Why Taoism?

[ChiDragon]

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.

 

By "Yu comes from Wu" alone is just a phrase and it is really out of context without relating it back Chapter One. Chapter One defines Wu for Tao when Tao is in the invisible state; and Yu is when Tao is in the visible state. Therefore, we may justify to conclude that the "visible Tao" came from the initial invisible state of Tao by saying that "Yu comes from Wu".

Edited March 16, 2013 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

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".

 

You have my deepest admiration...!!!

Edited March 16, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

 

You have my deepest admiration...!!!

Thanks, I think.

 

Of course, I have my science equivalent to that in that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only take different forms over time (eternal).

 

Now I have to go read some more Heng Dao.

[silas]

Taoist Creation Animation based on TaoTeChing ch. 42:

 

Edited March 17, 2013 by silas

[dynamictao]

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.

Scientific thought with "before" and "after" the Bang is already a dualistic thinking. Tao should be viewed with nonduality all the way from the beginning. In science, "before" and "after" are re-connected in the theory. There will be no conflict between the model for Tao logic and the "scientific" view. I just have to made sure that I can write this out clearly. The "science" you mention is at the object level (dualistic, traditional realism), there yiu need to introduce interactions between the objects.

I am pretty sure that there will be no conflict.

[dynamictao]

 

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.

We can interpret Heng as "eternal" if "eternal" here includes "changes and unchanging". It is used as an adjective to mean "whole", "holistic", "non-duality" etc. So Heng Tao, Heng Name, Heng Wu and Heng Yu are "realities". What I get from that article helps me put my own thought together. His article is about Heng Tao. I am not sure that Professor Qing-jie Wang will agree with my interpretation. We are often projecting what we read into our own space and try to fit it into our own space. So far so good.

[silas]

Scientific thought with "before" and "after" the Bang is already a dualistic thinking. Tao should be viewed with nonduality all the way from the beginning. In science, "before" and "after" are re-connected in the theory.

 

In the TaoTeChing (and ChuangTzu and LiehTzu) however, there is a before and after. The ineffable Tao precedes creation; they do not appear simultaneously. In the TTC ch. 42, creation takes places in a series of steps. The other books add more steps between those from ch. 42.

 

From the TTC ch. 42;

 

道生一，(Tao gave birth to the One)

一生二， (the One gave birth to the Two)

二生三， (the Two gave birth to the Three)

三生萬物 (the Three gave birth to Everything)

 

When reading the TTC from a religious point of view, the return to Tao at death could be a return to the ineffable or to the Yin-Yang matrix of creation. For the reason of practice, it's important to understand the steps of creation.

 

From the ChuangTzu ch. 13: "If you speak of the Way and not of its sequence, then it is not a way; and if you speak of a way that is not a way, then how can anyone make his way by it?"

 

Watson, Burton, The Complete Works Of Chuang Tzu, Columbia Univ. Press, p. 146-7.

Edited March 17, 2013 by silas

[dynamictao]

 

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。

 

I agree with the above discussions that Heng is used as an adjective.

When I was reading Prof. Qing-jie Wang's article, his discussions must have pointed to something that help a lot or I have "projected" what he wrote to fill some gaps in my own thought. Anyway, that is not important for me now. I have to make sure that my own thought and model are self-consistent.

[dawei]

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.

 

I agree. The Guodian Chapter 40 clearly says:

 

The things of this world are generated from You; are generated from Wu. Thus, it infers "generated from You and Wu". Complete symmetry.

 

Later versions have 'You' repeat to end as ; [and] You are generated from Wu.

[dynamictao]

In the TaoTeChing (and ChuangTzu and LiehTzu) however, there is a before and after. The ineffable Tao precedes creation; they do not appear simultaneously. In the TTC ch. 42, creation takes places in a series of steps. The other books add more steps between those from ch. 42.

 

From the TTC ch. 42;

 

道生一，(Tao gave birth to the One)

一生二， (the One gave birth to the Two)

二生三， (the Two gave birth to the Three)

三生萬物 (the Three gave birth to Everything)

 

When reading the TTC from a religious point of view, the return to Tao at death could be a return to the ineffable or to the Yin-Yang matrix of creation. For the reason of practice, it's important to understand the steps of creation.

 

From the ChuangTzu ch. 13: "If you speak of the Way and not of its sequence, then it is not a way; and if you speak of a way that is not a way, then how can anyone make his way by it?"

 

Watson, Burton, The Complete Works Of Chuang Tzu, Columbia Univ. Press, p. 146-7.

We are getting into very tricky points. I do not think we can get into too much here.

This is about how we treat "time." I have no problem with sequencial time as described above. But again, we need to recognize the time "segments (separate instants)" as dualistic concepts. It is not simple to reconcile with overall "nonduality."

[dynamictao]

I agree. The Guodian Chapter 40 clearly says:

 

The things of this world are generated from You; are generated from Wu. Thus, it infers "generated from You and Wu". Complete symmetry.

 

Later versions have 'You' repeat to end as ; [and] You are generated from Wu.

Agree.

The repeatition of Yu is not a problem. It is "taking only the second half of a sentence" as an independent concept that created the problem.

[Marblehead]

Scientific thought with "before" and "after" the Bang is already a dualistic thinking.

Yeah. Actually, there was a before before the beginning but we will never know what that was, will we? If Tao is infinate, which I believe it is, then there really is no beginning, no end, just the reversion and the cycles; the Tzujan.

 

Now, don't ask me where that is in the TTC because I can't answer that.

[dynamictao]

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

Yes. This is the main article. I would like to see your comments. I had a copy somewhere. I am not sure this article has gotten the attention it deserves.

Edited March 17, 2013 by dynamictao

[dawei]

Yeah. Actually, there was a before before the beginning but we will never know what that was, will we? If Tao is infinate, which I believe it is, then there really is no beginning, no end, just the reversion and the cycles; the Tzujan.

 

Now, don't ask me where that is in the TTC because I can't answer that.

 

Actually... the character you reference in the link: HENG. It represents the crescent moon or waxing/waning phases. As we know, it is actually the whole moon but it displays changing degrees of light and dark as it cycles; It is simultaneously the whole and parts.

[Marblehead]

Thanks for the support. "Heng" is new to me although the concept is not. I need to let my brain deal with this new word so that the word finds its proper place in my understandings.

[Marblehead]

 

Yes. This is the main article. I would like to see your comments. I had a copy somewhere. I am not sure this article has gotten the attention it deserves.

I will be sure to get back to y'all on this. So far, what I have read, I am impressed.

[dynamictao]

I will be sure to get back to y'all on this. So far, what I have read, I am impressed.

Congratulation! I never know why the article did not shock the world.

[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.

 

In the earlier versions of the Tao Te Ching such as the MWD-A, MWD-B and GD, both characters 常(chang) and 恒(heng) were used. Lao Tze was using 恒(heng), most often, as a modifier; and 常(chang) as a Noun. However, due to flexibility and unrestricted grammatical usage of the characters. There are some characters can be used as either a noun or adjective or even a verb. Even though synonyms were used for substitutions, the characters were changed but the original idea does not. As in this case, when I first read 『常道』, chang Tao, in Chapter One, it is always meant "eternal Tao" in my mind.

 

As we know now, this substitution was most likely due to the fact that heng was the personal name of Emperor Wen of the Han Dynasty, who reigned from 180 to 157 BCE. After the emperor’s death the word became taboo in China, and “heng” was replaced by its near synonym “chang” in most texts during the time.

 

I am pretty sure that the initial change from "heng' to "chang", for the above reason, was still convey the same original idea in the mind of the scholars. BTW The uniqueness in the Chinese classic was using a character or a few to signify an idea. Hence, the recognition of the original idea being conveyed is more significant than paying more attention to the semantics. It would be a big mistake for the modern scholars and wast of effort, sometimes, if they are interpreting classic by looking too deeply into semantics. Of course, this is only my personal opinion.

[Marblehead]

Congratulation! I never know why the article did not shock the world.

As far as I know this is the first time I have heard of it and this is only because of you and the Dragon talking about "heng" and arousing my curiosity. I did finish the article but I have to read it again so that I can reflect on those areas that are of the most interest to me.

 

I do highly recommend a reading of it to anyone wishing to gain a little more depth understanding of Taoist philosophy.

[Marblehead]

I am pretty sure that the initial change from "heng' to "chang", for the above reason, was still convey the same original idea in the mind of the scholars.

Yes, but they had a great advantage over people like myself. They were living it, I am only reading it and trying to understand so that I can live longer. (Hehehe. I had to say that.)

[Marblehead]

Oh!. And BTW, while searching the net for more info on heng a hit on a short Wiki article that defined the Three Treasures the same way I do: Compassion, Frugality, and Humility.

[ChiDragon]

Yes, but they had a great advantage over people like myself. They were living it, I am only reading it and trying to understand so that I can live longer. (Hehehe. I had to say that.)

 

Good for you...!!! I am glad that you didn't miss out......

[Marblehead]

 

Good for you...!!! I am glad that you didn't miss out......

Yeah, that article is going to be changing some of my understandings. Same thing happened when I read up on Tzujan. I think that the article will also be changing how I view the concepts of Wu and You and their variations.

[dawei]

Congratulation! I never know why the article did not shock the world.

 

I found that article many years ago at about the same time I found your writings... I will say they greatly influenced me as I was heading in that direction but was feeling like nobody seemed to tread this path.

 

Glad to see some are on the road less traveled.

 

And Glad to finally be able to directly say, thank you for sharing your path in writing.

 

I do hope that Marblehead does not get swayed by the silliness of synonym arguments... but the problem is, unless one either can internally sense it or externally study it, they are at the whim of whatever others say.

[dynamictao]

Glad to see some are on the road less traveled.

I have been alone for a long time. I did not expect ready acceptance from anyone. Most people still believe that Tao is mysterious. There is no reason to get over the problems or paradoxes. Even in a conference in 2006, I stated that there is no self-contradictions in the Tao Te Ching. No one was surprised and no one bother to challenge. Over the years, someone will claim that the mystery of Tao is over, but they all only last a few years. The mystery seems to be well fortified.

My Chinese article was a translation from my English draft for a book. I was surprised that the reviewers accepted my article. Now I am re-writing my English book. I hope the ideas will get discussed. That is why I have re-written it many times, in order to minimize ambiguities when it first comes out. I do believe that the approach is reasonable in light of other ancient philosophies and basic science.

I am glad that I see some help here.

Edited March 18, 2013 by dynamictao