tao, being, taoism

what is the difference in learning about taoism
and learning about the tao?

or learning tao
and being?

  • Dmytryo   I give you formulae : 50 % teachings on Tao and 50 % what you can come up with , if you give                100 % towards teachings you diminish your individuality
    Jerry Hill if you surrender your individuality you ARE tao
    Jerry Hill individuality
    what a pregnant word!
    Don    just different words…
    John    Or…just being
    Vicki   Each person interpretes for herself.
    Lee   The written Tao is an expression of the Tao that can’t be told. We and the universe are a living expression of the eternal Tao. When we follow the Buddha-Dharma we are able to connect, live with and realise this simple living truth.
    Jerry Hill “surrender” is not exactly the right word, nor is donate. bequeath implies death and we exist in eternity… “to make a gift of” in the sense of the oath of kwan yin….. perhaps the word lao tzu uses: “serve”
    post and comment thread from the facebook page tao and zen community forum

one and many

“There are neither one nor many Buddhas. You can’t say there is only one, as there are limitless Buddhas, yet you can’t say there are many, as their essence is a single ground- emptiness and compassion abiding like space.

Thus, do not grasp at singularity or multiplicity. Whatever appear are empty of self nature, like a rainbow in the sky. They lack inherent existence, as they are compounds and thus impermanent.

The nature of mind of all beings always remains like space; it is uncompounded. While their bodies appear diversely, the mind of all beings has the same essence.

There is only one such thing called “mind,” just as there is only one such thing called “water,” although water manifests in different ways–as oceans, rivers, rain, drops, etc.

If everyone were to practice OM AH HUNG, their mindfulness would have the same essence without the slightest difference in quality or size.”

~ Garchen Rinpoche


portait of protagoras by jose de ribera, found on art-prints-on-demand.com

portait of protagoras by jose de ribera, found on art-prints-on-demand.com

my profile on gravatar (and linkedin and any number of other places) describes me as a humanist

so what exactly does that mean or does that imply?  the answer is astonishingly available–serendipity! the very first page of this binder full of video lecture outline notes right here beside me has it: “human being is the measure of all things—of things that are, that they are, and of things that are not, that they are not.”  this basic premise of humanism was written by “the first humanist” in the fifth century before the current era. his name was protagoras of abdera.  one of the lecture notes catches me eye: “for protagoras, human beings were the center, the ‘measure,’ of all reality.”

taking the last point first: reality. is it true that all we know about the world is the reality we construct to represent what actually exists and happens “out there” by way of the senses?  the eiffel tower doesn’t exist inside my head, but a representation of it does. “the map is not the territory.” 

protagoras was a relativist. on a question of right or wrong, he wanted to know who was considering the question.  different groups of people might well have differing answers.  an 18th century shopkeeper in london would consider stealing an apple wrong, whereas the homeless 8 year-old orphan who stole it might consider it simply a matter of survival.  on the other hand are the absolutists, who believe there to be an absolute Right and Wrong, perhaps decreed by a deity.  naturally, relativists have been unpopular with absolutists for millennia…

from the very inception of humanism, then, it has been associated with relativism — and unpopular with the dogmatists.  so i’m grateful for anyone who has an open mind, a willingness to challenge the conventional, the patience to put up with… you know what i’m saying…. thank you dear readers!!!