What is Tao

[Everything]

[Marblehead]

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

 

 

Hi Aaron,

 

I wanted to repeat your entire post but will speak to only that paragraph I bolded.

 

In my mind, what you are speaking to with the words "collective conscious" and "universal conscious" is Tzujan - the processes of Tao (and all things).

 

Now it is true that some can convert this concept (Tzujan) into "Prime Mover', 'God', or whatever.

 

Personally, my mind cannot go deep enough to consider the 'Prime Cause' of all 'causes'. That I leave to the religious people. (But don't accept any of them. Hehehe.)

[Marblehead]

Excellent comments!

 

Agree.

[Marblehead]

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.

 

Agree. We have been doing pretty good so far. May we continue to do so.

 

And BTW, thanks for starting the thread because it is touching on some very deep concepts.

 

 

PS I have to go off for a little but when I return I will attempt to address Mr. T's post and then continue with whatever.

 

Okay, I am back. I think this might be of interest to some so I will tell Y'all where I have been.

 

I have a Vietnamese lady friend who lives alone and she had a circuit breaker that tripped and she couldn't find the one that tripped to turn it back on. I took care of that but she also wanted me to take her to the grocery store.

 

She cannot drive and needed to go to the store because today (one day per two weeks) she prepares a meal for Buddha and celebrates the day with him. I have no problem with helping her in matters such as this. She and I have never argued about religion and it is beautiful that we have so much in common where life philosophy is concerned.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

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

 

While trying to effectively respond to your question I will try to keep as close to the topic of discussion as possible.

 

Consciousness: I believe that all living organisms have consciousness of one form or another. This includes animals and plants. This is because I believe that all living organisms contain an aspect of Chi that I refer to as 'life force'.

 

Now, it is true that one could say that because all living organism have consciousness through this 'life force' which is an aspect of Chi, which in turn is an aspect of Tao, in regression all living organisms are a part of this consciousness, life force, Chi, Tao. Therefore it is a collective consciousness in that they are all linked.

 

I really have no problem with this proposal. The problem I have is when 'intent' is attached to this concept in any form. I see far to much variation in individual life forms for me to accept that there is any centralized intent whatever. What I see is randomness, survival (self-interest) and evolution of the various life forms. If there were centralized intent there would not be all these variations of individual intent.

 

However, the biggest problem I have with collective (consciousness) intent is that from there the question woud be: Who's intent are we talking about? This would immediately lead to personifying this intention - creating a god - a prime mover personified.

 

This is where religions start from. An attempt by man to explain what we cannot other wise explain. This, in turn, creates illusions and delusion. The more illusions and delusions we have in our life the less we will live in the Manifest world. And I believe that whenever we stop living our life in the Manifest world we are neglecting our priviledge of having a life.

 

This is why I almost always speak of Tao as either the totality of the universe or as the Way, the processes of the universe. To define Tao as any kind of thing or non-thing is an error, I think. And this is why I feel totally comfortable when I speak of Tao following Tzujan.

 

That's it for now unless you have questions.

[Marblehead]

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

 

 

Hi Devoid,

 

Thanks for the post.

 

I think Aaron and I have too much in common in this area to get in any kind of agruement. Yes, we may at time need to agree to disagree.

 

It is true, I speak from the Manifest. This is the only aspect of Tao that I actually believe that I 'know' a few things. I rarely speak about spirituality matters. I think that Aaron enjoys speaking of these matters.

 

This is truely a wonderful discussion going on and there will be disagreements. But even though this is a given we can try to at least understand the opposing views even if we don't agree with them.

[Marblehead]

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.

 

I actually agree with you but please don't tell anyone. Okay?

[Aaron]

I actually agree with you but please don't tell anyone. Okay?

 

 

I would agree in theory, but I think when one sees the thing as everything, then it's easier to understand the Tao as a thing. The underlying consciousness that I speak of is also the underlying force that connects all things and is essentially everything. This consciousness is what connects me to you and you to me. It's only the idea that we are separate from everything, that prevents us from experiencing it.

 

Aaron

 

edit- By the way, excellent posts marblehead. I've enjoyed reading your responses.

[Marblehead]

[Marblehead]

I would agree in theory, but I think when one sees the thing as everything, then it's easier to understand the Tao as a thing. The underlying consciousness that I speak of is also the underlying force that connects all things and is essentially everything. This consciousness is what connects me to you and you to me. It's only the idea that we are separate from everything, that prevents us from experiencing it.

 

Aaron

 

edit- By the way, excellent posts marblehead. I've enjoyed reading your responses.

 

Thanks Aaron,

 

I enjoy discussing this with you as well. It really is an important concept within Taoism (as well as all other philosophies and religions) and was active even before Taoism became "Taoism" (Lao Tzu).

 

Personally, I stop at Chi in regard to our connectness. (Chi interacting with Mystery (potential) produces Manifest (the 10,000 things).)

 

But then I will deny any connectness with people like Hitler. So there you go.

[Birch]

A "thing" has "form" which IMO requires a separation (or several) of some kind. What could this "separation" be produced by? My take is that conscousness itself produces the separation - and not in all cases either.Seems it's very culturally-dependent too (dreamtime etc).

 

What of the "formless?" I reckon the "formless" is what the forms are "made out of" so to speak.

 

After I get to this point, I tend to get very confused in my explanation because I can't "understand" something being both form and formless at the same time but somehow I know that's what the deal is.

 

I also have a hard time sharing the timespace with atrocitity-committing dictators and evil-doing banking institutions.

 

Aaron, I liked your explanation.

[Aaron]

A "thing" has "form" which IMO requires a separation (or several) of some kind. What could this "separation" be produced by? My take is that conscousness itself produces the separation - and not in all cases either.Seems it's very culturally-dependent too (dreamtime etc).

 

What of the "formless?" I reckon the "formless" is what the forms are "made out of" so to speak.

 

After I get to this point, I tend to get very confused in my explanation because I can't "understand" something being both form and formless at the same time but somehow I know that's what the deal is.

 

I also have a hard time sharing the timespace with atrocitity-committing dictators and evil-doing banking institutions.

 

Aaron, I liked your explanation.

 

Hello Kate,

 

I think the ancients were explaining things in a way that made sense to them, nowadays with the advent of physics we know that, even if something appears to have no form, it actually does. In that sense the void isn't necessarily a void, but rather a different type of energy. There really is no formless, it's all one thing, it's only our own perception of it that causes us to see it as such. When you examine things you find that even air has molecules, even a vacuum contains substance, just not a substance we can see.

 

Aaron

[Birch]

Hello Kate,

 

I think the ancients were explaining things in a way that made sense to them, nowadays with the advent of physics we know that, even if something appears to have no form, it actually does. In that sense the void isn't necessarily a void, but rather a different type of energy. There really is no formless, it's all one thing, it's only our own perception of it that causes us to see it as such. When you examine things you find that even air has molecules, even a vacuum contains substance, just not a substance we can see.

 

Aaron

 

Sure. What I find is amazing is you can get to some sort of this knowing directly through meditation. Not by being told by physicists (although I personally find I'm happy when I read their "discoveries" of this stuff because I'm a westerner after all and despite appearances I have huge respect for science :-)) I'm pretty sure if more physicists meditated they'd advance their stuff a huge amount

 

But following that, would they share what they'd found out properly? Would they use what they'd found out for, to paraphrase TaoMeow "good processes" or "bad processes". So far the track-record isn't looking too hot.

[manitou]

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.

 

 

Interesting observation. Yes, the dualism in the West is palpable. Because our bible-thumping brothers believe they are separate from God and that God will forgive all, they place little emphasis on self-discovery or even attempts to be kind, in many cases. I'm here in the middle of a gaggle of a whole bunch of 'em. Gossip here is an art form, judgment runs rampant, and prejudices handed down from family to family are absolutely revered. My mission, should I choose to accept it, is to find a way to love each and every one, despite my repugnance to their attitudes. I do choose to accept it. Some days are easier than others.

[Aaron]

Sure. What I find is amazing is you can get to some sort of this knowing directly through meditation. Not by being told by physicists (although I personally find I'm happy when I read their "discoveries" of this stuff because I'm a westerner after all and despite appearances I have huge respect for science :-)) I'm pretty sure if more physicists meditated they'd advance their stuff a huge amount

 

But following that, would they share what they'd found out properly? Would they use what they'd found out for, to paraphrase TaoMeow "good processes" or "bad processes". So far the track-record isn't looking too hot.

 

Hello Kate,

 

You can get to this point of knowledge through meditation. In fact I'm sure throughout history millions of people have, but it's only been recently that a small group of physicists and scientists have attempted to explain what occurs scientifically. I think generally spiritual people feel threatened by science because they believe science has it in for spirituality. I think atheists might have it in for spirituality, but I don't necessarily believe science does. In fact many leading quantum physicists, including Amit Goswami, have dedicated their careers to explaining spirituality scientifically.

 

In the end it's entirely up to us to decide whether we are willing to accept these discoveries with an open mind or close ourselves off to them. I'm certain that those who do examine them with an open mind, even if they might not entirely agree, will find in the end that it is for a good process as you call it.

 

In my mind I tend to view good and evil as irrelevant in the grand scheme. I know it might be hard to accept, but atrocities and catastrophes occur for a reason. I wont be so presumptuous as to try and explain it, but I do believe that there's no intent to cause suffering, rather it's quite unsentimental.

 

Aaron

Edited March 19, 2011 by Twinner

[whynaut]

I can see how Tao (or possible only one aspect of Tao) could be tied into this collective consciousness. Though I'd like to make the point that this collective consciousness need not be metaphysical in anyway.

 

Consider ants. One single ant is the dumbest creature on the planet. One entomologist described two ant pulling on either end of a twig in opposite directions for two months until they died. However, an ant colony is extremely brilliant. Such abilities an ant colony can do is make elaborate homes with specific rooms, take and train slave ants, tend to livestock, predict and make preparations for rainfall, and the list goes on. It is almost like an ant is a single braincell and a colony of ants becomes a full brain.

 

Nature/the universe(/Tao?) is like this as well. In an ecosystem no single thing (like a deer, a wolf, a tree, a stream, etc.) needs a mind with an overarching goal, and yet ecosystems naturally keep balance and keep everything in it thriving. Even after a death in an ecosystem system, not only does the system continue, but in actually it plans for such a death and makes uses for it to keep the system going.

 

Tao does not have a mind, but it does not need a mind. It has the minds and non-minds of everything and it keeps balance fine. Perhaps this is why there is such an appreciation for nature in Taoism because it is something to aspire to be like or become a part of.

[dawei]

I hate to cross post but I posted in the thread by Stig and now see that I was trying to share something which this thread is essentially asking about. So I will put a rearranged and condensed version of it here.

 

I want to start by saying that I think Dao is not a thing and closer to a process; likened to the rules of a game; the rules describe how the game will essentially run but ultimately it requires rule-abiders. The rules themself do NOTHING. They do not even EXIST. I see Dao as similar; Dao does NOTHING itself; thus it is NON-EXISTENT. I don't want to get too deep into how Dao makes it way into the 10,000 things but since some might get caught up in my point, I would say that is the role of "De"; De is Dao in us so that we are Dao-abiders.

 

cross-post item, modified and re-arranged:

 

Dao[ism] is but a shadow of what I call: the universal. Thus, Dao is not the universal itself but an aspect of it. I would say that the DDJ is but a slice of what Dao[ism] reveals about the universal.

 

I liken it to what I call "living the many-realms". As you expand the realms revealed by Dao[ism], your slices begin to add up more and more and a view of the "universal" beings to take varying forms.

 

The realms that I would offer as a start include:

physical

emotional

psychological

mental

philosophical

spiritual/soul

energetical

vibrational

 

In my vision, all these realms interact with us and are maybe like concentric circles, but in x-Dimensions, and make up the universal.

 

I would say everyone lives within and experiences the universal but may only experience slice(s) of it.

Edited March 19, 2011 by dawei

[manitou]

I can see how Tao (or possible only one aspect of Tao) could be tied into this collective consciousness. Though I'd like to make the point that this collective consciousness need not be metaphysical in anyway.

 

Consider ants. One single ant is the dumbest creature on the planet. One entomologist described two ant pulling on either end of a twig in opposite directions for two months until they died. However, an ant colony is extremely brilliant. Such abilities an ant colony can do is make elaborate homes with specific rooms, take and train slave ants, tend to livestock, predict and make preparations for rainfall, and the list goes on. It is almost like an ant is a single braincell and a colony of ants becomes a full brain.

 

Nature/the universe(/Tao?) is like this as well. In an ecosystem no single thing (like a deer, a wolf, a tree, a stream, etc.) needs a mind with an overarching goal, and yet ecosystems naturally keep balance and keep everything in it thriving. Even after a death in an ecosystem system, not only does the system continue, but in actually it plans for such a death and makes uses for it to keep the system going.

 

Tao does not have a mind, but it does not need a mind. It has the minds and non-minds of everything and it keeps balance fine. Perhaps this is why there is such an appreciation for nature in Taoism because it is something to aspire to be like or become a part of.

 

 

What a beautiful post. It reminds me that within the Tao there is a Latency, the blueprint for what is manifested. The oak in the acorn.

 

You said: It is almost like an ant is a single brain cell and a colony of ants becomes a full brain.

 

Just last week I had a sort of vision where collectively our subconscious holds this whole thing in place; after all, we use such a small portion of our brains for conscious purposes. All of our subconsciouses are somehow one big subconscious, was how I interpreted it. I am thrilled to know that there is something in nature (your anthill analogy) that follows this template.

[zerostao]

What a beautiful post. It reminds me that within the Tao there is a Latency, the blueprint for what is manifested. The oak in the acorn.

 

You said: It is almost like an ant is a single brain cell and a colony of ants becomes a full brain.

 

Just last week I had a sort of vision where collectively our subconscious holds this whole thing in place; after all, we use such a small portion of our brains for conscious purposes. All of our subconsciouses are somehow one big subconscious, was how I interpreted it. I am thrilled to know that there is something in nature (your anthill analogy) that follows this template.

collective soul? oh, that is the name of a band, right? collective unconscious makes sense to me. this idea is very very old. the idea of collective conscious has been bounced around by(in the western world) anaximander,parmenides,plato...spinoza,leibniz,schopenhauer..

twinner, cool thread. i have a question for you. if you substituted pantheism for the tao in you initial post here, you could have made the exact same post and it stay relevant?

[Stigweard]

I can see how Tao (or possible only one aspect of Tao) could be tied into this collective consciousness. Though I'd like to make the point that this collective consciousness need not be metaphysical in anyway.

 

Consider ants. One single ant is the dumbest creature on the planet. One entomologist described two ant pulling on either end of a twig in opposite directions for two months until they died. However, an ant colony is extremely brilliant. Such abilities an ant colony can do is make elaborate homes with specific rooms, take and train slave ants, tend to livestock, predict and make preparations for rainfall, and the list goes on. It is almost like an ant is a single braincell and a colony of ants becomes a full brain.

 

Nature/the universe(/Tao?) is like this as well. In an ecosystem no single thing (like a deer, a wolf, a tree, a stream, etc.) needs a mind with an overarching goal, and yet ecosystems naturally keep balance and keep everything in it thriving. Even after a death in an ecosystem system, not only does the system continue, but in actually it plans for such a death and makes uses for it to keep the system going.

 

Tao does not have a mind, but it does not need a mind. It has the minds and non-minds of everything and it keeps balance fine. Perhaps this is why there is such an appreciation for nature in Taoism because it is something to aspire to be like or become a part of.

Beautiful

 

What a beautiful post. It reminds me that within the Tao there is a Latency, the blueprint for what is manifested. The oak in the acorn.

And likewise beautiful

 

If cause and effect was just random there would be no order or regularity. There would be no reliable laws of physics. But the universal reality is that there is constant and ever-cycling phases of change that seem to conform to some sort of pattern.

 

[Aaron]

collective soul? oh, that is the name of a band, right? collective unconscious makes sense to me. this idea is very very old. the idea of collective conscious has been bounced around by(in the western world) anaximander,parmenides,plato...spinoza,leibniz,schopenhauer..

twinner, cool thread. i have a question for you. if you substituted pantheism for the tao in you initial post here, you could have made the exact same post and it stay relevant?

 

 

Hello Zerotao,

 

I think you could make the same argument for pantheism being the same thing, except that for me, as I mentioned, it's not some almighty being in human form ruling from a throne, but rather a force of creation.

 

With that said, if one sees Tao as "Way" then there's no reason not to view Tao as the rule of the universe. I tend to believe that there is something more to it than that, but that's just me. Perhaps I am a pantheist in the sense that for me there is a collective conscious that unites all things and creates all things and in being all things is Tao as well. That was a very astute observation. I never really thought of it that way. Thanks for the input.

 

Aaron

Edited March 20, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

I can see how Tao (or possible only one aspect of Tao) could be tied into this collective consciousness. Though I'd like to make the point that this collective consciousness need not be metaphysical in anyway.

 

Consider ants. One single ant is the dumbest creature on the planet. One entomologist described two ant pulling on either end of a twig in opposite directions for two months until they died. However, an ant colony is extremely brilliant. Such abilities an ant colony can do is make elaborate homes with specific rooms, take and train slave ants, tend to livestock, predict and make preparations for rainfall, and the list goes on. It is almost like an ant is a single braincell and a colony of ants becomes a full brain.

 

Nature/the universe(/Tao?) is like this as well. In an ecosystem no single thing (like a deer, a wolf, a tree, a stream, etc.) needs a mind with an overarching goal, and yet ecosystems naturally keep balance and keep everything in it thriving. Even after a death in an ecosystem system, not only does the system continue, but in actually it plans for such a death and makes uses for it to keep the system going.

 

Tao does not have a mind, but it does not need a mind. It has the minds and non-minds of everything and it keeps balance fine. Perhaps this is why there is such an appreciation for nature in Taoism because it is something to aspire to be like or become a part of.

 

 

Hello Whynaut,

 

I like your ant analogy. I agree that we are all it. That's why we are not separate. We are the ants and the slaves the ants train. Everything is It.

 

From experience I can understand this, but explaining it is very difficult. There is this notion of space that doesn't exist. Everything even the space between me and you is connected. I think if one's only point of reference is their own physical experience, then it's very hard to believe this. We can understand the concept, but that's all it is, until that moment of insight when you actually experience this connection.

 

My favorite example, which isn't meant to lesson the quality of your own, but rather something I think you might appreciate goes as such. As children we are taught to believe that we are passengers within our bodies, that we are somehow separate from our physical selves. We say our hair, our fingers, our eyes, never realizing that we are all of these things. We are our hair growing, our fingers moving, and our eyes seeing. To take it a step further, each of us has microscopic bacteria within our stomach that helps us to digest food, without this bacteria we can't have a healthy digestive tract, yet when we examine our bodies we view this bacteria as being separate from ourselves, yet it's necessary for us to live a healthy life, in fact this bacteria is every bit a part of us as our fingers and hair are.

 

We look at the universe and see the vastness of space and say, how small are we? What does it matter if we exist at all? Yet like that bacteria we are not only a part of this universe, but a necessary part. We are as much the universe as the universe is us. Just as the millions of bacteria within are digestive tract make up our own bodies, the billions of people on this Earth help to make up the Universe. It is the idea of separateness that prevents us from understanding the connection each of us has to one another. We are all "It" and being "It" we are each other. I am you and you are me. All it takes to understand this is that moment when I close my eyes and realize I am everything, I have been here from the beginning and I will be here 'til the end. I am collective conscious, I am Tao.

 

When one realizes this then their view of other people changes dramatically. I can no longer look at another person and wish ill upon them. Even when I am frustrated I still see within each person myself and within myself I see them. This is what keeps me grounded these days. Anyways, I digressed from the idea of Tao a bit, but I thought you might appreciate that.

 

Again, thanks for the ant analogy, it really was wonderful.

 

Aaron

[lazy cloud]

With this idea of collected conscious, or collective unconscious, or even if we call it cosmic conciousness, My question to this thread is>>

 

We are considering this consciouness to be sentient in it's whole?or no?

[Birch]

"In my mind I tend to view good and evil as irrelevant in the grand scheme. I know it might be hard to accept, but atrocities and catastrophes occur for a reason. I wont be so presumptuous as to try and explain it, but I do believe that there's no intent to cause suffering, rather it's quite unsentimental."

 

Yeah, not so acceptable IMO. I also wouldn't lump atrocities and catastrophies together.

If you can't explain the reason, I'd suggest not saying there is one because it looks to too far out (grand scheme) to justify things that are too far in. I'd rather say "we don't know why atrocities happen" unless of course that's false and we do know why but would rather not admit it.

[Everything]

So, have you guys decided yet what the Tao is?