Lao-tzu Ch 2: 有 & 無

[Hosh]

I don't think 有 and 無 can be adequately discussed without considering their pre-historical roots and practices, specifically what people today might label as "shamanic" practices.

 

The etymology of 有 is, "right hand grasping the moon", or perhaps, "right hand grasping meat." It refers to the tendency we have to accept reality that is tangible, literally "touchable".

 

The etymology of 無 is a primitive remnant for "dancers, with tails on each end". The modern rendition suggests, "dancing on fire." This seems far away from the modern word for "not", or "negation", but this is connected. This is referring to the realization gained through ecstatic trances (through dancing, meditation, or entheogens). Specifically, the realization is that the world is not made of flesh (hence, "grasping", or 有).

 

There really isn't a point in trying to study 道德經 exclusively through textual interpretation. Some things require direct experience, and 無 is one of them. It's only when you realized 無 that you can easily see how the mind tend to grasp at things (有). Furthermore, the tendency to exclusively use textual evidence is itself a form of 有, of grasping. Any interpretations without at least attempting to experience ends up running around in circles.

 

Another way of putting it is, the Tao Te Ching is a practice manual for insight meditation.

 

It is also important to note that 有 and 無 is not describing duality. This is not "yin" and "yang", or about polarities and opposites. We create dualism in our mind through 有. By grasping on to some things and avoiding other things, we artificially create boundaries, a self, and that is from which all forms of dualism arises.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Hosh

[Hosh]

Both: Mawangdui-Laozi and Guodian-Laozi use not 無 but 亡.

if one uses the translation "hidden" for 亡.

then one gets ?

 

You get the same thing.

 

亡 etymologically means, "man falling into the abyss", or perhaps, "man falling into the tomb." Alternatively, it means "to enter a concealed place". It has strong connotations with death and loss. While this may seem like a term distinct from 無, it's merely another alias for realization. In this case, we're talking about the loss of persona, of self. Or meat (that is, your body).

 

If you look at the various ethnographs of shamanic practices from around the world, a common theme is that of the loss of self, where the shaman "dies" in the journey. Despite geographic and linguistic separation, this theme is consistent enough to appear as part of Campbell's model on the monomyth cycle.

 

In other words, the Lao Tzu did not package up his teaching as a "thing" called The Way. Rather, the Way is one of many teachings pointing to same source, one that is intrinsic to human experience and as such, appears in many cultures even though such cultures might be isolated from each other. Instead of trying to interpret what Lao Tzu is trying to say, it's better to practice, and then read something like the Tao Te Ching in support of the practice. (It's pretty easy to figure out what Lao Tzu is trying to say. He is saying: "go meditate.")

Edited July 12, 2013 by Hosh

[ChiDragon]

.......................................

This is the philosophy section. "Meditation" ought to be discussed in the Taoist or General Discussion Section.

Edited July 12, 2013 by ChiDragon

[rene]

Hush, CD. (-:

 

Hosh is bringing some good stuff.

[Hosh]

This is the philosophy section. "Meditation" ought to be discussed in the Taoist or General Discussion Section.

 

I've heard it argued, that philosophy is morality in action, and as such, discussions are informed by practice, rather than the other way around.

 

I could probably dig up something from Tao Te Ching or the Analects that argues for the same thing, if I tried hard enough. Scratch that, I know there was something from the Analects that states exactly that. It was a section used as a translation exercise for a literary Chinese textbook.

[ChiDragon]

The philosophies between the Tao Te Ching and Analects are different. Unfortunately, most people do get them confused.

[Marblehead]

Yes, they are different. Yes, many people get them confused. Many people also get Taoism and Buddhism confused. Some people are just confused.

[Hosh]

The philosophies between the Tao Te Ching and Analects are different. Unfortunately, most people do get them confused.

 

I am not confusing the two. I do assert that they are informed by the same experiential stream. This stream being the pre-Zhou shaman-king rites.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Hosh

[Marblehead]

I will have to opt out of this part of the discussion as my knowledge of the subject is very lacking.

[ChiDragon]

In that case, me too.......

[lienshan]

It is also important to note that 有 and 無 is not describing duality.

This is not "yin" and "yang", or about polarities and opposites.

We create dualism in our mind through 有.

 

I agree ... and read the actual Guodian chapter 2 line this way:

 

有亡之相生也

 

Existence and nonexistence are together a birth.

 

This point of view is too expressed in the Guodian chapter 40:

 

返也者道動也

弱也者道之用也

天下之物生於有生於亡

 

The traditionalist reconstructs Tao.

The newcomer is going to use Tao.

The matter of the world is born in existence, is born from nonexistence.

[Riyue]

The translation you : existence and wu : non-existence has a long tradition.
It roots in misinterpretation by christian missionarys / ... buddhistic ideas.
Thus people equalize wang/wu/non-existence.
Studying the shuowen - non-existence for wang can not be verified.

亡
shuowen:
亡 逃也從入[corner]凡亡之屬皆從亡
逃: escape, flee
[corner]: 匿也象曲隱蔽形凡之屬皆從讀若隱
匿: hide; hidden
--
亡 deceased, died: - the chinese tradition says a dead person has 魄 and 魂 - both parts describe something existent - in no way something non-existent

edit: nowadays: there are people who think the existence of 魄 and 魂 as superstition....
-
hidden things are existent
somebody escaped is still existent...

 

---

edit: sorry the character for "corner" got not displayed - for exact quote for shuowen wang...go to

 

 

http://www.alice-dsl.net/taijiren/33_wang2_m7034.htm#shuowen

Edited July 16, 2013 by Riyue

[ChiDragon]

亡 deceased, died: - the chinese tradition says a dead person has 魄 and 魂 - both parts describe something existent - in no way something non-existent

edit: nowadays: there are people who think the existence of 魄 and 魂 as superstition....

-

http://www.alice-dsl.net/taijiren/33_wang2_m7034.htm#shuowen

 

I would like to clarify this. A live person has a 魄(body) and 魂(soul). When a person die, the soul(魂) leaves the body(魄). Thus a dead person is only left with a body.

 

BTW In the Chinese classic, 亡 is a synonym of 無(wu). The modern definition of 亡 is deceased or death.

Edited July 16, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Riyue]

 

I would like to clarify this. A live person has a 魄(body) and 魂(soul). When a person die, the soul(魂) leaves the body(魄). Thus a dead person is only left with a body.

 

BTW In the Chinese classic, 亡 is a synonym of 無(wu). The modern definition of 亡 is deceased or death.

 

"The dead person is left with a body" - no -there is a corpse + the yin-part po..which leaves the corpse and goes around.... and there is a yang part "hun" which leaves the corpse and ascends to "heaven"

- but both is seen as superstition nowadays by some peoples...

Edited July 16, 2013 by Riyue

[ChiDragon]

So, you are saying that the soul(魂) has two parts. According to you, it has the yin and yang parts....??? This is the first time I heard someone saying that. However, sometimes, people do refer that the soul after death of a person is called the 陰魂(yin-soul).

[Riyue]

So, you are saying that the soul(魂) has two parts. According to you, it has the yin and yang parts....??? This is the first time I heard someone saying that. However, sometimes, people do refer that the soul after death of a person is called the 陰魂(yin-soul).

 

no-:

humans have three hun and seven po

you can read more about this at baidu.com

-

the usage of wang depends on contexts:

you can find in Kangxi the quote:

《周禮·春官·大宗伯》以喪禮哀死亡。

--

another meaning it has in guodian - laozi #41

[ChiDragon]

I was only concern about "wu" within the context, here, in the thread. If you give more examples, then it will confuse the issue even more.

Edited July 18, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

I'm already confused and I wasn't concerned about anything.

[Riyue]

Confusing?

In beginning - a person getting conscious about yi-yin-yi-yang-dao -
by getting conscious about the invisible power
mediating balancement when going one step left one step right
the person sees the big variety in network nature
complementing
earth and sky...
light and shadow...
north and south...
left and right...
enabling to go in center of this working principle...
-
Being in this center
a person - getting conscious about yi-yin-yi-yang-dao -
the person realizes the complement of visible and invisible
-
And then...
the person smiles about the balancing power in nature happening spontaneously
-
Being part of this - never being separated from this
always being able to smile about this
this balancing power in nature happening spontaneously
the person knows about the fundamental principle:
the yin-yang-one-interaction...
living this... breathing this...
the person is guided by this DAO...

[Marblehead]

Very nice Riyue.

 

(Caused me to think too.)

[Hosh]

The translation you : existence and wu : non-existence has a long tradition.

It roots in misinterpretation by christian missionarys / ... buddhistic ideas.

Thus people equalize wang/wu/non-existence.

Studying the shuowen - non-existence for wang can not be verified.

 

This isn't an misinterpretation, though perhaps, it is incomplete. "Christian", "Buddhist", "Taoist", are not as separate and distinct as scholars and practitioners would like them to be.

 

Are there hungry ghosts, or some part of the persona that might persists after death? Yes.

 

Is there a reincarnation of persona that happens? Yes.

 

Does consciousness persist after death? How can it not?

 

Consciousness came before matter; matter arises from consciousness. How can the disassociation of matter end consciousness? This isn't a Buddhist idea or a Christian idea. This is something that mystics from any and all traditions have been (futilely) speaking of for ages and ages, and the Taoist sages are no exception.

 

Consciousness and persona are often confused, though persona arises from consciousness. "Existence" is a clinging to form, to persona -- the persona formed out of what you like and what you dislike. "Non-existence" is the truth of where this clinging arises from. When you forget, that is you 亡, you forget your persona. That's the "non-existence" of 無.

 

All things that arises from the primordial Reality will eventually fade away. "If heaven and earth don't go on and on, certainly people don't need to." So long as one clings on to notions of anything, then there is always a seeking and a question, a grasping of something that is "solid". And because there is nothing solid, there is always grasping. Recognizing that things come and go, you flow with the ebb and flow of creation and destruction. This is the Way.

 

As I said upthread: you cannot use textual evidence as primary evidence. You do the practice, experience some realizations and then the text will make sense. Stop clinging to the text and to the shuowen.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Hosh

[Marblehead]

Hi Hosh,

 

I have to disagree with you. The concepts you spoke of are Buddhist, NOT Taoist.

 

Lao Tzu spoke once of spirits but that was just a carry-over from Shamanic culture.

 

Taoism does not speak of reincarnation. That is a Buddhist concept.

 

Consciousness dies with the brain. That is scientific fact. One cannot think if they have no brain.

 

Consciousness came after matter and after a self-aware brain evolved.

 

But yes, if you are talking about ancient Shamanic beliefs then it is likely you would find all these things spoken about. But none of it is Taoism post Lao Tzu.

 

There are many solid things in the universe. These are called the Ten Thousand Things; the Manifest. But true, none are eternal. But they do exist for whatever time they exist; just as you and I.

 

Yes, experience some realizations. But make sure they are realizations of reality and not just illusions and delusions.

[Hosh]

Hi Hosh,

 

I have to disagree with you. The concepts you spoke of are Buddhist, NOT Taoist.

 

Sure, feel free to disagree.

 

These are not concepts. This is observation of reality that anyone can see for themselves by meditating.

 

"Reincarnation" is kinda tricky.

 

Consciousness dies with the brain. That is scientific fact. One cannot think if they have no brain.

 

Consciousness came after matter and after a self-aware brain evolved.

 

Those are modern concepts, not Taoist or Buddhist. "Little self", that is, persona -- not Consciousness -- emerges after matter. Matter formed out of Consciousness. This is something spoken about in the Tao Te Ching.

 

We're not talking about scientific facts. We're talking about the mysteries and experiences expressed in the Tao Te Ching.

 

 

Yes, experience some realizations. But make sure they are realizations of reality and not just illusions and delusions.

 

The word "realization" means to "make real". Anything you experience becomes realized, and that includes the realization that all phenomena are illusions and delusions, as are all words that the ones you and I are using in this conversation. What someone experience may or may not be real, it might be spirit or it might not be, it might be a Taoist concept or a Buddhist concept, and it does not matter. The experiencing is always real, regardless of whether the phenomena itself is real or not. Only science deals with the realness of the phenomena. Wisdom teachings such as the Tao Te Ching deals with the experiencing.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Hosh

[Marblehead]

Sure, feel free to disagree.

 

These are not concepts. This is observation of reality that anyone can see for themselves by meditating.

 

"Reincarnation" is kinda tricky.

Disagreements are good. They allow us to view something from a prespective other than just our own.

 

Ah!, observations of reality through meditation. That is why I use only empty-minded meditation.

 

"Recycling" is the closest word I will use to replace the word "reincarnation".

 

Those are modern concepts, not Taoist or Buddhist. "Little self", that is, persona -- not Consciousness -- emerges after matter. Matter formed out of Consciousness. This is something spoken about in the Tao Te Ching.

 

We're not talking about scientific facts. We're talking about the mysteries and experiences expressed in the Tao Te Ching.

"Yu" (the Manifest) formed out of "Wu" (the Mystery). It doesn't say anything about "Wu" being conscious. (Yes, I still argue against simultaneous arising.)

 

I must speak from the position of scientific fact. I am a Materialist.

 

And please understand that I have never said that I accept as valid every word that is in the TTC.

 

The word "realization" means to "make real". Anything you experience becomes realized, and that includes the realization that all phenomena are illusions and delusions, as are all words that the ones you and I are using in this conversation. What someone experience may or may not be real, it might be spirit or it might not be, it might be a Taoist concept or a Buddhist concept, and it does not matter. The experiencing is always real, regardless of whether the phenomena itself is real or not. Only science deals with the realness of the phenomena. Wisdom teachings such as the Tao Te Ching deals with the experiencing.

Nope. All phenomena are not illusion and delusion. There is the Manifest (Yu) aspect of the universe. It has physical essence. But yes, our thought, until we reify them, will likely be only illusion and delusion.

 

And I agree that our experiences may be real or they may be only illusion and delusion.

 

To the word "spirit", I prefer the word "Chi", my personal Chi as well as Universal Chi (the energy of the universe).

 

I have always considered the words of the TTC based on how they apply to me in my life and world. Pretty much, if the words don't apply then they do not become a part of my belief system.

 

But yes, if we internalize out thoughts they do become just as real as all other physical phenomena. (But only for us, the individual.)

[Hosh]

Ah!, observations of reality through meditation. That is why I use only empty-minded meditation.

 

Observation through empty-mind meditation is exactly what I am talking about.

 

It is possible through deep "states" of empty-mind that you see no duality, no self, and phenomenal objects spontaneously arising and dissolving back into Reality. You can also observe the illusion of arising phenomena and the essential formlessness of form.

 

I won't address the rest of your post since it seems to me we don't have a common experience, so we would end up wrangling over textual artifacts.