Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?

[dwai]

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

The point of both Vedanta (Advaita) and Madhyamika is to show that "IT" cannot be grasped by Dualistic methods (such as sensory or intellectual faculties)..but only via direct experience (prajna or intuitive knowledge).

Another point, to accentuate the duality of it all, is that any indication of 'how' it is grasped or realized.. affirms the duality of 'IT", and that which is 'grasping and realizing'.. "IT" and 'that' cannot be the same, nor are they different.. let go of this needyness to be one or the other, it is suffocating your existence..

 

Be well..

[Birch]

"Food that looks so good in a restaurant may not sit so well in your stomach. This is a clear sign of a discrepancy between appearance and reality."

 

 

Which IMO is really where Taoism starts getting useful. It provides a lens through which causes and conditions may be understood allowing for better navigation. I think that's why I prefer it. Of course I'm not faithful to any -ism and will heartily try whatever works, even Buddhist mind control techniques and emptiness and all that. All good.

 

OT a lot of restaurant food isn't actually prepared onsite, but cooked from frozen there...

[Brian]

...

[ralis]

The complaint by V that TTC is ambiguous and difficult to understand is unfounded. TTC proves that nature is difficult to quantify and categorize. Therefor writing and debating ad infinitum misses the point. The direct experience of the awesomeness of it is enough for me.

 

 

ralis

[dwai]

Greetings..

 

 

Another point, to accentuate the duality of it all, is that any indication of 'how' it is grasped or realized.. affirms the duality of 'IT", and that which is 'grasping and realizing'.. "IT" and 'that' cannot be the same, nor are they different.. let go of this needyness to be one or the other, it is suffocating your existence..

 

Be well..

 

 

Actually you are saying exactly what I have said. The mundane "one-ness" or "other-ness" is unnecessary. But the intellectual realization has to happen before it can be accepted, especially for some of the intellectually oriented types. My existence is quite happy accepting that it is not one or another and also quite happy to accept that while it is neither existent nor non-existent, it does exist in a way beyond the dualistic mechanics of thought (otherwise we cannot ever refer to it -- even calling it Tao is a reference, giving it an existence in the dualistic world, as does calling it non-existent does...because "IT" is always there)

 

 

[Apech]

I've come back because it seems a little calmer now.

 

I am still thinking that the Ontological essence is perhaps Heaven and not Tao. But we do not have a good definition of Heaven or even worse we have the confusion of Christian Heaven - which is a different idea altogether I would suggest.

 

How does a Taoist define Heaven?

 

Heaven conforms to Tao and is quite like Tao but also is seen as the ordering power to which Earth conforms.

[ralis]

I've come back because it seems a little calmer now.

 

I am still thinking that the Ontological essence is perhaps Heaven and not Tao. But we do not have a good definition of Heaven or even worse we have the confusion of Christian Heaven - which is a different idea altogether I would suggest.

 

How does a Taoist define Heaven?

 

Heaven conforms to Tao and is quite like Tao but also is seen as the ordering power to which Earth conforms.

 

I wonder if it is the so called 3rd. eye. I believe it is referred to the celestial or heavenly eye.

[Apech]

I wonder if it is the so called 3rd. eye. I believe it is referred to the celestial or heavenly eye.

 

Can the 3rd Eye be heaven I'm not sure but could you explain a bit more?

[adept]

Since you thought of it as an all absorbing principle that truly exists from it's own side.

 

Tao just IS. Is doesn't have 'it's own side'. It isn't a 'principle'

What the hell is that supposed to mean ?

[ralis]

Can the 3rd Eye be heaven I'm not sure but could you explain a bit more?

 

All I have read is that the 3rd eye opens at some point and the celestial realms are seen. This aspect is not discussed much.

 

ralis

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

This aspect is not discussed much.

Is it any wonder? People can't even comprehend Tao (it's way too simple), how do you expect them to 'see'.. And, neither is particularly necessary..

 

Be well..

[Brian]

...

[ralis]

Maybe this is the 3 rd. eye.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c0/Eyeofsauron.jpg

 

Just adding some levity here.

Edited July 15, 2010 by ralis

[Apech]

Depends on whether you are referring to the scriptural "Christian Heaven" briefly discussed in the Bible or the "pop-culture" "Christian Heaven" taught by most churches -- they are very different ,you see.

 

By and large, scripture describes heaven as being eternally in the light of (or presence of) God and the alternative as being eternally removed from the light of God. Most other "attributes" were added after the fact.

 

OK good point ... I was thinking of the 'place where you go when you die and are happy ever after' sort of place ... which I regard as a kind of brainwashing ...

 

But yes a realm of eternal light (which goes back to Ralis' 3rd eye thing) is about right. Then you can say that the patterns in nature ... in the earth such as the sand vibrations that Stig posted above are Earth conforming to Heaven - if we take light and sound to refer to vibrational energy.

[ralis]

OK good point ... I was thinking of the 'place where you go when you die and are happy ever after' sort of place ... which I regard as a kind of brainwashing ...

 

But yes a realm of eternal light (which goes back to Ralis' 3rd eye thing) is about right. Then you can say that the patterns in nature ... in the earth such as the sand vibrations that Stig posted above are Earth conforming to Heaven - if we take light and sound to refer to vibrational energy.

 

Einstein stated that the material world was just compressed (by gravity) frequencies of light. Perhaps the 3rd. eye is able to see the very fabric of nature i.e, light.

 

ralis

[Marblehead]

I hope this makes my position (maintained since several months, maybe even more than one year) here more clear.

 

Hi Dwai,

 

I think you and I have had an understanding for some time now.

 

I agree with what you said above (as far as I could understand without looking up the foreign words you used, hehehe).

 

There really is no thin line between duality and non-duality. I think it is more of a merging of the two.

 

And I would agree that Oneness (Tao) can be realized only from a non-dualistic condition. But to put that realization into words I think is beyond our ability.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Maybe this is the 3 rd. eye.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c0/Eyeofsauron.jpg

 

Just adding some levity here.

 

Yep. That could well be the 3rd eye.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

I've come back because it seems a little calmer now.

 

I am still thinking that the Ontological essence is perhaps Heaven and not Tao. But we do not have a good definition of Heaven or even worse we have the confusion of Christian Heaven - which is a different idea altogether I would suggest.

 

How does a Taoist define Heaven?

 

Heaven conforms to Tao and is quite like Tao but also is seen as the ordering power to which Earth conforms.

 

I speak of the Christian Heaven only with people I know are good Christians because I do not hold to the concept myself. Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu used the word heaven the same way I use the word (rest of the) universe.

 

Philosophical Taoism does not speak to the concept of heaven and hell as in the Christian faith.

 

For me, heaven and hell reside within each of use. Our condition can be heaven, hell, or some condition between.

 

I don't talk much about the 3rd eye either but in my understanding it is through our 3rd eye that we gain our intuitive realizations.

 

Peace & Love!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

The Physical 'eyes' are limited to a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, and energies that shape the Cosmos.. the 'Third Eye' is a link to the complete electromagnetic spectrum, when active and understood.. the effects of forces are observable when the full spectrum is revealed.. it changes everything.

 

Be well..

[Vajrahridaya]

Tao just IS. Is doesn't have 'it's own side'. It isn't a 'principle'

What the hell is that supposed to mean ?

 

"It's own side", as in it exists due to it's self. It's a truly transcendent self existence without other reference for existence. It's the all. This is what I mean by existing from it's own side, as in, it's independently originating and not dependently originated. As in, all things arise from the Tao and are one with the Tao and fall back into the Tao. The Tao is all sides of existence and is existence itself, even the potential for future existences as an ontological essence of things?

 

In Buddhism, we also discuss this, but we mean emptiness, that things arise and fall due to their emptiness of inherent existence, not due to a transcendent existence of all. Emptiness does not inherently exist but is rather the quality of non-inherent existence of all phenomena, experiences and minds. There is no transcendent reality beyond concepts that truly exists from it's own side, even though true enlightenment transcends descriptions, it's not because of a transcendent entity, but rather because of the fact of non-inherent existence and is due to mere relative existence.

 

So, you consider "The Way" of things to be a self contained oneness? This means that the Tao is in fact an ontological essence from your own perspective and reification of transcendent experiences in meditation? Does it not? Or, you just say... it is! As in all that is, is proof of it's is-ness?

 

If this is so, then infinite regress is not revealed to you and neither is the insight of emptiness. So, this would lead to an entirely different understanding of what the insight of enlightenment is from the Buddhist perspective. Saying that "the way" of things has inherent existence is not the same as seeing relative existence.

 

As in, one is still maintaining a slight attachment to an ultimate existence or supreme existent, even if formless and beyond concept? Buddha says that bondage is also transcendent of concepts and anchored within the formless realms of our own generally unconscious psyche and to take this up as an impersonal essence of all, does not lead to liberation without residue.

 

So, one would assume that your view considers that if one were to go beyond concepts, one would be free of all attachments, but according to the wisdom of the Buddha, this only leads to healthy bliss and not liberation from the possibility of re-becoming into suffering existences as the seed of future ignorance has not been completely emptied of it's power to "is" from within.

 

Of course, you'd have to have a logical reference for past lives and after lives to understand this theory. One would have to have some direct experiencing of this in order to really have visionary faith in such a theory as well. Most do not have even this beginner level experience.

 

EDIT: I'm sorry if this Buddhist perspective does not find a nice place to be here. But, both Buddhism and Taoism are the only two spiritual traditions on Earth that use the same term to describe the true nature of things as "The Way." The Chinese word is, "Tao" and the Pali word is "Dhamma" and the Sanskrit word is "Dharma." So Buddhism and Taoism are kind of like kissing cousins.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Birch]

I don't know where/if "heaven" is, but lots of people and things keep promising it to me. Sometimes I get shown it (heheheh, troll laughter) but to know heaven , I suggest, is simply to depart from "oneself"

 

cryptics aside, why not dig around the "microcosm/macrocosm/universe bedang (last word that came to mind was "bedang" sorry I couldn't find something better.

[ralis]

"It's own side", as in it exists due to it's self. It's a truly transcendent self existence without other reference for existence. It's the all. This is what I mean by existing from it's own side, as in, it's independently originating and not dependently originated. As in, all things arise from the Tao and are one with the Tao and fall back into the Tao. The Tao is all sides of existence and is existence itself, even the potential for future existences as an ontological essence of things?

 

In Buddhism, we also discuss this, but we mean emptiness, that things arise and fall due to their emptiness of inherent existence, not due to a transcendent existence of all. Emptiness does not inherently exist but is rather the quality of non-inherent existence of all phenomena, experiences and minds. There is no transcendent reality beyond concepts that truly exists from it's own side, even though true enlightenment transcends descriptions, it's not because of a transcendent entity, but rather because of the fact of non-inherent existence and is due to mere relative existence.

 

So, you consider "The Way" of things to be a self contained oneness? This means that the Tao is in fact an ontological essence from your own perspective and reification of transcendent experiences in meditation? Does it not? Or, you just say... it is! As in all that is, is proof of it's is-ness?

 

If this is so, then infinite regress is not revealed to you and neither is the insight of emptiness. So, this would lead to an entirely different understanding of what the insight of enlightenment is from the Buddhist perspective. Saying that "the way" of things has inherent existence is not the same as seeing relative existence.

 

As in, one is still maintaining a slight attachment to an ultimate existence or supreme existent, even if formless and beyond concept? Buddha says that bondage is also transcendent of concepts and anchored within the formless realms of our own generally unconscious psyche and to take this up as an impersonal essence of all, does not lead to liberation without residue.

 

So, one would assume that your view considers that if one were to go beyond concepts, one would be free of all attachments, but according to the wisdom of the Buddha, this only leads to healthy bliss and not liberation from the possibility of re-becoming into suffering existences as the seed of future ignorance has not been completely emptied of it's power to "is" from within.

 

Of course, you'd have to have a logical reference for past lives and after lives to understand this theory. One would have to have some direct experiencing of this in order to really have visionary faith in such a theory as well. Most do not have even this beginner level experience.

 

EDIT: I'm sorry if this Buddhist perspective does not find a nice place to be here. But, both Buddhism and Taoism are the only two spiritual traditions on Earth that use the same term to describe the true nature of things as "The Way." The Chinese word is, "Tao" and the Pali word is "Dhamma" and the Sanskrit word is "Dharma." So Buddhism and Taoism are kind of like kissing cousins.

 

 

Even if both systems use the same term or not, don't attempt to equate the two. Taoism is not Buddhism as you present it.

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Even if both systems use the same term or not, don't attempt to equate the two. Taoism is not Buddhism as you present it.

 

 

ralis

 

No, it does not seem to be though some Taoists as I have read do seem to come to the same conclusions as the Buddha... though I am not nearly as well versed in esoteric Taoism as I am in esoteric Buddhism. I also do not know how influenced by the Buddhas teachings these Taoists are?? At the same time, there have always been pratyekabuddhas. or beings who realized on their own without much ability to teach or conceptualize in a way for mass consumption such as the Muni's ability to do so.

 

Listen ralis. We might be obliged to not talk with each other too much anymore unless in a civil manner. There are gods in this realm as well... ya dig?

[Stigweard]

I've come back because it seems a little calmer now.

 

I am still thinking that the Ontological essence is perhaps Heaven and not Tao. But we do not have a good definition of Heaven or even worse we have the confusion of Christian Heaven - which is a different idea altogether I would suggest.

 

How does a Taoist define Heaven?

 

Heaven conforms to Tao and is quite like Tao but also is seen as the ordering power to which Earth conforms.

I think we have to be very careful not to get too "esoteric" when defining the Taoist heaven. The character is tiān 天, and is quite literally the space 一 above men 大, or the sky. So the way of heaven, Tiandao, is the movements of the stars, planets, sun, moon, and other celestial bodies.