Tao

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.