dynamictao

An idea written in Chinese may look different from the same idea written in English, but the idea is the same. If the idea is universal, then it will appear in the East and the West. If Lao-tzu wrote a "principle" in ancient Chinease and if the principle is understood, then the same principle may be written in other language. But now, different people see different principles. This appears not only in translation, but is true also within ancient and modern Chinese interpretors.

1. After a while I do not go back to read about what the trandition 2500 years ago near the village where Lao-tzu live. This is because of the simple question I have been interested in: "How can we interpret the Tao Te Ching?" In the same spirit as an amateur reading ancient Greek philosophies, we rarely rely on their "background" tradition to interpret. Lao-tzu certainly referred to his tradition when he wrote, but I have no clue to what he referred to. Nevertheless, I would accept any answer as valid. 2. Again, I am less than qualified to touch such a question. This would require a lot of research. I tend to assume that 2500 years ago, most people would fall under some kind of "spiritual awe of nature" - as we are still the same, but in different ways. 3. I attribute this to our god-given limitation of a short life. Each of us can only find a corner that can provide some certainty or some light on the meaning of his/her life. For each of us, we are already in our own deep "tradition" and we are trying to make this one complete. Making one complete is more than enough. If we search, we will find something important by accident, to ourselves and maybe also to others.

We can view the Tao Te Ching as part of a "coherent systematic whole" of a religion or a philosophy, etc. Each "belief" may have a completely different framework to represent the same reality (or truth, or Oneness), and they are equivalent in representing the reality and can be transformed into each other. Of course, we all only have limited time to figure out one "comfortable" framework for ourselves (if we are lucky). Changing from framwork to another is probably impossible, but some understanding of other frameworks may go a long way. As an ex-scientist, I expect, and happy to see, my theory overthrown some day when something new appears. Religion or Philosophy, or Big Bang Theory, is built on a set of formidable "paradigms." Enjoy making some paradigm shift. Even theology is discussed together with science. Many people may believe the Big Bang Theory as a proof for a Creation Theory. We just enjoy what we believe (Laotzu says so in ch.80).

I have been just working on the Tao Te Ching as a philosophical text that reflect the principle of Nonduality (Oneness).Because this is the First Principle, so it cane be applied to all philosophical issues, including religion, morality, ethics, etc. Traditionally we have regarded the principle of Tao as unfathomable. But I find that Lao-tzu has presented a definite core principle of Tao philosophy and a logical structure of the Tao Te Ching (in Chapter 1 of the Tao te Ching). Lao-tzu uses "vague and indeterminate" language to describe Tao philosophy, but we can show that these "vague and indeterminate" words of Lao-tzu are necessary in describing the principle of Tao (Nonduality). Nonduality is, of course, in all religions and philosophies. That is also why Lao-tzu discusses many examples in the Tao Te Ching. I hasitate to go into detials here and now, because it is contrary to the prevailing thoughts and it will add to the confusion. I do expect a lot of resistance to treat Lao-tzu to be a rational philosopher as Parmenides and the Buddha. But the evidence is convincing now. Soon I will offer my second book "Tao Te Ching: The Principle of Oneness" at a very low price initially (e.g. $1.99) as a Kindle Book. Then if people want to discuss that view, I shall elaborate on what I have found. I shall make the book free to all ( at least on May 1, 2013). If I can publish the book earlier, I shall do that earlier. I do expect a lot of resistance to treat Lao-tzu to be a rational philosopher as Parmenides and the Buddha. But the evidence is convincing now. You do not need a Kindle to download the book, but you need to download a free software to run Kindle on your PC or iPad, Iphone, etc. The first part of all Kindle books is free as a sample. I

Yes, They are equivalent ways to experience the "principle". The principle on how particles move in wave is the same as the principle of wave carries the particles. The "principle" is manifested in the two is the same. Here is the limit and ambiguity of our language about the "particle" and the "wave."

Welcome. It is unfortunate that Buddhism is often taken to mean "the world is suffering." The use of the word "suffering" is unfortunate and is a known mis-translation, but it's use is too widespread and too hard to change now. The word should have meant "impermanence" of the appearances, if we hold on to them, we will end up in suffering... We can search for the positive interpretations of Buddhism. I like the little book "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula.

What is experienced could also represent the "reality." I came to the following summary in my "The TTC: The Logic of Tao Philosophy" - draft: just to share. "Tao represents the principle how the myriad things interact in nature. The principle is One or Nonduality of nature. However, we are costumed to view the myriad things in dualism. Instead of denying dualism as out rightly false, Lao-tzu chooses to demonstrate how to preserve reality in our dualistic view, as dualistic realities. These dualistic realities reflect the principle of Tao in two ways. Each way represents a manifestation of the principle of Tao. In the two ways, we can see the same principle. For brevity, we call these dualistic realities as the manifestations of Tao. The true principle of Tao may be found in either manifestations...."

Tao and the Teleological Forces. Lao-Tzu may have the following view on "intelligence of nature." (First part of my Poem - The Song of Oneness ) With the world as One Our minds choose to identify the myriad things Our minds devise various forces to bind them back to One The forces of One follow a principle to avoid drifting from One; The forces drive all objects to conform. The forces of One become teleological with a purpose. As the purpose of God. Therefore, God shows intelligence (of man or nature) God serves the hope of man that the world remains as One God is all powerful, controlling all objects God is omnipresent in all our thoughts Our minds worship. ... Lao-Tzu would probably make no distinction between nature and the way man should be. Oneness is the source of all forces, all intelligence, and all. We may worship it as a principle, as a Creator, as a ... or enjoy it as a simple assumption with no need of any proof.

Lao-Tzu would say... Chapter 69 of the TTC: The advice for engaging in war is: Don't be a host, but be a guest. Don't advance an inch, but retreat a foot. This is known as marching without a formation, rolling up the sleeves without baring the arms, and engaging without the armies. Then, we can really be fearless. No misfortune is greater than belittling the enemy. Belittling the enemy will nearly destroy our treasures. Therefore, when equal armies engage, the solemn one will triumph. ---------------------------------------------- Chapter 31 of the TTC: Wars, means with ill omen, should be avoided. Thus, men of Tao will not adopt them. ... Wars are not means for men of principle. Wars, as means with ill omen, should be used only as the last resort. Their use should be with calm and without glorification. Glorifying a war is to rejoice in killing people. Whoever rejoices in killing people cannot remain successful in the world. ... we should mourn with sorrow and treat a victory ceremony as a funeral. ----- Excerpts from: Wayne L. Wang: The Tao Te Ching: An Ultimate Translation

My new translation "Tao Te Ching: An Ultimate Translation" has been published on Amazon as a Kindle eBook. The book is free on 2013 Valentine Day. Please go to www.amazon.com, search under "Tao Te Ching Wang" in Kindle Store. You can dowload it to Kindle Reader on PC, iPad, etc. Please send me your comments: [email protected]. Wayne L. Wang

Moderator: I am not sure that I can post this here. This message may be removed after Valentine Day. My Kindle book is free on Valentine Day. Please go to Amazon, search for "Tao Te Ching: An Ultimate Translation" by Wayne L. Wang. Enjoy it. Please send comments to me at [email protected]. Wayne L. Wang

Maybe an interesting question is: How much do we really know, or need to know, about the culture and the history of the TTC? Just a thought.

I have been an independent researcher on Tao philosophy since 1999. I hope to contribute to our understanding of the mystery of Tao. My first analysis is published as The Dynamic Tao and its Manifestations (2004). For the next 8 years, have been absent from most discussion groups due to my continued work on the principle and logic in the Tao Te Ching. I will soon publish my new works. I hope to be able to spend some time online to discuss the principle and logic of Tao. There will be some major hurdles to overcome, since very few people will believe in a logical Tao philosophy.

Thanks to all. I was not online for many years, but I was never away from the TTC for all those years. Now I can share what I have sorted out. The principle and logic is pretty clean now. Lao-tzu was quite right that he did not write to confuse people.

Dawei, As you know, Heng appeared first in Mawangui text. That's why it was missing for 2000 years. To me, Heng is Oneness or wholeness. All realities must be whole (Hegel). Again, I have a definite picture for Chapter 1 (that can be viewed in the Amazon preview of my Kindle book. Sorry I have not gotten a chance to put is on my website). There seems a way to put a jpg picture in the forum, but I don't know yet. As for Xuan, it is a "dark, unclear" state with things unseparated (e.g., Wu and Yu) - again to reflect the logic model.

Dawei, Yes. We can enjoy the vast spirit of valley. For my work (searching for the logical structure of the TTC), I try to see how "two opposites" participate in a "reality." That reminds me of the interchangeability of the two Chinese words Ghost/Spirit and Valley. The traditional interpretations do not have to worry about the overall consistency of the pair of Ghost (Valley) and its opposite, God.

Of course, your interpretation makes sense and does reflect the principle (language cannot describe the reality itself.) I enjoy all different ways of interpreting Chapter 1. This has been done for a long time (thousands of years). Unfortunately (or firtunately), everyone (me included) is stuck with a best interpretation. Enjoy all possible interpretations and come out with a simple principle of Tao.

Totally agree with what you see. If we do it right, we all see different, but equivalent, characteristics of the same reality.

I do not remember my old view, but I do know the current view is more consistent with the logic in Chapter 1 (and with many other things). I now have no confidence in treating Wu and Yu any other way. The view will have its own life. If it is not Tao, it will perish. For this reason, I do not support many traditional views, but I will not argue against them. Whatever is more useful is useful to the believers. I only look at the core principle and believe that Lao-tzu is as wise as many other wise ones (not just a mystic, trying to confuse us). The Principle of Oneness is a universal rule, for any philosophical discussion of "reality."

RBSA, maybe you are talking about the basic philosophical foundation that could be linked to the early Greek philosophy - before the story of personified God was created. I see your point, but it is impossible to discuss. Peace, harmony, and ...

Thank to ChiDragon. It is interesting to find out that 刘家润 (China) comes to the same conclusion about the parsing of Wu and Yu, and, Heng Wu and Heng Yu, in Chapter 1. I have found this is the only way to find the principle of Tao and the logic used by Lao-tzu. When I publish my paper, I did not know this reference [http://www.guoxue.com/lwtj/content/liujiarun_lzc1.htm], so I did not use it as reference. Now I have one less issue to justify. He has: “道，可道，非常道；名，可名，非常名。无，名天地之始；有，名万物之母。常无，欲以观众其妙；常有，欲以观其徼。此二者同，出而异名。同，谓之玄。玄之又玄，众妙之门。” My whole model depends on such views on Wu and Yu, and Heng Wu and Heng Yu.

Quote from one of my books: [With the prevailing problems in interpretation....] "Most Chinese thinkers start to protect Tao as a unique kind of Chinese thinking and claim that Tao is far superior and cannot be analyzed with Western ideas. A few even suggest that Western scholars should “think like a Chinese” in dealing with these issues that cannot be resolved by the Chinese thinkers. Many Western philosophers will not accept Tao as a systematic philosophy. However, many others start to inherit Tao thinking without definite logic; most would expand on Tao with their own interpretations based on the historical Chinese commentaries. " [so the West inherit the problems and end up with the same problems ... How can we break this endless loop?] Albert Einstein says: "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."

[Excerpt from Tao Te Ching: An Ultimate Translation (2013)] We may summarize it as The Principle of Oneness 恆一原則: [ Heng 恆 is translated as True; Xuen 玄 as Profound] When we represent one reality by two true manifestations, such as True Wu and True Yu, the two manifestations will have opposite characteristics, but they are equivalent representations of the reality. As realities, the two true manifestations must cover the same domain of the whole reality. To describe the two true manifestations, we define two conventional objects, such as Wu and Yu, to represent the two opposite parts of the whole domain. However, each manifestation, as a whole, must comprise simultaneously both parts (Wu and Yu) in order to have wholeness to represent the reality. For this reason, the true manifestations cannot be described definitely with the conventional objects, so they will appear as profound, mysterious, and with great subtlety. According to this Principle of Oneness, any “division” of a reality will result in “multiple” equivalent and true manifestations of the same reality. A reality is thus indivisible, since each “part” will still reflect the same “whole” reality. The relationship between the parts and the whole is as ancient as the beginning of philosophy. This is a common problem in all philosophy, East and West. Our search for the principle of Tao also brings us back to this basic question.

The relationship between Wu and Yu has been the central issue of Tao. I understand that there is no easy way to show this. The traditional interpretations are pro-Wu and there are too many enjoyable paradoxes associated with this view. It took me 4-5 years to break out the endless loop and reach an alternative interpretation. Since the interpretation is different from most traditional belief, it will take a long time before the view is accepted as the norm. It is a difficult topic to discuss. I understand and will not argue against the traiditional views that make Tao "mysterious." What I can say now is that, if we believe that Lao-tzu is logical, "Wu and Yu have to be there together (in a harmonious fashion) to form anything." "Wu-wei and Yu-wei are also necessary to build a grand system of Tao in the world." The traditional preference for Wu essentially askews the logical structure of Tao, making it the way it is. The basic model for my analysis is in the following Preview at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Ching-Translation-Searching-ebook/dp/B00B9GKJ46/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360636007&sr=8-1&keywords=tao+te+ching+wang#reader_B00B9GKJ46 If you read Chinese, my article [The Logic of Tao Philosophy] is in Tamkang Journal of Social Sciences ( 淡江人文社會學刊) http://www2.tku.edu.tw/~tkjour/

Agreed. The difficulty is to know what "legends" are true and what legends have been created for a purpose. Some part of the core truth would transcend time and space - maybe that is why we feel somewhat connected to the words of Lao-tzu, although we are far apart in our culture and trains of thought.