Daoist sage attributes- Andy Oldham

I learned some things about Daoist sages today. These are some of the things that I learned. The sage is a person who is detached, but compassionate. The daoist sage is a perfectionist, yet is indifferent to success and failure. He is a man who avoids reaping honor and is a man of honor. The sage ignores ethics and morals, but on the other hand lives a life of the greatest moral order. The sage doesn’t strive, yet achieves, knows the answers to questions, but prefers to remain silent. Finally the daoist sage has the innocence of a child and incredible inner strength. These are some great attributes I believe like being able to avoid reaping honor and therefore is a man of honor. These are some interesting facts that I wanted to share and see what people think about these characteristics

Do you think that the Daodejing has a different outlook on women as opposed to the Analects, which portrays women as being inferior to men (i.e. 17.25)? For example, in Chapter 6, the Daodejing states, “The spirit of the valley never dies; She is called the ‘Enigmatic Female.’ The portal of the Enigmatic Female; is called the root of Heaven and earth.” From this text Laozi seems to imply that Dao is female in nature. What do you think?

Lists and Chains

I am curious about some of the long chains of causes and effects the Buddha lists in the discourses. For instance, in the Discourse on Cause the Buddha lists in the middle of a chain of things 'becoming.' As the causes of becoming he lists attachment, craving, feeling, and so on. How are we to make sense of 1) becoming being caused at all, and 2) things that take place in becoming being cited as a source of becoming. Causes and effects are the processes of becoming; I can't fathom the meaning of the cause of becoming itself. Similarly, in the Greater Discourse on the Destruction of Craving (pg. 64-65) the Buddha lists the four nutriments and one of the causes of the nutriments (contact) is itself a nutriment. Is this an example of dependant arising? If so it is less direct than the dependant arising of consciousness and psycho-physicality, which both directly arise with each other. In this list contact as nutriment and contact as cause are separated by craving and feeling. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to read these lists?

Often when discussing Buddhism, it seems that the class gravitates towards monks and others who are far along the eight-fold path or other paths of liberation. I’m a little confused about where the rest of society falls into place. What about those who claim the Buddhist tradition but still function in society with a family or a career? Are they any less of a Buddhist than those who completely seclude themselves from society?

Samsara and Karma

It occurred to me recently that the cycle of rebirth, samsara, is essential to yoga. In fact, if samsara was not real, there would be no point to yoga. Yoga's stated goal is the stilling of the fluctuations of the mind, but really this is done in order to perceive one's purusa, or Isvara. And when one perceives one's purusa, or one's atman, or Isvara, one finally identifies with one's true self, and leaves the realm of prakrti and the cycle of samsara.

Tied up with the cycle of samsara is the law of karma. To simplify it slightly, it's essentially a law of cosmic justice. You sow seeds of karma, and you personally must reap the consequences of those seeds, be they good seeds or bad ones. You continue to do this over many lifetimes as long as you continue to sow seeds.

Both of these concepts, samsara and karma, are essential to the yoga practice, because without them yoga has no purpose, no need to exist. You don't need a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. This is why I think it is necessary to ask whether or not these two concepts are in fact true. Personally, I'm doubtful of both, but this may only be because of my modern way of thinking. I'm more inclined to favor a psychological explanation* of these two concepts than to actually believe them.

But at the same time, I'm drawn to the practice of yoga. I find many principles and practices that I not only agree with, but of which I have actually experienced the benefits. Perhaps as I proceed through yoga, an understanding of the more complex concepts will become clearer, but for now I remain a half-convinced, half-suspicious practitioner of yoga.



*Very loosely paraphrasing Nietzsche, concepts like Karma (or what I called cosmic justice) are merely inventions by people who are trampled upon by more powerful people. The trampled people shake their fists and say "You just wait! You'll get what's coming to ya!" while the powerful people conquer nations, take hundreds of wives, and shower in gold. Karma starts as an invention to help trampled people feel better, and ends up as a way of psychologically suppressing powerful people.

Transition into Buddhism

In class today we talked about the role that hatha yoga and excercise yoga play in the grand scheme of Yoga. At the most basic level it seems that it preperation for the to do seated meditation. I was talking to my roommate about this, becasue he reads a lot of books about Buddhism and practices forms of Buddhist meditation. He was telling me that if one is attempting to meditate and the body "gets in the way" you can use that disturbance as an anchor for meditation. For instance, if you get hungry or feel pain, you should focus on that pain/discomfort while distancing yourself from it. That sensation becomes the object of meditation, rather than the breath.

I am not sure what to think about this, but I would love to hear other people's opinions. Personally, when I am attempting to meditate it is not pain that bothers me, but the straying mind. I am told that the Buddhist practitioner will just use this as another oppurtunity to distance their own self from the mind. Anyways, this might be a modern idea, but let me know what you all think, especially once we start reading the Buddhist meditation texts.

Suffering

We do not have to talk about this in class, but I am curious what you all think: How should we take this stuff (The sutras, The Gita, etc.) if we don't accept that "everything is suffering?"

On the one hand, we could say (like Mr. Smith has rightfully said in class), "this is a practical handbook for self-mastery." If we accept that we can pass over the superstitous Isvara/reincarnation bits. It seems feasible that a Yogi would tell us that we have not reached a level of "discrimination" (II.15), and thus we are not qualified to make the judgment. Anyways, are there any other responses from people who don't think that life is miserable? How should we react to this?
I have some more thoughts about this (some of which I have thought about in regards to the philosopher Arhtur Schopenhauer, who also argued that life is suffering), but I would like to hear someone elses thoughts. Especially if there are any of you in the class, who think that this stuff is "merely superstition" or "a wast of time" or just not that useful/valuable. Thanks!