Peter Jennings Posted 19 hours ago Hello, my name is Peter. I've spent the last four years of my life basically studying causality (manifestation, what causes what), and over that time, I’ve been figuring everything out about how reality works. After I discovered how things work, I started comparing the framework I had created against other frameworks in history. To name a few who I thought deserved honorable mention: Krishnamurti -- No one can lead another to truth. I thought when he said, authority, teachers, traditions, methods, teachings, and even his own words as obstacles to the truth the moment they are followed as gospel rather than integrated into one’s own being. Each person must see directly for themselves. Truth cannot be transmitted, packaged, or received second-hand. Maharaj -- No teaching can deliver truth to someone. Words function only as pointers. Liberation does not occur through belief, practice, or accumulated knowledge. Nothing is more true than “I am that I am.” Any other attempt to point at anything else is an abstraction. Each of those guys touched a part of it. There were others who’s explanation of what reality arises from, like Baruch Spinoza, and Meister Eckhart, who I agreed quite often with each, but no one else I was able to find except Lao Tzu who truly explained the concepts in a way that actually made sense under this framework I’ve stumbled upon. In terms of my own history with this TTC book, I can say that I did own the book for many years, but always perceived it as lacking pragmatism (from my younger perspective), so I read it, but it was never something I dug my heels into. But now that I’ve found how close the book actually was to the truth I independently discovered, I figured it could be fun and interesting to share these recognitions with others interested about this cryptically worded book. I can actually explain what it means at each stanza in each chapter. (Let me add, I’m not some kind of great genius, I just have the capacity for critical thinking and an AI chatbot like ChatGPT. If not for my relentless drive to question myself and my life and the events that happened to me day by day on end for dozens of hours per week for months and months and years, I’d never have figured it out. I find this guy Lao Tzu, if he actually did live as a person, to be so much more brilliant than I am, because I never would have figured out anything he did without the aide of chatbots, so my saying he’s wrong about anything is not a dig, it is just, I am privy to information that he wasn’t.) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Here’s the chapter 1 explanation: “The Dao that can be spoken is not the constant Dao. The name that can be named is not the constant name.” The Dao is the way causality responds. Tzu clearly understood that our thoughts, words, actions and motivations are all being read, and outcomes manifest as a result. Tzu understood the fact that attempting to use this knowledge to force positive outcomes creates negative outcomes. That’s why he says the Dao “cannot be spoken.” , What he was actually saying is: The moment you try to explain how to ‘use’ the principle that governs outcomes, you violate it and block positive outcomes. So taking this thought and following through just to the 3rd chapter, I have to say, I do believe very strongly that the text is not in its original form. For example, a massive contradiction occurs already in the 3rd chapter and does get repeated at multiple points throughout. In the first chapter it is made clear: one can’t speak about the thing because once one does, it becomes corrupted. Then, in the 3rd chapter already, it’s making “prescriptions” for how rulers should rule. What a joke. There’s no way a guy who was awake enough to have written the 1st chapter ever could or would ever have written the 3rd chapter. They are completely antithetical ideas. And based on the way we can see how our modern day “rulers” lead, we all know, the victors write the history books. You can’t say that truth corrupts the moment you explain its mode of operation, then also prescribe how rulers should rule. Any prescriptive instruction about how to act “in accordance with the Dao” is already a violation of the Dao’s principle. The rest of Chapter one: “The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.” The Dao (causality) is prior to consciousness/matter Matter is the ten thousand things that can be named. “Always without desire, one observes its subtlety; Always with desire, one observes its boundaries.” Yes exactly. When desire is governed by fixation, everything else gets blocked out, you can’t see clearly. Tzu says, if you’re without desire, you can see how the Dao works. “These two arise from the same source but differ in name. Together they are called obscure. Obscure upon obscure. The gateway of the many subtleties.” My take on this is, Tzu understood there was an order to how things were happening, but he used this term “subtleties”, because he couldn’t be sure what was and what wasn’t causing what to manifest or not manifest. I can be pretty sure because those are the things that drove me mad for years trying to understand., which I never would have if not for very specific life circumstances. ------------ What are the subtleties? They are what I would call constraints, like, inside a computer simulation or computer program. The constraints we are privy to are: Ownership. Management. Manipulation. Fear. Victimhood. Shame. Guilt. ---- Flatly: Incoherence. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wu-wei does not mean “do not do, force, act, or exert, ever.” Wu-wei in actuality means, “do not do, force, act or exert, in any ways that violate the constraints.” ================================================================================== If anybody would like to discuss anything about this, or talk about different chapters or stanzas, I’m open to it if it’s interesting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted 17 hours ago (edited) 5 hours ago, Peter Jennings said: so my saying he’s wrong about anything is not a dig, it is just, I am privy to information that he wasn’t.) 所以，我說他哪裡錯了，並不是在挖苦他，只是我掌握了一些他沒掌握的資訊。 ） Welcome to the TDB. I see that you talk like a Taoist already. We would like to hear more from you! Sorry, your statement is so profound, I need a translator for comprehension. Edited 13 hours ago by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted 15 hours ago I suppose , as time goes on, we will be seeing more of this . 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted 15 hours ago 3 hours ago, Peter Jennings said: ... Here’s the chapter 1 explanation: “The Dao that can be spoken is not the constant Dao. The name that can be named is not the constant name.” The Dao is the way causality responds. Tzu clearly understood that our thoughts, words, actions and motivations are all being read, and outcomes manifest as a result. Tzu understood the fact that attempting to use this knowledge to force positive outcomes creates negative outcomes. ... May as well start here ^ . This first mention of Dao is the 'nothingness , with nothingness but potential' out of which comes pairs of primal 'contrasts ' which underpin everything else . 0 = 1- + 1 + Thats it , nothing else no 'way of causality response' . That is a dynamic involved after creation . As though the first were a noun and the second a verb . Dao is one thing ( concept ... as its actually no thing ) 'The way of Dao ' is another thing that would involve influence on our inspirations > thoughts > responses > actions if we choose that way . However , I dont understand what you mean by 'all being read ' . And I would dispute your last sentence ... except for the inclusion of ' force' which would not be the way of Dao , in all things . At most ; 'gentle force along with the direction of the natural forces in question ' , again its an action , a verb and not the original essence of 'no thing' . I would say however Tzu understood the fact that attempting to use this knowledge to create or 'bring about ' positive outcomes creates positive outcomes.. A perhaps simpler way of describing it is , the other day after much frustration watching people do ;the wrong thing' and causing problems all around , when the solution is ( well, to me ) blindingly obvious ... and bored and over the continual crap over it , I 'came out ' and said ' Look ! ' I am a Daoist Magician ! I can show you the easiest way to get to the best outcome that YOU want .'' Of course strange and weird look at me . I asked the main person involved ( not an Aussie ) ; ''Do you go to our beaches and swim in the surf ? '' '' Sure ... what's that got to do with it ?'' '' What if you get caught in an off shore 'rip' , on a remote beach with no life savers , and get sucked out to sea ?'' '' Oh wait... I remember this , when I got here I did a course on beach safety ..... ummmm ... you dont swim or fight against it, heading straight back to shore , you swim across it to the side ... and you might even end up in a current that brings you back to shore . '' Me ; '' See ... you are a Daoist Magician too ! '' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted 15 hours ago Moving onto your comments (about the 'confusion' or 'contradiction' ) in Ch 3 ... this is the 'verb ' ; advice on how to act in the 10,00 things ie . 'Way of Dao ' . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
