The Philosopher's Tao

[三江源]

.

Edited April 20, 2015 by 三江源

[Nikolai1]

Hi cat

 

 

Why or how does this give intellectual peace? Isnt it just broad categorisation? Is the intellect something that is given peace by categorisation? Really that simple?

 

When we see that left is the same as right we are doing something quite miraculous, and it’s not something simple! No object appears to us perceptually as both on the left and right. The mug’s handle is either on the left or the right or neither (the middle) but in any given moment it is never both left and right unless our temporal-spatial senses are supplemented by a kind of vision that is independent of them. This supplementary vision I call spiritual wisdom.

 

Now because we all possess this ability we might be inclined to consider it simple. But we can all kick a ball and that doesn’t mean that the way Lionel Messi kicks a ball is simple. So when our spiritual wisdom is able to transcend the most fundamental categories of our earthly existence, time and space, existence and non-existence, it is something very amazing and not at all simple. What I wish to do with this thread is make clear that the abilities that the great philosophical yogis like Lao Tzu and Buddha demonstrate are amazing elaborations of what we all have and habitually use.

 

Time and space are behind all our notions of what it is to live as a human being. When we have argued them away, then who or what are we? This is realization of our spiritual identity. The wisdom we are using to form the arguments is higher than could possibly belong to any creature in time and space – it is beyond time, space and creature.

 

Every conceivable calamity requires time and space to make sense. So what happens when calamity no longer makes sense? To call this state intellectual peace is misleading – intellectual peace is the sense of knowing that we get when solving an arithmetic puzzle. Often we know we’re right before we press ‘equals’ on the calculator. But the peace that comes with high philosophical insight is simultaneously emotional, physical and spiritual. Our bodies and our feelings are, themselves, constructs based on time and space. When we see the fundamental unreality of our bodies and emotions – how can they continue to disturb our peace?

 

 

And it doesnt cancel out the possibility of other types of emotional under nourishment that could ensue from intellectuality taking up a position of dominance within the spectrum of what it means to be a human.. does it.

 

 

Yes, emotional undernourishment can and does often characterise that kind of intelligent person that has achieved success in some areas but is still one-sided and dogmatic on higher questions. They tend to assume their intellect understands when it doesn’t. For a person to be like that one would assume that they have good reason to have so much faith in their intellect. In the modern world many people can achieve intellectual recognition in their education and work, and come to think of themselves as globally intelligent people, when actually their successes are confined to quite a low level and completely inadequate in some areas.

 

The spiritual philosopher may not even have these razor sharp abilities that are so effective in the world. But their intelligence is accompanied by a kind of integrity, a constant self-reflection that prevents them from getting stuck at a lower level and constantly impels them onwards. They are constantly dissatisfied with their intellect and their skepticism may seem so extreme as to look like nihilism. Before the breakthroughs come they might despair that truth can be found and espouse quite anti-intellectual viewpoints – narratives that are quite common in religious people who have not allowed their wisdom to fully ripen. It is only with this ripening that the emotional under-nourishment disappears.

 

 

How about the heart and the body and the emotions? Are they all informed fully by the intellect? where does instinct come into this for example? What about the unconscious?

 

As I wrote earlier, the mental life of the philosopher simplifies as insight increases – wisdom is a catharsis of illusory anxieties, and as you dispose of one you dispose of a whole host that are of the same genus. What is true for coffee cups is true for saucepans.

 

Anxieties that would once have engaged thoughts, emotions and feelings no longer engage any of them.

 

But if an anxiety does arise then head and heart and body are implicated. The three arise together -until insight comes, and then all three pass away together.

 

As the philosopher’s mental landscape becomes simplified, he is therefore living more and more without intellectual or bodily feedback. This is living by instinct, as you put it. I know I’ve talked a lot about the philosopher’s two-sided understanding offering him options. This does not mean that he actually mentally deliberates over these options. But the opening up of the options by insight means that he is no longer compelled to act according to his former unconscious and unreflective beliefs – he acts according to something more adequate but just as instinctual, and we can call this mysterious guide the Tao, or God.

 

If he is mentally deliberating over his options then that means that he is lacking insight, and then his body and feelings will be operating also – as with any anxious person. As the philosopher grows in insight, and his mind becomes clearer, he will be aware that anxieties that need to be overcome will be felt in the body as much as the mind. But he must resolve them in the way that best suits his nature. As he grows in wisdom these final challenges can be very powerful and really turn his world upside down.

 

You asked also about the unconscious. It’s hard for me to know what you mean by this. All I would say is that as the philosopher’s identity becomes less individualized he would cease to think that his thoughts arise from some kind of repository within him. A thought would be a fresh new event in the Now, and not an arising from an enduring unconscious complex. Or, if there is some kind of reservoir for thoughts, then it would be a reservoir available to us all collectively. Ultimately, notions of self and others are not attached to, in which case the unconscious would be conceptualised as nothing more or less than the Tao – the mysterious void from which all thoughts and things come. I hope this answers your question but you perhaps guessed from the above what I would make of the unconscious.

 

Best wishes

[三江源]

.

Edited April 20, 2015 by 三江源

[Aaron]

Nikolai1,

 

Your thoughts are all fine, but I want to point out that what you're talking about here has nothing to do with Taoism, at least not the thoughts of Lao Tzu or even Chuang Tzu, rather you have a conglomerate of ideas that mishmash various Eastern traditions and attempts to merge them all under the banner of Taoism. I see a lot of people doing that on this forum and that's fine, if it works for you, but in my opinion much of what you said is false and has no basis on actual Taoist philosophy. I'll try to be brief in my reply, but keep in mind I have the tendency to be verbose.

 

First you say, "Philosophical Taoism is all about removing the mental clutter from our minds." That's not true, actually philosophical Taoism is about learning to live in harmony with ones surroundings, nothing more, nothing less. It is in developing this harmony that one attains peace of mind, but that doesn't necessarily mean one doesn't have thoughts or ideas, mental clutter as you put it, but rather that one develops a way of living that is beneficial to their fellows, rather than harmful.

 

Second you make the following statements, "First, that a concept of reality is not the same as reality. Second, that this insight affords us emotional tranquility and third, that the gaining of this insight spiritualises our consciousness and makes us less earth bound than we had been." Lao Tzu teaches that one can never really conceptualize reality, in other words the Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao. Yes we may come to a better understanding of our place within the vastness of reality, but no one can ever truly understand Tao, it is unfathomable and unreachable, we can only understand the way tao works within us and around us, but never Tao. (Note tao and Tao are different things, as someone who understand Taoism I'll take it on faith you recognize the differences between the two.) Also your notion that insight affords us emotional tranquility and somehow makes us less "earth bound" is contrary to what Lao Tzu was teaching as well, in fact this understanding makes us more grounded in the reality that surrounds us, because we understand that reality on an innate and intuitive level.

 

I also have issues with your statement that you will "discuss some of these big questions and hopefully help, if not to show the truth, but to show that what we once thought is not the truth." My problem is that the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu both warn against the truth, because the truth is an absolute and the first thing one learns is that absolutism fills your cup to the brim, once you know the "truth" you can learn nothing more, because you've already learned everything you need to. In essence we are supposed to understand that the truth is relative, in other words how great is the difference between "eh" and "oh"? Must I believe what others believe?

 

I find it very indicative of your own capacity for understanding that you make the claim that "The Qi Gong master is a master of feeling, a master of feeling directly and deeply the power of the eternal." My issue is that you are obviously not a Qi Gong master and your claim here is purely subjective. I'm assuming that most of what your stating in your assertions is conjecture as well, since it clearly shows a lack of understanding of the basic principles of philosophical Tao. First there is no such thing as philosophical Tao since the Tao can not be understood and trying to understand it is impractical and impossible to realize. Second, Taoism is steeped in superstitions and religion, whether others accept it or not, we as readers choose to delineate the "truth" from the "false", but clearly Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu were both theists who had a clear knowledge of traditional Chinese religious beliefs of their times. In fact the notion of the sage itself speaks not of the normal every day man, but the mythological sage kings, sage kings that have never been proven to actually exist, at least not in the context in which Lao Tzu presents them.

 

As far as the straw dog is concerned, you made no mention of it, but I wanted to clarify exactly what the passage meant so that you aren't confused by the rhetoric going on in this thread, it actually means that the sage treats all things equally, in this way he'll help free the fox from a trap just as he would the boy from the well.

 

So in closing, I would suggest that you study the Tao Te Ching a bit more and that, before you begin to present your own ideas as Taoism, or even the truth, you at least understand the very basic teachings of Taoism.

 

The Tao Te Ching is a very short book. It takes the average man (or woman) less than two hours to read. I would suggest you read it several times, if not hundreds and as you read it keep in mind that knowledge for the sake of knowledge is worthless, thus philosophy is the antithesis of what Lao Tzu was advocating, rather it was a move away from philosophy and strict dogma and more towards inner and outward harmony.

 

Aaron

 

edit- For some reason when I was revising for grammar and spelling this part was deleted, so I added it to the main text. It happened to be the part about the straw dog.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Aaron

[Nikolai1]

Hi cat – yes great idea. But before I do that I would just like to say something about philosophy and the process of transformation. Hopefully it will become obvious why I write this now.

 

We are all wise in some situations and not others, and are able to demonstrate qualities of transcendent wisdom variably. We can imagine ourselves as having a ‘high-water mark’ of wisdom which is our greatest possible demonstration. If a parent is willing to sacrifice their life for the sake of their child then they demonstrate, practically speaking, the wisdom of the Christ – albeit in a very specific situation.

 

When the philosopher realizes the timelessness of time, or the spacelessness of space he is becoming conscious of the highest understanding that we can make intellectually. But even though he is conscious of it, it is still at this stage just a high-water mark of the understanding.

 

Speaking personally, this insight came to me in deep meditation. It was only a brief glimpse, and that it radically affected my intellectual life was obvious even the next day, but it was a brief glimpse gained in a situation radically divorced from my everyday life of work, relationships and children. The rest of me had to catch up. Maybe an analogy will help…

 

Imagine an army, 100 strong, completely lost in the forest, starving, cold and being plagued by mosquitoes. They have no idea if there any towns any further north than here, but they send a scout ahead because it is their only chance for survival. The scout goes on ahead and after three days alone finds a town where there is food, bars and lodgings in plenty and a lakeside breeze to ward off the mosquitoes. He communicates his find on the radio, and every soldier hears the news in their earpiece. Even though the 99 are still suffering identical (indeed worsening) hardships as they were before the good news, their final three days in the forest are endured in a completely different spirit.

 

The philosopher who has had the brief glimpse is like the army. He now has to make the sanctuary a reality for his whole 100 strong self, and not just one part of him. His transformation is therefore both sudden and gradual: sudden because the hope and certainty of liberation shall permanently lighten his every hardship, but gradual because he still has to continue with his life with his glimpse as his only guide. He has to make every moment an enlightenment moment, and the journey he will take depends on who is as a person. But all people start with the easy stuff.

 

I remember doing my regular walk near my home in Salisbury and walking past some massive houses in my village, mansions practically and with Mercs and Jags parked outside. I remember thinking: whether I am stood here outside the gate, or inside as the owner…life feels exactly the same, life IS exactly the same. I was able to take this perspective because I had become able to see the truth of each moment prior to our thoughts. If we are to think about it, it seems obviously better to have the wealth, power and status of the mansion dweller. But because I could see that my life is the same is his, I was cured of the envy, acquisitiveness and selfishness that it would take to transform my circumstances into his.

 

But, this was the first fruit and it came easily and effortlessly. Even though before, I would, along with everyone else, have liked a great house and car, it was not a deep part of my ego – my desires for them were probably adopted from society rather than coming from myself. Some spiritual searchers, be-robed and sat high on the dais, would have to fight their love of status until the bitter end, but for me it came easily because it was not deep-rooted. I therefore demonstrated the virtue of non-acquisitiveness, but almost by luck – an accident of birth. My philosophical insight was starting to purify me, but firstly of that which hardly tainted me.

 

As we carry on, we learn that some of our fears and desires are resolved by our former philosophical insight only with long and protracted struggle. We do not consistently believe that our life is well in the Now…often we find the suggestion that we would be just as happy without our heart’s desire cold and excessively philosophical. But at the same time, we know the importance of our brief glimpse of liberation and it gives us the hope that we will be able to resolve it all satisfactorily. We hope that we know, we will soon learn to feel also.

 

Some of you might ask…why don’t you just follow your bliss, follow your desires? Well so often we can! But very often we can see that following our desires is going to create situations that we fear. Why don’t you therefore face up to your fears? Well often we do! But then we find that facing our fears will cause pain to those who don’t deserve it. If we are afraid of losing our children, we don’t walk out on them just in order to face up to our fears!

 

The deeper the desire, that is, the more fundamentally we as egos believe we need something, the less likely it is to yield to very high, very abstract philosophical insight. In these situations, philosophical insight can serve as a beacon of hope, but in terms of how to act now, we must use our heart and our conscience as our guide. We know from experience the universal peace and profit that comes from true understanding, and if is that not forthcoming then you can take that as a sign that you are not ready to act. Readiness to act is a whole readiness: of intellect, feeling and emotion and the consequences will always please you.

 

So the philosopher is in a situation where he has become conscious of the highest understandings possible, but then finds that his access to this understanding in his heart is variable to say the least.

 

There is also another problem for the philosopher, a problem also instigated by the moment of his highest insight. He finds that he is no longer able to consciously will his own spiritual development. Every time he reaches for the manual in the hope of a profitable idea or technique to use, he finds that he can coldly and clinically dismantle the purpose of it with philosophical analysis. He cannot consciously identify what he needs to do, because consciously he has reached purity already…it is in the darkness of his heart then he is still impure.

 

From now on, profitable spiritual episodes must come to him inadvertently, when he least expects it. He will find that life alone is able to press his blindest, tenderest spots and mercilessly expose them. He has gone as far as his philosophical path can take him and for the rest he must hand himself over to the Tao – which shall set the curriculum from now on.

 

The philosopher who has gained the highest insight is therefore no longer a philosopher as far as his spiritual path is concerned. He must proceed by other means: the true philosopher is therefore no philosopher.

 

Before the highest insight comes, it may be well be possible that the philosopher does not see himself as a spiritual seeker at all, but rather as a seeker of truth. When problems arise in his life it is in his nature to delve and delve until he finds what he considers the root cause of the problem. His inability to remember all the household tasks that his wife wants him to do might well be bloody-mindedness to her, but to him a problem of time, memory and free will. Exasperating as this may be, this is his distinctive way. It is only when understanding comes, and this is the understanding that the question was in error, that his real world behaviour is likely to improve.

 

I say all this because the spiritual philosopher before insight sees himself as just an everyday mortal, and the questions he asks are therefore about everyday mortal life. Because he does not see himself as spiritual, the questions he asks appear perfectly secular. There are many philosophical people, and few reach the heights of philosophical insight. But in all these people philosophy is a means of intellectual, moral and emotional growth as well as a key to the peace that attends these states (since Greek times there has been the term ataraxia for the positive state of mind that philosophy engenders)

 

There is no prescribed path to truth – all we have is people living their lives and encountering difficulties. It is the conscious understanding and thence resolution of these difficulties that constitutes spiritual growth.

 

Cat, in light of this what kind of an example would you like to discuss. Are you interested in the philosopher who has attained the highest insight and is struggling to realise it, or the philosopher is still searching?

 

Best wishes

[Nikolai1]

Hi Aaron,

 

 

It is in developing this harmony that one attains peace of mind, but that doesn't necessarily mean one doesn't have thoughts or ideas, mental clutter as you put it, but rather that one develops a way of living that is beneficial to their fellows, rather than harmful.

 

Yes I couldn't agree more! I am pointing out that one-sided viewpoints lead us into conflict with others, and that philosophy is a way of turning one-sided views into even balanced views. To have a balanced view is to understand your interlocutor and when you understand them you cannot argue with them. Thus comes the harmony with your surroundings that you define as the aim of Taoism.

 

And you are right that thoughts and ideas are always a necessary complement to our perceptual life. Thought only presents a spiritual block when we take them as real and fixed facts, and cannot see that any given fact is also not a fact.

 

 

Second you make the following statements, "First, that a concept of reality is not the same as reality. Second, that this insight affords us emotional tranquility and third, that the gaining of this insight spiritualises our consciousness and makes us less earth bound than we had been." Lao Tzu teaches that one can never really conceptualize reality,

 

You do well to pick me up on this, but I hope that elsewhere on the thread I have made it clear that wisdom is seeing that a concept is both a concept and a thing in itself, or neither, or in any situation one or the other.

 

Talking about spiritual realisation is a real tight-rope because whatever you say is a crime. Most people come with the worldview of an independently existing earth- such people need to be told about heaven. Then people who still believe in truth take the emptiness of heaven as the truth, and need to be disavowed of this. I could make every sentence as comprehensively true as possible, but this would result in paradox that either confuses people, or it allows people to simply extract the half that makes sense and then disregard the rest.

 

One wonders if one should stay silent. But Lao-tzu didn't, and nor did Chuang-tzu and neither do you.

 

So I'm content to speak, and those that understand me shall, and those that don't shall tell me to stop. From my part, I can only try the best I can to talk about my path and my experience.

 

 

Also your notion that insight affords us emotional tranquility and somehow makes us less "earth bound" is contrary to what Lao Tzu was teaching as well,

 

I've never suggested that we start living some other place!. To be earthbound is to be intellectually chained to the concepts that make up the earth. Time and space are the most fundamental of these, as are self and world. Earth and all that happens upon it are just ideas to be tossed around in the palm of the wise person. And yet he stays exactly here...living his life - on earth if that's what you still wish to call it.

 

 

My problem is that the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu both warn against the truth, because the truth is an absolute and the first thing one learns is that absolutism fills your cup to the brim, once you know the "truth" you can learn nothing more,

 

All valid concerns. And I am trying to show how philosophy can clear the path towards knowing absolute truth. The thing is of course, that the absolute truth is nothing that you can think about, say, or in anyway grab hold of. To have your cup to the brim is to have a viewpoint that blocks out alternative viewpoints. Once you have seen that "what is isn't" then there is no more one-sided viewpoints you can possibly hold. This absolute truth will never fill your cup so don't be afraid of it just because I'm so audacious as to call it truth.

 

 

First there is no such thing as philosophical Tao since the Tao can not be understood and trying to understand it is impractical and impossible to realize.

 

All that goes under the name of Taoism from Tai Chi to magic ceremonies, through alchemy and philosophical dispute are all attempts to reveal the Tao to the person, and allow him to live the Way. The philosopher is not actually trying to understand the Tao...he is trying to understand the world. And it is by gradually stripping away his intellectual attachment to the ways of the world that the Tao is revealed to him lying beneath it all. Thus he realises is what he was searching for all along...when we read a book like the Chuang-tzu you see that he too was not a man fond of extravagant mystical speculation...he simply found it amusing to dismantle all the strange notions that people have in their heads. This is typical of the philosopher.

 

Thanks for your post, it was so full of objections that I couldn't address them all...but if there is something I've missed that you view as especially important please do point it out

 

Best wishes

[Marblehead]

So I'm content to speak, and those that understand me shall, and those that don't shall tell me to stop.

I would never tell you to stop. I am sure you have many good things to say and perhaps there will even be things you say that will help others along their journey.

 

As this thread is in General Discussions I have no problem with the way you are working your thread. I just wish you could have found a better title for your thread than "Philosophical Tao" because the majority of what you are saying is not Philosophical Tao.

 

But sure, you go! Cat appears to be very interested in what you are saying and perhaps there will be others as well. If it helps someone it is good.

[Aaron]

Hi Aaron,

 

 

 

Yes I couldn't agree more! I am pointing out that one-sided viewpoints lead us into conflict with others, and that philosophy is a way of turning one-sided views into even balanced views. To have a balanced view is to understand your interlocutor and when you understand them you cannot argue with them. Thus comes the harmony with your surroundings that you define as the aim of Taoism.

 

And you are right that thoughts and ideas are always a necessary complement to our perceptual life. Thought only presents a spiritual block when we take them as real and fixed facts, and cannot see that any given fact is also not a fact.

 

 

 

You do well to pick me up on this, but I hope that elsewhere on the thread I have made it clear that wisdom is seeing that a concept is both a concept and a thing in itself, or neither, or in any situation one or the other.

 

Talking about spiritual realisation is a real tight-rope because whatever you say is a crime. Most people come with the worldview of an independently existing earth- such people need to be told about heaven. Then people who still believe in truth take the emptiness of heaven as the truth, and need to be disavowed of this. I could make every sentence as comprehensively true as possible, but this would result in paradox that either confuses people, or it allows people to simply extract the half that makes sense and then disregard the rest.

 

One wonders if one should stay silent. But Lao-tzu didn't, and nor did Chuang-tzu and neither do you.

 

So I'm content to speak, and those that understand me shall, and those that don't shall tell me to stop. From my part, I can only try the best I can to talk about my path and my experience.

 

 

 

I've never suggested that we start living some other place!. To be earthbound is to be intellectually chained to the concepts that make up the earth. Time and space are the most fundamental of these, as are self and world. Earth and all that happens upon it are just ideas to be tossed around in the palm of the wise person. And yet he stays exactly here...living his life - on earth if that's what you still wish to call it.

 

 

 

All valid concerns. And I am trying to show how philosophy can clear the path towards knowing absolute truth. The thing is of course, that the absolute truth is nothing that you can think about, say, or in anyway grab hold of. To have your cup to the brim is to have a viewpoint that blocks out alternative viewpoints. Once you have seen that "what is isn't" then there is no more one-sided viewpoints you can possibly hold. This absolute truth will never fill your cup so don't be afraid of it just because I'm so audacious as to call it truth.

 

 

 

All that goes under the name of Taoism from Tai Chi to magic ceremonies, through alchemy and philosophical dispute are all attempts to reveal the Tao to the person, and allow him to live the Way. The philosopher is not actually trying to understand the Tao...he is trying to understand the world. And it is by gradually stripping away his intellectual attachment to the ways of the world that the Tao is revealed to him lying beneath it all. Thus he realises is what he was searching for all along...when we read a book like the Chuang-tzu you see that he too was not a man fond of extravagant mystical speculation...he simply found it amusing to dismantle all the strange notions that people have in their heads. This is typical of the philosopher.

 

Thanks for your post, it was so full of objections that I couldn't address them all...but if there is something I've missed that you view as especially important please do point it out

 

Best wishes

 

 

Nokolai1,

 

You seem to miss the point I'm making. The first is that you're not teaching Taoism here, but a hybrid form of Buddhism/Vedanta. If what you're teaching is actually Taoism, then please cite your sources and I will be the first to say, "Wow this is Taoism!" I've been reading the Tao Te Ching for over 20 years, meditating for nearly all of that time and I can not see any similarity in what you're talking about and what the Tao Te Ching says. If you had read the Tao Te Ching you would know that everything I've said comes directly from that text, without adulteration. There are many practices attributed to Taoism that have nothing to do with the Tao Te Ching or Chuang Tzu. Simply saying that something is Taoism doesn't make it so.

 

I'm not here to argue with you or shut you up, just to clarify exactly what Taoism is and how your ideas are not Taoism. You explain your ideas coherently, but what you're talking about isn't new or even revealing, it's been addressed before on this site, its just never been called Tao (or Taoism). I think the issue you have is that, as I said, you're defining something according to how you've had it defined to you.

 

If you had posted this under the title "My Philosophical Beliefs" or even "The Importance of Philosophy" I wouldn't be here right now, I'd have skipped to some other thread. I don't post often, so when I do, I do it because I see the need to post. The need in this incident is to ensure that someone who might not understand what Taoism is, doesn't confuse it with what you're teaching.

 

As for absolute truths, there is no such thing. Taoism teaches us this. There are ideas and notions, but the truth is relative. So perhaps the only absolute "truth" is that there isn't an absolute "truth". Again, the Tao Te Ching is very clear on this notion.

 

If you are going to continue to claim that what you're teaching is Taoism, then please feel free to cite your sources. I can concede that your ideas have a limited similarity to the teachings of Hua Hu Ching, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the Tao Te Ching.

 

Aaron

Edited August 13, 2013 by Aaron

[Aaron]

and.. the wiki page explaining ataraxia suggests that one also visit the page for

 

Quingjing Jing transl. as:

Scripture of Purity, Tranquillity, Clarity and Stillness.

 

qing 清 "pure; clean; clear; fresh; cool; distinct; clarified; quiet; peaceful"

 

jing 靜 "still; motionless; static; silent; quiet; peaceful; calm; tranquil"

 

and jing 經 "(fabric) warp; scripture; canon; classic".

 

Kunio Miura explains,

In Standard Chinese usage, qingjing 清靜 means "quiet; tranquil; serene (surroundings, etc.)" and qingjing 清淨 means "tranquil; clean and pure; (Buddhism) purified of defiling illusion, not bothered by material concerns".

 

These Daoist keywords are guan 觀 "scrutiny; careful observation; insight meditation; contemplation",

 

qing 清 "clarity; purity; cleanliness",

 

and jing 靜 "stillness; quiet; calm; tranquility".

 

Kohn summarizes the Qingjing jing.

 

 

You forgot to add the part where it says, "When qingjing 清淨 (clarity and purity) is used, however, there is ample room for considering a Buddhist influence."

 

Hence my argument that what he's teaching isn't Taoist at all, but a hybridization of Buddhism under the guise of Taoism.

 

Aaron

[thelerner]

Hmnn, instead of naming the thread philosophical Taoism, it could be called- Philosophical ytH&*k and it'd still be worthwhile and get less flack. I find his concept on concepts worthwhile and approachable. Seems remarkably dogma free to me.

[Marblehead]

I find his concept on concepts worthwhile and approachable. Seems remarkably dogma free to me.

That's why I don't have a problem with the thread. Just the title.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

I think I understand that:

The philosopher is one who can see the sameness of both conflict and cooperation.

It is from philosophy that one moves on to something... more... and can bring cooperation out of conflict.


Both Aaron and Nikolai propose perfectly valid standpoints from completely removed perspectives.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

To say that one is or is not teaching something or anything is absurd - the mere act of reflecting light off oneself is an emission of something that will be received. if that reception is acknowledged, it is learned, insomuch as to say that you are realizing it.

Philosophy is a root, leading to many different branches of thought and schooling thereof


ANY philosophical thought that leads one to research an established religion can be considered a philosophical /religious/.

Philosophical Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Christianity, I don't care. its philosophical if you are not established as a member of that particular schooling.

So what Nikolai says is essentially true, from his own philosophical perspective. And I cannot help but validate it from my own understanding of the semantics.


However, if he were to call it Taoism, it would both betray Taoism and Tao. Aaron's understanding of the history and records is more valid in making any claim pertaining to actual Taoism.

So the semantics tend to get in the way of the more important issues... which is not upsetting, since that is where most minds focus, the easiest place to grasp.


The pre-philosophers.

So arguing semantics tends to exemplify, untangle, rectangle, tie, untie, and otherwise point out the knots of the semantic focus...

Some people move on to philosophize, others keep the argument going.
And occasionally the "graduate-philosophers" razz people with their presence.



edit: thereofl fixed.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Northern Avid Judo Ant

[Nikolai1]

Hi all,

 

First of all, I wouldn’t try to claim that I’m offering some kind of pure-bred Taoist product here. But I am saying that philosophical thought is relevant to the spiritual search, and I’m also saying that this makes it relevant to some Taoists. But we are on a Taoist site, and I hear what you are saying, so I will try and make sure that I relate what I’m saying to works like the Tao Te Ching.

 

But to continue...

 

We’ve talked a lot about notions like emptiness/heaven as it contrasts with the world of form/earth, and the importance of the ability to see things from either perspective. As with everything else, both perspectives are fully known to us already and to learn emptiness is not to learn anything new and exotic. But I can explain this further:

 

Imagine you are looking at a tree. You close your ideas for 5 seconds, think about ice cream, and then open them again. We are looking at the tree again. We believe that the tree continued to exist, even while our eyes were closed and our attention was elsewhere, and that it is the same tree we return to. This is the belief in the world of form, of independently existing objects in a world outside of ourselves.

 

Now imagine you are thinking of ice cream. You open your eyes and look at the tree for five seconds, and then return to your thoughts of ice cream. In this case we believe that the second thought of ice cream was a completely new thought, although on the same theme. The first thought ceased and became non-existent, was replaced by our awareness of the tree, which in turn was replaced by a new thought about ice cream. This is the belief in the world of emptiness, of ephemeral and transient flashes of consciousness that pass in a moment and are replaced by the next.

 

Perceptions (of trees) and thoughts (of ice cream) both behave similarly as far as consciousness is concerned. Perceptions are constantly transforming as we look at the top of the tree, then the bottom, then the side – each view entirely unique. Thoughts too are constantly transforming, as they shift from chocolate ice cream to strawberry and then back again. In terms of behaviour, a thought and a perception are indistinguishable. They are both things that come and then in a flash are replaced.

 

But for some reason we believe that a thought is empty of anything but the briefest existence, while a perception is a reflection of something objectively real – something unchanging that exists independently of our roving perceptions.

 

This is the illusion that chains us to the world. This is the illusion that makes us believe that there is an inner subjective realm of thought, and an outer objective world of independently existing objects.

 

Liberation come when we see that thoughts and perceptions are both the same. They are both the same by being just items of awareness. Things come and in a flash are transformed.

 

When thoughts and perceptions are made the same, we are free to interchange how we understand them. A thought can be viewed as something ephemeral or as something eternal that passes in and out of awareness; a perception can be viewed as a reflection of something real, or as something dreamy like a thought.

 

Our view of ourselves as individuals is entirely based on the belief in our own subjective experience- the realm of thought.

 

But when we see that the outside world also passes before our ‘eyes’ as something ephemeral and transient we are no longer able to believe in the distinction between object and subject. Who we actually are seems to contain both thoughts and perceptions and by being neither transcends both. Just as the mug handle is neither left nor right, but in a sense both, and by being so, neither…so are we both subject and object, and therefore neither subject nor object.

 

Just as it takes a certain spiritual vision to be able to see that the handle might also be on the other side, so too does it take a certain vision to be able to see that thoughts pass into awareness and transform, just as perceptions come into awareness and are constantly transforming.

 

This is the hard problem of spiritual philosophy. We do not realise we’re doing it, but we are constantly living through our beliefs. We believe that we are subjects in an objective world, and that belief shapes everything we do and think before we can do anything about it. We live blindly and we are so blind that we don’t realise that there is an alternative way to see things. It is only when we first truly see that we are not our thoughts or our perceptions that we are free and are circumstances can improve.

 

This is a fundamental and crucial spiritual vision that is emphasised in all religious traditions. Jesus tells us in the Gospel of St Thomas “When you make the two one, and when you make the inside as the outside, and the outside as the inside…then shall you enter the kingdom”

 

Buddha advises us in the Diamond Sutra: “Thus shall ye think of all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream; A flash of lightning in a summer cloud, A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream”

 

And in everybody’s favourite the Tao Te Ching we are told immediately in Ch 1 to see the Tao equally, whether in thought or perception “So, as ever hidden, we should look at the inner aspect/ As always manifest, we should look at the outer aspects/ These two flow from the same source though differently named”

 

Until we have seen how the subjective world and the objective world are from a common source, the notion The Tao, God - cannot possibly occur to us.

 

I’ve treated this subject pretty briefly considering its importance but it might be a good time to stop and make sure that I’ve been able to make myself understood.

 

Best wishes guys

[rene]

..

Edited August 15, 2013 by rene

[Aaron]

And in everybody’s favourite the Tao Te Ching we are told immediately in Ch 1 to see the Tao equally, whether in thought or perception “So, as ever hidden, we should look at the inner aspect/ As always manifest, we should look at the outer aspects/ These two flow from the same source though differently named”

 

I just want to point out that you've misunderstood this passage. Yes we should look for the mystery of mysteries, but this mystery isn't Tao, but the bellows, spring, spirit of the feminine (force of creation) between heaven and earth, a product of Tao. In essence we look for the connection we hold within the source of all things and by understanding this connection we understand our own connection to all things. Just my two cents.

 

Aaron

[rene]

.

Edited August 15, 2013 by rene

[Marblehead]

Now imagine you are thinking of ice cream.

 

Well, someone must have eaten the freakin' ice cream because I opened my eyes and it's now gone.

[rene]

.

Edited August 15, 2013 by rene

[Apech]

I think this thread should be called The Tao of Philosophy which would allow almost anything (in a way) rather than Philosophical Tao which implies a limitation.

[thetaoiseasy]

.

Edited March 24, 2014 by thetaoiseasy

[Apech]

I attended a 3-hour lecture by a renowned professor. The lecture focused on a single word: Tao He admitted that it was "big topic, small work," in that it was the most difficult lecture he could possibly give, as a scholar -- and even more so, as a scholar cultivator. For the implications of "Tao" span far beyond "Tao" as in Taoism. The meaning and usage of the word "Tao" is deeply entrenched in the three major schools--Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, all which use it in different contexts--and trickles into medicine, politics, and even cooking. Ten minutes in the lecture, however, I started drawing cute cartoons on my notebook and eating the big bag of Combos I brought with me. I can't stand listening to other people talk...well, besides myself, of course.

 

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

^ slight off-topic comment...

 

 

That's the Tao of snacks.

[Jadespear]

What is the spiritual path? That's the real question.

 

The word philosopher comes from ancient greek... meaning "one who loves wisdom." From what I take to mean, "one who loves to understand."

 

So the spiritual path is not separate from the other paths most of us have no choice following... like working for a living, like having sex, like creating something we love. Only a philosopher attempts to understand them and make a general statement about the truth inherent in all of them, as his version of what is true.....which is why all philosophers mostly do is argue with one another using their logic and reason.... and then you have "spiritual scientists" people who discover phenomenon and label them...like taoists scientists living in China calling some sort of energy "chi"

 

...Life itself is the spiritual path. We are all behooved to understand ourselves, our world, each other, and all the mysteries of the universe. And we have figured out many of them already.

[Marblehead]

Excellent comments.

 

On occasion (not too often) I get called "spiritual" or "mystical" but I do not accept those labels. I have my own labels. One of them is "Philosophical". Yes, understanding reality as my senses and brain have evolved is important to me. The universe and life in general are wonderful enough on their own. I don't need to be adding anything to them. But I really do try to gain a true understanding of it all.

[三江源]

.

Edited April 20, 2015 by 三江源