[TTC Study] Chapter 1 of the Tao Te Ching

[Michael Sternbach]

 

In the past, I have made too much of a dichotomy/duality of Dao, buying into the idea of a Wu-state [non-existence] of Dao and a You-state [existence] of Dao.

 

Here, Dao is equated with ONE as well; but I now view Dao akin to non-existent emanation or coming forth from ONE. Maybe it is the dormant, potential blueprint for creation waking up...

 

 

I explained a little more here recently: (#21 and 26)

http://thetaobums.com/topic/36132-if-god-exists-has-he-always-created/?p=576845

 

 

I have slowly moved away from a dual-state picture to more of a linked, continuous chain as: All things originate in non-existence; Dao is the turn around point and thus is sourcecode and causality of the manifest world unfolding and returning. (The linked, continuous chain is something which Flowing Hands mentioned concerning Pre-heaven and Post-Heaven issues and I found it meshes with my newer picture)

 

Where you wrote "The Dao that is manifest" is maybe my older generalized idea. But how do we know the manifest world? Through observation/senses.

 

So maybe in the simplest form: The Dao'ing we observe in creation is not the absolute Dao.

 

We see but the outward working through creation. We are not viewing the absolute aspect yet but only one-half (which seems to put me back to my dualism but it is more like looking at Ice-form does not mean we see the Vapor-formless).

 

 

I actually like the second Dao as a verb (Dao'ing) to reveal the movement and unfolding.

Now I would explain that Dao is manifested/invested in creation but I think this is where one has to rightfully bring in the concepts of De (Dao's capacity/power/efficacious) and Ziran (self-so'ing naturalness) to round out the idea.

 

What comes to mind is the Kabbalah in which there is En soph (the Infinite) which makes its first appearance (albeit "high above" the physical world) in the sephira Kether, which is somehow non-manifest/manifest at once.

 

I mention it in a much earlier post here... but it is in chinese:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/19570-ttc-study-chapter-1-of-the-tao-te-ching/?p=403363

 

Thanks. I'm afraid my Chinese is a little rusty.

[Michael Sternbach]

Dawei,

 

I would also like to mention that according to quantum physics particles are popping out of and back into the "vacuum" all the time, so quickly that they can't be observed - thus they're called "virtual".

 

It looks like the ancient daoists and kabbalists already had an understanding of the underlying principle. I find this quite amazing!

 

Moreover, quantum physicist David Bohm coined the terms "implicate" and "explicate order", which could be seen as correlates of "Dao" and "De".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order#A_common_grounding_for_consciousness_and_matter

 

Quoting from this Wikipedia article:

 

 

The implicate order as an algebra

 

David Bohm, his co-worker Basil Hiley, and other physicists of Birkbeck College worked toward representing the implicate order in form of an appropriate algebra or other pregeometry. They considered spacetime itself as part of an explicate order that is connected to an implicate order that they called pre-space. The spacetime manifold and the properties of locality and nonlocality all arise from an order in such pre-space. A. M. Frescura and Hiley suggested that an implicate order could be carried by an algebra, with the explicate order being contained in the various representations of this algebra.^[1] (See also: Work by Bohm and Hiley on implicate orders, pre-space and algebraic structures.)

In analogy to Alfred North Whitehead's notion of actual occurrence, Bohm considered the notion of moment–a moment being a not entirely localizable event, with events being allowed to overlap and being connected in an over-all implicate order:

I propose that each moment of time is a projection from the total implicate order. The term

projection

is a particularly happy choice here, not only because its common meaning is suitable for what is needed, but also because its mathematical meaning as a projection operation,

P

, is just what is required for working out these notions in terms of the quantum theory.

Bohm emphasized the primary role of the implicate order's structure:

My attitude is that the mathematics of the quantum theory deals

primarily

with the structure of the implicate pre-space and with how an explicate order of space and time emerges from it, rather than with movements of physical entities, such as particles and fields. (This is a kind of extension of what is done in general relativity, which deals primarily with geometry and only secondarily with the entities that are described within this geometry.)

 

 

What is particularly interesting is that consciousness is indeed included in this concept.

 

 

A common grounding for consciousness and matter

Karl Pribram's research suggests that memories may not be localized in specific regions of brains

The implicate order represents the proposal of a general metaphysical concept in terms of which it is claimed that matter and consciousness might both be understood, in the sense that it is proposed that both matter and consciousness: (i) enfold the structure of the whole within each region, and (ii) involve continuous processes of enfoldment and unfoldment. For example, in the case of matter, entities such as atoms may represent continuous enfoldment and unfoldment which manifests as a relatively stable and autonomous entity that can be observed to follow a relatively well-defined path in space-time. In the case of consciousness, Bohm pointed toward evidence presented by Karl Pribram that memories may be enfolded within every region of the brain rather than being localized (for example in particular regions of the brain, cells, or atoms).

 

Bohm went on to say:

As in our discussion of matter in general, it is now necessary to go into the question of how in consciousness the explicate order is what is manifest ... the manifest content of consciousness is based essentially on memory, which is what allows such content to be held in a fairly constant form. Of course, to make possible such constancy it is also necessary that this content be organized, not only through relatively fixed association but also with the aid of the rules of logic, and of our basic categories of space, time causality, universality, etc. ... there will be a strong background of recurrent stable, and separable features, against which the transitory and changing aspects of the unbroken flow of experience will be seen as fleeting impressions that tend to be arranged and ordered mainly in terms of the vast totality of the relatively static and fragmented content of [memories].

 

Bohm also claimed that "as with consciousness, each moment has a certain explicate order, and in addition it enfolds all the others, though in its own way. So the relationship of each moment in the whole to all the others is implied by its total content: the way in which it 'holds' all the others enfolded within it". Bohm characterises consciousness as a process in which at each moment, content that was previously implicate is presently explicate, and content which was previously explicate has become implicate.

 

One may indeed say that our memory is a special case of the process described above, for all that is

recorded

is held enfolded within the brain cells and these are part of matter in general. The recurrence and stability of our own memory as a relatively independent sub-totality is thus brought about as part of the very same process that sustains the recurrence and stability in the manifest order of matter in general. It follows, then, that the explicate and manifest order of consciousness is not ultimately distinct from that of matter in general.

 

Edited September 5, 2014 by Michael Sternbach

[dust]

I would also like to mention that according to quantum physics particles are popping out of and back into the "vacuum" all the time, so quickly that they can't be observed - thus they're called "virtual".

 

It looks like the ancient daoists and kabbalists already had an understanding of the underlying principle. I find this quit

 

Well, this discussion has taken a somewhat unexpected turn! I can't say that I understand all the quantum stuff, but are we essentially saying that it could be translated

 

名可名也非恒名也 The thing that can be identified is not the eternal thing

 

and interpreted as an early understanding of modern scientific thought?

[Michael Sternbach]

Well, this discussion has taken a somewhat unexpected turn! I can't say that I understand all the quantum stuff, but are we essentially saying that it could be translated

 

名可名也非恒名也 The thing that can be identified is not the eternal thing

 

and interpreted as an early understanding of modern scientific thought?

 

I base this on Dawei's subtle translation or interpretation. If you prefer, we could as well say that thoughtful scientific minds of modern times are reaching essentially the same conclusions like the natural philosophers of yore.

[Marblehead]

I would also like to mention that according to quantum physics particles are popping out of and back into the "vacuum" all the time, so quickly that they can't be observed - thus they're called "virtual".

Well, based on what the astrological physicists are saying, the universe is expanding, that is, the space between the galaxies is expanding. That would mean that there is something in "empty space" that is causing this action.

 

Therefore, I would say that they are not "virtual" but rather "physically real", it's just that science doesn't yet know what they really are nor how they do what they do.

[Marblehead]

Well, this discussion has taken a somewhat unexpected turn! I can't say that I understand all the quantum stuff, but are we essentially saying that it could be translated

 

名可名也非恒名也 The thing that can be identified is not the eternal thing

 

and interpreted as an early understanding of modern scientific thought?

In the forward of one translation of the TTC I read suggested that Taoism is the belief system that is closest to the study of science. I hold to that understanding.

 

True, identifying a thing is not the thing itself. It is more than what we identify. This is where we must stop with our search for knowledge.

[dust]

In the forward of one translation of the TTC I read suggested that Taoism is the belief system that is closest to the study of science. I hold to that understanding.

 

Yes, in a way I've always thought that, but there is a yin-yang element to this as well: I personally think that (many, not all) scientists are 'prickly' where (most) Taoists are 'gooey' -- modern science is so bent on understanding and ultimately controlling every little aspect of existence that it will eventually be mankind's downfall, whereas anyone who studies Eastern philosophy (Dao, Zen, etc) must come to realise that there is no 'control'

 

In relation to chapter 1, perhaps, the scientists are so full of desire that they never see through the net

[Marblehead]

Yes, in a way I've always thought that, but there is a yin-yang element to this as well: I personally think that (many, not all) scientists are 'prickly' where (most) Taoists are 'gooey' -- modern science is so bent on understanding and ultimately controlling every little aspect of existence that it will eventually be mankind's downfall, whereas anyone who studies Eastern philosophy (Dao, Zen, etc) must come to realise that there is no 'control'

 

In relation to chapter 1, perhaps, the scientists are so full of desire that they never see through the net

Yeah, we have to be careful when listening to physicists. The are the physical ones and there are the theoretical ones. The physical ones live and talk in the provable Manifest. The other ones, well, I really don't know where they live but it's not anywhere on this planet.

 

And yes, this has a lot to do with Chapter 1 because we are talking about what can be spoken of and what cannot. The Manifest (Yo) can be spoken of, the Mystery (Yu) cannot. That's why it is a mystery.

[Taoist Texts]

Perhaps this is germane to the concept of the first line:

 

 

 

The dialogue is between two unnamed speakers.

Can it be that a white horse is not a horse?

Advocate: It can.

Objector: How?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_a_white_horse_is_not_a_horse

[Michael Sternbach]

Well, based on what the astrological physicists are saying, the universe is expanding, that is, the space between the galaxies is expanding. That would mean that there is something in "empty space" that is causing this action.

 

Therefore, I would say that they are not "virtual" but rather "physically real", it's just that science doesn't yet know what they really are nor how they do what they do.

 

Hey Jim, you actually agree with me, overall? You just made my day!

 

If you allow me to be a little fussy, the space between the galaxies (actually, the whole Universe) is expanding at a velocity beyond Einstein's cosmic tempo limit, plus the expansion is accelerating!

 

Yes, there is a theory that it's the "vacuum" itself which has this effect. An older term (not too popular with modern physicists, mostly for historical reasons) is "ether".

 

You are right, the particles I referred to are as real as can be - physicists call them virtual because they pop out of the vacuum into our level of reality and back into the vacuum at such a mind-boggling rate as not having to care about breaking another fundamental law, namely of energy conservation (hint: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relation gets involved here).

Edited September 5, 2014 by Michael Sternbach

[Michael Sternbach]

In the forward of one translation of the TTC I read suggested that Taoism is the belief system that is closest to the study of science. I hold to that understanding.

 

True, identifying a thing is not the thing itself. It is more than what we identify. This is where we must stop with our search for knowledge.

 

Nice, your view of Daoism.

 

Believe it or not, I was quite a reductionist thinker in my childhood. But I came to understand that there are things beyond my understanding early on.

 

Nevertheless, I'm ever on the outlook for the line where the scientifically tangible and the still elusive meet each other.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Michael Sternbach

[Michael Sternbach]

Yeah, we have to be careful when listening to physicists. The are the physical ones and there are the theoretical ones. The physical ones live and talk in the provable Manifest. The other ones, well, I really don't know where they live but it's not anywhere on this planet.

 

And yes, this has a lot to do with Chapter 1 because we are talking about what can be spoken of and what cannot. The Manifest (Yo) can be spoken of, the Mystery (Yu) cannot. That's why it is a mystery.

 

Agreed again. I addressed this topic in my post of 02 September 2014 - 09:13 PM.

[Marblehead]

I noticed I made a typo: that should be "... Mystery (Wu) cannot.

[Marblehead]

 

Nevertheless, I'm ever on the outlook for the line where the scientifically tangible and the still elusive meet each other.

Yeah, I know what you are talking about. I went through that search and found a whole lot of illusion and delusion. I never did find anything that was useful.

[Michael Sternbach]

Yeah, I know what you are talking about. I went through that search and found a whole lot of illusion and delusion. I never did find anything that was useful.

 

Never mind... stay tuned.

[Marblehead]

Never mind... stay tuned.

Funny. Yeah, we each must do our own searches.

[woodcarver]

really;) and that point would be....?

The tao that can be named is not the immortal tao.

 

It's all there

[Taoist Texts]

The tao that can be named is not the immortal tao.

 

It's all there

Thanks Woodcarver. I must be dense but what does that even mean? Whats a tao? Whats the connection beetwing naming and immortality? Why THE tao can not be named? Who says so? And why? What value did this statement add? In short, i dont understand this, seriously.

[Stosh]

Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy

 

4. Dao and Names: The Laozi or Daode Jing

We will discuss, here, mainly the contributions the Laozi makes to this Daoist dialectic. For a more complete and detailed treatment of the philosophy of the text, see the entry under Laozi.

The Zhuangzi history lists Laozi (along with Guan Yin) between Shen Dao and Zhuangzi. Whatever its actual date and manner of composition, the Laozi is assigned a role in the development of Zhuangzi's thought that best fits in that slot. The most famous line of Daoist meta-theory of dao opens the Daode Jing. “Dao that can be dao-ed is not constant dao.” Though the text betrays no hint of exposure to the School of Names, this famous slogan is duplicated with ming_name replacing dao. It thus shifts the focus of meta-discourse about dao from grounding its authority in nature to issues of language and the role of ming_words in dao-ing. Since words are not constant, no dao that can be conveyed using words can be.

What is being denied in saying such dao are not constant? The text does not elaborate on the concept, however the issue in ancient Chinese thought emerges as the crux of the dispute between Mohists and Confucians. Mohists attempted to regiment the debate by insisting on fa_standards for interpreting guiding language. They argued tian_nature:sky's standard lies in the distinction between benefit and harm—which was by association a constant standard. The writers of the Confucian Analects inclined toward a notion of an administrator “rectifying names.” A name is rectified when an instruction containing it (a ritual or a law) correctly guides peoples action. “If names are not rectified … people will not know how to move hand or foot” (Analects 13:3). The typical Confucian way of rectifying a name is to set an example—either of correct use of the term or correct action in following a dao that contains the term

 

So not being definable ( namable ) , Tao doesnt give direction for actions.

You however ,are namable and have preferences which guide actions.

And this would apply for either school Confucian or Mohist.

Looking at the phrase in light of the intellectual schools of thought roundabout that age, makes more sense to me than looking at it from my own eras zeitgeist.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Stosh

[woodcarver]

Thanks Woodcarver. I must be dense but what does that even mean? Whats a tao? Whats the connection beetwing naming and immortality? Why THE tao can not be named? Who says so? And why? What value did this statement add? In short, i dont understand this, seriously.

The DDJ is already super stripped down and like I said, it's all there. Enjoy the treasure hunt

[Harmonious Emptiness]

While responding to the chapter discussion on 46, I noticed an interesting use of heng "eternal, enduring" in the Guodian text, which made me reflect some more on it's use in the second line of chapter one. In the lines "Dao can be spoken, not eternal Dao," heng could also (in the all encompassing poetic style of the DDJ) be talking about how Dao not only endures forever, but also brings life - existence, endurance, continuity, time, .... Dao not only endures, it brings endurance, gives endurance, is endurance.

[dawei]

While responding to the chapter discussion on 46, I noticed an interesting use of heng "eternal, enduring" in the Guodian text, which made me reflect some more on it's use in the second line of chapter one. In the lines "Dao can be spoken, not eternal Dao," heng could also (in the all encompassing poetic style of the DDJ) be talking about how Dao not only endures forever, but also brings life - existence, endurance, continuity, time, .... Dao not only endures, it brings endurance, gives endurance, is endurance.

 

Exactly! I came to the similar conclusion in my idea of Dao as 'ever changing'... It is not really Dao changing but the arising of life and existence changes and endures.

[ion]

Knowing creates being, being creates knowing; that which is known is eternal, yet not the ever-changing of its face

The ever-changing brings about all that had & will be known

The original originless known, diversified and with that let go of the formless creative living things

Freedom & stillness reveal its way

Racing, fighting, and grasping leave one interacting with the illusions left in its wake

One split into two the moment it emerged, yet they all share the same name

That togetherness is the home of all things

[Taoist Texts]

Since Dusty mentioned this, lets go ahead and have a go at it

 

道德經1

 

《道德經》: 道可道，非常道。名可名，非常名。

無名天地之始；有名萬物之母。故常無欲，以觀其妙；常有欲，以觀其徼。

此兩者，同出而異名，同謂之玄。玄之又玄，衆妙之門。

《老子河上公章句·體道》: 道可道，非常道。名可名，非常名。

無名，天地之始。有名，萬物之母。

故常無欲，以觀其妙；常有欲，以觀其徼。

此兩者，同出而異名，同謂之玄，玄之又玄，眾妙之門。

《馬王堆·老子甲道經》: 道可道也，非恆道也。名可名也，非恆名也。

無名萬物之始也；有名萬物之母也。

□恆無欲也，以觀其眇；恆有欲也，以觀其所噭。

兩者同出，異名同胃，玄之有玄，眾眇之□。

《馬王堆·老子乙道經》: 道可道也，□□□□□□□□恆名也。

無名萬物之始也；有名萬物之母也。

故恆無欲也，□□□□；恆又欲也，以觀其所噭。

兩者同出，異名同胃，玄之又玄，眾眇之門。

[Taoist Texts]

The first line

 

道可道，非常道。名可名，非常名。

Or

道可道也，非恆道也。名可名也，非恆名也。

 

is not the intended or the translated gibberish such as ‘Dao that can or can't be spoken, name that can or can't be named’ etc; but is rather a refutation of Confucian governance mainstay of ‘knowing Dao and being capable of Dao’ as per below:

…………………

《荀子 - Xunzi》 [Warring States (475 BC - 221 BC)]

《解蔽》7

何謂衡？曰：道。故心不可以不知道；心不知道，則不可道，而可非道。

人孰欲得恣，而守其所不可，以禁其所可？以其不可道之心取人，則必合於不道人，而不合於道人。以其不可道之心與不道人論道人，亂之本也。

夫何以知？曰：心知道，然後可道；可道然後守道以禁非道。以其可道之心取人，則合於道人，而不合於不道之人矣。以其可道之心與道人論非道，治之要也。

何患不知？故治之要在於知道。

 

Question: what is called the even and the constant (heng)衡 (a homonym and synonym of heng 恆)?

Answer: the Dao. Therefore the (king’s) heart can not but know Dao; if his heart would not know Dao – it will not be capable of Dao 可道, and will be capable of non-Dao非道. (If the king with his non-Dao heart) selects carelessly 恣 people (advisors) , and the king himself can not guard (Dao), then who can banish the non-Dao? (And if the king) with his non-Dao heart will select advisors, then he will certainly get non-Dao people, and not Dao people. Then he, with his non-Dao heart and in council with non-Dao people will judge the Dao people, and that will be the root of all trouble.

Question: how (for the king) to become knowledgeable?

Answer: (it is needed only) for his heart to know Dao, then he will be capable of Dao; then he will guard Dao and banish the non-Dao. So if he selects people with his capable-of-Dao-heart, then he will get Dao people, and not the non-Dao people. Then he, with his capable-of-Dao heart, and in council with Dao people will judge the non-Dao people, and that will be the mainstay of all governing. And if so, then why worry about not being knowledgeable? That is why the mainstay of governing is to know Dao.

…………………………………

However, LZ rejects this, claiming that the Dao the king is capable of is not the constant Dao. What is the constant Dao? It is the Dao of Heaven:

 

天有常道矣，地有常數矣，君子有常體矣。君子道其常，而小人計其功。( Xunzi)

 

天之常道，相反之物也，不得兩起，故謂之一 。(Chun Qiu Fan Lu)

 

The second sentence of the first line:

 

名可名，非常名。

 

Is a rejection of Confucian governing strategy of ‘correcting the names’ which called on the king to establish correct names for the legal nomenclature of governing –

 

子曰：「必也正名乎！The Master replied, "What is necessary is to rectify names." (Zi Lu)

 

LZ claims that human, even the king’s established names are not constant names 恆名. What's a constant name? It is the corrected name 正名.

 

曰：「何謂正名五」。

對曰：「權也、衡也、規也、矩也、准也，此謂正名五。(Kui Du )

Question: what are 5 attributes of a corrected name?

Answer: balance, constancy, measure, precision, norm; such are 5 corrected names.

 

To sum it up the first line is most emphatically not mystical jibber-jabber, it’s a precise salvo in the political debate of Confucians vs Huang-Lao. The latter lost. So much for ‘Tao that can't be spoken’.