Taoist Philosophy

[Marblehead]

Marblehead, I'm wondering if you'd mind me doing some research now and then to cite those texts that you refer to, just to give it more textual authority (whatever that's worth)? It wouldn't be a full-time or complete endeavor, but if I'm able to find what you're referring to now and then, I'd be happy to help. I, strangely, enjoy research. But if my effort isn't wanted or would belabor the discussion, I'll be happy to just discuss the ideas and leave well-enough alone.

 

Actually I would be thrilled if you did that whenever you have the time. I can tell you this in order to narrow your searches, most of the Lao Tzu quotes are from either Robert Henricks or Lin Yutang and most of the Chuang Tzu quotes are from either Lin Yutang or Burton Watson.

 

There wouldn't be anything from James Legge although his translations are very valid because I had not seen a translation from him when I put the thing together.

 

Have fun with the reseach.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

I figured I'd go ahead and cite these for the sake of discussion in this thread. Hope no one minds. I couldn't find the exact translations, but Marblehead's wording is similar enough to the various translations I own and others I found online.

 

That was excellent! Thanks for taking part in the threads.

 

Peace & Love!

[Apech]

Read the book.

 

Ok I read the book, it says:

 

The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled.

Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things!

Blunt the sharpness,

Untangle the knot,

Soften the glare,

Merge with dust.

Oh, hidden deep but ever present!

I do not know from whence it comes.

It is the forefather of the gods.

 

trans. Feng and English

 

or

 

 

Tao is hollow, yet its utility

Seems unlikely to reach the limit.

Profound indeed it is;

It seems to be the fount of all things.

It blunts the sharp;

It unravels the tangled;

It harmonizes with the light;

It mingles with the dust.

Calm like a deep pool it seems to remain.

I do not know whose son it is.

It apparently antecedes the Creator.

 

trans. Henry Wei

 

either version the Tao comes before the creator. What is your next instruction?

[the latest freed]

either version the Tao comes before the creator.

TTC Ch. 4, right? Point proven. But now I'm wondering, and this extends to everyone reading, if the Tao "antecedes the Creator," who/what is the Creator it mentions? "The mother of the myriad creatures" from Ch. 1? Heaven/Earth? Or just the human belief in a Creator?

 

Also, I think it's interesting that the chapter says, "I do not know whose son it is," which leaves open the possibility that the Tao could have a predecessor, but refrains from making a definite claim. I'm not pointing it out to make any assertion, really. I just think it's an interesting line. For me, it's evidence of true wisdom in the TTC--not claiming to know for certain that the Tao is the ultimate antecedent, leaving room for a possible "something else." Still, it's hard to imagine anything coming before the Tao, since the Tao comes before God, the universe, and everything. But I think it adheres to what the Chuang Chou says about wisdom: "Understanding that rests in what it does not understand is the finest" (Book 2).

 

Anyway, just some rambling thoughts.

[Marblehead]

TTC Ch. 4, right?

 

An interesting alternative thought on this subject can be found in Chapter 25 (Henricks translation):

 

1. There was something formed out of chaos,

2. That was born before Heaven and Earth.

3. Quiet and Still! Pure and deep!

4. It stands on its own and does not change.

5. It can be regarded as the mother of Heaven and Earth.

6. I do not yet know its name:

7. I "style" it "the Way."

 

and the last line:

 

20. And the Way models itself on that which is so on its own.

 

However, Wayne Wang translates the last line to read:

 

Tao follows Tzujan.

 

So Tao is the mother of Heaven and Earth (actually, the entire universe) and Tao was formed out of chaos. What caused the forming of Tao? Tzujan - '... that which is so on its own.' Tzujan can be described as Nature, naturalness, laws of physics, whatever. Tzujan is not a thing - Tzujan are the natural processes.

 

Peace & Love!

[Apech]

TTC Ch. 4, right? Point proven. But now I'm wondering, and this extends to everyone reading, if the Tao "antecedes the Creator," who/what is the Creator it mentions? "The mother of the myriad creatures" from Ch. 1? Heaven/Earth? Or just the human belief in a Creator?

 

Also, I think it's interesting that the chapter says, "I do not know whose son it is," which leaves open the possibility that the Tao could have a predecessor, but refrains from making a definite claim. I'm not pointing it out to make any assertion, really. I just think it's an interesting line. For me, it's evidence of true wisdom in the TTC--not claiming to know for certain that the Tao is the ultimate antecedent, leaving room for a possible "something else." Still, it's hard to imagine anything coming before the Tao, since the Tao comes before God, the universe, and everything. But I think it adheres to what the Chuang Chou says about wisdom: "Understanding that rests in what it does not understand is the finest" (Book 2).

 

Anyway, just some rambling thoughts.

 

Some excellent rambling Latest Freed!

 

I think the son thing and the creator thing are like rhetorical questions ... like - 'where did it come from? I don't know but I reckon it was there before everything else.' The Creator if you want to bring God in could be God as the demi-urge but that's Christian metaphysics, maybe you could say the Tao precedes all the hierarchy of powers in the universe?

[Apech]

An interesting alternative thought on this subject can be found in Chapter 25 (Henricks translation):

 

1. There was something formed out of chaos,

2. That was born before Heaven and Earth.

3. Quiet and Still! Pure and deep!

4. It stands on its own and does not change.

5. It can be regarded as the mother of Heaven and Earth.

6. I do not yet know its name:

7. I "style" it "the Way."

 

and the last line:

 

20. And the Way models itself on that which is so on its own.

 

However, Wayne Wang translates the last line to read:

 

Tao follows Tzujan.

 

So Tao is the mother of Heaven and Earth (actually, the entire universe) and Tao was formed out of chaos. What caused the forming of Tao? Tzujan - '... that which is so on its own.' Tzujan can be described as Nature, naturalness, laws of physics, whatever. Tzujan is not a thing - Tzujan are the natural processes.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Aha! I don't like that translation much as it seems to say that the Tao was formed out of chaos which goes back to the JK thing ... so I looked up other translations and they put it differently:

 

Something mysteriously formed,

Born before heaven and Earth.

In the silence and the void,

Standing alone and unchanging,

Ever present and in motion.

Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.

I do not know its name

Call it Tao.

 

Feng & English

 

 

There was something undefined and complete, coming into existence before Heaven and Earth. How still it was and formless, standing alone, and undergoing no change, reaching everywhere and in no danger (of being exhausted)! It may be regarded as the Mother of all things.

 

I do not know its name, and I give it the designation of the Tao (the Way or Course).

 

Legge

 

There is something, amorphous and complete, that was born before Heaven and Earth.

 

R. J. Lynn

 

These just seem to say that the Tao was there before Heaven and Earth and that it was amorphous and yet complete ... which makes more sense to me in relation to the rest of the TTC.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

PS. Excellent thread!!!!!

[Marblehead]

These just seem to say that the Tao was there before Heaven and Earth and that it was amorphous and yet complete ... which makes more sense to me in relation to the rest of the TTC.

Cheers

John

PS. Excellent thread!!!!!

 

Okay. Consider this thought.

 

Before the beginning (of this universal cycle) all existed (in Singularity) but was total chaos (which is the state, as far as I understand it at present) of what is inside a massive black hole.

 

I have a problem with any suggestion that Tao is unchanging. However, Tzujan, the process of Nature (the Laws of Physics) are unchanging.

 

But yes, I agree that Tao existed before Heaven and Earth; that is, before any manifestations of Tao occurred.

 

I think that this concept is oftentimes misunderstood where it is thought that Tao created things and thereby Tao can be compared with God. This is a faulty understanding, IMO. The Nature of Tao creates things.

 

Yes, I enjoy these kinds of discussions as well.

 

Peace & Love!

[Apech]

 

I have a problem with any suggestion that Tao is unchanging. However, Tzujan, the process of Nature (the Laws of Physics) are unchanging.

 

But yes, I agree that Tao existed before Heaven and Earth; that is, before any manifestations of Tao occurred.

 

I think that this concept is oftentimes misunderstood where it is thought that Tao created things and thereby Tao can be compared with God. This is a faulty understanding, IMO. The Nature of Tao creates things.

 

Yes, I enjoy these kinds of discussions as well.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Where do you get the unchanging idea from? Is it the word 'complete' because I think this just means that you don't have to add anything or take anything away from the Tao.

 

I suppose its a bit like an ocean where it changes constantly form being calm to stormy and so on but never stops being an ocean.

 

I agree about the God thing BTW.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

PS I just got a copy of Cleary's Golden Flower delivered by Amazon (I ordered it on Sunday so that's pretty good). I will soon be enlightened .

[~jK~]

By "book," are you referring to the Tao Te Ching or the Chuang Tzu or both?

 

In China there is only one Tao and only one book on it.

Chuang Tzu was only an echo of what he had listened to.

http://www.answers.com/topic/zhuang-zi

 

To make a long story short - I've been in China, studying Chinese philosophy, for more years than most of you have education -from grade 1 to now. If you want to see the reality of Chinese philosophy read A Short History of Chinese Philosophy by Feng Youlan AKA: Fung Yu-Lan (simplified Chinese: 冯友兰; traditional Chinese: 馮友蘭; pinyin: Féng Yǒulán; Wade-Giles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feng_Youlan

To give you an idea, Dr. Feng Youlan was brought over from China, during the Japanese attacks on China, during WW1 & WW2 and given an honorary Doctorate degree from Princeton University, and a Professor position, simply to learn Chinese History from him.

My best friend here has a Masters Degree in Chinese Philosophy & History from the Chinese University, the top University in China for history/philosophy, that he taught in, after his return, she studied under him. I had the honnor to meet and talk to him.

 

Read the book.

You are in the field of Chinese culture and becoming an embarrassment to those that can read and reason.

Edited May 25, 2010 by ~jK~

[Apech]

 

 

Read the book.

You are in the field of Chinese culture and becoming an embarrassment to those that can read and reason.

 

You are in the field of TheTaoBums - why not explain your point of view or knowledge rather than calling other people 'an embarrassment'?

 

Come on, you've met a famous philosopher so lets hear what you know.

[Marblehead]

Where do you get the unchanging idea from? Is it the word 'complete' because I think this just means that you don't have to add anything or take anything away from the Tao.

 

I suppose its a bit like an ocean where it changes constantly form being calm to stormy and so on but never stops being an ocean.

 

I agree about the God thing BTW.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

PS I just got a copy of Cleary's Golden Flower delivered by Amazon (I ordered it on Sunday so that's pretty good). I will soon be enlightened .

 

I think I have just recognized an error of mine in that I have put too much emphasis on a single word.

 

I agree with your ocean anology.

 

Yea!!! Enlightenment is forthcoming!!!

 

Enjoy the read.

 

Peace & Love!

[WhiteTiger]

Aha! I don't like that translation much as it seems to say that the Tao was formed out of chaos which goes back to the JK thing ... so I looked up other translations and they put it differently:

 

I am not here with a hiddin intention in this post keeping that in mind. Compared to wisdom, intelligence often discriminates.

[Apech]

I am not here with a hiddin intention in this post keeping that in mind. Compared to wisdom, intelligence often discriminates.

 

Sorry I don't understand.

[Marblehead]

I think I have just recognized an error of mine in that I have put too much emphasis on a single word.

 

I agree with your ocean anology.

 

Yea!!! Enlightenment is forthcoming!!!

 

Enjoy the read.

 

Peace & Love!

 

I changed my mind. Hehehe.

 

I don't agree with the ocean anology. The thought ran through my mind later in the day and I thought, there was a time during the early life of the earth when there was no surface water - no ocean. There will be a time in earth's life when the sun will expand and evaporate all water from the surface of the earth and at that point earth will become a dead planet.

 

The cycles of life - birth, life, and death. All thing undergo this process. The processes of Nature are unavoidable. "Everything" changes. There are no static conditions.

 

Peace & Love!

[Apech]

I changed my mind. Hehehe.

 

I don't agree with the ocean anology. The thought ran through my mind later in the day and I thought, there was a time during the early life of the earth when there was no surface water - no ocean. There will be a time in earth's life when the sun will expand and evaporate all water from the surface of the earth and at that point earth will become a dead planet.

 

The cycles of life - birth, life, and death. All thing undergo this process. The processes of Nature are unavoidable. "Everything" changes. There are no static conditions.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Well yes, its only an analogy! Everything changes including your mind ha ha ha!

[Marblehead]

Well yes, its only an analogy! Everything changes including your mind ha ha ha!

 

Yes Sir. I do try to leave open that possibility. But whatever change may occur I would hope that it would lead to a better understanding of a concept based on fact or logic.

 

Peace & Love!

[the latest freed]

The cycles of life - birth, life, and death. All thing undergo this process. The processes of Nature are unavoidable. "Everything" changes. There are no static conditions.

 

Peace & Love!

I agree with you about the manifestations of Nature (or Nature itself, depending on the definition) always changing. But then underneath, or behind, or amongst all the layers of creation and change, isn't there a foundation/presence of some kind that is constant? This could be defined as the "processes of Nature" that you mention, or maybe it's even beyond that. The Chuang Tzu refers to "the constant" in Book 2, saying: "No thing is either complete or impaired, but all are made into one again. Only the man of far-reaching vision knows how to make them into one. So he has no use [for categories], but relegates all to the constant" (Burton Watson's Chuang Tzu: Basic Writings, p. 36). I'm aware that various translations choose words with different connotations, so my understanding of "the constant" may be incorrect, the meaning having been lost in translation. I'm handicapped in that, at present, I can only read a few characters of Chinese and therefore have to rely on translations.

 

Then again, several translations say something pretty consistent with Thomas Cleary's following translation of Book 2: "The knowledge of ancient people reached somewhere. Where did it reach? Some thought the ultimate is where nothing has ever existed. This is all--nothing can be added...Therefore the aim of sages is for diffused brilliance: they do not employ it for affirmation, but entrust it to the constant. This is called using clarity" (p. 60 of Vol. 1 of Cleary's Taoist Classics). And I'm thinking that that sense of "the ultimate...where nothing has ever existed" is the constant behind/underneath/among all of the changing things. And that constant could be the Tao, or the processes of the Tao, or the Singularity/chaos referred to earlier. Or, even further, the reality before/beyond Time where nothing existed (exists?)--not even the Singularity, if that's possible. And if everything is the same, "unified," at their most basic, then change would only be a perception. The first chapter of the Tao Te Ching also refers to the constant, as something that cannot be spoken of or named. So there does seem to be a recognition of a constant in Taoist thought; it just can't be defined in any way. I may be reiterating everything you've already said, but with different words; if so, sorry for wasting so much space and I'm glad we agree. If not, though, feel free to persuade me to think otherwise, if you still disagree.

[WhiteTiger]

Sorry I don't understand.

 

Keep in mind I have no personal hidden intentions.

 

The problem with Intelligence is it can be used to discriminate. (If the person is blinded with Ignorance it is quiet bad) What the good thing about intelligence is it helps you understand, assuming you don't attach any sort of ego or intentions with the collecting information.

 

The way I explained it before was rather a way to make you see the bad in collecting a little bit of intelligence and saying how important learning wisdom is. Which oddly enough the process of learning wisdom actually incorperates collecting lots of intelligence until wisdom of the situation is learned. (that is in so much words a general understanding of it)

 

I hope that better understood.

 

wt

[Marblehead]

I may be reiterating everything you've already said, but with different words; if so, sorry for wasting so much space and I'm glad we agree. If not, though, feel free to persuade me to think otherwise, if you still disagree.

 

Please, never fear about wasting space. I enjoy reading the input from everyone regarding these concepts.

 

I will confess that this constant that is spoken of in the TTC and in Chuang Tzu bothered me a lot in the early years of my searching. It was almost as if it was being said that some 'thing' existed on its own without changing - ever-constant.

 

But this was before I read Wayne L Wang's "Dynamic Tao".

 

After reading specifically "Part I - The Theory of Dynamic Tao", not so much his translation, I became convinced that this constant that was being spoken of was Tzujan, the Laws of Physics.

 

I cannot accept the thought that there is a 'thing' that is constant and never-changing because that would conflict with the thought that all things change. So it must be some non-thing that is constant. And we really can't say that it is Tao that is non-changing because Tao is all thing and all non-things.

 

But then I can't imagine saying that Tzujan is 'above' Tao either. So I am satisfied with understanding that Tzujan is the Nature of Tao. And one of the 'Natures' of Tao is to simultaneously create and destroy. And this leads back to the cycles throughout the universe.

 

Peace & Love!

[the latest freed]

In China there is only one Tao and only one book on it.

I would agree that there's one Tao, but not just one book on it. There have been different interpretations for thousands of years, even among the oldest of texts. I'm under the impression that even the oldest Taoists, Confucians, etc., had different understandings of the Tao (not that similarities don't exist among them, but different applications are evident). Otherwise, what would be the point of having different philosophies? You may only accept one understanding, but that doesn't mean that others don't exist and haven't existed for many, many years.

 

Chuang Tzu was only an echo of what he had listened to.

http://www.answers.com/topic/zhuang-zi

Yes, this is basically true, I think. He wasn't Lao Tzu; he came afterward and was a follower of the principles in the Tao Te Ching. But he had some interesting and valid ideas to contribute, I think, which is why his work is considered an essential part of the Taoist canon by Chinese and non-Chinese people alike. And, as far as I know, his text doesn't conflict with the Tao Te Ching. But I don't know everything; feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

To make a long story short - I've been in China, studying Chinese philosophy, for more years than most of you have education -from grade 1 to now. If you want to see the reality of Chinese philosophy read A Short History of Chinese Philosophy by Feng Youlan AKA: Fung Yu-Lan (simplified Chinese: 冯友兰; traditional Chinese: 馮友蘭; pinyin: Féng Yǒulán; Wade-Giles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feng_Youlan

To give you an idea, Dr. Feng Youlan was brought over from China, during the Japanese attacks on China, during WW1 & WW2 and given an honorary Doctorate degree from Princeton University, and a Professor position, simply to learn Chinese History from him.

My best friend here has a Masters Degree in Chinese Philosophy & History from the Chinese University, the top University in China for history/philosophy, that he taught in, after his return, she studied under him. I had the honnor to meet and talk to him.

I'll check out the text. Thanks. But I think it's important to note that education doesn't always equal wisdom, nor does nationality. Even the Tao Te Ching states this, which I think is why it values "the uncarved block" and returning to the childlike state over intellectualism. Education can sometimes cloud logic and truth because it often gives a person a false sense of authority and teaches them to reject other ideas, regardless of their validity. It can be a source of flawed pride. I'm not saying that education is worthless or useless; I'd be a hypocrite. I'm just saying that those with degrees shouldn't be the only ones considered fit to approach or discuss truth. As the Tao Te Ching states: "Drop wisdom, abandon cleverness, and the people will be benefited a hundredfold...These three [wisdom/cleverness, humanity/justice, shrewdness/sharpness] are the criss-cross of Tao, and are not sufficient in themselves. Therefore, they should be subordinated to a Higher Principle. See the Simple and embrace the Primal..." (Chapter 19, Wu translation). Simplicity is higher in principle than intellectualism gained by lots of education. I think that's important, though I don't think that willful ignorance is a virtue (or the definition of simplicity), either. Which is why I'm trying to learn by discussing these things on here and reading as many translations as I can and slowly learning to read Chinese.

 

Read the book.

You are in the field of Chinese culture and becoming an embarrassment to those that can read and reason.

I don't think this is a fair assumption. Innocence is not an embarrassment, and if I'm innocent in the field of Chinese culture (and I'm not entirely), then I'm at least willing to learn. I wouldn't be here if I wasn't. And a willingness to learn is certainly not an embarrassing thing. I've received quite a bit of formal education, actually, as I'm in my last year of graduate school, and I'm smart enough to realize that total education includes learning outside of an academic atmosphere. It includes world experience and reading lots of different things and thinking on one's own and with like-minded people. So I think I'm at least sort of adept at reading and reasoning. Anyway, if you have a greater understanding of Chinese culture and Taoism than I do, I'm more than happy to learn from you. But please don't call me an embarrassment for attempting to learn and understand. That's a waste of a good opportunity.

Edited May 26, 2010 by the latest freed

[the latest freed]

Please, never fear about wasting space. I enjoy reading the input from everyone regarding these concepts.

 

I will confess that this constant that is spoken of in the TTC and in Chuang Tzu bothered me a lot in the early years of my searching. It was almost as if it was being said that some 'thing' existed on its own without changing - ever-constant.

 

But this was before I read Wayne L Wang's "Dynamic Tao".

 

After reading specifically "Part I - The Theory of Dynamic Tao", not so much his translation, I became convinced that this constant that was being spoken of was Tzujan, the Laws of Physics.

 

I cannot accept the thought that there is a 'thing' that is constant and never-changing because that would conflict with the thought that all things change. So it must be some non-thing that is constant. And we really can't say that it is Tao that is non-changing because Tao is all thing and all non-things.

 

But then I can't imagine saying that Tzujan is 'above' Tao either. So I am satisfied with understanding that Tzujan is the Nature of Tao. And one of the 'Natures' of Tao is to simultaneously create and destroy. And this leads back to the cycles throughout the universe.

 

Peace & Love!

I'll have to check out "Dynamic Tao." I'm intrigued, and a magpie when it comes to books. Thanks for the tip!

 

One question, though: if the "constant" is the Laws of Physics, isn't it kind of a "thing"? Not so much a God-like presence-thing, but a concept-thing, which I would lump into the "thingness" category. I don't think the constant has to have a conscious to be considered a "thing." But then, that may be nitpicking and boils down to semantics, which is completely inarguable because the relationship between words and meaning is never constant. Nonetheless, I had an idea one time (I may have gotten it from somewhere, but don't remember the source) that maybe God (in all its variations--maybe Thing would be better?) is really the perfect, elegant, foundational, yet-undiscovered equation that constitutes Einstein's Theory of Everything; a "presence" in that it's a law that forms the basis of everything in existence, that makes existence possible. That may be a little out there. I dunno. But it was an idea that I thought kind of fit in with the discussion.

 

Oh, and thanks about the "never fear" thing. I just never want to be that person that isn't really adding to the conversation and just tooting her horn to hear her own voice. Sometimes I wonder if it would be better for me to just lurk in the shadows. But then, if I have ideas or questions that haven't come up, who else will address them but me? And if they're not addressed, then I won't learn or grow...

[Apech]

 

 

Oh, and thanks about the "never fear" thing. I just never want to be that person that isn't really adding to the conversation and just tooting her horn to hear her own voice. Sometimes I wonder if it would be better for me to just lurk in the shadows. But then, if I have ideas or questions that haven't come up, who else will address them but me? And if they're not addressed, then I won't learn or grow...

 

Oh please don't lurk! This whole place is about discussion and its great to hear your voice. Its not about being right or wrong but about putting your own ideas and seeing what others say. I learn every time I post because I find that although I think I have understood something I am (I hope) big enough to realize when I haven't or perhaps my understanding is limited. Your contributions have been great.

 

 

Back to the debate:

 

Do you think we are getting too hung up on 'constant', 'complete', 'unchanging' - with regard to the Tao then it is both constant (in a sense) and inconstant (in another sense) ... and so on. That is not to make it into a meaningless abstract but to say it is real but is too big for any concept we might like to throw at it. (?)

 

The laws of physics ... I have a problem with because as formulated they are human constructs and also every generation they get completely turned on their head e.g quantum mechanics versus classical mechanics and so on. If you mean the real 'way' in which the universe works which these laws struggle to describe then I would go some way to agreeing.

 

John

[3bob]

Hello MH,

 

I imagine many are glad to see some Taoist references and discussion... (after some of the goings on here )

 

My take: "The One" is the first and the last "thing". (or "born" thus related to change even though a person might ask how could there be change with or in "One"?)

 

"No thing" is not knowable by "thing" although they are connected... thus not only is no-thing a "mystery" but so is its connection to One!

 

I believe some Buddhists touch on this subject with the saying of, "when the many are reduced to one ,to what shall the one be reduced".

 

Om

[the latest freed]

Oh please don't lurk! This whole place is about discussion and its great to hear your voice. Its not about being right or wrong but about putting your own ideas and seeing what others say. I learn every time I post because I find that although I think I have understood something I am (I hope) big enough to realize when I haven't or perhaps my understanding is limited. Your contributions have been great.

Thanks. It's the same way for me, actually. I can't say that I'm noble enough to like being wrong, but I do seem to learn more when I am and I think I've made great leaps in the short time I've been on here.

 

Back to the debate:

 

Do you think we are getting too hung up on 'constant', 'complete', 'unchanging' - with regard to the Tao then it is both constant (in a sense) and inconstant (in another sense) ... and so on. That is not to make it into a meaningless abstract but to say it is real but is too big for any concept we might like to throw at it. (?)

Actually, I really like that. I think that's true. After all, the way I've come to understand it, the Tao encompasses all and can't be defined in any concrete terms. "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao," and all that. So I think you're right to suppose that it's both constant and inconstant. It can't be categorized, and to try to do so is, possibly, to move further away from the truth of it.

 

The laws of physics ... I have a problem with because as formulated they are human constructs and also every generation they get completely turned on their head e.g quantum mechanics versus classical mechanics and so on. If you mean the real 'way' in which the universe works which these laws struggle to describe then I would go some way to agreeing.

 

John

Yes, I meant the real laws that the universe follows, not the "laws" as we currently understand them. I know that humanity doesn't understand the universe yet and new things are always being discovered, suggested and then thrown out. I think there's a case for chaos, too, though. Maybe it figures into the ultimate equation, maybe there's no equation, maybe there's no chaos. I dunno. My sure sense of the world always seems to be unraveling. Haha