Excellent instructions. It worked, thanks :smile:

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. — Wayfarer

It's not difficult to understand at all if you realize that the words are merely pointing at the truth. It is conceptual thought that creates attachment that creates suffering.

The numerous contents of the tradition of Chinese medicine all originate from the study of the Dao.

Another tradition springing from the study of the Dao (which is closely related to medicine as treatment) was the development of the many "gongs" or training methods that lead to exercises for breath, mind, and energy. Those gongs also relate to "dances" such as the Five Animals Frolics of Hua Tuo. The language of Chinese martial arts also draws from the Tao Te Ching.

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. — Possibility

The question of whether or not the Tao exists is one I have thought a lot about. To start, in English, being and existence mean the same thing. From the way Lao Tzu uses them, it seems like they do in ancient Chinese too. One way of looking at it is that calling the Tao "non-being" and the 10,000 things "being" is figurative, poetic. I believe that's correct, but in the TTC, two conflicting understandings can be correct at the same time.

For what it's worth, I have never convinced anyone that it makes sense to think that it doesn't exist. I've found that whenever I try to explain how I see it, I have a hard time. Someone asked me "When you're asleep, does the world disappear. My answer - yes of course...but. If I can't conceptualize or describe something, I can't think about it. I can't put it in my world. In that case, I think it makes sense to say it doesn't exist.

“It seems to be the ancestor of 10,000 beings” - this description takes the Tao beyond the notion of being. — Possibility

Lao Tzu's audience was scholars and bureaucrats. Educated people. Or are you talking about us as his audience?

“It seems to be the ancestor of 10,000 beings” - this description takes the Tao beyond the notion of being. — Possibility

I'm pretty sure when Lao Tzu says "10,000 beings" he means the same as when he says "10,000 things."

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” — Possibility

A bit later we'll get to Lao Tzu's creation story. It's ambiguous and contradictory too.

Boy - I'm not happy with how this turned out, but it's the best I can do. Maybe I'll try again later.

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? — Possibility

Yes. We have plenty of time to work on this. Your insights have been really helpful.

Another tradition springing from the study of the Dao (which is closely related to medicine as treatment) was the development of the many "gongs" or training methods that lead to exercises for breath, mind, and energy. Those gongs also relate to "dances" such as the Five Animals Frolics of Hua Tuo. The language of Chinese martial arts also draws from the Tao Te Ching. — Valentinus

One of the members of my TTC reading group is a Tai Chi instructor. He brought a really helpful perspective to our discussions.

here 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. — Possibility

I don't disagree but who are you thinking of by way of comparison?

— T Clark

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

While the language does not encourage defining what the best polity may be, I think there is a degree of freedom for the individual to see utility in a more subtle way. The passage I quoted from Zhuangzi, draws a direct line between "how one makes themselves useful" to their longevity and experience.

That connection is the other side of the dynamic Lao Tzu is pointing to as how rulers bring about what becomes useful. Like the stanza:

If you overesteem great men,
people become powerless.
If you overvalue possessions,
people begin to steal.

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. — T Clark

The traditional cosmology of Buddhism is no more compatible with science than Ptolmaic astronomy. According to it, the center of the Universe is Mount Meru, with four regions spreading below it. It is derived from traditional Indian cosmology. That, I think, is what the Dalai Lama had in mind - he has acknowledged that Mount Meru is mythological, but it's a very real challenge for religious conservatives to accept it. But I don't know think the basic truths of Buddhism are threatened.

Here's a Lopez article, it's paywalled but I think can be read for free as a guest https://tricycle.org/magazine/scientific-buddha/

The traditional cosmology of Buddhism is no more compatible with science than Ptolmaic astronomy....But I don't know think the basic truths of Buddhism are threatened. — Wayfarer

That makes sense to me.

To start, in English, being and existence mean the same thing. — T Clark

Reality doesn't exist, it simply is. It is that from which all particular things arise and back into which they fall. That is something that can only be understood by non-action, wu-wei. (Cribbed from various sources.)

One of the members of my TTC reading group is a Tai Chi instructor. He brought a really helpful perspective to our discussions. — T Clark

I am glad you mention that because I was introduced to these ideas as guides to a practice. It was only after a long time of reading that I became aware of the thinking behind it. It is difficult for me not to see the work as a manual of instruction.

Reality doesn't exist, it simply is. It is that from which all particular things arise and back into which they fall. That is something that can only be understood by non-action, wu-wei. — Wayfarer

Come on. "Is" is the first person singular of "to be," which is the root of "being," which is a synonym for "existence." No need to go back and forth on this. I've given up trying to make the case that the Tao doesn't exist. For now, anyway.

I am glad you mention that because I was introduced to these ideas as guides to a practice. It was only after a long time of reading that I became aware of the thinking behind it. It is difficult for me not to see the work as a manual of instruction. — Valentinus

I am practicing Tai Chi, but at a pretty basic level. Definitely not at the point where I feel a connection between the book and the practice.

Come on. "Is" is the first person singular of "to be," which is the root of "being," which is a synonym for "existence." — T Clark

Being and existing are not necessarily synonymous, but this is not the thread to hash it out. (example.)

I am not very far along but I have received many tangible benefits.
I did not mean to suggest I had any direct feeling to the book through my practice. It is more like I spent years working in restaurants and have come to view text as recipes.
That doesn't mean I can cook the dish.

I don't disagree but who are you thinking of by way of comparison? — Tom Storm

That’s the point - they’re effectively nameless. There’s no way to make a case for them, even if I could name them. In my mind I had Abraham Lincoln (and I have to admit here that my knowledge of American history is minimal), whose public position advanced the abolition of slavery and simultaneously hamstrung the potential for social and political equality of black people in the US. While he was emphatically anti-slavery, it’s impossible to view him as supportive of the current cause. Even in his time, many of his actions to preserve the Union were decidedly anti-abolitionist. To my mind, he was conscious of the climate in which he was operating, and that upholding the rights of slave owners in some circumstances but not others would ensure more gradual and less violent progress. He didn’t always get it right - and when he didn’t, one could argue that ‘desire’ (the way slavery affected him personally) seemed to have gotten the best of him.

In my mind I had Abraham Lincoln — Possibility

My reading of Lincoln is that he was more motivated to hold the Union together.

I agree that there are 'anonymous' people who work back of house to effect change, but usually by working very hard, by lobbying, organizing and with relentless energy.

I agree that there are 'anonymous' people who work back of house to effect change, but usually by working very hard, by lobbying, organizing and with relentless energy. — Tom Storm

Being a child of the South in the U.S., I can report that a lot of things changed upon an interpersonal basis. The political element was critical to change. It would have all come to naught if the thinking of people did not change.

The question of whether or not the Tao exists is one I have thought a lot about. To start, in English, being and existence mean the same thing. From the way Lao Tzu uses them, it seems like they do in ancient Chinese too. One way of looking at it is that calling the Tao "non-being" and the 10,000 things "being" is figurative, poetic. I believe that's correct, but in the TTC, two conflicting understandings can be correct at the same time.

For what it's worth, I have never convinced anyone that it makes sense to think that it doesn't exist. I've found that whenever I try to explain how I see it, I have a hard time. Someone asked me "When you're asleep, does the world disappear. My answer - yes of course...but. If I can't conceptualize or describe something, I can't think about it. I can't put it in my world. In that case, I think it makes sense to say it doesn't exist. — T Clark

I have to side with @Wayfarer on the synonymity of being and existing, although my approach is quite different. I think that the structure of language (subject-verb-object) collapses any distinction between them, but that we have the capacity to understand and relate qualitatively to a difference between being as a structure of potentiality and existence as a structure of possibility. I do understand the resistance to this - language is a naming process - it’s why we cannot tell anything directly about the Tao.

@T Clark I think you’re still trying to isolate 10,000 things from the Tao, but I don’t see that as Lao Tzu’s intention. It is the naming that is illusory - being is as much an aspect of the Tao as non-being, regardless of naming. And I don’t think you need to conceptualise and ‘put it [entirely] in your world’ for it to exist. That’s a rationalisation. If you can relate to the Tao from within your world (which we are doing here), and recognise that what you relate to extends beyond your world, then I think it makes sense to say it exists, possibly. Which is as much to say that it possibly doesn’t exist, also.

We need to continually (and humbly) acknowledge that ‘our world’ is limited - especially in relation to the Tao. And this is mainly because we construct it as such from affect. It’s only to the extent that we can hold both possibilities of existence in our mind simultaneously that we can relate to the possibility of the Tao free from affect. We achieve that from a position of the self as simultaneously being and non-being - which cannot be a purely intellectual position, but an integration of our entire being as fundamentally unnecessary. Meditation helps with this integration by getting out of our own way, and humility is required. My own approach is to work towards a more scientific method of integration with an understanding of affect that dissolves the mind-body problem.

It would have all come to naught if the thinking of people did not change. — Valentinus

Yes, we need both. The question is, why does thinking change?

My reading of Lincoln is that he was more motivated to hold the Union together.

I agree that there are 'anonymous' people who work back of house to effect change, but usually by working very hard, by lobbying, organizing and with relentless energy. — Tom Storm

Fair enough - but if he was more motivated to hold the Union together, surely he would have abandoned all other intentions in order to not fail? The point is that the notion of ‘acting without acting’ makes sense to me in relation to Lincoln, as well as all those working back of house. Lincoln’s intentions and motivations aside, he is historically credited with effecting change. We say that he acted, even though in many situations and for whatever reasons he also chose not to act, even to act against his apparent intentions. Lobbyists are acting without being credited with the outcomes of the change they effect. They’ve foregone the public position of ‘activist’ to effect change without being seen to act - the recognition goes to the activists, politicians and celebrity endorsements, some of whom can be more a hindrance than a help, yet are still necessary to the overall process.

I think the idea of wu wei is to get past the need to be attributed with acting, to forget about establishing and consolidating cause and effect or giving credit where credit is due. When we act without acting, we forego any recognition for certain actions, and instead work collaboratively with the world. Action is then seen as spontaneous, random or a natural movement within a dynamic balance, and there is no sense of individual success, advancement or personal recognition.

Lincoln’s intentions and motivations aside, he is historically credited with effecting change. — Possibility

Yes, and few politicians were more politically savvy, activist, driven and manipulative than Lincoln. He was no quietist. William Herndon, Lincoln's law partner wrote - “He was always calculating, and always planning ahead..." “His ambition was a little engine that knew no rest.”

I think this idea of acting and not acting is very hard to explain and hard to find in practice. Nevertheless I am sure it can happen.

I think the point is to recognise its potential in ourselves, and to reflect on whether our intention is to be seen to act or to effect change. I brought up Lincoln because he seems to embody the ambiguity and contradiction of it. But in trying to explain we can only speculate on the intentions of others, and recognise that we desire to justify our own.

but this is not the thread to hash it out. — Wayfarer

I really want to!!!! But, yeah. Let's not.

I think you’re still trying to isolate 10,000 things from the Tao, but I don’t see that as Lao Tzu’s intention. It is the naming that is illusory - being is as much an aspect of the Tao as non-being, regardless of naming. — Possibility

As I said in my post on whether or not the Tao exists, I give up. I don't give up on the idea, but I give up on trying to convince people. For now. I've tried three or four times and just end up tongue-tied. Or keyboard-tied.

As for the Tao being the same as the 10,000 things, if that's what you're saying, the TTC is pretty ambiguous about that. Which is how Lao Tzu does things. Is my family the same as my wife, children, siblings, nieces, step mother, and cousin? I say "no." But in at least one of the verses, I don't remember which verse or which translation, the TTC says the oneness of the Tao and the 10,000 things is the capital "m" Mystery. So I guess I say "yes."

To me, that Mystery is the heart of the Tao Te Ching. If I ignore the distinction between them, I take away half the Mystery. Then I guess it's one hand clapping.

I think the point is to recognise its potential in ourselves, and to reflect on whether our intention is to be seen to act or to effect change. I brought up Lincoln because he seems to embody the ambiguity and contradiction of it. But in trying to explain we can only speculate on the intentions of others, and recognise that we desire to justify our own. — Possibility

Let's not clog this thread up further, I don't think it is hitting the mark.

I'm more intrigued by T Clark and Wayfarer discussing that which can't be discussed.

I think the idea of wu wei is to get past the need to be attributed with acting, to forget about establishing and consolidating cause and effect or giving credit where credit is due. When we act without acting, we forego any recognition for certain actions, and instead work collaboratively with the world. Action is then seen as spontaneous, random or a natural movement within a dynamic balance, and there is no sense of individual success, advancement or personal recognition. — Possibility

As you say, wu wei is spontaneous and natural. But it's not random. There is no thought of avoiding recognition or credit, only of acting without consideration of them. Wu wei is something very simple. You're just doing things without trying to do them.

I'm more intrigued by T Clark and Wayfarer discussing that which can't be discussed. — Tom Storm

Actually, I was really interested in what you and @Possibility were discussing. Not the Lincoln part, but the general approach.

As for the Tao being the same as the 10,000 things, if that's what you're saying, the TTC is pretty ambiguous about that. Which is how Lao Tzu does things. Is my family the same as my wife, children, siblings, nieces, step mother, and cousin? I say "no." But in at least one of the verses, I don't remember which verse or which translation, the TTC says the oneness of the Tao and the 10,000 things is the mystery. So I guess I say "yes." — T Clark

Well, I’m not saying they’re identical, but that it’s the naming that isolates each of the 10,000 things from the oneness of the Tao. Your relatives are still family, but an understanding of family is not equal to 10,000 named relatives, but to the qualitative relations between them, inclusive of the structure, of those potential relatives about whom you lack information to name or place within that structure, as well as your comparative relation to excluded non-family (ie. your methodology for exclusion).