Tao

[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!!