How Are Having and Giving the Same Thing?

[dawei]

Thread cleaned up... see Off-topic for split 

 

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/41853-except-that-is-only-a-story

[3bob]

cleaning up permutations?  (oh heck)

[3bob]

3bob, have you found something (or someone) who is not part of Tao?

does "The One" behold itself or know itself and if so how or from what vantage point does it see, hear or commit benefits or harm within or to itself?

[rene]

Since there is nothing that Tao is not, your questions are unboundaried and having and giving are the same thing. Cheers! (-:

[Brian]

This is all very confusing, especially when we consider that even though we may consistently consider ourselves to be the outside observer when we look at the rest of the world, the rest of the world is at the same time observing us, and that often we agree on what we see in each other. Does this then mean that my observations become real only when I observe an observer observing something as it happens? This is a horrible viewpoint. Do you seriously entertain the idea that without the observer there is no reality? Which observer? Any observer? Is a fly an observer? Is a star an observer? Was there no reality in the universe before 10⁹ B.C. when life began? Or are you the observer? Then there is no reality to the world after you are dead? I know a number of otherwise respectable physicists who have bought life insurance.

 

-Richard Feynman "On the Philosophical Problems in Quantizing Macroscopic Objects"

 

EDIT: Fixed exponential notation...

Edited September 2, 2016 by Brian

[Marblehead]

It's only confusing because you don't have an equation for it.

 

This and that.  Dualities.  The Ten Thousand Things.

 

If life exists only on Earth, (not saying so, only if) then what about the 11 billion years of the existence of the universe prior it life?

 

No, the universe does not need an observer to exist.  But then, without a conscious observer nothing would be defined - there would b no dualities.  No having, no giving.  No this, no that.  But there still would be the Ten Thousand Things (non-differenciated).

[Brian]

It's only confusing because you don't have an equation for it.

 

This and that.  Dualities.  The Ten Thousand Things.

 

If life exists only on Earth, (not saying so, only if) then what about the 11 billion years of the existence of the universe prior it life?

 

No, the universe does not need an observer to exist.  But then, without a conscious observer nothing would be defined - there would b no dualities.  No having, no giving.  No this, no that.  But there still would be the Ten Thousand Things (non-differenciated).

That's precisely his point, MH. He is pointing out that those who insist the behavior found at the subatomic scale and on the quantum level must be demonstrated on the macroscopic scale or is it invalidated are confusing themselves. It is my observation that people are generally looking for ways to dismiss that which seems contrary to their preconceived notions regardless of the evidence which piles up against their beliefs but this seems particularly the case when it comes to something like the last 150 years of discovery. Most people struggle with 17th century discovery.

[3bob]

Since there is nothing that Tao is not, your questions are unboundaried and having and giving are the same thing. Cheers! (-:

since my rhetorical like questions...  anyway are you now also saying that there is no benefit or harm as you did before?

[3bob]

"you don't have an equation for it"...  I believe we could say there is a simple formula that permutates to complexity yet it loops back to its original simplicity.

[Marblehead]

Do I see the concept of reversion and cycles again?

[Brian]

Do I see the concept of reversion and cycles again?

Or resonances and conservation, if you prefer.

 

Here are a couple more Feynman quotes for you...

 

The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.

Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.

If we take everything into account — not only what the ancients knew, but all of what we know today that they didn't know — then I think that we must frankly admit that we do not know.

 

But, in admitting this, we have probably found the open channel.

 

This is not a new idea; this is the idea of the age of reason. This is the philosophy that guided the men who made the democracy that we live under. The idea that no one really knew how to run a government led to the idea that we should arrange a system by which new ideas could be developed, tried out, and tossed out if necessary, with more new ideas brought in — a trial and error system. This method was a result of the fact that science was already showing itself to be a successful venture at the end of the eighteenth century. Even then it was clear to socially minded people that the openness of possibilities was an opportunity, and that doubt and discussion were essential to progress into the unknown. If we want to solve a problem that we have never solved before, we must leave the door to the unknown ajar.

Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected. … The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth”.

You can recognize truth by its beauty and simplicity. When you get it right, it is obvious that it is right—at least if you have any experience—because usually what happens is that more comes out than goes in. ...The inexperienced, the crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong, so that does not count. Others, the inexperienced students, make guesses that are very complicated, and it sort of looks as if it is all right, but I know it is not true because the truth always turns out to be simpler than you thought.

 

I'll leave it to the reader to ponder (or not) how this fits all into the current active threads across the forum.

[rene]

since my rhetorical like questions... anyway are you now also saying that there is no benefit or harm as you did before?

I'm saying there is both benefit and harm in every action and non-action. Each moment of change contains equal creation and destruction; both at the same time.

[Daeluin]

since my rhetorical like questions...  anyway are you now also saying that there is no benefit or harm as you did before?

 

I think I was almost caught by this too, but then perhaps I caught it...

 

Daeluin, hello!

 

As much as I enjoy seeing The Laozi shared, from my perspective it is not possible to cause no harm, it is not possible to cause no benefit. Every action and non-action is one of simultaneous creation and destruction. Such is the way of Tao.

 

Warm greetings

 

There is some place from which each saying is acceptable, and some place from which it is unacceptable. There is some place from which it is so, and some place from which it is not so. Whence so? From being affirmed so. Whence not so? From being denied to be so. Whence acceptable? From someone accepting it. Whence unacceptable? From someone not accepting it. There is necessarily some perspective from which each thing is right and acceptable. Thus, all things are right; all things are acceptable.

 

Zhuangzi's voice is perhaps more symphonic than LaoZi's clear solo, yet both seem easily lost. Such is the way...

 

Hi rene!

 

I agree. I chose that translation because of the line giving and receiving are one.

 

Here is a different perspective:

 

Complete action leaves no trace.

Appropriate speech does not stir up desire.

Skillful reckoning needs no calculator.

 

Likewise,

A real lock needs no bar -- it cannot be opened.

What is truly bound needs no rope -- there is no knot.

 

An Adept relates to everyone and leaves no one out.

And Adept uses everything and rejects nothing.

This is called the practice of luminous wisdom.

 

Therefore,

Adepts teach Adepts,

The reckless are their stock-in-trade.

Students who do not respect their teacher,

Like teachers who do not care for their students --

Though they may have knowledge,

They lack the most essential wisdom.

 

27, tl Liu Ming, Observing

[DreamBliss]

There is no universe. It is all an illusion. There is is-ness, that which is, call it what you will. There is how we paint on top of that with our beliefs and thoughts - our perceptions.

 

Most of us do not interact with things as they are. You pick up a rock and what you are holding is a collections of beliefs and thoughts about rocks. We have had this discussion before somewhere...

 

Very few, if any of us, approach something like a rock without any preconceptions, seeing it as it really is. The same is true of the entire universe.

 

The illusion is separation, me being separate from the tomato once I give it to you. Someone already alluded to this in this thread.

 

I think perhaps the answer is that without ego, giving and receiving are the same thing.

Edited September 3, 2016 by DreamBliss

[Karl]

No ego=death

So, in that sense, yes, giving and receiving are meaningless concepts. A corpse can do neither intentionally.

[3bob]

"first there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is"

 

thus I flush certain talks or perspectives about illusion

[Marblehead]

But still, if we wish to be on the other side of the mountain we must either go over or around it.

 

And then, the other side might be unknown.  Maybe better to stay on this side?

[3bob]

Rene, I guess what I don't agree with you on is linking the terms creation with benefit and destruction with harm, (and there is also a period of preservation in there)  I do agree about changes in form and changes in types of energy as seen from same - but from or in relation to Tao the term and meaning of "benefit" is greater than and beyond the duality of apparent or relative benefit or harm.

[Karl]

"first there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is"

 

thus I flush certain talks or perspectives about illusion

When we are young we accept virtually all prepositions. We accept them on face value without question.

 

As we age, then we begin to question these prepositions and to do so we climb a mountain and stare down on all the small, miniature things which gives everything a sense of unreality.

 

Finally we have to climb back down and we should by then have answered the questions we set out when we began the long climb towards the summit. If we have done so succesfully then we see that both mountain and plain are part of the same landscape, that the high view is just a high view and perspectives resolve into knowledge.

 

Some are stuck on the mountain and some never try to climb it. It is not the same thing for those who remained on the plain as it is for those who climbed and descended back to the plain. The climbers have undergone a metamorphosis during the decent. The question and answer have cancelled themselves out in the process. The climbers are no longer as ignorant as they were before they began the climb, nor as evasive as they were on the mountain top. They are enlightened.

 

That is the meaning I ascribe to the 'first mountain, then no mountain, then mountain".

[rene]

Rene, I guess what I don't agree with you on is linking the terms creation with benefit and destruction with harm, (and there is also a period of preservation in there) I do agree about changes in form and changes in types of energy as seen from same - but from or in relation to Tao the term and meaning of "benefit" is greater than and beyond the duality of apparent or relative benefit or harm.

3bob, hello

 

In each moment, creation/destruction describes normal changes (decaying apple creates mold); and benefit/harm describes the event from the position of those involved. All are present.

 

Shark eats man: good for shark, bad for man.

 

or if you prefer ~

 

Man eats shark: good for man, bad for shark.

 

Easy to see the benefit and harm and creation and destruction in either of those two events, yes?

 

That's all I was talking about, sorry my words are so lacking... which is also the Way (-:

Edited September 3, 2016 by rene

[rene]

There is no universe. It is all an illusion. There is is-ness, that which is, call it what you will. There is how we paint on top of that with our beliefs and thoughts - our perceptions.

 

Most of us do not interact with things as they are. You pick up a rock and what you are holding is a collections of beliefs and thoughts about rocks. We have had this discussion before somewhere...

 

Very few, if any of us, approach something like a rock without any preconceptions, seeing it as it really is. The same is true of the entire universe.

 

The illusion is separation, me being separate from the tomato once I give it to you. Someone already alluded to this in this thread.

 

I think perhaps the answer is that without ego, giving and receiving are the same thing.

Hi DreamBliss (-:

 

Our perspectives are very different; for me, there is both universe and no-universe at the same time.

 

It's not an 'either/or' choice while standing in both all the time, heh. Sorry, words dont work I guess. Oh well (-:

 

warm regards

 

.

Edited September 3, 2016 by rene

[rene]

The illusion is separation, me being separate from the tomato once I give it to you. Someone already alluded to this in this thread.

IMO it's separate. AND it's not-separate. Both, same time.

 

Hey - what would it be if I gave you half the tomato??

:lol:

 

.

Edited September 3, 2016 by rene

[Marblehead]

And there are the Ten Thousand Things and a tomato is one of them.

[Karl]

And there are the Ten Thousand Things and a tomato is one of them.

I hope you have it ticked off in your 'one in ten thousand things' spotters guide ?

[Brian]

Hi DreamBliss (-:

 

Our perspectives are very different; for me, there is both universe and no-universe at the same time.

 

It's not an 'either/or' choice while standing in both all the time, heh. Sorry, words dont work I guess. Oh well (-:

 

warm regards

 

.

I share with your perspective -- and without cognitive dissonance.