dao and brahman

[Stigweard]

What are your queries....??? Can share it with us...???

You are welcome to compare your translation of Ch1 with mine:

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/16267-stigweards-daodejing-%26%2336947%3B%26%2324503%3B%26%2332147%3B/page__view__findpost__p__222458

[steve]

You are welcome to compare your translation of Ch1 with mine:

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/16267-stigweards-daodejing-%26%2336947%3B%26%2324503%3B%26%2332147%3B/page__view__findpost__p__222458

Very nice work Stig - I mean it. Not just trading niceties here.

[Stigweard]

Very nice work Stig - I mean it. Not just trading niceties here.

Graci *** deep bow ***

 

[ChiDragon]

Please take this as a constructive argument, not an attack.

No, I would think of it as such. I am so glad that you presented this constructive argument.

 

Laozi is a corpse - long dead, if he ever lived. He is an image in our minds.

We created him.

Most modern scholars would argued that Laozi does not, in fact, refer to any single, historical individual.

And if there was, the first line of his writings says - whatever we try to write about the Dao is NOT the Dao...

So if you really listen to what Laozi says, you should close the book after reading the first line!

 

So why look for authority in a book?

Why not look in ourselves?

 

At this point in time, it is not a concern of who LaoTze was. The Tao Te Ching was written in black and white. It is what it is says rather than what we think what it says. The first line says - whatever we try to write about the Dao is NOT the ETERNAL Dao rather than is NOT the Dao. I see that there was a big fallacy already.

 

So if you really listen to what Laozi says, you should close the book after reading the first line!

 

It seems to me that nobody closed the book after the reading the first line. Everybody had read further; and assumed what they think LaoTze was saying instead of what LaoTze has to say. Of course, there are native scholars with historical and cultural background helping them to have a succinct interpretation of the classic Tao Te Ching. Of course, nobody cares what the native scholars had to say neither.

[Aaron]

Aaron,

 

Well I am glad that you are now realizing how ludicrous and baseless your previous arguments were and why I have been so ardent in my challenging of them.

 

 

Well I'm glad you're willing to admit you couldn't let it go.

 

 

Aaron

 

edit- To clarify, I do think that when Lao Tzu talks about tao, he's not talking about the undefinable original Tao mentioned in chapter 1 (since the Tao that can be talked about is not the eternal Tao). But I do agree that there is really only one undefinable Tao.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Twinner

[steve]

The first line says - whatever we try to write about the Dao is NOT the ETERNAL Dao rather than is NOT the Dao. I see that there was a big fallacy already.

Excellent point.

[Aaron]

The first line says - whatever we try to write about the Dao is NOT the ETERNAL Dao rather than is NOT the Dao. I see that there was a big fallacy already.

 

And this is my point as well, the Tao being talked about isn't the Eternal Tao, but is the Tao. In other words anything that Lao Tzu says about the Tao in the Tao Te Ching is not about the Eternal Tao, but rather the Tao that can be talked about.

 

Aaron

 

Edit- I'm going to actually start a topic about this in the Tao Te Ching section, to give people a chance to discuss this as it actually relates to the Tao Te Ching.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Twinner

[Stigweard]

No, I would think of it as such. I am so glad that you presented this constructive argument.

 

 

 

At this point in time, it is not a concern of who LaoTze was. The Tao Te Ching was written in black and white. It is what it is says rather than what we think what it says. The first line says - whatever we try to write about the Dao is NOT the ETERNAL Dao rather than is NOT the Dao. I see that there was a big fallacy already.

 

 

 

It seems to me that nobody closed the book after the reading the first line. Everybody had read further; and assumed what they think LaoTze was saying instead of what LaoTze has to say. Of course, there are native scholars with historical and cultural background helping them to have a succinct interpretation of the classic Tao Te Ching. Of course, nobody cares what the native scholars had to say neither.

There is always inherent danger in assuming that we know exactly what Laozi is saying. I believe Steve said it beautifully that conclusions are dead, only questions are alive

[Aaron]

There is always inherent danger in assuming that we know exactly what Laozi is saying. I believe Steve said it beautifully that conclusions are dead, only questions are alive

 

You could also say that even if one has come to a conclusion, that doesn't mean that the question isn't still alive, after all they are tied together. I think the problem many people have is that they believe that they forget that there can be more than one answer to a question, and that answering a question, doesn't necessarily mean that the question has been answered.

 

Aaron

Edited June 10, 2011 by Twinner

[3bob]

A comparison with the upanishads and the "utterly local connection" mentioned earlier if you will?

 

Chhandogya: (from an old translation)

EIGHTH PRAPÂTHAKA,

FIRST KHANDA.

 

1. Harih, Om. There is this city of Brahman (the body), and in it the palace, the small lotus (of the heart), and in it that small ether. Now what exists within that small ether, that is to be sought for, that is to be understood.

 

2. And if they should say to him: 'Now with regard to that city of Brahman, and the palace in it, i. e. the small lotus of the heart, and the small ether within the heart, what is there within it that deserves to be sought for, or that is to be understood?'

 

3. Then he should say: 'As large as this ether (all space) is, so large is that ether within the heart. Both heaven and earth are contained within it, both fire and air, both sun and moon, both lightning and stars; and whatever there is of him (the Self) here in the world, and whatever is not (i.e. whatever has been or will be), all that is contained within it.'

 

4. And if they should say to him: 'If everything that exists is contained in that city of Brahman, all beings and all desires (whatever can be imagined or desired), then what is left of it, when old age reaches it and scatters it, or when it falls to pieces?'

 

5. Then he should say: 'By the old age of the body, that (the ether, or Brahman within it) does not age; by the death of the body, that (the ether, or Brahman within it) is not killed. That (the Brahman) is the true Brahma-city (not the body). In it all desires are contained. It is the Self, free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, which desires nothing but what it ought to desire, and imagines nothing but what it ought to imagine. Now as here on earth people follow as they are commanded, and depend on the object which they are attached to, be it a country or a piece of land,

 

6. 'And as here on earth, whatever has been acquired by exertion, perishes, so perishes whatever is acquired for the next world by sacrifices and other good actions performed on earth. Those who depart from hence without having discovered the Self and those true desires, for them there is no freedom in all the worlds. But those who depart from hence, after having discovered the Self and those true desires, for them there is freedom in all the worlds.

 

TTC 21:

"...How do I know the ways of all things at the Beginning?

By what is within me."

Edited June 10, 2011 by 3bob

[steve]

You could also say that even if one has come to a conclusion, that doesn't mean that the question isn't still alive, after all they are tied together. I think the problem many people have is that they believe that they forget that there can be more than one answer to a question, and that answering a question, doesn't necessarily mean that the question has been answered.

 

Aaron

Conclusion means to close, to end. I believe there are those who like to answer a question and thus create a "belief" and defend that position. They are then no longer open - the question for them is dead and they move on thinking they already know that. They look at the world with an answer in their head. This is how most of us face the world every day - overflowing with our conclusions, our images, and our expectations. So we define and direct the way we live. We are not open to Wu Wei. We live with many more answers than questions.

 

The question doesn't have to be dead when we consider a conclusion but it is when we accept it. We see that constantly. That's why it is so difficult to be in a relationship. It's where conflict comes from. I am a Christian, I am a Jew, I am a Daoist, I am a Buddhist. Laozi meant this. This stanza means that. I now limit myself. And I think it's terribly important for each of us to watch our tendency to do that. But I'll agree that there must be a balance. There are certain answers that are important - what time should I be at the hospital, where do I live, is this food spoiled? But those practical answers are generally of little value in the psychological, emotional, and spiritual world.

[steve]

[zerostao]

Conclusion means to close, to end. I believe there are those who like to answer a question and thus create a "belief" and defend that position. They are then no longer open - the question for them is dead and they move on thinking they already know that. They look at the world with an answer in their head. This is how most of us face the world every day - overflowing with our conclusions, our images, and our expectations. So we define and direct the way we live. We are not open to Wu Wei. We live with many more answers than questions.

 

The question doesn't have to be dead when we consider a conclusion but it is when we accept it. We see that constantly. That's why it is so difficult to be in a relationship. It's where conflict comes from. I am a Christian, I am a Jew, I am a Daoist, I am a Buddhist. Laozi meant this. This stanza means that. I now limit myself. And I think it's terribly important for each of us to watch our tendency to do that. But I'll agree that there must be a balance. There are certain answers that are important - what time should I be at the hospital, where do I live, is this food spoiled? But those practical answers are generally of little value in the psychological, emotional, and spiritual world.

i have to remind myself sometimes to empty my cup.

[3bob]

Thanks Steve

 

...Om

[Aaron]

Conclusion means to close, to end. I believe there are those who like to answer a question and thus create a "belief" and defend that position. They are then no longer open - the question for them is dead and they move on thinking they already know that. They look at the world with an answer in their head. This is how most of us face the world every day - overflowing with our conclusions, our images, and our expectations. So we define and direct the way we live. We are not open to Wu Wei. We live with many more answers than questions.

 

The question doesn't have to be dead when we consider a conclusion but it is when we accept it. We see that constantly. That's why it is so difficult to be in a relationship. It's where conflict comes from. I am a Christian, I am a Jew, I am a Daoist, I am a Buddhist. Laozi meant this. This stanza means that. I now limit myself. And I think it's terribly important for each of us to watch our tendency to do that. But I'll agree that there must be a balance. There are certain answers that are important - what time should I be at the hospital, where do I live, is this food spoiled? But those practical answers are generally of little value in the psychological, emotional, and spiritual world.

 

I guess my point is that the question is only dead for us, not for those other people who might not have come to a conclusion. And even then it's only dead because we perceive it to be dead. After all this is an abstract concept, not something physical that lives and breathes. I'm still of the mind that even if we believe there is a conclusion that the question is still alive and well, merely answering it doesn't wipe it away and start anew.

 

Aaron

[3bob]

Thinking we are a mind and searching throughout the entire gamut of mind will never give a "final conclusion" or rest because even the best of mind can never give such.

[Vajrahridaya]

Thinking we are a mind and searching throughout the entire gamut of mind will never give a "final conclusion" or rest because even the best of mind can never give such.

 

The enlightened mind does, a Buddha mind does. Mind gives both bondage and liberation, but it's really beyond both because it has no independent existence, it's empty, just like anything it conjured, including concepts and non-concepts, experiences and non-experiences, transcendent or mundane, and anything that it's a product of, including the elements both gross and ethereal dimensions of there existence.

 

Awareness beyond mind is had by mind, quite the paradox, but it's really all about having the best mind.

 

Intrinsic awareness is said to be beyond mind, but that's just because it self transcends in every moment, that doesn't mean it has self existence outside of everything, it's just a state of seeing through everything including itself. So, at the same time that ultimately there is no self, this awareness is contained within knowledge of self.

 

I think Taoism is much closer to Buddhism than Vedanta... personally.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

There are certain answers that are important - what time should I be at the hospital, where do I live, is this food spoiled? But those practical answers are generally of little value in the psychological, emotional, and spiritual world.

 

At the same time, spiritual answers are also important. As in, I know I need to work through my ignorance of my basic nature because without knowing this, I stay trapped in unconscious cycling and recycling, lifetime after lifetime. These answers come through deep searching by applying methods that previous enlightened beings used to attain the insight or direct experience of the particular answer.

 

In this answer, there is going to be a disagreement with ideals that don't mirror it, as in those proposed by materialist hedonists that think this life is all there is and one must stuff it with as much pleasure as possible, while avoiding all pain, or Christians who think they have only one life to live and must follow a set of 10 laws or burn in hell forever.

 

There are traditions that lead to more true answers to spiritual questions and those that are more like Band-Aids that help a bit, but don't get to the core of the issue.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[steve]

Thinking we are a mind and searching throughout the entire gamut of mind will never give a "final conclusion" or rest because even the best of mind can never give such.

this

[steve]

At the same time, spiritual answers are also important. As in, I know I need to work through my ignorance of my basic nature because without knowing this, I stay trapped in unconscious cycling and recycling, lifetime after lifetime. These answers come through deep searching by applying methods that previous enlightened beings used to attain the insight or direct experience of the particular answer.

 

In this answer, there is going to be a disagreement with ideals that don't mirror it, as in those proposed by materialist hedonists that think this life is all there is and one must stuff it with as much pleasure as possible, while avoiding all pain, or Christians who think they have only one life to live and must follow a set of 10 laws or burn in hell forever.

 

There are traditions that lead to more true answers to spiritual questions and those that are more like Band-Aids that help a bit, but don't get to the core of the issue.

You have taken meaningful spiritual questions and created a complex path, created of the mind, to reach a goal of answering those questions.

The answers you refer to above have become practical matters of navigating the path, no different from "where do I live" or "what time does the train arrive?"

Is it possible to question without the paradigm?

Can I face these questions naked and unaided?

[3bob]

An "enlightened mind" is directed by its master or "Spirit" if you will.

 

It's that simple, so simple that mind can not wrap its mind around it.

[forestofemptiness]

Dao is not Dao, and Brahman is not Brahman. That is how they are alike.

[Vajrahridaya]

You have taken meaningful spiritual questions and created a complex path, created of the mind, to reach a goal of answering those questions.

The answers you refer to above have become practical matters of navigating the path, no different from "where do I live" or "what time does the train arrive?"

Is it possible to question without the paradigm?

Can I face these questions naked and unaided?

 

I don't think you understood the meaning of what I said. It's very simple to me.

 

It's dependent origination/emptiness, there is no transcendent super entity, that's just another state of mind.

 

I think you define mind differently from me. Mind is heart, emotions, thoughts, the state of no thought, the gamut of experience from samsara to nirvana. Yet it's all empty. There is no inherent mind, thus there is no inherent God. It's all just a dynamic flow, the play of the energy of sentient beings, it's very clear to me, it's not thought. To make no thought an essence as well is a dogma. To be naked? Naked of what... seeing through everything is seeing that everything is naked even with clothes on.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

An "enlightened mind" is directed by its master or "Spirit" if you will.

 

It's that simple, so simple that mind can not wrap its mind around it.

 

Mind is very simple, it's also all your complexity. You know you have a mind, even if one is really ignorant, there is mind.

 

What is spirit? It's an excuse, like Atman and Brahman, these concepts are transcendent models, structures and according to Buddha, excuses for higher levels of clinging.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[3bob]

Mind is very simple, it's also all your complexity. You know you have a mind, even if one is really ignorant, there is mind.

 

What is spirit? It's an excuse, like Atman and Brahman, these concepts are transcendent models, structures and according to Buddha, excuses for higher levels of clinging.

 

VJ, I suggest you start another one of your, "I'm a Buddhist and know it all" threads somewhere else...(Btw, note what the original poster was bringing up subject wise...) Believe it or not you don't have to try and take over almost every thread with your never ending, hypnotically-baked excuses for having superior insights, along with put downs of other ways. Frankly your constant breaking of Buddhist dharmas and or precepts is embar-assing to witness. Maybe you'll get lucky someday and bump your thick skull up against a Buddhist who won't put up with your malarky.

 

Om