The Compassionate Daoist vs. the Compassionate buddhist

[doc benway]

^{Nature has no compassion , it doesnt care one whit whether every human or microbe disappears ,.}

^{Humans on the other hand have concerns and can try to intentionally address them , but}

^{What we call 'harm' is a subjective assessment ( whether it is a predictable equation or not. )}

I have a different perspective.

I think that nature does have very deep, in fact infinite compassion and it is expressed in our very life and breath.

Life is the vehicle through which that compassion becomes manifest, particularly human life.

Yes, there is pain and yes, there is death and suffering but that does not negate the presence of compassion.

At least that's what I'm feeling lately... stick around, it could change!

[Stosh]

I have a different perspective.

I think that nature does have very deep, in fact infinite compassion and it is expressed in our very life and breath.

Life is the vehicle through which that compassion becomes manifest, particularly human life.

Yes, there is pain and yes, there is death and suffering but that does not negate the presence of compassion.

At least that's what I'm feeling lately... stick around, it could change!

Ok , but the compassion is yours , it lives in you. IMO

And I think its important to recognize that , because it implies that you have a 'say'.

That you or I have the ability to modify the impact of the world on us.

BUT If you see it as manifest through you I can see that as well , because compassion is

clearly a possibility within the universe , same as life itself is. Tao allows for it to BE.

[doc benway]

Ok , but the compassion is yours , it lives in you. IMO

Agreed, and in every living thing. Not that we can necessarily recognize it as such as we are limited to human experience. And I acknowledge that for some it will be a stretch to make that leap and that's fine. Just my perspective gleaned through my life experience.

 

 

And I think its important to recognize that , because it implies that you have a 'say'.

Perhaps - as we've discussed in other threads, I tend to look at "me" as being that characteristic of my thought process that assumes the mantle of "me" and is convinced that it is the doer and the thinker. In my own practice and experience, I haven't been able to find that me, aside from the recurring thought that tells me it is so....

 

 

That you or I have the ability to modify the impact of the world on us.

It certainly seems that way. But again, where's the me? I feel the me may be nothing more than an observer and a narrator. I can't prove that nor do I think there's any need to but my practice and experience has brought me to this conclusion. And I'm open to the possibility that I'm completely wrong.

 

 

 

BUT If you see it as manifest through you I can see that as well , because compassion is

clearly a possibility within the universe , same as life itself is. Tao allows for it to BE.

Exactly, we are on the same page here.

 

The universe, the mind, God, Buddha-nature, Eric Cartman,... whatever labels you want to use, manifests through me and I'm observing and narrating that experience to my self. And I'm not equating the paths here (as some like to accuse me), the paths are all unique. But whatever it is that the credible paths are guiding us towards is what I'm refering to. So Daoism is about acknowledging and experiencing that process of Dao acting through us without the interference of the "me" that can't be found but does so much damage... A delightful mystery!

 

Maybe I should have subtituted Wu Wei for Daoism above... but hopefully I'm communicating my thoughts clearly.

[Marblehead]

You guys are being very compassionate in your discussion so far. I like that.

[ChiDragon]

Sorry, I'm waiting for an answer to my question first...

If humans are not a direct manifestation of Nature, what are we?

 

 

Before it is worthwhile to consider how are actions relate to Nature, we need to establish what we are relative to Nature.

 

Edited for grammar

 

Good question. I'll let Lao Tze answer this one. In the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tze was always using four entities in his illustrations. The four entities are, Human, Earth, Heaven and Tao.

 

Human follows Earth,

Earth follows Heaven,

Heaven follows Tao,

Tao follows its natural self.

 

LaoTze had made human as the point of perspective of an observer for Nature. As far as Lzo Tze was concern, Earth and Heaven is the Universe. For that being said, Lao Tze had made human as a separated entity from Nature in order for him to explain his philosophy about Wu Wei. From the beginning to the end, human is always following Tao. The action of Tao is being natural to everything, thus human follows whatever is natural which is Nature.

 

In regarding to your comment about "harm"

So I'd like to add, ChiDragon, that the problem I have with your definition of Wu Wei is the invocation of "harm." Once you bring that into it, you are making value judgements and Nature doesn't do that. There is plenty of harm in nature. It's all a matter of perspective. When the lion eats a gazelle, to the lion there is no harm done but it's different for a gazelle. If a baby falls in the river and you and I aren't there to save it you can bet the mom has been deeply harmed. When I make a shelter and kill a few plants - I'm harming nature. When a hurricane blows through New Orleans - enormous harm...

 

 

There are two kinds of "harm". One is the natural disaster by Nature and the other is by human. The flood and forest fire by lightning are natural causes by Nature. If a human lights a match to cause a forest fire, then it is interfering with Nature because the fire was not called for by Nature. Natural causes cannot be prevented but human causes can. Any situation is out of control by human is considered to be natural and caused by Nature. By Lao Tze' philosophy, any action was disrupted the course of Nature with or without harm by human is considered to be interfering with Nature. However, if there was any harm done to Nature was considered to be not being "Wu Wei". In the contrary, if the interference with no harm done, then it was consider to be not violating the concept of "Wu Wei".

 

Lions and other animals are part of Nature. They can kill us human beings because they couldn't careless. That is how Nature is, Nature couldn't careless However, human have a choice to kill them or not because human does care. If human killed an animal, it will cause harm to Nature due to the interference of wild life.

 

When we make these philosophical analysis, we have to have to draw a line somewhere. If we made it too gross, then we are just going around circles and leads us nowhere.

 

Edited September 9, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

Lao Tze had made human as a separated entity from Nature

 

. . .

Lions and other animals are part of Nature.

 

 

{General comment: Not intended as a reply to the OP}

 

 

This keeps getting more weird with each post...

 

1. Man is separate from Nature

2. Animals are not separate from nature

 

Ergo... Man is separate from animals... and thus separate from the 10,000 things.

[ChiDragon]

Please read the rest of the content with an open mind. Read what it says before any hasty rejection.

Edited September 9, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Brian]

<snip>

There are two kinds of "harm". One is the natural disaster by Nature and the other is by human. The flood and forest fire by lightning are natural causes by Nature. If a human lights a match to cause a forest fire, then it is interfering with Nature because the fire was not called for by Nature. Natural causes cannot be prevented but human causes can. Any situation is out of control by human is considered to be natural and caused by Nature. By Lao Tze' philosophy, any action was disrupted the course of Nature with or without harm by human is considered to be interfering with Nature. However, if there was any harm done to Nature was considered to be not being "Wu Wei". In the contrary, if the interference with no harm done, then it was consider to be not violating the concept of "Wu Wei".

</snip>

 

I think this presupposes two things that I believe cause cognitive dissonance -- first is the idea that humans are somehow outside of nature while all other sentient beings are not, and the second is that it requires nature to be intentional, that is to say that nature "intentionally" starts a forest fire with a lightning strike.

 

Riddle me this -- a man uses a match to start a small & well-controlled campfire but suddenly a storm blows in. Lightning strikes a nearby dead tree and, rather than directly starting a forest fire, it knocks down a large limb which lands with one end in the campfire. The man immediately starts putting his campfire out but the storm also brought a strong wind which quickly engulfs the new fuel and suddenly the man is surrounded by a forest fire which kills him, the family in the house in the next valley, thousands of trees and untold other sentient beings. How would you describe the harm?

 

I don't ask because I want a response, really, but to suggest you are unintentionally building an unnecessarily complex and artificial model that only becomes more unmanageable as you try to account for "the real world." I am reminded of the exceedingly elaborate attempts to explain astromechanics in terms of "perfect spheres" before we finally accepted that it was based on other conic sections instead (like ellipses for gravitationally bound objects and hyperbolic paths for non-captive objects).

[ChiDragon]

I think this presupposes two things that I believe cause cognitive dissonance -- first is the idea that humans are somehow outside of nature while all other sentient beings are not, and the second is that it requires nature to be intentional, that is to say that nature "intentionally" starts a forest fire with a lightning strike.

 

Riddle me this -- a man uses a match to start a small & well-controlled campfire but suddenly a storm blows in. Lightning strikes a nearby dead tree and, rather than directly starting a forest fire, it knocks down a large limb which lands with one end in the campfire. The man immediately starts putting his campfire out but the storm also brought a strong wind which quickly engulfs the new fuel and suddenly the man is surrounded by a forest fire which kills him, the family in the house in the next valley, thousands of trees and untold other sentient beings. How would you describe the harm?

 

I don't ask because I want a response, really, but to suggest you are unintentionally building an unnecessarily complex and artificial model that only becomes more unmanageable as you try to account for "the real world." I am reminded of the exceedingly elaborate attempts to explain astromechanics in terms of "perfect spheres" before we finally accepted that it was based on other conic sections instead (like ellipses for gravitationally bound objects and hyperbolic paths for non-captive objects).

 

I am glad that you have mentioned the word "intentional". Nature has no intent but it just does it naturally. I grant you that "a man uses a match to start a small & well-controlled campfire but suddenly a storm blows in". In this scenario, the man has no intend to burn down the forest. The final act was done by Nature. However, lightning strikes a nearby dead tree and, rather than directly starting a forest fire that was only natural.

 

If human was intended to light a fire to burn down a forest, then it wold be unnatural. The scenario you had brought up is a good example of a natural cause. Sorry, "it requires nature to be intentional" is not a valid statement because Nature does not think like human. You have not distinguish the difference between "intentional" and "unintentional". An intentional act is not Wu Wei or being unnatural. An unintentional act is considered to be Wu Wei or being natural.

Edited September 9, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

Ergo... Man is separate from animals... and thus separate from the 10,000 things.

Maybe we are plants?

 

Please read the rest of the content with an open mind. Read what it says before any hasty rejection.

But I enjoy messing with you whenever I can.

[Jetsun]

The main difference between a human and most other things in nature is that say for example a tree grows under the shade of a larger tree and never gets to grow up as impressive or beautiful, that tree then doesn't spend it's life cursing the other tree or being jealous of it, or cursing god for its misfortune, or damning or hating itself for being inadequate. Humans on the other hand have the mind which creates all these thoughts and ideas and beliefs when it tries to compare its idea of itself with other things, which is what creates all the ugliness and resistance of the flow of nature in humanity.

 

Humans are part of nature but when they are dominated by the comparing mind then they often resist and go against it. Buddhism and Taoism both should bring your identity out of being dominated by that aspect of mind and out of resistance to nature, which is compassion both for yourself and everyone else you come in contact with as you no longer insist that they should be any different than they are or insist that you yourself be any different in comparison to them.

[doc benway]

 

Good question. I'll let Lao Tze answer this one. In the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tze was always using four entities in his illustrations. The four entities are, Human, Earth, Heaven and Tao.

 

Human follows Earth,

Earth follows Heaven,

Heaven follows Tao,

Tao follows its natural self.

 

LaoTze had made human as the point of perspective of an observer for Nature. As far as Lzo Tze was concern, Earth and Heaven is the Universe. For that being said, Lao Tze had made human as a separated entity from Nature in order for him to explain his philosophy about Wu Wei. From the beginning to the end, human is always following Tao. The action of Tao is being natural to everything, thus human follows whatever is natural which is Nature.

 

In regarding to your comment about "harm"

 

 

There are two kinds of "harm". One is the natural disaster by Nature and the other is by human. The flood and forest fire by lightning are natural causes by Nature. If a human lights a match to cause a forest fire, then it is interfering with Nature because the fire was not called for by Nature. Natural causes cannot be prevented but human causes can. Any situation is out of control by human is considered to be natural and caused by Nature. By Lao Tze' philosophy, any action was disrupted the course of Nature with or without harm by human is considered to be interfering with Nature. However, if there was any harm done to Nature was considered to be not being "Wu Wei". In the contrary, if the interference with no harm done, then it was consider to be not violating the concept of "Wu Wei".

 

Lions and other animals are part of Nature. They can kill us human beings because they couldn't careless. That is how Nature is, Nature couldn't careless However, human have a choice to kill them or not because human does care. If human killed an animal, it will cause harm to Nature due to the interference of wild life.

 

When we make these philosophical analysis, we have to have to draw a line somewhere. If we made it too gross, then we are just going around circles and leads us nowhere.

 

 

I don't think your interpretation of Lao Zi makes any sense.

Sorry, we'll just have to disagree on that.

In my opinion, the reason that humans suffer and make mistakes is because they are disconnected with their true nature.

Daoism is about restoring that connection.

Of course, you're entitled to your interpretation.

 

I also disagree with your analysis of harm.

 

I have an open mind but your intellectual analysis of what is and isn't a part of Nature is inconsistent with my own direct, personal experience as well as my knowledge of science.

 

So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

MH - why hasn't anyone brought up the alien angle yet?

[Marblehead]

MH - why hasn't anyone brought up the alien angle yet?

Hehehe. I need to stay away from that stuff. I might end up insulting someone.

[Brian]

I think this presupposes two things that I believe cause cognitive dissonance -- first is the idea that humans are somehow outside of nature while all other sentient beings are not, and the second is that it requires nature to be intentional, that is to say that nature "intentionally" starts a forest fire with a lightning strike.

 

Riddle me this -- a man uses a match to start a small & well-controlled campfire but suddenly a storm blows in. Lightning strikes a nearby dead tree and, rather than directly starting a forest fire, it knocks down a large limb which lands with one end in the campfire. The man immediately starts putting his campfire out but the storm also brought a strong wind which quickly engulfs the new fuel and suddenly the man is surrounded by a forest fire which kills him, the family in the house in the next valley, thousands of trees and untold other sentient beings. How would you describe the harm?

 

I don't ask because I want a response, really, but to suggest you are unintentionally building an unnecessarily complex and artificial model that only becomes more unmanageable as you try to account for "the real world." I am reminded of the exceedingly elaborate attempts to explain astromechanics in terms of "perfect spheres" before we finally accepted that it was based on other conic sections instead (like ellipses for gravitationally bound objects and hyperbolic paths for non-captive objects).

 

 

I am glad that you have mentioned the word "intentional". Nature has no intent but it just does it naturally. I grant you that "a man uses a match to start a small & well-controlled campfire but suddenly a storm blows in". In this scenario, the man has no intend to burn down the forest. The final act was done by Nature. However, lightning strikes a nearby dead tree and, rather than directly starting a forest fire that was only natural.

 

If human was intended to light a fire to burn down a forest, then it wold be unnatural. The scenario you had brought up is a good example of a natural cause. Sorry, "it requires nature to be intentional" is not a valid statement because Nature does not think like human. You have not distinguish the difference between "intentional" and "unintentional". An intentional act is not Wu Wei or being unnatural. An unintentional act is considered to be Wu Wei or being natural.

 

Perhaps the language barrier is the issue but your phrase "because the fire was not called for by Nature" suggests intent by nature.

 

My real concern, though, is with what I consider to be an unneeded divorcing of one species in the entire universe from "Nature." It is a really big deal, in my opinion, to say that homo sapiens are not "part of nature" but that every other being of light is. Seems artificial and contrived to me, not to mention a man-centered philosophy.

[ChiDragon]

Hehehe. I need to stay away from that stuff. I might end up insulting someone.

 

Go ahead insult someone as long it is me..........???

[doc benway]

Hehehe. I need to stay away from that stuff. I might end up insulting someone.

 

Well lizards then at least?

 

PS - ChiDragon - you are the first Daoist I've ever met who maintains that man is not a part of Nature. Very interesting perspective. Was that something you were taught or is it a conclusion you've reached from your own study?

[ChiDragon]

Well lizards then at least?

 

PS - ChiDragon - you are the first Daoist I've ever met who maintains that man is not a part of Nature. Very interesting perspective. Was that something you were taught or is it a conclusion you've reached from your own study?

 

I am glad that you ask. This subtlety was only a philosophical idea that I must accept, in order, to continue with the study of the TTC for it to make sense. Lao Tze's wisdom is one of a kind which is very difficult to be grasped. The TTC is a piece of stand alone document. It cannot be just interpreted by using some inductive reasoning intermingled with other external philosophical thoughts.

[doc benway]

Thanks

My only response to your approach to DDJ would be - don't believe everything you think!

(nor do I)

Lao Zi points to things that go beyond rational thought and ideas.

That's where meditation can be helpful.

Best regards.

[Marblehead]

 

Go ahead insult someone as long it is me..........???

Hehehe. I manage to get you often enough, thanks.

 

Well lizards then at least?

That I could deal with. I could even talk about the ones I have around my place and I could even talk about my compassion for them when they fall into my water barrels and I am able to save them before they drown. (For some reason their feet are unable to get a grasp on the barrel serface and can't climb back out.)

 

Thanks

My only response to your approach to DDJ would be - don't believe everything you think!

(nor do I)

Lao Zi points to things that go beyond rational thought and ideas.

That's where meditation can be helpful.

Best regards.

I actually understand from where Chidragon is coming from regarding this and if we look at the TTC literally he is right. Of course, Lao Tzu lived before Darwin was born so Lao Tzu didn't have access to that information and theories. The theories have proven themselves to be valid and we now know that humans are just another one of the many animals on the planet.

 

But the TTC does set a separation between humans and the rest of Earth. And we are one of the few animals capable of making the Earth a better place for all to live. This is where having compassion would help out a whole lot.

[Dagon]

What is the definition of nature?

 

na·ture

ˈnāCHər/

noun

1. the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Google: "Define Nature"

I personally think that it was man and his Idea of "self" that created the separation from nature.

 

In ownership, and owning, how could nature own itself?

[Marblehead]

I personally think that it was man and his Idea of "self" that created the separation from nature.

I think you are right on the money.

[ChiDragon]

What is the definition of nature?

 

1. the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Google: "Define Nature"

I personally think that it was man and his Idea of "self" that created the separation from nature.

 

.....and that is why we are mentally separated from Nature anyway.......!!!

 

 

 

Within the various uses of the word today, "nature" often refers to geology and wildlife. Nature may refer to the general realm of various types of living plants and animals, and in some cases to the processes associated with inanimate objects – the way that particular types of things exist and change of their own accord, such as the weather and geology of the Earth, and the matter and energy of which all these things are composed. It is often taken to mean the "natural environment" or wilderness–wild animals, rocks, forest, beaches, and in general those things that have not been substantially altered by human intervention, or which persist despite human intervention. For example, manufactured objects and human interaction generally are not considered part of nature, unless qualified as, for example, "human nature" or "the whole of nature". This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind. Depending on the particular context, the term "natural" might also be distinguished from the unnatural, the supernatural, or synthetic.

 

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

 

 

Edited September 9, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

I actually understand from where Chidragon is coming from regarding this and if we look at the TTC literally he is right. Of course, Lao Tzu lived before Darwin was born so Lao Tzu didn't have access to that information and theories. The theories have proven themselves to be valid and we now know that humans are just another one of the many animals on the planet.

 

But the TTC does set a separation between humans and the rest of Earth. And we are one of the few animals capable of making the Earth a better place for all to live. This is where having compassion would help out a whole lot.

 

This may be a self-imposed limitation of those who view daoism purely through a philosophical lens... and i don't mean this in any disrespect but similar to some of what we talk about in the ZZ threads.

 

Ch. 25 is in the Guodian and thus we know that the ending lines often used to claim a four entity separate are simply misunderstood. The lines mimic what other cosmology states:

 

Man comes forth after Earth; Earth comes forth after Sky; Sky comes forth after Dao. The common basis for everything is Ziran; naturalness. It would be a mistake to call this nature, IMO.

 

The chapter describes a transforming cosmology... the opening lines show all the cards up front.

 

I think we'd be hard pressed to claim LZ as a "standalone document" and then turn to Western Wiki for support over other ancient chinese cosmologies

[mYTHmAKER]

No, I can't go that far. I don't want to lose my Self.

One never loses their self.

That is the ego speaking - the fear

Ones personality - ideas - evolve - change.

Your self is always there lying in wait

[ChiDragon]

 

I think we'd be hard pressed to claim LZ as a "standalone document" and then turn to Western Wiki for support over other ancient chinese cosmologies

 

What a coincidence, the ancient Chinese and Western ideas are the same. Somebody seems want to deny it.