A Question About Taoism

[DreadFish]

Hi all,
Thanks Jainarayan and Dreadfish for your helpful replies and advice.
This may not be the place to ask more questions especially as they don't strictly relate to the original question by Quakerguy, but I have to start somewhere. I get the impression that brief statements only are the norm on this forum, and I'm wondering if that encourages learning?
Jainarayan, I am very familiar with the Tao Te Ching, my interpretation being that of Stephen Mitchell, 1988, and I think that in order to truly understand it one needs to be very far along the path to realization/enlightenment. Am I talking with people who are in that position, or is it not the case or appropriate for the RF forum and this topic?
I have made statements in my introduction and in my initial reply on this topic to the effect that rather than asking questions about spiritual matters, I am in a position to answer, or discuss them at depth, but without response; (to the spiritual statements that is, whereas my computer skills are not great.)
I do realize that this is a RELIGIOUS forum rather than a SPIRITUAL one and so it may not be the place for me as I have no wish to be part of a religion. (I need to say also that I am not here to ridicule or denigrate any religion.)
Cheers Mike

Hehe, I guess we do tend to give pretty short answers . No, there are many people here who consider themselves "spiritual", to use the parlance of our times, rather than religious; I being one of them. We have definitely engaged in deeper discussions depending on the thread content.

I also have the Stephen Mitchell translation, its excellent. I think it really captures the spirit of the text.

Am I talking with people who are in that position, or is it not the case or appropriate for the RF forum and this topic?

So you mean people who are very far on the path of enlightenment/realization? I dont know how far I am on the path of realization but I feel like I can provide some intuitive discussion. While I cant speak for the others, I must warn you, dont tell them I told you but, they are all quite mad you see

 

[Jainarayan]

I like to think I'm a little further along than I was a year, a month, a day ago. But I'm light years behind many other people. Always room for improvement and learning. Add'ly, I have to use the word spiritual also, being an unabashed universal. There are many ways of viewing God, without rituals, temples or churches.

 

[crossfire]

I must warn you, dont tell them I told you but, they are all quite mad you see

Especially me! ::angel2:

 

[DreadFish]

Especially me! ::angel2:

Quite nebulous indeed

 

[Mike D Larx]

Hi all,
Thanks people for the replies, and I'll respond and keep asking protocol questions. The question being: is it OK to continue to discuss this thread about my place on this forum which is "off topic" to some degree?
DreadFish, I consider the Tao Te Ching to be very advanced reading, nice to see that we have the same version. I have read the extract chapter posted earlier on this topic and I can understand the excellent work Mitchell has done to make the intention of the writer less obscure. I like your post quote by Epictetus because for me it sums up the essence of what is enlightenment.
My experience has been, that while we can rationally know all of the essential theory about enlightenment, it seems to also require a "shift" in perception that is not rational. This is a realization that "happens of its own accord" and can take a long time to integrate and understand (nearly five years so far for me). Also this shift will only happen when the conditions allow, as it is not a rational choice/decision. Specifically then I think that if and when the final realization happens you will know it, but it can be very difficult to confirm because you are suddenly; "the only person in the movie who knows who the murderer is and nobody will believe you!"
I'll finish with a quote which has encouraged me for many years, from e.e. cummings: "To be nobody- but- yourself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else - means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting."
Cheers Mike

 

[Jainarayan]

Hi all,
Thanks people for the replies, and I'll respond and keep asking protocol questions. The question being: is it OK to continue to discuss this thread about my place on this forum which is "off topic" to some degree?

Keep in mind I'm not a mod, just a forum-rat...

You're not off-topic. This is a green DIR which means anyone of any faith can participate as long as there are no debates, there are respectful questions, AND someone who has some knowledge or something worthwhile to share, does. The green DIRs are the most liberal as far as rules. I'd say you're good to go.

 

[bobhikes]

This is my Question, Is it possible to be a Taoist without being a Libertarian?

My question is about my understanding of the Tao. Its all about going the path of life flow. Do you believe the flow of life is Libertarian. I would think any human ideal is met with resistance by the Tao because the Flow never stays in one direction.

 

[DreadFish]

My question is about my understanding of the Tao. Its all about going the path of life flow. Do you believe the flow of life is Libertarian. I would think any human ideal is met with resistance by the Tao because the Flow never stays in one direction.

Well, while government is generally about control and order, going with the Tao is letting things be of their natural order, like how natural phenomena follow the laws of physics. So, if you give sheep a large pasture and dont limit them, they will be content to graze and do sheep stuff, but if you try to contain them in a small enclosure, they get irritable and unruly.

 

[DreadFish]

I guess you could consider the artifice of holding ourselves to ideas and concepts about the world as containing ourselves in a small enclosure

 

[DreadFish]

DreadFish, I consider the Tao Te Ching to be very advanced reading, nice to

see that we have the same version. I have read the extract chapter posted earlier on this topic and I can understand the excellent work Mitchell has done to make the intention of the writer less obscure. I like your post quote by Epictetus because for me it sums up the essence of what is enlightenment.

I guess it could be considered advanced. I do remember, when I first started reading it, that I had trouble grasping the ideas, but they are actually very conspicuous. I think its very advanced simplicity

My experience has been, that while we can rationally know all of the essential theory about enlightenment, it seems to also require a "shift" in perception that is not rational. This is a realization that "happens of its own accord" and can take a long time to integrate and understand (nearly five years so far for me). Also this shift will only happen when the conditions allow, as it is not a rational choice/decision. Specifically then I think that if and when the final realization happens you will know it, but it can be very difficult to confirm because you are suddenly; "the only person in the movie who knows who the murderer is and nobody will believe you!"
I'll finish with a quote which has encouraged me for many years, from e.e. cummings: "To be nobody- but- yourself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else - means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting."
Cheers Mike

Yeah, one of the hardest things for me to realize is that I cant make it happen, it happens like a natural process under the radar. I think there are a lot of programmed automatic processes in the subconscious that feed into the conscious awareness as it relates to various experiences and interprets things certain ways. So, the matter is to forget the processes so that they eventually just die out when there is no more material to feed out. Just like fuel for a fire. What's already there has to be allowed to burn out without refueling.

 

[Mike D Larx]

Hi all,
Jainarayan, thanks for answering the question about the suitability of continuing on this topic; I just need to remember to discuss and not debate?
"Do you believe the flow of life is Libertarian"; this is your question bobhikes, and I like DreadFish's answer about the small enclosure. For me the small enclosure is the mistaken traditional beliefs that we are taught via our upbringing, and this includes the cultural as well as religious. To attach another label like "Libertarian" is "adding more of the same." I understand The Tao as to do with the absence of man-made beliefs.
You do have a good idea DreadFish, about the nature of allowing enlightenment to arise of its own accord. I like the metaphor of not refuelling the programming, and again, maintaining "untrue" beliefs fuels the flames. Knowing of Stephen MItchell's book means that you may also know his wife Byron Katie, and her "the work" as an effective way of removing the "fuel" of traditional and incorrect beliefs.
Cheers Mike

 

[DreadFish]

Knowing of Stephen MItchell's book means that you may also know his wife Byron Katie, and her "the work" as an effective way of removing the "fuel" of traditional and incorrect beliefs.
Cheers Mike

Actually, I've never read that. I'll have to look into it.

 

[Quakerguy]

I'm asking this because I'm thinking about maybe becoming a Philosophical Taoist.
I am a Democrat although I've never voted because I'm opposed to Jury Duty.
I have read The Tao Te Ching but I haven't read the I Ching yet.

 

[Jainarayan]

I haven't read the I Ching yet.

Don't bother. It's not philosophical, but divination. Read Chuang Tze (aka Zhuangzi) and/or Hua Hu Ching.

 

[DreadFish]

I'm asking this because I'm thinking about maybe becoming a Philosophical Taoist.
I am a Democrat although I've never voted because I'm opposed to Jury Duty.
I have read The Tao Te Ching but I haven't read the I Ching yet.

I wouldn't give a second thought to my political ideals. Give to Caesar whats his and whatnot.

Also dont worry about becoming a philosophical Taoist. Id recommend just studying the Tao Te Ching, and maybe the Hua Hu Ching (which I just recently found out about ) and the Chuang Tzu, and practice whats taught there. If its going to work for you, the whole transition will be natural.

The I Ching predates the Tao Te Ching and is just a book on divination. Its mostly unrelated, probably has connection to the whole Chinese naturalist stuff and it just has the word "Ching" in the title . It translates to something like "The Book of Changes".

 

[Quakerguy]

Did Laozi believe in the I-Ching? Also was the I-Ching the Earliest Book to mention the Yin and Yang?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Did Laozi believe in the I-Ching? Also was the I-Ching the Earliest Book to mention the Yin and Yang?

Not a clue, and no.

The first mention of them (together) is in the Shijing:

The first written record of using these two characters together appears in a verse from the Shijing (Book of Songs): “Viewing the scenery at a hill, looking for yinyang.” This indicates that yang is the sunny side and yin is the shady side of hill. This effect of the sun exists at the same time over the hill.

Yinyang (Yin-yang) [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

 

[biased]

and maybe the Hua Hu Ching (which I just recently found out about )

Did you get a chance to read the Hua Hu Ching yet? I've heard it was a very late addition and used as polemics against competing Buddhists for debate purposes.

 

[DreadFish]

Did you get a chance to read the Hua Hu Ching yet? I've heard it was a very late addition and used as polemics against competing Buddhists for debate purposes.

Yes, I found an online copy:

Hua Hu Ching

Yeah, I read that too. To me, the text itself is basically a profession of views, which do appear to include influences from "non-taoist" sources. That translation, at least, seems to agree with my feelings.