The Principle and Logic of Tao Philosophy

[dynamictao]

Dynamictao

I Ilike your idea of "Tao as Principle of Oneness"

-

The problem of understanding is in using the term Duality.... as i see it...

 

 

The term "Duality" / Dualism" means:

two different beings fighting each other.

God and Devil - that is a Duality.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dualism

-

The term "Complement" means:

two parts building a one.- making complete...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complement

 

heng wu - heng you

are "complements".

(Nice to see you here - I think this time it is right, but who knows?)

 

We are trying to create a new definition of many such terms. Some classical definitions may create problems.

I should add them to the keyword list I have in the book.

 

How about calling "God" and "Devil" as "dualistic opposites"?

Wu and Yu constitute a "whole" so they are dualistic and complementary?

Maybe complementary should be used only at the object level?

 

Each actuality (Heng Wu or Heng Yu) are whole and complete.

Can we call Heng Wu and Heng Yu as "dualistic realities"? "parallel realities"?

They are Two and One at the same time. They are "ontologically equivalent." Heng Wu and Heng Yu are individually "whole." Maybe they are dualistic whole. I the model, they are ontologically equivalent "actualities."

 

It is good that we can discuss the basic terminology here. I will review how they are used in the book.

I will add more terms to the Appendix of my book (The Logic of Tao Philosophy).

 

(It looks that whoever downloaded earlier version of the book cannot re-download the updated versions! I am updating the books for typos and some clarifications.) My goal was to keep the book readable to most, since I believe the logic can help our understanding of the Tao Te Ching.)

 

I feel bad about many typos, please wait a few days before you order the book "The Logic".

Edited June 3, 2013 by dynamictao

[dynamictao]

when can i get your book

Sorry you just missed it.

 

I offer both Kindle ebooks free for the last two days (June 1,2) - as was announced in this forum 2 weeks ago. There were about a totle of 300 downloads. (The books are available at Amazon.)

The short descriptions are available (see earlier posts on this topic).

 

I have found more typos and will be fixing them.

The main idea is not very complicated, so the corrections are mostly not critical (But they will be done.).

Edited June 4, 2013 by dynamictao

[Riyue]

(Nice to see you here - I think this time it is right, but who knows?)

 

We are trying to create a new definition of many such terms. Some classical definitions may create problems.

I should add them to the keyword list I have in the book.

 

How about calling "God" and "Devil" as "dualistic opposites"?

Wu and Yu constitute a "whole" so they are dualistic and complementary?

Maybe complementary should be used only at the object level?

 

Each actuality (Heng Wu or Heng Yu) are whole and complete.

Can we call Heng Wu and Heng Yu as "dualistic realities"? "parallel realities"?

They are Two and One at the same time. They are "ontologically equivalent." Heng Wu and Heng Yu are individually "whole." Maybe they are dualistic whole. I the model, they are ontologically equivalent "actualities."

 

It is good that we can discuss the basic terminology here. I will review how they are used in the book.

I will add more terms to the Appendix of my book (The Logic of Tao Philosophy).

 

(It looks that whoever downloaded earlier version of the book cannot re-download the updated versions! I am updating the books for typos and some clarifications.) My goal was to keep the book readable to most, since I believe the logic can help our understanding of the Tao Te Ching.)

 

I feel bad about many typos, please wait a few days before you order the book "The Logic".

 

Dynamictao

 

 

How about calling "God" and "Devil" as "dualistic opposites"?

- yes - here the term is matching.

Wu and Yu constitute a "whole" so they are dualistic and complementary?

- i would not use "dualistic" in combination with complementary

 

Maybe complementary should be used only at the object level?

- here i think of ddj2:

有無相生

you-wu are complements : the visible and invisble - together they build the object.

 

 

Each actuality (Heng Wu or Heng Yu) are whole and complete.

Can we call Heng Wu and Heng Yu as "dualistic realities"? "parallel realities"?

They are Two and One at the same time. They are "ontologically equivalent." Heng Wu and Heng Yu are individually "whole." Maybe they are dualistic whole. I the model, they are ontologically equivalent "actualities."

 

 

i am remembering here ddj1:

 

恆無欲以觀其妙

恆有欲以觀其徼

此兩者同出

i understand here - that "heng wu and heng you" make a 兩 (pair) - a complement...

and as pair they represent : 一陰一陽之謂道 - isn't this just the idea of

"Tao as Principle of Oneness " ?

Best regards

Riyue

Edited April 18, 2014 by Riyue

[ChiDragon]

 

i am remembering here ddj1:

 

恆無欲以觀其妙

恆有欲以觀其徼

此兩者同出

i understand here - that "heng wu and heng you" make a 兩 (pair) - a complement...

and as pair they represent : 一陰一陽之謂道 - isn't this just the idea of

"Tao as Principle of Oneness " ?

Best regards

wulf

 

Linguistically, "wu and you" are the dyad. The emphasis should not have too much weight on "heng" because "heng" is only an adjective.

 

恆無 and 恆有 should not be brought out of context. These two terms should not be interpreted in relation the "Wu and You" because they are compound with the "heng". As a result, these two terms become adjectives. However, these two terms must interpreted with more meaningful relationship with the philosophy of Lao Tze.

 

恆無: always none(無) which means "invisible". "Invisible" was referred to Tao before or at the origin of the Heaven and Earth(the Universe). Thus 恆無 has the linguistic meaning that "When Tao is always invisible,...."

 

恆有: Always has(有) which means "exist". "Exist" was referred that Tao was manifested. Thus 恆有 has the linguistic meaning that " When Tao was always manifested,....."

 

 

Edited June 3, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dynamictao]

 

Linguistically, "wu and you" are the dyad. The emphasis should not have too much weight on "heng" because "heng" is only an adjective.

 

恆無 and 恆有 should not be brought out of context. These two terms should not be interpreted in relation the "Wu and You" because they are compound with the "heng". As a result, these two terms become adjectives. However, these two terms must interpreted with more meaningful relationship with the philosophy of Lao Tze.

 

恆無: always none(無) which means "invisible". "Invisible" was referred to Tao before or at the origin of the Heaven and Earth(the Universe). Thus 恆無 has the linguistic meaning that "When Tao is always invisible,...."

 

恆有: Always has(有) which means "exist". "Exist" was referred that Tao was manifested. Thus 恆有 has the linguistic meaning that " When Tao was always manifested,....."

 

 

It all depends on the meaning of 恆 Heng. Professor Qingjie Wang's (Hong Kong) papers on Heng Dao talk about the meaning of Heng in the Book of Changes. As I recall in or outside of his papers, that Heng has been taken to be Tao itself. (「道、恆也。」 or 「恆、道也。」??? ) Along this reasoning, 恆無 Heng Wu carries the flavor of "the state of Wu in Tao or according to Tao."

 

Does your interpretation establishes "visible" (Heng Yu) and "invisible" (Heng Wu) as "dualistic" view again, or Heng Wu and Heng Yu are parallel? It may be possible to keep the discussions nondualistic. Good points. I did an analysis along Wang Bi metaphysics, and conclude that the same Logic may be applied ( I did not publish that, since it will only confuse the issue.

 

Initially it is a complicated isssue. That way I decide to discuss "The Logic of Tao Philosophy" separate from "The Ultimate Translation" so we can put the Logic on the table to have open discussions. [i hope most people have downloaded a free copy of Kindle book. I may be allowed for one more day to make it free.]

 

Wayne

Edited June 6, 2013 by dynamictao

[dynamictao]

"The Oneness or Nonduality of Tao appears as a pair of Dualistic Realities in the world."

 

I still cannot get over your idea of "Oneness or Nonduality of Tao". Then, you've contradicted yourself with "Nonduality of Tao appears as a pair of Dualistic Realities in the world."

 

How about the following?

 

In terms of dualism, the absolute reality (Tao) is monistic or non-dualistic. The phenomenal world is more complicated. All entities in the phenomenal world are associated with names 名. The objects are dualistic and complementary. In our model, Heng Names 恆名represent reality, so each of them must be a whole and non-dualistic. The manifestations, Heng Wu and Heng Yu, are non-dualistic and they are "dual but equivalent" representations of Tao. The two manifestations are two-and-one at the same time. The manifestations are ontologically equivalent to each other.

 

Wayne

[dynamictao]

i understand here - that "heng wu and heng you" make a 兩 (pair) - a complement...

and as pair they represent : 一陰一陽之謂道 - isn't this just the idea of

"Tao as Principle of Oneness " ?

Best regards

wulf

 

I would say Wu and Yu are complementary so they generate two realistic views: Heng Wu and Heng Yu.

However, are Heng Wu and Heng Yu complementary? Heng Wu and Heng Yu can each represents the principle of Tao.

One yin and one yang, as complements, can represent Tao, just like one Wu and one Yu, as complements, can represent Tao.

 

The complements of Wu and Yu form Heng Wu and Heng Yu.

Any two opposites can represent Tao, if they are properly comlementing each other.

This really help clearing up the terminology.

 

Wayne

 

 

 

We may now summarize our discussion with a simple principle. Tao is Oneness. In Tao philosophy, Oneness is the basis of all realities, so we may summarize the principle of Tao as The Principle of Oneness 恆一原則:

[Riyue]

I would say Wu and Yu are complementary so they generate two realistic views: Heng Wu and Heng Yu.

However, are Heng Wu and Heng Yu complementary? Heng Wu and Heng Yu can each represents the principle of Tao.

One yin and one yang, as complements, can represent Tao, just like one Wu and one Yu, as complements, can represent Tao.

 

The complements of Wu and Yu form Heng Wu and Heng Yu.

Any two opposites can represent Tao, if they are properly comlementing each other.

This really help clearing up the terminology.

 

Wayne

 

 

 

We may now summarize our discussion with a simple principle. Tao is Oneness. In Tao philosophy, Oneness is the basis of all realities, so we may summarize the principle of Tao as The Principle of Oneness 恆一原則:

 

Wayne

Thank you for response....

here some thoughts about heng2:

 

In the moment - one is accepting "complementing" as an essential feature of 道 -

one understands what is depicted by the guodian-version of 恆:

夕 + 卜 between 二.

(for example guodian-laozi-ddj#32 :you can find it here:

Guodian Laozi Daodejing Bamboo Strips the original text - high resolution scan 郭店楚墓竹簡 老子 道德經

:http://www.alice-dsl.net/wulfdieterich/index.htm/ )

 

For me it describes 道 in its complementary feature.

The twilight in between points to the not ending change of sun 恒 (day - night) or moon 恆 (waning-waxing) ... thus it is pointing to complementary change generally caused by polarity of sky-earth...

and thus it is pointing to the experience of "complementing" between visible and invisible.

"True" or "real" seems for me to be a judging rendering of héng

"complementing" would be for me a sinograph-describing rendering of héng

---

(edited because link was broken due to changes by provider...)

Edited June 14, 2013 by Riyue

[dynamictao]

Wayne

Thank you for response....

here some thoughts about heng2:

 

In the moment - one is accepting "complementing" as an essential feature of 道 -

one understands what is depicted by the guodian-version of 恆:

夕 + 卜 between 二.

(for example guodian-laozi-ddj#32 : http://www.alice-dsl.net/wulfdieterich/Guodian_ddj32.htm)

For me it describes 道 in its complementary feature.

The twilight in between points to the not ending change of sun 恒 (day - night) or moon 恆 (waning-waxing) ... thus it is pointing to complementary change generally caused by polarity of sky-earth...

and thus it is pointing to the experience of "complementing" between visible and invisible.

"True" or "real" seems for me to be a judging rendering of héng

"complementing" would be for me a sinograph-describing rendering of héng

 

 

 

Wayne

Thank you for response....

here some thoughts about heng2:

 

In the moment - one is accepting "complementing" as an essential feature of 道 -

one understands what is depicted by the guodian-version of 恆:

夕 + 卜 between 二.

(for example guodian-laozi-ddj#32 : http://www.alice-dsl.net/wulfdieterich/Guodian_ddj32.htm)

For me it describes 道 in its complementary feature.

The twilight in between points to the not ending change of sun 恒 (day - night) or moon 恆 (waning-waxing) ... thus it is pointing to complementary change generally caused by polarity of sky-earth...

and thus it is pointing to the experience of "complementing" between visible and invisible.

"True" or "real" seems for me to be a judging rendering of héng

"complementing" would be for me a sinograph-describing rendering of héng

 

It is enlightening to see how Heng was written in Guodian.

 

There is no problem in calling Tao a complementary of any two opposites.

We may start Chapter 1 by saying that:

 

Lao-tzu defines Wu and Yu to describe the myriad things. but he soon

finds out that neither Wu nor Yu can describe the myriad things.

Only the complementarity of Wu and Yu can describe the true myriad things.

He calls these complementary states: Heng Wu and Heng Yu.

They can represent Tao.......etc.

 

So we may say that the principle of Tao is "Complementarity."

Complementarity of any opposites is the way to have wholeness or Oneness.

This may be useful and consistent. Thank.

 

Wayne

Edited June 6, 2013 by dynamictao

[ChiDragon]

It all depends on the meaning of 恆 Heng. Professor Qingjie Wang's (Hong Kong) papers on Heng Dao talk about the meaning of Heng in the Book of Changes. As I recall in or outside of his papers, that Heng has been taken to be Tao itself. (「道、恆也。」 or 「恆、道也。」??? ) Along this reasoning, 恆無 Heng Wu carries the flavor of "the state of Wu in Tao or according to Tao."

 

Does your interpretation establishes "visible" (Heng Yu) and "invisible" (Heng Wu) as "dualistic" view again, or Heng Wu and Heng Yu are parallel? It may be possible to keep the discussions nondualistic. Good points. I did an analysis along Wang Bi metaphysics, and conclude that the same Logic may be applied ( I did not publish that, since it will only confuse the issue.

 

Initially it is a complicated isssue. That way I decide to discuss "The Logic of Tao Philosophy" separate from "The Ultimate Translation" so we can put the Logic on the table to have open discussions. [i hope most people have downloaded a free copy of Kindle book. I may be allowed for one more day to make it free.]

 

Wayne

 

The 恆(Heng) in Yi Jing was a name given to a hexagram. It carries its own definition in the Yin Jing. Outside of that, 恆(Heng) has its own linguistic meaning.

 

In regarding to the implicated meanings of (「道、恆也。」 or 「恆、道也。」

「道、恆也。」: Tao is eternal

「恆、道也。」: Eternal is Tao.

 

My interpretation establishes "visible" (Yu) and "invisible" (Wu) instead of your interpretation "visible" (Heng Yu) and "invisible" (Heng Wu). I think Wu and You are well defined in Lines 3 and 4 in Chapter One. Lines 5 and 6 are the substantial statement for Lines 3 and 4. I don't why Lines 5 and 6 draws so much attention for you to go off tangent in your interpretation of the Wu and You.

 

Chapter 1

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.

 

 

IMMHO I think you are putting too much emphasis on the character 恆(Heng) which lead you off course of the basic philosophy of the Tao Te Ching.

Edited June 6, 2013 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

How about the following?

 

In terms of dualism, the absolute reality (Tao) is monistic or non-dualistic. The phenomenal world is more complicated. All entities in the phenomenal world are associated with names 名. The objects are dualistic and complementary. In our model, Heng Names 恆名represent reality, so each of them must be a whole and non-dualistic. The manifestations, Heng Wu and Heng Yu, are non-dualistic and they are "dual but equivalent" representations of Tao. The two manifestations are two-and-one at the same time. The manifestations are ontologically equivalent to each other.

 

Wayne

 

If one have considered the interpretation of Line 2 in Chapter One of the Tao Te Ching:

2. 名可名，非恒名。

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

 

What Line 2 implicates is that there was no such thing as an eternal name(恒名).

Edited June 6, 2013 by ChiDragon

[lienshan]

3. 無，名天地之始。

4. 有，名萬物之母。

 

Exclamatory sentences were in pre-Qin classical chinese expressed by inversion of the subject and the predicate. That'll say the characters of the two sentences must be read in this order:

 

3. 天地之始無名。

4. 萬物之母有名。

 

But I agree that 恆 heng is the subject of chapter one.

Inspired by dawei is my take on it infiniteness/infinite and not eternity/eternal.

[ChiDragon]

Please don't confuse the issue here. Thanks.

[dynamictao]

"too much emphasis on the character 恆(Heng)"

 

I agree that I have to watch carefully.

I just share what I have found interesting and useful to myself.

Whatever inspiration works should be pursued (without expecting agreement).

Who knows?

Lao-tzu may be laughing at the way we try to understand his jokes.

Share!

Edited June 7, 2013 by dynamictao

[Riyue]

It is enlightening to see how Heng was written in Guodian.Heng.jpg

 

There is no problem in calling Tao a complementary of any two opposites.

We may start Chapter 1 by saying that:

 

Lao-tzu defines Wu and Yu to describe the myriad things. but he soon

finds out that neither Wu nor Yu can describe the myriad things.

Only the complementarity of Wu and Yu can describe the true myriad things.

He calls these complementary states: Heng Wu and Heng Yu.

They can represent Tao.......etc.

 

So we may say that the principle of Tao is "Complementarity."

Complementarity of any opposites is the way to have wholeness or Oneness.

This may be useful and consistent. Thank.

 

Wayne

A further hint for the validity of your view of heng as key for laozi:

The authentic qigong exercises - as for example 天地開閤 - use just this complementing principle.... by having a structure of counter-running complementing figures....

Those who are practicing it...- know about the great effect... for feeling whole... harmonious...

 

---

The Principle of Oneness 恆一原則:

 

[shanlung]

When the Tao that you think is the Tao, IS NOT the Tao.

 

And when even the Name that you think is the Name, IS NOT the Name.

 

My hat off to you to be able to get beyond that most fundamental restrictions to go

and formulate the very principle and the Logic of Tao Philosophy.

 

Logic is a nested series of lenses that focus on whatever facet or view chosen.

In that focusing, the interconnections will be lost as that is the very principle of focusing.

 

And for all I know, Tao is nothing, but a web of connections , and without those connections, there might not be Tao in the first place.

 

But then, being an idiot, I know I miss so many things that I am sure you be delighted to point out

the errors of my ways.

 

Idiotic Taoist

Edited June 7, 2013 by shanlung

[dynamictao]

When the Tao that you think is the Tao, IS NOT the Tao.

 

And when even the Name that you think is the Name, IS NOT the Name.

 

My hat off to you to be able to get beyond that most fundamental restrictions to go

and formulate the very principle and the Logic of Tao Philosophy.

 

Logic is a nested series of lenses that focus on whatever facet or view chosen.

In that focusing, the interconnections will be lost as that is the very principle of focusing.

 

And for all I know, Tao is nothing, but a web of connections , and without those connections, there might not be Tao in the first place.

 

But then, being an idiot, I know I miss so many things that I am sure you be delighted to point out

the errors of my ways.

 

Idiotic Taoist

 

I do not see anything "wrong" in your observations.

 

I think many people see the same thing, but we may have different "web of conciousness" to feel it.

We share our ways of seeing it, so each of us can gain more insight to build a better web for our selves.

Only the web-buider can known what is wrong with his/her web.

Outsider has no way of knowing what is wrong.

 

There are many ways to represent the same thing. That is why I respect any point of view.

Logic is not the truth. It is just a way to "steer" to a conclusion showing the assumptions.

 

I hope we are having fun to share our own thoughts.

Like in science, every theory is waiting to be proved wrong!

Edited June 8, 2013 by dynamictao

[shanlung]

When you stated 2000 to 3000 years of the TAO gone by in stagnation until you wrote your masterpiece, that did not seem like you took other views very much . The Taoist Masters in the last 2 thousand years in Hui Shan, ChingCheng Shan and Wudang Shan and their findings had been all dismissed by you as meaningless stagnant works.

 

Taoist hermits went hermitting all in vain as they did not have your insights and wasted their time and the times of their disciples and myriad lineages.

 

The wanting to combine insights of many to have many views aka the 5 blind men and elephant is not even valid as that is at best a simplistic fable.

 

Can we tell if the blind man was indeed touching on a part of the elephant in the first place?

The man might not even be near the elephant and is it by loudness of the view that his hand is on the elephant? By declaring he is a professor and can award scholarship and assoc professorship and that intellectually he /she is strong that therefore he/she is actually touching that elephant?

 

Collective knowledge is a myth. Forget about Tao and talk of a simpler thing like playing chess.

A Grandmaster can take on 200 normal players and beat the shit out of everyone of them simultaneously.

That Grandmaster can allow those 200 players to consult with each other and beat the shit out of them at the same time.

 

200 X 0 is zero.

 

Look at the talk of taijichuan here.

Do you think 20 contributers in a thread meant the thread is closer to taijichuan? Or more hot air and fantasy and just plain nonsence are now part of that mythical elephant? All of them thinking they got part of the elephant even if they do not even know what is Tinjing, Dongjing. Other than waving of hands and legs slowly and thinking of love and universe that they are doing taiji? Reading books, even good books and seeing videos meant they know?

That lineages will be more than enough to impress if they have no clue of the jing?

That knowing Chinese and throwing chinese words meant they know jing and chi and stuff?

 

Or you think the TAO is a lot more simple than taijichuan and jing to have the principles and logic so nicely laid out in diagrams and words?

 

I can only admit my mind is nowhere the level of yours. I wish you happiness and success in your search.

 

I just want to eat when hungry, and drink when thirsty and remain a lowly idiot and leave my betters to professorships and chairships.

 

I think the world is big enough for all to go their own way in peace.

 

Idiot on the Path

[dynamictao]

When you stated 2000 to 3000 years of the TAO gone by in stagnation until you wrote your masterpiece, that did not seem like you took other views very much . The Taoist Masters in the last 2 thousand years in Hui Shan, ChingCheng Shan and Wudang Shan and their findings had been all dismissed by you as meaningless stagnant works.

 

>>> Not at all. What I present is only a view on Tao for people who have looked for "Logic" only. or a new way to speculate.

>>> All others were looking for something else and , of course, they have found what are great for their purposes.

 

 

The wanting to combine insights of many to have many views aka the 5 blind men and elephant is not even valid as that is at best a simplistic fable.

>>> Interesting. I have shared my view on the "Blind" man issue in the following way:

>>> If we have award for all the blind men and they will try to understand what others have found; then they will figure out the "Truth."

>>> If we arward only a sole winner, then they will argue against each other; then they will never find the "Truth."

>>>

 

 

Look at the talk of taijichuan here.

 

>>> In my view, all these practices are authentic and, when properly executed, will have the same benefit of understanding Tao.

>>> All masters are trying to share their ways of achieveing the same unity with Tao.

>>>

 

Or you think the TAO is a lot more simple than taijichuan and jing to have the principles and logic so nicely laid out in diagrams and words?

>>> Tao is not simple, although the basic basic basic principle may be simpler.

>>> Something we get this basic principle simly as "Tao cannot be described" and that is enough as a wonderful inspiration for some people.

>>> Something, "No word" is the best wisdom.

 

I can only admit my mind is nowhere the level of yours. I wish you happiness and success in your search.

>>> We are all at different levels, but all levels are equivalent in Tao.

 

I just want to eat when hungry, and drink when thirsty and remain a lowly idiot and leave my betters to professorships and chairships.

>>> Isn't that what Tao is!

 

I think the world is big enough for all to go their own way in peace.

>>> Yes. Each of us has the whole world. Remember "You are the World"?

>>> Hope everyone is happy.

[dynamictao]

I have updated both The Logic of Tao Philosophy and The Tao Te Ching: An Ultimate Translation. For those who have downloaded the Kindle books, Amazon should notify you to download the new version. (Amazon says it take more tha 4 weeks!)

 

For a very few who have bought the printed books, should let me know and I will see how to get updates.([email protected]).

 

The Logic has been updated, and the Translation will be updated in a few days.

The new versions are marked with [First Edition] now.

 

Wayne

[ion]

The two taos that are complete and must be reflections of tao are not "tao". Tao preexist time, sequence and order. So tao existed before existance. Its emerging and materielizing into forms and functions is also tao.

 

Tao is not a thing that can be named but the path it has taken can be seen.

Edited June 14, 2013 by ion

[Marblehead]

Tao is not a thing that can be named but the path it has taken can be seen.

Did you just reinforce my understanding that Tao follows Tzujan?

[ion]

It could be said that there are 1 tao for sure and at least two that can be pointed out but not specified. Tao is, that is how we are, that is 1 tao. The other is percieved and because of the other one could say that the tao is, because we are.

 

In a world of disorder/chaos we are wired to percieve order and sequence and hus we can both discern and describe tao2, but tao 2 is subject to our perception of order and sequence so we see it as the path of creation and transmutation...the tao that diverifies as it issues forth...:issues forth from what? A point, the begining? there is no place that existance started because true tao is best described as the principle of infinity.

 

The complimentary aspects of tao that are being said two be two wholes making a one are not tao, but the initial expresion(s) of tao and the first stage of tao's creating existance by wu wei.

 

Tao makes itself known to us by showing us a sequence of becoming, that when understood is disregaurded as fact, but held onto as an understanding as the way of Tao, but metaphorical. Why do I say this? Because when an understanding of the way is cultivated, it is understood that everything always is and was and will be. But there is the tao of creation which is both real and metaphor. Real because it describes the path of manifestation, metaphor because nothing, especially the two or threee taos ever started but always have been.

 

True tao can best be described as a principle only. Non existant as a thing, but very real in principle...it is the principle of infinity.

 

Tao preexist time, its first expression is nothingness. Tao's second form is the absolutness of the first form. It is two forms of nothing that togeather make complete nothingness. The wo forms are actually three or four.

 

First form is the principle of infinity expressed as utter and complete stillness and spacelessness. Total nonexistance. If you dont believe in nonexistance then you see it clearly because A-it doesnt exist and B. saying that "it does not exist" refers to its nonexistance. This stage of Tao is "old yin". The second stage is yang. Yang "activates" old yin which becomes new yin or pseudo activity.

 

This group of tao's are one thing. Like a chord that is streatched tight and spun, then folded in half. Although the tension is all going one direction, the fold creates anscenario where the two halves each hold tension in opposite directions even though they are one chord. When folded and let go the opposing directions of the same tension cause the two halves to wrap and wind around eachother to form a double helix.

 

The chord is one, the two halves are one and cannot said to be seperate except for the direction of the tension. The act of winding around eachother can not be said to be seperate from the chord or the two haves. Although there are multiple aspects its all one thing and that is tao.

 

Symetry is one of the myriad creatures. Although the chord is one it can bbe said to have symetry which implies that there are two. Because there was one thing that became two, it could be said that there is also replication, and diversification among otherthings. If the tao of creation is continually looked at from this perspective it could be said that 1 became 2, and 2 begat 3 and the 3 gave birth to the myriad of creatures which also implies that the formless elements of reality, things that are every where but have no form like symetry, reproduction and any other descriptive verb are actually conscious beings...(all things are sentient, even no-things).

 

Before being, there was a realm of nonbeing and nonexistance, this is the home of true Tao, the sourceless source who dwells selflesy with out self and no intention, from which all things sprang forth without direct intention. The sourceless sources( spirit/principle of infinity) initiial expression was nothing, absolute nothing and in accordance with tao, the tao was non-creating. Its expression was a force that enforced nothingness like a singular law of nature.

 

When the expression was, then it became self aware, but the defining qualities it was self aware of pointed out it lacked the equivacal force to ensure nothinness from its opposing polarity and so by virtue of infinity(tao) its symetric opposite came into existance and at once nothingness became complete and within its wholeness the myriad creatures came issuing forth and from their interactions came materiel form.

 

True Tao did nothing and insisted that nothing was all that would ever be done and from that nonassertive act of actlessness the arising of consciousness and existance began to relate.

 

Tao can be said to have these forms: the form of a principle, the fact of infinity, the second form is second because we are subject to time space and order was infinite nothingness, absolute nonexistance, void ov energy and space, not empty space, absolute lack of dimmension/old yin. The second form of nothing is nothingness by way of absolute energy compacted into a "single point"/yang. The arising of yang in response to the existance of yin as a result of the all encompassing nature of infinity being a "law" to fullfill results in action: action being the apearance of yang in the state/space of eternal old yin, thus nothingness whith its to cooperative halfs is now officialy completed by the pseudo existance of the complementary halves which are actualy wholes/infinities creating one nothingness out of two nothingness. The initial response of the arising of yang in the space of old yin is new yin. New yin is a form of 1 dimmensional activity which generates a pseudo "space" like phenomenon, almost something like a 2-d frame of emptiness. field going outward from the center where yang exists going infintesimily inward. Although the outward going field of new yin is infinitely outward as the result of the infinite inwardness of yang, an exact duplicate of yang appears at the pseudo-or hypothetical edge of yins extension, and from each yang that appeared on the perimeter a new yin surrounds and engulfs it and streatches infinitely outward.

 

Besides the action and activity there are obsevable phenomenon repeating and spreading through the pseudo one or two dimension of infinity. Symetry, diversification, replication and maybe 9,997 more formless elements of time and space. Every time an act is originated in Taos field of infinite nothingness which by way of wu wei has become a field of action and activity, it both generates a symetry and completley replicates itself and diversifies, with the marriage of replication and diversification thare is change...cange plus diversification replication and symetry originate evolution and tranmutation...when there is an infinite field full of these types of elements having interactions amongst nothingness, a symetric sameness diversifies from nothingness and the first thing is created; created by wu wei the realm of physical existance as a direct byproduct of the taos selflessly existing in nonexistance without an actual self.

 

Symetry is also opposite as well as sameness. Black is symetric to white and high is to low because in the realm of nonexistance where realative interactions are inspired but have no actuality, only absolute values exist, and so black is indiscernable from white and high is the exact same as low.

[ion]

Did you just reinforce my understanding that Tao follows Tzujan?

I sure hopeso!

[ion]

When considering the two that are ones that togeather complete absolutley NOTHING and that the pseudo-existance of that completely nothingness placelessness sprang forth the begining of time and that Tao is unassertive, keep in mind that a reflection of the whole is seen in all its parts, even if they are nonexistance...remember, in speech and in mathmatics two negatives added togeather, placed togeather or multiplied always create a posotive integer.

 

Existance is a good example of how we can attain something from nothing so long as we have an even number of nothings or negatives to put togeather.