Taoist Philosophy

[the latest freed]

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

Yes, I believe there's textual support for this in the Tao Te Ching. As Ch. 40 states: "The myriad creatures in the world are born from Something, and Something from Nothing." A thought: maybe the the One (aka "the named" and/or "the mother of the myriad creatures" in Ch. 1) is the collective "presence" of all the myriad creatures? A collective consciousness, like "Dust," if anyone is familiar with the His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman? Or maybe the One is a simple atom of hydrogen, with its one proton, which is thought to have been the initial element that made the universe and life in it possible. Ch. 41 states: "The way begets one; one begets two; two begets three; three begets the myriad creatures." This kind of expresses the multiplying nature of atoms from hydrogen, growing more complex and bonding together through time, that scientists believe brought about the creation of the universe and all of the life in it.

 

But, whatever the One is, I don't think that it's necessarily a separate thing from the No-thing. 3bob said that they're "connected," but I would venture to suggest that they're more than connected: they're the same thing. Ch. 1 of the TTC states, at the end, "These two [the nameless and the named] are the same, but diverge in name as they issue forth." So it's the act of naming that separates them--the observable, identifiable, categorical universe and the ultimate reality of the Way that cannot be defined. Even though they seem different/separate, one issuing from the other, they're really one and the same, which reinforces apepch7's idea that the Way is both constant and inconstant, or unnameable and nameable. Thoughts?

[Mal]

If it is the desire of the forum owner to save data-base space and I am requested to stop posting I will happily comply with the request.

 

That won't happen so post away

 

There are a total of 119 chapters plus the imaginary conversations between Lao Tzu and Confucius so we still have a way to go.

 

I do plan to compile these threads [pCount]=&search_app_filters[forums][pViews]=&&&content_title_only=1&search_term=Taoist+Philosophy&search_sort_by=relevence&search_filter_app[forums]=1"]Search link into "contributed articles" one day. But they are better in here for discussion, and nice to see some too. I do enjoy reading these posts quite a bit, I just never have anything useful to add myself.

[Marblehead]

Excellent post!

 

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.

 

I think you hit on an important concept here and it is the concept that allows for the belief in a supreme entity.

 

There are a number of things mentioned by Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu that would allow for such interpretations.

 

Einstein spoke of 'god'. I made the choice of not including that concept in my belief system. To each their own.

 

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...

 

Agree. If we do not present our understandings to others we will never get any feedback. I think that feedback is important as it causes us to rethink our beliefs. We will never be at peace with our Self if we have questions or doubts concerning our beliefs.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Two good points.

 

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. (?)

 

Short answer: Yes.

 

However, (Hehehe) I have often said: "Everything this is, is, always has been, and always will be. Everything simply takes different forms over time."

 

So here we have both 'constant' and 'change'.

 

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, we must be careful in this regard because man is still learning what the 'Laws of Physics' are. Our understanding is constantly changing as we learn more. But I will still suggest that the processes of the universe are constant even though we do not yet fully understand all of them. And I agree, what we (man) write down as the "Laws" are simply our understandings at the moment. Will we ever know the 'ultimate truth'? I don't know.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

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

 

Hi 3bob,

 

Good to see you here!

 

I agree, 'no thing' (Mystery) is beyond 'knowing'.

 

In my understanding, thing is born from no-thing but I doubt that we will ever fully understand its transition.

 

Yes, One (singularity) is both the beginning and the end and everything in between. And if we hold to the concept of cycles, the end is a new beginning. From that point eternity runs in both directions.

 

In my understanding, One can be reduced to only nothing but that isn't logical, in my mind.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

But, whatever the One is, I don't think that it's necessarily a separate thing from the No-thing. 3bob said that they're "connected," but I would venture to suggest that they're more than connected: they're the same thing. Ch. 1 of the TTC states, at the end, "These two [the nameless and the named] are the same, but diverge in name as they issue forth." So it's the act of naming that separates them--the observable, identifiable, categorical universe and the ultimate reality of the Way that cannot be defined. Even though they seem different/separate, one issuing from the other, they're really one and the same, which reinforces apepch7's idea that the Way is both constant and inconstant, or unnameable and nameable. Thoughts?

 

Excellent inclusion into this discussion! I agree, the Manifest and the Mystery are the same thing at different points in time (their time). The Manifest is observable. We then associate the observable with the unobservable (the Mystery).

 

And this is the danger in naming and labelling - we start viewing them as separate but in reality it is only a difference in time/space.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

That won't happen so post away

 

 

 

I do plan to compile these threads [pCount]=&search_app_filters[forums][pViews]=&&&content_title_only=1&search_term=Taoist+Philosophy&search_sort_by=relevence&search_filter_app[forums]=1"]Search link into "contributed articles" one day. But they are better in here for discussion, and nice to see some too. I do enjoy reading these posts quite a bit, I just never have anything useful to add myself.

 

Hi Mal,

 

Thanks for the support!

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

Excellent inclusion into this discussion! I agree, the Manifest and the Mystery are the same thing at different points in time (their time). The Manifest is observable. We then associate the observable with the unobservable (the Mystery).

 

And this is the danger in naming and labelling - we start viewing them as separate but in reality it is only a difference in time/space.

 

Peace & Love!

 

The One is connected through and with transformation (thus Itself is the the first and last transformer and the first and the last to be transformed (in time and space and as all time and space) out of no-thing.

 

Further, such a complete and unbreakable connection does not make them the same per-se... for "The One" can be named but not so for no-thing. Also in chapter 43 I believe the transformation is shown to also work in reverse (so to speak) as the One in a sense returns to no-thing via transformation with the words, "Only nothing can enter into no-space", so again the transformations or GATE is working in both (apparent) directions and is a profound mystery that memory or thoughts can not hold or encompass, yet the Tao knows the Tao.

 

Om

Edited May 27, 2010 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

Hi 3bob, I had to read that three times before I felt comfortable with it. Hehehe.

 

The One is connected through and with transformation (thus Itself is the the first and last transformer and the first and the last to be transformed (in time and space and as all time and space) out of no-thing.

 

Further, such a complete and unbreakable connection does not make them the same per-se... for "The One" can be named but not so for no-thing. Also in chapter 43 I believe the transformation is shown to also work in reverse (so to speak) as the One in a sense returns to no-thing via transformation with the words, "Only nothing can enter into no-space", so again the transformations or GATE is working in both (apparent) directions and is a profound mystery that memory or thoughts can not hold or encompass, yet the Tao knows the Tao.

 

Om

 

Yes, reversal is an important Taoist concept although it is rarely spoken to. Reversal signifies return. So in your reference to the GATE, I agree that it is a two-way Gate.

 

And I may get some disagreement with this but I have said and will say again that the Manifest are separate things even though they all are of the same source. Yes, they are connected in that they all are of the same source but they are separate manifestations born out of the Mystery (wu), and all will return to Mystery at some point in time.

 

I will shy away from agreeing with your words "... yet the Tao knows the Tao." lest someone think that I agree that Tao has its own consciousness.

 

Thanks for making me think.

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

Hi 3bob, I had to read that three times before I felt comfortable with it. Hehehe.

 

 

 

Yes, reversal is an important Taoist concept although it is rarely spoken to. Reversal signifies return. So in your reference to the GATE, I agree that it is a two-way Gate.

 

And I may get some disagreement with this but I have said and will say again that the Manifest are separate things even though they all are of the same source. Yes, they are connected in that they all are of the same source but they are separate manifestations born out of the Mystery (wu), and all will return to Mystery at some point in time.

 

I will shy away from agreeing with your words "... yet the Tao knows the Tao." lest someone think that I agree that Tao has its own consciousness.

 

Thanks for making me think.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Hi MH,

 

Yes, the word and meanings related to "consciousness" have been kicked around a lot lately... none-the-less I submit that if the Tao did not know the Tao then all would be rooted or not even rooted in meaningless-ness. (and chapter 21 imo does not point to meaningless-ness!

 

Om

[WhiteTiger]

Mal, I find myself with the same situation. Enjoying reading the posts but with very little to say back.

 

When I do end up saying anything. I realize how see through like glass I was when I said it and how obvious what I know and what I don't know is being shown through. It is a consistant humbling experience although sometimes I'd perfer not to embarrass myself in the first place...

 

I try to prevent it when I can. Although I believe this post did the exact same thing. I wrote it possibly for your benefit. That and I always find I know so much less then everyone else in most of the cases.

 

It is so funny in my mind I decide to talk to say something that is deep or seems amazing and I find myself still knowing so much less then most of the people around me. What do I know I'm just a kid.

 

wt

[Apech]

Hi MH,

 

Yes, the word and meanings related to "consciousness" have been kicked around a lot lately... none-the-less I submit that if the Tao did not know the Tao then all would be rooted or not even rooted in meaningless-ness. (and chapter 21 imo does not point to meaningless-ness!

 

Om

 

 

Where does consciousness come from if not the Tao? I guess we all agree that consciousness is a reality.

[C T]

Where does consciousness come from if not the Tao?

From, and to space, perhaps? After all, space is that in which all things are 'held'? I am wondering here, after reading thru some of the most interesting posts, if space is not that which is the only 'constant'?

 

(I am sorry A7... just returned from a two-hour walk, feeling a bit giddy and naughty-ish...)

[Marblehead]

It is so funny in my mind I decide to talk to say something that is deep or seems amazing and I find myself still knowing so much less then most of the people around me. What do I know I'm just a kid.

wt

 

WhiteTiger, don't worry about that, Okay? Your input is valued.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Yes, the word and meanings related to "consciousness" have been kicked around a lot lately... none-the-less I submit that if the Tao did not know the Tao then all would be rooted or not even rooted in meaningless-ness. (and chapter 21 imo does not point to meaningless-ness!

 

Where does consciousness come from if not the Tao? I guess we all agree that consciousness is a reality.

 

I will try to be careful with my words.

 

Consciousness comes from Tao. All thing are of the same source.

 

But, is consciousness intentional? I, personally, think not. Consciousness is simply a matter of the processes as they have played out. If there had been a massive asteroid hit the Earth about fifteen million years ago and caused a mass extinction there would possibly be no life forms with consciousness. Hit or miss? I don't know but I lean in that direction.

 

Is there meaning to the universe? I don't know but I do believe that it is through the universe that Tao experiences itself. I know, I may have stepped in something I wish I hadn't but that's the way it goes sometimes. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

Yes, the word and meanings related to "consciousness" have been kicked around a lot lately... none-the-less I submit that if the Tao did not know the Tao then all would be rooted or not even rooted in meaningless-ness. (and chapter 21 imo does not point to meaningless-ness!

 

 

 

I will try to be careful with my words.

 

Consciousness comes from Tao. All thing are of the same source.

 

But, is consciousness intentional? I, personally, think not. Consciousness is simply a matter of the processes as they have played out. If there had been a massive asteroid hit the Earth about fifteen million years ago and caused a mass extinction there would possibly be no life forms with consciousness. Hit or miss? I don't know but I lean in that direction.

 

Is there meaning to the universe? I don't know but I do believe that it is through the universe that Tao experiences itself. I know, I may have stepped in something I wish I hadn't but that's the way it goes sometimes. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

 

When the an area of the Earth is thristy for rain that part communicates the need and then she sends rain for all the different plants and Beings in that area. One can hear this communication; there really is order and nuturing in the universe, and the universe is built on Tao and imo that communicates (or should) something about the Tao to us.

 

Om

[Marblehead]

When the an area of the Earth is thristy for rain that part communicates the need and then she sends rain for all the different plants and Beings in that area. One can hear this communication; there really is order and nuturing in the universe, and the universe is built on Tao and imo that communicates (or should) something about the Tao to us.

 

Om

 

I'm going to leave that alone because it is beautiful (even though I don't agree but sometimes wish I could).

 

Peace & Love!

[Apech]

I want to make a contribution to the consciousness debate - because I think a lot of the time we are really talking about how we can apply terms to things. Consciousness is always a difficult one because in some ways it is viewed as something that human beings and some animals have exclusively and at other times a kind of universal property of spirit or energy or the universe.

 

The term consciousness is ordinarily taken to apply to awareness, thought, the ability to conceptualize, the power of speech, sensory perception and so on. In other words a whole gamut of activity of what we might call mind. This is very much the human experience of what it means to be conscious. If we look at the ramifications of conscious activity they seem not only vast but also sophisticated because you might think about the creative works of man, music, poetry and science and so on. But on the hand we look at the basis of all this conscious activity then it might become simplified and easier to see what is going on. I think that the basis for conscious lies in sentience, the ability to feel. I don't mean feel in the sense of the range of human emotions and sensations that we are all familiar I mean the simple ability to receive signals or influence from surrounds and respond to them. This is a very inclusive way of thinking of 'feeling' because it doesn't depend on the quality or nature of the actual experience of feeling but simply the fact that an organism or whatever can sense its surrounding and has some kind of response to what it senses.

 

If we use this kind of definition than we can definitely include all animal life as sentient and also plants (since they, for instance sense sunlight and turn toward it). Now you might say the plants are purely mechanical in doing this but if you look at my definition of feeling there is nothing to put the sun seeking of flowers outside the nature of feeling as defined. This is because they do receive signals from their surrounding and respond to those signals - this is indisputable.

 

So we can develop the argument to say that the basis for feeling is interactivity. So we now have a kind of hierarchy. Interactivity >>> leads to >>> feeling >>>leads to >>> consciousness.

 

Perhaps controversially we can take this one step further by looking at the physical world as manifest. We know it is composed of atoms and molecules which in turn are made up of sub-atomic particles which themselves are modalities of vibrational energy adopting particular behaviour. But we also know that unless these particles interact then there cannot be a physical world. Atoms interact with each other and also form molecules. The atoms themselves depend on the structured interaction of electrons, protons and neutrons which themselves appear to be made up of interacting smaller particles. How is it possible for one packet of energy over there to interact with another over here? The answer is in fundamental forces like electromagnetism and gravity which attract and bind or repel and release the different bundles of energy to and from each other. So it would be entirely logical to say that sub-atomic particles receive signals from their surroundings and respond to them. If they did not then all this would not be possible. If we accept this idea then the 'equation' of : Interactivity >>> leads to >>> feeling >>>leads to >>> consciousness, gives a complete continuity in all of nature with regard to consciousness and its basis (i.e interactivity) without having to make it something etherial or something only added later to an otherwise inert material universe.

[Marblehead]

I can accept that because you spoke of reality as I pretty much understand it and you didn't use magic to get the job done.

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

I want to make a contribution to the consciousness debate - because I think a lot of the time we are really talking about how we can apply terms to things. Consciousness is always a difficult one because in some ways it is viewed as something that human beings and some animals have exclusively and at other times a kind of universal property of spirit or energy or the universe.

 

The term consciousness is ordinarily taken to apply to awareness, thought, the ability to conceptualize, the power of speech, sensory perception and so on. In other words a whole gamut of activity of what we might call mind. This is very much the human experience of what it means to be conscious. If we look at the ramifications of conscious activity they seem not only vast but also sophisticated because you might think about the creative works of man, music, poetry and science and so on. But on the hand we look at the basis of all this conscious activity then it might become simplified and easier to see what is going on. I think that the basis for conscious lies in sentience, the ability to feel. I don't mean feel in the sense of the range of human emotions and sensations that we are all familiar I mean the simple ability to receive signals or influence from surrounds and respond to them. This is a very inclusive way of thinking of 'feeling' because it doesn't depend on the quality or nature of the actual experience of feeling but simply the fact that an organism or whatever can sense its surrounding and has some kind of response to what it senses.

 

If we use this kind of definition than we can definitely include all animal life as sentient and also plants (since they, for instance sense sunlight and turn toward it). Now you might say the plants are purely mechanical in doing this but if you look at my definition of feeling there is nothing to put the sun seeking of flowers outside the nature of feeling as defined. This is because they do receive signals from their surrounding and respond to those signals - this is indisputable.

 

So we can develop the argument to say that the basis for feeling is interactivity. So we now have a kind of hierarchy. Interactivity >>> leads to >>> feeling >>>leads to >>> consciousness.

 

Perhaps controversially we can take this one step further by looking at the physical world as manifest. We know it is composed of atoms and molecules which in turn are made up of sub-atomic particles which themselves are modalities of vibrational energy adopting particular behaviour. But we also know that unless these particles interact then there cannot be a physical world. Atoms interact with each other and also form molecules. The atoms themselves depend on the structured interaction of electrons, protons and neutrons which themselves appear to be made up of interacting smaller particles. How is it possible for one packet of energy over there to interact with another over here? The answer is in fundamental forces like electromagnetism and gravity which attract and bind or repel and release the different bundles of energy to and from each other. So it would be entirely logical to say that sub-atomic particles receive signals from their surroundings and respond to them. If they did not then all this would not be possible. If we accept this idea then the 'equation' of : Interactivity >>> leads to >>> feeling >>>leads to >>> consciousness, gives a complete continuity in all of nature with regard to consciousness and its basis (i.e interactivity) without having to make it something etherial or something only added later to an otherwise inert material universe.

 

well I can accept that because it is all "magic" so to speak,

and its all wonder!

 

Om

[Marblehead]

well I can accept that because it is all "magic" so to speak,

and its all wonder!

 

Om

 

 

I saw that! Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

[contrivedname!]

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!

 

Hi Marb,

 

The way i have read the "constant" when it has been referred to as such is exactly the state of change you refer to. Nothing is constant; this is exactly the constancy spoke of (in my view). To me this also points at a non-dual perception; also related to the talk of life and death being similar, inseparable states. So more simply stated "constant" means the function of dao, the interplay of all things (and non-things).

 

In a sense, since we are human beings, restricted to our "passing of time" and structured to use our sense organs in tandem with our mind to precieve a fraction of reality...

 

"How do i not know that in hating death i am not like a man, whom has left home and cannot find his way back"?

 

thats the general idea from a zhuangzi parable, anyway. That says to me that the process of dao is inseparable and death is much your "home" as life. laozi mentions something about folks whom so full-heartedly embrace life, to the point of the denial of death, that they actually affirm death to the extreme, i.e. they cling to life so tightly, the fear of death is always looming over them.

 

Just so you know marb, i am really glad you decide to keep posting discussion of daoist texts, these type of threads are the ones i enjoy the most.

[sifusufi]

From, and to space, perhaps? After all, space is that in which all things are 'held'? I am wondering here, after reading thru some of the most interesting posts, if space is not that which is the only 'constant'?

 

(I am sorry A7... just returned from a two-hour walk, feeling a bit giddy and naughty-ish...)

Space Is The Place

or

Fascinating!

 

All angles of the Gem!

These guys Rock!

 

Thanks for keepin' it light!

Rob

[contrivedname!]

Apep,

 

that was a good definition. it seems reasonable and as you said it explains interconnection well without mystifying it, but drew off of an example from nature.

[Marblehead]

 

Just so you know marb, i am really glad you decide to keep posting discussion of daoist texts, these type of threads are the ones i enjoy the most.

 

Thanks for the kind words. I do agree with what you said about change/constant.

 

Peace & Love!