Dao De Jing
Headless on Youtube
Click here for workshops with Richard Lang
Click here for details on the American Gathering


Click here for information on online hangouts
Click here fora free e-course
The Youniverse Explorer is now available
Click here for our online shop
Click here to get the free Headless iPhone app
Click here for downloadable videos of Douglas Harding
Click here for the Latest News
Click here to Donate

Verse Seventy Five


From: jimclatfelter
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 11:07 pm

Verse Seventy Five
Gia-Fu Feng & Jane English, 1972

Why are the people starving?
Because the rulers eat up the money in taxes.
Therefore the people are starving.
Why are the people rebellious?
Because the rulers interfere too much.
Therefore they are rebellious.

Why do the people think so little of death?
Because the rulers demand too much of life.
Therefore the people take death lightly.

Having little to live on, one knows better than to value life too much.

Verse Seventy Five
Herrymon Maurer, 1985

When people are starving,
Their rulers are taxing them heavily.
That is why they are starving.
When people are hard to govern,
Their rulers are something-doing.
That is why they are hard to govern.
When people make light of death,
Their rulers make much of life.
That is why they make light of death.
Not interfering with life
Is better than glamorizing life.

Verse Seventy Five
Brian Browne Walker, 1996

What makes people go hungry?
Rulers eating up all their money in taxes.
What makes people rebellious?
Rulers who can't stop interfering.
What makes people take death so lightly?
People taking life too seriously.
Those who enjoy life are wiser than those who employ life.


From: jimclatfelter
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009

The people starve when taxes take
The bulk of what they earn
When leaders interfere too much
There comes rebellion in return

The people do not fear to die
If leaders rob their lives
By taking only what you need
Everybody thrives

It's a pretty timely message -- especially if you expand taxes to mean the thievery of the banking industry in collusion with the government. In the US, the financial interests have owned the government. They paid for it, so it's theirs.

Maybe someone can help me see an esoteric meaning here. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Jim


From: Steve Palmer
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009

Quote:
Maybe someone can help me see an esoteric meaning here. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Sounds about right Jim.

Steve


From: jimclatfelter
Posted: Thu May 14, 2009

I suppose this verse is about excess, and we can all be involved in excess. Living in excess can lead to (an early) death. This is the opposite of seeing that enough is enough. Years ago I wrote this poem:
Excuse me! Excuse me!
Am I missing something here?
Will someone please explain to me,
Make it very clear?

I sincerely want to know.
This isn't a rebuff.
When I see that I am everything,
Isn't that enough?

Seeing that we are complete as we are brings satisfaction. Then it becomes hard for the addictive desires that tax our lives to take control. Seeing demonstrates our wholeness and returns our lives to us.

Jim


From: Steve Palmer
Posted: Thu May 14, 2009

Quote:
Seeing that we are complete as we are brings satisfaction

This is it , right now we are home and complete,
warts and all, as the saying goes.
It's easy to forget. Thanks for the reminder.

Quote:
Seeing demonstrates our wholeness and returns our lives to us.
We never left our lives but we seem prone to a variety of wrong views.

You should publish a book on your seeing insights and dao de jingle Jim
some people would definitely benefit from it.

Re: another book, I'm half way through listening to the audio book " God is not Great " by Christopher Hitchens.
No other book has ever turned me away from religious institutions and mumbo jumbo so much.


From: Steve Palmer
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009

Quote:
Seeing that we are complete as we are brings satisfaction

I re-read this and wanted to add
Seeing that we are complete as we are in one direction,
as aware, awake, space built open.
leaves us free to do whatever needs to be done outwardly.

Though inward and outward are really hard to define in a concrete way,
i.e. where do you finish and where does the world begin
and freewill is dependent on a separate individual,
which is hard to define too
as we all seem to exist dependent on conditions, not as completely independent individuals .

The first paragraph is one way of thinking about and Seeing the relative and absolute but
Lao Tzu was right, this stuff is hard to put in to words !

Any thoughts welcomed.


From: jimclatfelter
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009

Hi Steve,

I am trying to write something on Dao and Seeing. I'm not very disciplined about it though.

I like your question: Where do you finish and where does the world begin? That should really be an experiment in itself. Just moving my hand from three feet out in the world closer and closer to my Eye, I can't find a boundary between the inner and outer. I'm a single presence or awareness -- with an inward and an outward view. The Dao has a yin view and a yang view. I've come across some authors (Hans Georg Moeller, Diane Morgan, Jonathan Star, and JC Cooper) who write about this same idea, seeing Dao as a single presence with two aspects. Many other writers at times imply the same thing. But do they See it as a fact, the Fact? I think that requires the experiments. They know something and write about it eloquently, but they don't point to it with their finger. That's what's needed to make it real. This is what Douglas called the Grand Design but in Daoist terms.

I think free will is an after-the-fact illusion. We're free to do what our mind process tells us to do. The process depends on so many conditions. It's partly conscious and partly not conscious. If we're given the freedom to explore and weigh various views of the world, we may just get it right. But that depends on many circumstances. I don't want to say that conditions are all accidental. I can't prove there's any kind of grace in the world. The grace I see has not been given equally to everyone. Maybe that's okay. Maybe we're here to share the grace we've been given. I'm certainly grateful that Douglas shared the grace and vision that he was given. Why it came to me, I have no idea. Grace or accident? What appears to be luck and accident is much more than that. Progress and growth is built into this universe. All that is, and all that will be, was latent in the beginning. The Big Bang is still banging! It's not finished yet. We are in the midst of it. We are it. Compared to that, what a pitiful thing individual "free will" would be. It would be like disowning existence itself to set out on your own. It's a real dead end, as I see it.

You say: "We never left our lives but we seem prone to a variety of wrong views." I like Douglas's saying about going back to the place we never left. We just no longer notice the obvious. Words and education lead us to a third-person view of the world and ourselves. Why wouldn't it? We get our leaning from people who legitimately see us as third persons. It's understandable that we get the wrong view and get the view wrong. It takes a certain genious to figure out what has gone wrong. Luckily for us, Douglas had that genious and more. He broke out of the third-person trap with a simple vision, and it affected him so positively that he wanted to show others how to escape the trap. I think he'd say that we really aren't "others." We're really a single presence. Call it God or Dao or the Nameless.

Jim


From: Steve Palmer
Posted: Sat May 16, 2009

Quote:
We're really a single presence.

Functioning as the many.
So notice the place you never left and trust that intuitively,
as the big bang continually unfolds
in the country of everlasting clearness.

( the Douglas cliche's just poured out tonight, along with the big bang ! )

Steve


From: simon
Posted: Sun May 17, 2009

Nice discussion, nothing in particular to add, except a confirmation:
I sent a friend currently in New Zealand the still point video (via facebook)
Having done the experiment he then invented a listening version, lying on his bed, turning his head from side to side.
He discovered (i translate from the French)
"So I am nowhere or everywhere"

Simplicity
very Tao, very present, very here...


From: Keeping-Dog-Eye
Posted: Thu May 21, 2009

Quote: where do you finish and where does the world begin?

Just to say hi to all the posters on this thread, and toss my tuppence into the stream!

It struck me that the above question is inherently dualistic. The moment the 'You' or 'I' appears there is a separation giving birth to duality. If I believe my thoughts and conditioning then I am a 'person', an individual separate from this object full of other separate things: ie the world. This is false reality. There is no split, no separation, what I am is not my name, my body, the 'I' which I have been told that I am is not really me. What I am is a manifestation of the eternal 'Self' from which all emanates. There is no seer and nothing seen, no subject and object, just eternal presence. This one eternal emanation of which my appearance is a manifestation exists outside mind-made concepts like 'begining and ending'. The true imperishable Self which I am is perpetual, never born, never dying. Once the ego is seen for what it is, an obstacle obstructing the One source from realising itself, then the question, Where do I finish and where does the world begin? is rendered meaningless.

Godbless one and all and keep up the engaging posts. Love and Being un-negated to all
_________________
'This' is all there is - isn't 'It' miraculous!


From: jimclatfelter
Posted: Thu May 21, 2009

Hello Keeping-Dog-Eye,

I'm glad you joined in the conversation.

Do you consider the following statement dualistic?

I'm a single presence or awareness -- with an inward and an outward view.

I never minded this kind of dualism. I don't think the Tao Te Ching minds it either, since it's full of this kind of "dualistic" references.

To see what is as eternal presence doesn't prevent me from seeing that some of this presence is really eternal and unchanging, and some of it is in eternal flux. I can see how this could look like dualism, but the dualism is secondary to the single presence. Unity can only happen when there are at least two 'things' to unify. That's how I read Taoist 'dualism.' Without that kind of 'dualism,' what's the meaning of two-way seeing? What do the experiments mean? Can we even speak of the near side view and the far side view in the Tube experiment?

What do you think?

Jim


From: Steve Palmer
Posted: Thu May 21, 2009

Thank you for your input.
The benefit of the forum is you see your opinions more clearly when they leave your thoughts and appear on the screen.
Ultimately if you take the side of the One AND negate the Many it's a very dualistic position which is popular in certain circles at present.

Another Question.
How can the One function with out it's many manifestation as the Many?
Question.
Can you answer that question if there is ONLY the One and NOT the Many
Question:
Does not the One include the Many as part of it's Oneness.

Quote:
It struck me that the above question is inherently dualistic.

Yes. How can you live without duality it comes from the Source.
As long as you answer when your name is called your dualistic.
No problem just normal life.
It seems to be a problem when you try to cling to the Dualistic view or Oneness.

There is that which is born and dies and the Source of being which is a mystery I can't say much about.

I have to go now. Lets Talk later

Steve


From: jimclatfelter
Posted: Thu May 21, 2009

No problem just normal life.

I got life, mother
I got laughs, sister
I got freedom, brother
I got good times, man

I got crazy ways, daughter
I got million-dollar charm, cousin
I got headaches and toothaches
And bad times too
Like you

I got my hair
I got my head
I got my brains
I got my ears
I got my eyes
I got my nose
I got my mouth
I got my teeth
I got my tongue
I got my chin
I got my neck
I got my tits
I got my heart
I got my soul
I got my back
I got my ass
I got my arms
I got my hands
I got my fingers
Got my legs
I got my feet
I got my toes
I got my liver
Got my blood

I got my guts (I got my guts)
I got my muscles (muscles)
I got life (life)
Life (life)
Life (life)
LIFE!

http://www.no.com/watch?v=-1LRD3DtFAo


From: Keeping-Dog-Eye
Posted: Thu May 21, 2009

Quote: Do you consider the following statement dualistic?

I'm a single presence or awareness -- with an inward and an outward view.

Two posts appear to be in response to one I made so I'd like to engage with those, hopefully to the satisfaction of the persons involved!

Firstly, Steve, it was not my intention to post a contribution which would have the effect of, or be understood as, 'negating the many'. I'm not sure which circles this is currently popular in but the negating of others claiming their inheritance and birthright is a circle I seek to avoid! I did not realise that what I was posting was obstructive to another's view, but merely stating my own current residing-point on the great map of consciousness.

Let me state one thing, Keeping-Dog-Eye comes in peace! This heart is bounding, full of love, sees no you or me, recognises that there is one face, knows you as the one Self, and sees all this beautiful discourse as Consciousness conversing with Itself! More power to you mate.

Secondly, thanks for your response, Jim. I move, as most of us do, in a world of shadows and half truths, among scared beings attempting to impose themselves and their wills upon the world, for fear that if they let go and Let Be all will crumble! It's hard to remain present and conscious in this mind-made world of ours, people living their lives in the pain of having their true nature and inheritance denied them, the One Self unrecognised and forgotten. So, it's no small relief to me to find a place where the Nature of Being is explored and where using our infinitely inadequate words we can try to forge a current back to our Source. Godblessya.

Okay, to address this question which you have put to me. Namely:

Do you consider the following statement dualistic?

I'm a single presence or awareness -- with an inward and an outward view.

Now, I am unable to perceive any duality in the 'inward and outward' part, as from where I reside this is a false definition. I do not believe that the 'inward' and the 'outward' exist. These are but names given to two perceptions. The 'perception' is that there is an 'inward' and an 'outward', but I do not subscribe to this view. What is 'within' me, is 'without' me. Within one seed resides all trees, within one person is the DNA of all humanity. I am a vessel for the elements and the eternal presence. What is inward and outward is perpetual abidance, pure consciousness. This essence which is neither inward nor outward is what I understand Taoists refer to as the 'Nameless.' They say, 'It was from the Nameless that Heaven and Earth sprang.' This is the ground on which the supposed 'Inward' and 'Outward' appear, but they are just reflections of the Nameless. The Nameless is the divine everlasting ground which comes before all things, is the Source from which all things emanate, of which the 'Ten Thousand Things' are but a reflection. What I am trying to say is that I align and relate myself to the Source, not the reflections. Therefore, I (You) are/am neither Inward nor Outward, we just ARE.

The part of the above statement which I find incredibly dualistic is the part:

I'm a single presence or awareness . . .

I cannot apologise for holding this view, but I no longer accept the notion that we are separate entities, each viewing the world through a personal apparatus unique to the individual. This is a trick of the mind. Inside a room of 'people', there is one Self, the eternal presence, seeing itself manifest in all directions, reflecting the one source of which all emanates. There is no conversation between indivduals, but a dialogue between Consciousness and itself!

The Hindus, in the Upanishads, ask, "At whose behest does the mind think? Who makes the tongue speak? Who is that effulgent Being that directs the eye to form and colour and the ear to sound?"

It is the Nameless. The idea that we are each an autonomus 'I' acting out of its own will and power is the greatest trick the ego ever pulled on us! It keeps us blind and separate and infatuated with the belief in our supposed 'power' and 'specialness'. The nameless is from whence all emanates. It is neither born nor dies, and to know it in oneSelf, is to return home, where duality is seen for what it is: identifying the Self with the reflections, not the Source. And what we really, really are, is the Source manifest.

Sorry for the pouring forth of the 'Ten Thousand Words,' but you guys have got me engaged, what can I say? Godblessyous!


From: Steve Palmer
Posted: Thu May 21, 2009

You just never know what's goner pop up on this forum these day's : ))
I got Life, I am Life etc, etc etc............


From: Steve Palmer
Posted: Fri May 22, 2009

Hi Keeping -Dog-Eye

Quote:
Sorry for the pouring forth of the 'Ten Thousand Words,' but you guys have got me engaged, what can I say? Godblessyou

Thank you for appearing on the forum.
My intention was not to be rude with my questions or by stating my current ever changing understanding and I'm glad you engaged.

Quote:
What I am trying to say is that I align and relate myself to the Source, not the reflections. Therefore, I (You) are/am neither Inward nor Outward, we just ARE.

Quote:
it was not my intention to post a contribution which would have the effect of, or be understood as, 'negating the many'.

My current understanding is we just Are but I align and relate myself to the Source and Reflections.
Only because it dawned on me with the help of Douglas, Jim and others how can I align myself with Just one or the other ?

I was thinking I have heard some impressive individuals say " There is no self. I am consciousness.There is no me here at all " that type of statement.
They are very insightful but in the end they are separate manfestations.
Whats the problem with a self ?
Do you know any functioning person without one ?
My prefered words are " No Fixed Self "
We are changing self's
The Reflections are the Many from this view.

Thank you for bringing up this interesting subject
and a warm welcome aboard.

Steve


From: jimclatfelter
Posted: Fri May 22, 2009

Hello Keeping-Dog-Eye,

I'm only giving my view on so-called reality. For me, both the headless experiments that Douglas devised and the Tao Te Ching are full of dualities. Polarities might be a better word. I love the variety of word pairs that can be used to label the polarities. The earth has a north and a south pole, but it's still a single planet€not in the sense that it's in any way separate from the solar system or the galaxy or the universe. When I say I'm a single presence, I mean that my presence is not divided between my own aware capacity and the manifest world. These are just two views or aspects or poles of presence as it's given, as it's presented in life€not as it's re-presented in words. It's the "coincidence of contraries." "One yin, one yang: this is Tao." You and I have separate labels or names, but we are not really separate. You appear in my awareness, and I appear in yours. We can't do without each other. My awareness is not separate from yours. It's the same empty, nameless capacity.

You say we are neither inward nor outward. I say we are both inward and outward, both yin and yang. We are both the near side and the far side of the Tube, of (this single) presence, of Dao, of life.

What is the source of all this? You say you align with the source and not the reflections. When I look in a mirror I see a reflection in the glass, and I see the original this side of the glass. I see that I am both. I don't reject or give priority to either. Why do I need a Source? To me this is guesswork based on faith and a rejection of fully half of what is. Why not assume that this is just how it is? I don't need to speculate about a Source. I'm satisfied finding the wholness and oneness of these complemenatry opposites that comprise my life or presence. I see a Nameless half and a named half. I give the nameless no priority. I realize that this is a minority view. Going by what I see, I can't come to any other conclusion, nor do I want to.

'This' is all there is - isn't 'It' miraculous!

Have you read James Broughton's poem This Is It #2?

This is It.
This is really It
This is all there is.
And it's perfect as It is.

There is nowhere to go
but Here.
There is nothing here
but Now.
There is nothing now
but This.

And this is It.
This is really It
This is all there is.
And it's perfect as It is.

Jim


From: Keeping-Dog-Eye
Posted: Fri May 22, 2009

Quote:
My awareness is not separate from yours. It's the same empty, nameless capacity - Jim

Hi Jim and Steve

thanks to you both for the warm welcome to the forum, it is much appreciated.

Thought I would use a quote from Jim which aptly summarises our discussion (or at least my take on it!) and one with which it seems that we each concur.

It's a strange business reading back these posts, as the more I seem to be attempting to name the Nameless, and my position to it, the more my words seek to entrap me in abstractions, until before I know where I am I have taken a position, and am left defending a dogma, which was never my intention. I suppose words can but point towards the Way, and whatever the words used, the Way abides unabated.

For me, after all is said, after each position is adopted, lies the presence, and One is either living awake in its gift, or distracted and the glory of Just Being obscured!

Jim, I am a poet and writer but had never heard before of James Broughton. Thank you for the poem, and the awareness of this wonderful man and writer, whose work I'm sure I shall discover and treasure for a long time to come. Godbless

Quote:
It was as important to live poetically as to write poems - quote by James Broughton

What a fantastic statement that is, and I echo it wholeheartedly!

All the Best
Keeping-Dog-Eye


From: jimclatfelter
Posted: Sat May 23, 2009

Hi Keeping-Dog-Eye,

"For me, after all is said, after each position is adopted, lies the presence, and One is either living awake in its gift, or distracted and the glory of Just Being obscured!"

That's it for me too. Either you notice, or you don't. All the words about it are fun and fine and entertaining if they're grounded on real life seeing and being. Even then the words are secondary.

I looked back and see that I mangled the spelling on the Broughton poem. I've corrected it. Here's the first "This Is It":

This is It
and I am It
and You are It
and so is That

and He is It
and She is It
and It is It
and That is That

O It is This
and It is Thus
and It is Them
and it is Us
and It is now
and here It is
and here We are
so This Is It.

James Broughton was a friend of Alan Watts, and he wrote several poems with Alan's teachings in mind€including the two This Is It poems.

I was lucky enough see some James Broughton films and hear him read a selection of his poems. That was back in the mid-seventies. He made a comment after the reading that I always remember. He said that when you hear a poet reading his own poems, you know how the poems are meant to be read. I also think that he may have read them slightly more deliberately than I do. He invented a form he called High Kuku. You can hear him reading some at: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=16970260

Please behead me!
said the Neck,
I don't want these ideas to spread any farther.

All for now,
Jim


From: Steve Palmer
Posted: Sun May 24, 2009

Hi Jim and Keeping-dog-eye

I enjoyed the Jame's Broughton's High Kuku video.
Just recently I found this haiku by Jason Strugnell.
A struggling poet who was invented by the poet Wendy Cope.

Hear Wendy reading " Strugnell's Haiku " at this link.

http://www.poetryarchive.org/poetryarchive/singlePoet.do?poetId=5677#

Wendy Cope's Favourite Poetry Sayings:

"The only end of writing is to enable the readers better to enjoy life or better to endure it." Samuel Johnson


From: jimclatfelter
Posted: Sun May 24, 2009

Steve,

Those haiku are hilarious! I like the way she reads them. Thanks for sharing them.

Keeping-Dog-Eye,

I think the quote below recognizes an important distinction. It's from a paper by Harold Roth called The Laozi in the Context of Early Daoist Mystical Praxis.

Walter Stace delineates two fundamental forms of mystical experience, "extrovertive" and "introvertive." Extrovertive looks outward through the senses of the individual and sees a fundamental unity between the individual and the world. In this form there is a simultaneous perception of the one and the many, unity and multiplicity. Introvertive mystical experience looks inward and is exclusively an experience of unity, that is, an experience of unitive or what some scholars call "pure" or object-less consciounsciousness. I have found this basic differentiation to be extremely useful and see it in early Daoism in what I call the "bimodal" character of its mystical experience..."
[...]
In a recent review essay I argued for the presence of a "bimodal" mystical experience in early Daoism, particularly evident in the "inner chapters" of the Zhuangzi. The first mode is an introvertive unitive consciousness in which the adept achieves complete with the Dao. [...] The second is an extrovertive transformed consciousness in which the adept returns to the world and retains, amidst the flow of daily life, a profound sense of the unity previously experienced in the introvertive mode. This experience entails an ability to live in the world free from the limited and biased perspective of the individual ego. [...] The bimodal character of mystical experience is, actually, quite prevalent in mystical experience across traditions, but it is often overlooked by scholars, who tend to focus on the introvertive mode exclusively. While evidence for it is not as strong in the Laozi as in the Zhuangzi, it is, as we shall see, most certainly there.

I like the word bimodality. It seems to mean two-at-once. Duality (in some circles) has taken on the meaning of split-in-two. For me, both headless seeing and the Dao De Jing are based on bimodality. What else could two-way seeing be? It's total seeing, two-at-once seeing that sees that the two are two views of one presence. This! or It! Our very lives!

Doesn't the headless seer "return to the world and retain, amidst the flow of daily life, a profound sense of the unity previously experienced" in the experiments? This is Roth's extrovertive practice. I'd rather call it bimodal living.

Jim

"Tao seems to have two aspects, yin and yang, but actually is never divided." Chuang Tzu


Headless on Youtube
Click here for workshops with Richard Lang
Click here for details on the American Gathering


Click here for information on online hangouts
Click here fora free e-course
The Youniverse Explorer is now available
Click here for our online shop
Click here to get the free Headless iPhone app
Click here for downloadable videos of Douglas Harding
Click here for the Latest News
Click here to Donate