The nature of Tao and its '-ism'

[The Name]

Some people have a distorted view of the idea of "flowing with Tao" and "wu-wei" as meaning renunciation and instinctual living but is this really true?

 

Look at Lao-tzu for example, the man lived in 500 BC and wrote a philosophical disertation which was aimed at educating the ruling elite. Does this sound like wu-wei as is commonly understood?

 

My point is that Tao means the order of things and the Tao of man is to rule over nature, therefore wu-wei does not mean letting oneself to be driven by animal instinct. The Tao of a human being is virtue and self-overcoming in the Nietzschean sense.

 

Maybe the hippies were wrong?!

Edited January 30, 2015 by The Name

[C T]

How did the Tao come to mean the order of things? Does this mean that Tao only manifest when things are in a shambolic state? Just curiously probing cos i dont know much about what Tao really means, or can it actually mean something. If it does, then it would seem like a principle limited by certain conditions, do you agree?

 

The Name said: My point is that Tao means the order of things and the Tao of man is to rule over nature...

Edited January 30, 2015 by C T

[Daeluin]

In doing, we use our energy. In non-doing we preserve it.

 

Some believe that once proper skill is developed in non-doing, one may flow within the current of their own gravity drawn way, like water does, and thereby interact with the world while preserving one's energy. The idea is that this is the means by which one may accomplish a form of enlightenment at which point one enters a new stage of being.

 

I'm not clear on where this idea of the tao of man ruling over nature come from. Sounds like something a man decided. The concept of tao I am familiar with is subtle and difficult to speak of, as it represents the stage before the universe existed, even as it is all around us everywhere yet nowhere simultaneously.

 

Zhuangzi advises there is no right or wrong, just what is right in front of us.

[The Name]

How did the Tao come to mean the order of things? Does this mean that Tao only manifest when things are in a shambolic state? Just curiously probing cos i dont know much about what Tao really means, or can it actually mean something. If it does, then it would seem like a principle limited by certain conditions, do you agree?

 

I agree, the Tao is not the real tao. But "going with" Tao implies that there is a certain pattern which should be enacted, this is what I meant by the order of things.

 

There are two aspects of reality (from our perspective), one is the absolute and the other is the illusory. There is form, pattern, structure, order etc but it is ultimately void, just as Tao manifests 1.600.600.600 things but is ultimately transcendent.

 

If Tao were 'simply nothing' then it would be absolutely useless to talk about it, and Lao Tzu would have just lived as a recluse without speaking, realizing that it is stupid/ignorant to say anything. But he did spoke, in fact he wrote a philosophical work on statesmanship, so he acknowledged the other side of the coin, namely the cosmic manifestation of pure being in form.

Edited January 30, 2015 by The Name

[The Name]

I'm not clear on where this idea of the tao of man ruling over nature come from. Sounds like something a man decided.

 

It comes from thousands of years of history, it is clearly in man's nature to rule over nature (pun intended).

 

 

Zhuangzi advises there is no right or wrong, just what is right in front of us.

 

There is a right way to write and there is a wrong way to write, if you do not write the ideograms in a right way then you will not communicate your right advice.

Every thing is right and wrong forever. When there is nothing then there is nothing. Therefore the sage talks about right and wrong while being right and avoiding the wrong.

[dust]

There are different kinds of Taoism -- different ideas of Tao and how to "go with it"

 

As you say, the Laozi is often little more than a political manual. But you are getting confused, I think, as I have done in the past, if you think that the Laozi is the deciding authority on what is and what is not Tao or Taoism.

 

 

There is a right way to write and there is a wrong way to write, if you do not write the ideograms in a right way then you will not communicate your right advice.

 

There are recognized ways of writing words and unrecognized ways of writing words.

 

Human language depends entirely on people for its meaning -- it has no intrinsic meanings, no intrinsic right and wrong. And it, as everything else, changes -- what means something one day might not mean it the next. What means something to one person might not mean the same to another. There is more than one way to write Tao.

 

戊 戌 戍 戉 成 戎 戒

 

Each of these Chinese characters has a different meaning and pronunciation. We can see that even one misplaced stroke can change the official meaning in a number of ways. So if a student mis-writes a character and his teacher sees, she will perhaps say "That is wrong." But it is only wrong when she looks at it. If she hadn't corrected the student, the way he wrote it would have been correct for him, in his understanding.

 

Chinese has traditional and simplified characters, and within these, people in different locales use different characters to mean different things. Someone from Beijing reading something written by someone from Hong Kong or Japan might easily think it gibberish, even when the same characters are used. Who's wrong?

 

 

Every thing is right and wrong forever. When there is nothing then there is nothing. Therefore the sage talks about right and wrong while being right and avoiding the wrong.

 

 

These days, I like to look at what Zhuangzi had to say..

 

Words are not just wind. Words have something to say. But if what they have to say is not fixed, then do they really say something? Or do they say nothing? People suppose that words are different from the peeps of baby birds, but is there any difference, or isn't there? What does the Way rely upon, that we have true and false? What do words rely upon, that we have right and wrong? How can the Way go away and not exist? How can words exist and not be acceptable? When the Way relies on little accomplishments and words rely on vain show, then we have the rights and wrongs of the Confucians and the Mo-ists. What one calls right the other calls wrong; what one calls wrong the other calls right. But if we want to right their wrongs and wrong their rights, then the best thing to use is clarity.

...

For this reason, whether you point to a little stalk or a great pillar, a leper or the beautiful Hsi-shih, things ribald and shady or things grotesque and strange, the Way makes them all into one. Their dividedness is their completeness; their complete­ness is their impairment. No thing is either complete or impaired, but all are made into one again. Only the man of far­ reaching vision knows how to make them into one. So he has no use [for categories], but relegates all to the constant. The constant is the useful; the useful is the passable; the passable is the successful; and with success, all is accomplished. He relies upon this alone, relies upon it and does not know he is doing so. This is called the Way.

[The Name]

There are different kinds of Taoism -- different ideas of Tao and how to "go with it"

 

Different ideas but not different Tao, therefore only one way is right and all the others are wrong.

 

These days, I like to look at what Zhuangzi had to say

 

Zhuangzi said that we cannot compartmentalize reality because reality is whole, he was against reductionism but acknowledged the parts as well as the whole.

 

 

Zhuangzi: Only the man of far­ reaching vision knows how to make them into one.

 

See? ..he is saying that only the human who has ability can do the right thing.

Edited January 30, 2015 by The Name

[Marblehead]

In doing, we use our energy. In non-doing we preserve it.

 

Some believe that once proper skill is developed in non-doing, one may flow within the current of their own gravity drawn way, like water does, and thereby interact with the world while preserving one's energy. The idea is that this is the means by which one may accomplish a form of enlightenment at which point one enters a new stage of being.

 

Zhuangzi advises there is no right or wrong, just what is right in front of us.

I had to remove the middle paragraph before "Like"ing the post. The middle paragraph is a contradiction.

[Marblehead]

Zhuangzi said that we cannot compartmentalize reality because reality is whole, he was against reductionism but acknowledged the parts as well as the whole.

There. You said something I enjoyed reading.

 

See? ..he is saying that only the human who has ability can do the right thing.

Boo! Hehehe.

[GrandmasterP]

Hello "The Name" and welcome to TTB if this is your first time here.

If not then 'welcome back'.

I wondered if your....

"Different ideas but not different Tao, therefore only one way is right and all the others are wrong."

.... wasn't perhaps a little prescriptive.

Might not that approach be a recipe for fundamentalism?

It could put rather a lot of power into the hands of those claiming to know and define their "right way" whilst busily excommunicating all those "wrong ways" that they don't agree with.

Edited January 30, 2015 by GrandmasterP

[Daeluin]

See? ..he is saying that only the human who has ability can do the right thing.

 

I'm not seeing anything about those with vision being right and those without vision being wrong.

 

Further this leads me to wonder as to whether these thousands of years of the history of man (a drop in the bucket) were those of vision or not. If you are taking that as right, then where is this oneness we have achieved? It is in the nature of cancer cells to exploit their environment much as can be seen in the history of man. Perhaps we have achieved oneness in many little ways, but have not attained freedom from reliance on the non-renewable resources which we consume.

[dust]

Different ideas but not different Tao, therefore only one way is right and all the others are wrong.

 

Yes, different Tao. And no, not different Tao.

 

道可道，非恒道

道可，道非，恒道

 

 

 

Who said Tao is "right", or that one who follows Tao is "right" ?

 

Show me someone who claims that only his way is The Right Way and I'll show you someone who has missed the point.

 

 

 

Zhuangzi said that we cannot compartmentalize reality because reality is whole, he was against reductionism but acknowledged the parts as well as the whole.

 

"... where there is birth there must be death; where there is death there must be birth. Where there is acceptability there must be unacceptability; where there is unacceptability there must be acceptability. Where there is recognition of right there must be recognition of wrong; where there is recognition of wrong there must be recognition of right. Therefore the sage does not proceed in such a way, but illuminates all in the light of Heaven. He too recognizes a "this," but a "this" which is also "that," a "that" which is also "this." His "that" has both a right and a wrong in it; his "this" too has both a right and a wrong in it. So, in fact, does he still have a "this" and "that"? Or does he in fact no longer have a "this" and "that"? A state in which "this" and "that" no longer find their opposites is called the hinge of the Way. When the hinge is fitted into the socket, it can respond endlessly. Its right then is a single endlessness and its wrong too is a single endlessness."

 

 

See? ..he is saying that only the human who has ability can do the right thing.

 

I don't believe you.

[The Name]

Hello "The Name" and welcome to TTB if this is your first time here.

If not then 'welcome back'.

I wondered if your....

"Different ideas but not different Tao, therefore only one way is right and all the others are wrong."

.... wasn't perhaps a little prescriptive.

Might not that approach be a recipe for fundamentalism?

It could put rather a lot of power into the hands of those claiming to know and define their "right way" whilst busily excommunicating all those "wrong ways" that they don't agree with.

 

Hello. Yeah, you make a strong argument...now that I think of it, it does sound like genocidal christian fundamentalism.

[The Name]

I'm not seeing anything about those with vision being right and those without vision being wrong.

 

Further this leads me to wonder as to whether these thousands of years of the history of man (a drop in the bucket) were those of vision or not. If you are taking that as right, then where is this oneness we have achieved? It is in the nature of cancer cells to exploit their environment much as can be seen in the history of man. Perhaps we have achieved oneness in many little ways, but have not attained freedom from reliance on the non-renewable resources which we consume.

 

Hmmmm....this is quite true..

 

We need to embrace wholeness and stop deluding ourselves with dual views. Until now the human species have always shown right-brain aggression towards mother nature, always alienating the Self by mislabeling it as 'the other'.

But there is hope, because as history progresses we foolish humans start to learn from our mistakes and become wise by embracing the Tao and Mother Nature wholly (holy?).

 

Ultimately, the greatest gift which Enlightenment bestows upon one is the ability to love all beings unconditionally and help create a more beautiful world by restoring the holistic view as opposed to the fragmented view which feeds the fires of agressive impulses stemming from ignorant fear.

Edited January 30, 2015 by The Name

[The Name]

When the hinge is fitted into the socket, it can respond endlessly. Its right then is a single endlessness and its wrong too is a single endlessness."

 

Ah, I see. So ultimately Tao is to be open to the infinite which is neither this nor that, instead of frantically searching for an illusion we should accept the inherent bliss of ontological totality!

[Brian]

 

Hmmmm....this is quite true..

 

We need to embrace wholeness and stop deluding ourselves with dual views. Until now the human species have always shown right-brain aggression towards mother nature, always alienating the Self by mislabeling it as 'the other'.

But there is hope, because as history progresses we foolish humans start to learn from our mistakes and become wise by embracing the Tao and Mother Nature wholly (holy?).

 

Ultimately, the greatest gift which Enlightenment bestows upon one is the ability to love all beings unconditionally and help create a more beautiful world by restoring the holistic view as opposed to the fragmented view which feeds the fires of agressive impulses stemming from ignorant fear.

^^^Not always. Not all cultures, not all times and not all individuals. There is truth in what you are saying (especially looking at the last few hundred years) but you are generalizing.

[The Name]

There. You said something I enjoyed reading.

 

Boo! Hehehe.

 

[dust]

Nicely put. I think that, perhaps, you had it all along, but were playing the DA to see what would come up?

[The Name]

Nicely put. I think that, perhaps, you had it all along, but were playing the DA to see what would come up?

 

Hahaha

 

Yeah, I was fooling around to see in what ways can the Tao be (mis)interpreted...

 

Ultimately,

 

Whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent. - Wittgenstein

Edited January 30, 2015 by The Name

[dust]

 

Until now the human species have always shown right-brain aggression towards mother nature, always alienating the Self by mislabeling it as 'the other'.

 

^^^Not always. Not all cultures, not all times and not all individuals. There is truth in what you are saying (especially looking at the last few hundred years) but you are generalizing.

 

Though I agree that it's a generalization, it does very much seem that the overall direction we're headed as a species is one of total domination of nature -- or, at least, the desire of the total domination of nature.

 

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that most people I have ever met are quite happy to... if not intentionally destroy the Earth's natural processes, allow them to be destroyed or subjugated by so-called "necessary" human activities.

 

By and large, I think the Way of Man is indeed aggression towards nature. We see ourselves as almost entirely separate from it, and "better" than it, and we fear it...

 

People who "follow" the Way of the Way, though, see that we're not separate from it, that we're not "better" than it, and that there's nothing to fear.

[C T]

... that there's nothing to fear.

Somehow, i believe that the desire to dominate nature without heeding the dire cost involved is not one borne of fear, but of greed, tied to ignorance.

Edited January 31, 2015 by C T

[Daeluin]

Yes, I feel the fear comes from the fear of being fully responsible for ourselves. When seeing the opportunity, we often choose to stand on the shoulders of another to avoid this. Be it nature or other humans via slavery, castes, classes. All this only enables us to see how much more we can take.

 

Should we accept responsibility for ourselves, we truly begin to face ourselves, and perhaps come to understand the burden of desire and the gift of simple living.

 

The beings that do come to accept this responsibility will ever be dominated by conquerors who decide there is something of value to exploit - hence the use of yielding, humility, and non-contention as mechanisms of invisibility. The connection the conquered beings made to tao is covered by layers of trauma and perversion, but it remains and lives on within, and there will always be those who are able to uncover it again.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Daeluin

[Apech]

Some people have a distorted view of the idea of "flowing with Tao" and "wu-wei" as meaning renunciation and instinctual living but is this really true?

 

Look at Lao-tzu for example, the man lived in 500 BC and wrote a philosophical disertation which was aimed at educating the ruling elite. Does this sound like wu-wei as is commonly understood?

 

My point is that Tao means the order of things and the Tao of man is to rule over nature, therefore wu-wei does not mean letting oneself to be driven by animal instinct. The Tao of a human being is virtue and self-overcoming in the Nietzschean sense.

 

Maybe the hippies were wrong?!

 

(bold text) really? I thought it went like this ....

 

Man follows the earth.

Earth follows heaven.

Heaven follows the Tao.

Tao follows what is natural.

[dust]

Somehow, i believe that the desire to dominate nature without heeding the dire cost involved is not one borne of fear, but of greed, tied to ignorance.

 

Yes... well, it's all connected, isn't it?

 

As I see it, many people are intensely afraid, and it's (often) that fear that feeds the greed you speak of.

 

It's the same fear that drives so many people to kill in the name of religion, or country, or "honour" (rather than out of necessity or simple greed)... and I for one can say that it was that same fear that drove me to Laozi and Zhuangzi and Buddha -- the need to understand myself/the universe better..which modern science wasn't entirely helpful for

Edited January 31, 2015 by dustybeijing

[C T]

Yes... well, it's all connected, isn't it?

 

As I see it, many people are intensely afraid, and it's (often) that fear that feeds the greed you speak of.

 

It's the same fear that drives so many people to kill in the name of religion, or country, or "honour" (rather than out of necessity or simple greed)... and I for one can say that it was that same fear that drove me to Laozi and Zhuangzi and Buddha -- the need to understand myself/the universe better..which modern science wasn't entirely helpful for

yes, fear from the masses, and extreme greed from the power-driven that drive the fears (of the masses) deeper and deeper. As you mentioned, not wanting to succumb, those who know right from wrong turn to deeper truths in the hope of finding a way to restore some semblance of sanity to a mad, mad world.