the first of karma?

[3bob]

If there was no karma before The One,  then will be no karma when the One returns to Tao...

 

how do you see it?  (besides the poison arrow aspect)

Edited December 1, 2015 by 3bob

[Bearded Dragon]

The one returns to Tao? The one has never gone anywhere nor will it ever go anywhere.

 

When looking from the perspective of the one it's blatantly obvious that nothing sticks to it because there is nothing to stick to. It's not that hard. What used to make it difficult was all the theory which built all the concepts up to seem really distant and unobtainable.

[3bob]

The Taoist teaching per the T.T.C. is that Tao gave birth to the One, and if it is born then it to will "return" per that teaching.

 

In the One and under its following permutations there is all of time, all of space, all of beings and all of manifest form from the most subtle energy to the not so subtle "Ten Thousand".  The One is also the first to manifest or be born and also the last to return - thus and by simple extrapolation it seems to follow that the first and subtle workings of karma comes into existence and play under the One...  for where else or how else does karma come into existence and play being that Tao is boundless, (thus karma-less) without change?

Edited November 29, 2015 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

Hellova deep concept here.

 

And yes, we should be able to relate our philosophy (and religion if we have one) to our experiences in manifest life.

 

I think we should view the words "Tao" as a verb, and "One" as a noun.

 

Therefore I suggest that Tao is One's Tzujan. 

 

Therefore nothing returns to Tao, all things return to One (singularity).

 

I think it must be said that "One" has always existed (the energy of the universe).

 

Cycles, reversion and transmutation (change).  Important concepts in Taoism.  (Some call it karma.)

 

Tao, as a verb, is beyond these concepts.

[3bob]

Even the One is a thing and named and known so, granted it is the first and last of all things and thus contains all things - so all things are under the One and the One is under the Tao - thus I'd say it to will return to the Tao.... a tiny mote returns to the Tao through returning to the One then going further through the gate of the One where karma and things can not pass and are left behind.  (further meaning that when the cosmic cycle of the One has also run its course (after its birth) it to unwinds or is unwound as a thing and returns.

 

The One is not eternal or always existing per-se although the birth and death cycles are effectively so... being that per Chapter 1 of the T.T.C. only Tao is eternal or always existing and the "Mystery of mysteries".

Edited December 1, 2015 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

I agree with you but only if "Tao" is used as a noun.  (And afterall, that's how we must read the TTC.)

Edited November 29, 2015 by Marblehead

[soaring crane]

Is it accurate to interpret the ddj as the Dao "gave" birth to the one, in the past tense like that?

[Marblehead]

Is it accurate to interpret the ddj as the Dao "gave" birth to the one, in the past tense like that?

That would take us to that discussion Flowing Hands and Dawei were having concerning the preeminence of (The Great) One vs Tao.

 

But yes, "Tao gave birth to One."  (Singularity)  That's the way it reads in most translations.

[3bob]

Tao as a noun or thing is not of the gist of the T.T.C. - as its writings repeatedly and clearly point out !  For if that was so then it would be temporal and come to an end.

[Marblehead]

Tao as a noun or thing is not of the gist of the T.T.C. - as its writings repeatedly and clearly point out !  For if that was so then it would be temporal and come to an end.

Exactly.  That is why I stopped using the word as a noun.  (I don't want to be creating any gods.  Afterall, I am an Atheist.)

[3bob]

does that mean that your post #6 was a typo?

 

Obviously a human being is only of an atheist thought or of a non-atheist thought (etc.) in their mind where such things exist temporally... Tao, the truest identity, is not nameable or limited to such thoughts or concepts of the mind.... although such names or "born" forms have identities in time and space.   But beyond names (and their purpose) I'd say the primary gist of the T.T.C. is to know "what is within me" as alluded to as the Truest identity in Chapter 21. (and throughout)

Edited November 29, 2015 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

does that mean that your post #6 was a typo?

No, not a typo.  The TTC points to what you said that I agreed with on condition.

 

This is one of the reasons I prefer Henricks' translation of the TTC.  When he uses "Tao" it is generally speaking to something nameless and undefined.  He most often uses "The Way" where others use "Tao".  The Way being a verb.

 

Personally, the only way I can view the use of the word "Tao" is as a replacement for "God"  That's really unacceptable for an Atheist.

[Marblehead]

Obviously a human being is only of an atheist thought or of a non-atheist thought (etc.) in their mind where such things exist temporally... Tao, the truest identity, is not nameable or limited to such thoughts or concepts of the mind.... although such names or "born" forms have identities in time and space.   But beyond names (and their purpose) I'd say the primary gist of the T.T.C. is to know "what is within me" as alluded to as the Truest identity in Chapter 21. (and throughout)

I put labels on myself so that others can better understand why I say certain things.  Yes, "Atheist" is just a label.

 

The TTC is not preaching a religion.  It is a collection of thoughts regarding how one should live their life.  It doesn't say we will go to heaven if we follow the teaching or that we will go to hell if we don't.

 

It does say that if we are not careful we will attain an early demise.

 

Of course, in my understanding, upon our demise we return to Mystery or become part of something else.  I really don't see a return to Tao.  A return to One?  Yes, possible if the universe stops expanding and the Big Crunch begins.

[3bob]

The use of "Tao" in the T.T.C. doesn't mention a certain or well defined Zeus like "God" which it sounds like you are referring to, although one might say per the T.T.C. that there is a nature like aspect to God as Mystery... thus how you see or use the word Tao as an attachment to a anti-god or no god concept is still a form or anti-form, which is incongruent with the T.T.C. ?

 

Btw, once a return is made by the Tao to the Tao it re-realizes it never left...

[Marblehead]

The use of "Tao" in the T.T.C. doesn't mention a certain or well defined Zeus like "God" which it sounds like you are referring to, although one might say per the T.T.C. that there is a nature like aspect to God as Mystery...

And I do speak against this, IMO. misunderstanding.

 

thus how you see or use the word Tao as an attachment to a anti-god or no god concept is still a form or anti-form, which is incongruent with the T.T.C. ?

Are you sure? 

 

I am not anti-god because stating such would be equal to admitting that there is at least one and I am against it.  My understanding is that there are none so there is nothing to be against.

 

How is this contrary to the TTC?

 

 

Btw, once a return is made by the Tao to the Tao it re-realizes it never left...

It cannot return as it never left.

[3bob]

it could be called an attachment to an anti-belief or belief, instead of an anti-god or god attachment which is of about the same in effect to me...

 

I suggest chapter 14 where it says, "until it returns beyond the realm of things" and chapter 25 where it says, "To be great is to go on -To go on is to be far - To be far is to return; also chapter 40 where it says, "The movement of the Tao consists in returning".

 

Btw, there are all sorts of beings besides those living on earth in physical bodies, such is a major aspect of Taoism which a non-experienced and closed concept of same can not out of hand divorce it from the many thousands of years of a great many reputable people having experience of same. (to various degrees)

Edited December 1, 2015 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

Oh! 3bob.  Why are you so attached to the desire to label me?  I have already placed enough labels on myself.

 

Did you hear about the Buddhist who bought a vacuum cleaner?  He got no attachments.

 

I will use Henricks' translation:

 

Chapter 14:  And returns to the state of no-thing.

I read this as the Manifest (yo) returns to the Mystery (wu).

 

Chapter 25:  "Great" means "to depart"; "To depart" means "to be far away"; And "to be far away" means "to return."

Therefore "Great" means "to return."  This is illogical.

 

Chapter 40:  "Reversal" is the movement of the Tao.

This indicates the changing from Mystery (no-thing) to the Manifest (things) and then returning to Mystery (no-thing).

 

The last two lines read:

The things of the world originate in being,

And being originates in nonbeing.

 

 

I have never seen any of those beings you speak of nor have I ever heard anyone tell of such things in a manner that is believable.  Maybe the Easter Bunny really does exist but it is just that I am incapable of seeing it.

[3bob]

well since the football gods have the Denver Broncos winning tonight all is right in the universe  

 

Btw, a couple of times it sure sounded like you back-tracked on what you were making a point about in previous posts?

but I'll let you be since I'm sure not a Taoist expert and just speaking from my particular experience.

[Marblehead]

well since the football gods have the Denver Broncos winning tonight all is right in the universe

That's great if that's what you believe.

 

Btw, a couple of times it sure sounded like you back-tracked on what you were making a point about in previous posts?

but I'll let you be since I'm sure not a Taoist expert and just speaking from my particular experience.

Yep.  And I make no apologies for that.

 

I know that sometimes it appears that I am being self-contradictory.  This is because I do hold very dearly to the TTC but at the same time I hold very dearly to the lessons I have learned during my lifetime.

 

I will always rely on my experiences over what I have read in some book.

[3bob]

MH, making apologies is not the point, it is saying one thing and then saying something 180 degrees different a couple of posts later - that should make yourself and any reader wonder....  for instance one moment a noun, the next moment not a noun,  one moment no "return", then a few posts later all sorts of returns.

 

Btw, With Tao being beyond the 5 senses, senses (that inform the mind) which by your own admission and in effect add up your  "God", do you not wonder how those 5 senses could come to be from a "fairy tale" such as the Tao since Tao can not be measured,  seen, tasted, smelled, heard, or touched which are your self stated criteria for reality?

Edited December 1, 2015 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

MH, making apologies is not the point, it is saying one thing and then saying something 180 degrees different a couple of posts later - that should make yourself and any reader wonder....  for instance one moment a noun, the next moment not a noun,  one moment no "return", the a few posts later all sorts of returns.

Truly you should not worry yourself about that.  I don't have to have my ducks in order as they are not domesticated.

 

I respond spontaneously.  There are some things in life where I have mixed feeling about.  You have observed some of them.  You done good.

 

Btw, With Tao being beyond the 5 senses, senses (that inform the mind) which by your own admission and in effect add up your  "God", do you not wonder how those 5 senses could come to be from a "fairy tale" such as the Tao since Tao can not be measured,  seen, tasted, smelled, heard, or touched which are your self stated criteria for reality?

No Gods.  Yes, the concept of Tao is a "fairy tale".  But the imagined concept is a good starting point for discussion.

 

All we can say right now is that the entire universe was created out of Singularity, whatever that was.  If the universe continues to expand as it presently is understood to be doing there will never be a return, only transmutations.

 

But there will be cycles and reversions.  Sorry, we just can't go back to the belly of our mother.  We have grown too big.

[3bob]

if the Hubble telescope can go back so can we... in some way.

I wonder What Brian would venture on that?

Edited November 30, 2015 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

if the Hubble telescope can go back so can we... in some way.

Yes, with our mind.  That's all we have the capability for right now.

 

as for knowing an aspect of Spirit:  in comparison it is kind of like having lived in various 6 foot ditchs most of one's life then suddenly standing on the mountaintop from where all the ditch's and our ego self can be seen wandering around in them -  then to turn, flying off into the sky and space and keep going -

Well, I have been in the ditches, I have been on the mountain tops, but never did I ever fly away.

 

But I did climb back down off the mountain top.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Marblehead

[dawei]

If there was no karma before The One,  then will be no karma when the One returns to Tao...

 

Interesting topic...  

 

 

The Taoist teaching per the T.T.C. is that Tao gave birth to the One, and if it is born then it to will "return" per that teaching.

 

In the One and under its following permutations there is all of time, all of space, all of beings and all of manifest form from the most subtle energy to the not so subtle "Ten Thousand".  The One is also the first to manifest or be born and also the last to return - thus and by simple extrapolation it seems to follow that the first and subtle workings of karma comes into existence and play under the One...  for where else or how else does karma come into existence and play being that Tao is boundless, (thus karma-less) without change?

 

I would call it vibration before the One.   And I'm not sure One returns to anything.. One is manifest... but in my cosmology so is Dao; they essentially arise together.  Dao is the law accompanying how and why the manifest world works and is.  You can't apply Dao to the infinite consciousness which brings everything into being.

 

Why?  Because there is no karma at that time... ergo, no Dao.  Dao can only describe the manifest world of things.

 

Even the One is a thing and named and known so, granted it is the first and last of all things and thus contains all things - so all things are under the One and the One is under the Tao - thus I'd say it to will return to the Tao.... a tiny mote returns to the Tao through returning to the One then going further through the gate of the One where karma and things can not pass and are left behind.  (further meaning that when the cosmic cycle of the One has also run its course (after its birth) it to unwinds or is unwound as a thing and returns.

 

The One is not eternal or always existing per-se although the birth and death cycles are effectively so... being that per Chapter 1 of the T.T.C. only Tao is eternal or always existing and the "Mystery of mysteries".

 

 Dao is only eternal in reference to Time; Time ushered in with the One... ergo, all three usher in together.

 

I agree with you but only if "Tao" is used as a noun.  (And afterall, that's how we must read the TTC.)

 

 

Tao as a noun or thing is not of the gist of the T.T.C. - as its writings repeatedly and clearly point out !  For if that was so then it would be temporal and come to an end.

 

On one of my many visits to China, I was in a monastery and suddenly the first line of the DDJ jumped out at me as:

 

Dao is the rule stating how singularity becomes multiplicity:

 

Dao Ke Dao Fei Cheng Dao

 

DAO (unity) once Dao'ing (unfolding) is no longer DAO (singularity)

[Marblehead]

I am leaning more toward not using "Tao" as a noun at all.  There is already "One" (Singularity).  And even it is undefined except to say that it is all the energy of the universe.