Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
purpose of humans
The Tao TE Ching seems very wise in many subjects in comparison with other religions (appologize for doing this comparison - I know one can reclaim like in ZEN-Buddhism there have to be no concepts in TAOISM too).
But looking at the wisdom for example of non-duality (ADVAITA) it is wellknown that humans need concepts to grasp anything and as a tool to go beyond.
So I am not so familiar with Taoism itself (long years going with advaita and ZEN and now going with authentic Kabbala for a couple of years) but I would like to aks few questions about the view of the human nature by taoistic thought:
[/list]
what is the relation between human and other forms of existence like inanimate, vegetable and animalic?
what is the relation between individual and collective within humans?
regarding the above: does Taoism see some evolution and therefor special responsibility of humanity for the whole?
Does Taoism see some necessity for correction in the human nature?
If so does Taoism see some demand on humanity to do some work on that?
What does Taoism think about egoism and altruism?
Is Taoism only for individuals and if so what is the function of the collective regarding the individual and vice versa?
As all religions claimed "wanting and selfishness" as the main source of suffering - has taoism an idea why it is so and for what purpose?
ZEN (and I think Taoistic thought too) therefore - not seeing any need and purpose in suffering (only to get lost of it!)- reclaims to give up wanting as a cure whereas it is known that special in humanity evolution depends on growing wantings - so how will Taoism deal with growing wantings which are only faced in the human nature (an animal, a plant, a stone is born and will die with the same wantings - not so a human!)? So human nature seems to demand to go with the nature of growing wantings but don't knows how to manage it other then destroying the world or reducing wanting (meditate) which seems to reduce human to animal, plant or inanimate structure.
But looking at the wisdom for example of non-duality (ADVAITA) it is wellknown that humans need concepts to grasp anything and as a tool to go beyond.
So I am not so familiar with Taoism itself (long years going with advaita and ZEN and now going with authentic Kabbala for a couple of years) but I would like to aks few questions about the view of the human nature by taoistic thought:
[/list]
what is the relation between human and other forms of existence like inanimate, vegetable and animalic?
what is the relation between individual and collective within humans?
regarding the above: does Taoism see some evolution and therefor special responsibility of humanity for the whole?
Does Taoism see some necessity for correction in the human nature?
If so does Taoism see some demand on humanity to do some work on that?
What does Taoism think about egoism and altruism?
Is Taoism only for individuals and if so what is the function of the collective regarding the individual and vice versa?
As all religions claimed "wanting and selfishness" as the main source of suffering - has taoism an idea why it is so and for what purpose?
ZEN (and I think Taoistic thought too) therefore - not seeing any need and purpose in suffering (only to get lost of it!)- reclaims to give up wanting as a cure whereas it is known that special in humanity evolution depends on growing wantings - so how will Taoism deal with growing wantings which are only faced in the human nature (an animal, a plant, a stone is born and will die with the same wantings - not so a human!)? So human nature seems to demand to go with the nature of growing wantings but don't knows how to manage it other then destroying the world or reducing wanting (meditate) which seems to reduce human to animal, plant or inanimate structure.
Comments
Welcome. I've posted much on these issues you raise over the years, though I suppose most is buried in the bowels of this site. In a way there is no such thing as Taoism; in fact the word is something of an oxymoron I reckon. So with caveat in place I'll proceed to pontificate...
=================== The relationship we see is the one we are looking for. If you want to see humans as special, then the relationship might be perceived as: master/slave, free choice/instinct; wise/dumb; etc. If you want to feel connection the relationship might be perceived as: 'we' (i.e., whole; together; [chref=56]Mysterious sameness[/chref]). Being 'we', requires giving up the 'special' in "special responsibility". We sever ourselves from the whole through illusions of who and what we are, which causes us to fret about being 'out on a sync with whole'. Any perceived "necessity for correction in the human nature" is a symptom of one's own disconnection and subsequent desire to 'fix it'. The only "work" to be done is within oneself, i.e, [chref=16]stillness and impartiality[/chref]. Egoism originates in the survival instinct. Because we think, we have a word for it, but all living things share the essence of 'ego'. Altruism is a result of begin an extremely social species. You can only know yourself when undistracted by group think. Being social animal that's a tall order. Self understanding is influenced by our perception of other people's perception of us. Kind of a vicious circle. [chref=16]Returning to one's roots[/chref] helps. Also, helpful is being [chref=10]capable of not knowing anything[/chref]. [chref=19]Exhibit the unadorned and embrace the uncarved block, Have little thought of self and as few desires as possible.[/chref] Our problem lies not in wanting, but in wanting too much. Need and fear feed into thought which feeds back into need and fear and this leads to [chref=46]having too many desires[/chref]. Chapter 64 gives good insight on the 'taoist' point of view. For example: [chref=64]Whoever does anything to it will ruin it; whoever lays hold of it will lose it.[/chref] We are in the pickle we're in because we are too good at dealing with problems. Alas we lack the foresight to realize that every solution we innovate creates at least one more problem (and often many more). The unforeseen consequences of acting without knowledge of the constant. As we age we come to know the constant, but then die. That knowledge cannot be passed on, each must find it within themselves. Alas, the tools and techniques for innovation can be pass on to subsequent generations. So, each generation begins anew, in [chref=70]ignorance[/chref], to solve the problems of its day, only to create even more for future generations. Realizing we are 'dumb animals' with exaggerated 'intelligence' helps put this issue to rest. 'Dumb' and 'wise' is the model we need to embrace in order to return. Ironically, our 'intelligence' inhibits our ability to know how 'dumb' we actually are. Nature is in charge, and so perhaps one day our species will be able to say with all sincerity, [chref=17]'It happened to us naturally.'[/chref] Until then, we will toss and turn like Don Quixote tilting at wild-mills.
thanks a lot for giving your answers. In most cases I agree with your analyses but not in the often unspoken solutions that my be intended by them from your side.
It seems you end up in “to do nothing externally is better than to do anything because men does not know when he is wise or dump – one can only work inside oneself”. The first seemed to be a wise advice and it may be correct too if one does not know what life is truly intended for. The second opens a new question: what is the work? Only learn become calm? “Nature is in charge” as you mentioned to solve its own problems and in the meanwhile we are like Don Quixote?
Here it seems responsibility comes into the game. Your mentioned “we” does not vanish special responsibility of the “I” and negotiation of personal responsibility can not be apologized by treating all as a game or as an illusion. But what is responsibility in this regard? Let us look at a human body with its organs. The heart (organ = I) may not know anything about the purpose of the body (whole) – but should it think (if it could) the whole is responsible - I don’t want to beat any longer? Or should it think: I am only beating because it is an illusion to do so - why should I beat any longer? So to get an answer it seems one must search for the purpose of the body (whole) and the purpose of the organ (I).
I agree: we have to sync with the whole – but then: why are we out of sync from the beginning? Again here: is it by purpose or by accident? But to sync means to know the cause of being not synchronized and what this means and how to correct.
Next comes “wanting”. Humans seemed to be the only entities of nature being confronted with growing wishes. So I agree with you: wanting itself is not the problem - we only need the correct the handling of wanting. This I would see as subject of correction of the human nature and moreover it seems to be given by purpose.
My questions are not by accident of course! I just intended to compare the given answers to the old wisdom of Kabbala (literally “receiving”) which seemed to be the oldest and most profound given to humanity.
This wisdom stated by personal experience of the ancestors:
All existing is a wanting force (will to receive) and it all was created by a giving force (will to bestow) which is stateless in never ending calmness (here we understand our longing for calmness, because the branch is following the root). I see here some similarity to the tao.
The source of giving (root, tao) wants to give enjoyment and is benevolent by definition to all that is created by it (branches). So the branches (created entities) inherit both natures: receiving and giving (leading to egoism or altruism by intension!). Of course we don't agree with this statement of a benevolent nature or root because reality seems to be reversed (specially the human species). But this my be caused by the different reception caused by the different nature at the current state - but never judge a unripen fruit before it is ripe!
To get enjoyment one needs a desire which must be fulfilled (no desire no enjoyment!) – to get endless enjoyment one needs endless growing desires – that is what we humans are facing in the evolution and what is confusing so much. But it seems to be a must, why? Because nature, the root wants to raise all created existence to the greatest enjoyment which means to its own level: benevolence.
The only solution seems to know how to receive in the right way because we can’t omit receiving – its natures plan. A problem occurs here: receiving leads to shame because of the sensation of lowness towards the giver. And the greatest thing a benevolent giver can bestow is his own superior nature. This will lead to longing for synchronization with the nature of the superior not only receiving the good from the superior – in other words: become benevolent on your own! But a receiver can’t give anything in return to the superior – only by intension while receiving for enjoyment of the giver.
So here comes work into the game. The work represents the efforts one has to do in longing for synchronisation with the nature of the root (benevolence) which were intended by the root to overcame the natural feeling of shame of the subordinate while receiving – nothing more.
The work is to fully understand the own receiving nature (egoistic nature) and to long for the altruistic nature (the true work!) – knowing that it could not be done by own forces but only by the giving force itself.
This phenomena is known by the word “unconditional love” which is the root of all - or call it tao or what you like!
But I apologize proceeding to pontificate by my own……
All the best….
Reiner
No need to apologize for pontificating. Especially when we know that one who knows does not speak; one who speaks does not know. Of course I'd expand that statement a little... 'one who thinks, speaks or writes does not know;...'
I suppose the difference between us is that I see thinks a being already perfect, and thus in no need of fixing. Simply said, the 'problems' we see mirror our own lack of contentment. In other words, 'Whoever takes the empire and wishes to do anything to it I see will have no respite. The empire is a sacred vessel and nothing should be done to it. Whoever lays hold of it will ruin it; whoever lays hold of it will lose it'.
As far as I can tell, like most folks, you appear to see a problem 'out there' that actually needs fixing. Anyway, these thoughts came to mind as I read your reply.
Not "better", rather 'natural' (i.e., efficient). Better can end up implying 'should', which is the last thing I'd say. As I see it, nature 'works' to tease out the most efficient way to get the job of existence done. An integral part of that process lies in most creatures taking inefficient paths occasionally. If uncorrected, this can lead to the death of the individual (or to the extinction of a species, e.g., perhaps the dinosaurs got to big for their britches?)
We are out of sync with nature because we think we have choice (i.e., free will)
We would feel no need for "correction" if we did not think. If you cease thinking, you will see that as long as your mind is quiet and still (without names and words) you will 'see' no problem. When you see no problem, you feel no problem unless you stub your toe, have an abscessed tooth, break your leg… and so on. Then you'll feel 'a problem', which in time will either heal or you'll die. This is the natural way of life for all living things.
Because we don't want to suffer pain or die and we think we can control destiny, we contend with nature under the illusion that we can win. That' why I do my utmost to take the lower position.
there is no difference between us in "treating all as perfect". If one goes to school it would be foolish to judge this as a non perfect state even if after school the state changed to another level. There is a differnce in knowing or treating all as already perfect and in seeing already all as perfect. The judge only judges by his eyes! Sure: seeing imperfection is a mirror of our own imperfection - or would you say: he who is looking at the mirror is not imperfect too? Or my be the mirror is imperfect?
Before arguing about the word "contentment" I will give a statement of my core believe - and each one of us has a kind of core believe (if he believes it or not!) - may be here we find a difference between us:
"All existing is meaningful and by purpose!" This believe comes from investigating my behaviour and the behaviour of all I can recognize in my environment. If I take my shakuhachi and like to play it I have an intention. May be the intention is to get famous or may it be to get lost while playing (ichi on jobutsu) or just only enjoying music.... but there is an aim anyway - conscious or unconscious. Because I am a part of nature I can say: nature is purposeful.
With that background what is a lack of contentment? Is it part of nature or not and is it by purpose or not? For me it seems the only real force we actually can recognize and feel is the force of wanting, receiving - there is no philosophy here - it is a scientific, practical wisdom of humanity, or isn' it? Without wanting nothing will move - here we find the root of most concepts we find in buddhism,advaita and my be in taosim etc.: to avoid moving (get calm) because moving can harm therefore avoid wanting. It seems like a disciple in the school who likes looking out of the window instead into the books. But there is a teacher - or lets say an environment which forces us to move or not? Ok some guys know this well and ascape from any environment - but environment again is purposeful! It is part of nature too.
Contentment only comes from fullfilling - not from "not wanting" or "less wanting". There is no chance here: If you are hungry you can not say: I don't like to eat. This is against natures laws.
So the lack of contentment itself is not a flaw it is a law of nature. But what for? As I stated before: without lack no wanting - without wanting no enjoyment. The purpose of existence is enjoyment (that is really more then contentment!) - this could be verified by everybody I think. If one gets no enjoyment one will commit suicid.
So the real lack is found in a lack of real wisdom of the purpose of existence and ones own role within it. Because of that so many religions and philosophies switch focus from first and honestly discovering the real lack. So in that regard "correction" does not mean trying to switch from unperfect to perfect (hopeless!) but to fully grasp the difference of ones own being in comparison to the purpos of existence.
You are right: great kabbalists stated too: "there is no freedom of choice in anything but only in changing the intention of wanting: not for oneself (selfishness) but for the others.
It turns out that receiving is a force and wanting is a force of nature too we find this in all of existence:
the inanimate wants to maintain its form (molecular structure - see what will happen if one tries to disturb this!), the plants and animals want to maintain their behaviour - and men as the only one that wants to grow infinitely - thats all a law of nature. By this one can see men has a special comandment by nature - not to play the grandious macho of all existence but to serve all and lead all to the purpose of existence by free will.
"Free will" is nothing in doing and thinking - free will is only in the intention of ones will to receive: for oneself or for others. This kind of freedom is given only humans and it needs efforts (I know most religions statet effortlesness as ideal - but they fail!) to grasp - not to change but to want (which will change)!
All the best
Reiner
As I see it, balance is the essential process of nature. What we see and do in life is a function of 'balance and rebalance'. The process of living is essentially an imbalanced process in that the survival instinct drives living things to want to get as much as they can. In the wild, natural circumstances limit how much one can get, and thus keeps wanting in check, in balance. This natural wanting to 'get as much as one can' is the survival instinct (life driving force) symbolized by words like wanting, (desire, crave, lust, ambition, progress, etc.).
Over the last 200,000 years, humans, being a dexterous animal with a handy opposable thumb and a clever brain to work it, have figured out how to sidestep those 'in the wild' natural circumstances that limit the getting, and so keep the wanting instinct in balanced for all other animals. Thus, we are able to get much more of what we want than healthy and normal (as compared to all other species). For us this has become 'too much of a good thing', and a sorrow wrought by the 'law of unintended consequences'. (And religion is the human attempt to resolve this.)
Contentment is a feeling of emotional balance, i.e., when wanting (to get), and having are in balance. This state of equanimity also goes by the name peace, happiness, grace, harmony, etc. Contentment is not the absence of wanting, merely a balanced state where wanting has limits placed upon it. The human problem lies in the fact that we have figured out ways to circumvent the natural limits placed upon the wanting instinct. This has guaranteed we will feel out of balance and discontent no matter what we do. Like fighting fire with fire, we want to try to solve the problem, when in truth the problem we feel is caused by our clever ability to solve the problems we want to solve in order to allow us to have more of what we want to have.
Sorry for that long last sentence. I just needed to bring out the irony. As they say, when you're in a hole stop digging. That applies to our species in our wanting to solve our 'problem'. Of course, that is hard to do when digging makes us feel like we are getting somewhere!
We just reach the core of our discussion: the nature of wanting. We agree both in: wanting is something we can't redeem - it is nature. Your solution is: get "wanting" and "having" in balance. But what is balance in this regard?
Is this not exactly what humanity already tries thousands of years until now? Politics, sociology, ecomomics, psychology all come into play to get that thing balances - and they failed! Ethics and morality are developed out of that - are they successful?
You argue: it is because humanity falls out of natural instinct. But why should humanity do so? What is the cause of this? What do we gain from this? Is it for purpose too? You remember I statet: we don't do anything without getting something out from that - that is the purposeful nature of humans. And that is a purposeful difference to the rest of all creatures. But what purpose is it?
Until know you delay some answer on my statement: there is porposefulness off these things - of all things. Do you agree or not?
According old wisdom there is a order of needs in nature - and the wisdom is older than pawlows pyramid!
food, sex and family (this we share on instinctive base with animals)
But now special human needs in special order arose:
wealth
power
honer
wisdom
This needs need human environment - you can't get it without fellowers of the same species.
this needs are stimulated (and have to be) by the environment. This is natures program for humanity and not by accident. It is a law of evolution (from our sight - from the end it is perfect already!).
So nature does not wan't from humanity to fall back into the instictive, simple mechanics of balance (remember: nature wants men to get to the top of enjoyment) - nature forces men to develope a system by his own (only to avoid shame, because "he who eats ones bread can't see in ones eyes") which is in balance with nature. But what is nature then demanding from humans? What really is balance - balance in what?
If we take a look at todays situation we find nature forcing us into globalisation: no individuum, no nation, no anything can do calcultations by its own - it all will be felt negatively by all individuals on earth if we don't think globaly from now on.
The famous kabbalist Baal HaSulam (Rabbi Jehuda Ashlag) statet: the law for humans is: "love their neigbour as theyself" which leads to another practical law:
everyone only gets by his needs (from collective) and gives by his possibilities (to the collective).
This collectiv force that humans have to develope is called ARVUT (mutual garantee) - everyone taks care only for the needs of the others.
But: why should human nature ever be willing to agree with this law? Never ever - it seems (you may remember from the bible: "God" don't find a nation to take that law...).
So kabalists statet that humanity will be forced by nature to come to this agreement which is called the way of suffering. The other way is to understand this force and come in balance with it before suffering.
So intelligence as you statet is not the cause of falling out of the instinctiv balance - intelligence itself is a consequence of growing wantings: because I want to have more I have to develope more intelligence to get it.
This on the other hand leads to an intellectual elite which is demanding more and morre reward from community for their efforts - this is in contrast to "give what you are able to give - take only what you need.
The result can be observed in todays crises. Because of that until now humans failed natures law - which we feel as suffering.
So our problem is not intelligence - our problem is the kind of needs we like to use it for (selfish or not).
The anchestors of kabbala gave a methode to develope this force of ARVUT (develope the giving force).
There thousands of words to add -but I will stop here now!
All the best
Reiner
Taking a closer look at what causes 'wanting' helps. As I see it:
Need (emotion) + thought (cognition) = wanting, desire, wishing, craving, longing,
All life feels the first component, need. The second, thought, is uniquely human and is what makes it extremely difficult for any of us to find balance. Thought can't help trying to fix things; the mind eggs on the breath. Humanity's "trying" actually makes for more imbalance because "trying" invariably involves more cognition which is what causes the imbalance in the first place.
The underlying "purpose" of all we do is our instinctive drive to secure as much comfort and security as possible. This instinctive "purpose" drives all living things to 'get' all they can. As I said before, in the wild, all living things are restricted in actually succeeding at 'getting all they can'. Balance is maintained. We, through clever willful innovation, have bypassed much of the natural 'push back' that keeps other life forms in balance.
"Politics, sociology, economics, psychology" all play a role in furthering our desire to 'win the game of life'. Our instinctive purpose, like all life, is survival. Survival is advanced by "politics, sociology, economics, psychology"; these are all aimed at maximizing comfort and security (food, shelter, strength in numbers, etc.) in the final analysis.
One important difference between the 'taoist' worldview and 'Western' worldviews (Jewish, Christian, Kabbalah, Islam, Hindu) is their inherent moral undertone. They all rest on the proposition that we are uniquely capable (compared to other animals) of free choice. Thus, all one need to do is choose to do right: "love their neighbor as thyself" or "give what you are able to give - take only what you need". Granted, these are appealing ideals. Alas, nature is messier than that. Reality doesn't conform to humanity's feel-good, if-only, idealistic panaceas. Yet, hope springs eternal, and so each generation buys into its cultural's beliefs ('solutions') in an idealistic certainty that they should work if-only…
This probably feels like I'm painting a pretty dismal picture of how thing are. However, I found that once I could just accept seeing things simply as they were helped me begin to see things as being perfect as they were. Essentially this requires putting aside my own likes and dislikes, i.e., have little thought of self and as few desires as possible. Only then can my actions lead to impartiality.
I'm of the view that as long as we hold out for these idealistic solutions nothing will change. Because each generation must begin the process of life discovery anew, nothing can ever change. As the years go by, we begin to see through the ideals and are able to face nature's ruthless reality more impartially. But what we see can only be understood by seeing. It cannot be passed on others, and so each generation takes its life's wisdom to the grave. Only its technology, history, art, music, religion, etc., are passed on to the next generation. Ah yes, another cause for the imbalance of humanity. We can pass on the discoveries we make 'out there'; we are unable to effectively pass on the discoveries we make 'in here'. Only those who already know are capable of understanding.
your formula: Need (emotion) + thought (cognition) = wanting, desire, wishing, craving, longing
...but again your are not answering on "purposefullness" of all things....
I agree: "thought" is only on the human side and "need" is what all existence share. Kabbalists call the latter "will to receive".
So a human has the ability for scrutiny about the "needs" he is facing an animal has not. If a tiger is hungry he will catch the weakest antelope - if a human is hungry he could decide to starve (may be out of moral, health or other intensions) - he also could decide to murder an other human just for fun (animals do not!).
Thats what Kabbalists explored: while animals didn't have any choice (they are instinctly in balance with nature and this includes the lack of interest nature seems to have on individuals or nature seems in our eyes to be ruthless!) humans have a choice to attain or fail balance by own decisions. This is done by thought. The problem is only revealing truth about what balance is to have a chance for a decision.
So we find: humans have an additional parameter beside "needs" given by nature: thought. Now you stated: "Thought can't help trying to fix things" which means in other words: nature failed in giving humans this additional parameter. Are you really sure? Or are you just trying to say: humans are not capable of using thought in the right way over the centuries? Kabbalists stated: they failed but would be able to do so and more over are intended by nature to find it by their own. Because they don't want so they suffer.
The problem is "thoughts are within needs initially" and therefore because a need is selfish by definition whereas nature is unselfish by definition (it provides fulfillment for all needs of the whole of existence) the thoughts are selfish too (call it an egoistic intention). So if we compare the intention of nature which is unselfish with the intention of humans which are selfish to begin with we find the missmatch the inbalance.
This is what kabbalists explored: we have to come as humans to the same intention as nature: wanting to be unselfish. (The kabbalistic term here is "equivalence of form" whereas the "matter" stays as "having needs").
So how could we get our thoughts out of our initial needs which are selfish? Because thoughts are always within needs we have to change our needs which means to change our wanting. Change to what? To natures wanting which is unselfish and caring for the whole.
You consider all my sayings as moralic or idealistic. But that is not the case. Kabalists don't philosophise (it is the other way around: philosophy and religion stems from kabbala and took humanity to detours). Kabbalists only speak about what they attained. It all stands or falls with the true scrutiny of what balance in nature means. Therefore one must have the mind of nature itself or develope it. To develope it is the task of humanity (you are astonished that there is a task for humanity giving by nature?!): Remember nature want's to give fulfillment and is not ruthless (kabbalistic experience!). The greatest fullillment one can give is ones own state (here:state of nature). And one can't only give because otherwise one generates shame on side of the recipient (as I statet earlier) - there has to be some effort therefore on side of the recipient to overcome the "shame of becoming".
But sitting in the corner and complaining (blame me!): "we are facing a ruthless reality in nature" may not really help. As I statet before: never judge an unripen fruit before it is ripened. If I would be an alien that knows that cutting up a human body is a terrible thing because seen first time when one human was killing another with a knife and now looking at an medical operation when the doctor puts his knife into the body of the patient - as alien if I don't wait until all is done I would come to false conclusions or not? If I don't know anything about why it is to be done so what can I do? Kabbalists know the "why" by own experience.
The judgment "ruthless" only originates from such an alien view (forgive me I am familiar with this view too!). So all false scrutiny generates out of our alien view of human nature. We until now fail our human nature which was given to develope as a task by nature - we are like animals but in combination with our ability of thought this could lead to desasters - therefore kabbalists statet: humanity must come to the state of ADAM (= MEN=equivalence of form with nature) but fails until now. The path of developing ADAM is described by kabbalists.
Therefore "love your neighbour as theyself" is not an idealistic phrase or religious command - it is a law by nature like the law of gravity (sounds strange but it is!). This seems to be unsustainable by humans because I love me to 100 % (I am selfish to 100%) so it means to love the other by 100 % - because of this you may call the sentence "idealistic". But we are facing the braking of that rule on side of the humans from the beginning - this means really suffering. But the first scrutiny one has to accomplish is to recognize these 100% selfishness by oneselfe and to acknowledge that all is the other way around "one hates the other". If that is done by truth one wants to get rid of this nature which will introduce the new nature of ADAM.
By the way: I would not label kabbalistic wisdom as "western" knowledge - it is the first and only eastern knowledge which later spreads over the world.
Reiner
The "purposefulness" we think important is simply a reflection (and emergent property) of the core emotional need(s) we (like all animals) feel.
Choice is an illusion manifested in thought. To paraphrase chapter 56: Those who think, speak, or write do not know, those who know do not think, speak, or write.
Perhaps you are putting too much credence in the illusion of duality: yin-yang, selfless-selfish, death-life. I've found there is no way to work 'it' out with that duality. One just goes round in circles, which is fine naturally. Although, as long as one spins round in circles, one can never know the contentment of letting the dust settle.
The cliche "love your neighbor as thyself" is also simply a reflection (and emergent property) of the core emotional need we (like all very social animals) feel for group cohesion and cooperation. The biological urge of individual animals to meet their needs pulls group members apart. This stresses group cohesion and cooperation. Cohesion and cooperation are unifying and feel 'good'. Competition and selfishness (meeting individual needs) are divisive, and feel 'bad' to anyone wanting group cohesion and cooperation. The 'solution', "love your neighbor as thyself" reflects the needs of those wanting group cohesion and cooperation (peace).
Everyone shares this 'feel good' sentiment, but only when their needs aren't on the line. The truth is, nature embodies both, unity and division, cooperation and competition, to get life done. One can either accept the way of nature or resist. In youth we are instinctively driven to do the latter. Only in later years do we tend to grow weary of waging our futile war on that which is naturally so.
The suffering we feel is simply the symptom of a natural instinct to want to have it both ways. It is a dynamic tension between the normal needs of the individual and those of the group. Basically, we are as children, i.e., we want to have our cake and eat it too.
But I am grateful to know now your core believe: nature ist purposeless. From here on no further discussion
makes any sense because all arguments have their base on core believes.
The question is: why one has different core believes? So it seems you think all is by accident and without purpose.
From my life experience I can not agree with believing in accidents and purposeless events. I can agree sometimes not to know the law - then it seems to be an accident to me too. But I know this is a lack of knowledge. What I experience day by day are strikt laws in nature - it seems to be the opinion of the tao te ching too: the law is called tao. Your opinion seems to go to the side of "wu wei" which means "do nothing" which seems impossible to me. But your "wu wei" hast to be in harmony with the tao - to achieve this you first have to know it. Do you know it? And to get knowledge one has to investigate: this you are doing with this web site - which seems not to be "wu wei".
So it turns out: there is a law forcing us to scrutinies - if you like to call it a "reflection of needs" or something else does not act a part. You can't refuse this force acting on us. You have to fulfill the law otherwise suffering takes place. Of course: doing nothing may be better than doing anything but that may cause suffering too (which is eperienced by humanity too). So the core scrutiny is: is suffering a reflection of that universal law or a consequence of not fulfilling it? Kabbalists for more than 4000 years stated: the law is benevolent and suffering is a consequence of not fulfilling that law. I know you may answer now: it all is illusion and illusion again is purposeless.... that I call going up in circles.
Reiner
As to your core belief, it appears that you wish to nail 'it' down. As you say,
You ask,
I don't 'think' all is by accident any more than I 'think' all is with purpose. Why believe in either? The fact that people hold various core beliefs, and that there is no consensus on the 'true core' belief is revealing. Most revealing is the fact that each group holds their core belief to be 'true' (if not superior). This says to me that belief serves our species as a conceptual 'tool' under which to rally groups of people (an emergent property of our tribal instinct), and also to answer the unanswerable mystery of which we are all consciousness (i.e., belief is a psychological palliative to ease our fears and offer hope to our desires). The parable of the blind men and the elephant illustrates the 'core' unreliability of belief beautifully.
Seeing all this leaves me no alternative but to just observe 'its' wonder in awe. I use 'its' for lack of a better name. As chapter 4 puts it, [chref=4] Darkly visible, it only seems as if it were there. I know not whose son it is. It images the forefather of God.[/chref] And even this is saying too much about 'it' I suppose.
As to our circular journey, life always ends up where it starts I've noticed. So we did our journey here justice.
You said: "why believe in either - accident or purpose?" Isn't it a standpoint "out of the world" instead of "within the world"? If one chooses that it is hopeless to investigate such things it may be a good counterpoint for a overdoing mentality (psychologically!) but isn't life forcing such a decision in every second?
Example: One deciedes and plans to gain an good education and to earn much money because of that in order to sustain a family. If it comes to an good end one can say it was done by purpose. If one suffers a serious disease on the way and all went "bad" this event would be treated as accident - not as purpose (for the "I" of course!). Same with divorce nowadays: one gives a promise for life time and could not hold it... So man is forced to make decisions and at the end has to understand that it was not his own at all. But whose?
Now facing this one could decide better to make no efforts in anything at all and let things come as they are -this is called fatalism and is the main core beliefe in the eastern world and that seems to be a little the taste of taoism for me too.
So we have two phenomena: some excalted individuals experience that we never have control about anything but most of humanity is experiencing that they are forced to do purposeful work day by day.
In terms of cybernetics: there is a system without purpose which forces its ingredients to be purposeful.
This for me seems logical false and I add: logic is an ingredient of the system too.
So it turns out that between birht and death (where we experience no control at all) in life we experience on all things strict laws and call it science.
Because human seems to be the highest level of existence the lower levels are investigated and laws are revealed with more or less few errors - the lower the level from the own standpoint the fewer the errors - the higher the greater the errors. Most errors seemed to be when investigating the human level by itself - it can't work say kabbalists. So one has to gain a standpoint above the human level which one can attain (so they say - not I am saying this but I am investigating for it!).
This standpoint above is outside the "I" in the unity of the "yous". Therefore kabbalists don't speak in terms of ethics and morals when they insist of a law they have revealed and attained: "love the neighbour as theyself". As you often insist - and you are right here too - that there is no freedom of will at all: the choice is only to keep or brake this law - but it is a law (they say). The levels beneath the human don't can break any laws because of a system function called "instinct" - but humans have this choice to break a law (and they do - so they suffer). The system (nature) likes to be understood (say kabbalists) and aims it (learning needs freedom of choice!) - what aims the tao? It just leaves it followers in the dark - is this not an attempt of turning hardship to goodness?
Regarding our "circle yourney": looking at a coil spring from the front shows only a circle - but from the side it winds up to heaven....
The notion of "goodness" and its opposite simply reflect what we like (goodness) and what we don't (badness). This is the basic drives of attraction and aversion that all living things experiences. We just have words for these emotions. Having the words, we then proceed to think, and the thoughts that result allow us to [chref=41]think that we know[/chref]. I suppose I call that the illusion of knowing and understanding that thought instills in us.
In the end, I'd say that 'it' is all simpler than we are able to think (I prefer to call 'tao' simply 'it'). Thinking complicates what is - 'it'. Although, I certainly enjoy the futile process of attempting to think over the experience of 'it', and I marvel.:-)
If I hold a stone in my hands and let it drop it will fall to the ground. So the stone is following a law and "aims" to get the same situation he got in my hands before: to come to calmness. But it is not really the "same" state as before - now he covers less energy (certainly I put before in it).
What will this tell us? What I can speak of could not be constant? No! If I speak of a law I speak of a constant.
If I don't know the law I can not speak about the law - of course - I agree!
Put it to a philosophised level :
if I am hungry the hunger tells me that there must be some food anywhere. It turns out: the hunger is aimed to get some food to get rid of the hunger - for a moment only of course.
Therefore if I am hungry for an "aim" it must exist. If you are not hungry for an "aim" it may exist or not - you only experience it if you follow your hunger. If you are hungry for "no aims" at all or you ar not hungry for anything anymore then I would say you are psychological depressed.
There is no "goodness" or "badness". Kabbalists use the terms "bitter" and "sweet" for such false scrutinies - but what can be considered and attained is "true" and "false". But this only can be done by getting a sense for the greatest, last and only law.
The 'taoist' view is that speaking about anything divides the 'whole', and so loses the whole big picture view of 'it'. That goes for the physical laws like what causes a stone to fall to the ground, or any other law.
Yes, hunger drives living things to seek food. To say if you are hungry for an "aim", it must exist just doesn't hold up. If I'm 'hungry to find a flying saucer in the area, and I set out to seek that as my "aim", does not prove flying saucers exist. All it proves (perhaps) is that my 'idea of a flying saucer' is a stand-in for food. In other words, if I find a flying saucer, I will be satiated.
It is no accident that when people have plenty to eat, other "aims" become their focus. When famine is in the land, all other "aims" fizzle out, and one's primary "aim" returns to finding food.
From a taoist point of view, "bitter" and "sweet", and "true" and "false" also [chref=2]produce each other[/chref]. The taoist view is like a circle where the ends meet, and where there are no ends or beginnings. This is unusual in human culture, historically speaking. The predominate paradigm across most all human cultures is a more or less linear one, with 'sweet truths' on one end and 'bitter fallacy' on the other.
Of course this hierarchical way of seeing life is a natural facet of our social nature. Social instinct drives our senses to differentiate things in hierarchical ways, with the 'superior alpha-male' at the top followed by the rest according to what ever pecking order we impose.
In this particular case, you hold Kabbalists as 'superior', although you may not say that so bluntly. Christians will deem Jesus 'superior'; Buddhist deem Buddha, and so on. Even atheist fall into this model in how they react in opposition to religious authority. Politics is another closely related arena in which this social / tribal instinct plays itself out. Actually most every arena of human activity expresses this core social / tribal emotion based drive.
We have difficulty seeing this primal biological process occurring in our lives? Why? Ego is invested in our particular "aims" and needs to see it as special, and not just some mundane expression of animal instinct. Indeed, our species' ego (social tribal instinct) drives us to conclude that we are a 'superior' species, as every religion espouses.
I agree too: egoism is a special force appearing only in humans society. For me it is a part of the great law.
I don't see "superior" like I assume you do: if we are babies our mothers are "superior" and we are "inferior" - it has to be so. Do you feel bad as a child? Yet do you want to become a grown up anyway?
The inferior has to follow the superior but the superior "aims" to get the inferior to his state - that is what I can observe anywhere in nature. That is the way how kabbalists describe the most superior law that exists.
Now back to "the law" - I would call it "tao" now . Let me give you a translation of a german guy doing it from the chinise original. I will put it to english (I am german):
Item 21
"How does the wisdom comes to me?
while I live."
But what means "to live" for Lao Tse?
Item 16
"Life is the circle of processing lawfulness.
The one who founds the circle is called awakened."
And..
Item 36
"Like a fish can not live without water
so there could not be life without the governing of lawfulness."
Item 21
"Expression of highest life
is agreement with lawfulness"
etc.
Now what will this give us? There is a law. If we equate the law we are awaken. How do we equate the law? first we have to know it. Here I see the problem of all eastern philosphies and religions I have met in Buddhism, Advaita etc.: there is a indivduum which seems to have attainded something - let it call "superior".
But the one who has attained could not show the way. Lao Tse is trying to describe his attaining and fails to meet the "inferior" - may be he does it by intention because of the danger of some missinterpretations. But kabbalist say: "More than a calf can suck a cow wants to feed". Kabbalists do the same in the past: they hide the wisdom because it needs a special wanting (not an egoistic one)- but some failed (egoistic) and the following centuries we got all this philosophies and religions - but not for waste! by the way: Kabbalistic wisdom comes from about more than 2000 years before christ - generates later christianity, islam and judaims and then spreads to the east: buddhism about 500 before christ, islam about 500 after christ etc.
So one has some choice: to ignore the law (non religious), to follow it by advice (religious) or to attain it (try to get on the same level). To ignore it is painful.tto follow it by advice is less painfull but one is left in the dark. To attain the law means to know what it "aims" - again: no aims no laws!
There is an other kabbalistic picture: the "law" is the rider and "humanity" is the horse. The best thing a horse can do ist to know the will of the rider before he forces it.
It's not skepticism (i.e., Skepticism: a doubting attitude toward religious beliefs). No particular doubt exists in my view of religion. Rather, like everything else I observe, I see religion as simply symptomatic of human needs and fears. It is no different than what drove us to hunt and gather, or what now drives us to go to the market. It is symptomatic of our need for food. Religious belief is like 'spiritual food'. And, like with food, people favor different tastes (e.g., some like their religion 'spicy' some like it 'mild'). There is no eternal truth in our 'favorite', whether it be the food for our stomach or the food for our mind/emotion. That people claim so for their favorite 'food' is common across the board: favorite political ideology, religion, food, movie, music, hobby, job.
I don't regard egoism as a special force. To the contrary, all life (from protozoa to human) has 'ego'. The only difference is that we have named this sense of self and self survival as 'ego'. The struggle to live out one's days drives one to do what seems most promising survival-wise, even if you’re a tomato plant.
How do I see "superior"? Which side of a circle is "superior"? To paraphrase chapter two, To paraphrase chapter two, [chref=2]Thus Superior and Inferior produce each other, complement each other, off-set each other, harmonize with each other, and follow each other[/chref]. A baby is a baby and a mother is a mother. Each could be labeled as either superior or inferior, depending upon the 'eye of the beholder'. The same applies to labeling "law". What may be seen as a superior law to you may not to another's pair of eyes. In the end, our judgments simply reflect who we are (our needs and fears), and not the thing we judge. As Christ said, Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven. Although, I imagine most Christians will interpret this as consequences vis-Ã -vis God.
The Chinese original of what? What are those "Items"? Not chapters from the Tao Te Ching I assure you (having read and translated from the original).
Aren't you seeing yourself as "having attained something", i.e., knowing the 'law' as you call it? This is the common denominator I notice existing between all 'believers', not matter what the particular belief. They think they "have attained something", and often fervently wish to share their treasure.
Your history is a bit shaky there. All history back 4000 years is shaky. Of course that makes it easier for some to find 'evidence' that proves their point of view. Frankly, this brings us back to my "skepticism", as you call it. Allow me to elaborate:
Religion arose from the emotional and physiological dessert created when we attained the ability to live in a world of words and names. This virtual reality (call it an ideal-ity) disconnects us from the moment to moment of actual reality by allowing us to zoom forward or backward in an illusion of time. The agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago further exacerbated this separation from reality. Religion is simply a manifestation of this sense of disconnection. It is a symptom, and not something real in its own right. Although, to a believer it feels utterly real. ;-)
I have nothing attained yet only met an authentic kabbalist (who seems to me to have attained something) - and of course I am trying to compare the wisdoms of humanity for the purpose of "the meaning of my life".
I only try to observe things in reality using the advices of kabbalists. This includes using names for phenomena and thinking about it regardless what one thinks about doing so.
By the way: to take what one needs (your survivel theory) is no egoism by definition of kabbalists - it is the "will to receive", a force in replacement to the force of giving (duality in unity). Egoism is to take more than you need - we talked about it earlier (only humans do so and may be domesticated animals). But that is to complex to go deeper here.
"What side of the circle - inferior.. superior - do you mean?" you stated - and "a baby is a baby and a mother is a mother... depends on the eyes..".......
If your wife would like you to bring the garbage to the outside and you don't like to do so in the moment arguing "garbage is garbage" and "what side of the circle - outside ... inside - do you mean?" what might be happening?
That is the greatest danger of philosophising - it don't matches reality. Of course you may insist : there is no such reality to speak of - but there is a reality of relationship which can hurt or move to love. May be "love" is only another "symptomatic of human needs" in your thinking - but this better might be discussed with your wife.
But I understand now and I will not further try to argue anything.
Thanks a lot for your patience in answering and all the best to you....
Reiner
To the one who is "taking", the taking is always proportional to what the individual feels it needs, whether that be a bacterium or a bank robber. The experience of need is subjective. The more thirsty I am, the more in need of 'water' I feel... water, money, power, friends, knowledge,... anything that has a perceived value to an individual is valuable in proportion to the 'emptiness' felt within that individual. Naturally, bacteria have few perceived needs than us, but they 'gobble' away all they can until sated just like the bank robber.
The error you make, in my view, is assuming that we are in control of life, have free will, free choice. Ah, if only that were so. We do desperately want to have control, and that need is what feeds our belief in free will, i.e., if we believe it fervently enough we can convince ourselves it is true.
"Love" is definitely symptomatic of an innate deep human social need. Swans, elephants, chimpanzees, and other intensely social animals feel this need as well, although they don't have a word or a name for it. Does naming it make it any more real or special? I think, in our mind's eye, it does. Perhaps that is why most people name their babies as soon as they are born. Doing so lends the baby an air of added reality.
Our folly lies in the naming of things, and then regarding the name as the reality. Thus, the Tao Te Ching point out...
* [chref=32]Only when it is cut are there names. As soon as there are names, One ought to know that it is time to stop.[/chref]
* [chref=23]To use words but rarely Is to be natural.[/chref]
* [chref=2] Therefore the sage keeps to the deed that consists in taking no action and practices the teaching that uses no words.[/chref]
Exchanges like we've been having challenges and sharpens one's point of view. Thanks Reiner for giving me that opportunity. Oh, and for me, this has not been an argument. Arguments, in my view, are heated disputes. We've just been having a probing discussion where in neither of us will 'win' the other over. For me, it's not the end of the game (winning or losing) that is fun; it's the journey! :-D
the behaviour of evolution from your side of view seems to be a little neo darvinistic (the strongest will survive etc.) because you are telling from bacteria taking all "they need" like a bank robber.
This seems to me a little undifferentiated and not meeting the latest scientific research about evolution in general and of microrganism in particular. Today most scientists a struggling about the phenomenas pointing on altrustic behaviour instead of egoistic (of course Darvin himself faced already this and some theories of group egoism etc. are created in the past to solve the contradictions). Nature following new pictures in science seemed to prefer cooperative behaviour instead of competition. This of course in most creatures comes on the unconscious level - an inbound program of nature. It depends on the level of existence - not more not less.
By the way: why are you not a bacterium or bank robber?
In case of a bank robber we face another level of kabbalistic science about the level fo consciousness of different species: a bank robber only has less wisdom about what harms society and at the end himself. But we see nature has organized more then bank robbers and bacteria and goes ahead - and it seems by me the harming subjects or individuals are not the most even when they harm a lot. Some bacteria are not harming but are working in your gut for your purpose....
And about "LOVE" - I think your comparison here is not worth to discuss. What looks like "love" may be only a program for instictiv behaviour operating the lower level creatures by nature.
"control of live" - in our current state we have no control of life because we are not "human" ("ADAM = dome hebrew means like the highest level) but only like animals. The question is if we could gain some control in future. That is discussed and solved in the science of Kabbala - like all we discussed here.
Both only take what they feel they need, no more and no less. The need we perceived is relative to the emptiness or lacking of something we feel. It is simply one's sense of weakness and nothing that produces the somethings of need. If one feels complete and content, one will not feel a need for more. As chapter 46 puts it, [chref=46]Hence in being content, one will always have enough.[/chref]
Generally, one will feel a need for cooperation when one feels 'full', One will feel a need for competition when one feels 'empty'. And yes, unconscious in all creatures, including most humans I'd guess. As least those humans who feel that they are either in control of their destiny, or can somehow become in control of it (i.e. free will).
No need felt on my part to rob, or be a bacterium, I suppose. Either way, it's fate. Moreover, the notion that 'I am' is illusion. A dream dreamed through the cooperation among myriad bacterium size neurons. So, in a way perhaps I am bacterium like. Also, in a way, I'm a robber for I 'rob' plants and animals of their existence for my need of food.
A robber robs because he does not feel to be an integral member of that segment of society from which he is robbing. Likewise, a person who eats steak does not feel to be an integral member of that segment of life from which he is robbing. Ducks don't eat other ducks, but they eat snails. We eat both, for we are members of neither segment.
"lower level"? "highest leve"? "control"? This is the essence of our difference in world view. Your is linear, with a lower on one end and a higher on the other. Progress for you is moving from the lower, no control end toward the highest and in control end of the line. For me progress is an illusion, as are high and low. The perception of one side requires the juxtaposition of the other side. One creates the other. Let go of one side and the other vanishes as well. Then you can feel content... until you feel discontent again, of course. You need the Answer, I am content with the Question. Your Answer can never answer the Question, for the Question is in the end, Nothing (which produces Something, like Answer for example). :yy:
The only question for me is, what brings about deepest contentment? I find that forcing answers to fill that mysterious hole is like trying to cram Cinderella's shoe on her sister's foot. It never truly fits and so will never lead to contentment; one is always contending with how things are. On the other hand, seeing the [chref=56]mysterious sameness[/chref] instead, makes me more content with how things are.
[chref=44]Hence in being content, one will always have enough.[/chref]
There is a circle likewise in kabbalistic attainment: we start from highest level unconsiousness and drop down to lowest level and come back to highest level by consciousness. I understand your opinion about contrasts - it is known in kabbala too. But there are other solutions here as treating and solving this by defining it as illusion.
Progress is a real conecept in nature anyway. And there are differences on different levels off existence.
But I understand your view and as I write this I know your answer - that is the best we could achieve.
Thanks
Thanks to you as well.
It seems we both agree in one: life is a game!
We don’t agree about what’s the game for: illusion (you) or purpose (I).
We both agree: there are contradictions appearing in our consciousness regarding perceiving reality in this game.
We don’t agree in how to handle this contradictions: you are following a solution called “because it is all illusion” nothing worth to think about because it is not possible to think and speak about – I am following a solution called “growing from a child to an adult” because the concept “growing” in my view is immanent in nature and we all use it in our daily life (consciously or unconsciously – the latter by pain).
We agree that each one has his own view on things – you believe in “non linear” way and I in your view in a “linear” way. But we both agree too that there is something we would grasp by a concept called wholeness: you call it “Tao” – I call it “Ein Sof”.
We don’t agree how this concept “wholeness” could be achieved: you state that there is nothing to achieve (see above concepts illusion – purpose) – I state that it is a movement from unconsciousness to consciousness.
We agree in that all existence has a wanting. In case of us: your wanting is contentment my wanting is fulfilment – anyway some state of calmness.
We again don’t agree in how to achieve this: you state it can’t be achieved because there is nothing to achieve or let me put it in other words “to not want to achieve something is contentment”. I state that wanting in nature is growing in levels starting with foot, sex, family that we share this with animals but on “human” level it is growing exponentially because of envy and other special attributes we don’t chare with animals like wealth, power, honor and wisdom (this is an order of growing). This is a part of natures concept to bring its parts to understanding in my view.
We agree that “wanting” leads to "robbery" on each level of existence.
We don’t agree about what this "robbery" really means. But this is the core and the only thing one (“humans”) can really grasp, because we are faced with it day by day. You state “it is like it is” – it is all robbery – my be there is some conscious scrutiny more or less about one can realize that one is harming the surrounding by own wanting and of course by this harming oneself. I state that this contradiction of “giving” and “taking” is the only contradiction that exists and this contradiction is not solved by declaring it as illusion but by facing it and to research it more and more: to clear this is the meaning of life in my view. That’s why I follow kabbalistic wisdom because this is the core of it (kabbala means “to receive”).
For those who like to go deeper I post here a link of little story told by the greatest Kabbalist of this century Rav Yehuda Lev Ashlag (Baal HaSulam). It tells a story between a host and a guest.
It contains the whole wisdom of Kabbala and opens deeper and deeper over the years. But in the beginning it seems to be a little bit boring – depends on the level of consciusness.
http://www.kabbalah.info/eng/content/view/frame/22765
be blessed by all you are encountering....
Not exactly. Thinking that the game of life is "for purpose" is the illusion that nature needs living creatures to feel (and in humans, also think) to keep life living. I'd call this biological [chref=65]hoodwinking[/chref].
My point: It is best to know that 'it' is an illusion (a biological illusion). When you tune into how nature (your biology) is [chref=65]hoodwinking[/chref] you, you can avoid taking the 'bait'. This is not different from the fish and the fisherman. The fisherman (nature) wants the fish to believe that his bait is the only food. The wise old fish (old because he's wise, wise because he's old) sees the fisherman's hoodwink and declines to take the bait.
Contentment = calmness. Seeking fulfillment can never bring calmness. Being 'calm' with emptiness is the gateway to calmness and contentment, as least in theory. In the practice of life it is a balancing act. Our ability to think (i.e., [chref=71]not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty)[/chref] makes us overly clever (i.e., [chref=18]when cleverness emerges, there is great hypocrisy[/chref]). This makes it especially difficult for us to find balance. We become lost in imagined 'futures' and 'pasts' and heaven knows balance requires being utterly present in the present.
"Wanting" is opposite to contentment. Contentment is the absence of wanting. It is simple biology. The more of anything you want, the less content you will feel until you have what you wanted. Ironically, the attainment of what we want never satiates that 'wanting' for more than a few moments. Soon the 'hunger' returns and another 'wanting' pops up... as is natural.
There was one thing from your previous post I'll reply to while I'm at it:
By linear, I mean that you say this: "we start from highest level unconsciousness and drop down to lowest level and come back to highest level by consciousness". There is no highest or lowest level on a circle; no end or beginning; no up or down; no before or after; no better or worse. Each part is indistinguishable from every other part. This wholeness is another way to describe the [chref=15]the uncarved block[/chref].
Finally, Here are a few more references to the uncarved block:
(19 ) [chref=19]Exhibit the unadorned and embrace the uncarved block,
Have little thought of self and as few desires as possible.[/chref]
(28 ) [chref=28]Know honor
But keep to the role of the disgraced
And be a valley to the empire.
If you are a valley to the empire,
Then the constant virtue will be sufficient
And you will return to being the uncarved block.[/chref]
(32) [chref=32]The way is for ever nameless.
Though the uncarved block is small
No one in the world dare claim its allegiance.
Should lords and princes be able to hold fast to it
The myriad creatures will submit of their own accord,
Heaven and earth will unite and sweet dew will fall,
And the people will be equitable, though no one so decrees.
Only when it is cut are there names.
As soon as there are names
One ought to know that it is time to stop.
Knowing when to stop one can be free from danger.[/chref]
In the stated system “fisherman-fish” you show a system of relationship between two egoists: the fish just wants to eat (no real egoism in terms of kabbala, because he is trying to get what he really needs and does not harm the environment by this) and the fisherman just wants to eat too (the same here: no egoism in terms of kabbala – but if he will do it to satisfy the “fishermans wife” who has ever growing wantings it will become harming…).
The intelligence of the fish in this case – as in every other case – is that the greater the desire the greater the intelligence to fulfill it selfish. Next time the fisherman will put a bomb on the sea and all the clever fishes will lay dead on the surface…
The difference to us as humans and the relations between us is: we are not knowing the system we have to relate to but there is one. The overall system “nature” is explored by kabbalists as to be altruistic. Knowing this you have to come to other conclusions as stated in the relationship fisherman-fish.
So what’s about hoodwinking?: an egoist is building a pitfall to catch another egoist. There is no wisdom or wise fish here - that’s only a projection of the uncorrected human mind don’t clarifying the only tangible duality (all others are philosophical!):the difference between “giving” and “taking”– the mirror isn’t cleared yet – nothing more to say.
Regarding “Seeking fulfillment can never bring calmness” and “wanting is opposite to contentment”:
You are pretty right here – but only when moving around in the unripe current nature of a human mind. As kabbalists say: “never judge an unripe fruit”. I know you will negate the concept of “growing” here again – but this concept lies before us everywhere in nature anyway.
As Schopenhauer says: “you can do what you want – but you can not want what you want…”
Following kabbalistic exploring: no chance! The human wantings are growing (difference to all other levels of nature!) and there is no chance to calm up here: if you try to avoid a wanting thousands will come into place. This is called spiritual genes in kabbala (reshimot).
So is here some solution? Yes. Trying to fill your wanting in a selfish way will clear out this particular wanting and will lead to another greater wanting – but trying to have a wanting of another human instead of an own wanting will lead to ever growing and satisfied fulfillment.
Regarding “uncarved block” and the philosophical theory of “a circle”:
The idea to trust “life as a circle” is common in native religions of native tribes. Take for example the north American Indians: they live in harmony with this idea of cycles they see in nature everywhere – until white men from Europe came with their greater and expanding egoism (wanting) and throw them away. Or take the Spanish conquistators in south America and… and… and….
You can’t escape the growing egoism because it is a concept in nature and not by accident.
The concept of an “uncarved block” which should be embraced is against nature: if you take a craftsman facing an uncarved block he will see carvings in it anyway which he later on will realize – that is what we call “arts” in the human area – again here is no sharing with other levels of existence.
Nature is doing this craftsmanship daily too: new species are created.
Tao te king states a difference between the “mass and the lords and princes” and tries a middle way to harmonize this contradiction by some advice for governors. But advices could only be given by knowing the end of the ripening process. The concept of an “end” and “ripening” of course are linear not a circle. But I give it in your hands: what you see in humanity – is it really a circle or is it linear? – be honest: we start as cells, become families later on tribes later on states and nations – today we are faced with globalization. Something is moving us - linear or not?
Baal HaSulam has done a great essay regarding government in a kabbalistic view:
http://www.kabbalah.info/eng/content/view/frame/22765
And another great principle of kabbalists in contrast to philosophy: “what you do not attain you should not call by name”. This is the deeper background why tao te king states the problematic of speaking and naming about the unknown.
That is one of the points I've used when discussing the belief in free will. We do what we want, we cant' want what we want. To have true free will, one must be able to 'want what one wants'. The idea of choosing your wants puts the cart before the horse. It is our wants that drive the choices we make. It is our wanting to have control that generates the belief we have control, or can have control (i.e., the belief that free will is possible).
This doesn't work for one simple reason: Wanting (desire, need, urge, etc.) drives life. Your solution "trying to have a wanting of another human instead" is not something we can choose to want. We can't choose to "try to have a wanting". Wanting is what drives our choices in life; choice does not drive our wanting. One caveat: We can indeed think we are choosing to "try to have a wanting". Underlying desires drive imagination's ideals and the belief that they are workable solutions. Humanity's history of such imagined solutions is perhaps the foundation of history itself. Surely your "solution" is simply another example of our tendency to discover "solutions".
"Should"? That word should be abolished from language. Of course it carries two meanings: one practical, one moralistic. Practical: I should drink water now for I'm dehydrated. Moralistic: I should want to try to give to others. The Taoist idea of embacing the uncarved block is not meant as moralistic. It is meant as another way of seeing nature for anyone finding the common 'solve the problem' paradigm wearisome. It practical in that it provides a point of view that makes contentment more possible. After all, he who knows contentment is rich.
On a circle of vast scale, the edge appears flat and linear when viewed up close. Initially, man walking on earth saw earth as flat and linear. Viewed up close, the forces moving us at the moment appear linear, short term and transitory with beginnings and ends. Viewed from the greatest distance imaginable, those same forces appear circular. It all depends on one's standpoint.
What form of "should" does this refer to? A lot of people think they have attained this or that… the list is endless. How does one truly know what he has attained. Indeed, [chref=71]to know yet to think that one does not know is best; not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty. [/chref] In light of this, one can never, in all honestly, "call by name" anything. Sure, we use names and words, language, to interact socially. But, to actually believe the stories we tell each other (and ourselves) traps us in an idealistic make believe. Which, of course, brings us back to chapter 1.
[chref=1]The way that can be spoken of
Is not the constant way;
The name that can be named
Is not the constant name.[/chref]
The true free will is not to "want what one wants" - it is to decide between the latter and "not to want what one wants"..... because one does not know what one really wants and would like to experience it (tzimtzum in kabbalistic terms).... one only knows to want pleasure (in your case contentment may be enaugh). One does not know what pleasure really means.
What "one wants" comes from a software program in evolution called "will to receive for oneselfe" which is expanding as part of that egoistic program - operating system. A decision in this program is simply taken by greatest result for oneself hence it is no decision because it follows the egoistic program. In a software all decisions are predetermined (I know this well because I am a programmer). But changing the software - the operating system - is another thing.
A decision is to choose between two equivalent choices. If I go into a Store which offers a 501 jeans for 30 dollars and another store offers it for 15 dollars - I would take the latter because there is no choice - in the egoistic program I have to take the latter because of efficience (this is the rule in modern societies too because of that - and of coursee the problems they face today!)
A really decision exist only here: follow the primary operating system of egoism or choose to switch to another operating system: altruism (but here we don't know really what it means until now!). Altruism is applied too in our nature. So one can choose between egoism and altruism. I don't mean pseudo altruism which only conceals egoism. Here we have to distinguish between the act and the intention of the act.
We never can really "give" something as an act to another because we intend to get something back for that. So here comes the story of the host and the guest into the game which I assume you have not read. Our act of giving could only be to "receive" in order (intention) to "give" - because "receiving" is my unchanging nature but for whom else but me?
For the unknown giving one is experiencing day by day.
Regarding "attainment" and "circular-linear"
You are right - we have faced enaugh teachers and wise man. Believing is not what I suggest. Proofing is what I suggest.
I gave the example of a spiral spring which from the top or bottom looks like a closed circle and from the side gives a linear expansion with two ends.
This all doesn't help really - this are only pictures. What helps is daily experience.
Daily experience follows only "receiving" and "giving" not more - all the rest is philosophy.