[ Tao Speaks ]

Latest Tao Te Ching, Chapter One Interpretaion Posted by Thrice Great on 8/1/2008, 12:15 pm 198.65.166.X Knowledge is the Source of Man’s Salvation, Absolutely Good Knowledge, with the duplicitous Nature of Absolutely Bad Knowledge, the dual, guileful, the deceptive Nature of the dual quality of the Knowledge of Good and Evil being the cause of the down fall of man, the Greatest cause of all suffering. Man having be born dumber than a rock, a rock even knowing how to follow the Way of heaven, must learn how to Tao, Reason, properly if Man is to become more than a Mere Animal. It is not reasonable to Speak of the Knowledge of Reality as being born of a single source, of Tao, Reason alone, as being born of the Mind alone, Spiritualism, and those that do are not speaking of the Absolute, the whole, the Complete, Way, Spirit, Nature of Tao, Reason. Neither the usefulness nor the Knowledge of Reality itself being born of Monergism, Tao, Reason along, Spirituality. Tao, Reason, must be spoken of using two different Terms, Names; Reason not only requiring one to be Rational but also sensible. Simply put, in order to Tao, Reason, Properly, to be Reasonable, One must also be Sensible, have an Empirical Sense of Reality. The Two as One, Mystery upon Mystery, being reasonable being the Gate Way to Manifold Secrets of the World of Reality  Post a Response

an alternate interpretation Posted by Steve on 8/1/2008, 1:36 pm, in reply to "Latest Tao Te Ching, Chapter One Interpretaion" 69.140.59.X You know lots of stuff, but you can't talk about all of it. What you perceive outside of your senses and your rationality, you can't talk about. You can try, but you'll sound like an idiot. What you perceive through your senses and your rationality, you can talk about. There are two ways of observing things. (1) Through your senses, your rationality, your desires, your longings, your neediness--including your need to get it 'right.' This way is nice, but understand that what you get this way is more desiring, more longing, more neediness to get it 'right.' There is no problem with getting more of those things, however. None whatsoever. (2) Outside your senses, your rationality, your desires, your longings, your neediness. This way is also nice. The circuitry for observing in this way is already in your brain. It's your birthright as a human being. It runs in the background all the time, 24/7. Just look. It's there. As close to you as your nose is to your face. You can't really talk about what you see this way. Trying can be fun, however. Here's the thing: You can observe in both ways at the same time. That you can observe in both ways at the same time is a great mystery. Portal to unspeakable bliss.  Post a Response

die,mad robots, die Posted by OM MAHAVAIROCANA HUM on 8/1/2008, 2:29 pm, in reply to "Latest Tao Te Ching, Chapter One Interpretaion" 149.254.201.X You are, of course, both wrong and right but in equal measure. The pathless cannot be followed. The nameless cannot be named. The source is a mystery. The mystery cannot be rationalised or desired for there is nothing to grasp. Now, get over your selves.  Post a Response

Re: die,mad robots, die Posted by Steve on 8/1/2008, 3:08 pm, in reply to "die,mad robots, die" 69.140.59.X : You are, of course, both wrong and right but : in equal measure. The pathless cannot be : followed. The nameless cannot be named. The : source is a mystery. The mystery cannot be : rationalised or desired for there is nothing : to grasp. Now, get over your selves. ---------------------- "Now, get over your selves." Getting over one's self = death. Why do you want my friend Wayne and me to die?  Post a Response

Re: an alternate interpretation Posted by Thrice Great on 8/1/2008, 4:15 pm, in reply to "an alternate interpretation" 198.65.166.X --Previous Message-- : You know lots of stuff, but you can't talk : about all of it. : : What you perceive outside of your senses and : your rationality, you can't talk about. You : can try, but you'll sound like an idiot. : : What you perceive through your senses and : your rationality, you can talk about. : : There are two ways of observing things. : : (1) Through your senses, your rationality, : your desires, your longings, your : neediness--including your need to get it : 'right.' : : Portal to unspeakable bliss. As the process of Rationalization issues forth from a single Source, the Rational Mind, said Rationalization is given two different Names, definitions, Meanings. The Single Word Rationalization, having two different meanings, is ambiguous when taken out of context. Usage of the Word Rationalization. Although RATIONALIZE retains its principal 19th-century senses “to make conformable to reason” and “to treat in a rational manner,” 20th-century psychology has given it the now more common meaning “to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that seem reasonable but actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious causes.” Although the possibility of ambiguity exists, the context will usually make clear which sense is intended. It is possible for conclusion born of Reason to not be reasonable, to be irrational. In order for a conclusion to be reasonable it must be base upon empirical evidence, must be sensible. It is not sensible, Reasonable, to base your Rationality upon Reason alone. You can not speak of the Nameless, the Knowledge of Reality base upon reason alone, Unless you speak in Tongues, the Use of Metaphors is the only way to speak of Realities that have no Substance, no material substance, that are not readily apparent, Universal in Nature such as a Rose, Realities that are not measurable as to momentum and Location in Time and Space. You can not present a qualified argument without understanding the ubiquity of the Word Rationalize. Ratioalize 1. to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes. 2. to remove unreasonable elements from. 3. to make rational or conformable to reason. 4. to treat or explain in a rational or rationalistic manner. 5. Math. to eliminate radicals from (an equation or expression): to rationalize the denominator of a fraction. 6. Chiefly Brit. to reorganize and integrate (an industry). –v.i. 7. to invent plausible explanations for acts, opinions, etc., that are actually based on other causes: He tried to prove that he was not at fault, but he was obviously rationalizing. 8. to employ reason; think in a rational or rationalistic manner. —Usage. Although RATIONALIZE retains its principal 19th-century senses “to make conformable to reason” and “to treat in a rational manner,” 20th-century psychology has given it the now more common meaning “to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that seem reasonable but actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious causes.” Although the possibility of ambiguity exists, the context will usually make clear which sense is intended.  Post a Response

Re: die,mad robots, die Posted by OM MAHAVAIROCANA HUM on 8/1/2008, 4:22 pm, in reply to "Re: die,mad robots, die" 149.254.201.X Fortunately, for all involved, and to echo TTC 1, you can't take it literally. Well, you can but you can't if you get my drift.  Post a Response

Re: an alternate interpretation - and another Posted by Nina on 8/1/2008, 6:48 pm, in reply to "an alternate interpretation" 71.106.39.X Okay, I'll toss my hat into the ring on this one. Here's what I get out of it: Commentary: 1 ~ What is Dao? A common question people ask when they hear about Dao is "What is Dao?" People tend to think that if they can explain and categorize everything in the world, they can get rid of doubts. Scientists have come up with names for every function including nuclear physics. Botanists have named every plant on this earth, and biologists have named every part of the body. By giving everything a name in an effort to simplify trying to deal with life, they've also eliminated the wonderful experience of dwelling in mysteries. -Dao may be accepted as "Dao", but that would conflict with the constant motion of Dao. -A name may be accepted as a "Name", but that would conflict with the constant motion of what's been given a name. People even attempt to explain Dao by giving it a name, and Laozi provided a name for it. Since we live in a world where words are used to express feelings and thoughts, we have no choice but to use words when trying to communicate with each other. However, any name is static (non-moving). Even though we use the word "Dao" for something that's intangible, we must remember Dao isn't something that can be labeled or placed into a test tube and analyzed. It's constantly changing it's form and shape, just like people are constantly changing their attitudes and emotions; like any living thing changes from one day to the next. -Everything started out without needing to be named or categorized. -When they were seen as things that needed to be nurtured, they were then given names. Before anything comes into existence (or becomes apparent to our conscious mind) there's no need to give it a name, create a descriptive word for it, or try to consciously understand what it is. The first time you saw an unusual animal or plant, it seemed incredibly mysterious. Your first reaction might have been to appreciate its beauty, then someone explained to you what its name was and what species it belonged to. Didn't some of the wonder and awe evaporate once you had a "name" for it? Sometimes it's delightful to simply appreciate things without trying to analyze or categorize them. However, in order for us to communicate our thoughts to each other and to discuss various methods of dealing with objects and experiences in life, we have to create words and give names to things. -Therefore: -When we're in the frame of mind of not wanting anything, we look at even the smallest things as being significant.
 -When we're in the frame of mind of wanting things, we observe boundaries and limits. If you don't have any desire to categorize Dao into a specific concept within your own mind, then you could see Dao in even the smallest, most insignificant thing. Your mind could play endlessly with the possibilities of what it could actually represent. If you have a strong desire to categorize Dao, then you'd always be looking for things that couldn't possibly contain Dao. This poses an either/or attitude. Either you'd want to see Dao in everything, or you'd want to discover its limitations. -Both of those attitudes can fit together with each other, even though they're thought to be quite different. Most people would think that striving for understanding and abandoning understanding are opposites, but Laozi seems to be suggesting there's no reason to constantly remain in one frame of mind or the other. It's possible to utilize and appreciate both sides of the coin. -Trying to fit them together is said to be one of the most profound mysteries. -That's the doorway to even more mysteries. Yes, it can cause a lot of confusion in our minds when we try to see both sides of the coin and find how each side can be beneficial to our lives. It requires our minds to find a new way of "seeing" that we probably haven't tried before. This new way of "seeing" is like a doorway to the unknown. Each day can bring new mysteries - some of them can be solved, and others are meant to remain unsolved. Instead of becoming frustrated and anxious about trying to reach conclusions in a hurry, letting the natural changes happening all round you and within you occur on their own can seem very mysterious to a mind that's been trained to analyze everything.

 Is there an answer to the question: "What is Dao?"
 Maybe what Laozi is suggesting is that we can each come up with many answers to that question, but as long as we don't lose sight of the mystery surrounding Dao or make determinations that we've come up with definitive unchanging answers, we can move as freely as Dao does. We can exchange words about it, delight in our various interpretations, then smile comfortably with the reassurance of the mystery.  Post a Response

Re: die,mad robots, die Posted by Nina on 8/1/2008, 6:54 pm, in reply to "die,mad robots, die" 71.106.39.X --Previous Message-- : You are, of course, both wrong and right but : in equal measure. The pathless cannot be : followed. The nameless cannot be named. The : source is a mystery. The mystery cannot be : rationalised or desired for there is nothing : to grasp. Now, get over your selves. : I don't think we have to get over ourselves, Lian Dao. I mean....... I don't think I have to get over my self. My self is what allows me to have this delightful experience I call life. I agree with most of what you said though. I just think there's a way to incorporate everything you said into what makes my life so enjoyable. Maybe others don't feel that way, and they're looking for something else to make them feel more...... IDK.... secure? Shake, rattle and roll.... -Nina  Post a Response

Re: die,mad robots, die Posted by OM MAHAVAIROCANA HUM on 8/2/2008, 6:01 am, in reply to "Re: die,mad robots, die" 149.254.192.X And you are perfectly within your scope to think like that. If you need the TTC to validate that view then that too is perfectly fine. When all is said and done the TTC was the result of a private conversation between an old librarian and a border guard. You have been, you are and you will be a multitude of different selves. Why should one be better than another?  Post a Response

double vision Posted by Steve on 8/2/2008, 8:47 am, in reply to "Re: die,mad robots, die" 69.140.59.X : You have been, you are and you will be a : multitude of different selves. Why should one : be better than another? -------------------------- I know I'm projecting onto others when I say things like this, but your practice, Lian Dao, seems to reflect the dual way of seeing that for me is the core of Chapter One. You read and adhere to Buddhist texts and orthodoxies, though I suspect you sense that their 'supremacy' derives from your desire, your longing, to find the 'supreme' text and the 'optimal' practice. The ones that get it 'right.' At the same time, you recognize (or at least I think you do) the absurdity and egocentricity of claiming that one's practice is superior to someone else's. But this doesn't stop you (nor should it, imo) from calling yourself a Buddhist. You see it two ways, at the same time. "Here I have found something of great value." and yet "Why trust one book more than another?"  Post a Response

Why is Chuang Tsu laughing at the moon Posted by Lian Dao on 8/2/2008, 9:04 am, in reply to "double vision" 149.254.201.X Steve, we reside, much of the time, in a dualistic world. As such we are limited by the vagaries of language, which i enjoy playing with anyway to amuse myself and to toy with the limits of that duality. Because of that duality you, although maybe not a professed Taoist, consider Lao Tsu and Chuang Tsu to be the more valuable to you than my Siddartha Gautama, in which i find enough value in to warrant me as a professed Buddhist. So why aren't you a Buddhist?  Post a Response

Re: Why is Chuang Tsu laughing at the moon Posted by Steve on 8/2/2008, 10:00 am, in reply to "Why is Chuang Tsu laughing at the moon" 69.140.59.X : Steve, we reside, much of the time, in a : dualistic world. As such we are limited by : the vagaries of language, which i enjoy : playing with anyway to amuse myself and to : toy with the limits of that duality. Because : of that duality you, although maybe not a : professed Taoist, consider Lao Tsu and : Chuang Tsu to be the more valuable to you : than my Siddartha Gautama, in which i find : enough value in to warrant me as a professed : Buddhist. So why aren't you a Buddhist? -------------------- Some words resonate with us stronger than others. The words of Laozi resonate particularly strongly with me. Do I consider Laozi 'The Anointed One'? Nah. Do I view his message as radically different than the message of Gautauma Buddha? Nah. Do I think Laozi or Gautauma Buddha knew one goddamn thing that you, I and the rest of humankind don't know? Nah. No hoops to jump through. No obstacles. Clear sailing ahead. That, I think, is why Chuang Tsu is laughing at the moon.  Post a Response

Live, self, live Posted by Nina on 8/2/2008, 11:15 am, in reply to "Re: die,mad robots, die" 71.106.9.X --Previous Message-- : And you are perfectly within your scope to : think like that. If you need the TTC to : validate that view then that too is : perfectly fine. When all is said and done : the TTC was the result of a private : conversation between an old librarian and a : border guard. You have been, you are and you : will be a multitude of different selves. Why : should one be better than another? : Did I say I needed the DDJ to validate my view? Nah. It's just nice to come across someone (or some book) that seems to have many of the same feelings I do. Doesn't make it "right". I agree that I'll always keep changing in some ways. All my various selves serve a purpose. But there's a "core" (for lack of a better word) that I keep coming back to that's where the "glow" lives. So, in a sense, that part of my self IS better than the others. The more I return to it and spend time there, the more delightful my dance is. Do you feel that kind of delight when you're in that place...... or don't you feel there is a "core" you? Or none of the above? -Nina  Post a Response

lose your self Posted by Lian Dao on 8/2/2008, 2:22 pm, in reply to "Live, self, live" 149.254.192.X A core? A nucleus around which the selves gravitate? Why, of course. It's called a comfort-zone and everybody has one. :-l  Post a Response

Re: an alternate interpretation Posted by Steve on 8/2/2008, 2:51 pm, in reply to "Re: an alternate interpretation" 69.140.59.X : It is not sensible, Reasonable, to base your : Rationality upon Reason alone. : : You can not speak of the Nameless, the : Knowledge of Reality base upon reason alone, : Unless you speak in Tongues, the Use of : Metaphors is the only way to speak of : Realities that have no Substance, no : material substance, that are not readily : apparent, Universal in Nature such as a : Rose, Realities that are not measurable as : to momentum and Location in Time and Space. -------------------- Yes. Of course, Wayne. I fear I'm beginning to understand you. All my babblings are merely that. Babblings. Of course I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. And you don't know what the hell you're talking about. And Laozi didn't know what the hell he was talking about (which is why, I think, he is said to have been hesitant to talk about it). But it's fun to babble about these things, don't you think?  Post a Response

Re: lose your self Posted by Nina on 8/2/2008, 7:46 pm, in reply to "lose your self" 71.106.20.X --Previous Message-- : A core? A nucleus around which the selves : gravitate? Why, of course. It's called a : comfort-zone and everybody has one. :-l : A comfort zone? No, I don't think that's what I'm talking about. Some people can find a comfort zone sitting on the couch eating chips and watching the Simpsons. That's more like looking for ways to evade (avoid?) finding what makes you dance. The "core" I'm talking about can be very uncomfortable at times. When you find that things you used to think were valuable aren't worth a hill of beans, it can create lots of "dark nights of the soul" (as Raymond calls them). Then you can decide whether you want to go back to the comfort zone or open the door to mystery. Is there a Buddhist equivalent to Laozi's concept of the delight of mystery? -Nina  Post a Response

Re: find your self Posted by Lian Dao on 8/2/2008, 11:53 pm, in reply to "Re: lose your self" 149.254.201.X Why? Are you thinking of becoming a Buddhist? Hold on while i get the forms. . .  Post a Response

have no head Posted by Lian Dao on 8/3/2008, 12:39 pm, in reply to "Re: lose your self" 149.254.192.X Sorry (again) Nina. You've found your gateway to mystery in Lao Tsu and Chuang Tsu, you've no need to find its equivalent in Buddhism. Besides if you were really that interested you'd find it yourself.  Post a Response

Re: have no head Posted by Nina on 8/3/2008, 1:20 pm, in reply to "have no head" 71.106.32.X --Previous Message-- : Sorry (again) Nina. You've found your gateway : to mystery in Lao Tsu and Chuang Tsu, you've : no need to find its equivalent in Buddhism. : Besides if you were really that interested : you'd find it yourself. : That's cool. I was just wondering how you found mystery in Buddhism - or if you did? I tend to stay from -isms now. I spent years involved in Buddhism, as well as lots of other -isms. I'm more interested in Lian Dao than an -ism. -Nina  Post a Response

trees scream Posted by Lian Dao on 8/3/2008, 1:49 pm, in reply to "Re: have no head" 149.254.192.X Then why didn't you say so? To be honest the 'mystery' for Lian Dao and his Buddhism can be boiled down into just one word. Ready? Amitofo! Nothing more, nothing less. Please don't be too harsh on the fig tree. i can't sleep at night after cutting grass. How was the earthquake by the way? England had one last year. i survived three days in the rubble on half a can of diet generic cola before my rescue.  Post a Response

Re: trees scream Posted by Nina on 8/3/2008, 9:42 pm, in reply to "trees scream" 71.106.17.X --Previous Message-- : Then why didn't you say so? To be honest the : 'mystery' for Lian Dao and his Buddhism can : be boiled down into just one word. Ready? : Amitofo! Nothing more, nothing less. Please : don't be too harsh on the fig tree. i can't : sleep at night after cutting grass. How was : the earthquake by the way? England had one : last year. i survived three days in the : rubble on half a can of diet generic cola : before my rescue. : I know. I really really tried to save the tree. I dug it up as carefully as I could, put it in a pot with dirt, watered it and set it out in front of my house with a sign: Free Fig Tree. It's still out there with wilting leaves. Crying over a tree? I'm hopeless, huh? The earthquake was fantastic! I was sitting at my computer after a good night of rockin' and it felt like an aftershock of the night before. :-) Just made me a little nauseous. I didn't think you had earthquakes (or racoons) in England? :-0 Amitofo - does that translate as "blessings"? -Nina P.S. Sorry you haven't gotten my other emails.  Post a Response

Re: lustful trees... Posted by Fastovsky on 8/3/2008, 10:32 pm, in reply to "Re: trees scream" 66.15.76.X Totally off the point, but... I was once reading Baktivedanta Prabhupadha (Yes, THAT Baktivedanta Prabhupada), and he said that trees were "full of lust." Unfortunately, there was nothing in the index to clue me in on that, and it seemed a bit odd as i've always seen trees as being rather sedate. I wonder if anyone else has tripped over this idea... By-the-way, i got a good jolt from the earthquake, a "moderate" one, according to the experts. The building swayed and groaned, but nothing fell off the shelves. I did decide that it might be time to get out of bed and get dressed. (It was 11:30 a.m.) For a brief time, it reminded me of just how transient life can be, as if the mere fact of living in Los Angeles was not already a constant reminder.  Post a Response

Re: lustful trees... Posted by Steve on 8/4/2008, 7:37 am, in reply to "Re: lustful trees..." 69.140.59.X : ...and he said that trees were "full of : lust." Unfortunately, there was nothing : in the index to clue me in on that, and it : seemed a bit odd as i've always seen trees : as being rather sedate. : I wonder if anyone else has tripped over : this idea... --------------------- Yes. Trees are full of lust. They're seductive (ask the birds), sensuous (nuts, cones, and the like), and they ooze sap. Now really...what's more lustful than oozing?  Post a Response

Re: Why is Chuang Tsu laughing at the moon Posted by Thrice Great on 8/4/2008, 8:55 am, in reply to "Re: Why is Chuang Tsu laughing at the moon" 168.143.117.X --Previous Message-- : : No hoops to jump through. No obstacles. : : Clear sailing ahead. : : That, I think, is why Chuang Tsu is laughing : at the moon. And what is the smiling Buddha smiling at? Chuang Tsu is not laughing at the Moon! By the Light of the Silvery Moon!!!!! Moon Light, the Second Great Light, having been separated out from in between Night and Day when the First Great Light, Source of enlightenment, was separate, when the Sun was separated from the Night, The Sun having been Created to rule the Day, the Material World of Reality, Reality as seen in the Light of Day. Moon Light the Second Great Light, Twice Light, having been Created to Rule the Darkness, The Twilight Zone, the Darkest Corners of the Mind. Chaung Tsu is laughing, smiling, happy, Joyful, because of the Reflective Radiance, the warm, cheerful brightness of Moon Light, because of his contemplative, dreamily, wistful thought given to, marked by, or concerned with meditation or deliberation. Into the Light!!!  Post a Response

Re: lustful trees... Posted by Thrice Great on 8/4/2008, 9:12 am, in reply to "Re: lustful trees..." 168.143.117.X Some believe that Lust, desire, is the original Sin, Lust being born of the Eating of the Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, the Knowledge of Duality, the Duality, the Singularity of Good and Evil: Guilefulness, Duplicity being the Way, the Spirit, the Nature of a Lustful, Sinful, Person.  Post a Response

Amitofo! Posted by Lian Dao on 8/4/2008, 2:32 pm, in reply to "Re: trees scream" 149.254.192.X Sorry about that Nina. That email provider i formerly used was a relic from the Cold War, based as it was in the former headquarters of the Romanian secret police. It has now ceased to transmit. As to English earthquakes, we get a discernable one every twenty years or so. Last year's was so bad it set off a car alarm in Birmingham. Harrowing stuff.  Post a Response

tree got wood Posted by Lian Dao on 8/5/2008, 12:55 pm, in reply to "Re: lustful trees..." 149.254.192.X Norse mythology, again, and this time the first humans Askr and Embla were carved from trees and given life by the gods Odhinn, Vili and Veh. After Ragnarokr, the end of this particular world-cycle, the next first humans Lif and Lifthrasir will emerge from the world-tree Yggdrasil.  Post a Response

Re: tree got wood Posted by Steve on 8/5/2008, 1:45 pm, in reply to "tree got wood" 69.140.59.X : Norse mythology, again, and this time the : first humans Askr and Embla were carved from : trees and given life by the gods Odhinn, : Vili and Veh. After Ragnarokr, the end of : this particular world-cycle, the next first : humans Lif and Lifthrasir will emerge from : the world-tree Yggdrasil. ------------------- Pretty obvious why there are no Norse mega-churches here in the U.S. You've got to be able to spell the names of your gods and saviors. "Odhinn, Vili and Veh" ...nah. The old ladies wouldn't go for it.  Post a Response

Re: tree got wood Posted by Lian Dao on 8/5/2008, 1:52 pm, in reply to "Re: tree got wood" 149.254.200.X i've said it before, and i'll no doubt say it again, why trust one god and not another?  Post a Response

Re: tree got wood Posted by Steve on 8/5/2008, 2:11 pm, in reply to "Re: tree got wood" 69.140.59.X : i've said it before, and i'll no doubt say it : again, why trust one god and not another? --------------- And I've already answered that for you, Lian Dao, many many times. The answer, once again: Because your god is not the creation of a clarity-obscuring-monstrously-deceptive-and-in-need-of-calming Ego. The other guy's...is.  Post a Response

can't see the wood for the trees Posted by Lian Dao on 8/5/2008, 2:46 pm, in reply to "Re: tree got wood" 149.254.192.X If you'd have written it out so succinctly in the first place then i wouldn't have had to keep asking brother Steve.  Post a Response

     «Back to thread

"The Tao is basically utterly open. Utter openeness has no substance. It ends in endlessness, begins in beginninglessnes".
-Li Daoqun ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Webmaster: zentao00@yahoo.com