why did creation happen according to Taoism?

[aridus]

Non existence is necessarily part of existence as well.

 

The not existing wood in between the teeth of a wooden comb lets you comb hair.

The not existing flesh and bone between your fingers allows you to move them independently.

 

You can move to places where obstacles don't exist. You can breathe because obstruction to your airway does not exist.

 

Thirty spokes join in one hub

In its emptiness, there is the function of a vehicle

Mix clay to create a container

In its emptiness, there is the function of a container

Cut open doors and windows to create a room

In its emptiness, there is the function of a room

 

Therefore, that which exists is used to create benefit

That which is empty is used to create functionality

[ChiDragon]

Chapter 39

1. Since those who gained unity:

2. Heaven gained unity became clear;

3. Earth gained unity became peaceful;

4. God gained unity became miraculous;

5. Valley gained unity became full;

6. All things gained unity became alive;

7. Rulers gained unity made world peace.

8. In the contrary,

9. Heaven is not clear , afraid it will split;

10.Earth is not peaceful, afraid it will quake;

11.God without miracle, afraid it will dispear;

12.Valley is not full, afraid it will dry out;

13.All things cannot grow, afraid they will extinct;

14.Rulers without standards, afraid they will overthrown.

15.Hence, with cringe as the basis for nobility,

16.With low as the foundation of height,

17.Therefore, rulers proclaimed themselves as loner, solely and unkind.

18.This is not using cringe as basis for humbleness...?

19.Is it...?

20.Therefore, supremacy has no need for glorification.

21.Hence, no desire to be as magnificent as jade,

22.Rather be as hard as a rock.

 

I believe in Chapter 39, the implication of "Unity" was "Tao". Thus, Tao is One.

Edited February 22, 2012 by ChiDragon

[Gerard]

Daoism doesn't have an answer to this impossible question and nor does any other religious, philosophical or spiritual system. What was first: the chicken or the egg? Answer: there is no first, it's a cyclical mechanism with no beginning and no end.

[beatthinker]

thanks for all your replies guys , I like that spanda definition, could one say it is the nature of the Tao to be creative? or would that be wrong?

 

Not wrong at all!! It is the 'nature' of the Tao to be both creative and destructive in equal measure. Thats the beauty of it.

[konchog uma]

i think its fair to say that dao is creative by nature.

[doc benway]

Lost me there Steve.

If you look carefully at how we think, we interject a sense of time into everything.

It is inherent in how our brains work.

If you study Krishnamurti, he does a good job of defining time as the movement of thought.

If you read Huw Price (and others) you will see that the unidirectional movement of time does not exist in physics, mathematics, and so on.

It certrainly appears to us to be an inherent part of the universe but many think that it is simply a consequence of our sensory apparatus and throught processes.

So when reading the Dao De Jing, or anything else, we necessarily interject our sense of time into the words.

Because time is related to the action of thought and words are the verbal expression of thought.

But if you stand back and look at it, it's possible to see things as being independent of time.

There are numerous examples of the "timelessness" of the Dao throughout DDJ.

 

 

Here is Chapter 7:

 

The Tao is infinite, eternal.

Why is it eternal?

It was never born;

thus it can never die.

Why is it infinite?

It has no desires for itself;

thus it is present for all beings.

 

The Master stays behind;

that is why she is ahead.

She is detached from all things;

that is why she is one with them.

Because she has let go of herself,

she is perfectly fulfilled.

[ChiDragon]

i think its fair to say that dao is creative by nature.

Tao is above nature. Tao created the universe.

 

There was no time limit for Tao but there is for human.

[konchog uma]

Tao is above nature. Tao created the universe.

 

There was no time limit for Tao but there is for human.

 

creative by nature means that by its nature, dao is creative. As in, you saying, "Tao created the universe". Hence, its creative nature.

 

Not that dao was creatED by nature. I hope this clarifies any misunderstanding.

 

@beatthinker: yes quite so, nice point

[ChiDragon]

creative by nature means that by its nature, dao is creative. As in, you saying, "Tao created the universe". Hence, its creative nature.

 

Not that dao was creatED by nature. I hope this clarifies any misunderstanding.

 

@beatthinker: yes quite so, nice point

Thank you for your patience! I am getting there, slowly but surely. If I stay here long enough, English will become my first language. Thanks again for your tolerance and being Taoist about my ignorance too....

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Why did creation happen? Because the void looked on and became lonely and began to reflect. this reflection is reality.

 

From nothing came one thing (reflection) which brought about two things (the reflection and the reflectee) which brought about three things (+ perception/opinion/perspective/relativity) which brought about all things... which are an equivelent whole of nothing at all, void.

 

 

I'm not sure if i said this already?

 

 

But i thought it was worth considering as a concept, not a literal personification of the tao, though if it's an impersonification, maybe that works?

 

 

Also working into "all is one and one is all" thoughtology.

[aridus]

There is only conceptual splitting.

 

Our conscious mind wants to divide everything into discrete parts when everything is made of the same stuff one way or another.

 

Why do we pick up a rock and say 'this is one rock'? Is a rock not simply a bundle of matter? Is a planet not simply a very large bundle of matter? Is the universe not simply a whole lot of matter?

 

What difference does it make if we conceptually subdivide everything into smaller and more specified components? This is what I see - The One is All and the many are the subdivisions of the one. Is the rock not a part of the planet? Is the planet not a part of the solar system? Is the solar system not a part of the galaxy?

 

Being able to individuate something does not make that thing separate.

[Birch]

There is only conceptual splitting.

 

Our conscious mind wants to divide everything into discrete parts when everything is made of the same stuff one way or another.

 

Why do we pick up a rock and say 'this is one rock'? Is a rock not simply a bundle of matter? Is a planet not simply a very large bundle of matter? Is the universe not simply a whole lot of matter?

 

What difference does it make if we conceptually subdivide everything into smaller and more specified components? This is what I see - The One is All and the many are the subdivisions of the one. Is the rock not a part of the planet? Is the planet not a part of the solar system? Is the solar system not a part of the galaxy?

 

Being able to individuate something does not make that thing separate.

 

Another person who thinks they are doing it all by themselves?

Ever consider the wishes of the rock to remain separate from oneself?

[aridus]

Another person who thinks they are doing it all by themselves?

Ever consider the wishes of the rock to remain separate from oneself?

 

If you put a bunch of rocks in a bag, are they separate, or are they together?

 

Edit: and no, I've never considered that, for even being able to think of a rock connects me to that rock. Nothing is by itself since everything interacts. Even if I don't interfere with the rock that is still an interaction - leaving the rock in place to provide shelter for a slug for example would be a different course than picking it up but it always leads to a dependent interaction with something else.

Edited February 24, 2012 by aridus

[Birch]

I'm really not trying to be difficult :-) I agree that most certainly us people 'chop things up' conceptually and such. Only thing is, we're not chopping the things up. It's the things about the things we're chopping up, yes? And yes I agree that there is an underlying 'continuity' :-) However, IMO/IME, attributing agency of decisions to separate to only oneself is just as wrong as saying 'everyone else gone done it' :-)

 

 

'Interactions' is an interesting territory to get into. IMO its like giving up a bit of an idea of agency but only enough to feel one has a bit left. :-)

[Owledge]

thanks for all your replies guys , I like that spanda definition, could one say it is the nature of the Tao to be creative? or would that be wrong?

Don't even try to fit the Tao into any kind of definition. Your idea of "the nature of Tao" is just part of the Tao. All definitions are part of Tao. You can never see a system fully while being a part of it. Good luck trying to step outside of the Tao!

Edited March 2, 2012 by Owledge

[hagar]

I'm really not trying to be difficult :-) I agree that most certainly us people 'chop things up' conceptually and such. Only thing is, we're not chopping the things up. It's the things about the things we're chopping up, yes? And yes I agree that there is an underlying 'continuity' :-) However, IMO/IME, attributing agency of decisions to separate to only oneself is just as wrong as saying 'everyone else gone done it' :-)

 

 

'Interactions' is an interesting territory to get into. IMO its like giving up a bit of an idea of agency but only enough to feel one has a bit left. :-)

 

Ahh, profound!

The web that has no weaver...

 

Its this that is really interesting... What do you get in return for giving away some agency, and what do I lose?

 

h

[Birch]

I don't know but so far it seems to be working better than the other approaches ("all me" or "all them") that I reckon I've tried up to now.

Feel a bit like a Venn diagram but hey.

[silas]

A theory: Tao is evolving via creation.

 

http://taocurrents.org/2012/03/30/afterlife-and-the-non-being-self/

[multiarms]

The most radical answer, and in some ways a most convincing one, to the question of "why does anything exist?" is that it doesn't. The Vedanta sub-school of Ajativada posits that "nothing ever happened"...

 

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

 

I remember reading that there was a physicist who came to similar conclusions, that the world doesn't actually exist and never has (I'm looking around for the citation now).

 

I find it hilarious that this argument is quite logical and maybe irrefutable, depending on whether or not you accept the premises. Meanwhile, CLEARLY SOMETHING EXISTS (kicks rock)

 

Craziness...

Edited April 12, 2012 by multiarms

[multiarms]

 

I remember reading that there was a physicist who came to similar conclusions, that the world doesn't actually exist and never has (I'm looking around for the citation now).

 

 

OK, an astronomer, not a physicist, but here it is --

 

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/origins.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dobson_%28amateur_astronomer%29

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Space-Time-Lowry-Dobson/dp/0972805192/ref=cm_lmf_tit_4