dawei

Taking one example above: If one refers to the ancient cosmologies, then it is apparent that the order usually described is that as found in the Huainanzi: That which was clear and bright formed into Heaven; That which was heavy and impure formed into Earth. It is easy for that which is clear and bright to uniformly gather [as the sky] But difficult for the heavy and impure to solidify [as earth and matter]. Thus, it is clear and bright before it formed into Heaven. So it might be interesting to explore the passage in this order. Added to say: Reading your translation again... I think that was your point; to explore it in that order

survive 生存

I think spot on.

That seems more like an expectation, not an accident. Accidents are usually defined as 'unintended' not unexpected. This seems purely personal and thus psycho-emotional for each of us. There is no free will because we are not free from the boundaries we exist in. I do get your point, so I am not arguing but commenting.

Is there any hierarchy [or time reference] intended here? Meaning: Is the spirit a subdivision of the material or is the material a subdivision of the spirit?

It may be a paraphrase of even a few lines. I think the general idea is throughout the text. The closest I find is Flowing Hands opening of 65: CHAPTER 65 When the first Sage became enlightened and he became at one with the Dao, he did not try and influence others. For he understood the ways of all things.

I tend to agree with Spirit and Light. See Yong-yun Lee's paper and comments on 神明 http://cccp.uchicago.edu/archive/2010Creel-LucePaleographyWorkshop/Yong-yun%20Lee%20-%20on%20Taiyi%20sheng%20shui%20Cosmology.pdf

I've seen you mention the Shuo Gua quite a few times recently. I wondered if you had thought the following line applies in any way to this chapter: "The number 3 was assigned to heaven, 2 to earth, and from these came the (other) numbers."

But the consistent theme I have heard from you over the year(s) is that one can 'do' these things but without some master to learn under or some power bestowed... one is just 'turning a direction and bowing' on their own. One can "do" all the right things; try to have a clean heart; beg the immortals... but there is probably still no interaction beyond the physical existence. What I hear from you is one of two things (sorry to summarize in so short an analysis: 1. Be One with the Free Dao every day... All the seeking beyond that is wasted energy 2. Seek a master and learn a very long time but still don't expect something more. Go with what you learn. Accept it all without great expectation. This is the Now, each moment.

Very interesting way of writing the lines. Dao as impetus is more often how I think of Dao; It is the black box of the ten thousand. I would agree that Dao does not belong as a counting part of a sequence. And I would agree that a sequence is not completely necessary. But the movement in differentiation proceeds from large to small as diversity grows some legs it turns the wheel faster, in a sense. Differentiation proceeds slowly. Here is how I see it: When the first phase change occurred from stillness to movement, time-space-energy occupied everywhere at once (One). That whole differentiated into parts of the universe (usually pictured as the formation of sky and earth--TWO). The earth differentiated into living things... etc. Eventually a dollar bill can become 100 pennies. Usually that occurs over many stages of getting 'change' back. I could force the change to 100 pennies but if I let it just happen naturally within the mechanism of buying things, there is a sequence whereby it turns into quarters and dimes; later into nickels and pennies... it 'appears' as a sequence but its just differentiation and separation occurring into smaller parts [of the whole].

But That doesn't answer why... but maybe it helps to understand 'how'.

Then your thinking is going in the wrong direction... it has nothing to do with that. Maybe the conversation is over.

Here is something I have in my 'notes' of various readings: Lingshujing 靈樞經: apocryphal text of unknown date: “Great One (太一) is the honorific style (zi 字) given to water. This explains the very thorough cosmology found in the Guodian Bamboo, Tai Yi Sheng Shui... I have often thought that 'water' may be ancient thought of as vapor.... ergo Qi. If this were the case, then the metaphor of water (in You-state) is to be understood as Qi... and Qi is the most often described in cosmology.

I am not really trying to convert or convince you... so don't take my continued discussion like that... But I would say that there must be some sort of 'phase' transition (think 5 phase theory) whereby there is a Wu-Oneness and a You-Oneness. There is some momentary cross-over point where the undifferentiated One becomes a differentiated One. Undivided Light makes sense to me. I would like to hear VMarco's comments on this context we're discussing.

I generally agree with where you are going here... but I differ in that 'eternal' or 'eternity' never seems to be the usage of Heng in the most ancient texts. It is much closer to the meaning of Ji as ultimate or fully expansive. The story of Hou Ji (Lord of Millet) used Heng to mean to 'spread everywhere'; consistent to the idea of Ji as extreme [poles]. So I still tend to see it to mean more like furthest-reaching as in space; whereas if it is applied to 'time' then it would become more like eternity but we don't see it used as a time referent in ancient texts. But from a metaphorical point of view, I may not be able to completely argue against 'eternity'; I can only share the usage and context we know.

I completely agree. Nicely said. I've meet some who are simply 'gifted' in so-called talents, and even energy work. But that is not the norm for our modern age but it is not completely absent.

It is possible that there is a slightly different model: Chaos is more likely a state of movement from Singularity... Stillness becomes movement; movement leads to separation; separation leads to variation.

Your responses are generally in the right direction... but how can mind see it? Qi is the singular bridge to Singularity, where Spirit resides. IMO, it is because the mind is spirit [infused] at that point. Nice stuff.

I think your criticism is valid... but 'water' holds some primordial concept which may be more metaphor. I could mean 'vapor-like' ; aka, spirit... I know you don't like to go there but I am just sharing something I think may be an early thought.

I would suggest there are two "Ones"; 1. Singularity of non-differentiated state; Wu-State 2. The first state after this state, but is manifest; You-State In most cosmologies, Qi is the #2 above. It then separates into Light and Heavy; Heaven and Earth.

Of course you can discuss it... as a philosophical daoist, you simply replace 'spirit' with the general idea of Wu-State; the great void of singularity. Every cosmology holds this position. There is a curious phrase in the Heng Xian: 物先 – Wuxian the state before the myriad things. Whether we call a part 'spirit' or 'invisibility' or 'void', does it really matter if we agree there is some sort of undifferentiated singularity? Concerning the idea of a 'big bang'... I am not against it... but I am against the idea of uniformity throughout all time; the idea that everything we see happening today is exactly as it must of happened billions/millions of years ago.

That is a grave mistake in misunderstanding... IMO. ALL cosmologies are fairly consistent in this regard. One is before Dao... Dao arises with the ten thousand as it describes their function and operation. What is prior is Singularity.... NO DAO can be spoken of. This is the crux of the understanding. As FH said: "Spirit and matter become distinct"... I wish I could of said that so plainly many years ago when I was first trying to explain why Lao Zi is not just a cosmological explanation but an explanation of life.

sorry... unconvincing. But I get your point. We may have to realize that of all the cosmologies, Lao Zi offers no cosmology per se. It is a summary without footnotes, except to look at the other cosmologies.

There seems to be two issues: 1. Whether it is a fair statement 2. Whether this is what the passage means It can be fair but not what was meant. --- I wanted to focus on the point by FH: "Before there was Dao there was no separation." If there was no separation, then there is no Dao to speak of; there is no-thing to speak of... other than just "One" but that might be incorrect to do as well. If there is a 'time' when there is no Dao but only singularity, then 'eternal Dao' would be an oxymoron.

'Eternal' or not as the proper word... I completely agree with your second statement and always have. That is why I wouldn't use 'eternal' as it conveys singularity on some level. IMO, Dao emerges out of the singularity; the eternal, undifferentiated. My line of questioning concerns the idea that Dao is the path or method of what we see; but one could say that the undifferentiated state is one with its own path [of non-differentiation]. So it might beg the unanswerable question of whether there is such a 'path' (Dao) in such a state; but as it is an undifferentiated state, one cannot ask nor speak to it.