schrodingerscat is the most popular RfMer with the most dedicated fan base. His groupies talk and talk, he talks and talks, and others make all their talking talk inside their heads as they read. A lot of talking. However:


THE TAO DOES NOT TALK

That’s another reason I like the Tao so much; it doesn’t talk! I hate people who talk too much. When I’m in company, I like to be the one to talk; others should just respectfully listen!

Is it not marvelous that I can talk to the Tao to my heart’s content, and the Tao never contradicts me or answers back? The Tao never criticizes me for being egocentric or talking too much.

When I talk about talking to the Tao, the more sophisticated and psychoanalytically oriented reader will say that I am not really talking to the Tao, I am really talking to myself. But this is not so! Since all words come from the Tao, my talking to the Tao is not really me talking to myself but the Tao talking to itself! So, you see, the Tao talks to itself. Yet the Tao does not talk, it is silent! Is this not a remarkable paradox?

—Raymond M. Smullyan—
—The Tao Is Silent—


(Smullyan is infinitely interesting on Tao because he’s he, which has something to do with Raymond being a mathematical logician with a profound grasp of Lewis Carrol. Also, in the chapter titled, “Is God a Taoist”, a funny Socratic dialogue between God and Mortal on free will and morality, Smullyan writes like RfM’s very own elderolddog, indubitably a zen master if there ever was one.)

Human, endlessly enthralled by the Ten Thousand Things

OPie stubbed its tao ~



on the corner of the couch ~



but no sound was heard ~

Later on, No-Toes was talking with Lao Tzu and said, “This Confucius – he still hasn’t reached realization, has he? He studied humbly with you, and what good did it do him? He’s still chasing the shifty deceits, the strange illusions of praise and renown. But once you’ve reached realization, such things are a tangle of fetters – doesn’t he know that?”

“Why don’t you just show him that life and death are one and the same strand,” asked Lao Tzu, “that sufficient and insufficient are one and the same thread? That should shake those fetters loose and set him free, don’t you think?”

—The Four Chinese Classics—
—trans. David Hinton—

What is the sound of one toe throbbing

If you throw the I Ching, the I Ching will tell you what's going on with the Tao, at least as it relates to yourself.

Three or four years ago, I threw the I Ching on New Year’s Day. Without revealing my question, here was the result:

“But if the little fox, after nearly completing the crossing, gets his tail wet in the water, there is nothing that would further.”

—Hexagram 64, from the Princeton Press Bollingen volume (I’m blanking on the name)—

And damn it all to hell, wouldn’t you know it, that year I got my tail wet! Can’t say I wasn’t warned!

:) The translation is everything. Back when I often engaged with the I Ching, I favored R.L. Wing's "The I-Ching Workbook." It's a beautiful translation that is completely understandable.

throwing the i ching ~


woke up the whole neighborhood ~


plz go back to sleep ~

What is the sound of The Tao Chinging?

I've heard it's similar to one hand clapping.

Just a question, not an accusation, but why not go to the actual texts translated by experts? I don't think Smullyan spoke modern Chinese let alone classical Chinese; and Hinton's best reviews are from Zen teachers who, at most, would be familiar with Japanese and may well not even have that?

There are commentators--Stephen Mitchell--for instance, who take some liberties that produce insightful versions of difficult classics, including I believe Toaism and the Book of Job. But those aren't authentic and they miss a ton of detail.

These are topics that deserve the best translations and the best analyses, not Saturday-afternoon treatises by psychologists and physicists.

We cafeteria RfMers prefer to go straight to the dessert table.

There are better and worse deserts. A lot of modern commentary on the Tao are the intellectual equivalent of Twinkies; some of the earlier stuff is a light salad or delightful bowl of fruit.

As tasty (yet nutritious) morsels, there are

Arthur Waley, Three Ways of Thought in Ancient China, which covers Confucianism and something else--I forget--but uses the comparisons to sharpen the key points. That's a very good explanation of Taoism and all of his books are excellent.

Allan Watts moves us a bit toward the woo end, but his Watercourse Way and other volumes on Taoism are quite good.

A marginally more academic but nonetheless delicious author is Derk Bodde. His histories of Chinese philosophy and books on Chinese thought contain a lot of good Taoist stuff.

And these are people who could write coherently. They are a pleasure to read.

thats funny right there ~



damm near LOL'd out loud ~




what's this thred about ? ~

I learned everything from The Tao of Pooh. It's a classic!

Never read it but loved The Tao of Physics.

The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism


Oh, wow! That sounds way classier than "The Tao of the School Cafeteria".

And even I was bored with "The Tao of Being Born".

How now brown Tao?

The greatest thing by far is to be a master of metaphor. It is a sign of genius, since a good metaphor implies an intuitive perception of the similarity in the dissimilars. But the master of the pun is more fun as the are the dissimilars in the similars. Aristotle.

(okay. He didn't really say that last part)

The Tao of Physics was a fun light read. When I was reading it I wondered if some scientists and science minded people would take these musings as gospel.

Once one steps outside of the Scientific Method everything is Metaphysical. Rigor is what makes science science in my opinion. It may be boring and super practical but when theories strain the observed, there in religious beliefs are born.

I studied at the foot of the loooooonnnnngggg staircase of Tao-Tehuacan.

Then, when I felt I was ready, I ascended, and from the top of Tao-tehuacan, I flipped bottle caps that I had collected over a period of time.

Periods of time are essential to all life. Commas of time are few and far between, except in Oxford!



Oat is Tao backward. I hope this is a bran new fact for you. Too placid a life requires roughage.

Tao﴿ﷻ﴾oaT



When the Tao is with you, you will hear three hands clapping.

You may leave RFM, grasshopper, when you can take the pebble from my hand.

I have a gut feeling about Tao. :)

As the yin and yang are part of the Tao, makes one wonder how a heaven with no evil could work. God needs Satan in order to be God. Lucifer is all he's got really. Jesus is already yesterday's news.

"Yin and yang. Lao Tzu pointed out that all qualities in the world possess meaning only by the existence of their opposites, or their complements. Something can only be big if there is something else that is small by comparison. “Good” exists in the world so long as “bad” exists as well. One cannot do without the other."

So perhaps Mormons are the necessary evil in the afterlife?

So why does parthenogenesis* exist?




*Parthenogenesis is a natural form of asexual reproduction in which growth and development of embryos occur without fertilization by sperm. In animals, parthenogenesis means the development of an embryo from an unfertilized egg cell.





Do you have any idea of the pain inflicted by women telling me that rather than go out with me, they'll take their chances with parthenogenesis?

It exists because that's how God got Eve out of Adam.

Moe: "I could never grasp the concepts of eastern religions or philosophy until one evening at my favorite pizza joint."

Jo: A pizza joint?

Moe: "Yes. A customer walked up to the counter to order and said, 'Make me one with everything.'
Then I understood! "

"When I talk about talking to the Tao, the more sophisticated and psychoanalytically oriented reader will say that I am not really talking to the Tao, I am really talking to myself. But this is not so! Since all words come from the Tao, my talking to the Tao is not really me talking to myself but the Tao talking to itself! So, you see, the Tao talks to itself. Yet the Tao does not talk, it is silent! Is this not a remarkable paradox?"

RESPONSE:

Sometimes people leave Mormonism after discovering that its historical and religious "factual" claims are false. Then, after looking for an acceptable alternative religion; one without false factual claims, they quickly discover there are none; that there is no religion that encompasses a personal "God" that is devoid of false factual claims. Oh my, we ask, what now?

In response, such people either (1) become atheists; or (2) turn to some form of mysticism; thinking that incoherence, inconsistency, and paradox is better than no religion at all. As part of that effort, they claim access to some "special knowledge" of some poorly defined and meaningless ontology (e.g. "Oneness") that transcends all rationality. They also have an ancient tradition to draw upon that supplies further mystery, and "enlightenment." Others forget all of that, and just find their mysticism in the "transcendence" of Nature, without any idea of what that means in terms of religion.

And to avoid the inconvenience of science and truth, many such people paradoxically deny that truth exists at all; or insist that it is relative; or that truth (whatever it is) doesn't really matter. And they find affinity for such views in humanist and liberal "post- modernism." (in quotes this time!).
Or perhaps they point to the "mysteries" of modern science as support for a "mystical" world view; So, they write books like "The Tao of Physics" that grossly misrepresents and/or distorts the connection. (Alas, they will take credibility wherever they can find it!) (Or as in the OP, maybe the adherent is a mathematician or logician; or perhaps a scientist. Unfortunately, that does not make statements like the above coherent!)

But then here is the rub: All of a sudden we are supposed to believe that this version of religion is more profound, deeper, and thus more "rational" than Mormonism. After all, rather than misrepresent facts (God forbid), it simply discards them! No problem. Rather than define God, it explains the concept away as the "inexplicable." Oh the beauty of it! Where do I sign up?

I have a copy of The Tao is Silent and The Tao of Physics, and have read both several times searching in vain for enlightenment; The Tao still makes no sense to me. (Like the quote above) But, of course, that is just me. I surely must lack something; I just need to study more; mediate more (or pray more). (Sound familiar?)

Surely the emperor's clothes are somewhere. I will keep looking.

False dichotomy in people's responses. Do mean yours?

The way of the woo is way true two.

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I have a copy of The Tao is Silent and The Tao of
> Physics, and have read both several times
> searching in vain for enlightenment; The Tao still
> makes no sense to me. (Like the quote above) But,
> of course, that is just me. I surely must lack
> something; I just need to study more; mediate more
> (or pray more). (Sound familiar?)

This is worrisome, my friend.

Why read a book “several times” if you don’t like it?

Why read Smullyan to understand Tao? Surely you can see that’s folly, right?

What enlightenment are you looking so desperately for?

Smullyan was having fun in his book, as was I by quoting him. I cannot possibly understand how Smullyan’s fun can be missed upon “several readings”, but you’ve seemed to.

Pray more? Meditate more? No, Salvati, perhaps play more.

First, thank you for your response. Sincerely!

"Why read a book “several times” if you don’t like it?"

I did not say I didn't like it, or appreciate it on any level. Neither did I say that others could not find meaning from it in some sense; obviously many people do. But Taoism is offered as something more than "play" or "amusement." From my limited reading, the word most associated with it is "enlightenment," or "wisdom" or "The Way;" or words to that effect. My problem is finding anything substantive here, beyond pure (and rather vague) metaphysics. And, of course, the notion that I am missing something important, which admittedly continues to motivate me on some level to keep the book on my shelf.
______________________________________________

"Why read Smullyan to understand Tao? Surely you can see that’s folly, right?"

Well, from what I read, virtually every author says that they will be unable to explain it; and then they proceed to try wallowing in incoherence, inconsistency and paradox. The "folly" you refer to seems to be a universal principle applicable to anyone that doesn't understand. The folly of those of us that don't get it is turned back on us, just as you did here; i.e. that the mystic enlightenment transcends my ignorance.
______________________________________________

"What enlightenment are you looking so desperately for?"

Well, in the first place, "desperate" is a bit strong. But other than that, I am interested in the enlightenment that everyone believing in these traditions claim to have, directly or indirectly, and to understand what I apparently lack might be some assistance in my life. Isn't that what we all are all looking for in some sense? (I have been a practicing meditator for many years, and have read numerous books on the subject --but so far, no enlightenment.
______________________________________________

"Smullyan was having fun in his book, as was I by quoting him. I cannot possibly understand how Smullyan’s fun can be missed upon “several readings”, but you’ve seemed to."

Yes, I seem to have missed that. Again, I am unenlightened! But in all fairness to me, the book was not presented as a source of entertainment. There was something quite serious that he was trying to be convey. After all, if there is one thing I have learned in these matters it is that paradox is built into the mystical program; and is not intended as just a fun "sidebar". And Smullyan is a Taoist.
_____________________________________________

"Pray more? Meditate more? No, Salvati, perhaps play more."

O.K. But again, that advice tells me nothing about the Tao, enlightenment, or anything else. That's just something my psychiatrist might say (If I had one.)

Let me just add what specifically bothers me about all this.

Another Buddhist/Taoist with intellectual credentials is philosopher Owen Flanagan. He wrote a book called, The Problem of the Soul, where he outlines all that is wrong (and false) about the "perennial" humanist philosophy. Then he gives his answer.

Consider:
______________________________________________

"One might think, as I do, that a philosophy inspired by the scientific image will beat the part of perennial philosophy that endorses the humanistic image hands down when it comes to explaining what human being is, but that it will fare miserably in helping use decide how we ought to be and what we ought to do. Any good philosophy will need to offer wisdom about who we are as well as about how we ought to be. Since a philosophy inspired by the scientific image has no resources to do the latter, it can provide no ethical wisdom at all. Thus it is not helpful as a philosophy on how to live well."

"This is an important point. Indeed, I think the inability of science to provide ethical wisdom is as much responsible for our resistance to the scientific image as what science says about us being animals or about there being no transcendent ground for meaning and purpose."
___________________________________________________

His Answer: (Wave the magic wand . . . Dharma!

___________________________________________________

"*Dharma,* meanwhile, is a Sanskrit word with no precise English equivalent. . . The term finds its home primarily within the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. In both, *dharma* refers to practices that lead to enlightenment, happiness, and fulfillment. It has similar meaning to *Tao* in *Taoism,* which is usually translated as "The Way" -- that is to enlightenment, wisdom, and goodness. . . "

"*Dharma* usefully expresses in a single word the ideas of wisdom and enlightenment. Dharmic practices aim to produce the sort of wisdom that results from seeing things in their true light. Dharmic practices are a way to "The Way." I hasten to add that nothing at all rests on understanding *dharma* in the way(s) Buddhists or Hindus do, although doing so will not hinder you -- and it may help you -- in the project of seeking enlightenment."

"There is another reason I find *dharma* useful. Most of this book argues that many of the philosophical beliefs that are most dear to our hearts -- about the nature of mind, the self, free will, God, and the source of moral value -- are false. These beliefs, though perhaps inspired by the love of wisdom, do not express, capture, or reveal true wisdom. *Dharma* means wisdom and enlightenment -- things we seek, but currently lack when it comes to understanding our nature"
_______________________________________________

Now, can you see why I might find this a little unsatisfying?

Tao finds you. You don't find Tao. The important part is not to be looking; not to be trying to learn or understand.

Somewhere between fact and belief lies intuition. Or would that be beyond fact and belief?

What someone else has to say will halt feeling. You cannot connect through someone. The connection has to be direct. The way I left Mormonism was Tao.

"The way I left Mormonism was Tao."

So, you engaged the *incoherent* ideology of Tao as the vehicle to expose the *coherent* ideology of Mormonism. Oh the wonderous mystical beauty of the Tao!

As for me--the hopeless, unenlightened gentile that I am--I had to rely on the old-fashioned method; facts, logic and reason.

P.S. Thanks for this. I think I am finally getting my humor back!

You are the joke not me. Stopping premature conclusions will help stop that.

I did not know what Tao was when I left

I did not know a single anti Mormon fact when I left. So glad you had the facts, logic, and reason. That was not my route.

I was a recent RM at BYU when it happened. I had a testimony. I believed to the nth degree. This is how it happened which I consider very Tao as that comes down to connection and intuition.

Pearls before swine:

BYU was so long ago, and I don’t remember the chronological order of everything, but the last time I went to church, I was uncharacteristically late but still characteristically hypnotically following the normal Sunday routine: I got up, got ready, drove to the white-brick church building of my student ward, and very quietly entered the back doors of the chapel just as the bishop at the pulpit said, “I would be remiss in my duties if I didn’t stand before you this day and bear unto you my solemn testimony that...” and suddenly, as he went on, the words turned to some kind of mush, and just as suddenly, hearing that phrase again was like reading the phone book—over and over. How many times can you listen to that before you realize it is the Mormon equivalent of every banality, every conceit known to man. They dress this “testimony” of theirs up with the word remiss and then bask in their self-supposed sophistication. and, worse, this rarely used word they were so proud of, remiss, would invari- ably herald the voice change—the unleashing of the testimony voice: the unbearably sweet, treacly sincere “Aren’t I in touch with the spirit” testimony voice coming out of grown men.


I took a long, sweeping look around the meeting hall and had no choice but to leave. a force far greater than the word remiss would have been required to keep me there that day. I can’t even really describe the state of mind. I just could. not. be. There. anymore. And I could not explain to myself why—even if I had had at my disposal in that moment a team of psychologists led by Dr. Joyce brothers herself. I was just blank.


The service had started. as I stood there like an animal that had been darted and lost all use of physical functions except for the eyes, I surveyed everything in view as if I were seeing it for the first time—the wooden pews, the Navajo-white cinderblock walls with the oak-stained wooden beams, the all-purpose blue carpet, the white-shirted and dark-tied bishop and his counselors on the podium, and some anemic, potted yellow chrysanthemum next to the microphone. The bishop had just finished his remarks as the organist began, and the chorister was poised, right hand in the air like Queen elizabeth executing her regal wave, to lead the singing of the Joseph smith–worshipping hymn that was just being announced: “Praise to the Man.”

As the prelude to the song began, my eyes glazed over as if they were confusing their purpose with the duties already assigned to my ears. Like snow on a malfunctioning television, I had never felt so much noThInG in my life. This disconnect wasn’t to do with being gay. I didn’t feel unworthy to be there, and I didn’t feel negativity toward the people there, nor disgust, nor revulsion, nor deception. I just felt nothing. nothing. In this temporary mental paralysis, I walked out the door and never went back. I did not know why. I do think it was the beginning of thinking for myself, my subconscious mind having had enough of being told



That day my mind cleared itself, hit the reset button. That I know now, although I did not know it at the time. driving away, I do remember feeling a very low-key but uncommon relief—a very simple peace—at first.



---------
I found myself that day. I found my connection to the world. I had me. You call it anything you want to. I don't really need a title for the experience. It was more than a fancy word, what happened.

Dear Salviati--your rejection of that being Tao doesn't mean the sightest to me. Good Day "El sabe lo todo."

This happened in 1973 BTW. No Google. No good reason yet to question anything. No facts available to spark reason--Especially in the Mormon bubble I lived in. The two years in Argentina gave me a peek at the real world which helped and I consider it a factor in my intuitional leaving of the church.

I was out for sure and very clear about it, but could not give a reason, A short time later I read MoF and got my reason. Finally I had something concrete to know why I had left.

It would be three decades plus before I happened on NMKMH and got some facts. Forever grateful to fawn.

D & D:

Thank you for this. And, to be clear, I do not discount your experience. I have acknowledged many times on the Board the reality of 'transcendent' experiences. I believe firmly in intuition and insight as an important part of my humanist philosophy; which takes consciousness, free will, and morality seriously.

The only thing that I "object to" is when these natural human capacities are couched in incoherent mystical language in order to provide a "religious" flavor to them. To do this is to make such experiences appear irrational and illusory, which is not necessary, and in my view not true.

In the Flanagan quote I cited in this thread, we see a pattern that is even worse. Here, the materialist scientific worldview is adopted full stop, and used to reject human values, including morality and free will; but then such values (and science itself) are "rescued" by an incoherent appeal to Eastern philosophy. Such attempts make such values sound irrational and unnatural, contrary to the above account of your experience without the appeal to any Tao influence or effect.

Thus, my position is much stronger. I believe that human values are part and partial of what it means to be human on a fundamental level; that in essence we are NOT just animals as Flanagan and the scientific tradition claims. Science gets this wrong because of its inherent materialist limitations; particularly its lack of understanding of consciousness and the vast complexity of human cognition; encompassing experiences like the one you described here.

Thank you for taking the time to see where I was going.

A short time after I left Mormon Utah I happened to end up with a large circle of Buddhist friends in SoCal. I was fascinated, looked into Eastern Religion some, and went to their meetings and studied a lot of their ways. (I think there are many different ways to practice Buddhism?) I found their ways strikingly similar to Mormonism after a while. I was kinda shocked. won't bore you with the details. That is probably what finished all religion for me. Last nail in the coffin.

From what I have read about Tao and only recently, Buddhists borrowed from Tao and then Tao borrowed from Buddhists. Some have turned Tao into a religion and others say it is not. Humans screw up everything.

For me, Tao, is when humans don't screw up--which is rare. I doubt I'll ever use the word much in my life if at all. Labels get in the way so often.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For me, Tao, is when humans don't screw up--which
> is rare. I doubt I'll ever use the word much in my
> life if at all. Labels get in the way so often.

So simplify. Your "way" is the right one if it is compassionate. Find a harmony with your own existence. Words get in "the way."

Elder Berry was so close!


The word is in the guey, ¡órale!

Way to woo the way.

Tao is never the same, should you be so fortunate.

Tao won't try to sneak up on you if you're constantly looking for it.

Tao is not humble but it seeks out humility.

Tao understands why bacon is so beloved but is still offended by the concept.

Tao knows how blinding brilliant a twinkling star can be.


etc., etc., ad infinitum, minus Pi.

To Tao, or a game of tennis ball catch with an Irish setter, that is the question.

They are the same thing.

So you are racist against other dogs?

Any dog will do ... do.

Not in a race.

He wasn't talking about racing.