Saturday, September 3, 2011

Tao Bible - Isaiah 13:10

For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
~ King James version ~

The way of nature shall prevail.
~ possible Taoist alternative ~
Unlike the Christian God, Tao doesn't will things to happen. Life unfolds of its own nature. If the sun one day does not shine, it will be because -- just like all other forms and beings -- it has died.

If you're interested in reading more from this experimental series, go to the Tao Bible Index page.

20 comments:

  1. You don't think there is a will underlying the unfolding of one's nature?

    Where there is a will there is life.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's interesting. So I take it then that this means that you also reject the notion of freewill?

    This answer I think is very important, reveals where you're coming from here, the primary viewpoint underlying everything you've posted; which I presume to be either a complete rejection of, OR a minimizing of the power of will and intention, and the role of personal freedom in the unfolding of one's nature and in the unfolding of one's life.

    I also have a question for other Taoists who may be reading this, wondering if you think RT's answer is representative of the Taoist perspective (is there an official Taoist perspective, or do people just make shit up, claiming Taoism to mean whatever they want it to mean), or not?

    What does Taoism have to say about freewill?

    Yeah, I could look it up elsewhere, but if anyone want's to dive in here, it would be greatly appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cym,
    I think you are confusing issues here. My point is that life itself occurs organically. You seem to be talking about the personal choices each person makes.

    As per human-made choices, do you decide to be born of your own free will? Unless you commit suicide, will your free choice play a role in the exact time and place of your death?

    When you were born did you decide of your own free will to have two arms and two legs? Did you pick your birth parents?

    This is what this post referred to -- that life happens of its own accord. There is no personal will involved.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Okay, first off you'll have to excuse me I have a terrible sinus headache (I've had one all day), and was actually going to delete my comment and just say never mind, but you responded before I did so, so I too will respond.

    My first question was: You don't think there is a will underlying the unfolding of one's nature? To which you answered no.

    I'm saying that the choices we make affect the unfolding of your own life. Maybe not the act of being born itself, but it effects the direction it takes from that point forward, or how you respond to your situation, how you choose to play the cards your dealt.

    I do not consider the unfolding of one's nature, or the unfolding of one's life, as being a purely organic act, or something that only happens once, like the act of being born, but is a continuously ongoing process, an unfolding creative evolution overlapping both biology and consciousness, not just what you do, but what you think, and the choices you make.

    I also am not sure that you only have one nature that you are born with, but that in fact your nature is changed by how you interact with life; that there is not one fixed unchanging nature that you are born with, but that it is more like a clay, that is shaped by your choices into the sculpture of your life, and that it can get stronger, or weaker, it can evolve, or it can devolve, it can become sick, and it can get healthy. Point is that AS I SEE IT that the unfolding of life is a fluid, ongoing creative process, each moment is an opportunity to be reborn and an opportunity to die on so many different levels, and will, your conscious volition, your ability to choose, makes you an active participant in this process.

    So for you to suggest that will plays no part in this, in the unfolding of one's nature, suggests to me a denial of free will, which I personally think is way off the mark, but hey, that's just me, it is my free will choice to disagree, as it is your free will choice to disagree with the concept of free will, the belief in God, or the role that will plays in the unfolding of one's nature.

    I do like your blog though, even if I don't agree with everything you say, I do appreciate the topics you bring up. Maybe you'll examine the topic of free will in a future post?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "life happens of its own accord. There is no personal will involved."

    You may not have chosen the cards you are dealt, but you do get to choose how you play them. I don't see how you can separate your personal choices from the rest of life. Or not see how your personal choices effect others.

    Also, being that I can't even remember being born, or even the first couple years of my life, it is quite possible that I would have forgotten anything else that may have occurred prior to that...as far as choosing the body I occupy or who my parents would be or even the time of my death. How many people actually remember being born? I would suspect very few, though I've so far never met anyone who has. So I'm just saying that just because you have no memory of something, doesn't necessarily mean it never happenned.

    I don't think free will means having complete control over everything that happens. To use my first example, that even if you don't get to choose the cards you're dealt, the fact that you can choose how you decide to play them, or how you choose to respond to the circumstances of your life, is where free will comes into play.

    Also you say that life occurs organically. What does that mean?

    Is that your way of denying all supernatural or mystical processes from the creation of life? That there is no intelligence underlying it? That it's purely a mechanical process? Nature, biology, enslaved by the dictates of its genetic blueprint? That consciousness has nothing to do with it?

    Things do happen for which we have no control over, but so long as we have a choice as to how we respond to them, don't our choices have some effect, in changing things, if not others, than at least ourselves? Thoughts affect things. Our choices affect life, both our own life and others.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cym,
    All I can say at this point is that you are addressing an issue that I don't think I raised in this brief post. You appear to be looking at the subject from the standpoint of a HUMAN life. I made no mention of humans at all because I was referring to the life process itself which incorporates all life forms.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yeah, but seeing as though YOU are a human who is speaking to an audience of humans, and so long as you remain a human, your perception and analysis will always be coming from a human standpoint. You can imagine that you see differently, but it will always be filtered by your human prejudices and beliefs.

    The human standpoint is important, it is valuable, it is worth understanding, and yet you seem to be doing everything within your power to remove the human standpoint entirely from the picture, as if it's somehow antithetical to life, as if you are not human, as if all other forms of life are more important than people, as if the human perspective doesn't matter, shouldn't even be given a voice.

    It's that kind of thinking that is probably at the root of your illness.

    It does people no good to speak of life processes in such a way where people have no role, where humanities role is trivialized. That it is just nature, devoid of people. People are part of nature, and acknowledging this fact need not mean denying our humanity nor diminishing the value of our human perspective.

    Sorry, Trey, maybe you hear voices, but you are not Lao Tzu, nor are you the voice of Tao, you're just a guy with a blog who likes to pretend he is.

    I've enjoyed it though. And I will continue to enjoy it, but you do people a disservice by attempting to remove, or downplay the human perspective from a discussion about the life processes of nature, or Tao, of which we are all intrinsically a part.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "You appear to be looking at the subject from the standpoint of a HUMAN life. I made no mention of humans at all because I was referring to the life process itself which incorporates all life forms."

    But you are also quoting two books, the Bible and the TTC, which were written by people for people, meant to provide guidance, to help us be better people, to improve our understanding of life, our understanding of ourselves.

    Not including people in this discussion, doesn't help.

    Speaking of life processes in some generic sense, without the human element, doesn't help.

    Once again, that is yet another example of intellectual masturbation...which seems to be the overall gist of "philosophical taoism", or maybe that should read "dialectical materialism". But if it makes you feel better, good luck with all that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Eh, never mind. Delete. Delete. Delete.

    Just kidding.

    Still trying to wrap mind around this one: "Unlike the Christian God, Tao doesn't will things to happen. Life unfolds of its own nature."


    1. You are comparing Tao to God.

    2. What is Tao? What is will?

    3. If there is no will, and yet, life unfolds of its own nature, wouldn't you call that instinct?

    4. Instinct is necessary to life. For instance, maintaining the beating of our hearts, breathing, swallowing, and digestion, are largely instinctual processes, automatic processes, but also largely unconscious ones.

    "Will" on the other hand I would say is a largely conscious process. Are you suggesting that the unfolding of one's nature is an entirely unconscious process, or if not, if one is conscious of some aspects of this unfolding, does consciousness automatically create the circumstances of choice?

    I'm suggesting that it does. That wherever there is consciousness, there is choice, there is freedom to choose, not only to either reject, or embrace one's nature, but to also alter it, not in opposition or resistance, but as evolution or growth.

    In other words that one's nature is fluid, not fixed, not predetermined at birth, but malleable, adaptable, subject both to growth and decay, health and illness.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Let me try this one more time. My post was focused on the macro level. You are focusing on the micro level.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So what? The post is evolving into a new form, modified by the comments. Why don't you attempt to look at it from the micro, and attempt to answer some of my questions. Your view is so expansive, that you have lost your grounding here on earth.

    At this point the original post is irrelevant, you could look at our dialogue here as an opportunity, a writing prompt to look at things from a different angle, to think about the questions posed, and see where else it takes you.

    It actually might be to YOUR benefit if you attempted to answer my questions.

    ReplyDelete
  12. No offense, but I choose not to answer your questions. They have nothing to do with the subject matter of this particular post.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Cop out.

    On the contrary, my questions have everything to do with the content of this post, specifically this line: "Tao doesn't will things to happen. Life unfolds of its own nature."

    I questioned the reasoning behind that, and I asked you to examine the role of free will in the unfolding of life, that you seem to either reject, or choose to ignore completely.

    I thought they were good questions.

    I thought a person such as yourself, who appeared to be a philosophically curious and creative thinker, would be more open minded and flexible and eager to explore these other questions as philosophical food for thought.

    I guess I was wrong.

    I guess I should have known better.

    I'm not the only one you ignore.

    You routinely ignore responding to direct questions.

    You routinely ignore engaging in a dialogue that transcends the rigid confines set in your seemingly set in stone posts.

    This wasn't just about me proving a point, or swaying you to my side, but adding to the conversation, inspiring further ideas and different lines of reasoning to think about, to write about, to post about, and I'm sure your readers would have appreciated hearing your responses to these questions.

    But you don't have to if you don't want to, I'm just really surprised the subject doesn't interest you more.

    As a word of final advice, which in all likelihood you will ignore, but I'll say it anyway: When comparing Taoism to Christianity or to any other religion, perhaps it would be useful if you learn to take not just a macro view of things, but also look at it from the micro perspective too, and most importantly don't forget to include the down to earth human element in your discussion of metaphysical principles as well.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So, let me see if I understand your point. Anytime anyone asks someone a question, the person being asked is OBLIGATED to answer. If they don't answer, this means they are a bad or a shallow person.

    I wrote a very brief post about the impetus of life -- something that we humans don't understand. I pointed out that Tao doesn't will things because, not stated in this particular post, Tao isn't a being, an entity or state of consciousness. (These points have been discussed in many other posts written by both Scott and I.)

    You read this post and decided to turn it into an exposition about your thoughts on "free will," something that I contend can only come from an entity with consciousness.

    I provide you with the space to expound on your ideas, but because I am not interested in discussing the issues you alone have decided to focus on, I am a cad.

    So be it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. No, you are an ass. Close minded and not very creative. You have a lot of people here fooled.

    Your last response is pathetic, missing my point completely. This is your way of saying, no I will not answer your questions, I won't even think about them, or give them the time of day, case closed.

    You've completely closed yourself off to me. This is not new, I noticed it a year ago. Our disagreement about panhandlers. That's when it started. You close yourself off to anyone who disagrees with you, who challenges you, who doesn't bow down to you and kiss your feet, or placate you like a little boy.

    By the way, ironically I DON'T come to this blog for the Taoist related posts, but more so for the personal and political ones. If this blog was exclusively about Taoism, I would never read it. But when I do read it I'm often inspired by what you write. I'm inspired to respond, to discuss, to debate, and yet you make yourself completely unavailable. That is extremely frustrating and disappointing, that this could be a productive forum for creative discussion and debate, but you won't allow it, or will not have any part of it.

    I see now that you are not interested in having a dialogue here with ANYONE. You just want a one sided conversation, a monologue, to talk AT people, not with them. If you are not available to discuss both the merits and shortcomings of what you have written, it really makes me wonder why you even allow comments at all. (And yeah I've read your comment disclaimer, it's weak, really weak.)

    I guess I shouldn't have expected more, and shouldn't have wasted my time.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Cym,
    You seem to be a person who likes to argue and create controversy. I used to be like that, but life is short and I'm trying to move away from that mentality.

    You want to argue about free will; I don't. You can think what you want to think about this topic and I will do the same.

    My last comment on this thread is that I often don't respond to your comments because your idea of dialog is different than mine. You like to attack, parry and then attack some more. It's almost like you relish creating tempests for your own enjoyment.

    I understand this mentality because it used to describe me as well. These days, when I detect that a commenter simply wants to initiate an argument, I consciously decide not to engage them.

    That, of course, hasn't stopped you from attempting to start an argument all the way down this page.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Funny, it's not just me. You rarely respond to anyone's comments, most conspicuously ignoring the most thought provoking and penetrating comments and questions of them all. It's a pattern I've noticed for quiet some time, but I have noticed that you used to respond, maybe about two year ago, much more frequently than you do now, and I'm not just talking about me, but everyone.

    I know I'm argumentative. That is my nature. If I weren't this way, I would rarely comment or post anything of my own at all. It is the driving force, the passionate energy which propels my creativity.

    Reading through all of my comments, I do NOT see it as being very argumentative until the end. Pardon me if it angers me to be ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  19. i think he meant life as in existence, not the grind of day-to-day life

    ReplyDelete

Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.