Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?

[adept]

But that really doesn't matter in regard to how we are going to live our life.

I think the big question is, "Are we going to be content with the way we have lived our life when it is our time to die?"

I think that if we follow the Way of Tao we will have that contentment.

Peace & Love!

 

 

Yes. There is far too much time talking about what will happen after we die or before we were born. It is all mere speculation.

Better to actually LIVE life in a wholesome way than to worry ourselves about what may happen next.

[Marblehead]

Yes. There is far too much time talking about what will happen after we die or before we were born. It is all mere speculation.

Better to actually LIVE life in a wholesome way than to worry ourselves about what may happen next.

 

Yes, Indeed! We, none of us, are actually sure of what is to be around that big corner. Sure, there are plenty of folks who have said they know but since they were never there they really don't know, do they?

 

So we concern ourselves with what we can deal with - the moment, the now. Tomorrow will take care of itself if we take care of today's today.

 

And I agree, if we live a rich and wholesome life I think that last thought we have in this life will be one of peace & contentment. Whatever follows will follow regardless of what we thing. We can concern ourselves with what follows if and when it arrives for us.

 

Peace & Love!

[Starjumper]

we work on the third eye quite a lot.

What approach do you take for the 3rd. eye opening?

I noticed: I said work on, you said open. There is still work that can be done after opening.

 

There is open ,

 

there is OPEN,

 

and there is nuclear powered.

[Stigweard]

Well, it appears that this thread has gone full circle and a few side paths as well.

 

Thanks for the inspiration, Stig, for a nice discussion of a Taoist concept.

 

So Tao is everything and every non-thing but yet it is no single thing in and of itself.

 

I have yet to see and understand (except in various mythologies) a good definition of a 'first cause'.

 

But that really doesn't matter in regard to how we are going to live our life.

 

I think the big question is, "Are we going to be content with the way we have lived our life when it is our time to die?"

 

I think that if we follow the Way of Tao we will have that contentment.

 

Peace & Love!

Very well said.

 

Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?

 

I initially said "Yes" to stimulate the discussion, and I thank all for getting stuck into it

 

But what this discussion has yielded is the realization that, just as Laozi has written, it is impossible to provide a definitive "Yes" or "No" to this question.

 

On one hand then "Yes" Tao is an ontological essence because Tao, being the way in which nature patterns and expresses itself, exists as a universal principle or law "before" Heaven and Earth arose. And also, as the subtle universal law, Tao does meet Laozi's terms:

 

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.

 

But, on the other hand, "No" Tao is not an ontological essence because the subtle universal law is not a "thing" that in any way shape or form can be regarded as a concrete entity. We have also seen that Tao is not necessarily a point of origin with creation flowing out from there in conventional linear terms because the subtle law is ever present with Heaven, Earth, and Humanity ever evolving according to the harmonic nature of Tao.

 

Other important realizations made here is that the Shengren's path is one of being "free in Tao" in the sense of being "awake" to the "true" nature of Heaven, Earth, Humanity and Tao. Rather than causing needless suffering by living "out-of-phase" with Universal nature, the path of Tao is one of perpetual attunement to the natural emanations of life and, by doing so, live according to the essence of Universal reality.

[Marblehead]

Well, you did pretty darn good yourself there with that recap.

 

We have also seen that Tao is not necessarily a point of origin with creation flowing out from there in conventional linear terms because ...

 

I think this captures the essence of this discussion. Two very important concepts in Taoist Philosophy, IMO, are the concepts of cycles and reversion.

 

These two concepts automatically negate any discussion of Tao (and creation) being a linear process.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes, Indeed! We, none of us, are actually sure of what is to be around that big corner. Sure, there are plenty of folks who have said they know but since they were never there they really don't know, do they?

 

 

Peace & Love!

 

The point is, that we've all been there, so many endless times, it's just a matter of remembering by delving deep into the unconscious.

 

It's not about worrying either as remembering is spontaneous. As the wisdom reflecting the remembering arises in conjunction as well.

 

Some of us can remember certain aspects of past lives as clearly as you remember yesterday. It's far from speculation, and sometimes there is even 3rd party proof as in knowing directly things that are verifiable by a 3rd party.

 

Be speculative about your speculations.

 

But yes... those of us who know, do know, at least to the degree we do know, there is certainty as an opening, not as a blockage, as an insight, not as being blind.

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes. There is far too much time talking about what will happen after we die or before we were born. It is all mere speculation.

Better to actually LIVE life in a wholesome way than to worry ourselves about what may happen next.

 

For those of us with experience, it's good to have talking about it in order to expand the wisdom that these remembering's have in order to enrich our current life. But, one should not worry... that would not be the point at all in remembering. In remembering, worrying decreases in the long run as more wisdom dawns in reflection... generally speaking.

[Marblehead]

The point is, that we've all been there, so many endless times, it's just a matter of remembering by delving deep into the unconscious.

 

I won't argue this point here. I have made my understanding very clear. I have seen no proof to negate my understanding.

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

Very well said.

 

Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?

 

I initially said "Yes" to stimulate the discussion, and I thank all for getting stuck into it

 

But what this discussion has yielded is the realization that, just as Laozi has written, it is impossible to provide a definitive "Yes" or "No" to this question.

 

On one hand then "Yes" Tao is an ontological essence because Tao, being the way in which nature patterns and expresses itself, exists as a universal principle or law "before" Heaven and Earth arose. And also, as the subtle universal law, Tao does meet Laozi's terms:

 

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.

 

But, on the other hand, "No" Tao is not an ontological essence because the subtle universal law is not a "thing" that in any way shape or form can be regarded as a concrete entity. We have also seen that Tao is not necessarily a point of origin with creation flowing out from there in conventional linear terms because the subtle law is ever present with Heaven, Earth, and Humanity ever evolving according to the harmonic nature of Tao.

 

Other important realizations made here is that the Shengren's path is one of being "free in Tao" in the sense of being "awake" to the "true" nature of Heaven, Earth, Humanity and Tao. Rather than causing needless suffering by living "out-of-phase" with Universal nature, the path of Tao is one of perpetual attunement to the natural emanations of life and, by doing so, live according to the essence of Universal reality.

 

mind recognizing its place and limits is fine; far more important is Tao realizing Tao - which only it can do.

 

Om

[3bob]

I won't argue this point here. I have made my understanding very clear. I have seen no proof to negate my understanding.

 

Peace & Love!

 

there is no proof to wrap our minds around, for such a proof is beyond mind.

 

and who wants to give up their apparent mind for such proof anyway?

[Marblehead]

there is no proof to wrap our minds around, for such a proof is beyond mind.

 

and who wants to give up their apparent mind for such proof anyway?

 

 

But you see, once we leave the realm of proof we step into the realm of individual beliefs. Now, I really do try to stay away from telling anyone that their beliefs are invalid because in all truth they are in fact valid for the individual.

 

And that is all I have really wanted to say on this forum. We need keep ourself oriented to the observable proofs (as understood by the human mind) so that we can live our life as fully as possible without causing conflict with others.

 

As long as we do this we can add whatever suppliments we wish to add in order to cause our reality to be a little more acceptable or whatever.

 

But no, now that I have made this statement I am not going to stop posting here because, after all, repetition is one of the best teachers.

 

So VJ will continue to be a Buddhist as long as the belief gives him support and Stig will continue to be a Religious Taoist as long as his beliefs give him support and the same is true for all other individuals and belief systems.

 

It is totally natural to hold to what gives us comfort. This too is Tao. But senselessly clinging is not Tao. In the end we each make our own choices. Free will and all that, you know.

 

Taoist Philosophy gives us nothing to cling to so we who follow the philosophy have never learned how to cling. (Well, in the most part. Hehehe.)

 

Peace & Love!

Edited July 19, 2010 by Marblehead

[Riyue]

looking at the pictures - there could be a chance to understand Laozi's idea of "DAO FA ZI RAN"

[Apech]

But you see, once we leave the realm of proof we step into the realm of individual beliefs. Now, I really do try to stay away from telling anyone that their beliefs are invalid because in all truth they are in fact valid for the individual.

 

And that is all I have really wanted to say on this forum. We need keep ourself oriented to the observable proofs (as understood by the human mind) so that we can live our life as fully as possible without causing conflict with others.

 

As long as we do this we can add whatever suppliments we wish to add in order to cause our reality to be a little more acceptable or whatever.

 

...

 

Taoist Philosophy gives us nothing to cling to so we who follow the philosophy have never learned how to cling. (Well, in the most part. Hehehe.)

 

Peace & Love!

 

I know where you are coming from but I am not sure that just what we can prove is enough and the rest is not all about comfort. For me for instance 'rebirth' (rather than reincarnation) is and always has been, since I first ever heard about it obviously true ... or at the very least far more likely to be true than not. I would never ask someone to prove it ... even if they did I wouldn't be very interested.

 

After all you can't actually prove to em that the Tao is anything other than the ravings of some old Chinese guy ... can you? As usual the problem with the whole belief thing is what has been done to us by organized religion. e.g. this is so and don't question it ... just believe it ... if you don't God will come down and spike your gonads with a kebab skewer, roast them and eat them for supper ... ok that was a bit specific but you get the idea.

 

I think there are many things that we naturally accept because they feel right and quite often this means they are right ... BUT if we ever get true wisdom then we will see them again properly.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I think there are many things that we naturally accept because they feel right and quite often this means they are right ... BUT if we ever get true wisdom then we will see them again properly.

 

Yes, at times emotional excuses for ignorance or knowledge are some very deep excuses we habitually call intuition.

 

"Darn it! I know it's true cuz my gonads vibrate when I think about it!"

 

Well... maybe if you really got the truth your gonads would become still? Hey... I don't know... just throwing it out there.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

So VJ will continue to be a Buddhist as long as the belief gives him support and Stig will continue to be a Religious Taoist as long as his beliefs give him support and the same is true for all other individuals and belief systems.

 

It is totally natural to hold to what gives us comfort. This too is Tao. But senselessly clinging is not Tao. In the end we each make our own choices. Free will and all that, you know.

 

Peace & Love!

 

I fully agree! If I can be proven wrong through valid argument that makes sense on an experiential level to me, I will concede... I can't say that it won't hurt, as it might. I'm not a Buddha. I have been impressed by some peoples takes on the Tao in here as well, but only in as close it comes to Buddhist insight. Which for me, is very impressive as the opposite would be true of a Taoist I would think?

[Brian]

...

[Marblehead]

I know where you are coming from but I am not sure that just what we can prove is enough and the rest is not all about comfort. For me for instance 'rebirth' (rather than reincarnation) is and always has been, since I first ever heard about it obviously true ... or at the very least far more likely to be true than not. I would never ask someone to prove it ... even if they did I wouldn't be very interested.

 

Well, I find it is enough for me. My NA spirituality is just a suppliment to a respectable way of living as presented by Taoist Philosophy. And I do agree that your belief in 'rebirth' is just fine with you. No problem. But then, we do believe in what we wish to believe.

 

After all you can't actually prove to em that the Tao is anything other than the ravings of some old Chinese guy ... can you? As usual the problem with the whole belief thing is what has been done to us by organized religion. e.g. this is so and don't question it ... just believe it ... if you don't God will come down and spike your gonads with a kebab skewer, roast them and eat them for supper ... ok that was a bit specific but you get the idea.

 

Oh, I can prove the processes in Nature. Anyone can prove that. And even though we might interprete what we see differently I suggest that we all will see a similar 'cause and effect' process. We can all agree that planet earth exests. I would think that this would be beyond question. How it got to where it is would be subject to different beliefs and opinions. But even these beliefs and opinions are valid for the person holding them.

 

I won't talk about organized religion in this thread but I do speak on the subject when appropriate.

 

I think there are many things that we naturally accept because they feel right and quite often this means they are right ... BUT if we ever get true wisdom then we will see them again properly.

 

Well, okay, exchange the word 'comfortable' with the words 'feels right'. Ah yes, that 'feel right' and 'comfortable' condition is based mauch on our past experiences and beliefs so there is really no standard there, I think.

 

Yes, I listen and comply with my intuition. Nothing provable there. Blind faith.

 

Yes, wisdom makes it easier to say "I don't know".

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

looking at the pictures - there could be a chance to understand Laozi's idea of "DAO FA ZI RAN"

 

If you give me a translation into English I may be able to speak to the above.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

I fully agree! If I can be proven wrong through valid argument that makes sense on an experiential level to me, I will concede... I can't say that it won't hurt, as it might. I'm not a Buddha. I have been impressed by some peoples takes on the Tao in here as well, but only in as close it comes to Buddhist insight. Which for me, is very impressive as the opposite would be true of a Taoist I would think?

 

Well, cheeezzzee!

 

You are not the only one who holds to prejudices. I too admire those aspects of Buddhism that are in agreement with Taoist Philosophy. I mean, come on!

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Personally, I think the key here is to always bear in mind that anything not proven is only a belief -- and, in truth, nothing can really be "proven" (including "scientific facts") so everything reduces to beliefs. Some are far more logical & better supported by worldly observation than others, of course, and some can easily be demonstrated to be silly and ridiculous while others seem more grounded in "truth" but they are all part of an individual's "belief system". This is not a bad thing; it is only the "how" of reality.

 

As long as one doesn't lose sight of this, very useful models of aspects of reality can be built upon our beliefs...

 

Nicely said, I think. But then I am not going to question the existence of my chair each time I decide to sit in it. There are some things we need to prove only to our own satisfaction and from that point on it is a given.

 

Peace & Love!

[Brian]

...

[Riyue]

If you give me a translation into English I may be able to speak to the above.

 

Peace & Love!

the problem which i see - is, that translations change the meaning of this sentence ...

the pictures give informations, which we can put together - being open for the variety of meanings...

-

if you like to try this - you can get the meanings of the pictures and their radicals at

 

Daodejing 25

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

I fully agree! If I can be proven wrong through valid argument that makes sense on an experiential level to me, I will concede... I can't say that it won't hurt, as it might. I'm not a Buddha. I have been impressed by some peoples takes on the Tao in here as well, but only in as close it comes to Buddhist insight. Which for me, is very impressive as the opposite would be true of a Taoist I would think?

 

That fits my definition of closed-minded. And how is it that Buddhist insight is your standard of reference? Some beliefs you have about the way things are, based on what some Buddhists have stated about the way things are, plus some of your transcendent experiences you have had at age 10 and 14 and later, that apparently fit into the Buddhist model once you encountered it. But what is it about this stuff that makes you believe in the Buddhist reality?

 

Someone who is a physical materialist can argue that all of your transcendent meditational insights are merely an epiphenomenon arising from the local electrophysiological content of your brain. She would argue that consciousness is non-local, and you would not be able to logically refute that, and you would not be able to convince her. So, in essence, what is the point of debating these finer points about the correct view of the nature of reality, because your "experiential level" is the subjectivity that you bring to the table that can't be refuted. So no one is ever going to be able to provide that "valid argument that makes sense to you on an experiential level" to "prove" you wrong. You can't be proven wrong, and neither can they.

 

Which is why it is so tiresome to go 'round and 'round about this issue endlessly on this forum. Your view of reality will remain intact, you have it sewn up airtight, and I don't think you have converted any Taoists to your "superior" Buddhist version (and it is just a version) of the Nature of Reality, so why not give it a rest and discuss things from a less preacherly/fundamentalist place?

Edited July 19, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[adept]

and I don't think you have converted any Taoists to your "superior" Buddhist version (and it is a version) of the Nature of Reality, so why not give it a rest and discuss things from a less preacherly/fundamentalist place?

 

He has probably turned a lot of people off his form of Buddhism. I know some Buddhists personally, away from these online debates, and they would NEVER knock anyone's practice or claim superiority over another.

[Marblehead]

the problem which i see - is, that translations change the meaning of this sentence ...

the pictures give informations, which we can put together - being open for the variety of meanings...

-

if you like to try this - you can get the meanings of the pictures and their radicals at

 

Daodejing 25

 

Talk about changing the meaning!

 

Wang's translation:

 

Tao Follows Tzujan.

 

Lin's:

 

Tao follows the laws of nature.

 

Henricks':

 

And the Way models itself on that which is so on its own.

 

I still prefer Wang's translation. Short and simple (given the definition of Tzujan).

 

Peace & Love!