Dao within the Dao

[Aaron]

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.

 

 

Hello Apech,

 

This isn't an attack on your argument, I just wanted to point out some statements you make that I don't entirely agree with. The major one being the idea that settling down made it harder for human beings to survive. I think that the mere fact that after settling down the population, rather than stay static, increased exponentially tells us that it did in fact become easier to survive. Remember for around 200,000 years the number of human beings on the Earth remained relatively the same (or so we are told).

 

I think what we can extrapolate from this is that during those 200,000 years we were able to survive as a people and prosper, not necessarily grow in population but live with a minimal effect on the environment. I liken our eventual agrarian lifestyle to the introduction of a foreign species on an environment. The species, which is used to surviving in a harsher environment, enters the new environment and thrives, dominating and damaging the new environment. For the last 12,000 years, we've been that foreign species, simply because we've changed the way that we lived.

 

I'm not saying that we can't live in harmony with Tao, but I think it's a sure sign of the times, that the way we are living is the major cause of much of the disharmony in the world. Ease of life doesn't equal harmony. I think when one discusses Tao we cannot discount this, especially if we are claiming to be cultivators of Tao.

 

Aaron

Edited May 31, 2011 by Twinner

[Stigweard]

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

It has occurred to me from time to time.. that, at one point there was no Tao, no 'word' that described what was self-evident, nature.. with the 'word' there were people that were observed to in harmony with what the word Tao was understood to mean, but.. the understandings differed among people who once could simply experience nature without a word to create a separation where it didn't exist previously.. i am not certain that Tao has been a service to its meaning, 'the Way things are'..

 

Be well..

[Stigweard]

Excuse me for reinforcing a point, but I felt the inclusion of this quote was appropriate and relevant to the exchange of views that have occurred in previous posts:

 

Hello Stig,

 

My point is that when you hear the phrase "the Tao that can be talked about" it infers that there is more than one type of tao, but just one Tao. That's my point, there is the WAY and other ways. I'm not stating there is more than one undefinable original Tao. As far as telling what is and isn't Tao, I've begun to understand how completely ludicrous this is. You can never pin down what Tao is or isn't, you can only assume to know. It's best not to even try.

 

Aaron

 

------------------------

 

Also I found an old topic of mine that is synonymous with the OP:

 

The Dao within The Dao - The Tao Bums

 

It is important I believe to understand that in Daoism there are several different "Daos."

 

 

There is one other Dao, and it is this Dao that I refer to when I say "at one with Dao." This Dao is referred to as Quan Dao or "The Integral Way" (Quan from the Quanzhen 全眞 or Complete/Integral Reality school of Daoism).

 

In relationship to this discussion one can be said to be "following Quan Dao" when one is fulfilled within one's integral nature. So whilst there can never be a moment when you are separate from the "Great Dao" or Da Dao, there is a definite distinction between following or not following Quan Dao.

 

So within Da Dao lies the path of Quan Dao. It is the path of natural harmony and full vitalization of life. For example, all forms of breathing are a part of Da Dao but healthy, natural abdominal breathing would be considered Quan Dao. In relationships, arguments and violence are still a part of Da Dao, but peaceful harmony would be considered Quan Dao.

 

It is Quan Dao that the YiJing is guiding us to follow, the path of appropriateness, harmony, productiveness which is ultimately the path of fulfillment of one's integral nature.

 

[manitou]

As soon as we say "I know", then we are mistaking ourselves, for the Universe. We are mistaking the simulacrum, for the actual.

 

Another way to see that is We Are the Universe. Nondual. The same ember of coal that we have burning in our hearts is that from which we manifest. That ember of coal duplicates the fire in the center of the earth. It emanates out, cools, manifests from the inside out. We follow the earth's pattern. The earth is a chunk of the sun. We can all draw separate conclusions from this.

[Aaron]

Hello Stig,

 

I think you missed my argument though, I haven't changed my stance, I still believe that the Tao that Lao Tzu is talking about is a different Tao, rather I am agreeing with you that there is one undefinable Tao, the Eternal Tao so to speak. I did start a thread in the Tao Te Ching section to discuss this further, since this discussion seems to be following me to other threads. So we can respect those threads, I recommend we continue the discussion there.

 

Aaron

Edited June 10, 2011 by Twinner

[Stigweard]

Hello Stig,

 

I think you missed my argument though, I haven't changed my stance, I still believe that the Tao that Lao Tzu is talking about is a different Tao, rather I am agreeing with you that there is one undefinable Tao, the Eternal Tao so to speak. I did start a thread in the Tao Te Ching section to discuss this further, since this discussion seems to be following me to other threads. So we can respect those threads, I recommend we continue the discussion there.

 

Aaron

"Respect those threads"

 

Hahahah!!

 

Just like you have respected my topics by pretty much inventing conceptual hogwash, which you have subsequently admitted you don't really believe to be true, just so that have you something with which to launch a disagreement.

 

Here's a selection of your comments Aaron:

 

Not everything is of Tao, but not all cultivation is Taoist either.

 

Lastly, in regards to everything being of the Tao, I would suggest you reread the Tao Teh Ching. If memory serves me, it clearly mentions that the easiest way to describe the Tao is by describing what the Tao isn't.

 

Also, it never says that it's easier to describe the Tao by what it isn't, I just thought certain passages alluded to it, in particular the fact that the Tao is nameless, so simply by naming it, defining it, you've proved it isn't the Tao, but rather a tao.

 

My point is that the true sage would probably identify the folly of gardening or harvesting being seen as natural or part of the Tao.

 

Just because we use a process to survive doesn't mean it's natural or part of Tao.

 

Now that doesn't mean that any of these things that came along were natural or part of Tao, just that they were done to make life easier.

 

This is followed recently by:

 

As far as telling what is and isn't Tao, I've begun to understand how completely ludicrous this is. You can never pin down what Tao is or isn't, you can only assume to know. It's best not to even try.

 

Aaron you are either confused, hypocritical, or deliberately obstructive. Which is it?

[C T]

 

Aaron you are either confused, hypocritical, or deliberately obstructive. Which is it?

Signs of clouded brilliance, perhaps?

Edited June 10, 2011 by CowTao

[Aaron]

"Respect those threads"

 

Hahahah!!

 

Just like you have respected my topics by pretty much inventing conceptual hogwash, which you have subsequently admitted you don't really believe to be true, just so that have you something with which to launch a disagreement.

 

Here's a selection of your comments Aaron:

 

 

 

This is followed recently by:

 

 

 

Aaron you are either confused, hypocritical, or deliberately obstructive. Which is it?

 

 

Hello Stig,

 

I am whatever you want me to be. I still stand by my last statement.

 

Aaron

 

edit- My personal recommendation, let it go. It's not that important. Perhaps, the only thing I've effected really is your pride.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Twinner

[Stigweard]

Hello Stig,

 

I am whatever you want me to be. I still stand by my last statement.

 

Aaron

 

edit- My personal recommendation, let it go. It's not that important. Perhaps, the only thing I've effected really is your pride.

LOL on the contrary Aaron, in my poorly educated opinion it is important.

 

Now I don't mind you expressing your opinion at all, and I love having people challenge my views so that I don't get overly fixated in my perception of things. But I really would like to know the true motivations as to why you chose to wade in on this topic with your opposition.

 

I would like to know why you have chosen to try and elevate your own opinions by claiming your view is supported by Laozi but when challenged to verify it you backflip away with more pseudo philosophical rubbish.

 

I would like to know why you made such an ardent case that what I was suggesting in the OP "wasn't part of Tao", only for you to admit in another thread that you thought it was ludicrous to try to determine what is and isn't Tao.

 

I would like to know why you assert that Laozi is saying there are two Daos but when once again challenged to verify this you have been incapable of doing so.

 

Now I understand why you have chosen to think that there are two Daos as Laozi references that there is a named and nameless aspect of reality. But they are not separate Daos in any way, shape or form. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the subtle view which is the "gate of all wonders" is the perception that embraces the unified intercourse of the unknown and the known.

 

But I will offer this to you as a point that perhaps we can agree on.

 

As I have outlined in the OP and also in another similar thread, The Dao within The Dao, I believe that Laozi, Zhuangzi, et al. certainly were advocating that within Da Dao, great Dao, there is the way (or Dao if you wish) of the Shengren or sage.

 

Now, with many thanks to Ya Mu, I have come to realize that the modus operandi, or Dao within the Dao, that I suggested in the OP is not the "high virtue" that Laozi is promoting. This high virtue is in fact the non-conceptual dance of Wu Wei, to act through natural spontaneity of ones integral nature.

 

That spontaneity may see the sage nourishing an organized garden, or it may see the sage picking wild fruits; it may see him impacting on another persons path, or it may see him observing with quiet dispassion.

 

So to provide us an opportunity for at least one area of reconciliation here Aaron, I would like to submit that both my analogy of the gardening sage who nourishes life and your analogy of the wilderness sage who thinks gardening is folly both fall short of the sage who simply dances with Wu Wei.

 

And on that note I will repeat one of your comments that I do agree with: "The true sage endeavors to allow what is natural to happen, to act without acting, to do without doing."

 

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

A man in California walks to the beach and says, this is the Pacific Ocean.. a man in Japan walks to the beach and says, it feels like a good day to fish in the great water.. is it two different 'waters'? or, is it two different understandings of the same water?

 

Be well..