Dao within the Dao

[Marblehead]

Thanks for being a good sport.

 

Therefore among all things there is none

that does not honor Dao and esteem de [teh].

 

 

Exactly. Dao gives them life and De nourishes them. We honor Dao and give thanks to De.

[Stigweard]

[Stigweard]

According to the "Idiot's Guide to Taoism", the literal translation of chapter 1 is:

"tao can tao not constant tao".

 

In other words, the way that can be seen as a way, is not the eternal way. Or alternately: once you try to break it down, you are in the realm of delusion.

 

The "constant Tao" is the way of the entire Universe (or even multiverse). It is utterly unknowable, because we are but tiny specks. So anything that we can break down and analyze is just a small portion, a "local" tao. We shouldn't mistake our experience of these taos as being the "constant Tao"; that is delusion.

 

I am like a musical instrument; I can be played in many ways, but I am always limited by the type of instrument I am. You can put your lips to a piano and blow, but it will never sound like a trumpet. Therefore, if I experience "tao", then I am really just experiencing myself, in a certain state. I do not, cannot, experience the "actual world", because I am always experiencing as a piano, and never as a trumpet. Nothing non-piano gets through.

 

In other words, the capital-T Tao points only towards "I don't know". As soon as we say "I know", then we are mistaking ourselves, for the Universe. We are mistaking the simulacrum, for the actual.

 

 

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.

 

[Marblehead]

 

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.

 

 

That is an interesting concept and I have played with it in my mind but to this point I do not yet have sufficient understand in order to form an opinion.

 

(No, please don't recommend something for me to read. Hehehe.)

[Aaron]

Aaron,

 

You walk into this topic and disagree for the sake of disagreeing just like you have in nearly every other topic I start (??). You make emphatic statements that try and debunk the OP and, when I try to engage you with discussion, you prove your disagreements are without any real substance.

 

If you truly think the true sage doesn’t exist then what the hell have you been talking about in your previous comments?? You are only confirming that you are frigging around with conceptual idealism which neither has any real practical worth nor does it hold any basis to disagree with my OP (which once again makes me question what your intent was in doing so).

 

And if your true sage (aka Aaron) thinks the natural and wholesome activity of gardening is folly, unnatural and “not part of Tao” (WTF??) then I think that he (aka you) needs a proverbial slap up the side of the head to try and snap some sense back into that mess of conceptual confusion.

 

Finally, though I acknowledge your liberty to think however you wish about what Laozi says, I see it as a fundamental error to think that Laozi is attempting to establish “two Daos”. Chapter one quite succinctly states that, though the known and unknown seem opposite and separate, they are in fact polarity aspects of the one unified phenomena. Understanding this is the “gateway of all mysteries”.

 

Personally Aaron I think you need to go back and re-examine your underlying intent that motivated you to make your initial post in this topic. Why did you feel compelled to disagree with me in any way you could? I wonder if you can be truly honest with yourself.

 

Hello Stig,

 

I was disagreeing with you because I thought you had interpreted the meaning of Tao wrong. I still do. That doesn't mean you don't have a right to believe whatever way you do. And of course you can interpret the Tao anyway you want, many people do. I don't intend to be an ass, I just see a lot of what you say as being a bit idealistic and hence my desire to bring a more pragmatic approach to the conversation.

 

You can slap me with a trout all you want, but that doesn't mean that I believe harvesting food or growing gardens is part of Tao or even natural, rather it's man's attempt to harness nature, something completely different. Just because someone calls it Tao doesn't make it so.

 

When I talk about the the true sage, I take it for granted most people understand that there's really no such thing as a sage, but rather that it's an ideal presented by the Tao Teh Ching. Now if you want to identify me as a true sage, that's fine, but I think you may be disappointed. I'm afraid when I stand on top of someone, my full weight is felt. Sigh.

 

I think the important thing to keep in mind is that the true issue is that we have different views of how things are not only interpreted, but also what people should do in regards to Taoism. You might not realize this, but that's a good thing. You can value your opinion more by seeing how it relates to my opinion.

 

Aaron

Edited May 28, 2011 by Twinner

[Ya Mu]

Dao Within Dao?

 

"I'm just a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude."

 

Sorry, this is what I thought of when I saw the title of the thread.

[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.

[Otis]

When experiencing a small-t tao, such as: how do I efficiently move a large rock? I may think I'm experiencing the tao of the rock, but the truth is: I'm experiencing the tao of (me moving the rock). It's all relationship. I am never out of the picture. Someone else's body may find a different tao, that works specifically with their strengths and weaknesses.

 

At present, I can't imagine an exception to this rule. The tao that I experience is always my tao, even though it's relating to the taos of other objects and people. Therefore, there is no knowable Tao beyond my interaction with/as life. It is a great metaphor, but as far as I can tell, utterly unknowable.

 

What I gain from the metaphor is: to stop viewing the many taos of my life as separate. To experience flow, not only within one action, but throughout the day, throughout the life. Rather than having a tao, to be a tao!

[Marblehead]

When experiencing a small-t tao, ...

 

Nice post Otis!

[Stigweard]

[Stigweard]

That is an interesting concept and I have played with it in my mind but to this point I do not yet have sufficient understand in order to form an opinion.

 

(No, please don't recommend something for me to read. Hehehe.)

 

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 whole premise is founded upon neidan practitioners discovering that the universal forces that comprised the universal Dao (i.e. Yin/Yang, Tian ren di, the five elements, the bagua etc) we also present within each individual.

 

[Marblehead]

[Ya Mu]

...

 

You can slap me with a trout all you want, but that doesn't mean that I believe harvesting food or growing gardens is part of Tao or even natural, rather it's man's attempt to harness nature, something completely different. Just because someone calls it Tao doesn't make it so.

...

When I talk about the the true sage, I take it for granted most people understand that there's really no such thing as a sage,

...

Aaron

Do you really believe that harvesting food/growing gardens is unnatural? So are you saying it is natural to starve? Or natural to sit on our asses, not growing our own food, trucking it in from far away? Best way I know to really experience Earth is to grow your own food.

 

I believe that there certainly are only a handful of "sages", but just because you have never met one doesn't mean that they don't exist.

 

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.

 

Experiences are certainly a part of Tao. I guess it depends on what one wishes to experience in this life. Many are stuck in physicality; this reveals only a small part of Tao. Not to say that physicality should be ignored, as it IS that small part.

[Aaron]

Do you really believe that harvesting food/growing gardens is unnatural? So are you saying it is natural to starve? Or natural to sit on our asses, not growing our own food, trucking it in from far away? Best way I know to really experience Earth is to grow your own food.

 

I believe that there certainly are only a handful of "sages", but just because you have never met one doesn't mean that they don't exist.

 

Hello Ya Mu,

 

I never said it was natural to starve, but in fact it is. Just as surviving is natural, so is dieing. Just because we use a process to survive doesn't mean it's natural or part of Tao, regardless of how many people might say it is. Yes managing a garden is pleasant and really does give you an idea of how nature works, but in order to really know nature you have to get out in nature.

 

At one time man wandered from place to place, hunting and gathering. As time went by they learned to survive by harnessing nature, in other words, domesticating live stock and planting crops. Those people who planted the best crops (crops high in protein and nutrients) and had the best live stock (matured quickly and provided other resources as well) ended up advancing culturally, because these crops and livestock allowed them the free time to think and work on other things besides just survival, those that didn't, remained very much as they did back when they first started (the tribes of New Guinea are evidence of this by the way.)

 

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. So with that in mind, gardening isn't natural, nor is living in one place (we are migratory by nature, or at the very least, historically speaking), but that doesn't mean we can't live that way or have a garden. My point is that we oftentimes confuse what seems natural, with what is actually natural.

 

Anyways, I hope that explains it more.

 

Aaron

Edited May 29, 2011 by Twinner

[TzuJanLi]

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..

[Ya Mu]

Hello Ya Mu,

 

I never said it was natural to starve, but in fact it is. Just as surviving is natural, so is dieing. Just because we use a process to survive doesn't mean it's natural or part of Tao, regardless of how many people might say it is. Yes managing a garden is pleasant and really does give you an idea of how nature works, but in order to really know nature you have to get out in nature.

 

At one time man wandered from place to place, hunting and gathering. As time went by they learned to survive by harnessing nature, in other words, domesticating live stock and planting crops. Those people who planted the best crops (crops high in protein and nutrients) and had the best live stock (matured quickly and provided other resources as well) ended up advancing culturally, because these crops and livestock allowed them the free time to think and work on other things besides just survival, those that didn't, remained very much as they did back when they first started (the tribes of New Guinea are evidence of this by the way.)

 

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. So with that in mind, gardening isn't natural, nor is living in one place (we are migratory by nature, or at the very least, historically speaking), but that doesn't mean we can't live that way or have a garden. My point is that we oftentimes confuse what seems natural, with what is actually natural.

 

Anyways, I hope that explains it more.

 

Aaron

Your self-derived definitions of Tao are baffling.

 

Natural - existing in or formed by nature (dictionary.com). Since we are indeed part of nature and we need to eat to survive then starving is not natural; the way of all natural creatures is to eat to survive. So starving would indeed be unnatural.

 

Sure getting out in nature is grand. Living as much in the Tao as I can, I subscribe to that myself. But the way of hunter/gatherer, as a large part of existence is long past. Although I personally AM a hunter / gatherer, but only to a small extent. So planting a garden and growing your own food is indeed natural, as opposed to unnaturally trucking food in or sitting on your ass and letting others do it for you, eating that trucked in food. Since those are the only two choices, which of those do you think is more natural, the truck going hundreds of thousands of miles to feed you or you planting and growing your own food?

[TzuJanLi]

Your self-derived definitions of Tao are baffling.

 

Natural - existing in or formed by nature (dictionary.com). Since we are indeed part of nature and we need to eat to survive then starving is not natural; the way of all natural creatures is to eat to survive. So starving would indeed be unnatural.

 

Sure getting out in nature is grand. Living as much in the Tao as I can, I subscribe to that myself. But the way of hunter/gatherer, as a large part of existence is long past. Although I personally AM a hunter / gatherer, but only to a small extent. So planting a garden and growing your own food is indeed natural, as opposed to unnaturally trucking food in or sitting on your ass and letting others do it for you, eating that trucked in food. Since those are the only two choices, which of those do you think is more natural, the truck going hundreds of thousands of miles to feed you or you planting and growing your own food?

Hi Ya Mu: Life still has the 'hunter/gatherer' qualities.. we 'hunt' opportunities, we 'gather' the rewards of our efforts.. we contribute to the collectivation of sustenance, but.. we are overly tolerant of those that collect unfair tariffs, bribes, and market harmfully inferior products or advertise harmfully inaccurate claims.. i suggest that rather than "sit on your ass and let others do it for you", that we actively assure that what 'others do', they do fairly and get a fair reward for their efforts.. the population densification in urban settings cannot become self-sufficient, but it can insist on a holistic relationship throughout the supply line and custodial chain.. replace the profit-taking middle-men/women, with quality control people that earn what others simply take.. assume the role of 'hunter/gatherer' in the current environment.. it's a matter of perspective..

 

Be well..

[Apech]

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.

[Ya Mu]

Hi Ya Mu: Life still has the 'hunter/gatherer' qualities.. we 'hunt' opportunities, we 'gather' the rewards of our efforts.. we contribute to the collectivation of sustenance, but.. we are overly tolerant of those that collect unfair tariffs, bribes, and market harmfully inferior products or advertise harmfully inaccurate claims.. i suggest that rather than "sit on your ass and let others do it for you", that we actively assure that what 'others do', they do fairly and get a fair reward for their efforts.. the population densification in urban settings cannot become self-sufficient, but it can insist on a holistic relationship throughout the supply line and custodial chain.. replace the profit-taking middle-men/women, with quality control people that earn what others simply take.. assume the role of 'hunter/gatherer' in the current environment.. it's a matter of perspective..

 

Be well..

Ah, but you miss a few things. Yes, even in urban environments, it is quite possible to grow quite a bit of one's own food. Why don't people do this? Mostly because they are too damn lazy. "What! I have to pick it?" "What, I have to shell it?" "Honey, go down to the grocery store and get some food." So we burn up gas, adding to the already screwed environment, and go purchase food grown thousands of miles away - which was brought in by truck, burning up more fuel, adding to our environmental disaster. So we purchase oil from clear across the world so these trucks can have the fuel to bring food from thousands of miles away. Oh wait! It doesn't stop there. We now have to spend trillions in warfare so as to control those oil producing countries so we can have the oil to make fuel to go into the trucks so we can truck food across the country. All this makes no sense whatsoever.

One other thing is that "but it can insist on a holistic relationship throughout the supply line and custodial chain" is impossible when we truck food in from across the country. Go look in your local grocery store and see where it came from. How do you suggest that be controlled in a "holistic relationship" WITHOUT local food production? It really can't.

We will pay the price for the foolishness of this type of thinking.

[Aaron]

Your self-derived definitions of Tao are baffling.

 

Natural - existing in or formed by nature (dictionary.com). Since we are indeed part of nature and we need to eat to survive then starving is not natural; the way of all natural creatures is to eat to survive. So starving would indeed be unnatural.

 

Sure getting out in nature is grand. Living as much in the Tao as I can, I subscribe to that myself. But the way of hunter/gatherer, as a large part of existence is long past. Although I personally AM a hunter / gatherer, but only to a small extent. So planting a garden and growing your own food is indeed natural, as opposed to unnaturally trucking food in or sitting on your ass and letting others do it for you, eating that trucked in food. Since those are the only two choices, which of those do you think is more natural, the truck going hundreds of thousands of miles to feed you or you planting and growing your own food?

 

You have me at a loss. Where did I derive a definition of Tao? Anyways, it's not important, believe whatever makes you happy. Also, it's not natural for man to plant vegetables, rather it's natural for nature to spread it's own seeds, ala the wind and such. You seem to be confusing technology that we've learned as something that is a part of the natural process. No it's not natural to truck vegetables in, nor is it natural to plant vegetables. Look at the environmental impact a small garden can have on a local ecosystem. First you tear up what is a natural environment, then, rather than plant food that is natural to that environment, in most cases you plant something completely foreign. Even if you do end up planting something that's part of the local ecosystem, it doesn't necessarily mean you're not causing an imbalance. After all, in nature most often the food grown helps everything that is in the ecosystem, in the garden it feeds, well, just you. Again, you're confusing a practice that has been a part of our society on a global scale, for something that is actually natural, when in fact it's not.

 

I could explain it further, but I think that is detailed enough.

 

Aaron

 

edit- I want to add that if you want to plant a garden, that's fine. We don't live in harmony with nature anymore and attempting to get back to that point is impossible for most of us, so the only thing we can do now is try our best to minimize the impact we have on nature.

 

In the end, unless there is a global catastrophe that annihilates most of the human population, the Earth will, within the next century or so, cease to be able to grow much of anything, then the notion of gardens will be completely moot.

 

Also keep in mind one of the major environmental hazards in most of the rain forests isn't commercial farms, but rather communal farms intended to feed communities. If growing food in gardens is natural, then why does it seem to be causing such disharmony? If you want to learn more, just do some research on some of the endangered species around the world.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Twinner

[Ya Mu]

You have me at a loss. Where did I derive a definition of Tao? Anyways, it's not important, believe whatever makes you happy. Also, it's not natural for man to plant vegetables, rather it's natural for nature to spread it's own seeds, ala the wind and such. You seem to be confusing technology that we've learned as something that is a part of the natural process. No it's not natural to truck vegetables in, nor is it natural to plant vegetables. Look at the environmental impact a small garden can have on a local ecosystem. First you tear up what is a natural environment, then, rather than plant food that is natural to that environment, in most cases you plant something completely foreign. Even if you do end up planting something that's part of the local ecosystem, it doesn't necessarily mean you're not causing an imbalance. After all, in nature most often the food grown helps everything that is in the ecosystem, in the garden it feeds, well, just you. Again, you're confusing a practice that has been a part of our society on a global scale, for something that is actually natural, when in fact it's not.

 

I could explain it further, but I think that is detailed enough.

 

Aaron

 

edit- I want to add that if you want to plant a garden, that's fine. We don't live in harmony with nature anymore and attempting to get back to that point is impossible for most of us, so the only thing we can do now is try our best.

 

In the end, unless there is a global catastrophe that annihilates most of the human population, the Earth will within the next century or so, cease to be able to grow much of anything, then the notion of gardens will be completely moot.

"You have me at a loss. Where did I derive a definition of Tao?"

Here

"doesn't mean that I believe harvesting food or growing gardens is part of Tao or even natural"

and here where you replied to stig

"I was disagreeing with you because I thought you had interpreted the meaning of Tao wrong. I still do"

 

But about natural gardening versus trucking in food:

 

Your explanation makes no sense. You seem to think that it is MORE natural to truck in the food than to plant it yourself; these ARE the only two choices. You gonna go out with your gun and shoot enough game to eat? On whose land? You gonna go out and pick enough berries to live on? Gonna naturally drive your car to where you can? Good luck.

Two choices. Which is more natural?

Edited May 29, 2011 by Ya Mu

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Ah, but you miss a few things. Yes, even in urban environments, it is quite possible to grow quite a bit of one's own food. Why don't people do this? Mostly because they are too damn lazy. "What! I have to pick it?" "What, I have to shell it?" "Honey, go down to the grocery store and get some food." So we burn up gas, adding to the already screwed environment, and go purchase food grown thousands of miles away - which was brought in by truck, burning up more fuel, adding to our environmental disaster. So we purchase oil from clear across the world so these trucks can have the fuel to bring food from thousands of miles away. Oh wait! It doesn't stop there. We now have to spend trillions in warfare so as to control those oil producing countries so we can have the oil to make fuel to go into the trucks so we can truck food across the country. All this makes no sense whatsoever.

One other thing is that "but it can insist on a holistic relationship throughout the supply line and custodial chain" is impossible when we truck food in from across the country. Go look in your local grocery store and see where it came from. How do you suggest that be controlled in a "holistic relationship" WITHOUT local food production? It really can't.

We will pay the price for the foolishness of this type of thinking.

Perhaps i should have been more clear.. in no way do i suggest that we should abandon any effort to directly and personally feed, clothe, nourish, build shelter, generate power, etc.. but, when Tao reveals lack of natural resources, it is also 'hunter/gatherer' spirit to enforce holistic supplementation of what is locally insufficient.. it is one thing to argue idealistic gaols, quite another to implement pragmatic solutions, even if they are less than the 'ideal'.. it really is.

 

Be well..

[Ya Mu]

Greetings..

 

 

Perhaps i should have been more clear.. in no way do i suggest that we should abandon any effort to directly and personally feed, clothe, nourish, build shelter, generate power, etc.. but, when Tao reveals lack of natural resources, it is also 'hunter/gatherer' spirit to enforce holistic supplementation of what is locally insufficient.. it is one thing to argue idealistic gaols, quite another to implement pragmatic solutions, even if they are less than the 'ideal'.. it really is.

 

Be well..

"it is one thing to argue idealistic gaols, quite another to implement pragmatic solutions, even if they are less than the 'ideal'.. it really is."

Here is where we disagree. I believe it is an entirely pragmatic solution for folks to grow their own food versus trucking it in. I really doesn't take much space; you would be surprised at how much food can be grown in a very small space. If you don't already do so, you really would.

[Aaron]

"You have me at a loss. Where did I derive a definition of Tao?"

Here

"doesn't mean that I believe harvesting food or growing gardens is part of Tao or even natural"

and here where you replied to stig

"I was disagreeing with you because I thought you had interpreted the meaning of Tao wrong. I still do"

 

But about natural gardening versus trucking in food:

 

Your explanation makes no sense. You seem to think that it is MORE natural to truck in the food than to plant it yourself; these ARE the only two choices. You gonna go out with your gun and shoot enough game to eat? On whose land? You gonna go out and pick enough berries to live on? Gonna naturally drive your car to where you can? Good luck.

Two choices. Which is more natural?

 

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. Third, anything that we do to try to simulate something in the natural world is essentially a simulation, not something that is natural. If it makes you feel good to simulate that, then again, more power to you.

 

Aaron

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

"it is one thing to argue idealistic gaols, quite another to implement pragmatic solutions, even if they are less than the 'ideal'.. it really is."

Here is where we disagree. I believe it is an entirely pragmatic solution for folks to grow their own food versus trucking it in. I really doesn't take much space; you would be surprised at how much food can be grown in a very small space. If you don't already do so, you really would.

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..