dynamictao

I agree with your observations - reminding me of Heng Tao, Heng Wu and Heng Yu. (I am stuck with my logical structure) "Before existence" prior to our assigning of names in the phenomenal world.

Marblehead Thank you. I made a decision about 14 years ago: to repay the society with something with Tao. I had no clue of what I can do. I was like a butterfly flapping the wings days and nights. Nothing significant happens for a long time. But suddenly I see the butterfly effect. The sky becomes very clear. So I try to share. As the beginning of my updated book. The logic is not to remove the mystery of Tao. "The translation of the Tao Te Ching presented in this book is based on the principle and logic of Tao" "We may say that the interpretation can project more accurately the mystery of Tao." I should apologize that, due to my constant effort to modify the presentation, many typos and errors are introduced despite my friends's efforts to review it. This is coming to an end now. The new versions will be much stable. Wayne

I have updated both The Logic of Tao Philosophy and The Tao Te Ching: An Ultimate Translation. For those who have downloaded the Kindle books, Amazon should notify you to download the new version. (Amazon says it take more tha 4 weeks!) For a very few who have bought the printed books, should let me know and I will see how to get updates.([email protected]). The Logic has been updated, and the Translation will be updated in a few days. The new versions are marked with [First Edition] now. Wayne

Make sure you get the updated version when Amazon makes them available for you to downloand. I am not yet familiar how Amazon does that. New updates should correct may typos and smooth out some key ideas. Some key ideas are due to some discussion in the forum. Thanks for downloading. Wayne

I do not see anything "wrong" in your observations. I think many people see the same thing, but we may have different "web of conciousness" to feel it. We share our ways of seeing it, so each of us can gain more insight to build a better web for our selves. Only the web-buider can known what is wrong with his/her web. Outsider has no way of knowing what is wrong. There are many ways to represent the same thing. That is why I respect any point of view. Logic is not the truth. It is just a way to "steer" to a conclusion showing the assumptions. I hope we are having fun to share our own thoughts. Like in science, every theory is waiting to be proved wrong!

I agree that I have to watch carefully. I just share what I have found interesting and useful to myself. Whatever inspiration works should be pursued (without expecting agreement). Who knows? Lao-tzu may be laughing at the way we try to understand his jokes. Share!

It is enlightening to see how Heng was written in Guodian. There is no problem in calling Tao a complementary of any two opposites. We may start Chapter 1 by saying that: Lao-tzu defines Wu and Yu to describe the myriad things. but he soon finds out that neither Wu nor Yu can describe the myriad things. Only the complementarity of Wu and Yu can describe the true myriad things. He calls these complementary states: Heng Wu and Heng Yu. They can represent Tao.......etc. So we may say that the principle of Tao is "Complementarity." Complementarity of any opposites is the way to have wholeness or Oneness. This may be useful and consistent. Thank. Wayne

I would say Wu and Yu are complementary so they generate two realistic views: Heng Wu and Heng Yu. However, are Heng Wu and Heng Yu complementary? Heng Wu and Heng Yu can each represents the principle of Tao. One yin and one yang, as complements, can represent Tao, just like one Wu and one Yu, as complements, can represent Tao. The complements of Wu and Yu form Heng Wu and Heng Yu. Any two opposites can represent Tao, if they are properly comlementing each other. This really help clearing up the terminology. Wayne We may now summarize our discussion with a simple principle. Tao is Oneness. In Tao philosophy, Oneness is the basis of all realities, so we may summarize the principle of Tao as The Principle of Oneness 恆一原則:

How about the following? In terms of dualism, the absolute reality (Tao) is monistic or non-dualistic. The phenomenal world is more complicated. All entities in the phenomenal world are associated with names 名. The objects are dualistic and complementary. In our model, Heng Names 恆名represent reality, so each of them must be a whole and non-dualistic. The manifestations, Heng Wu and Heng Yu, are non-dualistic and they are "dual but equivalent" representations of Tao. The two manifestations are two-and-one at the same time. The manifestations are ontologically equivalent to each other. Wayne

It all depends on the meaning of 恆 Heng. Professor Qingjie Wang's (Hong Kong) papers on Heng Dao talk about the meaning of Heng in the Book of Changes. As I recall in or outside of his papers, that Heng has been taken to be Tao itself. (「道、恆也。」 or 「恆、道也。」??? ) Along this reasoning, 恆無 Heng Wu carries the flavor of "the state of Wu in Tao or according to Tao." Does your interpretation establishes "visible" (Heng Yu) and "invisible" (Heng Wu) as "dualistic" view again, or Heng Wu and Heng Yu are parallel? It may be possible to keep the discussions nondualistic. Good points. I did an analysis along Wang Bi metaphysics, and conclude that the same Logic may be applied ( I did not publish that, since it will only confuse the issue. Initially it is a complicated isssue. That way I decide to discuss "The Logic of Tao Philosophy" separate from "The Ultimate Translation" so we can put the Logic on the table to have open discussions. [i hope most people have downloaded a free copy of Kindle book. I may be allowed for one more day to make it free.] Wayne

Sorry you just missed it. I offer both Kindle ebooks free for the last two days (June 1,2) - as was announced in this forum 2 weeks ago. There were about a totle of 300 downloads. (The books are available at Amazon.) The short descriptions are available (see earlier posts on this topic). I have found more typos and will be fixing them. The main idea is not very complicated, so the corrections are mostly not critical (But they will be done.).

(Nice to see you here - I think this time it is right, but who knows?) We are trying to create a new definition of many such terms. Some classical definitions may create problems. I should add them to the keyword list I have in the book. How about calling "God" and "Devil" as "dualistic opposites"? Wu and Yu constitute a "whole" so they are dualistic and complementary? Maybe complementary should be used only at the object level? Each actuality (Heng Wu or Heng Yu) are whole and complete. Can we call Heng Wu and Heng Yu as "dualistic realities"? "parallel realities"? They are Two and One at the same time. They are "ontologically equivalent." Heng Wu and Heng Yu are individually "whole." Maybe they are dualistic whole. I the model, they are ontologically equivalent "actualities." It is good that we can discuss the basic terminology here. I will review how they are used in the book. I will add more terms to the Appendix of my book (The Logic of Tao Philosophy). (It looks that whoever downloaded earlier version of the book cannot re-download the updated versions! I am updating the books for typos and some clarifications.) My goal was to keep the book readable to most, since I believe the logic can help our understanding of the Tao Te Ching.) I feel bad about many typos, please wait a few days before you order the book "The Logic".

Tao can be received and used without overflowing. That is the nature of Tao - we shall never feel fed up and shall never stop seeing its usefulness. We shall not need to empty our cup, because we never feel full.

This is my new interpretation (in TTC: An Ultimate Translation): 道沖，而用之又弗盈也。 Tao pours down upon us; however, However, when received and used, it does not brim over.[1] Tao never become full. [1] The word 冲 means showering with water as in making tea, etc. Tao shows down on us, but will not make us (as vessels of Tao) full. When a vessel is full, it is no longer useful as a vessel.