How does form arise out of emptiness?

[Marblehead]

I'm going to watch Chidragon try to get himself out of that one. Hehehe.

[ChiDragon]

I just knew you would hit me on that. Hehehe.

 

But Tao already existed so we can't say it became something out of nothing. The Mystery existed before the processes of Tzujan caused the Manifestation of things.

 

How about the natural already existed invisible Tao becomes visible by the manifestation of all things which she had created....???

 

 

If one cannot even find any apt description of Tao, and cannot even pin down what it is exactly, how does Tao become visible?

 

Since things did not all suddenly manifest, the above is a mistaken assumption.

 

Sounds like a Christian premise. (for eg. "Oh, one can see God simply by looking at His creation.")

 

Tao becomes visible literally means that "when all things became visible after Tao's creation", Tao was manifested but still invisible rather than visible in any form.

 

 

@MH

How did you like that? Did I get out of this one....??? hehehehe

Edited September 26, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

How about the natural already existed invisible Tao becomes visible by the manifestation of all things....???

 

Tao becomes visible literally means that "when all things became visible after Tao's creation", Tao was manifested but still invisible rather than visible in any form.

 

@MH

How did you like that? Did I get out of this one....??? hehehehe

Yes Chidragon, you did good. It is difficult to talk about Tao (the noun) and prevent the illusion that we are reifying it. This is why the last line of Chapter 25 of the TTC is so important.

 

That is why I like associating Tao with Singularity. Before any manifestation takes place neither is definable.

[C T]

 

Tao becomes visible literally means that "when all things became visible after Tao's creation",

Still rings of contemporary Christian creation ideology.

 

Chi Dragon,

 

You are asserting that Tao created all things, hence making them visible.

 

Is that correct?

[Marblehead]

Still rings of contemporary Christian creation ideology.

Yeah, but translations of the TTC by some Christians make Taoism sound a lot like Christianity.

 

This was a big, long, crude, discussion when I first joined this board.

 

This is why I always recommend Henricks' translation as a base of understanding of the TTC and even there one could easily think that certain lines of certain chapters sould like Christianity. Of course, if one never knwe about Christianity the association would never happen.

 

Same for those who knew of Buddhism before reading the TTC. They would think that certain lines sound like Buddhism.

[doc benway]

Bringing time into the discussion, IMO, is an error created by our thought process.

"Creation" (loaded word which has undesired connotations here) is occurring in every instant.

I think that is the salient message in the scientific work MPG quoted earlier.

There is no before and after, only now.

But our brains and our language struggle dealing with now and conveniently create before and after.

[Jeff]

Still rings of contemporary Christian creation ideology.

Chi Dragon,

 

You are asserting that Tao created all things, hence making them visible.

 

Is that correct?

I would agree with ChiDragon on this one.

 

The Tao did not create everything, but everything "emerged" or bubbled up into manifest form (which is still the Tao) from it.

[C T]

I would agree with ChiDragon on this one.

 

The Tao did not create everything, but everything "emerged" or bubbled up into manifest form (which is still the Tao) from it.

But Chi Dragon said Tao created all things, made them visible.

 

How did you come to agree with that i cannot really understand.

[Marblehead]

But Chi Dragon said Tao created all things, made them visible.

 

How did you come to agree with that i cannot really understand.

Hehehe. Agreements are funny sometimes.

 

And remember, Chidragon is Chinese using a translator. Some thoughts are difficult to translate from Chinese to English.

[Jeff]

But Chi Dragon said Tao created all things, made them visible.

 

How did you come to agree with that i cannot really understand.

Hi C T,

 

My agreement comes from what is experienced and also what is described in many traditions. As ChiDragon describes here...

 

This idea came from Chapter 40 in reference to Chapter 1 about "Wu(無)" and "You(有)"

Chapter 40

40

3. 天下萬物生於有，

4. 有生於無。

3. All things in the world are engendered from "You(有)".

4. "You(有)" was engendered from "Wu(無)".

Alternative translation:

3. All things of the world came from Visible.

4. Visible came from Invisible.

Notes:

1. "Visible" was a name given to Tao in the visible state.

2. "Invisible" was a name given to Tao in the invisible state.

PS....

Due to the language limitation, this the best I can do to transpose the idea across.

As his direct translations says, his "engendered" is my "emerged from". The visible is the manifest or existing in "form". The Tao is Buddhist emptiness. The visible manifestation that emerges is Buddha or buddhamind. Then more visible is created in universal or buddhamind.

 

In more classical Hindu terms, the Tao is pure Brahman, Ishwara emerges from Braham and creates the manifest (or visible stuff).

[3bob]

no-thing is not nothing

and that no-thing can not be known by some-thing

thus some-thing trying to pin down no-thing is futile

except in realizing such futility after which there is nothing

to do except to surrender its limitations and return.

 

I believe such is pointed to in chapter 43 of the TTC with, "Only Nothing can enter (or I'd also use the term return) into no space" a return to that which it ultimately or never really left although it did so in a way via the "mysteries".

Edited September 26, 2013 by 3bob

[Jeff]

As the Heart Sutra says...

 

Emptiness is the "realization" of Void=Form and Form=Void...

 

[Simple_Jack]

Same for those who knew of Buddhism before reading the TTC. They would think that certain lines sound like Buddhism.

 

Not necessarily the lines themselves, but how those lines can be interpreted. If you were to read any of the English translations at face value, then the metaphysics of "Dao" sounds like a form of monism (e.g. Brahman). Due to the use of overly ambiguous language, it's easy for anyone to interpret the text in any number of ways; though this might not be a bad thing, particularly when factoring in confirmation bias on the part of the individual, haha.

 

 

As the Heart Sutra says...

 

Emptiness is the "realization" of Void=Form and Form=Void...

 

 

 

It's actually really easy to sum up the Prajnaparamita class of sutras:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&p=185914#p185914

 

"The prajñāpāramitā solution is that the unconditioned and the conditioned are not mutually exclusive, in fact, the nature of the conditioned is unconditioned, and that is what emptiness basically means."

Edited September 26, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[Jeff]

Hi SJ,

 

Terms like conditioned and unconditioned are not necessarily helpful unless a context is provided. The Heart Sutra is describing it in the highest sense of Ultimate Reality...

 

Then Mahamati asked the Blessed One, saying: Tell us, Blessed One, how all things can be empty, un-born, and have no self-nature, so that we may be awakened and quickly realize highest enlightenment?
The Blessed One replied: What is emptiness, indeed! It is a term whose very self-nature is false-imagination, but because of one's attachment to false-imagination we are obliged to talk of emptiness, no-birth, and no self-nature. There are seven kinds of emptiness: emptiness of mutuality which is non-existent; emptiness of individual marks; emptiness of self-nature; emptiness of no-work; emptiness of work; emptiness of all things in the sense that they are unpredictable, and emptiness in its highest sense of Ultimate Reality.

 

Lankavatara Sutra (Chapter 3)

 

(edit - missing word)

Edited September 26, 2013 by Jeff

[Simple_Jack]

Hi SJ,

 

Terms like conditioned and unconditioned are not necessarily helpful unless a context is provided....

 

Those terms should be understood in the context of dependently originated phenomena.

[ChiDragon]

But Chi Dragon said Tao created all things, made them visible.

 

How did you come to agree with that i cannot really understand.

 

I didn't say that but Lao Tze did.

 

Lao Tze said that in Line 3 of Chapter 40.

Chapter 40

40

3. 天下萬物生於有，

4. 有生於無。

 

3. All things in the world are engendered from "You(有)".

4. "You(有)" was engendered from "Wu(無)".

 

BY the definitions given in Chapter 1:

"You" and "Wu" are the two given names to Tao.

These two names came from the same origin which is Tao.

 

Tao is never visible. When it's visible, literally, that is when all things were created by her. Then, Tao becomes manifested.

 

If we rephrase lines 3 and 4 by using the understandable terms, it is effectively what they are saying:

3. All things in the world are engendered from Tao.

4. Tao was engendered from Tao.

Edited September 26, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Simple_Jack]

Those terms should be understood in the context of dependently originated phenomena.

 

I.e. 5 skandha, 18 dhatus,12 ayatanas.

[ChiDragon]

And remember, Chidragon is Chinese using a translator. Some thoughts are difficult to translate from Chinese to English.

 

Wouldn't you say that I am the translator instead of using one....???

 

If you can find a TTC translator, then please let me know. I will pay for it at any price........

 

 

Bringing time into the discussion, IMO, is an error created by our thought process.

"Creation" (loaded word which has undesired connotations here) is occurring in every instant.

I think that is the salient message in the scientific work MPG quoted earlier.

There is no before and after, only now.

But our brains and our language struggle dealing with now and conveniently create before and after.

 

 

Chapter 1

3. 無,名天地之始。

4. 有,名萬物之母。

 

3. Invisible was the name given to Tao at the origin of heaven and earth.

4. Visible was the name given to Tao as the mother of all things.

 

Steve....

I couldn't agree with you more if we rephrase lines 3 and 4 of Chapter 1 to say:

3. Tao was existed before the origin of heaven and earth.

4. Tao is the mother of all things.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2013 by ChiDragon

[RongzomFan]

"The prajñāpāramitā solution is that the unconditioned and the conditioned are not mutually exclusive, in fact, the nature of the conditioned is unconditioned, and that is what emptiness basically means."

 

Read further in same thread.

 

Namdrol always brings emptiness back to nonarising, because emptiness = nonarising

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=14040&start=480#p185946

 

In Buddhism, emptiness = nonarising

Edited September 26, 2013 by alwayson

[konchog uma]

yeah according to the dharma, form doesn't arise from emptiness in a created way, but is emptiness (and emptiness is form). So in that sense, nothing arises from anything else in the way posited by the OP, and to that extent the original question is phrased incorrectly. If you ask "if" form arises from emptiness you will get different answers. But asking "how does it" assumes that it does, which is not a universal POV. lol not to be a dick, trying to help clarify, which can oftentimes obscure by mistake...

 

Master Lao posited that from one came two, and so on, until the ten thousand things had manifested, and while the literal interpretation of that could be disputed, it does at first glance imply that things arose from a source which was other than itself, ultimately back to Tao which manifests spontaneously. This has led to a lot of conflation of Chinese Tao and western God which has nothing to do with Master Lao's POV as i understand it. Shakyamuni Buddha posited that things are not created by anything other than themselves, nor by their own nature, (nor by both or something that is neither) but are spontaneously uncreated and exist in an illusory state like a dream. Other lineage masters have posited different things, but the question that the OP is trying to ask has been on everyone's mind for a long time, and while there are several versions of the answer to it, nobody has really proven anything from a scientific point of view except to mention some indirect support like the first law of thermodynamics, which (if i remember) is that energy/matter is never created or destroyed. Also it has been posited (but of course not proven) that the sum total of all the energy in the universe is zero (taking into account matter and anti-matter, positive and negative energy, and so forth) so i personally, seeing the support from science math and logic, i take the point of view of Shakyamuni and company, hence the first two sentences of this post.

[Marblehead]

Wouldn't you say that I am the translator instead of using one....???

 

If you can find a TTC translator, then please let me know. I will pay for it at any price........

Hehehe. Whatever. I was just trying to cover your ass.

 

yeah according to the dharma, form doesn't arise from emptiness in a created way, but is emptiness (and emptiness is form). So in that sense, nothing arises from anything else in the way posited by the OP, and to that extent the original question is phrased incorrectly. If you ask "if" form arises from emptiness you will get different answers. But asking "how does it" assumes that it does, which is not a universal POV. lol not to be a dick, trying to help clarify, which can oftentimes obscure by mistake...

I think you were actually helpful here. Good explanation.

[ChiDragon]

Hehehe. Whatever. I was just trying to cover your ass.

 

hehehehe......Thanks...!!!

I guess you can do that since you have never claimed that you are a Taoist......

[Marblehead]

I guess you can do that since you have never claimed that you are a Taoist......

Oh, I have, but not lately as other of my labels have been more useful in my recent discussions.

[C T]

Hi C T,

 

The Tao is Buddhist emptiness. The visible manifestation that emerges is Buddha or buddhamind. Then more visible is created in universal or buddhamind.

 

Hi Jeff,

 

Tao is Buddhist emptiness is a new thing for me. Any resources to verify this allusion?

 

Also, how do you explain emergence of phenomena as Buddha or buddhamind?

 

What, in your view, is buddhamind?

[Jetsun]

It appears to me that form is a creation of the mind created to navigate the world more efficiently, so form is a tool or trick of the mind, but ultimately it doesn't exist independently therefore form is emptiness.

 

But why emptiness is form I don't understand, it seems like a Koan and as such it can't be understood by the mind and can only be experienced directly.