Cosmologies - Split

[Jeff]

~~~ Split Topic ~~~

 

from here: https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/46591-dao-and-brahman-they-are-non-different/

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

In his thesis, the author states that in Taoism the “One” emerges from the Void, and hence equates the Void as the Dao. This seems to be a pretty big departure from Taoism, and the teachings of the Tao Te Ching.

[9th]

 

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

In his thesis, the author states that in Taoism the “One” emerges from the Void, and hence equates the Void as the Dao. This seems to be a pretty big departure from Taoism, and the teachings of the Tao Te Ching.

Dao gives birth to One
One gives birth to Two
Two give birth to Three
Three give birth to ten-thousand things
The ten-thousand things carry yin and embrace yang They mix these energies to enact harmony

 

[dawei]

5 hours ago, Jeff said:

In his thesis, the author states that in Taoism the “One” emerges from the Void, and hence equates the Void as the Dao. This seems to be a pretty big departure from Taoism, and the teachings of the Tao Te Ching.

 

I think some more explanation is needed... if you disagree with void as Dao, or Void is same as emptiness, can you explain ?

 

@Dwai: You said, "Out of this comes the One (Taiji)"  

 

Can you reference the oldest document that relates this?

 

In advance... this question is a bit of a trap... I've studied daoist cosmology for a long time... so I kind of expect a certain answer that I won't agree with, but I've written here before on it...  but willing to discuss it within reason

 

[dawei]

5 hours ago, 9th said:

 

 

its a curiously interesting chart but doesn't seem correct.   I could explain why I feel that way but you have not explained why it is that way...

[9th]

3 hours ago, dawei said:

 

its a curiously interesting chart but doesn't seem correct.   I could explain why I feel that way but you have not explained why it is that way...

 

Well, I dont really care if it seems correct to you or not... 

 

so.................

 

...

 

I am so desperately waiting for your explanation!!!  TRUST ME!

[Boundlesscostfairy]

I think like the Tao is like the laws of physics..and Brahman..is anyones divine being..

[dawei]

2 hours ago, 9th said:

 

Well, I dont really care if it seems correct to you or not... 

 

so.................

 

...

 

I am so desperately waiting for your explanation!!!  TRUST ME!

 

You don't seem to care but you ask for explanations... ok.

 

show me where Tian and Di as separate as stages in chinese cosmology, in any ancient text. 

 

I would be happy to read it and comment. 

 

Otherwise, TianDi (Heaven and Earth) seems shown as a bi-polar understanding in ancient cosmology.  It is shown bi=polar with several others, like YinYang.  There are about six ancient cosmologies that can be compared in ancient china.   The only question I have is whether it was anciently used as mass as more a container (ie: space) and not yet as mass in the most ancient use. 

 

Do you know that Tai Yi was more anciently Da Yi?

 

Do you even know that Tai Ji was first and most anciently referenced as Da Heng ? 

 

Your chart is simply a modernist understanding. 

 

If you don't care, that is fine.

 

 

[9th]

Just now, dawei said:

If you don't care, that is fine.

 

Oh yeh?  THANKS FOR YOUR PERMISSION!!

 

I mean, its JUST WHAT I WAS WAITING FOR!!!

 

Trust me, I cant do anything without it.

 

[dawei]

4 minutes ago, 9th said:

 

Oh yeh?  THANKS FOR YOUR PERMISSION!!

 

I mean, its JUST WHAT I WAS WAITING FOR!!!

 

Trust me, I cant do anything without it.

 

 

Then why ask ...  just trolling?   I at least gave you a serious response but you continue with what... 

 

Are you interested to understand anything about the faults in the chart ?

 

This is a discussion forum after all. 

[9th]

2 minutes ago, dawei said:

 

Then why ask ... 

 

When did I ever ask for your permission?  I do as I please.  You guys keep trying to throw me out as if you are "in control" or whatever.

 

Call me a "troll", call my thoughts "spam", call a black man a "nigger", call whatever you want "worthless", but all I hear is:

 

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

 

Sticks and stones, motherfucker.

[dawei]

1 minute ago, 9th said:

 

When did I ever ask for your permission?  I do as I please.  You guys keep trying to throw me out as if you are "in control" or whatever.

 

Call me a "troll", call my thoughts "spam", call a black man a "nigger", call whatever you want "worthless", but all I hear is:

 

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

 

Sticks and stones, motherfucker.

 

good bye

[Jeff]

9 hours ago, dawei said:

 

I think some more explanation is needed... if you disagree with void as Dao, or Void is same as emptiness, can you explain ?

...

 

The Void is not equivalent to the Dao (just a component of it), as the Tao Te Ching clearly states...

 

25
Something mysteriously formed, 
Born before heaven and Earth. 
In the silence and the void, 
Standing alone and unchanging, 
Ever present and in motion. 
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things. 
I do not know its name 
Call it Tao. 
For lack of a better word, I call it great.

Being great, it flows 
I flows far away. 
Having gone far, it returns.

Therefore, "Tao is great; 
Heaven is great; 
Earth is great; 
The king is also great." 
These are the four great powers of the universe, 
And the king is one of them.

Man follows Earth. 
Earth follows heaven. 
Heaven follows the Tao. 
Tao follows what is natural.

 

As you can see in the highlighted text, the Void is only one (of three major) aspects of the Dao. Or said another way, the Dao is not the space between two thoughts.

[dwai]

 void, form, 10,000 things are all aspects of Dao. They are not separate from it. 

[Starjumper]

36 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Born before heaven and Earth. 
In the silence and the void, 

 

As you can see in the highlighted text, the Void is only one (of three major) aspects of the Dao. Or said another way, the Dao is not the space between two thoughts.

 

Disagree.  I think it is saying that the Tao came from the void, it was created in the void, but the void is not part of it.  Once matter manifested then there was/is no longer a void.

 

This follows the big bang scenario pretty well.  In the beginning there was just nothingness, the void.  Then about a millionth of a second after the big bang the 'laws' of physics, which is the way the universe works, which is the Tao, was born.

 

Another thing is that these laws of physics, or the way the universe works, is so fine tuned that there is like a 0.0000000001% chance that these laws would result in a universe that has sustainable matter and can support life.

 

So either there are a lot of other 'failed' universes out there or something fishy is going on.  Something that has to do with awareness of  itself ... or something.

[Jeff]

23 minutes ago, Starjumper said:

 

Disagree.  I think it is saying that the Tao came from the void, it was created in the void, but the void is not part of it.  Once matter manifested then there was/is no longer a void.

 

This follows the big bang scenario pretty well.  In the beginning there was just nothingness, the void.  Then about a millionth of a second after the big bang the 'laws' of physics, which is the way the universe works, which is the Tao, was born.

 

Another thing is that these laws of physics, or the way the universe works, is so fine tuned that there is like a 0.0000000001% chance that these laws would result in a universe that has sustainable matter and can support life.

 

So either there are a lot of other 'failed' universes out there or something fishy is going on.  Something that has to do with awareness of  itself ... or something.

 

I don’t think you will find any modern day physicists that still believe in the Big Bang theory. Quantum physics ( and quantum reality) have pretty much killed off such beliefs. Here is a nice description if anyone is interested...

 

 https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

 

Also, most modern physics believe that there are multiple concurrent universes, as it is the only way they can get any of the math to work correctly. Similarly, there is no text that states that the Dao emerged from the Void. The “One” emerged from the Dao, and the Dao does not equal the One. Also, you can find a similar concept in Buddhism where emptiness does not equal the Void either.

 

[Michael Sternbach]

22 minutes ago, Starjumper said:

 

Disagree.  I think it is saying that the Tao came from the void, it was created in the void, but the void is not part of it.  Once matter manifested then there was/is no longer a void.

 

This follows the big bang scenario pretty well.  In the beginning there was just nothingness, the void.  Then about a millionth of a second after the big bang the 'laws' of physics, which is the way the universe works, which is the Tao, was born.

 

Another thing is that these laws of physics, or the way the universe works, is so fine tuned that there is like a 0.0000000001% chance that these laws would result in a universe that has sustainable matter and can support life.

 

So either there are a lot of other 'failed' universes out there or something fishy is going on.  Something that has to do with awareness of  itself ... or something.

 

My view on this is essentially Platonic: Before the Universe popped into manifestation, there was already its "blueprint" laid out. (Though the term "before" may be a bit misleading, since time itself seems to have come into existence with the Big Bang - but you get the idea.) So all those laws of nature and constants required to make the thing work were already in place there on the spiritual/archetypical plane.

 

And even this mathematical framework  was not necessarily the deliberate act of a Creator God, but rather the natural unfoldment of what was inherent to the cosmic Zero (wuji) which is the source of all.

 

I think the DDJ supports this perspective:

 

"The form of great virtue is something that only the Tao can follow. 
The Tao as a "thing" is vague and obscure. 
How obscure! How vague! Yet in it there is form. 
How vague! How obscure! But in it there are things. 
How deep! How dark! In it there is an essence. 
The essence is so real--therein is belief. 
Since before time and space were, 
the Tao IS. 
It is beyond is and is not. 
How do I know this is true? 
I look inside myself and see."
-  Translated by Rivenrock, Chapter 21  

[dawei]

3 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

The Void is not equivalent to the Dao (just a component of it), as the Tao Te Ching clearly states...

 

As you can see in the highlighted text, the Void is only one (of three major) aspects of the Dao. Or said another way, the Dao is not the space between two thoughts.

 

Thanks.  I thought I read somewhere else you associated Dao with emptiness so trying to get some clarification.   My interests are in cosmology but this thread may be the wrong place to pursue that.

[Marblehead]

Yep.  There is Buddhist "empty" and there is Taoist "empty".  In my opinion, very different concepts.

 

[dwai]

13 hours ago, dawei said:

 

I think some more explanation is needed... if you disagree with void as Dao, or Void is same as emptiness, can you explain ?

 

@Dwai: You said, "Out of this comes the One (Taiji)"  

 

Can you reference the oldest document that relates this?

 

In advance... this question is a bit of a trap... I've studied daoist cosmology for a long time... so I kind of expect a certain answer that I won't agree with, but I've written here before on it...  but willing to discuss it within reason

 

Daodejing 42 seems to be an early enough work that covers this.

 

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by dwai

[Michael Sternbach]

3 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

I don’t think you will find any modern day physicists that still believe in the Big Bang theory. Quantum physics ( and quantum reality) have pretty much killed off such beliefs. Here is a nice description if anyone is interested...

 

 https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

 

While there have always been some alternative theories around, the Big Bang is in fact still the most widely accepted model in modern cosmology. By far!

 

It is somewhat of a generic theory that encompasses a number of variations, one of the latest being Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC). Despite its intimidatingly technical name, this is actually a metaphysically fascinating model - especially from a Hindu perspective! I have  already written several posts about it on TDB over the years, but I will briefly summarize it here again as it ties in rather nicely with Dwai's topic.

 

In a nutshell, CCC states that the universe goes through countless incarnations, each starting with another singularity and Big Bang. From there, the universe keeps expanding for something like googol years, strongly reminiscent of the incredibly long time span given as the lifetime of the universe in Hindu cosmology.

 

Eventually, all matter will have decayed and transformed into electromagnetic energy - light, essentially. (Yes, it all goes light, Jeff! - For third-party readers: That's an inside joke. ) Now something truly mind boggling happens: Time and space cease to exist! More precisely, they both stretch into infinity and contract to a single point. - Note that this is different from Big Crunch theory: The universe doesn't first expand and then reverse its expansion for another zillion of years here until it lumps together in another ball of matter. Rather, it reaches both kinds of infinity - the infinitely big and the infintely small - "simultaneously"! Even though the math is rigorous, this is a truly metaphysical concept, IMO: An infinite moment of Divine consciousness.

 

And you guessed it, it is this newly formed spaceless and timeless singularity - emerging from the infinitely expanded, light-filled previous universe - that 'bangs' and gives birth to a whole new cosmos. What is passed on from the former one are some gravity waves that "inform" and structure the developing new  world - call this karma, if you will!

 

Well, when I heard Penrose present his CCC some six years ago on a physics congress, I seized one of the microphones that were offered to the audience in excitement and brought up the parallels to Hindu cosmology which immediately caught the eye. The reply was that such parallels to religion are outside the scope of science... But at least, they gave me permission to draw them!

 

3 hours ago, Jeff said:

Also, most modern physics believe that there are multiple concurrent universes, as it is the only way they can get any of the math to work correctly.

 

Are you talking about Everett's multiple-worlds theory? That is just one of a variety of possible interpretations of quantum mechanics, the others including the Copenhagen interpretation, the De Broglie-Bohm (pilot wave) interpretation and quantum decoherence theories.

 

The idea that there a(n infinite?) number of universes has actually been around for uite awhile, not least, it plays a roll in M theory (which is basically an extension of string theory). While not proven or generally accepted, the idea that we live in a multiverse quite appeals to me. It necessitates an extension of our idea of Dao (or God) though.

 

3 hours ago, Jeff said:

Similarly, there is no text that states that the Dao emerged from the Void. The “One” emerged from the Dao, and the Dao does not equal the One. Also, you can find a similar concept in Buddhism where emptiness does not equal the Void either.

 

 

Which Buddhist text differentiates between emptiness and the Void? Any quotes you can share?

[dawei]

2 hours ago, dwai said:

Daodejing 42 seems to be an early enough work that covers this.

 

 

 

I was trying to point out that One as (taiji) is a later imposition.  Earliest works described it differently but history is always being re-written to a degree.

 

Added: BTW, LZ never used the word Taiji but did use Wuji once... he used Ji a few times but at least one was in replacement for the more ancient word, Heng.   Even his one reference to Yin and Yang seems like a small footnote... like these ideas didn't get to great fruition and application till later. 

[Jeff]

 

22 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Which Buddhist text differentiates between emptiness and the Void? Any quotes you can share?

 

In the Dzogchen teachings the primordial state of the base is not defined only as being void, but is explained as having three aspects or characteristics, called the "three primordial wisdoms": essence, nature, and energy. The essence is the void, the real condition of the individual and of all phenomena. This base is the condition of all individuals, viduals, whether they are aware of it or not, whether they are enlightened or in transmigration. It is said to be "pure from the beginning" (ka dag), because, like space, it is free of all impediments, and is the basis of all the manifestations in existence.

 

-Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State.

 

[dawei]

15 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

 

In the Dzogchen teachings the primordial state of the base is not defined only as being void, but is explained as having three aspects or characteristics, called the "three primordial wisdoms": essence, nature, and energy. The essence is the void, the real condition of the individual and of all phenomena. This base is the condition of all individuals, viduals, whether they are aware of it or not, whether they are enlightened or in transmigration. It is said to be "pure from the beginning" (ka dag), because, like space, it is free of all impediments, and is the basis of all the manifestations in existence.

 

-Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State.

 

 

Ok, I usually get rather lost in the Dzogchen stuff but that was readable after three times...  so how about emptiness.  I think we've had this discussion before but my cosmological brain is trying to sort out the void vs emptiness thing again.

 

I thought in the past you defined Dao=Emptiness... kind of not Two and Not One... then void is a quasi-preliminary One with potential for movement.

[Jeff]

56 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

While there have always been some alternative theories around, the Big Bang is in fact still the most widely accepted model in modern cosmology. By far!

 

It is somewhat of a generic theory that encompasses a number of variations, one of the latest being Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC). Despite its intimidatingly technical name, this is actually a metaphysically fascinating model - especially from a Hindu perspective! I have  already written several posts about it on TDB over the years, but I will briefly summarize it here again as it ties in rather nicely with Dwai's topic.

 

In a nutshell, CCC states that the universe goes through countless incarnations, each starting with another singularity and Big Bang. From there, the universe keeps expanding for something like googol years, strongly reminiscent of the incredibly long time span given as the lifetime of the universe in Hindu cosmology.

 

Eventually, all matter will have decayed and transformed into electromagnetic energy - light, essentially. (Yes, it all goes light, Jeff! - For third-party readers: That's an inside joke. ) Now something truly mind boggling happens: Time and space cease to exist! More precisely, they both stretch into infinity and contract to a single point. - Note that this is different from Big Crunch theory: The universe doesn't first expand and then reverse its expansion for another zillion of years here until it lumps together in another ball of matter. Rather, it reaches both kinds of infinity - the infinitely big and the infintely small - "simultaneously"! Even though the math is rigorous, this is a truly metaphysical concept, IMO: An infinite moment of Divine consciousness.

 

And you guessed it, it is this newly formed spaceless and timeless singularity - emerging from the infinitely expanded, light-filled previous universe - that 'bangs' and gives birth to a whole new cosmos. What is passed on from the former one are some gravity waves that "inform" and structure the developing new  world - call this karma, if you will!

 

Well, when I heard Penrose present his CCC some six years ago on a physics congress, I seized one of the microphones that were offered to the audience in excitement and brought up the parallels to Hindu cosmology which immediately caught the eye. The reply was that such parallels to religion are outside the scope of science... But at least, they gave me permission to draw them!

...

 

With your Big Bang theory, how do you explain the fact that the rate of growth for the universe is accelerating, requiring ongoing and increasing energy into the system as opposed to a base "bang"?