The Essential Belief

[Aaron]

For those interested, I've made a new post to my blog. In it I ask the question of whether Westerners can ever really understand Taoism from an Eastern perspective as well as what the essential belief of Taoism is. Rather than repost it, you can a take a look here and tell me what you think, I certainly think it's worth a discussion.

 

Aaron

Edited June 7, 2013 by Aaron

[zerostao]

how synchronistic is this??

i just finished reading jung's chapter one in his Alchemical Studies and he is asking the same question, if westerners can understand Taoism. of course his perspective is quite different than yours. but still a very intersting coincidence, i think.

anyways , i always enjoy your writings aaron.

ed>sp

Edited June 6, 2013 by zerostao

[Aaron]

how synchronistic is this??

i just finished reading jung's chapter one in his Alchemical Studies and he is asking the same question, if westerners can understand Taoism. of course his perspective is quite different than yours. but still a very intersting coincidence, i think.

anyways , i always enjoy your writings aaron.

ed>sp

 

Thank you ZT. Maybe you could explain Jung's views on the topic. I think that would really help to foster the discussion.

 

Aaron

[zerostao]

jung has his famous commentary of The secret of The Golden Flower

and how can the western mind deal with that material.

and he also has his famous forward to the I Ching.

he talks of the western consciousness and how it is not the only consciousness that there is

and he tries to bridge the west to the eastern thought.

he does talk about unity and the one, kinda like how sinfest says cut one into two and then cut them into one

is that how sinfest says it?

jung suggests that the unity of the two (life and consciousness), is the Tao

so , jung is very much into the conscious and the unconscious. i remember a thread you had previous

where a few of us went over that concept.

jung also goes to suggest that the western mind has the same latent things in his unconscious as the eastern mind has,

there are shared symbols etc

"if we take the Tao to be the method or conscious way by which to unite what is separated, we have probably come close to the psychological meaning of the concept. at all events, the separation of consciousness and life cannot very well be understood as anything else than what i described earlier as an aberration or uprooting of consciousness. there can be no doubt, either, that the realization of the opposite hidden in the unconscious-the process of "reversal"-signifies reunion with the unconscious laws of our being, and the purpose of this reunion is the attainment of conscious life or, expressed in Chinese terms, the realization of the Tao"

its not rational it is not will, it is a process that expresses itself in symbols.

so that is jung's take, he of collective unconscious theory and symbols, a very psychological view but may correlate some with the philosophy view. idk

Edited June 7, 2013 by zerostao

[gentlewind]

For those interested, I've made a new post to my blog. In it I ask the question of whether Westerners can ever really understand Taoism from an Eastern perspective as well as what the essential belief of Taoism is. Rather than repost it, you can a take a look here and tell me what you think, I certainly think it's worth a discussion.

 

Aaron

Blessings Aaron,

 

I'll bookmark and have a read later.

 

Namaste,

 

gentlewinds

[Vmarco]

For those interested, I've made a new post to my blog. In it I ask the question of whether Westerners can ever really understand Taoism from an Eastern perspective as well as what the essential belief of Taoism is. Rather than repost it, you can a take a look here and tell me what you think, I certainly think it's worth a discussion.

 

Aaron

 

Will certainly take a read,...but first a few comments on the above. Why would a Westerner want to "really understand Taoism" from an Eastern perspective? Are there any Eastern Daoist masters who understand the Tao? To me, the Tao can NEVER be understood through belief,...belief is a barrier that obscures the Tao.

 

IMO, those who have had a glimpse of the Tao, would agree with Buddhists who say, that the creator of the universe is not a god, but Avidya or ignorance,...and yet those caterpillars who expound on butterflies, as if they understood the nature of a butterfly, prefer tradition and belief over truth.

 

Whether Western ignorance, or Eastern ignorance,...ignorance s ignorance. And as I've seen no indication of the ignorant accessing an awareness of the Tao,...why would I join in their diversion and distractive beliefs?

[Vmarco]

“We are living in a culture entirely hypnotized by the illusion of time, in which the so-called present moment is felt as nothing but an infinitesimal hairline between an all-powerfully causative past and an absorbingly important future. We have no present. Our consciousness is almost completely preoccupied with memory and expectation.

 

Nice quote,...thanks.

 

Watts is attempting to articulate a most important insight,...the relevance of which will determine who wakes up, and who remains asleep.

 

No one, will ever understand Who they are, until they realize When they are,

 

No one, will ever access Heart-Mind without understanding that there is no Present, Now, or Instant in time.

[Aaron]

Will certainly take a read,...but first a few comments on the above. Why would a Westerner want to "really understand Taoism" from an Eastern perspective? Are there any Eastern Daoist masters who understand the Tao? To me, the Tao can NEVER be understood through belief,...belief is a barrier that obscures the Tao.

 

IMO, those who have had a glimpse of the Tao, would agree with Buddhists who say, that the creator of the universe is not a god, but Avidya or ignorance,...and yet those caterpillars who expound on butterflies, as if they understood the nature of a butterfly, prefer tradition and belief over truth.

 

Whether Western ignorance, or Eastern ignorance,...ignorance s ignorance. And as I've seen no indication of the ignorant accessing an awareness of the Tao,...why would I join in their diversion and distractive beliefs?

 

It's funny, because I do address some of what you've mentioned in my blog, but I also understand that your concept of Taoism and mine are very different, so you will probably find much of what I said to either meet your definition of "ignorance" or feel that most of it is gibberish. I think this is in part because I feel Taoism is as much a sociological philosophy as it is a mystical philosophy. In that sense I think it's primary purpose is to encourage social harmony first and mystical enlightenment second. That's also my own goal when I talk about the Tao Te Ching, simply because it is much easier to teach the latter when there is the former.

 

Also I have a different opinion in regards to self, in particular I believe that there is nothing wrong with understanding the self, so long as you also understand the nature or self, in particular, the impermanence of self, and the lack of self in regards to the knowledge of self.

 

Aaron

 

edit- and yes there is no past or future, only the present actually exists. Of course I understand what you say when you mention that we are never really in the present, because we are always examining what just happened. I guess I just feel that it's impossible to examine something that hasn't happened yet, which is perhaps even greater proof of what you're talking about in the first place.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Aaron

[Spotless]

For those interested, I've made a new post to my blog. In it I ask the question of whether Westerners can ever really understand Taoism from an Eastern perspective as well as what the essential belief of Taoism is. Rather than repost it, you can a take a look http://anamericantaoist.blogspot.com/]here[/url] and tell me what you think, I certainly think it's worth a discussion.

 

Aaron

I think your post reads well but it reads a bit like many journalists found in popular articles - it assumes a fair amount and makes virtually no points at all.

The Asian perspective is assumed to be somehow known - at least the nuances of it.

Your general support for the idea that Westerners can bridge the gap or at the very least still reap some benefit is pretty inarguable but a bit elevator - it slides in and out of the mind nicely but not much pith.

 

Regarding then general question you pose - overall - Taoism has a feel not unlike Socrates - but with so much added teaching.

Taoism speaks to a inner place in us that is that beacon of light that we all share.

They ask us to examine that illusion that we "know"

What we westerners lack in tradition regarding Taoism within our framework we makeup for by our lack of taking it for granted that we understand it - there is no glimmer in our eye that it is "ours"

 

It would be interesting to look at the flip side of this - what problems an easterner has in understanding Christianity and how it could possibly appeal to an adult. In this case an abyss is closer to what we might find in the gap.

 

The west is in a new "age of reason" - one that includes Spirit.

Taoism like the Socratic Dialogues tear hard at our predigested mass assumption.

We are realizing that the movies of robots taking over our planet have already taken place - we are the robots

Edited June 7, 2013 by Spotless

[Vmarco]

Also I have a different opinion in regards to self, in particular I believe that there is nothing wrong with understanding the self, so long as you also understand the nature or self, in particular, the impermanence of self, and the lack of self in regards to the knowledge of self.

 

Aaron

 

edit- and yes there is no past or future, only the present actually exists. Of course I understand what you say when you mention that we are never really in the present, because we are always examining what just happened. I guess I just feel that it's impossible to examine something that hasn't happened yet, which is perhaps even greater proof of what you're talking about in the first place.

 

Although I can see an important sociological aspect of Daoism, I don't see Lao Tzu as a sociologist.

 

When I discuss the present, I discuss it (as it were) from the point of view of Tao,...that is, the absolute present. Both Lao Tzu and Sakyamuni, and well as others (before the 13th century) were quite clear (to me) on the subject.

 

As Wei Wu Wei said, “Phenomenally, we can know no present, as it must be in the ‘past’ before our senses can complete the process of recording it, leaving only a suppositional past and future; noumenally, there is no question of ‘past’ or ‘future,’ but only a presence that knows neither ‘time’ nor ‘space.’ ”

 

Although I use the term "opinion", it is out of courtesy,...not because it is my opinion,...it is the way it is,...and anyone who can observe the way things are, understand it as such. My "opinion" on the present is not actually an opinion. Anyone who has observed the present, understands the present.

 

"Contradictions in perspective among those Seeing the profound do not occur" Taranatha

 

Learning to understand the delusion of the phenomenal self is nobel,....but even nobeler is letting go of the attachment to learning to understand the delusion of the phenomenal self. Why did Lao Tzu say, "Recognize that eveything you see and think is a falsehood, an illusion, a veil over the truth."

 

Perhaps Walter Russell gave a clue when he wrote,... "Change is an illusion of the senses due to motion. There is no change whatsoever in the universe. There is only an illusion of change set up by the two interchanging lights (positive and negative) that divide and multiply within moving matter and mass."

 

That's pure Daoism....and Russell never mention to Daoism,...go figure!

[Aaron]

I think your post reads well but it reads a bit like many journalists found in popular articles - it assumes a fair amount and makes virtually no points at all.

The Asian perspective is assumed to be somehow known - at least the nuances of it.

Your general support for the idea that Westerners can bridge the gap or at the very least still reap some benefit is pretty inarguable but a bit elevator - it slides in and out of the mind nicely but not much pith.

 

Regarding then general question you pose - overall - Taoism has a feel not unlike Socrates - but with so much added teaching.

Taoism speaks to a inner place in us that is that beacon of light that we all share.

They ask us to examine that illusion that we "know"

What we westerners lack in tradition regarding Taoism within our framework we makeup for by our lack of taking it for granted that we understand it - there is no glimmer in our eye that it is "ours"

 

It would be interesting to look at the flip side of this - what problems an easterner has in understanding Christianity and how it could possibly appeal to an adult. In this case an abyss is closer to what we might find in the gap.

 

The west is in a new "age of reason" - one that includes Spirit.

Taoism like the Socratic Dialogues tear hard at our predigested mass assumption.

We are realizing that the movies of robots taking over our planet have already taken place - we are the robots

 

I'm assuming that anyone reading the blog already has a good foundation of Taoist understanding, so rather than waste time explaining terms I believe they already have an understanding of, I explain my point. I'm sorry you felt it was lacking, but maybe my blog isn't meant for someone as advanced as you.

 

 

Also, since you missed it, the points were 1) the overall message of Taoism can transcend any kind of cultural divide, 2) That Taoism is ultimately about freedom of self. and 3) That freedom of self can only really be achieved through social harmony and introspection. I thought I was quite clear on these points, but perhaps not.

 

I also don't understand how you can attach much of what you said to Taoism. In my opinion it is more new age than Taoist. First Taoism, in particular Lao Tzu, is as different as one can get from Socrates. While Socrates talks about the need for ethics, Lao Tzu explains how ethics are the mere husk of formality and have no place in harmonious society. Socrates supports reason, Lao Tzu supports paying attention to your intuition. Socrates advocates educating the people, Lao Tzu advocates keeping them ignorant. Socrates says virtue is knowledge, Lao Tzu says that virtue is an action that arises from Tao. The list goes on and on, but rather than continue I'll just reiterate, Night and day.

 

But of course this is my opinion and your opinion. There is no need to be right or wrong, unless you make it so. I don't agree with your assessment of my blog, but I don't need to, because in the real world harmony is not just derived from observing the world, but from observing yourself as well, and from that observation understanding that the needs of others are just as important as your own.

 

Aaron

Edited June 7, 2013 by Aaron

[Aaron]

Although I can see an important sociological aspect of Daoism, I don't see Lao Tzu as a sociologist.

 

When I discuss the present, I discuss it (as it were) from the point of view of Tao,...that is, the absolute present. Both Lao Tzu and Sakyamuni, and well as others (before the 13th century) were quite clear (to me) on the subject.

 

As Wei Wu Wei said, “Phenomenally, we can know no present, as it must be in the ‘past’ before our senses can complete the process of recording it, leaving only a suppositional past and future; noumenally, there is no question of ‘past’ or ‘future,’ but only a presence that knows neither ‘time’ nor ‘space.’ ”

 

Although I use the term "opinion", it is out of courtesy,...not because it is my opinion,...it is the way it is,...and anyone who can observe the way things are, understand it as such. My "opinion" on the present is not actually an opinion. Anyone who has observed the present, understands the present.

 

"Contradictions in perspective among those Seeing the profound do not occur" Taranatha

 

Learning to understand the delusion of the phenomenal self is nobel,....but even nobeler is letting go of the attachment to learning to understand the delusion of the phenomenal self. Why did Lao Tzu say, "Recognize that eveything you see and think is a falsehood, an illusion, a veil over the truth."

 

Perhaps Walter Russell gave a clue when he wrote,... "Change is an illusion of the senses due to motion. There is no change whatsoever in the universe. There is only an illusion of change set up by the two interchanging lights (positive and negative) that divide and multiply within moving matter and mass."

 

That's pure Daoism....and Russell never mention to Daoism,...go figure!

 

I think some people would argue about the Russell quote being pure Taoism. In fact one of the greatest Taoist texts (the I-Ching) is actually called "The Book of Changes" and not in the sense that change is an illusion (thought I'm not arguing that point itself) but rather that changes can be foreseen if one looks at what is happening with wisdom and forethought.

 

As for the Lao Tzu saying, "Recognize that everything you see is a falsehood..." Well I addressed that point as well, Lao Tzu encourages us to question things, to not just accept the rote answer. The fact of the matter is that our perception of the world isn't necessarily the reality of the world, it's just how we've been taught to perceive.

 

Anyways, enjoyed your points and I'm actually on your side regarding the whole perception of time thing, although I don't think Lao Tzu was necessarily talking about it.

 

Aaron

Edited June 7, 2013 by Aaron

[Everything]

As for the Lao Tzu saying, "Recognize that everything you see is a falsehood..." Well I addressed that point as well, Lao Tzu encourages us to question things, to not just accept the rote answer. The fact of the matter is that our perception of the world isn't necessarily the reality of the world, it's just how we've been taught to perceive.

 

Aaron

And who's taught you to perceive it as being the way you've been taught to peceive it?

[Spotless]

 

I'm assuming that anyone reading the blog already has a good foundation of Taoist understanding, so rather than waste time explaining terms I believe they already have an understanding of, I explain my point. I'm sorry you felt it was lacking, but maybe my blog isn't meant for someone as advanced as you.

 

Also, since you missed it, the points were 1) the overall message of Taoism can transcend any kind of cultural divide, 2) That Taoism is ultimately about freedom of self. and 3) That freedom of self can only really be achieved through social harmony and introspection. I thought I was quite clear on these points, but perhaps not.

 

I also don't understand how you can attach much of what you said to Taoism. In my opinion it is more new age than Taoist. First Taoism, in particular Lao Tzu, is as different as one can get from Socrates. While Socrates talks about the need for ethics, Lao Tzu explains how ethics are the mere husk of formality and have no place in harmonious society. Socrates supports reason, Lao Tzu supports paying attention to your intuition. Socrates advocates educating the people, Lao Tzu advocates keeping them ignorant. Socrates says virtue is knowledge, Lao Tzu says that virtue is an action that arises from Tao. The list goes on and on, but rather than continue I'll just reiterate, Night and day.

 

But of course this is my opinion and your opinion. There is no need to be right or wrong, unless you make it so. I don't agree with your assessment of my blog, but I don't need to, because in the real world harmony is not just derived from observing the world, but from observing yourself as well, and from that observation understanding that the needs of others are just as important as your own.

 

Aaron

Lets take a look and see if you didn't perhaps miss your own point:

 

This is your original post:

 

"For those interested, I've made a new post to my blog. In it I ask the question of whether Westerners can ever really understand Taoism from an Eastern perspective as well as what the essential belief of Taoism is. Rather than repost it, you can a take a look here and tell me what you think, I certainly think it's worth a discussion. "

 

I took the meaning of the original post in two ways - one - that you were asking for a sort of movie review of your article.

Two, that you were interested in discussing it.

By it, I mean that part that you very clearly enunciated ( a discussion of perspectives - Eastern and Western - regarding the understanding of Taoism). You did not really ever go into what the peculiarities are from your standpoint of the Eastern Perspective nor of the Western Perspective. It was clear that we assume they each have this in them and it is basically left at that - a perfectly respectful article for Readers Digest - topical but ruffling no feathers and devoid of content beyond what the title elicits.

 

Regarding the Day and Night of Taoism and Socrates you confuse the issue in details and fuse Plato to Socrates - a Western assumption perhaps but gravely mistaken.

Socrates and Taoism share one great vibration - that the assumptions we make regarding our sense of self and what knowledge we possess is an illusion.

 

You have not touched on this elusive perspective issue - which seems to be the crucks of your post - am I way off here?

 

Is the perspective the Eastern ability to see the wisdom within the myth and the superstition?

Is the Western perspective the ability to see the atom and electron beneath the surface of form?

 

I would very much enjoy discussing the topic of this post but it seems we are discussing the title of the topic.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Spotless

[Aaron]

Lets take a look and see if you didn't perhaps miss your own point:

 

This is your original post:

 

"For those interested, I've made a new post to my blog. In it I ask the question of whether Westerners can ever really understand Taoism from an Eastern perspective as well as what the essential belief of Taoism is. Rather than repost it, you can a take a look here and tell me what you think, I certainly think it's worth a discussion. "

 

I took the meaning of the original post in two ways - one - that you were asking for a sort of movie review of your article.

Two, that you were interested in discussing it.

By it, I mean that part that you very clearly enunciated ( a discussion of perspectives - Eastern and Western - regarding the understanding of Taoism). You did not really ever go into what the peculiarities are from your standpoint of the Eastern Perspective nor of the Western Perspective. It was clear that we assume they each have this in them and it is basically left at that - a perfectly respectful article for Readers Digest - topical but ruffling no feathers and devoid of content beyond what the title elicits.

 

Regarding the Day and Night of Taoism and Socrates you confuse the issue in details and fuse Plato to Socrates - a Western assumption perhaps but gravely mistaken.

Socrates and Taoism share one great vibration - that the assumptions we make regarding our sense of self and what knowledge we possess is an illusion.

 

You have not touched on this elusive perspective issue - which seems to be the crucks of your post - am I way off here?

 

Is the perspective the Eastern ability to see the wisdom within the myth and the superstition?

Is the Western perspective the ability to see the atom and electron beneath the surface of form?

 

I would very much enjoy discussing the topic of this post but it seems we are discussing the title of the topic.

 

 

Sigh... I've been suspended to many times under flimsy circumstances, so I'm afraid I'm bowing out of this conversation. I really do wish I could continue it, but I see it as being to volatile to risk undertaking. In essence I can't afford to question people or make comments that are not completely passive. If you are wondering why, just look at the moderator logs. I've been banned more times than any other current member on this forum.

 

Aaron

Edited June 7, 2013 by Aaron

[Aaron]

And who's taught you to perceive it as being the way you've been taught to peceive it?

 

Well I might ask you the same question.

 

Aaron

[Spotless]

 

Sigh... I've been suspended to many times under flimsy circumstances, so I'm afraid I'm bowing out of this conversation. I really do wish I could continue it, but I see it as being to volatile to risk undertaking. In essence I can't afford to question people or make comments that are not completely passive. If you are wondering why, just look at the moderator logs. I've been banned more times than any other current member on this forum.

 

Aaron

 

Aaron - am really am interested in the subject of what is the "eastern perspective" regarding the Tao.

And I would truly like to hear what you have to offer as I suspect you have a good deal to tell.

I am unclear as to their perspective and what you might have to say about the Western perspective is also of interest to me.

 

I lay down any swords I may have rattled - please continue!