Are preferences natural and thus in accordance with Tao?

[Stigweard]

I may not be necessarily saying this is my perspective, but some people believe that impartiality is impossible and inhuman. For example, we will always prefer to eat food over poison, will always prefer to save our own drowning daughter vs. our sworn enemy who raped our wife, will always prefer to protect people who have personally contributed to us vs. unknown strangers who are acting crudely and hurting the feelings of our friends.

 

In terms of Tao it could be said that, yes, there is Tao that is beyond perspective and preference (so in a sense impartial in a conceptual sense) but this same Tao is not separate and is expressing Itself AS every perspective, as preference, as the complete dynamic range of human feelings and behavior.

 

So the perspective is to recognize what is natural and what is human. Not far away and metaphysical. To find comfort with the human experience that is inevitably infused with preference while also resonating with the clarity of Tao that has none, without making an enemy of either.

 

So what is your perspective on this, are human preferences natural and thus in accordance with Tao? If so is it kosha to treat people preferentially?

 

[Marblehead]

So the perspective is to recognize what is natural and what is human.

 

All I want to do at the moment is to repeat this what you said.

[sean]

this looks familiar somehow.

 

there is a sense in which i feel even indulging the impulse to take seriously an endeavor to differentiate between what is an is not in accordance with tao ends up stirring more occlusions to recognition of TAO then simply letting that whole trip settle untouched.

 

simply move spontaneously and course-correct. or better, see this as what is happening regardless, even if i want it to be otherwise.

 

spontaneous movement occurs. course-correction occurs. on and on.

 

regardless of any personal preferences i might strive for, such as to be without preference, it appears my body will always have preferences. a healthy hand moves involuntarily away from a fire. should it be another way?

 

still there is tao that encompasses both preference and not-preference and without preference.

 

is it really ALL ok?

 

i can't imagine anything greater and more humble than Tao, which is precisely what is always already happening, even when i think i can't see it.

 

the felt-sense that my personal suffering must clearly mean something is wrong spins a story that Tao has left the building. it sure feels like that. but is that story true?

 

i don't know.

 

"be one with failure, for the Way fails too".

 

sean

[Marblehead]

Oh My Goodness!!!! What an excellent post until this appeared before my eyes:

 

"be one with failure, for the Way fails too".

 

sean

 

Yes, "be one with failure" but no, no, no! the Way never fails!

 

Oh, sure, we sometimes can't understand the Way. It seems that the Way, during these time of trials, has failed us. But it has not. What happened is that the Way did not meet our expectations. What in the world are we doing placing our expectations on Tao and its Way? We are only deluding ourself. I doubt that Tao really cares too much as to what our expectations are. Remember, we all are straw dogs.

 

Placing our expectations on anything else in the universe, including other people is a flaw. To place our expectations on Tao and its Way is a fatal flaw indeed.

 

Other than that, great post Sean. Thanks for stopping in and speaking now and then.

[manitou]

So what is your perspective on this, are human preferences natural and thus in accordance with Tao? If so is it kosha to treat people preferentially?

 

 

The only problem with that is that if we see each other as One, intentional preferential treatment not only cuts some off, but cuts oneself off as well.

[sean]

hah, thank you marblehead. i did hesitate on that last line but i kept it because, well, what is a forum without controversy?

 

i like what you wrote and i think i can feel where you are coming from.

 

yes, the Way does not really fail, as failure itself does not really fail.

 

failure itself does not really fail because failure is simply being what it is. how could failure itself fail? really only by not-failing and abandoning it's nature. which would arguably not be a failure at all.

 

but in another sense, the Way does fail, as the Way is not separate even from so-called failure.

 

does this digest better?

 

sean

 

ps - i'm not just totally making all this up as i go along (only mostly)

 

Whispered words are natural

a gale doesn't last all morning

a squall doesn't last all day

who else could make these

only Heaven and Earth

if Heaven and Earth can't make things last

what about Man

thus in whatever we do

let those on the Way be one with the Way

let those who succeed be one with success

let those who fail be one with failure

be one with success

for the Way succeeds too

be one with failure

for the Way fails too

 

Taoteching, verse 23, translated by Red Pine

[KoolAid900]

I may not be necessarily saying this is my perspective, but some people believe that impartiality is impossible and inhuman. For example, we will always prefer to eat food over poison, will always prefer to save our own drowning daughter vs. our sworn enemy who raped our wife, will always prefer to protect people who have personally contributed to us vs. unknown strangers who are acting crudely and hurting the feelings of our friends.

 

I think that partiality would disappear w/ duality.

 

In terms of Tao it could be said that, yes, there is Tao that is beyond perspective and preference (so in a sense impartial in a conceptual sense) but this same Tao is not separate and is expressing Itself AS every perspective, as preference, as the complete dynamic range of human feelings and behavior.

Hmmm.....the Tao is not separate, but is expressing itself separately... then must it be separating itself in someway to do this? I think so. Maybe Tao has qualities of both, but preference is based on separation.

 

So the perspective is to recognize what is natural and what is human. Not far away and metaphysical. To find comfort with the human experience that is inevitably infused with preference while also resonating with the clarity of Tao that has none, without making an enemy of either.

 

So what is your perspective on this, are human preferences natural and thus in accordance with Tao? If so is it kosha to treat people preferentially?

 

 

I can appreciate the expression of this and enjoyed reading it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding... but how is that you are going to give preference to human experience and resonate with the Tao that has none? I'm not suggesting making enemies. But it does seem that if one genuinely wants to experience the profound equality of Tao, it is not going to come through complacency with inequality laced with rating scales and "natural preferences." My understanding is the equality is natural, inequality and preference are man made silliness. Sure this silliness is the Tao, but you won't know it... as the non-separate Tao still remains in contrast to human experience, towards which bias sounds like it is being expressed.

 

Maybe I misunderstand, feel free to counter ;-)

[Marblehead]

hah, thank you marblehead. i did hesitate on that last line but i kept it because, well, what is a forum without controversy?

 

i like what you wrote and i think i can feel where you are coming from.

 

yes, the Way does not really fail, as failure itself does not really fail.

 

failure itself does not really fail because failure is simply being what it is. how could failure itself fail? really only by not-failing and abandoning it's nature. which would arguably not be a failure at all.

 

but in another sense, the Way does fail, as the Way is not separate even from so-called failure.

 

does this digest better?

 

sean

 

for the Way fails too

 

Taoteching, verse 23, translated by Red Pine

 

Hi Sean,

 

Yes, what you said above feels so much better. Value judgements cannot be placed on Tao. Oh, sure, we constantly ask why such and such a natural disaster happened. But there are no answers. It happened because it had to happen.

 

I do remember that some time ago I started reading Red Pine's translation but set it aside because I did not like his word usage. What I bolded above is a perfect example.

[sean]

this topic is turning into a multi-layered koan sandwich, i love it.

 

here is a view to explore.

 

the absolute source of pure intention and complete inclusion is non-human and transpersonal (Tao).

 

and yet through complete inclusion, Tao is also expressed as human.

 

in a relative sense, human is inherently limited from expressing truly inclusive acts.

 

how could a limited human form express the unlimited? that's actually an incredible incredible question, oh man, i should just stop here. but just to stick with the relative logic here to make a pointless point, a human form can't really express complete inclusiveness.

 

a human chooses oolong to sip and excludes the pu-erh. a human sits in one chair and excludes the others. a human listens to one person speak and excludes the rest. a human makes choices that lead to a certain kind of life and excludes other options. humans can't help but express in extraordinarily exclusive forms. this is our lot.

 

and then also human is not in the slightest way separate from Tao.

 

there is a deep "connection". connection is too limiting really. it brings to mind an umbilical cord when a better image is the relationship all matter has with the space between atoms. there is no separation. so this fact is already there and it's only being ignored to varying degrees. (and this ignorance itself is actually another strange koan, because really it can't be ignored at all, we only sort of think it can, which is just plain weird.) anyway, it doesn't even care, it doesn't force anything.

 

and if this mystery moves through us, through this connection, well i'll just say personally, for me it feels like a kind of dance between resting as Tao that truly is beyond preference and absolutely inclusive, and then on the other hand returning as the appearance of a comically flawed and entirely silly human being that will never get it right, ever, period, but also can't get it fundamentally wrong either.

 

in this way i see no paradox between expressing myself as a human through my naturally arising preferences while simultaneously retaining a core recognition that Tao does not share my preferences in an absolute sense.

 

fwiw, i will also say i think the latter recognition is important and naturally gives rise to holding preferences with more lightness. otherwise problems around preferences surely do occur because now they are not just naturally arising, like, hell yeah i fucking love sushi, let's go here! instead there is a kind of fixated contraction around a view, e.g., speaking personally i find myself feeling stuck, defensive, thinking my preference must have some kind of intrinsic validity. bleh, bad trip.

 

sean

[Ya Mu]

Stig,

I believe that the way is far too beyond our total understanding and at the same time simplicity itself. I make the attempt to follow Master Wang's 3 things required to progress 1) Practice Qigong 2) Be a Good & Moral (think Virtue) person, and 3) make the attempt to stay calm at all times. I also practice what I call "Listening". This process doesn't require one to understand, but to do. In other words, if we follow the path of Tao, we are in harmony, regardless of what mental concept we have of any particular event. This is in accordance with what Sean posts about failure. What we may initially perceive as failure can actually be the very thing that acts as a catalyst for harmony. Yes, we are human with all the varied things humanity implies. We are emotional beings. Should we discard that in the attempt to have non-preference? I think the key, to a certain extent, is non-indulgence. An example is we may prefer to be around people who don't annoy us. Indulgence would be to make a constant effort to avoid those who we do not agree with or perceive as doing things we don't like. But, if following the path of Tao puts us face to face with a person who falls in this category, then do we indulge in our dislike and run away, or do we attempt to interact and see what the lesson is for us both?

 

What I do know is that synchronousness acts of Tao are deeply convoluted, buried in layer after layer of deepness, way way beyond any type of linear understanding. I think our best bet is to simply do. If we have prepared ourselves, this doing IS in harmony with Tao and we see untold acts of synchronicity that boggle any type of mental understanding. Yes, this can, IMO, include person preferences.

 

So, I write all of this, talking about things that on initial examination have little to do with or barely scratches the surface of your post's original intent. Or does it?

 

Sean - cool looking horse. Yours? Here in my "path of the healer" post is a pic of a couple of ours.

[sean]

Sean - cool looking horse. Yours? Here in my "path of the healer" post is a pic of a couple of ours.

thanks, i think i would like to own a horse someday. this one is from when i lived in costa rica. tremendous creatures. terrestrial dragons. i can relate. here is a bigger picture. your horses are beautiful. looking forward to spending time with you one day.

[rene]

Sean, hi - hope you dont mind me chopping up your post. (-:

 

 

a human chooses oolong to sip and excludes the pu-erh.

and then also human is not in the slightest way separate from Tao.

 

Yep; both at the same time.

 

 

there is a deep "connection". connection is too limiting really... and if this mystery moves through us, through this connection, well i'll just say personally, for me it feels like a kind of dance between resting as Tao that truly is beyond preference and absolutely inclusive, and then on the other hand returning as the appearance of a comically flawed and entirely silly human being that will never get it right, ever, period, but also can't get it fundamentally wrong either.

 

I use the term 'unboundaried' for connection, as yes connection is too limiting seems to suggest a delineated path, like a wire, where there really is no separation between the two aspects. Not even a permeable membrane.

 

 

in this way i see no paradox between expressing myself as a human through my naturally arising preferences while simultaneously retaining a core recognition that Tao does not share my preferences in an absolute sense.

 

I agree. Once one is past 'either/or' mindset, the paradox kinda falls away naturally.

 

 

fwiw, i will also say i think the latter recognition is important and naturally gives rise to holding preferences with more lightness. otherwise problems around preferences surely do occur because now they are not just naturally arising, like, hell yeah i fucking love sushi, let's go here! instead there is a kind of fixated contraction around a view, e.g., speaking personally i find myself feeling stuck, defensive, thinking my preference must have some kind of intrinsic validity. bleh, bad trip.

 

And that's where the rubber meets the road. What you've well described is the usefulness, and application, of the blended perspective.

 

And from the first part of your post:

 

how could a limited human form express the unlimited? that's actually an incredible incredible question, oh man, i should just stop here. but just to stick with the relative logic here to make a pointless point, a human form can't really express complete inclusiveness.

 

I disagree. A human form can express complete inclusiveness when the exclusion of humanness doesn't occur. When both complete inclusiveness and natural exclusions exist simultaneously and unboundaried, the expression of both naturally arise and...well... all things seem to return to the source and gentle rains fall, as they say.

 

warm regards

 

edit:typo

Edited December 15, 2010 by rene

[Marblehead]

Hi Sean,

 

WoW! I sure did get you started, didn't I? Hehehe. Let's see how well I can respond because you actually got pretty deep on us.

 

this topic is turning into a multi-layered koan sandwich, i love it.

 

here is a view to explore.

 

the absolute source of pure intention and complete inclusion is non-human and transpersonal (Tao).

 

and yet through complete inclusion, Tao is also expressed as human.

 

in a relative sense, human is inherently limited from expressing truly inclusive acts.

 

how could a limited human form express the unlimited? that's actually an incredible incredible question, oh man, i should just stop here. but just to stick with the relative logic here to make a pointless point, a human form can't really express complete inclusiveness.

 

Okay, I first must state that I do not hold to the idea that Tao operates with any intention. I hold to the concept of Tzujan wherein Tao does what it must do, naturally, regardless of any attempted influence.

 

I do agree that Tao operates with complete inclusion. (All is Tao; Tao is All.)

 

Expressions of Tao: yes, the entire visible (known) universe is an expression of Tao. But yet, the visible universe is only four percent of what the entire universe consists of. So, yes, we are limited, in the most part, to only four percent of the totality of Tao. (Yes, we can experience the purer aspects of Tao but those are the thing Lao Tzu said we can't talk about.)

 

No, we cannot express the unlimited. We are, in the most part, restricted to only the limited aspect of the totality.

 

Your last sentence is what I am talking about in the "compassion" thread although I am taking the scenic route to do it. Hehehe.

 

a human chooses oolong to sip and excludes the pu-erh. a human sits in one chair and excludes the others. a human listens to one person speak and excludes the rest. a human makes choices that lead to a certain kind of life and excludes other options. humans can't help but express in extraordinarily exclusive forms. this is our lot.

 

Yes, we humans express our preference on a daily, hourly even, basis. What type of tea shall I drink? If we have a choice we will select our preference at that given point in time. At another time our choice may be different. And yes, our preferences will determine our entire life-style, including our morality.

 

It is my understanding that Tao has no preferences. It does only what it must do, nothing more, nothing less. We humans tend to over-do things or sometimes don't even do what needs to be done.

 

and then also human is not in the slightest way separate from Tao.

 

there is a deep "connection". connection is too limiting really. it brings to mind an umbilical cord when a better image is the relationship all matter has with the space between atoms. there is no separation. so this fact is already there and it's only being ignored to varying degrees. (and this ignorance itself is actually another strange koan, because really it can't be ignored at all, we only sort of think it can, which is just plain weird.) anyway, it doesn't even care, it doesn't force anything.

 

No, we are not separate from Tao. We are though, individual expressions of Tao - we are not all the same. Yes, 'connection' is not a good word to use but it is the most understandable.

 

I agree, it is only the space between us that causes us to think that we are separate. I am sitting in my chair, my butt firmly planted. But we are separate expressions of Tao. We I stand up the separation will be even greater but the 'connection' (that we both are expressions of Tao) remains.

 

And no, Tao doesn't care if a defect causes the chair to collapse the next time I attempt to sit in it.

 

and if this mystery moves through us, through this connection, well i'll just say personally, for me it feels like a kind of dance between resting as Tao that truly is beyond preference and absolutely inclusive, and then on the other hand returning as the appearance of a comically flawed and entirely silly human being that will never get it right, ever, period, but also can't get it fundamentally wrong either.

 

Tough one to respond to here. Going backward, it is true that we so often screw thing up but at the same time we are being natural because of all those untold causes that brought us to where we are now. So even though we might do something that is not in our best interest we did what had to be done because of the various causes so we are still acting in a Taoist way.

 

I like to talk about the Mystery even though I 'know' nothing of it. The mystery is pure potential, and yes, we are connected with the Mystery. It is from Mystery that we became manifest and it is to Mystery we will go upon the completion of this manifest life.

 

As to the mystery of the 'wu' state, yes, that state is beyond preference and I would agree that it is all-inclusive. But we live in the 'yo' (Manifest) state so whatever inspiration we attain while in the 'wu' state has limited value in the 'yo' state.

 

in this way i see no paradox between expressing myself as a human through my naturally arising preferences while simultaneously retaining a core recognition that Tao does not share my preferences in an absolute sense.

 

Ouch. Two separate concepts here. Hehehe.

 

Yes, we express ourselves as humans while living in this manifest world. I think that is the way it is supposed to be. We feel our emotions! I love my emotions! And yes, I have my preferences. My preferences are better for me than another person's preferences would be for me.

 

But still, in the 'wu' state we are without these limiting factors. And, of course, they are not even a part of pure Tao (non-manifest or non-human aspects). How could Tao allow the destruction of things that took so long to develop if it was limited by any of these preferences?

 

 

fwiw, i will also say i think the latter recognition is important and naturally gives rise to holding preferences with more lightness. otherwise problems around preferences surely do occur because now they are not just naturally arising, like, hell yeah i fucking love sushi, let's go here! instead there is a kind of fixated contraction around a view, e.g., speaking personally i find myself feeling stuck, defensive, thinking my preference must have some kind of intrinsic validity. bleh, bad trip.

 

sean

 

Oh, of course. If I am a guest and am offered coffee I surely would not say, "No thank you. I would prefer tea." And I agree, we should not hold too tightly to our preferences because we may deny ourself something that we might possibly like much better than our current preference. Test and try before you buy.

 

And I agree, if we hold tightly to our preferences we are placing limits on ourself and likely will not live our life to its fullest potential.

 

WoW! Finished!!! You sure caused me to think with that post. Thanks. Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

I disagree. A human form can express complete inclusiveness when the exclusion of humanness doesn't occur. When both complete inclusiveness and natural exclusions exist simultaneously and unboundaried, the expression of both naturally arise and...well... all things seem to return to the source and gentle rains fall, as they say.

 

warm regards

 

edit:typo

 

Well, I agreed with him but you are coming at this from a different level than I came from. I see you still have one foot in wu and one foot in yo. Hehehe.

[Aaron]

The only point I wish to add to this discussion is that I think you're misinterpreting "not sentimental" for "impartial". They aren't the same thing. One can not be sentimental and still be partial, so can the Tao. The idea is that there are no emotional attachments to the action, rather it happens because it's supposed to happen. That doesn't mean the Tao doesn't "prefer" natural over unnatural, or that we should not prefer food over poison.

 

Aaron

Edited December 15, 2010 by Twinner

[Marblehead]

That doesn't mean the Tao doesn't "prefer" natural over unnatural, or that we should not prefer food over poison.

 

Aaron

 

Ah! But there is nothing unnatural so there are no needs for preferences (from the perspective of Tao). (From a human perspective, yes, there can be things considered unnatural.)

[Aaron]

Ah! But there is nothing unnatural so there are no needs for preferences (from the perspective of Tao). (From a human perspective, yes, there can be things considered unnatural.)

 

Hmm... that sounds like a bit of a cop out to me. It's like saying, "I can do whatever I feel like doing, so long as it suits me (or the Tao, Buddha, God, ad infinitum)." I'm sure you didn't intend it to be, but when I hear this argument arise (preference and natural) most of time it inevitably descends into a debate about "right and wrong" and "morality vs. innate", essentially an argument that people should be able to do whatever they want to. I think simply making the point, you reap what you sow, answers that question.

 

Aaron

[Marblehead]

Hmm... that sounds like a bit of a cop out to me. It's like saying, "I can do whatever I feel like doing, so long as it suits me (or the Tao, Buddha, God, ad infinitum)." I'm sure you didn't intend it to be, but when I hear this argument arise (preference and natural) most of time it inevitably descends into a debate about "right and wrong" and "morality vs. innate", essentially an argument that people should be able to do whatever they want to. I think simply making the point, you reap what you sow, answers that question.

 

Aaron

 

You have taken my statement out of context where I was speaking of Tao and you applied it to me.

 

I have never made any suggestions of the sort that you are presenting here. In fact, I oftentimes speak against what you are attempting to put on me with this post.

 

Yes, I reap a very good harvest. How about you?

[Aaron]

You have taken my statement out of context where I was speaking of Tao and you applied it to me.

 

I have never made any suggestions of the sort that you are presenting here. In fact, I oftentimes speak against what you are attempting to put on me with this post.

 

Yes, I reap a very good harvest. How about you?

 

 

Hello Marblehead,

 

I don't think that was your intention either, but I hear it's underlying current and I sense on a deeper level that the intent here (in the thread, not so much your comments) seems to be an attempt to present human preference as being natural and thus allowing a rationalization that any behavior that one decides is okay is okay. As I stated elsewhere, "when humanity arises, Tao is diminished." Of course Tao is never diminished, rather it is our direct awareness that is diminished. I think in order to truly understand the nature of this question and discuss it without hypotheticals, one would need to first be aware of the true nature of Tao.

 

Aaron

[sean]

I disagree. A human form can express complete inclusiveness when the exclusion of humanness doesn't occur. When both complete inclusiveness and natural exclusions exist simultaneously and unboundaried, the expression of both naturally arise and...well... all things seem to return to the source and gentle rains fall, as they say.

yes!

 

i agree with your disagreement. hah.

 

really this is just what i was thinking when i wrote "this is an incredible question, i should just stop here".

 

it's may be more useful to just keep sincerely asking "how could a limited human form express the unlimited?" and see where that goes.

 

all of this stuff just endlessly folds on itself. pops. folds on itself. pops.

 

it's fun to play conceptual tao bums hacky sack with kindred spirits on the way.

 

Okay, I first must state that I do not hold to the idea that Tao operates with any intention. I hold to the concept of Tzujan wherein Tao does what it must do, naturally, regardless of any attempted influence.

 

i just learned a new word. awesome. thank you.

 

yes, can see this. i think what i meant is that the source of intention is Tao, not that Tao itself has intention, e.g., in a similar way that the source of manifestation is Tao and yet Tao is empty and unborn.

 

So even though we might do something that is not in our best interest we did what had to be done because of the various causes so we are still acting in a Taoist way.

yes, this is what i was pointing to with "is it really ALL ok?". i don't like to talk about this too much because it seems to freak a lot of people out. too much space. space without boundaries. i think the (understandable) fear is, "without defined boundaries i might do something really bad". and maybe that is true for some, i don't know. [edit - yes, this concern is already manifesting in this topic]

 

How could Tao allow the destruction of things that took so long to develop if it was limited by any of these preferences?

 

beautiful. terrifyingly beautiful.

 

And I agree, we should not hold too tightly to our preferences because we may deny ourself something that we might possibly like much better than our current preference. Test and try before you buy.

 

And I agree, if we hold tightly to our preferences we are placing limits on ourself and likely will not live our life to its fullest potential.

 

well said.

 

sean

[Marblehead]

Hello Marblehead,

 

I don't think that was your intention either, but I hear it's underlying current and I sense on a deeper level that the intent here (in the thread, not so much your comments) seems to be an attempt to present human preference as being natural and thus allowing a rationalization that any behavior that one decides is okay is okay. As I stated elsewhere, "when humanity arises, Tao is diminished." Of course Tao is never diminished, rather it is our direct awareness that is diminished. I think in order to truly understand the nature of this question and discuss it without hypotheticals, one would need to first be aware of the true nature of Tao.

 

Aaron

 

Okay. I will let you go first. What is the true nature of Tao?

[Aaron]

That's like describing the color of red to a blind person. If they've never experienced sight, how can they truly understand what red is? The closest thing I could do (if I have ever really experienced it) is describe it in a fashion that will never really give it its due. In the same way, one does not need to see red for red to be a part of their world, and to take it one step further, if everything that is natural is made of this color, then it seems to me that it would behoove people to attempt to come to an understanding of it, rather than just describe what they think it is.

 

Aaron

Edited December 15, 2010 by Twinner

[Marblehead]

i just learned a new word. awesome. thank you.

 

yes, can see this. i think what i meant is that the source of intention is Tao, not that Tao itself has intention, e.g., in a similar way that the source of manifestation is Tao and yet Tao is empty and unborn.

 

I must credit Dr Wayne L Wang for the word. He used it in his "Dynamic Tao" and his definition and useage of it was so great that I just naturally stole the word from him. Hehehe.

 

I had to speak to that because many people hold to the concept of 'universal consciousness' and I had to make sure it wasn't understood that I hold to this understanding. Yes, empty and full are two concepts/one duality that are difficult to properly discuss. I like the way you said, "... and yet Tao is empty and unborn." Empty yet always full; unborn but yet born (in the Manifest realm).

 

yes, this is what i was pointing to with "is it really ALL ok?". i don't like to talk about this too much because it seems to freak a lot of people out. too much space. space without boundaries. i think the (understandable) fear is, "without defined boundaries i might do something really bad". and maybe that is true for some, i don't know. [edit - yes, this concern is already manifesting in this topic]

 

sean

 

Yep. You hit on a touchy subject. As long as we remember that there is a difference between the Way of Tao and the way of man we will be okay, I think. Tao plays by no rules (except Tzujan) whereas man makes rules, which most people follow, for the common good. There is no good from the view of Tao; nor is there any evil. Tao is beyond good and evil.

 

So I will try to keep my discussion of this concept to a mimimum.

[Marblehead]

That's like describing the color of red to a blind person. If they've never experienced sight, how can they truly understand what red is? The closest thing I could do (if I have ever really experienced it) is describe it in a fashion that will never really give it its due. In the same way, one does not need to see red for red to be a part of their world, and to take it one step further, if everything that is natural is made of this color, then it seems to me that it would behoove people to attempt to come to an understanding of it, rather than just describe what they think it is.

 

Aaron

 

Okay. I gave you one point for the first half of your post. You done good.

 

To the second half, I suggest that we have evidence of Tao in this Manifest realm that is a part of Tao. That is why we are told to look to nature in order to understand Tao. Nature is no always kind. Neither is Tao. But this is from man's perspective. We don't like hurricanes blowing down our houses. Nature doesn't care what we like or dislike. Tao doesn't either.

 

You want to see the Way of Tao? Look our your window. You don't need to go anywhere, you don't need a teacher, and you don't need to read a bunch of books. Just observe and understand the processes that are taking place.

 

Yes, sometimes there is great violence; other times there is supreme peace, quiet, and restfulness. Yin and Yang in action and non-action.

 

So no, I don't have any idealistic thoughts about the lion laying down with the lamb. The lamb is the lion's supper. That's life (and death).

[rene]

Hello Marblehead,

 

I don't think that was your intention either, but I hear it's underlying current and I sense on a deeper level that the intent here (in the thread, not so much your comments) seems to be an attempt to present human preference as being natural and thus allowing a rationalization that any behavior that one decides is okay is okay....

 

You might be bringing that in on your own, Aaron. I dont see those things being suggested by anyone in this thread. For that matter, those beginning level rationals/arguments are usually what you find over in the TH. Check the sign above the door, maybe you thought you were over there.