I will make this as simple as I can. Will someone please explain Taoism to me in laymans terms. Or is that possible? I don't consider myself a shallow person, but yet I can't comprehend the Tao Te Ching. Alot of unspoken words are a play.

Tao Te Ching (or: Daode Jing) means in the common translation: "The Book of the Way and the Power/Virtue".

When you read it, don't try to understand it! My suggestion is that you just read it... absorb it, and lets its poetry reveal its own beauty.

The Book can and have been interpreted in many ways - it's not something that has one final and absolute meaning.

Regarding Taoism... I'd describe it as seeking the art of living, and living with balance and harmony. Do note that the Tao Te Ching does not contain any commandments or orders, like the Christian Bible or Moslem Qu'ran does, but it does contain a lot of recommandations and anecdotes, i guess you can call them that.

I have personally had a very much enlightenment and enjoyment from reading various versions of TTC. I think it is awsomely simple and beautiful in its composition and messages.

Remember, dont read this is a scientific textbook. Absorb it... gently!

Djsupreme23 is right. the Tao te ching is more about an attitude to life, going with the flow, umm, not thinking too much and not not thinking too much. Its hard to explain, read some comentaries on it, but always come back to the original text, and try some different translations, some are somehow better than others even though it can be hard to say how.

It can be difficult for the western mind to comprehend Taoism. We need everything to be defined precisely, and find it hard to read between the lines. The first line of the Tao te ching is something like: The Tao that can be told is not the true tao. This means that although we may describe its effects, the real tao remains undefinable. In a way, it is sort of like a godly spirit in everything, but it is not separate, it is sort of coded into the very fabric of reality. It is impartial, and both soft and powerful, like water. The more we act in accord with it, using its presence in us as a guide, the more we flourish. Thats about the best I can do right now...hope it helps.

Once upon a time, a young fish asked an old fish: "Everyone talks about this thing they call 'ocean.' What the heck is it?"

The older and wiser fish answered: "The ocean is this thing that surrounds you on all sides."

The younger fish didn't understand: "There's nothing around me! Why can I not see this 'ocean?'"

"Of course you cannot," the old fish was patient. "The ocean is both inside and outside of you. You were born in the ocean and chances are you will die in it. The ocean flows around you, just as your own skin does."

Confucius once said, "Fish forget they live in water; people forget they live in the Tao." We all live in the ocean of Tao. It flows over us; it is within us and all around us. It enfolds us like our own skin, and yet we cannot perceive it... indeed, most of us have no idea what it is. Let us think of Tao as the universal flow of reality. This will take us another step toward true understanding of Tao.

Source: Tao Stories (http://www.greattao.org/english/2002-05.htm)

Daoism is strongly reductionist. The very first words of the Dao de Jing warn that words cannot convey the very truth the book is attempting to convey. So I can say that the central theme of Daoism is that "all things are one", but even that is inadequate since the concept of "all things" itself detracts from the expression of the theme. Much of Daoist thought is like this. In my study of it I found myself moving in a steadily decreasing spiral until the only realistic expression I could make about Daoism was a mindful silence.

I've been trying to understand Daoism for some time now and I find it quite difficult. The problem being the various different approaches to translating the Daode Jing due to the ambiguity of the Chinese languages, some might say the essence of the Dao is reflected in the Chinese language, heavily Subtractive as opposed to Additive as most western philosphies might seem. Mainly my confusion probably lies within this phraze ''trying to understand Daoism''.

On translations of the Ta Te Ching(Daode Jing) I think I am soon going to totaly dismiss the translation Aleister Crowley has provided mainly due to his questionable morality and the Seemingly perverted use of the Concept of 'Do what thou willt, and that shall be the whole of the law'. He seems to mean 'Do whatever you want' :D Drugs, women, men, anything.
But I like his poetic approach as opposed to the dry, scholarly (and often Westernly biased(Christianity, etc.)) that most translations are, does anyone know of a good translation that is not too scholarly and also not too perverted?

I've found that reading Crowley, and then forgetting most of it, is the best way to go ;)

I read it first with an open/blank mind, where I didn't try to analyze it too much or apply the messages. The second time I went went through it trying to apply the messages to what I was seeing around my life. I found parts of it to be applicable to politics, business ethics, and general living.

One section I thought dealt with the US presidential elections almost perfectly, 66:
"How does the sea become the king of all streams?/ Because it lies lower than they!/ Hence it is the king of all streams./ Therefore, the Sage reigns over the pople by humbling himself in speech;/ And leads the people by putting himself behind./ Thus it is that when a Sage stand above the poeple, they do not feel the heaviness of his weight;/ And when he stands in front of the people, they do not feel hurt./ Therefore all the world is glad to push him forward without getting tired of him./ Just becase he strives with nobody,/ Nobody can ever strive with him.

from John C. H. Wu's trans.

There's a difference between a sage and an idiot.

Except that I think that "applying" the Tao te ching to things isnt quite right.

Yea I know that, but I'm incappable of learning it.

Dont focus on "learning". Just read it... grab a bottle of beer, tea, and a slice of good pizza, kick back and just read it. You get the idea.

The idea is that their is no idea.
Read a book by Ayn Rand

Originally posted by grazzhoppa
Yea I know that, but I'm incappable of learning it.

That sort of self -defeating, self-immolating attitute is exactly what they are preaching. With that attitude, i would say that you dont need to learn anything that you havent learned already.
Dont think,dont do, be nice to everyone, STAGNATE.

"travel only along used trails"
dont create. Dont do.

I, once upon a time, read the book seriously. Now i read it as a joke, and to enforce exactly what Ayn Rand has said on the topic.
Self-immolation and stagnation.

"I, once upon a time, read the book seriously. Now i read it as a joke"

Whilst that is fair comment on teh Tao te ching,

"and to enforce exactly what Ayn Rand has said on the topic.
Self-immolation and stagnation."

That isnt.
You clearly have decided the way you look at things is different from the way teh tao te ching suggests.

Tao-ism has a light touch. A Taoist person tends to be flexible, faster in the moment, smoother. Jonathon Livingston Seagull moved a single feather sometimes to achieve his desired goal of flying in one passage.

Tao-ism tends to be very clear for me. Tao-ism reminds me of simple judo; it's easy to step aside if a blow is coming and observe rather than to confront the blow right away.

Tao-ism can be very outgoing. The "Te" in Tao Te Ching means virtue, according to The Te of Piglet by Benjamin Hoff. So, combining the above 3 paragraphs, virtuous action should be outgoing and flexible to the moment.

Zen koans don't speak to me, usually, and if in a bad mood, a koan appears snobbish when the Zen master rebukes a student.

Tao-ism reminds me of simple judo; it's easy to step aside if a blow is coming and observe rather than to confront the blow right away.

Sidestepping is difficult if someone grabs hold of you; this was the doctrine of Carolus Magnus. He made a lot of people into Christians by threatening to kill them.

The Tao Te Ching is a very small book, and there are several excellent translations. I like the one by Stephan Mitchell. It could not be said better, or explained in terms more suitable for the laymen. If there is a particular passage to be explained, maybe I can help, but the whole thing is a work of philosophical art, and is irreducible. It may require a lifetime of contemplation to understand, or an instant, whatever way is more appropriate to you.

I would sujest read a passage a day.
It's for understanding not conquer.

Yes Spider Goat, the translation from Stephen Mitchell is by far the best one, hands down. IMO.
Beutiful.
Taoism definitely broadened my experience of life.
Those were definitely some memorable times of self discovery.

The Tao is the way. The way things are.
How you live your life. How your neighbor lives his.
How all of us live.
The way of things, the way of the universe.
It's what happens.
It's what's happening.
Right now.
Before you.
Through you.
It is you.
And me.
It is all.
It is one.
It is many.
Its everything.
Its not a thought,
it's an experience.

The Tao Te Ching has come to me as meaning" The way of change".
Tao= The way
Te= Virtue
Ching= Change
From the book The "I Ching", Book of Changes.

I would suggest Learning the Way of Reason.
But thats just my opinion.
Enjoy your life.
Be awesome!

To what exent is Daoism a teleological world view?

To what extent does Daoism presuppose a Supernatural?

For one, spell it correctly for crying out loud!!!!!!!!
Yah ,I know it's dumb.
And for another, what the hell are you talking about????!!!!!
In laymens or your own terms please.
O.K., I'll look up teleoolgical......O.K.
What's it's end goal?
There is no end goal.
It's living now, working with nature, observings its laws, simplicity.
Living the path of least resistance.
Letting go of all resistance within and without.
It describes "you" as the way.
It's the experience of being alive.
It is the Eternal Now.

As for super natural, there is none of that either.
It is totaly this world here.
Nothing super about it.
It's as glorious or simple as you perceive it.Or both.

Daoism is an alternate spelling.

Dao...Da a a o
Dao light comes and me want to go home.

Hmm. Taoism...a way of showing you what is past your own mind, concepts, ideas, illusions, and the reality and manner of being that would emerge from having a mind pure of deceptions.

hmm. Taoism...a way of showing you the beauty of a yesemina

LOL! Why, thank you Hathor. How nice of you. :D

yesemina, how does Taoism show you this?

To you tao is everything that isn't you.

To someone else, you are part of the tao.

It is the complement of being. It is all that cannot be known.

(noting that what we have of our experience is sensory... it's an abstract reflection of the thing... but it cannot be the actual thing)

I think that Taoism in a nutshell is being mindful of the tao.

noting that what we have of our experience is sensory

those are fighting words in this subforum, brother wes.
perhaps a reminder of one of the basic tenets of e phil would be in order..

Yoga is the art of accepting, understanding, and even appreciating the seven senses, and then transcending them to give us a glimpse of the Beyond.

In our daily life, of course, the seven senses are essential in order to live and function in the world. They are not to be denied or suppressed. But in the process of Pratyahara, they are temporarily put to one side so that we can ‘see’ beyond them.

pratayahara (http://www.mandalayoga.net/index.php?rub=newsletter_en&p=7senses)

it is an experience not easily communicable.

it's an abstract reflection of the thing... but it cannot be the actual thing)

direct cognition refers to the lack of a mediator. that is, the gross senses do not come b/w you, the knower, and the known. in essense, you are tao.

alas, i merely parrot the sages as i (like you), have only abstractions. ;)
yet i have had a glimpse [:rolleyes:] of what could be so.....i am curious. have you meditated? if so, details?

yese, wanna come over and see my tao?

noting that what we have of our experience is sensory

those are fighting words in this subforum, brother wes.
perhaps a reminder of one of the basic tenets of e phil would be in order..

Yoga is the art of accepting, understanding, and even appreciating the seven senses, and then transcending them to give us a glimpse of the Beyond.

In our daily life, of course, the seven senses are essential in order to live and function in the world. They are not to be denied or suppressed. But in the process of Pratyahara, they are temporarily put to one side so that we can ‘see’ beyond them.

pratayahara (http://www.mandalayoga.net/index.php?rub=newsletter_en&p=7senses)

it is an experience not easily communicable.

it's an abstract reflection of the thing... but it cannot be the actual thing)

direct cognition refers to the lack of a mediator. that is, the gross senses do not come b/w you, the knower, and the known. in essense, you are tao.

alas, i merely parrot the sages as i (like you), have only abstractions.
yet i have had a glimpse [] of what could be so.....i am curious. have you meditated? if so, details?

oh thank you, some of it reminds me of this subject (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26421), but that's one step added to what you already brought up

staying on topic...I'm really starting to like the whole idea on Daoism, but I feel a bit awkward when the nitty and gritty of what the Dao is begins with a simple idea and everything else begins to sound pretty thought out and then it comes back to the simple idea. Isn't the essential "truth" of things (for lack of a better term) just plain incommunicable? Help me out on this please, I really must change into a better train of logic. :confused:

Essential truth can't be told, but lesser truths can. Its up to you to read between the lines. Daoism uses intuition rather than logic.

I'd say it also uses a great deal of external logic - taking logic to its extreme ends. its very extreme ends. beyond where war and hatered matter, beyond where even you and I matter. my opinion, of course.

As I understand it, Taoism is really all sorts of things to all sorts of people. Which is OK, because it is all-encompassing. And it is nothing at all.

The Tao Te Jing is both a poetic depiction of a philosophy and a guide to proper ruling. As a philosophy it tends towards self-negation and openness toward the "natural" course of things. As a guide to ruling, it attempts to apply these principles to help keep rulers focussed on the people they are responsible for rather than the power they wield.

The gist of many Taoist texts is the attempt to achieve a state of emotional detachment that I do find a bit disturbing. But I personally believe that the essence of this is to help people free themselves from the roller coaster of unexamined emotional responses rather than to deny them the pleasures (and pains) of experiencing life.

The very first lines of the Tao Te Jing state that the Tao cannot be objectively defined. It is a subjective experience. Freeing oneself from desires opens one up to more experiences, ones that can certainly transcend those described by any sage.

I'm not convinced by any emotional detachment argument, more that I think you should follow and direct your emotions, and let them direct you, but dont let them get the upper hand.

Taoism predates the Tao Te Ching by many thousands of years. Lao tzu (assuming he existed) was a Tao practitioner who defined his beliefs beautifully, but it is really not necessary to read and/or understand his work to be a Taoist.

Be warned, though. It can be a difficult and lonely path.

Here is a tremendous resource: http://taoism.net

Apostrophes

Oh, and emotional detachment should not be confused with apathy. Emotions can and do confuse the individual, clouding judgement and leading to difficulty. A Taoist sage does not allow this to happen, though, through compassion, she does what needs to be done. She will not give food to a hungry man because his suffering causes her to feel upset; she gives food to a hungry man because he is hungry.

Apostrophes

A person of tao is not emotionally detached, they are emotionally connected, culturally induced judgements do not cloud their intuition. Compassion as a principle, as well as principles in general, do not arise from the source, but from mere knowledge. This is the meaning of:

When the great Tao is forgotten,
goodness and piety appear.
The person of tao may feed a man or not, charity can sometimes be the wrong thing to do.

I don't agree that compassion is not of the source. I really don't. If I disagree with you elsewhere I think it's just a question of words. I am sure you and would get along really well in real life!

Apostrophes

"com-passion" literally means "shared suffering"......it is a feeling observation. it is not pious or do goody goody, or pitying, or as though you are beter than. it is REAL as real can be. direct

that you are human and other one is, or if animal etc...that you share essences with all life
those who spout off about being compassionate are the biggest hypocrites. and those 'helped' can sniff em out

Compassion is a description of a natural feeling, but what is not natural is compassion as a principle. Principles are fixed, while reality is ever-changing. Even the rejection of principles as a principle is mistaken. Sometimes the principle is a good guide, we should allow ourselves to act spontaneously according to the situation.

Tao Te Ching Vs. 29
----------------------
Do you want to improve the world?
I don't think it can be done.

The world is sacred.
It can't be improved.
If you tamper with it, you'll ruin it.
If you treat it like an object, you'll lose it.

I believe that it was the true tao can not be spoken of.

what's funny is that every time I see stuff like what spidergoat posted (which I enjoyed), the more I realize I'm a tao'n futhermucker. it oozes from me with no label besides 'wes'. almost everything i've said on sciforums spews forth from my gut feeling of the perfection of the now.

indeed the tao can only be inferred.

maybe it's the space outside the circle containing the set "one's mind" or maybe just "one's perception".

Also tao statements sound sooooo cool and so complex sometimes.

Ok Up to this point there has been much talk of Ayn Rand. Nothing against her or anything, but i was just wondering how anyone can disregard a text as "stagnation" when it has founded one of the major religions of the world. On top of that in China, there is an entire field of study devoted to this text.
The tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao This one line says it all. The point of this philosophy is based on realizing the best way to get things is to not try to understand them, through conventional means. If you want to try and explain the Tao, then just forget about the text. You are not supposed to be able to explain it. Its almost like having a huge glob of jello in your hand, and then think that you will be able to keep it in your hand by squeezing it tight. The tighter you try to grasp the jello, the more bits and pieces will ooze out of your hand in between your hand. Thus the best way to approach taking hold of jello ( and thus understanding the Tao) is to place it on your open palm. if this sounds like its ridiculous, thats fine but understand that this texts throws absurdity in your face in order for you to get past your conventional attempts at learning anything and to truly try to understand the "truth" that it is trying to convey (I know truth is a loaded word but for lack of a better way of describing the book, for it cannot be named, i used it).

now in adressing Rand, I read the foutainhead and Atlas shrugged and i have to say at no point to i feel those books mock the Tao Te Ching. Rather they seems to be mocking all preconcieved notions which society instills upons its members (kind of like a cross between Kirkegard and Emerson). Howard Roark throws absurdity in the faces of New yorks elite and in doing so, struggles to show his ideas of architecture. In doing so he is acting very much in accordance with the Tao.

hope this may fuel some conversation.

The Tao of the Tao Te Ching: A Translation and Commentary
by Michael LaFargue

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0791409864/qid=1103051230/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-1575055-7151825?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I sometimes find it amusing and at other times sad when I see the western mind struggling with eastern concepts. The west took a wrong turn when it adopted aristotelian philosphy and abandoned plato, and now it seems to find a need for the truths that are so obviously lacking in our conceptualization of the universe. Just look at the term "universe". One song. Song of Oneness.
A good starting point, however, might be found in trying to recognize the field of activity available to dualistic consciousness. What is its nature and what are its limits? Self relegated to dualism exists in the world of things. Things come and go, are born and die, and the true nature of their being might not be any "solid eternal substance". You might find a trail of exciting logic and follow it to its "ultimate" end. Every step along the way real and true, etc. etc., only to find yourself as expressed by Bob Dylan - "alone I stand with nobody near when a trembling distant voice unclear STARTLES my SLEEPING ear to hear that someone thinks they really found me." Such is the nature of the truth hinted at in Taoism. Of course he probably popped a magic pill to open the door behind which we imprisoned poor ol' Plato so long long ago. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you CANNOT understand Taoism in the western "way". Try this: stick one finger out. Look at it. Its a finger, right. Truly really is. No doubting it. But can it touch itself?

Wess _morris wrote:

To you tao is everything that isn't you.

To someone else, you are part of the tao.

This smacks of dualism. I’ve never associated dualism with Taoism.
Did I miss something?

Wess _morris wrote:


This smacks of dualism. I’ve never associated dualism with Taoism.
Did I miss something?

Maybe it was me. Since the tao is nameless, and for good reason... it's difficult to describe it clearly. I think of it as the inverse of self in a way, in that if it's unknowable, or beyond comprehension, it's part of the tao. The universe without consciousness, that's the tao. Bah, but maybe my wee little western mind can't compute. Water refers to it as "das ding en sich" or "the thing itself".

I don't necessarily understand what different people mean when they say dualism. Maybe you can tell me what you mean.

Wessmorris wrote
To you tao is everything that isn't you.
To someone else, you are part of the tao.

(Then later)

I don't necessarily understand what different people mean when they say dualism. Maybe you can tell me what you mean.

I come from Zen, first cousin of Taoism. Zen is Buddhism meets Taoism.
Duality is a lack of Oneness.
Enlightenment is experiencing Oneness.

Many of the problems I have with traditional Christianity is the duality of body and spirit. I don’t see this when I read the teachings of Jesus, but it has been infused by organized religion. There is not body and spirit, All is One.

Duality occurs when we see ourselves outside the world, separate or distinct from it. “I don’t care what happens in the ocean because I don’t live in the ocean” is an expression of duality. ‘I am here, it is there’ is not the Tao. A Zen saying is “I pluck a blade of grass in the meadow and the frog in the pond croaks.”

One might say “The Tao is all around us”, but that does not mean we are not part of the Tao. The Tao does not surround us, it engulfs us, it swallows us up.

You clearly expressed duality when you say that the Tao surrounds you from my perspective, and surrounds me from your perspective. You identified two Taos. Duality within the Tao can not be. When I fail to attain the Oneness I seek it is because I am thinking or living in duality. When I have duality I do not have the Tao, I am not experiencing the Tao.

My attempt to explain dualism is weak and leaves much ground uncovered. Others may want to add to it.

A special transmission outside the scriptures;
Depending not on words and letters;
Pointing directly to the human mind;
Seeing into one's nature, one becomes a Buddha.

I'm down with that...

Let me ask though, are you familiar with the concept of observational distance?

IMO, it necessitates lack of one-ness in a sense.

I'll just say that the notion of perspective has unavoidable consequences.

No matter how much or how clearly you can percieve, there are innate limits... whatever they be.

And you can never know if you're awake. In fact, that knowledge is meaningless. Wake a thousand times to live another dream.

In this way I am familiar that I am necessarily unfamiliar with the tao. It must escape me.

To me, in a sense, the oneness of which you speak necessitates dualism. Oneness and segmentation exist simultaneously.

Wessmorris wrote

Let me ask though, are you familiar with the concept of observational distance?
Observational distance is an illusion. It is as if you say “My hand will not do as it should so I will go to the market without it” I would say you have an illusion.

Zen and the Art of Archery is an easy read by anyone’s standards and covers this quite nicely. A contemporary German marksman takes up archery to learn Zen. He mistakenly thinks that his skill and experience with a rifle will make the path easier. He must overcome this observational distance concept you mention before he can hit the mark. For many weeks he does not let go. The master tries to reveal to him that archer, arrow and target are one. During one discourse the frustrated student speaks his mind and says that if the master is correct he shouldn’t even need to see the target to hit it. The master tells him to return at midnight. The student arrives and there is a small candle below the target. The master has the student blindfold him. With no vision of the target the master puts an arrow dead center. The student understood.


And you can never know if you're awake. In fact, that knowledge is meaningless. Wake a thousand times to live another dream.
Knowledge of self is indispensable.
I can only know the self as it relates to the Tao. I can only relate to the Tao if I understand my role in it.
When I have full knowledge of the self (the nature of self before I was born) I have full knowledge of all things.
If existence is meaningless, knowledge is meaningless. If knowledge is meaningless, existence is meaningless. Because existence is everything, I have knowledge of existence.
Knowledge can be a veil that obscures reality. Such use of knowledge is not beneficial.

There are many paths up the mountain. Zen is not a path, but merely a finger pointing the way.

Careful there, BEHERENOW. I don´t remember the names, but there is a story in the book ZEN FLESH, ZEN BONES of a master who cut off the finger of a student who used the "pointing finger" to answer his question. It all turned out OK, I guess, ´cause the student experienced enlightenment upon loosing his finger. I would ask how can you point a direction on a path where there is no coming or going. Of course when we use language to communicate we are confined to the structure of the language, and english is so linear. Here, there, take a left at the fat Buddha, etc. etc. How can you "come from Zen"?????

I would ask how can you point a direction on a path where there is no coming or going?
We should of course ask Alan Watts and others whose writings I rely on:

When they curiously question thee, seeking to know what It is,
Do not affirm anything, and do not deny anything.
For whatsoever is affirmed is not true,
And whatsoever is denied is not true.
How shall anyone say truly what That may be
While he has not himself fully won to What Is?
And, after he has won, what word is to be sent from a Region
Where the chariot of speech finds no track on which to go?
Therefore, to their questionings offer them silence only,
Silence — and a finger pointing the Way.
Buddhist verse
(Alan Watts, "The Spirit of Zen", 1958)

"The common error of ordinary religious
practice is to mistake the symbol for the
reality, to look at the finger pointing
the way and then to suck it for comfort
rather than follow it." (Alan Watts)

But you did ask me, so here is my answer:
Before Zen there is coming and going. Only after Zen is there only Being. Those who have Zen do not need the finger. For those who have not arrived, Zen is a finger pointing the way. It may sound like I am saying those who are in Zen do not need Zen. If so, I have expressed my thoughts.
Does this help?


How can you "come from Zen"?????
If I am in Zen, and you are not, I must come to you to bring you back with me to Zen. When (if) we are both in Zen there is of course no need to come or go, only Be.

It just "dawned" on me that Zen´s whole point is to shatter our mind´s bondage to the aristotelean view of reality. Me, it, here, there, etc. Also, that we can think of "quantum" reality where being is not born into our three dimensional reality by the conscious action of our mind´s decision making process. Zen´s "no-thought" is somewhat a quantum state. As soon as we say this "thing" is "here", or "when", we create a new video game of reality. Ultimately as empty of reality as the video game.

As a self proclaimed Taoist, and as a man with reasonable Chinese heritage, I shall explain Taoism to the best of my abilities.

Before I do, I would like to point out that in my experience western scholars are mystifying Taoism more than they should and confusing it with Buddhism.

In essence, Taoism is quite simple. Taoism believes that the universe is comprised of opposing entities (fire and ice, light and darkness) and the fact that these entities mutually oppose each other justifies their existence. Tao is the force that governs the interaction between these opposing entities. By understanding the behaviour (flow) of Tao, one understands the behaviour of the world. Humans are like small boats in a large river. We are constantly affected by the flow of water. When traveling on the water, one can choose to do 3 things. Go toward the direction one seeks without worrying about the current (Hollywood philosophy). Give up and drift with the current. Or measure the current and sail with aid of the flow. (Taoist philosophy)

Wess _morris wrote:


This smacks of dualism. I’ve never associated dualism with Taoism.
Did I miss something?

The Tao is simultaneously dual and single. This is impossible to convey in words, but here is a metaphor. Here is the typical view of duality: "High and Low are opposites." Here is the unified/Tao view of duality: "There is a single continuity that is High-Low."

Call into mind the famous Yin-Yang symbol. Many people focus on the Yin or the Yang. The only way to be "in" the Tao for this particular thing is to focus on the most important part of the image, which is the line between the two. That line is a metaphor for the line that runs between all things, which thus joins all things, which ultimately comprises all things. This is why I like to refer to Tao as the "vesselness" of things.

I think of it as "all" and/or "that which lies beyond observational distance".

Wessmorris wrote

Observational distance is an illusion. It is as if you say “My hand will not do as it should so I will go to the market without it” I would say you have an illusion.

Zen and the Art of Archery is an easy read by anyone’s standards and covers this quite nicely. A contemporary German marksman takes up archery to learn Zen. He mistakenly thinks that his skill and experience with a rifle will make the path easier. He must overcome this observational distance concept you mention before he can hit the mark. For many weeks he does not let go. The master tries to reveal to him that archer, arrow and target are one. During one discourse the frustrated student speaks his mind and says that if the master is correct he shouldn’t even need to see the target to hit it. The master tells him to return at midnight. The student arrives and there is a small candle below the target. The master has the student blindfold him. With no vision of the target the master puts an arrow dead center. The student understood.


Knowledge of self is indispensable.
I can only know the self as it relates to the Tao. I can only relate to the Tao if I understand my role in it.
When I have full knowledge of the self (the nature of self before I was born) I have full knowledge of all things.
If existence is meaningless, knowledge is meaningless. If knowledge is meaningless, existence is meaningless. Because existence is everything, I have knowledge of existence.
Knowledge can be a veil that obscures reality. Such use of knowledge is not beneficial.

There are many paths up the mountain. Zen is not a path, but merely a finger pointing the way.


I would suggest that the statement "observational distance is an illusion" isn't quite complete. I would submit that the PERSPECTIVE that there is separation is quite real, because it constitutes a relationship (non-separation) that would otherwise not be permitted. However, I do agree with the idea that there is no separation.

I really find the notion of illusion to be lacking, because it overlooks the possibility that everything perceived and experienced is an interplay of relationships within a single unity that NEEDS those in order to exist.

I believe that a good metaphor for Tao as basic substance of the cosmos is MOVEMENT. And in order for movement to move, there must be flow, and in order for there to be flow, there must be difference, and in order for there to be difference, there must be relationship. So my "equation" is Difference = Relationship = Movement.

And so here is how I reconcile many of the age-old battles in philosophy: All is a single, undivided whole (monism) that is a unity of diversity (pluralism), continuously (re)creating itself (a better term is Ourself) through the constant creation of diversity AND (re)unity. We observers are not just unfortunate sufferers in illusion, as some suggest, but the living conversation of this oneness. All things that "happen" play a part in this grand adventure. What do you think?

I think that the universe would have no meaning if it weren't observed, as the act of observation is how meaning is created. Meaning is the context I, both separated from and one with tao simultaneously, but resolves to either dependent on perspective, like the resolution of the position of an electron resolves when observed. Rationality requires we recognize the relationship of self to the tao, and wisdom requires we recognize that is all connected by function. Reality is necessarily a flawless execution of possibility collapsing into history. That's where I see "connectedness", in that all IS as must be by its history. We're bound in isness.

So yeah, I basically agree with you but our perspectives are slightly different. "conceptual semantics"

Hmmm. I have a feeling I'm all confused but can't see exactly why.

indeed, we share experience, our physical bodies, the realm in which manifestation is permitted, and the realm in which we manifest thought. no matter how much separation is assumed, even the separation is what we share, every difference you can come up with, every characteristic is shared within a system that recognizes them

From some of these posts it sounds like "The Tao" is the same as "The Force" from STAR WARS.

I think it is an easy assumption to say the Tao was inspiration for the concept of The Force. There had to be some inspitiration, after all, there are no new ideas, just new slants.

I think that "chi" is much more analogous to The Force than the Tao is.

Works for me too.
I stand corrected.