"what is against Tao..."

[3bob]

"what is against Tao will soon cease to be"  (Chapter 30 last line)

 

Does this saying raise multiple questions for you? For instance if such will soon cease to be then how does it keep arising and btw. how can it arise in the first place under the overall Tao?  Thus does one come to ask if such is really against the Tao from the perspective of the Tao which is far beyond just our human related concerns and definitions as to what qualifies as being against the Tao....?  

 

 

[Marblehead]

I have never accepted that into my philosophy because I have seen the contrary many, many times.

 

The statement is a subjective value judgement from a position of idealism.

 

If something is possible it may well happen.

 

[allinone]

Make a rule, and sustain it, become a leader and have followers. So anyone who goes against it will be punished and converted.

 

If you have better Tao than mine, then you will win. 

[Bubbles]

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

I have never accepted that into my philosophy because I have seen the contrary many, many times.

 

The statement is a subjective value judgement from a position of idealism.

 

If something is possible it may well happen.

 

 

It doesn't have to be some idealistic statement. Many things-human deeds- are against the Tao, but they are long-lasting as phenomena and in their effects because there is a lot of people willing to maintain them. 

Does it contradicts the statement? Not sure, as going against the Tao has some cost. And if you look, the cost has been HUGE. 

[Marblehead]

6 minutes ago, bubbles said:

 

Does it contradicts the statement? Not sure, as going against the Tao has some cost. And if you look, the cost has been HUGE. 

Yes, everything we do has a cost.  Are we willing to pay the price?

 

 

[Brian]

I used to believe that, since everything is "of the Dao," nothing is against the Dao.  A few years ago, however, I was experientially disabused of this concept.  The ten thousand things are not undifferentiated; all choices are not equal.  Our choices matter and the energetic ripples from our decisions extend far beyond our physical awareness.

[morning dew]

41 minutes ago, Brian said:

I used to believe that, since everything is "of the Dao," nothing is against the Dao.  A few years ago, however, I was experientially disabused of this concept.  The ten thousand things are not undifferentiated; all choices are not equal.  Our choices matter and the energetic ripples from our decisions extend far beyond our physical awareness.

 

This is interesting. What kind of choices did you have in mind? Ones that waste energy?

[morning dew]

1 hour ago, bubbles said:

 

It doesn't have to be some idealistic statement. Many things-human deeds- are against the Tao, but they are long-lasting as phenomena and in their effects because there is a lot of people willing to maintain them. 

Does it contradicts the statement? Not sure, as going against the Tao has some cost. And if you look, the cost has been HUGE. 

 

Same question as to Brian, if you fancy answering it. 

[Brian]

3 minutes ago, morning dew said:

 

This is interesting. What kind of choices did you have in mind? Ones that waste energy?

All of them.  Some seem more obvious than others.

[3bob]

yet and ultimately the "ten thousand things" cannot really be against the great Tao, for such and 'against" must only be apparent and relative to the overall workings that the Great Tao always supersedes, yes?

 

[3bob]

3 hours ago, Marblehead said:

I have never accepted that into my philosophy because I have seen the contrary many, many times.

 

The statement is a subjective value judgement from a position of idealism.

 

If something is possible it may well happen.

 

It seems to me that if one is in for a dollar it also follows one in for a dime...unless one is not really in for the dollar?

Edited July 28, 2017 by 3bob

[thelerner]

I tend to agree with it, but acknowledge 'soon' may not be in the human time frame. 

In otherwords, generations instead of hours, months or years.  

 

I wonder how the statement works against specifics.  Pollution, slavery, economic systems..?

 

What do we consider, against the Dao? 

Things that stifle growth? 

[cold]

3 hours ago, Marblehead said:

I have never accepted that into my philosophy because I have seen the contrary many, many times.

 

The statement is a subjective value judgement from a position of idealism.

 

If something is possible it may well happen.

 

 

There are more things in heaven and earth than we dare imagine

1 hour ago, Brian said:

I used to believe that, since everything is "of the Dao," nothing is against the Dao.  A few years ago, however, I was experientially disabused of this concept.  The ten thousand things are not undifferentiated; all choices are not equal.  Our choices matter and the energetic ripples from our decisions extend far beyond our physical awareness.

and

4 minutes ago, thelerner said:

I tend to agree with it, but acknowledge it may not work within the human time frame. 

In otherwords, generations instead of months.  

 

[Brian]

47 minutes ago, 3bob said:

yet and ultimately the "ten thousand things" cannot really be against the great Tao, for such and 'against" must only be apparent and relative to the overall workings that the Great Tao always supersedes, yes?

 

Yes, I think so.

 

It is difficult, sometimes, to retain awareness that non-duality and duality are not mutually exclusive -- duality is "real" at the same time that non-duality is "real."  Within the context of non-duality, the ten thousand things are illusory and the discriminations between them nonsensical.  Within the context of duality, the ten thousand things are real and the choices we make are significant.  Both ideas are simultaneously valid and meaningful.

 

It is difficult, as well, to understand the interrelationships between the ten thousand things and the impact the ripples of our choices might have.  A very simple but real case in point...

 

Back in May, we had a blacksnake hanging out in our backyard.  We have a very large old blacksnake out front but this was a much smaller one, maybe 3.5 feet long.  He was hunting baby birds in the nests around the house which have become much more numerous this year because we started filling the bird feeders which had been empty for several years since the previous owners had moved out of the house.  I shooed him away from the nest above the light fixture over the side door but, about two hours later, we heard frantic bird cries from the second story eave on the corner of the house.  My wife was very upset and I quickly climbed a ladder with a "snake stick" in my hand.

 

The two parents were attempting to defend the nest but this same snake had already killed the two babies and was trying to eat one.  This time, to assuage my wife, I killed the snake to prevent it from going nest to nest.  I apologized to the snake beforehand, I cried as I killed the snake -- and apologized to the birds as well.  (I don't think either the snake nor the birds understood my words.)

 

Yesterday, my wife heard the Plott hound going crazy in the fenced backyard.  Coiled up on a rock was what appeared to be a juvenile timber rattler, striking repeatedly at the dog as it tried, in turn to get this unwelcome (and quite dangerous) intruder.  My wife managed to call the dog off and get him back in the house but when her nerves had calmed enough to go back out, the snake was gone.  We don't know whether it lives under the rock or the big pine tree next to it in the back yard, or whether it wandered into the yard from the woods beyond the fence, but we cannot let the dogs out loose in the back yard until the whereabouts of this snake are known and, if it seems to be a new resident, it will not be for long.

 

Blacksnakes eat rattlesnakes.  Would we have a rattlesnake in our backyard if I hadn't killed that young blacksnake?  I don't know.  If the rattler had killed the dog, would I have been responsible?  My wife, who is a heart patient, had chest pains as a result of this incident.  Did my choice cause her additional damage?  If she had suffered another heart attack, what role might I have played in that?  What about the decision to fill the bird feeders which attracted the birds which nested around the house (and the chipmunks & such, too) which attracted the blacksnake?

 

It is all quite entangled, you see.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Brian

[morning dew]

47 minutes ago, Brian said:

Yes, I think so.

 

It is difficult, sometimes, to retain awareness that non-duality and duality are not mutually exclusive -- duality is "real" at the same time that non-duality is "real."  Within the context of non-duality, the ten thousand things are illusory and the discriminations between them nonsensical.  Within the context of duality, the ten thousand things are real and the choices we make are significant.  Both ideas are simultaneously valid and meaningful.

 

 

Yeah, I'm guessing something along the following lines, perhaps? From the perspective of the ocean, it's all just waves going up and down; from the perspective of a single wave, not all waves (or movements of that single wave) are going to be valued/preferred.

 

Quote

Blacksnakes eat rattlesnakes.  Would we have a rattlesnake in our backyard if I hadn't killed that young blacksnake?  I don't know.  If the rattler had killed the dog, would I have been responsible?  My wife, who is a heart patient, had chest pains as a result of this incident.  Did my choice cause her additional damage?  If she had suffered another heart attack, what role might I have played in that?

 

It is all quite entangled, you see.

 

Yeah, it's already very complicated and this is just examining desirable outcomes from your particular perspective/'wave'. We haven't even taken into account the desires/perspectives (in these questions here) of the birds, the blacksnakes, the rattlesnake or the ants, bacteria, etc. that would've eaten the dead blacksnake, for example. 

 

It's an impossible situation to calculate, IMO, and I agree all choices are problematic, as you said above. From my personal perspective/'wave', I'm glad your wife was okay, though.  

Edited July 28, 2017 by morning dew

[Brian]

35 minutes ago, morning dew said:

 

Yeah, I'm guessing something along the following lines, perhaps? From the perspective of the ocean, it's all just waves going up and down; from the perspective of a single wave, not all waves (or movements of that single wave) are going to be valued/preferred.

 

 

Yeah, it's already very complicated and this is just examining desirable outcomes from your particular perspective/'wave'. We haven't even taken into account the desires/perspectives (in these questions here) of the birds, the blacksnakes, the rattlesnake or the ants, bacteria, etc. that would've eaten the dead blacksnake, for example. 

 

It's an impossible situation to calculate, IMO, and I agree all choices are problematic, as you said above. From my personal perspective/'wave', I'm glad your wife was okay, though.  

Thank you.  I am, too.

[dwai]

1 hour ago, morning dew said:

 

Yeah, I'm guessing something along the following lines, perhaps? From the perspective of the ocean, it's all just waves going up and down; from the perspective of a single wave, not all waves (or movements of that single wave) are going to be valued/preferred.

 

 

Yeah, it's already very complicated and this is just examining desirable outcomes from your particular perspective/'wave'. We haven't even taken into account the desires/perspectives (in these questions here) of the birds, the blacksnakes, the rattlesnake or the ants, bacteria, etc. that would've eaten the dead blacksnake, for example. 

 

It's an impossible situation to calculate, IMO, and I agree all choices are problematic, as you said above. From my personal perspective/'wave', I'm glad your wife was okay, though.  

I wonder what  Wu Wei would be in Brian's case?

[Jeff]

6 hours ago, 3bob said:

"what is against Tao will soon cease to be"  (Chapter 30 last line)

 

Does this saying raise multiple questions for you? For instance if such will soon cease to be then how does it keep arising and btw. how can it arise in the first place under the overall Tao?  Thus does one come to ask if such is really against the Tao from the perspective of the Tao which is far beyond just our human related concerns and definitions as to what qualifies as being against the Tao....?  

 

 

 

I think what you are looking for is found in the last part of chapter 16...

 

Knowing constancy, the mind is open. 
With an open mind, you will be openhearted. 
Being openhearted, you will act royally. 
Being royal, you will attain the divine. 
Being divine, you will be at one with the Tao. 
Being at one with the Tao is eternal. 
And though the body dies, the Tao will never pass away.

 

Everything but the Tao, ultimately passes away...

[Brian]

36 minutes ago, dwai said:

I wonder what  Wu Wei would be in Brian's case?

If I were the only person involved, I would not have filled the bird feeders, I would not have killed the blacksnake or prevented it from eating the baby birds, and I would not seek out the rattler but would kill it the second time I find it in my backyard because it is an existential threat to me (and my dog).

 

I am not the only person involved.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Brian

[dwai]

2 minutes ago, Brian said:

If I were the only person involved, I would not have filled the bird feeders, I would not have killed the blacksnake or prevented it from eating the baby birds, and I would not seek out the rattler but would kill it the second time I find it in my backyard because it is an existential threat to me (and my dog).

 

I am not the only person involved.

I don't think it's possible to know what the wu wei action should have been...

Because underlying the topic of the OP, is the matter of Wu Wei, imho.

Edited July 28, 2017 by dwai

[Brian]

Just now, dwai said:

I don't think it's possible to know...it was a genuine question. Because underlying the topic of the OP, is the matter of Wu Wei, imho.

Oh, I wasn't trying to say "This is 'wu wei.'"  I was only describing how I would instinctually have behaved.

[dwai]

Just now, Brian said:

Oh, I wasn't trying to say "This is 'wu wei.'"  I was only describing how I would instinctually have behaved.

Thanks Brian. I understood what you meant...I should have been more clear in my post. Perhaps we need another thread to discuss this topic...

 

Best,

 

Dwai

 

[morning dew]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

I wonder what  Wu Wei would be in Brian's case?

 

34 minutes ago, Brian said:

Oh, I wasn't trying to say "This is 'wu wei.'"  I was only describing how I would instinctually have behaved.

 

Yeah, I would have said it's for Brian to answer his own path; it's not something I can answer, personally.  

 

Also, to say Wu Wei (with capitals) implies that the ocean would have an optimal way to organise itself, IMO (unless I misunderstood you). I don't think it does, personally, and if it does it's way beyond human conceptualisation. I'm more like Marblehead: it just does it's own thing and doesn't care about human ideas of good and bad, or even human logic (I don't see how Brian's example could be resolved for all the different, individual perspectives/'waves' involved).

Or at least, this is my current understanding of Daoism. I'm always up to being educated.  

[Bubbles]

Why wu wei wouldn't be on topic? Going against the Tao is straying from wu wei. So it can begin from having an ego interfering with what the situation requires in the moment. This is indeed not moralistic: sometimes what is to be done is killing a snake, sometimes not at first sight but when it comes back, somtimes not. It can't be decided upon a rule because it is all immanent to the situation. That's why the real life example Brian gave is excellent. Everything is different, each situation is unique and has to be dealt with according to its internal justice which means finding the equilibrium point (which not static at all). But for that one has to have lost any egotic view. At least that's my understanding.

That's also how I understand the advices given in the Huangdi Neijing when it comes to health and longevity. What follows the course of Nature benefits from her. Health is for the body the slowest way to die.

[dwai]

34 minutes ago, morning dew said:

 

 

Yeah, I would have said it's for Brian to answer his own path; it's not something I can answer, personally.  

 

Also, to say Wu Wei (with capitals) implies that the ocean would have an optimal way to organise itself, IMO (unless I misunderstood you). I don't think it does, personally, and if it does it's way beyond human conceptualisation. I'm more like Marblehead: it just does it's own thing and doesn't care about human ideas of good and bad, or even human logic (I don't see how Brian's example could be resolved for all the different, individual perspectives/'waves' involved).

Or at least, this is my current understanding of Daoism. I'm always up to being educated.  

The way I see it is when we do action without expectation of results, but purely from the point of view of doing the work for sake of doing the work, any such action is in accordance with Dao, so is wu wei.