[TTC Study] Chapter 1 of the Tao Te Ching

[dynamictao]

I will only offer that Heng is anciently synonymous with Ji (think TaiJi or WuJi) and Dao and The Great One. It seems that each ancient text offers a slightly different view and angle to the use and meaning of all these primordial generative effects on the myriad things.

 

This is how I would take Heng to mean. Did Prof. Qingjie Wang discuss this? I would assume he did, but have to check again.

[dawei]

This is how I would take Heng to mean. Did Prof. Qingjie Wang discuss this? I would assume he did, but have to check again.

 

I have only read his 'Temporality' paper which he does not equate Heng to these meanings as much as to talking about time references (enduring, gushing, flow through). Although he mentions 'man lives in space time', he does not seem to go after the space angle like I would with Ji. But he did mention the idea of 'spreading everywhere' , which is how Heng is used in relation to Hou Ji 'spreading' (heng'ing) the seeds everywhere.

 

I followed Waley's idea to connect back further in time to Shaman ritual to find an ancient Chu usage and meaning of Heng. I quickly ran into ideas like Ji. And helped me to see that Guodian Heng was replaced twice with Ji, and was dropped in five chapters. I think its meaning was simply lost on later readers; so it was easier to just drop it.

 

I am close to sharing my notes on researching Heng.

[flowing hands]

All that exists is ever changing, for what gave birth to all things is also ever changing. Before there was Dao there was no separation.

When separation evolved so, the spirit and matter became two distinctions.

One can perceive the manifestations of spirit and matter combined.

one can feel the spirit and source of all things.

The mystery of the separation is the key to all mysteries,

finding the spirit is the key to knowing all things.

[dawei]

Before there was Dao there was no separation.

 

Do you mean there was a prior state when Dao does not exist or that in that prior state, there is simply no differentiation of Dao?

 

The only difference I see between them is the former might imply Dao arises with the separation and the latter may imply that Dao is potentially there but just in a holistic form. Or maybe you want to say there is simply no difference in my points.

[lienshan]

Do you mean there was a prior state when Dao does not exist or that in that prior state, there is simply no differentiation of Dao?

 

What flowing hands says is pure logic to me because there's no time in a singularity!

 

What Laozi says in the exavacated versions of chapter 1 is that "it isn't the eternity and Tao".

That'll say a term like "eternal Tao" is to say the same twice. That'll say Laozi's Tao isn't a singularity.

 

I do not believe in an unnaturally singularity and the socalled big bang was naturally caused by a collision.

[dawei]

That'll say a term like "eternal Tao" is to say the same twice. That'll say Laozi's Tao isn't a singularity.

 

'Eternal' or not as the proper word... I completely agree with your second statement and always have.

 

That is why I wouldn't use 'eternal' as it conveys singularity on some level.

 

IMO, Dao emerges out of the singularity; the eternal, undifferentiated.

 

My line of questioning concerns the idea that Dao is the path or method of what we see; but one could say that the undifferentiated state is one with its own path [of non-differentiation]. So it might beg the unanswerable question of whether there is such a 'path' (Dao) in such a state; but as it is an undifferentiated state, one cannot ask nor speak to it.

[lienshan]

That is why I wouldn't use 'eternal' as it conveys singularity on some level.

 

IMO, Dao emerges out of the singularity; the eternal, undifferentiated.

 

I've spent some time trying to find another word but the eternity is simply what's meant IMO (now).

妙 mysterious, subtle, wonderful, excellent, clever, ingenious

 

The above character occurs in chapter 1 line 5 and can be read as meaning single, a point

I think that it's the most close to singularity found in Tao Te Ching defined as:

 

A point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume,

and space and time to become infinitely distorted.

A point at which the derivative does not exist for a given function but every neighborhood of which contains points

for which the derivative exists. Also called singular point.

 

The character occurs in I Ching Shuo Gua §6 where The Spirit is defined as 神也者妙萬物而為言者也

 

The Spirit is a single ten thousand things but has been speaking.

[lienshan]

It's a tao or to tao, it isn't the tao of the eternity.

It's a name or to name, it isn't the name of the eternity.

The beginning of everything has not a name.

The mother of everything has a name.

Consequently:

The eternity had not desire, considering its singleness.

The eternity had desire, considering her offsprings.

It's a pair of the same origin, different words with the same meaning.

They are the swing gates of the darkening dark and the multitude of singles.

 

眇 a one eyed man (the Mawangdui version of the character read as meaning single)

Edited May 22, 2013 by lienshan

[Marblehead]

Interesting translation. Sounds way too mystical for me but still interesting. If Tao existed before time and space, which I believe it did, then I think it would be fair to call it eternal. (Now, I just spoke to "Tao" as if it were a thing and that is an error but otherwise impossible to speak of.)

[dawei]

Interesting translation. Sounds way too mystical for me but still interesting. If Tao existed before time and space, which I believe it did, then I think it would be fair to call it eternal.

 

There seems to be two issues:

1. Whether it is a fair statement

2. Whether this is what the passage means

 

It can be fair but not what was meant.

 

---

 

I wanted to focus on the point by FH: "Before there was Dao there was no separation."

 

If there was no separation, then there is no Dao to speak of; there is no-thing to speak of... other than just "One" but that might be incorrect to do as well.

 

If there is a 'time' when there is no Dao but only singularity, then 'eternal Dao' would be an oxymoron.

[lienshan]

I wanted to focus on the point by FH: "Before there was Dao there was no separation."

 

If there is a 'time' when there is no Dao but only singularity, then 'eternal Dao' would be an oxymoron.

 

If there isn't a 'time' when there is no Dao but only singularity, then 'eternal Dao' would be a tautology.

That'll say 'saying the same thing twice' like for example 'darkening dark' and 'the multitude of singles'.

[Marblehead]

But Tao gave birth to One. Y'all know that. One is Singularity. Therefore Tao existed before there was even Singularity. That is why I think that keeping the concepts of Tao and Tzujan very close together is very important. And remember, Tao follows Tzujan.

[dawei]

If there isn't a 'time' when there is no Dao but only singularity, then 'eternal Dao' would be a tautology.

That'll say 'saying the same thing twice' like for example 'darkening dark' and 'the multitude of singles'.

 

sorry... unconvincing. But I get your point. We may have to realize that of all the cosmologies, Lao Zi offers no cosmology per se. It is a summary without footnotes, except to look at the other cosmologies.

[dawei]

But Tao gave birth to One. Y'all know that. One is Singularity. Therefore Tao existed before there was even Singularity. That is why I think that keeping the concepts of Tao and Tzujan very close together is very important. And remember, Tao follows Tzujan.

 

That is a grave mistake in misunderstanding... IMO.

 

ALL cosmologies are fairly consistent in this regard. One is before Dao... Dao arises with the ten thousand as it describes their function and operation.

 

What is prior is Singularity.... NO DAO can be spoken of.

 

This is the crux of the understanding. As FH said: "Spirit and matter become distinct"... I wish I could of said that so plainly many years ago when I was first trying to explain why Lao Zi is not just a cosmological explanation but an explanation of life.

[Marblehead]

That is a grave mistake in misunderstanding... IMO.

Hehehe. Well then, I guess we both have made a grave mistake in misunderstanding.

 

And you know I don't talk about "spirit" so I can't discuss that part of what FH said.

 

And please, how else could the Big Bang have happened if the Laws of Nature (Tzujan) did not already exist?

[dawei]

Hehehe. Well then, I guess we both have made a grave mistake in misunderstanding.

 

And you know I don't talk about "spirit" so I can't discuss that part of what FH said.

 

And please, how else could the Big Bang have happened if the Laws of Nature (Tzujan) did not already exist?

 

Of course you can discuss it... as a philosophical daoist, you simply replace 'spirit' with the general idea of Wu-State; the great void of singularity. Every cosmology holds this position.

 

There is a curious phrase in the Heng Xian:

物先 – Wuxian the state before the myriad things.

 

Whether we call a part 'spirit' or 'invisibility' or 'void', does it really matter if we agree there is some sort of undifferentiated singularity?

 

Concerning the idea of a 'big bang'... I am not against it... but I am against the idea of uniformity throughout all time; the idea that everything we see happening today is exactly as it must of happened billions/millions of years ago.

[Marblehead]

Hey!, nice response. I agree, including the last paragraph. No, I do not take the position of a constant-state universe. Everything is still random but yet this randomness is governed by Tzujan, much of which we (science) still does not understand adequately.

 

Even the believers of the Chaos Theory of the universe have to admit that although the universe is chaos, there is order within the chaos.

[dawei]

Even the believers of the Chaos Theory of the universe have to admit that although the universe is chaos, there is order within the chaos.

 

It is possible that there is a slightly different model: Chaos is more likely a state of movement from Singularity... Stillness becomes movement; movement leads to separation; separation leads to variation.

[lienshan]

We may have to realize that of all the cosmologies, Lao Zi offers no cosmology per se.

It is a summary without footnotes, except to look at the other cosmologies.

 

Laozi treated the cosmologies as the classical question: Which one came first; the egg or the hen?

I've put the egg stuff in bold and the hen stuff in italic bold:

 

It's a tao or to tao, it isn't the tao of the eternity.

It's a name or to name, it isn't the name of the eternity.

The beginning of everything has not a name!

The mother of everything has a name!

Consequently:

The eternity had not desire, considering its singleness.

The eternity had desire, considering her offsprings.

It's a pair of the same origin, different words with the same meaning.

They are the swing gates of the darkening of dark and the multitude of singles.

 

The terms 非恆道 and 非恆名 are difficult to translate into English without interpreting.

非 nomilized by rule in classical pre-Qin chinese the following character as a noun.

That'll say it isn't the eternal Tao and it isn't the eternal name are mistranslations,

because the following character 恆 is read as an adjective and not as a noun.

There are two grammatical correct possibilities:

 

it isn't the eternity and the Tao or it isn't the Tao of the eternity

it isn't the eternity and the name or it isn't the name of the eternity

 

The first ones are unproblematic while the latter ones demand, that the eternity and the Tao are complementary?

[dawei]

That'll say it isn't the eternal Tao and it isn't the eternal name are mistranslations,

because the following character 恆 is read as an adjective and not as a noun.

There are two grammatical correct possibilities:

 

it isn't the eternity and the Tao or it isn't the Tao of the eternity

it isn't the eternity and the name or it isn't the name of the eternity

 

The first ones are unproblematic while the latter ones demand, that the eternity and the Tao are complementary?

 

I generally agree with where you are going here... but I differ in that 'eternal' or 'eternity' never seems to be the usage of Heng in the most ancient texts. It is much closer to the meaning of Ji as ultimate or fully expansive.

 

The story of Hou Ji (Lord of Millet) used Heng to mean to 'spread everywhere'; consistent to the idea of Ji as extreme [poles].

 

So I still tend to see it to mean more like furthest-reaching as in space; whereas if it is applied to 'time' then it would become more like eternity but we don't see it used as a time referent in ancient texts. But from a metaphorical point of view, I may not be able to completely argue against 'eternity'; I can only share the usage and context we know.

[rene]

chickens & eggs

stillness & movement

bathwater all over!

 

"But Tao gave birth to One. Y'all know that..."

 

"One is before Dao... Dao arises with the ten thousand as it describes their function and operation. What is prior is Singularity.... NO DAO can be spoken of."

 

 

Both your ideas suggest Dao can be placed in a sequential manner.

 

What if Dao is something else?

 

What happens to your orderings if Dao, instead, is the impetus, the reason - the Why ?

 

For example...

 

Dao is why the Singularity arose

Dao is why the One gave birth to Two: the differentiated and undifferentiated within the One.

Dao is why the Two gave birth to 10,000 things

 

Maybe Dao is the ever present Why of the Way.

 

No sequence required. (-:

 

 

 

warm regards

Edited May 25, 2013 by rene

[Marblehead]

What happens to your orderings if Dao, instead, is the impetus, the reason - the Why ?

 

For example...

 

Dao is why the Singularity arose

Dao is why the One gave birth to Two: the differentiated and undifferentiated within the One.

Dao is why the Two gave birth to 10,000 things

 

Maybe Dao is the ever present Why of the Way.

 

No sequence required. (-:

 

 

 

warm regards

That is an acceptable consideration. But I still think that if we are going to consider "why" we must also consider "Tzujan".

Edited May 25, 2013 by Marblehead

[dawei]

That is an acceptable consideration. But I still think that if we are going to consider "why" we must also consider "Tzujan".

 

But That doesn't answer why... but maybe it helps to understand 'how'.

[dawei]

"One is before Dao... Dao arises with the ten thousand as it describes their function and operation. What is prior is Singularity.... NO DAO can be spoken of."

 

 

Both your ideas suggest Dao can be placed in a sequential manner.

 

What if Dao is something else?

 

What happens to your orderings if Dao, instead, is the impetus, the reason - the Why ?

 

For example...

 

Dao is why the Singularity arose

Dao is why the One gave birth to Two: the differentiated and undifferentiated within the One.

Dao is why the Two gave birth to 10,000 things

 

Maybe Dao is the ever present Why of the Way.

 

No sequence required. (-:

 

Very interesting way of writing the lines.

 

Dao as impetus is more often how I think of Dao; It is the black box of the ten thousand. I would agree that Dao does not belong as a counting part of a sequence. And I would agree that a sequence is not completely necessary.

 

But the movement in differentiation proceeds from large to small as diversity grows some legs it turns the wheel faster, in a sense. Differentiation proceeds slowly.

 

Here is how I see it:

When the first phase change occurred from stillness to movement, time-space-energy occupied everywhere at once (One). That whole differentiated into parts of the universe (usually pictured as the formation of sky and earth--TWO). The earth differentiated into living things... etc.

 

Eventually a dollar bill can become 100 pennies. Usually that occurs over many stages of getting 'change' back. I could force the change to 100 pennies but if I let it just happen naturally within the mechanism of buying things, there is a sequence whereby it turns into quarters and dimes; later into nickels and pennies... it 'appears' as a sequence but its just differentiation and separation occurring into smaller parts [of the whole].

[Marblehead]

But That doesn't answer why... but maybe it helps to understand 'how'.

But then, I would ask, is it necessary to understand "why"?

 

Yes, for me, with almost everything, "how" is the more important question.

 

Once I was asked why I rode my bike a certain distance. My reply was, "Because I can."