The cow Te ching

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

The cow Te ching

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Is the "woman" in the text referring only to woman or in general all people with these feminine qualities?

I'm assuming, either way, it's implied these qualities are much more common with woman.

"The Cow is an empty vessel; she is used but never satisfied.
Oh, fathomable source of ten thousand delusions!"

I know the writer of the text is an older man so I again assume he's had a lot of experience with women, in relationships and so forth. I make no attempt to hide that, from personal experience, from mother to sister to girlfriend to acquitances, it seems that the text holds true. Especially during the time of the period and hormones these delusions only seem to escalate. Emotional breakdowns, extreme stress and anger, I'm sure you all know what I mean, whether it is with you or people you've known.

So my point for the thread is basically a question, the text talks about woman as a lost cause, something that the "wise man avoids" and the ignorant man esteems. What is your experience in the matter?

I'm interested to hear what the women using the site have to say also, as I don't believe this to be so clear cut, obviously there are more intelligent and self-aware woman and obviously there are men with the feminine qualities described in the text.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

The first thing I thought was " I'm going to regret this".

Fingers crossed for the coin flip =P
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by ardy »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Is the "woman" in the text referring only to woman or in general all people with these feminine qualities?

I'm assuming, either way, it's implied these qualities are much more common with woman.

"The Cow is an empty vessel; she is used but never satisfied.
Oh, fathomable source of ten thousand delusions!"

I know the writer of the text is an older man so I again assume he's had a lot of experience with women, in relationships and so forth. I make no attempt to hide that, from personal experience, from mother to sister to girlfriend to acquitances, it seems that the text holds true. Especially during the time of the period and hormones these delusions only seem to escalate. Emotional breakdowns, extreme stress and anger, I'm sure you all know what I mean, whether it is with you or people you've known.

So my point for the thread is basically a question, the text talks about woman as a lost cause, something that the "wise man avoids" and the ignorant man esteems. What is your experience in the matter?

I'm interested to hear what the women using the site have to say also, as I don't believe this to be so clear cut, obviously there are more intelligent and self-aware woman and obviously there are men with the feminine qualities described in the text.
I'm not sure what you are referring to here. There is no statement like this in my copy of Tao Te Ching. Is this from something else or a different translation?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by Pam Seeback »

My interpretation of the purpose of Kevin and David's take on the Tao Te Ching, as is every spiritual text is to support the Male principle as it struggles to reject and transcend the Female principle of desiring/producing form so it can become single in thought, word and deed, in other words, to first reveal to Man its absolute formless nature and secondly, to live every moment according to this revelation.

Note the first letter of Man, Woman and Cow are capitalized in the text which is a dead give-away to its symbolic transcendent nature.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by Kunga »

In spirituality, the feminine is equal with the masculine, not inferior. Ying yang.
You "transcend" when you realize that, not when you suppress either.
Look at Mother Nature !!!!
Vast is the sky, it's depths limitless. (Female principal)
The ground we walk on , only gravity keeps us from flying off into space. (Male principal)

Only the weak, and deluded need shelter themselves from that which temps them.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by Pam Seeback »

Kunga: In spirituality, the feminine is equal with the masculine, not inferior. Ying yang.
In the eternal spiritual, in the suffering free light of yin yang, yes, they are equal. In the darkness of the light of transcending name-space-time however they are not equal as it is the feminine characteristic of desire that causes the deluded suffering of attachment and it is the male characteristic of spiritual reasoning based on wisdom of the infinite that acts to break the bond of this suffering. Do you not agree that that which ends suffering is superior to that which causes suffering, assuming of course that one’s goal is to end suffering?
You "transcend" when you realize that, not when you suppress either.
Suppression is a form of delusion because She Who Desires will have Her say and Her way until Her delusion is uprooted by wisdom of the infinite. "The Woman that can be named is not the eternal Woman." - The Cow Te Ching. To transcend simply means to end one's suffering of deluded attachment to things.
Look at Mother Nature !!!!
Vast is the sky, it's depths limitless. (Female principal)
The ground we walk on , only gravity keeps us from flying off into space. (Male principal)
Why do you call Nature “Mother” and then give it both female and male characteristics? Why the four exclamation marks?
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by Kunga »

movingalways wrote:In the darkness of the light of transcending
How would one know, there is something there, that needs to be transcended without the contrast or duality presenting itself ?
There is darkness only because of light. Both are equally responsible for any wisdom or insight gained.
How do you know to get out of a situation, if there isn't something there causing suffering ?
Hatred or love was the impetus of The Cow de Ching. Without which, such humour and insight would be void of interpretation.
So essentially what I am trying to say is, duality is nessesarry for the philosopher to philosophise. Non-duality emerges from the sufferring of duality. The feminine mind is quite capable of comprehending and experiencing this. Why ? How ? Because there is no such thing as feminine mind...it is only a conceptual limited thing, in which a seeker of truth refuses to let anything block it.


movingalways wrote:Why do you call Nature “Mother” and then give it both female and male characteristics? Why the four exclamation marks?
It's a common expression. Earth is the place where all things are born (Mother Earth). Male and female characteristics are integrated in everything, nothing can be produced without them. It's all energy. The source of that energy is non-dual.

I guess I was a little over emotional when I used 4 exclamations !!!! (compare it to thunder )
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by ardy »

Movingalways:
In the eternal spiritual, in the suffering free light of yin yang, yes, they are equal. In the darkness of the light of transcending name-space-time however they are not equal as it is the feminine characteristic of desire that causes the deluded suffering of attachment and it is the male characteristic of spiritual reasoning based on wisdom of the infinite that acts to break the bond of this suffering. Do you not agree that that which ends suffering is superior to that which causes suffering, assuming of course that one’s goal is to end suffering?
This is a pile of rubbish. The guys who wrote this have a serious problems with women. They always sounded a lot like several men I know, they want to have sex with them, but never want to speak to them or relate to them. Basically, they are scared of them.

Women's desires like all peoples desires know no bounds. Mens desires are different but just as binding as women's. Of course it is silly to pitch them all in a barrel in this case two, I have met women who are stronger and more capable than a lot of limp wristed men I have met (in positions of power as well). We come in all shades and to think that men are more spiritual than women is certainly not true today.

The cow te ching is a testament to how stupid some men can be, regardless of how smart they are.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by Cahoot »

There is darkness only because of light.
Keep that up and you’ll be saying that non-suffering requires suffering.

Darkness does not require light.
Darkness is the absence of light.

Absence does not imply existence.

Just as the absence of pink elephants prancing about your boudoir does not imply the existence of pink elephants, the absence of light which is darkness does not imply the existence of light, and light does not exist because of darkness.

Other than semantically, non-cow does not require cow.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by Pam Seeback »

ardy wrote:Movingalways:
In the eternal spiritual, in the suffering free light of yin yang, yes, they are equal. In the darkness of the light of transcending name-space-time however they are not equal as it is the feminine characteristic of desire that causes the deluded suffering of attachment and it is the male characteristic of spiritual reasoning based on wisdom of the infinite that acts to break the bond of this suffering. Do you not agree that that which ends suffering is superior to that which causes suffering, assuming of course that one’s goal is to end suffering?
This is a pile of rubbish. The guys who wrote this have a serious problems with women. They always sounded a lot like several men I know, they want to have sex with them, but never want to speak to them or relate to them. Basically, they are scared of them.

Women's desires like all peoples desires know no bounds. Mens desires are different but just as binding as women's. Of course it is silly to pitch them all in a barrel in this case two, I have met women who are stronger and more capable than a lot of limp wristed men I have met (in positions of power as well). We come in all shades and to think that men are more spiritual than women is certainly not true today.

The cow te ching is a testament to how stupid some men can be, regardless of how smart they are.
ardy, calling what anyone says "a pile of rubbish" is an emotional reaction, do you see the irony?

I am well aware of the concept of "spiritual misogyny" and have read the anti-women sentiments in both the bios provided by Kevin and David and have discussed these ideas with David in past posts. All I can speak to was my own need to reject aspects of myself that I perceived as "holding me back" from my spiritual goal, a rejection that seemed absolutely necessary at the time. And the rejection of Woman, like other aspects of spirit that are rejected, is always about rejection of Self and rejection of Self alone.

Hatred and rejection of the world necessarily comes before love and acceptance of the world. This is how I interpret the Cow te Ching. Obviously we do not see eye to eye. No problem.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by ardy »

movingalways wrote:
ardy wrote:Movingalways:
In the eternal spiritual, in the suffering free light of yin yang, yes, they are equal. In the darkness of the light of transcending name-space-time however they are not equal as it is the feminine characteristic of desire that causes the deluded suffering of attachment and it is the male characteristic of spiritual reasoning based on wisdom of the infinite that acts to break the bond of this suffering. Do you not agree that that which ends suffering is superior to that which causes suffering, assuming of course that one’s goal is to end suffering?
This is a pile of rubbish. The guys who wrote this have a serious problems with women. They always sounded a lot like several men I know, they want to have sex with them, but never want to speak to them or relate to them. Basically, they are scared of them.

Women's desires like all peoples desires know no bounds. Mens desires are different but just as binding as women's. Of course it is silly to pitch them all in a barrel in this case two, I have met women who are stronger and more capable than a lot of limp wristed men I have met (in positions of power as well). We come in all shades and to think that men are more spiritual than women is certainly not true today.

The cow te ching is a testament to how stupid some men can be, regardless of how smart they are.
ardy, calling what anyone says "a pile of rubbish" is an emotional reaction, do you see the irony?

I am well aware of the concept of "spiritual misogyny" and have read the anti-women sentiments in both the bios provided by Kevin and David and have discussed these ideas with David in past posts. All I can speak to was my own need to reject aspects of myself that I perceived as "holding me back" from my spiritual goal, a rejection that seemed absolutely necessary at the time. And the rejection of Woman, like other aspects of spirit that are rejected, is always about rejection of Self and rejection of Self alone.

Hatred and rejection of the world necessarily comes before love and acceptance of the world. This is how I interpret the Cow te Ching. Obviously we do not see eye to eye. No problem.
Agreed, it was the one thing that I found strange about them when I first came here about 10-12 years ago. I watched them on TV and although obviously smart there was a certain hubris which I found annoying. At that time there were several posters here who's only interest was "I am smarter than you are" and their arguments were based on that pee weak target.

My view is that you don't need hatred or rejection of the world before love and acceptance. It strikes me that there is a certain compassion within some people that comes out when needed. The rule I was taught as a young salesman 40 years ago was 25% of people dislike you on sight, 25% like you on sight and 50% don't care if you live or die. I found that this is true (not the %ages just the action). To dislike yourself is a terrible thing, but very easy to fix.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by Kunga »

Cahoot wrote:
There is darkness only because of light.
Keep that up and you’ll be saying that non-suffering requires suffering.

Darkness does not require light.
Darkness is the absence of light.

Absence does not imply existence.

Just as the absence of pink elephants prancing about your boudoir does not imply the existence of pink elephants, the absence of light which is darkness does not imply the existence of light, and light does not exist because of darkness.

Other than semantically, non-cow does not require cow.

When there are concepts, there is dualism. No concept, no duality.
The word darkness can only be percieved in contrast to the word light. There would be no word or concept of dark, if there was no word or concept called light.

That's why the Tao canno't be named . Yet we give it a name, but it is not that name . There is no concept for the unutterable.
If there were no beings to see the sky at night or in the daytime, there would be nothing to call it something.

There would be no distinctions, so no duality.


"Can a man cling only to heaven and know nothing of earth? They are correlative: to know one is to know the other.
To refuse one is to refuse both."

Zhuangzi
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by Cahoot »

Light does not require the concept of darkness, or any other concept.

Darkness does not require the concept of light, or any other concept.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by Kunga »

Cahoot wrote:Light does not require the concept of darkness, or any other concept.

Darkness does not require the concept of light, or any other concept.

Then how would you know something is dark without knowing what is light ?

We are using words and concepts to describe something that needs no words or concepts. We need them.

And so, there really is no such thing as dark or light.
It's only in the mind that conceptualizes.
Stop thinking.
No thoughts, no concepts.
Brain dead....like the Universe (without a subjective observer)

Before the "Big Bang"

And I really don't know for sure if there ever was one.....but just to give an example of what it would be like without concepts.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by Cahoot »

Then how would you know something is dark without knowing what is light ?
When it’s dark you know it’s dark because of the appearance of the world. The concept of light born of memory or imagination and compared to darkness is not required to know darkness during darkness. To be, darkness does not require light or knowledge of light. Darkness does not imply the existence of light.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Kunga wrote:
Cahoot wrote:Light does not require the concept of darkness, or any other concept.

Darkness does not require the concept of light, or any other concept.
Then how would you know something is dark without knowing what is light ?
This is also about the difference between blurry, shady, shadowy views and more contrasted, lively and deeper visions.

The deeper understanding can have both sides present, there's room, but the darkness can only have itself, no space for anything else.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by Cahoot »

In the natural world,
Where eyes are open or shut,
When light is, darkness is not.
When darkness is, light is not.
Light = Light
Darkness = Darkness
Shadow world = Shadow world

In the Shadow world,
When light and darkness coexist,
One of them is a concept,
One is not.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Yes, as Kunga already mentioned: brain dead.

Natural world, shadow word, one is still conceptualizing, naturally. But then suddenly embracing one as "non-conceptual"!

Whatever that is, another instance of the illusion of self, taken in as absolute: concretized ego. Cow droppings.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by Cahoot »

Yes, if you stand in the road and think of a truck, that is a conceptual truck.
The truck that actually appears and flattens you is non-conceptual, whether or not you form a concept of it, no matter how fine the concept.

Similarly, when you stand in darkness and think of light, that is conceptual light.
Light that actually appears is non-conceptual, whether or not you form a concept of it.

Since darkness is the absence of light, when light and darkness coexist, one of them is conceptual and one is not.

Blurry, shady and shadowy describe the translucence of light filters, i.e., that which blocks or obscures light to some degree or another.
Though relatively inefficient, organic cow paddy campfires do provide a light of sorts for many of mans’ nights.

Hard to believe Hank never made it out of his twenties. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtolv9kM1qk
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by Kunga »

Conceptual = Conventional
Non Conceptual = Ultimate

The Universe/Nature doesn't recognize a truck.
The Universe/Nature doesn't give things a name.
The Universe/Nature doesn't conceptualize.
The Universe/Nature doesn't think.

The Universe/Nature only exists in our conceptual minds.
If we weren't here to conceptualize the Universe/Nature, it would be just fine in it's non conceptual, unthinkable,Ultimate Reality, like it has been, for zillions of years before man came, naming and conceptualizing everything.

We think, therefore we conceptualize.
Nature is spontaneous.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Cahoot wrote:Yes, if you stand in the road and think of a truck, that is a conceptual truck.
The truck that actually appears and flattens you is non-conceptual, whether or not you form a concept of it, no matter how fine the concept.
A yes, "non-conceptual" trucks flattening in a non-conceptual sense my "non-conceptual" mysterious being.....

This whole example, even if you'd witness it from your window, is still conceptual. You wouldn't know what happened otherwise.
From the perspective of the one being flattened, there's probably only pain, a brief flash. Waking up in the hospital, asking "what happened, give me concept!".
From the perspective of the truck driver, well he was drunk and dreaming about a life he was not having.

This non-conceptual is messy, ambivalent and impossible to really "capture". Even in an example. And even writing a concept is not conceptual. Reality is mindblowing, one doesn't need anything "actually appearing". The appearance remains conceptualized, having no "raw senses", it's all shaped. Even wrong concepts and fantasies are shaped and formed by some causality.

What a surprise to find myself again, to some degree, at Kunga's side: "The Universe/Nature only exists in our conceptual minds."
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by Pam Seeback »

Man's conceptualization of non conceptual Nature is his nature, one that is equally spontaneous. Resting in this truth a man stops struggling to be spontaneous or to find objectivity (perfect control). It is the struggle to change what cannot be changed that causes man's suffering.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by Cahoot »

An example is necessarily conceptual to the one thinking about it, witnessing it, or reading about it; though an example is not necessarily conceptual to the flattened.

The concretized ego, adroit in duality, binds awareness into the conceptual worlds of imaginative thinking, witnessing, and reading, to monumentalize ego’s participation. The monument of ego participation can become a concept central to worship, witnessing, motivation, belief, expression, and so on.
What a surprise to find myself again, to some degree, at Kunga's side: "The Universe/Nature only exists in our conceptual minds."
From this premise, can we then logically conclude that a falling tree makes no sound in a forest unpopulated by the conceptualizer necessary to differentiate sound, no sound, sound?
Man's conceptualization of non conceptual Nature is his nature, one that is equally spontaneous. Resting in this truth a man stops struggling to be spontaneous or to find objectivity (perfect control). It is the struggle to change what cannot be changed that causes man's suffering.
Logic indicates that all change exists within infinite potentiality. Change occurs when the proper conditions effecting that particular change, interact. Until knowledge of the proper conditions that cause change is verified by empirically measured effects, causation is a theory, a forecast of the future based on a limited understanding of the past that has been formed into concepts. When what was unchangeable actually does change, knowledge of reality that was limited by being bound by concepts of impossible, changes. Knowledge of reality changes, reality remains the same, one can now merely touch another part of the cow.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The cow Te ching

Post by Pam Seeback »

Me: Man's conceptualization of non conceptual Nature is his nature, one that is equally spontaneous. Resting in this truth a man stops struggling to be spontaneous or to find objectivity (perfect control). It is the struggle to change what cannot be changed that causes man's suffering.
Cahoot: Logic indicates that all change exists within infinite potentiality.
Agree.
Until knowledge of the proper conditions that cause change is verified by empirically measured effects, causation is a theory, a forecast of the future based on a limited understanding of the past that has been formed into concepts.
Not seeing or knowing the cause of things (empirical verification) or placing them in the frame of past or future does not change the truth that all things are caused.
When what was unchangeable actually does change...

An illogical statement. Logic dictates that when something is unchangeable, it is unchangeable, A = A. Likewise, when something is changeable, it is changeable, A = A. Therefore, the unchangeable cannot be changed, nor can the changeable be unchanged. However, it is not illogical to say that what is unchangeable can appear to change.
...knowledge of reality that was limited by being bound by concepts of impossible, changes. Knowledge of reality changes, reality remains the same, one can now merely touch another part of the cow.
Illogic breeds illogic.
Locked