Tao

[PangQuan]

Hello. I have been a follower of Taoist phylosophies for over 5 years now. I have just recently began to read the book titled Chronicles of Tao (Deng Ming-Dao). I am half way through this piece, and I find it very interesting. Certainly there are occurances within this work that are questionable, but which I have left up to meditational hallucinations, or mere flamboyancy for reasons of higher levels of distribution. I never the less find the angles of Tao, that are described, to be of great understanding. I have had self realizations from some of the writings and, with that alone, I find the gentleman in question (Sifu Kwan) to be a very intriguing individual. I have been studying Gung Fu for a while now, and am in the process of preparing my body for travel. At which point I wish to seek knowledge from a Taoist master. I am begining my search now for individuals in which I may need to travel to, in order to further my understanding of the truth. I have found information pertaining to Master Kwan Saihung, stating that he was born in 1920, this being correct he would be quite an elderly man. I have also found information stating that his name is not even Kwan Saihung, and that he was actually born in 1947. I have found much speculation and questioning individuals within my searches. I keep myself open to either spectrum. The reason I am writing is to question whether anyone may have any current information on Master Saihung. I would greatly appreciate any information one would be able to pass on to me, as I truly wish to locate a true Taoist master before my time to travel is upon me. Granted I have several years ahead in my physical studies before I am ready for a more permanent relocation, but I am most deffinately willing to travel to meet an individual who may meet the criteria I am looking for. This message is not strictly isolated to the situation of Master Saihung, but is extended to the knowledge one might have on a master who would be a beneficial role in the study of Taoism, by means of person to person transference of knowledge and wisdom.

For the sake of keeping this serious, I do not want any personal attacks on individuals in question, nor on those that my be brought up within this thread. Information you may have or leads that are possible to follow regarding this subject are most welcome.

Many thanks in advance,

edit: I began my studies of martial arts in order to more intricately experience other aspects of Tao. I am not seeking a martial arts instructor. Merely a Taoist master whom I may speak with.

[Taomonkey]

Dr. Maoshing Ni is the son of Hua-Ching Ni, some of the best books have been written by this family, and they operate a traditional Chinese medicine university in California, do some research and you will find them.

[PangQuan]

Thank you. I will do just that.

[spiraler]

whatup pangquan, so youre interested in the tao? so am i. are you familiar with the i ching? also, you might be interested in ba gua as a martial art since they incorporate the tao and the i ching into their martial system of tactics.strange yet profound revelations come with the undrestanding of the tao dont they?

[PangQuan]

Hey there spiraler, I dont know any ba gua teachers in my area. I do own a few copies of the I Ching, my favorite translation is done by Thomas Cleary (as I cant read chinese). I use it frequently for phylosophical consultaion, using the coin method to build my trigrams and hexagrams. I realized that sinse I have found Tao, my understanding of life grows each day with contemplation of truth through the duality of the universe. I plan to eventually visit Taishan for my first pilgrimage, and then possible Huashan. It is very difficult to find anyone else around me with my enthusiasm for the Taoist way. Through this I find part of my destiny lies in travel, although I find it tempting to except the fate of staying put. Tricky bugger that fate thing is. Im pretty sure my destiny will eventually overcome my fate though. I realize that I need to look into the local Chinese Language Center to begin learning Mandarin. Come to think of it, Ill do that while im here at work today. Thanks for the spark spiraler. :)

[7 star Method]

PangQuan,

What exactly are you looking for? Are you interested in learning Taoism or the Taoist traditions?
You speak of fate as if you were a buddhist, I would like to know if you do not mind, what brings you to Taoism?
I would be very cautious about Kwan SaiHung. The Taoist academia has found him to be a fraud. Some may not care, but if you are searching to learn Taoism, then you should be careful with learning from him. I have heard his Chi Kung ain't half bad, so maybe if you study from him you can go that route.
Thomas Cleary has translated many books and I truly thank him for that, but his books all have Buddhist undertones as well as his own. Nothing is wrong with that, but if you are interested in Taoism his books are interesting but not the way to go if there is something else - take them with a grain of salt.
Sorry if I seem to be a downer. If you really want to learn Taoism you should know what Taoists feel about these two interesting authors.

[spiraler]

what up pangquan,

may you have fortune in your search for wisdom. spiraler

[7 star Method]

I am sorry that I have disrespected or offended any of you.
I am very new and have actually had some spare time lately and thought it would be fun to spend some time on a martial arts board.

Spiraler, I do not ever remember disrespecting you or leaving a snide remark, but if I have can you please leave an example and please accept my apology. No, I do not sign in as Seven Star - I believe there is another person here with this name.

I am not a master of anything, just a student of the Tao and a teacher of Kungfu.

[spiraler]

my most humble and utmost apologies 7 star method. it seems i have confused you with another poster. i just want to say that you have not disrespected me and im sorry for this misunderstanding. i have been a fool.
spiraler.

[PangQuan]

Welcome 7 star method

What brings me to Taoism? Well thats a pretty long story. Lets just say that living a life of impurity and violence was not good for me. Several years ago, I was introduced to taoism by a friend, through lao tzu. From there I began to purchase any book I could find regarding taoism. I generally like to translations done by chinese authors, using british english to translate to. I use Thomas Cleary's I Ching due to the acuracy i find in the actual translations into standard English, of the trigrams/hexagrams. He has a good understanding of eastern languages. (would you possibly suggest a better english version for consultation?) That and Sun Tzu are the only translations I have kept of his. I have never studied buddhism to any extent. Though what I have read is intriguing. I am quite wary of Kwan Saihung, I have not been able to find any solid info on the man. All my leads become dead ends, well except the phone number I have to reach one of his pupils. :rolleyes: So far my goal is to travel to first Taishan and the Huashan, I am hoping to find an actual taoist master to study under first. In the case that I do not, hopefully my pilgimage will bear fruit. It is very difficult to find an actual taoist master, especially in the states. So far all suggestions and leads, end up to be people trying to make money off of taoist methods, and medicines. And no one I have found yet excepts students for Taoist purposes. Any way you may be able to help me would be most appreciative. How long have you been following the way? Who if any were and or are your masters?

[PangQuan]

7 Star Method

I have been doing some research on Lie Feng Taoren. He seems like someone I may want to meet. I have time off in July this year. I will make arrangements to travel to California to meet him. Unfortunately I must work to pay for my Kung Fu lessons. here is where I learn my Kung Fu www.ckfa-kungfu.com

My Sifu is quite skilled, and is very accomplished martial artist. He has mastered several Chinese styles, as well as Karate, and Judo. He is a gem that seems to not want any fame. This I respect. His morality and humanity are of great alignment, and it is for this reason I study from him.

In poking around the internet finding information on Lie Feng Taoren, there are several places that are stated as his current location. May I assume that the information located on The Black Lotus Society web site is correct? Have you met him, if so what is your personal impression? As well, do you have any current contact information for Master Lie Feng Taoren? Such as email, school #, or a P.O. Box, for mail purposes.

Thanks

[7 star Method]

Spiraler,
No problem, I never felt insulted - just confused - lol

PangQuan,
Seems that you have a very good teacher. Maybe if you stick around you may find sanctuary within what you know and not what you do not...

Sorry to mislead you, I am Lie Feng Taoren :o
For once in my life I have some spare time so I thought I could come here and learn a bit.
As for my school - it is non existent, I am currently teaching at a park and doing seminars, trying to keep it low key for right now. If you would like to get a hold of me, please feel free to e-mail, everything is current on the web site.

To answer your question in your first reply; I personally have been following the way since the day I was borne. The way is universal and not restricted to anyone or any belief. Tao and Taoism are completely different. Taoism is a particular religious belief and the Tao is Universal.
So what I gather is that you have been subjected to the translated Taoist philosophy but not Taoism?

Tao-an

[PangQuan]

Tao-an

What your intuition has gathered is correct. Thank you for the advice and clarification of terms. As I do not know anyone in my area in which I can converse on this subject with, the only understandings I have are concieved from my own personal reflection of literature and experiences. Since the only link I have to deeper clarifications of tao is literature and myself I often feel that I am missing a great amount of understanding, as the transference of wisdom from a master seems to be needed. My sifu is buddhist so I do not approach this subject with him. He was raised in a temple and was eventually a monk before leaving the monastic life. There is a small language barrier, but I do take every chance I get to listen to his words and form an understanding to the best of my abilities.

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to be humbled within my ignorance of the way by you. It seems that you have cultivated a deep understanding of life and the workings of duality in your time.

The warnings of Kwan Saihung from you have validated the impression I have recieved from others. Thanks.

I will still have the time off come July, if possible and your schedule permits, would it be rude of me to request an opportunity to meet with you, or perhaps participate in one of your classes?

This forum truly has been my last resort in locating someone more affiliated with understanding of Tao.

[7 star Method]

Pang Quan,

Of course, your visit would honor me, Anyone is welcome to visit, I will make you some great tea and we will have the opportunity to talk.

Tao-an is a Taoist term for a blessing - or Tao peace if you will.

Tao-an

[PangQuan]

7 star Method

This is most appreciated. After finding time to contemplate your advice further, I feel that I understand what you mean by "sticking around".

Tao-an is a Taoist term for a blessing - or Tao peace if you will.
my ignorance is amusing.

I will contact you in the future, via email through your profile here, regarding July. I have heard California is expensive, so I will begin to save money now to pay for accomidations and so forth. I look forward to recieving my first experience in meeting with a Taoist master. :)

Tao-an

[frog]

Pangquan,

I think you would do well to be cautioned about the Ni family as well. The "Taoism" they teach is in fact traditional Chinese culture not Taoism; They do not claim to be initiated into a recognised religious sect as far as I know. They claim a non-religious family lineage.

Another thing is that there are a lot of unpleasant rumours that swirl around them. While it's bad form to repeat rumours, I think that it's completely fair to be sceptical of people with bad reputations.

And while their "Taoism" is what I'll call highly suspect (since I have no proof), the TCM school they run is one of the best in the US and I'm proud to be a graduate.

I also have to disagree with Taomonkey about the quality of their books.

For more info on Taoism Check out taorestore.org, but beware that almost all of the resources on their website are also frauds or just non-Taoists who actually believe that they're Taoists. TRS, the hosting organisations is completely reputable, I just think they let anybody list themselves who wants to.

Be careful and good luck on your search!

[PangQuan]

Frog,

Thank you for your advice. After doing some small research on the Ni family, I decided to end it there. All that I found was regarding business, and making money, from that point I became disinterested.

Granted I am not against spending money to have the opportunity to meet with individuals whom I would consider well worth the investment. I am just not looking to take any medical classes, or purchase goods.

Any advice for me is carefully examined and pondered. Once again thank you for your time.

[PangQuan]

Master Lie Feng Tao-ren,

One question if I may. Seeing as how my only exposure to Tao is through english translation via literature, and I have never been educated by a master regarding this nor have I had the translations related through one more understanding of Tao; would this imply that I am following a path created through my own personal ego, derived from the desire to see what I value as truth? In which case, would what I call Tao, in essence not truly be Tao. Or would my path not be futile under the pretense that Tao may be experienced through many different sources, and I am merely finding traces of something that is there?

I am constantly trying to come to terms with what I am, without any spiritual guidance. This is as clear as I am able to word this, and I thank you for taking the time to read this and, if possible, to respond.

[spiraler]

i like to stand in the blowing wind, in a quiet place, just listening to nature. i feel most connected to the tao that way. i think the tao is the beauty of existence and how nature and life around us changes, ever so subtly, yet those in tune with the tao can connect with nature on an "understanding" level "listen" to it so to speak. its so hard to put into words, all i can say is that its beautiful.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

For insightful musings, read as much as you can regarding the "Taoist Immortals".. the stories are likely embellished but offer insight into the earlier Taoist concepts.. The spontaneous and bohemian lifestyles of these "Immortals" is indicative of the original philosophical foundations of Taoist living.. i am of the opinion that Religious Taoism is somewhat contrary to the Taoist philosophy, but that is better determined by the inclinations of the individual.. The student of Tao would be well advised to research as much as possible, the Tao will reveal itself to each of us accordingly.. find your own Tao, first.. Tao is a process not an object, not to be "known", but experienced..

One of the statements of our school's mission is.. "and sanctuary for wayward Taoists".. in as much as we are ALL wayward Taoists to the degree that we abandon our true nature..

Be well..

[7 star Method]

Master Lie Feng Tao-ren,

One question if I may. Seeing as how my only exposure to Tao is through english translation via literature, and I have never been educated by a master regarding this nor have I had the translations related through one more understanding of Tao; would this imply that I am following a path created through my own personal ego, derived from the desire to see what I value as truth? In which case, would what I call Tao, in essence not truly be Tao. Or would my path not be futile under the pretense that Tao may be experienced through many different sources, and I am merely finding traces of something that is there?

I am constantly trying to come to terms with what I am, without any spiritual guidance. This is as clear as I am able to word this, and I thank you for taking the time to read this and, if possible, to respond.

It is futile to worry about the Tao. It is everywhere and in everything - good and evil, right or wrong it is still the Tao. You personally are just a small bit of the Tao, as well as an empty beer can and the beer that is in my stomach;) lol
The Tao is something to be learned not taught. Through certain exercises and well as cultivation you will find your answers that you may need.

Tao-an

[7 star Method]

Greetings..

For insightful musings, read as much as you can regarding the "Taoist Immortals".. the stories are likely embellished but offer insight into the earlier Taoist concepts.. The spontaneous and bohemian lifestyles of these "Immortals" is indicative of the original philosophical foundations of Taoist living.. i am of the opinion that Religious Taoism is somewhat contrary to the Taoist philosophy, but that is better determined by the inclinations of the individual.. The student of Tao would be well advised to research as much as possible, the Tao will reveal itself to each of us accordingly.. find your own Tao, first.. Tao is a process not an object, not to be "known", but experienced..

One of the statements of our school's mission is.. "and sanctuary for wayward Taoists".. in as much as we are ALL wayward Taoists to the degree that we abandon our true nature..

Be well..

Tai Chi Bob,

However much I may like your insight I must say, and with no disrespect this is what I have lost all patience with.
I agree that the student should read all that they can on Toaism, but most of your findings will be translated new age junk, but there are treasures here and there.
ai Chi Bob, I would like to know. What are the earlier taoist concepts? I myself would like to know how the "earlier" Taoists were before Taoism. This would be greatly insightful. - LOL
Taoism is Taoism, it is nothing else. Philosophical Taoism is still Taoism.
Westerners have *******ized our religion to the point of now it is just plane insulting through miss understanding of the truth. Believing in translated books and Taoist ideals that have absolutely nothing to do with the original author was trying to express. Immortals are free, well because they were immortal. Before their free life style they had to work hard a dedicate themselves to a specific system in order to get to the point of Immortality. Most immortals are still hard at work, trying to get to the next level of cultivation in order to unite with the Tao.

The only personal Tao - lol is the cultivation of "Te". Te is the motion or life of the Tao.
Oh well, enough of this, sorry for the rant.

Tao-an

[Metal Mantis]

Ni Hau,
One of my favorite authors on the subject of Taoism is Alan Watts... He gives it that light hearted feeling of nonsense that trying to put such things into words deserves.. "Cloud Hidden, Whereabouts Unknown" is probably my favorite, followed closely by "Nature Man and Woman" and the "The Wisdom of Insecurity for an Age of Anxiety" all entertaining easy reads...
Recently I was given a book by Chogyam Trungpa, a Nepalize man with all the spiritual credentials needed, and enough sense to not "need" them.. I just finished "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" by him and was quite taken back... Statred another "The Myth of Freedom"...... Ironically I have yet to finish this one... I suddenly felt quite relaxed with the whole of things.....
Just my thoughts... I hightly reccomend either of these idividuals insights as they have given me some assistance on the path to my In(ner) Lightenment...... Hope all is well, Peace................... J

[PangQuan]

It is futile to worry about the Tao. It is everywhere and in everything - good and evil, right or wrong it is still the Tao. You personally are just a small bit of the Tao, as well as an empty beer can and the beer that is in my stomach;) lol
The Tao is something to be learned not taught. Through certain exercises and well as cultivation you will find your answers that you may need.

Tao-an

Master Lie Feng Tao-ren,

This resonates with your earlier advice of staying put. I feel that I am understanding. This is begining to make much sense to me. Where am I able to learn how to practice these exersizes you mention. Again I thank you for your consultation.

I have recently been pondering the realization of the self. I find it ironic, that in a way I dont even exist. Along the lines that I am just the outcome of the spirit combining with the elements. It seems to me that "I" am just one possible presence within this reality "I" now experience. This reality of mass and ego of the self is false, and "I" being an offshoot of this blending of substances am also false. With your explanation that I am just one piece of Tao, then you are as nonexistant as I. And in fact we are actually the same essence, drawn of the same origin. This in turn leaves me with a conclusion. Is it possible for me to connect with this origin while I still am in this stage of reality? And if so, when this is done, do I seemingly become nonexistant in the whole of eternity? And at the time of death, do I leave this plain only to enter into a different stage of illusion?

I kind of went out there for a second, but I had to write that down while I was thinking of it.

[spiraler]

i would say through time and meditation on these thoughts, you will be able to seperate truth from reality. just never let yourself be taken over by the unknown. venture cautiosly, enlightenment can be dangerous. especially to your mental well being. also try to strengthen your body with taoist exercises. strong body, strong mind.

[PangQuan]

Spiraler,

Thats just it, I dont know any Taoist exersizes, no one to teach me. I do know Shaolin Buddhist exersizes, and do those everyday for martial arts practice. But I have never been trained in meditation postures or methods. Is there a good video that can aid me in this?

[spiraler]

look up circle walking, a taoist form of moving meditation. pangquan, do you know how to sink your mind and chi into your dantien? p.s. you dont need a teacher for everything, only the really advanced stuff. so far, i taught myself.

[PangQuan]

So far all I know is external properties of exersize. I have not been shown any breathing methods. I have read about many different types. I just dont know which kind is right for me. I continually am trying to keep my breath regulated, but I dont think I have reached the point where it is automatic, because when I sparr I find myself sometimes taking shorter breaths than I should. I know I should be breathing slowly, evenly and deep in through the nose, using the muscles in my lower abdomen to draw the diaphram and bringing in more air. Then I release the air in a relaxed state out through my nose, as though I am sleeping. This does help, I focus on this breathing while I run also, and can now run several miles before I must open my mouth. But if one would be able to elaborate on how I would sink my chi and mind into my dantien this would be most awsome.

[spiraler]

okay,
im going to attempt to try to explain one method of finding your chi, this method worked for me about six months ago..... Okay, first i suggest you find a nice quiet place that gives you a sense of well being and power. then drop into a horse stance, breathe very deeply with one hundred and ten percent of your lungs, inhale so much that your whole torso expands, really inhale with all you have and at the same time try to relax the leg muscles in use which are probably beginning to burn. this principle of relaxation is VERY important, since this is your first time expect this to be very difficult and feelings of giving up are natural, but stay strong, this also is VERY important. after a decent amount of time(1 to 2 mins beginner 4 - 5 mins adv) switch to bow stance by placing your left leg behind your right, placing most of your weight on your front leg,(remember not to bend the knee past the toes and sink with the hips) continue to breathe deeply expanding your lung capacity to its fullest an exhaling,(on the inhale relax, on the exhale also relax but Imagine pushing out tension)after your custom set time to hold that position(pref 1- 2 mins) switch to reversebow by placing your weight on your back leg and straightening your front leg, while bending the back leg(dont sink knee past toe)hold this position and remember to breathe into the burn while relaxing the muscles that are burning and exhale very slowly as if reeling silk and imagine pushing out the tension.the next position is cat stance, do this by simply pulling the front leg closer and stand on the toe of this foot(if my descriptions are confusing these names are universal you can always look them up) hold this position while BREATHING IN AND RELAXING, THEN BREATHING OUT VERY SLOWLY, like silk reeling. it might help also to visualise in your minds eye that you are pushing outwards with your hands from your navel area on the exhale.the next stance is horse, step with your right leg to the right to form horse stance or just simply get into horse stance, i could remind you about how important breathing is again but for the sake of quicknes i wont be too repetitive, just remember if you do not breathe this way you are wasting time. after this horse stance, assume cat stance with your weight on your right leg, hold for as long as you can, breathe, and then switch to twist stance, slide your left foot back from cat stance so that the knee of your left leg is under the knee of your right leg, remember to sink and relax, the next pos. is another horse, assume by pivoting to your left from twist stance, remember to sink relax and breathe into the pain while relaxing the muscles in use also there is no tension in the body. from here switch to twist again by sliding your left leg forward so that your right knee is under your left knee, sink breathe and relax. from here pivot to the right to form horse stance once more, hold breathe relax.from here slide your right foot next to your left foot and drop into a low kneeling stance(THIS ONE IS HARD AND IN THE BEGINNING I COULD ONLY HOLD THIS ONE FOR LIKE 5 SECONDS IT GETS EASIER THOUGH) IN THIS KNEELING STANCE THE MAJORITY OF THE WEIGHT IS ON YOUR RIGHT FOOT.
from this kneeling stance pivot to your left and place weight on your left foot. hold breathe and relax, from here pivot to your right on the ball of your foot and step into another horse stance, hold breathe and relax. from here pivot to your left while still on the same spot and sink into twist stance. h, b, r, from here pivot to your right and twist back into horse stance. shift weight onto right leg and form the right reverse bow and arrow stance,h,b,r, next switch to forward bow with weight on left leg.hbr, from here step back with left foot to form the last horse stance. YOUR DONE... i did this routine for one week, and on the third day i felt the sensation of chi sinking from my upper shoulder armpit area down to my lower stomach, but be careful, once you feel this phenomena of bio feedback, remember it and do not lose it, as you can do so very easily, keep up practice and soon you wont need to get into horse to feel your chi, at will you will be able to sink your mind and chi to the dantien, and only then will you be able to begin to benefit from the many uses of chi. please feel free to ask questions. p.s. i swear by this,this set is from ed parkers "secrets of chinese karate". an out of print book which sells on ebay for 150.00, i got it at the library in the used books for 15 cents.

[PangQuan]

Spiraler,

Hey thanks for that routine. From my kung fu practice I am able to hold my horse for about 30 mins so I should be able to do this.

1) Ill asume that when you say h,b,r you impy hold stance, breath in and out, relaxe muscles.

2) I know all these stances from the shaolin system I study, but one thing I am confused on is the kneeling stance, is this with one foot on the ground and one knee on the ground as in a classical kneeling fashion or would I do this classical style kneeling yet keep my knee off of the ground while keeping only the ball of my rear foot on the ground? If you have a link to a picture of a proper stance this would help.

3) also for twisting stance, I think we call this sitting stance in my school. Here is a link to a pic of what I am picturing in my head. http://alexng.net/fsuwushu/reference/seated2.jpg

4) also, the reverse bow, is this similar to a cat stance except you let some weight stay on the front foot while letting it keep flat to the ground? as in I just shift my weight back from regular bow. like say do I keep it 80/20 or so?

I think thats all the questions I have so far, Im going to print this out while Im at work and start trying this when I go home.

[spiraler]

Spiraler,

Hey thanks for that routine. From my kung fu practice I am able to hold my horse for about 30 mins so I should be able to do this.

1) Ill asume that when you say h,b,r you impy hold stance, breath in and out, relaxe muscles.

2) I know all these stances from the shaolin system I study, but one thing I am confused on is the kneeling stance, is this with one foot on the ground and one knee on the ground as in a classical kneeling fashion or would I do this classical style kneeling yet keep my knee off of the ground while keeping only the ball of my rear foot on the ground? If you have a link to a picture of a proper stance this would help.

3) also for twisting stance, I think we call this sitting stance in my school. Here is a link to a pic of what I am picturing in my head. http://alexng.net/fsuwushu/reference/seated2.jpg

4) also, the reverse bow, is this similar to a cat stance except you let some weight stay on the front foot while letting it keep flat to the ground? as in I just shift my weight back from regular bow. like say do I keep it 80/20 or so?

I think thats all the questions I have so far, Im going to print this out while Im at work and start trying this when I go home.


that twist stance pic is a very advanced one, you dont have to sink that much i would say about one fourth of that. also reverse bow is a retreat stance you are exactly correct in your idea of it. also, the main point of this exercise is to find your chi, so you MUST breathe VERY deeply, and RELAX, especially the muscles in use that are burning. i swear if you do this every other day for a week or two you WILL feel your chi, that is a promise. and tell me of your progress.

[PangQuan]

Roger that, I will experiment with this until I feel that I am completing it correcty. Thanks again! Ill update on this one in a little while.

[7 star Method]

Master Lie Feng Tao-ren,

This resonates with your earlier advice of staying put. I feel that I am understanding. This is begining to make much sense to me. Where am I able to learn how to practice these exersizes you mention. Again I thank you for your consultation.

I have recently been pondering the realization of the self. I find it ironic, that in a way I dont even exist. Along the lines that I am just the outcome of the spirit combining with the elements. It seems to me that "I" am just one possible presence within this reality "I" now experience. This reality of mass and ego of the self is false, and "I" being an offshoot of this blending of substances am also false. With your explanation that I am just one piece of Tao, then you are as nonexistant as I. And in fact we are actually the same essence, drawn of the same origin. This in turn leaves me with a conclusion. Is it possible for me to connect with this origin while I still am in this stage of reality? And if so, when this is done, do I seemingly become nonexistant in the whole of eternity? And at the time of death, do I leave this plain only to enter into a different stage of illusion?

I kind of went out there for a second, but I had to write that down while I was thinking of it.

Please "Master" Lie Feng Taoren is not necessary. Although I do appreciate the respectful title, I am not a master and do not claim to be.

Illusion is very fun to play with, but it is a Buddhist idea, not Taoist. Taoist's believe in reality, what is real and now. it is best to view it as what I am doing at this moment will change my life forever in the future, therefore I will learn of what I can from the past.
Believe me, you exist, I exist, everyone exists. Although realities differ they are all the same reality just different views.
To die is a very unnatural stage in life according to Taoist philosophy. We have many exercises to cultivate our souls in order to progress into a higher state of being. This said, the ancients say it is better not to speak of such practices when you could have taken the time to practice them.
The most important level in Taoism is to cultivate Te. Once Te is cultivated everything else will follow and your questions will be answered.
As for what can happen when we die, well that is a whole other can of beans waiting to be opened.

Looking forward to seeing you in July, let me know when and I will help you out on your accommodations.

Tao-an

LF


:)

[spiraler]

may i ask, what exactly is te.

[7 star Method]

Te = Virtue of the Tao.

Te is the Tao in action, Humanization of the Tao :)

[spiraler]

thanks, seven star method.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..


Westerners have *******ized our religion to the point of now it is just plane insulting through miss understanding of the truth. Truth? Truth is insulted by contriving Tao into some religion of heirarchies.. i have been down that dead and rotting road, if that's your understanding of Tao, we will depart with no further discourse.. too often the "religion" is mistaken for the goal to which it aspires, "Taoism"as it is packaged for religious purposes is a fine example..

ai Chi Bob, I would like to know. What are the earlier taoist concepts? I myself would like to know how the "earlier" Taoists were before Taoism. This would be greatly insightful. - LOL Why the "LOL"? Insight of the nature you request is hardly "LOL".. but, your path does not travel that way.. i will not school the teacher, but.. read the last line of this post.. I fear you have made assumptions regarding my own humble "work" to get where i am, and that could be a mistake..

Most immortals are still hard at work, trying to get to the next level of cultivation in order to unite with the Tao. There is more misunderstanding and outright manipulation in that statement than in all the "new-age" concepts combined.. i will no longer trouble this thread, carry on as you were..

Be well..

[Metal Mantis]

Is there a way to become seperate from "Tao"?............ Trying to pull too much from words... Birds chirp, dogs bark... Experience.... Breathe... "trying" works against... What "goal" is there? Can you capture a river in a burlap sack?

[7 star Method]

Is there a way to become seperate from "Tao"?............ Trying to pull too much from words... Birds chirp, dogs bark... Experience.... Breathe... "trying" works against... What "goal" is there? Can you capture a river in a burlap sack?

No, everything is part of the Tao - Everything!

[7 star Method]

Tai Chi Bob,

I can respect that you love the philosophies of Taoism and what Taoist's have written on the Tao. But please have respect for the people that follow the same paths as the teachers who have written what you love.
Lol was to soften the blow, hopefully not to get the whole situation so heated and I did not want you to feel insulted. I have had many of conversations with people of your beliefs and I can respect that you do not follow nor believe in religion, but it seems that (I could be wrong about you and if I am I do not mean to be insulting towards you at all) the people in question have no respect for Taoists and the beliefs that we follow.
I thank you for your comment and your snide remark, it is always nice to know people can have a educated conversation without insult.

Tao-an

LF

[Scott R. Brown]

Greetings Gentlemen,

This is a very interesting thread! I would like to add some thoughts to the many already expressed.

We all experience Tao according to our individual natures. No two of us will experience Tao in exactly the same manner. However, there will be similarities to our experiences since the Tao is unchanging in the midst of its constant change. Two individuals that have a modicum of understanding concerning Tao will have a common understanding without necessarily agreeing on the manifestations they each experience. For example: If I give you an orange to taste you will either like the taste or not like the taste according to your nature, but you will always know the taste of an orange from then on. Therein lays the commonality of the experience. While each may argue the value of an orange based upon its taste neither can rationally argue against the nutritive content contained within the orange, nor can they argue against its distinctive taste. As such we each experience the Tao according to our own individual natures. Though we may disagree on some details this occurs due to differences in nature and perception and is not inherent in Tao. Neither does it devalue anyone’s individual perceptions or experience.

Tao reveals itself to us by its manifestations, its “Te”. We gain understanding of Tao by observing these manifestations, perceiving their patterns and bringing ourselves into accord with them. As we bring ourselves into accord with the flow of Tao our perceptions are validated and our understanding deepened by positive feedback. As such there is no real need to perform exercises in order to enhance this perception; Perception is primarily a mental process, the attempt to perceive, diligence, persistence and patience are the only requisites. Understanding comes according to the fullness of time and is unique to the individual. A MASTER is not necessary to this as it is a process of personal discovery. At best a teacher may only point the way and point out obstructions. There is no graduation.

If one is intent on learning the manipulation of chi or other attending Tao influenced activities such as acupuncture, Feng Shui, etc. then a teacher is beneficial if not necessary.

One of the characteristics of Tao is that it is a process, a flowing continuum of phenomena. As participants in this dynamic flow we are never outside of Tao. Most of us do not perceive that we are in amongst Tao, so to speak, just as we don’t commonly perceive the air we move through everyday. However, if I take a moment to sense or feel the air around me then I am able to perceive it. The more I practice the more I am aware of the air around me, its characteristics, and its effects on myself and others. We are never separated from Tao and as such we are really never out of accord with it either. The difference is in our individual perception and attitude. That is: to be in accord or out of accord is merely a matter of point of view.

The Yin-Yang teaches us that there is more than one way to view all phenomena. Something that is hot is also cold in contrast to something hotter. For example: Let’s say I have three bowls of water. One bowl is 40*F, one is 60*F and one is 80*F. Is the 60*F bowl filled with hot or cold water? Well that depends upon which other bowl we are contrasting it with doesn’t it? The 60*F bowl is neither hot nor cold in and of itself. Our experience of it is determined by how we choose to contrast it. Through this example we can see that illusion and reality are merely different aspects of the same phenomena and really only determined by how we contrast them. The difference we perceive is reflected in the effects our attitude creates on our experiences. The study of Tao is concerned with all phenomena, not just reality, but also with illusion. Reality does not exist without illusions and at another level of perception neither exists at all.

[Metal Mantis]

Well put Mr. Brown...... Perception.... View point from the 1.... viewing the many.... all we have to compare and contrast is our own experience and our perception.... "knowing" one gives rise to two..... and so on... cycles and spirals...
The way we use words in this world..... supposed to have set meanings, but as we see, we all have our own... One word may give someone a distinct memory or thought that might very well contrast what I may feel... Words are usefull, but are not but hollow representations.... birds chirp, dogs bark.... Everything is a part of Tao... Simplify your movement, as in gung fu.... conserve energy and space for misuderstanding.... Tao is everything..... everything tao, tao......... As I am not skillful with words.... The first line of the Tao Te Ching, explain that to a Christian about his use of the word God to represent such ideas and the false images and ideas it produces........ Thank you again Mr Brown..... Peace........

[7 star Method]

Well put Scott Brown, but everything you posted seems to be a repeat of all of my posts, just more eloquent :)

If all of you read the first post. It was subscribed to a Taoist to learn more about the Tao. A Taoist is a initiated person into a particular sect of Taoism. Although many misguided Westerners are engaged in cultural imperialism the original post was subscribed to a Taoist, who then would interpret the Tao in a Taoist view.
However much I like your post there are many parts that I personally do not agree with as a Taoren, but on the other hand I like your ideas but they are not of the Taoist belief, but of popular western ideals.
Scott, I thank you for your post, it was well written and thought out and I have learned much from it.
Please do not get insulted if I do not reply further, like Scott said it is comparing apples and oranges and it can go on and on.

Tao-an

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi SevenStar,

I appreciate your kind words and I appreciate the kind and considerate manner in which you chose to disagree. I would like to respond in kind to your latest post.

When learning about Tao we all begin with reading and perhaps being instructed by others. As we study we learn to apply the principles we have learned and through application we gain direct knowledge of the principles. This is called practical knowledge as opposed to book knowledge. It is similar to the difference between someone reading many books about the taste of an orange and someone actually eating an orange. The true expert in this example is the one who eats oranges and not the book worm. Practical knowledge supersedes book knowledge and provides deeper understanding.

Words are not the thing. They merely communicate a vague shadow of the real thing in an effort to point the reader in the general direction the writer intends, the primary participant in the point directed at by the writer is the reader’s mind and imagination. For example: if I read a story about an oak tree the vision of the oak tree in my mind is my personal image of an oak. It will be different from another’s mental image due to the differences in our personalities, imaginations and other pertinent mental qualities.

The understanding I have gained concerning Tao is of the first hand sort and the principles I comment on are principles I have direct knowledge of not secondhand knowledge or book knowledge. I am not implying you do not, but I am stating that your impression or definition of what you consider to be Taoism and a Taoist is not the final word on who or what is a Taoist. You may not accept my definition, that is fine I don’t accept yours either. I believe it to be too elitist and limiting, but then I don’t agree with everything Lao Tzu wrote either. This is because not all of it conforms to what I have experienced directly. To truly understand something we must have direct knowledge. There is much of what we may refer to here as American Taoism I don’t agree with too and I agree with some of your criticism of American Taoism. Americans tend to be superficial in their study and faddish in their accepting of exotic ideas. This is not a true student of the Tao in my opinion.

I define a Taoist as a person that studies the Tao and its manifestations and attempts to apply the principles learned in their day life. For me there is no ordination necessary. Ordination into a system implies conformity to a fixed structure. All fixed structures eventually stagnate. In time their primary focus becomes power and control, and the perpetuation of the structure over the original purpose of the structure. This is clearly demonstrated by observing any modern religious or political system or structure.

Most participants within any structure, from MA schools to political organizations to religions consider themselves to be on the inside and non-members to be on the outside. They cultivate within their structure an elitist attitude similar to the one you have. These attitudes retard personal growth by inhibiting learning through discouraging innovation and independent thought. This process is a part of the flow of Tao as much as anything else and I am not directly criticizing it as it is merely something that exists. I am merely pointing out the process and those who are trapped within this process may chose to accept it, but they may also choose to expand their learning beyond the confines of the limiting environment. Those that expand their learning throughout history have always been the innovators and visionaries that future generations will build their elitist structures around and the process will begin anew as it has for eternity.

Having said all this, I respect your right to your elitist attitude, but I also encourage you to expand beyond your limited definition of Taoism. The benefit will be to your own quality of understanding.

[7 star Method]

Elitist, what is elitist when it comes to fact. Because YOU choose to define what a Taoist is through your own perception still does not make that definition the truth. Everyone follows the Tao, many Buddhists that I am friends with study the Tao with a Taoist perception, but my friend, Taoism is a specific religion that has specific practices in order to cultivate the Tao. To be a Taoist you have to be initiated, to believe and practice Taoism you do not, anyone can.
Taoism in no way defines the Tao, I think you may be getting the two confused, with this maybe you should look at your elitist views and open up to seeing what is crooked and what is straight and stop defining things with Scottism and accept what is already fact.
You speak as though you have much understanding of the Tao through Taoism, since you so freely can comment on the cultivation exercises and practices of the tradition, then why are you so against the traditional views....
It is o.k. if you do not have knowledge of the cannon, and it is o.k. if you are not a Taoist, Taoism is not the final answer by any means, but to a Taoist it is and the cultivation exercises we practice are our paths to us uniting with the Tao. It seems that when you practice these exercises you define them as Taoist or Scotts Taoism you are still restricting yourself to a place that you can only define, which is the greatest of all what you call illusions.

When I first came here to read and post one of my students warned me of this. If you read the first post the poster was looking for a Taoist to comment and how hard it is to find one. Well, now I know why that no others with any experience at all will help.

A well written kind insult is still an insult.
May you find peace within your heart.

Tao-an

Lie Feng Taoren

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi SevenStar,

Please take your criticisms of my view and apply them to your own. Think carefully about the criticisms you have made and turn them towards yourself and see how you are doing EXACTLY what you have accused me of.

I have defined what Taoism means to me and I grant that your view is just as valid for you, from your perspective, as mine is to me.

We do not define Tao. We perceive it and attempt to share those perceptions with others. Tao cannot be defined, it can only be perceived and its manifestations experienced. Words and descriptions are not the thing; they are mere shadows that point to it.

You use a formal path with inherent weaknesses and restrictions this is a Truth that applies to all structures and this is a Truth whether you perceive it or not. If you studied the Tao with enough depth for enough years you would recognize this as truth as well. My view includes and understands your view and that is why it is not elitist, your view excludes everyone but those who agree with you, that is why it is elitist. I perceive the inherent value and weaknesses of your perspective; you are unable to appreciate the uniqueness and value of mine or others such as TaiChiBob whom I know to be a well educated, articulate, knowledgeable, sincere and patient man. This is what defines you as an elitist, you are exclusive in your view, people like TaiChiBob and me may disagree with your views but we try not to be exclusive in our view. This is because we understand the inherent flaws all men possess regarding their personal perceptions and we apply this knowledge to ourselves as well. I may disagree with your view, but I will respect it non-the-less.

You are the one who has taken it upon yourself to denigrate those you do not consider true Taoists according you’re own definition or perhaps the definition of the sect or school or method you follow. You are the one who has excluded the views of others, not I. I merely stated what I disagree with and what my experience and direct perceptions have indicated to me are common errors of fixed methods. I have also stated that these fixed methods with all their inherent limitations are not apart from Tao. Lastly, I have shared the knowledge I have gained about Tao through years of study. That is direct experience, not book learning!!! Direct experience means, when I look at the sky and see it is blue I make the statement, “The sky is BLUE!” When others argue the sky is not blue, I attempt to direct their vision to the sky in order to perceive directly the truth of my statement. I am not foolish enough to believe anyone would nor do I think they should take my word for it! Taking my word for it is not direct knowledge, direct perception of the fact or truth of it is!! You cannot argue the sky is not blue and yet refuse to look for yourself, but this is the path you have chosen. You presume to instruct others in your ignorance. From this all you accomplish is greater ignorance, nothing more!!

It is unfortunate your narrow views are not allowing you to take the ideas of those writing here and expand your perceptions and experience. Tao is not limited; it is the personal views of men that apply limitations to Tao. Just so you are aware, I acknowledge there are inherent limitations and errors of my perspective as well. We are all limited by our own unrealized blinders so to speak. The wise man constantly seeks to identify his blinders and remove them, knowing that as long as we take a fixed view we are cultivating stagnation, not growth. I endeavor to constantly examine my conclusions in an effort to expand my experience, knowledge and perceptions. This is not the attitude of an elitist. Can you make the same claim for yourself? From what I have seen it appears not!!

You will note I have made no claims regarding the cultivation practices of which you speak. I don’t know how you have perceived that I have done so. I know cultivation practices to be tools that may be of benefit to some, but I also know they are not necessary to realization of Tao. Further, tools have their own limitations and will at some point be a hindrance to growth and understanding. Until you recognize this you will be stunted in your growth and it appears this has already occurred. Tools have specific purposes, a hammer hammers nails, a screw driver drives screws, when the nail is hammered and the screw set I may discard the tools necessary for the task and utilize other tools designed for other tasks. Religious structures tend to get lost in the minutia of their tools (rituals) and make the tool more important than the lesson they were designed to teach. These are inherent weaknesses of all systems and structures and your blind adherence to them hurts not only yourself but those you teach.

I agree your posts are not much help to anyone searching for a true Taoist. Your definition is not mine, and mine is not yours. You lead the way to narrow elitism, I attempt to challenge the fixed perspectives of others in an effort to goad, guide, lead or stimulate those who seek to grow constantly and not get bogged down in fixed stagnant systems of thought.

Good luck to you and if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the fire!!! Truth can stand the crucible of criticism, can you? So far it appears not!! If Truth could not stand up to criticism it wouldn’t be called the Truth!!

Since you believe so strongly in your views please share them with us all and stand up to the criticism with rational learned discussion and argument, that is reasonable discourse providing proofs and examples of their truth. If you make a statement I agree with I will say so, if I disagree I will also say so, so will many others. But if your knowledge is weak maybe it is better you do not participate. Maybe your limited views will remain safer hidden from public scrutiny. Maybe you should stay hidden in your tower with your special elite knowledge us mere mortals are not worthy of possessing.

[7 star Method]

LOL

May your heart find peace.

Tao-an

[Chuck Man Chuck]

Some real good posts here. But, FYI...

Taoist/Daoist is a Western word, and basically can mean "anybody" or "thought" associated with the Dao or Daoism. The correct Romanization for a Daoist priest is "Daoshi".

Further, it seems were leading into the age old debate between Philosophical Daoism vs. Religious Daoism. LOL. These two categories, also have Romanizations and respective Chinese charters, and have had accepted schools in China associated with them, such as the "Pure Conversationalist" vs. the "Celestial Masters".

Have fun,

C.

[7 star Method]

Chuck,

Thank you for your post.
I agree, Taoist is a western term, but modern academia have all agreed that Taoshi is a Taoist and Jushi is a Taoist apprentice.

I personally would like all people who are interested and practice Taoism to be able to consider themselves Taoist. It is a western term and it should be able to represent the layman with this title. The problem is lies with the present day scholars and the present Taoists in China define this title this way. Taoism has always been a non unified religion that has always taken great hits during cultural revolutions and misguided academia of the past. During the late 19th century, western academia discovered Taoism. Unfortunately it assumed the prejudices of the early missionaries and translators from China and abroad. To this day Beijing has only two main temples and over a dozen Christian churches, why, because religions like Buddhism, Christianity and Moslem are all world wide with much support and the Chinese government cannot touch them without getting bashed. Taoism is a Chinese religion without world recognition and unity. Therefore the only true supporters of Taoism outside of China are usually from the areas of S.E. Asia that have absolutely no power or say when it comes to the Chinese government.
However, modern academia have finally began the to learn the truth of Taoism, awakening the whole organic Taoist tradition. These scholars include: Livia Koln, Michael Sasso, James Miller, Russel Kirkland, Issabelle Robinet, Kristopher Schipper etc... Not all of these scholars are Taoists, but some are. Many like to throw there two cents in and not give a direct translation, but they all agree on one thing, That Taoism is a specific religion and that there never has been a separation of religion and philosophy, but groups were established to get together and dissect the philosophies of Taoism to better understand their religion and philosophies that make it (much like bible study).

I realize Scott has the best intentions, but with those he like to throw insults wherever he can to separate his lack of confidence with his understanding of the religion of Taoism. This has no reference if he is enlightened or understand the Tao better than I, but by his comments I can hardly expect it. I simply cannot understand why someone would like to refer to themselves as a Taoist when they do not agree with the religion. A practitioner of Tai Chi and Chi Kung a few meditations labeled as Taoist that have read some poorly translated texts of the book Laozi does not make a person Taoist. This would be like a person who reads the bible but does not believe in Jesus and have never been baptized calling themselves a Christian, for me it does not make sense.

We all will see a cultural change in the religion in Taoism once it gets more established in the West. I hope that with these changes with a small ceremony (like a baptism) a person can call themselves a Taoist, but until then it is not up to people like Scott to define the term of Taoist, when the definition is already in place. We need to leave this up to the leaders of Taoism.

Scott, I completely agree with you when you agree to disagree. You seem well learned and quick witted. I can only respect you for that. But your insults are overwhelming and you should try to control yourself emotionally. BTW - You may see the sky as blue, but it is truly a spectrum of light that translates itself as blue. LOL

Tao-an

[Metal Mantis]

Hmmm, all of these things, ideals that we hold, bring further seperation... further "I know and you do not"..... Was Jesus a Christian? How about Lao Tzu, a Taoist? I feel neither of these men would have subscribed to any one way of thinking or acting and prescribing it to the masses. What may work for me may not work for you... Awareness is what study of taoism and Gung Fu has brought me.. Awareness.... We are all expressions of One.... We the Many.... Any Religion to me has already strayed from Tao... Life is an ever evolving exchanging experience of matter.... Tubes passing chemicals and such through, taking what is usefull to its direct needs and giving the left overs back to the earth... So many expressions of (God, Tao, Buddha, Ganesh, Mohamed, the Universe, Satan, Zeus, Ra....etc...) just one step away from all being the same.... Gravitate to the center.... All versions of the same model, microcosm, macrocosm all relative.... All things impact another, all is one........ Forget the Theory of Relativity, know relativity... Science and Religion... Try to rap it all up in a nice neat package and present it for your ego so we can all feel comfy and satisfied that our existance is justified and usefull.. Whatever works for you.... But to stagnate.... I understaqnd the usefullness of calming, reflecting, letting the soot (?) settle, but know that we must flow on to keep the well of life in us fresh... Darn it, did I not say before that I am unskillful with words, I would rather experience..... hehehe, Peace........

[7 star Method]

Metal Mantis,

I respect your opinion and I hope you respect mine as well. It is nice to meet someone to agree to disagree - a pleasure.
Actually Taoists believe LaoTzu to be the reincarnate of Tai Shang Lao Jun, which is one of three purities of Heaven. It is documented that Tai Shang Lau Jun came to Chang Taoling in order to transmit the truth to humans through a system that became known as Taoism.

I agree that a system can and will sometimes direct a participant further from the Tao, I have seen this many of times, mostly with the Taoists that forget to practice and continue to philosophize the Tao. It is much better to practice, but the Taoren should know what to practice for and why.

Tao-an

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi SevenStar,

I can agree to disagree as well, however you have misinterpreted my blunt straight forward manner as insults. I believe your view to be elitist; you may view that as an insult, I see it as calling a spade a spade. If you are wearing a red hat and I say, “Your hat is red”, it is not an insult due to the fact your hat is indeed red. You are an elitist, I have repeatedly demonstrated that and your comments continue to demonstrate it as well. You are exclusive in your designation of a Taoist to an unreasonable extent.

I don’t mind you calling yourself a Taoist, I take issue with you inferring that others who consider themselves Taoist are not so because they don’t meet your standards. Your standards are yours and not the final word. I am unconcerned about the traditional views of the Chinese either. Taoist thought may have Chinese influence, but the principles of Tao are not Chinese they belong to everyone. Taoist concepts are not exclusive to China. Similar concepts are found in many ancient cultures.

You seem to have assumed that I consider myself a Taoist. If I have inferred that I was careless in my writing. I consider myself a student of Tao; however I would not label myself a Taoist. I agree with some of your view. I agree that it is superficial to read a few books and take a few Chi Kung classes and then call oneself a Taoist. However, it is not my place or yours to tell someone they are not a Taoist regardless what their depth of understanding may be. This is the true arrogant attitude. These individuals are not YOUR kind of Taoist, that is all. You are engaging in the same type of bigotry that many Christians and Moslems follow. And that is, “Our way is the true way, and all those others calling themselves Christian or Moslem are the unwashed masses misled by their leaders and their simple minds” This is how you are treating those who do not follow your way. I am not criticizing your path, I am criticizing your attitude.

To be clear, my path of study has involved over 30 years of investigation, study and direct experience. I profess no doctrine. On this thread and others I have reported my direct experience of Tao. If someone were to ask me, “How do you know the sky is blue?” I would respond, “Because I looked at it and saw that it was blue.” This is commonly followed by accusations I am narrowminded and arrogant. My authority for the statements I make is my direct experience. Others have attempted to argue and do a miserable job of it, not knowing how. Not one has offered illustration or argument demonstrating the error of my views. All they are able to do is the same you have done.

Consider me arrogant if you like, to me it is like a fool arguing the sky is not blue, but refusing to look for himself. Everything I have ever stated is directly provable by each individual who wishes to discover the Truth for themselves. It takes no special ordination, authorization or permission. All it takes is effort. I am unconcerned how I am viewed by others, fire is still hot, water is wet, and the sky is blue regardless of whether anyone agrees or not. The principles of Tao apply to all whether they recognize or accept the principles or not. Most people just prefer to pontificate and argue and don’t attempt to see for themselves. As St. Paul said, “Professing to be wise, they became fools!” I offer proofs and illustrations demonstrating my points, others make empty statements offering no proofs or illustrations and think they know what they are talking about. I have not just said I disagree with you I have explained how and why I believe so. This is the mark of a reasoned, thinking individual, not a dilettante. You have offered no argument other your appeal to the tradition of your school. This is no proof or demonstration of your view, it is an empty statement.

I know what I know because I am able to directly perceive. I am able to directly perceive because I have spent many years of effort looking, thinking, contemplating and applying the principles in my everyday life. It is a knowledge born of experience. Is my perception a perfect one? No, no ones is! Not mine, not yours!!!! I do not ask, nor do I expect others to take my word for anything. If someone wants to understand my perspective I attempt to explain the unexplainable using metaphor and storied illustrations. I attempt to point the direction to look in order for others to directly perceive for themselves. This is the only way to make knowledge truly yours. Blindly following the words of others makes one a good parrot, but not an independent individual. One cannot make an honest statement concerning the taste of an orange if they have never eaten one. Having said that, it is still important for the searcher to investigate the ideas of others, by listening, reading, applying and practicing. But the proof is in the pudding! To make knowledge their own they must see how it applies in their lives through practical experience. So to those who wish to know WET, I point them to water, to those who wish to know HEAT I point them to fire. It is up to them to have the experience for themselves. All things are aspects of Tao, and all things lead to knowledge and understanding of Tao if one practices looking and applies the principles. However, if you refuse to look then no amount of argument, illustration, metaphor or explanation can do a thing for you!

[Metal Mantis]

I have always found asking questions to be helpful, mainly in the way of linguistics... How we put things in words does say a lot of our perception.... As in "perfection".... could things be any other way than they are unfolding in the Now? There is only changing.... Continual.... For things not to be "perfect" as they are then one would have to assume that there was another way... But the arrow of time that is known moves in one direction.. "perfect" gives us a since of "right and wrong" which cannot apply here, we assume past the duality of yin and yang when speaking of tao and perfection.... Words are thin ice as I have said before...
Truth? whose truth? I respect all life and the things that come from it so worry not of my disrespect for you or your thoughts... I must return to work now, thanks for the intriguing conversation....... Peace......

[PangQuan]

I have been without a life guide since my early teens. Being thrust into the world, to fend for my own, and find my own way was difficult. In the beginning I felt as though I was givin a small flame with which to view the vast expanse of darkness. At first I would use this small flame as one normally would, I lived within its light alone. I stumbled in the darkness, and made my mistakes. I was very closed to the world and life in general. Eventually I learned how to expand my range. I used experience to build my understanding. To start this was difficult as I had no real knowledge or wisdom with which I could compare and evaluate my experience with.

As I began to accumulate more and more experiences I began to notice patterns of repetition. From these patterns I was able to more accurately make decisions during the experiencing of specific life occurances. This went on for a few years, and eventually I had made a large enough connection and had built up a large enough understanding of life in general to use my now expanded light to see more of what was actually there in any given moment.

With this radius I now had I realized that I had grown significantly. I came to a point of realization that life works like this. More and more is constantly revealed, so long as you are willing and trying to expand your awareness.

I continued like this for a while longer yet, using this knowledge of life I had attained to eventually climb out of this pit that was my childhood. At long last I reached the top which I found to be the beginning and at the same time adulthood. Now I was ready and able to begin my life with my companion awareness.

I could see myself passing those that I held company with. Eventually I had to leave them behind and forge my own path. I used the tools I had developed to create a more comfortable environment and life in general. I was not over the major humps but I had spotted them, and they were accutely fixed within my crosshairs.

It was at this point in my life that I was introduced to the writings left by historical figures of the past. Primarily those who put into writing their findings of life and the unviverse in accordance with tao.

I saw these writings as shells. They had substance but were at the same time hollow. Ideals that scratch the surface of actuallity. Truths that were realized and put into literature, in hopes that others may find a glint of personal insight from the thoughts that the writings provoked. I accumulated these types of writings, found similarities between some and profound differences in some. But none-the-less I assimilated what I found to be close to my heart, and what I was able to understand, or pull understanding from.

I formed vehicles from these shells. With these vehicles I was able to compare to my actual life experiences and understandings, and often times the comparisons would lead me to more profound depths of my understanding. I did not live within these vehicles nor did I rely solely upon their existance to develop my awareness.

I had at this point been able to find my way out of the darkness on my own, I had already developed an understanding and awareness of life that many others were unable to see on their own, unaided, and without direction. This confused me at first, many of the realizations I came to seemed as though they could not be stopped, they were so blatantly obvious within the scheme of things that they simply were. But then I realized that this is not so.

One must shave away the layers of deseption and falsehood before the truth is revealed. Once I found this out it I began to question how far I had actually come, and then I realized that there is so much more for me to find.

Fast-forward a bit and we come to the present day. When I look back at the life I have lived up to this point, I truly consider myself lucky. I had been thrown into the world of men as a boy. I had persevered through many situations, and circumstances that has and again will destroy lifes. I see individuals mentally and emotionally crippled, all due to what life has dealt to many of us. Im not the best off, but at the same time Im not doing to bad for myself.

I understand aspects from many religions, yet I have not bound myself to any. Of all that I have studied I have found the way of taoist religionalists to be most applealing. I do not say now that I am able to devote myself to any religion, this simply may not be for me, but I still have been curious.

With religion it is usually easy to find one who is of a particular system or faith based belief. Christian, Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist. Of all the religions I have encountered and have met the followers and practitioners of Taosim is the only one that I have found there to be a great number of followers, yet I have not yet met a practitioner.

This would be the same as meeting one who follows the belief of One God but does not go to church, does not avidly take practice with a set of religious rules and methods. For according to actual religion, there is a right and wrong according to the religion. Now a follower is different. They follow, they do not lead.

I myself believe in a creator, but I also believe that the creator is bound by the law of Tao. This alone removes me from the conventional churches of such religions as Christianity and so forth.

Tao sheng yi, yi sheng er, er sheng san, san sheng wan wu shi.

To me the creator is the one, who from forth spawns the two, yet in the order of things the one was spawned from Tao. Tao, to me is eternal and encompases all. Always was and will always be.

Taoists, to me, seem to be a society of people who have, through many many years of study and teaching, have developed methods by which they follow the Tao, in a way that most fluidly adapts to the way Tao is presented in life and the cosmos.

This of course is derived from my own studies and my own personal inner reflections, by which are heavily influenced by my own personal experiences.

This may give one reading this thread some insight as to where I am coming from, and why I started this. I am curious about the ways of a Taoist religious practitioner. Namely for the sake of understanding the life.

:D

[Metal Mantis]

PangQuan,
Our experiences are some what similar..... On many levels... I too have been astounded at what can wash on the shore of awareness when let to guide itself... As letting your breathe rise and fall naturally.... Have you studied much Yoga in your time? I do not mean assanas (poses) but rather the self-realization asspects... I suppose they divide as well, religious/philosophical....
As a Religious Taoist I have not anything for you, as I have not joined a system, but very much appreciate this thread.... Not many people can speak in such things without being defensive of a point or idea they have subscribed to... I liked your comparison of the old writings (and new) as shells, hollow and at one point a shelter... pretty and ornate... SOmething to pick up at the beach, appreciate, learn from and then let go, apply what is useful and leave it for the rest to find and use as well.... I have to work now, more later...... Peace....

Eeeaassyyy.......... No-thing to it...... No ONE knows..... Witness the Many..... Experience the "truth" in now.... Feel...... Breathe....... Becoming aware; Self...... Liberation.........

[PangQuan]

Every religion has something to offer

thats something the Dali Lama once said. Probably not exactly to the word but you get the point.

This is kind of what I am getting at. I think you can take this message and broaden it even more. Each and every experience or situation has something to offer.

I was never shy to try new things. It was almost as though I was an addict to life itself. I lived in the fast lane for sure, I made mistakes. But I learned from my mistakes. Those mistakes are experiences and knowledge I now posess that others do not who have not been there themselves.

Good and bad, you really just have to roll with the punches, if you try to hard to redirect the world you will just end up finding a wall.

I kind of have come to my own phylisophical outlook on life. There are deffinate influences from outside sources, but much of what I see is from my own eyes. Not from the gaze of others. I also realize that others will most assuredly see things that I am incapable of finding on my own, or would at least be hard pressed to discover with the limited amount of time I have on this plain.

Im not into tryng to push my way on others, as I dont think anyone is actually capable of living with the exact same mental qualities as myself.

but i have to leave work, ill continue my babbling later. probably tomorrow.

[Chuck Man Chuck]

"However, modern academia have finally began the to learn the truth of Taoism, awakening the whole organic Taoist tradition. These scholars include: Livia Koln, Michael Sasso, James Miller, Russel Kirkland, Issabelle Robinet, Kristopher Schipper etc... Not all of these scholars are Taoists, but some are. Many like to throw there two cents in and not give a direct translation, but they all agree on one thing, That Taoism is a specific religion and that there never has been a separation of religion and philosophy, but groups were established to get together and dissect the philosophies of Taoism to better understand their religion and philosophies that make it (much like bible study). "

Hello 7 Star,

To the contrary, in my readings I have discovered no such consensus. Try reading J.J. Clark's "Tao of the West", the picture he paints is more like everything is so synthesized, one can't really tell a Daoist from a Confucian, from a Buddhist. Though I have encountered the attitude before that the word Taoist/Daoist should only be used for a Daoist Priest, one of my teachers, Liu Ming thought this; I didn't agree with it then, and I don't agree with it now, and there is no such agreement of academia.

Check this definition of Taoist on WordNet, it has two meanings:

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=501&dekey=Taoist&gwp=8&curtab=501_1

[7 star Method]

Hello,

This is getting quite tiring and this will be my last post - I assure of it...

It seems that everyone here has two cents to put in about Taoism to prove me wrong, but yet no experience with the actual practices.

Clark, To respond to your comment of "the picture he paints is more like everything is so synthesized, one can't really tell a Daoist from a Confucian, from a Buddhist " is a statement regarding popular religion. The Chinese populace usually claim that the temple they belong to is either the three, but in truth all of the temple's are combined here in the west. As for JJ Clark, As a modern Taoist scholar, I am not even sure he is recognized as one - I found some stuff on his book on the internet, it seemed a bit new agey and out dated, never the less I will try to get around and read his book.

Thank you, it was fun being persecuted for being a Taoist.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Odd, that a self-proclaimed Taoist would label reasonably civil dialogue as a persecution of faith.. and, perhaps more odd, to assume..
It seems that everyone here has two cents to put in about Taoism to prove me wrong, but yet no experience with the actual practices. I have visited 2 Taoist temples/shrines, engaged in several ceremonies, and had lengthy discussions with the local leaders regarding the differences illustrated in this thread.. from which i draw the following conclusions..

There is a distinct difference between philosophical and religious Taoism.. Religious Taoists seem to find comfort in rituals and cult-like organizations.. the practitioners seemed annoyed with perspectives not in agreement with their understanding of Taoism.. while i agree there should be some ritual in the process of training in Taoist arts, i have little faith that very specific attire or obscure ritual for its own sake will deliver the wisdom of the sages.. training is its own ritual, a system to assist in developing physical, mental and spiritual attributes consistent with a desired goal.. much of the ritual i observed seemed like artificial barriers to the attainment sought by the practitioners, like a control device initiated to preserve particular perspectives and preserve positions of respect and power within the organization.. it seemed to be migrating toward just another religion, a diluting of principles by keeping practitioners busy with ritual.. full of hierarchy and idolatry.. it seems like Religious Taoism strives to codify the individual experience of Tao into a marketable commodity..

My personal experience with philosophical Taoism is profound and deeply rewarding.. i am acquainted with several local people that follow the precepts of sages and who research at great depth the disciplines associated with Taoism.. we meet occasionally to compare experiences and reaffirm the benefits of our chosen paths.. it is wise to discern between practical disciplines and pointless ritual.. i have seen the effects of training complicated by an abundance of ritual that confuses the purpose of each.. before the conception of Taoism as a ritualistic religion there were sanctuaries for like-minded practitioners on a path that would advance the awareness of unity and complimenting opposites.. these folks found their "Tao" in the life they lived, not at the feet of Masters telling them how it "should" be.. certainly, there were adepts that were revered for their accomplishments but not worshiped.. they held informal gatherings and offered their insights as indicators or experiences that a pilgrim, not as advanced on the path as they, could use to have their own experience/insight of Tao.. that these adepts/sages had a faithful following of aspiring practitioners was not a predicate for religion, it was a call for awareness of the importance of the Taoist experience..

In hindsight, i suppose the term "Taoism" could be appropriate as a label for religious perspectives.. but, the term "Taoist" should not be exclusively religious.. a Taoist is one that aspires to an understanding and experience of Tao.. it is not appropriate for the religious Taoists to insist that the Taoist label refer only to their beliefs.. i can be labeled a communist for advocating a communal lifestyle yet shun the trappings of communism as an organized corruption of the ideal.. both the world and human consciousness are big enough to harbor both concepts without conflict.. it's kind of like the Irish situation, Catholics vs Protestants, where each have the same goal but quarrel over how to get there..

My personal philosophy is.. "worship nothing, yet maintain a sacred reverence for ALL things"

Be well..

[frog]

Taichi Bob,

Do you really think that calling someone's religion a 'dead and rotting road (sic)' is 'reasonably civil?'

[frog]

Oops, sorry, I forgot; you weren't going to post on this anymore.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..


Do you really think that calling someone's religion a 'dead and rotting road (sic)' is 'reasonably civil?' Yes, considering the usual display of language skills in this forum (not this thread, specifically).. and, re-read i have not asserted that would post no more on this thread.. that would be 7 star Method's statement 4 posts past.. and, for clarity's sake, i stated "i" have been down that dead and rotting road, being my own perception.. i did not proclaim that it IS a dead and rotting road, that is an experience left for others to discover and evaluate.. the analogy was intended to imply a stagnate state of preservation is less favorable "to me" when compared to a living and evolving philosophy.. if my choice of words offends, i apologize.. but, the concept is valid by my account..

I try to live life to its fullest and do it with gusto.. keeping to my own principle of "do no harm, except in defense of self or others".. i perceive life as a gift to be used for evolving the human experience, not polished and put on a shelf like a trophy...

Be well...

[Chuck Man Chuck]

7 Star,

I am certainly not persecuting you for being a Daoist. Though I am asserting, that I have just as much right to call myself a Daoist if I wish, whether as a philosophical, religious, or American Daoist.

As well I have studied in a “Tan.” I studied with Liu Ming, (formerly Charles Belyea). He was adopted and ordained by a orthodox Daoist family that traces itself back to the Han dynasty. His teaching are from the Chinese Daoist tradition of the Celestial Masters School. He has thirty years of practice in meditation and ritual, in both Daoist and Tantric Buddhist traditions. He once supported the Dalai Lama as his translator; more recently, he founded Orthodox Daoism in America, which supports the profound and original teachings and practices of the Celestial Masters School. He also founded the Five Branches Institute of Oriental Medicine in Santa Cruz, California; may I add, he’s also one mean Daoist cook!

This, though is not why I might claim to be a Daoist, if I so desired. Simply, it is just my personal verification of the principles set down in Lao-Chuang, and the practice of Wu Wei in my life.

May we all fine Dao, Love and Art.

[Metal Mantis]

Where do you draw the line? . . . . . . . . . I found this a useful question to ask on many an occassion.... The Buddha spoke of the middle way, and we all know the benefits of moderation..... So, where do you draw the line? If one becomes too religious they may stray from the "truth" that brought them there... Too philosophical can become overwhelming as well.... I was given the numbers 70/30 give and take.... There must be a flux or one would exhaust ability.... There is a point of deminishing returns on all things it seems, so, where do you draw the line?........................

[Chuck Man Chuck]

Personally I would use the analogy of painting, which is a multi-layered blending -no lines to be drawn, just one idea unfolding into the other.

One could look at it another way: Wuji equals z-point energy, and Taiji is it's unfolding.

Dao is only the name.

[Scott R. Brown]

PangQuan,

Your post concerning the process of your growth was exquisitely written and a wonderful expression of some of the points I have been attempting to make. Excellent post!!

TaiChiBob,

Excellent post as well and also what I have been attempting to express!!

Frog,

To post or not to post is a choice we all make. If TaiChiBob or anyone else, including 7 Star Method, chooses to not post and then changes their mind, that is their right to do so. The fact you feel the need to criticize it says more about you than them!

Calling something a “dead and rotting road” is the expression of an opinion, that is all; whether it is considered uncivil or not depends upon whether it offends you or not. I did not find it uncivil; I found it truthful according to my experience. All roads or patterns of thought can become rotten (stagnant) based upon the attitude of the school or the individual following the school and the stage of development or growth of each. All TaiChiBob did was state a Truth! If we only made statements that didn’t hurt someone else’s feelings we couldn’t make any statements at all because there will always be someone to find offense. It is the hindrance to further growth that makes a path rotten and it only indicates the time to change or modify the tools used to assist growth.

7 Star Method,

No one is persecuting you! We are disagreeing with your elitist attitude, that is all! Please be clear, it is not your preference for expressing your Taoist belief I disagree with, but your tendency to insist your definition is the final word on what constitutes a Taoist. This is not persecution for being a Taoist, but criticism for not allowing others to call themselves Taoist because it does not agree with you or your school’s interpretation, that is all. Everyone is allowed their own opinion that is why it is called “free speech”. We don’t have to agree with each other, but we all do have the right to express ourselves. Your participation has still been an asset to this thread whether anyone agrees with you or not!

Your idea of experience also differs from mine. You may feel you have experience with the religion of Taoism, but so far I don’t see any real indication in your writings that you understand the processes of Tao!

Metal Mantis,

I think every person has a different line according to their individual personality, growth and purpose. Timing is also a factor. Where my line is on a specific principle might be in a different place now then it was 5 years ago as well as 5 years from now. It depends upon what the principle or factor is as well. I have also noticed my line can vary from day to day according to my mood.

[Metal Mantis]

S R B...
This is my point.... Lines are ever changing as everything seems to be....
Why try to draw lines with religious belief? Thou shall not kill.... What is life but taking and giving? We kill to survive, food, clothing, shelter, and those who threaten our lives and those we care for, right? Some will say, but that is Just and Right! So why draw the line in the first place? It is in us all from the start.... These invisible ever changing lines... it is through conditioning and programming that we get mixed up and then the ego play can drown our true nature... we must be careful what we tell ourselves... what we choose to "believe" in....

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi MetalMantis,

I agree with you and I appreciate your comments because it will give me the opportunity to explain myself in more detail. It is important to remember that words are inadequate tools we use to explain our ideas and there will frequently be confusion when we communicate. When we write something, we have an idea in our head we are attempting to communicate, but we never know how well the idea is actually getting across if we don’t receive feedback from others.

I agree with you completely. Rules, morals, laws and standards are all relative to the environment in which we apply them. But rules do not occur in a vacuum, they serve a distinct purpose. Rules provide an organized set of boundaries that creates order out of chaos. So for example, in a social environment, rules of conduct organize group behavior; they designate what is considered appropriate and inappropriate within a specific group in order that individuals may get along together and know what to expect when interacting with one and other. Without common agreed upon rules of conduct there would be an increased chance of conflict and too much conflict within a group is unhealthy for the group. So rules provide a beneficial service. In general, it is an unspoken, unwritten value that group interactions benefit the individual and that is why we congregate into groups. If there was no inherent value, we would not do it.

On an individual level rules provide the same benefits, but are applied slightly differently. Our ego organizes our thoughts and our experiences in order for us to interact effectively with our environment. Our ego is the portion of our identity that allows us to fit into the world. It is the source of our self-image, our self-definition and our worldview. Our self image and worldview are the lines or boundaries we live our lives within. They are artificial as well and we acquire them mostly subconsciously as we grow up, but as we mature and gain insight, hopefully by choice, that is by questioning our worldview and self-concept to see if the rules we accept are benefiting our purpose or life’s goals.

We can’t live without definition lines to structure our lives. What is important then is to keep in mind that definition lines are artificial in nature and are only tools we use to navigate through life. Rules and structures of belief are flexible and depend upon the context in which they are applied to be valid.

It is impossible to exist outside of structures except in very advanced mental states and then only temporarily, this is because we need to use structures to make sense out of the experiences and to communicate them to others. That is why “The Tao that can be communicated is not the eternal Tao”. It is like taking a cup of sea water and trying to communicate the idea of the entire ocean from it. Words, pictures and metaphor are inadequate to communicate the totality of what the ocean is, and it is the same with Tao and/or Truth. So all we can do is the best we can with the tools we have available.

Having said that there are certain universal rules that underlie the artificial rules we live by and those rules I designate as “Truth”. These rules or Truths commonly have nothing to do with religious truths, morals, rituals or beliefs. This conversation describing the use of boundaries and structures would be classified as Truth by me, that is these rules occur whether anyone believes in them or not and they apply in all circumstances without variance. The only way this is provable on an individual level is for the person to perceive the Truth directly through experience. I can explain it to you, but you have to apprehend it directly for it to be understood.

I am sure I left something poorly explained and I am always happy to explain myself further, but I hope I have made some progress.

P.S. I have edited this post because while writing it I was attending to other activities (actually doing about 3 things at once) and inadvertantly confused the topic with another thread, LOL!!!! So if it appears different to some who have already read this post that is what has occured, my apologies!!

[Metal Mantis]

Agreed... You don't give a hungry man a fish, you teach him how to.... It is only through experience that we learn and can apply these things... You can't become a good gung fu practitioner by reading and thinking alone, you must move your body, you must get kicked in the head to know.. Our world is our perception... words are hollow representations as you and I have said... Can you trap the river in a burlap sack?....................... Life is a funny thing.... People defending these beliefs..... You cant help someone who does not want it... It all lies within yourself... Guidelines are good, do not attach yourself to them... There is only changing... An ever evolving glob of matter.... As said before, I am unskillful with words at most times... fI used to write a lot when I was younger, but about five years ago I had a nervous break down about reality, 0 and 1, death.... And have not been very skillful with words since... I am, however, learning to communicate my understanding again.... slowly...... The Truths that are there, I feel.... funny though "I" do not exist.. Peace.............................

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi MetalMantis,

You are doing fine expressing your ideas!! With practice you will get better too!!

Yes, I agree with you once again!!

There is no “I”!! One of the ways I used to describe this concept is to think who you were when you were age 5, and then age 10 and then age 20, etc. They are all really different people. The commonality is they are related by an identity, that is, who you think you are. So there is a continuity of identity, but that is really all. When I think of who I was as a child I think of THAT me as a little brother or more like a son to me and not really who I am now.

Our life is like standing beside a stream. The events and experiences of our lives are the leaves that float by our perception. The spot where we are standing is where the continuity of our identity is located. When we attach our consciousness to a leaf and follow it down the stream with our awareness, it is similar to being attached to an event or trauma we can’t get past. If we just watch the events float past then we are in a state of non-attachment and free from the pain and emotion associated with events. Events “just occur” and we merely observe them. We don’t perceive them as happening to “ME” because there is no “ME” involved. But, if I attach my awareness to the event or phenomena I become immersed within the stream. I become caught by the current and it carries me away. I suddenly perceive events as happening to “ME”. Once immersed within the stream my ego becomes the focus of my awareness and I confuse it with who I think I am. I no longer realize that there really isn’t a ME at all.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

The age old question... are we what we think we are, or.. are we that which does the thinking.. (given proper consideration, maddness will ensue..)...

Be well..

[Metal Mantis]

Am I this glass of water infront of me.......... The people were silent....... Well, am I? He repeats.... The crowd says, no.... He then puts it to his lips and takes a sip, now am I? Oops, break is over, more later.......
JC

[Scott R. Brown]

Thinker and thought are two sides of the same coin. Like Yin and Yang, each is interdependent upon and contrasts the other. Just as we can discuss Yin-Yang in terms of Yin AND Yang so we can talk about thinker AND thought. However, a more complete view is “Yin-Yang”. Therefore, the unification of thinker-thought without division would be the comprehensive view and the answer to your conundrum.

I would be interested in your thoughts!

Hey, look Ma!! Another short post!! :eek: I could get used to this, LOL!!!

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Scott: We approach essence.. thought is originated by the thinker.. which is, of course, influenced by the thoughts.. but, at first cause, is the thinker and that which is its essential intent (nature).. a supposition which i make as the interface with the "Whole" (Tao, God, etc...) and the inclinations inherent to any individual aspect of it.. again, my own supposition that anything is simply a "part"icular aspect of One thing.. part and parcel.. divine dichotomy..

Be well..

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi TaiChiBob,

Maybe so if we consider the action of “approaching” essence. However, when there is no dichotomy there is no division and no separation creating duality. Duality is an artificial construct; a useful and necessary tool, but still only a tool. That is why it is" Yin-Yang" and not "the Yin" AND "the Yang". Since there is inherently no duality there is no one thinking and no thought.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Absent of any duality, there is nothing.. an undifferentiated whole.. that we converse, exist, dabble in philosophical thought is permissable only by the condition of duality.. it is amusing to consider the pursuit of nonduality, that which would nullify the experience of existing.. Even in the expression "That is why it is" Yin-Yang" and not "the Yin" AND "the Yang".. it is necessary to differientiate the elements of duality.. "yin-yang" needs the expression of something discernable from something else to have meaning..

I concede that there is an undifferientiated Whole, but.. its existence is meaningless without comparison to something else, which, by definition, doesn't exist.. so, to move beyond the singular possible experience for that "Whole", the experience of knowing that "I AM", the Whole, in a brilliant act of selfless love, shattered itself into a "universe" of individual aspects of itself.. not separate, only veiled from complete realization of Wholeness.. (we call it duality or divine dichotomy).. in this state, the whole can experience itself through the interactions of its veiled aspects.. like a cosmic game of hide-and-seek, the individual aspects inherently seek their origin and the unity veiled from them.. thus, the various paths of searching for a reunion with the Whole.. the inherent knowledge of a singular peaceful existence drives the journey back to the Origin, which when completed starts another cycle.. the endless birth and death of universes.. the waking and sleeping cycles of the Whole..

So, that is my current understanding of things.. that we exist with the purpose of having experiences.. that we are the sensory input for the Whole.. that to pursue "nonduality" is contrary to our purpose and little more than an amusing mental game.. I am receptive to differing perceptions, constantly re-evaluating my own perceptions in favor of clarity..

Be well..

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi TaiChiBob,

I must still disagree!

Absence of duality does not indicate NOTHING, it indicates EVERYTHING!!! There is no such thing as NOTHING! By labeling NOTHING as nothing, it becomes SOMETHING! The label itself is a definition that separates it from that which is SOMETHING making NOTHING something! Therefore, there is no such thing as NOTHING, there is only EVERYTHING!!

In other words:

The term NOTHING alone implies duality because to have NOTHING you must contrast it with SOMETHING. Therefore, in the ABSOLUTE there is no such thing as NOTHING only SOMETHING and that SOMETHING is EVERYTHING including the subset NOTHING!! Since the absence of duality is EVERYTHING, and duality is SOMETHING, duality is part of EVERYTHING! Therefore, duality does not cease to be present. So when perceiving the ABSOLUTE or experiencing the Undifferentiated Whole or however one chooses to put it, the perception of duality remains. What truly occurs is the co-perception of EVERYTHING and duality at once, not “no perception at all”. As long as we perceive the undifferentiated whole we are in the world of duality, as it cannot be contrasted with duality without implying its own dual nature.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings...


However, when there is no dichotomy there is no division and no separation creating duality.
Therefore, the unification of thinker-thought without division would be the comprehensive view and the answer to your conundrum.
What truly occurs is the co-perception of EVERYTHING and duality at once, not “no perception at all”. As long as we perceive the undifferentiated whole we are in the world of duality, as it cannot be contrasted with duality without implying its own dual nature. Precisely.. we cannot escape the dual nature of existence.. to trifle with ponderings of non-duality is self-defeating.. lacking any practical application.. we may be conceptually amused, but duality invites us to join the game..

Be well..

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..


Absent of any duality, there is nothing.. an undifferentiated whole.. Nothing, in as much as we don't exist separately and have no perception or individual consciousness with which to compare or conceive such notions..

Be well..

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi TaiChiBob,

So to you "NOTHING" = "NOT ONE THING" = "EVERYTHING"!!

Is that what you are saying?

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi TaiChiBob,

“to trifle with ponderings of non-duality is self-defeating”

The process of seeking to know or understand or experience non-duality IS trifling. It does not lead to NO PURPOSE or NO SOLUTION, it leads to direct experience. Of course it can lead to excessiveness as well, but then most things are two edged swords.

I agree duality invites us into the game however the game includes non-duality and duality implies that state. Therefore I cannot agree it is self-defeating, it is in fact motivating

In reference to:

“Nothing, in as much as we don't exist separately and have no perception or individual consciousness with which to compare or conceive such notions”

I think this misses the point as well. There is no state of “no perception” or “ no individual consciousness”. The state is a unification whereby unity and separateness are seen to be the same thing. There is nothing lost only gain of greater perception and perspective!

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Scott:

Often, there is a reluctance to relinquish our identity as individual aspects of the whole.. do you suppose an eternal individual aspect? Our experiences as individual aspects of the whole prejudices our reference to potential states of existence.. there is a tendency to assume there was, is, and always will be a "perceiver"..
There is no such thing as NOTHING! By labeling NOTHING as nothing, it becomes SOMETHING! The label itself is a definition that separates it from that which is SOMETHING making NOTHING something! Therefore, there is no such thing as NOTHING, there is only EVERYTHING!! This perspective assumes a "perceiver", a notion not easily overcome.. the nothing/something concept is a standard dualistic POV.. one cannot fully embrace nonduality while clutching onto the notion of duality.. like "infinity", at some point it is self-negating and therefore difficult to embrace from our frame of reference..

Be well..

[SPJ]

We do have our indiviualities, souls or spiritual beings.

However, finding out Dao and following Dao are to recognize the fact that there is something bigger and universal which we call it Dao.

While we enjoy our various entities we call selves, we do know that we all have to follow Dao because we are parts of the Dao.

So the question is that what is Dao?

:D

[SPJ]

Dualism means there is a self and non self.

The truth is that we are both or self plus non self.

Dao is the non self part.

Dao also includes the self part.

Non self is actually consisting of many or more than one self.

Therefore in Chinese philosophy, there is a recognition of a small self (Xiao wo) and the big self (Da Wo).

Ren Ren Wei Wo. Wo Wei Ren Ren.

What other people are doing for me, I am doing for others.

Da Dao Zhi Xing Ye; Tian Xia Wei Gong.

The way of the Big Dao is the public service of every one under the heaven.

Sometime we sacrifice the small self in order to complete the big self.

And this is the Dao of self plus non self = bigger selves.

:D

[SPJ]

Nothing is the mother of everything, since everything comes from nothing or start with not the everything.

Everything is nothing, since the impermance of things, everything will come to an end and become nothing or not everything.

Wu Ji She Tai Ji. Tai Ji Shen Yin Yang. Dong Zhi Zer Feng. Jing Zhi Zer He.

Wu Chi gives rise to Tai Chi. Tai Chi is Yin and Yang. Both are born together. When everything is moving, Yin and Yang separate. When everything comes to an end. Yin and Yang come together and become Wu Chi.

Wu Ji is the ultimate state of nothing.

Tai Chi is the ultimate state of everything, or something.

:D

[Metal Mantis]

Tai Chi Bob and S.R.B.

I am enjoying your conversation..... Overcoming the perciever is the name of the game when dancing in the areas of nonduality... I have yet to have a chance to read all of you guys writing as I am at work, but shall later..

SPJ

I take no aim.... But your words feel like book regurgitations... This is that, and that is this... You first post ended with the simple question What is Dao? Then came the labels on everything.. I take again the feeling of experience... I am glad to see involvment on a topic like this, as I get very little interaction on these planes in my daily life...

anyhow, hope all had a nice weekend, peace...............

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi TaiChiBob,

As long as we are using words to express our thoughts we are stuck in dualism. We are using dualistic means to express concepts beyond dualism. So my description is, by the very nature of words, going to be a dualistic manner of expressing something beyond dualism. The argument of nothing and everything stands on its own then.

The point I am trying to make is: "There is nothing lost." We do not give up our identify or our separate identify if you will. We gain an understanding that what we perceive as our separate identity is greater than we perceived it to be previously and that it is part of the unity ALREADY! Separateness is an illusion! Our state of being never changes, our perception does. That is why it is common in Chan for one who has attained realization to say he has not gained a thing. Nothing changes, but our perception. There is no loss or gain. We directly perceive that separateness AND unity are merely different aspects of the same thing. We retain our separateness, but gain the unity, we are both at once! I think the confusion springs from a misunderstanding of the ego.

Yes there is most definitely an eternal self aspect, but it is not what most would suppose it to be. Just as our true identity is not a fixed personality so our eternal self aspect is not what we would suppose it to be. Our eternal self aspect is NOT our ego identity. Our ego is a transient tool used to navigate through the world of duality. An example I frequently use to illustrate this point is: Think about whom you were or who you thought yourself to be, when you were age 5, age 10, age 20, and age 30. Each of these personalities is truly a different person, but unified by one identity. We perceive ourselves to be the same person because of the underlying identity. However, each personality is separate from the other. There is a continuity of flow from one personality (ego) to the next and each personality is related to the all the others due to the common underlying identity, but the person you were when you were 15 is not the person you are now. Your identity has not changed, your ego has. But if you could separate all those individual yous and put them in the same room they would be perceived to be separate individual personalities. There would certainly be some similarities, but they would be more akin to brothers and not the same individual. There is a common thread of identity that underlies our ego and this is the source our ego springs from. Our eternal self aspect is not our ego; our ego springs from our eternal self aspect and that is our true identity.

Relinquishing our identity is the APPEARANCE of what occurs when we are viewing the experience from the dualistic sphere. From the dualistic sphere our understanding is not complete, it is partial understanding. It appears this way because of the narrow view we have when we are bound by the illusion that our ego is who we are. In this condition we have not understood the concept of unity. What occurs, and this is what is perceived from the unity so to speak, (remember we are using limited words to express the inexpressible) is that our identity remains separate but also at the same time we are unified with the whole. The reason we perceive it as losing is because of the attachment and limited perspective provided by or our ego. So from the dualistic side we view it as loss, but from the unified side we perceive it as merely a change in perspective. There is nothing lost and nothing gained. Put yet another way, as long as we perceive it as loss of identity we have not gained the perspective of unity. And yet one more way: If there is something to be lost we have gained nothing.

Think of Yin-Yang. It is the perfect symbol of what I am trying to communicate. When I perceive Yin-Yang as the complete symbol it contains the separate aspects of Yin and Yang in a unified state. But if I have complete understanding I am able to perceive it three ways. I can perceive it as Yin-Yang, as Yin only or as Yang only. When I view Yin-Yang as a whole I do not lose the understanding or perception that Yin is separate from Yang. The only thing that changes is my perspective, not the Yin-Yang. When I have complete understanding I am able to move freely between any of the 3 states of perception. When perceiving Yin-Yang as a whole I do not lose the understanding ot the separateness of the Yin and the Yang. When perceiving the Yin or the Yang separately I do not lose the understanding of the whole. So the whole and the separateness are the same, but different. It is whole and separate at the same time! It is the paradoxical nature of it that makes it Truth.

Hi MetalMantis,

We should not be attempting to overcome the perceiver, but to integrate the perceiver and the perceived. The perceiver and the perceived are aspects of the same unity. Just as the Yin and the Yang are aspects of Yin-Yang. It is my belief that if we seek to understand Yin-Yang we will understand everything that springs from Tao.

I am glad you are enjoying the interplay between TaiChiBob and me. I am enjoying it as well!!

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

First, i am greatly enjoying the dialogues.. it is a pleasure to engage in civil communication and exchange of insights..

Scott: I do not perceive a LOSS.. i sense the unification to re-assimilate the "parts" into an undifferentiated whole, where all the experiences, memories and egos unite into a singularity.. that we can access a remarkable approximation of this state while still in the dualistic state is the reference i think you make.. at the singular state, the individual perception (a tool of the singularity) is discarded (not lost) in favor of a perception from the singular perspective (itself a temporary state awaiting another rebirth as another universe).. considering that the singularity IS the sum of its parts, it has all that was an individual identity and all the other individual identities as well.. a unified singular perception of everything.. this is not loss, it is the evolution of the Whole.. redefining its perception of itself.. and, as the whole languishes in the ecstasy of "everything" it is lulled into another dormant cycle.. to re-awaken and begin yet another cycle in its evolution.. as the individual perceptions are discarded, the singular perception is enhanced, until, ultimately, there is a supreme singular perception of everything.. this is not loss, this is perfection.. but, and here's the trick, perfection is also stagnate and that is contrary to Tao, so.. there is the motivation for continuing cycles of universes, the principle of Tao.. Tao is not a "thing", it is the essential nature of "everything".. to continue..................

Be well..

[Metal Mantis]

It is natural to rise and fall.... the push and pull of yin yang... Hawkings big question, will the Universe continue to expand to infinity, eventually to where things cool so much and expand so far that gravity has no hope... Or shall it "Crunch" back into the singularity? Will reach a point where the gravity does as its nature intended, puul it all back? What of time then? Hawking compares it to a cup falling off of a table and smashing in our reality, but when the arrow of time reverses, perhaps, the cup will jump back up and fix... Now this is just a representation of the idea, he does not concede that we will rise from the gave and go back to the womb, no... Anyhow, sorry for the science... I have just always felt that it will eventually pull back to the singularity.. But what is outside of that? If it is indeed 1, then what is the 0 that allows it? For as wee see, even our words and perceptions of the many being one, leads to "one" which leads again to many and or 0........... And the dance goes on............
Well; be................

[frog]

TaiChiBob,

Sorry for misinterpreting you.

Scott R. Brown,

Whether something is civil or not is based upon social convention, not truth. If I call someone an ugly MoFo, it is uncivil. It is rude and socially unacceptable. Period. The truth of the statement is irrelevant.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Frog: The civil comment was mine, and had no intent of initiating a semantic comparison.. it was simply a statement of gratitude for dialogue without conflict or emotional confrontation..

But, since you brought it up.. i will share my personal understanding of "truth".. it is the experience itself, not the words, labels or judgements we assign to it.. or, in another context, an accurate accounting of events (to the degree that language permits an "accurate" accounting...)..

Be well..

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi frog,

If I am walking down the street and you were to make such a comment you would be correct. If I were in a comedy club watching a comedian who is noted for insulting the audience then I am responsible for putting myself in that environment.

A public bulletin board is no venue for the faint hearted or the over-sensitive. Even a cursory observation of the boards would reveal that all comments are open to criticism, rebuke, insult or parody. BUYER BEWARE!!!!!

TaiChiBob stated a fact as he saw it. That is all, if it hurts your feelings or someone else’s or insults your sense of propriety you certainly have the right to say so, I grant you that! But that does not make the comments inappropriate. If I go to a biker bar and call the biggest meanest guy there an ugly mofo then I get what I asked for. If a person participates on a BB then they get what they ask for as well. It is the nature of the boards so learn to live with it.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi TaiChiBob,

What you have described is known as the Cycle of Brahma others have identified it as the mind of God. I am fascinated that a student of Tao would accept a Hindu concept that really has no foundation in reason or experience. That is not to say that I discard the theory outright. I can accept it as possibly true. But to me it is at a minimum just as plausible as any other cosmological view. The reason for my belief is because it is not provable or demonstrable in any sense. It must be accepted solely on faith one has in the source of the cosmological view. If we are going to have faith in one un-provable source, that implies the creation views from all other un-provable sources are just as plausible. The consequence is conflicting views with no clear means to measure the validity of any.

I believe I have demonstrated through reason and repeated illustration and metaphor that my perspective has a foundation in fact, not fantasy, myth or unfounded belief. One perspective is mere opinion based upon faith, that of belief without rational foundation; the other perspective is founded upon true belief which is supported with reasoned arguments, illustrations and metaphor.

What I am trying to say is that, while I respect your opinion, you have not illustrated or given any reasoned argument to support it. I could just as easily accept the Christian or Islamic or Sioux Indian cosmological views. Since none are based upon probable or demonstrable fact. I would be more inclined to consider your view if you would do so.

Having said all of this; if I understand the current description of your perspective correctly, I believe we may be, in agreement. To reiterate, and I believe Yin-Yang makes it very clear; oneness and separateness, co-exist together at the same time. That means the undifferentiated whole contains differentiation within it. This is possible to perceive through merely the changing of ones perspective. You state this yourself in your description, although more obliquely. Perception/awareness is free to move from one (undifferentiation) to the other (differentiation) at will or perceive all at once.

One last illustration to prove my point; I frequently make the proposition that we experience our life based upon how we choose to view it. This I have illustrated using reasoned argument, illustration and metaphor. However, the easiest method of demonstrating this is to utilize the optical illusion:

YoungWoman/OldWoman (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/YoungGirl-OldWomanIllusion.html)

Here we have the classic optical illusion of the young woman/old woman. The question arises, is this a picture of an old woman or a young woman. Which one we perceive is based upon our perspective. By a simple change in perspective we are able to change our perception from one to the other. If I were a person unable to change my perspective I may only see one, but not the other. Under this condition I would argue the presence of ONLY the one I perceive. But with practice and effort I begin to perceive that it is indeed one or the other based upon my perspective. But in actuality it is not one OR the other, it is BOTH at the same time. This is my point concerning our topic of discussion. Dual and non-dual, differentiation and undifferentiation coexist at once at the same time, in the same place.

If your perspective coincides with this then we are in agreement, if not then all I can say is our interplay as been very rewarding for me and perhaps we have reached an impasse.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Scott: I am a bit surprised myself.. there is much in the way of science to support the expansion and contraction scenario, and much ancient wisdom (Hindu) has been illustrated as reasonably plausible to the degree that simple intuition/insight is comparable to scientific methods.. the close approximations of values escape coincidental conceptualization.. to discount "faith" as a resource for potential truth is a primary blunder.. faith is not "proof", but what is? Faith is largely a cultural interpretation of deeply felt intuition/spirituality.. the basic principles of various faiths have common themes consistent with the human experience.. While one person's faith may rest in Tao, and another's may rest in "God", the principle of a cosmic "source" is similar.. though, the interpretation differs greatly..

You perceive an "impasse", i perceive good dialogue that hones my perceptions.. i largely agree with your presentation of unity and the dualistic view.. i simply permit it to reduce to its lowest common denominator, the original condition.. That which IS, cradled in that which IS NOT.. original Yin Yang.. the combination perceived by the "thinker".. permeations, iterations and divisions radiate from this original condition into a universe of possibility..

Wuji (the undifferentiated whole/the One) became 2 (Yin/Yang) which became the 10,000 things.. this principle of Tao leaves the deduction of cause to the experience of the student.. Apart from the process is the consciousness ("mind" for descriptive purposes).. from which i deduce consciousness to be that which "IS", manifesting all other states and perceptions according to its Nature (Tao) or current understanding of itself.. utilizing dualism as a tool for such self-examination.. Taiji is change, it is the vehicle that consciousness uses to manifest existence.. Wuji, pure singular consciousness (One) employs Taiji (change) to manifest Yin/Yang which uses Taiji (change) to manifest the 10,000 things.. and, Taiji is the tool of the "mind" that makes things happen.. Tao is the condition that allows this to BE.. Tao is the inherent nature of the process..

This is only my opinion, based on my experiences and understandings.. i do not assert possession of eternal "truth", only my understanding of it.. contrary opinions are welcome and considered respectfully...

Be well..

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi TaiChiBob,

By impasse I meant we may end up agreeing to disagree, which is pretty much where we have been the entire time anyway, LOL and nothing more! However it appears to me that the very concise explanation of your latest post coincides, for the most part, with what I have been attempting to communicate concerning Tao.

You have made some very good points! My only contention with your cosmological view is that it is speculation. I do not discard it out of hand, but neither would I make a claim to its truth. It may be speculation based upon the latest information, but it is still speculation.

In regards to science, it is merely the CURRENT view based upon the MOST CURRENT information; Scientists have the flaw of tending to make claims of fact without ever mentioning that it is based upon current information. Many conclusions that scientists come to regarding their fields of study reveal their own narrow worldviews. Therefore, their conclusions are what they want to see and do not anticipate other interpretations of the data. The problem is: our information is always limited by our means of measurement, our ability to interpret the data and our own narrow worldviews; all of which have limits. At this time scientists believe that the universe has enough mass to return to the Big Crunch. However, since this is only the CURRENT information we don’t really know! In the future we may discover something else about the universe that indicates it will cool down and fade away. Science will continue to discover new information about the universe for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Just as the current scientific cosmological view is different from what it was 1,000 years ago, so it will most likely be substantially different 1,000 years from now. If science discovers that the momentum of the universe will exceed the mass, your cosmological view will fall apart since there will be no Big Crunch to regenerate the cycle according to your view. The current scientific cosmological view does not take into account the existence of other planes of existence hypothesized by quantum physics. We do not know it the current physical laws apply there. Herein lays my claim that your view is based upon faith, and not fact. My view does not make any statement of FACT concerning cosmological creation myths. I hold some more plausible than others, but none are currently provable by the facts.

Further the scientific view does not claim a regenerative cycle. This is a part of your view that is based upon faith as well. Faith is simply: “belief in the truth of something which cannot be proven”. Certainly the principles of Tao imply the cycle, I agree with that, but it is still unprovable. Even if one were to intuit the information, we often see and perceive that which we wish to see and we will interpret out experiences according to our worldview, which is but one view of multitudes. There is no guarantee our worldview or our interpretive abilities are accurate. Therefore, direct experience through intuited information or vision remains unreliable information.

Certain types of intuited information can only be demonstrated AFTER the fact. So, for example: if I have a dream or I intuit that my plane fight will crash I will not know until after the fact whether the intuited information is correct or not. My only criticism then is we should be clear that statements of BELEIF are not FACT. This is what most, if not all, religions do. Most of them believe their view to be the one and only view. So the problem becomes, who has the accurate view? We must use critical means to evaluate the various views. Any view that requires faith to accept it becomes just as plausible and everyone else’s view, at least concerning the areas that require faith.

My solution to this dilemma is to try not to make statements of fact that cannot be demonstrated through rational argument, illustration or metaphor. Secondly I continually re-evaluate all conclusions in the light of new information. That is I repeatedly challenge views to see if they hold up to continual criticism. Thirdly, I observe the facility of the apparent facts to hold true in everyday life. I try to relegate to “provisional truth” those views that appear to be true, but have not been demonstrated to be true through repeated challenge and evaluation. Fourth, I accept that even truths that appear to be fact through repeated challenge and re-evaluation MAY be discovered to be flawed, distorted or flat out wrong. And lastly I always recognize that all of my views are filtered through my own flawed and narrow worldview. I seek to compensate for that as best I can by following the above mentioned methods.

Please do not think that I am implying anything concerning your own methods of truth/fact verification. I admit I know nothing concerning them. I am merely detailing my own thought processes and my personal solution of determining fact from fancy.

I enjoy our interplay and I thank you for your continued participation. I eagerly await your insights!

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Scott: I think we have just agreed!! Your description of the basis of your reasoning is consistent with my own.. accordingly, by your description of current science, facts and beliefs.. we can ONLY assert speculation.. We may speculate based on different criteria, different beliefs, different evidence, but.. as for most things, the contrary perspective may gain favor upon new or revised evidence.. we simply hold perspectives based of preference of evaluation.. There are precious few things i would assert as facts, i try to qualify my statements as opinon frequently to avoid the appearance of "fact mongering".. Determining "fact from fancy", by your example, is a matter of favoring one speculation criteria over another, "faith" in one's reasoning process.. Ultimately, we each demonstrate the fervor of our faith in the process we have developed to navigate the human experience.. Hence, my belief that "truth" is the experience itself and individual or consensus perceptions are flawed by prejudicial influences..

Regarding the regenerative cycle, that is, admittedly, a personal deduction based on observation and application of logic applied to a "most likely" explanation (speculation) consistent with the processes i observe in my experience with nature (common definition of nature, the human environment). I observe (or read accounts of) the rise and fall of civilizations, species, cities, governments, economies, star systems, etc... and deduce a natural pattern, one that can reasonably account for the maximum of variables i am familiar with.. certainly, there are alternative explanations (speculations), elegant and well conceived, but.. i find favor with the human intuitive process, regardless of its prejudicial flaws.. it has spawned humanity's greatest achievements (and its most dismal failures) it is a little understood primal element of the same consciousness that drives our existence.. That many peoples and cultures have similar intuitions and insights, in principle, seems to have an inherently familiar element.. (admitting that i don't understand everything i "know").. like each of us, ultimately, i rely on internal processes for my acceptance or rejection of particular notions..

I also appreciate the continued dialogue, it continues to be insightful and rewarding..

Be well..

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi TaiChiBob,

Yes, I agree!! All rational conclusions are based upon a reasoning process that, at its foundation, is based upon faith. My favorite example to explain this concept is the High School Geometry Class.

I don’t know if they continue to teach high school geometry in the same manner they did when I was in high school. It has been over 30 years! However, when I took geometry the first thing we learned was: everything in geometry follows rational arguments. These rational arguments begin with three assumptions: Point, Line and Plane! Point, Line and Plane are not provable! That is, we cannot prove they exist using rational argument. We ASSUME them to exist. We accept them and don’t require proof for their existence. From these three assumptions postulates are formed and from the postulates theorems are formulated; all following rational principles and we call the resulting knowledge base: geometry.

If we observe rational argument we find the same pattern occurs. Conclusions, or what we accept as facts, are based upon arguments. These arguments are based upon postulates and the postulates are founded upon principles that are assumed to be true without any rational or objective proof of their actual existence. The basic syllogism: “If A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C.” illustrates this point. We are assuming “A equals B” and we are assuming “B equals C”. If “A does not equal B” and/or “B does not equal C”, then the conclusion is deemed to be false; “A cannot equal C”. So it is possible to have a rational argument that seems to point to the truth, but the conclusion is false because the basic assumptions are false!

When we formulate our worldviews we assume basic foundational principles that will determine the conclusions we come too. If the basic assumptions we accept are false then the conclusions we come to will be in error even if the conclusion appears to be true according to rational argument. Some notable assumptions commonly made are: among many Christians, “The Bible is the Inerrant Word of God!” among Moslems, “The Koran is the Inerrant Word of God!” In the western medical world, “Medicines are the best way to treat illness!” In the Middle Ages: “The World Is Flat!” Each of these beliefs are foundational beliefs that many people have built their worldviews upon and each presumes the truth of their foundational beliefs without any real proof. Most of the time their experience with appear to demonstrate the truth of their foundational beliefs because they will filter contrary evidence or re-interpret contrary evidence according to their worldview.

If the foundational beliefs are false then the reasoning that justifies the attitudes and behaviors that are consequent are unjustifiable. Even if the attitudes and behaviors can be demonstrated to be accurate or appropriate using other foundational principles, the reasoning process remains flawed and the truth of the conclusion remains undetermined.

The question then remains, how are we to determine what is the correct, right or most beneficial manner of perceiving the world? What are the correct attitudes and principles we should build our lives around? How do we define "correct", "right", and "most benficial"? Are there any basic, foundational principles that are universally true? How do we determine what they are?

No cheating allowed here!! I agree with what I will anticipate one of your responses might be: "Everyone may determine for themselves according to their own inclinations, desires and nature." The questions are meant to discover the underlying universal truths or principles behind Tao.

I have my own ideas of course, but I would be delighted to hear your personal solution to the dilemma!!

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Scott: Well, first, i am pleased at the results of dialogue and pursuit of understanding.. limited as language may be, it is a valuable tool.. again i assert the following to represent only "my" understandings of things..

The question then remains, how are we to determine what is the correct, right or most beneficial manner of perceiving the world? What are the correct attitudes and principles we should build our lives around? How do we define "correct", "right", and "most benficial"? Are there any basic, foundational principles that are universally true? How do we determine what they are? Geeeze.. the $64,000 question(s).. I don't know, but.. i speculate aplenty :) I am becoming more and more comfortable with the notion that we, as a conglomerate, and we as individuals share a common "mind" (spiritual link, if you will).. that our individual resource for interface between the physical experience (earth, by Chinese reference) and cosmic experience (heaven) is the mind.. Mind, being individual awareness/consciousness, and referred to in Eastern references as "Man", appropriate since man is manifested by the cooperative consciousnesses of the individual and cosmic aspects of existence (local and non-local existence by some western references).. Anyway, Chinese reference to the "Three Harmonies" would be Heaven, Earth, and Man, which is the basis for our Taiji Club's name.. re-referenced to western thought as Body (earth), Mind (man), and Spirit (heaven).. Considering the import of the mind, as interface, i sense that intuition/insight is a form of local/non-local communication.. of course, the mind, as interface, suffers the prejudices of the physical existence in its interpretation of the local/non-local communication.. but, it reaps the rewards of wisdoms exchanged via the communications.. so, making a short story long, somehow, the use of the mind strikes me as a fundamental tool for evaluating "correctness".. that, intuition/insight, absent prejudice, can reveal much in the way of the basic functioning of principles applied to "Life"..

So, my experiences have led me to meditation (from another thread, i imply "stilling the mind") as a tool for quieting the internal chatter and reducing the influence of prejudice.. from this perspective, i find that my experiences are more direct, by-passing the mental filing cabinet to become a part of "who i am" (internalizing).. the benefit to this is that rather than searching the mental filing cabinet and evaluating the results, the "who i am" has a naturally inherent response to stimuli based on its relationship to the "internalized" experiences.. consequences to situations seem more clearly evident and appropriate actions manifest with very little delay from contemplation issues.. With discipline and experience, meditation (a still and quiet mind) can be summoned in much of our daily existence..

Truth, in my opinion, is in the ability to have the most direct experience possible.. Universal truth, like "perfection", is a conceptual construct subject to the inadequacies previously discussed.. but, it is a good target for focused endeavor.. I sense that we idle ourselves too much in the mental pursuit of truths when they lay before us in the form of direct experiences.. "How do we define "correct", "right", and "most benficial"?", an appropriate question with no universal answer.. we learn through the results of consequences and adjust our actions accordingly.. yep, a bunch of variables suddenly become apparent.. "accordingly" to what standard?.. here, i suppose we will differ as i sense the nature of life to be fluid and adaptable by design.. in its wisdom, the Whole, the One, "God", etc... left the "rules" as flexible as the variety of experiences.. what wisdom would be imparted by confining the search for self with rules.. how many situations vary in appropriateness according to perspectives and consequences? (vitually all!).. i am of the belief that the single universal truth is "change", as represented by the Taiji symbol.. that which cannot change will stagnate, a condition contrary to Life.. So, the nature of the process (Tao) is perfect, no rules, no judgements.. just an explicit permission to celebrate experience, regardless of our perception of it.. the dynamic interplay of "contrasting principles" (sound familiar? :) ).. interplay, of course, being the manifestations represented by "change"..

Whew!! now my brain itches..

So, i will "cut to the chase".. Live life with unbridled gusto, be sincere, be not harsh or unyielding in judgements.. feel the compassion inherent in all beings and honor its expression.. know that we exist as a cooperative endeavor and no benefit accrues from unjustified harm.. read the "Desiderata", by Max Ehrman, an appropriate final verse for the Tao Te Ching.. and, worship nothing, yet.. maintain a sacred reverence for ALL things.. These things have comforted my life experience..

Thanks for tolerating (enduring) my understandings of things.. thanks for adding to that understanding.. Be well..

[SPJ]

The question of what is right or correct?

The answer is changing relative to the time and space.

What is the optimal thing to do in the specific time and space?

As if we are sailing, we navigate toward our goal. However we may take a path according to prevailing direction of the wind.

The book of Chang or Yi Jing or I Ching provide a rule of change.

The truth of the matter, every thing is in the order of randomness. We may approach a certain pattern with higher probability and yet it is still random. This is the chaotic theory of things.

In Daoism, they believe that there is time for everything. There is time to work and rest. There is time to win and lose. There is time to be born and pass away. There is time to do nothing and everything. Have a goal and go with the flow or the prevailing wind. When your time to succeed comes, you will succeed. Do not swim or sail against the current. Know all the contributing factors and anti factors. You increase your positive factors. The rest is up to God or nature or Dao. You may plan about things to happen. The completion of them is from the Heaven. Mou Shi Zai Ren; Cheng Shi Zai Tian.

In Buddhism, they believe cause and effect, and Karma. You reap what you sow. What goes around comes around. You would strive to plant good seeds with good deeds and thoughts. The right speech, right thoughts etc. You will harvest good fruits in this life or the next.

What is correct? Buddha said we may not say. If there is a buddha in your heart, your mind will follow the dharma and the right path.

What is correct? Daoist or naturalist says it is the Dao. Understand the Dao and follow the Dao.

What is Dao?

What is correct?

The answer my friends is blowing in the wind. The song lyric.

:D

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi TaiChiBob and SPJ,

Well said both of you!!

Your thoughts are very insightful and thought provoking!

I agree, we do learn from trial and error, cause and effect, and by assessing the consequences of our actions. These are tools that appear to be inherent to the world system in which we live and can, in fact, be called Truths.

However, when determining “right and wrong”, “good and bad” the conclusions we arrive at are a result of the worldview we begin with. This makes the truths relative to the worldview and foundational beliefs we start with and not necessarily universal or absolute Truths. For example: an Islamic suicide bomber is performing a righteous act in his own mind according to his worldview. These are acts others view as wrong. So there is an inherent conflict within our world system when considering right and wrong actions. Is the rightness or wrongness of an act to be determined by public consensus? What are the underlying principles that make an act right or wrong from a universal rather than local perspective?

Perhaps I did not ask the original questions properly. My questions were meant to incite conversation about what these underlying Truths might be and how we may test and apprehend them. My thesis is: there must be universal principles that infuse our world system, but are above and beyond it.

I think of the world system as a movie viewed in a movie theater. The movie we observe is real to us as we view it and, in this example, is synonymous with our lives within the world system as we experience it. However, what makes viewing the movie possible is a blank screen, a bright light, film through which the light suffuses and a mind to view it. As we watch the movie there are rules within the performance that create the story. These rules would be the worldview we have that give the story meaning. But the underlying rules that make the whole experience possible are the interaction between the screen, the light, the film and the mind. These are the Absolute Truths without which no movie is possible. They are presumably invariable.

So the questions I am trying to ask are: What are these underlying Truths? What are the screen, light, film and individuated mind that creates, sustains and makes our world system exist? Is it possible to apprehend them or are they beyond our comprehension? If they are apprehendable, how can they be verified as the underlying Truths that suffuse our world system of experience?

And finally, I am less interested in what Buddhists, Taoists, or Christians think and more interested in what YOU (that is ANY READER, not limited to TaiChiBob or SPJ) think! That is what are your own personal views. Even if they are founded upon other systems of thought like Taoism or Buddhism, what are they in your own words?

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

I return to my concept of "truth" as the experience itself.. it is that condition of existence that we have manifested from within our individual consciousnesses, and largely agreed to by a consensus of individual consciousnesses (script and movie, via Scott's analogy).. the sum of our experiences, the "who we are", would be the film, it would shape the "pure white light" into the projected image.. considering that each of us will view the image according to "who we are".. I sense that there is a single basic source of all things and, without the myriad of labels, i sense that it is energy.. perhaps, nothing more than pure potential.. but, it is the raw material, unformed and without purpose, that supports all that is.. energy is the "pure white light" that shines through our consciousness and manifests the world we experience.. The pure white light represents the undifferentiated whole, prior to diffusion and refraction.. consciousness is like a musical instrument, it changes the frequencies of vibrations of the basic energy to produce a symphony of experiences.. the "film" of our consciousness changes the vibrational frequency of the pure whie light and imparts a sense of importance, to me, to the study of vibration and frequency as it relates to a basic understanding of matter and existence..

There should be an understanding of the difference between "mind" and "consciousness".. the mind exists as an aspect of consciousness.. so, as consciousness plays the movie the mind interprets it for the "physical experience", recalling that i sense the mind to be an interface between spiritual and physical experiences.. opportunity arises, with discipline and training (or, optimally, simple "knowing", although not so simple) to free the mind of prejudices and shine the light through a clear film, illuminating our existence as a feedback loop.. breaking the "loop" with illuminated awareness, we transcend the worldview and have the "undifferentiated perspective" (Nirvana, enlightenment, salvation, or some other cultural flavor...).. still, that perspective is linked to the perceiver by the individual aspect of consciousness and must translate back into the "movie"..

Here is where legend and myth intersect with the mundane.. Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad, Lao Tzu, on and on... "saw the light", the pure white light, and chose to stay in this manifestation (Bodhisatvas sp.?) and impart their visions to us, the mundane masses.. They became legends and myths and, of course, tools to be manipulated by those of lesser vision.. their communications, regardless of the self-serving interpretations of others, speak to an inherent core within each of us.. thus, the timelessness of their words.. These enlightened ones have edited our "movie" such that basic values for the most beneficial physical experience are culturally connected.. compassion, respect, sincerity, simplicity, and, the discipline to manifest those virtues have a common resonant theme.. they lead us to our own enlightenments..

I sense the search for "universal truths" is also an abdication of responsibility for our own existence.. that we hope that somewhere there is a standard that relieves us from the responsibility for the consequences of our choices.. i often hear people say something like, " i followed the instructions but it still didn't work".. what actually occurred was more like, i made it appear that i followed the instructions but when i tried to manipulate the experience something didn't work.. rigid or fixed standards lend credence to the cliche', "rules are made to be broken".. they set the reference point for deviation vs. consequence dynamics.. Abolish the notion of universal truth as anything other than Change, and freedom is the result.. freedom to experience the world without the burden of contrived baggage.. Surely, there are consequences for poorly conceived actions, Karma, so to speak.. but, that is the deal.. through those choice/consequence dynamics we discover and evolve that which benefits the individual AND the collective (or not).. but, i sense no Universal arbiter as that would confine the potential for self-discovery and the ultimate evolution of the Universe itself.. i do sense a Universal observer, experiencing itself evolve..

I rest now, as my mind is abuzz with these concepts.. be well..

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi TaiChiBob,

Again very well said, but it is really doesn’t answer the question. I seem to be using inadequate means to communicate my intent.

You are addressing the question from its strictly Universal Aspect. It is a fine description of the process and I perceive it pretty much the same way, albeit from a different perspective, but how does the Universal affect the Local, in specific terms?

I view existence from two perspectives the Universal Aspect (Tao), and the Local Aspect (Its Manifestations, Te).

The Universal Aspect is the transcendental aspect above and beyond the world system in which we live our daily lives. TaiChiBob’s “… single basic source of all things…” We might say the Universal Aspect impregnates or permeates the Local Aspect. Lao-tzu termed the Universal Aspect, Tao. It is beyond comprehension or description. Any attempt at description is limiting and insufficient to adequately communicate its characteristics and effects. It is like illustrating the sea by holding up a cup of ocean water. Thus Tao (Universal Aspect) must be directly experienced! The solution devised by Chan teachers to assist others in direct perception is to directly point to the phenomena using various means thereby creating a turn about in the mind of the seeker, that is, to stimulate a new perspective. I have compared this experience to the perception of ALL the aspects contained within an optical illusion. Let us return to the optical illusion linked below as an example once again:

YoungWoman/OldWoman (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/YoungGirl-OldWomanIllusion.html)

an individual perceiving from the Local Aspect may only see the Young Woman, while another perceiving from the Local Aspect may only see the Old Woman. These two individuals, representing their own specific perspectives, may become embroiled in heated debate (…leading to WARS???) defending their own perspective as representative of the Truth! However, when one perceives the Optical illusion from the Universal Aspect the perceiver observes both perspectives as part of a greater whole. Each perspective is merely “one” aspect of a greater unity. From the Local Aspect division and conflict are created by the result of only ONE perspective being perceivable by the viewer. From the Universal Aspect the harmony and unity of the whole is perceived. The interconnectedness of the two perspectives leads to a changed perspective whose consequence is understanding. The Universal Aspect is formed by, but exceeds the limitations of the Local Aspect, while the totality of Local Aspects makes up, but is only a portion of the Universal Aspect. The example of the YoungWoman/OldWoman picture illustrates graphically how conflicts can become fueled on a Local level, yet are meaningless in the Universal level.

From the Local Aspect, conflict is inevitable and it appears to be designed into the world system. It is a consequence of duality. Individuals cannot be forced to view life from the Universal Aspect since it is a phenomenon that requires the willing participation of the seeker. Glimpses of the Universal Aspect may be experienced; however they may not be clearly perceived or interpreted due to prejudices inherent within the individual’s worldview.

It is important not to confuse Local Aspect principles (Truths) with Universal Aspect principles (Truths). When attempting to apprehend the principles of the Universal Aspect we must not get lost ONLY in the experience. If we consider it merely as direct experience it has no inherent meaning.

Within the world system there exists Absolute Truths. These truths appear to be inviolable; two of the most notable, as has been previously mentioned by SPJ, are: the Laws of Cause and Effect and Karma. These appear to be principles that only apply to the Local Aspect, the world system. Actions (Causes) have Effects and the consequence of those effects is Karma. But whether we interpret Karmic consequence as positive (good) or negative (bad) is determined by our worldview. I will reprise my example of facial mutilation here:

If a movie actress were to receive a serious facial scar she may view the effects of that scar on her life as an unfavorable (negative) consequence. However, during Kaiser’s Germany a facial scar was seen as a sign of distinction and admiration by military officers who engaged in saber fighting. It was the sign of a macho persona that was considered a favorable (positive) consequence. Here we have the same event experienced and appreciated in two different manners according to the individual’s worldview. So, from the perspective of the Local Aspect actions are either beneficial (good) or detrimental (bad). The consequence from the Universal Aspect may not have much meaning, but from the Local Aspect the events do have meaning.

When performing Actions our implied purpose is to benefit from the anticipated “positive” consequences, the Effect. To put it another way: when performing actions we are attempting to Cause a specific Effect that is designed to benefit us. Even an Islamic suicide bomber perceives a greater good for his purpose, and for himself in heaven, by his actions regardless of the innocent lives he takes as a consequence of his Act.

When considering the Truths of the Universal Aspect and their influence on the world system we must remember that there are Effects or consequences from experiencing the Universal Aspect and they do having meaning from the Local perspective. There are consequences (Effects) within the Act of experiencing the Universal Aspect (Tao, Undifferentiated Whole) and this infuses the experience at the Local level with new meaning. Therefore, when our intent is to perceive the Universal Aspect, we are anticipating a positive (beneficial) Effect. If we didn’t we would not be motivated to perform the Actions we believe will produce the desired (experience) Effect.

The above example of the YoungWoman/OldWoman illusion perfectly demonstrates the Effect (consequences) on perception of experiencing the Universal. There are indeed Universal Aspect Laws that impregnate the Local Aspect as a simple consequence of experiencing the Universal Aspect if nothing else. As mentioned above, when we perceive the wholeness it changes us and this is due to the principles (Laws) that govern the Universal Aspect, one of which is that all perspectives melt into one Universal perspective. The understanding gained from this perception changes the individual and affects how they behave in the Local environment. So the Universal Aspect clearly has profound and measurable effects on the Local Aspect.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

That a perception/insight of the undifferentiated whole impacts the local aspect of our existence is undeniable.. that we shape the perception/insight with expectation may be the "fly in the ointment".. while i agree that initially we approach the anticipation with certain expectations, the first direct experience should negate the prejudice of expectation.. it is a profound and perception altering event.. The expectation arises after such insights, as to how we can translate the insight into a benefit for the local experience.. The whole, Tao, etc... has no motives, imparts no rules, and only serves to illustrate the natural flow of interconnected events.. certainly, as we bring this insight to the local experience, there is no lack of motivation and preference, but.. with increased clarity it is more easily discernable as to what favors harmony and benefit..

The classic metaphor illustrated by the "Old woman/young woman" illusion can be further illustrated by an example from a philosophical discussion of decades past.. the subject of the discussion was the "glass half full/half empty" perception.. a quiet participant finally said, "i see a container with some stuff in it, the details will be revealed by further examination (experience).. the container may not be glass, the stuff may not be water, and.. half, representing a mathematical certainty, has yet to be established".. So, asked to interpret the "old/young woman" illusion, i would assert the perception of potential constrained by color and graphic arrangement.. the details to be determined on the appropriateness of any given circumstance.. So it is with my approach to the experience of Life, it unfolds before us, scripted by our intentions but revealed in a concert of interactive experiences resulting in our "world view".. my role in this movie is to acquire a library of experiences, both local and non-local, still the mind, and intend a smooth exchange through my mind as the "interface".. resulting in an optimum physical experience of a spiritual existence...

Examples cited such as, "the Laws of Cause and Effect and Karma" escape my perception as anything more than a local perspective.. with "cause and effect" being another representation Yin/Yang dualistic aspects, and karma being a cultural interpretation of simple consequence.. At the local level there is tendency divide and separate and categorize the simple experience into packets of personally or culturally relevant data, distancing ourselves from the non-local connection.. "cause and effect" (c&e) are mutually interdependent and give rise to over-analysis of the obviously simple direct experience.. C&E is very closely similar to the thought/thinker conundrum, and can lead away from the desired goal by confining potential to the structure of limited "logical" thought.. Karma more closely approximates the relationship of local/non-local interaction but falters at the non-local level where deed and consequence are evident at conception..

Harmony and Chaos, basic manifestations of dualism, yet from the non-local perspective appreciated for their mutually interdependent dynamics, adding variety to the local experience.. The non-local perception of the harmony/chaos dynamic is the welcome feedback of the local aspect's experiences, a mirror of its own nature.. a perspective unavailable without such dynamics.. i perceive my interest in this "movie" to be the "experiencer".. a mirror reflecting the nature of the Whole to itself.. to the degree possible, i polish and clean this mirror but stay connected to richness and fullness of the experiences available. I attempt to gain a "Whole" perspective from time to time and find value in that perspective to manifest itself in the local experience.. i perceive the local aspect to be temporary and anticipate eternity to be sufficient for prolonged in-depth ponderings of "Universal Truths".. of course, my current and anticipated understandings of these universal truths have a direct impact on my intentions, but.. my focus is applying these understandings to living in the here and now, in benefitting the human condition, not escaping from it.. My relationship with Tao is one of guidance and gratitude for the opportunity to contribute to the human/physical experience.. expressed by the virtues mentioned in my previous post and in the gusto i have for Life itself...

Be well...

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi TaiChiBob,

I agree the prejudice of “expectation” would be negated as you say, but the prejudice of “perception and interpretation” remains. There is no way to measure the amount of inherent prejudice. Since Tao cannot be expressed accurately we are permanently limited when attempting to communicate the experience. We have no direct way of knowing how accurate the description of another is other than we know it will be, by the design of the system in which we live, inaccurate.

A Transcendental experience will change our perspective that is a given, however it does not automatically confer wisdom, maturity or the ability to communicate the experience effectively. The meaning of the experience could take years to sort out. In fact the experience is pregnant with a multitude of varying interpretations each of which have a valid meaning according to a specific perspective. But in the end it is only an experience! If no sense or benefit is gained then it is inherently meaningless.

If Tao is represented as “ALL THAT IS”, the “ABSOLUTE”, then it most certainly does have motives and does impart rules. The created cannot possess attributes not inherent within the creator. The reason it is impossible for the created to have capabilities the creator does not possess is the creator could not create what it does not know. The fact we are capable of creating rules and we have motives demonstrates these characteristics are present within the Tao. In fact since we are mere reflections or aspects of the creative principle then OUR motives are actually ITS motives.

Additionally we ARE at the mercy of the rules of creation (Tao). If there truly exists a regenerative cycle, as you suggest, then that is a LAW of creation that we are subject too. We cannot avoid it and have no freedom to change it, therefore it is a LAW!! If, as you suggest, Change is a characteristic of Tao then we are subject to that as well and we are powerless to avoid it or change it. Change is therefore a Law whose consequences we must submit too. Tao has the impulse to create. Creativity is the single most prominent aspect of Tao. Since it is the Source of All Things then creativity is inherent as a characteristic and this would be a Law we are subject to as well.

The unique description you have provided of the YoungWoman/OldWoman illusion only proves my point! It merely demonstrates another unique perspective that is inherent within the illusion. It is not unusual to have many perspectives inherent in any phenomena. That is the point; there is no devolving into undifferentiated anything. There is a unifying of perspectives where one is able to perceive all of the perspectives at once (Universal Aspect, Undifferentiated Whole) or one at a time (Local Aspect) whichever one chooses to perceive at the time. The same applies to the description of the glass half full or empty. The unique description provided does not address the intent the metaphor intends to teach, so in that sense it is just a smartass remark, but at the same time it still implies merely another unique perspective. There is nothing profound about it!! It proves my point as well!!

Cause and Effect, and Karma are Laws of the Local Aspect, I agree. The Local Aspect is a projection of the Universal Aspect or, if preferred, one of many expressions of the Universal Aspect. The intent of mentioning these principles is to demonstrate that the Universal Aspect does impinge upon, affect, and nourish the Local Aspect. Since Tao is the source (mother) of all things it is the source of the Local Aspect and the Rules and Laws that govern the Local Aspect. Cause and Effect are born from the Universal Aspect and they are Laws, therefore the Universal Aspect projects, creates, supports, or generates Laws that affect those of us who dwell within the Local Aspect. The Universal Aspect indwells everything within the Local Aspect. There is nothing beyond or apart from the Universal Aspect. Therefore, there is no difference between the Local Aspect and the Universal Aspect. They are manifestations of the same substance so to speak. There is no division inherent between the Universal and the Local. All divisions are projections from our minds and are both illusory AND real representations of the Universal Aspect. The illusion is the appearance of separation, but it is also a real separation, it is both at the same time and it is the paradoxical nature of it that makes it a Truth. Separation (duality) is inherent within the Universal Aspect since this is its origin and it is expressed through, or manifested by, the Local Aspect. It is our minds that perceive either the Universal Aspect, the Local Aspect, or both at once! If one is unable to perceive the Local Aspect within the Universal Aspect then all one is experiencing is another manifestation of a Local Aspect and not the Universal Aspect.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..


The created cannot possess attributes not inherent within the creator. I respectfully disagree.. being a parent, i can assure you of this... Being a student of science, there are too many instances of unexpected/unintended results to accept that statement at face value..

If Tao is represented as “ALL THAT IS”, the “ABSOLUTE”, then it most certainly does have motives and does impart rules. Again, i sense the statement to be based on the local perspective, like assigning a personality to help explain the unexplainable.. my own understanding differs, that the lack of a motive IS the motive.. Tao, considered by me to be the inherent nature of the "Way" things are, permits unbridled creativity to define ALL things.. rules confining creative potential are carry-overs from rules that permit the physical experience, a local prejudice imposed on a non-local experience..

If there truly exists a regenerative cycle, as you suggest, then that is a LAW of creation that we are subject too. We cannot avoid it and have no freedom to change it, therefore it is a LAW!! Of course we can avoid it, change it, or whatever we choose.. Choice is a defining characteristic of creativity and of the human existence in general.. we can choose to have the physical experience or return to the purely spiritual (Tao).. That we return is a signature of the addictive nature of the physical experience..

We may be splitting hairs, but.. where i see "Change" as a universal constant, devoid of motive or creator, simply an existent condition.. Scott sees LAW!!.. here, i see the prejudice of local existence bleeding over into non-local perception.. I had cautioned earlier of the difficulties inherent to the local perspective of the non-local experience.. Motives and rules govern the physical (individual) aspect of existence, and.. the contrasting principles of no motives and no rules balance this equation at the non-local perspective.. the ultimate paradox, the only thing unchangable.. is change.. Tao is change.. change is not LAW, it simply has very favorable consequences.. abandon the principle of change, it's your choice, but the consequences will likely urge a "change" of mind..

Separation (duality) is inherent within the Universal Aspect since this is its origin and it is expressed through, or manifested by, the Local Aspect. It is our minds that perceive either the Universal Aspect, the Local Aspect, or both at once! If one is unable to perceive the Local Aspect within the Universal Aspect then all one is experiencing is another manifestation of a Local Aspect and not the Universal Aspect. The noted relationship of perceptions is local in reference, it assigns local concepts to the non-local Whole... consider that the eye cannot see inside itself, but the interior functions wholy and perfectly.. the eye has no rules for its insides, it simply permits the the experience to BE.. and it IS..

Be well..

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi TaiChiBob,

As a preface, let me say that my view of our interaction on this thread is similar to the Hindu metaphor whereby 4 blind men describe an elephant. Each one touches the elephant at a different area and provides completely different descriptions. As I said in my previous post, since Tao cannot really be expressed we are, by design of the system, doomed to give inaccurate descriptions. I respect your views and I am learning a great deal. Even though I argue strongly for my personal view of Tao I recognize that it is only one view and is, as stated, inaccurate. Everyone’s version of Tao or God or Life has meaning for them and is merely their personal version and just as valid for them as anyone else’s is to them. We may presume that some versions are more representative than others, however how to determine which is which, is the question.

Parenthood and world system science are not accurate comparisons to the creative aspect of Tao. This is the misapplication of Local Aspect principles to describe Universal Aspect principles. All we have available to describe Universal Aspect principles and characteristics is Local Aspect principles and characteristics, since that is where we live. If we are to communicate we must use the tools provided within the system in which we exist. While I believe that the Local Aspect is a reflection of the Universal Aspect and we can learn about the Universal Aspect through observation of the Local Aspect, not all comparisons are accurate. It would be more accurate to compare Taos creativity to the creation of artwork or any other material object such as cars or bridges. Before an object is created physically it starts as an idea in the mind of the creator or co-creators. This is the original source of the created object. The idea is sometimes clear and sometimes amorphous, but its origin is the mind. It is true that the result often times is at variance with the original concept, and there is an internal motivating and creative force within the mind that often provides unanticipated information resulting in unique results. However creativity is the union of a chaotic substrate molded and motivated by order, which is the mind. All creative products have their origins within the mind. The mind of Tao!

A child is the product of genetic laws combined with environmental influences. A child may have qualities not found within the parent, but the parent did not create the child in the same manner that creation forms from the substance of Tao. The form of humans began as an idea originating from the Order aspect of Tao we know this because the human body is an organized and well functioning organism. It is complex and requires multitudes of co-operative cells and organs each performing their appropriate function in harmonious union. If Tao did not possess these qualities they could not exist within us. They would be qualities without origin. Something does not come from nothing; something comes from the combination of chaotic substrate formed by order. Existence could not have formed from “No Idea”. This is contrary to every example of human creativity. Even when a creative result is formed from the unknown source within us, it is expressed through the principle of order. It is order that gives function to chaos. Further the chaotic substrate is merely unknown. That is not understood and therefore undefined. We cannot presume that it does not follow some ordered principle of its own just because we do not understand how it functions.

Scientific laws, as well as children, are formed and operate according the pre-established Laws of the Local Aspect. They are not free from these Laws and may not vary from them. We must all breathe in order for our physical body to live. This is a Law of life that is invariable. A rock will fall every time it is dropped. This is only variable in the presence of an external force which itself is formed from and follows specific principles designed by Tao.

The Law of unintended consequences is from Tao. Just because we did not intend for a specific consequence or it was not planned for does not mean it does not follow specific principles. It only means it follows principles of which we were not prepared or aware.

Following my examples we can say that personality is contained within, has its source from and is created by Tao. Just because Tao contains the principles of personality does not mean it follows the principles of personality that we understand to have meaning and function in our Local Aspect. Tao is beyond our concepts of personality, but our concepts of personality are contained within it.

TaiChiBob, your example of choice again only proves my point. Two choices is no choice all from a larger view. If there is a limit to the choices, you are bound by the Law of those choices. If there are 1,000 choices you are bound by the Law of those 1,000 choices. You are still limited by the system and this makes it a Law. A Law is a principle you are unable to not follow; a multitude of choices does not demonstrate it is not a Law, only that there are a multitude of choices within the Law.

I do not contend that change is not a principle of Tao. I merely state that as it is a principle with unvarying effects, that is, we may not exceed the principle and we are bound to it whether we like it or not, it is thus a Law.

I return to these principles: Nothing exists without its origin from Tao. If it exists in the Local Aspect it Exists within the Universal Aspect. Maybe the confusion springs from a misunderstanding. Tao, for example, is not bound by the principles of Cause and Effect in the same manner that we are. It is the source of Cause and Effect. It is their source, but it is beyond their mandate. These principles are Laws within the Local Aspect and this is demonstrated because we are not able to countermand them. We are bound by the rule of this particular Aspects of Tao. We must follow those rules just as players of Monopoly are theoretically bound by the rules of that game. But just as we are not bound by the rules of Monopoly, Tao is not bound by the rules of the Local Aspect. We are free to change the rules of Monopoly therefore they are not Laws; they are agreed upon principles that we will treat as Laws while playing the game. They are Laws within a specified context and we are bound to them as long as we agree to play the game. However, Tao is not bound by the rules of the Local Aspect, but since we function within the Local Aspect we are bound to follow the rules.

I like your example of the eye not seeing itself. Let me view it from an alternate perspective. To say, “The eye cannot see itself without assistance.”, would be more accurate. The eye may see itself using tools such as a mirror, or lasers, etc. The Tao, in order to know itself, artificially divides itself, pretending to separate, and then turns these aspects of itself back towards itself in order to know itself. Each aspect gives a different view, each as valid as the others according that particular view. Since Tao is limitless there are limitless manners of its expression.

Local concepts ARE reflections of universal concepts. The effect, Life, leads us to the cause, Tao. Tao is inherent within and permeates all things. All things are pregnant with the principles (LAWS) of Tao and reflect aspects of Tao. This is inherent in creation. Without this fact we would not be able to apprehend anything about Tao. If Tao was not apprehendable from its manifestations (Te) we could know nothing about it. It is through its manifestations (Te) that Tao expresses itself.

The eye does follow rules. Its structure is ruled by principles (Laws) of the cells and cellular biology. Vision, the function of the eye, follows rules (Laws) as well. Light bouncing off objects impinges on the rods and cones of the retina which transmit signals to the brain which in turn interprets to varying degrees of accuracy what was seen. The eye does function marvelously, but only transmits data, it is the mind and its limiting worldview that interprets and gives meaning to the data.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Scott: Agreed, regarding the elephant metaphor.. but, that is our lot in the communication realm..
Local concepts ARE reflections of universal concepts. The effect, Life, leads us to the cause, Tao. Tao is inherent within and permeates all things. All things are pregnant with the principles (LAWS) of Tao and reflect aspects of Tao. Considering the relationship of local to non-local (Tao) and your above stated perception, how then, do we limit the local experience potential to "Laws"?
Tao is not bound by the rules of the Local Aspect, but since we function within the Local Aspect we are bound to follow the rules. What i imply is that limits, laws and principles are convenient and agreed upon for the purpose of the physical experience, but.. not immutable.. there exists, of necessity, the opportunity to transcend, to descend, to ascend any and all aspects of Tao.. if it were not so, existence would be largely pointless from a local perspective.. As you stated, we are reflections of Tao, and.. moreover, i suggest we are Tao.. no more confined than the non-local version, only bound by continued agreement to play the game a certain way, continuing to "choose" the perception..
There seems to be a common theme to your perspective, to shape Tao to local perceptions, and thusly shape local perceptions to themselves..
A rock will fall every time it is dropped. This is only variable in the presence of an external force which itself is formed from and follows specific principles designed by Tao. The dropped rock example illustrates the the point.. a cited principle, then assigning that principle to Tao.. suppose Tao has no motive, no rules, no principles.. suppose Tao casts its creative potential into the void and observes the resulting process, true unconfined creativity.. and, we are the current result.. an evolution of unlimited potential and choices, an evolution that progresses with each choice we make.. confined only by our own self-imposed limits of perception.. that there are factors limiting the physical existence is a necessity to manifest that condition.. but, the mind as interface between local and non-local can transcend the physical confines and perceive the non-local experience.. and,much is yet unresolved in the evolutionary response to such insights..

I will share a personal experience with you.. during one of my more productive meditations, i sensed being in situation that required a choice.. i had to choose to step into the unknown or remain tethered to the physical and only glimpse over the edge.. conjuring a plan to step and hold on to a slender physical connection, i took the plunge.. the result was profound to say the least, immediately i was disoriented by a falling sensation while being supported by a "sound", more like a deep resonant vibration that crossed into the physical experience i had held on to.. the physical sensation was both ecstatic and frightening in its intensity and effect.. the body felt like a speaker vibrating the deep resonant tone.. ( i now understand the Hindu fondness for the "Om" chant ).. but, the unexpected intense immersion in such an experience caused a physical reaction that was not unlike acute (sudden) motion sickness.. the mind, still attached to the physical sensation, recoiled adding to the physical discomfort.. subsequently, i have revised my methodology and had several remakable journies into something that defies description.. but, each time i am more certain of the perspective i have developed.. Certainly, as i recount the experience, prejudice colors the description and the perception, but.. the influx of awareness and "knowing" has seeded future perceptions with a certainty of unlimited potential.. Key to this perspective is the unnatural choice to abandon the physical connection, which is inherently there regardless, but.. relinquishing the desperate hold on the addiction to physical sensations (and associated prejudices), the mind is free to experience unity as an re-assimilation into the Whole.. here, the sum of all things is evident immediately, but.. with little experience at that level, the connection to the physical (local) cleverly brings about a return, we are unaware of this connection as we intended otherwise, but.. the mind reels in ecstatic union with the Whole, unaware of its co-existing physical component, that component provides the sensory input that sets the base vibration frequency, that defines the whole experience.. One of the more clear insights, was that any local experience is quite capable of becoming its own Universe within Tao, if it chooses.. Tao simply permits it, unconditionally.. Energy, an inherent property of Tao, provides power for the vibration, consciousness provides the frequency and the resulting sound is manifested as a Universe.. where each of us, upon accepting radical responsibility for our own existence, emerges as the unified whole of yet another universe..

But, as you will point out, it may be no more than my preferences played out during meditative states.. but, i find science, philosophy (including religion) and experience to conform to this model with no rebuttable consequence that cannot be attributed to the addiction to physical sensation/experience..

"The eyes through which i see God, are the same eyes through which God sees me".. this old favorite imparts some of my favorite wisdom.. neither "i" nor "God" exist apart from the conscious observer.. the observer that sees its local condition, and its non-local condition.. the "thinker", or.. the undifferentiated whole.. sees ALL of it (and more), unconfined by any rules or principles.. manifesting pure intention at will..

<Thud, head hits table> Whew!! i am processing insights as i write.. multi-tasking is not my forte.. but, there you have it..

Be well..

[Chuck Man Chuck]

Hi TaiChiBob,


Something does not come from nothing

Actually this is not consistaint with Daoism or Quantum Physics: in Daoism the Wuji, Void or Nothingness is the source of all power and energy. As Fritjof Capra shows in his book "The Tao of Physics" atomic particles are forming out of nothingness all the time.

This is what Zero-point energy is about: in the absolute void of space, compleatly free of Hydrogen or any other particles, a subspace energy, now called Z-point energy is postulated. In fact, there are claims of it being able to be taped into; some scientist also claiming that it may be the base potintial of the universe.

[SPJ]

I am more like a person needing punch words or key words for Zen purposes. Or I was trained to think in a Zen way.

A. What is Dao? There are 2. One is the indefininte or infinite Dao or Wu Ji. It is universal and all encompassing. It is a primordial state. It may change into 2, 4, 6, 64 and 10,000 things. It may revert back the primordial state or Wu Ji.

The other is the definite or finite Dao or way. It is determined by a factor. Such as the Dao of physics, the Dao of Buddhism, Dao of a fishermen, Dao of a samurai, Dao of a father, Dao of a general, Dao of a ruler, Dao of a scholar, Dao of a doctor, etc.

B. The origin of something or life. The big Bang theory. In the beginning, there is nothing but emtpy space. We do not know why, there is some nebulus. The cosmic particles gather together to form a Sun or planet. The Sun burned out it hydrogen fuels. It becomes a death star. It creates a black hole and pulls everything including light into it. The implosion of such immense density causes an explosion with gamma ray. The light is so bright. It is called supernova. New stars or Sun's are born. The whole universe is expanding from the first big Bang.

The beginning of something is the end of something else. The end of the something is the beginning of something else.

The death of number 1 Sun created #1 black hole-> #1 supernova-> #2 Sun, on and on.

We as persons or having minds. We exist in this space at this moment of time. We are finite or definite. We may only appreciate something that is defined as we ourself are defined with space and time.

Dao of you or Zen mind of you may not be the same as that of me.

However, we may communicate some observation and perception with one another via words, video or audio. We have the concepts of time and space. We may talk about Dinasour millions years ago on earth. And at that time, people may not appear just yet.

We are finite. And yet we have minds and concepts beyond our times and spaces.

:confused:

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Chuck Man Chuck,

There is some confusion of definition when considering my thesis:

”Something does not come from nothing.”

I will explain further. When considering statements describing Tao, “Void and Nothingness” are thought to indicate that which does not exist, however the terms are merely expressions meant to indicate something that is beyond our understanding and beyond our limited concepts of Order. The terms Nothingness and Void do not actually indicate NOTHING only something we are unable to understand! It is an expression, a metaphor and not actually NOTHING!

Nothing is considered to be an indefinable emptiness. It is un-measurable using our common methods of measure. This is why it is considered nothing. Just because we are not presently able to measure something does not mean we will never be able to measure it. There was a time when the speed of light was indefinable; we did not have the tools to measure it. Just because it was indefinable 2,000 years ago does not mean it did not have measurable qualities then, but does now! Light was always measurable! What is called NOTHING is only that which we cannot know or understand AT THIS TIME!

Always read what scientists say as only “the current information available to them at this time!” Science has the unfortunate tendency to make statements of FACT that are demonstrated to be only part of the story in the light of future information. Scientists are limited by the tools they use to measure, their ability to interpret the data and their own pre-establish worldviews. Their statements of facts are constantly being redefined in light of new more complete information. The tools scientists measure with are constantly improving. (Please refer to my above statement concerning the speed of light!) What is un-measurable today becomes measurable tomorrow and what was thought to be nothing (un-measurable) is all of a sudden something after all!

Nothing is clearly SOMETHING to begin with!!! This is because it IS measurable after all. The simple fact that we can say there is SOMETHING that we will call NOTHING means we are able to separate it from that which we “consider” SOMETHING. The fact we are able to separate it means it is definable at least by the measure that it is not part of the subset of things we can measure. So on one hand we have that which is measurable which we call SOMETHING and in the other hand something we REFER TO as NOTHING simply because we cannot measure it. The fact we can separate the two makes it a form of measurement. Therefore, NOTHING is SOMETHING it is the SOMETHING we consider presently un-measurable even though we just measured it by separating it from SOMETHING! LOL!!!!

It sounds like foolishness but it is the Truth!!!

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi TaiChiBob,

Me:

Local concepts ARE reflections of universal concepts. The effect, Life, leads us to the cause, Tao. Tao is inherent within and permeates all things. All things are pregnant with the principles (LAWS) of Tao and reflect aspects of Tao.

You:

Considering the relationship of local to non-local (Tao) and your above stated perception, how then, do we limit the local experience potential to "Laws"?

Me Again:

The simplest way to explain this is by mere experience. Show me a person who can exist physically outside of a protective suit in the depths of the ocean or in the depths of outer space and when you have accomplished this I want to see them sit on the surface of the Sun for a day or two!! When you can do this than perhaps you MAY have a point, but until then, we are bound by the LAWS of the Local Aspect!

In the 1960’s and early 1970’s, among pop culture New Agers, it was a very common mantra to make comments about the unlimited nature of man. It sounds nice and profound, but the fact is: we are bound by LAWS that we must conform too! Just because the Local Aspect reflects the Universal Aspect does not make it EQUAL to the Universal Aspect. When I look in the mirror I see a reasonable representation of ME, but it is NOT me!

Perhaps we can redefine the New Age mantra to mean only the mind of man is limitless! However, our interpretation of any experience still follows rules defined by our worldviews which defines what we are able to perceive. So our experience may be beyond limits but our interpretation of it follows the rules of Local Aspect.

In reference to your very profound meditative experience:

You had an experience; you then interpreted that experience. The experience may have been beyond your expectations and beyond your imagination, or it may have been an experience you would have expected to have or similar to what you would have expected to have according to preconceived ideas. In other words maybe the experience conformed to your expectations. So when considering my comments your worldview will tend to filter out what you are unwilling to consider and accept what agrees with your predetermined view. Since you have already defined your experience according to your views you appear to be unwilling to consider other views. This is narrow and unproductive because it LIMITS your experience to the definition you have given it. My study has indicated that all phenomena have more than one interpretation and each one is valid according to its context. You seem to be presuming that the meaning you have understood from your experience is the only interpretation available and that your experience was pure and complete. This is a problematic assumption, since it limits the opportunity to gain deeper insights by ignoring their possibility and assumes the experience was in no way influenced by preconceived notions. It presumes the information was unadulterated and complete without contamination or misunderstanding on your part. This apparent view of yours is merely an assumption and so not necessarily true. You must at least entertain the idea there is a possibility of misunderstanding and misinterpretation and also deeper meanings you have not yet plumbed!

I am not attempting to negate anything you believe you had learned or experienced only to expand your view. My intent is not try to not to limit but to integrate!

Let me use another one of my favorite metaphors to illustrate:

I call this the “Crossing the Street” metaphor:

It is dangerous to cross a busy street. This can be considered a FACT or TRUTH!! At anytime we may be struck by a motorist, either from our own negligence or the motorist’s negligence.

When my son is two years old and he will cross the street I will carry him to protect him from the danger. When he is 6 years old I will have him hold my hand. When he is 10 I will caution him to be careful and to look both ways. When he is 15 years old I expect him to have the experience and wisdom to be careful without interference from me. In this example the Truth does not change. It is always dangerous to cross a busy street, but how it applies to the individual changes over time with maturity, understanding and experience. If I negate the perspective for a 6 year old I do not perceive the Truth in all its ramifications. To have a full understanding I must integrate all the perspectives and realize that each view has its meaning within its context. If all I am aware of is the perspective of the 15 year old how will I be able to protect my two year old when crossing the street.

This metaphor illustrates that Truth does not change, but how we view it and how it applies to us does. If I continue to carry my son across the street when he is 15 I am limiting his experience and impeding his opportunity to grow. I may have convinced him that he is unable to do so for himself. His experience is limited by the worldview I have vigorously imposed upon him. All experiences have more than one interpretation. Our understanding, insight and wisdom expands and deepens by entertaining and exploring the depths of our experiences. Sort of like squeezing all the juice possible out of an orange and when we think we have squeezed it all out we squeeze some more to see what we will get. It is in our best interest to continually re-evaluate all impressions and views to see what else we can squeeze from them.

In regards to the Tao having no motive or intent or rules I can only refer back to my previous comments: the created cannot possess anything that is not inherent within the creator. It is impossible for there to be no rules inherent within Tao since we experience these rules constantly. Tao is not limited to our rules that is clear, but our rules are inherent within Tao.

My point throughout this entire thread has been Limit is contained within Limitlessness. A complete view perceives both or ALL, not just the portion that is Limitless! There is BOTH Unity and Separation, BOTH Limit and Limitlessness, BOTH One and Many. It is still limitation if we only consider Limitlessness without being able to also perceive Limit, The fact that we refuse to accept Limit is in and of itself a tacit admission of Limit because by the act itself we are not allowing ourselves to perceive Limitlessness fully. We are Limiting our Limitlessness by not recognizing Limit! We do not perceive fully if we only accept a portion. Instead of: “We can’t see the forest for the trees”, “We can’t see the trees for the forest”! We don’t see Limit for the Limitlessness! This Truth is clearly expressed in the symbol Yin-Yang and is the perfect demonstration of this principle!

[PangQuan]

Happy birthday Scott R. Brown

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi PangQuan,

Thank you for the remmebering my birthday. I have been waiting at the window all day looking for the delivery of my gift, but it hasnt arrived yet!!! :confused:
I am sure it will be here soon!! ;)

[PangQuan]

sure thing. Did you get your gift? What was it, if you dont mind me asking?

hope you had a good birthday.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Revisiting the "eye" analogy.. consider the parts of the eye working in concert to create a greater "whole" (eye).. each part bound by constraints of their function ("Laws, "), but.. the whole eye, unable to see inside itself, only sees and perceives its environment.. it is unaware of the myriad of situations inherent to its operation.. at a larger scale, the whole (universe, Tao, etc..) functions similarly.. it has experiences that are dependent upon the functioning parts, but not bound by their individual limitations.. the parts of you body, individually, are very limited as to functionallity, but in concert they form a greater whole capable of vastly more than any single part.. as when we focus our eyes on some particular subject, we seldom consider the relationships of iris, lens, retina, etc... we intend focus and it happens.. the whole intends to know itself, and we happen.. in the same analogy, the parts are both the whole and individual parts, awareness of one aspect or another (part or whole) determines the perceived constraints or lack thereof.. The part (individual) may assume the perspective of "it is what it is", considering its function as a divine cosmic mandate to simply experience as much of the physical aspect as it can.. then, release its mind to the whole to glimpse the awesome experience of the "feedback" produced by a universe of individual aspects.. leaving the local aspect in its simplicity to "chop wood, carry water", freeing the mind for the non-local interaction..

The simplest way to explain this is by mere experience. Show me a person who can exist physically outside of a protective suit in the depths of the ocean or in the depths of outer space and when you have accomplished this I want to see them sit on the surface of the Sun for a day or two!! When you can do this than perhaps you MAY have a point, but until then, we are bound by the LAWS of the Local Aspect! This will likely bring reference to your '60s comment, but.. you have an inclination to separate whole and individual and assign individual characteristics to the whole.. it seems that you desire your individuality to be your eternal identity... until one is willing to accept the notion that the local experience is a temporal experience, they will be bound by the "Laws" they agree upon as necessary for that local experience.. even for their interpretation of the non-local experience.. when you accept the notion that Life and its local aspect IS a temporal experience it breaks the ties that bind you to the "Laws" you hold onto..

Consider the possibility that within the Whole is the sum of the universe's experiences, that from the "whole" perspective, it can focus on any individual aspect or any combinations of aspects as it chooses.. also, any individual aspect may access the same "whole" experience through the mind interface.. Here, we can conceive the individual/local aspect's eternal identity as a "Cosmic memory".. that same cosmic memory may re-manifest itself as a local experience in many forms.. or, it may re-combine itself with other memories of other local aspects for yet broader ranges of self-discovery by the "Whole".. Where i see the Whole as everything and the associated experiences of everything, "sitting on the sun" or "exist(ing) physically outside of a protective suit in the depths of the ocean or in the depths of outer space" is an accessable experience through the mind interface with the Whole.. the necessity of putting flesh there is a constraint of limited local perspective..
So our experience may be beyond limits but our interpretation of it follows the rules of Local Aspect. That is, again, a limited local perspective, confined by an unwillingness to accept the unknown.. a comfort level nurtured by the stability of "LAWS".. just as in the following quote, the same "local" logic applies to your adherence to the "LAWS" perspective..
Since you have already defined your experience according to your views you appear to be unwilling to consider other views. This is narrow and unproductive because it LIMITS your experience to the definition you have given it. Actually, i am accepting any possibility, even possibilities not yet conceived.. i am not limiting possibility according to "local laws".. My description of my experiences is undeniably interpreted through my mental filter, but it is based on unconstrained potential, contrary to experiences governed by "LAWS".. i constantly remind myself that my local experience is not the definition of the universal experience, only a contributor..
You seem to be presuming that the meaning you have understood from your experience is the only interpretation available and that your experience was pure and complete. This is a problematic assumption, since it limits the opportunity to gain deeper insights by ignoring their possibility and assumes the experience was in no way influenced by preconceived notions. Perhaps.. but, the same applies to any perception by anyone.. In fact, i have simply recounted my current interpretation to allow for alternative perspectives in my search for deeper understandings.. but, as you can see, it will be interpreted according to any individual prejudices, including the perspectives posted here.. No less constrained by prejudice is someone's critique of my account of an experience than my own experience interpretation itself.. From which, by dialogue, we may derive a more complete perspective of an experience, considering that no perspective is wholly without merit.. Somehow, i sense that my interpretation of the experience to impart a sense of "future perceptions with a certainty of unlimited potential.." to be less confined by local prejudices than one defined by "LAWS".. but, there you have it.. differing perspectives combining to add depth to the overall experience interpretation.. we will draw conclusions accordingly, with no necessity to agree, only to continue the journey of experiences..

This metaphor illustrates that Truth does not change, but how we view it and how it applies to us does. This illustrates a local characteristic of needing security and stability transferred to a non-local environment where we have no business imposing local constraints.. except as control devices of our own choosing, a choice to limit the limitless..
The fact that we refuse to accept Limit is in and of itself a tacit admission of Limit because by the act itself we are not allowing ourselves to perceive Limitlessness fully. We are Limiting our Limitlessness by not recognizing Limit! We do not perceive fully if we only accept a portion. Instead of: “We can’t see the forest for the trees”, “We can’t see the trees for the forest”! We don’t see Limit for the Limitlessness! This Truth is clearly expressed in the symbol Yin-Yang and is the perfect demonstration of this principle! Back to the "eye" anology.. the eye accepts the limits of its parts by the act of having no limits on the potential perspectives it may have.. the limits of its parts create the limitless potential of its function.. to accept the limitless perspective is to transcend the constraints of the laws of the local aspect, and accept the internal limits as supportive of the limitless perspective, not confining it.. The eye always looks outward, searching for broader vistas greater views.. that those vistas and views may internally affect the mechanism of observation is not the eye's focus.. it just keeps observing while the parts keep supporting that function...

It is impossible for there to be no rules inherent within Tao since we experience these rules constantly. Tao is not limited to our rules that is clear, but our rules are inherent within Tao. There may be "rules inherent within Tao", but those "rules" are chosen and agreed to for expressing Tao in dualistic terms as a physical experience, not as limits defining Tao.. Tao, like the "eye" looks outward into the field of pure potential offering us, the local aspects, any experience we are willing to accept.. no motive, no judgement, just a simple offering.. it is we that assign value and limits to that offering according to how we choose to perceive our relationship with the Whole... it is as we choose, limited by "LAWS" or limitless..

Be well..

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi PangQuan,

I am still waiting!!! I haven’t moved for days expecting my gift and it still has not arrived!! Are you sure you sent it???


Hi TaiChiBob,

I agree with much of your metaphor comparing the eye to Tao. I will make a few contrasting comments though.

The eye does not have consciousness, Tao does. Tao IS conscious of itself. This goes back to my point that the created may not possess an attribute not inherent within the creator. Since everything is contained within Tao, we are Tao. There is no separation between us and Tao; we are one and the same. Any separation is both illusion and actual at the same time. We have consciousness, therefore Tao has consciousness. We are nothing more than Tao looking back on itself. So just because the eye cannot see itself does not mean Tao cannot see itself. The two cannot be compared concerning this. Just because the eye cannot consider its lens and iris and retina does not mean Tao suffers from the same LIMITATION!!!!! To imply that Tao is unable to perceive itself is imposing an incorrect limitation upon Tao! There is limitation inherent within Tao, that is my claim, if it did not exist then we would not exist because we are limited beings and as expressions of Tao we express Taos limitation. My point has always been that the perceiver/perceived condition is BOTH actual and illusive at the same time. Tao is both one and many!! Just as the YoungWoman/OldWoman illusion is BOTH at the same time. Perceiving one does not eliminate the other just because it is not perceived.

If all we do is recognize the Universal Aspect of Tao, melting everything into the condition you propose, we are limiting our experience to one aspect of Tao. True freedom and Limitlessness comes from the ability to move freely between the states of Universal and Local Aspects. To believe the Universal Aspect is the only true expression of Tao is to be clouded by the same illusion that afflicts those confining their perspective to the Local Aspect. The comprehensive view is an integration of opposites but not melting them permanently into a amorphous indefinable something, it is the ability to move freely from one to the other or both at once.

we intend focus and it happens.. the whole intends to know itself, and we happen..

My point exactly!! Tao does have motive!! The act of “intending” is a motive!! Motive = Intent. The fact that we “happen” demonstrates there are LAWS attending the act of “intending focus”. The law is: When Tao intends focus, there is a result (cause and effect) and that result is US!! There is A LAW of Tao!!

considering its function as a divine cosmic mandate to simply experience as much of the physical aspect as it can.. then, release its mind to the whole to glimpse the awesome experience of the "feedback" produced by a universe of individual aspects.. leaving the local aspect in its simplicity to "chop wood, carry water", freeing the mind for the non-local interaction..

A “divine cosmic mandate” sounds curiously like a LAW!!!! If it has the intent to “glimpse the awesome experience of the "feedback" produced by a universe of individual aspects..” then once again we have motive don’t we?

If this is a true statement, it agrees with what I have demonstrated many times through rational argument, illustration and metaphor: ”Tao has motive and follows principles” that we are not able to countermand and perhaps Tao is unable to countermand itself!! We don’t really know do we? We may “assume” Tao does not have limits according to our interpretation of subjective experiences. We “assume” the experiences have demonstrated to us a complete and comprehensive perspective. We come to this conclusion based upon a feeling that is apparently contrary to fact. This would seem to indicate either a problem with the way we interpreted our experience, or the a flaw in our reasoning, But since we are able to demonstrate the same points in many differing manners including reason, illustration and metaphor, it would behoove one to at accept the rational view as having a more solid foundation then a subjective view!

I will try to explain this another way, it can get a little confusing so it may be necessary to read more than once in order to follow the point!

If we say Tao is Limitless what we are actually doing is imposing a Limit on it. If Tao is truly Limitless it must be able to impose Limits, otherwise it is not Limitless. Limitless means being able to do anything at all. If this is true then Tao MUST be able to impose Limits in order to be truly Limitless! Otherwise Tao is Limited by the fact it is unable to Limit anything. If Tao is unable to Limit then it is not Limitless. This is clearly a Limit, that cannot be denied. So either view, mine or yours, demonstrates Tao is Limited. My view is the more representative of the truth however, for: In order to be truly Limitless Tao MUST have the ability to Limit. Therefore, Tao is BOTH Limited AND Limitless AT THE SAME TIME!!!!

This is my point when I say Yin-Yang is the preeminent symbol of Tao. It illustrates the paradox of Tao. Tao is BOTH Limitless AND Limited. It is Yin, it is Yang, AND it is Yin-Yang, ALL AT THE SAME TIME . It is the paradoxical nature of it that demonstrates it as Truth!!!

[Scott R. Brown]

Continued

On the question of Identity, I have previously addressed the purpose and function of ego and mentioned that there is an identity underlying the ego, so I will not repeat this explanation. If any new reader would like to know what I have previously written it is on this thread.

However, if as you propose, our identities permanently merge with Tao, a view I don’t agree with, it only demonstrates a limitation found within Tao. If an identity is unable to move freely between the many manifestations of itself then it is limited in its experience. Since we are all manifestations of Tao, then it is Tao that is limited as well.

If it is true, as quantum physicists and many mystics claim, that time is an illusion, that all things occur at once, then all of the manifestations of our identity occur at once and do not diminish or disappear. Under these conditions the real illusions are the ideas of linear time, change, and cause and effect. These principles are functions of the Local Aspect similar to the rules of a game like Monopoly as I have previously mentioned. However, the illusion is not that they do not truly exist, but that they are not the complete or comprehensive view of Tao! They are merely Aspects of Tao just as the Universal Aspect or merging you propose is only “an” Aspect of Tao. As I previously mentioned, it is just as illusive to confuse this condition of being as the REAL reality as it is to believe the Local Aspect is all there is.

Identity never merges or dissolves into anything; this is because it was never separate to begin with! As manifestations of Tao we have always been merged and one with Tao, any separation is merely illusion. What changes then is our perspective, not our state of being. As manifestations of Tao when we experience separation it is due to the perspective with which we are viewing our existence, when we experience union it is due to a different perspective of viewing our existence; we have always been both separate and one with Tao at the same time and which one we experience depends upon the perspective with which we choose to view our experiences.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Nicely said, Scott.. well thought out and supported by sound semantic logic (a useful local tool).. Now, back to the "thought vs. thinker" conundrum.. as you suggest, Tao may impose limits on itself.. keep the perspective in mind, if Tao imposes limits, it must also exist outside those limits in order to impose them.. ultimately, consciousness conceives all and manifests all.. and, exists outside "the box" of that which we contrive as we experience the local aspect.. it's too bad you missed the point of the "eye analogy", but still it applies.. outside all of the conceptions, perspectives, labels, etc.. is the "thinker"... unconfined, unlimited, and wholly creative.. all else, including the concept of Tao, is a manifestation of the singular consciousness.. given that all else exists within the "thinker's" intentions, we must agree that limits exist within the thinker's conceptions.. but, not outside those conceptions.. To assert the limitless nature of "Tao" (itself a product of limited mental contrivances) as assigning limits, as you propose, seems to be an attachment to local constraints.. given that limits exist within the limitless does not impose limits outward..

It has been suggested that the created cannot possess traits not also possessed by the creator.. and, as also suggested, the created is also inseparable from the created.. deduced from these suggestions is the notion that limitlessness is inherent at every level, dependent only upon the level of awareness attained by any manifestation, part or parcel.. Life is a playground of creativity, nestled in the limitless nature of infinity and eternity, where possibility and probability merge into any reality imiginable.. the only limits are those imposed by the observer, whether local or non-local.. and, those limits are subject to only one universal constant, change..

Imagine that the sum of existence is an ever-expanding bubble of consciousness.. the surface of that bubble representing "Now", the immediate present experience.. within that bubble is the sum of all things, outside the bubble is the infinite and eternal field of possibilities.. we exist as various aspects of the bubble's surface, looking outward into limitless and eternal infinity, or.. looking inward, enamored with the richness and variety of existence already experienced.. This "bubble" is like a porous membrane, potential and possibility can pass unmanifested.. or, according to the awarenesses of the aspects can pass as manifested experience.. a simple choice, powered by the degree to which any individual aspect "permits" its experience to manifest. Or, as someone once said, "the Universe responds to our every whim, according to the degree to which we actually believe it will"...

We each set our standards and values according to our nature, our awarenesses.. if you choose limits to define your experiences the Universe will make it so.. similarly, if you see no limits, neither does the Universe.. Ultimately, you are your own creator, create yourself, or others will do it for you.. set no limits or confine it as you will.. it's your choice.. If, as has been suggested, Tao has a "motive", it would be to insure a limitless potential for its its own self-expression.. anything else would confine its own self-awareness, an undesirable situation, even for its local aspects..

So, choose wisely.. the limits you set are your own..

Be well..

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi TaiChiBob,

I appreciate your concern for my self-imposed limitations. I am just as concern for yours!

All views of Tao are limiting, my view, your view and everyone’s view, that is why Lao-Tzu said, “The Tao that can be defined is not the eternal Tao”.

Since we are confined to words which are an inadequate means of communicating, we must use many forms of illustration, metaphor and reasoned arguments to adequately communicate our perspective. If I have missed the point of the eye metaphor, perhaps a different form of illustration is necessary!

To think that logical reasoned thought is confined to the Local Aspect or beneath a comprehensive view of Tao is to miss that Tao is the source of reason. I accept that the creator is beyond the created from a specific perspective, but to presume that there are no formal laws or principles that govern Tao is, as I have many times stated, not seeing the trees for the forest. The forest is the trees! Tao is the sum of its parts! Principles and Laws are the trees that make that forest! The Principles ARE Tao! The Local Aspects ARE Tao! Manifestation (Te) follows principles, that is, a reasoned formula of manifestation!!! If there were no principles of Manifestation (Te), no reasoned formula, there would be nothing to manifest! Principles provide the media (tools) for creation to occur and divide one Manifestation from another. While Manifestations are separate from each other from one perspective they are also Unified from another perspective. They are both at once!

The point I am attempting to make concerning the Limited-Limitlessness of Tao is: Tao is the source of ALL and is beyond our conceptions, including beyond our conceptions of Limit and Limitlessness. The Yin-Yang symbol illustrates this principle because the only way to demonstrate this, beyond our understanding, principle through reason is using paradox. The reason paradox sounds like nonsense is because the principles are beyond our understanding within the Local Aspect.

I am contending that the transcendental event you experienced is perception from just another Local Aspect and not the Whole picture. It just another portion of the Whole. To confuse it with a comprehensive view is to not recognize the inherent limitations of the perspective and places undue importance on the event. By placing undue importance to any experience we confine ourselves to that view.

Freedom is not hampered by “recognizing” the inherent Laws, Rules, or Principles of Tao. If Tao did not have Principles we would be unable to perceive anything concerning it. Freedom is hampered when we place undue importance or emotionally attach ourselves to any particular perspective. That is all! Perspectives are like the ego, they are merely tools we use to perceive and navigate any particular Local Aspect. Each Aspect will have its own Boundaries which define it and artificially separate it from other Aspects. From another perspective all Aspects blend together. But this blending together does not eliminate the separation. They are both at once, Separate and Unified. Which one is perceive is determined by the perspective of the viewer. The conditions of BEING do not change, our perspectives do!! It is the personal perspective of the viewer that accepts or rejects separation. Separation is not created by the individual, but the individual does perceive separation (limitation). Separation exists first and then we perceive it. The viewer or individual did not create the separation, Tao did. Separation is an inherent Aspect of Tao, just as Unity is. I will agree that the individual may enhance the sense of Separation they experience through their own actions or choices, but Separation existed first and the recognition of it came second. I am speaking here from the Local Perspective. The ACT of separation by Tao required intent to separate, this is a motive. I am not the one who has argued that Tao has no inherent motive. I argue it does!!

To devalue the inherent existence, meaning and purpose of the Local Aspect (Limitation), and hold the Unified view (Limitlessness) as superior or preferable is just as illusive as confining oneself to the Local Aspect. The truly unified or comprehensive view is to accept that BOTH are Tao. They co-exist. Both are illusory if one becomes attached exclusively to one Aspect and the other is ignored. If we merely float along in the Amorphous Undefined Something we are not experiencing Tao in a comprehensive manner, but merely “ONE” Aspect of it. The other Aspect is the many possible Limited Aspects of existence. They are just as real and valid as the Amorphous Undefined Something. They are not illusion, they are REAL. Illusion occurs when we confine ourselves to any one perspective and consider it the only True perspective. So illusion is a product of the mind that is attached. Freedom comes when we perceive our attachments and let them go. Under this condition we are free to roam where we will, having experiences, clinging to none. Not even clinging to the perspective of non-attachment.

[Scott R. Brown]

Continued….

Concerning the principle (Law) of Change:

Change itself is an illusion and a product of Local Aspect. Without the perception of linear time, change does not exist. As I mentioned in my previous post, many physicists and mystics propose time is an illusion and I agree with this proposition. By the perspective of Limitlessness we must accept the illusion of time and therefore the illusion of Change, since to not accept it is to place Limits upon the Unlimited. If Change is indeed a principle of the Local Aspect, then all Aspects of Tao co-exist at once without loss, change or diminishing in quality. Change, then, is manifested as the movement of mind through limited perspectives. Yin-Yang demonstrates this quality as well! Change, within Yin-Yang, occurs only in the Local Aspects, which is the interplay between Yin and Yang. This interplay is manifested as the function of separate minds in constant interplay and not a function of Tao from the Universal Aspect which is symbolized as Yin-Yang, not Yin “and” Yang! Therefore, Change only exists within the Local Aspect, but is illusory from the Universal Aspect.

As such, from the Universal Aspect, there is no expanding bubble of creation manifesting itself through constant change, this is a product of Local Perspective and demonstrates my point of the Limited Perspective of transcendental perceptions. The pursuit of transcendental perspectives is the pursuit of illusion. Transcendental experiences give the illusion of a comprehensive view, but are merely “A” different perspective, not “THE” Universal Perspective and confuse the mind with fantastic images and experiences falling short of a complete or comprehensive view. Limitation remains, even if we don’t perceive it. To be sure, transcendental experiences occur, but to attribute to them any extraordinary quality is to become attached to an illusion. Expanded perspectives do provide deeper understanding, but we still tend to become fixated on and attached to these new perspectives. It is not the change of perspective that permits true understanding but the elimination of our tendency to become attached and fixated to any particular view or perspective that traps us in illusion! Only “Thus-ness” or “Such-ness” mentioned in Buddhist thought exists from the Universal Perspective. It is something that cannot be defined or explained, where all opposites merge into paradox, where both and all co-exist at once unchanging in their constant change!!

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings...

Well, i suppose we must agree to disagree, Scott.. and, that's not a counter-productive situation.. in fact, it's exactly as it should be.. the simple fulfillment of a "motive".. through the variety of our local interpretations the non-local has a more complete perspective of itself.. One of my more profound mentors said, "the only "illusion" is to search elsewhere for what is within"..

We trifle with matters of Universal proportions, too often forgetting to live the experience in front of us.. As we differ in our perspectives, so too, we will differ in our expressions of living.. where you contrive limitations, i contrive none.. and, neither of us are "right" nor "wrong", we are simply perfect expressions of Tao.. we are perfect imperfections.. i will concede limitations as you state them as appropriately applied theory.. but, i will live without accepting limitation as controlling and give over to Tao its freedom to express, through me, its nature..

You seem concerned with my interpretation of a self-described experience.. i am not so concerned.. the experience was recounted as insight into my perspective, not as a link to truth.. from such experiences i intuit my perspective, i try not to contrive but allow Tao to express itself intuitively.. and, as previously admitted, any expression or communication of that intuition suffers the prejudices of physical limitations.. but, we each cultivate our values based on some standard of desirability or awareness.. each of us will yield to limitations of physical experience (unless we choose not to :) , Sorry, i just had to slip that in...).. Far from assuming the truth of my self-described experience, i simply add it to the compilation of my experiences and await intuition for appropriate guidance as to its usefulness... new or revised experiences are equally observed and logged for intuitive guidance.. I suppose that i should explain that, by my understanding, intuition represents an unsolicited insight, not previously contemplated or contrived.. sort of a by-pass of the aware mental processes, "hints from the Whole".. evidence of our unity with the cosmos.. My personal "motive" is as simple as it is difficult, to have, as close as possible, "unprejudiced" experiences across the broad range of human potential.. to whatever degree possible, to set no limitations.. if they exist i will let them reveal themselves accordingly (none, so far).. i will not contrive limitations as they are intuited as contrary to advancing my stated "motive".. Of course it will be appropriate to comment on the subtle relationships of motive intention and limitation, but.. it is what it is..

You express "freedom" as the ability to move between limits and limitless while asserting there is no ultimate "limitlessness".. i assert that the conceptualization of your scenario sets your experience consistent with your belief about it.. just as does mine.. the symbology of an "Amorphous Undefined Something" is a product of your own preferences and subject to your own manifestations.. while i see it as ripe with potential and possibility, it appears you see it as vague and without substance (i only opine based on interpretation, not intending to impose my own prejudices).. To introduce "limitless" and its implications to the communication and then limit it for purposes of supporting a particular perspective seems contradictory.. if you sense no actual condition of true limitlessness, abandon the symbology that implies otherwise ( to be more clear, it confuses me).. Sensing your thought pattern as evidenced here, i suppose you will use this as an example of my dual nature, my attachment to absolutes and the need to accept limits as defining limitlessness.. could be, but i will let that reveal itself through my own experience, unwilling to accept the description as the experience, i don't look at the map and assume i know the terrain.. necessary for that to occur, is that i leave open the possibility that it can occur.. that i set no predefined limits.. if it reveals itself, i adapt a revised perspective and move on.. I am not rejecting the notion of some ultimate structure or limited existence, i simply intuit no evidence of it..

I have greatly enjoyed this dialogue and anticipate further interaction.. i am honored that you continue to exchange insights and i am appreciative of the perspectives you have shared, they have given me pause to ponder and added to my own understandings of this marvelous existence.. <respectful bows>.. i had hoped for others to contribute, as well.. there are quite a few personalities on this forum that express interest in this level of contemplation, the more perspectives the better, i say...

Be well...

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi TaiChiBob,

Very well said, and with your characteristic grace as well!! I do have some concluding comments as well.

Understanding that my perceptions could be inaccurate, it was my conclusion that you arrived at your perception that reality is Unlimited via the following means: 1) It appears to be so from information gained through perceptions including, but not limited to transcendental experience, 2) Reports of authority! That is reading and study of the comments made by those who apparently had similar perceptions. These individuals would be those called, “The Masters” whoever they may be, Krishna, Buddha, Lao-Tzu, Christ, etc. It doesn’t matter really who they are.

The study of life has taught me a few things:


1) Interpretations of perceptions are possibly inaccurate!
2) Conclusions reached from reason are possibly inaccurate!
3) Therefore, we are unable to make fixed or definite statements about anything since we cannot be sure of our conclusion are based upon accurate information.(This is not to be applied to mundane assessments such as "fire is hot, water is wet, etc.", but to conclusions about reality.)

Interpretations of perceptions are possibly inaccurate because individuals project their own expectations, that is, preconceived notions, onto their experiences. All experiences are inherently pure and unadulterated, meaning they are what they are, which has been called, “THUSNESS”, but in the translation to meaning within the mind experience is transformed and limited by the worldview of the individual. Since we really have no way of knowing what all of our limitations are, (Limitations are by nature hidden or we would recognize them as limitations and presumably discard them.) we have no way of knowing which interpretation of our perceptions is accurate and which is inaccurate. Since we have difficulty determining what is accurate and what is inaccurate we cannot say with certainly that our interpretation of perceptions results in a true representation of reality. As long as we have a condition of perceiver/perceived all perceptions will be translated and therefore subject to inaccuracies, this also will apply anytime a perception is communicated regardless of the perceptive condition of the communicator.

Conclusions reached through the reasoning process are possibly inaccurate for two reasons: 1) the process of reasoning may be inaccurate; A) we may not know how to reason properly or, B) we may make an error in the process of reasoning. 2) Conclusions are based upon unprovable assumptions, if the assumptions are false the conclusion is inaccurate! Since we are unable to determine if an assumption is in fact True we are never able to really know if our conclusions are accurate!

So the questions arise:

1) How do we know our interpretations of perceptions are accurate?
2) How do we know the conclusions we arrive at through reasoning are accurate?

The answer is: We don’t!!

Therefore, we can never actually say anything DEFINITE about reality and we cannot actually say with any certainly whether experience is Limited or Unlimited.

In reference to conclusions reached from postings on a BB thread, I recommend caution! It is best to keep in mind that things are not always as they appear. In fact they are MOSTLY never as they appear! Think of hearing someone’s voice on the radio or on the phone. One day you meet the person and they do not match the image we have in our minds! The same applies to postings on a BB. We draw conclusions about one and other from narrow limited information that is filtered through our worldview. This rarely provides an accurate perception!

My method on this particular thread was purposeful. Perhaps some who participated by reading the course of our conversation noticed that our interplay appeared curiously like the interplay of Yin and Yang! When you made a comment, I countered with an opposite view. The interplay was dynamic and followed a certain pattern, yet still meandered from topic to topic like leaves in a stream. Our conversation had form, but was also somewhat formless! This was partially by design and partially the natural of course of the conversation.

I agree with Hui-Neng, 6th patriarch of Chan, who counseled, when talking about the Ulitmate…:

"Whenever a question is put to you, answer it in the negative if it is an affirmative one; and vice versa. If you are asked about an ordinary man, tell the enquirer something about a sage; and vice versa. From the correlation or interdependence of the two opposites the doctrine of the 'Mean' may be grasped. If all other questions are answered in this manner, you will not be far away from the truth. "Supposing someone asks you what is darkness, answer him thus: Light is the hetu (root condition) and darkness is the pratyaya (conditions which bring about any given phenomenon). When light disappears, darkness appears. The two are in contrast to each other. From the correlation or interdependence of the two the doctrine of the 'Mean' arises.

So it really mattered little which position you would have taken on anything I would have taken the opposite view. If you argue for Limitlessness, I will argue for Limit. If you had argued for Limit, I would have argued for Limitlessness, or any other view I found of interest to expound on. This is a process I purposefully engaged in with you because I find your postings interesting, insightful and enjoyable to read. I pursued the opportunity to engage you in conversation in order to learn and grow from your thoughts and to exercise my mind.

My actual view cannot truly be defined. I prefer to not have a fixed definition of anything, regardless of how it may appear in my writings. I play with words in an attempt to demonstrate concepts that are beyond words and to learn and grow. To me Tao is neither Limited, nor Limitless. Therefore, I may argue it is Limited in its Limitlessness or I may argue it is Limitless in its Limit-ness!! I behave in my life as if Tao is Limitless; however I recognize apparent limits everywhere. I attach no fixed or permanent opinion to either view. They each occur within a specific context and I allow for constant flexibility and change according to the circumstances and in light of new information.

Let us reprise my metaphor of the cups or water:

Let us say we have 3 cups of water.

One cup of water is 40*F, the second is 60*F and the third is 80*F.

The question arises, “Is the 60*F cup hot or cold?”

It is neither and both at the same time. On one hand it is merely a cup of water with an arbitrary measurement 60*F, but on the other hand we perceive or experience it as hot or cold depending upon which other cup it is contrasted with. It is warm when contrasted with the 40*F cup and cold when contrasted with the 80*F cup. Inherently it is neither; it takes on one characteristic or the other depending upon the context. The 60*F cup of water has no inherent properties without something to contrast it with. There is no cup, no water, and no temperature without other factors to contrast against them.

So Tao only has Limit if we can contrast it with Limitless and only had Limitlessness if we have Limit to contrast. I assert that Tao is not really any particularly thing at all it just IS, everything we perceive is in how we choose to contrast it. This principle is demonstrated by arguing apparent opposites. The goal is to illustrate the futility of drawing fixed distinctions in an effort stimulate direct experience over interpretation. This keeps our mind fluid and unattached to any fixed view allowing us to take in all things and coveting none.

I have thoroughly enjoyed playing with you and I look forward further interactions.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings...

You have communicated wisely, Scott.. and much as i had supposed.. i frequently employ the same strategies as your previous post suggests.. but, in this matter i did offer my best understanding of Tao.. though, i do act as you suggest, no fixed conclusions.. just current understandings.. I intend to employ some differing experiences over the next few weeks to further expand my awarenesses.. i hope we can continue this satisfying dialogue..

Be well..

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi TaiChiBob,

Thank you for the kind words!

I did surmise your postings were sincere, and truthfully now, I agree with most or all that you have communicated!

Thank you for accepting my actions in the good nature I intended. I am looking forward to reading your future posts!!