He is describing consciousness. — hope

Ok. I respect it. This is the way you interpret it. For me, for example, it is speaking about omnipresence.

This is the way you interpret it. For me, for example, it is speaking about omnipresence. — javi2541997

Consciousness is omnipresent.

Problem is you just don't realize the true nature of consciousness. So then you don't realize he is talking about it.

Consciousness is not in the brain, the brain is in consciousness.

Look and see for yourself. Stop believing and start looking.

Stop believing and start looking. — hope

Taoism is about believing... how you defend the virtue of awareness is another power about belief.
You are presenting me a lot of arguments which, according to you, Tao is about awareness. Then you believe on what are you thinking.
I do not understand why you want separate the act of think from the act of “praxis”

Taoism is about believing — javi2541997

It's the opposite of that.

He is pointing to something beyond the mind, and instead of looking and seeing you are getting lost in thought about the pointers.

"The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon."

It's the opposite of that. — hope

How can Tao wrote something as:

Show plainness, hold simplicity
Reduce selfishness, decrease desires

(verse XIX) and not “believe” in it... this could be even contradictory.
The opposite of belief is skepticism, and I guess Tao is far away from this philosophical view...

The opposite of belief is skepticism — javi2541997

The opposite of belief is experience. and a description of something is not a belief about it.

The opposite of belief is experience. — hope

No. Both concepts are not necessarily being opposites. They can be even explained together or as David Hume, explained, “it is more connected with custom”

and a description of something is not a belief about it. — hope

Lao Tse does not describe anything in Tao. He just expresses how he sees nature, humans, communities, peace, etc... in a metaphorical technique through the verses.

Lao Tse does not describe anything in Tao — javi2541997

Describing is the main thing he does in the Tao. He describes the Tao, which is consciousness.

He describes the Tao, which is consciousness. — hope

Good interpretation of how you see the Tao.
But check out how many variations could be:
https://www.centertao.org/essays/understanding-the-tao-te-ching/
http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicTaoTeChing.pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20006197

But check out how many variations could be: — javi2541997

Maybe the Tao Te Ching is a recipe for meat pie. lol

Maybe the Tao Te Ching is a recipe for meat pie. lol — hope

Or a good glass of sake :lol:

Or a good glass of sake — javi2541997

Or maybe its nothing but a pointer to the true nature of consciousness.

Or maybe its nothing but a pointer to the true nature of consciousness. — hope

It seems to me that you want to have your cake of the inexplicable and eat it too.
If the true Tao cannot be expressed, your ostensive gesture toward it is another example.
As the great scholar Clint Eastwood once put it, a man needs to know his limitations.

If the true Tao cannot be expressed — Valentinus

Consciousness cannot be expressed.

As the great scholar Clint Eastwood once put it, a man needs to know his limitations. — Valentinus

But what if consciousness has no limitations?

On the contrary, it is expressed everywhere, as you suggested earlier.

But what if consciousness has no limitations? — Apollodorus

Then it becomes something anybody can say anything about. The Tao Te Ching doesn't talk that way.

On the contrary, it is expressed everywhere, as you suggested earlier. — Valentinus

It's expressed incorrectly most of the time.

It's expressed incorrectly most of the time. — hope

Probably so. Then you will have to demonstrate the difference if you want to bring in something new. And if that is not your intention, why bother?

It's expressed incorrectly most of the time. — hope

I named this thread "My favorite verses in the Tao Te Ching." It's purpose is to discuss the meaning of specific verses in relation to the whole document. I still have some thoughts of starting it up again. It's pointless for you to spout off your superficial opinion of what Lao Tzu was saying without any reference to the text itself or to the context of the whole document. It's self-indulgent.

It's self-indulgent. — T Clark

Maybe that's because I taught Lao Tzu everything he knows and everything he based his book on.

Maybe that's because I taught Lao Tzu everything he knows and everything he based his book on. — hope

So, what's LT really like? He seems pretty cool.

what's LT really like? — T Clark

You wouldn't like him. You're mind would find him too boring and silly.

You would laugh at him.

and without that laugh, it would not be the Tao.

You wish to speak with a certain authority but bring nothing new to the table. Informing other people how stupid they are is a rhetorical trick developed long ago.
My interest level is dropping.

Informing other people how stupid they are — Valentinus

There is a difference between stupidity and ignorance.

and a difference between knowledge and wisdom

and a difference between wisdom and enlightenment

Then talk about that.
Your conclusions are less interesting than your process.

Your conclusions are less interesting than your process. — Valentinus

Because my conclusions are too far ahead.

So, you want something you personally worked out for yourself to persuade other people on the premise that you have a special relationship to the truth?

This has been tried before. Perhaps you should look into that.

haters gonna hate

Come on, Hope, you told us you write books. What are they called, and where can we can get them?