The Philosopher's Tao

[rene]

NotVoid, thanks for your reply. (-:

[Marblehead]

NotVoid, hi, thanks for your reply. In your opinion, is it possible for someone to 'go against Tao' ? Not trying to go off-topic, just curious about your own starting point. You can disregard the question if you wish; no harm no foul. (-:

I see you are still wrestling with this question. NotVoid presented a really good response but I think it likely didn't totally satisfy your question.

[Marblehead]

... since in the tao te ching (and also apparently in buddhist teachings as well) there is the idea that true understanding can not ever come through ordinary rational thinking and analytical processes of the mind, which philosophy relies upon, then from my limited understanding of taoism and buddhism it would seem that these traditions do not view philosophy as being capable of leading one to true understandings of self and existence and the like. Not saying I either agree or disagree, since I really don't know one way or the other and this is just my personal interpretations, but just mentioning it. There may well be other points of view that I am not aware of in regards to this.

Hehehe. Okay, here is an other point of view. No, I do not accept the limitations placed on philosophy as applied above. Honest and supportable philosophy can easily lead one toward a "oneness" with Tao. The belief in mythology and religion is not necessary to understand the workings of Tao and the Ten Thousand Things.

 

It is mostly because of the blinders we wear that we are unable to see the whole picture. When we see only parts of the picture there are many illusions and delusions created for us. We must remove the blinders in order to remove the illusions and delusions.

 

Now, please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that mythology and religion are useless. They are useful for many people because of the blinders they wear. These beliefs offer acceptable answers to many otherwise unanswered (because of the blinders) questions.

 

The blinders? Our cultural and societal teachings from when we were young as well as the prejudices we establish because of experiences we have when we are young. This is what, in my opinion, Lao Tzu was talking about when he told us to discard (false) knowledge.

[Stosh]

If all roads go to the same place, how can one possibly go in the wrong direction?

A person is always "one with the Tao"

We can go up hills , we can do stuff that is self defeating,

we can embarass ourselves by making presumptuous conclusions, or volunteering

answers unbidden.

But it is all allowed within the framework.

The Tao just doesnt give a hoot and so ,you cant 'go against it' anymore than you can

'go against' a ham sandwich.

 

What one can do,

is fail to follow the natural flow of taos manifestations,

intending to bring about ones own fulfillment, but not heading in the direction of it.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

What one can do,

is fail to follow the natural flow of taos manifestations,

intending to bring about ones own fulfillment, but not heading in the direction of it.

Every now and again you amaze me.

 

Nice observation!

[teknix]

Ones own fullfillment? To what extent?

[Marblehead]

Ones own fullfillment? To what extent?

Hehehe. I'm going to let Stosh answer that - he's the one who said it.

[Stosh]

Every now and again you amaze me.

 

Nice observation!

Thanks

I had to modify that one , I had your corrections in mind ( from back a ways)

[Stosh]

Ones own fullfillment? To what extent?

Im sorry , I dont know, not sure what you are asking.

But ..

Your fulfillment : that which you want out of life.

Im with Sartre that one chooses a role for themselves,,

you play that part , whatever part that is, and so you become

the story that is enacted.

You have this meaning , give yourself this direction, Tao doesnt.

It doesnt have a personal bias.

[rene]

I see you are still wrestling with this question. NotVoid presented a really good response but I think it likely didn't totally satisfy your question.

 

Hi Marblehead.

 

When I want to quickly evaluate a translation of the TTC, I check how the author renders certain lines in Chapter 1. When I want to quickly evaluate a person's starting points regarding tao ideas - I ask them the same question I asked NotVoid.

 

No wonder you thought I was wrestling with the question... as you've heard me ask it several times!

 

warm regards

[hydrogen]

Nikolai1, I'm more interested in your real life. How's your marriage situation? Are you still obsessed with the girl from abroad?

 

Can you give us some update?

[Marblehead]

Hi Marblehead.

 

When I want to quickly evaluate a translation of the TTC, I check how the author renders certain lines in Chapter 1. When I want to quickly evaluate a person's starting points regarding tao ideas - I ask them the same question I asked NotVoid.

 

No wonder you thought I was wrestling with the question... as you've heard me ask it several times!

 

warm regards

Hehehe. Okay. Now I understand. (I think.) And yes, I have seen you ask that question a few times. You probably even asked me but I don't remember.

[NotVoid]

Hi Marblehead. In my view, beliefs are beliefs, assumptions are assumptions. I see no need to make distinctions between the exact 'color', 'shape', and 'appearance' of such things. Beliefs remain beliefs and assumptions remain assumptions. What even the most rational of people take for granted with much confidence may well have belief and assumptions of one sort or another behind it if really looked into. It is easy to spot and point out beliefs and assumptions in others, but not as easy at all to notice the same sort of things in our self. This is no small obstacle in my view, and I have explained why I think this is. As I have also pointed out, it is my view that maintaining a set of core beliefs is very important for everyone for maintaining a stable world view and for functioning well in this world. It makes not much difference at all in my view what the actual world view is as long as a person is able to live well.

 

By the way, I am not sure what you are referring to when you said "The belief in mythology and religion is not necessary to understand the workings of Tao and the Ten Thousand Things." I didn't say anything at all like that. Maybe you are referring to something else however. What I have said is practicing taoists have religious and spiritual practices, and various practices for assisting with life in this world as well. There are also some self cultivation practices practiced by some in taoism which appear to be geared more towards providing a means to understanding deeper questions such as the concepts of self and existence and 'tao'. All fall under the banner of taoism however, and any given practicing taoist may actually be involved in some combination of all these sorts of practices in varying degrees. I think it is worth considering the possibility that the depth of things can sometimes be much deeper than what we can ever observe from external analysis alone. What we think we know may not be so certain after all.

 

If one carefully focuses on and studies only rocks, why would they expect to see and find anything but rocks and sub-components of rocks when they study them?

 

All the best.

Edited August 6, 2013 by NotVoid

[Nikolai1]

In your opinion, is it possible for someone to 'go against Tao' ?

 

The moment we try to turn the Tao into a 'thing that exists' we create the concept of something that 'isn't the Tao'...and then we get into a muddle because the tao is meant to be the ultimate category that contains everything.

 

The Tao can only be understood with our spiritual wisdom. We must know it in a whole other way, a way that can't be talked about. How do we know if we know it? Here is how...

 

The knower of the Tao knows that he is not a mortal being who can suffer death or misfortune. He knows with absolute conviction that misfortune is just a transient dream, that in a second passes away into nothingness.

 

He is therefore confident. Everything that happens is fine by him. He trusts exactly what is before him and rejects nothing. It does not occur to him to call anything good or bad, he therefore does not dwell on whether things are of the Tao or not of the Tao. Because he does not question he does not deviate from anything. All is accepted, even his non-acceptance.

 

The average man thinks that to call things bad suggests a non-accepting attitude. He therefore thinks himself bad for thinking things bad, and goes round in circles. Only when we spiritually realise that we are not the thinker thinking these things can we truly accept all that comes our way.

 

Until we make that realisation we cannot help but distrust certain aspects of our existence. If we are totally under the illusion that we are mortal, and buy into all the ideas about what is good and bad for mortals, then we will distrust. To distrust some things and to trust in others is what the sages call being far from the way...but as it is through the pain of distrust that we learn the truth about ourselves then to be far from the way is to be squarely on it.

 

I hope this makes sense. For what its worth, the paradox over what is or isn't the Tao is an incredibly fruitful philosophical exercise, and even if it feels like you go round in circles, you will know when you have solved it for yourself. And you have to solve it for yourself, because the spiritual realisation needed to solves the question has to come from you.

 

best wishes

[rene]

If one carefully focuses on and studies only rocks, why would they expect to see and find anything but rocks and sub-components of rocks when they study them?

 

 

Have you not yet seen the universe in a single grain of sand?

 

 

Without going outside, you may know the whole world.

Without looking through the window, you may see the ways of heaven.

~ ddj47

[rene]

The moment we try ....

 

Nikolai1 - thanks for sharing your ideas about tao (-: and I apologize for disrupting your thread.

 

warm regards

[Marblehead]

HI NotVoid,

 

Nice response. Let me clarify, if I can, what I 'believe'.

Hi Marblehead. In my view, beliefs are beliefs, assumptions are assumptions. I see no need to make distinctions between the exact 'color', 'shape', and 'appearance' of such things. Beliefs remain beliefs and assumptions remain assumptions. What even the most rational of people take for granted with much confidence may well have belief and assumptions of one sort or another behind it if really looked into. It is easy to spot and point out beliefs and assumptions in others, but not as easy at all to notice the same sort of things in our self. This is no small obstacle in my view, and I have explained why I think this is. As I have also pointed out, it is my view that maintaining a set of core beliefs is very important for everyone for maintaining a stable world view and for functioning well in this world. It makes not much difference at all in my view what the actual world view is as long as a person is able to live well.

I agree with this. I only suggest that we should, if we can, eliminate both beliefs and assumptions. To 'know' is much better. We will waste far less time than if we continue to chase shadows.

 

By the way, I am not sure what you are referring to when you said "The belief in mythology and religion is not necessary to understand the workings of Tao and the Ten Thousand Things." I didn't say anything at all like that. Maybe you are referring to something else however.

I oftentimes just say things that come to my mind. I didn't mean to imply you had made comment to it and I was responding. But I will still hold to what I said. Not necessary but believing in them likely helps many people who would otherwise have less of a base to stand on.

 

What I have said is practicing taoists have religious and spiritual practices, and various practices for assisting with life in this world as well. There are also some self cultivation practices practiced by some in taoism which appear to be geared more towards providing a means to understanding deeper questions such as the concepts of self and existence and 'tao'. All fall under the banner of taoism however, and any given practicing taoist may actually be involved in some combination of all these sorts of practices in varying degrees. I think it is worth considering the possibility that the depth of things can sometimes be much deeper than what we can ever observe from external analysis alone. What we think we know may not be so certain after all.

Agreed. But then, I'm not arguing against this understanding. All I am suggesting is that, if one is firmly established and at peace with his/her world, they are not necessary. (Even though they may be desirable.)

 

If one carefully focuses on and studies only rocks, why would they expect to see and find anything but rocks and sub-components of rocks when they study them?

Yeyeye. How to respond to this? Yes, on occasion, when searchig for rocks to study one will on occasion find some gold or some jade or maybe even some meteorite. Not wise, I think, to not know the value of these other items while searching for their rocks.

 

All the best.

Same back at cha'.

[NotVoid]

Hi Marblehead. Your views that certain practices are not necessary or that philosophy or ordinary conceptual perception and reasoning alone can lead one to true understanding beyond dualistic perception and cognition leaves me less than convinced. I dare say some assumptions may be involved there.

All the best.

Edited August 6, 2013 by NotVoid

[Marblehead]

Hi Marblehead. Your views that certain practices are not necessary or that philosophy or ordinary conceptual perception and reasoning alone can lead one to true understanding beyond dualistic perception and cognition leaves me less than convinced. I dare say some assumptions may be involved there.

All the best.

Hehehe. But I never said it would be easy.

 

Regarding "beyond dualistic perception", in our everyday physical life where we must interact with the environment and others I think it is good to hold to a certain level of dualistic thinging and awareness. When in a secure environment, like when meditating, we can throw out dualism. Our brain is programmed for dualistic thinking for a useful purpose: survival.

 

Pure cognition is good if one first removes all illusions and delusions, and removes all biases and prejudices, and removes all expectations from one's self and others.

 

See? That's why I never said it would be easy.

[Nikolai1]

Hi notovid and marblehead - interesting debate you're both having about concepts.

 

For me the sheer difficulty of the discussion is encapsulated by things like this:

 

 

Our brain is programmed for dualistic thinking for a useful purpose: survival.

 

The trouble is, this opinion is itself dualistic - the dualism being that we are individual mortals trying to endure in a separate world outside of us.

 

Non-dual realisations are, by defintion, contradictions of dualistic sentences like the above. The proposition that 'dualism is useful' therefore becomes as false as it is true.

 

The concept viewed dualistically is a symbol of reality; viewed non-dually the concept is a reality in itself and symbolises nothing.

 

We can meaningfully discuss concepts in either of these ways...and yet understanding will never be final. whatever we say will also be false.

 

The aim is therefore not to dismiss concepts, but rather to not take them seriously...to let them come and go and be above them. This will only become actualll possible once we have realised the emptiness of the world that the concepts represent.

 

Bah, this Tao business hey??

[Marblehead]

The trouble is, this opinion is itself dualistic - the dualism being that we are individual mortals trying to endure in a separate world outside of us.

Hi Nikolai1,

 

Hehehe. Reminds me of something a few of my Buddhist friends have said to me.

 

I am a materialist so I can't buy it.

 

I have never lived in a non-material world. Cold/hot. Dark/light. Good/bad. Beautiful/ugly. And all those other dualistic opposites.

 

And because of how I believe is why I have pretty much stopped trying to reconcile between opposites, between dualities.

 

With some help from a friend I have opted rather to replace, in my real life, the dualities with the concept of "useful/useless" (to me).

 

That way I can judge whatever based on its usefulness to me but yet not judge it for anyone else.

 

And yes, these things matter in my real life.

 

This morning I weeded my gardens. The weeds were useless to me but I'm sure there were some insects that could have continued making use of them had I allowed them to remain. For the insects, there are other plants they can munch on or they can go to my neighbor's yard.

 

My world isn't empty. It is full. That's a disagreement I have with all Buddhists. They prefer the concept of emptiness and I prefer the concept of fullness.

 

So yes, when I go outside to look at my roses I am careful to not touch the thorns (the beautiful and the ugly).

[Nikolai1]

Hi marblehead

 

 

Reminds me of something a few of my Buddhist friends have said to me.

 

I am a materialist so I can't buy it.

 

The funny thing is, you can declare yourself a materialist and yet it can be clear from your behaviour and your attitude that are living as if you understand emptiness. This goes back to something I was saying earlier. It is possible to demonstrate all the fruits of a virtue without being consciously aware of it.

 

To the spiritually minded philosopher, the conscious realisation of emptiness is the supreme achievement. With this insight comes the end of intellectual attachment (belief), although emotional attachment may persist. It is in the nature of the philosopher for his thoughts to be in the vanguard, his emotions the rearguard. His recognises his insights as magnificent, but at first cold and austere. The non-philosopher is of course the other way round.

 

 

My world isn't empty. It is full. That's a disagreement I have with all Buddhists. They prefer the concept of emptiness and I prefer the concept of fullness.

 

For a Buddhist to 'prefer emptiness' is as near as they come to a heresy! I'll explain...

 

Because the world of fulness (form) is the original viewpoint that we are all born in to, most spiritual teachers have to very strongly emphasise the other perspective: emptiness.

 

Until we have our own inner realisation, we are vulnerable to taking these teachings on emptiness as the truth, and rejecting our former views as being false. But this is just to swap one illusion for the other. It would be like one of the men at the table suddenly capitulating and saying "yes you are right and I was wrong - the cup is indeed for left handers"

 

Spiritual teachers are those who are able to show us the alternative view, but this view and their teachings are not the final truth.

 

Only when we see that the world can be viewed both as form and emptiness and is therefore intrinsically neither will we understand the liberation from the life of intellect, and therefore of time and space.

 

When you say "I prefer the concept of fullness" you are saying something that, philosophically speaking, is quite crude. But as I said, this does not mean that you aren't redressing the error in other areas of your practice.

 

best wishes

[Stosh]

Crude? What is crude? is that a dualist idea ? Hmm yes it is. But thats OK isnt it , having dualist ideas, like a division between form and emptiness , thats another polemic view! seems to me.

In fact Taoism is rife with dualistic ideas as soon as 'one becomes Two'.

Now some people take their interest way back all the way to a unity situation where they try to view everything all the same , undifferentiated , of exactly unbiased unformed purity... fine , but you cant live like that, you , the humanoid ,are not the completeness of the eternal Tao,, it is an impossible dream to successfully imitate the eternal Tao. IMO

Because if one equates hot and cold , they burn up or freeze,, and ,, If they have no preference , there is nothing to direct them, they have no meaning or purpose unto themselves. again IMO ,,,

In the mental stillness of meditation one can find relief though , from the stresses of having biases , and one can see the absurdity of some of their own opinions or sentiments. This aspect of unity therefore may interact with the world of polemics, neither really opposing. The amount of attention one gives to the unity idea or the polemic world varies , and thats all OK too.

[三江源]

.

Edited July 21, 2014 by cat

[Nikolai1]

Hi cat,

 

 

are you able to say more about the liberation from time and space... it sounds as though you are saying that these are concepts.

 

Yes time and space are concepts which structure the world of form; timelessness and spacelessness are also concepts that pertain to emptiness.

 

Liberation from time and space is recognising that all that appears old, for example an old chair, is also, at the same time, a completely fresh perception that is happening now!...and in a flash of a moment won't be happening at all!

 

Liberation is therefore not being taken by just one perspective. It is having the flexibility to see things both ways, and with flexibility comes the ability to choose the one we like the best.

 

Say we drop 100€ on the floor and it flutters away in the wind. We can either view it as an unmixed bad, in which case we'll feel very pissed off. Or, if we are liberated, we are able to see that 5 people are each going to find a €20 noted and feel happy. If we are distant enough from our self-concern we are able to take pleasure in our own misfortune. This is the flexibility that comes from liberation. What is bad is also good - and we can skilfully look for the good in all situations.

 

Liberation from time and space is the greatest liberation of all because it is the intellectual structure that lies behind everything. Every single one of our human anxieties is made from thoughts about time and space. Indeed, every thought is structured by time and space and without thought there is just the present moment. And we all differ in how much we realise just how wonderful and amazing this present moment really is.

 

When we analyse our fears they tend to boil down to fear of future-based physical pain (eg illness), mental pain (eg shame, distress) or death.

 

When we are able to clearly see that these fears are just passing thoughts that will extinguish in a split-second we can no longer take them seriously. The will vanish because they are not believed in. The liberated person has the option to eradicate all his fears simply by focussing on their unreality.

 

On the other hand, thoughts about the future that the liberated person welcomes and consents to can be indulged whole-heartedly. He is free to believe in the reality of his thoughts, 100% if he wants to. If he likes the thoughts of his future, his present will be made happy and confident. He will live as though his future is already assured. And living with this happy confidence will make him feel that the present is the product of a previous desire. He will feel like he willed this moment to happen because it pleases and suits him so well.

 

So just to reiterate, liberation from time and space is being able to see that they are just one-sided interpretations of the present moment. It does not mean that they simply disappear from our life.