New Tao Te Ching Commentary

[Nikolai1]

The longer one thinks about things such as quantum physics - and the fact that all is really happening here and now - that yesterday can be seen and tomorrow can be measured.

 

Thankfully we don't need all that complicated maths and those million dollar instruments to see that all is happening here and now. Seeing the fact directly through the development of our own spiritual wisdom is a much better way.

 

And we don't fall under the illusion, as the physicists do, that entanglement only occurs with very small particles. In fact we don't fall under the illusion that there is any difference at all between the sub-atomic and the planetary.

 

But that said, it is good that high science and high spirituality start to approach each other and I think there are many people whose interest in the spiritual life started with quantum physics.

[Brian]

 

Thankfully we don't need all that complicated maths and those million dollar instruments to see that all is happening here and now. Seeing the fact directly through the development of our own spiritual wisdom is a much better way.

 

And we don't fall under the illusion, as the physicists do, that entanglement only occurs with very small particles. In fact we don't fall under the illusion that there is any difference at all between the sub-atomic and the planetary.

 

But that said, it is good that high science and high spirituality start to approach each other and I think there are many people whose interest in the spiritual life started with quantum physics.

+1

 

Scientific pursuit drew me away and then, later, drew me back again.

 

"First there is a mountain..."

Edited May 25, 2014 by Brian

[GrandmasterP]

No rabbit.

No hole.

 

( no rabbit stew)

Edited May 25, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Marblehead]

Wrong. There is a rabbit and there is a hole. The rabbit runs into its hole in order to escape the real world of becoming rabbit stew. People escape to their rabbit hole in order to escape the real world. But then, there is security within the rabbit hole. Not all bad, I must say.

[GrandmasterP]

But there is no rabbit nor hole.

( here).

 

;-)

Edited May 25, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[GrandmasterP]

I'd have noticed.

We have dogs.

They'd have told and shown me.

Edited May 25, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Marblehead]

Hehehe. I think we got off topic here. It's all Manitou's fault. Hehehe.

 

I have said this before, change is the only constant we can ever observe.

[Nikolai1]

I have said this before, change is the only constant we can ever observe.

 

In everyday life we must be stood still to see change. Or, if we are the moving ones, what we see must be still if our view of it is to change.

 

When two trains move together at the same time, both appear stationary and change is not seen.

 

To observe the impermanence of the world, there must be a still point at our centre. That still point is a void, all our thoughts, perceptions are all part of the changing landscape - not the stillness itself.

 

With time that still point can be sensed in a very deep way. It is very solid and immense and it is always there. But it is invisible to anything but our spiritual faculties of perception.

 

It is pointless trying to talk about this to those who don't know it for themselves. That's why I agree that change is the thing that must be emphasised first. But even this gets misunderstood.

 

Too many people think that change is something about transformation over time - we have spring, then summer, then all that grows starts to decay and in winter it dies.

 

This is the shallowest view of change, and has no potential for spiritual transformation. People already know it, and yet this is still the commonest way of explaining change - both in Taoism and Buddhism.

 

The vision of impermanence becomes transformative when we see it in its most radical sense.

 

Every single moment is change. Every single moment is a moment of birth and then death. Every single thing that appears in our awareness exists for only the briefest hint of a moment, before being annihilated forever.

 

That is how to see change!

Edited May 26, 2014 by Nikolai1

[Marblehead]

- both in Taoism and Buddhism.

Yeah, I picked up on that Buddhist slant there. Hehehe.

 

But you spoke very well to the concept.

 

(I don't speak much about spirituality. Afterall, I am a Materialist.)

[Nikolai1]

(I don't speak much about spirituality. Afterall, I am a Materialist.)

 

I consider pure materialism to be the same as what I call spiritual.

 

By denying the ideal realm, the pure materialist has transcended the dichotomy between idea and matter. They have unified the very illusion that divides the individual subject from the external object. What else is spirituality if not this?

 

This is why I consider that line of though that started with Nietzsche and proceeded through Freud to Jung as being about spiritual realisation. Yes, to me Nietszche is a true religious mystic, a jnani, a holy man! He feared people would think this about him and he was right to.

[manitou]

This is why I consider that line of though that started with Nietzsche and proceeded through Freud to Jung as being about spiritual realisation. Yes, to me Nietszche is a true religious mystic, a jnani, a holy man! He feared people would think this about him and he was right to.

 

 

Marbles?

[GrandmasterP]

 

Marbles?

 

I'll see your Marbles?

And raise our chum Nikolai...

'References'?

 

Where and how from Nietzsche's own writings do you derive that statement that Fred either wanted or did not want to be 'seen as a true religious mystic'?

 

Fair enough maybe he is seen as such by some, you included.

But where in his work does Fred either stake that claim or refute it?

[Nikolai1]

Fair enough maybe he is seen as such by some, you included.

But where in his work does Fred either stake that claim or refute it?

 

 

From Ecce Homo 'Why I am a Destiny' Section 1

 

 

 

I have a terrible fear that one day I will be pronounced holy: you will guess why I publish this book before; it shall prevent people from doing mischief with me.

I do not want to be a holy man; sooner even a buffoon.— Perhaps I am a buffoon.— Yet in spite of that—or rather not in spite of it, because so far nobody has been more mendacious than holy men—the truth speaks out of me.— But my truth is terrible; for so far one has called lies truth.

[Marblehead]

Marbles?

I was outside doing some work. I will respond to that post now. Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

I consider pure materialism to be the same as what I call spiritual.

 

By denying the ideal realm, the pure materialist has transcended the dichotomy between idea and matter. They have unified the very illusion that divides the individual subject from the external object. What else is spirituality if not this?

 

This is why I consider that line of though that started with Nietzsche and proceeded through Freud to Jung as being about spiritual realisation. Yes, to me Nietszche is a true religious mystic, a jnani, a holy man! He feared people would think this about him and he was right to.

Very interesting response. Not only that, there is a lot of depth to what you said.

 

Yes, I suppose that being in harmony (as much as possible) with nature and the natural forces of the universe could be considered being spiritual. The main reason I don't speak of spirituality is that I do not accept into my belief system anything that is not natural and/or logical.

 

Sure, I can imagine an ideal realm. But I also know that it ain't gonna' happen on this planet and this is the only place I live.

 

That second sentence is pretty heavy. But I have to accept it as valid. Yes "I" am an individual subject. External of me are objects. But each of us is the ["I" am an individual subject].

 

I don't know if I would call Nietzsche a "religious mystic" but "mystic", yes. The point you made in that paragraph is valid though.

 

I read a lot of Nietzsche's work before I ever read my first translation of the TTC. I have never experienced a conflict between the two. (Different perspectives, sure.)

[Marblehead]

Where and how from Nietzsche's own writings do you derive that statement that Fred either wanted or did not want to be 'seen as a true religious mystic'?

I think one can make that assumption from "Thus Spake Zarathustra". However, I will point out that Albert Camus' criticism of Neitzsche was that after declaring god dead he failed to offer an alternative (replacement).

[Nikolai1]

Hi Marblehead,

 

I mentioned Jung earlier because he represents for me how materialism, when taken to its logical conclusion, becomes what others call spiritual. What do you think of this from Man and his Symbols?

 

 

When something slips out of our consciousness it does not cease to exist, any more than a car that has disappeared round a corner out of sight. Just as we may later see the car again, so we come across thoughts that were temporarily lost to us. Thus, part of the unconscious consists of a multitude of temporarily obscured thoughts, impressions, and images that, in spite of being lost, continue to influence our conscious minds.

 

Do you agree with this statement? For Jung the mental and the physical behave in exactly the same way. They both arise in consciousness...and when they disappear they continue to endure until the next time we are conscious of them.

 

There is therefore no difference in nature between thought and perception. Both behave identically and it becomes impossible to make a distinction between them.

 

For most people it is the belief that we have both private subjective thoughts and perceptions of a shared objective realm that is the basis of a sense of individual selfhood. And we imagine they are different because they behave differently: thoughts are fleeting and ethereal, whereas objects endure and have substance.

 

Jung denies this difference in the nature of thought and perception. He therefore denies the possibility selfhood, and consciousness must therefore be collective which is also the same as saying it is solipsistic.

[flowing hands]

Yeah, I picked up on that Buddhist slant there. Hehehe.

 

But you spoke very well to the concept.

 

(I don't speak much about spirituality. Afterall, I am a Materialist.)

If you are a materialist then you are a spiritual person also. For matter is formed from the spiritual so to speak. One really can't be one without the other.

[silent thunder]

...

 

But as we learn to stand back from this change and to observe it happening there arises a state - it seems like a feeling - but it is a state of bliss and unity that is there regardless of anything that is occurring in the manifest realm. It is immense, solid and unchangable and we feel it wherever we go, whatever we do. For this hidden, unmanifest aspect of the Tao the term Constant is highly appropriate, and like Manitou said, it is really the perfect word.

 

Really well said.

Edited May 26, 2014 by silent thunder

[Marblehead]

If you are a materialist then you are a spiritual person also. For matter is formed from the spiritual so to speak. One really can't be one without the other.

I'm going to accept that for now due to the current on-going discussion. But yeah, matter was/is formed from energy. One could call this energy the essence of the spiritual and I wouldn't be able to argue against that.

[flowing hands]

I'm going to accept that for now due to the current on-going discussion. But yeah, matter was/is formed from energy. One could call this energy the essence of the spiritual and I wouldn't be able to argue against that.

I'll find that spiritual heart for you one day?!!!

[Marblehead]

You've gotten into some areas I haven't visited for a while but I will do the best I can in response

Hi Marblehead,

 

I mentioned Jung earlier because he represents for me how materialism, when taken to its logical conclusion, becomes what others call spiritual. What do you think of this from Man and his Symbols?

Based on the little I know of how the human brain functions I would have to agree with the quote from Jung. But I don't think we can go so far as to say that my thoughts exist for you as well. That would be taking his "collective" beyond (my) logic. But yes, the car would exist for both of us.

 

Do you agree with this statement? For Jung the mental and the physical behave in exactly the same way. They both arise in consciousness...and when they disappear they continue to endure until the next time we are conscious of them.

Only for the individual, not for the totality of individuals. There is, and must be, a difference between the objective and the subjective.

 

There is therefore no difference in nature between thought and perception. Both behave identically and it becomes impossible to make a distinction between them.

This is a different consideration. I do agree with what you said. But again, only for the individual. not the collective.

 

For most people it is the belief that we have both private subjective thoughts and perceptions of a shared objective realm that is the basis of a sense of individual selfhood. And we imagine they are different because they behave differently: thoughts are fleeting and ethereal, whereas objects endure and have substance.

The processes are the same for all who have a properly functioning brain. Objective reality is what it is regardless of perceptions and subjectivity. I had to say that first. True, thoughts and perceptions will indeed vary amongst individuals. So many reasons for this. Even logic can be good or faulty.

 

Jung denies this difference in the nature of thought and perception. He therefore denies the possibility selfhood, and consciousness must therefore be collective which is also the same as saying it is solipsistic.

I have to disagree here. I do give a little regarding collective unconsciousness but I attribute this to genetics, primarily on the mother's side. Jung wanted us all to be linked spiritually. This is obviously not the case based on observation of reality and the various levels of spirituality amongst individuals.

[Marblehead]

I'll find that spiritual heart for you one day?!!!

It would help a lot if I could reach out and touch it.

[GrandmasterP]

 

From Ecce Homo 'Why I am a Destiny' Section 1

 

 

Thanks for that reference Nikolai.

MH is the expert here and I'll defer to him as I may be completely wrong on this.

My understanding ( which may be wrong) is that Fred is totally dissociating himself from any kind of religion either for or against.

He doesn't 'have a dog in the religious fight' as it were, what he's saying is something different to religion ( he claims).

He's foreseeing maybe that some readers will classify his work under 'religion or anti- religion' whilst claiming " It's NOT that at all."

 

 

Isn't he?

 

[manitou]

Marbles said:

 

I have to disagree here. I do give a little regarding collective unconsciousness but I attribute this to genetics, primarily on the mother's side. Jung wanted us all to be linked spiritually. This is obviously not the case based on observation of reality and the various levels of spirituality amongst individuals.

 

 

And yet you don't holler against the concept of Oneness as much as you used to, Mr. MH. As we've been doing this for years together on this forum, I know that we can both see evolutions in each other. The evolution I see in you is your evolving greyness toward what you previously would have considered black and white issues.

 

The concept of Oneness, the Daoness of the One, is something that we speak of so often on these pages. Does that not mean that we, too, are all One? And that we are One with the One? And that at the bottom of each of our (supposed) different personalities is the connecting link between all of us, the One base? This area that we speak of here directly connects to your comment about the spiritual link (above). We are not just spiritually Linked, we are spiritually One. The Same, although with different histories from the time of the womb to now. But before that, as we are now, we are the One Life Force. We Are.