Can we trust the benefit of equating the Tao with imagination or is it beneficial to appreciate its potential mathematical or scientific features? Back to the old dispute between advocates of either science or faith,
Imagination by definition can go anywhere and your own clouds are your own but math is math.
To make the scientific question easier I will use an article posted on the Internet.
The Tao must use images since it is to vast for the restrictions of language making language by it self misleading. In ancient times precise knowledge and use of images was called “art.”
So while one facet of the Tao could be considered “void” the two other facets, yin and yang, are the polarities defining what we see as creation.
Can the blending of forces be appreciated scientifically? I would say that they could at some point because I believe they are mathematical. But this is much easier said than done. The ancient science of Alchemy is based on just such knowledge. It is not frowned on by the Church because Christian re-birth is basically an alchemical process.
But now I want to ask you rather than further confuse things. Can you see a potential logic of relationships within the Tao that could bring greater understanding to the relativity of “being” itself and more particularly: “human being?” If it is not just the great beyond but the reconciling principle of the polarities on all levels of yin and yang according to an objective “harmony,” then these relationships should at some point become evident for those able to “see” them.
Perhaps this true natural science of relationships really exists and it is up to us to grow to “see” it rather than attempt to pull it down to our level of imagination.
Lao Tzu wrote:
"The TАО, that can be expressed with words,
is not eternal, original, absolute TАО. "
The ancient Egyptians in the sacred treatise have written down:
" The universe is something intellectual ".
In religions Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism to Great Emptiness
a creative beginning was attributed.
“There is a Great Emptiness
And nothing sacred in It”.
But then, expressing already their subjective human opinion, added:
" But we, people, like flowers
and avoid thorns ".
Yes it does appear that there are several conceptions of how to relate to the Tao. It is clearly beyond our ability towards classification. The question becomes being that it is beyond our grasp, if it is irrelevant, and if not, how do we relate to it.
If the universe and all its manifestations are qualities of the Tao created in accordance with universal law or dharma in Buddhism bounded by the forces of yin and yang, how does it effect us? It seems to me that just going with the flow so to speak leads further into creation as part of the continually manifesting universe.
So it is not being oblivious but acting when necessary from balance.
Here is where the modern view goes wrong IMO. We cannot act from balance so rely upon imagination and avoidance to give the impression of balance. We neither appreciate the difficulty of acting from balance or have the quality of consciousness necessary for it.
If consciousness exists for us, ultimate consciousness is the dominion of the Tao. This article asserts that Taoists in the real sense have developed conscious control of internal states to maintain balance. We lack any of this. It is natural then to speak of wonderful thoughts since we need this imagination to give the impression of balance
These exercises of the Taoists are not random and chaos but work on lawful principles and as such must be considered a part of a natural science we are unaware of like Alchemy.
If Taoism is Way-making, or making our way, as we are it is impossible for us since our internal states are so chaotic and in opposition to each other. We can meditate for fifteen minutes and become quiet. We then go outside and someone insults us so we become raving lunatics. Why? It is because of the plurality of our nature. One side appreciates the Tao while other parts of our collective self have no interest. We lack higher consciousness to reconcile these states Each then have their dominant turn in our lives.
But it is through consciousness of ourselves that the Tao can become a greater objective influence in our lives. It is nice to speak of the Tao as the “ineffable” and the foolishness of trying to “know” But the obvious need to “know thyself” since we cannot know the ineffable is usually ignored in favor of the imaginary going with the flow.
We can enjoy the concept of the Tao as water seeking its lowest level as it descends into the earth. But the question I have for you is if man is more like the water or the salmon which swims UPSTREAM in order to return to the source of its arising?
If Man is more like the salmon it requires consciousness rather then just an unconscious going with the flow. The chaotic nature of our being renders going with the flow useless other than for sweet dreams and descending further into the earth.
Real excercises reflect knowledge of the laws of being and as such are really just natural science. But to begin to appreciate their necessity and purpose requires the beginning of self knowledge referred to by the ancients as “awakening.” But this is tough and like the salmon swimming upstream. It is so much easier and lovely to row row row your boat gently down the stream and keep the life experience as a dream. But IMO for those who really need a contact with something beyond imagination it requires the natural conscious science of “know thyself” and forgetting about defining the ineffable. I’ve found such people to be a rarity. It is so much easier turning on the tube and watch Dr. Phil go through the motions as we think “wonderful” thoughts…
I know it seems odd to reply here to a post by Tentative on a the Religion board but I’ve learned by experience, it is the only way to avoid the condemnation and demands to get off of threads and the like.
I must admit to not being sure what to do. I am trying to get a New Board to discuss ideas with the non violence they deserve so common sense tells me to just reply with common sense thereby becoming so annoying that the enlightened ones will help me in this cause just to get rid of me. But the other side is that the hissy fits and expressions of righteous indignation, as always in the past, would also adversely effect some nice people. Tough Problem. I’ll start with this approach
Anyhow in relation to the Tao, Tentative wrote to Ned:
Sounds good, right?
But I think it necessary to present another side.
Now this IMO is a loss of a sense of scale. The fact that it is beyond words does not deny the possibility of communication. This is the task the teacher has in developing a student.
It is not a problem with words but how they are read. Words are captured and interpreted by the literal mind. Spiritual truths are not the domain of the literal mind but a higher quality of conscious mind. The purpose of the wording of sacred text is to bypass the literal mind while awakening the slumbering conscious mind.
The ancient traditions have devised two essential ways to deal with this. The first refers to symbolism. The literal mind becomes confused by the symbol and finally gives up trying to classify it. But the symbol is composed of sacred relationships which are now free to touch this higher mind that is normally dormant, asleep, in us.
The same is true in sacred text or certain special “fables” When connected to deeper truths. They are capable of arousing a quality of emotion which we know as “knowing"or direct knowledge. This is possible because the knowledge was put into it by one with understanding of the effects of wording. The artist allows these words to"live” in the spiritual sense by how they are blended together giving us the objective experience of ourselves.
Not from the Christian perspective.
It does not suggest “knowing all” but in knowing good and evil. There is a big difference: perspective. A big topic.
Grace does not come when we realize we do not know but rather from the experiential revelation of our nothingness. What is the place of “nothingness?” The beginning. This arouses an emotional call from the depth of our being that can be responded to if conditions are right. It creates a void in which the Holy spirit can enter.
It is not a matter of giving up ego but instead giving up imagination so that the immature soul, “Ego” can be freed from the bondage of imagination" so it can experience life as it can. We need help from above for this inner cleansing of the power of imagination. “To be or not to be” really is the question.
Are the goals of “not knowing” and “knowing your nothingness” the same? I feel a big difference here and invite you to see if you feel it as well.
Nick, interesting case for the Tao as a scientifically based philosophy of the world.
My one observation is as follows:
You said that the Tao must use images because language is restricted. This gives one the illusion that the Tao is able to express its vastness through those images. It reminds me of the saying “a picture is worth a thousands words” in that there is a reverse to this: one word can inspire a million pictures. There are restrictions to images. How do we present a picture of faith, of hope, of god, of love, of hate, of fear, of rage, of peace? Where one man sees a peaceful meadow, another sees advantageous military positioning…
Don’t forget that the purpose of the Tao or any genuine sacred texts is to reveal the subtle objective truths behind our normal subjective interpretations of reality. I agree that language is very deceptive even on the subjective level.
I’ve learned that a word has both a literal meaning and a meaning by form or an emotional content that is acquired in life. So as you say a picture also can do the same. One person viewing a sunset at the beach may have pleasant memories and a woman raped on a beach at sunset would have unpleasant memories. So a symbol has to be able to express deep truths while evoking as little preconception as possible. The esoteric meaning is hidden behind our normal life’s meanings. It is like a picture behind a picture.
Look a the symbol in this link. Try not to read what is below it. What emotions arise in you?.What simplified thoughts? The symbol can communicate to you. Without interpreting it, what is its effect? An enlightened person could see things in it that we would completely miss.
There is a great deal put into something so deceptively simple. But because its origin is outside life so to speak, it can transmit objective knowledge.
This is why the Tao cannot be limited to interpretations for behavior but simply contemplated. Christianity had the same trouble and fell into the same trap
Simone Weil knew this and is why I like the quote in my sig:
This is why Christ spoke in parables. To speak plainly would be useless since the essence of what is spoken becomes interpreted by our experiences so its importance which is outside life, part of the "now"of our being, can touch us at this level.
It just awes me sometimes when I read any sacred text. Apparently there have always been a minority of people that genuinely understood the nature of human being. It clarifies for me the expression I’ve learned that the teachings do not teach you anything new but allow you to remember what has been forgotten. People who accuse the ancients in matters of this profound psychology of being ignorant just miss the point. In science we learn new things and relationships. These ancient teachings in contrast allow one to remember what has been forgotten. Maybe it’s just me but I find this contrast awe inspiring.
You know Nick, you’re sooo unhappy, and soooo abused by tentative… You’re full of sooooo much wisdom… Why don’t you just start your own website? I promise I won’t try to join and then you’ll be happy!
It is just part of paying ones dues for expressing common sense on the Religion board.
It is a shame though because this dominant attitude of taking the Tao as a form of star gazing deprives people of a great deal. The importance of its cycles is ignored in favor of following the water into the ground. But what about the fire? I know: that is too male a concept and out of fashion.
Descartes, if you’re still around, let me know if you find any mistakes in the following link.
I’m posting this just so those who read it can get a sense the eternal cyclical flow of the essential five elements. I study this on my path as forces and “vibrations” but it really is the same thing. Knowledge of these objective relationships is real objective knowledge and as such, there is a science to it beyond what we normally call science.
You need to read the whole thread. It was just a honest (nasty, but honest) response to the continued whining that accompanies all responses to anyone who disagrees with, or confronts a particular point of view. Although I’m the devil personified, there are a number of members who “just don’t understand” Even Dunamis spent a couple of pages trying to dent this perfect knowing and might as well have been talking to the wall. Anyone who disagrees with this pov is accused of living in la la land, or star gazing or whatever the current derisive label happens to be. Haven’t seen the wretched man or the great beast for awhile, but they’re out there. You’re now on the inside. I’m guessing, but I doubt you’ll stay too long.
It never occured to me that Zen might have a counter-philosophy but; looking at your post i got to wondering if yin/yang evolved into Zen and Zhuang. If so, then i would expect Zen to be agentic and Zhuang to be communal.
I think so but, science would have to be fleshed out.
I saw a huge tome in the bookstore a few years back; something about a new science. It try to describe how bits come together to make wholes. Something like that (a salmon) would have to be added to science (loose water), i think.
There is a movement within scientific circles working toward that end. A collection of papers titled Cycles of Contingency talks of epigenetic evolution and the like. And in the latest issue of Scientific American Mind has an essay titled ‘The New Science of Mind’ that tries to take a more global perspective.
I appreciate your syncretic efforts but, context must be respected. Wu Wei presents very differently to the christian than it does to a buddhist, for example.
I’m on the inside and still don’t understand it. Dunamis was primarily attacking Tentative. He said some things about me purely from inertia. We did have some PMs and I didn’t really sense any animosity.
Where can anyone find one whining post by me. It is because of all this that I think these topics deserve a more meaningful board. There is a basic division between imagination and consciousness that is referred to in all the ancient teachings. Why is the idea of maya, a sanskrit word translated as illusion so taboo or too derisive to consider?
Paul’s description of himself in the Bible as the wretched man is essential to Christianity. The Great Beast as described in Plato’s Republic and written about by Simone Weil is perfectly appropriate for religious philosophy. How is referring to them as whining?
I will award the brass filigree with bronze oak leaf palm to anyone showing me whining more than how I am whined at in this post. I enjoy wine with dinner but this is ridiculous.
I really believe we are entering exciting times with all of this especially from developments in quantum physics. I must admit it interests me a great deal. I just used this in another post but will show it to you since I do believe it suggests something that science will eventually come to understand;
From Jacob Needleman’s book “A Sense of the Cosmos:”
It is quite possible that these universal laws, seemingly known by the ancient traditions, will become more known again as they seem to have been in the past.
I was lucky enough to abandon my cultural dogma when i was five yrs old; lucky enough to be born into a structure that allowed me to wonder without telling me what to wonder about. I was lucky enough to be educated when education was affordable and, lucky enough to live in a society where different cultural perspectives are respected (at least ostensibly.)
If there is to be a global syncretization on a scientific basis then the relevent science must be studied, evolution generally and consciousness in particular, as that forms the reasonable ground.
Actually it is being done but naturally these efforts are private. I’ve found that all of them begin with first getting a grasp of the nature of the universe. From this perspective, reason works its way down to our level within the universe. This is in contrast to the usual bottom up approach that is still the rage of the day.
If this does interest you, try reading the first Chapter of Jacob needleman’s “A sense of the Cosmos” reproduced here titled then “Universe.” If this makes any sense to you, there are ideas out there that are truly awe inspiring.
You’ll see “A Sense of the Cosmos” when you click on this link:
I find it rather hard to get a grasp on the nature of the universe. It looks to me like an arrogance trap but, i’m not absolutely certain. Reason is a tool we have to discern truth; it comes from above and below.
I agree with this. It kind of defines the dogma of the day. I grew up in a public system; now things are going private. That’s a big mistake, i think, when it comes to healthcare and education.
In a secular system; i think you have to just present everything at once. Then everyone so inclined should talk about it. There is justice in that.
I’ve noticed that most research is done collectively to justify our personal convictions and feelings of self worth. It begins with an unwritten premise that the universe is here to serve us… However these ideas begin with the premise that Man is here to serve the universe but for several reasons, we’ve lost understanding of it. This is not all that flattering to egotism so sincere efforts in this direction have to be a bit hidden to avoid the normal expressions of righteous indignation at such a point of view causing all sorts misleading premature confusion. Being low key eliminates one of the largest attractions of egotism and righteous indignation: the ability to act self important in front of others.
I agree. It would seem that balanced reason requires a balance between our capacities for both inductive and deductive reason. But deductive reason requires acquiring a glimpse of the whole or at least a distinction between our conception of universal wholeness and how it actually is in relation to ourselves. In Christianity, such experiences are valued as gnosis and in Buddhism: satori. So this idea of the balanced experience of wholeness as it relates to as above, so below within us is not anything new.
It would seem so being that secular life is unconscious life that reacts to external circumstances in accordance with its level of being… As such, subtle distinctions will bounce right off as they always have in the past.
Conscious life understands the deeper meanings of what giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s really means. It is the responsibility of the conscious to the unconscious. It is easier seen when we understand that the universe is not here to serve us but rather we are here to serve it.
I agree that the truth is not flattering to egotism but, in the absence of open discourse popular culture has overwhelmed reasonable discussion. Whatever rationalization is used; proprietary attitudes toward information and its dissemination has shaken the leaves from the tree.
It’s a mistake, i think, to get the idea that we should serve the universe. It’s more like we are the universe, its representative in a sense. The universe is not life; it’s more like a cycle of life and death. The Truth exists past the universe; it is Life.
Not new but, surely not trivial. If someone catches a glimpse that enables a deductive progression, they ought to talk about it as the context is important. To take a perception and claim it to be your own new understanding of the universe might be to fall into the trap; particularly if you write it up, copywrite it, and sell it.
