New Tao Te Ching Commentary

[Nikolai1]

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

 

Yes I agree with this. Nietzsche clearly saw that his understanding couldn't be captured by any system of thought whatsoever. Christinaity was not only this, but a system that gave rise to certain stereotyped codes of behaviour in the form of morals. And the system engendered fear in people whenever those codes were breached. A herd of half-asleep slaves is the result.

 

In this Nietzsche was no different to lots of mystics who can't fit their vision into a system. But these figures are the true religious geniuses nevertheless, and the systems they inspire are always attempts made by the less-inspired to emulate and then formulate what the prophet said.

 

Nietzsche was a prophet -. as true a prophet as ever lived - and he knew this of himself. If he feared to be considered Holy it is the fear that he will be held up as some kind of teacher to superficially emulate; when what he wanted was to people to BE for themselves. Remember from Zarathustra: "One repays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil."

 

Nietzsche's thorough perspectivism was utterly revolutionary for a western philosopher, and left him intellectually isolated. But he would have been perfectly at home and comfortable with the sages of India and China. Chuang-tzu is very like Nietzsche

[Nikolai1]

Hi marblehead

 

 

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.

 

To understand the slightly misleading term 'collective' it helps if we think about thought from a different perspective.

 

Rather than a thought being an inner representation or symbol of something on the outisde, let's view thought as being an object in its own right. The thought is therefore not a symbol but the thing that symbols normally symbolise. It is thing with its own living objective reality. And when it is out of awareness it continues to endure, just like a car does that has turned a corner out of sight to us.

 

When we view thought this way, which is of course perfectly valid, we soon see that there is no private ownership of the thought because it is a thing in its own right. it is not a subjective symbol but a thing in itself which exists independently of the observer.

 

To take this second, logically valid perspective, is to adopt the eyes not of an individual ego, but of an impersonal egoic set of eyes. Our consciousness is not 'egoic' but the opposite of 'egoic' and the word that gets used is collective.

 

This 'collective view is also the spiritual perspective. It is the perspective that goes hand in hand with our normal egoic perspective, just the other side of the coin. We usually see thought as symbol, now we see thought as the symbolised.

 

This second perspective is not the truth any more than the first. it is simply the completion of our understanding, and having recourse to both is what I call realisation.

[Marblehead]

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?

Yes, you did good with that. Fred actually spoke kindly of Buddhism and I think it was because he really didn't consider Buddhism a religion.

[Marblehead]

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.

 

 

Hehehe. No, I just don't speak to it as much as I used to. I said what I had to say. Too much redundancy becomes boring.

 

As mentioned before, we are each an individual manifestation of Tao; one of the Ten Thousand Things.

 

Again I will say, yes, we are of the same source but we are individual manifestations. (Actually, we all are star stuff.)

 

There once was Oneness. It is called Singularity; that state that existed prior to the Big Bang.

 

Yes, we humans can be more at one with each other and all other living things. Many manage to attain a much higher state than do others. Witness reality.

 

But if we judge all as the same we are accepting the evil that happens in the world. I will never do that. We would also be denying the specialness and uniqueness of the individual. I will never do that either.

 

Can the world be a better place for all to live and enjoy life? Of course it can. Will the lion ever lay down with the lamb? Doubtful. The lamb came for supper but ended up being supper.

[Marblehead]

Rather than a thought being an inner representation or symbol of something on the outisde, let's view thought as being an object in its own right.

But I can't do that. Hehehe. I'm not saying "you" are not correct from your perspective, I'm just saying that I can't go there. Thought requires a thinker. That's my understanding.

 

Sure, we have thoughts that we do not, on our own, think up. But they spring up from normal brain activity and from our unconscious mind. Our brain also oftentime misses its natural connection and brings to our mind faulty information. Our thoughts tell us that they are truths but they are really lies.

 

And BTW, viewing thought as being an object in its own right would be counter Buddhist thought because it would be suggesting that thought has an independant origin and we all know that this is not possible.

[GrandmasterP]

Hi marblehead

 

 

 

 

To understand the slightly misleading term 'collective' it helps if we think about thought from a different perspective.

 

Rather than a thought being an inner representation or symbol of something on the outisde, let's view thought as being an object in its own right. The thought is therefore not a symbol but the thing that symbols normally symbolise. It is thing with its own living objective reality. And when it is out of awareness it continues to endure, just like a car does that has turned a corner out of sight to us.

 

When we view thought this way, which is of course perfectly valid, we soon see that there is no private ownership of the thought because it is a thing in its own right. it is not a subjective symbol but a thing in itself which exists independently of the observer.

 

To take this second, logically valid perspective, is to adopt the eyes not of an individual ego, but of an impersonal egoic set of eyes. Our consciousness is not 'egoic' but the opposite of 'egoic' and the word that gets used is collective.

 

This 'collective view is also the spiritual perspective. It is the perspective that goes hand in hand with our normal egoic perspective, just the other side of the coin. We usually see thought as symbol, now we see thought as the symbolised.

 

This second perspective is not the truth any more than the first. it is simply the completion of our understanding, and having recourse to both is what I call realisation.

Richard Rose wrote over on Zen FI and I thought this may be apposite on reading your post that....

 

"You can't set out to drop an ego intentionally. Too many other egos will rush to its aid. The only thing you can do is keep working, keep focusing your vector until you have a breakthrough that leaves the ego behind."

Edited May 27, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[manitou]

In my experience, the ego must be removed for clear vision. How to achieve this? Question our own motives. See from the eyes of others, rather than our own. Love your brother as yourself. Never too much. Never be the first. when the situation is viewed with 'apersonal eyes' the dynamics become clear. If we have a dog in the fight (as GMP said), such as an attachment to a particular thought structure will jade the vision.

 

Unfortunately, one of the ways that many of us learned to drop ego was from a humiliating set of circumstances. This doesn't have to be the case, but most of us don't jump at the opportunity to crunch ego for no reason. Although the situation seems horrible at the time, in retrospect we can see that it was the One Thing that broke through the ego pane. The horrible self-loathing, the realization that we haven't been doing Life well at all; this is a mighty catalyst.

 

it's this inner change that must be accompanied by the study of masters, along with the ability to control one's mind to a goodly degree that produces what we are looking for. Even if we claim we aren't looking for it, I think we're looking for it, like the face of the flower faces the sun. We enter a state where it can be seen that everything, in the long run, is searching for the light.

[manitou]

But if we judge all as the same we are accepting the evil that happens in the world. I will never do that. We would also be denying the specialness and uniqueness of the individual. I will never do that either.

 

 

Doesn't this infer that 'evil' is a separate entity here, Marbles? You're giving Evil a personality, a separate dynamic from all else. The Dao would have us understand that it is all One. Between 'Ug' and 'Aah', how much difference is there? There is no good and evil. if you ask a soccer mom what Evil is, she'll say it's the dope dealer on the corner trying to sell pills to her kid. if you ask the dope dealer what Evil is, he'll say that it was the A-hole that ripped him off for his money last night.

 

Relativity.

[Marblehead]

Richard Rose wrote over on Zen FI and I thought this may be apposite on reading your post that....

 

"You can't set out to drop an ego intentionally. Too many other egos will rush to its aid. The only thing you can do is keep working, keep focusing your vector until you have a breakthrough that leaves the ego behind."

And I suggest that you, I and everyone else will never leave ego behind. Sure, we can deminish its influence but it will always be there, ready to pick you up, whenever you want to be picked up, after falling.

 

Just don't be strokin' it!

[Marblehead]

In my experience, the ego must be removed for clear vision. How to achieve this? Question our own motives.

Would you believe that every time we question our own motives we are actually strokin' our ego. No, we are not leaving it behind or dropping it. We are just trying to cause it to be more mellow.

 

Have I mentioned lately that I love my ego? Well, it is still true.

[Marblehead]

Doesn't this infer that 'evil' is a separate entity here, Marbles? You're giving Evil a personality, ...

Nope. Evil is a judgement call placed on an act performed by another. I do not reify or personify anything. I'm an Atheist, remember?

[Marblehead]

Interesting is that no one has called me, he who disagrees with many Buddhist concepts, out for using, in two different posts, Buddhist concepts in support of what I had said.

 

But no, I'm not becoming a Buddhist either. Hehehe.

[Nikolai1]

Hi marblehead

 

 

I'm just saying that I can't go there. Thought requires a thinker. That's my understanding.

 

When the thought is no longer viewed as a internal symbol of an external event then it is no longer thought - it just becomes another mode of reality. And because it is not a thought then neither is there a thinker in this perspective.

 

What is this mode of reality? It is simply the mode of time and space. what we once called thought we no see as the shadowy mode of reality which is structured by time and space.

 

What we used to call perception is the brightly lit 'here and now' which is out of time.

 

Reality flits between the light and the shade, between time and timelessness. That is it!

 

 

And BTW, viewing thought as being an object in its own right would be counter Buddhist thought because it would be suggesting that thought has an independant origin and we all know that this is not possible.

 

Yes totally agree. This radical materialism is the direct opposite of the Buddhist doctrine of anatta - or not-self. But as often happens, the soteriological potential of these seemingly opposite doctrines is equal and actually identical.

 

But all this aside...you describe yourself as an atheist and a materialist, a person who not only believes in evil but thinks we should take a stand against it. You also seem happy to accept theories like Darwinism and the Big Bang. in every respect you're a thoroughly modern thinker. So what does the Tao Te Ching do for you? What does it bring to your table?

Edited May 27, 2014 by Nikolai1

[Marblehead]

I will do a two part response.

 

When the thought is no longer viewed as a internal symbol of an external event then it is no longer thought - it just becomes another mode of reality. And because it is not a thought then neither is there a thinker in this perspective.

 

What is this mode of reality? It is simply the mode of time and space. what we once called thought we no see as the shadowy mode of reality which is structured by time and space.

 

What we used to call perception is the brightly lit 'here and now' which is out of time.

 

Reality flits between the light and the shade, between time and timelessness. That is it!

But there are thinkers. Some are and were great thinkers. Others, well, not so great - but thinkers none-the-less.

 

Another way to consider this from my perspective is that if there were no thinkers then there would be no one to know that thoughts ever existed in the first place (which they don't occur in the first place). There would be no value or even purpose in thoughts without a thinker.

 

Thoughts are real in the mind of the thinker. However, I cannot think your thoughts and you cannot think mine, They are personal to the individual even though they may have been inspired externally.

 

Time and space move in linear momentum. The "here and now" is only a microsecond of time/space. At one microsecond we are seated at the computer and the next we have gotten up to go pee. One moment we are born and the next moment we die of old age. But those were very long moments. Before I was born there was more empty space then there was after I was born. When I retired I made space for someone else to do the job I was doing. When I die there will be more empty space in my house.

 

Can you tell that "I" have been thinking? Yes, these thoughts I am typing on my keyboard are now blowing in the winds of the universe. Not many will observe them but they will exist none-the-less. These thought of mine were inspired by thoughts you had that you had typed on your keyboard. The thoughts did not arise spontaneously.

[GrandmasterP]

And I suggest that you, I and everyone else will never leave ego behind. Sure, we can deminish its influence but it will always be there, ready to pick you up, whenever you want to be picked up, after falling.

 

Just don't be strokin' it!

Just now and again maybe.

No 'I'.

Thing is in order to try and describe such times it's 'I' describing in the here and now and sod all to do with the actual thing supposedly being described.

I gave up trying to describe such events a long time back.

May as well try to accurately communicate what Stinking Bishop cheese tastes like by using only words ( and no cheese) to someone who never heard of, let alone ever tasted; Stinking Bishop Cheese.

( It's delicious BTW- very cheese-ey).

Edited May 27, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Marblehead]

Part two:

 

Yes totally agree. This radical materialism is the direct opposite of the Buddhist doctrine of anatta - or not-self. But as often happens, the soteriological potential of these seemingly opposite doctrines is equal and actually identical.

 

But all this aside...you describe yourself as an atheist and a materialist, a person who not only believes in evil but thinks we should take a stand against it. You also seem happy to accept theories like Darwinism and the Big Bang. in every respect you're a thoroughly modern thinker. So what does the Tao Te Ching do for you? What does it bring to your table?

Just wanted to let you know that I had to look up the word I highlighted. I don't like the word. Hehehe.

 

Yes, sometimes there are paradoxes and other times there is illogical thought. We need to be able to distinguish between the two.

 

To the "who not only believes in evil", no, evil is not a thing in itself. Evil is a judgement call - an evaluation of an act. A hurricane is not evil just because 120 people happened to die as a result of it. But an intentional act by a human can be considered evil because of the intent. Intention applies here.

 

Yes, I do think we need take a stand against evil in all its many forms of acts against others as well as against the planet in general.

 

Yes, I do hold that evolution and the Big Bang are facts. Evolution has been proven, can't say the Big Bang has been proven but they (the scientists) are close enough for me.

 

There are so many things in the TTC that speak to me that it is difficult to speak to singular concepts but perhaps living a life as naturally as possible would be one and another would be that there are processes in the universe and all of the Ten Thousand Things have their set of processes that allow for their existence, for whatever time span that might be.

 

Taoism teaches thinking logically, it speaks against excess, it speaks of lessening our ego and desires. It teaches knowing when enough is enough.

[Marblehead]

Just now and again maybe.

No 'I'.

Thing is in order to try and describe such times it's 'I' describing in the here and now and sod all to do with the actual thing supposedly being described.

I gave up trying to describe such events a long time back.

May as well try to accurately communicate what Stinking Bishop cheese tastes like by using only words ( and no cheese) to someone who never heard of, let alone ever tasted; Stinking Bishop Cheese.

( It's delicious BTW- very cheese-ey).

Yeah, cheese is generally pretty cheese-ey. Hehehe. No, I cannot put my finger on my "I". "I" am a collection of things and thoughts and experiences as well as all the physical stuff that was used to make me the "I" that I am.

 

Yes, better to just accept the fact that we exist since someone who does exist is responding to us.

[GrandmasterP]

I'm pretty sure that I exist.

If I'm wrong then some swine keeps eating my dinners.

Edited May 27, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Marblehead]

I'm pretty sure that I exist.

If I'm wrong then some swine keeps eating my dinners.

And consider the gross illusions and delusions I would be having if you didn't exist.

[GrandmasterP]

A gross is 144 here in the UK.

Is than the same in the USA I wonder.

[Marblehead]

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure we use base ten, not base twelve. Well, except that one foot has twelve inches but two feet have ten digits.

[silent thunder]

Yup we order some things by the gross and it's 144.

Never understood why that was gross though.

[ChiDragon]

1 gross = a dozen dozen.....!!!

Edited May 27, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

Yea! I think we have managed to get way, way, way off topic. We done good.

 

But I'm sure that whenever Nikolai1 is ready to get back on topic it will happen without flaw.

[Nikolai1]

Hi marblehead

 

Thanks for a great answer - I really liked this:

 

There are so many things in the TTC that speak to me that it is difficult to speak to singular concepts but perhaps living a life as naturally as possible would be one and another would be that there are processes in the universe and all of the Ten Thousand Things have their set of processes that allow for their existence, for whatever time span that might be.

 

Taoism teaches thinking logically, it speaks against excess, it speaks of lessening our ego and desires. It teaches knowing when enough is enough.

 

It really reminds me of some of those old Roman stoics - Seneca, Marcus Aurelius. Rather than seeking to transcend the ten thousand things, it seems you would rather find, accept and endorse your place amongst them. A kind of self-surrender to the realities of existence. And this includes an intellectual endorsement of the prevailing modern worldview of materialism.

 

The old stoics talk about the peace this brings. Has the Tao Te Ching brought peace to you?

 

For me, I have to say that I've found this road way too hard - in fact I haven't really attempted. Even though I was raised an atheist at age 18 I was already seeking to dismantle the materialism I was brought up with.

 

For me self-surrender was not about humbly accepting my place in conventional reality. It was about trying to realise that the ego is an illusion and then trying to function in the world with this worldview. So, yes, quite Buddhistic really.

 

I have been completely unable to get myself to fit anybody else's agenda accept my own. Was always terrible at being subordinate (or superordinate) to anyone. My hell was hierarchy. I think if I had to join the army with its culture of obedience and surrender of individual aim I think I would have shot myself. I used to have nightmares about being in the army, even though there has never been the remotest threat of it.

 

But now, at 37 years old, I'm able to see how much I've had to suffer for my own need for freedom from obedience, how it holds you back. And I can see the spiritual merit, sorry to use that word, but it is the spiritual merit of just being happy as one tiny thing amongst the ten thousand.

 

If I've read you wrongly and I'm on the wrong track with you, let me know...but this is what your post made me think.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Nikolai1