Lao-tzu Ch 2: 有 & 無

[Marblehead]

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.

Yeah, you use many different words than I would if talking about this but I will agree with you in general terms.

 

I like to think we don't observe while in meditation but only experience. (This is why I have said that I believe we can experience Tao while in deep empty minded meditation. But really, it is not "we" who is experiencing, there is only the experience.) No, I don't get there often. I'm too busy living my life.

[Hosh]

Yeah, you use many different words than I would if talking about this but I will agree with you in general terms.

 

I like to think we don't observe while in meditation but only experience. (This is why I have said that I believe we can experience Tao while in deep empty minded meditation. But really, it is not "we" who is experiencing, there is only the experience.) No, I don't get there often. I'm too busy living my life.

 

Fair enough.

 

And yes, there is only the experiencing, which is what I meant by observation. However, I might be imprecise in distinguishing between the observing, and the conclusions / interpretations of such observing.

 

It's based on these experiences that, off-the-cushion, Consciousness Before Matter makes a lot of sense. In other words, Consciousness-as-First-Principle. But if we cannot agree on Consciousness-as-First-Principle, then there isn't much to talk about. All we can do is use textual evidence from the Tao Te Ching. There are reams and reams of discussion about that already.

 

There's a line from the Tao Te Ching that goes something along the lines of, "where did this mystery come from? Before the Ancestors." (I am being sloppy here, and I'm not giving a precise translation).

 

Meaning, if you observe each phenomena as they arise to look for self, and you find none, and come to that place where there is no self, only experience ... then "who" is doing the experiencing? Who gave "birth" to the experiencing? It would be before any conceivable notion of gods, or even a creator being. And one conclusion that works well is that Consciousness came before the tangible reality.

 

This is a conjecture / thought experiment I think is worth exploring if you have the time for. What are the implications? How does the Tao Te Ching read if you're reading from a Consciousnes-As-First-Principle? How does Buddhist concepts, for that matter, read when you read it as Consciousness-As-First-Principle?

Edited July 28, 2013 by Hosh

[rene]

Hosh, hi

 

You seem to be using the word "Consciousness" in a manner that those who do not (for whatever reason) use find hard to get past. What you are pointing at is called several things in these discussions, but sans the baggage your word of choice can bring for those who are not used to seeing past words.

 

Once you use "Consciousness-as-First-Principle" , you've undoubtedly lost even more. I know what you are pointing at. I know what Marblehead thinks. You both might be surprised that you are both looking at the same thing, and are in agreement, and that it is just the nomenclatures in conflict.

 

warm regards

 

Edit: On second read of your post, yes, there is a difference. You both hold to the same structure but differ in what the natures of the components of the structure are. If it is a big enough difference to end the discussion, that will be up to the two of you. My guess is probably.

Edited July 28, 2013 by rene

[Hosh]

Hosh, hi

 

You seem to be using the word "Consciousness" in a manner that those who do not (for whatever reason) use find hard to get past. What you are pointing at is called several things in these discussions, but sans the baggage your word of choice can bring for those who are not used to seeing past words.

 

Once you use "Consciousness-as-First-Principle" , you've undoubtedly lost even more. I know what you are pointing at. I know what Marblehead thinks. You both might be surprised that you are both looking at the same thing, and are in agreement, and that it is just the nomenclatures in conflict.

 

Oh. I know :-) Thanks for being explicit about this though.

 

 

warm regards

 

Edit: On second read of your post, yes, there is a difference. You both hold to the same structure but differ in what the natures of the components of the structure are. If it is a big enough difference to end the discussion, that will be up to the two of you. My guess is probably.

 

Sure.

 

I don't mind ending a discussion. It is not the end of the world for a discussion to end. We're not trying to reach a consensus, at least not in this forum, not with words, and perhaps not in this lifetime. I actually feel quite satisfied with Marblehead's latest responses, and the state of our agreement-disagreement works for now.

 

Since you know what I refer to as "consciousness-as-first-principle", then you might have observed something else, that is, the merging of "consciousness-as-first-principle" and "matter-as-first-principle" in some unimaginable future. I don't think this is something we can really do in a single lifetime. It seems like the whole universe is attempting to reconcile this, and everyone is participating. But that's just a conclusion I've come to based on the experiences I've had for now and reflects my own unresolved doubts. Who knows what tomorrow might bring?

Edited July 28, 2013 by Hosh

[Marblehead]

Hi Hosh,

 

The lines from the TTC are (Henricks' translation):

 

8. Submerged! It seems perhaps to exist.
9. We don't know whose child it (Tao) is;
10. It seems to have [even] preceded the Lord.

 

I have no idea what "Lord" is being talked about here or if it even a valid translation. And who's child is Tao? That just seems to be off the mark to me. Nothing existed before Tao started to express itself (the Big Bang).

 

Yes, "consciousness" is a word usage I cannot accept as applied to anything other than a physical being with a functioning brain.

 

So no, I do not accept the concept of there being a "universal consciousness".

 

Therefore we will never agree regarding your conclusion that consciousness came before tangible reality.

 

To end, I agree with Rene's edit portion of her post. The difference is "What came first? The chicken or the egg?" We have different answers.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Marblehead

[rene]

Since you know what I refer to as "consciousness-as-first-principle", then you might have observed something else, that is, the merging of "consciousness-as-first-principle" and "matter-as-first-principle" in some unimaginable future. I don't think this is something we can really do in a single lifetime. It seems like the whole universe is attempting to reconcile this, and everyone is participating. But that's just a conclusion I've come to based on the experiences I've had for now and reflects my own unresolved doubts. Who knows what tomorrow might bring?

 

My perspective is that it's not in an unimaginable future; that merging happens in every moment and always has! But it is a "merging" only in a manner of speaking. For me, consciousness-as-first-principle and matter-as-first-principle, were never separate but arose simultaneously and have been unboundaried ever since. It might be the unboundaried aspect is what facilitates the reverting nature of tao.. and the pull everyone feels to 're-concile' what is already 'conciled' in the first place!. (-:

Edited July 29, 2013 by rene

[Marblehead]

For me, consciousness-as-first-principle and matter-as-first-principle, were never separate but arose simultaneously and have been unboundaried ever since.

I already knew that. Hehehe.

[rene]

I already knew that. Hehehe.

 

After over 10 years of interacting on these boards... I doubt there is little we don't know about what each other's tao ideas are. (-:

[Hosh]

My perspective is that it's not in an unimaginable future; that merging happens in every moment and always has! But it is a "merging" only in a manner of speaking. For me, consciousness-as-first-principle and matter-as-first-principle, were never separate but arose simultaneously and have been unboundaried ever since. It might be the unboundaried aspect is what facilitates the reverting nature of tao.. and the pull everyone feels to 're-concile' what is already 'conciled' in the first place!. (-:

 

Cool. I'll think about that for a while.

[Hosh]

Hi Hosh,

 

The lines from the TTC are (Henricks' translation):

 

8. Submerged! It seems perhaps to exist.

9. We don't know whose child it (Tao) is;

10. It seems to have [even] preceded the Lord.

 

I have no idea what "Lord" is being talked about here or if it even a valid translation. And who's child is Tao? That just seems to be off the mark to me. Nothing existed before Tao started to express itself (the Big Bang).

 

That it is "off" is indicative of perhaps a failure in your interpretation. Just something to think about.

 

This is from the GD text:

 

吾不知其誰之子也

象帝之先

 

And the "Lord" and "ancestors" is translated from 象帝, where 帝 is likely referring to the Jade Emperor. Ursula K. Le Guin rendered that line as, "before the gods", which I find acceptable. Essentially, the idea being expressed is, there was something before creator-gods, from where even gods and God emerged from. Something that itself has no "ancestor", that is, it was never born in the first place, that is, it never existed (存) in the first place.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Hosh

[rene]

Cool. I'll think about that for a while.

 

LOL you're just being kind. (-: You wont think about it cause it's not something that anybody can think about, including me. Words are so limited in describing what is experienced; which is why I stay as much as possible within the parameters of The Laozi - rather than delving into, and trying to mitigate, traditions that use more words and complex ideas than even they know what to do with. But I do appreciate your reading my occasional attempts to express, and your generosity of not throwing well warranted rocks at those endeavours.

 

warmest regards

[rene]

... Something that itself has no "ancestor", that is, it was never born in the first place, that is, it never existed (存) in the first place.

 

Does this line up with your experience to now?

[ChiDragon]

This is from the GD text:

 

吾不知其誰之子也

象帝之先

 

Something that itself has no "ancestor", that is, it was never born in the first place, that is, it never existed (存) in the first place.

 

I think you've missed the logical thought in the former which was suggesting, in the latter, that it(Tao) existed in the first place before any gods or ancestors.

Edited July 29, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

That it is "off" is indicative of perhaps a failure in your interpretation. Just something to think about.

Or it could be that I have a purer understanding. Just something to think about. Hehehe.

 

This is from the GD text:

 

吾不知其誰之子也

象帝之先

 

And the "Lord" and "ancestors" is translated from 象帝, where 帝 is likely referring to the Jade Emperor. Ursula K. Le Guin rendered that line as, "before the gods", which I find acceptable. Essentially, the idea being expressed is, there was something before creator-gods, from where even gods and God emerged from. Something that itself has no "ancestor", that is, it was never born in the first place, that is, it never existed (存) in the first place.

Yep. I have already stated that within the TTC there are carry-overs from earlier Shamanistic and cultural beliefs of the times in China prior to Lao Tzu. He included these in order to give the people a center of understanding.

[Marblehead]

... before any gods or ancestors.

And before man who is the creator of all these gods we hear about around the world.

 

The universe is about 16.8 billion years. The longest estimate of man on this planet (which is about 4.7 billion years old) is 4 million years. A lot happened before man appeared and started misunderstanding reality.

[Hosh]

LOL you're just being kind. (-: You wont think about it cause it's not something that anybody can think about, including me.

 

I'm not being kind. With this kind of stuff, I don't think with words. I feel for the shape of the thoughts and how they connect together, and then let it sit in the back of my mind for a while. Eventually, days, weeks, months from now, something will happen externally or internally to point out something. Maybe during meditation, I'll suddenly see it (or a piece of it). Maybe not. Maybe I will be going along life and suddenly see how my interactions with the world is an example of this. Who knows?

[Hosh]

And before man who is the creator of all these gods we hear about around the world.

 

The universe is about 16.8 billion years. The longest estimate of man on this planet (which is about 4.7 billion years old) is 4 million years. A lot happened before man appeared and started misunderstanding reality.

 

Man is not the creator of all these gods. Man, however, is the creator of all the memories and images of all these gods. Again, the point of that passage is to talk about forms arising out of nothing.

 

As for the universe being 16.8 billion years old, that's a lot trickier than you think it is. We're measuring years in terms of the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate around the sun (the old definition of a "year"), but how useful is that when the fabric of space-time itself can warp? If there is were an expansion of the universe, then time might have sped up or slow down. Or some scientists are now suggesting that the universe did not expand at all.

 

What you are saying is not Reality. What you are saying is a model of reality. Its validity is based upon it's ability to predict things, and it is inherently based upon falsehoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verisimilitude). It is useful within a limited scope.

[Hosh]

Or it could be that I have a purer understanding. Just something to think about. Hehehe.

 

Yep. I have already stated that within the TTC there are carry-overs from earlier Shamanistic and cultural beliefs of the times in China prior to Lao Tzu. He included these in order to give the people a center of understanding.

 

I don't think you understand the shamanism very well. But I'll pass on that.

[Hosh]

 

I think you've missed the logical thought in the former which was suggesting, in the latter, that it(Tao) existed in the first place before any gods or ancestors.

 

Uh. No. I think you misunderstood what I am saying.

 

The 道 existed before any of the gods in the sense that the 道 never existed at all.

[rene]

I'm not being kind. With this kind of stuff, I don't think with words. I feel for the shape of the thoughts and how they connect together, and then let it sit in the back of my mind for a while. Eventually, days, weeks, months from now, something will happen externally or internally to point out something. Maybe during meditation, I'll suddenly see it (or a piece of it). Maybe not. Maybe I will be going along life and suddenly see how my interactions with the world is an example of this. Who knows?

 

Yeppers!

 

And you can disregard my other question to you if you wish; asked and answered. (-:

 

warm regards

[rene]

 

As for the universe being 16.8 billion years old, that's a lot trickier than you think it is.

 

The image that comes for me is of the dude with the watch standing on the surface of the spinning top on my floor. He thinks years have passed in the few minutes I watch, lol

[Marblehead]

Hehehe. It is obvious that we are not going to have too many agreements. But that's okay. You, just as I, have the right to be wrong.

Man is not the creator of all these gods. Man, however, is the creator of all the memories and images of all these gods. Again, the point of that passage is to talk about forms arising out of nothing.

Before one can say a form arose out of nothing one must first identify the form that is being spoken of. Show me a god other than those created by man.

 

As for the universe being 16.8 billion years old, that's a lot trickier than you think it is. We're measuring years in terms of the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate around the sun (the old definition of a "year"), but how useful is that when the fabric of space-time itself can warp? If there is were an expansion of the universe, then time might have sped up or slow down. Or some scientists are now suggesting that the universe did not expand at all.

So what would you like me to do? Start measuring time based on the rotation of the moon around the Earth? That has already been done. And the Mayan system is disfunctional. If we are to speak of time there must be a base. We have elected to use the rotation of Earth around our sun. Conversion to other time calculating systems is a system that is already being used in order to make comparisons with how the peoples of dead cultures calculated time.

 

Those scientists you speak of are Theorists and we all should be aware that all of them create really obscene thoughts at times.

 

What you are saying is not Reality. What you are saying is a model of reality. Its validity is based upon it's ability to predict things, and it is inherently based upon falsehoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verisimilitude). It is useful within a limited scope.

What can I say? Your falsehoods are realer than mine are.

[Marblehead]

I don't think you understand the shamanism very well. But I'll pass on that.

I never made any such claim. But I have listened to people who claim they know and everything I might say about it is based on that. I do not nor have not studied it.

[Marblehead]

Uh. No. I think you misunderstood what I am saying.

 

The 道 existed before any of the gods in the sense that the 道 never existed at all.

I am so glad to see that we all are have great misunderstandings. At least it shows that we are thinking beings.

[Marblehead]

The image that comes for me is of the dude with the watch standing on the surface of the spinning top on my floor. He thinks years have passed in the few minutes I watch, lol

Schizophrenics are like that.