Why Taoism?

[Marblehead]

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.

Yes, that is the challenge, isn't it? And this is why I'm not saying much to it yet. Right now the arguement between Heidegger and Lao Tzu thought has only one interesting concept for me but this will not change my understandings, as such, but only reinforce them.

[Marblehead]

The mystery seems to be well fortified.

I like to use the word "Mystery" because it goes so well with "Manifest". For me, it is equal to saying "Wu" and "You". Another reason I like the word "Mystery" is that I do not believe in future-telling and as a result life is much more interesting for me because nearly everything that happens in my next moment is a surprise rising out of the "Mystery".

[Stosh]

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.

The nature of the writing ( creative) and the peception of non-confrontation seems to quash a good bit of confrontation that could be presented. There are folks who read into the block of wood analogy that they are to eschew understanding mechanisms and logic ,, basically reverting to a childish state of knowlege. One can google up hundreds of interps ,, and in the light of that ,, even if you quote from a chapter very anomalously ,, there is a tendency not to engage it.

If youre used to confrontational style discussion , its a difficult transition to make. Even the authorship of the TTC is in doubt.

 

Its like nobody feels themselves to be on enough solid ground other than to talk about their own feelings regarding Tao.

So dont take it personal if you feel like you are in limbo.

There are exceptions of course. and thats just my opinion which isnt really a firm thing either!

[ChiDragon]

I like to use the word "Mystery" because it goes so well with "Manifest". For me, it is equal to saying "Wu" and "You". Another reason I like the word "Mystery" is that I do not believe in future-telling and as a result life is much more interesting for me because nearly everything that happens in my next moment is a surprise rising out of the "Mystery".

 

I believe "Profound" is a better translation for 玄(xuan2) than "Mystery".

[dawei]

Yes, that is the challenge, isn't it? And this is why I'm not saying much to it yet. Right now the arguement between Heidegger and Lao Tzu thought has only one interesting concept for me but this will not change my understandings, as such, but only reinforce them.

 

He is also the one who wrote this on Ziran:

http://www.confuchina.com/05%20zongjiao/Lao%20Zi's%20Concept%20of%20Zi%20Ran.htm

 

You might also like to see how Heng is talked about in regards to the I Ching:

http://www.kufty.com/oracles/i-ching/will/wilhelm32.htm

[dawei]

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.

 

2006. Do you mean "The Principle of Oneness and Field-Being Philosophy" ?

 

I notice you don't mention "Heng" in that paper. Does it works its way into later revisions?

 

Not sure if you looked at that blog link I gave you in another thread but I found it very interesting that someone had the opening lines of DDJ1 as:

 

http://taichi-sayings.blogspot.com/2010/07/blog-post.html

 

 

道可道非,恒道 (although the blog used Chang instead of Heng)

名可名非,恒名

And Xuan is an important part of that explanation... I saw this blog reference from Wulf, whom i know you footnote in your paper.

[dynamictao]

 

I believe "Profound" is a better translation for 玄(xuan2) than "Mystery".

The important aspect is that "it cannot be expressed with simple words (Wu and Yu)". It will remain "vague, self-contradictory, and indeterminate" if expressed in words. This is the conclusion I have (with my model). I have settled down for now as "profound" because it is less defined and less speculative. Whatever is used, the definition shall follow that. In the model, it is a "superimposed state" of Wu and Yu.

[ChiDragon]

The important aspect is that "it cannot be expressed with simple words (Wu and Yu)". It will remain "vague, self-contradictory, and indeterminate" if expressed in words. This is the conclusion I have (with my model). I have settled down for now as "profound" because it is less defined and less speculative. Whatever is used, the definition shall follow that. In the model, it is a "superimposed state" of Wu and Yu.

 

Please comment on my latest translation of Chapter One....!!!

1. 道可道，非恒道。

2. 名可名，非恒名。

3. 無，名天地之始。

4. 有，名萬物之母。

5. 故恒無，欲以觀其妙。

6. 恒有，欲以觀其徼。

7. 此兩者同出而異名，

8. 同謂之玄。玄之又玄，

9. 眾妙之門。

 

Translation.

1. Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

2. A name that can be named is not an eternal name.

 

3. Invisible, it was named as the origin of heaven and earth.

4. Visible, it was named as the mother of all things.

 

5. Hence, when Tao is always invisible, one would grok its quale.

6. When Tao is always visible, one would observe its boundary.

 

7. These two come from one origin but differ in name,

8. Both are regarded as profound. Profound and more profound,

9. The gate of all changes.

 

Note:

The dyad of 無(Wu) and 有(You) were used throughout the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tze. It was his cleverness and unique style in using these two character revealing that he is one of a kind. BTW The Tao Te Ching was written in first person. So far, there is no one has the wisdom which is comparable to his.

Edited March 18, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dynamictao]

2006. Do you mean "The Principle of Oneness and Field-Being Philosophy" ?

 

I notice you don't mention "Heng" in that paper. Does it works its way into later revisions?

 

 

And Xuan is an important part of that explanation... I saw this blog reference from Wulf, whom i know you footnote in your paper.

The principle is in "The Basic Theory of Tao Philosophy" paper. At that time, I have not realize the critical nature of Heng. In that paper, I have the Equation for Heng Wu and Heng Yu already - as the first step to an analytic formulation. I have not put any of the current formulation in my www.dynamictao.com website (I will do that after my book is done.)

Wulf has been a very good site, but I have not visited for the last few year.

[dynamictao]

So dont take it personal if you feel like you are in limbo.

 

There are exceptions of course. and thats just my opinion which isnt really a firm thing either!

 

Now I think the picture is very clear. It will be just a matter of time that we can get it right. This is my feeling now, but who really knows?

[dynamictao]

 

 

5. 故恒無，欲以觀其妙。

6. 恒有，欲以觀其徼。

 

5. Hence, when Tao is always invisible, one would grok its quale.

6. When Tao is always visible, one would observe its boundary.

 

 

In 5 and 6, do you indicate that "you see the invisible when it is invisible" and "you see the visible when it is visible"?

If that is the case, then the picture is still dualistic?

 

 

So far, there is no one has the wisdom which is comparable to his.

The way (style) he writes the book is superb, but the principle of Tao is universal,as in Pre-Socratic and the Buddha.

[ChiDragon]

5. 故恒無，欲以觀其妙。

6. 恒有，欲以觀其徼。

 

5. Hence, when Tao is always invisible, one would grok its quale.

6. When Tao is always visible, one would observe its boundary.

 

In 5 and 6, do you indicate that "you see the invisible when it is invisible" and "you see the visible when it is visible"?

If that is the case, then the picture is still dualistic?

 

 

The way (style) he writes the book is superb, but the principle of Tao is universal,as in Pre-Socratic and the Buddha.

There is no doubt that the picture is still dualistic. However, when you see the "Invisible" but it is visible only by grokking its illusiveness. Illusiveness is when Tao was hidden but has the high potential power to create. Another words, you can only see the Invisible by intuition to sense the presence of Tao.

When you sees the Visible but Tao is still invisible. One can only see the Visible by the manifestation of Tao. By the manifestation of Tao, it means when all thing are created by Tao and become tangible. BTW All tangible things have a boundary which can be described as the limitation of Tao.

Edited March 18, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

 

I believe "Profound" is a better translation for 玄(xuan2) than "Mystery".

Yeah, but you read the Chinese characters. I have to just go with what feels good for me.

[ChiDragon]

Yeah, but you read the Chinese characters. I have to just go with what feels good for me.

 

.......but you are always feeling good though.....!!!

[Marblehead]

He is also the one who wrote this on Ziran:

http://www.confuchina.com/05%20zongjiao/Lao%20Zi's%20Concept%20of%20Zi%20Ran.htm

 

You might also like to see how Heng is talked about in regards to the I Ching:

http://www.kufty.com/oracles/i-ching/will/wilhelm32.htm

I'm not sure if that is the one I read on Ziran or not. I'll read it later.

 

I'm really not into the I-Ching so I just scanned the article. Sounds pretty consistent with what I understand so far.

[Marblehead]

BTW All tangible things have a boundary which can be described as the limitation of Tao.

 

Are you sure about that?

[Marblehead]

 

.......but you are always feeling good though.....!!!

Hehehe. That is almost an absolute.

[Stosh]

Now I think the picture is very clear. It will be just a matter of time that we can get it right. This is my feeling now, but who really knows?

If 2500 years of discussion hasnt been able to settle the issues there is an inherent suceptibility for folks to end up with differing views ( so I dont think there will ever be a 'right' answer.)

As it was interped to me, first chapter TTC ,,,Any dao that can dao is not the eternal dao.

( one needs bias to be guided to ones purpose -which dao doesnt do or know. and so it is left for folks to follow thier own bias towards peace and wellbeing.......

 

take away all gods and external impetus and what do you have left to explain the world and the powers that one contends with - Tao !)

Edited March 18, 2013 by Stosh

[ChiDragon]

BTW All tangible things have a boundary which can be described as the limitation of Tao.

Are you sure about that?

Well, let's put it this way. If Tao doesn't put a pause(limitation) somewhere, then we wouldn't be able to detect its presence. Isn't it...???

[Marblehead]

BTW All tangible things have a boundary which can be described as the limitation of Tao.

 

 

Well, let's put it this way. If Tao doesn't put a pause(limitation) somewhere, then we wouldn't be able to detect its presence. Isn't it...???

Hehehe. I think I understand what you are saying but it just doesn't feel comfortable on me.

 

Yes, all the Ten Thousand Things (manifest physical reality) have their limitations and boundries. I suppose that this is why they become manifest in the first place. Empty space (pure potential) has no boundries or limitations - and this too is an aspect of Tao.

 

So yes, I suppose that one could say that if space/time is viewed as linear, with a beginning and an end, then there are limits and boundries. But, if space/time is viewed as cyclical, there really is no beginning, no end, and there would be no limits or boundries between cycles. (That almost sounds Buddhist. Hehehe)

 

 

Anyhow, I have done a lot of heng-ing and nothing has changed. Well, that's not perfectly true but my understandings of the TTC and the teachings of Lao Tzu have no changed.

 

The heng-ing of Dao is eternal whereas the heng-ing of the Ten Thousand Things is to live long. Of course, for we humans, to be heng-ing we must also be ziran-ing.

 

Fun stuff!!!

 

And yes, I do believe that we are born into life, not born into death. I've mentioned that I am an optimist, haven't I?

[ChiDragon]

Hehehe. I think I understand what you are saying but it just doesn't feel comfortable on me.

 

Yes, all the Ten Thousand Things (manifest physical reality) have their limitations and boundries. I suppose that this is why they become manifest in the first place.

This is where the state of Tao is "You" comes into the picture.

 

Empty space (pure potential) has no boundries or limitations - and this too is an aspect of Tao.

This is where the state of Tao is "Wu" comes in.

The heng-ing of Dao is eternal whereas the heng-ing of the Ten Thousand Things is to live long. Of course, for we humans, to be heng-ing we must also be ziran-ing.

 

The character "heng" means eternal. Tao is eternal as described in Chapter One. Heng doesn't apply to the Ten Thousand Things because they do extinct. If the Ten Thousand Things are eternal too, then Tao would be part of them. Hence, this will invalidate that Tao was being eternal.

 

[dawei]

I'm really not into the I-Ching so I just scanned the article. Sounds pretty consistent with what I understand so far.

 

Me neither... it may or may not have anything which speaks to you.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

... 'scuse, wrong place

Edited March 19, 2013 by Harmonious Emptiness

[dynamictao]

5. 故恒無，欲以觀其妙。

6. 恒有，欲以觀其徼。

 

5. Hence, when Tao is always invisible, one would grok its quale.

6. When Tao is always visible, one would observe its boundary.

 

 

There is no doubt that the picture is still dualistic. However, when you see the "Invisible" but it is visible only by grokking its illusiveness. Illusiveness is when Tao was hidden but has the high potential power to create. Another words, you can only see the Invisible by intuition to sense the presence of Tao.

 

When you sees the Visible but Tao is still invisible. One can only see the Visible by the manifestation of Tao. By the manifestation of Tao, it means when all thing are created by Tao and become tangible. BTW All tangible things have a boundary which can be described as the limitation of Tao.

This seems to agree with one of Wang Bi's interpretation that associate "Wu with Tao" and Yu with the phenomenal world. (But I am not really sure this is what you mean.) I do not agree with Wang Bi on that point only (Most other points are really great). I discuss some reasons in my book. I actually also follow through that route, the logic would end up the same. [Note Wang Bi has "Wu is the origin of Heaven and Earth", so he can say Wu is Tao.]

Since we all develop different ways to resolve our own problems and we have used many special words with our definition (I use manifestation, but it is not in a dictionary of philosophy by Reese). I would think, for now, that as long as you have a consistent view, there is no special reason to disagree or change.

I had to choose the way I choose, because it works for me. The best I can do now is to wait for a better way to appear,

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

 

The Dragon said:

 

The character "heng" means eternal. Tao is eternal as described in Chapter One. Heng doesn't apply to the Ten Thousand Things because they do extinct. If the Ten Thousand Things are eternal too, then Tao would be part of them. Hence, this will invalidate that Tao was being eternal.

 

Now this we might have to discuss further. To look at only one definition of "heng" would be an error, I think.

 

"... heng in Laozi’s heng dao focuses more on "living longer" 長生 of the myriad creatures, and on the concept of "never dying" 不死 of dao as a natural way of giving birth." - Qingjie (James) Wang

 

I accept this as valid. That is why I stated that the Ten Thousand Things operate within a linear space/time variable whereas Dao is cyclical - there really is no beginning or end - it can be used but can never be used up. (Energy is this way too.)