Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?

[Vajrahridaya]

That description of Spanda (Vibration) made me think of String Theory. Isn't one of the things String Theory posits is that the universe is a series of vibrations of subatomic particles?

 

There seem to be many co-relations between the expressed theories of timeless spiritual experiences and current findings in science and physics. It's pretty interesting.

[Vajrahridaya]

It would seem we are discovering common ground

 

There are layers of common grounds between all spiritual traditions.

[Marblehead]

Thanks for that work Stig. I appreciate it!

 

Which actually presents another way of looking at the original text. Perhaps the term "Soft overcomes hard, weak overcomes strong" is not a statement of fact, but more of an instruction to be more yielding and supple then you are rigid and strong.

Works for me

 

Absolutely agree!

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Marblehead...since you know Lao Tzu so well can you quote me the chapter(s) and paragraph(s) that confirm that Lao Tzu said it is a good thing that some people can't comprehend Tao? Would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

 

While it is true that Lao Tzu said that there are those who do not and will not understand the Way of Tao, and he said that there are those who have lost the Way, I don't know of anywhere in the TTC where he suggested that this is a good thing - it simply is.

 

The following from chapter 41 could be misentrepreted to understand that it is good that some do not understand:

 

3. When the lowest type of men hear the Way, they laugh out loud at it.

4. If they didn't laugh at it, it couldn't be regarded as the Way.

 

That's the best I can do at the moment.

 

Peace & Love!

[Apech]

While it is true that Lao Tzu said that there are those who do not and will not understand the Way of Tao, and he said that there are those who have lost the Way, I don't know of anywhere in the TTC where he suggested that this is a good thing - it simply is.

 

The following from chapter 41 could be misentrepreted to understand that it is good that some do not understand:

 

3. When the lowest type of men hear the Way, they laugh out loud at it.

4. If they didn't laugh at it, it couldn't be regarded as the Way.

 

That's the best I can do at the moment.

 

Peace & Love!

 

I have to say I cannot imagine any good Taoist saying that people are spiritually handicapped. When LZ talks about the 'lowest type' I think we have to accept that there are a lot of people for whom the Tao holds no interest. Also it takes a kind of spiritual maturity to understand the Tao ... which by the way I would guess most of us have only to a small degree.

 

People laugh at the Tao also because its simple and kind of earthy in its expression and some people want great truths to be elaborate and grandiose. This is only because they are confused by b/s and pretension.

 

The main thing for me is I cannot ever imagine being pleased or happy that people are excluded from understanding in this way. For my part, although I don't really want to have much to do with many people in this world, I wish them all happiness and enlightenment. I don't mind people who have a different view to me - in fact I welcome it. Its good to talk about all this stuff and I always try to remember that at least people on here are interested in some way or another - while most people in the world seem to have worldly and selfish interests.

 

Just thought I'd say this.

[Marblehead]

I have to say I cannot imagine ...

 

Very nice thoughts. I am in agreement.

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

I have to say I cannot imagine any good Taoist saying that people are spiritually handicapped. When LZ talks about the 'lowest type' I think we have to accept that there are a lot of people for whom the Tao holds no interest. Also it takes a kind of spiritual maturity to understand the Tao ... which by the way I would guess most of us have only to a small degree.

 

People laugh at the Tao also because its simple and kind of earthy in its expression and some people want great truths to be elaborate and grandiose. This is only because they are confused by b/s and pretension.

 

The main thing for me is I cannot ever imagine being pleased or happy that people are excluded from understanding in this way. For my part, although I don't really want to have much to do with many people in this world, I wish them all happiness and enlightenment. I don't mind people who have a different view to me - in fact I welcome it. Its good to talk about all this stuff and I always try to remember that at least people on here are interested in some way or another - while most people in the world seem to have worldly and selfish interests.

 

Just thought I'd say this.

Thank you Sensei! Timely reminder this.

 

...... ...... ......

 

The highest of the high have no view. The lowest of the low is the same. Problem is i am often caught in between - when i am low, i cannot accept that, and want to take the high position. Then being unable to reach the highest high, i fall down with a bump. Not satisfied again with that, i struggle with this same dilemma over and over, like a yoyo, and before i know it, my life is almost over, with only 40 years left, 25 of which would ensure the further diminishing (thru Parkinsons and related complications hehe) of the small degree of maturity that i have painstakingly nurtured with practicing extreme austerities. Perhaps if i learn to accept this withering self without any resistance, that would indeed return me to the lowest of low, and unencumber me at last! What a relief that will be... Free at last to wander the lowly places, like water returning to Source by simply being itself.

 

(No matter how high we try to lift water, it somehow always naturally return to its own level (not referring to the One of All here)... yielding, yielding, yielding. Since the body is mostly water, it should be our nature to understand and live according to the path of least resistance, our birthright in fact. In this manner, where is the need for any religion, or Truths, or any sort of philosophical/spiritual wisdom, for that matter? Mostly we are just buying time with the added bonus of holier-than-thou distractions. That is how many became 'smart' (like Adam eating the forbidden fruit!), contraction sets in, creating the desires to rise and conquer the heavens now that dominating the earthly realms thru irresponsible plundering no longer appeals to the ignorant. This, i am afraid, is the fundamental failing of Man, this lack of pliability/adaptability to simply let things be, to live within what is provided for by Nature. Now take this individual 'spiritual thirst' and translate it to the whole of human existence, and one can see the same dynamic expressing itself on a more mundane, physical level. For those who want to know why Man can be so foolish upon itself, this is one of the reasons... this basic dissatisfaction gnawing at the inner being - if one is truly content, there is really really no need for any grasping at anything, no matter how noble this 'anything' may appear to be. Man will then just live in harmony. Unfortunately this is not so, hence the Tao was born.)

 

 

 

Just thought i'd say this too. Forgive me if this seems totally nonsensical. A7 Sensei said i needed more rest. Me thinks he could be right!!

[Marblehead]

... if one is truly content, there is really really no need for any grasping at anything, ...

 

And yet another very important consideration, IMO.

 

Peace & Love!

[Apech]

 

 

Just thought i'd say this too. Forgive me if this seems totally nonsensical. A7 Sensei said i needed more rest. Me thinks he could be right!!

 

You may take a short period of rest after you have swept the dojo! :lol:

[3bob]

I'd say the "highest of the high" knows all views but serves only the Tao - before which all views are made naked.

[Marblehead]

I'd say the "highest of the high" knows all views but serves only the Tao - before which all views are made naked.

 

I just wanted to repeat this because I think it is valid.

 

Peace & Love!

[Brian]

...

[C T]

I'd say the "highest of the high" knows all views but serves only the Tao - before which all views are made naked.

She that knows the Tao knows that the highest High and the lowest Low meet at some point, that is why i have reflected that both are beyond views. Whomsoever attempts to theorise what the Tao knows or not know is merely defining according to the finite mind, which is why there is the philosophical deduction that high and low define each other. This is a human observation, based on pragmatism, and not from beyond that scope. Whatsoever lies beyond this scope is essence-less, nameless, and is beyond measurable comprehension.

 

The notion that Tao be served denotes subservience. There is no subservience, which is a forced mode of being. Simply allow all things to return to their own nature. Any forced manipulation, no matter how subtle, whether of body or mind, gives rise to the Tao. When things are left alone, Tao is never needed. Without even the need for Tao, Everything can then be felt as they naturally unfold, bloom for a while, and then subside. This is the way it is. Practice not to practice. Unlearn. Connect to the natural state. Even the slightest, subtlest attempt to glimpse into Tao means that at that moment of trying to see, one is removed from and misses the continuum.

 

just musing...

 

(Sorry Bob - dont mean to be contrary. Just trying to be 'smart').

[Marblehead]

Funny CowTao & 3bob.

 

I agree with both of you even though it appears that you are disagreeing with each other.

 

You really are not. The views are just from a different vantage point.

 

Although the word being used here is Tao as a state the comments have been directed more to the Way and especially the Way of man. In the Way of man there really are different levels, or states. It is with the Way of man where judgements are applied by even the Sage so there are levels, of states, of higher and lower. But the Way of Tao is beyond judgement - no such thing as 'higher' or 'lower'.

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

She that knows the Tao knows that the highest High and the lowest Low meet at some point, that is why i have reflected that both are beyond views. Whomsoever attempts to theorise what the Tao knows or not know is merely defining according to the finite mind, which is why there is the philosophical deduction that high and low define each other. This is a human observation, based on pragmatism, and not from beyond that scope. Whatsoever lies beyond this scope is essence-less, nameless, and is beyond measurable comprehension.

 

The notion that Tao be served denotes subservience. There is no subservience, which is a forced mode of being. Simply allow all things to return to their own nature. Any forced manipulation, no matter how subtle, whether of body or mind, gives rise to the Tao. When things are left alone, Tao is never needed. Without even the need for Tao, Everything can then be felt as they naturally unfold, bloom for a while, and then subside. This is the way it is. Practice not to practice. Unlearn. Connect to the natural state. Even the slightest, subtlest attempt to glimpse into Tao means that at that moment of trying to see, one is removed from and misses the continuum.

 

just musing...

 

(Sorry Bob - dont mean to be contrary. Just trying to be 'smart').

 

I see some agreement CowTao, although you slipped in a saying from a possible and perhaps a particular school of Buddhism with your, "essence-less" remark. That's naughty.

 

Btw, as I believe you have studied the Buddha fully recogizes the truth of the Earth per well recognized sutta so I'll go with that as a sure reminder of where he is coming from. (thus not going by very many of the interpretations coming from other sources)

 

 

Om

Edited July 13, 2010 by 3bob

[Starjumper]

I have to say I cannot imagine any good Taoist saying that people are spiritually handicapped. When LZ talks about the 'lowest type' I think we have to accept that there are a lot of people for whom the Tao holds no interest. Also it takes a kind of spiritual maturity to understand the Tao ... which by the way I would guess most of us have only to a small degree.

 

People laugh at the Tao also because its simple and kind of earthy in its expression and some people want great truths to be elaborate and grandiose. This is only because they are confused by b/s and pretension.

 

The main thing for me is I cannot ever imagine being pleased or happy that people are excluded from understanding in this way. For my part, although I don't really want to have much to do with many people in this world, I wish them all happiness and enlightenment. I don't mind people who have a different view to me - in fact I welcome it. Its good to talk about all this stuff and I always try to remember that at least people on here are interested in some way or another - while most people in the world seem to have worldly and selfish interests.

 

Just thought I'd say this.

 

I see you have a little cheering section that agrees with all this. I ask you, should everything be politically correct to the point of losing it's meaning, so that it doesn't hurt those with fragile egos? Is it good to dumb down every high system so it fits the lowest common denominator?

 

A Taoist immortal did tell me that religion is for the spiritually handicapped (emotionally immature), he was exactly right, and he was a very good person! Lao Tzu did say that:

Kind words are not true

True words are not kind

 

That's Taoism, it's for grown ups only, if you can't accept that then just admit Taoism is not for you and don't try to make it into something it isn't.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Starjumper7

[Starjumper]

And that, even though Lao Tzu only said it for those that read between the lines, is why it is a good thing that the spiritually handicapped (fundamentalists) don't understand the Way, they need something else, and the world is full of those something elses. If the idea that there is something that excludes others (they exclude themselves automatically) is painful that's your problem, but it is something that makes Taoism like gold to those that can appreciate it.

 

Kind words are not true

True words are not kind.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Starjumper7

[Apech]

Hi Starjumper,

 

I do not have a cheering section - if people choose to agree with what I say then that's up to them. My words are not either politically correct or kind. People do bar themselves from the truth by their own confusion and ignorance. I do not rejoice in this fact or throw it as an accusation against others. It is unnecessary and a matter for regret. Just that.

[Marblehead]

And that, even though Lao Tzu only said it for those that read between the lines, is why it is a good thing that the spiritually handicapped (fundamentalists) don't understand the Way, they need something else, and the world is full of those something elses. If the idea that there is something that excludes others (they exclude themselves automatically) is painful that's your problem, but it is something that makes Taoism like gold to those that can appreciate it.

 

Kind words are not true

True words are not kind.

 

Hi Starjumper,

 

While I agree with the basics of what you are saying it is also said that Tao and the Sage does not refuse anyone. Anyone willing to try to understand must be afforded the opportunity to understand.

 

It is true, some will not understand. But that is no reason to belittle them because they surely are still a part of Tao.

 

It is said that some loose Tao by getting totally immersed in the materail world but it is also said that they can always return to Tao because Tao never forsakes any of us.

 

Personally, I modified those two quoted lines to read:

 

Kind words are not always true,

True words are not always kind.

 

And I think that this is more true than the original version you posted. Sometimes we can use nice words while telling the truth and it really isn't necessary to use pretty words in order to tell a lie that is believable.

 

Peace & Love!

[Starjumper]

Hi Starjumper,

 

While I agree with the basics of what you are saying it is also said that Tao and the Sage does not refuse anyone. Anyone willing to try to understand must be afforded the opportunity to understand.

I also agree with the basics of what you are saying ... but ... the quote about sages is to be taken with a grain of salt. While they will respond to a request for help their response may not be what the requester had in mind although it may well be for the best. For example, the top chi kung master in China only has one student so we may surmise that he had to reject 40 or 50 worth student applicants and 14,389 unworthy ones. My teacher also did not accept all applicants, and he was proud of being able to say no. Once I asked him something and he answered 'no' and you could tell he had practice getting the accent and facial expression just right and was enjoying the new art.

 

It is true, some will not understand. But that is no reason to belittle them because they surely are still a part of Tao.

Um yeah, well our resident fundamentalist was saying his way was superior to Taoism (and thereby belittling us) and that the TTC was unclear, so I was just trying to poke a sharp stick in his eye is all, carry on.

 

It is said that some loose Tao by getting totally immersed in the materail world but it is also said that they can always return to Tao because Tao never forsakes any of us.

 

Personally, I modified those two quoted lines to read:

 

Kind words are not always true,

True words are not always kind.

 

And I think that this is more true than the original version you posted. Sometimes we can use nice words while telling the truth and it really isn't necessary to use pretty words in order to tell a lie that is believable.

That is of course true, but the TTC translations don't use the term 'always' do they? Also, a slap in the face will frequently get people's attention better than sweet talking them. It also separates the men from the boys to see who can take it, there's lots of 'boys' around here, let me tell ya. I am currently the student of a most powerful Kahuna, and he sometimes does the verbal slap in the face on me, and noticing how calm I am in response to it is a good self test for myself.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Starjumper7

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

 

Um yeah, well our resident fundamentalist was saying his way was superior to Taoism (and thereby belittling us) and that the TTC was unclear...

 

Hi there Mr. should I say... conclusion jumper star?

 

I would like to state for the record, that I don't think every Taoist system is inferior, as I do think that some systems of Taoism do lead to the same enlightenment as the Buddha, but they are generally speaking, pretty hard to find and quite secret for the sake of posterity as most really deep Buddhist teachings and practices are as well. I do mostly think that plenty of peoples views of the Tao do lack insight and are not emptied enough of reifying or deifying interpretations, just like in some Buddhists about Buddhism.

 

Yes, the TTC is quite ambiguous, so is up for so many interpretations... which a lot of people like and yes, every reading evolves with you. I don't find all interpretations to be up to par in my experienced opinion and that's all I state, for the most part. I have stated many times before that I do feel that some views on the Tao could pass Buddha-rific inspection. Now, I don't think anyone should take any of my opinions personally, unless of course I do strike a cord of personal resonance, then I think it's time to look in the mirror.

 

Buddhism on the other hand does have a clear lineage of interpretation, but on another spoke of the wheel of confusion, I don't think that every lineage within Buddhism does speak as clearly or procure the methodology leading to ultimate clarity with succinct ability as some others. Now, I'm sure you could say the same about the many, many Taoist lineages. Am I right or wrong? I'm quite sure there are some Taoist lineages or teachers that you would not agree with.

 

Of course, on yet another hand, everyone needs whatever they need in order to evolve as everyone does evolve as is the way of the Tao, even if they have to take many steps back first in order to re-learn or clarify some lessons. I for one use the I-Ching quite regularly through coin throwing in order to help clarify my path. I interpret the terms through my understanding of what the Buddha said. If that is wrong to you, you can go sit in the corner with your judgment and suffer yourself, or just get over the fact that I am a follower of "Awake-ism", which is translated in Sanskrit as Buddhism.

 

For me, Buddhism is not a religion but the way of seeing and methodology that leads to liberated vision. Plenty of paths employ one Buddha method or another as Buddhas, or "awake beings" if you please, do influence so many beings on so many levels as that is part of the path. Buddhas help others and influence as deeply as possible on levels while alive and even after physical falling away into the so called "spirit" realms. So, if some of your traditions' Taoist Immortals have the same level of enlightenment as Buddhist Immortals, you can bet that they're swapping information on higher levels of being than most people can assess.

 

So, let's let bygones be bygones, not bigots and let's not take anyone's opinion with so much spite and bitterness... eh? Can we not get along, even if we do not agree? Why let an adverse view turn into a spit fest? You and plenty of others here need to get a grip on what the inner cause of your tension truly is.

 

Also for the record. Yes, I am a fundamentalist! I want to know the fundamentals of how the cosmos works directly, through both methods of spiritual practice, philosophy which goes along with method and psychology. I do find fault in some views on things and I state that. I am aloud to disagree and state why. I am also aloud to ask for a deeper clarification of terms from peoples own perspectives.

 

I do not agree that the Tao is an ontological essence. Is that not ok?

Edited July 14, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ben]

Hi there Mr. should I say... conclusion jumper star?

 

I would like to state for the record, that I don't think every Taoist system is inferior, as I do think that some systems of Taoism do lead to the same enlightenment as the Buddha, but they are generally speaking, pretty hard to find and quite secret for the sake of posterity as most really deep Buddhist teachings and practices are as well. I do mostly think that plenty of peoples views of the Tao do lack insight and are not emptied enough of reifying or deifying interpretations, just like in some Buddhists about Buddhism.

 

Yes, the TTC is quite ambiguous, so is up for so many interpretations... which a lot of people like and yes, every reading evolves with you. I don't find all interpretations to be up to par in my experienced opinion and that's all I state, for the most part. I have stated many times before that I do feel that some views on the Tao could pass Buddha-rific inspection. Now, I don't think anyone should take any of my opinions personally, unless of course I do strike a cord of personal resonance, then I think it's time to look in the mirror. Very well said Vajrahridaya, I for one enjoy reading your posts.

 

Buddhism on the other hand does have a clear lineage of interpretation, but on another spoke of the wheel of confusion, I don't think that every lineage within Buddhism does speak as clearly or procure the methodology leading to ultimate clarity with succinct ability as some others. Now, I'm sure you could say the same about the many, many Taoist lineages. Am I right or wrong? I'm quite sure there are some Taoist lineages or teachers that you would not agree with.

 

Of course, on yet another hand, everyone needs whatever they need in order to evolve as everyone does evolve as is the way of the Tao, even if they have to take many steps back first in order to re-learn or clarify some lessons. I for one use the I-Ching quite regularly through coin throwing in order to help clarify my path. I interpret the terms through my understanding of what the Buddha said. If that is wrong to you, you can go sit in the corner with your judgment and suffer yourself, or just get over the fact that I am a follower of "Awake-ism", which is translated in Sanskrit as Buddhism.

 

For me, Buddhism is not a religion but the way of seeing and methodology that leads to liberated vision. Plenty of paths employ one Buddha method or another as Buddhas, or "awake beings" if you please, do influence so many beings on so many levels as that is part of the path. Buddhas help others and influence as deeply as possible on levels while alive and even after physical falling away into the so called "spirit" realms. So, if some of your traditions' Taoist Immortals have the same level of enlightenment as Buddhist Immortals, you can bet that they're swapping information on higher levels of being than most people can assess.

 

So, let's let bygones be bygones, not bigots and let's not take anyone's opinion with so much spite and bitterness... eh? Can we not get along, even if we do not agree? Why let an adverse view turn into a spit fest? You and plenty of others here need to get a grip on what the inner cause of your tension truly is.

 

Also for the record. Yes, I am a fundamentalist! I want to know the fundamentals of how the cosmos works directly, through both methods of spiritual practice, philosophy which goes along with method and psychology. I do find fault in some views on things and I state that. I am aloud to disagree and state why. I am also aloud to ask for a deeper clarification of terms from peoples own perspectives.

 

I do not agree that the Tao is an ontological essence. Is that not ok?

[ben]

Very well said Vajrahidaya, I for one enjoy reading your posts.

[Vajrahridaya]

Very well said Vajrahidaya, I for one enjoy reading your posts.

 

Thanks big guy! I appreciate your clocking in.

 

Sorry... couldn't resist a pun.

[Marblehead]

I also agree with the basics of what you are saying ... but ... the quote about sages is to be taken with a grain of salt. While they will respond to a request for help their response may not be what the requester had in mind although it may well be for the best. For example, the top chi kung master in China only has one student so we may surmise that he had to reject 40 or 50 worth student applicants and 14,389 unworthy ones. My teacher also did not accept all applicants, and he was proud of being able to say no. Once I asked him something and he answered 'no' and you could tell he had practice getting the accent and facial expression just right and was enjoying the new art.

 

Yep. Sometimes the simple truth is the best medicine, not just what the other wishes to hear.

 

Um yeah, well our resident fundamentalist was saying his way was superior to Taoism (and thereby belittling us) and that the TTC was unclear, so I was just trying to poke a sharp stick in his eye is all, carry on.

 

Hehehe. Yeah, I know. But he has gotten much better over the months. But really, there are some Buddhists here who actually appreciate his posts. Perhaps one day he will realize that 'superior' applies only to the individual and it is not an absolute. Perhaps his understanding are 'superior' for him but surely you, I, Ralis, and others will continue to differ with him.

 

That is of course true, but the TTC translations don't use the term 'always' do they? Also, a slap in the face will frequently get people's attention better than sweet talking them. It also separates the men from the boys to see who can take it, there's lots of 'boys' around here, let me tell ya. I am currently the student of a most powerful Kahuna, and he sometimes does the verbal slap in the face on me, and noticing how calm I am in response to it is a good self test for myself.

 

Nope. None that I have read include the word 'always'. And I do agree, a slap aside the head if very effective in gaining the other's attention. And I do agree that a teacher must be selective as to which students they will admit. One of Chuang Tzu's stories included a scene where the sage told the student to find a different teacher because he (the sage) did not have the abilities to teach that particular student.

 

Peace & Love!