that excerpt is very like the material in the book I read. Shame I can’t recall it, but it was a long time ago and I don’t recall the title even well enough to google it.

Yes I have heard a similar account from a practitioner.

On a side note, I saw that the Dalai Lama (and yes different tradition) has made several comments on the urgent importance of action on climate change.

Oh of course. He made the memorable statement in his book on philosophy of science, Universe in a Single Atom, that any Buddhist principles overturned by scientific discovery must give way. He’s a very progressive thinker, and has always showed strong interest in science. But it’s a very deep and multi-faceted question. There’s a scholar, Donald Lopez, who has written a lot about this.

There’s a scholar, Donald Lopez, who has written a lot about this. — Wayfarer

Cool. I've seen some of his work in passing but not read it. Thanks.

Popular wisdom says that Chinese Buddhism in particular was deeply influenced by Taoism and that Ch’an Buddhism (Japanese Zen) had many Taoist elements. However, a Zen teacher I know and respect is highly critical of this interpretation. But I differ with him on that, I think there is a well-documented influence between the two.

It’s not right to say Buddhism is ‘rational in spirit’. The Buddha by definition is not limited ‘by mere logic’ - ‘the dharmas I teach are deep, subtle, difficult to fathom, beyond mere logic, perceivable only by the wise.’ Buddhism employs logic but it’s ultimate aim is beyond logic - not irrational, but supra-rational, which is an important distinction. — Wayfarer

Perhaps my eagerness to confirm my own understanding/suspicions on the matter makes me jump to conclusions. Anyway, I'd like to pick your brain regarding how Buddhism is "supra-rational"? What does that even mean by the way?

All mysticism is supra-rational. It transcends modern rationalism, which is always ultimately anchored to sense perception albeit mediated by the instrumental power of science. Traditional rationalism is a different issue because it also is mystical - the Parmenides is a mystical text par excellence. It seeks to deduce by abductive inference what must be the case in order for things to be as they are. A lot of that got incorporated into theology over the centuries, and so it is mainly rejected on those grounds, although that happens a lot of the time without any real awareness of what has been rejected.

Modern culture is inextricably bound to empiricism and so what Buddhist philosophy would categorise as the ‘domain of name and form’. Buddhist and other Eastern philosophies are critically aware of the nature of first-person experience. The Buddha’s approach is ‘deconstructive’ in a way that is hard for us moderns to understand. It is insight into the nature of experience and in particular the factor that leads to continued rebirth and so suffering.

Tao is a whirling emptiness (ch'ung),
Yet (erh) in use (yung) is inexhaustible (ying).
Fathomless (yuan),
It seems to be the ancestor (tsung) of ten thousand beings.

It blunts the sharp,
Unties the entangled,
Harmonizes the bright,
Mixes the dust.

Dark (chan),
It seems perhaps to exist (ts'un).
I do not know whose child it is,
It is an image (hsiang) of what precedes God (Ti).

According to this verse, the Tao is:
A whirling emptiness
Inexhaustible
Fathomless
An image of what proceeds God.

Emptiness doesn’t whirl, does it? Inexhaustible in doing what? Maybe in creating and recreating the 10,000 things. There is a theme of return in the TTC. It comes up more in later verses. I struggled with the idea for a long time. Now, I’ve come to think the Tao doesn’t create the world once, but is creating it over and over again, continuously.

And what about “an image that proceeds God?” So, the Tao is older than God. That means, I guess, that God is one of the 10,000 things. That can’t be right. Can you imagine a more radical idea than that? This is my favorite line in the TTC.

According to this verse, the Tao seems:
Not to be anyone’s child
To be the ancestor of 10,000 things
To exist, maybe.

I’m not sure what Lao Tzu means by “seems.” It usually means “appears” and may imply that appearance is misleading. Nothing can be before or greater than the Tao. It comes before God. The Tao can’t be “anyone’s child.” It is the ancestor of, creates, the multiplicity of things....

As for “It seems perhaps to exist,” I have always thought that the Tao doesn’t exist. It is, after all, non-being. Does “seems” mean that it is misleading to think of the Tao as existing? I don’t know. — T Clark

I guess that depends on what you mean by ‘exist’. Non-being is not the same as non-existent. For me, ‘seems’ would refer to a phenomenal existence, appearance or being, but ‘seems perhaps’ refers to the contradiction at the heart of the Tao. I think it is misleading to think of the Tao as only existing, without acknowledging the possibility of it not existing, and vice versa, if that makes sense. Remember that we cannot tell anything about the Tao - the best we can do is relate to it as openly as we can manage, and acknowledge the qualities and limitations of that relation.

I think we can sometimes underestimate how difficult it was for ancient writers to describe abstract ideas to an audience whose reality is so grounded in the actual. We’re much more accustomed to talking about potentiality and possibility after thousands of years of refining our language use (and yet we still struggle). To describe the Tao as ‘whirling’ does not mean it is static; and to describe it as ‘emptiness’ does not mean it is actual. Likewise, to describe the Tao as ‘inexhaustible’ does not mean it is a process and to describe it as ‘fathomless’ does not mean it is a concept. The Tao is all of these aspects and more.

The description in this verse reminds me of Kant’s aesthetics, and the progressive transcendence of the four moments: quality beyond object, quantity beyond concept, relation beyond purpose and delight beyond necessity. ‘Whirling’ suggests more than is tangible, ‘emptiness’ more than is observable, ‘inexhaustible’ more than is potentially measurable, and ‘fathomless’ more than is possibly understandable. For me, these correspond to transcending dimensional structures of awareness.

“It seems to be the ancestor of 10,000 beings” - this description takes the Tao beyond the notion of being. He’s included a level of uncertainty here, in the use of ‘ancestor’, and later when he talks about it being a “child of”. Perhaps he doesn’t want to imply a Creator-Being, which also makes sense as he then describes it as “an image of what precedes God”. This reaches beyond even this seemingly ‘absolute’ Being as a named aspect of the Tao, with all of our preconceived or ‘told’ notions of what ‘God’ is.

All mysticism is supra-rational — Wayfarer

Are you saying Buddhism is a tradition in mysticism? I must disagree with you on that for, if I'm not mistaken, both Buddhist beliefs and practices have an air of being well-considered, subject to rigorous logical analysis as it were. Its key doctrines are, among many others I suppose, are: 1. ALL life is suffering and 2. ALL things are ephemeral (impermanence). As you can see, the "ALL" plays a significant role, logically speaking, as it becomes the basis of arguments that lead to certain conclusions that become the core principles in Buddhism and any other system of beliefs thus founded for that matter.

To give you an idea of what I'm getting at consider the much-used categorical syllogism about Socrates' mortality:

1. ALL men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man
Ergo,
3. Socrates is mortal

The above argument gives you a glimpse of what's necessary for logic, at least in categorical logic, viz. universal statements like "All A's are B's" and it's contrary "No A's are B's". Without them, we couldn't formulate any worthwhile argument.

Such "ALL" statements are missing in Taoism and, in fact Taoism takes a different route to reality, shifting the emphasis from "ALL" to "SOME" for it, in its own way, highlights exceptions to generalities - it leaves no stone unturned in trying to let us in on a secret, the secret that "ALL" statements are untenable - they can't be held as true without losing touch with reality.

Consider now a hypothetical categorical syllogism with only "SOME" statements:

Premise 1: Some people are good people.
Premise 2: Some good people are Chinese (homage to Lao Tzu)
Ergo,
Conclusion: ???

No conclusion follows from a syllogism that has only "SOME" statements. In other words, as I alluded to in my previous post, logic is useless with a capital U when it comes to making sense of reality. That's the crux of Taoism.

That out of the way, I would like to ask you how Taoism and Buddhism were brought together in Zen Buddhism? What difficulties existed at the level of core principles and what were the points on which both were on the same page so to speak?

My issue with this is how do you apply this approach to creating social change? In relation to progress created by activists in women's suffrage, race equality, gay rights, etc - should they just have waited? Or is there a different nuance to acting without acting? — Tom Storm

For me, there’s a different nuance. Wu wei, to act without acting, is to effect change without necessarily gaining credit for it. There are thousands of quietly progressive thinkers, leaders and change-makers throughout history who were never credited with being agents for change. There were also many who were criticised for doing nothing or not enough to effect change, yet who possibly had a hand in achieving more for race equality, gay rights, etc than those who earned public recognition as ‘activists’. Wu wei is when effective change cannot be traced back to you as action.

Not-doing is about knowing when to conserve your energy and trust in the natural course or the actions of others as just as effective or more so than your own. It means that achieving is not about being seen to be active. Sometimes effecting change is about recognising your limitations and simply stepping out of the way.

as it becomes the basis of arguments that lead to certain conclusions that become the core principles in Buddhism and any other system of beliefs thus founded for that matter. — TheMadFool

The core principles of Buddhism are not logical syllogisms. They can be expressed as verbal formulations but as the Buddhist saying has it, the finger points at the moon, but don't mistake the finger for moon.

I would like to ask you how Taoism and Buddhism were brought together in Zen Buddhism? What difficulties existed at the level of core principles and what were the points on which both were on the same page so to speak? — TheMadFool

That sounds like a term paper! As said, a reputable teacher I know denies the influence, but the Taoist attitudes of spontenaity, naturalness and directness seem to me to have had an influence on Chinese and thence Japanese Buddhism, both in practice and aesthetics. Beyond that, I'd have to brush up on the subject again, it's a very big question. And I don't want to derail the thread any further than I already have.

I should also mention Burton Watson's well-known translation of the Chuang Tzu which was also one of the readings. It is a companion piece to the Tao Te Ching. — Wayfarer

Thanks, I will take a look at this too. Downloadable here:

https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html

You, Amity, and Jack Cummins should get together and start a thread. I'll participate enthusiastically. — T Clark

For me, that is not an option.
I am barely passed the Introduction.
I am more likely to follow a thread started by someone with experience/knowledge who can guide it through rocky waters.
Thanks anyway.

I agree with your description here of not-doing, but I’m not sure if I quite agree with wu wei as spontaneous action. I think perhaps this has something to do with intentionality. It’s more about our insistence on being the one to act, which relates again to seeking personal recognition. We can intend an outcome and set up conditions for it to occur without being the one to perform any action that can be credited with the outcome. For me, wu wei is collaboration that resists localised attribution of success, advancement or recognition. — Possibility

I try to pay attention to the experience that is going on inside me when I think, feel, and act. There is a visual and aural image that represents how that feels to me. I picture a spring bubbling gently up from underground, making a little pool around itself. I can hear the gentle gurgle and, if I want to, I can reach down and touch the cool water. This represents my experience of where motivation, intention come from when things are working right. That non-intention can go directly into action without reflection. That's what I think of as wu wei. Intending without intending leading to acting without acting

This may seem unrelated, except that the TTC is very clear about us being bound by affect (desire), and the implications this has on our ability to understand the Tao (objective reality). — Possibility

Not to be pedantic, but I think it is very important to recognize that the Tao is not objective reality. In a sense, that difference is the difference between eastern and western ways of seeing the world.

...he’s talking about the role of affect in how we make sense of the world. Beautiful, ugly, good and bad are the “manifestations” we see (that we construct) while “caught in desire”. I think it helps for us to understand what affect is and how we construct these value hierarchies from our affected relation to the Tao. — Possibility

Do you think that all affect is desire? I remember reading about people who had damage to the part of the brain where emotions are centered. After the injury, they could no longer intend and act. They were perfectly capable of recognizing what was going, but were unable to do anything. Even action without action requires affect.

The bottom line is this: the human brain is anatomically structured so that no decision or action can be free of interoception and affect, not matter what fiction people tell themselves about how rational they are. Your bodily feeling right now will project forward to influence what you will feel and do in the future. It is an elegantly orchestrated, self-fulfilling prophecy, embodied within the architecture of your brain. — Lisa Feldman Barrett, ‘How Emotions Are Made”

Seems like this is the same thing I am talking about.

I know this is taking the thread away from the original intention.
However, I thought this small excerpt might be useful and wouldn't harm... — Amity

I'm really happy with the way people are bringing texts in from outside. So far, they've all been relevant and have helped my understanding. I appreciate your regard to the purpose of the thread, but please continue to bring in things you think will help open our eyes.

What are the similariities/differences between Buddhism and Taoism? — TheMadFool

Popular wisdom says that Chinese Buddhism in particular was deeply influenced by Taoism and that Ch’an Buddhism (Japanese Zen) had many Taoist elements. — Wayfarer

I've been in discussions about whether or not it is appropriate to bring Buddhist ideas, such as "illusion," into discussions about Taoism. I generally say "yes," keeping in mind that while I have spent time with the TTC, I have only flitted around Buddhism. One important thing they have in common is the focus on awareness of internal experience rather than ideas and rational thought, which is how most western philosophy works. That focus makes it possible to find common ground between Taoism and Buddhism .

On a side note, I saw that the Dalai Lama (and yes different tradition) has made several comments on the urgent importance of action on climate change. — Tom Storm

Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-lagunga.

Forgive me.

the finger points at the moon, but don't mistake the finger for moon. — Wayfarer

Something Lao Tzu would probably have given his nod of apporval to. I wonder if Buddhism, the whole of it, is kinda like Wittgenstein's ladder:

My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)

   He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright. — Wittgenstein

You started a thread that has a similar tone: What are you saying?

Perhaps the similarity is superficial and there's nothing to it but...you never know.

Buddhist principles overturned by scientific discovery must give way. — Wayfarer

I wonder if there could be Buddhist principles which would be in conflict with science. Buddhist thought is so much more sophisticated, if that's the right word, than psychology.

There’s a scholar, Donald Lopez, who has written a lot about this. — Wayfarer

Cool. I've seen some of his work in passing but not read it. Thanks. — Tom Storm

I just looked him up. He's an American specializing in Buddhist studies. He's married to a Japanese women who specializes in European History.

Wu wei is when effective change cannot be traced back to you as action. — Possibility

I think you brought up something similar in one of your other posts. I'm having trouble keeping track of them all along with what I've responded to. There's a theme in the TTC about the danger of desiring and attaining status and prestige. There's also the theme of action without action. I think those are two separate factors. Wait. Do I really believe that?...Wu wei is not concerned with achievement or recognition, but action without concern for achievement is not necessarily wu wei. Am I nitpicking? ...Maybe.

I don't want to derail the thread any further than I already have. — Wayfarer

I appreciate your vigilance at avoiding tangents. So far, I've been really happy with how people are bringing outside sources into the discussion.

Thanks, I will take a look at this too. Downloadable here: — Amity

Downloaded and sent to my Kindle. Isn't technology wonderful.

Downloaded and sent to my Kindle. Isn't technology wonderful. — T Clark

Yes it is. If you can use it :smile:
How do you send a download to your kindle ?

How do you send a download to your kindle ? — Amity

Let's see...
Go to Amazon and check in.
Go to Manage your content and devices
Up at the top, click on Preferences
Scroll down and click on Personal Document Settings
There should be different email addresses there for all of your devices.
Compose a new email with the Kindle email addresses. Attach the downloaded file. They'll send you an acknowledgement request. Say yes. Wait a little while. Look for your document under "Docs" on your Kindle.
Good luck.

I agree with your description here of not-doing, but I’m not sure if I quite agree with wu wei as spontaneous action. I think perhaps this has something to do with intentionality. It’s more about our insistence on being the one to act, which relates again to seeking personal recognition. We can intend an outcome and set up conditions for it to occur without being the one to perform any action that can be credited with the outcome. For me, wu wei is collaboration that resists localised attribution of success, advancement or recognition.
— Possibility

I try to pay attention to the experience that is going on inside me when I think, feel, and act. There is a visual and aural image that represents how that feels to me. I picture a spring bubbling gently up from underground, making a little pool around itself. I can hear the gentle gurgle and, if I want to, I can reach down and touch the cool water. This represents my experience of where motivation, intention come from when things are working right. That non-intention can go directly into action without reflection. That's what I think of as wu wei. Intending without intending leading to acting without acting — T Clark

Well, I think we disagree markedly on our interpretation of wu wei. It seems to me that you see it as acting subconsciously, as if there is an aspect of our thinking, feeling and acting that renders our experience of it as a passive bystander. I’m not convinced that either of us is correct, but if your interpretation is the case, then I wonder what benefit this ‘non-intending’ ‘action without reflection’ serves for the Tao?

Well, I think we disagree markedly on our interpretation of wu wei. It seems to me that you see it as acting subconsciously, as if there is an aspect of our thinking, feeling and acting that renders our experience of it as a passive bystander. I’m not convinced that either of us is correct, but if your interpretation is the case, then I wonder what benefit this ‘non-intending’ ‘action without reflection’ serves for the Tao? — Possibility

I think it's a misconception that acting without prior conscious intention is acting as a "passive bystander." When I write, words pour out of me without conscious control. Sometimes it feels like the words are writing themselves. Writing me. I sometimes feel the same with with other types of behavior. I feel the most there, the most me, when that happens. Do you ever have that kind of experience? It is not uncommon. That is my understanding of "wu wei."

Not to be pedantic, but I think it is very important to recognize that the Tao is not objective reality. In a sense, that difference is the difference between eastern and western ways of seeing the world. — T Clark

I’m with you there.

Do you think that all affect is desire? I remember reading about people who had damage to the part of the brain where emotions are centered. After the injury, they could no longer intend and act. They were perfectly capable of recognizing what was going, but were unable to do anything. Even action without action requires affect. — T Clark

No - I do, however, think that desire is essentially affect. FWIW, I disagree with the commonly held understanding that there is a “part of the brain where emotions are centred”. Emotions have more recently been demonstrated as a whole-brain process, but the interoceptive network appears to be the key to producing affect. I should point out that emotion is more than affect. Affect is how the brain translates all information (sensory as well as conceptual) into effort and attention and distributes it across the organism. Emotion is how we conceptualise this information. But I think we’re basically on the same page here.

There's a theme in the TTC about the danger of desiring and attaining status and prestige. There's also the theme of action without action. I think those are two separate factors. Wait. Do I really believe that?...Wu wei is not concerned with achievement or recognition, but action without concern for achievement is not necessarily wu wei. Am I nitpicking? ...Maybe. — T Clark

I don’t think it helps to try and separate these factors. I get that action without concern for achievement is not necessarily wu wei. But I do think that attempting to distill wu wei to a definition or essence is counterproductive. It’s going back to naming particular things, isn’t it?

I think it's a misconception that acting without prior conscious intention is acting as a "passive bystander." When I write, words pour out of me without conscious control. Sometimes it feels like the words are writing themselves. Writing me. I sometimes feel the same with with other types of behavior. I feel the most there, the most me, when that happens. Do you ever have that kind of experience? It is not uncommon. That is my understanding of "wu wei." — T Clark

I guess I sometimes experience something similar when I speak, but not when I write. And I certainly don’t feel ‘most there’ when that happens - I feel like I’m playing catch-up. Writing is when I have the most conscious (even self-conscious) involvement. But I also recognise that my sense of awareness doesn’t operate in a conventional way - I think that I perceive the world differently to most people, so I wouldn’t take my exception as necessarily disproving a rule.

I think perhaps when we get to the verses about the self, we might gain some more clarity on our differences here. I get the sense that you have an essentialist view of the self - that we ‘discover’ the self rather than construct it?