Apech

I kind of knew you would say this and I don't mind really. I've read the whole of Wang Bi commentary on Lao Tzu Book and I do not think that he has fallen into the trap that you mention. I think he was inspired by direct realization of Tao and this was his expression of it. Don't know anything about Shaivism but it may be similar for all I know. The issue is that most systems of thought begin with a positive statement about what is and not an analysis of what isn't.

You make it sound like I have developed my own separate view. Here is a quote from Wang Bi the famous Taoist scholar: Now it would be easy to focus on the idea of the Tao as 'progenitor and master' to suggest that the Tao is an eternal substance or thing beyond all other things. However Wang Bi specifically says that it is not a thing and has none of the qualities of things. In other words none of the ways of distinguishing things can be applied to the Tao. Wang Bi later says that the two attributes which the Tao exhibits in relation to the myriad things, that is as an origin and a mother, arise together. That is as soon as you have an origin you have a mother also and they both arise from mystery. It is not saying there is something called Tao (mystery) and then you an origin and then you have a mother. It is saying that when addressing the 10,000 things and asking where they come from, how do they arise, you say they come from nothingness, you make an origin and as soon as you name the origin you also have the mother (to which they return). Its very late, I woke up with insomnia, I have eaten some Fruit and Fiber Bran Flakes and I'm going back to bed ... this is the best I can do for now.

Ahhh spreading and perpetuating a superior view ... now who does that remind me of? Oh no! Oh goodness! You're not a secret Brit are you?

Thank you Taomeow for this and the above posts - fascinating stuff. Makes me think of the Egyptian Shai (destiny or fate) maybe they are related somewhere back in the mists of time.

Yes there is a strong possibility that it will encourage the wrong sort of behaviours. Big swing to NO I notice. Vote now if you haven't - exercise your democratic rights! TaoBums of the world arise you having nothing to lose but your chains.

Where do I look on iTunes?

Just because you define it like that don't mean it ain't fixed. Read this map and weep Yankee. British Empire ^^^^^

Rainbow, Get a wood burning stove and I'll send you the Spice Girls.

Hay Vaj you're on +5 now ... how did that happen? Some mistake surely?

yes - I was the same and I wrote the thing! Ha. But I just thought even if you vote no on number 1 question its still worth asking what you would be willing to use it for if it was still there. if you see what i mean.

Scotty!!!

Just in case anyone hasn't noticed I've put up a poll.

You can multiple vote the second question by the way.

Any more of this and I shall be releasing more oil into the Gulf and reforming the Spice Girls and sending them to your town.

Its all in the interpretation I think. If people minus click a post or if I look at someone's overall reputation what am I supposed to make of it? Using Vaj as an example - he stimulates a lot of debate and livens up the forum but ends up with minus scores what am I supposed to do with this information? If I was a new member I might be put off or distracted by it. The other things is that certain members might score every post they read while others never bother - so all we are getting is the opinion of a few. For it to have any meaning everyone would need to use it and I am not sure that we all want to. If that's the case it becomes meaningless. Why not do a poll - who wants it and who would sign up to using it?

Well put. Always puzzles me why Buddhists and Taoist can trade personal insults when to do so is contrary to the spirit of both systems. Good and unnecessary! Wow - yes. I don't think it matters how old the philosophical view is ... in fact I'm not sure there are any new ones really. If I was a Buddhist then I would resolutely apply the view in the way Vaj does - because that's what you are supposed to do. Buddha said something along the lines that we should test all the ideas to destruction. So its probably good practice to put it out there and see what challenges come up, see how the View stands up against them. A Taoist sees all judgments as relative positions in a process of change. Rather like a phenomenologist puts everything in parenthesis so being right is just 'right' ... so the word 'right' only has relative meaning, as does being 'wrong'. So even if it appears that Vaj has won the day with his analysis ... he has only 'won' ... whatever that means. In other words he has pinned himself on a fixed view which he then has to live with. While a Taoist would probably refute the fixed view because as something spoken it is not the true/constant/eternal it is just a relative expression of 'the truth' and not the truth itself which is the Tao. So let him have the victory if that's what he wants ... its no skin off a Taoists nose. Funnily enough Buddhist mind-training says more or less the same. Give victory to the other ... hold those who insult you as precious teachers ... because that's how you really learn from life. To the extent that we don't practice these ideas properly on here is an indicator that we all have a lot to learn. If saying this makes me more British and pompous then so be it.

Should be ... 'I guess you're British ...' if you want to use English properly. Perhaps you would like to elaborate why you think that might be significant.

On a serious note - you are quite right that we are tested by extreme situations and which of us really know how they might react. But I think that systems of cultivation or whatever teach you to define and elevate your values to a high level. This is not really about becoming idealistic and high minded in an abstracted way - but is more about refining your being. You have to actively test what you value - but in a warrior way - so if you fail you just pick yourself up and carry on without making excuses or dropping your standards ... if you see what I mean. Sometimes it seems like your practice and life itself connive in providing situation to test you.

I'd make more than a light snack!

So you drop all your principles when under pressure? Remind me not to survive a plane crash with you ... I would be lunch.

Well thanks for the explanation ... I think.

Eh?

:lol: Thanks for making me laugh.

I guess we should all remember that we are all on the path (maybe taking different routes) and even if we don't see eye to eye we can wave at each other and shout 'good luck!' as we pass by. Also hope you are feeling better and not still looking at the bottom of a bucket.

No one else will talk to me now!!! Seriously ... I'm not sure that is what I am doing but hey. I don't agree with the ontological essence idea and I said so when it was suggested before. I think ontological essence is a valid idea but Tao is beyond 'being' as such ...hence the mystery... so you cannot make the equation tao=ontological essence. Its like the idea of the Absolute in philosophy. You can say ... its like an infinite ocean, or its power beyond all powers, or its like space itself ... energy ... whatever you like and because it is absolute then all these are both true and yet not true ... So if you try to say that the Tao is a collective storehouse consciousness blah blah ... etc ... well yes it might seem like that and even for practical purposes be like that ... like a source, an origin or a mother ... but it is not that. These are all functional definitions ... terms which may be appropriate or not depending on their application. So if the Absolute appears to nurture the things which 'are' - then the Absolute is a mother, in the same way that it is their origin since where else can they come from. If they came from somewhere else then my Absolute is not an absolute at all. This comes from a point of view which accepts at face value things are things. However if you start by considering the thing first. By analysing the nature of the thing(s) you quickly realize that the things are impermanent, made of parts and have no selfhood. That being the case what is the point of talking about a mother? or a source? Then you take these two points of view and put them together and get a very long and sometimes fractious debate.