GENIUS FORUMS

David,

He was a maverick who abandoned his family and the conventional life and went around challenging people's views and attachments, encouraging them to become more rational. In other words, he was a servant of truth.

That does sound wise to me.

That's partly it. It is also the quality of their thoughts. If a person can speak about the Infinite with perfect clarity and simplicity; if they show that they can get to the very heart of matters with just a sentence or two; if they can challenge people's deepest attachments without hesitation or fear; if they are entirely independent in their thinking; if they display the sheer freedom of a mind which is perfectly at home in emptiness - then that is a person who fully comprehends the Infinite.

That's a good answer.

He received a very strong taste of liberation around the time he wrote Zarathustra, but his egotism couldn't really handle it. His flaws became intertwined with this great insight and gradually unbalanced him.

Doesn't seem very liberated to me.

Let's take a couple of examples. First, here is a wise passage:

Look, it cannot be seen - it is beyond form.
Listen, it cannot be heard - it is beyond sound.
Grasp, it cannot be held - it is intangible.
These three are indefinable;
Therefore they are joined in one.
From above it is not bright;
From below it is not dark.
An unbroken thread beyond description.
It returns to nothingness.
The form of the formless,
The image of the imageless,
It is called indefinable and beyond imagination.

Stand before it and there is no beginning.
Follow it and there is no end.
Stay with the ancient Tao,
Move with the present.
Knowing the ancient beginning is the essence of Tao.

This is simple direct pointing to the nature of the Tao by someone who fully understands it. Beautiful writing.

I can understand how a lot of it seems that way, but what of this part:

These three are indefinable;
Therefore they are joined in one.
From above it is not bright;
From below it is not dark.
An unbroken thread beyond description.
It returns to nothingness.

I don't understand what the point is of the first two lines there. Why is it said "from above it is not bright"...could it also be said that from above it is not dark? An unbroken "thread"? Why use the word thread?

Now contrast it with this passage:

Quote:
If a country is governed wisely,
its inhabitants will be content.
They enjoy the labor of their hands
and don't waste time inventing
labor-saving machines.
Since they dearly love their homes,
they aren't interested in travel.
There may be a few wagons and boats,
but these don't go anywhere.
There may be an arsenal of weapons,
but nobody ever uses them.
People enjoy their food,
take pleasure in being with their families,
spend weekends working in their gardens,
delight in the doings of the neighborhood.
And even though the next country is so close
that people can hear its roosters crowing and its dogs barking,
they are content to die of old age
without ever having gone to see it.

This, to me, sounds like a bureaucrat or a politician trying to imitate Lao Tzu's style for the sake of pacifying the population. Granted, it could be interpreted as a psychological metaphor, but it isn't a very good one. It sounds derivative and uninspired.

Wow, I've never seen that passage. I combed through the book many times a few years ago and never saw anything close to that.

If it's actually in your translation, I definitely agree with you that it was most likely put there by some jerkoff.

Well, it shouldn't be for someone who has "got it".

I disagree. I think the writing style is very cryptic. It may be just because it was written in a different time, in a different language, and translated inaccurately.

For instance, take the term "the valley spirit". Or "the mysterious female". Upon first glance, who the hell should understand this stuff? It takes a bit of research to figure out what these mean and where the puzzles pieces fit.

So in no way is it cryptic because I can't understand it. Cryptic means "hidden", it doesn't mean "unknowable".

I'm not sure what to make of that. On the one hand, you are saying that what I am describing is an ordinary thing that you already have, and then, in the very next moment, you are describing it as a magical trick that is wholly unbelievable.

Lets get this out of the way - I don't have anything. I am not saying I'm enlightened...I'm saying enlightenment doesn't exist.

I'm saying that the way you describe it is phoney. It seems like now you're just pretending to not understand what I meant. It should be clear to anyone who can communicate what I was saying about you.

If you really don't get it, maybe it's an Australian thing.

In your own mind.

No...this amazing enlightenment is not in my mind.

Scott:

I will. Do you have a preferred online translation?

I like the Feng, which is available online here, along with zillions of others.

In my case the question dissolved because of a breakthrough in understanding. In no way is my mind weary, or lacking energy. What a crock.

The same is true in my case. I used to wish my mind would get weary or run out of energy, because frankly, chasing after what is already there is a major pain in the ass. Like the man in the "Ox-Herding Pictures" who searches all over the country for an ox while riding one the whole time, people seeking "Ultimate Truth" can run themselves in philosophical circles at high speed until they go half crazy. Knowing this, the historical Zen teachers tried to get it over with as soon as possible with the koan. I can't speak for you, but I know that once the mind reaches the end of it, it's very liberating, although it has nothing to do with salvation in the religious sense. Then, and only then, can one begin real spiritual practice - the kind that doesn't involve teachings and beliefs, but rather experience. Or one can become a used car salesman. There are no rules.

Life goes on as usual, but without the urge or desire to add any conceptual overlay to experience and without clinging to ideas and thoughts as substitutes for reality. The mind in which the question of "Ultimate Truth" no longer arises is without delusion in the sense that all conditioned ideas such as ego, attainment, enlightenment, and so on are fully understood as nothing more than ideas, having no inherent existence, as the Diamond and Heart Sutras point out. Ego, enlightenment, and all the rest are "buns" and "three pounds of flax" - just collections of syllables representing collections of thoughts. I guess one could call this un-learning profound or lofty or any of those cool adjectives, but why? Like the historical writers, I call it chopping wood and carrying water.

Am I impying that I am "enlightened?" Maybe from an outside view, but the entire concept no longer arises for me, thank heavens. What a pain in the ass such religious merit badges are. But for David's benefit, I should add that I don't advocate pretending the question has dissolved when it really hasn't. If one gives up before it does so authentically due to a breakthrough in one's understanding (as David puts it), it just gets shoved down into the subconscious where it festers and bubbles up into all kinds of trouble. No, once one has started on the koan, they have to keep at it until they arrive at the answer. It won't do to just parrot "Mu" or "buns" or "toliet brush" because someone says it is the answer. One has to know why it is the answer through the experience of pursuing ontological thought to its final end and realizing the implications of Nagarjuna's neti neti -"not this, not that, not both, not neither."

After that, there's no more thought of Ultimate Truth, enlightenment, or any of the rest. Such things may still be spoken of for various communicative purposes (as I've done here), but there is no attachment to them, or to any concepts.

Nat,

I am liking the Feng translation. It's pretty clear. I still think the book is cryptic. For instance:

4.
"...Blunt the sharpness,
Untangle the knot,
Soften the glare,
Merge with dust..."

What exactly do those things mean?

10.
"...Opening and closing the gates of heaven,
Can you play the role of woman?..."

That is wild. How do you open and close the gates of heaven? What are the gates of heaven? What does it mean to play the role of woman?

Haha, how about this one (this is for David)...

19.
"Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom,
And it will be a hundred times better for everyone..."

21.
"...Oh, it is dim and dark, and yet within is essence..."

Why is it "dark"? That's pretty misleading.

Knowing this, the historical Zen teachers tried to get it over with as soon as possible with the koan. I can't speak for you, but I know that once the mind reaches the end of it, it's very liberating, although it has nothing to do with salvation in the religious sense.

I am not familiar with the koan approach. I am into shikantaza. I agree that it's liberating, in a sense. I really don't want it to seem like I attained anything, though. That's very misleading to anyone reading this. I want to make it clear that I'm just normal now...how I've always been.

Then, and only then, can one begin real spiritual practice - the kind that doesn't involve teachings and beliefs, but rather experience.

What is this spiritual practice?

Life goes on as usual, but without the urge or desire to add any conceptual overlay to experience and without clinging to ideas and thoughts as substitutes for reality. The mind in which the question of "Ultimate Truth" no longer arises is without delusion in the sense that all conditioned ideas such as ego, attainment, enlightenment, and so on are fully understood as nothing more than ideas, having no inherent existence, as the Diamond and Heart Sutras point out. Ego, enlightenment, and all the rest are "buns" and "three pounds of flax" - just collections of syllables representing collections of thoughts. I guess one could call this un-learning profound or lofty or any of those cool adjectives, but why? Like the historical writers, I call it chopping wood and carrying water.

Yep, I agree with the main idea here. I'm reminded of the line "Hold fast to the center" from the Tao Te Ching. The center being the unconditioned.

Ramana Maharshi was brought up in this topic earlier by you, Nat. In my opinion, his method of pointing to this center (self enquiry) was very close to being direct, where you find out what isn't a lasting "you" in your scope of awareness. When you're naming all the things that aren't you, which change and go out of the awareness from time to time, you come to know that there's a presiding unchanging...which could be said to be some "true self". Except this true self doesn't manifest into anything.

For anyone who's not getting what being talking about, that's how a person can recognize the center, and recognize what's off the mark. By learning the self enquiry method.

Holy crap, I just realized that I wrote Ramana Maharshi's name backwards earlier. I think I need to go to bed, lol. Thanks for your response. I'll address the stuff directed at me tomorrow.

4.
"...Blunt the sharpness,
Untangle the knot,
Soften the glare,
Merge with dust..."

What exactly do those things mean?

4.

“… Be mellow,
Be uncomplicated,
Look with kindness,
Be real…”

Or alternatively ....

Blunt the sharpness,
Untangle the knot,
Soften the glare,
Merge with dust.

Break down the existence of things,
Dive into the Infinite.

-

As for the others .....

"...Opening and closing the gates of heaven,
Can you play the role of woman?..."

That is wild. How do you open and close the gates of heaven? What are the gates of heaven? What does it mean to play the role of woman?

Nurturing people into enlightenment.

"Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom,
And it will be a hundred times better for everyone..."

Abandon airs and vanity.

" ...Oh, it is dim and dark, and yet within is essence..."

Why is it "dark"? That's pretty misleading.

When ignorant people hear wise words and try to discern the nature of Reality, they see nothing there.

-

Scott,

These three are indefinable;
Therefore they are joined in one.
From above it is not bright;
From below it is not dark.
An unbroken thread beyond description.
It returns to nothingness.

I don't understand what the point is of the first two lines there.

The full quote is:

Look, it cannot be seen - it is beyond form.
Listen, it cannot be heard - it is beyond sound.
Grasp, it cannot be held - it is intangible.
These three are indefinable;
Therefore they are joined in one.

The formlessness of the Tao, which underlies all things, cannot be grasped by any of our senses.

Why is it said "from above it is not bright"...could it also be said that from above it is not dark?

Yes, it could have been said like that without changing the meaning, which is that the Tao cannot be pinned down in dualistic concepts.

An unbroken "thread"? Why use the word thread?

The indescribable Tao is the unbroken thread which links all things together.

DQ: Because it is there, and because it is amazing and interesting.

S: Enlightenment is "there"? Where?

DQ: In your own mind.

S: No...this amazing enlightenment is not in my mind.

It is, but currently it is "dim and dark".

In my case the question dissolved because of a breakthrough in understanding. In no way is my mind weary, or lacking energy. What a crock.

It is lacking spiritual energy, which is why you are unable to understand any of these sayings for yourself. It is dull.

Maybe you can rekindle this spiritual energy once more at some point in the future, but not if you are going to remain content with second-best.

-

Blunt the sharpness,
Untangle the knot,
Soften the glare,
Merge with dust.

That's some powerful stuff.

David,

Or alternatively ....

Quote:
Blunt the sharpness,
Untangle the knot,
Soften the glare,
Merge with dust.

Break down the existence of things,
Dive into the Infinite.

I can see where you get that, however it's quite a leap for me to make.

As for the others .....

Quote:
"...Opening and closing the gates of heaven,
Can you play the role of woman?..."

That is wild. How do you open and close the gates of heaven? What are the gates of heaven? What does it mean to play the role of woman?

Nurturing people into enlightenment.

I really don't see that.

Quote:
"Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom,
And it will be a hundred times better for everyone..."

Abandon airs and vanity.

It could have meant that, but it's a leap.

Quote:
" ...Oh, it is dim and dark, and yet within is essence..."

Why is it "dark"? That's pretty misleading.

When ignorant people hear wise words and try to discern the nature of Reality, they see nothing there.

I can agree with that interpretation, since it makes the most sense.

Quote:
These three are indefinable;
Therefore they are joined in one.
From above it is not bright;
From below it is not dark.
An unbroken thread beyond description.
It returns to nothingness.

I don't understand what the point is of the first two lines there.

The full quote is:

Quote:
Look, it cannot be seen - it is beyond form.
Listen, it cannot be heard - it is beyond sound.
Grasp, it cannot be held - it is intangible.
These three are indefinable;
Therefore they are joined in one.

The formlessness of the Tao, which underlies all things, cannot be grasped by any of our senses.

Yes, I know that's what the first three lines mean...which is why I left them out. "These three are indefinable; therefore they are joined in one" is the part which doesn't make sense to me. Why say that?

Quote:
Why is it said "from above it is not bright"...could it also be said that from above it is not dark?

Yes, it could have been said like that without changing the meaning, which is that the Tao cannot be pinned down in dualistic concepts.

Okay.

Quote:
An unbroken "thread"? Why use the word thread?

The indescribable Tao is the unbroken thread which links all things together.

That does make more sense, yet I still find it very cryptic.

Quote:
DQ: Because it is there, and because it is amazing and interesting.

S: Enlightenment is "there"? Where?

DQ: In your own mind.

S: No...this amazing enlightenment is not in my mind.

It is, but currently it is "dim and dark".

No, it was dim and dark when I was searching for it. Now it's not there.

Quote:
In my case the question dissolved because of a breakthrough in understanding. In no way is my mind weary, or lacking energy. What a crock.

It is lacking spiritual energy, which is why you are unable to understand any of these sayings for yourself. It is dull.

Maybe you can rekindle this spiritual energy once more at some point in the future, but not if you are going to remain content with second-best.

It's not lacking anything.

Unidian wrote:J: Unidian, this enlightenment or awakening you describe, would you say it is a realization of truth? Does, and how does, truth figure into it?

U: It's a realization that we can't get to "ultimate truth" with ideas, concepts, beliefs, positions, views, or any of the like. It's a dissolving of the question itself.

But you do reckon you have gotten to ultimate truth? Just not through concepts, beliefs, views etc?

I'll give you my take on this: what is not ultimate reality? If I'm searching for ultimate reality, using concepts, is this not also a part of ultimate reality?

The realization I had was simply that.

Nothing is excluded from ultimate reality, how could that which is everything exclude anything? So, my realization is at least partly conceptual, I now conceptually know that everything is ultimate reality and therefore I could never lose it or need to search for it. It is largely only concepts in my mind that changed with this realization. Since I was always partaking in ultimate reality, and it is everything, it could only ever be a relative change.

So searching for ultimate reality is actually part of ultimate reality, I just didn't realize it at the time.

"If you understand: things are just as they are. If you do not unerstand: things are just as they are." - some Zen guy

The conceptual distinction between "ultimate reality" and "ordinary reality" no longer arises.

If there is no longer a conceptual distinction, is there any distinction at all? If so, what? It seems to me, that the fact the you speak of an awakening means there must be a distinction of some sort. You must at least have concepts in your mind about having come to the end of your search.

J:Could you give me an actual everyday example of how such a clouding of experience might operate? Is it something like confusing the idea of a walking with the experience of walking?

U: It's about confusing any idea about reality with reality itself. For example, one might be sitting outside observing nature and have the thought "it's all an undivided unity" (or whatever else), which naturally causes them to get caught up in a maelstrom of circular philosophical thought flowing from that concept. "Unconditioned experience" is the absence of such thoughts. It's a direct awareness of what is without any conceptual overlay. If a such a thought does occur, it is not pursued or clung to, because there is no attachment to concepts.

The sense that I get from you, is that your realization is about a certain amount of exclusion, such as the exclusion of attachment to concepts and the exclusion of a conceptual overlay. Maybe it's just the way you're explaining it, but I think we differ about this. All I say is: ultimate reality is right here dummy! That's it. As long as you know that, you've got it, at least to some depth of understanding - it may alter your subconcious and so forth after you know it for a while. Although you might have to have been on a serious search for truth for it to have any real meaning, impact or worth.

My realization does necessarily exclude certain things too such as taking the thought "Where is ultimate reality?" seriously, but it seems it might exclude less than yours.

J: I'm not sure that's what dhodges meant, but I agree with what you're saying. It is relative to expectations, and I did hope for another ending, with the bliss and the other really amazing happy happy double plus cool stuff. But I was ultimately searching for truth, and so I could only take what I found to be true. What were you hoping for? If anything?

U: Same thing most people are. Salvation, freedom from suffering, happiness, etc. But those things, if they exist at all, are as dependently-arisen and conditioned as anything else, and they occur in the moment, as circumstances allow. The only permanent "liberation" I found was liberation from the search itself. That's nothing to sneeze at, though. Well worth the five years or so I invested in it, because I happen to be one of those odd people who is naturally plagued by the philosophical urge. A guy can drive himself nuts that way, you know.

Come on, I am also one of those people who is plagued by the philosophical urge, and there is no way I'd be saying I only invested five dollars in the search for ultimate reality. Come on. I invested more like almost my entire lifes savings.

You reckon one of the paybacks is the fact you avoided going nuts? Sounds like giving compliments at gunpoint.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Jason wrote:I just get the impression sometimes(and I find it unfortunate) that your goal to spread your truth leads to some loss of integrity.

How could that be anything but that way? I believe he is being as honest with us as he is being with himself, but how truthful can he be with himself? Look at his history.

I don't think you understand what I meant. I'm talking about the loss of integrity that could or is occuring if or when David is willing to be less than truthful as a tactic to attract potential future practitioners of his truth. The "bait and switch" method as unidian called it(although he was referring to religious propaganda in general, not David.)

But let's address some of the other interesting things you wrote anyway:

(edited for brevity - Jason) He's a really strong guy to hold up under all that, but it seems that in order to do so, he must hold onto the belief of the kind of enlightenment he describes and consider that he has at least much of that - even if not "perfect" enlightenment - in order to justify to himself all that he gave up for this.

You make plenty of possibly relevant, but highly speculative points, and I'll hand it to you for creating an impressive story, and analysis of that story, from what little you probably know of David. Now that's all well and good, but in essence, it all boils down to whether his actual(whatever they may be) psychological motivations and states have corrupted his ability to find and know philosophical truth.

To relate and judge his philosophical ideas by the standards of clinical psychiatry(or whatever field your analysis would fall within) is, I think, not the way to go about it. That's not to say that doing so would necessarily result in the wrong conclusions, or that it is not useful to investigate these issues, but the conclusions would never really be verified in what I think is the only correct way for philosophical truths - using philosophical methods. The right tool for the job and all.

Hoever I do agree that analyzing your own and others psychological characteristics and motivations is part of good philosophy, but it is nowhere near the last word.

As an aside, I am very skeptical of the idea of personality disorders, I get the sense that it could simply be a vehicle for expressing current majority social and psychological expectations/morals/mores. I just looked up wikipedia which says "Personality disorders are seen by the American Psychiatric Association as an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the culture of the individual who exhibits it." That says it all really. Of course a lot of us here deviate from the expectations of culture - so what, the DSM can go fuck itself, democratically of course.

I am also of the view that psychiatry is possibly quite flawed in various ways - the anti-phychiatry movement make some good points, some of which I had arrived at too.

(edit - corrected link code)

Leyla Shen wrote:Jason wrote:

David you rope in so many famous and influential old philosophers and religious-types as one of your own that I can't help but consider the possibility that you do so just as a recruitment tool. e.g. if you claim Jesus then you can more easily capture the christians who come here and so forth. Your use of the word "God" is another thing that falls under the same suspicion.

L: It’s impossible for a philosopher not to have investigated the most influential characters of history since a philosopher is concerned with truth, and thinking.

Not impossible, I'll give you improbable. Philosophy is about the truth of reality. Reality is everywhere all the time, you don't absolutely have to read a book or otherwise learn anything from outside sources to make perfectly valid philosophical investigations into the truth of reality.

This necessarily, but not exclusively, attracts sheep.

I'm not sure simply exploring past philosopher attracts sheep(although maybe some). It's not simply David's exploration of past philosophers and religious figures that I have found problematic, it is his endorsement for them and his assertions that they are in agreement with his views. I'm talking about specific examples too, like Jesus.

But you do not include in your assessment that he may be keeping UG sheep, for example, out by speaking against the man. What’s the difference between one sheep and the next? Do you think he thinks Christians and Buddhists make much better sheep?

Assuming he does do this, perhaps he is only willing to bend his integrity to a certain degree. That is the position I would subcribe to if I were to take a bet(and don't forget I am only saying it a suspicion that I sometimes feel). Even if that suspicion were correct, I'm not suggesting he is out and out dishonest and manipulative, just possibly a little bent off true in these matters.

If that were the case, then he may only be willing to give his blessings to those past philosophers who he thinks are relatively closely aligned with his views, even if he suspects that the core of their understandings might significantly differ with his. He may also add into his calculations other factors such popularity of the figure(for broader appeal), how easily their works can be reinterpreted to fit his views(ancient teachers/teachings would tend to fit well here), the likelyhood that a follower of the past philosopher is going to be suitable for David's form of philosophy and so on.

But I'm going to make it clear again, this is all purely speculative, and I have been impressed with David for all the years I have been at genius, and I hope my suspicions are wrong.

Jason wrote:it all boils down to whether his actual(whatever they may be) psychological motivations and states have corrupted his ability to find and know philosophical truth.

That is the meat of what I was analyzing.

Jason wrote:I do agree that analyzing your own and others psychological characteristics and motivations is part of good philosophy, but it is nowhere near the last word.

Getting the truth from people is really tricky business. People may or may not know the truth themselves, may or may not intend to transmit the truth, and may or may not be able to communicate in a way that the truth is actually received. I agree that analyzing the source and the receiver are not the last word by far, but the focus of this discussion was on Davids methodology.

Jason wrote:I am very skeptical of the idea of personality disorders,

The DSM was created by a bunch of people sitting around and discussing various traits that group together and naming these groups of traits. There are no medical tests to confirm or rule out personality disorders, and even for the other diagnoses, the medical tests are still in their infancy and even at that are rarely used. A thing is not a disorder unless it causes a problem. Usually it is a problem for the individual, but sometimes it is a problem for society.

Jason wrote:Of course a lot of us here deviate from the expectations of culture - so what,

A thing is not a disorder unless it causes a problem. Usually it is a problem for the individual, but sometimes it is also a problem for society.

In David's case, he refused to be gainfully employed - yet he was going to need food, etc. Society's choice was to feed him, clothe him, and provide him with shelter, or let him go around begging (or others might resort to stealing) and see him living on the streets. Although in actuality David earns his disability check by teaching philosophy, from a societal perspective his would be viewed as a problem because on the surface, he falls into the same category as those who just sit around watching TV all day. Few people value philosophy, so to many of them who do get out and do mindless jobs that they hate, they can not differentiate the value of what David is doing versus watching TV. The same people have issues with people who get government grants for art of other projects that few people appreciate, and what David is doing really falls more into that category, but he saved himself a lot of time and paperwork by going this route - time which almost anyone would agree is better spent on philosophy than on explaining to the government why philosophy is important enough to get paid for.

edit to add - BTW, would you fix your link, please?
.

Scott:

Nat,

I am liking the Feng translation. It's pretty clear. I still think the book is cryptic. For instance:

4.
"...Blunt the sharpness,
Untangle the knot,
Soften the glare,
Merge with dust..."

What exactly do those things mean?

Let go of attachments to things by realizing the unity of opposites and center your psychology in formless, dynamic reality. Pretty standard Eastern stuff.

However, most of this stuff has multiple layers of meaning, which is part of why the TTC has considered so profound for over 2000 years. I also like Clyde's alternative interpretation of this passage. It works well on a more immediate level.

"...Opening and closing the gates of heaven,
Can you play the role of woman?..."

That is wild. How do you open and close the gates of heaven? What are the gates of heaven? What does it mean to play the role of woman?

Flowing with circumstances rather than imposing our own conceptual preferences and demands on them. Being receptive and spontaneous. Responding to events as the situation arises in the present moment.

I think David's answer, "nurturing people into enlightenment," is a projection of his own value system. My answer may be as well, but I think it's more consistent with how Taoism is traditionally interpreted.

Haha, how about this one (this is for David)...

19.
"Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom,
And it will be a hundred times better for everyone..."

I've thrown that one at David a few times, too. :)

21.
"...Oh, it is dim and dark, and yet within is essence..."

Why is it "dark"? That's pretty misleading.

It's "dark" because ordinary people who haven't been exposed to these ideas usually have trouble seeing what they are pointing to. Their mode of thinking clouds their view, making Tao hard to see.

I am not familiar with the koan approach. I am into shikantaza. I agree that it's liberating, in a sense. I really don't want it to seem like I attained anything, though. That's very misleading to anyone reading this. I want to make it clear that I'm just normal now...how I've always been.

"Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom,
And it will be a hundred times better for everyone..."

:)

What is this spiritual practice?

Whatever you want it to be, I'd imagine. Meditation and the practice of compassion have pretty good track records in the historical Eastern traditions. I never meditated at all while I was "seeking," nor was I very focused on practicing compassion. I still kinda suck at compassion a lot of the time just because my subconscious mind is still full of rubbish, but I'm doing a lot more meditation type stuff. Not having to spend large portions of the day thinking about various concepts frees up a lot of time.

Yep, I agree with the main idea here. I'm reminded of the line "Hold fast to the center" from the Tao Te Ching. The center being the unconditioned.

Ramana Maharshi was brought up in this topic earlier by you, Nat. In my opinion, his method of pointing to this center (self enquiry) was very close to being direct, where you find out what isn't a lasting "you" in your scope of awareness. When you're naming all the things that aren't you, which change and go out of the awareness from time to time, you come to know that there's a presiding unchanging...which could be said to be some "true self". Except this true self doesn't manifest into anything.

Yeah. To whom does the thought of "true self" arise? Ramana kicked ass. :)

For anyone who's not getting what being talking about, that's how a person can recognize the center, and recognize what's off the mark. By learning the self enquiry method.

I wish I'd done self-inquiry rather than going through the whole hodge-podge of stuff for so long. It would have been a faster way to end the search. This is where a guru might come in handy for some people, although there's the danger of getting attached, misled, relieved of large amounts of cash, etc. Sadly, there aren't too many "real deal" ones like Ramana anymore.

Yes, I know that's what the first three lines mean...which is why I left them out. "These three are indefinable; therefore they are joined in one" is the part which doesn't make sense to me. Why say that?

For me, that's the best part. It's saying that indefinable things are one because they defy conceptual division. Whatever we can't put in a conceptual box is united, because we have no way to use words and distinctions to separate one thing from another. If we discover that all concepts are empty, then all things are one.

Jason:

But you do reckon you have gotten to ultimate truth? Just not through concepts, beliefs, views etc?

How can I answer that? Is it possible to arrive at a concept non-conceptually? What is "ultimate truth?" From my perspective, you are asking "have you gotten to three pounds of flax?"

The question is meaningless to me, so the only answer I can give is a meaningless one, such a "mu," "sticky buns," or whichever you prefer. Does the dog have Buddha-nature?

I'll give you my take on this: what is not ultimate reality? If I'm searching for ultimate reality, using concepts, is this not also a part of ultimate reality?

The realization I had was simply that.

Nothing is excluded from ultimate reality, how could that which is everything exclude anything? So, my realization is at least partly conceptual, I now conceptually know that everything is ultimate reality and therefore I could never lose it or need to search for it. It is largely only concepts in my mind that changed with this realization. Since I was always partaking in ultimate reality, and it is everything, it could only ever be a relative change.

So searching for ultimate reality is actually part of ultimate reality, I just didn't realize it at the time.

Yes, I wouldn't object to that. But I don't call it "ultimate reality." I also don't imply "ultimate reality" by calling it "ordinary reality." I call it whatever it is in the present moment. Right now, it's "banging on keyboard with fan blowing and annoying Fear Factor TV show in background."

These concepts such as "ultimate reality" and "ordinary reality" are what the Tao Te Ching asks us to un-learn. Everything is ultimate reality. Everything is ordinary reality. The two are one. Everything is what it is.

"If you understand: things are just as they are. If you do not unerstand: things are just as they are." - some Zen guy

Bingo. Once again, some Zen guy saves the day. :)

If there is no longer a conceptual distinction, is there any distinction at all? If so, what? It seems to me, that the fact the you speak of an awakening means there must be a distinction of some sort. You must at least have concepts in your mind about having come to the end of your search.

I'm using concepts to communicate, but that doesn't mean they arise in my mind when I'm not communicating. If I'm sitting outside staring at a tree, I'm just staring at a tree. What concepts arise here? Which ones need to? I don't even have to think "tree" to stare at a tree, although I do have to use the tree concept to communicate this experience to anyone else.

"Awakening" is one of those god-awful religious terms that gives people all sorts of unproductive ideas. I only mentioned it because it's still marginally better than "enlightenment." But better still is "un-learning," a term Taoism uses. When we un-learn all unnecessary distinctions, we aren't bothered with such things anymore. The mind becomes quiet.

Or, more realistically, we are no longer consciously reinforcing our unnecessary distinctions all the time. It can still take quite a while for the subconscious mind to settle down, re-wire itself, and start adjusting to the new approach. That's why (in my view), a lot of younger types like myself still screw up a lot more than one might expect. Even when the conscious part of the "un-learning" process is over, there's a lot of stuff lingering below that can really only be dissolved by time.

It's really all just psychology. Thank heavens the Western psychological industry hasn't really caught on, or they'd regulate it and you'd have to have a license to practice Zen.

The sense that I get from you, is that your realization is about a certain amount of exclusion, such as the exclusion of attachment to concepts and the exclusion of a conceptual overlay. Maybe it's just the way you're explaining it, but I think we differ about this. All I say is: ultimate reality is right here dummy! That's it. As long as you know that, you've got it, at least to some depth of understanding - it may alter your subconcious and so forth after you know it for a while. Although you might have to have been on a serious search for truth for it to have any real meaning, impact or worth.

I'm no longer interested in "ultimate reality," dummy! :)

It's not about excluding anything, but rather including everything in "emptiness," as Nagarjuna and other sources point to. Everything is dependently-arisen and empty of inherent existence, including all concepts. Even emptiness is empty, so things are just as they appear, nothing more, nothing less.

A=A. The tree is conceptualized as "the tree" because we distinguish it from everything else. Tree is generally a useful distinction for various purposes, such as acquiring firewood. Ego (inherently-existing separate self) is an example of a distinction that is generally not useful, so we can choose to stop consciously reinforcing it.

My realization does necessarily exclude certain things too such as taking the thought "Where is ultimate reality?" seriously, but it seems it might exclude less than yours.

What we take seriously depends entirely on our value systems. If you value concepts about "ultimate reality," then have at it. I don't exclude such concepts, I just don't think they are any more (or less) meaningful than "sticky buns" and "three pounds of flax."

Come on, I am also one of those people who is plagued by the philosophical urge, and there is no way I'd be saying I only invested five dollars in the search for ultimate reality. Come on. I invested more like almost my entire lifes savings.

I think it's kind of pointless to have a pissing contest about this, but if it's somehow helpful to you, I guess I could clarify. I'm not talking about 5 years of playing around, but 5 years of full-time thought 8-12 hours a day most days, allowing for occasional sabbaticals to spend the whole day playing video games or whatever. Before that, it was maybe only 2-4 hours a day for several more years. I'm happily unemployed since age 24, and I'm 32 now. :)

Thanks for the responses and the opportunity to babble.

"Personality disorders are seen by the American Psychiatric Association as an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the culture of the individual who exhibits it."

Interesting. I'm surprised at the honesty of the APA here.

However, I think we also need to be honest and acknowledge that in many cases, "an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the culture of the individual who exhibits it" can be deeply counterproductive to a decent life. I don't think it is necessarily so in all cases, but for a lot of people (particularly those who don't have the intellectual capacity to approach all this psychological crap, Eastern or otherwise), being a "misfit" in important ways can be pretty debilitating.

It's easy to preach the virtues of non-conformity, point to Chuang-Tzu's "useless tree," and all the rest. But for people who by nature are not suited to such things, being unable to relate to one's culture can lead to serious problems, which is why I don't think they are totally off-base to define it as a disorder. We can't all practice effective psychology on ourselves through Zen or Tony Robbins or Scientology or whatever else. Whether or not the responsibility lies with the expectations of the culture in general, for the majority of affected persons, these "disorders" can result in a life that is very disordered indeed.

Nat,

Let go of attachments to things by realizing the unity of opposites and center your psychology in formless, dynamic reality. Pretty standard Eastern stuff.

However, most of this stuff has multiple layers of meaning, which is part of why the TTC has considered so profound for over 2000 years. I also like Clyde's alternative interpretation of this passage. It works well on a more immediate level.

I liked Clyde's interpretation as well, but it still seems very cryptic to me. As you said, profound. People can derive multiple meanings; one person can say "it means A" and another will say "it means B". What does it really mean?

Quote:
"...Opening and closing the gates of heaven,
Can you play the role of woman?..."

That is wild. How do you open and close the gates of heaven? What are the gates of heaven? What does it mean to play the role of woman?

Flowing with circumstances rather than imposing our own conceptual preferences and demands on them. Being receptive and spontaneous. Responding to events as the situation arises in the present moment.

I think David's answer, "nurturing people into enlightenment," is a projection of his own value system. My answer may be as well, but I think it's more consistent with how Taoism is traditionally interpreted.

The only thing that makes sense for me is to take it as referring to Taoist energy practices. Anything else is a giant leap, in my opinion. I agree that your translation of it is in line with Taoism in general.

It's "dark" because ordinary people who haven't been exposed to these ideas usually have trouble seeing what they are pointing to. Their mode of thinking clouds their view, making Tao hard to see.

But the Tao isn't actually dark, so describing it as such is pretty misleading. It'd have been easier to just say, "the Tao is hard to discern". When the word "dark" is used, the reader has to put a little puzzle together to figure out the meaning.

Yeah. To whom does the thought of "true self" arise? Ramana kicked ass. :)

For many people, it arises to the thought of "me". And that thought arises to....the center, which no one can grasp but everyone is at the core of their experience.

I wish I'd done self-inquiry rather than going through the whole hodge-podge of stuff for so long. It would have been a faster way to end the search. This is where a guru might come in handy for some people, although there's the danger of getting attached, misled, relieved of large amounts of cash, etc. Sadly, there aren't too many "real deal" ones like Ramana anymore.

Yeah, a guru would be pretty essential because a lot of people think they're finding their true selves or whatever other rubbish. Very few get that the point is direct experience. I didn't when I was way into it. I did intense self enquiry for about a year in senior high, where I didn't take a break throughout the entire day for every day. I was searching for something then, and I missed the point of the exercise entirely. So, it is kind of a misleading method unless you are lucky. But all methods are misleading.

For me, that's the best part. It's saying that indefinable things are one because they defy conceptual division. Whatever we can't put in a conceptual box is united, because we have no way to use words and distinctions to separate one thing from another. If we discover that all concepts are empty, then all things are one.

Ah I see.

Unidian,

Scott: "...Opening and closing the gates of heaven,
Can you play the role of woman?..."

That is wild. How do you open and close the gates of heaven? What are the gates of heaven? What does it mean to play the role of woman?

Unidian: Flowing with circumstances rather than imposing our own conceptual preferences and demands on them. Being receptive and spontaneous. Responding to events as the situation arises in the present moment.

How does this relate to "opening and closing the gates of heaven"?

Scott: Haha, how about this one (this is for David)...

19. "Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom,
And it will be a hundred times better for everyone..."

Unidian: I've thrown that one at David a few times, too. :)

Not that you're boasting, of course. :)

If Lao Tzu had truly renounced wisdom, then why did he write the Tao Te Ching? Why was he disgusted at the ignorance and folly of mankind?

This does not compute.

Obviously, he must have been referring to something else when he wrote those lines. Can you think what it is?

-

Jason,

Assuming [David] does do this, perhaps he is only willing to bend his integrity to a certain degree. That is the position I would subcribe to if I were to take a bet(and don't forget I am only saying it a suspicion that I sometimes feel). Even if that suspicion were correct, I'm not suggesting he is out and out dishonest and manipulative, just possibly a little bent off true in these matters.

If that were the case, then he may only be willing to give his blessings to those past philosophers who he thinks are relatively closely aligned with his views, even if he suspects that the core of their understandings might significantly differ with his.

Actually, the opposite the case. It is my judgment that all of the listed philosophers - from Socrates to Buddha to Lao Tzu to Kierkegaard, etc - were identical in their core understanding of reality, and identical to mine. Differences only exist in surface matters and expressions of language.

-

David:

Nat: Flowing with circumstances rather than imposing our own conceptual preferences and demands on them. Being receptive and spontaneous. Responding to events as the situation arises in the present moment.

David: How does this relate to "opening and closing the gates of heaven"?

Dealing with phenomena on a conventional or a "spiritual" level, as circumstances dictate. A period of contemplation on the Three Marks of Existence doesn't do much to change a flat tire, nor can a lug wrench lead to much philosophical insight, unless maybe you're a mechanic at the monastery.

Not that you're boasting, of course. :)

Pointing to ego in others reveals one's own ego.

See what I mean? :)

If Lao Tzu had truly renounced wisdom, then why did he write the Tao Te Ching? Why was he disgusted at the ignorance and folly of mankind?

I don't know that he was. Is that the only possible motivation for his writing? Couldn't he have been writing simply because it was his nature to do so?

That's why I'm writing, for the record. I used to be "disgusted at the ignorance and folly of mankind," and while it still gets on my nerves at times, it's something I accept with greater equanimity these days.

"Accept misfortune as the human condition." - Lao Tzu, chapter 13

Obviously, he must have been referring to something else when he wrote those lines. Can you think what it is?

I don't think that is as obvious as you think it is. I think Lao meant what he said - give up the concept of "wisdom." If we understand why he might advise us to do that, then we might as well give up all these other concepts as well, don't you think?

Nat,

Nat: Flowing with circumstances rather than imposing our own conceptual preferences and demands on them. Being receptive and spontaneous. Responding to events as the situation arises in the present moment.

David: How does this relate to "opening and closing the gates of heaven"?

Nat: Dealing with phenomena on a conventional or a "spiritual" level, as circumstances dictate. A period of contemplation on the Three Marks of Existence doesn't do much to change a flat tire, nor can a lug wrench lead to much philosophical insight, unless maybe you're a mechanic at the monastery.

So according to your thinking, the sage closes the gates of heaven when he does mundane things, such as changing a tire, and opens them up again when he contemplates spiritual matters. Is that correct?

Where does the role of woman fit into this? The next line is, "Can you play the role of woman?". Are you saying that when the sage closes the gate of heaven, he starts behaving like a woman?

DQ: If Lao Tzu had truly renounced wisdom, then why did he write the Tao Te Ching? Why was he disgusted at the ignorance and folly of mankind?

Nat: I don't know that he was. Is that the only possible motivation for his writing? Couldn't he have been writing simply because it was his nature to do so?

Legend has it that he was leaving his city of residence out of disgust for the folly of humanity, and was going out into the desert to die, when he was persuaded by a guard to write down his wisdom.

DQ: Obviously, he must have been referring to something else when he wrote those lines. Can you think what it is?

Nat: I don't think that is as obvious as you think it is. I think Lao meant what he said - give up the concept of "wisdom." If we understand why he might advise us to do that, then we might as well give up all these other concepts as well, don't you think?

So in other words, he consciously wrote a spiritual book which outlines the wisdom of the Tao and the differences between fools and sages, in order to tell people to stop valuing wisdom?

Again, this does not compute.

-

David:

So according to your thinking, the sage closes the gates of heaven when he does mundane things, such as changing a tire, and opens them up again when he contemplates spiritual matters. Is that correct?

In my view, an insightful person responds to the situation at hand in an appropriate manner. It's not about adding yet another extraneous distinction (spiritual vs mundane). If a tire is flat, he is thinking only of changing it. If he is reading a sutra, he is thinking only of the ideas that are relevant. Whatever he is doing, he is really doing that, rather than thinking about unnecessary things (such as "spiritual or mundane").

I think that "opening and closing the gates of heaven" can be interpreted as addressing circumstances appropriately and mindfully as they arise in the present moment. It can probably be interpreted in other useful ways as well, since multiple levels of meaning are a notable feature of texts like the TTC.

Where does the role of woman fit into this? The next line is, "Can you play the role of woman?". Are you saying that when the sage closes the gate of heaven, he starts behaving like a woman?

Hehe... nice. Only you guys could come up with that. :p

Legend has it that he was leaving his city of residence out of disgust for the folly of humanity, and was going out into the desert to die, when he was persuaded by a guard to write down his wisdom.

Legend has a lot of things. Legend wasn't there when Lao-Tzu was writing. In fact, most scholars believe Lao Tzu himself wasn't there. The concensus holds that he is an invented personage.

I'm sure you can see how "legend has it" doesn't actually tell us much about the psychological state of an author who may not even have existed.

So in other words, he consciously wrote a spiritual book which outlines the wisdom of the Tao and the differences between fools and sages, in order to tell people to stop valuing wisdom?

Again, this does not compute.

It's doesn't? What if wisdom is dependent on letting go of the attachment to the concept of wisdom (and other similar concepts)? Too paradoxical? Are you actually expecting Zen to "compute" on a binary slide rule?

Reality does not compute.

Legend has it that he was leaving his city of residence out of disgust for the folly of humanity, and was going out into the desert to die, when he was persuaded by a guard to write down his wisdom.

Interesting. I never heard that one. The one I heard was that as Lao Tzu ascended on his mountain path to heaven, the guard at the gate of heaven told him to write the book so that others could find their way.

David:

DQ: So according to your thinking, the sage closes the gates of heaven when he does mundane things, such as changing a tire, and opens them up again when he contemplates spiritual matters. Is that correct?

Nat: In my view, an insightful person responds to the situation at hand in an appropriate manner. It's not about adding yet another extraneous distinction (spiritual vs mundane).

You were the one who created this division, when you said:

"Dealing with phenomena on a conventional or a "spiritual" level, as circumstances dictate. A period of contemplation on the Three Marks of Existence doesn't do much to change a flat tire, nor can a lug wrench lead to much philosophical insight, unless maybe you're a mechanic at the monastery."

Can you clarify?

I think that "opening and closing the gates of heaven" can be interpreted as addressing circumstances appropriately and mindfully as they arise in the present moment.

I don't see the connection. How does mindfulness of the moment translate into "opening and closing the gates of heaven"?

It can probably be interpreted in other useful ways as well, since multiple levels of meaning are a notable feature of texts like the TTC.

The book is too simple and direct to admit of multiple meanings. There is only one true meaning of the Tao Te Ching - namely, the wise meaning intended by Lao Tzu.

If a tire is flat, he is thinking only of changing it. If he is reading a sutra, he is thinking only of the ideas that are relevant. Whatever he is doing, he is really doing that, rather than thinking about unnecessary things (such as "spiritual or mundane").

Everyone already does this as a matter of course, sages and fools alike. For example, when a fool chokes himself up with worries, he is only thinking of his worries. Or when a Hitler thinks about dominating the world, he isn't thinking about things that are irrelevant to this. Or if he is, then that is what he is thinking about.

Wisdom is something other than simply doing whatever one happens to be doing.

DQ: Where does the role of woman fit into this? The next line is, "Can you play the role of woman?". Are you saying that when the sage closes the gate of heaven, he starts behaving like a woman?

Nat: Hehe... nice. Only you guys could come up with that. :p

So what do you think Lao Tzu means by "playing the role of woman" in connection with "opening and closing the gates of heaven"?

DQ: So in other words, he consciously wrote a spiritual book which outlines the wisdom of the Tao and the differences between fools and sages, in order to tell people to stop valuing wisdom?

Again, this does not compute.

Nat: It's doesn't? What if wisdom is dependent on letting go of the attachment to the concept of wisdom (and other similar concepts)? Too paradoxical?

If the abandoning of the concept of wisdom is done before the abandoning of all other attachments, whether it to be to concepts or feelings or people, then it is very foolish.

Abandoning the concept of wisdom before, say, one has abandoned an attachment to a girlfriend is merely a case of pandering to the short-term pleasures of one's ego. It isn't a wise action.

Are you actually expecting Zen to "compute" on a binary slide rule?

Reality does not compute.

It does for me, and I venture to say that it did for Lao Tzu.

Reality only fails to compute for deluded people who are still the victims of their own contradictory thinking.

Many people want Reality to be paradoxical because they have a number of attachments which conflict with one another on a logical level. Instead of resolving the conflict by challenging their attachments, and abandoning them if needs be, they instead try to sweep the issue under the carpet by pretending that contradictions are inherent in Reality itself. It is a form of diminishing one's consciousness.

-