The First Move

[Ceridwen018]

Okay, first of all, I think it is clear to everyone that nothing can be compared to the Tao, including Spinkle's amazing animorph powers, given that no one even knows what the Tao is.

Secondly, you mention observation, hypothesis testing, and the Tao in relating sentences, which I find very interesting. What exactly have you uncovered in your studies?

Also, truth, defined to me, is something which is indisputable among all people, in that it can be proven without a doubt. Gravity on Earth is a truth, etc. You seem to be relating truth solely with religion, higher power, supernatural--whatever it is that the Tao is. Have you ever thought of the idea that someone can be in touch with their own peronal 'truth' all by themselves? Why do you need some mysterious force to guide you to fulfillment?

Lastly. Who told you that infinity exists? I mean logically, it should, ie. there is nothing stopping numbers from exponating, and as far as we know (which is not very) the universe has no end, but we cannot prove these things. Even so, you're right, we do accept them as common idea. But then again, we have empirical evidence and logical reasoning to back that up. What does Tao have, exactly? It most certainly is not proven by science. In fact, I would say it is disproven due to lack of evidence. Where then would you say that the Tao is proven?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

On page 3, Master Vigil said: >> we do know that the water is rippling.<<

However, if >>it is true, perception is not always reality<< then we do not know that the water is rippling.

 

[Master Vigil]

Alot of people know what the Tao is. I know what the Tao is. Whether you believe what it is, is up to you. From my studies I have found that what I study will not help me understand myself. I must get past the studies and get past the human logic to understand the illogical and therefore undrestand myself. And if I don't understand myself I will never understand the universe. You don't need the Tao to help you find your personal truth. But you cannot use science to help you understand yourself. Science can tell you that you are human, that you have skin, blood, bone. Where you originated, etc... But can it tell you who YOU are. No it cannot. The Tao is not out to help you understand why the water evaporates into gas, or why we evolved the way we did, or why quantum events happen. It is there to help us understand who WE are. Keep in mind that Taoism is much simpler than alot of other religions. Therefore, its proof is very simple as well. I see all things that scientific as part of the Tao and proving the Tao's existence. I see all things paranormal as part of the Tao and proving the Tao's existence. I see all things spiritual as part of the Tao and proving the Tao's existence. But most of all, I understand myself and from that understanding, I understand the Tao's existence.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Alright, thats a good point. I agree that scientific knowledge cannot bring knowledge of self, necessarily, but it does provide a foundation of 'beliefs' if you will, which are mandantory for a person to have before they can become comfortable and stable enough to really look inside themselves.

One other thing though-- illogical things are labeled as such for a reason: they cannot be understood. So yes, lemme save you a lot of time and assure you that the illogical things are really not worth the effort. Along those lines, why do you think you need to understand the illogical to understand yourself and the universe? The universe is actually very logical, and as for yourself, you seem to be as well.

Lastly, you didn't really explain how the Tao is 'proven' to you. When I believed in god, I could say that the wind through the trees proved his existence to me, but now I realize that that just doesn't make any freaking sense.

 

[Master Vigil]

Once one understands one's self and then understands the ways of the world, one will know whether or not the water is rippling. Perception is only limited by the physical senses. Once you get past these senses, there is no limits.

 

[Master Vigil]

"but it does provide a foundation of 'beliefs' if you will, which are mandantory for a person to have before they can become comfortable and stable enough to really look inside themselves."

See, I don't believe it does. For I don't believe humans for thousands of years were not cofortable and stable enough to look inside themselves. Especially Taoists and Buddhists (the main ones). And they are much wiser than alot of scientists. I think science only lets us become ignorant of ourselves and our emotions. And ignorant of WHO we are. We are too interested in what we are.

Illogical things are of course worth the effort. For we come to understand the logical by understanding whats illogical. And it is important to get past human logic to understand yourself because humans are very illogical. We are so illogical that our logic is therefore simplified. But even the illogical is simple. We must understand the illogical to understand our illogical and logical self.

"Lastly, you didn't really explain how the Tao is 'proven' to you. When I believed in god, I could say that the wind through the trees proved his existence to me, but now I realize that that just doesn't make any freaking sense."

I think it makes perfect sense. However, the proof is not in the fact that the wind moves. It is in the effect that the wind in the trees has on you. And being that the Tao created the wind, the trees, motion, emotion, and perception. Why does that not prove the Tao's existence?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Master Vigil-

Saying that "the Tao created the wind, the trees, motion, emotion, and perception" is a claim, which you haven't supported with any proof. In order to prove something, you have to show how we know the wind was created by Tao and not God, or Allah, or the Greek god of wind, or quantum events, or whatever.

 

[Master Vigil]

The words do not matter. The fact that we do not know for certain what caused it is. Whatever you call it is up to you. I call it Tao. You may call it quantum events. But still, quantum events are caused by something, so they are not the Tao. So I do not believe quantum events able to be put in that list. What would make proof? The Tao cannot be proven of disproven. The fact that everything is caused by something calls for the existence of Tao. Again, try to disprove it. You will use scientific terms and studies which I will only say were created by the Tao. It will get us nowhere. You cannot use scientific logic to prove that which is not scientific.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Master Vigil,

Science is a lot more abstract that people believe, I think. Just because I base my beliefs on science does not mean that I have nothing but numbers and elements in my head, I still consider myself to be a very 'spiritual' person, as broad of a term as that is.

I admit, I am far from understanding the concept of the Tao, and so I'm not even going to go there, but there was one thing you said that sparked my interest, being that everything has to be caused by something else. I don't think that that is true. The concept of infinity is an accepted idea, but it applys to more than just numbers, ie, it applys to time as well. Is it such an outlandish thought that perhaps there are certain things, such as the universe, which have just always been? Why do things have to be initiated? And that brings about another point: what initiated the Tao?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yes, Master Vigil, Ceridwen has a good point here-

I say that the universe has existed since the beginning of time; you say that the universe was created by the Tao, and that the Tao has existed since the beginning of time.

Now, both of our theories are possible. They both come to terms with the idea of something having never been created, or never having a "first cause" (you believe the Tao was never created it just always was). They can both adequately explain the universe we observe around us (you're right- you can't prove or disprove Tao).

There is only one difference between our two competing theories: mine is slightly simpler. You're theory is a little more complex- it contains the universe and its creator Tao. According to Occum's Razor, all things being equal, the simpler theory is usually the correct one. This gives a slight advantage to the theory that explains the universe without Tao.

 

[Ceridwen018]

What if a duck swims by and messes up the ripple?

lol, just joking around. Game on!

 

[Master Vigil]

Its alright to say that the universe existed since the beginning of time. But humans created time. What created humans? What created everything? The Tao. What created the Tao, nothing. You base your beliefs on science, wait, I thought you didnt believe in beliefs. And believing in science makes you scientific, not spiritual. To be spiritual you must get past science, which you do not think is correct. It is not an outlandish thought that there are somethings that have always been. The Tao has always been. And yes everything has a cause. The Tao's cause was itself. And everything else's cause was the Tao. There is no simpler spirituality than Taoism. It is much simpler than science. And all things are not equal. And the Tao is not a creator, its just a cause. To say that it is a creator would imply that it has physical characteristics. Science in its complexities only proves what the Tao has done. And is still doing.

 

[Master Vigil]

The master of Kennin temple was Mokurai, Silent Thunder. He had a little protege named Toyo who was only twelve years old. Toyo saw the older disciples visit the master's room each morning and evening to receive instruction in sanzen or personal guidance in which they were given koans to stop mind-wandering.

Toyo wished to do sanzen also.

"Wait a while," said Mokurai. "You are too young."

But the child insisted, so the teacher finally consented.

In the evening little Toyo went at the proper time to the threshold of Mokurai's sanzen room. He struck the gong to announce his presence, bowed respectfully three times outside the door, and went to sit before the master in respectful silence.

"You can hear the sound of two hands when they clap together," said Mokurai. "Now show me the sound of one hand."

Toyo bowed and went to his room to consider this problem. From his window he could hear the music of the geishas. "Ah, I have it!" he proclaimed.

The next evening, when his teacher asked him to illustrate the sound of one hand, Toyo began to play the music of the geishas.

"No, no," said Mokurai. "That will never do. That is not the sound of one hand. You've not got it at all."

Thinking that such music might interrupt, Toyo moved his abode to a quiet place. He meditated again. "What can the sound of one hand be?" He happened to hear some water dripping. "I have it," imagined Toyo.

When he next appeared before his teacher, Toyo imitated dripping water.

"What is that?" asked Mokurai. "That is the sound of dripping water, but not the sound of one hand. Try again."

In vain Toyo meditated to hear the sound of one hand. He heard the sighing of the wind. But the sound was rejected.

He heard the cry of an owl. This also was refused.

The sound of one hand was not the locusts.

For more than ten times Toyo visited Mokurai with different sounds. All were wrong. For almost a year he pondered what the sound of one hand might be.

At last little Toyo entered true meditation and transcended all sounds. "I could collect no more," he explained later, "so I reached the soundless sound."

Toyo had realized the sound of one hand.
---

How does one prove the existence of a soundless sound? Would science try to disprove the idea of a soundless sound by saying that all things have sound, or that a sound cannot be soundless because it goes against logic. But what really is a soundless sound? And what purpose does it play in spirituality?

 

[Ceridwen018]

Master Vigil,

Ultimately, I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. You think the Tao always was and created everything, and I think the universe always was and created everything. We're agreeing on the same concept here, just having a little trouble with the process.

I consider myself to be an atheist, but I have tons of beliefs. I believe in gravity, etc. What I lack is blind faith. I take nothing at face value, and yes i'll admit (as bad as the connotation seems to be on it), I have to see something, or have it logically explained to me, to believe it. I feel, after having grown up religious, that I've been duped long enough.

As far as spirituality goes, you seem to be placing it in a synonymous category with religion, higher power, etc., and thats just not true. An atheist can be very spiritual, if not moreso than a religious person, in that they live for themselves and define their own rules, rather than trying to comply to preset standards. (I'm not saying I think you measure yourself by any standard-- like I said, I do not understand the way of the Tao). All I know is, I have never felt such mental freedom and such connection to my 'inner self' as I do now, after having 'become' and atheist.

In my opinion, science doesn't prove the Tao worth ****. I suppose you say that because you believe that everything which happens is the result of the Tao, but as you know, I disagree. I believe that science is fully capable of acting of its own accord. It doesnt need an instigator or a manager. And one other thing: you say that Taoism is simpler than science, but how can something undefinable be considered simple in any terms?

 

[Master Vigil]

Since it is undefinable, it doesnt need defining at all. Thats pretty simple. And since the universe is not known to have boundaries, the universe may be the Tao. But, does the universe cause chi to flow, or be in perfect balance with all opposites? No. The Tao is an essence, the universe is a thing.

How can an atheist be spiritual? I cannot see how this is so. For true spirituality exists beyond understanding and logic. Spirituality is the basis for religion, but is not in the same category. Yes, you understand christianity and western religions, but you do not understand the Tao. Your mental freedom is only based on science. Imagine the freedom it could have if it was beyond science.

You are connected to your inner self? Alright then, I ask you this... When water ripples, why do your eyes not ripple with it?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Master Vigil-

I think you're characterization of science would fit religions better than it fits the actual process of science. Religious faith is believing something is true, and that's all there is to it- like you're belief in the Tao. You only accept the idea of a universe in which the Tao exists.

Science, however, allows us to get beyond restrictive blind faith. A scientist would say "But does the Tao really exist?" A scientist always questions and investigates. If you believe the Tao exists and that's the end of the story, however, you're not asking questions or investigating- you've stopped doing both.

Master Vigil said: >>Its alright to say that the universe existed since the beginning of time. But humans created time.<<
Humans did not create time- time has existed since the Big Bang when objects began to move relative to each other. Humans only gave the phenomenon a name by which to call it.

>>What created humans? What created everything? The Tao. What created the Tao, nothing. <<
That's one possibility. I like my theory better, though.

>>You base your beliefs on science, wait, I thought you didnt believe in beliefs.<<
I said it was a theory, I didn't say it was my "beleif". A theory is more open to being proved wrong.

>>And believing in science makes you scientific, not spiritual. To be spiritual you must get past science, which you do not think is correct. <<
And to be scientific (which you don't think is correct) you must get past being spiritual.

>>It is not an outlandish thought that there are somethings that have always been. The Tao has always been.<<
That's my point- some things can just "always be". I think the universe has always been, but you say that that's impossible and that it must have been caused by something else.

>>And yes everything has a cause. The Tao's cause was itself. And everything else's cause was the Tao. <<
Ok, that's one theory. Another theory is that everything has a cause, and the cause of a quantum event which began the universe was-itself.

>>There is no simpler spirituality than Taoism. It is much simpler than science. And all things are not equal.<<
Which is simpler? a.) the universe caused itself; or b.) the universe was caused by Tao, which caused itself.

>>And the Tao is not a creator, its just a cause. To say that it is a creator would imply that it has physical characteristics. Science in its complexities only proves what the Tao has done. And is still doing.<<
You said yourself earlier (I have it quoted) that the Tao created the universe. And I don't see how science proves the Tao.

 

[Master Vigil]

Time is only a human idea. Just because things began moving doesn't mean that time existed. It just means things were moving. Humans invented the idea of time. A Taoist will ask if the Tao exists, they always do. But eventually one will come to the realization that it does. And of course I ask questions and investigate. Everyday is full of questions and investigations. And they always lead me back to the Tao, because I understand the nature of it. Not just because I believe in it, but because I understand myself. And you only believe in a universe in which the Tao does not exist. And it doesn't matter if you like your theory better. To like one over the other doesn't give one precedence over the other. Theories are open to being proved wrong, but the idea of the Tao has outlasted many scientific theories, and still makes sense. Unlike Christianity and others which do not make sense. I never said being scientific was bad, but you do not need to get past spirituality to be scientific. For science can, and does help strengthen spirituality. But spirituality deals with what science can't touch, and probably never will. Why limit yourself to laws and theories? I think the universe must of been caused by something else because it can be physically sensed and understood without first understanding the self. For a physical thing to exist eternally does not make sense to me. Only an essence could exist eternally. The random quantum event's cause remember was its randomness, not itself. And then you must have something to create randomness.

And lets rephrase the 2 choices here...
A. The universe caused itself and all other things started happening apart from the self-cause of the universe.
B. The Tao caused all.

Now which one is simpler.

The Tao is the cause of the creation of the universe, and therefore created the universe. But is not a "creator." Once you get past what science says, and understand yourself, than you will understand why everything proves the existence of the Tao. Answer my question and see if you know your inner self.

When water ripples, why do your eyes not ripple with it?

 

[Master Vigil]

I think I must state this now, Taoism believes that the only 2 things constant is the Tao, and change. The Tao in itself will never change, but the concept of Taoism may. So blind faith may not be used to understand the Tao. For there may be many ways to come to this understanding. And only after the understanding will the Tao make sense. This understanding must come first from the understanding of the self, which science cannot produce. I feel our arguments will not produce any real good, for neither of us will defeat the other. Our ideas are quite similar, and I feel stronger about the Tao after arguing. This I feel was not your intention. And I'm sure you feel stronger about the absence of the Tao now, and that was not my intention. I wish to state that science is wonderful. It helps us fight disease, and predict horrible events and help prevent them. I do however not see simplicity in science, nor do I see the answers to my inner self in it. This must be found through "spirituality, or inner consciousness. I would really like you to answer my question so I can understand your idea of your inner self. I hope we can discuss more, and hope we have more positive discussions in the future.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

>>B. The Tao caused all.<<
But in your theory, you're not saying the Tao caused all. I thought you were saying that the causes which science finds are valid (i.e. gravity causes things to fall), but that the Tao causes those things (Tao causes gravity). It would be simpler, however, just to say that gravity causes things to fall, without any Tao involved.


>>When water ripples, why do your eyes not ripple with it?<<

What a profound question...I don't have a good answer. After all, for all we know our eyes do ripple with it. Or perhaps the water doesn't ripple at all- only our eyes ripple. I suppose if our eyes didn't ripple with the water, we would be seeing the water exactly as it exists. But we can only see things as they exist to us- we don't know if the water is rippling or if our eyes are rippling.

 

[Master Vigil]

Gravity does cause things to fall. But, in the end, it was caused by the Tao. All things in the end were caused by the Tao.

But we do know that the water is rippling. How do we know that? That is what you must find out.