What is Dao?

[Marblehead]

This response is in two parts:

Thoughts have a tendency to do that, but i find that good discussions and contemplation has a way of untagling them.

Yep.  Discussion is good.  It can test our understandings.

 

But what is awareness then?

There was recently a documentary regarding the brain, consciousness and memory.  Sadly my base of knowledge is too weak to have grasped all of what was being said.  There are people who have very good answers for your question.  I'm not one of them.

 

What does the protein synthesis in our cells say about our conciousnes?

I've not heard them say anything.  Maybe mine are unconscious.

 

What is will? What is a choice? What are comological forces?

Will is intent.  Choice is selecting one option from two or more.  Everything that has happened since the Big Bang.

 

Is not quantum mecahnics a mystery without any answer for whether the unvierse is deterministic or not?

Quantum Mechanics is a mystery to me.

 

If we do not know how the physical forces in the universe works, then how can we determine whether there is any sort of conciousness that is capable of non-deterministic free will involved in it's workings?

Watch that Stephen Hawking documentary.  He proved there is no need for the universe to have been created by itself.

 

These are mysteries to us, as is our own conciousness, and is not Dao therefore a mystery to us?

The known universe is only 4% of what science believes is the total universe.  So there is 96% that is still a mystery.

 

If Dao is a mystery and conciousness is a mystery, then what can indicate whether Dao is concious or not?

Logic and reason. 

 

Even our choices, and our conciousness?

Words form a song:  I looked into her eyes and there was nobody home.

 

The observable universe is not all that is, and we do not even understand how that which we can observe works. But that is just a side note. Our senses are not even capable of directly percieving the observable universe as it is known today, so our sense are even more limited then our extended knowledge. And that is also just a side note.

Side notes are good.  Many use then for noting that a thought requires further development.

 

Yep.  And there have been more people on the moon than there have been in the great depths of the oceans.

 

But we do with what we have.  I look at an object, declare it to be a chair; I check its sturdiness and if sturdy I have a seat.

 

And I do understand how my electric car works. 

 

Are the De of Dao not really made up of all our choices, and all our De, thus making the De of Dao also about choices?

No, the De of man is made up of our choices.  We have nothing to do with the De of Dao.

 

I hav found no indications of the opposite either, we can only specualte about conciousness outside ourselves at best, we can't even define conciousness in any sort of way that makes it analysable outside ourselves with our current technology and science.

Yes, there is still lots to learn about the workings of the universe.

 

What if we expand into the galaxy and start to alter the cosmos on a much larger scale? What if we just destroy our own star, would that not alter the future of the whole galaxy because it drastically alters the gravitational dynamics of the galaxy? What if one single choice alters the outcomes of these possibilites?

I cannot say that any of those things are not possible.  However, they are not possible right now.  And yes, cause and effect work in mysterious ways.

 

I would say that we most likely have the technology or if you will the possibility to change the Mississippi river from flooding now and then, and who knows what we will be capable of in the future, perhaps we could move alter Venus to make it habitable in some way.

Yes, possibilities.  But not yet.

 

But on a larger scale, if we assume we use our conceptions of right and wrong could there be right and wrong for humanity, or for a certain group of people?

Right and wrong.  Harm none (without just cause).

 

But what you mentioned has happened in the past and is still happening today.

[Marblehead]

Part Two:

 

 

What about a superset of all entities capable of making choices in the universe?

Not something I believe to be possible.

That is to say that Dao has no right and wrong?

Exactly. Dao, the universe, just is. I didn't like saying that. For me it is as if Dao is a thing. It is not.

That is to say that from the perspective of Dao, they are simply what they are, as there is no right and wrong?

Correct. Simply "what is".

But what makes these choices right or wrong?

Subjective evaluations. Judgements. Mostly only in the human specie.

And why is that any different from the De of Dao?

Because my actions are preventable as I have free will whereas Dao does not.

Then what is the difference between the De of Dao and the De of Humanity?

No difference really. However, Dao does only those things that need be done whereas we humans like to screw things up.

Is not De the path to Ziran?

Ziran is Dao becoming self-actualized. De is how it does this.

But if our De should reflect the De of Dao should we not care?

This is a tough one. Human society forbids certain actions. The De of Dao has no limits.

Should the De of Humans be the same as the De of Dao for humans to attain Ziran?

Another tough one. Generalized answer: No. We have to consider our interactions with the planet and specifically with other people. We have to make choices. Dao does not.

But does it not mean that the De of Dao includes the De of Humans?

Yes. We humans are a part of the whole. But that doesn't mean we need try doing everything Dao is capable of doing.

But then we do have a responsibility towards something larger than us? Is that not the idea of that which is external, and in the end will point towards Dao, of course the outermost apsect of Dao is far from us, but in every little detail there is an aspect of Dao, so caring for our immediate environment is that not caring for Dao?

Yes, we care. Well, most of us do. We want to do the "right thing". We want to preserve the planet for future generations. But eventually our sun will destroy all life on this planet Earth and there will be nothing we can do about it. Best bet would be to move to another solar system.

Would you say that there is no relation between our Ziran and The Ziran of Dao, What about the Ziran of our more immediate environment? Should we consider the Ziran of the ecosystem of the planet earth? In essence can it not be said that by looking at our more immediate environment we are looking at Dao? And thought it can be said that the vastness of Dao in it's entirety is far beyond our capabilities our ziran is to be inline with the De of Dao by being inline with the De of our immidiate surroundings?

Ziran applies to all things. Non-living (biologically) things have no problem. They are what they are and become what they have to become.

Living things, and especially humans, are a bit different. That is because we have free will. We can either become all that we can be or we can accept things the way they are.

And is this not even if infinitesimal from the perspective of the Grand Dao not speaking of both the De and the Ziran of Dao, especially if we regard that our choices does infact alter the outcome of reality?

I have not accepted the concept of "Grand Dao", however, yes, what we do alters things. Not all that much as for as the totality of the universe goes, but still.

Our selfishness and instinct for survival generally drives us to do the "right thing" whenever we can. That is, to not negatively effect others and our planet.

Is not the doing of a group of people worthy of blame?

Depends on what they are doing. It they are causing harm to others or to the planet then they should be blamed.

Is humanity to blame for it's many faults?

Yes. We can do better.

If we assume Dao as a superset of all choices, then does that not infer that Dao can be blamed in the sense that any group of choices cna be blamed?

No. That is the cop-out for most religions. They fail to do the "right thing" so they have to create a devil to blame their wrong-doings on.

[Marblehead]

What isn't Dao?

 

I haven't found anything that isn't yet.  My hopes are not very high for finding anything either.

[Wu Ming Jen]

Dao is empty, but things have forms.

 

Dao is the source of all things.

 

Dao has no form, it can be given but cannot be taken, it can be gained but cannot be seen.

 

Tao has nothing to know, there is no knowing, no knowing is where we all came from and return, there is eternity in this.

 

We observe Taos function in the physical world not the Tao itself it is imageless nothing for the mind to attach to. so replace knowing with awareness. then you can become aware of the unseen, the imageless.

[opendao]

 

I can't help it

 

anybody with a sincere heart can help to reduce confusions about Dao   Especially when relying on classic texts and traditional Daoist practice.

 

知其不可奈何而安之若命，德之至也

 

To understand what you can do nothing about and to be content with it as with fate - this is the perfection of virtue.

 

(ZZ)

 

there is no surprise that Confucius could have opinions, different from Daoist understanding. You quote words attributed to Confucius, skipping the context about filial piety, royal loyalty and other things usual for Confucius's teaching. This is one reason to not accept such words as valuable in understanding of the Daoist tradition.

 

From another side, 命 is not really a fate as something given by Heavens. In Daoist tradition, especially in Neidan texts, Ming is defined as "vitality". Vitality is a real source of fate, that's why "fate" is the usual translation. Few famous quotes: "Ming is Yuan Qi in Kidneys", "My Ming is not in Heaven, but inside of me". Keeping this in mind, the phrase can be read the way, that High De is a result of "being content with Ming". Sure 安 have meanings like "be content with", but also "arrange", "settle" and so on. Then there is no contradiction between the words of Confucius and Daoist understanding of High De, as a results of the practice (Ming Gong - work with Ming) when Ming is full and settled.

 

You see, dustybeijing, how sincere intention can help? Thank you, you helped a lot.

 

Not sure about your pseudo-mathematical terminology (function, vector).

 

no worries, there is a dictionary to help:

 

"function: an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing"

"vector: a quantity (such as velocity) that has size and direction".

 

You're right, with definitions it's more clear.

 

 

'Right' and 'wrong' are the result of human perception.

 

Without human perception, there is no right or wrong. To a cloud, there is no right or wrong.

 

Boiling kettle is not a result of perception, but of the temperature. If you're gone, it's still boiling. Right and wrong, they are as cold and warmth on the thermometer. Interpretations are defined by people, but changes of Qi are real. Even if there is no one to watch them ))

 

 

Just like how God can't be 'evil'? All the bad things are the work of the devil? The anti-Dao?

 

almost. Loss of Dao it's called in Daoism.

[opendao]

What isn't Dao?

 

there are many of them. De, for example, is not Dao any more (or yet). Humans, things, creatures, stars... Dao is everywhere, but it has no form. It is nowhere, but give birth to everything.

But what was born out of Dao is not Dao anymore.

[Marblehead]

But what was born out of Dao is not Dao anymore.

Should I argue this?  I would likely only end up contradicting myself if I did.

 

Never mind.

[dust]

anybody with a sincere heart can help to reduce confusions about Dao   Especially when relying on classic texts and traditional Daoist practice.

 

I think you know what I was referring to.

 

 

there is no surprise that Confucius could have opinions, different from Daoist understanding. You quote words attributed to Confucius, skipping the context about filial piety, royal loyalty and other things usual for Confucius's teaching. This is one reason to not accept such words as valuable in understanding of the Daoist tradition.

 

Spoken by 'Confucius' in the story, but not 'attributed' to Confucius.

 

Mr Zhuang uses these ideas to make another point, not specifically about filial piety or duty to ruler, but about his usual shtick: don't fight too much. Or, as you say, be "content with ming".

 

I think you know this, too.

 

 

From another side, 命 is not really a fate as something given by Heavens. In Daoist tradition, especially in Neidan texts, Ming is defined as "vitality". Vitality is a real source of fate, that's why "fate" is the usual translation. Few famous quotes: "Ming is Yuan Qi in Kidneys", "My Ming is not in Heaven, but inside of me". Keeping this in mind, the phrase can be read the way, that High De is a result of "being content with Ming". Sure 安 have meanings like "be content with", but also "arrange", "settle" and so on. Then there is no contradiction between the words of Confucius and Daoist understanding of High De, as a results of the practice (Ming Gong - work with Ming) when Ming is full and settled.

 

Whatever one's desired definition of ming, ZZ's point again remains the same: be content with ming.

 

Whatever the meaning of an, the meaning of that sentence remains fundamentally the same. And no, there is (in this case) no difference/contradiction between the 'Confucian' and Daoist De.

 

 

You see, dustybeijing, how sincere intention can help? Thank you, you helped a lot.

 

... you're welcome?

 

 

 

no worries, there is a dictionary to help:

 

"function: an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing"

"vector: a quantity (such as velocity) that has size and direction".

 

You're right, with definitions it's more clear.

 

My comment was not about understanding the words but a note on your use of them. And, again, I think you know this.

 

I would hardly, amid such use of such terminology, be surprised to find terms like 'coefficient' or 'quantization'.

 

"The ten thousand things are quantized aspects of Dao each performing actions with a vector leading to or from Dao.."

 

 

 

Boiling kettle is not a result of perception, but of the temperature. If you're gone, it's still boiling. Right and wrong, they are as cold and warmth on the thermometer. Interpretations are defined by people, but changes of Qi are real. Even if there is no one to watch them ))

 

Perhaps we shall just agree that we're talking of very different definitions of right and wrong.

 

'Morality' and your 'vector of actions leading into or out of Dao' are quite different.

[Taoist Texts]

But what was born out of Dao is not Dao anymore.

 

東郭子問於莊子曰：「所謂道，惡乎在？」莊子曰：「無所不在。」東郭子曰：「期而後可。」莊子曰：「在螻蟻。」曰：「何其下邪？」曰：「在稊稗。」曰：「何其愈下邪？」曰：「在瓦甓。」曰：「何其愈甚邪？」曰：「在屎溺。」東郭子不應。

Knowledge Rambling in the...:

Dong-guo Zi asked Zhuangzi, saying, 'Where is what you call the Dao to be found?' Zhuangzi replied, 'Everywhere.'

The other said, 'Specify an instance of it. That will be more satisfactory.' '

It is here in this ant.'

'Give a lower instance.'

'It is in this panic grass.'

'Give me a still lower instance.'

'It is in this earthenware tile.' 

 

(shrug) these people are ignorant.

[opendao]

I think you know what I was referring to.

 

yes, but your intention was different then your words.

 

Spoken by 'Confucius' in the story, but not 'attributed' to Confucius.

 

It's attributed to Confucius in the text by the author of the text.

 

Mr Zhuang uses these ideas to make another point, not specifically about filial piety or duty to ruler, but about his usual shtick: don't fight too much. Or, as you say, be "content with ming".

 

I know that Ming practice is a source of "don't fight too much".

 

But I also know that "accepting fate" or "be content with fate" has no relation to Daoism.

 

Whatever one's desired definition of ming, ZZ's point again remains the same: be content with ming.

 

Whatever the meaning of an, the meaning of that sentence remains fundamentally the same. And no, there is (in this case) no difference/contradiction between the 'Confucian' and Daoist De.

 

I explained you the meaning, but you skipped it. That's fine.

 

De can be understood through practice, then texts will be clear.

 

"The ten thousand things are quantized aspects of Dao each performing actions with a vector leading to or from Dao.."

 

even as a joke it has no sense.

 

 

Perhaps we shall just agree that we're talking of very different definitions of right and wrong.

 

'Morality' and your 'vector of actions leading into or out of Dao' are quite different.

 

yes, absolutely. But you're talking about modern meaning, while I'm about the traditional distinction between "good" and "bad". Sages of the past understood things directly, so they left a lot of wisdom modern people cannot know.

 

東郭子問於莊子曰：「所謂道，惡乎在？」莊子曰：「無所不在。」東郭子曰：「期而後可。」莊子曰：「在螻蟻。」曰：「何其下邪？」曰：「在稊稗。」曰：「何其愈下邪？」曰：「在瓦甓。」曰：「何其愈甚邪？」曰：「在屎溺。」東郭子不應。

Knowledge Rambling in the...:

Dong-guo Zi asked Zhuangzi, saying, 'Where is what you call the Dao to be found?' Zhuangzi replied, 'Everywhere.'

The other said, 'Specify an instance of it. That will be more satisfactory.' '

It is here in this ant.'

'Give a lower instance.'

'It is in this panic grass.'

'Give me a still lower instance.'

'It is in this earthenware tile.' 

 

(shrug) these people are ignorant.

 

I agree, you're very ignorant, you proved it countless times, so let's just ignore your arrogant opinion made up just for arguing something you have no idea about.

 

Dao is a source of everything, it can be found everywhere. But what was born out of Dao is not Dao anymore. Humans are not Dao, but they have Dao. If humans are already Dao, then there is no need in Dao as a practice. They have Dao, but they have to "cutivate Dao" and "attain Dao". If they lost Dao, they "don't live long". How it can be possible to cover all such meanings if we understand Dao only as a "way" or principle? Obviously there is something more. Much more.

[opendao]

Should I argue this?  I would likely only end up contradicting myself if I did.

 

Take it as one possible answer and apply to the ideas you expressed in your previous posts. Then maybe you'll have more clarity and less contradictions

[Michael Sternbach]

there are many of them. De, for example, is not Dao any more (or yet). Humans, things, creatures, stars... Dao is everywhere, but it has no form. It is nowhere, but give birth to everything.

But what was born out of Dao is not Dao anymore.

 

I beg to differ. But seeing how you tend to react to people who don't agree with you, I am perfectly content to leave it at that.

[opendao]

I beg to differ. But seeing how you tend to react to people who don't agree with you, I am perfectly content to leave it at that.

 

If you can discuss in a normal way, with support from the Daoist texts and traditional teaching, without personal insults and trolling, without making up concepts out of "common sense", then I'd really love to hear your opinion. The questions about Dao are the most difficult ones... So what text or opinion of a Daoist master can you bring against the simple idea that frogs are not Dao? To help you out, maybe it's good to open Lao Zi and look what is a relationship between Dao and 10000 things?

[leth]

Yep.  Discussion is good.  It can test our understandings.

 

It is but we have digressed a lot, especially since our questions are loosing it's original context. Therefor I feel the need to summarise and conclude a bit, I do belive I understand your position but you'll have to excuse me for any assumptions I make that are wrong. But i do have some questions.

 

You seem to say that our choices are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, does that mean that our choices does not matter, and why should we in that case not resort to fatalism or some sort of egotesitical fatalistic hedonism? What is it about making the right choices that make them the right choice in a more objective sense, i.e. not egoteistical sense, and why should we make those choices?

 

What is it about us that gives us free will and makes us able to experience?

 

Is conciousness part of the universe which follows deterministic rules, and if so must it not also follow deterministic rules?

 

Is there no posibility that this mystery that is conciousness is more profoundly related to the concept of Dao in the sense of something greater than a mere deterministic system?

[Wu Ming Jen]

Our true self is divine. Our true self is Tao undescribable. Tao is about us, Tao is freedom of knowledge and pure awareness of our immortality. The grand ultimate pole or Tai Chi.

 

We are related to everything and responsible for it, IT is us, all things, beyond the mind of mortals caught in deception of who we really are.

 

No worries of people not acting naturally meaning spontaneous with the Tao, with our relationship with all that is and in balance and harmony. Because IT is us no separation. 

 

The downside of this beautiful story is if you oppose naturalness, oppose the Tao..... you die. 

[Michael Sternbach]

If you can discuss in a normal way,

 

Sure.

 

with support from the Daoist texts and traditional teaching,

 

Not necessarily, as I probably won't have time and leisure to look up suitable references in the Daoist literature, even though they may be there. I have collected some knowledge on Daoism, and generally, I do value factual knowledge, however, my approach is to let my mind process what I have gathered and draw my conclusions based on my own philosophical thinking and intuition. If you are interested in the kind of living Dao that I talk about, I will be happy to share my insights, but if you are only open to discussing Dao as far as it is described in decaying scrolls, I am afraid that my dust allergy keeps me from going there.

 

without personal insults and trolling,

 

Not inclined to be either sender or a receiver of such.

 

without making up concepts out of "common sense", then I'd really love to hear your opinion. The questions about Dao are the most difficult ones... So what text or opinion of a Daoist master can you bring against the simple idea that frogs are not Dao?

 

Hmm... Primarily, the opinion of my inner Daoist master.

 

To help you out, maybe it's good to open Lao Zi and look what is a relationship between Dao and 10000 things?

 

That's really kind of you, but if you indeed wish to carry on this discussion, I suggest that, instead of quizzing me, you simply talk about your personal view of this.

[opendao]

Not necessarily, as I probably won't have time and leisure to look up suitable references in the Daoist literature, even though they may be there. I have collected some knowledge on Daoism, and generally, I do value factual knowledge, however, my approach is to let my mind process what I have gathered and draw my conclusions based on my own philosophical thinking and intuition. If you are interested in the kind of living Dao that I talk about, I will be happy to share my insights, but if you are only open to discussing Dao as far as it is described in decaying scrolls, I am afraid that my dust allergy keeps me from going there.

 

I'm only open to discuss living Dao as it is understood by those who attained such Dao. Various rumours and home made theories I'm not really so interesting in, and I see no positive impact on readers, who need to go through long discourses about somebody's illusions and get nothing at the end. It's like listening about sex from 6 years old boy   What's a point if there is alive Daoist tradition? But I got your attitude, thanks and good bye.

[Marblehead]

Yes, we got off topic.  But we can say that we are discussing the side notes of the discussion.

It is but we have digressed a lot, especially since our questions are loosing it's original context. Therefor I feel the need to summarise and conclude a bit, I do belive I understand your position but you'll have to excuse me for any assumptions I make that are wrong. But i do have some questions.

Okay.  Let's look.

 

You seem to say that our choices are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, does that mean that our choices does not matter, and why should we in that case not resort to fatalism or some sort of egotesitical fatalistic hedonism?

You assume correctly here.  In the grand scheme of things our choices really don't matter.  However, in our own individual life our choices do matter.  That is what keeps us from nihilism or fatalism.  Albert Camus said that although life is absurd it is still worth living. 

 

Dao has no attachments; we do.  Our attachments give us value in living.  (Sorry to my Buddhist friends.)

  

 

What is it about making the right choices that make them the right choice in a more objective sense, i.e. not egoteistical sense, and why should we make those choices?

The best answer I can give to this is that our right choices will (at least they should) afford us harmony with our surroundings and allow for a feeling of contentment because our choice has not caused us inner conflict.

 

What is it about us that gives us free will and makes us able to experience?

Our brain.  That's the best answer I can give.

 

Is conciousness part of the universe which follows deterministic rules, and if so must it not also follow deterministic rules?

Yes and no.  Consciousness is part of our aspect of Dao.  Evolution (the processes of Dao) has allowed us a brain the is conscious and capable of making choices.  Most creatures operate totally on instinct, their internal wiring.

 

There are many things that effect if and how we make choices.  Many people opt to not make choices.  They just do what they are told to do.  Those would be your people living in a deterministic state.  Often they are called sheep.

 

Is there no posibility that this mystery that is conciousness is more profoundly related to the concept of Dao in the sense of something greater than a mere deterministic system?

I cannot deny the possibility.  However, I have no reason, nor have I seen any reason to believe so.

 

It is hard for me to believe that there is some controlling agent of the universe.  The universe really is organized chaos.

[Marblehead]

If you can discuss in a normal way, with support from the Daoist texts and traditional teaching, without personal insults and trolling, without making up concepts out of "common sense", then I'd really love to hear your opinion. The questions about Dao are the most difficult ones... So what text or opinion of a Daoist master can you bring against the simple idea that frogs are not Dao? To help you out, maybe it's good to open Lao Zi and look what is a relationship between Dao and 10000 things?

 

The frogs are currently hibernating but let's talk about them.

 

Dao gave birth to One,

One gave birth to Two,

Two gave birth to Three,

Three gave birth to the Ten Thousand Things.

 

So the frog is a great-great-great-grandchild of Dao.

 

No, the frog is not Dao.  But it is a child of Dao; an aspect of Dao.  Dao is within the frog.  All things, even you and me, are born out of Dao and we will one day return to Dao.  That is, we return to the Mystery (wu) to be reused or just float around for millions of years.

 

I am, of course, remembering that One was Singularity.  Dao gave birth to Singularity.  In other words, the De of Dao caused Singularity to exist even though it was only One, undifferentiated.

 

One had to give birth to Two before things really started happening.

[dawei]

The frogs are currently hibernating but let's talk about them.

 

They, like everything else, are doing the bidding of Dao

[opendao]

The frogs are currently hibernating but let's talk about them.

 

Dao gave birth to One,

One gave birth to Two,

Two gave birth to Three,

Three gave birth to the Ten Thousand Things.

 

So the frog is a great-great-great-grandchild of Dao.

No, the frog is not Dao.  But it is a child of Dao; an aspect of Dao. 

 

they are not even relatives ))) 

Does a frog share any quality with Dao? No, then it's not a child.

 

But all things have an aspect of Dao. However they are not aspects of Dao.

 

The difference is simple: if we are Dao, then we have qualities of Dao (no form, everywhere, perfect, unlimited, eternal and so on).

 

If we just have an aspect of Dao, then we have a life inside, that we can use somehow and we have options how to live it. We can even lost it. (if we ARE Dao, how it could be possible?)

 

Subtle word difference (IS and HAS) but it's totally different teaching, philosophy, practice. But I hope you can see that people are very far away from Dao, and are not Dao at all by their qualities.

 

Dao is within the frog. 

 

Sort of. At least it's possible to find it there.

But if frog is inside me, it doesn't mean I'm a frog and can hibernate, right? 

 

All things, even you and me, are born out of Dao and we will one day return to Dao.  That is, we return to the Mystery (wu) to be reused or just float around for millions of years.

 

According the tradition, we won't return to Dao after death (sorry for bad news). After death, body dies, Po souls are destroyed, Hung souls go to a new attempt to return to Dao. it's important to understand. That's the boundary of human existence.

 

One had to give birth to Two before things really started happening.

 

that's true, thanks

[opendao]

To sum up some hints about Dao that were covered so far:

 

Dao is an unknown source of life for all things.

Dao is everywhere.

It determines all possible laws of existence.

Dao is eternal and its freedom is total.

Everything has some aspect of Dao inside.

 

More to think about:

Dao can be obtained inside human body, that's how humans can return to Dao.

There are 3 possible relations between Dao and humans.

Edited February 20, 2016 by opendao

[Marblehead]

I'll respond to this but not your summation as it stands well on its own.

they are not even relatives ))) 

Does a frog share any quality with Dao? No, then it's not a child.

You have taken what I said too literally.  But yes, the frog lives spontaneously.  That's Dao.

 

We occasionally have difficulty with the words the other uses.  We really are not disagreeing.

 

But all things have an aspect of Dao. However they are not aspects of Dao.

The words!  I use the term "aspect of Dao" to simply say that all "things" originate from the processes of Dao, De, and Tzujan.

 

The difference is simple: if we are Dao, then we have qualities of Dao (no form, everywhere, perfect, unlimited, eternal and so on).

You are speaking more literally than I would have but that's okay.

 

If we just have an aspect of Dao, then we have a life inside, that we can use somehow and we have options how to live it. We can even lost it. (if we ARE Dao, how it could be possible?)

I agree with you but I would say that much differently.

 

Subtle word difference (IS and HAS) but it's totally different teaching, philosophy, practice.

Yeah, you are trying to be formal with me.  I don't do formal.

 

But I hope you can see that people are very far away from Dao, and are not Dao at all by their qualities.

Sure, this has been discussed many times over.  And that is why we have members here who are seeking a better way to live their life.

 

Sort of. At least it's possible to find it there.

And I will ever suggest that it is impossible to not find it there.

 

But if frog is inside me, it doesn't mean I'm a frog and can hibernate, right? 

Hehehe.  No, I don't expect you to start hopping and crocking.  After all, you and the frog are different manifestations.

 

According the tradition, we won't return to Dao after death (sorry for bad news). After death, body dies, Po souls are destroyed, Hung souls go to a new attempt to return to Dao. it's important to understand. That's the boundary of human existence.

I'm a materialist.  I don't speak to what might happen after death except what I stated above and that is stretching my imagination a bit but not inconsistent with the concept of the energy of the universe. 

 

that's true, thanks

Yes, thanks that Two happened, and special thanks the Three started doing their thing.

[opendao]

But yes, the frog lives spontaneously.  That's Dao.

 

That's Froggy Dao, not spontaneous one 

[Marblehead]

That's Froggy Dao, not spontaneous one 

Hehehe.  See what I have said about Tzujan?