chuang Tzu.

 

By abundance, as a natural fact, I meant the abundance in Nature. If life was created by God, he certainly made sure we have everything in abundance: the air we need to breathe, the water we need to drink, the grasslands upon which animals graze on, the bounty of the sea, and the vastness of the Earth that is our home. Man was literally born rich. And to top all that, we were blessed with an amazing mental ability to enhance our lives in a paradise without limits. This legacy of abundance was not just for you or the top 1% or even for all mankind but for everything that exists. What happened? How is it that we now need to know when we have enough because some three billion people are dying from not having enough to stay alive; and, also, because everybody may risk losing access to clean air and water? What kind of a fool can mess up this bad?

 

Yes, my material net worth is important. I have security - one of our basic needs. But I also give of my excess. (And my government takes some of it too!)

 

If you want to live with the Tao, you’d better have money. Manah doesn’t come from Heaven. No loaves and fishes. Enough money is as essential as enough air to breathe. You’d better believe it no matter what other Taoists say.

 

The American Taoist has his eye on the bottom line and his feet firmly planted on solid ground. Being spiritual doesn’t mean going cuckoo. He is absolutely sane and in his element either in the woods seeking inspiration or in the corporate boardroom dealing with survival. Like they tell him in airplanes, he tends to his needs first before helping others with theirs.

Takaaki - your view of the essence of the Tao is lacking a little love. The man made of uncarved wood is one that has had his rough edges removed, no longer contends, finds compassion for and in all things. He knows that the man who speaks doesn't know, and the man who knows doesn't speak. You, like many of us, may have remnants of our old Type A-ness, that thing that served us so well when it was our time in life to heap up things in life; and we, the lucky ones, at some point get to find out that the heap of stuff didn't have one iota of bearing on our happiness. We needed to maintain a mental rigidness to obtain what we needed to win.

The American Way, which I espouse, does come across as heartless and insensitive. So are the violent contractions of childbirth pushing out the newborn oblivious to the distress of its mother. I am like a stork with gangly long legs.

 

The Daoist Way you speak of is one of diligent cultivation, incessant polishing, ever higher ascendance on the stairway to the Dao. You are like a duck with stubby short legs.

 

Each has its place in the scheme of things. Why do you want to shorten my legs and lengthen yours?

Your reliance on self-reliance fails to realize the wu-wei that does exist when we get our inner selves out of the way. It is a current we tap into, a wave we ride. To insist on self-reliance denies the serendipity required to find the current.

The self is a fact of life. It is the center of action. Self-reliance is a wholesome primal impulse of self-preservation like physical hunger. To deny self-reliance is to deny physical hunger. This is silly. We have to eat. This is a fact. We don’t have to find the current which is a non-fact.

Your reliance on abundance is understandable, but fear also lies at the bottom of that pile as well. the trick is to feel no fear when there is no abundance; perhaps its only at this time that the undercurrent of the Tao is found. By actual experience. To deny that your desire for abundance is not based on fear doesn't have a clear ring.

When there is no abundance, there is fear. This is a natural response. When there is no air, you gasp, turn blue and suffer brain death in 6 minutes. When there is no wealth but a $16 trillion dollar debt, you’d better get very serious before the herd turns and start dumping US Treasuries.

 

Abundance is a natural fact of life and the self-worth of the American Taoist is a measure of his net-worth. Prosperity is not a cursed thing. Poverty is. Making $86 million a year is a good thing. Living on food stamps and waging class warfare is not. To feel no fear when there is no abundance is to have gone completely mad. Do you think that the undercurrent of the Tao is found in the slums of Mumbai? Or is it more likely to be found in Marblehead’s fish ponds and garden?

Your desire to push ahead and not be a shirker is one that we have all had to get under; those who understand the concept of wu-wei. Wu wei is not to "make things happen", rather, it is to "let things happen". There is a huge difference in the inner human dynamic between the two; can you feel it? To make things happen is to gear up, to be tense, to focus our mind in a limited way on our particular desired result. Can we truly say that we know the very wisest given result? We think we know, but we do not. But, contrarily, to "let things happen" is to acknowledge that our thinking is limited and to tap into the Tao. We instantly relax every muscle we're capable of relaxing at that moment, we empty our minds, if we are touching another human being we realize the state where there is no separation between the touch of their hand and yours. It is in this sense that a cosmic alignment of sorts, a oneness of purpose, takes place.

The best argument against the Dao is a 5 minute converstaion with the average Daoist.

 

Look, Manitou, the power of the Dao is not meant for invoking spirits and conducting group therapy. It’s meant for the masters of the universe in their exciting drive to push ahead in bringing about a better world. If we just let things happen, the bottom half of mankind will just sink faster into the bowels of the earth. You are throwing a Christian blanket of passivity over an essentially vibrant Dao.

Please consider finding your source of anger, Takaaki - as knowledgeable as all of your posts are, there is an undercurrent of challenge and anger that will aways impede your vision until you can understand it and adjust the lens slightly.

Can’t we discuss together in harmony? You and I are as different in nature as the moon is unlike the sun. Yin and Yang. Earth and Heaven. The village idiot and the scholar. Each has a respective place in the cosmos for balance.

Instead of just saying im wrong do the research and prove it. stop being lazy....

I did. Bodhiharma was recorded as the guy who taught the Shaolin monks that fearsome form of Kung Fu. He did that after 9 years sitting in a cave looking at a wall because they wouldn't let him in the Shaolin Temple. He cut his eyelids off to keep his eyes open to avoid falling asleep during meditation and when he finally emerged from the cave, his legs were atrophied. This is why Bodhiharma dolls have no legs. And you expect me to believe that this legless wacko taught Kung Fu to Shaolin fighters who bear the marks of the dragon and tiger burnt into their flesh as they lift a red hot urn of coals held between their fore-arms upon graduation?

 

Watch the Bollywood movie fight scenes. They are ridiculous. Even the Indians laugh at them.

I do wish you would speak in plain English for once; the way people do when speaking to a cab driver or a sick dog.

takaaki

Yep...............................

You've noticed the difference too.....!!!

 

I have also noticed your Lines 9 and 10 (of Chapter 10).

What is the meaning of "opening and closing the heavenly gate"?

And what has this to do with feminization?

Again, I agree with this post of yours. All valid points. I will add though that we each should select and cultivate those philosopies that work for us in allowing us to live a content and peaceful life. It doesn't matter where the philosophy originated; East, West, or somewhere in between. Life is neither East or West - it is life.

 

Are you looking for philosophy or wisdom? Philosophy is cultural. It comes from people. Wisdom is primal. You see it in nature.

The Dao De Jing originated in China. Wisdom has no point of origin. If it is wisdom you want, why go to the Chinese for it? Why not go direct to the source?

Now, it is time to say that any practice for the enhancement of sexual energy was considered to be an illegitimate practice. For those who are under the pursuit of sexual energy enhancement, please consider to have a second thought before the occurrence of any internal bodily injuries or running over fire and entering the devilish path(走火入魔). However, semen retention may be excluded because it does no body harm nor does any enhancement.

 

Semen retention is a purposeful act that violates the natural function of the body. Why is it not illegitimate practice?