To begin my journey

[Mishka]

Hello everyone, and welcome!

 

Today while at work I was thinking about the Tao and I boiled it down to this.

All I know from experience is that this Tao is a place that has everything that will exist, could exist, or will never exist inside of it. It is like an imaginary cardboard box that is small on the outside and our entire universe fits inside. I could say it is infininite(it feels this way) but then I would be speaking out of belief. So this being my personal experience with Tao my ultimate question: Is there any more to be found out about this thing?

 

Please keep in mind I have described to you as honestly as I can my full experiencial knowledge of Tao. This is not information from a book or something like that. I only ask that if you could help me in any way understand and grow you will be helping more than just me.

[Marblehead]

First, thanks for taking advantage of this sub-forum with your "getting started" comments and questions.

 

Yes, I think you have a good enough handle on "what is Tao".  Everything that has ever ben, is now, and will ever be.  It is the totality of time/space and all things within.  A small toy box but yet so many toys inside.

 

Sure, infinite could be a practical word.  Infinite in all directions and realms.

 

There is always more to find out.  The journey is never completed.  That's because there really is no destination.  Science believes it can account for (but lacking full understanding) only 4% of what is believed the universe consists of.  There's a long way to go yet even for science.

 

Okay.  That's Tao.  Have I said anything yet?  Not really.  There must be another question.

 

Perhaps:  How do we, the individual, interact with Tao?  That is, how do we interact with other manifestations of Tao?

 

We learn some of the answers by observing our self, how others react to us, and how we interact with others.  Most important, I think, is to know our self.  That is, our true (natural) self.  The answers don't always come by way of the brain.  Sometimes they come via our emotions and sometimes via our inspirations.

 

I could go on but I think that is enough for the moment.

[dawei]

So this being my personal experience with Tao my ultimate question: Is there any more to be found out about this thing?

 

Dao sounds completely outside of you... how about the Dao-within aspect ?

 

I personally do hold to the Dao as 'guiding principle'... but how has it guided you?

 

 

BTW: Welcome and thanks for starting a thread

[Bearded Dragon]

this Tao is a place that has everything that will exist, could exist, or will never exist inside of it.

 

Try this on for size...

 

 "this Tao is everything that will exist, could exist, or will never exist"

 

The container is essence, taiji, the one, awareness. That is not the same as the Tao.

[Mishka]

Marblehead I really enjoyed when you brought up the interaction of life. Like an interaction you and I are having. So that in itself fits the description as being Tao. But what I think becomes silly at this "level" of thinking is to even observe my physical body as "me" which brings me to a point which Dawei has already mentioned. This is probably because of a lack of personal experience with Tao.

 

But to answer your question Dawei, I do not accurately know what Tao has said to me that I have been able to hear, I would like to think I am here now because of some unseen guidance offered by some divine being but the truth is always just as radical as we want it to sound, I am here now, and that is enough for me to trust Tao and what it does for me. I have not developed past this in personal working with Tao.

 

Bearded dragon thank you for your imput as well! I think now I understand more. I want to ask you, but all of you are invited to answer...If Tao is not the ovserver and we know that whenever we observe something it is not the pure observer, it is possible to observe Tao directly?

[Marblehead]

Marblehead I really enjoyed when you brought up the interaction of life. Like an interaction you and I are having. So that in itself fits the description as being Tao. But what I think becomes silly at this "level" of thinking is to even observe my physical body as "me" which brings me to a point which Dawei has already mentioned. This is probably because of a lack of personal experience with Tao.

 

Well, you should know that I am a Materialist.  There was no "me" before I was born and there will be no "me" after I die.  Therefore we must assume that this physical body of mine is the "me".

 

We can have all the fantasies we want but these all come from the brain which is a part of the body.

[dawei]

i would like to think I am here now because of some unseen guidance offered by some divine being but the truth is always just as radical as we want it to sound, I am here now, and that is enough for me to trust Tao and what it does for me. I have not developed past this in personal working with Tao.

 

That's a great start

 

And that is very similar to how I would of described my path before I even knew it was a path.  

[Mishka]

Well, you should know that I am a Materialist. There was no "me" before I was born and there will be no "me" after I die. Therefore we must assume that this physical body of mine is the "me".

 

We can have all the fantasies we want but these all come from the brain which is a part of the body.

I do not understand the term Materialist. I do know what the term means...but not to you. The "to you" part of my statement could be reguarded as any number of things but what I am looking for is to agree with your understanding. What is being understood is limitless. But I am having some logical breakdown when I attempt to think of myself as seperate from anything. I want to hear you speak further on materialism, how you got there, where you think it can take you and how are you going to do it?

[Mishka]

That's a great start

 

And that is very similar to how I would of described my path before I even knew it was a path.

Thank you for your words. There are as many paths as their are observers to walk them. I am told I am eloquent when I speak sometimes. But Im sure you can descrive things from experience I can not. I do not take credit in even discovering this "path" of my life...it was kinda just there, waiting for us all to start walking on it.

[THACS]

You first have to know what you are looking for, before you seek it, otherwise how will you know when you have found it?

[Marblehead]

I do not understand the term Materialist. I do know what the term means...but not to you. The "to you" part of my statement could be reguarded as any number of things but what I am looking for is to agree with your understanding. What is being understood is limitless. But I am having some logical breakdown when I attempt to think of myself as seperate from anything. I want to hear you speak further on materialism, how you got there, where you think it can take you and how are you going to do it?

Nice response and excellent question.

 

Let's see if I can find effective words to explain my belief here.

 

First though, I wish to speak to your comment regarding "think of myself as separate".  We each are individuals; special and unique.  However, we are not some supernatural essence.  We are just like everything else in nature; we are born, we live, we die.  End of story.

 

Materialist (my understanding and usage):  A person who believes that everything in the universe is natural.  There is no such thing as supernatural.  If it isn't natural then it is an illusion or delusion of the mind.

 

A materialist believes in the physical universe and that is all.  They do not believe in ghosts, spirits, bigfoots, or any of the other supernatural things we hear about.  A true Materialist would naturally have to be an Atheist because all gods are things of the supernatural.

 

A spiritual Materialist has empathy with and for other living creatures.  This implies that the Materialist can still hold to the humane values of all other types of spiritual belief systems.  We just don't call it supernatural.  It is natural that we feel something for others.  Yes, empathy; I can feel your pain, or, I am happy for you and can feel your joy.

 

Now, I'm not suggesting that the Materialist thinks he knows everything of the universe.  On the contrary, we generally seek to understand our sensations (mental interpretations of our senses feeding our brain).  We don't pretend that some god is speaking to use or offering us a message.

 

Things we experience during dreams, meditation, during practice, etc are all natural.  We may not understand what we experienced but there is always the process of "cause and effect" that could show us exactly what happened and even why it happened.

 

We don't look to the external for what we might think we need but rather we look inside our own essence and determine why we have had these thoughts and if we determine they are realistic we do our best to find a way to make that whatever happen.  Our welfare is our own responsibility only.

 

And the term as I use it does not suggest that we should amass as much/many material things as possible.  That just a greedy person.

[dawei]

But to answer your question Dawei, I do not accurately know what Tao has said to me that I have been able to hear, I would like to think I am here now because of some unseen guidance offered by some divine being but the truth is always just as radical as we want it to sound, I am here now, and that is enough for me to trust Tao and what it does for me. I have not developed past this in personal working with Tao.

 

I wanted to come back to this...

 

Tao is primordial guidance but what you 'hear' is from just an emanation of Dao.  For our purposes, it is the manifest world.  But we are just psychical half of the emanation; The other half is the spirit realm.   Taken together, there is not two parts but our minds like to treat it that way. 

 

I do belief you are here due to guidance of some divine being.  As are all of us, but you seem to know it on a certain level. 

 

I would say, Dao=Path=Destiny.  

[doc benway]

Hello everyone, and welcome!

 

Today while at work I was thinking about the Tao and I boiled it down to this.

All I know from experience is that this Tao is a place that has everything that will exist, could exist, or will never exist inside of it. It is like an imaginary cardboard box that is small on the outside and our entire universe fits inside. I could say it is infininite(it feels this way) but then I would be speaking out of belief. So this being my personal experience with Tao my ultimate question: Is there any more to be found out about this thing?

 

Please keep in mind I have described to you as honestly as I can my full experiencial knowledge of Tao. This is not information from a book or something like that. I only ask that if you could help me in any way understand and grow you will be helping more than just me.

 

I think it's important to recognize that every response you get here, and elsewhere, is the concept of Dao as viewed through the unique and imperfect lens of other people. The closer you get to the source material on Dao and Daoism, the less coloration and potential for misinformation there will be. We each bring something different to the equation and we each need something different from it. So I would suggest that you focus on core resources like Daodejing, Zhuangzi, Liezi, and so forth for the theoretical, conceptual approach.

 

More important, in my opinion, is that you look for a credible teacher and begin to practice Daoist meditation. It brings an entirely different perspective to the table that cannot be provided by the theory and philosophy. When I first started practicing, I asked my teacher what I should read about Daoism and he told me not to waste my time reading - to spend that time in meditation and other practices. Not everyone would agree with that approach but my Daoist teacher from Taiwan was adamant on that point. If you are unable to find a Daoist meditation teacher, any form of meditation would be helpful. Finally, looking into Daoist practices of qigong, taijiquan, baguazhang, xingyiquan, zhan zhuang, feng shui, and yijing can bring yet another perspective to the experience that will help give you a much deeper and fuller picture of Dao. 

 

Edit - 

I'll add a few more suggestions:

 

Sit, stand, or walk in nature. Pay attention to everything you feel, see, hear, smell, touch, taste - that is Dao. Don't waste too much time carried here and there in your thoughts, while they are a part of it, they are simply an endless stream of narrative that is putting verbal labels on what can never be captured by labels.  

 

Sit or stand quietly and pay careful attention to your inner environment - what it feels like inside. It is much more subtle. Explore that deeply and thoroughly with patience and enthusiasm. Once again, don't allow yourself to get too carried away in thought - it drowns out the subtle inner world. That subtle, inner world is Dao. 

 

Pay attention to your relationships, how you react to, respond to, and treat other people in your life. That is Dao. 

 

Don't label all of these things, don't chop them up into convenient little concepts and boxes. All of those labels and concepts are not it, just like the words on a menu will never satisfy your hunger. Dao is everything that is possible and yet it is none of those things. It is not a thing. It's true nature is much more subtle and elusive. One must be extremely quiet and tranquil inside to come to a realization of what "it is."

That will never be found in words or concepts. 

Edited April 2, 2016 by steve

[RiverSnake]

I like Alan Watt's discussion on the Tao:

 

[dawei]

You first have to know what you are looking for, before you seek it, otherwise how will you know when you have found it?

 

What if what you are looking for is nothing... 

 

How would you know you found it?  

 

If you found it, then it would be 'something' and would then mean you didn't really find what you are looking for...

 

The point is: Why is one seeking something?

 

As long as we're seeking, we are not being lead naturally... we are prisoners to tradition, practice, and seeking... 

[Marblehead]

What if what you are looking for is nothing... 

 

How would you know you found it?  

 

If you found it, then it would be 'something' and would then mean you didn't really find what you are looking for...

 

The point is: Why is one seeking something?

 

As long as we're seeking, we are not being lead naturally... we are prisoners to tradition, practice, and seeking... 

You make it sound so boring sometimes.  Hehehe.  I used to love searching for Easter eggs when I was a little tot.  And when you find one - Oh!, What joy!!!

[wuchiclan]

new student to Tao here, Im enjoying the exploration of Tao from various people,

 

I have thought of myself as water, flowing through channels nature offers as Tao.

 

Perhaps it is the empty mug into which coffee is poured?

[dawei]

Perhaps it is the empty mug into which coffee is poured?

 

And maybe the coffee itself too... so what difference is there between the mug containing the coffee and the coffee contained by the mug?

[Brian]

Yin, Yang, Wuji Taiji.

 

Start with wuji and it's all yin; full of potential and void of differentiation and activity. Add just an ounce of anything else and you've introduced yang and duality. When in duality, we have the manifestations of taiji.

 

The things that we can identify and talk about (in most cases) are forms. Reality is more of a process than a form. So, what is the difference between the mug and the coffee? Their histories in the process of reality; their accumulated and continuously modified constitutive complementarity.

 

(that's a tongue twister and a way of saying something without really saying anything and vise-versa)

Yes, but...

 

The coffee and the mug exchange both energy and substance during the interaction, each taking from the essence of the other and giving to the other in kind. Substance, of course, also being just a form of energy...

 

As far as I can tell, neither contemplates the pros and cons of the interaction, or performs a calculus of morality -- they just are.

 

Such is the way.

[Geof Nanto]

Such is the way.

 

I still need to settle into understanding yin and yang. Sometimes I see reality is yin being modified by yang. Sometimes I see reality as yang with the emergence of new forms of yin.

 

Is there one that is primary? Some places give primacy to yin; others to yang. Does it matter?

 

I don't know.

 

Probably a decent number of the things I have written lately will be somewhat incoherent because some of the sentences are articulated with the former understanding and others with the latter.

 

A close reading of the Zhuangzi will make it all perfectly clear. 

 

(Before I read the Zhuangzi I'd say "I don't know" with some trepidation, now I can say "I don't know" with great acceptance.) 

 

BTW  I very much like your observation, "The things that we can identify and talk about (in most cases) are forms. Reality is more of a process than a form." 

 

 

Conceiving, as they do, of all reality as a deployment, the Chinese are not led to backtrack along a necessarily infinite series of possible causes. Convinced as they are of the ineluctable nature of propensity, they are not inclined to speculate on ends, which can never be anything more than probable. Neither cosmogonical stories nor teleological suppositions interest them. They are concerned neither to recount the beginning nor to imagine the end. All that exists, has always existed, and will always exist are interactions that are constantly at work, and reality is never anything other than their ceaseless process.

 

Thus, the problem that concerns the Chinese is not that of "being," in the Greek sense (i.e., being as opposed to becoming and the perceptible world); rather it is the problem of the capacity to function: the source of the efficacy that is at work everywhere in reality and the best way to profit from it. As soon as one believes, as the Chinese do, that all oppositions interact correlatively as a matter of principle, any idea of antagonism dissolves; reality can never be dramatic. 

 

(from Francois Jullien’s The Propensity of Things: Toward a History of Efficacy in China )

Edited April 4, 2016 by Yueya

[Brian]

Such is the way.

 

I still need to settle into understanding yin and yang. Sometimes I see reality is yin being modified by yang. Sometimes I see reality as yang with the emergence of new forms of yin.

 

Is there one that is primary? Some places give primacy to yin; others to yang. Does it matter?

 

I don't know.

 

Probably a decent number of the things I have written lately will be somewhat incoherent because some of the sentences are articulated with the former understanding and others with the latter.

"I don't know" is one of the most significant phrases -- it is through emptying one's cup that awareness arises.

[Marblehead]

I think I have said "I don't know" a couple of times on this forum.  (Not many though.)

[dawei]

The things that we can identify and talk about (in most cases) are forms. Reality is more of a process than a form. So, what is the difference between the mug and the coffee? Their histories in the process of reality; their accumulated and continuously modified constitutive complementarity.

 

It is all just clarity of perspective.   Form=Process.   Mug=Coffee.   It just depends on the view or perspective one takes.   

 

Yes, but...

 

The coffee and the mug exchange both energy and substance during the interaction, each taking from the essence of the other and giving to the other in kind. Substance, of course, also being just a form of energy...

 

As far as I can tell, neither contemplates the pros and cons of the interaction, or performs a calculus of morality -- they just are.

 

Such is the way.

 

And why can they exchange so freely their energy and substance?   They are the one and the same.  Only we tend to differentiate them at our observation level. 

 

 

Such is the way.

 

I still need to settle into understanding yin and yang. Sometimes I see reality is yin being modified by yang. Sometimes I see reality as yang with the emergence of new forms of yin.

 

Is there one that is primary? Some places give primacy to yin; others to yang. Does it matter?

 

I don't know.

 

Probably a decent number of the things I have written lately will be somewhat incoherent because some of the sentences are articulated with the former understanding and others with the latter.

 

ok. observational level.

 

A close reading of the Zhuangzi will make it all perfectly clear. 

 

(Before I read the Zhuangzi I'd say "I don't know" with some trepidation, now I can say "I don't know" with great acceptance.) 

 

BTW  I very much like your observation, "The things that we can identify and talk about (in most cases) are forms. Reality is more of a process than a form." 

 

 

Conceiving, as they do, of all reality as a deployment, the Chinese are not led to backtrack along a necessarily infinite series of possible causes. Convinced as they are of the ineluctable nature of propensity, they are not inclined to speculate on ends, which can never be anything more than probable. Neither cosmogonical stories nor teleological suppositions interest them. They are concerned neither to recount the beginning nor to imagine the end. All that exists, has always existed, and will always exist are interactions that are constantly at work, and reality is never anything other than their ceaseless process.

 

Thus, the problem that concerns the Chinese is not that of "being," in the Greek sense (i.e., being as opposed to becoming and the perceptible world); rather it is the problem of the capacity to function: the source of the efficacy that is at work everywhere in reality and the best way to profit from it. As soon as one believes, as the Chinese do, that all oppositions interact correlatively as a matter of principle, any idea of antagonism dissolves; reality can never be dramatic. 

 

(from Francois Jullien’s The Propensity of Things: Toward a History of Efficacy in China )

 

Again... observational level. But now we're moving to a much more practical level.   "Confucian by day; Daoist by night".   These comments are all daytime angst. 

 

"I don't know" is one of the most significant phrases -- it is through emptying one's cup that awareness arises.

 

Just the mind attempting some form of understanding.  Forget phrases. 

 

On the one hand, we know something about everything: it can be related somehow to the complementary opposites of yin and yang. On the other hand, we don't really know anything substantial as the interplay doesn't have enough specificity to say anything about experience---and it's the experience that we tend to use when we "think" and "know". This makes speculation about remote things rather non-functional.

 

Thought itself, though, is born of the same process that everything else in reality is born from. Thoughts are always thoughts; reality (as distinct from thought) is always exactly that. In the same way that reality acquires distinctness through differentiation and complementarity, so also do thoughts---relative, though, to their own histories.

 

And so, similarity forms the basis for "knowing" with concepts. But it never maps fully onto other experiences; thought is always simulacra and simulacra tends only to endure if it has instrumental value. But, the ability to say anything at all is dependent upon some point of reference and some difference. And, by this, it is never absolutely comprehensive.

 

Not only is life limited and knowledge unlimited---but, also, knowledge is not what people (myself included) tend to exaggerate it into.

 

More mind stuff... but good stuff as far as the mind is involved. 

[Marblehead]

Just don't let the mind negate reality.

[Junko]

I believe I have began my journey when I was born already.