Is anything really objective?

[Marblehead]

The Classics are full of discussion of that which gets in the way between man and Dao.

To me, the implication is that this is the "objective" self, the self that is separate from Dao, that is - the illusion. And that returning to Dao and Wu Wei are about letting go of that illusion by letting go of all of those things that get in the way. Subject and object disappear and what remains cannot be named.

 

I wish I could argue with that but I have no grounds for doing so.

 

I think you might be right but that is only my subjective opinion.

[Apech]

The Classics are full of discussion of that which gets in the way between man and Dao.

To me, the implication is that this is the "objective" self, the self that is separate from Dao, that is - the illusion. And that returning to Dao and Wu Wei are about letting go of that illusion by letting go of all of those things that get in the way. Subject and object disappear and what remains cannot be named.

 

But they didn't formulate an entity or pseudo entity like the ego did they? Or did they?

[steve]

... but that is only my subjective opinion.

Same goes for me...

 

But they didn't formulate an entity or pseudo entity like the ego did they? Or did they?

Not to my knowledge but I'm not a scholar of the classics, culture, or language> I've studied the more accessible classics and most of my Daoist "knowledge" and interest is in practice.

 

In my cultivation practice and discussion with my Shifu, there has been no mention of a specific "ego" entitiy by name but what is referred to frequently are all of the things that are distractions from being in accordance with Dao - all of the psychological and emotional baggage, conditioned patterns of behavior, and so on... These are the boundaries, the very dividing lines that "separate" us from Dao in our minds. All this is clearly recognized and much cultivation work, even though not directly concerned with working with this stuff, is indirectly addressed at liberating us from it's hold on us. This is a natural consequence of the meditative and physical practices.

 

I think that the view I've gained from Daoist practice (and my limited knowledge of the classics) is that the Daoist does not view a separate self but rather holds a view that Dao manifests as living organisms that can be described through certain behavioral and observable characteristics. The basis for existence goes back to Wu Ji = Tai Ji = manifestation. This does not mean there is separation or distinction between those three "levels", it is simply human conceptualization of different facets of existence. What is Wu Ji if not the equivalent of Buddha's (shudder) emptiness? What is Tai Ji if not independent origination? It is exactly the same thing whether the Buddhists and Daoists on this forum like to admit it or not. Any argument to the contrary is just empty justification of nothing in my view. They only differ in subtle language and cultural nuance.

 

We can name things (you, me, flower, mountain) but that is not the thing. It is not the thing because there is no thing. Reality is marvelously continuous and whole, the Dao is unbroken, it fills all and is nowhere to be found, it is people who like to carve it up into digestible pieces. Boundaries are creations of our mentation. So we can name ourself and describe the "person" or the "ego" but I think there is fundamental acceptance of non-duality in Daoism, at least if one takes the time to do the work personally. Trying to experience non-duality through study, analysis, or debate is not effective, that is what the cultivation and meditation part is for. At least that's what I've taken away from it.

 

That represents the best of my subjective objectivity...

[Apech]

Not to my knowledge but I'm not a scholar of the classics, culture, or language> I've studied the more accessible classics and most of my Daoist "knowledge" and interest is in practice.

 

In my cultivation practice and discussion with my Shifu, there has been no mention of a specific "ego" entitiy by name but what is referred to frequently are all of the things that are distractions from being in accordance with Dao - all of the psychological and emotional baggage, conditioned patterns of behavior, and so on... These are the boundaries, the very dividing lines that "separate" us from Dao in our minds. All this is clearly recognized and much cultivation work, even though not directly concerned with working with this stuff, is indirectly addressed at liberating us from it's hold on us. This is a natural consequence of the meditative and physical practices.

 

I think that the view I've gained from Daoist practice (and my limited knowledge of the classics) is that the Daoist does not view a separate self but rather holds a view that Dao manifests as living organisms that can be described through certain behavioral and observable characteristics. The basis for existence goes back to Wu Ji = Tai Ji = manifestation. This does not mean there is separation or distinction between those three "levels", it is simply human conceptualization of different facets of existence. What is Wu Ji if not the equivalent of Buddha's (shudder) emptiness? What is Tai Ji if not independent origination? It is exactly the same thing whether the Buddhists and Daoists on this forum like to admit it or not. Any argument to the contrary is just empty justification of nothing in my view. They only differ in subtle language and cultural nuance.

 

We can name things (you, me, flower, mountain) but that is not the thing. It is not the thing because there is no thing. Reality is marvelously continuous and whole, the Dao is unbroken, it fills all and is nowhere to be found, it is people who like to carve it up into digestible pieces. Boundaries are creations of our mentation. So we can name ourself and describe the "person" or the "ego" but I think there is fundamental acceptance of non-duality in Daoism, at least if one takes the time to do the work personally. Trying to experience non-duality through study, analysis, or debate is not effective, that is what the cultivation and meditation part is for. At least that's what I've taken away from it.

 

That represents the best of my subjective objectivity...

 

(First wash your keyboard with soap and water for mentioning the B word twice!!! )

 

 

The reason I'm pushing this one is because I think it makes a whole lot of difference (although at first it might not seem to). I think we all (and I include myself) very loosely talk about ego and so on ... because we are heavily influenced by Freud and the psychiatrists and also the Indian religion beginning with B ... because they both talk a lot about self, no-self etc. etc. As if this is the real issue. Almost to the point of obsession!

 

Take that away for a minute. Just say 'I am who I am' ... or perhaps the Sage is like 'this' but for some reason I am not like 'this'. Why? Because I haven't understood completely yet. As you say Steve, things block us from being continuously conscious of the Tao. What are those things? Or perhaps even ... the blocks are the Tao also ... it is the Way that we should be blocked and then become unblocked. Become an uncarved block in fact! What are the blocks? Our slowness? Our confusion? Our stupidity? Our not getting the point? Our distraction? Our laziness? So no ... oh I have an ego which is a piece of shit ... no excuses ... no ... oh my childhood was tough ... no excuses at all.

 

Just thinking out loud.

[steve]

(First wash your keyboard with soap and water for mentioning the B word twice!!! )

 

What are those things? Or perhaps even ... the blocks are the Tao also ... it is the Way that we should be blocked and then become unblocked. Become an uncarved block in fact! What are the blocks? Our slowness? Our confusion? Our stupidity? Our not getting the point? Our distraction? Our laziness?

Be careful asking such questions, my friend, or someone will again drop the B-bomb.

 

Those blocks are our choices, our preferences, our social and cultural conditioning, our attachments... (oops). They are the very things that define or arise with the nature of Tai Ji. Wu Ji gives rise to Tai Ji, once there is separation of Yin and Yang, there is opportunity to choose and that's learned behavior - social, cultural, familial. I prefer pretty to ugly, warm to cold, sweet to sour. I lust after what I want, I fret over what I have, I'm divided. That's who "I" am, the sum total of my choices, more or less. When there is no "I" left to choose, there just is and it's OK. So perhaps Marbles is right and Dao is objective because it is there absent the "I" but there is still this sense of "I" that everything alive "is" and so it goes.... round and round....

 

Welcome to the asylum.

[deci belle]

I don't get where this faction is going with the "no ego" thing …or not going with it, as it were. Is this real taoist balderdash and poppycock?

 

What, can anyone tell, is the point of emphasizing the absence of the "e" word, yet ignoring the reference to its effects in the taoist canon? What are you all going to accomplish, or avoid, by doing so?

 

To me it is a non-issue, but there must be a reason to cling to the notion that it simply does not exist as a concept in taoism. Little1 also used this criteria to dismiss a valid point of self-refinement that another bum made that had nothing to do with you-know-what (b-b-b-b-b-bbb).

 

What is accomplished by being "correct" about "the taoist canon before a certain date has no mention of the word ego"? Is it just a way to be finally free or differentiated or aloof from you-know-who? If that's all it is, clue me in— otherwise, it seems to me like petty intellectualist nonsense that could not be further from the teaching of actualization of reality effecting free and complete human being.

 

Furthermore, how does this sticking point have anything to do with the subject of this thread, which is a crucial aspect of perception? The teachings are about people, not about words. Words negating the importance of the single psychological element obstructing natural employment of objectivity within a vast and comprehensive teaching on a linguistic technicality is patently absurd. Why say them?

 

Little1 admitted that he tried, but that he can't deal with dealing with ego, because there is no end to it. I told him, "Fair enough", and left it at that. But it is a big mistake to fool others, beginners especially~ in saying that ego (in terms of the matter of life and death, ie, the person that dies) isn't recognized and dealt with from beginning to end in taoist teaching tradition.

 

I challenge the mods to create yet another forum titled the "no ego" forum, so I won't hound or ignore y'all. Because the tao is the way to follow the way, taoism is effective in pointing the way to capable ego-enabled people— not ego-challenged people. Potential for realization isn't a matter of entitlement or philosophical orientation. Ultimately, taoism doesn't exist either— not to mention the fact that there is that which is beyond the tao. Taoism is about people. Taoism exists by and for people to discover what they really are. And to that end, self-refinement in order to interrupt the human mentality is the established and unavoidable way to realize selfless living aware potential energy in its perpetual uncreated non-dwelling state. The human mentality is the seat of ego— refute that.

 

Or, how did any of you arrive at the essence of impersonal nonorigination? If you did, then you know it's not you. Since you only exist by virtue of ego, and ego isn't there, why latch on to your foolishness here? What are you pimping? Tell you what. I'll let you off the hook if you can say why ego isn't a taoist concept. Hmmmmmmm? I'm not talking about right or wrong or true and false! Do you know?!! Sure is a lot easier just to say that ego ain't taoist, huh.

 

If you just want to perpetuate a style of intellectual taoism for your own personal reasons, I would appreciate it if you would state those reasons here and now for all of us— so nobody gets fooled. This is not a trifling matter.

 

If you mean the tao has no ego— well then OK— but that's not what you are saying. What you are saying is that there is no mention of the word "ego" in certain taoist documents. BIG WOOP. Pure pedantic literalist hypocrisy and useless, harmful and misleading meandering.

 

Let's leave the subject of clever multiple contextual mid-sentence usage of the root-word "object" to the etymological foot-noters. None of you, I hope.❤

 

(ed:adding "is" in 5th paragraph, adding "saying" in 6th paragraph)

Edited August 29, 2011 by deci belle

[Marblehead]

Wow! What a post!

 

I challenge the mods to create yet another forum titled the "no ego" forum, so I won't hound or ignore y'all.

 

 

That made me laugh. Hehehe.

 

I was going to stay in the background for this part of the discussion but wish to mention two things.

 

First, if we compare Taoism against any other belief system then it is only fair that a member with that belief system enter the discussion to correct us on our misunderstanding of thier blief system.

 

Secondly, instead of "ego" could we use "self-awareness" or perhaps as Deci mentioned above, "self-actualization"? Afterall, the word "ego" does have a lot of negative connotations attached to it.

[Apech]

I am a bumbling fool. When I try to tie my shoe lace I fall forward and bump my head on the concrete. When I watch the news I get confused by all that stuff. I am lazy and self indulgent. I am easily distracted and while away the hours just gazing at the clouds.

 

When I look at water I see that it naturally finds the best route. When I see fire I see it shines and consumes although it has no substance. The wind moves, the birds fly, the sun rises every morning and sets each night with no effort. So there is hope for me. I think of a person who is like this, who achieves everything without effort also. I'll call him a Sage. I can try to be like him, see what he sees and understand what he understands. I'm nowhere near that but I can try.

 

This is my objective.

 

I don't care about the word ego. Use it or don't use it ... depending on if its useful. But I suspect we all use it as a kind of excuse.

 

(Just how I'm feeling today ... ignore this as you please )

[zerostao]

I am a bumbling fool. When I try to tie my shoe lace I fall forward and bump my head on the concrete. When I watch the news I get confused by all that stuff. I am lazy and self indulgent. I am easily distracted and while away the hours just gazing at the clouds.

 

When I look at water I see that it naturally finds the best route. When I see fire I see it shines and consumes although it has no substance. The wind moves, the birds fly, the sun rises every morning and sets each night with no effort. So there is hope for me. I think of a person who is like this, who achieves everything without effort also. I'll call him a Sage. I can try to be like him, see what he sees and understand what he understands. I'm nowhere near that but I can try.

 

This is my objective.

 

I don't care about the word ego. Use it or don't use it ... depending on if its useful. But I suspect we all use it as a kind of excuse.

 

(Just how I'm feeling today ... ignore this as you please )

not sure if i gave you +1 for the post or for your new title

either way does it really matter. i thought i had invented while away the hours watching clouds and lazy

[Marblehead]

Actually, I wish to comment to it.

 

I commend you for being so open and forthcoming. That is one of the stages of self-actualization.

 

To your second paragraph - you are closer than you may believe youself to be, IMO.

 

Sometimes we just think too much - looking for answers to questions that have no answers.

[konchog uma]

 

First, if we compare Taoism against any other belief system then it is only fair that a member with that belief system enter the discussion to correct us on our misunderstanding of thier blief system.

 

 

thanks man. being new here, i'm really surprised about the constant bigotry.

 

i was a self-identified daoist for years and years, but long story short, i had a very profound near-death experience straight out of the bardo thol, which i hadn't read yet. when i read it, i took my first opportunity to take refuge. i found that the structure of buddhism was both more challenging and more beneficial to me, so i stuck with it.

 

i imagine that most of the prejudice here comes from disagreeing with the idea that existence entails suffering. its odd that a spiritual path base its awareness in suffering. i could get into clarifying what the buddha said in pali sanskrit (it wasnt "suffering") or reminding people that the schools of buddhism are about as diverse as the schools of taoism, but it doesn't seem like many people here would be interested in hearing that.

 

i will point out, before anyone starts bashing me personally, that the four truths (four purities) of vajrayana differ from the shakyamuni buddha's four noble truths, and they are pretty daoist.

 

1. seeing ones body as divine

2. seeings ones environment as the mandala of divinity

3. seeings ones enjoyments as the bliss of deity, free of attachment and aversion

4. seeings ones actions as being for the sake of all beings

 

people who are on all spiritual paths are generally trying to better their lives and the world around them. i am happy that you seekers are very happy with the daoist path you are on, and that you have such confidence in daoism. i hope that one day you realize that your path is only your path and that it is only best for you. i personally have evolved further and faster under the structures of vajrayana than i was able to evolve under the structure, or structurelessness, of daoism. so i guess that my path is right for me, regardless of who feels that they are so enlightened that they should make smarmy comments.

Edited August 19, 2011 by anamatva

[Apech]

Actually, I wish to comment to it.

 

I commend you for being so open and forthcoming. That is one of the stages of self-actualization.

 

To your second paragraph - you are closer than you may believe youself to be, IMO.

Sometimes we just think too much - looking for answers to questions that have no answers.

 

!?! Very kind of you Marbles.

[Marblehead]

thanks man. being new here, i'm really surprised about the constant bigotry.

 

Well, if you hang around here in the Taoist Discussions forum you just might convert back to Taoism. Hehehe.

 

So, without invoking your belief system, can you say anything about your understanding of objective reality?

[steve]

thanks man. being new here, i'm really surprised about the constant bigotry.

 

i was a self-identified daoist for years and years, but long story short, i had a very profound near-death experience straight out of the bardo thol, which i hadn't read yet. when i read it, i took my first opportunity to take refuge. i found that the structure of buddhism was both more challenging and more beneficial to me, so i stuck with it.

 

i imagine that most of the prejudice here comes from disagreeing with the idea that existence entails suffering. its odd that a spiritual path base its awareness in suffering. i could get into clarifying what the buddha said in pali sanskrit (it wasnt "suffering") or reminding people that the schools of buddhism are about as diverse as the schools of taoism, but it doesn't seem like many people here would be interested in hearing that.

 

i will point out, before anyone starts bashing me personally, that the four truths (four purities) of vajrayana differ from the shakyamuni buddha's four noble truths, and they are pretty daoist.

 

1. seeing ones body as divine

2. seeings ones environment as the mandala of divinity

3. seeings ones enjoyments as the bliss of deity, free of attachment and aversion

4. seeings ones actions as being for the sake of all beings

 

people who are on all spiritual paths are generally trying to better their lives and the world around them. i am happy that you seekers are very happy with the daoist path you are on, and that you have such confidence in daoism. i hope that one day you realize that your path is only your path and that it is only best for you. i personally have evolved further and faster under the structures of vajrayana than i was able to evolve under the structure, or structurelessness, of daoism. so i guess that my path is right for me, regardless of who feels that they are so enlightened that they should make smarmy comments.

It's nice to have you here. I think you will contribute a lot if you hang around. Without getting too bogged down there have been some endlessly pedantic Buddhist arguments presented in obtrusive ways from time to time that made it difficult to focus on anything else. Some even interrupted discussions about Daoist views to explain why Daoism is completely wrong and the Buddhist view is correct... :yawn:

 

Some folks are OK with that, others have wanted a bit of a refuge from it, hence the section dedicated to more Daoist discussion (not the sole reason but one of the stimuli). I am of the mind that reality is what it is and our paths and labels are all just incomplete ways to put labels on things and divide things up into digestible bits that we can make sense of. I'm open to all forms of discussion and views.

 

I don't think the push back you refer to is as much related to the suffering piece, as it is related to the concepts of emptiness and interdependent origination (although it wouldn't be unusual for me to be mistaken). Personally, I find that surprising because they are equivalent (at least in my view) to Wu Ji and Tai Ji.

 

Anyway - glad to have you here and I'm interested in hearing more of your ideas.

[konchog uma]

Well, if you hang around here in the Taoist Discussions forum you just might convert back to Taoism. Hehehe.

 

So, without invoking your belief system, can you say anything about your understanding of objective reality?

 

haha i've never not been a daoist since realizing that i was a daoist, so i don't need to worry about converting back, but thanks. to me, i don't need to pigeonhole myself into being one thing exclusively, thats silly.

 

in old china (before mao, im not sure about today) people used to be buddhist, daoist, and confucionist all at once with no real mutual exclusivity between the three. speaking roughly, they used buddhism to govern their religious/spiritual life, taoism to govern their mystical/sexual life, and confucianism to govern their practical daily life. so for someone to be self-identified as both or all three was common, according to daniel reid (tao of health, sex, and longevity)

 

what?! back to the topic? no, i can't really say much because i don't understand objective reality. i have had my moments of meditation and experience where i felt that there was a field of unconditional love and creative energy that pervaded all things and gave rise to all phenomenon. i could call it eheieh, or mahatman, or a million other things, as easily as i could call it dao, because names don't matter to that field. i have invoked it thousands of times, and had many conversations with it, but all that information is still subjective; what the field showed me personally, or my subjective interpretation of that intelligence. it was very clear that it was only telling me what i needed to hear, and it might tell someone else something totally different, as per their nature.

 

so based on my subjective experience, i believe there is a truth behind all the mystery schools that is too incomprehensible to be measured by any one particular worldview. i am careful not to nominalize it, thinking i know anything about it because i have word for it, but i believe it exists beyond the bounds of anyone's subjectivity or ability to shape or influence it.

[konchog uma]

It's nice to have you here. I think you will contribute a lot if you hang around. Without getting too bogged down there have been some endlessly pedantic Buddhist arguments presented in obtrusive ways from time to time that made it difficult to focus on anything else. Some even interrupted discussions about Daoist views to explain why Daoism is completely wrong and the Buddhist view is correct... :yawn:

 

that sucks. those people bore me too. if i was here i would have probably told them to shut up.

 

 

Some folks are OK with that, others have wanted a bit of a refuge from it, hence the section dedicated to more Daoist discussion (not the sole reason but one of the stimuli). I am of the mind that reality is what it is and our paths and labels are all just incomplete ways to put labels on things and divide things up into digestible bits that we can make sense of. I'm open to all forms of discussion and views.

 

I don't think the push back you refer to is as much related to the suffering piece, as it is related to the concepts of emptiness and interdependent origination (although it wouldn't be unusual for me to be mistaken). Personally, I find that surprising because they are equivalent (at least in my view) to Wu Ji and Tai Ji.

 

Anyway - glad to have you here and I'm interested in hearing more of your ideas.

 

to me daoism and buddhism are like two sides of the same coin. i personally can't relate to a good half of buddhism (zen, theravada, all the miserable suffering schools), but my past is too turbulent to really be able to relate to the lack of structure that daoism presents. in that way daoism is more challenging than buddhism, but also leads to more self-indulgence. in my estimation, emptiness and interdependent origination are precisely wuji and taiji, no difference whatsoever, so it also surprises me that people want to draw lines to divide.

 

well i can understand the snide commentary if buddhists have acted foolish here and left a bad taste in your mouth. thanks for explaining that.

[Apech]

thanks man. being new here, i'm really surprised about the constant bigotry.

 

...

 

I think what you are seeing is Taoism trying to reestablish itself here on its own part of the Forum ... after being swamped by Buddhist posters on the General Discussion section for a while. We created the Taoist Discussion forum for this reason - to try to get to some authentic Taoist ideas.

 

I was a practicing Buddhist for quite a long time (Karma Kagyu) and know the value of the dharma ... its great but not for everyone ... I may even go back one day ... and be wiser for it.

 

I think the combined views that you see in books like the Golden Flower are excellent ... but Buddhist 'obsessions' (if that's the right word ... probably not ) like no-self and so on seem to become almost overbearing at times.

 

Best wishes on your path.

 

A.

[Marblehead]

in old china (before mao, im not sure about today) people used to be buddhist, daoist, and confucionist all at once with no real mutual exclusivity between the three. speaking roughly, they used buddhism to govern their religious/spiritual life, taoism to govern their mystical/sexual life, and confucianism to govern their practical daily life. so for someone to be self-identified as both or all three was common, according to daniel reid (tao of health, sex, and longevity)

 

That is my understanding as well from stuff I read many years ago.

 

so based on my subjective experience, i believe there is a truth behind all the mystery schools that is too incomprehensible to be measured by any one particular worldview. i am careful not to nominalize it, thinking i know anything about it because i have word for it, but i believe it exists beyond the bounds of anyone's subjectivity or ability to shape or influence it.

 

Yeah, that's the tricky part. Once we name it we limit it. But then, I think that the Manifest (objective reality) is truely the most limited realm of the totality (Tao). But then, I think it is the realm that we can place the most reliance on as to how we view the various realms of Tao.

 

(Speaking of realms, it is my understanding that there are four realms naturally existing; Manifest, Mystery, Chi, and Totality. To the best of my knowledge all the other realms that are talked about are man-made creations.)

[konchog uma]

I think what you are seeing is Taoism trying to reestablish itself here on its own part of the Forum ... after being swamped by Buddhist posters on the General Discussion section for a while. We created the Taoist Discussion forum for this reason - to try to get to some authentic Taoist ideas.

 

I was a practicing Buddhist for quite a long time (Karma Kagyu) and know the value of the dharma ... its great but not for everyone ... I may even go back one day ... and be wiser for it.

 

I think the combined views that you see in books like the Golden Flower are excellent ... but Buddhist 'obsessions' (if that's the right word ... probably not ) like no-self and so on seem to become almost overbearing at times.

 

Best wishes on your path.

 

A.

 

yeah nothings for everyone. and i hear you about the buddhist obsessions, i think all obsessions are overbearing. thanks.

[konchog uma]

Yeah, that's the tricky part. Once we name it we limit it. But then, I think that the Manifest (objective reality) is truely the most limited realm of the totality (Tao). But then, I think it is the realm that we can place the most reliance on as to how we view the various realms of Tao.

 

(Speaking of realms, it is my understanding that there are four realms naturally existing; Manifest, Mystery, Chi, and Totality. To the best of my knowledge all the other realms that are talked about are man-made creations.)

 

i have never studied those realms but i would like to know more.

 

they sound to my ignorant mind like the bands of emanations from carlos castendeda's writings about don juan matus and toltec sorcery. i'm in no mood to go off on a carlos casteneda tangent, but they were the known, the unknown, and the unknowable. maybe i am completely wrong but that just came to mind and i thought i would post it.

[dwai]

There is a real world out there. Trees are growing and birds are nesting - all without man's subjectivity. How we each view the tree and the birds and the nest iw where the subjectivity enters the picture. If we just accept 'what is' then we are beyond subjectivity. If we place our personal values on these things then we are stuck in the subjective world and not in the 'real' world. And furthermore, we are not being honest to these things nor to the processes of nature and all things.

 

So there!

 

MH,

 

let me opine. How real is the world out there without one to observe it, experience it? Doesn't have to be a man to experience, but sentience is a pre-requisite. Without this sentience, nothing really matters, or does it?

 

 

and to try to address the second part of your question, then can anything truly be objective? No, because by the very act of observing, we are injecting our personal proclivities, our labels and names to the objects.

 

Since we are going to approach this from a Taoist framework, let me ask you? Is the Tao always impersonal or is the Tao always personal?

Edited August 19, 2011 by dwai

[zerostao]

thanks man. being new here, i'm really surprised about the constant bigotry.

 

i was a self-identified daoist for years and years, but long story short, i had a very profound near-death experience straight out of the bardo thol, which i hadn't read yet. when i read it, i took my first opportunity to take refuge. i found that the structure of buddhism was both more challenging and more beneficial to me, so i stuck with it.

 

i imagine that most of the prejudice here comes from disagreeing with the idea that existence entails suffering. its odd that a spiritual path base its awareness in suffering. i could get into clarifying what the buddha said in pali sanskrit (it wasnt "suffering") or reminding people that the schools of buddhism are about as diverse as the schools of taoism, but it doesn't seem like many people here would be interested in hearing that.

 

i will point out, before anyone starts bashing me personally, that the four truths (four purities) of vajrayana differ from the shakyamuni buddha's four noble truths, and they are pretty daoist.

 

1. seeing ones body as divine

2. seeings ones environment as the mandala of divinity

3. seeings ones enjoyments as the bliss of deity, free of attachment and aversion

4. seeings ones actions as being for the sake of all beings

 

people who are on all spiritual paths are generally trying to better their lives and the world around them. i am happy that you seekers are very happy with the daoist path you are on, and that you have such confidence in daoism. i hope that one day you realize that your path is only your path and that it is only best for you. i personally have evolved further and faster under the structures of vajrayana than i was able to evolve under the structure, or structurelessness, of daoism. so i guess that my path is right for me, regardless of who feels that they are so enlightened that they should make smarmy comments.

anamatva, welcome .i am certainly enjoying all of your posts and insights. thanks for sharing. the reason i highlighted this post is the "existence is suffering " thing.

i admit i have a very limited knowledge about (B word) but from the general discussion area i have seen alot of thought , that there is no existence but yet there is suffering. for me this is hard to relate to.

one reason i have chosen the taoist path over any other is becoz it details many options for better health and longevity. and for me it seems that the bguys need to be quite intellectual and that leaves me out.

my idea is i am trying to get to a place where both object and subject vanish and there i feel a unifying connection to everything.

imo there is spirit. within us and all around us and in everything. or maybe it is just awareness. imo they are closely related.

[Marblehead]

i have never studied those realms but i would like to know more.

 

they sound to my ignorant mind like the bands of emanations from carlos castendeda's writings about don juan matus and toltec sorcery. i'm in no mood to go off on a carlos casteneda tangent, but they were the known, the unknown, and the unknowable. maybe i am completely wrong but that just came to mind and i thought i would post it.

 

I have never read Castendeda. Honestly.

 

What I presented above is strickly from my readings of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu as well as conversations I have had with other Taoist a number of years ago.

 

I think that some of my understandings can be attributed to Wayne L Wang and his Translation of the TTC titled "Dynamic Tao".

 

Wayne's introduction and commentary was very scientifically based and I found agreement with what science understands the universe to consist of with the ideas I picked up on from reading Lao Tzu.

 

In brief, in my mind, Manifest = physical universe, Mystery = Dark Matter, Chi = Dark Energy, and Totality = Singularity.

 

Basically, One gave birth to Two, Energy (Chi) and potential (Mystery), Two gave birth to the Ten Thousand things. Yes, I know, I missed Three. I have no idea what Three might be so I skipped the process.

[Marblehead]

I love disagreeing with you. Ah! Another opportunity. Hehehe.

 

(But yes, I can speak to this only from a Taoist perspective.

 

MH,

let me opine. How real is the world out there without one to observe it, experience it? Doesn't have to be a man to experience, but sentience is a pre-requisite. Without this sentience, nothing really matters, or does it?

 

That is exactly the point I am supporting. Man, or any living organism need not be present for there to be objective reality. The Earth took about 1 billion years before it had finally assumed a condition that would support life. But it surely did exist during that 1 billion years without any organism observing it.

 

Hehehe. I get to say it again: Nothing matters but everything matters. However, things actually did matter during that first 1 billion years because if things did not happen the way they did there would likely be no life on Earth and then for sure nothing would have mattered.

 

and to try to address the second part of your question, then can anything truly be objective? No, because by the very act of observing, we are injecting our personal proclivities, our labels and names to the objects.

 

And I spoke to this above. Yes, I totally agree with you that most of our life is spent observing subjectively. The bird exists. What a beautiful creature. But the damn things shits on my truck. What a pest. (Actually it doesn't because I park my truck where it is out of the flight path of the birds.)

 

I spoke of the rose before. What a beautiful flower! I grab the branch to pull the flower closer so I can smell it and grab a thorn! Damn rose!!!

 

But, if we observe the entire rose bush (except for what is underground, of course) we realize it has flowers, leaves, stems, thorns, and little bugs crawling on them.

 

This is why I am so much against trying to take something apart to see how it works. Once we have removed one piece we no longer have the Totality.

 

Since we are going to approach this from a Taoist framework, let me ask you? Is the Tao always impersonal or is the Tao always personal?

 

To my understanding Tao is impersonal. Hey, it can't be personal. It is without consciousness. We (and any other intelligent life forms in the universe) are its consciousness. We are the expression of Tao's Manifest realm.

[Marblehead]

imo there is spirit. within us and all around us and in everything. or maybe it is just awareness. imo they are closely related.

 

Now that is an interesting concept. I would talk about it with you if you start a thread for it in "Taoist Discussions" forum. Or even in the "General Discussions" forum so that we could other belief systems involved in it.