A Taoist riddle?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21 
Exactly so.  Posing the question "Who Am I?" is exactly like all the non-philosophers I meet, whom, when I tell them I study philosophy, immediately ask me "So what's the meaning of life?" Neither of these are meaningful questions, they're just jumping-off points for a person to espouse whateve they want. I could use "Who Am I?" as a beginning to proselytise Christianity, Buddism, Humanism, and so on. 
  Even in the particular way you use this question, NickA, you're making arguments that beg for outside knowledge, in the sense that someone who wasn't well read could never draw those conclusions.  The question "What is the nature of the self" is closest to what you're asking, and of course reading what others have written on the matter will be helpful in this process, even if you call it self-discovery.  Your reference to ancient traditions as 'helping us reveal it to ourselves' is the most obvious example of this, though you try to word it such that it doesn't sound like a reliance on outside sources of knowledge. 

Um, a bad philosopher in need of a spanking, I reckon. What do you mean? For one thing, I didn't condemn an ancient thought, I said "If it means [i]this[/i] it's crap," specifically leaving room for the possibility that it may mean something else.  For another, your assumption that I haven't given this or other Eastern jibber-jabber 'any thought whatsoever' must be based purely on the fact that I disagree with you about it, since you know nothing at all about me. If you'd like to begin with some credible evidence, start with the fact that I've been studying Eastern martial arts for 6+ years, have a great deal of exposure to all manner of Eastern philosophy (except Jainism, I suppose), and have had plenty of time to turn it over in my head.  I know none if my silly practices such as 'reading books' or 'talking to people' can compare to 'reflecting on the Way of Heaven within me', but I do my best.

The only idea I condemned was one by NoelyG, who it turns out, was just putting it forward as a possible interpretation that he didn’t think had any merit either.

I realize it's the 'in thing' to get all dewey-eyed over anything labeled 'taoist' or 'Eastern' or 'mystic', it's just not my bag.  If you can't abide that, or come with an constructive argument for why a philosopher of a rationalist, analystic bend should pay eastern mysticism [i]any regard at all[/i], the move along, there's nothing to see here.

You have indeed encouraged me.

22

There’s an old saw, I don’t remember the author, “Never try to teach a pig to sing. It waste’s your time, and annoy’s the pig”

JT

23

There’s also the old saying, “Everyone other than Winston Churchchill who has tried to use one-line witticisms to subtley insult people for no good reason just comes off looking like a pompous ass”.
I think I made that one up.

24

argh…i’ve gotta learn to hold my tongue…guess my work’s not done yet!

25

Uccisore

The question of the meaning of life I believe is a very meaningful question. What you are describing are people having lost the question in favor of their answers. This isn’t the fault of the question but of the natural misguided attempt to answer it from the perspective of our corrupt ego.

The question “What is the nature of the self” is completely different from “Who am I”. What is the nature of self is analytical. But can you see that “you” don’t exist in the question. You don’t ask the nature of your-self but instead the “self”

Who am I is a question that requires the experience of oneself. If you can gather what it means to “experience oneself” then IMO you’re closer to appreciating the question of “Who am I?” But what does it mean to “experience oneself?” Many have never even heard of much less considered the question?

26

i think its saying -if you stop desiring things you will have everything and more. p.s. not following trends is trendy. p.p.s inner knowledge worked for descartes.

27

First of all, I am nobodys’ sidekick.

Oh wise and all knowing liquidangel, thank you for showing us ‘little boys’ the way. Please insult us some more and one day we may find the path as you did :unamused:

Nick_A:

Indeed what does it mean to experience oneself? What is the ‘oneself’ that you are talking about? What I know of myself is a collection of memories, which entails the things that I know and the things that I have done. My interactions with external things.

Everything that we can know interacts with other things that we can know. If you disagree, give me an example of something that does not (other than this ‘essence’ which you talk about) and I’ll change my opinion. How can there exist something that we can know, that can’t interact with other things we know? In other words, how can this ‘essence’ be knowable without interacting with other knowable things? If I gather correctly, this ‘essence’ that you discuss is something inherently internal, which is unchangable due to its nature of not being able to interact with external things.

Please correct me if my interpretation of ‘essence’ is incorrect here.

28

Comedy Gold!

29

NoelyG

This is hard to describe but to get an idea, there is you and your-self. For now, think of the body, emotions, and your usual thoughts as parts of your-self.

Your essence is what you are born with. It is your unique psychological nature formed from a blend of qualities. Your personality is how it adapts to external influences like family, friends, education, etc.

A person may be born with a flair for courage but in an abusive home, may become cowardly through conditioning. Another may be born with a natural tendency towards tenderness but from psychologically protecting themselves, may develop a personality that exhibits cruelty. In this way your personality becomes dominant

The personality is acquired responsive habits while your essence contains your unique combination of these qualities.

Separating the wheat from the tares or the reality of what we are born with from our acquired habits so that these qualities can mature and balance, is part of self knowledge and beyond this thread. It is not unknowable but as we are, we do not know it.

Part of your essence has the ability to be conscious and it is what can observe your-self.

This is also difficult to explain and sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. So let’s try an experiment. You may get a glimpse of something and maybe not. There is no right or wrong here.

Sit up straight and relax. Now WITHOUT SAYING “I”, observe yourself. Say to yourself that Noel (or whatever your real name) is sitting at the computer and watching the monitor. Remember, do not say I. What does the pressure of the air against your face feel like? How does Noel sense this pressure? Do not analyses but instead affirm the sensation. You may get an experience that there is something higher than the self you are observing which is also real.

It can be knowable if the conscious connection remains. But by now this observation has vanished and you are back in your normal way. There is no more interaction with knowable things since you are no longer consciously in the experience.

30

NoelyG

You’re right, that was totally out of order.

Again, that was out of order. I was having an off day and would love to blame it on pms, but that would be such a lame excuse. So no excuses. I’m really sorry for insulting you. Seriously, made me feel bad for the whole weekend and I’ve learned my lesson. :blush:

31

liquidangel,

Thats cool, no hard feelings.

Nick_A,

Ok, I sort of get what you mean. However, some could argue that this essence that you are born with is just a combination of genetic traits passed down from your parents. Is this the sort of psychological nature that you are talking about, i.e. a genetic one, or something more mystical than that?

Thanks for your responses.

32

Since I’m not a scientist (and practically an immaterialist), I don’t happen to define people by genetics, but moreso as a particular series of events extended through time. I think there’s something to be gained from reflecting on one’s past and potential future, but I don’t see any reason to say that it’s a ‘more real’ sort of knowledge than reflecting on a tree, or a book, or someone else’s spoken words. It’s simply knowledge about different subject matter.
I think this thread got off on the wrong foot by defining the Tao in terms of ‘knowledge’ anyway. That a bit of a Western infusion and completely misses the point.

33

NoelyG,

You ARE the ‘essence’. Go back to the original post. In its’ rather terse fashion, it is saying that our ‘knowing’ is an abstraction, an externalizing and/or separating self from all that is. It suggests that in ‘knowing’ we shouldn’t confuse the abstraction for the ultimate reality. You aren’t just a ‘part’ of reality, you ARE reality, just as everyone and everything else is. Hard to get a handle on, no?

Since I have such a poor way with words, I’m going to steal an explanation from Alan Watts that he used in a lecture sometime in the 60’s. If we examine the human bloodstream through a microscope, we find all sorts of bits and pieces busy moving about carrying nutrients to, and waste from, other bits and pieces of the body. There are specialized cells attacking and destroying other cells considered ‘foreign’ intruders. All in all, the bloodstream is a very busy place, with cells being born, being nutured, and dying, and all sorts of conflict occurring at the same time. If we step back and look at humans through normal vision, we see the human shapes being born, nurtured, and dying, often in the midst of chaotic conflict. Step back further and look at humanity through a telescope and we see that it one of myriad organisms being born, nurtured, and dying in the ebb and flow of nature’s giving and taking.

If we could step back further, we see the planet, the solar sytem, the galaxy, the universe, … and the process of birth, nurture, and death is the same process across the continuum.

All the while we are what we are. Nothing changes but our perspective. To abstract ourselves out from all that is, is a myoptic illusion. It is as if we say that, I am only going to see me as just these particular parts, and I’m going to ignore everything else.

The ‘riddle’ isn’t really a riddle. It is a most commonsense statement. We don’t need to look 'outside to find all that is. We are all that is.

JT

34

tentative

The trouble is that we think we are the sage and capable of living such understanding… It really only exists in us as a potential. Anything else is just our egotism. Long way between our nothingness and the inner unity reflecting “all that is”.

35

Nick,

We ARE capable of living such understanding. It is not mere potential, it is our very being. Ego has nothing to do with it. The Sage nature exists within whether we are egotistical or not, whether we are aware of it or not. It is not far from us, it can be realised in an instant. It is your mind that is standing in your way.

36

Liquidangel

The corrupt ego has everything to do with it. You just don’t realize it. The nature of the oak exists within the acorn as a potential but that doesn’t make it an oak.

Have you ever considered the life of Milarepa?

tibetanfoundation.org/MilarepaBiography.htm

Why did he have to go through so much when all he had to do was open a tall brew, lean back, and realize he was a sage? I know, in those days they didn’t have access to modern “education” so how could he know any better.

Why don’t we do it?

37

Hi Nick,

Milarapa said;

The passage clearly says that ego does NOT exist. There is no difference between what Milarapa is saying here and what Lao Tsu is saying in tentative’s ‘riddle’. Anything that is external (mind and ego included) is an illusion – what is essential exists within us. That if we want to know the whole world we must know ourselves, in other words we must discover what is essential, the Sage Nature if you will, that all essential information exists within us. I don’t see how you can be reading anything about a corrupt ego in what Milarapa is teaching?

Drop this concept about the ego. The ego is not doing anything. It is simply following our orders and thereby showing us through our own thoughts and intentions where we are at. It is meant for us to ‘see’ ourselves. It is a messenger. The seeker comes to understand that the ego is his ‘friend’ in that it shows us parts of ourselves that we are unwilling to accept, but only if we are looking and only if we are unwilling to detach from the ‘I’.

Going through suffering is the only way we can grow. ‘Growing pains’. It is a way we can learn about our own inherent natures. It is a ‘right of passage’. There is a purpose for everything under the sun and suffering is no different, look at the birth of a baby, it suffers during the birthing process, and then it is born – a new life. If you introspect on your own life, you will see that when you most learned something about yourself, just before the learning you would have suffered, but the moment the lesson is learned the suffering is gone. We don’t remember the pain do we? Maybe psychologically, but that is another form of attachment is it not? Also there are other influences that cause us to suffer – please let’s not get into it now, we’ll leave that for another thread, when we get there. I think you are reading something into my words that I have not intended or perhaps I’m not making myself clear. It is not easy to attain buddhahood and certainly leaning back with a beer is not doing nothing. Leaning back with a beer is doing something, it is you fulfilling your desires which exist in the realm of Maya. So leaning back with a beer keeps you stuck in your illusions. Personally I’ll have a carrot juice – but that has a purpose – to keep me healthy, sorry I digress.

As to your question on why we don’t understand our own inherent nature. The answer is simple. Read it between the lines of the entire thread. We are too attached to our thinking. To our concepts. Our mind thinks it knows everything. It thinks it’s us. It holds concepts that we cannot let go of but the very holding of that concept stops us from moving forward. If you want to fill your cup you are going to have to make sure it is empty otherwise it will simply overflow and then you will be left with nothing but the mess.

38

Nick,

There are many who live their understanding. It certainly isn’t the majority, but they are there. The external activities of the enlightened and those of ‘corrupt ego’ look much the same. The enlightened don’t have halos or a special glow, (well, maybe liquidangel does) they simply are. There are no external clues to tell us what is being or merely acting at being.

The Tao also says, “Those who know don’t say. Those who say don’t know.” To be enlightened is to be nothing special.

JT

39

A master in Zen is not simply a teacher. In all the religions there are only teachers. They teach you about subjects which you don’t know, and they ask you to believe because there is no way to bring those experiences into objective reality. Neither has the teacher known them - he has believed them; he transfers his belief to somebody else.

Zen is not a believer’s world. It is not for the faithful ones; it is for those daring souls who can drop all belief, unbelief, doubt, reason, mind, and simply enter into their pure existence without boundaries. But it brings a tremendous transformation.

Hence, let me say that while others are involved in philosophies, Zen is involved in metamorphosis, in a transformation. It is authentic alchemy: it changes you from base metal into gold. But its language has to be understood, not with your reasoning and intellectual mind but with your loving heart. Or even just listening, not bothering whether it is true or not. And a moment comes suddenly that you see it, which has been eluding you your whole life. Suddenly, what Gautam Buddha called “eighty-four thousand doors” open.

  • Osho
40

Liquidangel

I agree that the personal ego existing in isolation is an illusion. The reason that this illusion is so powerful is that it is corrupt. Where it should act as the conscious connection between the higher and the lower, its corruption is created from a combination of fear and imagination resulting is many forms of false pride and vanity necessary to justify itself.

Both what is essential and the false that has been acquired exist in us. Both the real and the false, the wheat and the tares are in us. This is our being.

The corrupt ego doesn’t follow our orders, we follow its orders. This is why we get angry, insulted, hurt and all the rest and during those almost constant intervals where one turns into the other, we do not exist.

If the ego were a result of consciousness it would be balanced and could serve as the union of the higher with the lower. But based on fear and imagination, it cannot serve as intended and we exist as we do.

I agree that we must learn how to suffer. This is why we are not sages.

This is your unconscious corrupt ego. The conscious mind is something else and is capable of objective thought which only a few can sustain… I’ll share something with you now that was sent to me a while back in regards a similar discussion that may indicate the difference.