What is Dao?

[dust]

yes, but your intention was different then your words.

 

Not really. I had previously implied that another discussion on 'Dao' was not needed, but then decided I wanted to join in anyway, and said "I can't help it." That's all. Hopefully you and others will find that I tend to say what I mean.

 

 

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

 

We can agree, again, to disagree.

I would not say that we can definitely claim ZZ to have attributed anything to anyone. A lot of what is said in the text through the mouths of others is clearly made up.

 

 

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.

 

Knowing and accepting that a certain portion of one's existence is beyond one's own control. Don't fight it too much; go with the flow; work with the tools you are given; etc.

 

Maybe this has no relation to your Daoism, but I think we can probably agree by now that your 'Daoism' and my 'Me-ism' are quite different. So, let's not fight about it any more.

Edited February 20, 2016 by dustybeijing

[leth]

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

 

Why does life need value? Are not attachments and value but mental constructs that are inherently irrelevant? Wouldn't our mind be a better mind if we transcend these attachments and use our understanding of our mind, our understanding of our sorroundings and our understanding of how the world works?

 

Could this not be part of what is meant with Ziran?

 

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 this harmony with our surrounding, and what is inner conflict really, is it related to oour understanding of the world (our surroundings/environment) and how it works?

 

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

 

Mayhaps, scientifically the brain atleast seems connected to our conciousness, but so far conciousness itself is beyond scientific comprehension. This is an interesting mystery, but so far I remain agnostic.

 

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

 

Does not the idea that De of Dao includes the De of humans, and that the entirety of everything must also include conciousness itself not mean that Dao can be said to have conciousness, or that conciousness is an aspect of Dao?

 

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

 

Who said anything about controlling agent?

Conciousness is not a controlling agent, traditionally the mind is seen as the controlling agent.

 

But on that note, if we are controlling agents then there are controlling agents of the universe, and as such if we make the abstraction of a superset of all choices made than is that abstraction itself not the controlling agent of the universe together with the natural laws?

 

If there is no controlling agent of the world, then we cannot truly have non-deterministic free will.

But if we have non-deterministic free will, then we are part of that controlling agent of the world.

 

And if Dao is the entierity of all, then this controlling agent must be part of it, and therefore it could be said that the De of Dao includes a part which is a controlling agent if we have non-deterministic free will, don't you agree?

[Michael Sternbach]

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.

 

Well, I am not sure why exactly you would think you are able to tell what understanding and attainment of living Dao somebody you know very little of has or has not attained, but I respect your wish for any statements to be backed up by reliable sources.

 

In line with this, regarding the questions whether things created can also be considered an aspect of Dao, I do think of this as pretty conclusive:

 

 

The body, as much as the larger universe, is ruled and lived in by the gods - the multifaceted manifestations of spirit, the visible and accessible aspect of the Tao on earth.

 

 

From Livia Kohn, The Taoist Experience: An Anthology, 1993.

 

About Livia Kohn, we read:

 

 

Livia Kohn‘s Daoist writings are of linguistic interest and global significance because Professor Kohn uses the correct Chinese terminologies (instead of fabricated Western translations) most of the time, earning her the nickname “Professor Dao” from Chinese and Western professors and audiences at the latest high-profile 2012 Conference on ‘From Axial-age Civilizations to Dialogical Civilization’ in Dengfeng, China. In fact, Professor Kohn, in my opinion, embodies the idea of ‘Dialogical Civilizations’ linguistically like few others.

 

The seemingly effortless blending of European philosophical writings with the correct Chinese terminologies creates two obvious effects: First, the true names of unique concepts like qi, Dao, yin and yang, and so on, are correct and thus feel more authentic and intrinsically East-Asian and non-European. Second, because Professor Kohn’s texts are sprinkled with those correct Chinese names, the casual English reader (letting alone the monolingual one) will be overwhelmed by the foreign vocabulary and, simultaneously, be confronted by his own ignorance about some key elements of the Chinese tradition.

 

 

Source: http://www.east-west-dichotomy.com/livia-kohn-professor-dao/

 

By the way, "Professor Dao" is highly respected not only for her scholarly meticulousness but also for her practical lectures in living Dao.

[Marblehead]

Knowing and accepting that a certain portion of one's existence is beyond one's own control. Don't fight it too much; go with the flow; work with the tools you are given; etc.

And if the tools you were given don't work well you can always, if necessary, steal the ones that will get the job done.

[Marblehead]

Why does life need value? Are not attachments and value but mental constructs that are inherently irrelevant? Wouldn't our mind be a better mind if we transcend these attachments and use our understanding of our mind, our understanding of our sorroundings and our understanding of how the world works?

Sure, if you are Mother Teresa.  Finding value in life prevents depression and nihilistic dispositions.  Attachments offer value.  Lao Tzu was attached to his work.  His life was of value.

 

But we can still do the things you mentioned while sitting in our easy chair, sipping coffee and listening to our stereo. 

 

Could this not be part of what is meant with Ziran?

Sure.  But Ziran is also naturalness.  I don't think I would feel natural sitting on the sidewalk in a big city begging for alms.  Better to be in my house, sitting in my easy chair, sipping coffee and listening to my music.  (1960s Soul music is now playing but I'm sitting on my chair in the computer room.

 

What is this harmony with our surrounding, and what is inner conflict really, is it related to oour understanding of the world (our surroundings/environment) and how it works?

Individually, we are more at ease and content in certain conditions, internal and external.  When our preferred conditions exist we are content; when they are not we are not content.  This, of course, requires us to limit or reduce our desires.

 

Mayhaps, scientifically the brain atleast seems connected to our conciousness, but so far conciousness itself is beyond scientific comprehension. This is an interesting mystery, but so far I remain agnostic.

That documentary I mentioned before about understanding how memory works is a step forward at understanding consciousness.  I expect that more advances will be made soon.

 

Does not the idea that De of Dao includes the De of humans, and that the entirety of everything must also include conciousness itself not mean that Dao can be said to have conciousness, or that conciousness is an aspect of Dao?

The logic of your question is fair.  But I still must say, No.

 

There is "no thing" to be conscious.  That is why I speak of aspects of Dao.

 

Who said anything about controlling agent?

Conciousness is not a controlling agent, traditionally the mind is seen as the controlling agent.

But the mind must be conscious in order to have control.  Look at your dreams - total chaos.

 

But on that note, if we are controlling agents then there are controlling agents of the universe, and as such if we make the abstraction of a superset of all choices made than is that abstraction itself not the controlling agent of the universe together with the natural laws?

How limited is our control compared to the totality of the universe?  Very little.  Humans aren't as significant as some people think.

 

If there is no controlling agent of the world, then we cannot truly have non-deterministic free will.

But if we have non-deterministic free will, then we are part of that controlling agent of the world.

Having free will does not mean we are super-humans.  It only means we can make decisions and act, or not, upon them.  Sure, we are a small part of the controlling agents of the planet.  But we truly are very limited.  Even if we destroy the planet to a state that all humans die the planet will likely recover after some time and new life will evolve.  We need the planet - the planet does not need us.

 

And if Dao is the entierity of all, then this controlling agent must be part of it, and therefore it could be said that the De of Dao includes a part which is a controlling agent if we have non-deterministic free will, don't you agree?

I can't disagree with your word usage but I still do not accept the concept of a conscious Dao.  Never have, never will.  Yes, I can say "never".

[Michael Sternbach]

MH, I agree with parts of your post, but I do believe that we humans are part of the Earth/the Cosmos/Dao in search of consciousness. We are their eyes/brains. They need to process so many different perspectives to reach full understanding of themselves, eventually.

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re:

-----

",,, but I do believe that we humans are part of the Earth/the Cosmos/Dao in search of consciousness. We are their eyes/brains."

-----

 

Human conception is a contraction of the Infinite.

 

Each one is the Infinite.

 

We could say as a notation: 1/Infinity.

 

We see physical limitations (material facts).

 

But spiritually, no limited (spiritual facts).

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[idquest]

Continuing line with frogs and Dao...

 

My take is that frogs have the same relation to Dao as scrambled eggs have to the eggs being sat on by a hen. Once you have scrambled the eggs, you've done fission and this is an irreversible process. Or could it be reversed? Because what neidan people say about attaining the Dao could mean that at least to some extent the process could be reversed - is this right?

[vonkrankenhaus]

Materialization (contraction) and de-materialization (expansion) are two aspects of same thing.

 

Spirals - in and out.

 

No need of "reversing".

 

Already going on.

 

That is normal growth and maturation of Life.

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[leth]

Sure, if you are Mother Teresa.  Finding value in life prevents depression and nihilistic dispositions.  Attachments offer value.  Lao Tzu was attached to his work.  His life was of value.

 

Sure these attachments offer what can be percieved as value, but value does not need attachment. Enjoyment does not require attachment either. Nor does moral understanding. In fact i would argue that attachment forms misconceptions about inherent understanding of ones values.

 

But we can still do the things you mentioned while sitting in our easy chair, sipping coffee and listening to our stereo. 

 

And we can still sit in our easy chair, sipping coffee and listening to our stereo without having attachments to any of these things. And lack of attachment does not in any way mean there is a lack of ability to enjoy. Though I would prefer tea myself, i would for instance be contempt even without it. If i had a cup of coffee instead i could simply chose to not drink it. I don't see how lack of attachment would hinder positive emotions, yet attachment does seem to be the cause of many negative emotions.

 

Sure.  But Ziran is also naturalness.  I don't think I would feel natural sitting on the sidewalk in a big city begging for alms.  Better to be in my house, sitting in my easy chair, sipping coffee and listening to my music.  (1960s Soul music is now playing but I'm sitting on my chair in the computer room.

 

But what makes just seeking the comfort and content any different from some sort of hedonistic defeatism?

 

Why does it seem that what feels natural is different depending on what people have studied or practiced?

 

For a person that has practiced begging does it not become natural for that person?

 

Then why does it seem from Daoist text that one shoud focused on studying and obtaining Ziran instead of just subjecting to some sort of hedonistic fatalism?

 

Are they wrong? Or is Ziran not simply that?

 

Why would Daoist texts point out that we need to study the De of Dao to obtain Ziran if Ziran is to seek that which is just comfortable at the moment?

 

Individually, we are more at ease and content in certain conditions, internal and external.  When our preferred conditions exist we are content; when they are not we are not content.  This, of course, requires us to limit or reduce our desires.

 

Can we not be content with that which is even though we would prefere something different?

 

Why does content require prefered conditions?

 

Is this idea of desires not related to attachment, and how is it that desires are to be reduced but not attachments?

 

 

And does this work to get rid of deisres and attachment not give us greater content and thus perhaps greater comfort in life in general?

 

Should we manipulate the conditions of our existance in the external or the internal or perhaps both?

 

Does not the knowledge of how our surroundings work also allow us to understand our experiences to such a degree that we can be more contempt with them aswell as give use tools to alter the exterior to greater efficiency?

 

Does this development in which we reduce our desires or our attachments not also alter what we could call natural in this context of the discussion?

 

In a sense would this not make us more natural because we are able to be natural in more situations without requiring certain conditions?

 

That documentary I mentioned before about understanding how memory works is a step forward at understanding consciousness.  I expect that more advances will be made soon.

 

We have no reason to belive that the ability to form and recall memories aswell as memories themselves are in anyway a requiremnt of conciousness, so I fail to see how study of memory are in any way relevant to our understanind of conciousness.

 

Furthermore our current science is inherently unable to analyse conciousness.

 

Conciousness is inherently fundamental to the logic behind science, and just as science cannot analyse or define itself it cannot analyse the logic that defines it or the axiomatic fundaments that builds up to this logic. It is a problem that is similar to science inherent inability to define itself.

 

 

The logic of your question is fair.  But I still must say, No.

 

There is "no thing" to be conscious.  That is why I speak of aspects of Dao.

 

 

Is there a thing to be concious for in the case of our conciousness?

 

I don't really see a difference between an abstraction for us to have conciousness and an abstraction for Dao to have conciousness. Can you please explain what it is that has conciousness, and why Dao can not fit this abstraction aswell.

 

And simple logic tells us that a superset of something will inherently have all the properties of it's subset.

Everything is aspects of Dao, just as we are aspects of Dao. And we have an aspect of conciousness, why can not Dao have the aspect of Conciousness?

 

In fact must it not follow that if we have the aspect of conciousness, must not Dao also have the aspect of conciousness if Dao has all aspects that we have?

 

If we have aspects that Dao does not have, then Dao should not be said to be a totality of everything.

 

What you are saying is simply not makeing any sense, you'd have to make a metalogical statement that revolutionises our current understanding of logic to make it reasonable from my point of view.

 

But the mind must be conscious in order to have control.  Look at your dreams - total chaos.

 

Why must the mind be conciousness to have control?

 

Would not the mind of a philosophical zombie also have control?

 

Dreams are a good exmple of conciousness without control.

 

Again it is not the conciousness that is the controlling agent, but the mind.

 

Thus the statement that Dao has conciousness does not infer that it is in control.

 

The mind is a completely different topic and a very complex one.

 

Though of course the quesiton of mind follows this, but it is filled with many mysteries, and there is much we don't know.

 

However as we are on the subject, Does not the idea that we can be said to have control, then must no Dao also have control.

 

This control should be defined as the agency of which its exerts this control, i.e. the natural laws and the choices of all agents of free will that makes up Dao in accord to what we have discussed earlier.

 

How limited is our control compared to the totality of the universe?  Very little.  Humans aren't as significant as some people think.

 

Insignificant we may be but it does not change the fact that our choices are part of that which controls the universe.

 

Having free will does not mean we are super-humans.  It only means we can make decisions and act, or not, upon them.  Sure, we are a small part of the controlling agents of the planet.  But we truly are very limited.  Even if we destroy the planet to a state that all humans die the planet will likely recover after some time and new life will evolve.  We need the planet - the planet does not need us.

 

How much power we have is really irrelevant to the concept of having power itself, our choices may be even more significant to the universe that that of ants are to us, yet this does not mean that ants are not part of the world, nor that we are not part of it.

 

Ants have the ability to build complex nests which is an alteration of the environemnt it lives in, and to us this might seem insignificant and irrelevant, but it does not change the fact that it is a defacto change of reality. Thus ants can be said to be part of the factors that change reality no matter how isignificant they may be.

 

I can't disagree with your word usage but I still do not accept the concept of a conscious Dao.  Never have, never will.  Yes, I can say "never".

 

Well there are five posibillites here the way I see it.

 

1. We are not conscious.

2. Dao is not a totality of everything.

3. Dao is conscious.

4. Your reasoning is inconcistent and thus illogical. (I mean no offense)

5. My logic is flawed and you have some sort of metalogical reasoning that is so far unheard of.

[Marblehead]

MH, I agree with parts of your post, but I do believe that we humans are part of the Earth/the Cosmos/Dao in search of consciousness. We are their eyes/brains. They need to process so many different perspectives to reach full understanding of themselves, eventually.

Well, good that they are only searching for consciousness and not something more demanding like wisdom.

[3bob]

Leth,

I don't know what he wants to do with his marbles but I'd rather play mine in an old pinball machine that just uses one at a time...

Edited February 20, 2016 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

Continuing line with frogs and Dao...

 

My take is that frogs have the same relation to Dao as scrambled eggs have to the eggs being sat on by a hen. Once you have scrambled the eggs, you've done fission and this is an irreversible process. Or could it be reversed? Because what neidan people say about attaining the Dao could mean that at least to some extent the process could be reversed - is this right?

 

Interesting thought.  As to the chicken and the egg, no, yo can't unscramble the eggs.  However, a living organism?  Different story.  But I will let those who work in that area speak to it.

[Marblehead]

Materialization (contraction) and de-materialization (expansion) are two aspects of same thing.

 

Spirals - in and out.

 

No need of "reversing".

 

Already going on.

 

That is normal growth and maturation of Life.

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

 

You did good with that!

[Marblehead]

I'm going to break this own into smaller chunks.

Sure these attachments offer what can be percieved as value, but value does not need attachment. Enjoyment does not require attachment either. Nor does moral understanding. In fact i would argue that attachment forms misconceptions about inherent understanding of ones values.

So we can find value through attachments as well as non-attachment.  Fair enough.

 

And we can still sit in our easy chair, sipping coffee and listening to our stereo without having attachments to any of these things. And lack of attachment does not in any way mean there is a lack of ability to enjoy. Though I would prefer tea myself, i would for instance be contempt even without it. If i had a cup of coffee instead i could simply chose to not drink it. I don't see how lack of attachment would hinder positive emotions, yet attachment does seem to be the cause of many negative emotions.

Yes, if you prefer tea then you would opt for tea and not drink the coffee.  Attached to you taste preferences, are you?

 

But what makes just seeking the comfort and content any different from some sort of hedonistic defeatism?

Of course not.  Maintaining harmony and contentment is a daily challenge.  Never surrender!

 

Why does it seem that what feels natural is different depending on what people have studied or practiced?

Remember that so much of what we think we prefer has been taught to us.  These are no our own judgements but the judgements of others.  Most of us have never talked about what we "really" prefer.

 

 

For a person that has practiced begging does it not become natural for that person?

I'm sure it would and I think that would be a miserable way to live one's life.

 

 

Then why does it seem from Daoist text that one shoud focused on studying and obtaining Ziran instead of just subjecting to some sort of hedonistic fatalism?

How many times have I said that we ach should test our capabilities and capacities?  This will allow us to not let our mouth overload our ass.  I don't know what took you to hedonistic fatalism but I think the term is a self-contradiction. 

 

Are they wrong? Or is Ziran not simply that?

We are told to observe the processes of nature, are we not?  If we live in harmony with these precesses we will experience fewer difficulties.

 

Ziran is self-actualization.  Being all that one can be.  Have we done the best we could do?  If yes then we should have no regrets.

 

Why would Daoist texts point out that we need to study the De of Dao to obtain Ziran if Ziran is to seek that which is just comfortable at the moment?

Not just comfortable at the moment.  Comfortable so that externals cannot disrupt our peace and contentment.

 

 

Can we not be content with that which is even though we would prefere something different?

For non-achievers, yes.  I have never been one of those.

 

Why does content require prefered conditions?

Because you prefer tea over coffee.

 

Is this idea of desires not related to attachment, and how is it that desires are to be reduced but not attachments?

In a way, yes.  Both unattained desires and loss of attachments will bring upon sorrow.

 

And does this work to get rid of deisres and attachment not give us greater content and thus perhaps greater comfort in life in general?

Yes.

 

Should we manipulate the conditions of our existance in the external or the internal or perhaps both?

Both, if we do not already have peace and contentment.  However, if we have peace and contentment w should sit down and shut up.

 

Does not the knowledge of how our surroundings work also allow us to understand our experiences to such a degree that we can be more contempt with them aswell as give use tools to alter the exterior to greater efficiency?

Absolutely!

 

Does this development in which we reduce our desires or our attachments not also alter what we could call natural in this context of the discussion?

That is dependent on the individual.  Some prefer tea and others prefer coffee.

 

In a sense would this not make us more natural because we are able to be natural in more situations without requiring certain conditions?

Yes, the fewer our desires and attachments the better chance we have at attaining contentment.

[Marblehead]

We have no reason to belive that the ability to form and recall memories aswell as memories themselves are in anyway a requiremnt of conciousness, so I fail to see how study of memory are in any way relevant to our understanind of conciousness.

I must rephrase that.  "You" have no reason to believe that.  I do.

 

Furthermore our current science is inherently unable to analyse conciousness.

To your satisfaction.

 

Conciousness is inherently fundamental to the logic behind science, and just as science cannot analyse or define itself it cannot analyse the logic that defines it or the axiomatic fundaments that builds up to this logic. It is a problem that is similar to science inherent inability to define itself.

Well, you have your doubts.  I have a little more confidence.

 

But then, what I don't know that I don't know doesn't bother me either.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

Is there a thing to be concious for in the case of our conciousness?

You lost me with that one.

 

I don't really see a difference between an abstraction for us to have conciousness and an abstraction for Dao to have conciousness. Can you please explain what it is that has conciousness, and why Dao can not fit this abstraction aswell.

Dao is not a thing.  Dao is a verb, not a noun.  I would call it Greatness.  It is a thought.  How can a thought have a thought and declare itself conscious?

 

And simple logic tells us that a superset of something will inherently have all the properties of it's subset.

Faulty logic.  Remember mutation and evolution.

 

Everything is aspects of Dao, just as we are aspects of Dao. And we have an aspect of conciousness, why can not Dao have the aspect of Conciousness?

Because it is not a thing in and of itself.

 

In fact must it not follow that if we have the aspect of conciousness, must not Dao also have the aspect of conciousness if Dao has all aspects that we have?

No, because of the above.

 

If we have aspects that Dao does not have, then Dao should not be said to be a totality of everything.

But Dao is not a thing therefore it cannot "have".

 

What you are saying is simply not makeing any sense, you'd have to make a metalogical statement that revolutionises our current understanding of logic to make it reasonable from my point of view.

Well, I have done the best I can.  One cannot do better than that.

 

Why must the mind be conciousness to have control?

Because it is a proven fact that if you drink too much or use dope you will become unconscious and unable to control anything, not even your biological processes.

 

Would not the mind of a philosophical zombie also have control?

There are no zombies.

 

Dreams are a good exmple of conciousness without control.

Thanks.

 

Again it is not the conciousness that is the controlling agent, but the mind.

That's good.

 

Thus the statement that Dao has conciousness does not infer that it is in control.

True.  But where is Dao's consciousness experienced?  Mine is in my brain.

 

The mind is a completely different topic and a very complex one.

Really?

 

Though of course the quesiton of mind follows this, but it is filled with many mysteries, and there is much we don't know.

I'm sure I don't know more thing than I do know.

 

However as we are on the subject, Does not the idea that we can be said to have control, then must no Dao also have control.

Dao cannot "have".

 

This control should be defined as the agency of which its exerts this control, i.e. the natural laws and the choices of all agents of free will that makes up Dao in accord to what we have discussed earlier.

I like natural laws.  Creation and destruction.  Birth and death.

 

Insignificant we may be but it does not change the fact that our choices are part of that which controls the universe.

"No Thing" controls the universe.  We are "some thing". 

 

How much power we have is really irrelevant to the concept of having power itself, our choices may be even more significant to the universe that that of ants are to us, yet this does not mean that ants are not part of the world, nor that we are not part of it.

Yes, and I can show you an ant.  Can you show me Dao?

 

Ants have the ability to build complex nests which is an alteration of the environemnt it lives in, and to us this might seem insignificant and irrelevant, but it does not change the fact that it is a defacto change of reality. Thus ants can be said to be part of the factors that change reality no matter how isignificant they may be.

This is true.

 

Well there are five posibillites here the way I see it.

 

1. We are not conscious.

2. Dao is not a totality of everything.

3. Dao is conscious.

4. Your reasoning is inconcistent and thus illogical. (I mean no offense)

5. My logic is flawed and you have some sort of metalogical reasoning that is so far unheard of.

1.  You and I are conscious.

2,  Dao is everything but it is "No-Thing".

3.  Dao cannot be conscious.

4.  I have never claimed perfection.

5.  I make no judgements as to your capabilities and capacities.

 

But I am, I think.

[opendao]

Continuing line with frogs and Dao...

 

My take is that frogs have the same relation to Dao as scrambled eggs have to the eggs being sat on by a hen. Once you have scrambled the eggs, you've done fission and this is an irreversible process.

 

it's a good analogy. The internal "substance" of Dao and things is the same, but transformed many times, so the qualities are very different. Also, Dao is transcendent, while things are immanent, theologically speaking.

 

Or could it be reversed? Because what neidan people say about attaining the Dao could mean that at least to some extent the process could be reversed - is this right?

 

Yes, it's the basis of Daoism and Neidan, which is just a later name for the same teaching of Huang Di and Lao Zi. The process could be reversed and it is the only way to "attain Dao".

Edited February 21, 2016 by opendao

[Marblehead]

Yes, it's the basis of Daoism and Neidan, which is just a later name for the same teaching of Huang Di and Lao Zi. The process could be reversed and it is the only way to "attain Dao".

But there are limits, are there not?  The analogy of the scrambled egg would be one in my mind.  It can never be reversed so that it becomes a fertile egg and give birth to a baby chick.

 

However, to the philosophy itself, Wayne L. Wang spoke to this in his introduction to his translation of the TTC titled "Dynamic Tao".

 

The aspect he spoke to is the human relationship between wu/yu, Mystery(Spiritual)/Manifest.  His conclusion was about the same; that the process of becoming too materialistic can be reversed so that one can attain Dao.

 

I still like Rene's concept of having one foot in wu and the other in yu - a somewhat balanced and harmonious existence.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Marblehead

[Wu Ming Jen]

What is Tao?

If we take away the question and the "what" meaning as soon as we say what Tao is Tao also includes everything else the "what" is not.

Then if we read the same question backwards we get the most incredible answer.      Tao is.....

By this we have removed the original error of the OP. Now having nothing to attach our thoughts to we just have peace of mind.

[opendao]

What is Tao?

If we take away the question and the "what" meaning as soon as we say what Tao is Tao also includes everything else the "what" is not.

Then if we read the same question backwards we get the most incredible answer.      Tao is.....

By this we have removed the original error of the OP. Now having nothing to attach our thoughts to we just have peace of mind.

 

And what's a point to attach our thoughts to the idea of non-attachment and peace of mind?

 

Btw, Lao Zi says clearly what Dao is. Maybe he was attached to the idea of Dao... But he attained Dao, that's why I think it's better to not attach to something he didn't mean to say 

[Marblehead]

What?  You mean we shouldn't read stuff that isn't there into what he did say?  That's not fair.

[Wu Ming Jen]

And what's a point to attach our thoughts to the idea of non-attachment and peace of mind?

 

Btw, Lao Zi says clearly what Dao is. Maybe he was attached to the idea of Dao... But he attained Dao, that's why I think it's better to not attach to something he didn't mean to say 

If you have thoughts and pre conceived ideas about Tao it would be the only thing holding you back from understanding

No -Thing. 

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re:

-----

"My take is that frogs have the same relation to Dao as scrambled eggs have to the eggs being sat on by a hen. Once you have scrambled the eggs, you've done fission and this is an irreversible process."

-----

 

Tao is change.

 

The idea of "thing" in the western mind is not seeing this.

 

The changes happen according to the order (way) of nature.

 

The way change happens.

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[opendao]

If you have thoughts and pre conceived ideas about Tao it would be the only thing holding you back from understanding

No -Thing. 

 

Direct understanding of emptiness-Wu comes from Dao cultivation, not from mind. For the practice, mind is of little value. But this little value defines what you practice or don't practice at the initial stages, that's all. 

 

Re:

-----

"My take is that frogs have the same relation to Dao as scrambled eggs have to the eggs being sat on by a hen. Once you have scrambled the eggs, you've done fission and this is an irreversible process."

-----

 

Tao is change.

 

The idea of "thing" in the western mind is not seeing this.

 

The changes happen according to the order (way) of nature.

 

The way change happens.

 

Yes, people change: they are born, grow, collect various experiences, skills, do some work, get some pleasures and sufferings, then die. It's Dao of things.

 

Question: is it the only possibility Lao Zi discussed or there is something else?