Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?

[ralis]

Yes ... but some of the texts do suggest this interpretation which makes the refutation difficult. As I think I put somewhere above dependent origination is an anti-dote to thinking about primary causes etc. ... if you don't have those ideas you don't need the anti-dote.

 

What texts?

 

Thanks

[Vajrahridaya]

[Marblehead]

But the statement you quoted is saying that the heavens and Earth occur due to the Tao, but the Tao is self occurring, or self perpetuating? I'm just trying to understand Marblehead what you are getting at.

 

Ok, so everything moves due to the Taos will of movement?

 

I understand that we do not always understand what the other is saying. I appreciate your willingness to listen to further clarification.

 

The post being referred to spoke only to the processes of the observable universe.

 

Man lives according to the processes (and limitations) of earth.

The earth lives (exists) according to the processes and limitations of heaven (that is, the physical universe).

Heaven exists according to the processes of the Totality (the physical universe and potential and Chi), Tao.

Tao exists according to its own nature (the laws of physics).

 

Remember, Tao is not a definable thing. Tao is everything including every non-thing (potential).

 

How could a non-definable non-thing have a will? We can't even consider such a question.

 

Now, if you were to ask where things come from this would be a totally different question. Basically, everything comes from pure energy, the singularity. This is why I cannot accept your assertion that any Buddha exists outside of singularity.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

 

I only read about it and I haven't been there...

 

Hehehe. And I would suggest that you not go there.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

I understand that we do not always understand what the other is saying. I appreciate your willingness to listen to further clarification.

 

The post being referred to spoke only to the processes of the observable universe.

 

Man lives according to the processes (and limitations) of earth.

The earth lives (exists) according to the processes and limitations of heaven (that is, the physical universe).

Heaven exists according to the processes of the Totality (the physical universe and potential and Chi), Tao.

Tao exists according to its own nature (the laws of physics).

 

Remember, Tao is not a definable thing. Tao is everything including every non-thing (potential).

 

How could a non-definable non-thing have a will? We can't even consider such a question.

 

Ok, wonderful! So basically you are saying that the Tao is just infinite potentiality that all is. You can get along with it, or fight it every step of the way causing unneeded pain and suffering. Really... I just wish to cut through it, and see directly what it's all about to reveal the mystery completely. To make everything stand luminous, naked and transparent is all I wish for so that I don't stumble into confusion every again.

 

Now, if you were to ask where things come from this would be a totally different question. Basically, everything comes from pure energy, the singularity. This is why I cannot accept your assertion that any Buddha exists outside of singularity.

 

Peace & Love!

 

The Buddha comes from singularity, but just utilizes that energy differently then those of us who follow the recycling program. A Buddha is just a person like you or me who has realized the fundamental malleable nature of all phenomena including energy and consciousness and thus is not trapped by unconscious recycling patterns anymore. Is not trapped by fixed or static concepts about his or herself anymore either.

 

To say a Buddha is beyond the cosmos is merely just a figure of speech, as there really is no escape, there is only realizing directly it's nature and being free in it. Really, there is merely escape from ignorance through correct cognition of phenomena, which is not merely conceptual, but deeply intuitive.

 

It's the same energy, not outside of the cosmos, just a different experience of cosmos from the rest of us ignorant baboons who flutter about thinking we have any control and thinking that the choices we are making are free, but really just bound by so many layers of habit patterns and reactions based upon fear of extinction or loss of one sort or another.

Edited July 12, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

What a nice post! Thank you.

 

Ok, wonderful! So basically you are saying that the Tao is just infinite potentiality that all is. You can get along with it, or fight it every step of the way causing unneeded pain and suffering. Really... I just wish to cut through it, and see directly what it's all about to reveal the mystery completely. To make everything stand luminous, naked and transparent is all I wish for so that I don't stumble into confusion every again.

 

No, I'm not going to get naked for you. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I have no problem with the way you worded that. Yes, there are natural processes. Observe the processes and follow them as closely as possible and we will avoid unecessary labor.

 

The Buddha comes from singularity, but just utilizes that energy differently then those of us who follow the recycling program. A Buddha is just a person like you or me who has realized the fundamental malleable nature of all phenomena including energy and consciousness and thus is not trapped by unconscious recycling patterns anymore.

 

I accept that. Of course, I could say the same thing about Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu.

 

To say a Buddha is beyond the cosmos is merely just a figure of speech, as there really is no escape, there is only realizing directly it's nature and being free in it. Really, there is merely escape from ignorance through correct cognition of phenomena, which is not merely conceptual, but deeply intuitive.

 

I accept this as well. But let us not limit this condition to only a Buddha. We need to include at least Jesus and Lao Tzu.

 

It's the same energy, not outside of the cosmos, just a different experience of cosmos from the rest of us ignorant baboons who flutter about thinking we have any control and thinking that the choices we are making are free, but really just bound by so many layers of habit patterns and reactions based upon fear of extinction or loss of one sort or another.

 

Yep. That is why Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu both tell us to unlearn all the ignorance we have been taught and live freely in Tao.

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

What a nice post! Thank you.

 

 

 

No, I'm not going to get naked for you. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I have no problem with the way you worded that. Yes, there are natural processes. Observe the processes and follow them as closely as possible and we will avoid unecessary labor.

 

 

 

I accept that. Of course, I could say the same thing about Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu.

 

 

 

I accept this as well. But let us not limit this condition to only a Buddha. We need to include at least Jesus and Lao Tzu.

 

 

 

Yep. That is why Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu both tell us to unlearn all the ignorance we have been taught and live freely in Tao.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Yes, the path is about unlearning!

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

What a nice post! Thank you.

 

 

 

No, I'm not going to get naked for you. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I have no problem with the way you worded that. Yes, there are natural processes. Observe the processes and follow them as closely as possible and we will avoid unecessary labor.

 

 

 

I accept that. Of course, I could say the same thing about Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu.

 

 

 

I accept this as well. But let us not limit this condition to only a Buddha. We need to include at least Jesus and Lao Tzu.

 

 

 

Yep. That is why Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu both tell us to unlearn all the ignorance we have been taught and live freely in Tao.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Yes, I'm not sure I can agree that the Buddhas, and Lau Tzu, Chuang Tzu and Jesus came to the exact same level of unlearning, but all of them are great beings worthy of respect. If we are on a spiritual path, we are most definitely making progress towards the "right", figuratively speaking. We can only benefit through contemplation, virtue and meditation no matter the tradition.

 

It's just that according to Buddhism, one needs to have right view in the viewless view in order that one is not conditioned by these processes of unlearning. As in the visions in meditation and what not that arise from deep in the unconscious. For instance Muhammad went into meditation in a cave and came out saying that his God told him to conquer the world. You know... so Mohamed unlearned his more mundane ignorance in order to have a meditative vision of "God", to learn a more transcendent type of ignorance calling it heaven or God's word, but it's ignorance just the same. Though, there is plenty of virtue to be spoken of within Islam of course and Christianity to boot, and there are the non-traditional Sufi's who most Muslims don't consider to be Muslim at all. Anyway... my contention with most traditions is not so cut and dry, just that I don't find most of them to be complete in and of themselves. Though they do seem similar in certain ways and sometimes come to many of the same conclusions through different wording, but I don't find that they truly cut through the seed of re-becoming because they still believe in an ultimate and self standing existent, no matter how transcendent, still only reveals a subtle formless ignorance called "clinging".

 

I find in many ways though not all, that Taoism to be more in line with what the Buddha taught which is why I'm not in a Christian room or an Islamic room.

 

Thank you!

Edited July 12, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[JustARandomPanda]

This diagram also reveals one of the essential Taoist observations. All of the changing phenomena seemed to follow a very particular pattern of emergence and return. Spirals within spirals of incessant phase-changes; phase-changes that repeated themselves over and over in a predictable and measurable manner.

 

This also reminds me of the self-similarity of fractals.

[idquest]

Singularity is a very different concept than is the Taoist concept of 'wu'.

Why? Care to elaborate?

[Stigweard]

Ok, wonderful! So basically you are saying that the Tao is just infinite potentiality that all is. You can get along with it, or fight it every step of the way causing unneeded pain and suffering. Really... I just wish to cut through it, and see directly what it's all about to reveal the mystery completely. To make everything stand luminous, naked and transparent is all I wish for so that I don't stumble into confusion every again.

 

The Buddha comes from singularity, but just utilizes that energy differently then those of us who follow the recycling program. A Buddha is just a person like you or me who has realized the fundamental malleable nature of all phenomena including energy and consciousness and thus is not trapped by unconscious recycling patterns anymore. Is not trapped by fixed or static concepts about his or herself anymore either.

 

To say a Buddha is beyond the cosmos is merely just a figure of speech, as there really is no escape, there is only realizing directly it's nature and being free in it. Really, there is merely escape from ignorance through correct cognition of phenomena, which is not merely conceptual, but deeply intuitive.

 

It's the same energy, not outside of the cosmos, just a different experience of cosmos from the rest of us ignorant baboons who flutter about thinking we have any control and thinking that the choices we are making are free, but really just bound by so many layers of habit patterns and reactions based upon fear of extinction or loss of one sort or another.

 

I reserve the right to quote you back to yourself in the future

 

Requesting that you do not reply by saying "Oh but Buddhism does it better" your sentiments above are precisely the quest of the Shengren / Taoist Saint.

[Vajrahridaya]

I reserve the right to quote you back to yourself in the future

 

Requesting that you do not reply by saying "Oh but Buddhism does it better" your sentiments above are precisely the quest of the Shengren / Taoist Saint.

 

Well... you do have power over me in here.

[Apech]

What texts?

 

Thanks

 

Well for a start the Ch 25 of LZ quoted by Stig at the beginning.

 

Something mysteriously formed,

Born before heaven and Earth.

In the silence and the void,

Standing alone and unchanging,

Ever present and in motion.

Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.

I do not know its name

Call it Tao.

For lack of a better word, I call it great.

Being great, it flows

I flows far away.

Having gone far, it returns.

 

Therefore, "Tao is great;

Heaven is great;

Earth is great;

The king is also great."

These are the four great powers of the universe,

And the king is one of them.

 

Man follows Earth.

Earth follows heaven.

Heaven follows the Tao.

Tao follows what is natural.

 

trans. English & Feng

 

Reading this and looking at the sequence at the end it is easy to think:

 

Tao >>> Heaven >>>Earth >>>Man

 

as a sequential list of causation. This would make Tao an original cause or 'prime mover' ... like God (or a God). This is an easy target for the critique of dependent origination. However I think this is all a misunderstanding brought about by our natural tendency to look for origins. We abstract the origin, like looking back to the Big Bang as if its something that happened once and now isn't happening - while in actuality the Big Bang is still happening as in the cosmic background radiation.

 

Ch. 25 is not talking about any kind of sequential causal relationship but is talking about a hierarchy of profundity if you like. The most profound understanding of what is being Tao. Where the text says:

 

"Standing alone and unchanging,

Ever present and in motion."

 

You get the sense of the kind of inner dynamic tension of Tao. It stands but is in motion, it is alone but 'ever present' i.e. here and now in what is happening in this very moment. It is absolute in that it does not depend on anything else, no outer cause and yet it is not abstracted from our immediate experience. It is a 'real absolute' if you like.

 

That's what I meant.

[Vajrahridaya]

Well for a start the Ch 25 of LZ quoted by Stig at the beginning.

 

 

 

Reading this and looking at the sequence at the end it is easy to think:

 

Tao >>> Heaven >>>Earth >>>Man

 

as a sequential list of causation. This would make Tao an original cause or 'prime mover' ... like God (or a God). This is an easy target for the critique of dependent origination. However I think this is all a misunderstanding brought about by our natural tendency to look for origins. We abstract the origin, like looking back to the Big Bang as if its something that happened once and now isn't happening - while in actuality the Big Bang is still happening as in the cosmic background radiation.

 

Ch. 25 is not talking about any kind of sequential causal relationship but is talking about a hierarchy of profundity if you like. The most profound understanding of what is being Tao. Where the text says:

 

"Standing alone and unchanging,

Ever present and in motion."

 

You get the sense of the kind of inner dynamic tension of Tao. It stands but is in motion, it is alone but 'ever present' i.e. here and now in what is happening in this very moment. It is absolute in that it does not depend on anything else, no outer cause and yet it is not abstracted from our immediate experience. It is a 'real absolute' if you like.

 

That's what I meant.

 

This sounds kind of like Spanda in the Spanda Karikas of Trika Shaivism.

[Marblehead]

Anyway... just that I don't find most of them to be complete in and of themselves. Though they do seem similar in certain ways and sometimes come to many of the same conclusions through different wording, ...

 

And that was exactly my experience during the early 1980's while searching for a path. I found all individual paths incomplete, that is, there were holes in the philosophy that were just covered over with mysticism. This was true for my regarding Buddhism as well. But I will say that Buddhism was close to serving as a path for me.

 

But then I walked the Taoist path for a while (at least read the texts) and said to myself, "This is it! This is the way life really is (as I had experienced it over the past 40 years). No magic was needed, no mysticism was necessary. It is complete in and of itself.

 

So anyhow, we each choose our own path according to our individual needs and it goes without saying that we each have our own individual needs.

 

Buddhism worked for you because it satisfied your needs, Taoist Philosophy for me, Taoist Religion for Stig, Christianity for some other person, etc.

 

Now I grant you that you have the right to say that Buddhism is the superior path for you but I also suggest that you do not have the right to say that Buddhism would be the superior path for anyone else. Nor do I have the right to say that Philosophical Taoism would be right for, say Kate. (I had to select someone here who is not arguementive. Hehehe.)

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Marble said: Singularity is a very different concept than is the Taoist concept of 'wu'.

 

Why? Care to elaborate?

 

No!

 

Hehehe. Sorry. Yes, I will expand a little as best I can.

 

Singularity is the point at which no 'things' exist. In physics the best example would be what existed just prior to the big bang. I suppose that inside a black hole could be considered singularity as well.

 

In spirituality, singularity would be the point at which we loose our personal identity. We totally become one with all else but we wouldn't even recognize anything else because technically there would be nothing else in singularity. We and everything else looses its individuality. All becomes one.

 

Now, I'm not suggesting that this state cannot be attained but I think it would be a very exceptional person who were able to attain it. Even Mother Teresa, although I greatly admire her, didn't attain this state because she still remained aware of her individuality.

 

The state of 'wu' is a slightly different concept. In 'wu' all things (people included) retain their individuality. But when we are in this state we see the interconnectedness of all things. To say "All is One" is a misspoken term in this regard (although I have used it myself) because All are still individual things. But, to say "All is of One source" (be careful here VJ!) is a more valid statement.

 

In 'wu' all things are equal and we see each, including ourself, clearly and without any distortion. We become a mirror for the universe. We also have attained a state that is beyond good and evil judgements. This is why I suggest that we cannot, or at least should not, remain in the full state of 'wu' for any length of time. We need to make judgements in order to preserve our life. We need to act upon those conditions that require acting upon. This is the concept of 'wu wei'.

 

For most of us a harmonious position somewhere between 'wu' (spirituality, Oneness) and 'yo' (the material world) is best. Our individual conditions (where we live on the planet, what society we live in, etc) will dictate this position necessary to maintain harmony. (I don't use the word 'balance' very often because our 'balance point' will constantly change because of changing external conditions. Even our inner essence will change because of our emotions.)

 

I think I will stop here to see if I need to go further or if what I have already said is sufficient.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

I reserve the right to quote you back to yourself in the future

 

Requesting that you do not reply by saying "Oh but Buddhism does it better" your sentiments above are precisely the quest of the Shengren / Taoist Saint.

 

 

Hehehe. But you know VJ will continue to state that Buddhism is the superior view (for him).

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Well for a start the Ch 25 of LZ quoted by Stig at the beginning.

 

Hi Apepch7,

 

Valid, everything that you mentioned above.

 

I would like to present a view for consideration especially to the first five lines of the quoted chapter:

 

Something mysteriously formed,

Born before heaven and Earth.

In the silence and the void,

Standing alone and unchanging,

Ever present and in motion.

 

Singularity formed,

It formed before heaven and earth were formed.

In the silence and the void,

Alone and unchanging,

Ever present and in motion.

 

What was singularity fromed from? We don't know, do we? I will suggest that it formed from a previous universe but, of course, I have no data to support this suggestion. No 'things' existed during singularity, it existed before heaven and earth.

 

Singularity is silent and void, alone and unchanging (singularity is undefinable even though all potential exists within). Ever present, I suggest, refers to the energy of the universe when I consider that it is said that no energy of the universe can ever be lost. So yes, the energy of the universe was ever present and we all know that energy is not static but very dynamic so it was in constant motion.

 

So then what happened? The big bang, of course. Why did the big bang happen? Because it was its nature to do so. Tzujan.

 

So, IMO, those first five lines are not speaking to an originating source but they are rather speaking to a point at which (I can't use the word 'time') there was no time/space - the point of singularity.

 

At this point all things already existed, they were just total chaos without definition; they were still only potential.

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

 

But then I walked the Taoist path for a while (at least read the texts) and said to myself, "This is it! This is the way life really is (as I had experienced it over the past 40 years). No magic was needed, no mysticism was necessary. It is complete in and of itself.

 

... and this is the exact same way i get stuck sometimes (THIS is it!!! ah ha! bam, there's another fixated idea born), when attempts at discernment and comparison overshadows right view!

 

Within the finitude of human understanding, it is very valiant to declare one knows that one's chosen goal is 'complete', let alone the path. I keep telling myself that the only time i will know with a degree of certainty if i had practiced correctly would be when i am drawing my final few breaths.

 

IF beings truly and deeply believed completeness were a certifiable possibility there would not be so much conflicting ideologies. People would truly live harmoniously then. So the problem i see is not so much the different paths, but what is mistakenly perceived as many different 'ultimate experiences or ideals'.

 

You see, it would be quite daft to argue about architectural plans, for example, if everyone's vision of a completed building were to be the exact same.

 

And its even more silly to argue even before the plans can be finalised and agreed upon, let alone whose 'vision' is more concrete... there is no such thing as a 'concrete' house as such, let alone the firmness of a projected 'concrete' vision of a building. To assert in this manner denotes fixation and contraction, which is quite detrimental to spiritual progress.

 

 

Sorry for veering off topic..

 

Carry on - very interesting thread so far!

[Marblehead]

Hi CowTao,

 

You didn't go off topic and you brought forward a very important concept, IMO.

 

... and this is the exact same way i get stuck sometimes (THIS is it!!! ah ha! bam, there's another fixated idea born), when attempts at discernment and comparison overshadows right view!

 

...

 

Sorry for veering off topic..

 

Carry on - very interesting thread so far!

 

Your statement I highlighted in blue is very important because it speaks to the concept of change.

 

I agree that when we fixate our understanding at one level we have placed limits on ourself and we have negated any opportunity for further growth.

 

And this is why I think that Taoism is a very valid philosophy; it allows for change and flexibility.

 

When we realize an understanding that is more 'true' than the one we previously held it is totally acceptable to change our understanding. When our external conditions change it is perfectly acceptable, and even recommended, that we change the way we interact with our externals. This is what 'wu wei' is all about.

 

As with a tree, our roots remain firm but our branches are able to flex with the processes of nature. We bend rather than break.

 

The word "weak" can be found many times in Lao Tzu's and Chuang Tzu's writtings but I believe this is a mistranslation because the word 'flexible' is a much better word in the context of what is being said. I think this is an error caused by the Christian base of knowledge that most translators have when translating the TTC. (The thought that the weak will overcome the strong is just illogical.)

 

So flexibility is very important in that we are able to change as we gain further understanding.

 

Peace & Love!

Edited July 12, 2010 by Marblehead

[Apech]

This sounds kind of like Spanda in the Spanda Karikas of Trika Shaivism.

 

Well ... I had to look that up ... but no ... I do not think Tao=Spanda ... and I don't get why you think that.

[Apech]

Hi Apepch7,

 

...

 

So, IMO, those first five lines are not speaking to an originating source but they are rather speaking to a point at which (I can't use the word 'time') there was no time/space - the point of singularity.

 

At this point all things already existed, they were just total chaos without definition; they were still only potential.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Do you mean singularity as in black-hole? I would only ask what 'before' would mean when there is no time or at least no time as we experience/understand it.?

 

I don't think there is any origin - just ... process or something ... think of a word ... I don't know its name so I call it Tao (sort of thing).

[3bob]

I reserve the right to quote you back to yourself in the future

 

Requesting that you do not reply by saying "Oh but Buddhism does it better" your sentiments above are precisely the quest of the Shengren / Taoist Saint.

 

Who knows about "precisely" for sure?

 

V., the recycling program is also called life and death; and btw death does die. "Fear not"

 

Om

Edited July 12, 2010 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

Do you mean singularity as in black-hole? I would only ask what 'before' would mean when there is no time or at least no time as we experience/understand it.?

 

I don't think there is any origin - just ... process or something ... think of a word ... I don't know its name so I call it Tao (sort of thing).

 

Yes, that is the best association I can come up with in my mind. A black hole is a local singularity whereas "the" singularity was universal. This is why I hesitated in that other post about saying whether or not information is never lost in singularity. It is said that information is never lost in a black hole. Does this apply to singularity as well? I don't know and I don't even have an opinion at the moment.

 

I don't think there is a first origin or first cause either. As I have stated many time before, "Everything that is, is, always has been, and always will be. It (everything) just takes different form (and non-form) over time."

 

Yes, so we just call it Tao without any attempt to define it because since it (everything) is constantly changing any label (and description) we place on it would be good for only that one particular point in time.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

... and btw death does die. "Fear not"

 

Om

 

That is an interesting concept. (And you have made that statement before.) I have no thoughts on it at the moment but perhaps one day we can talk about it.

 

Peace & Love!