Tao

[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!! 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.