What is Tao

[Aaron]

"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.

 

Hello Kate,

 

Nature is unsentimental, man is sentimental. Catastrophes occur without malice. Atrocities occur with malice, but in the grand scheme they occur because certain things happened to cause them to occur. There is no greater force making these things happen, rather it's our own decisions that cause them to happen. To say that the collective conscious allows these things to happen is true, but to say that it causes them to happen may not be so.

 

The reason I say good and evil are irrelevant is because one person views an action as good and another views it as evil. Good and evil are subjective to each persons interpretation. You can't even take something as universally reviled as incest and find a consensus that it is evil, after all Ramses the Great married three of his own daughters and he was the ruler of a civilization older than the entirety of Western Civilization. Our views are not as important as the results of our actions. If one causes another to suffer, then they should stop, but to think that suffering will end is silly. We are all asleep, dreaming. Some know they are dreaming and try to awaken, others have given themselves over to the dream, revel in the dream, believing the dream is real, when in fact it isn't.

 

In my opinion life and death are equally important, but realizing the true nature of our existence is even more important. To understand that placing a value on something doesn't change it, to realize that compassion, whether viewed as good or evil, is still compassion, and choosing to practice compassion, now that's an amazing thing.

 

When I lump atrocities and catastrophes together, it's because they both result in the same thing. You are placing a value on the cause, rather than what's happened, believing that by knowing the cause you can somehow stop it, when that's not true. Man, so long as he places value on things, will always have atrocities. This is the reason the Tao Teh Ching tells us to stop placing value on things, because greed is ultimately the root of strife. Even placing values on actions causes strife. If we truly want to live in harmony with one another, if we truly want to find peace in this world, then we must first be willing to give everything we have to another, without regret. If you can't do that, then I would suggest you become accustomed to atrocities.

 

There is this notion that people need to change to be the way we want them to be, because we have the handle on how people should behave, yet we forget that all this is, is how we are taught to believe. Everything we know as good and evil is good and evil because someone has drilled into our heads that it is good and evil. The next time you see someone doing something "evil", like robbing a bank, ask yourself why they're doing it, what caused them to do it, and ultimately what the real "evil" is.

 

In the end though, there is no good or evil Kate. Good and evil only exist within the confines of your mind. It's how you view things that makes them good or evil. Once you realize this, then good and evil become irrelevant and what is relevant is how you behave and treat your fellow man.

 

Aaron

Edited March 20, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

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

 

 

Yes it's you. You are Tao.

 

Aaron

[Everything]

Yes it's you. You are Tao.

 

Aaron

I thought I was a simple and happy peepol, u made me so compleksh

 

 

Just kidding. Perhaps the Tao gives rise to everything, but I'm not sure if everything is the Tao.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Everything

[Birch]

Oh dear Aaron, I'm afraid you've drunk the universalist Kool Aid.

By all means keep your understanding if it suits you and by all means talk down to me, a mere mortal. A small i.

Ironically, I don't disagree with any of your statements.

 

But as it suits me to get angry enough about many things ( including atrocity) to change my actions and choices may it suit others to sit on their philosophical asses and pontificate.

If you skip right to the punch you will forget to live your life and in doing so waste your contribution.

 

Unless your contribution is philosophy, but most of that has been done already. We don't need another Lao Tzu ( or IMO, any number of copycats)

[manitou]

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?

 

 

I think it's sentient in the sense that we appear (at least on this level) to be the apex of the sentient evolution; it is through us that the Tao is able to experience itself. It sees, it hears, it smells, it touches, it tastes Maybe the Tao is becoming a mirror of itself through our sentience, sort of like cell division or something. Who the heck knows?

 

The secret to all this is that yes, we are the Tao in its fullest expression on earth. And yes, we can choose the outlook with which we choose to view life. As a thing of beauty, as a thing to be rebelled against, as a thing of love of everybody and every thing, or as hateful and sarcastic folks who see nothing but that around them. As artists, or on the other end, as critics who are afraid themselves to be criticized by others.

 

But the evolution does continue, and as far as I can see, it's a thing of beauty, despite the evidence to the contrary. From where we stand here on the earth we see only the dark underbelly of the Tao; that which is not visible to us, unless we ascend in our understanding, is the upper part of the cloud of the Tao; the part that is beauty, airiness, etherial, sunshine. Elevated thoughts, loving hearts. There are people like this all over the world. There are many on this forum. Those who have managed to ascend to the etherial part of the Tao have very much to say about how this world runs; perhaps our consciousnesses are connected by a golden ring of understanding; a ring that holds the structure in place.

[zerostao]

I think it's sentient in the sense that we appear (at least on this level) to be the apex of the sentient evolution; it is through us that the Tao is able to experience itself. It sees, it hears, it smells, it touches, it tastes Maybe the Tao is becoming a mirror of itself through our sentience, sort of like cell division or something. Who the heck knows?

 

The secret to all this is that yes, we are the Tao in its fullest expression on earth. And yes, we can choose the outlook with which we choose to view life. As a thing of beauty, as a thing to be rebelled against, as a thing of love of everybody and every thing, or as hateful and sarcastic folks who see nothing but that around them. As artists, or on the other end, as critics who are afraid themselves to be criticized by others.

 

But the evolution does continue, and as far as I can see, it's a thing of beauty, despite the evidence to the contrary. From where we stand here on the earth we see only the dark underbelly of the Tao; that which is not visible to us, unless we ascend in our understanding, is the upper part of the cloud of the Tao; the part that is beauty, airiness, etherial, sunshine. Elevated thoughts, loving hearts. There are people like this all over the world. There are many on this forum. Those who have managed to ascend to the etherial part of the Tao have very much to say about how this world runs; perhaps our consciousnesses are connected by a golden ring of understanding; a ring that holds the structure in place.

manitou, you rock. keep on shinning your light

[Aaron]

Oh dear Aaron, I'm afraid you've drunk the universalist Kool Aid.

By all means keep your understanding if it suits you and by all means talk down to me, a mere mortal. A small i.

Ironically, I don't disagree with any of your statements.

 

But as it suits me to get angry enough about many things ( including atrocity) to change my actions and choices may it suit others to sit on their philosophical asses and pontificate.

If you skip right to the punch you will forget to live your life and in doing so waste your contribution.

 

Unless your contribution is philosophy, but most of that has been done already. We don't need another Lao Tzu ( or IMO, any number of copycats)

 

Hello Kate,

 

No need to be upset, just making a point. I wasn't belittling you or intending to talk down to you, just explaining something as I see it. You have the choice to do whatever you want to do, including seeing me as a copycat or pontificator, but it doesn't change anything.

 

As an aside I do a great deal of service work for others. I don't say this to brag, but rather to point out that I don't advocate anything I don't practice. I agree wholeheartedly that preaching does very little, action is what's important.

 

And I want to clarify that there's nothing wrong with being upset if someone is hurt, my point is that atrocities are as much a part of the dualistic nature of man as earthquakes are to the earth. There's no difference or way to stop either, because I guarantee mankind is not willing to do what it takes to stop suffering, at least not on the grand scale, and at least not for the foreseeable future. The best we can hope for is that we can do our best to help ease the suffering of those around us.

 

Aaron

 

P.S. I can see I touched a nerve and I'm very sorry. I understand you are upset, but I also have to let you know that If you would like to continue this conversation, then I would request that we both be civil. I have no problem with you pointing out the perceived flaws in my philosophy, but I do have a problem if it results in either of us resorting to disrespectful comments. I really don't wish to be involved in those kinds of emotional debates.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Twinner

[zerostao]

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

howdy Twinner,

 

i just wanted to throw my 2 cents in that imo as far as western classical thought goes

that pantheism would be the closest we have to compare with the tao.

of course there are also different branches of pantheism. but most(panteists) do not view a creator god. when they use the term god it means nature/universe and is contained in all things.

[gendao]

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".

The "Dao" is (nondualistic) objective reality without an observer (subject).

 

Now, any description by a subject would thus be subjective (by definition), not objective. Whereas the "Dao" is totally 100% objective, 0% subjective...

 

IOW, there is no observer/subject/self in the "Dao." It is impartial and impersonal. The sound a falling tree makes in a forest with no one ever to hear it..

 

It is reality without "you," or anyone else, in it. This is the Daoist void. Or from another perspective, the Buddhist emptiness is of "you" - not of reality, per se.

 

This is why objective (nondualistic) states can never be adequately described subjectively (dualistically). Because the very nature of observation is dualistic. Whereas the "Dao" is not.

 

And this is why the "Dao" can also never be found by "you." But only by the absence of "you."

Edited March 20, 2011 by vortex

[Aaron]

The "Dao" is (nondualistic) objective reality without an observer (subject).

 

Now, any description by a subject would thus be subjective (by definition), not objective. Whereas the "Dao" is totally 100% objective, 0% subjective...

 

IOW, there is no observer/subject/self in the "Dao." It is impartial and impersonal. The sound a falling tree makes in a forest with no one ever to hear it..

 

It is reality without "you," or anyone else, in it. This is the Daoist void. Or from another perspective, the Buddhist emptiness is of "you" - not of reality, per se.

 

This is why objective (nondualistic) states can never be adequately described subjectively (dualistically). Because the very nature of observation is dualistic. Whereas the "Dao" is not.

 

And this is why the "Dao" can also never be found by "you." But only by the absence of "you."

 

Hello Vortex,

 

Interesting thoughts. I do have a couple questions, if it can only be found in the absence of me, then doesn't that imply duality? Also in regards to Dao being objective, I would think that according to the definition of those words, it is neither objective or subjective, or in fact is both, depending on how you look at it. Thanks for the input, very interesting ideas.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Also I tend to believe ancient Taoists and Buddhists misunderstood the idea of Void. What we know today is that nothing is without substance, even within a void there exists molecules and matter. To say it came from a void, to me, is just to say that it came from a source we could not see or understand.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

I think it's sentient in the sense that we appear (at least on this level) to be the apex of the sentient evolution; it is through us that the Tao is able to experience itself. It sees, it hears, it smells, it touches, it tastes Maybe the Tao is becoming a mirror of itself through our sentience, sort of like cell division or something. Who the heck knows?

 

The secret to all this is that yes, we are the Tao in its fullest expression on earth. And yes, we can choose the outlook with which we choose to view life. As a thing of beauty, as a thing to be rebelled against, as a thing of love of everybody and every thing, or as hateful and sarcastic folks who see nothing but that around them. As artists, or on the other end, as critics who are afraid themselves to be criticized by others.

 

But the evolution does continue, and as far as I can see, it's a thing of beauty, despite the evidence to the contrary. From where we stand here on the earth we see only the dark underbelly of the Tao; that which is not visible to us, unless we ascend in our understanding, is the upper part of the cloud of the Tao; the part that is beauty, airiness, etherial, sunshine. Elevated thoughts, loving hearts. There are people like this all over the world. There are many on this forum. Those who have managed to ascend to the etherial part of the Tao have very much to say about how this world runs; perhaps our consciousnesses are connected by a golden ring of understanding; a ring that holds the structure in place.

 

Hello Manitou,

 

I really have a hard time with the, "it's all beautiful" type of thinking, if only because it's subjective. What you might think is beautiful, someone else might think is ugly. For me it all just is. If anything, the more aware you become the more wonderful it all seems, at least in the sense of that childlike wonder.

 

Aaron

[Birch]

Hello Kate,

 

No need to be upset, just making a point. I wasn't belittling you or intending to talk down to you, just explaining something as I see it. You have the choice to do whatever you want to do, including seeing me as a copycat or pontificator, but it doesn't change anything.

 

As an aside I do a great deal of service work for others. I don't say this to brag, but rather to point out that I don't advocate anything I don't practice. I agree wholeheartedly that preaching does very little, action is what's important.

 

And I want to clarify that there's nothing wrong with being upset if someone is hurt, my point is that atrocities are as much a part of the dualistic nature of man as earthquakes are to the earth. There's no difference or way to stop either, because I guarantee mankind is not willing to do what it takes to stop suffering, at least not on the grand scale, and at least not for the foreseeable future. The best we can hope for is that we can do our best to help ease the suffering of those around us.

 

Aaron

 

P.S. I can see I touched a nerve and I'm very sorry. I understand you are upset, but I also have to let you know that If you would like to continue this conversation, then I would request that we both be civil. I have no problem with you pointing out the perceived flaws in my philosophy, but I do have a problem if it results in either of us resorting to disrespectful comments. I really don't wish to be involved in those kinds of emotional debates.

 

Oh you can bet I'm upset. Thankfully, when I'm upset, I don't resort to attempting to "rationalize" it all away thereby creating yet another philosophical split. This time would you have it be between "reason" and "emotion"?

 

They actually work very closely together. (As an aside, much of practice involves this recognition and the reconfiguration of the way they interact with each other, but I digress.)

 

Nor do I allow people to persist in their condescention by attempting to point out that I may not be capable of respectful discourse, and this via public requests to the contrary - however polite that might seem on the surface.

[Marblehead]

The "Dao" is (nondualistic) objective reality without an observer (subject).

 

Now, any description by a subject would thus be subjective (by definition), not objective. Whereas the "Dao" is totally 100% objective, 0% subjective...

 

 

Most Excellent!!!

[gendao]

[manitou]

Hello Manitou,

 

I really have a hard time with the, "it's all beautiful" type of thinking, if only because it's subjective. What you might think is beautiful, someone else might think is ugly. For me it all just is. If anything, the more aware you become the more wonderful it all seems, at least in the sense of that childlike wonder.

 

Aaron

 

Good point, Aaron. I didn't mean 'it's all beautiful' in a cockeyed optimist sense; I meant it more in the 'it's all good' sense; that there is ultimately order in everything and for us to fear conditions is to not trust that there is an Intelligence in place at all. As for the childlike wonder, I'm exactly in agreement. The less devious we become on the inside, the less conniving, the more childlike we become, a return to innocence of sorts.

 

As for trying to describe the Void, the closest metaphor I can come up with is The Latency.

[Aaron]

No, the existence of a "you" separate from "it" is the state of duality. The state of just "it" without a separate "you" is the state of nonduality (advaita).

 

As Steven Norquist says, this universe is actually a "dream without a dreamer." That is the nondualistic "Dao."

 

And without any subject, there is no longer any subjectivity...

 

Lol, actually you misunderstand what they understood about the void. They don't mean that the universe is empty of any energy or substance, but that all of that is empty of any "you." There is no "you." "You" are empty of "you" - as is all of reality.

 

 

 

Here is an interesting passage I just read:Interestingly, it correlates with what I had just posited earlier..

 

Hi Vector,

 

First, whenever someone puts Lol in response, it always seems derogatory to me, just making that point. I'm not sure if you intended it to sound that way, but to me it sounded like you thought I was missing the point.

 

In response to your definition about there being no "you", it's true in the sense that "you" are a part of a greater whole, that we are all the universe, but I still disagree with the idea that the void is empty of "you". This is my view and it stems from the Tao Teh Ching, my readings on Zen, and Vendanta Hinduism, that the emptiness is not empty of me, but that I am very much a part of that emptiness, just as it is a part of me, that the underlying creation force that exists within the universe in fact is not an empty void, but rather a non-material conscious that exists everywhere and within everything.

 

In my own experience the collective conscious is what they considered to be the void and if one looks at it from a superstitious view, then it's easy to mistake it for a void or emptiness, because there is no physical substance to it, no physical sensation involved with recognizing it, rather recognizing it is merely achieved through an awareness, a knowledge that it exists and that you are part of it, not even part of it, but actually it. The void that they talked about is not missing me, it is me and everything else that exists. So I stand by my first comment, the ancient Taoists and Buddhists got it wrong, but it's understandable that they would come to this conclusion, especially since they believed that there were spiritual forces at work in the universe, such as ghosts and demons. When one is unaware of the physical laws at play in the universe then it's easy to look elsewhere to answer questions, to find a solution that makes sense according to this paradigm.

 

When one understands on an intuitive level their place within the universe, then there's no doubt that there is more to it all than emptiness or lack of emptiness, that those things we thought were absent are in fact full and that those things that seem very much apart are not apart at all.

 

In response to Steve Norquist, well he had it partly right, the universe is a dream, but we are the dreamer.

 

In closing, if you want to continue to talk, please be aware that I will only continue my conversation if you participate in the conversation with respect for me. You don't have to agree with what I'm saying, but I would rather not have to deal with mischievous derision and gloating.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

Oh you can bet I'm upset. Thankfully, when I'm upset, I don't resort to attempting to "rationalize" it all away thereby creating yet another philosophical split. This time would you have it be between "reason" and "emotion"?

 

They actually work very closely together. (As an aside, much of practice involves this recognition and the reconfiguration of the way they interact with each other, but I digress.)

 

Nor do I allow people to persist in their condescention by attempting to point out that I may not be capable of respectful discourse, and this via public requests to the contrary - however polite that might seem on the surface.

 

Hello Kate,

 

My apologies, it's just people on forums tend to forget they're talking to people. They see their interactions with others as interaction with words and avatars. I am very much a person as you are. I really didn't mean to be disrespectful. I'm sure you've noticed the same thing. I wasn't intending to say you weren't capable of having a civil conversation, but simply outlining rules of discussion and believe me some people need those outlined.

 

In regards to choosing between reason and emotion, I think any good conclusion is based on reason and emotion, in most instances it is the emotion that allows us to make that intuitive jump to the conclusion, so no I would not have you cease sharing your emotions as well, just remember that I'm not talking down to you, just explaining things as best I can. My own views aren't necessarily consistent with other philosophies, so if I go into detail it's so I can make sure you know exactly what I'm saying...

 

Also trust me when I say I understand what you're saying and it is valid. I am certainly not the kind of person who stands by when I see someone harming someone else, but in the same sense I understand why it happens and I try very hard to not allow my emotions to control what I think about the situation, but rather view it objectively. In essence for me it's about viewing things without emotions, realizing I am the victim and the victimizer and if I am both then I must feel compassion for both.

 

With that said, I hope you understand that the basis of my argument is that we shouldn't rely on moral constructs when we look at what's happening around us, because those moral constructs can be deceiving, rather it's more important to tap into our true nature and try to understand what's happening based on that.

 

Aaron

Edited March 20, 2011 by Twinner

[Marblehead]

Hey Aaron!

 

I just learned something new about you that will help me understand you a little bit better. You have some of your roots in Hinduism.

 

Now your comments in this thread have become a little bit clearer in my mind.

 

Have a great evening!

[Everything]

Guys, I'm really confused. You're all talking about the universe, the nature of reality, etc.

 

Isn't the Tao simply not possible to speak of? Is it not something that we cannot comprehend let alone communicate. Is it not simply something that can never be comprehended by the human mind, given our limitations as human beings. Is it simply not something that is beyond this reality, beyond the fabrics of spacetime, beyond every single idea we have ever had and will ever have. Is it not beyond every possible creation that has ever manifested in this entire universe, the universes beyond and the possible creations that still has to manifest in the future? Is it not beyond the concepts of everything and nothing? Is it not an idea of deep mystery that enters the mind almost directly externally.

 

Is it not something that can never be experienced and if it is, will not be true. Is it not something that touches our deepest sense of mystery in mind? Is it not the reason that we ask why, is it not more then the answers we have for these questions? Is it not simply an emotion rather then an idea?

Edited March 20, 2011 by Everything

[gendao]

First, whenever someone puts Lol in response, it always seems derogatory to me, just making that point. I'm not sure if you intended it to sound that way, but to me it sounded like you thought I was missing the point.

 

In response to your definition about there being no "you", it's true in the sense that "you" are a part of a greater whole, that we are all the universe, but I still disagree with the idea that the void is empty of "you". This is my view and it stems from the Tao Teh Ching, my readings on Zen, and Vendanta Hinduism, that the emptiness is not empty of me, but that I am very much a part of that emptiness, just as it is a part of me, that the underlying creation force that exists within the universe in fact is not an empty void, but rather a non-material conscious that exists everywhere and within everything.

Sorry, the "lol" was a natural reaction to your casual preface of, "I tend to believe ancient Taoists and Buddhists misunderstood the idea of Void."

 

Which, no offense, but is like saying, "I tend to believe Jimi Hendrix misunderstood the guitar."

 

Anyhow, there are essentially 2 schools of thought regarding the transcendence of duality. The "oneness" (Vedic) school believes that everything is "subject" (all God or the infinite Self) The other "noneness" (Buddhist) school believes that everything is "object" (Godless with no self).

 

Although, some might argue that perhaps they both could refer to an impersonal, selfless "God."

 

But, I have not experienced nonduality yet and am no expert on Indian philosophy - so I'm sure you could search Vajrahridaya's posts for more elucidation on this subject..

[zerostao]

Guys, I'm really confused. You're all talking about the universe, the nature of reality, etc.

 

Isn't the Tao simply not possible to speak of? Is it not something that we cannot comprehend let alone communicate. Is it not simply something that can never be comprehended by the human mind, given our limitations as human beings. Is it simply not something that is beyond this reality, beyond the fabrics of spacetime, beyond every single idea we have ever had and will ever have. Is it not beyond every possible creation that has ever manifested in this entire universe, the universes beyond and the possible creations that still has to manifest in the future? Is it not beyond the concepts of everything and nothing? Is it not an idea of deep mystery that enters the mind almost directly externally.

 

Is it not something that can never be experienced and if it is, will not be true. Is it not something that touches our deepest sense of mystery in mind? Is it not the reason that we ask why, is it not more then the answers we have for these questions? Is it not simply an emotion rather then an idea?

good questions is it the mystery of mysteries?

[Aaron]

good questions is it the mystery of mysteries?

 

Hello Zerostao and Everything,

 

I think the question is this, are we dependent on what was believed two thousand years ago or can we move past that? My belief is that just because something was believed to be true at one time, doesn't mean it's true now. I am very respectful of Taoist and Buddhist teachings, even if I don't necessarily believe them word for word, because despite all the semantics and ideological stuff attached, the general message, for me at least, is relevant. However, with that said, I think we owe it to ourselves to explore these issues, not simply accept them at face value. Again, I think many people see this as a cardinal sin, sort of like questioning the word of Jesus, but in philosophical Taoism, there is no punishment for questioning Lao Tzu (in religious Taoism there actually is, though I'm not sure what that punishment is, I believe its a period of time in hell or hell as Taoists see it.)

 

I've actually learned a great deal from this thread and I look forward to hearing what others have to say.

 

Aaron

Edited March 21, 2011 by Twinner

[zerostao]

i like to explore.

we are not asking what is taoism, or what is lao tzu.

what is tao?

i am not saying what it is or isn't, just offering ideas to the thread.

is tao the 10th or 11th dimension?

[Birch]

Hello Kate,

 

My apologies, it's just people on forums tend to forget they're talking to people. They see their interactions with others as interaction with words and avatars. I am very much a person as you are. I really didn't mean to be disrespectful. I'm sure you've noticed the same thing. I wasn't intending to say you weren't capable of having a civil conversation, but simply outlining rules of discussion and believe me some people need those outlined.

 

In regards to choosing between reason and emotion, I think any good conclusion is based on reason and emotion, in most instances it is the emotion that allows us to make that intuitive jump to the conclusion, so no I would not have you cease sharing your emotions as well, just remember that I'm not talking down to you, just explaining things as best I can. My own views aren't necessarily consistent with other philosophies, so if I go into detail it's so I can make sure you know exactly what I'm saying...

 

Also trust me when I say I understand what you're saying and it is valid. I am certainly not the kind of person who stands by when I see someone harming someone else, but in the same sense I understand why it happens and I try very hard to not allow my emotions to control what I think about the situation, but rather view it objectively. In essence for me it's about viewing things without emotions, realizing I am the victim and the victimizer and if I am both then I must feel compassion for both.

 

With that said, I hope you understand that the basis of my argument is that we shouldn't rely on moral constructs when we look at what's happening around us, because those moral constructs can be deceiving, rather it's more important to tap into our true nature and try to understand what's happening based on that.

 

Aaron

 

Thanks for your reply Aaron. Appreciated.

[Aaron]

i like to explore.

we are not asking what is taoism, or what is lao tzu.

what is tao?

i am not saying what it is or isn't, just offering ideas to the thread.

is tao the 10th or 11th dimension?

 

 

Hello Zerostao,

 

My understanding of physics and string theory in particular are limited. I'd be interested in hearing any ideas about this though. I've never had a concrete idea of the 10th or 11th dimension, but rather viewed it as a static hypothetical.

 

Aaron