Wrong?

[rene]

5 minutes ago, Stosh said:

I agree basically that , the physical world always conforms to the constant principles of the tao, that being said, yes one must always be physically acting in a manner predictable as regards physical laws.. however,, a sentient creature with free will , can make decisions , make errors , have preferences , and so, has some leeway, ( which provides an opportunity to hold a standard by which individuals and society , may be regarded, by other people , sharing that standard.) beyond that , of the proverbial billiard ball. 

The Great Tao , is factual non-dualist , holding no opinions, no sentiment, no judgement etc  , it is true and inviolable ,, 

 tao Lower case !  is the behavioral construct humans think conforms to the great tao , but in fact includes human sentiments.  

 

 

 

Precisely.

 

And that's why I continue to spew about Both, same time... i.e., embracing Tao while living the best tao we can.

Why is doing Both so good, imo? Because understanding the way of Tao - helps to mitigate the 'lows' that inevitably come in tao.

 

Without this understanding - Tao becomes nothing more than a neutered and stylized version of a benevolent God.

 

 

 

 

 

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

I think we're getting somewhere! As I see it, Tao "moves in all directions" as you say. People however, aren't inanimate objects. We don't want to simple blow whichever direction the wind goes. We want a specific direction. We have goals! Within that context, acting "in accordance with Tao" means to act in such a way that you actually can achieve your goals with a minimum amount of effort and exhaustion. Now, what does it look like if a ruler is able to do this? Well, it will appear as if he is blessed by the gods. He will have received, for lack a better word, the mandate of heaven!

man·date

noun

an official order or commission to do something.

1. "a mandate to seek the release of political prisoners"

   synonyms:

   instruction, directive, decree, command, order, injunction, edict, charge, commission, bidding, ruling, fiat;  formalordinance "a mandate from the UN"

   •  
2. the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election.

    

   A mandate isn't exactly a blessing , its that the person holds the position because they are considered ,or will be the best person for the job.

   to lose the mandate is to lose your role as supreme leader , along with its perks and responsibilities. 

   So a bad leader , loses the right , as seen by the people , to stay at the head, which is different than saying - that once a leader is made king , that they are infallible , cannot be rightfully deposed or replaced or challenged , because they have the endorsement of a deity. 

    

    

    

    

Edited August 9, 2018 by Stosh

[Stosh]

Just now, rene said:

 

Precisely.

 

And that's why I continue to spew about Both, same time... i.e., embracing Tao while living the best tao we can.

Why is doing Both so good, imo? Because understanding the way of Tao - helps to mitigate the 'lows' that inevitably come in tao.

 

Without this understanding - Tao becomes nothing more than a neutered and stylized version of a benevolent God.

 

 

 

 

 

Yep , but keep in mind , the idea of a god , some kind of personlike manifestation , who cares , who makes just decisions etc , is far more easily relate-able , and this shift in perspective ,therefore, has a huge advantage. 

So before the articulations of the Classical thinkers , there were the daoists for whom spirits and gods were resposible for running the show , AAANNd , again afterward I believe there was a good deal of reversion Back to that kind of understanding. 

So while FH , ( and HE)  is in a totally different mindset , ,, I really like his renderings of TTC ,,, they're very good. 

[rene]

20 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

Do we have to come up with a solution that cannot possibly be misused? Don't think that is possible, surely not from a Taoist perspective where good and bad are inextricably mixed up.

 

Not sure why anyone would 'have to' - but I'm not Taoist, so I'm not familiar with what their mandates are.

[rene]

1 minute ago, Stosh said:

Yep , but keep in mind , the idea of a god , some kind of personlike manifestation , who cares , who makes just decisions etc , is far more easily relate-able , and this shift in perspective ,therefore, has a huge advantage. 

So before the articulations of the Classical thinkers , there were the daoists for whom spirits and gods were resposible for running the show , AAANNd , again afterward I believe there was a good deal of reversion Back to that kind of understanding. 

So while FH , ( and HE)  is in a totally different mindset , ,, I really like his renderings of TTC ,,, they're very good. 

Yeppers.

Folks usually find something that works for them where they are.

All good.

[Lost in Translation]

15 minutes ago, Stosh said:

A mandate isn't exactly a blessing

 

Yes, but since we don't actually know what Heaven wants we have to infer it by looking at the results. If everything is great then we infer this is what heaven wants. Likewise if everything is bad then we infer that is what heaven wants. 

[Stosh]

1 minute ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

Yes, but since we don't actually know what Heaven wants we have to infer it by looking at the results. If everything is great then we infer this is what heaven wants. Likewise if everything is bad then we infer that is what heaven wants. 

I'm not in the group that thinks 'heaven ' wants anything in particular.   

[rene]

6 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

Yes, but since we don't actually know what Heaven wants we have to infer it by looking at the results. If everything is great then we infer this is what heaven wants. Likewise if everything is bad then we infer that is what heaven wants. 

 

LiT - when you say "Heaven" - are you referring to Tao or the tao that includes human sentiments?

[Lost in Translation]

Just now, rene said:

 

LiT - when you say "Heaven" - are you referring to Tao or the tao that includes human sentiments?

 

In this context I am referring to whatever the people think of as "Heaven." In the ancient Chinese lore as described by Lao Tsu this would mean Ch'ien, the Creative - hexagram #1 as described in the I Ching. I'm basically working backwards. I'm inferring the mandate by looking at the results.

[Marblehead]

23 hours ago, rideforever said:

Hmm ... nope, that's not right.    For life to exist, it has to be non-deterministic.   There must be room to manoeuvre, room to take action.  

There already is.  It's called "the process of evolution".

 

[Marblehead]

21 hours ago, rene said:

 

But doesn't that make LaoTzu a Realist, like you?

I can't recall saying he wasn't a realist.  My friend likes to call himself an optimistic realist.  Hope for the best but know that shit happens.

 

And really, it was his realistic perspective was what attracted me to continue with my Daoist view of life. 

 

21 hours ago, rene said:

 

You know it's always possible for the weather to do the 'right thing' and be perfect for tending your garden...but you always have a Plan B, knowing it will probably be sweltering.  Laozi's Plan B - was writing this cool little book... knowing the common man as well as he did. If he was an optimist - his Plan B would have been redundant.

So I will rephrase it and call him an optimistic realist.

 

[rideforever]

14 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

There already is.  It's called "the process of evolution".

That is a subconscious collective process.
Not the conscious individual process I am talking about.

Humans are just waking up, moving from the first to the second.

[Marblehead]

20 hours ago, rideforever said:

Another thing is that people (sheep) often say "calm down, don't disturb things, don't disturb the Tao".
But it is fake. 

It is not the peace of Tao all.

Dao is dynamic.  Sometimes resting for the next bout.

 

[Marblehead]

1 minute ago, rideforever said:

That is a subconscious collective process.
Not the conscious individual process I am talking about.
 

Not always.  A perfect example is politics in the USA today.  Headed toward destruction with eyes wide open.

 

And individuals often do things they know will likely lead to their demise.  But they do them anyhow.

 

Both, however, are amongst the Ways of Dao.

 

[rideforever]

3 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

And individuals often do things they know will likely lead to their demise.  But they do them anyhow.

 

They do not know.   Otherwise they would not do it.

 

Perhaps you have noticed that you might lash out and actually hurt someone, but if you are honest then you can see that inside you were scared because of something from the past that was arising within you.

 

Politics is total herd mentality, nobody really knows what they are doing.   Plus the atmosphere of fear violence causes micro-traumas in people every time they watch the TV which causes them to internally fragment.    When they fragment they lose any sense of individual consciousness and become total slaves to the herd mentality that descends quickly to the level of the beast.

[Marblehead]

1 minute ago, rideforever said:

 

They do not know.   Otherwise they would not do it.

 

Perhaps you have noticed that you might lash out and actually hurt someone, but if you are honest then you can see that inside you were scared because of something from the past that was arising within you.

 

Politics is total herd mentality, nobody really knows what they are doing.   Plus the atmosphere of fear violence causes micro-traumas in people every time they watch the TV which causes them to internally fragment.    When they fragment they lose any sense of individual consciousness and become total slaves to the herd mentality that descends quickly to the level of the beast.

Perhaps I am not making my thoughts clear with words in this thread right now.  I doubt that we have a disagreement.  It's just the words we are using that is causing misunderstandings and confusion.

 

But yes, I think we are clear regarding herd mentality so no need to talk about that further.  Lao Tzu even spoke of herd mentality.

 

However, we could ask what causes an individual to assume the herd mentality?  (Too many causes to discuss.)

 

And while it is true that the instinct for survival is generally accepted, it isn't absolute else no one would ever commit suicide.

 

 

 

[flowing hands]

20 hours ago, rene said:

 

Precisely.

 

And that's why I continue to spew about Both, same time... i.e., embracing Tao while living the best tao we can.

Why is doing Both so good, imo? Because understanding the way of Tao - helps to mitigate the 'lows' that inevitably come in tao.

 

Without this understanding - Tao becomes nothing more than a neutered and stylized version of a benevolent God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah let me take you up on this! There is only one Dao although it manifests in billions of ways. Even though one might not think one is doing things with Dao, one is! Go back to our first verse of Li Erh. We only have some insight into the balance of Dao when an action upsets this balance, but then this is Dao also. Confused? Yes we are now getting into the deeper edges of understanding.

[rideforever]

22 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

However, we could ask what causes an individual to assume the herd mentality?  (Too many causes to discuss.)

And while it is true that the instinct for survival is generally accepted, it isn't absolute else no one would ever commit suicide.

 

A herd of sheep is not really individual, they have a collective program although it is divided into bodies.   Similarly when you see a teenager today he might have any amount of fashion on him looking very unique.   But put 100 teenagers together and you realise they are all carrying out the same program.   They are just part of a herd.

 

Individuality means I AM I CHOOSE I REASON I THINK.   These things are difficult to grow, especially on this planet.   Mostly children are taught to follow a herd.

 

Individuality needs to be cultivated like a cutting taken from a rose bush.   Gently slowly carefully, then it will grow into itself.   But it is easily destroyed in this world, hence Jesus's parable of the seed that lands on hard ground scorched by the sun, or a seed that has only shallow roots uprooted by the wind, or the seed that grows on land surrounded by weeds.   The seed must find deep roots if it is to survive.

 

Humans appear to be in a painful place, where they have just a touch of individual consciousness, just a sniff of it ... but it is rare for it to be actualized .... hence the great suffering of our human brethren.

 

[Marblehead]

Agree with all you said.

 

We need to be taught to think for our self.  No problem with coloring outside the box.

 

[rene]

On 8/9/2018 at 9:19 AM, rene said:

 

Precisely.

 

And that's why I continue to spew about Both, same time... i.e., embracing Tao while living the best tao we can.

Why is doing Both so good, imo? Because understanding the way of Tao - helps to mitigate the 'lows' that inevitably come in tao.

 

Without this understanding - Tao becomes nothing more than a neutered and stylized version of a benevolent God.

 

14 hours ago, flowing hands said:

 

Ah let me take you up on this! There is only one Dao although it manifests in billions of ways. Even though one might not think one is doing things with Dao, one is! Go back to our first verse of Li Erh. We only have some insight into the balance of Dao when an action upsets this balance, but then this is Dao also. Confused? Yes we are now getting into the deeper edges of understanding.

 

Awww... I think you don't like my T and t to try and talk about these things.

 

You, me, and even Li Erh use(d) words to try express in ways something others could dwell on. If he'd have asked me - I could have shown him how easy it is to make no sense whatsoever... until it does. 

 

I've become lazy. I meet people where they are and engage with language they use - rather than rely on the wordless clarity to convey... but then so do you. "Balance of Dao" indeed. LOL  

 

We do what we can, yes? Not everyone swims in the deep end of the pool and what could be better than that!!

 

 

Thanks for your words.

[Marblehead]

5 hours ago, rene said:

"Balance of Dao" indeed. LOL

What?  Dao is Singularity.  Nothing to balance.

 

Now, if the concept were Chi, then yes, balance would be appropriate.

 

 

[flowing hands]

Ah this is the trouble with words. You misunderstand me. When one uses the Dao one then can see that things are done to the end that one wants; by observation. So when cooking the food we prepare each ingredient and cook it knowing the nature of each ingredient. So such cooking shows us the 'balance of Dao'. We understand the nature and properties of what we are doing. Knowing this, gives us insight and application to other things. So we can literally see the 'balance of Dao' working throughout nature; the giving and taking, the interaction etc. But this balance is not Dao only, its just one of its many manifestations.

[Marblehead]

1 hour ago, flowing hands said:

Ah this is the trouble with words. You misunderstand me. When one uses the Dao one then can see that things are done to the end that one wants; by observation. So when cooking the food we prepare each ingredient and cook it knowing the nature of each ingredient. So such cooking shows us the 'balance of Dao'. We understand the nature and properties of what we are doing. Knowing this, gives us insight and application to other things. So we can literally see the 'balance of Dao' working throughout nature; the giving and taking, the interaction etc. But this balance is not Dao only, its just one of its many manifestations.

I'm going to let you go with that.  Yes, words.  Expressing Dao with words is always a tricky venture.

 

 

[wandelaar]

On 7-8-2018 at 6:38 PM, wandelaar said:

What claims made in the Tao Te Ching are simply wrong? And I don't mean in an ethical sense (for one can endlessly debate on that), but in a factual sense. If I remember well it is said that natural disasters will happen as a result of immoral acts by a ruler. Such a claim seems highly suspect to me.

 

But in this topic I am interested in reading about the ideas of the other Bums (that is: you) on this issue.

 

The above is the question of this topic. Can we return to that? We talked about the example I gave, but are there any other wrong claims in the Tao Te Ching besides that?

Edited August 11, 2018 by wandelaar

[Marblehead]

Wrong?  I think not.  However, due to the passage of time some things nearly non-applicable in today's world.

 

It still stands as an excellent guide for the individual as well as government.