dao and brahman

[mattmiddleton]

I've been drawn to a bit of the old upanishadic lore of late. It seems to me the Brahman is the Dao. Would someone like to compare and contrast?

if you wanna?

thx, matt

[Stigweard]

I've been drawn to a bit of the old upanishadic lore of late. It seems to me the Brahman is the Dao. Would someone like to compare and contrast?

if you wanna?

thx, matt

Hiya Matt,

 

I am no expert of Vedanta in any way shape or form, neither am I any expert of Dao. But perhaps if you share your thoughts of what Brahman is and what Dao is then we might find an interesting discussion arise.

 

[mattmiddleton]

shall do. gotta hit the sack now though. will write in the morn.....cheers!

[mattmiddleton]

shall do. gotta hit the sack now though. will write in the morn.....cheers!

 

 

from what i understand the Brahman is a universal presence which is the underlying essence of all things. It is difficult to fathom, and the quest of the 'nondualist' vedantins (advaita vedantins) is to realize or experience this brahman by first discovering their 'self' (atman) - something that is more profound than soul and mind and body - and realize that this atman is, in fact, Brahman. Daoist meditation and alchemy merges the body/mind/energy with Dao - so theres one similarity between the two concepts.

Brahman is unlike Dao in so far as it does not move and is a eternal/static phenomenon. Dao moves, it is movement itself. Brahman is universal in 'size' - as is the Dao. Both Brahman and Dao are invisible and difficult to conceive of.

 

brahman defined on wikipedia

[3bob]

In the following commentary a common denominator is pointed to...it may be of use on this thread?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

THE CHHANDOGYA UPANISHAD

by Swami Krishnananda, The Divine Life Society, Sivananda Ashram, Rishikesh, India

 

Chapter Three: Sanatkumara's Instructions on Bhuma-Vidya (minus original sanskrit)

 

Section 15: Life

 

"Nobody can understand what life is. We utter the word 'life' many times, but we cannot explain what it means. It is not what we do daily that is called life. Though we generally identify life with our activity, it is a mistake that we commit. Life is something inscrutable. Life is really what we are. Here, it is called prana. It is not the breathing process, but the life principle itself, without which there would be neither aspiration, nor self-consciousness, nor anything for that matter. The entry of the universal into the particular is the juncture which is called life operating in our personality. It is the borderland of the infinite, where the individual expands into the expanse of the infinite and the infinite contracts itself into the finite, as it were. This particular junction is what we call life. It has the characteristics of both. Therefore, it is inscrutable. It is neither individual nor universal. We do not know what it is. We are unable to define what life is. But whatever it be, this principle of life is superior to everything else. This is what we call the reality of life. It is not merely the activity of life, the function of life, social life, or personal life or any kind of manifestation of it, but life as such. This is superior to everything. The Upanishad now tells us how inscrutable it is.

 

"Beyond all things, superior to all that I have told you up to this time, is life," says Sanatkumara. As spokes are fixed to the nave of a wheel, so is everything fixed to the principle of life. Whatever there is in this world, anything worthwhile, meaningful, that is nothing but prana, life. Minus life, everything is meaningless. What do we mean by saying "He is my father", "She is my mother", "She is my sister", "He is my brother"? We do not know. We are not referring to the body as father, mother, sister and brother. There is something else in them and that is the father, the mother, the brother, the sister, and so on. We ourselves do not know what we are when we speak about ourselves. Our importance vanishes when the life principle is withdrawn. We are valuable only so long as we are living. If we have no life, what are we? We are nothing. What we regard ourselves in worldly parlance, viz., the body, is not our real personality.

 

Why do we say that life is superior to everything, and minus life everything is valueless? The Upanishad says that if one speaks irreverently to one's father, for instance, people would say, "How stupid this person is; he talks irreverently to his own father." Similarly, if a person speaks something harsh to his mother, to his relatives, and to revered persons, good people censure him. We revere great people, we value humanity and we respect life in this world. This is something well-known to us. "Fie upon you," say people when we talk irreverently to elderly ones or behave in a stupid manner which would not be becoming of one in a human society. And if we behave in such a way in respect of elders, they say that it is like slaying them, or injuring them. We say, "Do not hurt people." What do we mean by this? Hurting whom? Hurting people. But what is 'people'? Surely not the body. The Upanishad here implies that we are enjoined not to hurt the life in them. The life principle in a person is affected by our reaction to that person. The manifestation of life principle in the embodiment of a particular person is what is referred to as 'a person'. A person is nothing but the life in that person, not the mere shape of that person in the form of a body. So, when we say that one has behaved in such and such a way with one's father or mother, with one's sister or brother, with this person or that person, we mean to say that one has behaved in that way with the life principle present in them, not merely with the body. But suppose the life principle has gone from the father, that revered one whom we have been worshipping. Then what happens? We simply set fire to that 'father', we throw him, we prick him with pokes in the funeral pyre. Then people do not say, "Oh, this man is burning his father." Nobody says anything like that. What happens to that father, the very same father whom we revered just a few hours before, who is just before our eyes and whom we are now setting fire to in the funeral pyre? It may be our sister, it may be our Guru, it may be anybody, it makes no difference to us. It may be an emperor whom we have been respecting so much and regarding so much, and now we throw him into the pitch and bury him in the ground, or float him in the water, or set fire to him. And everybody then says, "Very nice", "Well done". You set fire to the emperor and then say, "It is very nice"! How is it possible? Yes, it is possible, because it is a great ritual that we are performing. But when he is alive, if we do that, it is murder. It is a heinous crime. So, what is our definition of mankind or humanity or any worthwhile thing in this world? Not the body certainly. If the body was our father, we would not set fire to him in the funeral pyre, and we would not prick him with pokes as if he means nothing. Even the dearest and the nearest ones are cast aside if the life principle withdraws itself from them. So, what we love as our relatives and our dear and near ones is the life, and not the body. But we never understand this point. We say, "Oh, my father is no more." Where has he gone? He is there in the way in which he was, but we mistook him for something else. It is the principle of life that is valuable in this world, and not anything that is manifest as name and form.

 

The whole of life is nothing but this inscrutable thing which we call prana. This is the great reality manifesting itself in various names and forms. We mistake the names and forms for this supreme Being which is masquerading here as the objects of sense, as human beings and everything else that we see with our eyes. The supreme reality of every form of visible existence is life. It is manifested in some degree in plants, in greater degree in animals, and in still greater degree in human beings, and it has to manifest itself in still more greater degrees higher up. We have come to a point where it is very difficult to understand where exactly we are. We are in an inscrutable realm. We cannot understand still as to what we are speaking about. We think we have understood what life is, but we have not understood what it really is. It is a mystery that is operating in all names and forms. Whoever understands this mystery as the all-comprehensive Reality which is superior to all names and forms, which is infused into all names and forms, which is the Reality of even the so-called names and forms, including the name and form of our own self, is a master of Knowledge. He is called in this Upanishad as ativadi, a specific term here indicating one who possesses surpassing knowledge and whose utterances are surpassingly true.

 

The greatest knowledge is the knowledge of life, not merely the knowledge of objects of sense. Whoever sees this Reality as it is in itself, whoever can think in this manner, whoever can understand in this way, transcends all, because here the knowledge has gone beyond all objects of sense. It has comprehended them in its own Being. And, therefore, it has become one with Truth. It is not merely a pursuit of truth that we are referring to here as knowledge, but Truth itself that has become one with knowledge. A person who has such a knowledge has really comprehended Truth, and what he speaks in such a stage of knowledge is called ativada. This term ativada means transcended speech, speech which is pregnant with truth, speech which is to materialise in life as truthfulness. Whatever a person with this knowledge speaks will get materialised in life, because the truth or the reality of all things is contained in the knowledge which this person has. Therefore, speech being an expression of one's thought and knowledge, whatever one utters becomes true in this stage of experience. And if people cannot understand him and they say to him, "You are speaking something which we cannot understand." Then he must say, "Yes, I speak something which you cannot understand, because this is a matter which is not supposed to be understood by your mind." Here, we are not in the realm of understanding of objects of sense, but we are in the realm of Being with things. So, one who is capable of attuning himself with the Being of the objects, alone can understand what the truth of this exposition is. It is true when the Upanishad speaks like this; it speaks what one cannot understand. Neither is it intended to be understood by the layman whose mind has not been adequately transformed, because here we are being led gradually from mere sensation and perception, from mentation and understanding, to the intuition of objects, wherein the objects become one with the knowing perceiver, knowing reality-the Subject.

 

At this stage, Narada is unable to speak. His breath is held up, as it were. He does not know what he is hearing from this great master. This master observes the silence of the disciple who now does not say as on previous occasions, "Please let me know if something more is there." He keeps quiet, his mouth is hushed and his mind has stopped thinking. He does not know what to speak. Seeing this, the master himself starts pursuing the subject further without being accosted by the disciple..."

Edited June 8, 2011 by 3bob

[mattmiddleton]

In the following commentary a common denominator is pointed to...it may be of use on this thread?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

THE CHHANDOGYA UPANISHAD

by Swami Krishnananda, The Divine Life Society, Sivananda Ashram, Rishikesh, India

 

Chapter Three: Sanatkumara's Instructions on Bhuma-Vidya (minus original sanskrit)

 

Section 15: Life

 

"Nobody can understand what life is. We utter the word 'life' many times, but we cannot explain what it means. It is not what we do daily that is called life. Though we generally identify life with our activity, it is a mistake that we commit. Life is something inscrutable. Life is really what we are. Here, it is called prana. It is not the breathing process, but the life principle itself, without which there would be neither aspiration, nor self-consciousness, nor anything for that matter. The entry of the universal into the particular is the juncture which is called life operating in our personality. It is the borderland of the infinite, where the individual expands into the expanse of the infinite and the infinite contracts itself into the finite, as it were. This particular junction is what we call life. It has the characteristics of both. Therefore, it is inscrutable. It is neither individual nor universal. We do not know what it is. We are unable to define what life is. But whatever it be, this principle of life is superior to everything else. This is what we call the reality of life. It is not merely the activity of life, the function of life, social life, or personal life or any kind of manifestation of it, but life as such. This is superior to everything. The Upanishad now tells us how inscrutable it is.

 

"Beyond all things, superior to all that I have told you up to this time, is life," says Sanatkumara. As spokes are fixed to the nave of a wheel, so is everything fixed to the principle of life. Whatever there is in this world, anything worthwhile, meaningful, that is nothing but prana, life. Minus life, everything is meaningless. What do we mean by saying "He is my father", "She is my mother", "She is my sister", "He is my brother"? We do not know. We are not referring to the body as father, mother, sister and brother. There is something else in them and that is the father, the mother, the brother, the sister, and so on. We ourselves do not know what we are when we speak about ourselves. Our importance vanishes when the life principle is withdrawn. We are valuable only so long as we are living. If we have no life, what are we? We are nothing. What we regard ourselves in worldly parlance, viz., the body, is not our real personality.

 

Why do we say that life is superior to everything, and minus life everything is valueless? The Upanishad says that if one speaks irreverently to one's father, for instance, people would say, "How stupid this person is; he talks irreverently to his own father." Similarly, if a person speaks something harsh to his mother, to his relatives, and to revered persons, good people censure him. We revere great people, we value humanity and we respect life in this world. This is something well-known to us. "Fie upon you," say people when we talk irreverently to elderly ones or behave in a stupid manner which would not be becoming of one in a human society. And if we behave in such a way in respect of elders, they say that it is like slaying them, or injuring them. We say, "Do not hurt people." What do we mean by this? Hurting whom? Hurting people. But what is 'people'? Surely not the body. The Upanishad here implies that we are enjoined not to hurt the life in them. The life principle in a person is affected by our reaction to that person. The manifestation of life principle in the embodiment of a particular person is what is referred to as 'a person'. A person is nothing but the life in that person, not the mere shape of that person in the form of a body. So, when we say that one has behaved in such and such a way with one's father or mother, with one's sister or brother, with this person or that person, we mean to say that one has behaved in that way with the life principle present in them, not merely with the body. But suppose the life principle has gone from the father, that revered one whom we have been worshipping. Then what happens? We simply set fire to that 'father', we throw him, we prick him with pokes in the funeral pyre. Then people do not say, "Oh, this man is burning his father." Nobody says anything like that. What happens to that father, the very same father whom we revered just a few hours before, who is just before our eyes and whom we are now setting fire to in the funeral pyre? It may be our sister, it may be our Guru, it may be anybody, it makes no difference to us. It may be an emperor whom we have been respecting so much and regarding so much, and now we throw him into the pitch and bury him in the ground, or float him in the water, or set fire to him. And everybody then says, "Very nice", "Well done". You set fire to the emperor and then say, "It is very nice"! How is it possible? Yes, it is possible, because it is a great ritual that we are performing. But when he is alive, if we do that, it is murder. It is a heinous crime. So, what is our definition of mankind or humanity or any worthwhile thing in this world? Not the body certainly. If the body was our father, we would not set fire to him in the funeral pyre, and we would not prick him with pokes as if he means nothing. Even the dearest and the nearest ones are cast aside if the life principle withdraws itself from them. So, what we love as our relatives and our dear and near ones is the life, and not the body. But we never understand this point. We say, "Oh, my father is no more." Where has he gone? He is there in the way in which he was, but we mistook him for something else. It is the principle of life that is valuable in this world, and not anything that is manifest as name and form.

 

The whole of life is nothing but this inscrutable thing which we call prana. This is the great reality manifesting itself in various names and forms. We mistake the names and forms for this supreme Being which is masquerading here as the objects of sense, as human beings and everything else that we see with our eyes. The supreme reality of every form of visible existence is life. It is manifested in some degree in plants, in greater degree in animals, and in still greater degree in human beings, and it has to manifest itself in still more greater degrees higher up. We have come to a point where it is very difficult to understand where exactly we are. We are in an inscrutable realm. We cannot understand still as to what we are speaking about. We think we have understood what life is, but we have not understood what it really is. It is a mystery that is operating in all names and forms. Whoever understands this mystery as the all-comprehensive Reality which is superior to all names and forms, which is infused into all names and forms, which is the Reality of even the so-called names and forms, including the name and form of our own self, is a master of Knowledge. He is called in this Upanishad as ativadi, a specific term here indicating one who possesses surpassing knowledge and whose utterances are surpassingly true.

 

The greatest knowledge is the knowledge of life, not merely the knowledge of objects of sense. Whoever sees this Reality as it is in itself, whoever can think in this manner, whoever can understand in this way, transcends all, because here the knowledge has gone beyond all objects of sense. It has comprehended them in its own Being. And, therefore, it has become one with Truth. It is not merely a pursuit of truth that we are referring to here as knowledge, but Truth itself that has become one with knowledge. A person who has such a knowledge has really comprehended Truth, and what he speaks in such a stage of knowledge is called ativada. This term ativada means transcended speech, speech which is pregnant with truth, speech which is to materialise in life as truthfulness. Whatever a person with this knowledge speaks will get materialised in life, because the truth or the reality of all things is contained in the knowledge which this person has. Therefore, speech being an expression of one's thought and knowledge, whatever one utters becomes true in this stage of experience. And if people cannot understand him and they say to him, "You are speaking something which we cannot understand." Then he must say, "Yes, I speak something which you cannot understand, because this is a matter which is not supposed to be understood by your mind." Here, we are not in the realm of understanding of objects of sense, but we are in the realm of Being with things. So, one who is capable of attuning himself with the Being of the objects, alone can understand what the truth of this exposition is. It is true when the Upanishad speaks like this; it speaks what one cannot understand. Neither is it intended to be understood by the layman whose mind has not been adequately transformed, because here we are being led gradually from mere sensation and perception, from mentation and understanding, to the intuition of objects, wherein the objects become one with the knowing perceiver, knowing reality-the Subject.

 

At this stage, Narada is unable to speak. His breath is held up, as it were. He does not know what he is hearing from this great master. This master observes the silence of the disciple who now does not say as on previous occasions, "Please let me know if something more is there." He keeps quiet, his mouth is hushed and his mind has stopped thinking. He does not know what to speak. Seeing this, the master himself starts pursuing the subject further without being accosted by the disciple..."

 

 

Hmmm, thats a new take on it - life. prana. not so much 'brahman' but life or the life force, that which is livinig behind the name and form.

[awake]

http://alanwatts.com

http://www.alanwattspodcast.com/

 

Bon Appetit

[Aaron]

Hello Matt,

 

When one compares the Brahman and Tao it's easy to confuse the two at first. The main difference is that the Tao is not a physical manifestation, but rather a process (and even this is a leap in definition). Now the tricky thing with tao is that there are more than one, the tao(s) that can be talked about and the Tao (big capital T) that can't. In this particular instance, I don't think that Lao Tzu would have compared Tao to Brahman, since Brahman is something that can, not only be described, but also is the entirety of existence.

 

We hear things like "origin of heaven-and-earth" (notice the hyphens denote that it's all encompassing) and we believe that this could mean that the Tao is the same as Brahman, but in fact if one was to define Tao within Brahman, then one would have to say Tao was an aspect of Brahman, albeit an indescribable one.

 

 

Aaron

Edited June 8, 2011 by Twinner

[Stigweard]

[doc benway]

I'll take the opposite position and say that Dao and Brahman are conceptually very similar.

In my view (as of 8:39pm today), both the Indians and Chinese are saying that there is something subtle and profound behind the veil. Something invisible, infinite, beyond time, and beyond human thought or conceptualization, that is the foundation of existence.

 

This something is what we come from and return to.

It is everything we are and everything we are not but it is subtle and elusive.

It can't be named, held, seen, heard, felt, or tasted but, at the same time, it can be all of those things because it is us and everything around us. It is what we are when we are not us but also when we are us, we just don't recognize it as such unless we are awake to it.

 

To be a sage is to live in accordance with Dao (Wu Wei) and to be liberated is to recognize one's true nature as Atman/Brahman.

 

Both the Indians and the Chinese brought their respective, unique cultural biases and attitudes towards describing the indescribable. The Chinese, being the practical minded people they are, emphasized process over spirit and so used a word that has the quality of a verb, Dao. The Indians, tending toward the spiritual, describe Brahman more in terms of transcendent spirit.

 

I would say that both were pointing to the fundamental nature of reality when they coined the terms Dao and Brahman.

[Aaron]

Are you sure that two Daos is a correct understanding of what Laozi is saying??

 

There is only one Dao that has apparent polarity aspects of the unknown and the known, 無名 Wú míng and 有名 Yǒu míng. The intercourse of these two aspects is the mystery that will yield the world view that Laozi advocates.

 

Just a thought.

 

 

 

We've already had this talk. Yes I think that he refers to more than one Tao and you, I am certain now, do not. Lets agree to disagree here. Of course even if you want to take the position that there is just one Tao, it could not be compared to Brahman for the same reasons. At best it could be seen as an aspect of Brahman.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Also, from my meager understanding of Chinese, tao is translated most closely as "way" and could be used in the same context in Chinese, so one could literally say "tao of cooking chicken" and mean the way of cooking chicken. Are any Chinese experts (CD perhaps) that might be able to shed light on how accurate that statement is?

Edited June 9, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

I'll take the opposite position and say that Dao and Brahman are conceptually very similar.

In my view (as of 8:39pm today), both the Indians and Chinese are saying that there is something subtle and profound behind the veil. Something invisible, infinite, beyond time, and beyond human thought or conceptualization, that is the foundation of existence.

 

This something is what we come from and return to.

It is everything we are and everything we are not but it is subtle and elusive.

It can't be named, held, seen, heard, felt, or tasted but, at the same time, it can be all of those things because it is us and everything around us. It is what we are when we are not us but also when we are us, we just don't recognize it as such unless we are awake to it.

 

To be a sage is to live in accordance with Dao (Wu Wei) and to be liberated is to recognize one's true nature as Atman/Brahman.

 

Both the Indians and the Chinese brought their respective, unique cultural biases and attitudes towards describing the indescribable. The Chinese, being the practical minded people they are, emphasized process over spirit and so used a word that has the quality of a verb, Dao. The Indians, tending toward the spiritual, describe Brahman more in terms of transcendent spirit.

 

I would say that both were pointing to the fundamental nature of reality when they coined the terms Dao and Brahman.

 

Hello Steve,

 

Even if I might not entirely agree, very well said. I liked your comparison very much and I can even agree with you regarding the similarities, I guess where I diverge is that the general conception of Tao given in the Tao Teh Ching doesn't seem to be in line with what Brahman is described as. Still in my strictly secular opinion, you hit it right on the nail.

 

Aaron

[3bob]

Hmmm, thats a new take on it - life. prana. not so much 'brahman' but life or the life force, that which is livinig behind the name and form.

 

well not to try an circumscribe and or disect...

 

but an important realization is the connection, thus even a so called great and apparently distant transcendent is still utterly and locally connected to what may not be seen as so great.

 

Om

[Stigweard]

I'll take the opposite position and say that Dao and Brahman are conceptually very similar.

In my view (as of 8:39pm today), both the Indians and Chinese are saying that there is something subtle and profound behind the veil. Something invisible, infinite, beyond time, and beyond human thought or conceptualization, that is the foundation of existence.

 

This something is what we come from and return to.

It is everything we are and everything we are not but it is subtle and elusive.

It can't be named, held, seen, heard, felt, or tasted but, at the same time, it can be all of those things because it is us and everything around us. It is what we are when we are not us but also when we are us, we just don't recognize it as such unless we are awake to it.

 

To be a sage is to live in accordance with Dao (Wu Wei) and to be liberated is to recognize one's true nature as Atman/Brahman.

 

Both the Indians and the Chinese brought their respective, unique cultural biases and attitudes towards describing the indescribable. The Chinese, being the practical minded people they are, emphasized process over spirit and so used a word that has the quality of a verb, Dao. The Indians, tending toward the spiritual, describe Brahman more in terms of transcendent spirit.

 

I would say that both were pointing to the fundamental nature of reality when they coined the terms Dao and Brahman.

I hear you Steve and agree in principle with your sentiments. However, in terms of how it directs awareness, there is a world apart between Dao which is alive in each moment and a reified, transcendent spirit that is conceptually abstracted from each ordinary moment in life.

 

[Vajrahridaya]

I hear you Steve and agree in principle with your sentiments. However, in terms of how it directs awareness, there is a world apart between Dao which is alive in each moment and a reified, transcendent spirit that is conceptually abstracted from each ordinary moment in life.

 

 

I agree, the Advatins reify the meditative state of transcendence waaaay too much in my opinion, which is just another state of mind, impermanent, no matter how permanent it may feel in the state of absorption, it's fools gold... and should only be used for healing purposes, but not deified as the absolute reality of everything. It's just as relative as matter.

[3bob]

I agree, the Advatins reify the meditative state of transcendence waaaay too much in my opinion, which is just another state of mind, impermanent, no matter how permanent it may feel in the state of absorption, it's fools gold... and should only be used for healing purposes, but not deified as the absolute reality of everything. It's just as relative as matter.

 

VJ, thanks for being a constant example (aka talking head) of how seriously messed up you are, and that we to can become...

[Stigweard]

We've already had this talk. Yes I think that he refers to more than one Tao and you, I am certain now, do not. Lets agree to disagree here. Of course even if you want to take the position that there is just one Tao, it could not be compared to Brahman for the same reasons. At best it could be seen as an aspect of Brahman.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Also, from my meager understanding of Chinese, tao is translated most closely as "way" and could be used in the same context in Chinese, so one could literally say "tao of cooking chicken" and mean the way of cooking chicken. Are any Chinese experts (CD perhaps) that might be able to shed light on how accurate that statement is?

Yes we have discussed this already and, just as I did before, I challenge you to provide specific chapters and lines that supports your proposition that Laozi is advocating the existence of "two Daos".

 

You have already admitted in past threads Aaron that your Tao is not the Taoist Tao; it is your personal subjective rendition that has been heavily influenced by your Vedantic ideology. You have also demonstrated in Dao within the Dao that you believe you can conceptually divide the world into "this is Tao" and "this is not Tao"; a proposition that I find lacking in clear vision.

 

Truth be told I like you Aaron, for the most I like your cadence and your style of writing, and undoubtedly you have an abundance of beneficial wisdom and insights. But if you intend to pimp your version of Laozi and Daoist ontology without providing any more support than "this is what I assume", then please prepare yourself for your views to be appropriately challenged.

 

As to your footnote, yes 道 dào has been used in contemporary use for a process or method. Thus a craft could be called a "dào", or yes "the way to cook a chicken" could be a "dào". So where will you take this??

Edited June 9, 2011 by Stigweard

[Vajrahridaya]

VJ, thanks for being a constant example (aka talking head) of how seriously messed up you are, and that we to can become...

 

LOL! Silly wabit, tricks are for kids! Hey, have it your way!

[Aaron]

Yes we have discussed this already and, just as I did before, I challenge you to provide specific chapters and lines that supports your proposition that Laozi is advocating the existence of "two Daos".

 

You have already admitted in past threads Aaron that your Tao is not the Taoist Tao; it is your personal subjective rendition that has been heavily influenced by your Vedantic ideology. You have also demonstrated in The Dao within The Dao that you believe you can conceptually divide the world into "this is Tao" and "this is not Tao"; a proposition that I find lacking in clear vision.

 

Truth be told I like you Aaron, for the most I like your cadence and your style of writing, and undoubtedly you have an abundance of beneficial wisdom and insights. But if you intend to pimp your version of Laozi and Daoist ontology without providing any more support than "this is what I assume", then please prepare yourself for your views to be appropriately challenged.

 

As to your footnote, yes 道 dào has been used in contemporary use for a process or method. Thus a craft could be called a "dào", or yes "the way to cook a chicken" could be a "dào". So where will you take this??

 

Hello Stig,

 

My point is that when you hear the phrase "the Tao that can be talked about" it infers that there is more than one type of tao, but just one Tao. That's my point, there is the WAY and other ways. I'm not stating there is more than one undefinable original Tao. As far as telling what is and isn't Tao, I've begun to understand how completely ludicrous this is. You can never pin down what Tao is or isn't, you can only assume to know. It's best not to even try.

 

Aaron

Edited June 9, 2011 by Twinner

[Stigweard]

Hello Stig,

 

My point is that when you hear the phrase "the Tao that can be talked about" it infers that there is more than one type of tao, but just one Tao. That's my point, there is the WAY and other ways. I'm not stating there is more than one undefinable original Tao. As far as telling what is and isn't Tao, I've begun to understand how completely ludicrous this is. You can never pin down what Tao is or isn't, you can only assume to know. It's best not to even try.

 

Aaron

Aaron,

 

Well I am glad that you are now realizing how ludicrous and baseless your previous arguments were and why I have been so ardent in my challenging of them.

 

[ChiDragon]

Why is everybody tend to define what Tao is by their own definition...??? Why don't we listen to LaoTze....???

 

Tao was defined by LaoTze In Chapters 1 and 14.

Chapter 1 The definition of Tao

1. Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

2. A name that can be named is not an eternal name.

3. Invisible was the name given to Tao at the origin of heaven and earth.

4. Visible was the name given to Tao as the mother of all things.

5. Hence, when Tao is always invisible, one would grok its quale.

6. When Tao is always visible, one would observe its boundary.

7. These two come from one origin but differ in name,

8. Both are regarded as fathomless; the most mysterious of the mysterious;

9. The gate of all changes.

 

********************************************************

Chapter 14 The intangible Tao.

1. View it couldn't see, name and call it Colorless.

2. Listen to it couldn't hear, name and call it Soundless.

3. Touch it couldn't feel, name and call it Formless.

4. These three objects blended in one.

5. Its top not brilliant.

6. Its bottom nor dim.

7. Its continuance unnameable.

8. Returned to being nothing,

9. Is called form of no form.

10. An image of nothing,

11. Is called obscure.

11. Greet it cannot see its head.

13. Follow it cannot see its back.

14. Grasp the presence of Tao,

15. Driven all the present physical being

16. Able to understand the ancient origin,

17. It's called the Principles of Tao.

Edited June 9, 2011 by ChiDragon

[Stigweard]

Why is everybody tend to define what Tao is by their own definition...??? Why don't we listen to LaoTze....???

LOL undoubtedly because we all render our own translation and associated implications of the original text based on our conceptual world view.

 

For instance there would be a few points in your translation that I would query. Not that my understanding has any more value than a piece of horse dung mind you.

 

[ChiDragon]

What are your queries....??? Can share it with us...???

[doc benway]

Why is everybody tend to define what Tao is by their own definition...??? Why don't we listen to LaoTze....???

 

Chi Dragon - I don't mean to be disrespectful but would like to make a point.

 

Why should Laozi's opinion be any better than my own?

After all, I am alive. I am a living, breathing manifestation of Dao.

I reflect it in my ever action.

 

Laozi is a corpse - long dead, if he ever lived. He is an image in our minds.

We created him.

Most modern scholars would argued that Laozi does not, in fact, refer to any single, historical individual.

And if there was, the first line of his writings says - whatever we try to write about the Dao is NOT the Dao...

So if you really listen to what Laozi says, you should close the book after reading the first line!

 

So why look for authority in a book?

Why not look in ourselves?

 

When I first started practicing Dao cultivation, I asked my ShiFu if he could recommend an English translation of Dao De Jing.

He said no. When I asked if that was because he only read the Chinese, he told me - "it's because I've never read it. My teacher taught me how to cultivate. So practice, don't waste too much time on books."

Now, I'm not sure I believe that he's never read Dao De Jing but his point was loud and clear.

 

Why so much concern about words? The words are just poor attempts to point to reality.

All the words really do are divide us into tribes and distract us from living.

You want a definition of Dao? Sit, close your eyes (or not) and breath.

Anything else is ink on a page...

 

Please take this as a constructive argument, not an attack.

[Stigweard]

Chi Dragon - I don't mean to be disrespectful but would like to make a point.

 

Why should Laozi's opinion be any better than my own?

After all, I am alive. I am a living, breathing manifestation of Dao.

I reflect it in my ever action.

 

Laozi is a corpse - long dead, if he ever lived. He is an image in our minds.

We created him.

Most modern scholars would argued that Laozi does not, in fact, refer to any single, historical individual.

And if there was, the first line of his writings says - whatever we try to write about the Dao is NOT the Dao...

So if you really listen to what Laozi says, you should close the book after reading the first line!

 

So why look for authority in a book?

Why not look in ourselves?

 

When I first started practicing Dao cultivation, I asked my ShiFu if he could recommend an English translation of Dao De Jing.

He said no. When I asked if that was because he only read the Chinese, he told me - "it's because I've never read it. My teacher taught me how to cultivate. So practice, don't waste too much time on books."

Now, I'm not sure I believe that he's never read Dao De Jing but his point was loud and clear.

 

Why so much concern about words? The words are just poor attempts to point to reality.

All the words really do are divide us into tribes and distract us from living.

You want a definition of Dao? Sit, close your eyes (or not) and breath.

Anything else is ink on a page...

 

Please take this as a constructive argument, not an attack.

Thank you Steve