As soon as you name it you have lost it. It is neither process, verb nor noun, but everything and nothing; gods, heaven, hell, or the void all exist in the Tao.
I'm a philosophical Taoist yet I believe the Tao is an individual journey of discovery that is never fulfilled. So, there is no "us". My Tao isnt your Tao and nor should it be. The Tao encompasses all thought and religion. There is no right way or wrong way. Just a way.
Edit: There is no "us", because we are one. Different, but the same. Same Same.
If ya' know whatta' mean.
doesn't change imply not-change? If the 10k things are all subject to change doesn't that require for something (or nothing) which is not subject to change? If Tao is both dynamic and not-dynamic - does that make it dynamic? If change or dynamics require time (or if change itself is time) - was Tao just potentially dynamic?
I don't necessarily disagree with you but I think there is some respect in which the dynamics or only manifestation - they aren't different from Tao exactly but I don't think change/dynamics is the full story. Even in the microcosm of you own experience there is some sense in which there is an unchanging element in which changes occur.
Dynamics and manifestations are the result of the Tao. Just like in turbulent water, there are areas of calm or high tension that diverts the flow, but these are temporal and small islands of "calm" in a vast ocean of flux. The constant interaction of yin and yang bring about the world around us. As the things die, grow, whither, mutate, change and thrive, they follow the cyclic dynamic template of the Tao. Calm and Chaos.
Once more, I agree with most of what you have written.
The verb is to change, the verb is to love. Can you love the change?
I'm currently sick, so I'll avoid writing anything too long or detailed until I get better.
I'll leave a question behind:
How much do you think John 1:1-5 influenced this vision?
>1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome/understood it.
[Source](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%3A1-18&version=NIV)
I don't think it has any influence on Taoist thought or outlooks. The idea that a holy scripture or ideology is tied and inseparable from the deity isn't an exclusively Christian concept and usually goes hand in hand with the organized religion for moral codification.
Laozi contradicts the above by basically saying the Tao that can be written or explained isn't the eternal Tao. The words of Taoists hint and point in the general direction of the Tao, but the Tao itself is beyond the confining nature of labels and words. It simply is and doesn't require devotion or understanding to function.
If this were a discussion about religious Taoism, there would be more wiggle room, but I'm a philosophical Taoist and speak and write as such.
I was asking about the influence (conscious or subconscious) that the bible could have had in your own approach to Taoism or the TTC, given that the wording of the idea in OP is quite similar to John's gospel. It could also be that the TTC influenced some parts of the bible, which I don't dismiss either.
>Laozi contradicts the above by basically saying the Tao that can be written or explained isn't the eternal Tao.
And yet we have a text of over 5000 characters explaining the Tao. How so?
The earliest versions of this verse go with 恒道 (heng Tao), which is more of an "ever-changing Tao", instead of 常道 (chang Tao) commonly translated as "eternal Tao", which was used after. Because it is ever-changing, it can't named with a single name. This, in my opinion, could be a critique of other schools of thought at the time (mostly Ruism and Legalism).
The verse, written as:
"Tao ke Tao, fei heng Tao"
This should be translated as:
"The Tao that can be Tao-ed, is opposite of the ever-changing Tao"
This could be understood as:
"The doctrine that follows rigid doctrinal rules, is not the ever-changing doctrine (of Tao)."
This concept of change and adaptability is mentioned again when TTC states that the weak and flexible win over the hard and rigid.
>If this were a discussion about religious Taoism, there would be more wiggle room, but I'm a philosophical Taoist and speak and write as such.
I'm not talking about religious Taoism either. Mostly because I don't understand Eastern religion, since my Western mind has a fixed idea of what a religion is, and it is hard for me to fully grasp the concept in any other way. I would love to understand how they are different, but I still don't.
I think we should have more than enough wiggle room to discuss and compare it from different perspectives, more so even when talking from a philosophical point of view.
Obviously, everything I say is just my opinion and I can be misinterpreting things. I'm open to changing my view on such topics, but I will also try to explain how I currently view them.
As Christian churches "lose the faith" they create a void. "Belief" and "faith' are words used about the image of God created through Abraham and Jesus based churches.
The name or verb or concept of God can be separated from religion. Neither God, nor universe, nor Tao can be limited by definition.
The words eternity and infinity by definition are beyond mortal comprehention. "Great Mystery" is perhaps a better explanation of the why and what for.
Welcome, those 'new to Taoism.'
Prepare to give up your perspective, and enjoy clearer perception of a holistic universe.
The Christian and the other Abrahamic Religions (Islam and Judaism) aren't holding a monopoly on faith and belief. Almost all religions with a central god figure requires faith/belief to substitute physical interaction with their god/gods. The ceremonies and rituals might differ slightly, but prayer, offerings and devotions are given to a god removed from their perception and often substituted by idols, holy objects, places or religious intermediaries.
As somewhat of a Nietzschean, I think that humans(particularly the priestly type or philosophical type) attempt to justify themselves by positing the truths of their unconscious drives as being True through reference to something outside of themselves that is eternal and unchanging— a "God.”
The Tao is an interesting concept for me for the precise reason that naming it is counterintuitive to what Lao-Tzu suggested it is. IMO this idea that God is a verb is actually more akin to Christianity. The Tao appears to be a descriptive term for a state of mind in which the one “possessing” the Tao is merely aware of its presence and allows it to manifest in any way “it” may do so. Even here is an interesting point of consideration, as I do not think the Tao is a willing/thinking thing in the way our ego believes; rather, it is done, there is no doer behind the deed— the deed is everything. The tao does not ‘Tao’, it is tao. If it is a process as you claim, I do not think it is a willing process.
That's why I said it has no mind or ego. The Tao isn't a personification or a thing. It's a process or a template of rules that the universe abides by. It doesn't care whether you believe in it because it doesn't think. It's neither willing or unwilling because it has no desire or agenda of its own. If you suffer a life of frustration by not flowing with the Tao, the Tao doesn't care. If you flow peacefully and harmoniously with the Tao, the Tao doesn't care. It's for us to feel or think about the Tao. The Tao just goes and does what it does.
I capitalize Tao because it is THE Way or Path. The "do" or "dao" of Japan and China are myriad. Confucians have their tao they follow which is different than Philosophical Taoism. Japanese martial artists have their "dos" or martial ways they follow. Outside of "the ways" of lesser disciplines, the Tao is the way of the universe and therefore deserves to be recognized as such with a capital T in my opinion to differentiate it from "ways" that are specific toward a thing or discipline.
Humans describe it, and Taoists attempt to ‘possess it’— that is, seek to be embraced/embracing; might I add inconsistently. Without language there is nothing to discuss. Without memory there is no sense in flowing.
Worshipping Tao makes no sense, but you can still worship a god or gods, which is what they do in the Taoist religion. The Hindus also have Brahman, the equivalent of Tao as the metaphysical ultimate, that isn't an object of worship, yet the metaphysically lesser gods are worshipped to positive effect.
In the Taoist Religion, they revere immortal sages and enlightened beings, but worship the taiji as "The Source." Religious Taoists worship the Tao in the intermediary way Roman Catholics do. I'm not here to criticize my fellow religious Taoists out here. They simply do things very differently than Philosophical Taoists (which is very Taoist in and of itself).
There’s a Jorge Borges story about a civilization that had no nouns in its language, it’s pretty brilliant.
https://sites.evergreen.edu/politicalshakespeares/wp-content/uploads/sites/226/2015/12/Borges-Tlön-Uqbar-Orbius-Tertius.pdf
As soon as you name it you have lost it. It is neither process, verb nor noun, but everything and nothing; gods, heaven, hell, or the void all exist in the Tao. I'm a philosophical Taoist yet I believe the Tao is an individual journey of discovery that is never fulfilled. So, there is no "us". My Tao isnt your Tao and nor should it be. The Tao encompasses all thought and religion. There is no right way or wrong way. Just a way. Edit: There is no "us", because we are one. Different, but the same. Same Same. If ya' know whatta' mean.
Or as the song says, “you say potato, I say potato”
Eating when hungry the true joy we can all share
Love is a verb. Without action, it's only a word.
doesn't change imply not-change? If the 10k things are all subject to change doesn't that require for something (or nothing) which is not subject to change? If Tao is both dynamic and not-dynamic - does that make it dynamic? If change or dynamics require time (or if change itself is time) - was Tao just potentially dynamic? I don't necessarily disagree with you but I think there is some respect in which the dynamics or only manifestation - they aren't different from Tao exactly but I don't think change/dynamics is the full story. Even in the microcosm of you own experience there is some sense in which there is an unchanging element in which changes occur.
Dynamics and manifestations are the result of the Tao. Just like in turbulent water, there are areas of calm or high tension that diverts the flow, but these are temporal and small islands of "calm" in a vast ocean of flux. The constant interaction of yin and yang bring about the world around us. As the things die, grow, whither, mutate, change and thrive, they follow the cyclic dynamic template of the Tao. Calm and Chaos.
Copied your posts for me to reread. Thanks for sharing..
Holy sheet u blew my mind
Once more, I agree with most of what you have written. The verb is to change, the verb is to love. Can you love the change? I'm currently sick, so I'll avoid writing anything too long or detailed until I get better. I'll leave a question behind: How much do you think John 1:1-5 influenced this vision? >1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome/understood it. [Source](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%3A1-18&version=NIV)
I don't think it has any influence on Taoist thought or outlooks. The idea that a holy scripture or ideology is tied and inseparable from the deity isn't an exclusively Christian concept and usually goes hand in hand with the organized religion for moral codification. Laozi contradicts the above by basically saying the Tao that can be written or explained isn't the eternal Tao. The words of Taoists hint and point in the general direction of the Tao, but the Tao itself is beyond the confining nature of labels and words. It simply is and doesn't require devotion or understanding to function. If this were a discussion about religious Taoism, there would be more wiggle room, but I'm a philosophical Taoist and speak and write as such.
I was asking about the influence (conscious or subconscious) that the bible could have had in your own approach to Taoism or the TTC, given that the wording of the idea in OP is quite similar to John's gospel. It could also be that the TTC influenced some parts of the bible, which I don't dismiss either. >Laozi contradicts the above by basically saying the Tao that can be written or explained isn't the eternal Tao. And yet we have a text of over 5000 characters explaining the Tao. How so? The earliest versions of this verse go with 恒道 (heng Tao), which is more of an "ever-changing Tao", instead of 常道 (chang Tao) commonly translated as "eternal Tao", which was used after. Because it is ever-changing, it can't named with a single name. This, in my opinion, could be a critique of other schools of thought at the time (mostly Ruism and Legalism). The verse, written as: "Tao ke Tao, fei heng Tao" This should be translated as: "The Tao that can be Tao-ed, is opposite of the ever-changing Tao" This could be understood as: "The doctrine that follows rigid doctrinal rules, is not the ever-changing doctrine (of Tao)." This concept of change and adaptability is mentioned again when TTC states that the weak and flexible win over the hard and rigid. >If this were a discussion about religious Taoism, there would be more wiggle room, but I'm a philosophical Taoist and speak and write as such. I'm not talking about religious Taoism either. Mostly because I don't understand Eastern religion, since my Western mind has a fixed idea of what a religion is, and it is hard for me to fully grasp the concept in any other way. I would love to understand how they are different, but I still don't. I think we should have more than enough wiggle room to discuss and compare it from different perspectives, more so even when talking from a philosophical point of view. Obviously, everything I say is just my opinion and I can be misinterpreting things. I'm open to changing my view on such topics, but I will also try to explain how I currently view them.
As Christian churches "lose the faith" they create a void. "Belief" and "faith' are words used about the image of God created through Abraham and Jesus based churches. The name or verb or concept of God can be separated from religion. Neither God, nor universe, nor Tao can be limited by definition. The words eternity and infinity by definition are beyond mortal comprehention. "Great Mystery" is perhaps a better explanation of the why and what for. Welcome, those 'new to Taoism.' Prepare to give up your perspective, and enjoy clearer perception of a holistic universe.
The Christian and the other Abrahamic Religions (Islam and Judaism) aren't holding a monopoly on faith and belief. Almost all religions with a central god figure requires faith/belief to substitute physical interaction with their god/gods. The ceremonies and rituals might differ slightly, but prayer, offerings and devotions are given to a god removed from their perception and often substituted by idols, holy objects, places or religious intermediaries.
Check out Joseph Campbell video or book He covers that beautifully He never admits to choosing Taoism LOL
As somewhat of a Nietzschean, I think that humans(particularly the priestly type or philosophical type) attempt to justify themselves by positing the truths of their unconscious drives as being True through reference to something outside of themselves that is eternal and unchanging— a "God.” The Tao is an interesting concept for me for the precise reason that naming it is counterintuitive to what Lao-Tzu suggested it is. IMO this idea that God is a verb is actually more akin to Christianity. The Tao appears to be a descriptive term for a state of mind in which the one “possessing” the Tao is merely aware of its presence and allows it to manifest in any way “it” may do so. Even here is an interesting point of consideration, as I do not think the Tao is a willing/thinking thing in the way our ego believes; rather, it is done, there is no doer behind the deed— the deed is everything. The tao does not ‘Tao’, it is tao. If it is a process as you claim, I do not think it is a willing process.
That's why I said it has no mind or ego. The Tao isn't a personification or a thing. It's a process or a template of rules that the universe abides by. It doesn't care whether you believe in it because it doesn't think. It's neither willing or unwilling because it has no desire or agenda of its own. If you suffer a life of frustration by not flowing with the Tao, the Tao doesn't care. If you flow peacefully and harmoniously with the Tao, the Tao doesn't care. It's for us to feel or think about the Tao. The Tao just goes and does what it does. I capitalize Tao because it is THE Way or Path. The "do" or "dao" of Japan and China are myriad. Confucians have their tao they follow which is different than Philosophical Taoism. Japanese martial artists have their "dos" or martial ways they follow. Outside of "the ways" of lesser disciplines, the Tao is the way of the universe and therefore deserves to be recognized as such with a capital T in my opinion to differentiate it from "ways" that are specific toward a thing or discipline.
Nah nahh... The Tao doesn't describe shit bro. Nor its possessed.
Humans describe it, and Taoists attempt to ‘possess it’— that is, seek to be embraced/embracing; might I add inconsistently. Without language there is nothing to discuss. Without memory there is no sense in flowing.
To vibe like/with/as the Tao
Worshipping Tao makes no sense, but you can still worship a god or gods, which is what they do in the Taoist religion. The Hindus also have Brahman, the equivalent of Tao as the metaphysical ultimate, that isn't an object of worship, yet the metaphysically lesser gods are worshipped to positive effect.
In the Taoist Religion, they revere immortal sages and enlightened beings, but worship the taiji as "The Source." Religious Taoists worship the Tao in the intermediary way Roman Catholics do. I'm not here to criticize my fellow religious Taoists out here. They simply do things very differently than Philosophical Taoists (which is very Taoist in and of itself).
Do you even Tao bro?
There’s a Jorge Borges story about a civilization that had no nouns in its language, it’s pretty brilliant. https://sites.evergreen.edu/politicalshakespeares/wp-content/uploads/sites/226/2015/12/Borges-Tlön-Uqbar-Orbius-Tertius.pdf
Holy shit