Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?

[Stigweard]

The answer is, "Yes".

 

Buddhism describes "essence" as:

 

an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature.

Bodhisattvayogacaryācatuḥśatakaṭikā 256.1.7

 

In the Daodejing it quite explicitly states:

 

Ch 25

 

Before Heaven and Earth are born,

there is something formless

and complete in itself.

Impalpable and everlasting,

silent and undisturbed,

standing alone and unchanging,

it exercises itself gently,

and generates itself inexhaustively

in all dimensions.

 

Ni Hua-Ching

 

According to Taoist ontology, following the spontaneous manifestation into Yin and Yang, the rest of universal creation came about through a process of change exactly in the same manner as the Buddhist dependent origination. However, if dependent origination is the ultimate reality or the fundamental causation of all things, then Dao would have to be originated by something else.

 

Now here is a mystery for us. Later in Ch 25 it says:

 

Thus, in the natural flow of the energy transformation,

human life becomes one of the four great expressions

of the subtle essence of the universe.

It is the way of universal subtle integration.

Humankind conforms to Earth.

Earth conforms to the sky.

The sky conforms to the Subtle Origin.

 

All good so far, we can see a quite logical flow of dependent origination. Humans have to follow the seasons of the Earth and it's biological reality. Earth follows the patterns of the cosmos and the cosmos follows the harmonious patterning of Tao.

 

But then we have:

 

The Subtle Origin conforms to its own nature.

 

So Tao is dependently originated from Tao. It is self-perpetuating like the Ouroboros snake swallowing it's own tail. How is this possible?

 

[Vajrahridaya]

The answer is, "Yes".

 

Buddhism describes "essence" as:

 

 

 

In the Daodejing it quite explicitly states:

 

 

 

According to Taoist ontology, following the spontaneous manifestation into Yin and Yang, the rest of universal creation came about through a process of change exactly in the same manner as the Buddhist dependent origination. However, if dependent origination is the ultimate reality or the fundamental causation of all things, then Dao would have to be originated by something else.

 

Now here is a mystery for us. Later in Ch 25 it says:

 

 

 

All good so far, we can see a quite logical flow of dependent origination. Humans have to follow the seasons of the Earth and it's biological reality. Earth follows the patterns of the cosmos and the cosmos follows the harmonious patterning of Tao.

 

But then we have:

 

 

 

So Tao is dependently originated from Tao. It is self-perpetuating like the Ouroboros snake swallowing it's own tail. How is this possible?

 

 

Mmmm... sounds a bit ambiguous. But... if it floats your boat for now as I know it does for you Stiggy... do it well as I know you do!

 

To say that Tao is dependent upon Tao is the same as saying it's self originating without causation. This is not what Dependent Origination means as Dependent Origination is not a primal cause, as Dependent Origination means, no primal cause or ontological essence, just endless flow without a single origin or point of origination, either one with as in the non-dual Monist traditions of Taoism and Hinduism, or dualistic in the sense of most Mono-theism's.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Though, because the term Tao merely means, "The Way". I've seen Zen masters use the term "Tao" to be synonymous with the sanskrit

"Dharma." This basically means that all phenomena, including transcendent experiences which are considered phenomena in Buddhism, flow inter-dependently and endlessly without any point of origin since beginningless time, without ontological essence. Though... even this is empty of inherent essence. Thus... Dharma means endless inter-dependent origination and thus Dharma is also empty of inherent existence. So... this is what the Heart sutra is getting at. Prajnaparamita is very important in any Mahayana presentation as it clears itself of any ontological posturing or Selfhood, essential nature which the TTC definitely insinuates in defining the Tao as beyond concepts, but still as ultimate Truth in and of itself as all selves.

 

The only way to talk about such things is through paradox really, but Buddha's insight of dependent origination really transcends paradox and linearity. One has to have an insight directly into what the Buddha was talking about which really takes studying what he talked about directly, letting go of one's assumptive views based upon ontological existentialism.

 

EDIT: A little side note. In Monist traditions, transcendent experience is considered non-dual and beyond phenomena, but Buddha-ism considers this also a phenomena to be emptied of inherent existence and seen as dependently originated.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

Though, because the term Tao merely means, "The Way". I've seen Zen masters use the term "Tao" to be synonymous with the sanskrit

"Dharma." This basically means that all phenomena, including transcendent experiences which are considered phenomena in Buddhism, flow inter-dependently and endlessly without any point of origin since beginningless time, without ontological essence. Though... even this is empty of inherent essence. Thus... Dharma means endless inter-dependent origination and thus Dharma is also empty of inherent existence. So... this is what the Heart sutra is getting at. Prajnaparamita is very important in any Mahayana presentation as it clears itself of any ontological posturing or Selfhood, essential nature which the TTC definitely insinuates in defining the Tao as beyond concepts, but still as ultimate Truth in and of itself as all selves.

 

The only way to talk about such things is through paradox really, but Buddha's insight of dependent origination really transcends paradox and linearity. One has to have an insight directly into what the Buddha was talking about which really takes studying what he talked about directly, letting go of one's assumptive views based upon ontological existentialism.

 

EDIT: A little side note. In Monist traditions, transcendent experience is considered non-dual and beyond phenomena, but Buddha-ism considers this also a phenomena.

 

 

This thread is about the Tao! Not more Buddhist preaching!

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

This thread is about the Tao! Not more Buddhist preaching!

 

 

ralis

 

He mentioned Buddhism, which I knew he was going to do as I saw him enter the thread of Buddhist "harping" long before I came back and saw this. I knew he was going to comment and he did with wisdom and detachment, coming from his own state of deep posturing. I deeply respect this person as a Taoist. Though, I do feel that our views of what exactly is the goal of spirituality do differ. My view is definitely in alignment with the Buddha as well as the Dalai Lama and even ChNNR who you consider yourself a student of.. kind of. But, I know you are not really. You just had some experiences with him, but you really don't understand directly the meaning of your contemplation of Togal.

 

I have every right to be here and debate from a detached point of view. I do not mean to hurt peoples feelings though attachment to a view will lead to your own hurt.

[adept]

Here we go again !

Popcorn at the ready :lol:

[Stigweard]

Before we get sidetracked into the same diatribe present in other threads, let us stay on point. Which is this:

 

• Ch25 of Laozi certainly does present Tao as an ontological essence of the universe that exists before the formation of Heaven and Earth
  
• The Taoist principle of changing phenomenon is perfectly uniform with the Buddhist dependent origination UNTIL we "get back" to the universal origin of Tao
  
• Then we are presented with the mystery that Tao follows it's own nature, that there is no other 'something' that Tao originates from
  

[Marblehead]

Hi All,

 

Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to refer to Dr. Wang's translation once again.

 

Chapter 25: (last four lines)

 

Tao adheres to Nature

 

Man follows earth.

Earth follows heaven.

Heaven follows Tao.

Tao follows Tzujan.

 

(Tzujan being the processes of Nature, i.e., the laws of physics.)

 

The "Way" is the processes of Nature, the laws of physics. The "Way" is also the nature of all manifestations of Tao, that is, each 'thing' has its own nature and it cannot act outside its own nature. And this point is why Tao must be viewed from 'beyond good and evil'.

 

There is no thing that is beyond its own 'tzujan'. Not even the Buddha. Not even the universe. Not even Tao. Yes, VJ, all things and non-things are dependant on 'tzujan'. But tzujan is not a thing, it is just the way things are.

 

Peace & Love!

Edited July 10, 2010 by Marblehead

[3bob]

Affirming or negating along these lines cannot really nail such down because neither method has the full power to do so, for such methods at best can only be used to make preparations to go beyond what either method when used alone can reach.

 

Thus being attached to or saying an affirmation process is better than a negation process or vice-a-versa - when both methods suffer from limitations can be like beating one's head against the wall and bouncing off it while trying to climb it at the same time.

Edited July 10, 2010 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

Before we get sidetracked into the same diatribe present in other threads, let us stay on point. Which is this:

 

Good! Thank you.

 

• Ch25 of Laozi certainly does present Tao as an ontological essence of the universe that exists before the formation of Heaven and Earth

 
So it seems to be through Laozi's utterances.

The Taoist principle of changing phenomenon is perfectly uniform with the Buddhist dependent origination UNTIL we "get back" to the universal origin of Tao

 
Yes, Yin/Yang can be perfectly utilized within Buddhist context.

Then we are presented with the mystery that Tao follows it's own nature, that there is no other 'something' that Tao originates from

 

Right... self origination. That the Tao is the original will of the movement of cosmos and all that makes this up. That this willing into expression comes from a single origin would not be in cahoots with Buddha's insights.

 

Now... of course, this is not saying that the Buddha is right and Laozi is wrong. Just that the Buddha is saying something different. The Buddha taught a different interpretation as to the doing of cosmos and to what the insight into it's doing is which liberates one completely from the future possibility of suffering experiences. My own experiential insight happens to follow along the lines of what the Buddha taught and not what Laozi says in the TTC.

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi All,

 

Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to refer to Dr. Wang's translation once again.

 

Chapter 25: (last four lines)

 

Tao adheres to Nature

 

Man follows earth.

Earth follows heaven.

Heaven follows Tao.

Tao follows Tzujan.

 

(Tzujan being the processes of Nature, i.e., the laws of physics.)

 

The "Way" is the processes of Nature, the laws of physics. The "Way" is also the nature of all manifestations of Tao, that is, each 'thing' has its own nature and it cannot act outside its own nature. And this point is why Tao must be viewed from 'beyond good and evil'.

 

There is no thing that is beyond its own 'tzujan'. Not even the Buddha. Not even the universe. Not even Tao. Yes, VJ, all things and non-things are dependant on 'tzujan'. But tzujan is not a thing, it is just the way things are.

 

Peace & Love!

 

This seems somewhat ambiguous. What exactly does tzujan mean then? Is it a static essence, that things have a self in and of themselves? Do things do because they are real and true in and of themselves and do things have a soul, or essential nature that wills action as the self of these things? As in... do individual phenomena arise due to their own self nature without prier cause because they are one with the Tao... the will power of the all? Are things just as they are because they are firmly that self which has a definite nature in and of itself?

[Vajrahridaya]

Affirming or negating along these lines cannot really nail such down because neither method has the full power to do so, for such methods at best can only be used to make preparations to go beyond what either method when used alone can reach.

 

Thus being attached to or saying an affirmation process is better than a negation process or vice-a-versa - when both methods suffer from limitations can be like beating one's head against the wall and bouncing off it while trying to climb it at the same time.

 

The insight of inter-dependent origination does neither and merely see's relativity and all sides of it's emptiness of inherent self-ness. There is both something here and nothing here, and as well not both, and both simultaneously. But, there is not an inherent transcendent nature of things that is beyond all conditions which self exists that all things are, unless you want to think there is, then that experience will arise dependent upon that view. But, truly speaking, it's not an inherent self, merely dependent origination at work through you.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

He mentioned Buddhism, which I knew he was going to do as I saw him enter the thread of Buddhist "harping" long before I came back and saw this. I knew he was going to comment and he did with wisdom and detachment, coming from his own state of deep posturing. I deeply respect this person as a Taoist. Though, I do feel that our views of what exactly is the goal of spirituality do differ. My view is definitely in alignment with the Buddha as well as the Dalai Lama and even ChNNR who you consider yourself a student of.. kind of. But, I know you are not really. You just had some experiences with him, but you really don't understand directly the meaning of your contemplation of Togal.

 

I have every right to be here and debate from a detached point of view. I do not mean to hurt peoples feelings though attachment to a view will lead to your own hurt.

 

 

You have no idea what my experience with Norbu is. Your accusations of me around my understanding of Togal are absurd. You make this judgment with not one factual piece of evidence.

 

 

ralis

[ralis]

He mentioned Buddhism, which I knew he was going to do as I saw him enter the thread of Buddhist "harping" long before I came back and saw this. I knew he was going to comment and he did with wisdom and detachment, coming from his own state of deep posturing. I deeply respect this person as a Taoist. Though, I do feel that our views of what exactly is the goal of spirituality do differ. My view is definitely in alignment with the Buddha as well as the Dalai Lama and even ChNNR who you consider yourself a student of.. kind of. But, I know you are not really. You just had some experiences with him, but you really don't understand directly the meaning of your contemplation of Togal.

 

I have every right to be here and debate from a detached point of view. I do not mean to hurt peoples feelings though attachment to a view will lead to your own hurt.

 

You are not detached when you post thousands of times and seek to correct anyone that mentions Buddhism. You are attached to "right view" which is merely your own opinion.

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

You have no idea what my experience with Norbu is. Your accusations of me around my understanding of Togal are absurd. You make this judgment with not one factual piece of evidence.

 

 

ralis

 

Well... there are your reply's to me.

[Vajrahridaya]

You are not detached when you post thousands of times and seek to correct anyone that mentions Buddhism. You are attached to "right view" which is merely your own opinion.

 

ralis

 

Your attached to trying to prove me wrong.

 

Hi ralis!

[Marblehead]

This seems somewhat ambiguous.

 

No, you are making it appear ambiguous by adding so much more to what I said.

 

All I said is that there are natural processes in the universe (tzujan) and that all things and all non-things follow these natural processes.

 

'Natural processes' is not a thing; it is just the way it (the universe and all things and non-things) is. We can speak of all the different forms of energy all we want but even these energies function within their natural processes.

 

We do not need magic to understand this. Just look out your window and you will see these processes in action. And they never fail us because the laws of physics (regardless of man's understanding of those laws) always apply.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

And I am attached to my own well-being and the first statement I make upon waking in the morning is: I will not allow anyone to screw up my day.

 

Have a great day Y'all!

 

Peace & Love!

[forestofclarity]

This whole idea of dependent/independent lies on the manifestation side of things, the dualistic side. We are warned right away that the "Tao that can be Taoed is not the constant Tao".

 

Having said that, going to the realm of forms and concepts, if the Tao were independent, how could it interact with the world?

 

 

The answer is, "Yes".

[forestofclarity]

Vajra,

 

I would note that the sheer quantity of your posts obscures good communication with you about any ideas, and also tends to ruin the threads you post in. Accordingly, I have put you on "ignore" and have no idea what you are saying which is the only way I can read threads like these without being overwhelmed by numerous posts. Yet I can see in some of the other Taobums a shift from tolerating Buddhism to becoming adverse to it, and taking Buddhism to be some sort of mindless, evangelical religion. I would ask, if possible, that you limit the number and tone of your posts to prevent pushing people from Buddhism even further.

[ralis]

Well... there are your reply's to me.

 

What kind of response is that?

 

 

ralis

[Apech]

Can we go back to the original question (if it was one)?

 

Is Tao an ontological essence of life?

 

I recognize the quotes that Stig has given to back up this idea but my reaction to any statement which starts with 'the Tao is ....' is to put on my hat of skepticism and say well maybe it is and maybe it isn't. LZ made it clear that the Tao cannot be named or spoken and so any statement of this kind is open to challenge. I don't say this from an anti-intellectual POV (just in case GiH is lurking) but simply to say the human tendency to want to nail a concept with a hard definition every time doesn't work with the Tao.

 

Ontology is about the study of the nature of 'being' and as such is concerned with what 'is', 'essence' is to do with some irreducible inner form; and life as they say, is life. So is the Tao some kind of irreducible core of life? Well maybe, kind of, but no not exactly.

 

The Tao 'placed' (again careful with use of words) before Heaven and Earth or beyond the named and the nameless encompasses the mysterious which itself may be beyond anything that could be said to 'be' (depending on how we are defining existence). So we might say that beings or things only arise because of Tao - and say this because we perceive them to exist and as they are 'real' they arise in conformity with what is stated man (+things) conform to Earth, Earth conforms to Heaven and Heaven conforms to Tao (Tao conforms to Nature). But this does not make Tao an essence or indeed an origin.

 

For me (and I may be only speaking for myself here) the problem with the word origin ... (I have no idea about the Chinese terms) ... is that it implies a cause which is somehow separate from the result. So like with the Big Bang everyone tends to think that this is like some enormous explosion that 'happened' 13.7 billion years ago. That is the origin of the universe, it happened then and what we have now is the universe itself (the result). So when did the Big Bang stop and the Universe start? The question is daft. The Universe is the Big Bang now. So even with basic mechanical cause and effect there are no gaps between cause, process and effect except those that we make mentally. They are all a continuity. The universe is a continuum of energy with evolving processes within it. Even this is a way of speaking and we are tending to think of the universe as a finite zone of activity and not an infinite realm of possibility.

 

The philosophy of dependent origination is a kind of antidote to our habitual tendency to separate out things and treat them as if they exist in their own little bubbles. As such it is useful, I think.

 

On the other hand the Tao is talking about how ungraspable the essential nature of things is. This is why the texts often tells stories which turn everything we suppose to be true on its head and allow us to see everything in a new light - expressing Tao conforming to its own Nature.

 

I would suggest that if you do that well enough you don't need dependent origination as an antidote or perhaps you will get it anyway without even trying too hard.

 

So while I can see where you are coming from Stig I can't really agree with your interpretation. Much as I would like to.

[johndoe2012]

The more important question is: how do one "obtain" the Tao? One can easily fool oneself in reading various taoist texts and think "now I've got it".

 

The verification of one who has the Tao and the roadmap to the Tao seem the most difficult.

[ralis]

The more important question is: how do one "obtain" the Tao? One can easily fool oneself in reading various taoist texts and think "now I've got it".

 

The verification of one who has the Tao and the roadmap to the Tao seem the most difficult.

 

I am not certain if one obtains anything since one is already there and not separate from the Tao.

 

ralis

[tumoessence]

I have a naive question here. I am not a scholar or anything and don't know many texts, but doesn't the problem come from attachment to interpretation of experiences, and attachment to experiences themselves? I have a spiritual "view" given me by a tradition and I see all my spiritual experiences after the fact in that light. I could be attached to the experience itself, but I don't see that as much of a problem in the context of this thread. Isn't ascribing essence to anything an action by the mind after the fact? Then I think I know what essence is? Or is the cognition of essence in the experience? Or does the mind only think so after the fact?