Lost in Translation Posted October 16, 2017 The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao. I think I'm starting to get it. We really don't know what we're talking about, do we? It really is a mystery. Since we need a word to call it, we call it Tao. But that's really not what it's about. Is it? 7 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 17, 2017 4 hours ago, Lost in Translation said: We really don't know what we're talking about, do we? It really is a mystery. Just to clarify, I realise now that I had always assumed that Lao Tse knew what Tao was but refused to tell us, like he wanted us to meet him half way. That assumption was so complete on my part that I failed to even consider it. Now I'm thinking that Lao Tse called it a mystery because he -himself!- didn't know what to call it! But he was wise enough to know that he did not know. Mind blown... 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chá Rén 茶人 Posted October 17, 2017 The word "Tao" is not the moon. It is just a finger pointing at the moon. We are all lost fools looking at our own hands and missing the celestial splendor within our view. I am amazed at how foolish I was just last year, almost every year. "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken." -Tyler Durden 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 17, 2017 10 minutes ago, Chá Rén 茶人 said: The word "Tao" is not the moon. It is just a finger pointing at the moon. Yes! But you can see it points at the moon. But what if you can't see what it points at? You can see it is a pointer, but to what? That is my mystery. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chá Rén 茶人 Posted October 17, 2017 The mystery within mysteries. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mudfoot Posted October 17, 2017 It is a common denominator in many mystic traditions. There are no words for the unmanifested. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 17, 2017 You guys are doing great. I need say nothing. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 17, 2017 5 hours ago, Mudfoot said: It is a common denominator in many mystic traditions. There are no words for the unmanifested. Yes, thank you. But listen to what you just said: "There are no words for the unmanifested." You imply that Tao points to the unmanifested. But that's not what I am saying. It's a mystery. We don't know what it points at. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 17, 2017 Perhaps I can better explain my thoughts with a joke? A Non-Taoist and a Taoist walk into a bar. Non-Taoist: What is the Tao? Taoist: I don't know. (begin laugh track) 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mudfoot Posted October 17, 2017 If you do not like an apophatic explanation to an apophatic verse in a scripture written by a mystic, then that is fine. We all interpret things differently. All to ones own, and so on. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 17, 2017 It's not that I don't like it. I simply wanted to clearly express myself. I feel I have done that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jonesboy Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) The Tao is emptiness. To name it is to name a “thing” and emptiness isn’t a “thing.” So any experience or feeling or state of being is something you can name. All names reference “things.” Which is why he said. “ The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao.” Just my thinking on it. . Edited October 17, 2017 by Jonesboy 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 18, 2017 52 minutes ago, Jonesboy said: The Tao is emptiness. To name it is to name a “thing” and emptiness isn’t a “thing.” So any experience or feeling or state of being is something you can name. All names reference “things.” Which is why he said. “ The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao.” Just my thinking on it. . I prefer "fullness" but I agree with all else you said. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rene Posted October 18, 2017 20 hours ago, Lost in Translation said: Just to clarify, I realise now that I had always assumed that Lao Tse knew what Tao was but refused to tell us, like he wanted us to meet him half way. That assumption was so complete on my part that I failed to even consider it. Now I'm thinking that Lao Tse called it a mystery because he -himself!- didn't know what to call it! But he was wise enough to know that he did not know. Mind blown... 10 hours ago, Lost in Translation said: Yes, thank you. But listen to what you just said: "There are no words for the unmanifested." You imply that Tao points to the unmanifested. But that's not what I am saying. It's a mystery. We don't know what it points at. Laozi called it 'Tao' for lack of a better word - but he knew what the word was pointing at. So do I. (-: The tao that can be named is not the Tao Laozi speaks of. Once something is 'named', it has been given a definition, boundaried, parametered. 'Tao' is beyond words, beyond names, beyond defining. But that needn't stop us, just as it didn't stop Laozi, from talking about Tao; sharing ideas & thoughts A very dear friend of mine once said: Tao is the spiritual space, where one has complete freedom of mind, but can still work to do what needs to be done. It is a depth in which one does not get disappointed easily. I like my friend's idea. After all, even 'Tao' is just an idea. (-: warm regards 6 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
