What is Tao

[Aaron]

Every now and again the question comes up, what is Tao? Recently I've been a bit perplexed with this question, because with my current experiential understanding of existence, Tao, as I was led to believe it to be, didn't make complete sense, but the other day I had an epiphany of sorts that I thought helped to explain exactly what it was and why it cannot be completely understood.

 

The general idea amongst most philosophical Taoists is that Tao cannot be explained or understood, that he who knows does not speak and he who speaks does not know, and that may be true in the sense that he who knows understands that explaining it in logical terms will never give it justice, because in a sense only the experiential understanding of Tao will allow one to understand what it actually is.

 

The important thing to remember is that one can know Tao, even if one cannot adequately explain it. I will try to explain Tao in a way that can be supported scientifically as well as spiritually, because in fact the understanding of Tao requires both in order to truly support it's existence as an actual "thing".

 

In order to truly understand what Tao is one must also understand how one has been taught to think and believe in existence. In the West especially, we have been taught to believe that our existence is dualistic in nature, that we exist, not only as physical beings, but also as consciousness or spiritual beings, and that these two types of existence are separate from one another. The main crux of this belief stems from the idea that consciousness cannot directly effect the material world, an example being one cannot simply wish an apple to exist. This idea is grounded on the idea that consciousness, while it exists, does not consist of any type of physical matter, but rather exists as a type of energy or reaction to a biological function.

 

In order to understand Tao one must first understand that along these lines of thinking Tao cannot be explained. The first thing we must do is understand consciousness for what it really is an actual material physical state that exists in reality as much as our bodies exist. Our thoughts are every bit as real as we are. When we understand this we can start to understand Tao as it actually exists and as it is understood by many mystics and enlightened souls around the world.

 

Sufi's say, "God is everything." Christian Mystics believe the same thing, as do Hindus and various other religions. Quantum Physicists are beginning to understand this as well, at least in the sense that there is a consciousness that exists that connects all things together. You can call it the collective unconscious if you want, but it is also quite certainly Tao.

 

What we experience as individuals is localized or ego consciousness. We have a limited ability to experience the world based on our own individual understanding of how the world works or to be more specific, how we are taught to believe the world works. Now the important thing to remember is that our perception of the world does not effect the actual being of the world, the world exists in the state it exists regardless of how we believe it exists. Our consciousness allows us to interact with the world, but it no way allows us to change the world. This actuality, as I stated before is also the biggest hindrance to our understanding of Tao and the world.

 

Tao, you see, is not simply a collection of every conscious thing in the universe, but in fact it is the consciousness that creates everything. As localized conscious beings we can tap into this consciousness, but rarely for any extended period of time, if for no other reason than if we do tap into for any extended period of time we tend to forget the reason why we tapped into it in the first place. The Tao or collective conscious doesn't work the same way that our localized conscious does, because it serves a different purpose, it's purpose being, most simply put, the running of the universe. To ask if it's intelligent is not really important, because when we ask this question we are basing our understanding of intelligence on what we consider intelligence to be. This is the reason why so many people tend to fall into the idea that this ultimate being is like us, the noble old man with long white hair sitting on a golden throne in the sky. It's not like that.

 

Tao is essentially the way things work, just as we are the way our body works. If we are not conscious, our bodies may still breathe and live in the physical sense, but they cannot survive long without something else to support them. In the same way the universe cannot survive long without Tao being there to work it.

 

Now one may ask, where is the proof that there is an underlying consciousness? Well the proof can be found in various experiments, the most notable one consisted of pairs of individuals who are asked to meditate together for twenty minutes, with the focus of that meditation being that they will be able to communicate together without using words or signs of any kinds. After the twenty minutes are up the people are set aside in separate rooms. One of the two is exposed to various images and stimuli. The scientists conducting the experiments monitored the brain waves of both people and it was found that in almost every case the person in the other room who was not exposed to the stimuli, had brainwave patterns that matched the person exposed to the stimuli.

 

The only explanation for why this could happen is that there is some underlying force that connects both of those people together, a collective unconscious that allows both consciousnesses to communicate and share information without the need for verbal or physical cues.

 

For me this is also an explanation of Tao. Tao in a greater sense is not a separate consciousness, but rather a collective conscious that encompasses everything in existence. In reality we are all Tao and in being Tao we are all everything that exists.

 

Now the problem is that explaining this can never do it justice. It is only that spark of knowledge that comes with not only understanding it, but also experiencing it that allows a true understanding of Tao. Cultivating Tao for instance is not simply strengthening chi, but tapping into the greater consciousness and working in harmony with it, wu wei. When one is able to work in accordance with Tao they find that they working in harmony with the world around them. They no long find themselves struggling to figure our what to do each day, but rather they intuitively understand how to act in each situation because they are tapped into this consciousness. Certain Buddhists by the way will call this Zen.

 

This is the crux of understanding Tao, that Tao within the confines of Taoism may not be enough, that what it takes to truly understand this greater consciousness, this collective consciousness, or God consciousness, requires more, an understanding of the world that transcends dogma and cumulative knowledge and instead relies on an innate experience of consciousness.

 

Anyways, this was a long explanation and by no means the only explanation. If anyone has more to add or chooses to disagree, feel free, but I would ask that you conduct your responses with respect. If you disagree, I would much rather hear the reason why, rather than your feelings about this explanation.

 

Aaron

[Encephalon]

Edited March 18, 2011 by Blasto

[Aaron]

Hello Blasto,

 

I didn't mean to imply that there was a dualism involved, in fact there is none, at least in my opinion. From my experience and understanding we are all simply one creation. We are all simply It. The separation I was pointing to was the reason why people can't simply will themselves to connect to the Tao, which is simply because we are educated to believe that we are dualistic creatures. My perception of Tao is not reliant strictly on Taoism either, but rather my understanding as it evolved from Buddhism and Vendanta Hunduism. I hope that clears things up.

 

I found nothing off-putting about your response. I also have no problem with people citing sources, but I ultimately like to hear what people's own opinions are. With that said, I did like the description of dualism you cited.

 

Aaron

[Marblehead]

Hi Twinner,

 

Nice article.

 

You got a little too close to the personification of Tao for my liking but I am sure you already knew I would have that reaction.

 

Collective consciousness, or universal consciousness, is another concept I have thus far been unable to accept.

 

Can we ever know the unknowable?

[devoid]

Hi Twinner,

 

Thanks for posting. I think it is a nice piece you wrote.

 

The funny thing with the tao is that one can try to describe it as much as one likes and still never provide a fairly complete description - IMO that's all that the Chinese proverbs tell us and also IMO this is very true.

 

The understanding of the tao is, after all, subject to the experience and interpretation of the individual. Even if somebody could express (in words) their full understanding of the tao it would still be unlikely to cover everybody's experience and interpretation.

 

That of course leads to the interesting question of whether one should not try to describe the tao because any description will contain shortcomings and may be biased. I guess the perfectionist would suggest to leave the tao at that while the pragmatist and eager student would say, let's talk about it to use that as a means to improve our understanding of the tao.

[Marblehead]

That of course leads to the interesting question of whether one should not try to describe the tao because any description will contain shortcomings and may be biased. I guess the perfectionist would suggest to leave the tao at that while the pragmatist and eager student would say, let's talk about it to use that as a means to improve our understanding of the tao.

 

Indeed. Chuang Tzu and everyone after him has attempted to do that.

[Gerard]

Everything is Dao, the spirit.

[The Way Is Virtue]

It is said that the 'true' dao cannot be named and it is indescribable and greatly mysterious, but apparently can ultimately be experienced, and it is also said that the dao 'in action' is nameable and describable through observation of its ways, laws, and principles, and many forms (the universe and all within it does follow very definite laws and natural ways, for example). The dao in action is what we think of as 'nature' or natural enfoldment, I believe. By aligining ourself more and more with these natural ways and laws and principles and thus becoming more and more 'in tune' with the dao in action, we open ourself more and more to experiencing 'the great mystery'. As an aside, maybe one way of looking at 'de' might be that the degree to which we are truly in alignment with dao is the degree of de we embody. A high degree of embodiment of de would indicate a high degree of alignment with dao, and lower degree of embodiment of de would indicate a lower degree of alignment with dao, (the natural laws and ways and principles).

 

It is also said that everything arises from dao and everything returns to dao. I believe this is described as the law of impermanence in Buddhism. Regarding consciousness, I believe various mystics and sages have indicated that consciousness can and does indeed impact the physical world (and everything else) very much. By aligning ourselves more and more with dao we begin to understand this relationship more and more, and therefore continue to 'refine' ourselves accordingly. This can also be thought of as cultivating de.

 

Of course everything I have written above contains much speculation on my part It is just a description of the current state of an ever evolving (devolving?) picture that I hold in my mind.

 

 

.

Edited March 18, 2011 by The Way Is Virtue

[zerostao]

Everything is Dao, the spirit.

[Marblehead]

Of course everything I have written above contains much speculation on my part It is just a description of the current state of an ever evolving (devolving?) picture that I hold in my mind.

 

Well, I like it!

[Aaron]

Hello guys,

 

Thanks for the kind words. In regards to describing the Tao, I would agree, there is a fine balance that needs to be met when one decides to explain something such as the Tao. Perhaps I do not know, perhaps what I'm describing isn't Tao, but my own realization regarding this came as a result of seeing the similarities between this collective conscious (note this isn't the collective unconscious) and the Tao. The similarities between the two, at least as it's described in Taoist texts is astounding.

 

I hope to hear more about how other people feel about this topic. Lets keep up the old Chuang Tzu tradition.

 

Aaron

[Marblehead]

... similarities between this collective conscious (note this isn't the collective unconscious) and the Tao.

 

Yes, I was aware of where you were with that. I have fewer problems with 'collective unscious' than I do with 'collective conscious'.

[Taomeow]

What tao "is" is a question that invalidates the inquiry, since the "is" premise is false. "Is" nails, immobilizes, pinpoints whatever it addresses. Tao, however, can't be nailed, can't be immobilized, can't be pinned to a styrofoam pad like a captured butterfly and labeled -- it "is" such and such exhibit, "tao."

 

The valid question is, what does tao do? Tao doesn't "is," tao "does" stuff, we can observe the effects, the "doings" of tao are real and it's a satisfying and meaningful inquiry, to start learning about tao via her doings. It may seem as just word play at first glance, but if you shift your perspective to always, and that's "always," remembering to apply "what does it do" to all phenomena instead of "what is it," the shift of consciousness in the general direction of comprehension will have commenced! You can't begin to imagine how many misconceptions will start falling like dead butterflies off their cruel, pointed, pointless pins...

 

And when you're reasonably comfortable with this process, dare ask the next valid question:

"why does tao do it?"

[Birch]

Finally, an erasing of the useless (to some) "is" in favour of other things (not static neither, so be vewy vewy careful).

 

Yep, I'd love to know "why" :-) (I have a kind of an answer but sounds too silly so won't post, yet :-))

[Aaron]

What tao "is" is a question that invalidates the inquiry, since the "is" premise is false. "Is" nails, immobilizes, pinpoints whatever it addresses. Tao, however, can't be nailed, can't be immobilized, can't be pinned to a styrofoam pad like a captured butterfly and labeled -- it "is" such and such exhibit, "tao."

 

The valid question is, what does tao do? Tao doesn't "is," tao "does" stuff, we can observe the effects, the "doings" of tao are real and it's a satisfying and meaningful inquiry, to start learning about tao via her doings. It may seem as just word play at first glance, but if you shift your perspective to always, and that's "always," remembering to apply "what does it do" to all phenomena instead of "what is it," the shift of consciousness in the general direction of comprehension will have commenced! You can't begin to imagine how many misconceptions will start falling like dead butterflies off their cruel, pointed, pointless pins...

 

And when you're reasonably comfortable with this process, dare ask the next valid question:

"why does tao do it?"

 

Hello Taomeow,

 

I disagree. I had this same conversation with a friend of mine today. He stated Tao isn't something that can be defined, but rather a process. My argument is that by being a process it becomes a thing. What we're getting hung up on is the idea that by describing Tao we're committing some kind of heresy, when in fact, as others have already stated, those who came after Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu in particular examined Tao, and attempted to explain what it was as clearly as they could. To go one step further, if it is a process, something drives that process, so perhaps what I'm describing isn't Tao, the process, but the why for the process. Just some food for thought.

 

Aaron

Edited March 18, 2011 by Twinner

[Birch]

"My argument is that by being a process it becomes a thing"

 

And IMO/IME herein lies the fundamental question/argument that most of the TTB's (including myself) have been arguing over for quite some time (don't let's go there right now;-))

 

Indeed, haven't most of the world's religions and philosophers been arguing over such "distinctions" for far too long?

 

If that V-dude was here he'd start using the r-word (aagh).

 

This "thing" business is IMO entirely artifical.Doesn't mean it ain't useful.

 

Thank you!

[Aaron]

Hello Marblehead,

 

The idea of the collective or universal conscious, the God conscious for lack of a better definition comes from the work of quantum physicist Amit Goswami. If you've studied physics in college, then there's a good chance you've actually studied using the textbook he wrote. If you have the time and access to netflix you can watch a very enlightening (pun intended) documentary about the good doctor entitled, "Quantum Activist".

 

I think what people may have problems envisioning is this concept of conscious, in part because they view it as a conscious action that decides what is happening within the world, when in fact the Universal Conscious or collected conscious isn't that at all, but rather the process that allows the world to function. I am particularly tickled by the number of people that are happy to say this is wrong, but haven't given any explanation of their own. (Yes I'm aware some have, but I would like to hear more about this, especially since as "Taoist" the Tao is the crux for our philosophical and religious basis.

 

With that said, I have long since ceased being a Taoist, in fact I find claiming to be one thing or the other changes little in the grand scheme of things. My main purpose for starting this thread was to share my own recent views, which may change in time, and compare them to other people's views.

 

I would encourage people to set aside their apprehension regarding describing Tao and give it a go. You wont go to Taoist hell for doing so, but it may help you to understand a bit more about what you're actually believing.

 

Aaron

Edited March 18, 2011 by Twinner

[Mr. T]

hey folks, twinner,

 

really interesting comments...but what else would you expect from such an overwhelming question?!

 

marblehead, i'm intrigued by your position on this collective consciousness business. could you explain more your stance on that? cause i have always felt that the idea of the collective consciousness was a fine analogy for the tao! you are making me question some core foundational stuff that i have kind of taken for granted all along. i respect your understandings and opinions, so i am really interested to pry for more

 

as for my opinion on "what is tao?" well, my limited understanding is it is first a chinese character and word, and i don't know much more than what i stated in the paragraph above! sorry...happy friday!!

[Taomeow]

Hello Taomeow,

 

I disagree. I had this same conversation with a friend of mine today. He stated Tao isn't something that can be defined, but rather a process. My argument is that by being a process it becomes a thing. What we're getting hung up on is the idea that by describing Tao we're committing some kind of heresy, when in fact, as others have already stated, those who came after Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu in particular examined Tao, and attempted to explain what it was as clearly as they could. To go one step further, if it is a process, something drives that process, so perhaps what I'm describing isn't Tao, the process, but the why for the process. Just some food for thought.

 

Aaron

 

Hi Aaron,

 

I don't disagree that describing tao is fruitful and useful, but describing and defining are worlds apart. It is difficult to notice the difference until you start watching yourself (sic) like a hawk. Every time you define, you fragment. John is a dentist. Yes, it's true, you can define a dentist named John this way. But try asking "what does John do" and you will see how meager, incomplete, reductionist a fragment of the real picture of John this definition provides. While defining John, "dentist" doesn't describe John. It doesn't describe how John makes love to Nancy. It doesn't describe what John feeds his dog. It doesn't describe his feelings of doom or of grace, his digestion that is sluggish or frisky, his sense of style that is superb or nonexistent, his acts of greed or generosity, his inspiring or deadening interactions with his daughter, his body, mind or soul. All it offers is information that John fills and pulls teeth for a living -- and at that, only to someone already in the know as to what a "dentist" does.

 

"John is a husband" makes him into a thing. "John loves his wife" returns him to the realm of processes, the ones not reducible to things. Things are fragments. Processes are not. "John is loves his wife?" Doesn't work. A process is not a thing. (Kate, thanks for thinking on that thought-length too!)

 

The habit of destroying processes by removing descriptions and substituting definitions is the outcome of much brainwashing we've all been subjected to. It is far from innocuous. I invite you to examine the issue closer before arriving at conclusions... much of it is not very obvious, and the rest is mystery of mysteries!

[Stigweard]

What tao "is" is a question that invalidates the inquiry, since the "is" premise is false. "Is" nails, immobilizes, pinpoints whatever it addresses. Tao, however, can't be nailed, can't be immobilized, can't be pinned to a styrofoam pad like a captured butterfly and labeled -- it "is" such and such exhibit, "tao."

 

The valid question is, what does tao do? Tao doesn't "is," tao "does" stuff, we can observe the effects, the "doings" of tao are real and it's a satisfying and meaningful inquiry, to start learning about tao via her doings. It may seem as just word play at first glance, but if you shift your perspective to always, and that's "always," remembering to apply "what does it do" to all phenomena instead of "what is it," the shift of consciousness in the general direction of comprehension will have commenced! You can't begin to imagine how many misconceptions will start falling like dead butterflies off their cruel, pointed, pointless pins...

 

And when you're reasonably comfortable with this process, dare ask the next valid question:

"why does tao do it?"

Excellent comments!

[Aaron]

Hi Aaron,

 

I don't disagree that describing tao is fruitful and useful, but describing and defining are worlds apart. It is difficult to notice the difference until you start watching yourself (sic) like a hawk. Every time you define, you fragment. John is a dentist. Yes, it's true, you can define a dentist named John this way. But try asking "what does John do" and you will see how meager, incomplete, reductionist a fragment of the real picture of John this definition provides. While defining John, "dentist" doesn't describe John. It doesn't describe how John makes love to Nancy. It doesn't describe what John feeds his dog. It doesn't describe his feelings of doom or of grace, his digestion that is sluggish or frisky, his sense of style that is superb or nonexistent, his acts of greed or generosity, his inspiring or deadening interactions with his daughter, his body, mind or soul. All it offers is information that John fills and pulls teeth for a living -- and at that, only to someone already in the know as to what a "dentist" does.

 

"John is a husband" makes him into a thing. "John loves his wife" returns him to the realm of processes, the ones not reducible to things. Things are fragments. Processes are not. "John is loves his wife?" Doesn't work. A process is not a thing. (Kate, thanks for thinking on that thought-length too!)

 

The habit of destroying processes by removing descriptions and substituting definitions is the outcome of much brainwashing we've all been subjected to. It is far from innocuous. I invite you to examine the issue closer before arriving at conclusions... much of it is not very obvious, and the rest is mystery of mysteries!

 

 

Hello Taomeow,

 

Perhaps. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. The difference is that you're confusing the idea of defining with applying a value to something. I am not applying value, but rather explaining how something functions, part of it's purpose. I think you are right in the sense that when we apply value to something we begin to restrict it, simply because we've applied a value to it and not allowed it to be what it is, but if you feed into this idea that defining something fragments it, then you're left with the idea that the Tao can never be fully explained, and that my friend is the crux, or what con-men call the grift. If you tell someone that something cannot be defined and that anyone that tries to define it doesn't know what it is, then you hold onto a sacred knowledge all to yourself where you can wink and smile and say, "you are not quite there yet grasshopper." Remember the Tao Teh Ching was written over a lengthy period of time with tracts added during that process, did you ever think that perhaps that line was added so that people wouldn't necessarily question what the Tao was? Doesn't it seem likely that this may have been added as a way of keeping students and followers in tow with the temple line?

 

I think the problem, and this was a problem for me for several years/decades, was that I accepted things at face value without questioning them. As I've started to truly look into the ideas surrounding enlightenment, Tao, and the nature of existence, I've learned to look at things objectively and subjectively, to both embrace and question, to not simply accept something as being correct because others have told me it was, but to examine it's authenticity. When I examine and look at the Tao Teh Ching I begin to see things that pop up in other religions as well, the need to propose moral guidelines for appropriate behavior being the key similarity. This doesn't mean it's bad, in fact I'm sure during the time it was needed to help maintain order and balance in a warring society. Now though, we have the luxury of examining these ideas in a way that allows us to see what aspects are valid and what are not. We can in fact get down to the root of the matter. In regards to describing Tao, I tend to believe it can be described and many people have, but because people blindly follow tradition they've overlooked these definitions simply because they've been led to believe it can't or shouldn't be done.

 

Anyways, thanks for your response. I do appreciate your input.

 

Aaron

 

edit- I'd also like to add that I didn't intend for this to become a debate about whether or not Tao can be explained/defined, but rather as a means for people to share their own views and understanding of Tao.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Twinner

[devoid]

Hi Twinner, Marblehead,

 

About the this oneness and universal consciousness discussion. I can understand both of you although you disagree so much on this point - here's a bit of perspective on both views which might help you agree to disagree

 

To the mainly philosophical taoist there needs not be any such thing. Why? Because the Tao Te Ching and other scriptures don't prescribe it. In fact, I consider this one of the prime reasons why hard-line scientists who won't have a word of divinity apart from conceding that they don't know what brought about the enormous mass to start the big bang are able to accept and endorse taoist philosophy.

 

To the taoist practioner who has meditated to a certain level / degree, one gets glimpses of such universal bliss which is talked about. For anybody who has ever experienced that one knows in an instant in ones heart what is meant with such concepts. Anybody who has experienced this will also know that they can't explain it in words. On a side-note, a discussion of this might be worthwhile in a separate thread.

 

The question to ask then becomes: is such an experience (of a universal consciousness) at the core of the tao? Many people agree that it is, while yet many people disagree. To give you an idea of what I mean, let me tell you that I am sympathetic to both views and perhaps oddly don't consider them opposing views:

 

On the one hand, I can understand when Marblehead gets irritated by the esoteric mumbo-jumbo which often accompanies it and yet at the same time, I too have often experienced what Twinner is on about. Thus, in a sense you're both right. Marblehead in the physical realm and Twinner in the state (or realms if you prefer) which can only be reached through meditation when joining the xin and the yi.

 

Edit: Typo

Edited March 19, 2011 by devoid

[adept]

My argument is that by being a process it becomes a thing....

 

.... To go one step further, if it is a process, something drives that process

 

 

By being a process, no ONE thing drives it. It is the culmination of countless 'things'. A state of constant flux.

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that Tao is exactly the same as conditioned arising in Buddhism.

The great mystery is that there is NO great mystery.

[Marblehead]

Finally, an erasing of the useless (to some) "is" in favour of other things (not static neither, so be vewy vewy careful).

 

Yep, I'd love to know "why" :-) (I have a kind of an answer but sounds too silly so won't post, yet :-))

 

Hehehe. Yeah, I have tried answering the "Why?" question and every time the answer was silly.

[Marblehead]

Hello Taomeow,

 

I disagree. I had this same conversation with a friend of mine today. He stated Tao isn't something that can be defined, but rather a process. My argument is that by being a process it becomes a thing. What we're getting hung up on is the idea that by describing Tao we're committing some kind of heresy, when in fact, as others have already stated, those who came after Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu in particular examined Tao, and attempted to explain what it was as clearly as they could. To go one step further, if it is a process, something drives that process, so perhaps what I'm describing isn't Tao, the process, but the why for the process. Just some food for thought.

 

Aaron

 

 

I would submit the suggestion that Tao is not a 'thing' but it is all things and all non-things. Tzujan is its processes. We can identify the 10,000 things aspect of Tao but these are only aspects, not Tao itself. We cannot identify those aspects of Tao that have not yet taken form (the interacting of Chi with potential).

 

Tao (The Way) can be identified to some degree. We can observe the processes and describe these processes that are observable. But still, how many processes are there that we have not yet been able to observe?