# Taoism enlightenment: Absolute Happiness.

Discussion in 'Eastern Philosophy' started by taoist11, Jan 11, 2011.

1. ### taoist11Registered Senior Member

Messages:
49
First, let me introduce myself. My name is Hieu Nguyen Ngoc, male, was born 1973. I am Vietnamese. I have BA in Science & English. However, my English is not native, therefore you should forgive me about faults in English, but not my thought as languages maybe different but thinkings are the same. About my Taoism, I thought about it, learnt it, meditated it 12 years, since 1992 to 2004 until I reached enlightenment. Please don't say that I am arrogant since to be enlightened is to perceive us & the world around are nothingness, not goodness. I never say that I am good but I say I'm chaotic, like Tao which Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu have taught.
To begin with Taoism, we go from facts.I wanna write Taoism in a new way, unlike most of authors about Taoism, only bring Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu to discuss from time to time. I would like to tell you some stories which prove the good is the bad & conversely.

It seems a paradox. But let me tell you an interesting story quoting from the newspaper Ho Chi Minh City Police, which named The “mysterious” motorcycle:

Ngo Van Linh, 41, living in Danang, Vietnam, worked as a single taxi driver with an old motorcycle. At noon 17th December 2004, he was having lunch at home, leaving the motorcycle in the veranda, unlocked. A thief came, started the engine then ran away. The whole family saw that, shouted out loudly then ran after the thief. But Linh was still … phlegmatic, still said:”Run after him slowly, don’t run fast to be tired. He can not steal that vehicle!”. As he said, the vehicle ran just a section of way, then stopped;the engine didn’t work. The thief was frightened, left the motorcycle then ran for his life. Everybody was surprised , asked Linh whether he had a mysterious device for the vehicle. He smiled inanely:”Oh, this motorcle has many illness. He who isn’t familiar with it, can’t ride it.”

A bad motorcycle is hard to be or never can be stolen. Thus, badness is goodness.
Actually, the bad is just bad only to people not having good abilities. For example, Mike Tyson was sitting in a bar. Two drunk men came, said: “you have punches; we have guns”. Mike Tyson got angry, hit the two men. They let Mike Tyson hit them. After that, they sued Mike Tyson. At the court, Mike Tyson had to compensate them. Celebrities sometimes meet this kind of person, with provoking actions. Stars are considered milk cows for others to squeeze. Read this news, we see that Mike Tyson didn’t have a strong ability, and he was shallow. Badness is bad. But to people having great abilities, badness, evil just prove that they are good. For instance, Japan attacked Pearl Habor suddenly. This stimulated US. Lastly, US defeated Japan. Another example, the British invaded America in Washington time. This was badness for Americans. But this only made Washington become great because he led Americans well to defeat the English.
The goodness living in peace, in some aspects, is bad. If Washington lived nowadays, he would have no difficulties, great work to do. He would only be a less famous leader. Living in peace makes him less great leader, only as great as President George W Bush, but living in war, or in badness made him the father of the nation, greater. Difficulties which people haven’t been able to solve like AIDS, cancer will be Nobel prizers for the next generations. There are no difficulties, no badness absolutely bad. There is ease in difficulty. As a consequence, we conclude: badness is goodness to the good ability people, or shorter, the bad is the good.
Strength is also weakness. If you sing well, I invite you sing karaoke, you like me. If you like me, I may take advantage of you. Being a king of one hundred battles, win one hundred is a catastrophe. Chinese ancient literature tells us : Once Nguy Van Hau, a king, as Ly Khac, his official:”What is the cause for the Ngo state to be perished ?” Ly Khac answered immediately:”One hundred battles, win one hundred.” Nguy Van Hau was confused. Ly Khac explained:”One hundred battles, people become exhausted. Winning one hundred times, the king become arrogant. An arrogant king rules exhausted people, surely fail.” The strong changes into the weak. In Europe in Napoleon time, when Europe was not united, some countries were still in French side, Napoleon was the champion, was the European Emperor. But, after that Europeans recognized that they could not think of the Napoleon without making wars, therefore they united and they were against France, so Napoleon failed. He failed because he had won many times gloriously and he was so warlike. Even he was a genius, still he failed. According to Sun Tzu, The Art of War, what is strong is weak. In one battle, if the enemy is strong in the front, they are weak in the back. If they are strong in the back, they are weak in the front. If they are strong in the front and the back, they are weak in the two sides. If they are strong in the two sides, they are weak in the front and the back. If they are strong four sides, because they stretch in four sides, then they are weak in four sides. The strong is the weak and to win is to lose.
2. The king of So state wanted to nominate Confucius to be the ruler of an area of land which had 700 ly (a ly was a group of 25 families). The head of officials of So was Tu Tay asked:

- Among your messengers you send to other states, is there anyone as good as Tu Cong ?
- No
- Among people helping you, is there anyone as good as Nhan Hoi ?
- No.
- Among your generals, is there anyone as good as Tu Lo ?
- No.
- Among your officials, is there anyone as good as Te Du ?
- No
- Not only that, ancestors of So state was appointed only the title “viscount” and fifty miles of land (meaning So state had been small and had only been viscount, but at the moment, was a powerful state). Now Confucius follows The Three King’s laws. If we use him, how can So has thousands of miles of land forever? Van Vuong in Phong land, Vu Vuong in Cao Land were only kings having hundred miles of land, but lastly, they became emperors. Now, Confucius has a piece of land to make a base, and he has good disciples (Tu Cong, Nhan Hoi, Tu Lo, Te Du) to help. That is not blessing of So.

Chieu Vuong King stopped.
Confucius always fell into disfavour, because if he had had a small state, he would have ruled that state well. Other states would have followed him. Kings of big states, ambitious to be hegemony – who king doesn’t want himself to be “great” – so those kings would have been overturned. Confucius was so dangerous. Good conduct is dangerous and evil.

3. ### taoist11Registered Senior Member

Messages:
49
The Truth.

The bad is yin and the good is yang. In general, what are negative are yin and what are positive are yang. Badness, weakness, back, softness, shadow, women, shame, failure … are yin. Goodness, front, hardness, light, men, glory, victory, … are yang. One law of Taoism is “yin is yang and yang is yin.”

The second law is nothing, nobody, no phenomenon is out of yin and yang. Everybody, everything, every phenomenon is the struggle and unity of opposite sides, i.e, yin and yang. In a body, if assimilation is positive or yang, then that body also has catabolism, which is negative, or yin. Digestion is yang and excretion is yin. In a vehicle, there are moving parts are yang and standing still parts are yin; hard parts are yang and soft parts like tires are yin. Lastly, everything is made of atoms. In an atom, the nuclear is motionless is yin and electrons moving very fast are yang. Yin and yang struggle with each other and unite with each other and produce everything, everyone, every phenomenon.

Another law is yin and yang are relative. There is nothing is absolute yin and nothing is absolute yang. Therefore this leads to another famous law is “There is yin in yang; there is yang in yin.” For example, in a human body, digestion, in the aspect of supplying food, it is positive, or yang, so excretion, which supplies nothing, is yin, but in the aspect of releasing poisonous substance, excretion is yang and digestion is yin. Is a wooden table yin or yang ? In compare with the floor, it is higher, or more “positive”, or yang, but in compare with the roof, it is lower, or yin. In compare with bread, to a person, the table is yin since it does not supply food, or negative. But the table, to a termite, is yang as a termite can eat the wooden table. Yin and yang are not absolute.

What creates yin and yang ? That is oneness. What is oneness? Oneness is a familiar cencept in Eastern philosophy. Goodness always goes with badness, consequently, goodness and badness are oneness, like two sides of a note. Similarly, the front and the back are oneness; the inner and the outer are oneness; blessing and disasters are oneness; glory and shame are oneness; etc. In general yin and yang are oneness. All are oneness; nothing is out of oneness. Oneness is the universal truth, or Tao (Dao). To be enlightened in Daoism is to see oneness. Oneness is the united of everything. Since two elements of oneness, yin and yang, are not clear, as there is yin in yang and there is yang in yin, oneness is chaotic, not clear. In conclusion, Dao is the unity of yin and yang. Yin and yang are two sides of Dao. Dao differentiates into yin and yang.

5. ### Rav∞Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,422
The fact that the US used nuclear weapons to effectively defeat Japan does not make them "good". I'll admit that it possibly saved lives in the long run but it was still essentially a terribly violent and destructive act. You might see it as a "victory" and in that sense call it something "good" but it's a much more complex consideration in my opinion. I mean, where does your moral compass fit into your enlightened perspective?

George Washington was indeed a "great" man. He is seen by many (and quite deservedly so) as the father of America. But is a man like that any less great just because he never had the opportunity to exercise that greatness?

I really don't like this example. None of that suffering is mitigated in the least by any number of Nobel prizes.

No argument with that. Perfectly logical.

Aside from anything else I've said here, I do of course understanding where you are coming from and what you are getting at. Central to my own personal philosophy is the same basic idea. That with the right attitude and perspective something good can come from something bad. But I think that this is a matter of perspective rather than a universal truth. The way I see it, good can come from bad, but sometimes the bad remains the bad.

You can say "I'm really glad that I got into that car accident because when I was in hospital being treated for my cuts and bruises one of the doctors noticed a melanoma on my back and cut it out". But that doesn't mean that it was a "good" thing that there was a person out there on the roads who had had too much to drink. He might have killed me or someone else instead. And what if he had? How does that become good? It's possible that some good could come from it somehow, but it was still a terrible thing.

Again, the subtle difference that I'm trying to point out here is that while you seem to be saying that bad can become good, I am saying that good can come from bad but that bad is still bad.

7. ### Search & DestroyTake one bite at a timeModerator

Messages:
1,466
Life is a double-edged sword. Or everything has two sides. I think this is something most people understand at a very young age. I think I must have been enlightened when I was 10 or 11 in this case.

Tell me something a bit more complicated. Or are you saying a full grasp of this concept that everything has to 2 sides take time?

Thanks, and your English is very good.

8. ### Rav∞Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,422
Central to a lot of Taoist thinking is the idea that the universe is unfolding as it should and that a person should not try to interfere with this natural process. Rather it's about embracing this fact and aligning ones own thoughts and very existence with it. Essentially it's a very passive philosophy. There's nothing particularly intellectually complex about it and I believe that when people talk about enlightenment they are talking about a state of mind which results from embracing it rather than claiming any superior technical understanding of the basic concepts.

I like a lot of things about Taoism but in the end I just don't agree that we shouldn't try to actively exert our influence on the world when it's appropriate and/or needed.

9. ### Search & DestroyTake one bite at a timeModerator

Messages:
1,466
Good explanation, my curiosity is satisfied.

Messages:
49

21. ### keith1Guest

The dao that can be told
is not the eternal Dao.

~Lao-tzu

22. ### CarcanoValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,865
Well I dont see any difference in the two words honestly...nothing and nothingness.

Is there a difference between 'nothing' and 'no thing'?

Is there a difference between 'detachment' and 'non-attachment'?

I believe the meaning of Hakuin's story is that he saw the human ego as nothing...as transparent.

This is why he had no interest in defending his honour and status as a monk.
He only saw what was required of the child.

What would he say if accused of the arrogance of claiming enlightenment among thousands of monks who have not yet seen the way?

"Is that so?"

23. ### taoist11Registered Senior Member

Messages:
49
From nothing we can't have everythingness while the two doctrines, Daoism & Buddhism state nothingness is everythingness & conversely. If we saw "nothing" is everythingness then we can't meditate the right way to reach enlightenment.

But Dao is real and nothingness is real. You ask all Buddhists, they all say all things, houses, vehicles, cities, villages, … are nothingness. Is there anything existing for ever ? No. Anything which exists, anything having a form, or wills, thoughts, sentiments all turn nothingness. But this material world always exists, doesn’t disappear, so this world also comes from nothingness. And nothingness doesn’t mean nothing. Remember this: nothingness is not nothing. I have met some Westerners; they are confused nothingness with nothing. With nothing, you cannot have being. This nothingness is like water, having no form but also having every form. Nothingness is also the condition of existence, i.e. there is nothingness, there is being and vice versa, there is being, there is nonbeing. Being and non-being are like two sides of a piece of paper. Buddhism says very similarly: being is non-being; non-being is being.

Read what I posted carefully, Carcano. & I may say I see nothingness already as in everyday life, I give \$ to ones I hate. I see them as nonbeing I write above.