Tao no-thing or nothing?

[d4rr3n]

This is my first post here but it is a question that has puzzled me for some time.

 

When thinking of the Dao/Tao do the text refer to it as being “no-thing” or “nothing”

 

Let me explain,

 

1,Tao as no-thing implies a type of primordial substance which is the building block of all things. It is a substance which has the potential to become anything. We could think of it as formless like flowing water but can take any form and characteristic you can think of. Tao/Dao is therefore a thing but we cant give it characteristics or forms because it has the ability to become anything.

 

2, Tao as nothing is void, literally a vacuum containing no substance or quality’s therefore we can not ascribe any characteristics to this tao because it has none, it is pure emptiness.

 

Now think about what it means when a person talks about meditating and reaching the dao. If dao to you is the first type then reaching this would mean enlightenment. If dao to you is the second type then as far as I understand it reaching this nothingness would result in your destruction, dissolution into nothingness.

 

My second question would be do you see wuji and dao as the same thing or is wuji nothing whilst dao is no-thing?

 

Its interesting that in the book magus of java John chang said a human can never become/reach wuji.

 

[NotVoid]

In my own experience, different taoists from different traditions do not appear to view things in the same way at all, and I suspect you will be hard pressed to find any really consistent view from different taoist traditions if you really look into it. Also, even in the tao te ching, which is considered an important text in taoism, the concept of 'tao' is not at all easy to understand or pin down, and what is written could be and is interpreted in many ways. My own personal feeling is that what is termed 'tao' is 'something' (for lack of a better word) which is beyond conceptualization and analysis, i.e., 'it' is beyond dualistic thinking. Because of this you cannot describe 'it' or analyze 'it'. It therefore is 'something' which it would seem can only be experienced at a level beyond 'ordinary mind', if at all. Sometimes it appears that what is called tao is used as a name for the principles or functions of 'tao' as these principles and functions unfold in this world/universe. So Taoists may refer to becoming more one with tao, or more in line with tao, which would appear to mean becoming more in line with the principles and functions of 'tao' as they unfold in this world. I think one possible take on the tao te ching is that it starts out by pointing out that tao is beyond conceptualization, but then goes on to outline how one can become more aligned with the principles and functions of this mysterious 'tao' and gives examples of what that is like. This is just my own personal very tentative viewpoint as I mentioned, and I certainly don't know one way or the other, and I think you could easily encounter many other viewpoints as well.

Edited February 18, 2014 by NotVoid

[3bob]

Of course you will have to verify this (or answers to these questions) for yourself, having said that I feel that the term "no-thing" is the best pointer, whereas the term "nothing" (especially to westerners) has a polarized connotation. What exactly are the in-depth Taoist/Chinese translations and correlations I don't know.

 

A human being per-se obviously has limits, even for the highly advanced. Yet when Spirit realizes it is not limited to being just a physical human being, or just an advanced human mind then Spirit will come know Itself or true Self beyond such human limitations.

 

This website is plum full of arguments along these lines, one might ask oneself how many years they want to spend on arguments and speculation until they just get on with it, namely practice that works...

 

Good fortune to you.

[Marblehead]

To your first question it is my understanding that Tao is "no-thing". That is, no individual thing, it is everything. In my mind "nothing" suggests "Absolute nothingness" which exist only beyond the physical universe. All else is potential.

[NotVoid]

Notice the difficulties in trying to discuss 'tao' in language which is based on our dualistic view of the world/universe, and which really is a product of the conceptual limitations of the dualistic mind. We are left to use words like 'it' and 'is' and 'something' and 'nothing', etc. Saying 'tao' is not a thing or 'no-thing' is a dualistic concept, where 'nothing' or 'no-thing' is the opposite of something that exists. If 'tao' is beyond this dualism however, then the language and conceptualization of our dualistic mind is simply inadequate.

 

Edit: if we view 'tao' as some sort of primordial substance that is non material, then it is still some thing, as opposed to no-thing. If we view tao as everything, then it is still something as opposed to nothing. We just can't escape the limitations of our dualistic mind, at least not through the use of our dualistic mind that is.

Edited February 18, 2014 by NotVoid

[soaring crane]

My gut response: there's no difference between no-thing and nothing, and John Chang is right. Wuji is stasis, deader than dead. It doesn't really exist. It didn't even pre-date the big bang, if indeed it ever occurred.

 

In attaining Dao, we attain insight.

 

Also, English isn't the best language for interpreting these things.

Edited February 18, 2014 by soaring crane

[d4rr3n]

I was just at the gym and was thinking about how john chang said a human can never become wuji and the following occurred to me. Lets say I gave you a carrot and said chop it up, chop it up until it becomes nothing. Soon you will find it don’t matter how fine you chop it up it will never reach the state of nothingness. If you were to reduce it to molecules, then atoms, then subatomic particles you are still left with something and we must conclude that “something” can never become nothing.

 

BUT, on the other hand if you got it passed the subatomic stage and kept going finally you would eventually reach the “no-thing” the substance from which all things are made from.

 

I concluded therefore that a human which is obviously a “thing” can never become a nothing but it can through reaching to higher and higher states become the “no-thing”

 

so at least in my mind I think john chang is right, yet I have indeed heard Taoists talking about reaching the dao yet it is clear from their description that their dao is the void of nothing thus they are talking about reaching something that perhaps cant be reached, not to mention why you would want to become nothing, that wouldn’t be much of an achievement

 

 

"In our school man can never become like this. Human beings
those who can complete Level Four, that is to say stay at t’ai chi all
the way up to Level Seventy Two. We are never at wu-chi.

 

Perhaps in other lineages, like the Mao-shan Pai or the Wutang-Pai, they
have discovered a method to accomplish this, but I do not know of
it, nor have I ever witnessed it. In any case, we in the Mo-Pai do not
use it."

 

Magnus of Java

Edited February 18, 2014 by d4rr3n

[soaring crane]

Max Planck had a thing or two to say about this stuff, if I recall correctly.

[3bob]

It is a common for us to think of attaining this or that level or category ... and granted such does apply to levels, but beyond that Spirit essence is not something you can gain or loose, (or gain by attainment or loose by lack of attainment) That is already indestructible, non-corruptible, pure and true. What one can loose is identification with less than that, then all is well. (but that is also getting way ahead of the game which I'm not qualified to go on about)

[Marblehead]

Notice the difficulties in trying to discuss 'tao' ...

You stop dualizing me, Okay? Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

Max Planck had a thing or two to say about this stuff, if I recall correctly.

A wise man indded.

[ChiDragon]

Notice the difficulties in trying to discuss 'tao' in language which is based on our dualistic view of the world/universe, and which really is a product of the conceptual limitations of the dualistic mind. We are left to use words like 'it' and 'is' and 'something' and 'nothing', etc. Saying 'tao' is not a thing or 'no-thing' is a dualistic concept, where 'nothing' or 'no-thing' is the opposite of something that exists. If 'tao' is beyond this dualism however, then the language and conceptualization of our dualistic mind is simply inadequate.

 

Edit: if we view 'tao' as some sort of primordial substance that is non material, then it is still some thing, as opposed to no-thing. If we view tao as everything, then it is still something as opposed to nothing. We just can't escape the limitations of our dualistic mind, at least not through the use of our dualistic mind that is.

 

One needs to have a full understanding of Chapter One of the Tao Te Ching in order to know what is the duality for the existence of Tao.

 

There are two states of manifestation for Tao. Tao is either visible(有, you) or invisible(無, wu). These two states are considered to be the duality because they are complementary to each other. However, by definition, in terms of no-thing or nothing cannot be considered as duality because they are not complementary to each other.

Edited February 18, 2014 by ChiDragon

[3bob]

certain dualizing is fine by me:

 

For instance dual exhaust is better than single but tuned exhaust headers are the best, thus a 2 1/2" exhaust pipe may not be better than one at 2".

Edited February 18, 2014 by 3bob

[Seeker of Wisdom]

If dao to you is the second type then as far as I understand it reaching this nothingness would result in your destruction, dissolution into nothingness.

'Reaching' Tao? There is nothing to reach, and nothing to dissolve into, as we are functions of Tao ourselves. An Immortal just recognises Tao, and is in harmony with it.

 

If Tao is emptiness, then that recognition and harmony is with emptiness, and all the motions of yin and yang are seen as taking place in emptiness. Like warps in space, they are qualities spun from the yarn of a complete lack of qualities. And the Immortal sees that in actuality, all action already was wu wei, because it is never anything over than the action of expansive void itself!

 

And, if all things are spun from emptiness, doesn't that make emptiness itself, in an inconceivable way, substance? Thus, there is really no difference between your two suggestions of no-thing and nothing.

 

Just the ramblings of a fool...

[d4rr3n]

'Reaching' Tao? There is nothing to reach, and nothing to dissolve into, as we are functions of Tao ourselves. An Immortal just recognises Tao, and is in harmony with it.

 

If Tao is emptiness, then that recognition and harmony is with emptiness, and all the motions of yin and yang are seen as taking place in emptiness. Like warps in space, they are qualities spun from the yarn of a complete lack of qualities. And the Immortal sees that in actuality, all action already was wu wei, because it is never anything over than the action of expansive void itself!

 

And, if all things are spun from emptiness, doesn't that make emptiness itself, in an inconceivable way, substance? Thus, there is really no difference between your two suggestions of no-thing and nothing.

 

Just the ramblings of a fool...

 

It is also foolish to talk about motion of nothing, is it not? Motion canot exist without somthing to move!

[Marblehead]

If Tao is emptiness, ...

It is fullness, not emptiness. Hehehe. (I, of course, had to do that.)

[NotVoid]

ChiDragon wrote:

"There are two states of manifestation for Tao. Tao is either visible(有, you) or invisible(無, wu). These two states are considered to be the duality because they are complementary to each other. However, by definition, in terms of no-thing or nothing cannot be considered as duality because they are not complementary to each other."

 

The first part of what you say is just simply your own personal interpretation. There are no doubt many interpretations. The second part of what you said about no-thing and nothing not being complementary has nothing to do with anything I wrote here. I mentioned that 'no-thing' and 'nothing' (there is really no difference that I can see ) are opposites of something that exists, and are thus are part of dualistic conceptualization. I think that should be self evident anyway.

Edited February 18, 2014 by NotVoid

[d4rr3n]

I mentioned that 'no-thing' and 'nothing' (there is really no difference that I can see ) are opposites of something that exists, and are thus are part of dualistic conceptualization. I think that should be self evident anyway.

The difference is that no-thing is a thing whilst nothing isn’t even a thing or to put it more scientifically no-thing is energy whilst nothing is......well nothing

Edited February 18, 2014 by d4rr3n

[NotVoid]

The difference is that no-thing is a thing whilst nothing isn’t even a thing or to put it more scientifically no-thing is energy whilst nothing is......well nothing

Hi d4rr3n. I do understand what you mean, but I think it is just further splitting the concept of something into finer divisions; for example, energy is still something as opposed to nothing. My view is no matter how much you hash such things through using analysis and logic you can never get beyond limited dualistic notions such as existence and non-existence, and any attempt to try to move beyond such limitations using words and logic will come out sounding very nonsensical and will probably just invite ridicule. I believe this is probably why it was written in the tao te ching that 'if they do not laugh, it is not tao'. The suggestion would appear to be that if you try to conceptualize it and express it, it only comes out sounding like nonsense to the rational mind. When you read the tao te ching it is full of such nonsensical seeming statements such as soft overcoming hard, weak overcoming strong, low being better than high, tao being empty but giving rise to all things, etc. To the logical mind it appears nonsensical. So you either have to reject it as nonsense, or allow for the possibility that what is being alluded to is 'something' that is beyond the conceptualization and analysis capabilities of the ordinary mind.

 

Taoists I have come across do not say ponder and analyze this hard and you will eventually understand it. They say practice this or that meditation or other practice and you may eventually gain some understanding.

Edited February 19, 2014 by NotVoid

[d4rr3n]

NotVoid,

I believe you can use your logic up to a point but it cannot be used in actually realising the tao itself so we don’t say tao has this quality or that quality or this characteristics or that. But logic can get us up to a point and we can say things like:

 

Tao exists

Is non dualistic

Contains all possibility’s/quality’s

Is everything

 

Passed this we cannot go with our rational mind as the actual realisation of that thing is beyond it.

Above I am talking about tao as being “no-thing”.

 

If however your concept of tao is the "nothing" then there is literally nothing to be said, we cant even use the word “it” because it implies it is a thing which would not be true, ultimately it is futile to attempt describing nothing because there is nothing to be described or said.

 

If you read my post about the carrot though you will see I came to the conclusion that a human can reach the no-thing but never the nothing. In actual fact this nothing may not even exist in our universe since even empty space is a thing (can be warped and talked about as the fabric of space etc)

High being better then low can only refer to martial application in a grappling situation, the low uproots the high. Same with soft and yielding overcoming hard and stiff or emptiness swallowing up fullness ie moving out of the way of a strike.

.

[NotVoid]

Hi d4rr3n. Well, to be clear, I am not using logic or suggesting the use of some sort of logic, nor am I suggesting the use of any sort of conceptualization. I am suggesting the possibility that such things may be limited to a certain 'framework' however. I don't know at all that using logic we can conclude with any real certainty that 'tao' exists, or that 'it' is non-dualistic, or that 'it' contains all possibilities or qualities, or that 'it' is everything. When I consider texts like the tao te ching or other such writings, I personally do not see an urging towards using logic or holding to concepts. What I perceive is words and phrases arranged in such a way which suggest to me a pointing to 'something' (ha ha ) which err... 'does not fit that framework'. Just my personal take. I don't really know one way or the other. I don't think too much more can be said about this from my perspective, so I will leave it at that.

 

I do think I understand where you are coming from, and the view you are describing seems to be an attempt to correlate an idea of 'tao' with the scientific view of the universe starting with a big bang and that the underlying essence of all matter is energy. I personally don't see any real problem with that, but I am not sure it will take you so much further than that. You have assigned a concept of 'energy' to a concept of 'tao', and that may work to some extent in describing the functioning of the world/universe around us, but following such an approach you still have the same problems of trying to move beyond that to trying to understand where did this energy come from, and where did this 'space' come from that we call the universe, and how does this all relate to the 'dimension' of time and to causality, etc., and are these concepts at all adequate or are they just leading us astray when we get to this point? I don't have any answers for that, but it does seem at least possible to me that the further you proceed with this approach the more it begins to unravel and the more it starts appearing nonsensical. Hmm, where I have I encountered that which seems nonsensical before...

Edited February 19, 2014 by NotVoid

[Kajenx]

You seem like a philosophical/scientific fellow, so maybe this explanation can help. If we remember for a moment that all spiritual concepts (or scientific and philosophical concepts) are words used to describe the personal experiences of a person or group of people, we can lable these words as "qualia". 10lbs is meaningless unless you have some experience holding and measuring different weights in your hands. If I say "I can lift 200lbs over my head!" it's only impressive if you have tried it yourself (disclaimer: I can't lift 200lbs over my head XD). So if we think about the descriptions of the Tao as measures of qualia, it can make more sense. Lao Tzu wasn't saying the Tao was nothing OR no-thing, he was showing us how to measure it. We simply have to stop looking at green as green, and leaves as leaves, and see beyond the words and measurements. Then we say "oh, it was there all along."

[d4rr3n]

My personal reason to resolve if the dao spoken of by Taoists was nothing or no-thing is connected with the big bang but also with Vedic philosophy. In Vedic philosophy they call the big bang a day of Brahmin whilst they call the big crunch a night of Brahmin.

 

When people talk about wanting to reach this nothing I naturally thought to myself why would anyone want to do that! to destroy themselves by passing their spirit into the void, to be dissolved into nothingness. I then thought to myself no this cant be what the Taoists are talking about, they must be talking about uniting their spirit with the no-thing which is ultimately the spirit of the universe (basically uniting the spirit of the macrocosm with the spirit of the microcosm). If possible a human would then attain a state of cosmic consciousness or enlightenment.

 

Obviously I would rather set my ultimate goal as reaching a state of cosmic consciousness and not dissolution and destruction into nothingness

 

 

Kajenx, this is for you

[3bob]

My personal reason to resolve if the dao spoken of by Taoists was nothing or no-thing is connected with the big bang but also with Vedic philosophy. In Vedic philosophy they call the big bang a day of Brahmin whilst they call the big crunch a night of Brahmin.

 

When people talk about wanting to reach this nothing I naturally thought to myself why would anyone want to do that! to destroy themselves by passing their spirit into the void, to be dissolved into nothingness. I then thought to myself no this cant be what the Taoists are talking about, they must be talking about uniting their spirit with the no-thing which is ultimately the spirit of the universe (basically uniting the spirit of the macrocosm with the spirit of the microcosm). If possible a human would then attain a state of cosmic consciousness or enlightenment.

 

Obviously I would rather set my ultimate goal as reaching a state of cosmic consciousness and not dissolution and destruction into nothingness

 

 

Kajenx, this is for you

video

 

 

D4rr3n,

You may want to take another look at the Vedic teachings? For instance what you are referring to is normally called a day or night of "Brahma" or Lord Brahma. (as in a very long time period of the creative God aspect, along with there also being the aspects of Lord Vishnu, and Lord Shiva) "Brahmin" normally means a Brahmin priest or someone of the Brahmin caste. And "Brahman" is that which is beyond any such categories as is deeply alluded to in the Upanishads. (and elsewhere)

 

An example:

Chandogya Upanishad, Part Eight, Chapter I — Brahman in the Heart

 

"1. Om. There is in this city of Brahman an abode, the small lotus of the heart; within it is a small akasa. Now what exists within that small akasa, that is to be sought after, that is what one should desire to understand.

—3. If they should say to him: "Now, with regard to the abode, the small lotus, in this city of Brahman and the small akasa within it—what is there in it that is to be sought after and what is there that one should desire to understand?" Then he (the teacher) should say: "As far as, verily, this great akasa extends, so far extends the akasa within the heart. Both heaven and earth are contained within it, both fire and air, both sun and moon, both lightning and stars; and whatever belongs to him (i.e. the embodied creature) in this world and whatever does not, all that is contained within it (i.e. the akasa in the heart)."

4. If they (the pupils) should say: "If everything that exists—all beings and all desires—is contained in this city of Brahman, then what is left of it when old age overcomes it or when it perishes?"

5. Then he (the teacher) should say: "With the old age of the body, That (i.e. Brahman, described as the akasa in the heart) does not age; with the death of the body, That does not die. That Brahman and not the body is the real city of Brahman. In It all desires are contained. It is the Self—free from sin, free from old age, free from death, free from grief free from hunger, free from thirst; Its desires come true, Its thoughts come true. Just as, here on earth, people follow as they are commanded by a leader and depend upon whatever objects they desire, be it a country or a piece of land so also those who are ignorant of the Self depend upon other objects and experience the result of their good and evil deeds.

6. "And just as, here on earth, whatever is earned through work perishes, so does the next world, won by virtuous deeds, perish. Those who depart hence without having realized the Self and these true desires—for them there is no freedom in all the worlds. But those who depart hence after having realized the Self and these true desires—for them there is freedom in all the worlds."

 

(underline added by me)

Edited February 19, 2014 by 3bob

[d4rr3n]

3bob, I was refering to the cosmic days and cosmic nights, the cosmic night (pralaya) where everything is destroyed, dissolved into the nothingness.

 

"The puranic view asserts that the universe is created, destroyed, and re-created in an eternally repetitive series of cycles. In Hindu cosmology, a universe endures for about 4,320,000,000 years (one day of Brahma, the creator or kalpa) and is then destroyed by fire or water elements. At this point, Brahma rests for one night, just as long as the day. This process, named pralaya (literally especial dissolution in Sanskrit, commonly translated as Cataclysm), repeats for 100 Brahma years (311 Trillion, 40 Billion Human Years) that represents Brahma's lifespan. Brahma is regarded as a manifestation of Brahman as the creator.

In current occurrence of Universe, we are believed to be in the 51st year of the present Brahma and so about 156 trillion years have elapsed since He was born as Brahma. After Brahma's "death", it is necessary that another 100 Brahma years (311 Trillion, 40 Billion Years) pass until a new Brahma is born and the whole creation begins anew. This process is repeated again and again, forever."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cosmology