Lao-tzu Ch 2: 有 & 無

[penfold]

There are two parts to chapter two of the Lao-tzu the first deals with ‘mutual arising’ the second deals with the use of the tao as a model for the sage. I want to focus on the first part.

We are presented with a series of ‘mutual arising’ claims – the beautiful and the ugly, good and bad, ease and difficulty, long and short, note and sound (as Lau points out the translation of this pair is tentative at best), and before and after.

The third pair we are presented with, however, seems to be the general case. In the Chinese it reads: 故有無相生; this is usually translated as Something and Nothing produce each other.

What I want to look at is the translation of 有 & 無 – ‘something’ and ‘nothing’. It seems to me that there are two different translations and the way we choose to do so has profound influence on our understanding of the text as a whole.

Option (1) we take 有 & 無 to mean ‘Something’ and ‘Nothing’; that is we take these terms to refer to ontological entities. In more modern language we might use the philosophical terms ‘Being’ and ‘Nothingness’.

Option (2) we take 有 & 無 to mean ‘to have’ and ‘not to have’; that is we take these terms as merely functional and not ontological at all.

If we go with option (1) then the ‘mutual arising’ of Chapter two has great metaphysical importance. It would fit with the idea that tao can be described as 無 ‘nothingness’; and from this ‘nothingness’ all ‘being’ 有 emerges. This would seem to fit well with Ch 1 and Ch 42 where the metaphysical role of the tao as involved in the cosmology of existence. It would also fit with the metaphysics of Buddhism and the ideas which became central to religious Taoism.

However it does not really explain the other ‘mutual arising’ examples given in chapter; the fact that 有 & 無 arise mutually does not give us any interpretative help with the notion of ‘good and bad’ arising mutually. After all both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are states of ‘being’ and so both 有. The same is true of all the other examples; beauty and ugliness, short and long etc… are all ‘things’; none of them are on the side of ‘nothingness’. This makes the translation of 有 & 無 as ‘Something’ and ‘Nothing’ (or ‘Being’ and ‘Nothingness’) unattractive.

Option (2) resolves this problem, if we translate 有 & 無 as, ‘to have’ and ‘not to have’ then the other examples make perfect sense. If ‘having’ produces ‘not having’ then obviously ‘having beauty’ produces ‘not having beauty’, ‘having goodness’ obviously produces ‘not having goodness’. Thus this functional translation makes very good sense of the other examples.

However it does imply that the association of the tao with some ‘metaphysical’ notion of ‘nothingness’ is incorrect. Interestingly, while in the Lao-tzu we are told that the tao lacks many thing (no name wu-ming, no form wu-xing etc…), we are never explicitly told that the tao is ‘nothing’. The closest we get is in Ch42 with ‘the tao begets the one’ though even here that is far from explicit (moreover this chapters absence from the Guodian texts implies it is a late addition).

This may have some far-reaching implications. If we do translate 有 & 無 as merely ‘functional’ and not ‘metaphysical’ then, it seems to me we end up with a very different view of the Lao-tzu as a whole. To put is crudely it makes the text ‘referential’ to the world of ‘things’ very much in line with Confucian ideas; and undermines the ‘mystical’ reading which is central to religious Taoism and Chan Buddhism.

 

[Riyue]

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

if one uses the translation "hidden" for 亡.

then one gets ?

[penfold]

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

if one uses the translation "hidden" for 亡.

then one gets ?

 

Interesting...

 

I suppose hidden has resonance with 玄 and would imply a more metaphysical approach.

[Riyue]

Interesting...

 

I suppose hidden has resonance with 玄 and would imply a more metaphysical approach.

 

Can you follow me saying ...?

ddj1 mawangdui-laozi:

the mutual complementing of wu and you in twilight of being

恆无 (欲也 - 以觀其眇)

恆有 (欲也 - 以觀其所敫)

tells in pairing about 玄 .... the way one can experience the subtleness of life

metaphysical just understood as something that is beyond of our ability to explain...

(形而上学的)

 

[ChiDragon]

 

What I want to look at is the translation of 有 & 無 – ‘something’ and ‘nothing’. It seems to me that there are two different translations and the way we choose to do so has profound influence on our understanding of the text as a whole.

Option (1) we take 有 & 無 to mean ‘Something’ and ‘Nothing’; that is we take these terms to refer to ontological entities. In more modern language we might use the philosophical terms ‘Being’ and ‘Nothingness’.

Option (2) we take 有 & 無 to mean ‘to have’ and ‘not to have’; that is we take these terms as merely functional and not ontological at all.

 

It seems to me that you have given 有 & 無 a good analysis. However, one cannot interpret the characters to their literal meaning without applying Lao Tze's thought into his term.

 

I think in Chapter One, 有 & 無 were defined by Lao Tze as follow:

有, when Tao is at the manifested state.

無, when Tao is at the non-manifested state.

 

Edited June 19, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

Hehehe. I'm still not ready to accept the "mutual arising" concept (for the universe). One gave birth to Two.

 

But yes, in the mind of man, the mind that is based in dualities, there would be mutual arisings. If we difine one opposite we will create its opposing duality.

 

Henricks used "being" and "nonbeing" in his translation but I suppose any of the other dualistic words would be just as effective at presenting the concept.

 

I think that it is most important from this is to understand that when we judge anything we will be judging everything that is contraty to this at the same time even though it might not be consciously.

[ChiDragon]

"being" and "nonbeing" are a poor example for duality. An existing object and a non-existing one cannot classified as dualistic.

[Marblehead]

"being" and "nonbeing" are a poor example for duality. An existing object and a non-existing one cannot classified as dualistic.

Ah! Fail!

 

Where did you find that non-existing object? To the best of my understanding there is no such thing. In my understanding "nonbeing" would be referring to "Mystery" (Wu). Potential that has not yet taken form; or, perhaps, some thing that did exist but no longer does so.

 

No, I cannot compare Mystery and Manifest or Wu and You as dualistic concepts. They are states (conditions) in and of themselves.

[ChiDragon]

Wu is not a mystery. Wu is only a given name to represent the invisible state of Tao with a potential power to create. In Lao Tze's philosophy, Tao always exist but only sometimes it's visible and sometimes invisible. Tao is not a mystery. It is only how do people view Tao.

[Riyue]

有 something graspable
-
无... / 亡... the hidden in a balancing entity

 

states?

dynamical interaction?

 

what is speculation?
what is faith?
what is observation?
what says 老子?

 

We can observe that the microcosmos of our body and the macrocosmos of world have visible parts and invisible parts working together.

A great experience is to fall asleep tired in evening and to awake refreshed in morning:
its a direct experience of visible and invisible....

 

In Mawangdui-Laozi "xuan" is a depiction of two rounded shapes being intermingled.
My interpretation of this is:
有 "visible" and 无... / 亡... "invisible" are parts of a "ONE" --- building reality...
-有 and 无... / 亡... are aspects of ONE - of yi-yin-yi-yang-dao

[Marblehead]

Wu is not a mystery. Wu is only a given name to represent the invisible state of Tao with a potential power to create. In Lao Tze's philosophy, Tao always exist but only sometimes it's visible and sometimes invisible. Tao is not a mystery. It is only how do people view Tao.

Okay. Good defense. You and I have a slightly different understanding and it would be petty of me to continue.

[Marblehead]

 

有 "visible" and 无... / 亡... "invisible" are parts of a "ONE" --- building reality...

 

Agreed.

[penfold]

Sorry have been busy haven't checked this thread in a while; I make a poor host.

 

有 "visible" and 无... / 亡... "invisible" are parts of a "ONE" --- building reality...
-有 and 无... / 亡... are aspects of ONE - of yi-yin-yi-yang-dao

 

While I find this elegant I am not sure how far I agree.

 

It seems to me the themes of mutual arising, origin, and turning back as descriptive of tao relate to behaviour, or as the Han commentators put it principle (li), rather than any metaphysics. My feeling is that the 'dualist/monist' discussion is one not found in the text at all.

 

When ideas of 'number' to come up it is always couched in terms of 'origin' (eg Ch's 1, 25, 40 & 42) and so are about the activity of tao rather than its nature.

 

In terms of the nature of reality the author of the Lao-tzu seems to hold the standard yin yang cosmology - though it is not discussed in any detail, implying that the author is largely disinterested in such matters. The discussion of the tao on the other hand seems far more focused on using it as a principle (exemplified by images of water) to guide the actions (or, better, non-actions) of the sage-ruler.

 

In this sense I think discussion about the nature or character of tao (as dualist, monist, ineffable, metaphysical, Nothingness, existing, non-exiting, mystery etc...) are not found in the Lao-tzu (or, at minimum, a minor concern of the author). It is only later with later works like Wang Pi's commentary or the Lieh-tzu that such discussions are read into the text.

[Marblehead]

It is my opinion that we cannot know the "nature" of Tao but we can observe its "activity" and therefore we can know this aspect.

[penfold]

It is my opinion that we cannot know the "nature" of Tao but we can observe its "activity" and therefore we can know this aspect.

 

I suppose the question then is does tao have nature at all? we are told that tao is without form and without name (wu hisng wu ming che) and surely the nature of something is its form and name.

 

Of course there is a paradox here, how can a thing have activity (ie operate as a principle) and yet have no nature? I like to think that this paradox is what is pointed to in Ch 1 with the claim that the division and sameness of the 'named' and 'unamed' is the 'mystery upon mystery' (玄 之 又 玄) of tao.

 

In other words the mystery (玄) of tao is not its nature (as is assumed in 'religious' Taoism), but the notion that something without nature none the less has activity.

Edited June 26, 2013 by penfold

[Marblehead]

Hehehe. I take the easy way out of this paradox. Tao's nature is Tzujan. Ch. 25, last line, Tao follows Tzujan. Yep, it follows its own nature. And, as we cannot define Tao it would be impossible to define its nature.

 

The last section of Ch. 1 curious. I have the understanding that we are talking about the Manifest and the Mystery being of the same ultimate source. I still haven't accepted "simultaneous arising" as viable because of my acceptance of the fact of evolution. Therefore I suggest that the Manifest evolved out of the Mystery.

 

But this is still, without a doubt, "more profound than the profound" (Henrichs).

[Riyue]

Penfold

ddj1 is an example for manipulation of text
Please compare the mawangdui -laozi ddj #1 and the modern version

first line: mawangdui-laozi
兩者同出 異名 同胃玄之 有玄眾眇之門
此兩者同出而異名 同謂之玄玄之又玄眾妙之門。
second line: modern version

 

the original scan of mawangdui-laozi can be seen here:

 

http://www.alice-dsl.net/wulfdieterich/mawangdui/blatt1mwd.jpg
---
another possible reading of mawangdui-laozi #1 could be this

http://www.alice-dsl.net/wulfdieterich/mawangdui/mwd_ddj1.htm

[ion]

Its been my thought that the this chapter refers to an occurance in the creative process that is also an observable phenomenon in nature/being, because what happens in the creative process is taos nature and thus the universal nature and so also the nature of mind.

 

 

It would fit with the idea that tao can be described as 無 ‘nothingness’; and from this ‘nothingness’ all ‘being’ 有 emerges. This would seem to fit well with Ch 1 and Ch 42 where the metaphysical role of the tao as involved in the cosmology of existence.

But it is not that black and white and I would think that it implies more then just a role in the cosmology of existence, but actually the sole role in the cosmology of existence.

 

"Non-being creates being or nothingness creates existence" is a vague reference to yin/yang interplay (still as nothingness) which is something like---Yin is fundamental, by itself non-dependent and by itself is stillness. Its "being" is in a state of non-being. Because of its "being", an exact equal though opposite extremity arises, "Yang".

 

That is the first case of a "thing" both crating an opposite and there by becomming an opposite extremity of something larger. One creates another but they are still both non being in this case.

 

This state of nonbeing, the interplay of the two polarities, follows the same law that created it, and it's "being" (in a state of non-being)creates it's opposite wich is being, as in existence.

 

So its an everpresent element of our reality that opposites create eachother.

 

I would say that beautifulness was first observed and expressed as a shared idea amongst the first humans, but because they made mental fixations, conceptualized, and defined what it was, traits of people, or features of the environment etc that did not have the defining qualities of what everyone agreed was beauty all the sudden appeared to them as ugly.

 

One thing tao is, is complete, so if something is observed to be, then it could be said to have existance. If it exists, then it exists within tao so it will be made complete so its opposite will come into being, and become just as much of a factor in the cosmology of humanity or the cosmology of form as the "thing" that was originally observed such as beauty being observed, having the effect of ugliness becomming appearent.

Edited June 26, 2013 by ion

[ChiDragon]

Hint: Please do not try to translate the superficial meanings of these two characters. It should be interpreted by its intended meaning by the author of the TTC.

[ion]

Hint: Please do not try to translate the superficial meanings of these two characters. It should be interpreted by its intended meaning by the author of the TTC.

 

 

22

The partial becomes complete; the crooked, straight; the empty,

full; the worn out, new. He whose (desires) are few gets them; he

whose (desires) are many goes astray.

 

Therefore the sage holds in his embrace the one thing (of

humility), and manifests it to all the world. He is free from self-

display, and therefore he shines; from self-assertion, and therefore

he is distinguished; from self-boasting, and therefore his merit is

acknowledged; from self-complacency, and therefore he acquires

superiority. It is because he is thus free from striving that

therefore no one in the world is able to strive with him.

 

That saying of the ancients that 'the partial becomes complete' was

not vainly spoken:--all real completion is comprehended under it.

[Riyue]

... just as i understand it:

...when laozi speaks about pairing of wu and you ...

laozi speaks about complementing...

just this...

there is no idea of dualism or monism...

laozi does not reduce world to any ...ism...

Edited June 27, 2013 by Riyue

[penfold]

Penfold

ddj1 is an example for manipulation of text

Please compare the mawangdui -laozi ddj #1 and the modern version

 

first line: mawangdui-laozi

兩者同出 異名 同胃玄之 有玄眾眇之門

此兩者同出而異名 同謂之玄玄之又玄眾妙之門。

second line: modern version

 

the original scan of mawangdui-laozi can be seen here:

 

http://www.alice-dsl.net/wulfdieterich/mawangdui/blatt1mwd.jpg

---

another possible reading of mawangdui-laozi #1 could be this

http://www.alice-dsl.net/wulfdieterich/mawangdui/mwd_ddj1.htm

 

Again interesting will spend some time with it.

[penfold]

I still haven't accepted "simultaneous arising" as viable because of my acceptance of the fact of evolution. Therefore I suggest that the Manifest evolved out of the Mystery.

 

 

This is an interesting thought.

 

Please forgive me if the following is too narrowly analytic, but like Confucius I am a 'man mutilated by heaven' and this kind of discussion interests me more than it should.

 

The mutual arising paradigm ('MAP') is one that has deep roots in Chinese thought; even the earliest formulations of the yin and yang cosmology take MAP as central. It seems, in fact to be a shared paradigm of both the 'Taoists' and 'Confucians', with the former attributing the mutual arising of things as from tao and the latter's notion of the harmony of earth/man/heaven.

 

The obvious contrast is the Newtonian cause and effect paradigm ('CEP'). MAP implies no priority to linked events, whereas CEP directly disagrees by making the central claim that 'cause' is always prior to 'effect' - it is by this they are distinguished.

 

Your claim seems to be saying is that evolution can only be modelled with CEP and not with MAP. Certainly this would be the standard view of most evolutionary biologists. Evolution it would be argued is about change through time and this change can only be understood by reference to preceding conditions – in other words to understand evolutionary change is to understand an effect, which requires understanding of a cause – ie CEP is required to model evolution. One point to note here is that there is an implicit division between species and environment; it is the shape of the environment which ‘selects’ (in a blind sense) what species (mutations) will die out and what will flourish.

 

I would contend that we can also model evolution with MAP. I think the key move is to break down the division between species and environment. Just as the environment mediates which species are successful so the species mediate the environment. We can say that species which are most efficient at using oxygen will flourish and this is caused by the oxygen rich nature of our atmosphere. However we must also acknowledge that the oxygen rich nature of our atmosphere was caused by the species that flourished early in earth’s history (oxygenating bacteria). So just as we can say the environment ‘selects’ species so too can we say that species ‘select’ environments.

 

Taking this insight further we can actually do away with the division between species and their environments all together (A related thought - Where should we set the edges of an organism? - does the 'human being' include the bacteria in its gut required for survival, or the oxygen dissolved in its blood etc...?). A MAP view of evolution would not see a causative relationship between environment and species but the fluid unfolding of a single system - a system whose parts arise mutually.

 

This is not to say that evolution is better understood using MAP, or that CEP is faulty; merely that both options are open to us. As David Hume argues in Enquiry Concerning Understanding the principle of causation (CEP) is not one we can demonstrate with any a priori certainty. Rather it is simply a ‘way of seeing’ the world (what Kant in Critique of Pure Reason later called a synthetic a priori); I would say the same is true of MAP.

 

It seems to me both CEP and MAP are valid approaches to interpreting change (including, but not limited to, evolutionary change). I agree with you that evolution is ‘fact’ in so far as we can talk of facts. However, as the story of the quail and the great P’eng in Chaung-tzu Ch1 teaches us, the way we choose to interpret ‘facts’ is far more fluid…

Edited June 27, 2013 by penfold

[Marblehead]

Yep. You like to talk about this stuff. Hehehe. Let's see how well I can respond.

This is an interesting thought.

 

Please forgive me if the following is too narrowly analytic, but like Confucius I am a 'man mutilated by heaven' and this kind of discussion interests me more than it should.

No problem. Discussions such as this test my ability to maintain logic in my discussions. (No emotions. Hehehe.)

 

The mutual arising paradigm ('MAP') is one that has deep roots in Chinese thought; even the earliest formulations of the yin and yang cosmology take MAP as central. It seems, in fact to be a shared paradigm of both the 'Taoists' and 'Confucians', with the former attributing the mutual arising of things as from tao and the latter's notion of the harmony of earth/man/heaven.

Yes. Not too much different from many creation myths where their (whoever) god creates things in a very short period of time. (Only six days for the Christians.)

 

I think using yin/yang is a poor example (with me) because I believe yin/yang to be aspects of Chi (negative/positive). Yin/yang are not things in themselves but simply aspects (polarities) of Chi.

 

The obvious contrast is the Newtonian cause and effect paradigm ('CEP'). MAP implies no priority to linked events, whereas CEP directly disagrees by making the central claim that 'cause' is always prior to 'effect' - it is by this they are distinguished.

You found me!!! Hehehe. Yes, that is me. I am a strong believer in "cause and effect". An object at rest will remain at rest unless some force acts upon it. Likewise, an object in motion will remain in motion unless some resistance acts upon it.

 

Your claim seems to be saying is that evolution can only be modelled with CEP and not with MAP. Certainly this would be the standard view of most evolutionary biologists. Evolution it would be argued is about change through time and this change can only be understood by reference to preceding conditions – in other words to understand evolutionary change is to understand an effect, which requires understanding of a cause – ie CEP is required to model evolution. One point to note here is that there is an implicit division between species and environment; it is the shape of the environment which ‘selects’ (in a blind sense) what species (mutations) will die out and what will flourish.

I hope I have not yet spoken against the concept of MAP. Yes, so many times I have spoken in favor of CEP. Afterall, that is what I believe. Agreed, evolution is about change through time. Yes, understanding evolution requires understanding both the cause and the effect. I would disagree that there is a need for division between species and environment though. In nearly all, and even perhaps all, cases the environment plays a major role in these changes. Environment must be considered when trying to find the causes. For example, a hummingbird's beak will evolve its shape al length based on what flowers are available as a food source.

 

I would contend that we can also model evolution with MAP. I think the key move is to break down the division between species and environment. Just as the environment mediates which species are successful so the species mediate the environment. We can say that species which are most efficient at using oxygen will flourish and this is caused by the oxygen rich nature of our atmosphere. However we must also acknowledge that the oxygen rich nature of our atmosphere was caused by the species that flourished early in earth’s history (oxygenating bacteria). So just as we can say the environment ‘selects’ species so too can we say that species ‘select’ environments.

I'm not ready to talk against MAP yet so I will leave that. But I do agree with you regarding oxygen and animals' need for it. Basically, the more oxygen the larger (mass) the development (witness the dinosaurs). And yes, plant life must have evolved on the planet first in order for the oxygen percentage to be great enough to support animal life.

 

But I will disagree, in part with a species selecting its environment. This takes very long periods of time. Witness the large animals of North America during the last ice age; they all (except for the buffalo) died out because they could not adapt to the rapid change in the environment and could not move fast enough to new environments.

 

Taking this insight further we can actually do away with the division between species and their environments all together (A related thought - Where should we set the edges of an organism? - does the 'human being' include the bacteria in its gut required for survival, or the oxygen dissolved in its blood etc...?). A MAP view of evolution would not see a causative relationship between environment and species but the fluid unfolding of a single system - a system whose parts arise mutually.

Hehehe. No division. Sorry. But this question is a trying one to answer. Earlier on this forum I had a few Buddhists challenge me to define "me"; the "I am"; what am I? Can I put my finger on my "me"?

 

Yes, "me" includes all those little bacteria, all the experiences I have had in my life, all the food I have eaten, all the people I hafe encountered. So, yes, I am an object of evolution. I am not the same today as I was yesterday and I will be something else tomorrow. I wasn't born out of the womb at the age of 72. It took time to get there. The cause of my being 72 years old is that I left the womb 72 years ago. And oh, what an variety of environments those 72 years has offered me!

 

This is not to say that evolution is better understood using MAP, or that CEP is faulty; merely that both options are open to us. As David Hume argues in Enquiry Concerning Understanding the principle of causation (CEP) is not one we can demonstrate with any a priori certainty. Rather it is simply a ‘way of seeing’ the world (what Kant in Critique of Pure Reason later called a synthetic a priori); I would say the same is true of MAP.

It has been a very long time since I have read Hume and I do not read Kant because he pissed me off in his preface to the first book of his I was about read. I guess that set my course. Hehehe.

 

It seems to me both CEP and MAP are valid approaches to interpreting change (including, but not limited to, evolutionary change). I agree with you that evolution is ‘fact’ in so far as we can talk of facts. However, as the story of the quail and the great P’eng in Chaung-tzu Ch1 teaches us, the way we choose to interpret ‘facts’ is far more fluid…

As I said, I don't have enough knowledge to argue for or against MAP so I will leave it at that. Yes, evolution is a fact. The difference between the P'eng and the quail are their size and their needs. Why did the P'eng become so large and the Quail remain small? I have no idea. It is said (and I accept the thought, perhaps fact) that birds evolved from the dinosaurs. That would likely mean that some of the birds evolved from the grass eating dinosaurs and others evolved from the meat eating dinosaurs. (But then, environments may have changed so that some of the grass eating birds became meat eating birds because there wasn't enough grass to eat?) And perhaps this evolution is exactly the same as with what happened with the apes who evolved to become humans?

[Riyue]

some thoughts about 有无/亡相生...
相 depicts 木 a tree and 目 an eye: look at a tree... see the branches .... they grow always supporting balancement... always being part of this one... this tree...
生 depicts 土 soil and 屮 grass / sprout ... life is demonstrated by sprouting / growing plants
you and wu are parts of one ...
visible and invisible parts of life are complementing ... are helping together ...

 

and ddj2 reports other examples:

難 易 // 長 短 // 高 下 // 音 聲 // 前 後

they intermingle and help together for completing