Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?

[Vajrahridaya]

Who has the better understanding of the process is what is being questioned.)

 

But then, since we are talking about "is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?" your sweet Buddhist understandings don't apply here. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Buddhism was thrown into the mix by the originator of this thread Marbling one.

 

But yes... this is interesting non-the-less. I do like to see the similarities and differences. All food for clarification of view for me.

[3bob]

Hi Stig,

 

I like that translation.

 

All those characteristics are misleading because of the various usages of the words. They are, however, true if viewed properly.

 

1. Formless, yes, but its manifestations create form. So formless applies only at the point of Singularity.

 

2. Yes, if Tao is everything then it is a given that it is complete.

 

3. Although the manifest aspects of Tao are tangible the completeness of Tao is not. And yes, everything that is (Tao) is everlasting, it just takes different forms over time.

 

4. Well, not too silent and undisturbed if we consider all the stars in the universe that are constantly forming and being destroyed. But yes, it is said that silent and undisturbed is the predominant state (condition) of Tao.

 

5. This is another tricky one. There is only one (as far as we understand) everything (Tao) so yes, it (everything) is standing alone. However, unchanging is a word that applies only to the 'everything' aspect of Tao. Tao itself (everything) is dynamic and ever-changing - the universe is constantly changing. The only 'time' Tao is static (unchanging) is during the 'time' of singularity. Of course, singularity may exist for only a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. I don't think science has attempted to define this yet.

 

Peace & Love!

 

"The only 'time' Tao is static (unchanging) is during the 'time' of singularity". MH

 

My interpretation is that this 'only' is right now... (for it never left )

[3bob]

Yuan-shih T'ien-tsun -- The First Principal

 

"He has no beginning and no end. He existed "before the void and the silence, before primordial chaos." He is self-existing, changeless, limitless, invisible, contains all virtues, is present in all places and is the source of all truth".

[Marblehead]

Buddhism was thrown into the mix by the originator of this thread Marbling one.

 

But yes... this is interesting non-the-less. I do like to see the similarities and differences. All food for clarification of view for me.

 

Hehehe. Yes, I saw that other post that referred to that.

 

Yes, I am enjoying this one as well. We are still with the original post while discussing similarities between the two philosophies. And the discussions have been pretty darn civil. I like that.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

"The only 'time' Tao is static (unchanging) is during the 'time' of singularity". MH

 

My interpretation is that this 'only' is right now... (for it never left )

 

Valid point. From the point of view of Tao (Oneness) you are exactly correct.

 

However, in the manifest we accept the fact that change exists. We even measure it with various time-keeping instruments. This is why I think it is important that we specify whether we are speaking from the point of view of Tao or from the point of view of man (the manifest).

 

Yes, each moment in time is fixed, after the fact. But without change there would be nothing. I like knowing that 'I am'. And yes, I am changing.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Yuan-shih T'ien-tsun -- The First Principal

 

"He has no beginning and no end. He existed "before the void and the silence, before primordial chaos." He is self-existing, changeless, limitless, invisible, contains all virtues, is present in all places and is the source of all truth".

 

I have one major problem with the quote: the word "He". That is the personification of Tao and that is a no, no in my book. Besides, if we personify the word should be "She" because "She" gave birth, etc.

 

Again, all the characteristics are valid if viewed from the proper point of view, that is, from the point of view of Tao (Oneness).

 

Peace & Love!

[dwai]

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?

 

 

 

Brahman

 

 

[dwai]

And that is exactly the point at which the two philosophies take different paths.

 

For we Taoists the way the universe actually works is good enough for us. We don't need to be liberated because there is nothing to be liberated from. We are totally accepting of the fact that we are going to die and all of what was at one point in time 'us' will be recycled to be used to form other 'things', or not.

 

(Hehehe. I better point out that my usage of the words 'we' and 'us' refers to 'me' because I don't want anyone to think that all Taoists believe exactly as I do. Afterall, most religious Taoists long for the same immortality the the Buddhists long for - just using different words.)

 

No, there is no trap according to Taoism. We too continue on just as a Buddhist does, we just take different paths (and form). (But then, if we consider the concept of tzujan, there is a natural process involved here. Who has the better understanding of the process is what is being questioned.)

 

But then, since we are talking about "is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?" your sweet Buddhist understandings don't apply here. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

 

I think the "divergence" is an illusion, since "real Buddhism" doesn't prescribe this. All this is based on a mistaken understanding of the term "Anatta" (or Non-Self)...Taoism, Advaita Vedanta (and indeed Upanishadic teaching) and Buddhism point to the same thing, only the fingers are different, that's all...

 

 

Oh for crying out loud! Can we stop flogging the dead "dependently originated" horse already?!?

[3bob]

I have one major problem with the quote: the word "He". That is the personification of Tao and that is a no, no in my book. Besides, if we personify the word should be "She" because "She" gave birth, etc.

 

Again, all the characteristics are valid if viewed from the proper point of view, that is, from the point of view of Tao (Oneness).

 

Peace & Love!

 

Hello MH,

 

From what particular point of view or what particular vantage point can Tao take or have if every-where, all at once, without separation of any kind, in any form, or from any form?

 

Being that we are humans using a human form of communication all of our languages more or less person-ify or human-ify subjects we talk about via that medium. Thus any no-no's or yes-yes's are man-made conventions for conventional use in a conventionally agreed upon world. Anyway, I recognize the word "He" as being used in a conventional sense (although in this case pointing beyond) for neither it nor any other word can actually name the un-nameable.

 

Just as the words, "Peace and Love" can not really name or contain the full meanings that they point to...

 

Om

Edited July 11, 2010 by 3bob

[Apech]

Hi Stig,

 

 

I think the Chladni (sp? I didn't google it !) figures (the sand patterns caused by sound vibrations) are interesting but I would interpret this way. Sound as being vibrational energy is insubstantial but energetic and can fill space. When it interacts with the sand it creates structure in matter - this is an example of how simple vibrational energy can create structures. I would say that this is Earth (sand) conforming to Heaven (sound). Both these conform to Tao (which conforms to Nature ... or its own nature).

 

If we said that Heaven is free energy (filling space) and Earth is structured energy compacted into forms then all this would be about the interaction of the two. But although Heaven conforms to Tao you cannot make the equation of Tao=Heaven as this would be similar to the error of equating it to God (or perhaps by trying to say that the Godhead (Absolute) = God the Father ... in Christian Mysticism ... BTW I have no idea why I wondered into this way of thinking ha ha). Regardless of this theological stuff .. you can see my point maybe.

 

This is the same as my problem with the Ontological Essence of Life - which could be said to be perhaps evidence of Tao but not that it is the Tao itself.

[Brian]

...

[Marblehead]

I think the "divergence" is an illusion, since "real Buddhism" doesn't prescribe this. All this is based on a mistaken understanding of the term "Anatta" (or Non-Self)...Taoism, Advaita Vedanta (and indeed Upanishadic teaching) and Buddhism point to the same thing, only the fingers are different, that's all...

 

 

Oh for crying out loud! Can we stop flogging the dead "dependently originated" horse already?!?

 

Hehehe. It's fun to kick a dead horse. (They don't kick back.)

 

Although I do not remember enough of my Buddhist readings from thirty years ago I think you are correct none-the-less. The goal is the same; the paths are different at different places along the journey.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

I think the "divergence" is an illusion, since "real Buddhism"

 

So, the Dalai Lama, the Buddha and Nagarjuna do not teach real Buddhism?

 

Your ideas about Buddhism are not really valid because they don't come from a Buddhist perspective. Your only support is your mis-interpretation of the Mahanirvana Sutra, and the teachings of your favorite Hindu imperialist, Shankaracharya. I'm kind of kidding, though he kind of was, even though he was well meaning, he was very wrong. Shankaracharya's views on Buddhism were quite wrong and the fact that he made it a point to go to every point of India to stomp what was left out after the Muslims destroyed most of it in the north is not very nice. He merely wanted to reclaim India as Hindu country.

 

crying out loud! Can we stop flogging the dead "dependently originated" horse already?!?

 

It's not dead at all, it's the DO'ing of the cosmos.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

I agree, Vajrahridaya! I find this thread most interesting.

 

I was especially intriqued by the discussion earlier about frequencies & resonances. One of my favorite writers was Richard Feynmann, especially his Lectures trilogy. Feynmann, some may know, was a bongo player and he invested a great deal of thought-energy into harmonics & resonances.

 

Additionally, physicists recognize that what we commonly refer to as "matter" doesn't really exist in the way we typically view the physical world around us. This is largely because the "building blocks" of matter are not really matter at all but are some sort of energy resonance. We still tend to refer to them as "particles" but this is done while not losing sight (hopefully) of the underlying reality that "matter" is just a convenient model for a particular manifestation of energy.

 

I find "resonances" (pardon the pun) in this thread...

 

Yes, we have forgotten how we've co-manipulated energy into solidity through craving and attachment as we've bounced off each other over eons of re-births. We've done this for universe, after universe from big bang to the pralaya* or big crunch since without beginning.

 

*Pralaya means "non-existence, a state of matter achieved when the three gunas (principles of matter) are in perfect balance.

[voidisyinyang]

Hey check out Michele Feynman -- she went to Tuva to fulfill her dad's dream --

 

throat singing shamanism

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2009/08/090811_world_stories_bombs_stamps_throat_singers.shtml

Edited July 11, 2010 by drewhempel

[Vajrahridaya]

Hehehe. It's fun to kick a dead horse. (They don't kick back.)

 

Although I do not remember enough of my Buddhist readings from thirty years ago I think you are correct none-the-less. The goal is the same; the paths are different at different places along the journey.

 

Peace & Love!

 

From a Buddhist perspective, this is actually incorrect. We've talked about how and why as well. The Buddhist path does not stop at oneness saying this is the peak realization. In Buddhism as explained by Gotama, there is deeper to do, as this is only reaching the storehouse consciousness and not fully emptying the basis for re-emergence into ignorance.

 

Buddhas are not re-absorbed at the end of the universal expression during the big crunch or the pralaya. Those who stopped at formless oneness and attach the idealization of "the end all be all" to it, calling it "the unnameable source of existence"... are re-absorbed to be recycled.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[voidisyinyang]

[ralis]

Yes, we have forgotten how we've co-manipulated energy into solidity through craving and attachment as we've bounced off each other over eons of re-births. We've done this for universe, after universe from big bang to the pralaya* or big crunch since without beginning.

 

*Pralaya means "non-existence, a state of matter achieved when the three gunas (principles of matter) are in perfect balance.

 

Beings create their own material reality? That is the most outrageous statement I have ever heard.

 

 

ralis

[Marblehead]

Hi 3bob,

 

Yes, words often fail us when we are speaking to concepts and even our personal emotions.

 

From what particular point of view or what particular vantage point can Tao take or have if every-where, all at once, without separation of any kind, in any form, or from any form?

 

Interesting question.

 

First I must say that, IMO, Tao cannot take a point of view. Remember, I do not consider Tao to be a thing in and of itself. And even if it were possible for Tao to have a viewpoint then yes, any point would be tha same as any other point.

 

But, to view things (mainly the higher concepts) from a point of Oneness, or the All, is best. To realize that all things and all non-things are interrelated and each is necessary in order to have a Totality.

 

Now, just to make sure no one thinks I am getting all mystical here I will poin out the the above would be the condition of 'wu', the Mystery (spiritual).

 

From the condition of 'yo' I (or anyone else) am the center of the universe and I must view the totality from my point of view (afterall, my mind is the only one I have that serves me in the Manifest).

 

Peace & Love!

[Starjumper]

From a Buddhist perspective, this is actually incorrect. We've talked about how and why as well. The Buddhist path does not stop at oneness saying this is the peak realization. In Buddhism as explained by Gotama, there is deeper to do, as this is only reaching the storehouse consciousness and not fully emptying the basis for re-emergence into ignorance.

 

Buddhas are not re-absorbed at the end of the universal expression during the big crunch or the pralaya. Those who stopped at formless oneness and attach the idealization of "the end all be all" to it, calling it "the unnameable source of existence"... are re-absorbed to be recycled.

The Buddhist 'ultimate' goal is only deeper if you think of the suicide complex as depth.

[ralis]

http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/theology_occultism/east_religion/origin-of-buddhist-meditation.html

 

*

 

The biggest problem in Buddhist Studies is that nobody knows what the Buddha taught.

 

This is not because of an absence of early literary sources (in Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, Tibetan, etc.) that claim to contain his teachings. The problem rather, is that recent studies have shown that the early texts appear to contain a number of doctrinal differences,1 and it is not clear which formulations might be authentic and go back to the Buddha. The historical claims of the early Buddhist sects only add to the general scepticism. All claim that their canonical literature was compiled at the first council of shortly after the Buddha’s death. Unfortunately, however, there are numerous differences between the various canons, even in the details about the extent and classification of the canon supposedly compiled at the first council.

 

(...)

 

Somewhat inevitably, de Jong concludes: ‘We will never be able to know the contents of the teachings of the Buddha himself.’

 

 

I agree! I made similar arguments last year and was only slammed by Vajraji et al. He and his kind are so thoroughly invested in "the right view", they are unable to apply critical thinking to their belief system.

 

Belief systems are security blankets!

 

 

ralis

Edited July 11, 2010 by ralis

[Starjumper]

Buddhism is for people who can't handle reality.

[Brian]

...

[Marblehead]

From a Buddhist perspective, this is actually incorrect. We've talked about how and why as well. The Buddhist path does not stop at oneness saying this is the peak realization. In Buddhism as explained by Gotama, there is deeper to do, as this is only reaching the storehouse consciousness and not fully emptying the basis for re-emergence into ignorance.

 

Buddhas are not re-absorbed at the end of the universal expression during the big crunch or the pralaya. Those who stopped at formless oneness and attach the idealization of "the end all be all" to it, calling it "the unnameable source of existence"... are re-absorbed to be recycled.

 

You do realize that I do not accept any of that as being valid for a Taoist, don't you?

 

And to suggest that some 'other thing' exists outside of singularity negates the entire concept of singularity.

 

We shouldn't talk about religion here but rather just stick with philosophy. Religion always makes a mess of things.

 

Peace & Love!

[Brian]

...