NotVoid Posted January 16, 2014 Grasping is not dao Clinging is not dao Controlling is not dao Aggrandizement is not dao Desiring is not dao Selfishness is not dao Manipulating is not dao Forcing is not dao Harming is not dao Compressing is not dao Expanding is not dao Circulating is not dao Spiraling is not dao Pursuing is not dao Following is not dao Seeking is not dao Assuming is not dao Distinguishing is not dao Conceptualization is not dao Knowing is not dao It is not dao 10 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted January 16, 2014 True, but all those exist within Tao. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) Grasping is not dao Clinging is not dao Controlling is not dao Aggrandizement is not dao Desiring is not dao Selfishness is not dao Manipulating is not dao Forcing is not dao Harming is not dao Compressing is not dao Expanding is not dao Circulating is not dao Spiraling is not dao Pursuing is not dao Following is not dao Seeking is not dao Assuming is not dao Distinguishing is not dao Conceptualization is not dao Knowing is not dao It is not dao Right ! A cow is not dao a bear is not dao so where is the dow now? said paul to his pipe. Edited January 16, 2014 by Stosh 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silent thunder Posted January 16, 2014 Yup, I can't point to the Tao in myself or any thing, yet Tao is present in all. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted January 16, 2014 I can't NOT point to the Tao in myself or in anything for the Tao is. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NotVoid Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) Thanks for the interesting comments. I was not however speaking of dao as some 'thing' that is, if that helps at all. ("it is not dao"). Think more in the context of 'the way'. I think it can help if people keep in mind that this type of expression of personal experience is usually going to be very context oriented. I was attempting to express a personal experiential state, which I found quite difficult to express very meaningfully in words. There is an intended outer or surface meaning in what I wrote, and the words and sentences were chosen so as to try to convey that certain surface meaning, but the surface meaning was written with the intention of pointing towards a 'deeper' meaning in regards to a personal experiential state which I wanted to try to express, but which I think just can't be directly expressed very well at all in words and sentences without causing misunderstanding at least to some degree. I think the more directly I would try to express this in words, the more likely it would be that the meaning would be even further misconstrued than otherwise, while the more indirectly the experience is written about the less likely for others to get hung up on a particular surface meaning which they may personally see conveyed by the words. The sentences and wording were chosen with the intent to try to make it clear that the surface meaning was not the full intended meaning. It seems I may not have done a very good job of it. When I mentioned that assuming and knowing, etc., are not dao, it seems it was overlooked, but such statements were worded to try to give better context to what I was trying to express. When trying to express something which involves personal experience in an area in which there are not really adequate words to describe the fullness and subtleties of the experience, I don't know if there is any better way to try to express the experience. It is not like writing about experiences such as 'happy' or 'sad', in which there is probably a fair degree of commonality amongst most people's experiences and understanding of such things, to get at least a fair idea of what you are talking about across to others. We have words for much of the more mundane and common things which may be experienced in a particular culture and environment, which can get the meaning across reasonably well for these areas of common experience, but for things which may not be so much a part of everyone's common experience, then words and sentences can be more of a hindrance than a help. It should maybe not be so hard to understand why there can be so much misunderstanding about any writings on certain types of personal experience then, I think. So then, what was I really trying to get at? I could try to express it more directly than I did, but I don't think it would be helpful, and might well cause even further misinterpretation. Imagine now writings such as the dao de jing or on chan/zen buddhism etc. in which certain types of experience were being written about in which there are really no words or sentences at all in common language which can really convey to any extent the types of deep and profound experience being discussed. That there will be much misunderstanding of the intended deeper meaning would have to be pretty much a given, but it can maybe still be written in such a way that the surface meaning still conveys at least some degree of meaning in regards to what is being expressed, although even that may still be misunderstood by many people coming from different backgrounds and points of view and with different assumptions and opinions. I think it helps to try to put assumptions and 'knowledge' aside as much as possible and to at least make an attempt to try to understand the context better before even beginning to try to dig deeper into the intended meaning. However, without at least some degree of common experiential base of some sort to compare and relate to, in my opinion we will likely be grasping around pretty much in the complete dark in trying to relate to what is being said. Edited January 16, 2014 by NotVoid 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zerostao Posted February 11, 2014 if we follow a line from aristotle> albert the great> thomas aquinas where the prevailing thought was that faith is in harmony with reason, and this student of albert the great, thomas aquinas working on the highly influential summa theologica, but then thomas had a mystical moment of clarity and encountered Tao and he left his monumental work unfinished, in fact he never wrote again and he stated " all i have written now seems like straw" thomas had the experience you mention and it wiped away all that he had previously thought to be true. thomas, this great writer and communicator , now found himself inadequate to describe the experience (just as you suggest will be the case) so he quit writing altogether what is not Tao are the follies and reason of man. the ongoing folly of the human tyranny of nature (as opposed to harmony with nature )is not Tao. reducing all values to an efficient nexus of cash warped in the cold logic of exclusive financial concerns (that blinds one to all else)is not Tao. we are told by Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu to step away from knowledge if we want to taste Tao Tao is pure and human logic is tainted Tao is pure and simplistic and it is not able to be expressed in human logical language. the Tao that can be (humanly) expressed is not Tao notvoid i like your OP and considering our human logic, i think your effort is fine it is simple and suggests the pure 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kajenx Posted February 12, 2014 Maybe you could just say: If you think you've found the Tao, let go of it, and that is the Tao. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
adept Posted February 14, 2014 Daoism is not Dao. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
soaring crane Posted February 14, 2014 (edited) THAT is not Tao. THIS is Tao. And Tao taos. And that's about it. Edited February 14, 2014 by soaring crane Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted February 15, 2014 道道道.Dao dao Dao. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kajenx Posted February 15, 2014 Tao tao tao, tao tao's the word. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted February 15, 2014 But Tao is Dao. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted February 15, 2014 Tao tao tao, tao tao's the word. Tao speaks of its principles. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted February 15, 2014 Tao speaks of its principles. And therefore we are able to speak to its principles as we observe them in nature. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yascra Posted February 15, 2014 There is an intended outer or surface meaning in what I wrote, and the words and sentences were chosen so as to try to convey that certain surface meaning, but the surface meaning was written with the intention of pointing towards a 'deeper' meaning in regards to a personal experiential state which I wanted to try to express, but which I think just can't be directly expressed very well at all in words and sentences without causing misunderstanding at least to some degree. Boy, what's so important about being understood by anyone..? Just let go.. I think if you don't aim to discuss, anyway, maybe this would be a topic for a personal practice journal rather than public forum? But as it is a general discussion at the moment: Grasping is not dao Clinging is not dao Controlling is not dao Aggrandizement is not dao Desiring is not dao Selfishness is not dao Manipulating is not dao Forcing is not dao Harming is not dao Compressing is not dao Expanding is not dao Circulating is not dao Spiraling is not dao Pursuing is not dao Following is not dao Seeking is not dao Assuming is not dao Distinguishing is not dao Conceptualization is not dao Knowing is not dao It is not dao What EXACTLY makes you so sure about that? Best wishes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted February 15, 2014 Test 52. What is Tao? A. Heaven B. Earth C. The World D. A Path E. None of the Above Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted February 15, 2014 (edited) We need an F. F. All of the above Edited February 15, 2014 by Marblehead 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yascra Posted February 15, 2014 Test 52. What is Tao? A cow? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silent thunder Posted February 15, 2014 F: All of em Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NotVoid Posted February 15, 2014 (edited) Hello zerostao. Interesting about Thomas Aquinas... ================ yascra wrote: " Boy, what's so important about being understood by anyone..? Just let go.. I think if you don't aim to discuss, anyway, maybe this would be a topic for a personal practice journal rather than public forum? But as it is a general discussion at the moment: What EXACTLY makes you so sure about that? Best wishes " Hello Yascra. Well, I don't get a strong impression from what you wrote that you are really so much concerned about what was written here , and I actually have discussed this already, so I think there is really not so much more for me to say about it. Also, I did not say I was sure about anything. As I have explained, the point of the post was to try to describe a personal experience I had, and to also try to show how using words to describe such types of experiences can be quite inadequate, and it seems pretty much a given that no matter how carefully a person tries to choose words to try to give some sense of certain types of personal experience, there can and probably will be at least some degree of misunderstanding by people who just read the words but who have not had personal experiences them self which are really similar to the experience which one is attempting to convey. In my own experience , words used in such a case can only be used to try to provide a hint or some bit of a sense of the actual experience, but if others reading those words have not had similar experiences, and if no attempt is first made to at least try to understand the context of what is written a little better, if such people try to interpret the words literally or interpret just based on how they personally might like to guess at the meaning, then it seems it is pretty likely that there will be misunderstanding. The words I wrote in the first post were not meant to be taken literally, but were chosen and used more as colors are chosen to be used in a impressionist or abstract painting. It may well be for this reason that poetry and much abstract symbology is often used in regards to such types of experiences. This is what I attempted to do at any rate. As an another example, when something like the following is written, I personally would be inclined to think that it was probably not literally meant that dao is hilarious. 'If they do not laugh, it would not be dao.' Edited February 15, 2014 by NotVoid 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harmonious Emptiness Posted February 15, 2014 The tree is not the forest. The brick is not the house. The thought that can be isolated is not the mind. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yascra Posted February 16, 2014 (edited) @NotVoid: Don't get me so wrong, pls You're talking about thinking and speech. I'm talking about action and behaviour. Doesn't necessarily mean it's important Edited February 16, 2014 by Yascra Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NotVoid Posted February 16, 2014 Hi Yascra. Ok, my friend. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
