Everything is illusion.

[Marblehead]

had your coffee already?! hehehe

Yes, I had just finished my second cup when I made that post.

[effilang]

I don't think anyone has ever "get" there. The Tao is "unborn". How can you get somewhere which does not exist yet?

 

Semantics. You will get "there" through Wu Wei!

 

Awakening to reality requires action and inaction both. It is false to say that no action is required and it is equally false to say that only action is required, but it is also equally false to say that only inaction is required.

 

The application of each depends on the phase of cultivation. There are different firing times.

 

Within the Tai Ji there is action and inaction. If we are pulled-by both sides constantly we will remain within the Tai Ji. To leap out of it and into the Wuji we must overcome both wilful inaction and action all together.

 

In other words, although it is inaction and stillness we are trying to achieve, nothingness. It cannot be achieved through the function of the Zhi Shen or acquired mind.

 

That is why we employ Wu Wei. It is the EFFORTLESS attainment of the state of inaction that brings forth emptiness, and once we become empty, we begin to reflect the emptiness of the Wuji and by doing so connect to it to realize it and us.

Edited August 14, 2013 by effilang

[Marblehead]

Do LZ or Chuang Tzu ever mention the ego.

Not the word, no. The word/concept didn't exist back then. It is a relatively recent creation.

 

However, how we view ourself did exist back then. And yes, Chuang Tzu spoke to this. Can't recall if Lao Tzu did.

[Aaron]

Do LZ or Chuang Tzu ever mention the ego.

 

No they don't. The ego was very much a part of Buddhist thought and you don't find mention of it until around the sixth century when Buddhism began to rise in popularity in China. Also ego is not a 'given' in Taoism. There are no mentions of it or the concept anywhere within the TTC or Chuang Tzu, at least not as the Buddhists tend to see it.

 

There are a few passages regarding self, but they don't reference self as being something inherently wrong or that one needs to be done with self, but rather one should 'diminish' one's self in order to lessen their desires, or that knowing one's self is a sign of true strength. This is vastly different from the Buddhist idea of ego.

 

The issue that arose was that the Chinese did not want to give up one or the other (Buddhism or Taoism) so they chose to interpret things in a way that they could be interchanged in both traditions, regardless of whether they actually were interchangeable or the concepts compatible.

 

Today we find it still occurring in threads like this. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's important to make the separation lest the original teachings of Lao Tzu eventually be forgotten and replaced with the hybridization.

 

NOTE- there are temples that teach only Taoism and avoid Buddhist concepts. If I remember correctly Wudang was one of them.

 

 

Aaron

Edited August 14, 2013 by Aaron

[Aaron]

Semantics. You will get "there" through Wu Wei!

 

Awakening to reality requires action and inaction both. It is false to say that no action is required and it is equally false to say that only action is required, but it is also equally false to say that only inaction is required.

 

The application of each depends on the phase of cultivation. There are different firing times.

 

Within the Tai Ji there is action and inaction. If we are pulled-by both sides constantly we will remain within the Tai Ji.

To leap out of it and into the Wuji we must overcome both wilful inaction and action all together.

 

In other words, although it is inaction and stillness we are trying to achieve, nothingness. It cannot be achieved through the function of the Zhi Shen or acquired mind.

 

That is why we employ Wu Wei. It is the EFFORTLESS attainment of the state of inaction that brings forth emptiness.

And once we become empty, we begin to reflect the emptiness of the Wuji and by doing so connect to it to realize it and us.

 

 

Wu Wei is not the way to emptiness, Wu Wei arises from Te or virtue. It doesn't arise from mindless sitting or contemplation. The simplest definition is that Wu Wei is harmonious action.

 

There's the old proverb about polishing the mirror. In essence there's more to enlightenment than simply sitting and meditating. In particular it requires compassion towards one's fellows, the recognition that all things are equal, and the capacity to live in harmony with one's surroundings. This is grossly simplified of course, there's much more to it than that. At least this is what Lao Tzu teaches.

 

Aaron

Edited August 14, 2013 by Aaron

[Marblehead]

No they don't. The ego was very much a part of Buddhist thought and you don't find mention of it until around the sixth century when Buddhism began to rise in popularity. Also ego is not a 'given' in Taoism. There are no mentions of it or the concept anywhere within the TTC or Chuang Tzu, at least not as the Buddhists tend to see it.

That is not true. You need to read Chuang Tzu first before you start talking about what he said.

 

And BTW You are welcome to join us in the study of The Chuang Tzu.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

There are a few passages regarding self, but they don't reference self as being something inherently wrong or that one needs to be done with self, but rather one should 'diminish' one's self in order to lessen their desires, or that knowing one's self is a sign of true strength. This is vastly different from the Buddhist idea of ego.

I do agree with you here. But remember that Chuang Tzu wrote before Buddhism entered China so to associate the two is redundant.

[Aaron]

"Taoism teaches us that we don't have to believe something just because we've been told it is so. Also there are (literally) thousands of different sects of Taoism, and not all are strictly Taoist in practice, some are heavily influenced by Ch'an, others by Confucianism, others by traditional Chinese practices, and others by all of these combined. I wouldn't tell them they aren't Taoists if they came here and said something that wasn't taught in the Tao Te Ching or Chuang Tzu, but I would mention that it isn't what Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu taught."

 

aaron, well said. i havnt studied any ch'an and if what effi has presented on this thread is ch'an, then i do have some resonance with it. another thread i had a couple of years ago , simple jack and ct said in was ch'an like too. where does the influence come from then? i am thinking from my experience.

 

"A lot of people come here and read these threads to learn more about a specific philosophy,"

yes aaron they do and for those folks i hope they find their way to the ttc and chaung tzu sections. alot of other folks come here without seeking a philosophy, they come seeking taoism. not all taoists are scholarly philosophers.

i used to read ttc and chuang tzu and enjoyed and pondered, i have since put the philosophy away and am experiencing taoisim instead of reading it in a book. from my pov taoism philosophy is excellent to ponder upon and debate the different translators and all and we even have sections here specifically for that exact thing. if this had have been posted in the ttc section or the chaung tzu section, i could understand some of you philosophic purists replying like you have.

but imo you have taken this off topic

 

the title itself >>everything is illusion, altho i agree with it in the context that effi presented it, it is a little bit of a loaded statement. lets get past that part

 

 

No not all Taoists are scholarly professors, but at one time before you could learn Tai Chi or Qigong you had to first learn the basics of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. Over time that diminished, especially when martial arts became about fighting rather than cultivation. Steve talked about this elsewhere, there are a whole lot of traditions and teachers that claim to be Taoist, that have no idea what Taoism actually is. Over the centuries these lineages have deviated so far from Taoism that what they represent today is a mere husk of what they originally were.

 

As far as Ch'an Buddhism, the vast majority of temples in the united states are Ch'an Buddhist. Ch'an Buddhism is the foundation of Zen Buddhism and Bodhidharma plays a very important role in Zen teachings. Ch'an is a bit more orthodox than Zen, but the methods of practice are quite similar.

 

Aaron

[rene]

.

Edited August 15, 2013 by rene

[effilang]

There is a big difference between Spiritual Taoism, Religious Taoism and Philosophical Taoism.

[Aaron]

"Zen" is the way the Japanese pronounce & spell "Ch'an", which is the Chinese spelling.

 

Zen - Ch'an

Tomato - Tomatoe

same same

 

See I never knew that... thanks for sharing.

 

Aaron

[Marblehead]

"Zen" is the way the Japanese pronounce & spell "Ch'an", which is the Chinese spelling.

 

Zen - Ch'an

Tomato - Tomatoe

same same

And speaking of Chan, I watched a Jackie Chan movie last night. The ratings included violence and nudity. Nudity?, I think. Oh Boy!!!

 

Well, I can't even begin to tell you how disappointed I was. It was Jackie who was nude!

[Aaron]

That is not true. You need to read Chuang Tzu first before you start talking about what he said.

 

And BTW You are welcome to join us in the study of The Chuang Tzu.

 

I'm sorry, but it actually is true. I've read the Chaung Tzu and Chaung Tzu references self, but never in the sense of Ego as it's found in Buddhist texts.

 

Aaron

 

edit- I don't do studies anymore, but thank you for the offer.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Aaron

[effilang]

There is a big difference between Spiritual Taoism, Religious Taoism and Philosophical Taoism.

 

Let me expand on this.

 

Philosophical Taoism

You can study 10,000 books and still not be 1 step closer to realizing the Tao.

 

Religious Taoism

You can pray and light incense all you want and still not be 1 step closer to realizing the Tao.

 

Spiritual Taoism

But if you can awaken yourself to reality then you will intrinsically understand the essence of both Religion and Philosophy.

[hydrogen]

Spiritual Taoism

But if you can awaken yourself to reality then you will intrinsically understand the essence of both Religion and Philosophy.

 

I'm waiting for such person to emerge. Second coming of Jesus?

[rene]

.

Edited August 15, 2013 by rene

[effilang]

 

edit- I don't do studies anymore, but thank you for the offer.

 

Too much philosophy and not enough spirituality...

Hopefully you are spending that free time in meditation : /

Edited August 14, 2013 by effilang

[effilang]

I'm waiting for such person to emerge. Second coming of Jesus?

 

They are emerged. Some of them just don't like popularity : )

[Marblehead]

Laozi suggests one temper their desires.

 

That suggestion was later twisted evolved into one should eliminate desires completely, and that the ego was responsible for not being able to do so, so it had to go as well.

Yeah, I didn't want to speak regarding Lao Tzu because his treatment of it was a very light one and it could easily be argued.

 

But I do agree, our desires have roots in our ego. Desires aren't bad, really, if one is in need. It are the excessive desires of wanting more after one has enough that causes one inner conflict.

[Marblehead]

Philosophical Taoism

You can study 10,000 books and still not be 1 step closer to realizing the Tao.

Or you can study no books and already be there.

[Marblehead]

I'm waiting for such person to emerge. Second coming of Jesus?

Hehehe. I'm not going to suggest that the wait might have something to do with freezing and hell.

[Marblehead]

I'm sorry, but it actually is true. I've read the Chaung Tzu and Chaung Tzu references self, but never in the sense of Ego as it's found in Buddhist texts.

But then I didn't say that, did I?

[rene]

.

Edited August 15, 2013 by rene

[Marblehead]

Don't worry about speaking regarding Laozi. I'll help with that when I can.

I don't talk about faith often but I have total faith in that.

[effilang]

I think he means that It was I whom used the word Ego in my OP. But this is the point I've made already, several times.

 

Taoism is not a rigid thing. It's a flowing evolving natural mass of scientific knowledge that grows every time new data is found through diligent investigation of the internal, external, micro and macro environments of our different dimensions.

 

The Daozang is said to consist of over 1000 texts alone. This too is Taoism, even though after the time of LT and CT. Should we discount all the wisdom from there too?

 

Lao Tze or Chuang Tzu may not have used the word "ego", but if you had the chance to sit down at a table with them today and explained to them the modern definition of the word ego, they would sure as hell know exactly what you were talking about.

 

So once again. Stop getting so wrapped up in superficialities and concentrate on the essence.

Edited August 14, 2013 by effilang