Dao within the Dao

[Ya Mu]

Greetings..

 

 

Hi Ya Mu: I notice lots of things.. i belong to an 'organic food coop', we grow and barter locally AND twice weekly we meet the trucks from other regions and barter/buy/sell as we sense the needs.. we have a collective needs/services coop, too.. and, with all of that, i still find that to enhance life for my brothers and sisters, it is beneficial to improve the existing system that robs them of their resources while feeding them inferior, even harmful, products.. i think it's an entirely pragmatic solution to make a difference wherever we can, even if it is less than ideal.. small steps are better than no steps..

 

Be well..

You sure are doing more than the majority lazy ass people do. Good for you!

 

My whole point is that, when we can grow food locally, on our porch, on the terrace, in our backyard, etc. why could it be more pragmatic to truck the food in? IMO it is not. It is just the type of thinking represented by going to the grocery store to get the food that is trucked in instead of making the effort to grow it locally that is bringing our nation to its knees.

[Marblehead]

Hehehe. You guys sure are working this "natural" thing to death.

 

Anything that happens in the universe is natural. It cannot be otherwise.

 

Therefore, a person who has the space and time to grow their own food and does so is doing a natural thing. Those people who do not have space or time to grow their own food will buy it from those who have grown an excess and wish to sell it. This too is natural. Even those people who have the space and time to grow their own food but have decided no to are being natural.

 

It just cannot be otherwise.

 

The instinct of survival is natural. It is built into us before birth.

[effilang]

What a beautiful mind you have Stig.

 

Thank you.

[Ya Mu]

Ya Mu,

 

You need to pay attention. Just because I don't agree with someone else's definition, that doesn't mean I've defined anything. Second I never said trucking in food was more natural than growing it, but if you collected the food in the forest and then trucked it to where the people were, it probably would be. I'm not even saying that people shouldn't garden, but rather how ludicrous it is to view gardening as being a part of nature.

 

I'm sure that somewhere someone is planting a radish and thinking they have returned to nature. Well good for them and more power to them. I just tend to see it as controlling nature, rather than living in harmony with it. After all, you're deciding where to grow, what to grow, and when to grow? How is any of that natural?

 

Again, since you have a problem understanding what I am saying, I will make this as clear as possible, first, there's nothing morally wrong with gardening, even if it is an unnatural process. Second I do not try to define the Tao anymore, but if you wish to, more power to you.Second I do not try to define the Tao anymore, but if you wish to, more power to you.

 

Aaron

"You need to pay attention."

Aaron, I have no problem understanding what you are saying. Can you please stop the condescending attitude you are displaying and post to what we were talking about? You didn't address the things I brought up.

 

"Second I never said trucking in food was more natural than growing it"

Well, I asked you which of the two was more natural (since there are but two choices) and still have not received your answer. So I was assuming you were saying it was. So which is it, which are you saying is more natural?

 

"Again, since you have a problem understanding what I am saying..."

And again, pleases stop your condescending replies.

 

"Second I do not try to define the Tao anymore, but if you wish to, more power to you."

It sure sounded like it to me in the posts I referenced. And where was I in this thread defining Tao - you assume too much.

 

"If it makes you feel good to simulate that, then again, more power to you."

And again more of the same.

[Ya Mu]

Hehehe. You guys sure are working this "natural" thing to death.

 

Anything that happens in the universe is natural. It cannot be otherwise.

 

Therefore, a person who has the space and time to grow their own food and does so is doing a natural thing. Those people who do not have space or time to grow their own food will buy it from those who have grown an excess and wish to sell it. This too is natural. Even those people who have the space and time to grow their own food but have decided no to are being natural.

 

It just cannot be otherwise.

 

The instinct of survival is natural. It is built into us before birth.

OK, What about if we substituted the words "in harmony with Tao" for the word "natural". Is it, in your opinion more in harmony with Tao to grow your own food or to truck it in? Or since Tao is everything you don't agree to "harmony within Tao" (Dao within Doa) concept? HA - see, I did get back on thread.

[Marblehead]

OK, What about if we substituted the words "in harmony with Tao" for the word "natural". Is it, in your opinion more in harmony with Tao to grow your own food or to truck it in? Or since Tao is everything you don't agree to "harmony within Tao" (Dao within Doa) concept? HA - see, I did get back on thread.

 

Ah!, and thanks for getting back on topic.

 

Yes, "in harmony with Tao" is a much better term to use for what has been discussed the last dozen or so posts.

 

And I would agree, if one had the space and time they would be much more in harmony with Tao (and Te) if they grew their own food. The gardener would be of both Tao and Te in that the gardener is giving life as well as supplying nurishment.

 

Tao is always in harmony. It cannot be otherwise. Even when some massive star is blowing up its death is the substance for new life. I will even suggest that the Te of Tao is always in harmony as well.

 

It is the te (lower "t" intentionally) of man and a few other animals that get things messed up. We lose our harmony and things become one-sided.

[Stigweard]

Hi Stig,

 

The concept you present here is probably the most important concept underlying Daoist Philosophy, in my opinion.

 

Dao and De are two aspects of the totality. Dao gives birth to things. It is a thing's De that nourishes it. Therefore the heroin addict is a part of Dao but his/her De is not nourishing him/her. (IMO)

 

Mother Teresa and Hitler were of Dao. No differentiation. They both were necessary at their time of living. However, I think it goes without saying that even though universal De did nourish both, their individual De (virtue) took the two down totally opposing paths.

 

Our (a thing's) personal Dao cannot be altered. Our personal De can be altered. Mother Teresa might have been a very evil woman and HitThe Significance of Taoist Virtue

I think that this is one of the reasons why Robert Henricks intentionally separated the chapters of the Tao Te Ching into a section of chapters relating to Dao and a separate section for the chapters relating to De. In his introduction he stated that this was his understanding as to how they were supposed to be presented based on how the original text he used was sorted when found.

 

So, in my mind, and based on the individual's personal De, to classify Mother teresa and Hitler, Mother Teresa was a Sage and Hitler was a scum bag. But both were of Dao and both were nourished by universal De. (I know that this evaluation can be argued but I have based my understanding on what "I" feel is 'right and wrong'.)

 

Of course I agree with you

 

I just bumped this up: The Significance of Taoist Virtue

 

[Stigweard]

Greetings..

 

It seems that 'I' am the gardener AND the garden.. 'that' which 'i' am, has 'grown' a plant/body-mind for exploring its ability to 'cultivate'.. that is to say, that Tao experiences itself through the garden it has grown, a garden possessed of its own awareness of its own existence.. so that the garden is capable of maintaining itself and flourishing, or self-destructing.. both of which are Tao, and gardens come and go..

 

Be well..

Which I believe quite nicely sheds light on the relationship of Dao and De.

 

[Stigweard]

[Marblehead]

 

I just bumped this up: The Significance of Taoist Virtue

 

 

Yes, I remember reading that before. Excellent work.

[Ya Mu]

[Aaron]

Aaron,

 

 

And you seem to be most confused of all of us here.

 

So trying to control the environment for one’s own needs is unnatural and not part of Tao, right? Therefore Beavers are officially unnatural and are not part of your Tao, right?

 

And farming and harvesting is unnatural, right? Therefore Farmer Ants who herd and harvest Aphids are officially unnatural and are not part of your Tao, right? And so to is the Leaf-cutter Ant who collects and store leaves to rot so they can farm their own food source of fungus.

 

I guess building structures and having a hierarchical social system is unnatural, right? Therefore Bees are also officially not part of your Tao as well, right?

 

Poor buggers, I wonder how they feel not being part of “your Tao” Aaron?

 

These are just a few examples right off the top of my head without doing any further research, though I am happy to continue if needed.

 

The point Aaron is that the only “unnatural thing” going on here is your conceptual fixation to thinking that you can create an artificial segmentation of life by make classifications of “part of Tao” and “not part of Tao”.

 

Farmer Ants have discovered the “way of the Aphid” and thus they have learned to manipulate the Aphids to establish a symbiotic relationship. Leaf-cutter Ants have discovered “the way of fungus” and thus have learned to manipulate fungus to establish a symbiotic relationship.

 

Human gardeners and farmers have discovered the “ways” of plants, soil, water, sun, seasons, moon, earthworms, beneficial insects, compost, microorganisms, organic fertilizers, etc. and thus have learned how to manipulate plant growth to establish a symbiotic relationship.

 

I believe our dearest Marblehead has implied something very important (yes I have been taking notice ): If an activity is within the De (i.e. true nature) of a being, then can that activity be ever considered unnatural?

 

The natural evolution of humanity saw us imbued with higher brain function. This allowed us to see more complex connections between things that lead to the development of tools, weapons, structures etc. etc. This also led to the initial development of agriculture.

 

Thus humans, by following their imbued nature of rationale and reason, learned to manipulate our environment for the purpose of greater survivability just like the Beaver, Farmer Ant, Leaf-cutter Ant, Bees etc. etc. etc.

 

Thus Aaron you have absolutely no grounds (except of course your own conceptual idealism) upon which you can say that human gardening is unnatural and “not part of Tao”, to do so would mean that you would also have to disqualify at least 50% of nature’s flora and fauna upon the same grounds.

 

Still wanting to be the “great arbitrator” of what is and is not Tao Aaron?

 

And do you even know what it takes to survive in the wilderness Aaron? Exactly how do you plan to survive? You must know how to trap and hunt, you must know how to butcher an animal and preserve its meat. You must know how to prepare skins and make your own clothes. You must know how to extract water from the most unlikely places. You must make your own shelter. And the only way to do this is you must know how to make the right tools (knife, bow, arrows, traps, etc.) and you must know how to manipulate your environment to your greatest benefit.

 

Or perhaps you have the delusion that you will just wonder around collecting berries and tubers?

 

You would be dead within a month.

 

You are right Aaron, in order to know nature you have to get out in nature. Perhaps then it is time that you got off your couch and did exactly that. But do it properly -- find a remote forest and truly observe the habits of animals, insects, birds and plants. Methinks you might learn a thing or two and be forced to rethink some of your confused concepts of what is and is not Dao.

 

 

Hello Stig,

 

I am alluding to the fact that mankind was meant to be a migratory creature and the fact that we ceased to be migratory has led to our eventual downfall and most likely extinction. There are certain animals that do certain things, i.e. build dams, but the real difference is that they are, in most cases, benefiting nature. Humanity very rarely does anything that benefits nature. That is why I believe man is no longer a part of nature and that the things we do, that seem natural are merely illusions. Using animals as examples is clever, but you still haven't managed to defend the effect humanity has had on the environment. I don't see Beavers causing global warming, do you? So when I say what we've done is unnatural, I think we can see the actual proof in the pudding. Now if what we were doing was "in the Tao", don't you think it would benefit nature, or perhaps the Tao is intending to destroy mankind because we are not of the Tao? Well now, that's an interesting question.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Let me clarify, though I don't think it will make much difference, that I don't feel that people should not garden, nor am I opposed to people transporting food, especially for the hungry, my point is that in the 200,000+ years human beings have been on the Earth, it has only been in the last 12,000 or so years that we have seen humanity have a drastic impact on nature. This effect occurred after we changed the way we interacted with nature. When we made settlements and began to use agriculture and domesticated animals to help provide nourishment, we began to see a drastic effect on the environment. That's why I say these things aren't natural for human beings. In the same way, we can't give up on them, but it's also wise to understand that in the end they will probably lead to our downfall as a civilization. Hopefully a small group of mankind will survive and perhaps live wiser than we have.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

"You need to pay attention."

Aaron, I have no problem understanding what you are saying. Can you please stop the condescending attitude you are displaying and post to what we were talking about? You didn't address the things I brought up.

 

"Second I never said trucking in food was more natural than growing it"

Well, I asked you which of the two was more natural (since there are but two choices) and still have not received your answer. So I was assuming you were saying it was. So which is it, which are you saying is more natural?

 

"Again, since you have a problem understanding what I am saying..."

And again, pleases stop your condescending replies.

 

"Second I do not try to define the Tao anymore, but if you wish to, more power to you."

It sure sounded like it to me in the posts I referenced. And where was I in this thread defining Tao - you assume too much.

 

"If it makes you feel good to simulate that, then again, more power to you."

And again more of the same.

 

 

Hello Ya Mu,

 

It doesn't matter which is more natural, they are both unnatural processes. Humanity is not a part of nature, rather we have ostracized ourselves from it. It is very hard for us to act in harmony with Tao because of this. We can fool ourselves into believing we are in harmony with the Tao, by easing our conscience, but that doesn't mean that gardens or farming are what we are supposed to be doing.

 

Humanity left nature when we stopped doing our part in the natural world, when we got lazy and decided to quit moving and instead depend on farms and domesticated animals to survive. Yes we eventually found out about nuclear power, but look where that has got us and nature. From what I understand the accident in Japan is going to have more of an impact on the environment than the Chernobyl incident. If we had never stopped and settled down, then none of this would've happened. We would still be cheerfully wandering the world in nomadic groups, hunting and moving on, collecting vegetables when we could. No we would not live eighty plus years, but in the same way, we would not be killing off hundreds of other species every year either.

 

Just a little insight. I'm sure you don't agree, but again, you don't have to. So my answer is that I don't think it matters which is more natural, what matters is how we can diminish the impact we have on the environment, and I'm afraid the only way that's going to happen is if there's a large scale depopulation of the world. I think it will happen sooner or later, either by man's hand or natures. We can't keep going like we are and not expect something like that.

 

Aaron

[Ya Mu]

Hello Ya Mu,

 

It doesn't matter which is more natural, they are both unnatural processes. Humanity is not a part of nature, rather we have ostracized ourselves from it. It is very hard for us to act in harmony with Tao because of this. We can fool ourselves into believing we are in harmony with the Tao, by easing our conscience, but that doesn't mean that gardens or farming are what we are supposed to be doing.

 

Humanity left nature when we stopped doing our part in the natural world, when we got lazy and decided to quit moving and instead depend on farms and domesticated animals to survive. Yes we eventually found out about nuclear power, but look where that has got us and nature. From what I understand the accident in Japan is going to have more of an impact on the environment than the Chernobyl incident. If we had never stopped and settled down, then none of this would've happened. We would still be cheerfully wandering the world in nomadic groups, hunting and moving on, collecting vegetables when we could. No we would not live eighty plus years, but in the same way, we would not be killing off hundreds of other species every year either.

 

Just a little insight. I'm sure you don't agree, but again, you don't have to. So my answer is that I don't think it matters which is more natural, what matters is how we can diminish the impact we have on the environment, and I'm afraid the only way that's going to happen is if there's a large scale depopulation of the world. I think it will happen sooner or later, either by man's hand or natures. We can't keep going like we are and not expect something like that.

 

Aaron

...what matters is how we can diminish the impact we have on the environment, and I'm afraid the only way that's going to happen is if there's a large scale depopulation of the world. I think it will happen sooner or later, either by man's hand or natures. We can't keep going like we are and not expect something like that.

I agree with this part.

But I think what you are not getting is that the "natural" growing of food for ourselves versus the "(Un)- natural" trucking in of food is exactly one of the most powerful things we could do for your "...what matters is how we can diminish the impact we have on the environment". One can feel this in the natural current flow, which, as I said, unless a person actually practices neigong I think it would be difficult to feel this, although it certainly should be understandable to anyone on an intellectual level.

 

edit:

And to address your comments on nuclear. I agree. Most certainly nuclear energy is "unnatural" per my definition of "natural" above. It is very easy to feel/SEE this, although it is obvious that far too many don't understand this on an intellectual level.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Ya Mu

[Otis]

What is interesting is that Daoist neidan maintains the notion that each individual is in fact a holographic replica of the entirety of Dao. Thus Dao is to be truly to be found only within oneself.

I think that's an interesting concept. Of course, I can't imagine how we would ever find it out. I have my experiences, but I don't know what to compare them to, since they're all I've got.

The "how to find out" is exactly what Taoist neigong practice reveals.

I accept that neigong helps one clearly see what has not been previously available.

 

However, the statement: "each individual is in fact a holographic replica of the entirety of Dao" is dependent on having knowledge of the "entirety of Dao", in order to confirm the metaphor as fact.

 

Whereas, even my experiences with neigong are still just my experiences. Every time I try to describe the Tao, I am just describing my experience of the Tao. I am always in the equation. I can extrapolate that my local tao reveals the greater Tao, but since I can only experience from my own point of view (no matter how enlightened I am), I don't see how I would ever feel secure in claiming that extrapolation as truth.

[Aaron]

Hello Ya Mu,

 

I must apologize for my previous behavior in this thread, I have been going through a rough patch and as a result I have been less tolerant and patient than I need to be. I have no doubt that gardening is a valuable practice and I would encourage everyone that can to do it, my point was really that maybe that isn't enough. If we truly want to evoke change, then we need to look at the bigger picture, what has caused us to become such a harmful race.

 

I think much of this has to do with Te, or the absence of Te to be more exact. When I say Te I'm not talking about virtue, but rather the natural action that occurs when we are in harmony with Tao. I think we achieve this through wu-wei, or action without interference. It is when we allow things to occur naturally that we can allow Te to come forth and thus begin to work in harmony with the world.

 

Imagine for a moment if suddenly all the advances we have, televisions, computers, microwaves, and electric razors were suddenly gone. Some people hear this and they have an immediate sense of dread and fear in the pit of their stomach. We have become so attached to things that ease our way of life, that we have become ignorant, or even worse, ignore the effect these things actually have on the world. When did we begin to value ease of life over the quality of nature? I think, again, it was when we decided to settle down and have a more reliable source of food of goods.

 

I don't think we can ever get back to that time before we decided to settle down and as a result, unless we can come up with a way to stop the impact we have on the world today, we will never actually be able to. The fact of the matter is that we all know in our hearts that the world cannot go on as it has, that in a matter of decades we will have mass famine and that the effects of global warming will begin to have a catastrophic effect on the world. I don't think we are entirely to blame for this, we being the modern Western culture, but we do share the blame. The blame of course started 12,000 years ago when we began to do what we thought was best, when we decided to make the world a better place for our children, not realizing the full extent of what those actions would lead to.

 

200,000 years ago mankind was very much in harmony with Tao (I believe). I think 15,000 years ago most of humanity still was, it was only when we started to deviate that we started this cycle. I think the key is to look at what we were before and what we have become and to stop valuing one more than the other because of the superficial benefits that we have gotten from this evolution.

 

If we really wanted change, we would put a ban on pregnancy, not allow everyone to have children, begin to compassionately reduce our population, and put our emphasis on the betterment of nature, rather than the propagation of our species. As long as we continue to live the Western dream of 3 kids, a house, a car, and middle class job, nothing much will change. Rather change will occur when we stop the harmful things we do and actually commit to a real and lasting change.

 

My advice to those who are interested in making a change, don't have children just because you want them. If you want children badly, go adopt one, there are literally millions that need families and homes. Don't attach yourself to the Western dogma, begin to live a more natural lifestyle. Make your own food out of actual ingredients rather than buy processed foods where the factories that make them help to further the process of global warming and the pollution of the environment. Make sure that when it comes time for your voice to be heard, that it is heard, that the people in power understand that we want change and that we are willing to sacrifice in order to ensure that not only our species, but our culture can continue. Otherwise I think it will be just a matter of time before we loose everything we have gained. I honestly hope it's not too late, but lately it's hard to believe otherwise.

 

Aaron

Edited May 30, 2011 by Twinner

[Ya Mu]

Hello Ya Mu,

 

I must apologize for my previous behavior in this thread, I have been going through a rough patch and as a result I have been less tolerant and patient than I need to be. I have no doubt that gardening is a valuable practice and I would encourage everyone that can to do it, my point was really that maybe that isn't enough. If we truly want to evoke change, then we need to look at the bigger picture, what has caused us to become such a harmful race.

 

I think much of this has to do with Te, or the absence of Te to be more exact. When I say Te I'm not talking about virtue, but rather the natural action that occurs when we are in harmony with Tao. I think we achieve this through wu-wei, or action without interference. It is when we allow things to occur naturally that we can allow Te to come forth and thus begin to work in harmony with the world.

 

Imagine for a moment if suddenly all the advances we have, televisions, computers, microwaves, and electric razors were suddenly gone. Some people hear this and they have an immediate sense of dread and fear in the pit of their stomach. We have become so attached to things that ease our way of life, that we have become ignorant, or even worse, ignore the effect these things actually have on the world. When did we begin to value ease of life over the quality of nature? I think, again, it was when we decided to settle down and have a more reliable source of food of goods.

 

I don't think we can ever get back to that time before we decided to settle down and as a result, unless we can come up with a way to stop the impact we have on the world today, we will never actually be able to. The fact of the matter is that we all know in our hearts that the world cannot go on as it has, that in a matter of decades we will have mass famine and that the effects of global warming will begin to have a catastrophic effect on the world. I don't think we are entirely to blame for this, we being the modern Western culture, but we do share the blame. The blame of course started 12,000 years ago when we began to do what we thought was best, when we decided to make the world a better place for our children, not realizing the full extent of what those actions would lead to.

 

200,000 years ago mankind was very much in harmony with Tao (I believe). I think 15,000 years ago most of humanity still was, it was only when we started to deviate that we started this cycle. I think the key is to look at what we were before and what we have become and to stop valuing one more than the other because of the superficial benefits that we have gotten from this evolution.

 

If we really wanted change, we would put a ban on pregnancy, not allow everyone to have children, begin to compassionately reduce our population, and put our emphasis on the betterment of nature, rather than the propagation of our species. As long as we continue to live the Western dream of 3 kids, a house, a car, and middle class job, nothing much will change. Rather change will occur when we stop the harmful things we do and actually commit to a real and lasting change.

 

My advice to those who are interested in making a change, don't have children just because you want them. If you want children badly, go adopt one, there are literally millions that need families and homes. Don't attach yourself to the Western dogma, begin to live a more natural lifestyle. Make your own food out of actual ingredients rather than buy processed foods where the factories that make them help to further the process of global warming and the pollution of the environment. Make sure that when it comes time for your voice to be heard, that it is heard, that the people in power understand that we want change and that we are willing to sacrifice in order to ensure that not only our species, but our culture can continue. Otherwise I think it will be just a matter of time before we loose everything we have gained. I honestly hope it's not too late, but lately it's hard to believe otherwise.

 

Aaron

I agree with what you have written. It is (to me and others) a very sad situation. Where I live whenever I walk into wally world I see at least 10 teenage children walking around with their own children. They have no job and are 3rd generation welfare.

 

I talk to people about implementing solar for their homes... woops, can't afford it, just bought a 40K SUV!

And, as I said earlier, the majority of people are too damn lazy to change. I've previously posted about trying to give away fresh peas we grew in our garden; one neighbor was too lazy to pick them and when I picked them and offered to another neighbor they were too lazy to shell them. FRESH food, and they would rather go to the grocery store and buy stuff that costs us trillions and trillions of dollars with damage to our ecosystem due to trucking as well as factory chemical farming. THIS is why I reacted so adamantly to the gardening subject.

 

 

"...I think we achieve this through wu-we..."

Yes! I teach what I call "Listening" which is a way in each moment of the moment to dance in the wu wei.

[Ya Mu]

I accept that neigong helps one clearly see what has not been previously available.

 

However, the statement: "each individual is in fact a holographic replica of the entirety of Dao" is dependent on having knowledge of the "entirety of Dao", in order to confirm the metaphor as fact.

 

Whereas, even my experiences with neigong are still just my experiences. Every time I try to describe the Tao, I am just describing my experience of the Tao. I am always in the equation. I can extrapolate that my local tao reveals the greater Tao, but since I can only experience from my own point of view (no matter how enlightened I am), I don't see how I would ever feel secure in claiming that extrapolation as truth.

It is when we can walk outside of these tied-to-me experiences, via dampening the brain waves so the totality of perception comes from the tuned/refined energy body with direct input from what I call "Listening", versus the mind/brain, that we can catch glimpses of the entirety of Tao and how we interface.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Ya Mu

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

It is when we can walk outside of these tied-to-me experiences, via dampening the brain waves so the totality of perception comes from the tuned/refined energy body with direct input from what I call "Listening", versus the mind/brain, that we can catch glimpses of the entirety of Tao and how we interface.

Hi Ya Mu: i refer to this as the 'still mind', in which clarity emerges and the interactive relationships between and with all things are noticable and experiencable.. from which, the evidence that fuels your passion is simply 'self-evident', and.. yes, i get why you are frustrated, but.. i measure the war battle by battle, and each battle by the tactics necessary to prevail in the unfolding situation.. and, i pick my battles carefully and strategically, not so that i will always win, but.. that if i lose, i will have had the most effective presence..

 

Be well..

[Otis]

It is when we can walk outside of these tied-to-me experiences, via dampening the brain waves so the totality of perception comes from the tuned/refined energy body with direct input from what I call "Listening", versus the mind/brain, that we can catch glimpses of the entirety of Tao and how we interface.

I accept this, and I do believe that great wisdom can arise from such "listening".

 

I do think, however, when coming back to mind/brain, that it is very important not to start "knowing" what we had previously just been "listening" to. It is upon that "knowing" that we are encoding certainty into what had previously been utterly divorced from certainty (e.g. the nature of the Tao).

 

This is why I push the word "metaphor" so much, because no matter how "right" the epiphany seems, no matter how "tuned/refined" my energy body is, it is still exactly an experience. Perhaps the cleanest brightest most wise experience of my life, but still just an experience. The knowledge that is derived from the experience is always a reification, always an ossification. The truth is living, but knowledge is just a dead thing, a shell of what it is supposed to represent.

 

So yes, I agree that the experience can be had, which appears just like: "each individual is in fact a holographic replica of the entirety of Dao". And it may be a very useful metaphor to live by. But I maintain that there is no way to know the truth or falsity of that statement. There is no way to know the Tao, only to experience something, which feels like what I think Tao is.

 

I can refine and refine, and thus get asymptotically closer to Truth, but I will never reach it (nor can I know how close I've gotten). "Absolute" is merely a concept, and has nothing to do with my life or my possible perception. Without that willingness to leave the Truth as a mystery, I consign myself to delusion (i.e. mistaking my view of the world for what is).

Edited May 30, 2011 by Otis

[Ya Mu]

I accept this, and I do believe that great wisdom can arise from such "listening".

 

I do think, however, when coming back to mind/brain, that it is very important not to start "knowing" what we had previously just been "listening" to. It is upon that "knowing" that we are encoding certainty into what had previously been utterly divorced from certainty (e.g. the nature of the Tao).

 

This is why I push the word "metaphor" so much, because no matter how "right" the epiphany seems, no matter how "tuned/refined" my energy body is, it is still exactly an experience. Perhaps the cleanest brightest most wise experience of my life, but still just an experience. The knowledge that is derived from the experience is always a reification, always an ossification. The truth is living, but knowledge is just a dead thing, a shell of what it is supposed to represent.

 

So yes, I agree that the experience can be had, which appears just like: "each individual is in fact a holographic replica of the entirety of Dao". And it may be a very useful metaphor to live by. But I maintain that there is no way to know the truth or falsity of that statement. There is no way to know the Tao, only to experience something, which feels like what I think Tao is.

 

I can refine and refine, and thus get asymptotically closer to Truth, but I will never reach it (nor can I know how close I've gotten). "Absolute" is merely a concept, and has nothing to do with my life or my possible perception. Without that willingness to leave the Truth as a mystery, I consign myself to delusion (i.e. mistaking my view of the world for what is).

Ah, what I am referring to is "Listening" in the moment of the moment. The "knowing" comes only in that moment as Tao is a dynamic state of flux that we are "Listening" and "dancing" with (wu wei). So the "knowing" is refreshed in the moment of the moment. This does require the practice of neigong as the accuracy of the "Listening" depends on raising the energy body vibration as well as dampening the brain/mind.

[Ya Mu]

Greetings..

 

 

Hi Ya Mu: i refer to this as the 'still mind', in which clarity emerges and the interactive relationships between and with all things are noticable and experiencable.. from which, the evidence that fuels your passion is simply 'self-evident', and.. yes, i get why you are frustrated, but.. i measure the war battle by battle, and each battle by the tactics necessary to prevail in the unfolding situation.. and, i pick my battles carefully and strategically, not so that i will always win, but.. that if i lose, i will have had the most effective presence..

 

Be well..

Any success is always the culmination of the many small things. We can do the best we can do, and, that is the best we can do.

[Marblehead]

 

"...I think we achieve this through wu-we..."

Yes! I teach what I call "Listening" which is a way in each moment of the moment to dance in the wu wei.

 

Yes, I picked up on that statement too when I read the post.

[Stigweard]

I think that the ideas and techniques of Taoism were first developed when we were hunter/gatherers and that what we now tend to call shamanism was the universal way in which man related to spirit. People then as now would only value these things if they were actually useful in some way. For instance if they made the hunt better or the knowledge of edible plants and their habitats made gathering easier. This would be based on a sensitivity or oneness with nature and its ways.

 

In hunter/gatherer communities only about 30% of time is spent either hunting or gathering which leaves plenty of time for creativity and so on - but because these people do not live in settlements (or not all the year anyway) the kind of developments which we call civilization could not develop - this has led to the misapprehension that these early people were not cultured, knowlegable or sophisticated.

 

When man started to live in fixed communities and used farming to supply their food there was a 'sudden' emergence of many of the things we see today ... even mass production of bread and beer in the Nile valley for instance and of course things like writing and architecture. Clearly at this time the kind of wisdom and knowledge which people would value changed. To cultivate plants for food is risky business and the life cycles of the plants and the effects of the seasons have to be properly understood. No longer can you just up and move on if there are bad times. At this time life ironically became more of a struggle, risk of famine arose because of heavy dependence on the weather conditions. Whole civilizations collapsed or changed radically when volcanoes, tsunamis and so on upset the natural rhythm which arable food production relies on. Life expectancy dropped and infectious diseases emerged. So value was placed on health and cultivation.

 

The sages changed their emphasis to reflect the world in which they lived. At both times they could live in accordance with the Tao and cultivate Te - the way it was expressed changed, that's all.

This deserves to be re-highlighted

[Stigweard]

+++++

I would submit that "natural" means "Dancing in the Wu Wei"; doing that which at each moment is synchronous (It is un-natural to go against this current flow). I would also submit that this is the same thing as "in Harmony with Tao". I would also say that it would be extremely difficulty for a person to understand this, on a personal level, without doing neigong work.

All of which is why I talk about the foolishness of trucking food in from all over the country when it can be grown locally. With all this in mind of course it is natural to grow one's own food and unnatural to truck it in; one can feel this in the flow.

This also deserves careful attention. I will submit that "dancing with Wu Wei" is the "ultimate" point of navigation for the human being; to only ever do that which spontaneously arises from ones De. Laozi said that conceptual morality arose only when this "dance" had been disrupted.

 

I will also agree with you that being able to be ever-present within this dance is possibly the most arduous task possible for the human being. And it is the most taxing instruction to give to a student who will be inevitably beset with a myriad questions as to exactly how this is achieved.

 

I find myself also agreeing that this dance is about "catching up" with the moment ... due to our perceptual and conceptual filters the reality we finally render as "now" is only an echo, a remembrance, of the stream of life. Thus if we can "dampen the mind" as you say, or silence our internal conceptually based self-narration, then we can experience life as it truly is and respond in perfect synchrony to the direct passage or transmission of knowingness.

 

However, and I believe this was recognized by Laozi, this is a hard pill for the regular folk to swallow and thus Laozi also contains guidance on virtue even though it was full well-known that this virtue wasn't the "High Virtue" of "dancing with Wu Wei".

 

And so in Laozi we have the Sanbao of Compassion, Frugality, and Humility, and we have Chapter 51 whose specific guidance talks about De.

 

I will confess that my opinions in the OP were directly inspired by this particular guidance from Laozi, that the "Way" (or point of navigation) within the "Great Way" is to "nourish life", or 養生 yǎngshēng. I am also blessedly happy to yield that the virtue of yǎngshēng is not the "high virtue" of the being who is "dancing with Wu Wei", and you have my sincere thanks Ya Mu that you have broadened the scope and clarity of this discussion to yield a more integral picture of how one should aspire to operate or be within Dao.