Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?

[Tao99]

.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Tao99

[Vajrahridaya]

I don't need your permission to win an argument. That's not how real forum debate works.

 

It's time you faced your issue of personal attacks instead of point debating. Just admit it ...

 

Yes, you're right... I admit it.

[Tao99]

.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Tao99

[Vajrahridaya]

You are right indeed... I do debate the existence of the self, both ultimate and relative.

 

Both only relatively though.

[Marblehead]

WoW! There were a lot of posts to this thread while I slept last night.

 

Regretfully none that I wish to respond to.

 

Oh well.

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

You shouldn't try to read what you don't have the capacity to understand. This is in more ways than 1.

 

P.S. Putting me on ignore might benefit you much more for now.

 

 

I don't have the capacity to understand the chaos that you call precise and creative writing? :lol: Nice ad hom attack Vajraji!

 

I have have heard Lama's preaching in regards to the so called levels of capacity and how it effects one's path to understanding and enlightenment. This just shows their arrogance and how outdated their belief system is.

 

 

ralis

 

 

ralis

[Brian]

..

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

I have have heard Lama's preaching in regards to the so called levels of capacity and how it effects one's path to understanding and enlightenment. This just shows their arrogance and how outdated their belief system is.

 

 

ralis

 

 

ralis

 

You're welcome to your opinion.

As am I.

[ralis]

You're welcome to your opinion.

As am I.

 

You are still engaging in personal attacks!

 

 

ralis

Edited July 23, 2010 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Ah this poor thread.

 

I did learn some nice things in here about individuals perspectives and had some fun debates that I felt were elevating.

 

So sorry that my detractors had to ruin it with all the drive by shootings.

 

I keep fooling myself into thinking that there will be some benefit in my rebuttal. So sorry guys that I make this mistake.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

Ah this poor thread.

 

I did learn some nice things in here about individuals perspectives and had some fun debates that I felt were elevating.

 

So sorry that my detractors had to ruin it with all the drive by shootings.

 

I keep fooling myself into thinking that there will be some benefit in my rebuttal. So sorry guys that I make this mistake.

 

Actually you took over the thread with your Buddhist preaching! This is not your own personal forum!

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually you took over the thread with your Buddhist preaching! This is not your own personal forum!

 

ralis

 

Wow, for a man of your age, one would think you would be more detached?? It's just surprising is all how affected you are.

[ralis]

Wow, for a man of your age, one would think you would be more detached?? It's just surprising is all how affected you are.

 

Why are you so attached to your Buddhist preaching? A man of my age? What is that supposed to mean?

 

 

ralis

[Marblehead]

Spoke with an appeals court judge once who told me one of the methods she uses when reading briefs -- any sentence starting with "Obviously" or "Clearly" should be presumed to be a lie unless proven otherwise.

 

 

Oh!!!! A post I can respond to!

 

I so much like that! A sure sign of a skeptic. Me are one. (Of course, most all who read my posts already know that.)

 

Peace & Love!

[Mal]

[Marblehead]

Beautiful timing Mal!

 

Timing is oftentime 99% of the value of an action.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

 

This thread is awfully short once you purposely ignore some posts. LOL

 

Funny. But true. But then I think it was an excellent discussion of a Taoist concept while it lasted.

 

I sure hope our Buddhist members start some of their own threads here so that they too can be discussed. (I did see one newly started Buddist concept thread but haven't read it yet.

 

And I still hold to the opinion that Taoist Philosophy is the best guide for living one's life that I have ever encountered.

 

But then we all have our opinions too.

 

Peace & Love!

[Stigweard]

I received this comment from discussions elsewhere:

 

Stigweard.......

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

 

It is impossible to provide a definitive "Yes" or "No" to this question not by just as LaoTze has written; rather it is the way that was interpreted from the mistranslations by many. One cannot come to a conclusion just from one chapter, Chapter 25. I see that there are more chapters which are related to this subject. Hence, I can conclude that the answer is definitely a 'yes' to the question of interest.

 

Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?

Yes, I can said that Tao is an Ontological Essence of all things by LaoTze's definition......

 

Tao is an Ontological Essence of all things by LaoTze's definition in the following chapters.

Chapter 25

1. 有物混成

2. 先天地生。

 

1. There was a thing blended together,

2. Before the heaven and earth were born;

 

 

Chapter 1

3. 無，名天地之始﹔

4. 有，名萬物之母。

 

3. Invisible(Wu2) was the name given to Tao at the origin of heaven and earth.

4. Visible(You3) was the name given to Tao as the mother of all things.

 

 

Chapter 40

3. 天下萬物生於有，

4. 有生於無。

 

3. All things in the world came from You3.

4. You came from Wu2.

 

Note:

1. 有(You3): have; existed; visible; tangible.

2. 無(Wu2): none; nothingness; invisible; intangible.

 

 

Chapter 4

1. 道沖而用之或不盈。

2. 淵兮似萬物之宗。

 

1. Tao is vacuous and its function is inexhaustible.

2. Abyss, alas, it seems like the ancestry of all things.

 

 

Chapter 42

1. 道生一。

2. 一生二。

3. 二生三。

4. 三生萬物。

 

1. Tao engenders One;

2. One engenders Two;

3. Two engender Three;

4. Three engender all things.

 

So, what is all these mean if we put them altogether....???

 

There was this thing formed by blending together before heaven and earth were born. We don't know what is its name. So, let's call it Tao. At the origin of the universe, Tao was formless, let's call it Invisible(Wu2). When all things become into existence, Tao manifested, let's call it Visible(You3). Therefore, You3 came from Wu2(visible from invisible). Since all things came from Tao, thus Tao is the mother of all things.

 

Tao is vacuous and it has high potential of creativity with inexhaustible power. Tao engenders One; One engenders Two; Two engender Three; Three engender all things. Hence, it seems like the ancestry of all things.

 

To which I replied:

 

OK so if 無 Wu or nothingness is the "nature" of Tao then can a no-thing be an essence?

 

Excuse my love for word-smithing, but lets look at the "essence" of essence. Etymologically essence means "basic element of anything", that there is some sort of "beingness" at the core of the subject at hand.

 

For example, Christians have God, a prime being, as the Ontological Essence of their religion.

 

But Tao is at its origin Wu, non-being.

 

So Tao is more of a principle or way in which beingness manifests.

 

Is there a difference between the formless principle of beingness and beingness? I would say "No" because Tao is ever-present; beingness is ever-evolving and it's phase-changing is consistent with the principle that brought to its current evolution. In other words, the principle that determined Heaven and Earth is the same principle that current beingness is evolving into the next phase of beingness. This is best represented by this image:

 

[Marblehead]

Hi Stig,

 

Actually, the arguement you quoted is very valid and I have no disagreements with it.

 

But then your arguement is also very valid. In its purest form Tao is no-thing-ness (pure energy).

 

I prefer yours because there is never the need for the question, "Which came first? The chicken or the egg?"

 

But then we can't say that they both (the chicken and the egg) arose spontaneously, can we? Evolution is a fact. (Carl Sagan quote.) Something came first.

 

Form what you quoted I still haven't figured out which came first. It is my understanding that the three are Chi, Wu (potential, or as I like to call it, Mystery), and Yo (the physical universe, the Manifest).

 

In my understanding, Manifest arose last. But did Wu or Chi come first? I have no idea. Personally, I prefer thinking that they both arose simultaneously.

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

Hi Stig,

 

Actually, the arguement you quoted is very valid and I have no disagreements with it.

 

But then your arguement is also very valid. In its purest form Tao is no-thing-ness (pure energy).

 

I prefer yours because there is never the need for the question, "Which came first? The chicken or the egg?"

 

But then we can't say that they both (the chicken and the egg) arose spontaneously, can we? Evolution is a fact. (Carl Sagan quote.) Something came first.

 

Form what you quoted I still haven't figured out which came first. It is my understanding that the three are Chi, Wu (potential, or as I like to call it, Mystery), and Yo (the physical universe, the Manifest).

 

In my understanding, Manifest arose last. But did Wu or Chi come first? I have no idea. Personally, I prefer thinking that they both arose simultaneously.

 

Peace & Love!

 

The "One" can be named, under and with the One the first is also last and the last is also first.

 

Om

Edited July 24, 2010 by 3bob

[3bob]

I received this comment from discussions elsewhere:

 

 

 

To which I replied:

 

OK so if 無 Wu or nothingness is the "nature" of Tao then can a no-thing be an essence?

 

Excuse my love for word-smithing, but lets look at the "essence" of essence. Etymologically essence means "basic element of anything", that there is some sort of "beingness" at the core of the subject at hand.

 

For example, Christians have God, a prime being, as the Ontological Essence of their religion.

 

But Tao is at its origin Wu, non-being.

 

So Tao is more of a principle or way in which beingness manifests.

 

Is there a difference between the formless principle of beingness and beingness? I would say "No" because Tao is ever-present; beingness is ever-evolving and it's phase-changing is consistent with the principle that brought to its current evolution. In other words, the principle that determined Heaven and Earth is the same principle that current beingness is evolving into the next phase of beingness. This is best represented by this image:

 

 

Hello Stig,

 

Some lines below from the Isa Upanishad that you may find of interest in relation to your post...?

 

"...9. Into a blind darkness they enter who are devoted to ignorance (rituals); but into a greater darkness they enter who engage in knowledge of a deity alone.

 

10. One thing, they say, is obtained from knowledge; another, they say, from ignorance. Thus we have heard from the wise who have taught us this.

 

11. He who is aware that both knowledge and ignorance should be pursued together, overcomes death through ignorance and obtains immortality through knowledge.

 

12. Into a blind darkness they enter who worship only the unmanifested prakriti; but into a greater darkness they enter who worship the manifested Hiranyagarbha.

 

13. One thing, they say, is obtained from the worship of the manifested; another, they say, from the worship of the unmanifested. Thus we have heard from the wise who taught us this.

 

14. He who knows that both the unmanifested prakriti and the manifested Hiranyagarbha should be worshipped together, overcomes death by the worship of Hiranyagarbha and obtains immortality through devotion to prakriti..."

 

And another saying along these lines:

 

From Yutang Lin,

 

"Teaching of "Non-form" indicates non-attachment to form.

Misinterpreted, it is adopted as holding to absence of form.

Abiding in no forms at all, one falls into the abyss of void.

Only in no grasping to form or non-form lies true liberation."

 

Om

Edited July 24, 2010 by 3bob

[3bob]

[Marblehead]

The "One" can be named, under and with the One the first is also last and the last is also first.

 

Om

 

Well, sure. Hehehe.

 

But then the "One" became "The Many". No matter what name we put on it we will be right only some of the time.

 

And I agree, considering the process of cycles, the end is a new beginning and a new beginning is that end of what preceeded. Dependant origination? (Stop that!!!)

 

This is so for any continuum. If we start from a given point and continue in that exact same direction eventually we will end up where we started. This is sometimes called 'returning to the source'.

 

Strange though is that regardless of where we start every point is both the beginning and the end. Life is that way too - every moment is both an end of what was and the beginning of what can be.

 

Where am I?

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

An all time favorite: (of mine anyway)

 

 

One of mine too. The first time I read that I just couldn't believe he actually said it. Blew my mind.

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

One of mine too. The first time I read that I just couldn't believe he actually said it. Blew my mind.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Righto, certain types of mind blowing are neato... hehe