Is Tao a Living Organism? (Please, Discuss)

[DalTheJigsaw123]

Is Tao a Living Organism?

 

Let me explain what I mean by that.

 

Most of the philosophies I have encountered seem to focus on particular rules/laws. It seem that Tao/Dao is and has been a living organism. That has and will continue to exist until we are long gone. Yes, there are "rules" or "laws" that everyone has to "abide by," but it seems that Tao/Dao could be applied into someone's life in anyway they desire. For instance, when I study a philosophy such as Buddhism, is it not true that you have to follow a certain amount of rules/laws. It seems that these rules/laws have been written in stone. Tao/Dao on the other hand, seems that it could go into any direction one chooses. Is this a correct assumption? Personally, it seems that Tao is non-existing, but at the same time, it is everywhere and is everything. I can bring it out and I "can see it." When one choose to do so. Okay, I think this is all I have for now. I will add some additional thoughts and ideas. Please, discuss and let me know what your thoughts are. Thank You all for reading!

[longrhythm]

Cool subject.

 

Are we living organisms? If yes, then yes to the Tao. If you're talking about the all encompassing whole, then absolutely. An organism is just that, a cooperative effort on the part of many smaller living organisms. So if we're living organisms, all part of some bigger cooperative effort, then it would make sense that we're just cells in a body.

 

That's my answer, just for fun.

 

Brian

 

 

Is Tao a Living Organism?

 

Let me explain what I mean by that.

 

Most of the philosophies I have encountered seem to focus on particular rules/laws. It seem that Tao/Dao is and has been a living organism. That has and will continue to exist until we are long gone. Yes, there are "rules" or "laws" that everyone has to "abide by," but it seems that Tao/Dao could be applied into someone's life in anyway they desire. For instance, when I study a philosophy such as Buddhism, is it not true that you have to follow a certain amount of rules/laws. It seems that these rules/laws have been written in stone. Tao/Dao on the other hand, seems that it could go into any direction one chooses. Is this a correct assumption? Personally, it seems that Tao is non-existing, but at the same time, it is everywhere and is everything. I can bring it out and I "can see it." When one choose to do so. Okay, I think this is all I have for now. I will add some additional thoughts and ideas. Please, discuss and let me know what your thoughts are. Thank You all for reading!

[DalTheJigsaw123]

Cool subject.

 

Are we living organisms? If yes, then yes to the Tao. If you're talking about the all encompassing whole, then absolutely. An organism is just that, a cooperative effort on the part of many smaller living organisms. So if we're living organisms, all part of some bigger cooperative effort, then it would make sense that we're just cells in a body.

 

That's my answer, just for fun.

 

Brian

 

Thank you! What I meant to say was. Is Tao a living organism. Does it expand? The philosophy itself? Is the rules/laws set in stone? Can they be moved? Or can they be restructured.

[Vajrahridaya]

Is Tao a Living Organism?

 

Let me explain what I mean by that.

 

Most of the philosophies I have encountered seem to focus on particular rules/laws. It seem that Tao/Dao is and has been a living organism. That has and will continue to exist until we are long gone. Yes, there are "rules" or "laws" that everyone has to "abide by," but it seems that Tao/Dao could be applied into someone's life in anyway they desire. For instance, when I study a philosophy such as Buddhism, is it not true that you have to follow a certain amount of rules/laws. It seems that these rules/laws have been written in stone. Tao/Dao on the other hand, seems that it could go into any direction one chooses. Is this a correct assumption? Personally, it seems that Tao is non-existing, but at the same time, it is everywhere and is everything. I can bring it out and I "can see it." When one choose to do so. Okay, I think this is all I have for now. I will add some additional thoughts and ideas. Please, discuss and let me know what your thoughts are. Thank You all for reading!

 

 

Well, just to correct you. Buddhism is not based on rules. There is the law of karma of cause and effect. But the different tenet systems of discipline that are used to help people channel their energy and examine themselves beyond their previous limitations and habits are all relative. There are disciplines for lay people and monks. Also being a Dzogchen practitioner I only really need to stay in Rigpa. There are no rules of diet and conduct per say, except recognizing rigpa and the virtue of the moment springs from that automatically.

 

Anyway, so one can kind of apply Rigpa to any religion or spiritual tradition as it's largely without the dogmas that are part of the first 3 turnings of the wheel, Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana.

 

I don't know if this helps your question at all?

[Marblehead]

Hi Leon,

 

Let's see what I can do here.

 

Is Tao a Living Organism?

 

IMO, Yes. There are actually many scientists who consider the universe to be a living organism

 

Tao/Dao on the other hand, seems that it could go into any direction one chooses. Is this a correct assumption?

 

Yes again. Tao is compatible with almost any belief system (Hate cults would be one exception, I think.)

 

Personally, it seems that Tao is non-existing, but at the same time, it is everywhere and is everything.

 

It is only in its manifest state that Tao is observeable. All the other aspects of Tao we cannot define even though we can speak of some of its assumed characteristics.

 

Be well!

[Magitek]

Very good.

 

I believe so too, I don't think it is just describing some dead philosophy.

 

The words attempt to capture something living, which is not possible. The words are just marks left behind but not the thing itself. A bit like a tornado will leave a lot of chaos in its wake.

 

The flow of "life" animates everything..... Down to the atoms and up to the planets. Everything moves by the flow....

 

Seeing yourself as a puppet in this flux is probably what people is meant when people talk about the mysteries of life and death. That is, that life and death become one of the same, and classifying things as dead or alive is ridiculous. This is the job of the "life scientists" and their science is purely arbitrary.

 

Either we can say there is one huge organism (the universe) or there is no life at all and nothing exists. Life and death become one. This is the only way I see non-duality and lack of seperation being a reality.

 

However conceptual non-duality is just plain useless. It just makes people slow and impractical. One poster was saying that 2+2 could equal 5. He is missing the point. There is no point retarding ourselves.

 

Getting back into the flow is what I believe to be "the way" Laozi is trying to communicate. Its also known as kundalini.

 

In fact, kunda = the kundabuffer organ supposedly implanted by "arch chemists" to negatively polarise kundalini and insulate us from the universe. Maybe this is just mythology aimed at illustrating our folly of self-consciousness.

 

and

 

lini = eliminate

 

So it is about removal. I take "the way" to be a removal. Not an addition. Not an adoption of an alien philosophy. Not a conceptual "i am enlightened".

[Vajrahridaya]

Very good.

 

I believe so too, I don't think it is just describing some dead philosophy.

 

The words attempt to capture something living, which is not possible. The words are just marks left behind but not the thing itself. A bit like a tornado will leave a lot of chaos in its wake.

 

The flow of "life" animates everything..... Down to the atoms and up to the planets. Everything moves by the flow....

 

Seeing yourself as a puppet in this flux is probably what people is meant when people talk about the mysteries of life and death. That is, that life and death become one of the same, and classifying things as dead or alive is ridiculous. This is the job of the "life scientists" and their science is purely arbitrary.

 

Either we can say there is one huge organism (the universe) or there is no life at all and nothing exists. Life and death become one. This is the only way I see non-duality and lack of seperation being a reality.

 

However conceptual non-duality is just plain useless. It just makes people slow and impractical. One poster was saying that 2+2 could equal 5. He is missing the point. There is no point retarding ourselves.

 

Getting back into the flow is what I believe to be "the way" Laozi is trying to communicate. Its also known as kundalini.

 

In fact, kunda = the kundabuffer organ supposedly implanted by "arch chemists" to negatively polarise kundalini and insulate us from the universe. Maybe this is just mythology aimed at illustrating our folly of self-consciousness.

 

and

 

lini = eliminate

 

So it is about removal. I take "the way" to be a removal. Not an addition. Not an adoption of an alien philosophy. Not a conceptual "i am enlightened".

 

Kundalini means coiled in sanskrit as far as I've found, doesn't it? Some words seem to have different definitions though.

 

Anyway, it seems to be a truth that all this is a creative matrix, a vast process. The less we see I against the universe and more that I am a part of it... we flow light hearted and see the bigger picture always, thus acting in every moment referencing a wider source of information, rather than just the personal me and it's little life.

[xabir2005]

First there is 'I' vs The Universe...

 

Then I become a part of the flow...

 

Then there is no I going with the flow, just flow.

 

Walking effortlessly and naturally happening (happening without the need to think 'walk front, walk left') is Tao.

 

A spontaneous movement of coughing due to itchiness in the throat, an un-selfconscious activity, that is the evidence of Tao.

 

Grass growing by itself is Tao.

 

Fingernails growing by itself is Tao.

 

Turd on the floor also is Tao.

 

Everything is happening on its own accord without any separate self or doer, the Way of things simply flows.

Edited August 13, 2009 by xabir2005

[DalTheJigsaw123]

Interesting points everyone! Thank you. Yea, I suppose what I'm trying to say: Is Tao a moving Philosophy/Thought. Could it be applied even after 3,000 years to modern living. Also could it be applied 3,000 years from now? It seems many other religions/philosophies are out of date and do not seem to grow as Tao does. It seems Tao is always growing in understanding and explanations from many different authors/poets/masters. Does that make sense?

 

First there is 'I' vs The Universe...

 

Then I become a part of the flow...

 

Then there is no I going with the flow, just flow.

 

Walking effortlessly and naturally happening (happening without the need to think 'walk front, walk left') is Tao.

 

A spontaneous movement of coughing due to itchiness in the throat, an un-selfconscious activity, that is the evidence of Tao.

 

Grass growing by itself is Tao.

 

Fingernails growing by itself is Tao.

 

Turd on the floor also is Tao.

 

Ahh! That makes perfect sense. Wow, you cleared it up for me quite well! So, it has a lot of to do with nature and things we cannot possibly control then?

Edited August 13, 2009 by LeonBasin

[xabir2005]

Ahh! That makes perfect sense. Wow, you cleared it up for me quite well! So, it has a lot of to with nature and things we cannot possibly control then?

Yes, there is no control, because there is no controller.

 

There is influences but no control. Our actions, these are influenced by various conditions (psychological makeup, environmental situations, etc). But really if we look deeply... we discover that there is actually no central 'controller'... even our thoughts, they just pop up spontaneously by its own accord. There is no inner 'thinker' behind is controlling those thoughts. There is only just one thought, then another thought. And we think there's continuity due the illusion that there is someone behind that is coordinating those thoughts, but really, each thought is distinct and there's always a gap between each thought. Each thought, phenomena, sound, sight, simply pops up spontaneously, each manifestation whole and complete, yet the flow of phenomenality happens ceaselessly one after another, in naturalness.

 

Similarly to action... commonly we are under the illusion that there is a central doer coordinating the actions... Non-Action in Taoism is to see that really these actions are happening in naturalness, spontaneity, and in perfect harmony with the universe. There is no doing nor non-doing because everything is simply happening on its own accord without a doer. No central 'doer' can really be found. And even if apparent thoughts of individuality and effort arises, actually, that too is the natural Tao! Those thoughts too, are naturally happening on its own accord without a thinker or doer, and they arise due to influences by the deep conditionings in our mind. When the conditions are there, we can't help but naturally manifest in that way. Nobody are born enlightened, we are all conditioned from young to experience dualistically. There is really NOTHING that is not the manifestation of Tao... even apparently unnatural actions, thoughts, and the sense of self, are in reality the spontaneous and natural manifestation of Tao without a doer. The Tao is not a stage... it's a realisation of how there is actually no self or controller apart from the flow, and everything is happening naturally due to interdependence.

 

When we see this, everything is still experienced as a seamless flow of aliveness, all happening on its own accord, but without a separative 'me' observing or controlling them. Therefore, just flow that is seamlessly interconnected, no I.

 

The Tao and the teaching of no-self in Buddhism are interrelated... you may want to look into this article by my friend 'Thusness': On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection

 

Lastly there's a beautiful quotation by Lao Tzu in the Tao Te Ching which goes: People follow the world and its leaders, the world follows the laws of physics, the laws of physics follow the Tao, and the Tao follows what is natural.

Edited August 13, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes, there is no control, because there is no controller.

 

 

That's interesting, but one can still have the realization, and one's collections of conditions manifest as this seeming I can make some freer choices once it's awareness starts seeing past the individual construct.

[xabir2005]

That's interesting, but one can still have the realization, and one's collections of conditions manifest as this seeming I can make some freer choices once it's awareness starts seeing past the individual construct.

Agree

 

A nice related video:

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Agree

 

A nice related video:

 

 

Yes, but what's the movement of choice to recognize?

[Magitek]

There is no within!

 

Ah! another trap.

[DalTheJigsaw123]

Yes, there is no control, because there is no controller.

 

There is influences but no control. Our actions, these are influenced by various conditions (psychological makeup, environmental situations, etc). But really if we look deeply... we discover that there is actually no central 'controller'... even our thoughts, they just pop up spontaneously by its own accord. There is no inner 'thinker' behind is controlling those thoughts. There is only just one thought, then another thought. And we think there's continuity due the illusion that there is someone behind that is coordinating those thoughts, but really, each thought is distinct and there's always a gap between each thought. Each thought, phenomena, sound, sight, simply pops up spontaneously, each manifestation whole and complete, yet the flow of phenomenality happens ceaselessly one after another, in naturalness.

 

Similarly to action... commonly we are under the illusion that there is a central doer coordinating the actions... Non-Action in Taoism is to see that really these actions are happening in naturalness, spontaneity, and in perfect harmony with the universe. There is no doing nor non-doing because everything is simply happening on its own accord without a doer. No central 'doer' can really be found. And even if apparent thoughts of individuality and effort arises, actually, that too is the natural Tao! Those thoughts too, are naturally happening on its own accord without a thinker or doer, and they arise due to influences by the deep conditionings in our mind. When the conditions are there, we can't help but naturally manifest in that way. Nobody are born enlightened, we are all conditioned from young to experience dualistically. There is really NOTHING that is not the manifestation of Tao... even apparently unnatural actions, thoughts, and the sense of self, are in reality the spontaneous and natural manifestation of Tao without a doer. The Tao is not a stage... it's a realisation of how there is actually no self or controller apart from the flow, and everything is happening naturally due to interdependence.

 

When we see this, everything is still experienced as a seamless flow of aliveness, all happening on its own accord, but without a separative 'me' observing or controlling them. Therefore, just flow that is seamlessly interconnected, no I.

 

The Tao and the teaching of no-self in Buddhism are interrelated... you may want to look into this article by my friend 'Thusness': On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection

 

Lastly there's a beautiful quotation by Lao Tzu in the Tao Te Ching which goes: People follow the world and its leaders, the world follows the laws of physics, the laws of physics follow the Tao, and the Tao follows what is natural.

 

I see what you mean! That makes sense. What about nature is also just there, no one is controlling that either?

 

That's interesting, but one can still have the realization, and one's collections of conditions manifest as this seeming I can make some freer choices once it's awareness starts seeing past the individual construct.

 

I suppose it's what we do with those thoughts that pop-into our heads. Right?

 

 

There is no within!

 

Ah! another trap.

 

What are your thoughts? There is a within? Is that what you are trying to convey with your "Ah! Another trap?"

[Magitek]

No sorry, I was not clear enough.....

 

I meant the "looking within" is a trap.

 

It assumes there is something there. Like a self. Or God.

 

Tao Te Ching never mentions such things.

 

[DalTheJigsaw123]

No sorry, I was not clear enough.....

 

I meant the "looking within" is a trap.

 

It assumes there is something there. Like a self. Or God.

 

Tao Te Ching never mentions such things.

 

 

 

Ahh! Thank you for clearing that up. Yea, I agree. It seems that Tao goes off with what we have, which is ourselves:) I think that's a right assumption?

[Vajrahridaya]

I see what you mean! That makes sense. What about nature is also just there, no one is controlling that either?

 

We are the nature, there is no nature apart from all that is going on and on. Nature is just motion and motion has the impersonal intention of merely passing through space, neither bad nor good.

 

I suppose it's what we do with those thoughts that pop-into our heads. Right?

 

What's the cause of deciding? If one identifies with the flow as I and mine, there is going to be confining and limitation, desire of what we want and not want to think. I think that condition for enlightenment is merely the recognition of interconnectivity without end, without center, and that's an illuminating experience where one see's past the personal conditions. This happens through influence from other buddhas in whatever capacity of dimension, through reading, through hearing, seeing. Then when that experience is recognized the unfolding is automatic depending upon the effort, but what is the condition to apply effort? It all leads to a question and answer session that leads to endless regress.

What are your thoughts? There is a within? Is that what you are trying to convey with your "Ah! Another trap?"

 

The concept of within and without are relative and not ultimately real.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

It is my observation that this discussion has turned suspiciously Buddhist. We should not confuse the two philosophies. Just my opinion.

 

Be well!

[ralis]

We are the nature, there is no nature apart from all that is going on and on. Nature is just motion and motion has the impersonal intention of merely passing through space, neither bad nor good.

What's the cause of deciding? If one identifies with the flow as I and mine, there is going to be confining and limitation, desire of what we want and not want to think. I think that condition for enlightenment is merely the recognition of interconnectivity without end, without center, and that's an illuminating experience where one see's past the personal conditions. This happens through influence from other buddhas in whatever capacity of dimension, through reading, through hearing, seeing. Then when that experience is recognized the unfolding is automatic depending upon the effort, but what is the condition to apply effort? It all leads to a question and answer session that leads to endless regress.

The concept of within and without are relative and not ultimately real.

[/quote

 

We are the nature? Another anthropocentric view by Vajra. I suppose the world is flat and the sun and stars rotate around the earth. LOL! I thought this was a thread about the Tao, not about your narrow point of view. Just stay on topic.

 

 

 

ralis

Edited August 13, 2009 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

It is my observation that this discussion has turned suspiciously Buddhist. We should not confuse the two philosophies. Just my opinion.

 

Be well!

 

What makes the realization different? Recognition of the selfless flow? Or not?

[Vajrahridaya]

We are the nature, there is no nature apart from all that is going on and on. Nature is just motion and motion has the impersonal intention of merely passing through space, neither bad nor good.

What's the cause of deciding? If one identifies with the flow as I and mine, there is going to be confining and limitation, desire of what we want and not want to think. I think that condition for enlightenment is merely the recognition of interconnectivity without end, without center, and that's an illuminating experience where one see's past the personal conditions. This happens through influence from other buddhas in whatever capacity of dimension, through reading, through hearing, seeing. Then when that experience is recognized the unfolding is automatic depending upon the effort, but what is the condition to apply effort? It all leads to a question and answer session that leads to endless regress.

The concept of within and without are relative and not ultimately real.

 

We are the nature? Another anthropocentric view by Vajra. I suppose the world is flat and the sun and stars rotate around the earth. LOL! I thought this was a thread about the Tao, not about your narrow point of view. Just stay on topic.

 

 

 

ralis

 

How is my view narrow? How is it my view? You probably don't even understand what I've said as it doesn't seem that you have much of a capacity to do so, or no training at all in Buddhist cosmology. I guess all you have is to chase me around and lay out insults thinking your smart but it's obvious you don't have much else to go on, but insults.

 

From a description of Myriad Worlds from the Treasury of Knowledge. My view is merely a description of the Buddhist Cosmology in few words.

 

"Myriad Worlds" discusses Buddhist cosmography and the genesis of beings who inhabit the universe.

Kongtrul delineates four levels of cosmology: These are three that fit in this discussion...

 

1. The numerically definite cosmology of the Individual Way (hinayana), in which the collective force of the evolutionary actions of sentient beings creates the world, and therefore all beings contribute to the creation of the world; (co-creation from conscoiusness' (plural) limiting themselves into material vessels in a seemingly dualistic material universe as a process of the nature things to be co-dependently originated, which Taoism calls mutual-co-arising symbolically through the yin yang circle)

 

2. The cosmology of infinity buddha-fields of the Universal Way (mahayana), in which infinite world-systems come into being as phantom appearances, through bodhisattvas purifying buddha-fields, in which they may fulfill their heroic vows to liberate all beings. The universe is conceived as a cycle without commencement that repeats itself until all beings are liberated from the sufferings of cyclic existence;

 

3. The cosmology of the Tantra of the Wheel of Time (Kalacakra), which establishes a correspondence between the macrocosm and microcosm in terms of the formation of the universe and fetal development, and between the configuration of the universe and the shape and size of the human body;

 

A cloistered view would fail to see the ramifications of these truths.

 

If the Tao is some transcendent identity of all things, then it has no definable nature, but if it's all things mutually dependent on each other as a yin and yang play than it's nature is basically just the dependent origination of yin and yang without beginning.

 

Ahh! Thank you for clearing that up. Yea, I agree. It seems that Tao goes off with what we have, which is ourselves:) I think that's a right assumption?

 

Even yourself arises as a play of the mutually dependent yin and yang.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

What makes the realization different? Recognition of the selfless flow? Or not?

 

There is no such thing as selfless flow in yo (the Manifest). This is experienced only in wu (the Mystery). Yes, it is true that many Taoists do live with one foot in yo and the other in wu. However, the selfless flow will never happen when we are in any aspect of yo because we will naturally (There! I said it for you.) try to swim if we feel we are sinking.

 

It is only the rare Sage who can attain total wu for any length of time (more than a couple minutes). Yes, there are Buddhist who can do this too (I am sure they call it something else). But we must attain to our bodily functions and this can be done only in the yo state.

 

However, the slant toward Buddhist thought entered before your first post so I wasn't pointing to you (nor to the moon either).

 

Be well!

 

Edit to add. Yes, you entered after someone (Leon?) mentioned Buddhism as a means to contrast a thought.

 

Presonally, I don't mind including the Buddhist perspective. I just feel that we should point out that this (whatever) is a Taoist concept and that (whatever) is a Buddhist concept.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Marblehead

[Vajrahridaya]

Ralis "We are the nature? Another anthropocentric view by Vajra."

 

Ralis

 

We as in sentient beings, not humans. Humans are not the center of the cosmos, but rather the cosmos is a manifestation of the consciousness of infinite sentient beings, as things are made of consciousness, because conscoiusness is not made of matter. We humans have incarnated in an endless assortment of sentient activities.

 

So, yes you are having a hard time understanding me. Even after following me around and reading all my posts.

 

 

 

It is only the rare Sage who can attain total wu for any length of time (more than a couple minutes). Yes, there are Buddhist who can do this too (I am sure they call it something else). But we must attain to our bodily functions and this can be done only in the yo state.

 

Be well!

 

It's called vajra samadhi (indestructible focus) or sahaja samadhi (spontaneous presence) which is basically just a breakless release of clinging to any aspect of experiencing but following the flow while continuously recognizing interconnectivity, relativity and emptiness, all fortified with bodhichitta or compassionate awareness based on these direct realizations. Thus there is no difference between attending to the body and being free from the body.

 

 

Edit to add. Yes, you entered after someone (Leon?) mentioned Buddhism as a means to contrast a thought.

 

Presonally, I don't mind including the Buddhist perspective. I just feel that we should point out that this (whatever) is a Taoist concept and that (whatever) is a Buddhist concept.

 

I do agree that this is important for the sake of clarity.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

Ralis

 

We as in sentient beings, not humans. Humans are not the center of the cosmos, but rather the cosmos is a manifestation of the consciousness of infinite sentient beings, as things are made of consciousness, because conscoiusness is not made of matter. We humans have incarnated in an endless assortment of sentient activities.

 

So, yes you are having a hard time understanding me. Even after following me around and reading all my posts.

 

State precisely what you mean and not vague generalities.

 

ralis