Looking for thoughtful Muslim dialogue partner

[Craz]

Yes, with regard to science and psychology, Yes Jung first got me thinking in terms that the ground of reality is actually, image/imaginal, and symbolic before it is embodied and material.

And Jung had a number of essays on eastern spirituality that were very informative to me. He is often clear about writing from a "westerner" perspective and yet stays very grounded in my reading. I read that commentary of his a while ago, but I have not read the actual treatise itself, but I think I understand what Jung takes to be the intention of the text, which is profound to say the least. Do you feel he opens up the text and initiates the reader into it, or do you think he ends up psychologizing something that was originally intended as a spiritual discipline?

I haven't yet studied both the text and Jung's comments enough, however from some of the reading which I have done, I get the feeling that Jung doesn't fully get, (what he calls) 'the Eastern mind'. He does hint that he thinks psychoananlysis can arrive at the same 'destination' as the meditation referred to in the text.
Regarding the text, I decided to dive straight in myself because I didn't want to be too influenced from Jung.
So far, parts of it are clear in that I understand the English and it does invoke inner archetypes just like the mandalas I told you about in my early years of meditation.
In other parts, I am having difficulty in understanding the English. The writer uses many words I just have never heard of and it is not always easy to understand the meaning by the context.
I'll need to put in a lot more effort to get a better understanding.

 

[DerekhHikmah]

I haven't yet studied both the text and Jung's comments enough, however from some of the reading which I have done, I get the feeling that Jung doesn't fully get, (what he calls) 'the Eastern mind'. He does hint that he thinks psychoananlysis can arrive at the same 'destination' as the meditation referred to in the text.

So, I started reading his commentary again, and I think Jung is quite intentional about the fact that he is not standing within those Eastern cultures which produced these texts, and equally a bit worried about someone from outside them trying to imitate them in a wholesale sort of way. So, you are probably right, although I also think his caution carries wisdom and is warranted as a sort or preface.

So far, parts of it are clear in that I understand the English and it does invoke inner archetypes just like the mandalas I told you about in my early years of meditation.
In other parts, I am having difficulty in understanding the English. The writer uses many words I just have never heard of and it is not always easy to understand the meaning by the context.
I'll need to put in a lot more effort to get a better understanding.

Have you gotten any further in this since we last spoke? I started reading the text, I found a pdf of it, some parts stand out to me, and others I still need to sit on more.

What do you make of Tao? Is it intrinsic to nature and life in your view? And the diamond body, the text mentions it in the beginning, what do you take that to be exactly?

 

[Craz]

So, I started reading his commentary again, and I think Jung is quite intentional about the fact that he is not standing within those Eastern cultures which produced these texts, and equally a bit worried about someone from outside them trying to imitate them in a wholesale sort of way. So, you are probably right, although I also think his caution carries wisdom and is warranted as a sort or preface.

I have been wondering about how much time I want to spend on Jung. The reason being that when I originally picked up The Secret of the Golden Flower, I had no idea that Jung had made any contribution/commentary. I just wanted to read the text.

My initial thinking was:
(Of course) I am impressed, after all, if Jung commented on this book, I must be going in the right direction.
But now, I am wondering why I thought that ↑.

Earlier on in life, I did a course in modern psychotherapy and after practising it for a year, decided that it wasn't for me. I felt it was was a sophisticated ruse to feign trust/friendship ( and hence create a channel for making money).

Anyway, this is my long-winded way of saying that I don't reallly want to discuss Jung. It has been a distraction that I'm not really interested in.

Have you gotten any further in this since we last spoke? I started reading the text, I found a pdf of it, some parts stand out to me, and others I still need to sit on more.

I am still on the first few pages, bearing in mind that I am reading a translation of the German which was a translation of the original Chinese.
I am also aware that Richard Wilhelm originally went to China as a Christian missionary and wonder how much this has influenced(if any) his translation. Here's a interesting link about his work in China https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/16/8/997 .

What do you make of Tao?

...that existence is self-evident

From the first paragraph:
"That which exists through itself is called the Way(Tao). Tao has neither name nor shape"

Is it intrinsic to nature and life in your view?

Yes, it is simply a way of describing our existence, i.e. life-force/energy.

And the diamond body, the text mentions it in the beginning, what do you take that to be exactly?

I can't find diamond body in the text.
I googled it anyway and got the result I originally thought, that according to the author, if a person performs all the meditations(inner alchemy) as described previously then their spiritual(inner body) becomes perfected, the diamond body.

I am thinking that it maybe my eye-sight, I have a paperback version where the text is quite small.
You said you had a pdf version. Where did you downlaod it from?

 

[DerekhHikmah]

I have been wondering about how much time I want to spend on Jung. The reason being that when I originally picked up The Secret of the Golden Flower, I had no idea that Jung had made any contribution/commentary. I just wanted to read the text.

My initial thinking was:
(Of course) I am impressed, after all, if Jung commented on this book, I must be going in the right direction.
But now, I am wondering why I thought that ↑.

Earlier on in life, I did a course in modern psychotherapy and after practising it for a year, decided that it wasn't for me. I felt it was was a sophisticated ruse to feign trust/friendship ( and hence create a channel for making money).

Anyway, this is my long-winded way of saying that I don't reallly want to discuss Jung. It has been a distraction that I'm not really interested in.

No problem at all. For me personally, without Jung's commentary I don't think I'd be able to make much headway in understanding what the text is trying to communicate, but that's just me. I am all for approaching original texts and seeing what unfolds from there.

I am still on the first few pages, bearing in mind that I am reading a translation of the German which was a translation of the original Chinese.
I am also aware that Richard Wilhelm originally went to China as a Christian missionary and wonder how much this has influenced(if any) his translation. Here's a interesting link about his work in China https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/16/8/997 .

Thanks for the link, I read a little of it. I want to come back and read it more carefully later, it looks interesting. From what I did read, I came away with a positive impression of Wilhelm. It seems like he genuinely immersed himself in Chinese language and culture rather than simply trying to impose a Western framework onto it.

That said, I think your question is a fair one. Every translator inevitably brings something of their own background and framework into the work of translation, I would imagine. And like you mention, for us it is an English translation of a German translation of an old Chinese text.

Language itself has an internal structure and coherence and unique form of expressing itself. That is why I am so interested in going back into the Hebrew around Biblical scripture. It often reveals nuances of meaning that are difficult to carry over into another language, like for example, when you pointed out the idea behind korban and sacrifice, with its sense of "drawing near." I find that stuff fascinating.

...that existence is self-evident

From the first paragraph:
"That which exists through itself is called the Way (Tao). Tao has neither name nor shape"

I have a question here, but I have to sit on it some more. I keep trying to reply, but I'm finding it difficult to express what I'm seeing. I don't think I've fully understood this part yet.

I can't find diamond body in the text.
I googled it anyway and got the result I originally thought, that according to the author, if a person performs all the meditations(inner alchemy) as described previously then their spiritual(inner body) becomes perfected, the diamond body.

I am thinking that it maybe my eye-sight, I have a paperback version where the text is quite small.
You said you had a pdf version. Where did you downlaod it from?

I am sorry, I went back and realized it was actually about halfway through the PDF, in The Book of Consciousness and Life. I had lost my place, so it wasn't your eyesight, it was me. Sorry about that! But yes, that makes sense to me.
I have tried attaching the PDF, but it is too big of a file it won't let me attach it. There are a few different translations if you just google it.

 

[Craz]

...that existence is self-evident

From the first paragraph:
"That which exists through itself is called the Way (Tao). Tao has neither name nor shape"

Derek: I have a question here, but I have to sit on it some more. I keep trying to reply, but I'm finding it difficult to express what I'm seeing. I don't think I've fully understood this part yet.

Craz: Have you read the Tao-Te-Ching by Lao Tzu? In a sense, it is the forerunner of The Secret of the Golden Flower. It may help you understand the thinking here.

I can't find diamond body in the text.
I googled it anyway and got the result I originally thought, that according to the author, if a person performs all the meditations(inner alchemy) as described previously then their spiritual(inner body) becomes perfected, the diamond body.

I am thinking that it maybe my eye-sight, I have a paperback version where the text is quite small.
You said you had a pdf version. Where did you downlaod it from?

Derek:
I am sorry, I went back and realized it was actually about halfway through the PDF, in The Book of Consciousness and Life. I had lost my place, so it wasn't your eyesight, it was me. Sorry about that! But yes, that makes sense to me.
I have tried attaching the PDF, but it is too big of a file it won't let me attach it. There are a few different translations if you just google it.

Craz: I haven't had time to check this, I have been busy with family.

Apologies for the late reply.

 

[DerekhHikmah]

Have you read the Tao-Te-Ching by Lao Tzu? In a sense, it is the forerunner of The Secret of the Golden Flower. It may help you understand the thinking here.

No and that may be my problem.

...that existence is self-evident

From the first paragraph:
"That which exists through itself is called the Way(Tao). Tao has neither name nor shape"

Ok so I get what you are saying. What makes someone Taoist though? Certainly, it must be more than just a mere intellectual head knowledge that existence is. Seems that there would some sort of initiation into a mode of perception or some kind of disposition that would disclose the Tao, or even these sorts of texts, right? What exactly is the truth being disclosed by these Taoist texts exactly that me or someone else as the reader can take away? And perhaps I need to read the Tao-Te-Ching to understand more fully, it's also hard because right now I don't have the time to get deep into some things.

So, I just asked ChatGPT about the Tao-Te-Ching.
"That is a profound question, because the Tao Te Ching does not primarily try to teach doctrines. It tries to disclose a way of seeing reality.

If I had to summarize its central disclosure in one sentence, it would be:

Reality is most deeply ordered not by force, but by an inexhaustible, hidden, self-arising principle that can only be lived in harmony with, never possessed.

Is this an agreeable sentence summary?

And as far as your metaphysical outlook now, are these older Taoist texts perhaps closest to where you now stand? Do you think they are genuinely disclosing something fundamental about reality, do you trust these old sages like Lao Tzu?

 

[Craz]

No and that may be my problem.

CRAZ: I only suggested you do a reading because I have read it several times in my life(78 years so far) both as a theist and non-theist. God or gods never came into it.
So I regard it as a somewhat objective commentry to existence/life. When I was religious Jew or a Bhakti, it never trespassed of my beliefs at the time.

Ok so I get what you are saying. What makes someone Taoist though?

CRAZ:
I don't really know and am not sure if Taoism is necessary a stand-alone religion, although I am sure how it is possible, even though there were/are many Taoist teachers/masters.

Bruce Lee was a famous martial artist.
I watched some footage of his capabilities(not in movies) and was really impressed.
Anyway, I decided to read his book (Jute-Kun-Do) describing his fighting technique and every single chapter is enforced by exerps of the TTC.
He seemed more intersted in the TTC than in fighting.
I am fairly certain that he would have called himself a Taoist.

So, I just asked ChatGPT about the Tao-Te-Ching.
"That is a profound question, because the Tao Te Ching does not primarily try to teach doctrines. It tries to disclose a way of seeing reality.

Yes, as I said above I don't see it as a stand-alone religion/belief system.

If I had to summarize its central disclosure in one sentence, it would be:

Reality is most deeply ordered not by force, but by an inexhaustible, hidden, self-arising principle that can only be lived in harmony with, never possessed.

Is this an agreeable sentence summary?

Quite honestly , I would rather say "It(reality) is what it is".

And as far as your metaphysical outlook now, are these older Taoist texts perhaps closest to where you now stand?

CRAZ: Yes as far as the TTC is concerned. Not so much with The Secret of The Golden Flower(see below)

Do you think they are genuinely disclosing something fundamental about reality, do you trust these old sages like Lao Tzu?

CRAZ: It's the writings that make sense to me, authorship is irrelevant.

Regarding The Secret of The Golden Flower, I have expressed my doubts about Willhelms/Jung translation being inaccurate and have found others thinking similarly.
I have yet to read another translation by Thomas Cleary, which has been recommended.

 

[DerekhHikmah]

So I regard it as a somewhat objective commentry to existence/life. When I was religious Jew or a Bhakti, it never trespassed of my beliefs at the time.

Ok it is taking me a long time to know how to respond here. Not because I don't follow or understand but I think some deeper underlying issues are still unresolved for me. And again, I am not trying to be difficult or play with semantics in any way with you. I genuinely enjoy this back and forth we have going, and I will try not to preach or convince you of anything. But here are a few things I can't understand or reconcile.

First, I appreciate your phenomenological approach. I think experience is the right place to begin. I'm just not sure it's where we can finally stop. After your experience with the Guru, I can understand why you would want to begin with what is actually experienced rather than immediately jumping into philosophical explanations. So, you can have experiences and mandala like impressions in meditation, no problem at all here, those are certainly genuine experiences. But even if we begin with experience itself, we still seem to have ontological questions (questions about the nature of reality or existence) surrounding the experience. You mentioned:

It is all inside me. So I could say that I became my own Guru, but not any god.

Those experiences and visions in meditation-what does it actually mean to say they are "inside me"? If they are only interior, what then counts as exterior? And what makes something "mine" in the first place? Love, beauty, mathematics, and even the laws of physics are all encountered inwardly through conscious experience, but we probably don't conclude that they are merely products of our own minds.

I get you aren't trying to give an explanatory interpretation of experience, but that leads to my question of Tao,

I would rather say "It(reality) is what it is".

Ok, I agree with you that reality is what it is. But then my mind immediately asks: what is it? Because those answers change how we understand experience itself. If consciousness is fundamental, that points in one direction. If it is merely emergent from matter, that points in another. If reality has an intelligible structure, that says something different again. So, it seems that even the statement, "reality is what it is," still leaves us with deeper questions about what reality actually is.

Do you think deep descriptive questions of existence are answerable by humans? Do you think our experiences reveal something about reality itself, or merely something about our own consciousness?

 

[Craz]

Ok it is taking me a long time to know how to respond here. Not because I don't follow or understand but I think some deeper underlying issues are still unresolved for me. And again, I am not trying to be difficult or play with semantics in any way with you. I genuinely enjoy this back and forth we have going, and I will try not to preach or convince you of anything. But here are a few things I can't understand or reconcile.

CRAZ:
I too have been enjoying our dialogue and it has made me think alot about what I am doing in these discussions(which I rarely do these days).
I did spend some days looking at different translations of The Secret of the Golden Flower and also a few youtubers versions, and find that I have lost interest in investigating the book any further.
I am sure the book teaches a technique(s), ie an instruction manual for practitioners of a path. I'm just not looking for anything like that.
(I may yet read Thomas Cleary's version, but not imminently.)

First, I appreciate your phenomenological approach. I think experience is the right place to begin. I'm just not sure it's where we can finally stop. After your experience with the Guru, I can understand why you would want to begin with what is actually experienced rather than immediately jumping into philosophical explanations. So, you can have experiences and mandala like impressions in meditation, no problem at all here, those are certainly genuine experiences.

CRAZ:
I agree that experiences in meditation or even visions or archetypes do not prove anything. I just think that these experiences were causal in many belief systems. That's what happened to me with the guru. Experience trumped any critical thought I aught to have had at the time.

Derek:
But even if we begin with experience itself, we still seem to have ontological questions (questions about the nature of reality or existence) surrounding the experience.

CRAZ:
Indeed that is the mature approach. Unfortunately, I was a 24 year-old with a very limited world experience(no internet).

Those experiences and visions in meditation-what does it actually mean to say they are "inside me"?

Simply put if 5 people are meditating while sitting next to each other, in all probability they would describe their experience(s) differently.
We each have own internal cinema.

If they are only interior, what then counts as exterior?

If I see a light or stars or a sun when sitting with my eyes closed, they aren't there when I open my eyes. The physical world around me is what is exterior. Is that what you meant by the question?

And what makes something "mine" in the first place? Love, beauty, mathematics, and even the laws of physics are all encountered inwardly through conscious experience, but we probably don't conclude that they are merely products of our own minds.

Well, knowledge makes something 'mine'.
When I was in grammar(high) school, I wasn't very clever, then after persevering, at 15, I made breakthrough in maths and started to study it heartily; the same with physics. Suddenly I could understand things that I was always struggling with.
So the knowledge I gained was 'mine'.
Certainly, the knowledge I gained was not a product of my own mind, but the understanding was.

I get you aren't trying to give an explanatory interpretation of experience, but that leads to my question of Tao,

Ok, I agree with you that reality is what it is. But then my mind immediately asks: what is it?

I think that whetever 'it' is, everything including each of us is part of what makes up reality.
So, I don't really have the question.

Because those answers change how we understand experience itself. If consciousness is fundamental, that points in one direction. If it is merely emergent from matter, that points in another. If reality has an intelligible structure, that says something different again. So, it seems that even the statement, "reality is what it is," still leaves us with deeper questions about what reality actually is.

Do you think deep descriptive questions of existence are answerable by humans?

Yes, they are answerable, but the answer may not be an objective truth.(imo)

Do you think our experiences reveal something about reality itself, or merely something about our own consciousness?

Well we may think our experiences reveal 'reality itself'. However I am unsure if there is even such a thing as 'reality itself'.
I'll have to ponder this.