[TTC Study] Chapter 1 of the Tao Te Ching

[110576_1494798793]

Thanks Marblehead and ChiDragon for the feedback. I said in my in introductory post in the Lobby that I think Laozi expressed so much in so few words. I think if you just sit quietly and let the words do what they want with your thoughts you can get a much better understanding of them than just reading them and trying to force a meaning to come to the surface. There is such a deeper meaning to the writing than what first pops out.

 

I think that’s one way of looking at-

 

Free of desire, you see its mysteries.

Full of desire, you see its manifestations.

 

If you just read the words dispassionately you’re only going to get a meaning that makes sense to you at this moment in time, and that’s if they even do make sense to you. If you read them and then let them have time to be tossed about inside your head and then given a chance to settle, they return to becoming ideas again and you’ll get an understanding that takes into account your whole life experience. Chapter 15 could say something about that, settling messy thoughts and then being able to use the result.

 

I have a story that sort of poorly explains what I mean.

 

I live on a five acre block beside a creek in the country. At the back of my block is a hole in the ground. When I first saw it I didn’t know what made it. A few weeks later I saw a hare eating grass near the fence beside the creek, around the middle of my block. I thought to myself that the hare probably made the hole but wondered why it was feeding so far from its burrow. A little while later I decided to take a photo of the hare and went walking down closer to where it was feeding. The slope is uneven and can be slippery so I had to be careful about where I was walking and I only got within about a hundred metres of the hare when it turned around and bolted for its burrow. It was then that I got an understanding of why the hare was feeding so far from its burrow! The hare could run fast and its burrow was dug into the side of the creek bank so it could get into the burrow and its pursuer probably wouldn’t even know where it went.

 

If you’re looking at a hole and thinking about a hole, then you’ll only see the hole. If you’re looking at a hare and thinking about a hare, then you’ll only see the hare. When you see the hare and think about the hole, you’ll see there could be some sort of connection between the two. But it was only when I was surprised by the hare running off in the direction of the hole while I was trying to negotiate the uneven slope that I had a more complete understanding of the connection, even though I wasn’t really giving any conscious thought to either the hare or the hole.

 

Sorry about the wordy response… I like the saying, “The less we know, the longer the explanation.”

[ChiDragon]

If you’re looking at a hole and thinking about a hole, then you’ll only see the hole. If you’re looking at a hare and thinking about a hare, then you’ll only see the hare. When you see the hare and think about the hole, you’ll see there could be some sort of connection between the two. But it was only when I was surprised by the hare running off in the direction of the hole while I was trying to negotiate the uneven slope that I had a more complete understanding of the connection, even though I wasn’t really giving any conscious thought to either the hare or the hole.

 

Sorry about the wordy response… I like the saying, “The less we know, the longer the explanation.”

 

I have no problem with your wordy response because it was expressed explicitly with great skill. Well, you were not looking for the hole nor the hare in the first place until you saw them and registered in your mind. Then, you know what to look for to find them again. Everything was there waiting for you the see as long they are there in the first place. However, if you've looked at them long enough, then you will see the true picture. Unless you don't want to see what you want to see but to see what somebody else wanted you to see.

 

 

"Full of desire, you see its manifestations."

Is not the correct interpretation!

What it's really saying was you only see the "manifestations of your own desire" rather than its own(Tao's) manifestations. Another words, you are only seeing what you wanted to see instead of what Tao want you to see.

 

 

 

Edited:

Shown in bold.

Edited January 10, 2014 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

Free of desire, you see its mysteries.

Full of desire, you see its manifestations.

 

Welcome

 

And your in the right direction... the focus of the chapter is on the Wu-mystery and You-manifestation of Dao; Two names of the same issuing forth aspect...

[110576_1494798793]

Everything was there waiting for you the see as long they are there in the first place. However, if you at them long enough, then you will see the true picture. Unless you don't want to see what you want to see but to see what somebody else wanted you to see.

 

I like what you wrote here. I think it takes time to see things as they are. The trouble with people, especially urbanised Westerners, is that there are a million other things we ‘need’ to be doing. If we’re too busy being busy then we miss out on the opportunity to see things as they are and then we fall into the trap of following someone else’s viewpoint for expediency’s sake. I meet people that think I’m a bit thick because I don’t have an opinion on a subject I know nothing or too little about. I also can’t give an opinion on something I haven’t seen but I can give an opinion on the manifestation of that same thing.

 

"Full of desire, you see its manifestations."

Is not the correct interpretation!

What it's really saying was you only see the "manifestations of your own desire" rather than its own(Tao's) manifestations. Another words, you are only seeing what you wanted to see instead of what Tao want you to see.

 

It took me a while but I think I see what you’re getting at. You don’t need to be “full of desire” to see the manifestations of the Dao. Anyone can see them because they are there all around us. Unless…we are so wrapped up in our own blind thinking that we only see the world in a very narrow way, ignoring whatever goes against our way of ‘seeing’ and ‘knowing’ things. I think organised religion is very much like that. A person that holds the same faith as that religion is valued more than someone who doesn’t, even though the ‘heretic’ may be a more humane human being than any believer of that faith.

[110576_1494798793]

Welcome

 

And your in the right direction... the focus of the chapter is on the Wu-mystery and You-manifestation of Dao; Two names of the same issuing forth aspect...

 

All things in the world are born out of being.

Being is born out of non-being.

 

Thank you for the welcoming, dawei. Since I’ve been ‘into’ the Dao De Jing, I’ve learnt to see things in an entirely different way than to the simplistic way I was used to before. Chapter 11 was the first real eye-opener for me. These words above from chapter 40 also give a great lesson on the equality of all humans. Every one of us is the child of a mother and a father. And because every one of us was once a non-being, every one of us is a product of our experiences and our learning. Every one of us can change our attitudes and the way we see the world around us. We just need to be shown we can and then want to.

[Marblehead]

Nice discussion guys!

 

I like the saying, “The less we know, the longer the explanation.”

Yes, I like that too. And yes, sometimes I am very wordy.

[dawei]

All things in the world are born out of being.

Being is born out of non-being.

 

Thank you for the welcoming, dawei. Since I’ve been ‘into’ the Dao De Jing, I’ve learnt to see things in an entirely different way than to the simplistic way I was used to before. Chapter 11 was the first real eye-opener for me. These words above from chapter 40 also give a great lesson on the equality of all humans. Every one of us is the child of a mother and a father. And because every one of us was once a non-being, every one of us is a product of our experiences and our learning. Every one of us can change our attitudes and the way we see the world around us. We just need to be shown we can and then want to.

 

Chan mentioned in his translation that these lines from Ch. 40 may appear to contradict parts of Ch. 1 about being and non-being.

 

The really interesting issue is that these lines in Ch. 40 are resolved if one looks at the oldest manuscript which has the line slightly different... Hendricks, based on the Guodian text says it can be read as:

 

"The things of the world arise from being, and they arise from non-being."

[110576_1494798793]

 

"The things of the world arise from being, and they arise from non-being."

 

Hello again Dawei. I was searching for Chan’s translation and commentary (I’m assuming Wing Tsit Chan?) and came across this which I found very interesting and related to what you wrote.

 

Quoted text from “The Divine Matrix: Creativity as Link Between East and West” by Joseph A. Bracke (1995), pages 125, 126

 

There never was a "time" when absolutely nothing existed, because otherwise to this day nothing would exist. From strict nothingness, nothing proceeds. Only from non-being in the sense of potentiality does being or actuality proceed, and even here the priority of non-being or potentiality to being or actuality is logical rather than temporal. In point of fact, non-being always co-exists with being as its immanent ground or ontological source of existence and activity. Both being and non-being, therefore, are manifest in everything that exists. Being is manifest in the entity's actuality, that which it already is. Non-being is indirectly manifest in its potentiality to become something else. Of the two, non-being is the more mysterious since the potentiality of an entity to become something else becomes apparent only as it is beginning to pass from one state of actuality to another. In "the rustlings of leaves and the twilight of the twilight of the evening", says Kuang-Ming Wu, "one feels the presence of non-being in Nature."

 

In this sense, as already noted above in analyzing the first chapter of the Tao Te Ching, the Tao that cannot be named is properly indentified with non-being; whereas the Tao that can be named is linked with being or the One as "the mother of all things". On this most fundamental point, Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu are clearly in accord, as the following passage from the Chuang Tzu makes clear:

 

In the great beginning, there was non-being. It had neither being nor name. The One originates from it; it has oneness but not yet physical form. When things obtain it and come into existence, that is called virtue (which gives them their individual character). That which is formless is divided [into yin and yang], and from the very beginning going on without interruption is called destiny (ming, fate). Through movement and rest it produces all things.

[ChiDragon]

Zhe....
I would like to have your valuable comment on Post #131, Page 9 of this thread. Thank you.

[Marblehead]

In this sense, ...

I "Liked" this post because what you said and the quotes are almost perfectly in agreement with my present understanding.

[110576_1494798793]

Zhe....

I would like to have your valuable comment on Post #131, Page 9 of this thread. Thank you.

 

Hi ChiDragon. I can comment but I’m not too sure of its value…

 

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

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

 

I like these lines.

 

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

 

I’m not sure what you mean here, as I’m not sure who or what would be around to name the Tao ‘Invisible’. But you do bring out something very interesting. Before the Tao manifested anything, there would have been nothing to know of its existence, so in effect it would indeed be ‘Invisible’!

 

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

 

Once it revealed itself in its creation of the ten thousand things then it could be given a name and that name would be ‘Visible’ to each of the ten thousand things.

 

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

 

I had to make line 5 a little more easier for myself to understand. I had never heard of the words “grok” or “quale” before. I hope what I’ve written is what you meant.

 

5. Hence, when Tao is always invisible, one would grasp its indefinable conscious experience.

 

Does this mean to be at one with the Dao? To have a complete understanding? A sort of enlightenment?

 

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

 

I can see this as being true, especially as it is linked to line number 5. You can only know it in a finite way. That’s what makes your rendition of line 5 so interesting.

 

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

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

 

Yes, the unknowable or unobservable Dao and the knowable or observable Dao are both unfathomable. Laozi called the Dao ‘Great’ because that’s the best he could come up with.

 

9. The gate of all changes.

 

The gate of all changes… In my last post I quoted a part of Bracke’s book and when I read your line 9 I was reminded of what he wrote about potentiality. Everything changes and everything has the potential for change. Even the Dao changes and that is why it is impossible to name.

 

I’m not sure about the value of my comments but this was a good exercise for me as it caused me to have a good think, and that is always good. Thanks for the invitation ChiDragon.

[110576_1494798793]

I "Liked" this post because what you said and the quotes are almost perfectly in agreement with my present understanding.

 

Yes Marblehead, I was quite glad when I happened upon that book. I particularly liked what it said about potentialities. I finished reading Alan Watt's "The Way of Zen" and it reminded me of some of what I understood from that book. It's one of the reasons I always try to treat people as individuals, no matter what they believe and who else believes the same. Just because A agrees with B doesn't make A the same person as B. It stops stereotyping and pigeonholing people.

[Marblehead]

Yes Marblehead, I was quite glad when I happened upon that book. I particularly liked what it said about potentialities.

I generally to the two aspects of Tao as:

 

Wu = Mystery = Potential

 

You = Manifest = Physical (Objective reality)

 

I don't use the word "invisible" simply because "potential" already speaks to this.

 

I also do not hold to the concept of simultanious arising. This is becouse You is born out of Wu.

 

I also belive that understanding the Chuang Tzu is just as important as understanding the TTC in order to have a complete understanding of Taoist Philosophy. (I don't do Religious or Alchemic Taoism.)

 

 

Edit to add: I also noticed that I have a number of typos in this post. (That's me being natural.)

Edited January 11, 2014 by Marblehead

[Stosh]

The dao doesnt change, manifestations subject to the Dao appear to change. For a thing to change it must become what it is not..and then what it was, would not be eternal ...and if it was finite what would follow in its wake? Which is why atom theory was concluded.

The Dao cannot have a descriptive-name because it is all, and it is not finite.

Not being finite, it cannot be defined...obviously.

It would be like trying to describe the shape of someting you dont know about..what the heck could you say?

Edited January 11, 2014 by Stosh

[Stosh]

I generally to the two aspects of Tao as: Wu = Mystery = Potential You = Manifest = Physical (Objective reality) I don't use the word "invisible" simply because "potential" already speaks to this. I also do not hold to the concept of simultanious arising. This is becouse You is born out of Wu. I also belive that understanding the Chuang Tzu is just as important as understanding the TTC in order to have a complete understanding of Taoist Philosophy. (I don't do Religious or Alchemic Taoism.)

Didnt you say something somewhat contrary to that alchemywise once?

There is no trying ..only doing

There is no failure there is only what did happen

and that is as gone as gone can be..

Edited January 11, 2014 by Stosh

[dawei]

Hello again Dawei. I was searching for Chan’s translation and commentary (I’m assuming Wing Tsit Chan?) and came across this which I found very interesting and related to what you wrote.

 

Yes, him. Nice find on this text.

 

Quoted text from “The Divine Matrix: Creativity as Link Between East and West” by Joseph A. Bracke (1995), pages 125, 126

 

There never was a "time" when absolutely nothing existed, because otherwise to this day nothing would exist. From strict nothingness, nothing proceeds. Only from non-being in the sense of potentiality does being or actuality proceed, and even here the priority of non-being or potentiality to being or actuality is logical rather than temporal. In point of fact, non-being always co-exists with being as its immanent ground or ontological source of existence and activity. Both being and non-being, therefore, are manifest in everything that exists. Being is manifest in the entity's actuality, that which it already is. Non-being is indirectly manifest in its potentiality to become something else. Of the two, non-being is the more mysterious since the potentiality of an entity to become something else becomes apparent only as it is beginning to pass from one state of actuality to another. In "the rustlings of leaves and the twilight of the twilight of the evening", says Kuang-Ming Wu, "one feels the presence of non-being in Nature."

 

In this sense, as already noted above in analyzing the first chapter of the Tao Te Ching, the Tao that cannot be named is properly indentified with non-being; whereas the Tao that can be named is linked with being or the One as "the mother of all things". On this most fundamental point, Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu are clearly in accord, as the following passage from the Chuang Tzu makes clear:

 

In the great beginning, there was non-being. It had neither being nor name. The One originates from it; it has oneness but not yet physical form. When things obtain it and come into existence, that is called virtue (which gives them their individual character). That which is formless is divided [into yin and yang], and from the very beginning going on without interruption is called destiny (ming, fate). Through movement and rest it produces all things.

 

I tend to generally hold this position that there was never a time of Absolute Nothing, that it is more like a pregnant void full of potential. So non-being and being are undifferentiated singularity. And I have stayed away from the so-called 'Tao cannot be named' position; although I agree with what Stosh is saying, I just don't agree that this is what the opening lines are saying.

 

To me, the opening lines mean Singularity gives rise to multiplicity:

Once Dao once Dao'ing [multiplicity] is ever changing [is not a static Dao].

 

Also, I don't equate Dao with One... but as a part of One. Dao is the blueprint or matrix of it all. Everything follows the spiritual law of Dao which manifests in our 'time' as natural law.

[dawei]

I generally to the two aspects of Tao as:

 

Wu = Mystery = Potential

 

You = Manifest = Physical (Objective reality)

 

I don't use the word "invisible" simply because "potential" already speaks to this.

 

I also do not hold to the concept of simultanious arising. This is becouse You is born out of Wu.

 

I agree in principle about two aspects but your making them too dualistic for me... I see it more like a phase change of the same potential... and that is why I have tended more and more towards simultaneous arising. IMO, ZZ clearly believed in this as he said something like: "I arose with the ten thousand things".

[Marblehead]

Didnt you say something somewhat contrary to that alchemywise once?

There is no trying ..only doing

There is no failure there is only what did happen

and that is as gone as gone can be..

Well, I will give you credit for paying attention. Hehehe.

 

Actually, I started using that phrase "Just do it" a long time ago before I remembered anyone else (the advertisement) using it. I don't believe this has anything to do with alchemy.

 

Oh!, but there is such a thing as failure. I am living proof of that. However, failure used to bother me whereas during the past dozen or more years I have no problem dealing with it. When I fail it just means that I still have more work to do (in order to do whatever so that it is acceptable by me). And then, other times, I simply say "Oh well."

[Marblehead]

I agree in principle about two aspects but your making them too dualistic for me... I see it more like a phase change of the same potential... and that is why I have tended more and more towards simultaneous arising. IMO, ZZ clearly believed in this as he said something like: "I arose with the ten thousand things".

Good point about my making them (Wu and You) too dualistic. I hold to the concepts of reversion and cycles (which we aren't talking about here) and this mellows out the dualism.

[ChiDragon]

3. 無,名天地之始。

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

I’m not sure what you mean here, as I’m not sure who or what would be around to name the Tao ‘Invisible’. But you do bring out something very interesting. Before the Tao manifested anything, there would have been nothing to know of its existence, so in effect it would indeed be ‘Invisible’!

 

The reason that I have to use the word "invisible" for the character "無", wu, was due to the difficulty of choosing a proper word for the translation.

As Marblehead has indicated:

Wu = mystery=potential

 

The words mystery and potential are only descriptive words for Tao rather than a given name for Tao. Now, for a better understanding, let's look at the meaning of "Wu".

 

Wu means none; nothing; don't have; non-exist; nothingness. However, Lao Zi uses the character very differently. He wanted to call Tao "Wu" at the beginning of the heaven and earth (the universe). Wu, here, doesn't mean none; nothing; don't have; non-exist, nothingness but invisible with high potential creative power. Tao is always exist, Lao Tze wanted to distinguish Tao in two states of presence which are invisible and visible as indicated in Lines 3 and 4 of Chapter One.

 

4. 有,名萬物之母。

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

Once it revealed itself in its creation of the ten thousand things then it could be given a name and that name would be ‘Visible’ to each of the ten thousand things.

I'm glad that you have no problem with that......

 

Edited January 11, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Stosh]

Well, I will give you credit for paying attention. Hehehe. Actually, I started using that phrase "Just do it" a long time ago before I remembered anyone else (the advertisement) using it. I don't believe this has anything to do with alchemy. Oh!, but there is such a thing as failure. I am living proof of that. However, failure used to bother me whereas during the past dozen or more years I have no problem dealing with it. When I fail it just means that I still have more work to do (in order to do whatever so that it is acceptable by me). And then, other times, I simply say "Oh well."

Now now now,, you ol snow leopard you,, hmmm ...nah, be free and hunt goats.. thats a finer thing. ..

[Brian]

Well, I will give you credit for paying attention. Hehehe.

 

Actually, I started using that phrase "Just do it" a long time ago before I remembered anyone else (the advertisement) using it. I don't believe this has anything to do with alchemy.

 

Oh!, but there is such a thing as failure. I am living proof of that. However, failure used to bother me whereas during the past dozen or more years I have no problem dealing with it. When I fail it just means that I still have more work to do (in order to do whatever so that it is acceptable by me). And then, other times, I simply say "Oh well."

 

The concept of failure is real but only within the context of the concept of expectation. As Nike's "just do it" comes to be replaced by George Harrison's "let it be," failure is replaced by what is.

 

Both the Michelson-Morley experiment and Jed Clampett's rabbit hunt are interesting examples.

 

(The former particularly in light of the role given the Higgs boson in the current QED model...)

[Marblehead]

The concept of failure is real but only within the context of the concept of expectation. As Nike's "just do it" comes to be replaced by George Harrison's "let it be," failure is replaced by what is.

There are indeed when "let it be" is fine. If it doesn't matter, let it be.

 

However, if the pump for the pond goes out I can't just let it be. I must repair or replace the pump. Repair failure; replace. No other options. Failure is not a solution.

 

Wu = let it be

 

You = repair or replace; failure or success

[Brian]

I hear you but...

 

The pump doesn't HAVE to be replaced and the pond doesn't have to remain the same as it was with a functional pump. I understand that this would be your desire and therefore your expectation but you could also fill the pond with dirt or simply observe as nature takes its course. (A miniature green swamp? A dry hole? Maybe a gator would move in???)

[Marblehead]

I hear you but... The pump doesn't HAVE to be replaced and the pond doesn't have to remain the same as it was with a functional pump. I understand that this would be your desire and therefore your expectation but you could also fill the pond with dirt or simply observe as nature takes its course. (A miniature green swamp? A dry hole? Maybe a gator would move in???)

Yeah, I've heard all that before. Hehehe. Yes, you could do that. I could not do that. I still have a lot of pride in this old body and brain of mine. The same was suggested to me regarding my gardens - I could just let the weeds grow wherever and whenever they wanted to grow. That ain;t gonna' happen in my gardens.

 

I don't think this is about expectations but rather acceptable standards as set by myself. Weeds are not aceptable, flowering plants are acceptable. Dead fish are not acceptable - healthy and lively fish are acceptable.

 

Anyhow, this is me living in total "You". I am a Materialist, afterall.