Why Taoism?

[ChiDragon]

It has been known to many scholars that Chapter 1 contains everything about Tao, but it has never been properly decoded.

The keyword is Heng, which indicates "wholeness" - no dualistic separation - so only things with Heng have "reality." In my translation, I use True for Heng, in this sense.

 

Chapter 1 shows a clear principle now; all other Chapters are footnotes to Chapter 1.

 

Yes, I agree.

 

Your translation do agree with 陳鼓應. You have probably heard of him because he is one of the professors in Taiwan who is very familiar with the classic Tao Te Ching. All my translations are the reflections of his book.

 

 

Edited to correct the name from 陳鼓感 to 陳鼓應.

Edited March 15, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dynamictao]

 

Yes, I agree.

 

Your translation do agree with 陳鼓感. You have probably heard of him because he is one of the professors in Taiwan who is very familiar with the classic Tao Te Ching. All my translations are the reflections of his book.

 

Yes. I visited him many times in Taiwan. I am not sure if he has seen my new article, although I added his name in my thank list AFTER the article was accepted. My use of two simple equations may appear strange to many people. However, the equations are much easier to reflect the intrinsic relationships.

 

I just check his book again, and I am happy that his "parsing of the text" supports the model I use (Other people start to see this is the only way to interpret this Chapter). It is the meaning of Heng that crystalized everything for me, see (Qingjie Wang Heng Dao and Appropriation of Nature - a hermeneutical interpretation of Laozi Asian Philosophy, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2000 pp. 150-163).

 

You may find the Chinese article interesting to you too.

Edited March 14, 2013 by dynamictao

[Marblehead]

The moral of the story is somewhat different to me.

Fair interpretation.

[Marblehead]

I believe that the moral of the story was:

Fair too.

[silas]

Why do you keep referencing the Tao Currents site? The blogger is a Pooh Bear Taoist with a lively imagination.

 

Actually, the Tao Currents blogger is a Mary Poppins Taoist.

 

Disney's Mary Poppins: A Classical Taoist World

[Marblehead]

What? She pops in and then pops out? Strange.

[dawei]

An idea written in Chinese may look different from the same idea written in English, but the idea is the same.

If the idea is universal, then it will appear in the East and the West.

 

If Lao-tzu wrote a "principle" in ancient Chinease and if the principle is understood, then the same principle may be written in other language. But now, different people see different principles. This appears not only in translation, but is true also within ancient and modern Chinese interpretors.

 

I don't really disagree with most of what you share in these posts: Wu and You are of the same source; Multiplicity from Singularity; Heng is a key. I am surprised people do not talk about Heng as it occurs many times in the oldest text.

 

But from the beginning of reviewing the DDJ, different people saw different principles conveyed. Han Fei Zi may not of agreed with Huainanzi who may not of agreed with Zhuangzi who may not agreed with wenzi who may not of agreed with Hesheng Gong who might not agreed with the celestial masters, etc.

 

To me, this is the singularity giving rise to the multiplicity on some level. If we try to contain Dao, we no longer have described it.

[dynamictao]

But from the beginning of reviewing the DDJ, different people saw different principles conveyed. Han Fei Zi may not of agreed with Huainanzi who may not of agreed with Zhuangzi who may not agreed with wenzi who may not of agreed with Hesheng Gong who might not agreed with the celestial masters, etc.

 

What I hope is that, after we understand the principle, these people are just saying the same principle in different frames of mind. For many years, I just try to find where they have in common and set aside where they differ. What they have in common may represent their "satori" of Tao and have some truth. Anyway, somebody else may be interested in the differences. "Heng" is called the keyword that has been missing for the last 2000 years (by Wang, Qinjie).

[ChiDragon]

. "Heng" is called the keyword that has been missing for the last 2000 years (by Wang, Qinjie).

 

Why are you picking on this character with special interest....???

 

I think I know what you are talking about but can you elaborate on that. Let's see if we are coping with the same idea.....???

Edited March 15, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

What I hope is that, after we understand the principle, these people are just saying the same principle in different frames of mind. For many years, I just try to find where they have in common and set aside where they differ. What they have in common may represent their "satori" of Tao and have some truth. Anyway, somebody else may be interested in the differences. "Heng" is called the keyword that has been missing for the last 2000 years (by Wang, Qinjie).

 

Yes, good point. I do think there are certain keywords which might help to normalize various positions... Heng and Xuan come to the top of my list. thanks.

[Marblehead]

Just wanted to mention that I am reading all the posts in this thread. I have nothing to say for now. Nice conversation!

[silas]

The moral of the story is somewhat different to me. Taking a job at the palace is similar to getting stuck in a dead situation. Every situation in life pins you to the fabric of society. In the palace, that godly tortoise has an assigned exalted place but is dead. In each of our respective family, each one of us also has an assigned place and just as situationally dead. Even here in this forum where we waggle our tails in the mud, each of us also has an assigned place among the others. That palace tortoise has been dead for 3000 years. Each post made in our Tao Palace is equivalent to being dead for one year. Looks like I have been dead for 63 years.

 

I believe that the moral of the story was:

Chuang Tzu was an optimist. He felt why should he be bothering with the worries and problems of others. He would rather be wandering and live as a free individual.

 

I believe that this is an example of a story that has undertones of religion. Chuang Tzu mentions the tortoise dead for 3000 years and asks would it rather be dragging its tail in the mud. It implies that although the tortoise is dead, death has not freed it, because its inborn nature has been corrupted into an object of veneration. The Te of a dead tortoise would return to Tao, but this one is trapped in an eternal prison.

[dynamictao]

Yes, good point. I do think there are certain keywords which might help to normalize various positions... Heng and Xuan come to the top of my list. thanks.

 

Yes. If we understand these two keywords "Heng" and "Xuan" in Chapter 1, then we are close to having the whole philosophy. . Another concept is "simultaneity, as the manifestations" of the same Tao (principle). These are all in what I call "The Principle of Oneness." It is the nature of all Nonduality thoughts.

[Marblehead]

I believe that this is an example of a story that has undertones of religion. Chuang Tzu mentions the tortoise dead for 3000 years and asks would it rather be dragging its tail in the mud. It implies that although the tortoise is dead, death has not freed it, because its inborn nature has been corrupted into an object of veneration. The Te of a dead tortoise would return to Tao, but this one is trapped in an eternal prison.

Interestihng take although I don't pay much attention to any of the religious over/undertones in either the TTC or The Chuang Tzu.

[dynamictao]

 

Why are you picking on this character with special interest....???

 

I think I know what you are talking about but can you elaborate on that. Let's see if we are coping with the same idea.....???

 

For me, I have no choice now. "Heng" came to me as the last element to tie Chapter 1 into a totally coherent picture for me. Wang Qingie was mainly talking about "Heng" in the I-Ching; it shocked me to find what he said.

 

I actually come to the conclusion about the Principle of Oneness in 2006. Since then, I have been looking for a good reason to declare that Lao-tzu has logic. Wang Qinjie's paper discusses "Heng" and I find it as the last missing link to have the whole principle crystallized. It greatly simplifies the presentation of the principle. In Chapter 1, "Heng" tags something as real (Wu, Yu, Tao, Name). There is no need to speculate much. Wu and Yu are two objects we use to describe manifestations and Heng Wu and Heng Yu are two "real" or "true" manifestations.

 

Here "True and Real" refer to the true manifestations of the principle of Tao. I have detailed discussion in the Chinese article, and will have even more generalized discussions in the forthcoming Kindle eBooks.

[Marblehead]

For me, I have no choice now. "Heng" ...

Actually, this does not deviate from your assessment in "Dynamic Tao".

[ChiDragon]

For me, I have no choice now. "Heng" came to me as the last element to tie Chapter 1 into a totally coherent picture for me. Wang Qingie was mainly talking about "Heng" in the I-Ching; it shocked me to find what he said.

 

 

May be you would like to take a look at this about how the character 恆(heng) came about:

Heng(恆) and chang(常)

Edited March 15, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dynamictao]

Actually, this does not deviate from your assessment in "Dynamic Tao".

After all, I may have been running in a circle. I have not reviewed what I wrote in the first book. There must have some continuity.

 

A major difference is the treatment of Wu and Yu. It is now clear that I still have the concept of "Yu comes from Wu" in that book. Now I am pretty sure that a simple "Yu comes from Wu" is incorrect. The symmetry of Wu and Yu became clear to me since 2006.

Edited March 17, 2013 by dynamictao

[Marblehead]

After all, I may have beening in a circle. I have not reviewed what I wrote in the first book. There must have some continuity.

 

A major difference is the treatment of Wu and Yu. It is now clear that I still have the concept of "Yu comes from Wu" in that book. Now I am pretty sure that a simple "Yu comes from Wu" is incorrect. The symmetry of Wu and Yu bacome clear to me in 2006.

Yeah, it is impossible to totally purge our unconscious mind.

 

I am curious as to how you are going to handle Wu and Yu. Yu comes from Yu is consistent with science as the universe is understood presently. Bang! Then energy and gasses (Chi and Mystery [potential]) then came the other elements (Manifest).

 

But yes, I do understand the why of your efforts. I just want to see how you scientifically justify it. Hehehe.

[dynamictao]

 

 

May be you would like to take a look at this about how the character 恆(heng) came about:

Heng(恆) and chang(常)

Yes. The article discusses the changes from Heng to Chang. However, the most critical meaning was not identified.

The analysis of Heng in I-Ching by Wang Qing-jie (He was in Hong Kong) clicked my mind in a irreversible way.

“Laozi’s Heng Dao and Appropriation of Nature,” in Asian Philosophy, vol.10, no.2, 2000, pp.149-163.

 

 

[ChiDragon]

Yes. The article discusses the changes from Heng to Chang. However, the most critical meaning was not identified.

The analysis of Heng in I-Ching by Wang Qing-jie (He was in Hong Kong) clicked my mind in a irreversible way.

“Laozi’s Heng Dao and Appropriation of Nature,” in Asian Philosophy, vol.10, no.2, 2000, pp.149-163.

 

 

 

I know you are very fond of the article. However, in Chapter one, Heng (恆, eternal) was used in the Tao Te Ching as an adjective to describe that Tao is eternal. Even thought one of the hexagons in the Yi Jing was named as "Heng" but it has nothing to do with the TTC.

[ChiDragon]

Yes. The article discusses the changes from Heng to Chang. However, the most critical meaning was not identified.

 

I think if you read it carefully, you'll find that the article has identified a few critical points about the difference in the meanings of both characters as indicated in red.

三、 《老子》對「恒」「常」字使用不同

劉笑敢先生曾考察說：

「王弼本中第十九章(筆者案：『第』字誤植，當為十九章)中有二十八個『常』。......但是，帛書本多用『恆』字，在第十九章(筆者案：

『第』字誤植，當為十九章)中用到二十九處『恆』，而『常』就僅在兩章中用到三處。竹簡本中則『常』字一見，『恆』字四見(筆者案：似有誤，應為六見)。今本用『常』是避漢文帝劉恆之諱，其結果是我們看不到『常』與『恆』的區別。」

沈善增先生也說：

「從帛書甲本可知，《老子》古本原是既有『恒』又有『常』的，儘管『恒』較多而『常』較少，但『恒』『常』不同義。漢初為避漢文帝劉恒之諱，把《老子》中的『恒』都改成了『常』，這樣，『恒』『常』就混淆了。」而劉殿爵先生則曾指出作「恆」字、「常」字的重要不同處，他說：

「今本《老子》無『恆』字，只有『常』字，帛書本雖多作『恆』字，但『常』字也並非完全沒有。例如十六章：是胃復"命"常也。知常、明也。不知常，；(乙本作『芒』)"作，兇；(乙本『兇』字殘缺)知常，容；"乃公。五十二章：是胃襲(乙本『襲』字殘缺)常。從文例看，似乎『恆』字只作修飾語用，如『恆道』、『恆德』、『恆名』、『恆善救人』，而『常』字則作名詞性詞用，如『知常』、『襲常』。只有在一種句式中，『恆』、『常』互見。上引十六章：復命，常也。又二章：先後之相隨，恆也。『常』、『恆』都是單字謂語，至於語法功能上有無差異，便很難判斷了。」又，劉笑敢先生乃再將劉殿爵先生的重要發現證之竹簡本《老子》，他也得出相同結果說：

「總起來看，竹簡本和帛書本對『常』與『恆』字的使用是一致的。如此說來，『常』在《老子》中主要是名詞性功能，因此可以看作是老子的名詞或概念，而『恆』主要是作修飾語，不是名詞，不能作為老子的思想概念。」準此，既然帛書本與竹簡本《老子》，皆同樣展示老子對「恆」、「常」字使用的不同，那麼原來《老子》中本作修飾語用，而在通行本中因避諱改成「常」字之處，如今可能便需改正回作「恆」字為是，不然其間的區別也只有持續被隱沒。

Edited March 16, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

I've not read the entire paper yet but it seems that it speaks to this very subject:

 

http://www.cnphenomenology.com/modules/article/view.article.php/c7/711

[ChiDragon]

I think whoever says "constant" Tao, in English, for "eternal" Tao is as guilty as, in Chinese, by saying "Chang(常)" Tao for "Heng(恒 or 恆)" Tao.

[Marblehead]

I think whoever says "constant" Tao, in English, for "eternal" Tao is as guilty as, in Chinese, by saying "Chang(常)" Tao for "Heng(恒 or 恆)" Tao.

Hehehe. I pretty much already had that figured out. Now I have to get better edjumacated on the topic so that I can properly relate with what you are talking about.

 

But I already had the "constant" figured out because of the "Dynamic (and eternal) Tao".