De or Dao - Which came first?

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Perhaps I'll have to call myself something else, other than a Taoist (not that I often do), but I see De as the formless Light that illuminates all things and Dao is the expression, the fractal light distinguishing colour and form - dimension, differences, left and right, high and low, it doesn't do. Like smoke, it flows with the DE-wind.

 

I invite you all to read my translation and discussion (with Dawei) of Heshang Gong's commentary of the the De Dao Jing here (sorry - need to be signed in).

 

 

Nobody has to agree with me - just bringing the idea to the attention of the people who might read this.

 

Beauty and Prosperity

 

D

[ChiDragon]

Let Nature take its course.

Edited October 28, 2013 by ChiDragon

[ion]

Dao came 1st, but only after it's De was apparent.

 

The myriad awareness arose out of nothingness and asked, "where does all this de come from? To what do we owe our existence?", whilein the same moment Dao mutually arose.

 

[dawei]

I think trying to separate Dao and De in terms of a sequence is problematic. One point to consider is that in almost every ancient cosmology (that I have reviewed, and I've spent years looking at them), De is never mentioned. In fact, Dao is sometimes not mentioned either. The most common denominators of cosmologies are:
1. The distance past (not exactly a nothingness but simply non-existent/capacity or a pregnant void)
2. A beginning; a first movement or light emerges; Usually considered unity/singular emerges first as space/time
3. A materialization; a separation of the light into matter.

The idea of a unity/singularity is most commonly called Great (Da 大), or Great One (Da Yi 大一 or latter as Tai Yi 太一)

There seems some uncertainty if Dao is actually this One (or Great One). I tend to hold that the "One" is the unity of all things rather than Dao itself, as Dao is simply the process of unfolding and generation of Unity-to-Materialization. De as an attribute of this unfolding; it's capacity/power/efficacious aspect to actual do something. Dao is the blueprint (engine) but De is the (output motive power).

In a way, it is enough to say to obtain the One, to obtain Dao, to obtain De is synonymous; When you get one aspect you get all of it.

In several ancient texts, this manifestation process is not known by name, usually just called Great (Da 大). Sometimes Great One is used and is best known due to the Guodian text, Tai Yi Sheng Shui (太一生水).

The prominent position of Water makes sense as it is often one of the first symbols to arise (if one can think a mist arises from light).

Lingshujing 靈樞經: apocryphal text of unknown date:
“Great One (太一) is the honorific style (zi 字) given to water.

Sarah Allen said: The Way (dao) was established by One (yi).

Lushi chunqiu:
道也者精也不可爲名強爲之名謂之太一
As for dao, it is vitality. It cannot be given either form or name. If forced to name it, I would call it the Great One. -- Ames and Hall


道原 Dao Yuan- in the Four Cannons of the Yellow Emperor: Tao The Origin - Yates

一者其號也 The One was its appelation,
虚其舍也 The Void was its dwelling;
無爲其素也 Nonaction was its original constitution;
和其用也 Harmony was its use.
是故上道高 For this reason, the superior Tao is so high

There is so much interchangeability going on among the texts that one is left with Dao, Water, One, Great having all the same symbolism of unity.

So where doe DE come into play?

While it occurs in oracle bones and Zhou inscriptions as mostly a virtue/action of man, it becomes more metaphysical in the more daoist texts as the nurturing mother aspect of dao;


http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp235_de_character_early_China.pdf
In the first quarter of the Han Dynasty, Jia Yi 賈誼 wrote: “that which is obtained in
order to live, (we) call De” (所得以生謂之德), that “De is the beneficence of the Dao” (德者道之澤也) and also that the loftiness of De is apparent in that of things, “there are none who do not rely on De” (莫不仰恃德).

The twelfth chapter of the Zhuangzi, “Heaven and Earth” (Tiandi 天地), makes a similar point: In the Great Beginning there was nothing; nothing existed, nothing (that could be) named. The One arose; there was the One yet it had not yet taken shape. Things obtained it in order to live, (we) call it De.

泰初有无无有无名一之所起有一而未形物得以生謂之德。

Finally, another early Han (?) text, the “Techniques of the Mind I” (Xinshu Shang 心術上) chapter of the Guanzi, tries to explain the function of De and its relation to Dao:

Statement 7: “What is vacuous and formless, (we) call Dao. What transforms and nourishes the myriad things, (we) call De.” (虛而無形謂之道化育萬物謂之德。)

Explanation 7: “De is the lodging place of the Dao; things obtain it in order to live … Thus, De is an obtainment. As an obtainment, it refers to that which is obtained in order for (things) to be what they are.”

(德者道之舍物得以生 … 故德者得也得也者其謂所得以然也。)

---

To bring HSG back into this... it is interesting to note that the HSG commentary on Ch. 51 puts a primary aspect on DE as:

"The Way gives life to all the myriad creatures. Virtue signifies the One. It is the One which gives birth to and dispenses the breath of life, and thus is nourishing and caring. It is the One which creates all the myriad creatures. It establishes their shape and form. The One creates all the myriad creatures, producing either a warm or cold environment in which they reach completion. The work of the Way and its virtue brings all things to completion." -- Tr. Bertschinger

This idea of "signifies the One" is the key to understanding the interchangeability of phrases.

Anything in the materials world points to the archetypes; archetypes then point to the One.

Water (naturalness,simplicity) points to Dao and De which generates and nurtures life; Dao and De point to the One [unity] from which it all begins/emerges.

Edited October 21, 2013 by dawei

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I think trying to separate Dao and De in terms of a sequence is problematic.

One point to consider is that in almost every ancient cosmology (that I have reviewed, and I've spent years looking at them), De is never mentioned. In fact, Dao is sometimes not mentioned either. The most common denominators of cosmologies are:

1. The distance past (not exactly a nothingness but simply non-existent/capacity or a pregnant void)

2. A beginning; a first movement or light emerges; Usually considered unity/singular emerges first as space/time

3. A materialization; a separation of the light into matter.

 

The idea of a unity/singularity is most commonly called Great (Da 大), or Great One (Da Yi 大一 or latter as Tai Yi 太一)

 

There seems some uncertainty if Dao is actually this One (or Great One). I tend to hold that the "One" is the unity of all things rather than Dao itself, as Dao is simply the process of unfolding and generation of Unity-to-Materialization. De as an attribute of this unfolding; it's capacity/power/efficacious aspect to actual do something. Dao is the blueprint (engine) but De is the (output motive power).

 

In a way, it is enough to say to obtain the One, to obtain Dao, to obtain De is synonymous; When you get one aspect you get all of it.

 

In several ancient texts, this manifestation process is not known by name, usually just called Great (Da 大). Sometimes Great One is used and is best known due to the Guodian text, Tai Yi Sheng Shui (太一生水).

 

The prominent position of Water makes sense as it is often one of the first symbols to arise (if one can think a mist arises from light).

 

Lingshujing 靈樞經: apocryphal text of unknown date:

“Great One (太一) is the honorific style (zi 字) given to water.

 

Sarah Allen said: The Way (dao) was established by One (yi).

 

Lushi chunqiu:

道也者精也不可爲名強爲之名謂之太一

As for dao, it is vitality. It cannot be given either form or name. If forced to name it, I would call it the Great One. -- Ames and Hall

 

 

道原 Dao Yuan- in the Four Cannons of the Yellow Emperor: Tao The Origin - Yates

 

一者其號也 The One was its appelation,

虚其舍也 The Void was its dwelling;

無爲其素也 Nonaction was its original constitution;

和其用也 Harmony was its use.

是故上道高 For this reason, the superior Tao is so high

 

There is so much interchangeability going on among the texts that one is left with Dao, Water, One, Great having all the same symbolism of unity.

 

So where doe DE come into play?

 

While it occurs in oracle bones and Zhou inscriptions as mostly a virtue/action of man, it becomes more metaphysical in the more daoist texts as the nurturing mother aspect of dao;

 

 

http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp235_de_character_early_China.pdf

In the first quarter of the Han Dynasty, Jia Yi 賈誼 wrote: “that which is obtained in

order to live, (we) call De” (所得以生謂之德), that “De is the beneficence of the Dao” (德者道之澤也) and also that the loftiness of De is apparent in that of things, “there are none who do not rely on De” (莫不仰恃德).

 

The twelfth chapter of the Zhuangzi, “Heaven and Earth” (Tiandi 天地), makes a similar point: In the Great Beginning there was nothing; nothing existed, nothing (that could be) named. The One arose; there was the One yet it had not yet taken shape. Things obtained it in order to live, (we) call it De.

泰初有无无有无名一之所起有一而未形物得以生謂之德。

Thanks for this one!

 

 

Here's my edited [in brackets] version of Legge's translation of these lines:

 

泰初有無，無有無名，一之所起，有一而未形。物得以生，謂之德；未形者有分，且然無間，謂之命；留動而生物，物成生理，謂之形；形體保神，各有儀則，謂之性。性修反德，德至同於初。同乃虛，虛乃大。

 

In the Grand Beginning (of all things) there was nothing [wu you, without existence] in all the vacancy of space; there was nothing that could be named [no name, I think this means "unity, no differentiation"]. It was in this state that there arose the first existence - the first existence, but still without bodily shape. From this things could then be produced [things could attain life], [the name of this De] (receiving) what we call their proper character. That which had no bodily shape was divided; and then without intermission there was what we call [Ming, Destiny] the process of conferring. (The two processes) continuing in operation, things were produced. As things were completed, there were produced the distinguishing lines of each, which we call the bodily shape. That shape was the body preserving in it the spirit, and each had its peculiar manifestation, which we call its [Xing, Nature] Nature. When the Nature has been cultivated, it returns to [De] its proper character; and when that has been fully reached, there is the same condition as at the Beginning. That sameness is pure vacancy, and the vacancy is great.

 

To paraphrase:

"The first existence without bodily shape -- this is De," "and from it, all things could obtain life. Then the formless was divided."

 

Finally, another early Han (?) text, the “Techniques of the Mind I” (Xinshu Shang 心術上) chapter of the Guanzi, tries to explain the function of De and its relation to Dao:

 

Statement 7: “What is vacuous and formless, (we) call Dao. What transforms and nourishes the myriad things, (we) call De.” (虛而無形謂之道化育萬物謂之德。)

Explanation 7: “De is the lodging place of the Dao; things obtain it in order to live … Thus, De is an obtainment. As an obtainment, it refers to that which is obtained in order for (things) to be what they are.”

(德者道之舍物得以生 … 故德者得也得也者其謂所得以然也。)

 

德者道之舍物得以生

Or "De is the house of Dao; things which obtain It become alive."

 

For De to be the house of Dao, the place that Dao resides... That seems to imply that Dao is the guest of De -- that De came first.

 

---

 

To bring HSG back into this... it is interesting to note that the HSG commentary on Ch. 51 puts a primary aspect on DE as:

 

"The Way gives life to all the myriad creatures. Virtue signifies the One. It is the One which gives birth to and dispenses the breath of life, and thus is nourishing and caring. It is the One which creates all the myriad creatures. It establishes their shape and form. The One creates all the myriad creatures, producing either a warm or cold environment in which they reach

completion. The work of the Way and its virtue brings all things to completion." -- Tr. Bertschinger

So, here we have some very direct language, saying that "De is The One(/Primordial Unity)."

 

Here's my translation of the first few lines - note that Bertschinger completely left out the word "Lord."

 

道生之，道生萬物。德畜之，德，一也。一主布氣

"Dao births"

Dao births all things

德畜之，德，一也。

"De cultivates/raises (them)"

德，一也。

De is The One (也 appears at the end of sentences to say "is" to whatever precedes it.. for those who don't study the language)

一主布氣而蓄養物形之

The One Lord which proliferates Chi and protects and raises things of form

 

 

Now compare with DDJ4 (my translation) --

 

01 道沖,而用之,

The Dao is the vessel in which everything is immersed. No matter how much it is used

02 或不盈。

It’s limit is never reached

03 淵兮,

Profound depth!

04 似萬物之宗。

It seems to be the ancestor of all creation, of all things,

("resembles" not "is")

05 挫其銳,

Reducing sharpness, and putting the clever back in their place

06 解其紛,

Uncomplicating the confused, bringing order to the chaos

07 和其光,

Softening the glare, and bringing harmony to the overzealous

08 同其塵。

Grounding them and reconnecting them to the earth

09 湛兮

Profound depth!

10 似或存。

It seems as though present

11 吾不知誰之子，

I don’t know who’s child it is

(this indicates that it (Dao) is not The One, the Primordial Unity)

12 象帝之先。

Bearing an image of, or likeness to, the 先First Divine Lord

 

 

So you can see there that Dao has a "resemblance" to the Ancestor of all Creation, which is then later referred to as "The First Divine Lord," of whom, the Dao is an 象image!

 

This idea of "signifies the One" is the key to understanding the interchangeability of phrases.

 

Anything in the materials world points to the archetypes; archetypes then point to the One.

 

Water (naturalness,simplicity) points to Dao and De which generates and nurtures life; Dao and De point to the One [unity] from which it all begins/emerges.

Thanks for all of these examples. They've really helped me to illustrate why I suggest that De appears to be the "First Divine Lord" from which all, including Dao, arose.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Harmonious Emptiness

[dawei]

H.E.

 

I see this and want time to read it. Glad you brought this thread here

[Marblehead]

Edit.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Marblehead

[ChiDragon]

Let Nature take its course.

Edited October 28, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

It seems Batman and Robin would like to get this thread thrown in the pit... And Robin "likes" Batman's post of "EDIT"... which shows at least Batman had some maturity to stay out instead of side-tracking with BS. That's why Robin remains the side-kick...

 

but I'll try to get back to topic...

 

@HE

 

I see where your going with this and, in fact, I think you did an interesting job of tying together your thoughts on most of my post !!! Well done, to say the least.

 

Ultimately, I have a hard time, maybe it is a Qi blockage, to separate anything in regards to Dao and De... Like when the physical body arises, the mind is there simultaneously. This act of simultaneous is a hallmark of daoism... (where is Rene when I need her most!).

 

But as imagery, I can see why you say the "Dao is the guest of De". I actually found that rather profound, even if not accurate (in my thinking).

 

While I do agree that Dao is not the Primordial Unity (One), I cannot agree that De is... for the reason of inseparability...

 

A very interesting take is your idea that DE is the First Divine Lord... I take "signifies the One" as a finger pointing... not the actual One... but we are translating/interpreting/understanding... Nice job.

[Marblehead]

You do realize that there would be no Te without Tao and there would be no Tao without Tzujan don't you?

 

Simultaneous arising doesn't work. There are precesses. First there is zero, then one, then two, etc to the ten thousand things.

 

All words are but fingers pointing.

[dawei]

You do realize that there would be no Te without Tao and there would be no Tao without Tzujan don't you?

 

Simultaneous arising doesn't work. There are precesses. First there is zero, then one, then two, etc to the ten thousand things.

 

All words are but fingers pointing.

 

I think this idea has a footing in terms of 'sequentialism'... not sure if that is a word...

 

but Chinese did not see life as sequential (horizontal) as much as vertical. I am not sure that makes a difference as it is upward linear...

 

But until we see simultaneous appearance, I think we want to see Sequential appearance only because our minds prefer it... we have fingers... so we count.

 

But a reasonable idea in the physical realm indeed...

[Marblehead]

Yeah, I know. But sequential is how we see life. We are born, we live for a while, then we die. We plant a seed, it germinates, the plant grows and matures, it flowers then seeds then dies. The seeds then are the beginning of a new cycle.

 

Chapter 42 presents the sequence. Tao, One, Two, Three, myraid things. But we should not forget that Tao follows Tzujan (last line of Chapter 25). (I so much would like to call Tzujan "the laws of physics" but that would be wrong. "It's own naturalness" is more accurate.)

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I see where your going with this and, in fact, I think you did an interesting job of tying together your thoughts on most of my post !!! Well done, to say the least.

 

Ultimately, I have a hard time, maybe it is a Qi blockage, to separate anything in regards to Dao and De... Like when the physical body arises, the mind is there simultaneously. This act of simultaneous is a hallmark of daoism... (where is Rene when I need her most!).

 

But as imagery, I can see why you say the "Dao is the guest of De". I actually found that rather profound, even if not accurate (in my thinking).

See the following --

 

While I do agree that Dao is not the Primordial Unity (One), I cannot agree that De is... for the reason of inseparability...

In another thread I tried to start back in June, "Tao is the Personality of Life (God)." A better way to to say this is that Dao is the Character of De!

湛兮

zhàn xí

Profound depth!

 

A very interesting take is your idea that DE is the First Divine Lord...

The First is the first right?

 

DEity perhaps!! :lol:

 

There is an airising of The Formless Oneness from non-existence. Non-existence precedes The Oneness. Then from the Oneness comes chi, and the myriad things. This is consistent with both Heshang Gong and The Chuang Tzu.

 

The thing about De being DEity, and people praying to DEity, is that DEity nourishes:

 

1. The Way gives birth to them and Virtue nourishes them;

2. Substance gives them form and their unique capacities complete them.

3. Therefore the ten thousand things venerate the Way and honor Virtue"

- DDJ51

 

I take "signifies the One" as a finger pointing... not the actual One... but we are translating/interpreting/understanding... Nice job.

Thanks!

 

There is some very consistent language associating De with The Oneness(from which all things are born).

 

tangent

[The "Heaven and Earth" chapter in The Chuang Tzu is from the "Outer Chapters" which many believe to be from different authors. Perhaps, rather than being from different authors, these were the histories, legends, and stories that had been part of the cultural transmission that Chuang Tzu was born into, or raised in, perhaps elders shared these stories as teachers, and Chuang Tzu then became the one to transmit the stories and legends, so he did so wonderfully. The ontology(creation logic) of his writing shows a deep immersion in that of Daoist ontology.]

 

I'm looking at the original "Heaven and Earth" text and am seeing some other possible meanings in place of "This is called De.":

 

(my translation)

泰初有無，無有無名，一之所起，有一而未形。物得以生，謂之德；未形者有分，且然無間，謂之命

In the Great Beginning, there was non-existence. Non-existence and Non-differentiation (no names). There was then the arising of Oneness. The Oneness existed, yet it was formless. Things then obtained birth. This is the expression of (Supreme) Virtue, De[ity]. The formless was then divided, and the space was no longer empty. (or, the suchness was without empty space, ie., it was differentiated but not separated). How? Because of Destiny. This is the expression of Destiny, Ming.

 

I think Destiny here is synonymous with Dao:

 

The Way gives birth to them and Virtue nourishes them;

Substance gives them form and their unique capacities complete them.

Therefore the ten thousand things venerate the Way and honor Virtue

DDJ51

 

De nourishes them because they came from De, but it was Destiny, and Dao, which caused them to be born.

 

We can understand why people pray to DEity, then - because De nourishes them, proliferates chi, and is 蓄養 protective and supportive.

 

You also quoted Heshang Gong on Chapter 51:

"The Way gives life to all the myriad creatures. Virtue signifies the One. It is the One which gives birth to and dispenses the breath of life [chi], and thus is nourishing and caring. It is the One which creates all the myriad creatures. It establishes their shape and form. The One creates all the myriad creatures, producing either a warm or cold environment in which they reach completion. The work of the Way and its virtue brings all things to completion." -- Tr. Bertschinger

 

Earlier you noted:

 

"http://www.sino-plat...early_China.pdf

In the first quarter of the Han Dynasty, Jia Yi 賈誼 wrote: “that which is obtained in

order to live, (we) call De” (所得以生謂之德), that “De is the beneficence [ the "澤 giving nature"] of the Dao” (德者道之澤也) and also that the loftiness of De is apparent in that of things, “there are none who do not rely on De” (莫不仰恃德)."

 

There's some very consistent language between The Oneness, and De, both as that from which things arise, and (relatively) often mentioned as both being when talking about existence at this time, without yet mention of Dao, which is more the way and function of reality, what I referred to earlier as "the Character of De."

 

Seeing the consistency of this discourse in classic texts, perhaps it makes more sense as to why the the Lao Tzu text was originally organized as opening with the De section (Chapter 38 +), rather than the Dao section.

 

 

So, in my opinion, as a Daoist, I am a De(h)ist as well.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Harmonious Emptiness

[dawei]

There's some very consistent language between The Oneness, and De, both as that from which things arise, and (relatively) often mentioned as both being when talking about existence at this time, without yet mention of Dao, which is more the way and function of reality, what I referred to earlier as "the Character of De."

 

Seeing the consistency of this discourse in classic texts, perhaps it makes more sense as to why the the Lao Tzu text was originally organized as opening with the De section (Chapter 38 +), rather than the Dao section.

 

 

Well, there is very consistent language across many texts to suggest One, Dao, De, Heng, Tai Ji, are at times all interchangeable. I think when they are talking about one particular aspect, it is hard not to keep the other aspects in mind (as MH was saying) as they form a part of the whole operation. But each can be discussed individually for clarify but I personally can't separate them into orders.

 

I do think DE is the one of the most underdeveloped concepts and it is a shame that it lost its first position in the book title.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I might agree that they do essentially arise simultaneously, with their different functions and so forth, and are inseparable, however, I feel that there is something to what Guanzi said, in your earlier quote, that "De is the house of Dao." Dao is the expression of Virtue, and so has to come from Virtue, and/or rely on Virtue, which in this case would pretty much be the same. "Virtue is the giving-ness (澤 beneficence) of Dao" (see post #4). Virtue is what creates Life, Dao is more about Destiny and how things are ordered, including when and how things obtain Life.

 

So Virtue is the "creator" (which, maybe, comes with, if not from, the One), and Dao is the way in which things are created, rising and falling and rising again, as in water vapour, calendrical cycles, breathing, etc.. For things to exist, however, De is first required. For things to operate according to Dao, things need to first exist. Dao can exist before things exist, but it is not "Dao-ing," it is not in operation, it is latent. So perhaps Dao and De exist simultaneously in the beginnings of linear time, but for Dao to become active, first required De to activate.

 

For Dao and De to be activated, first relied on the The One to exist, out of non-existence, perhaps. So, maybe, De is not The One, but De would have had to rise from The Oneness first, before Dao arose and then operated on that which De created from Oneness.

[dawei]

I might agree that they do essentially arise simultaneously, with their different functions and so forth, and are inseparable, however, I feel that there is something to what Guanzi said, in your earlier quote, that "De is the house of Dao." Dao is the expression of Virtue, and so has to come from Virtue, and/or rely on Virtue, which in this case would pretty much be the same. "Virtue is the giving-ness (澤 beneficence) of Dao" (see post #4). Virtue is what creates Life, Dao is more about Destiny and how things are ordered, including when and how things obtain Life.

 

We may be now going in circles just re-stating our positions again and again ... so here I go

 

A house is meaningless without an inhabitant... in fact, there needs to be an inhabitant first, otherwise a house is meaningless.

 

Dao is about the arising order; DE the creative force... you cannot say one is first here; only that their attributes/abilities/capacities arise together... A body arises as skin, bones, emotions, mental state, etc... In real life terms, it doesn't make sense to try and order them sequentially; they arise (form) simultaneously.

 

So Virtue is the "creator" (which, maybe, comes with, if not from, the One), and Dao is the way in which things are created, rising and falling and rising again, as in water vapour, calendrical cycles, breathing, etc.. For things to exist, however, De is first required. For things to operate according to Dao, things need to first exist. Dao can exist before things exist, but it is not "Dao-ing," it is not in operation, it is latent. So perhaps Dao and De exist simultaneously in the beginnings of linear time, but for Dao to become active, first required De to activate.

 

I do think DE is the creative force... and 'power' has been used by some translators to also convey that. But the power needs some reason to exist and perform; and it needs a "Way" which it goes about its unfolding.

 

Dao must exist before things else things cannot arise (which is the operation of 'Way', via the capacity of 'De').

 

Now, I can see where you might say: For Dao to come about (trying to avoid the word exist or arise), there must be some motive force to get it to be Dao. I think the problem with this is Dao is formless and not possessing capacity per se; it is a description of how DE goes about its business.

 

For Dao and De to be activated, first relied on the The One to exist, out of non-existence, perhaps. So, maybe, De is not The One, but De would have had to rise from The Oneness first, before Dao arose and then operated on that which De created from Oneness.

 

This idea of One keeps coming back... and I am glad to find another who can talk it in a way which I find it too.

 

I think One is much closer to Dao than De in basic function; it is more a conceptual framework. It always includes the whole of everything. Whether we are talking non-existence or existence, One is always One; the sum of whatever. Dao and De must be a part; attributes describing its function.

 

When designing a car, the first thing is to design a blueprint (Dao); how this will actually perform some function; as a part of how it functions is how it will actually move (De). I would be willing to accept that there is not sequence to this as if you leave out either one, there is no idea of car. An assembly line needs sequence but that does not mean the concepts of a car and how it actually moves should be thought of as a sequential arising of concepts.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

We may be now going in circles just re-stating our positions again and again ... so here I go

 

A house is meaningless without an inhabitant... in fact, there needs to be an inhabitant first, otherwise a house is meaningless.

 

Dao is about the arising order; DE the creative force... you cannot say one is first here; only that their attributes/abilities/capacities arise together... A body arises as skin, bones, emotions, mental state, etc... In real life terms, it doesn't make sense to try and order them sequentially; they arise (form) simultaneously.

 

 

I do think DE is the creative force... and 'power' has been used by some translators to also convey that. But the power needs some reason to exist and perform; and it needs a "Way" which it goes about its unfolding.

 

Dao must exist before things else things cannot arise (which is the operation of 'Way', via the capacity of 'De').

This is sort of like saying that the personality, patterns, and behaviours of a person need to exist before the person can exist. I think the ideas of pre-natal nature would suggest otherwise.

 

Now, I can see where you might say: For Dao to come about (trying to avoid the word exist or arise), there must be some motive force to get it to be Dao. I think the problem with this is Dao is formless and not possessing capacity per se; it is a description of how DE goes about its business.

So we agree there then

 

This idea of One keeps coming back... and I am glad to find another who can talk it in a way which I find it too.

 

I think One is much closer to Dao than De in basic function; it is more a conceptual framework. It always includes the whole of everything. Whether we are talking non-existence or existence, One is always One; the sum of whatever. Dao and De must be a part; attributes describing its function.

I can agree with that, even though I find De is closer to being like The One, as they are both more like the source and impulse of creation, while Dao relates more to the way of creation

 

DDJ25 (my translation)

 

有 物 混 成 ，

Something exists, random and chaotic, yet perfect and complete

先 天 地 生 。

Existing before Heaven and Earth were born

寂 兮 寥 兮 ，

Still and serene, desolate and empty

獨 立 而 不 改 ，

Self established, yet unchanged

周 行 而 不 殆 ，

Traveling in circles, but not hazardous

 

 

When designing a car, the first thing is to design a blueprint (Dao); how this will actually perform some function; as a part of how it functions is how it will actually move (De). I would be willing to accept that there is not sequence to this as if you leave out either one, there is no idea of car. An assembly line needs sequence but that does not mean the concepts of a car and how it actually moves should be thought of as a sequential arising of concepts.

though I would like to avoid making incomplete and inaccurate comparisons, I see it similar to computer code, (which goes back to Daoism in a way, with I Ching hexagrams being like binary code of the Dao). Dao is the program, but De is the computer, or the programmer, or the need that the program serves.

[Marblehead]

Dao is the program, but De is the computer, ...

I still think you have that backwards.

 

Just ignore me. I'm not part of the discussion.

[Stosh]

Not even backwards. There is no serving , there is no need. Not all believe that originally all was empty void , the other position is that there is such stuff that has always existed ( therefore having no beginning or end- as in the Christian -God without begining or end ) The Greeks also postulated that something always existed.

Im not here saying which angle is TRUE as a fact IMO,( if stuff always has been or if it arose from nothingness. ) Im just saying that the idea of a thing serving purpose without source , or source without origin ,has no correlation in our experience , and indeed makes no sense.(to me , but you dont have to accept it)

Even if you think things came from nothing , what is your origin of nothing? if not always having existed until its end which was the beginning or something.)

Edited October 25, 2013 by Stosh

[9th]

 

"The Babel fish is small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe. It feeds on brain wave energy, absorbing all unconscious frequencies and then excreting telepathically a matrix formed from the conscious frequencies and nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain, the practical upshot of which is that if you stick one in your ear, you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language: the speech you hear decodes the brain wave matrix."

It is a universal translator that neatly crosses the language divide between any species. The book points out that the Babel fish could not possibly have developed naturally, and therefore it both proves and disproves the existence of God:

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could evolve purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.

Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys. But this did not stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme for his best selling book, Well That About Wraps It Up for God. Meanwhile the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different cultures and races, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.

- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I happened upon the following quote by Hellen Keller, which also helps to sum up one aspect of all of this. Remember that De was described as "beneficent," and imagine she says "De" instead of "God."

 

 

I trust, and nothing that happens disturbs my trust. I recognize the beneficence of the power which we all worship as supreme — Order, Fate, the Great Spirit, Nature,

DE

. I recognize this power in the sun that makes all things grow and keeps life afoot. I make a friend of this indefinable force, and straightway I feel glad, brave and ready for any lot Heaven may decree for me. This is my religion of optimism.

[…]

Deep, solemn optimism, it seems to me, should spring from this firm belief in the presence of

DE

in the individual; not a remote, unapproachable governor of the universe, but a

DE

who is very near every one of us, who is present not only in earth, sea and sky, but also in every pure and noble impulse of our hearts, “the source and centre of all minds, their only point of rest.”

Edited October 25, 2013 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Marblehead]

I understand your point and won't argue against it.

 

We really can't speak about Tao so we might as well speak about something that can be spoken about - Te.

 

Which came first? Certainly not simultaneous arising.

[Stosh]

Ill argue against it. Its bogus to say those different things are all the same.

And its additionally bogus to say everyone worships ...

And it is additionally bogus to attribute-anthropomorphosize benificence to that which constitutes order in the universe..especially considering her particular afflictions.

Oh I know the message is charming, to some , that despite it all, she has a faith to say such..

But the charm of hearing what one wants to hear doesn't lend it credibility..in fact it adds a shadow of suspicion that it is considered valid -when it is not- for the same exact reason.

When one concludes-believes something which they would rather not have be such as it is..one surely has tested it most rigorously, and finds it to be unavoidable.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Ill argue against it. Its bogus to say those different things are all the same. And its additionally bogus to say everyone worships ... And it is additionally bogus to attribute-anthropomorphosize benificence to that which constitutes order in the universe..especially considering her particular afflictions. Oh I know the message is charming, to some , that despite it all, she has a faith to say such.. But the charm of hearing what one wants to hear doesn't lend it credibility..in fact it adds a shadow of suspicion that it is considered valid -when it is not- for the same exact reason. When one concludes-believes something which they would rather not have be such as it is..one surely has tested it most rigorously, and finds it to be unavoidable.

In this conversation, your the only one that's anthropomorphosizing

[Stosh]

How so?