cosmic cycles

[3bob]

since all exceptionally long cosmic cycles have the same causal source, and sequences of creation, maintenance and dissolution it would seem to follow that they are all identical and gloriously repetitive...    along with all types of forms and souls repetitively going through all the motions in same.   Now that does not really sound like evolution resulting in anything that brings about cosmic or even an end game of change  for beings since cosmic dissolution also claims them, thus it sounds like we are in and part of  a fated machine although a truly incredible, diverse and long lasting one!  Btw, the Self (per the Upanishads) cannot gain or lose anything thus It is non-evolutionary.  Considering these points how many would say we then have an unanswerable why about the big picture?  (although beings may have eons and dharmic motive to participate in and enjoy a cosmic cycle as much as possible there is still noting that can really be gained or lost regarding true identity)

Edited July 10, 2018 by 3bob

[Bindi]

If cosmic cycles are referring to something matter-based, wouldn't evolution be possible if consciousness aimed to evolve beyond matter/time/space and therefore outside of the cosmic cycle? 

[3bob]

the way I see it right now is that evolution provides  matrix for the non-evolving "Self" to mirror as much as possible into creation.  I'd also say per my limited experience that soul/consciousness is also a form of matter/energy - even if it is of woven light, thus it exists inside the  cosmic cycle so to speak. (a subject on which there is a tremendous amount of fancy foot work and double takes ranging anywhere from A-Z)  Anyway there are not  bunches of evolved "Self"(s) beyond evolution, for if Self (as pointed to in the Upanishads) ever evolved in time or space then it could also devolve at some time or place...

Edited July 10, 2018 by 3bob

[3bob]

In Taoist terms the "One" is "born" (and lasts for an extremely long cosmic cycle if we stick with the said implication of it being born) after which the "One" also "returns" or undergoes dissolution of any type form no matter how subtle, then the whole cycle starts over again.

Thus if only the Tao remains after the dissolution of the One (and never really went anywhere)  could there be other beings remaining unique and independent of such a cycle that takes the "One" which they exist within? (via the process of the 'Two", The "Three' and the "Ten Thousand"?  Further is there any type of immortal that we often hear about that exists outside of and or outlasts the "One".

[Marblehead]

Quick answer to your last question:  No.

 

[3bob]

6 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Quick answer to your last question:  No.

 

 

agreed except for that "immortal" that was never limited by birth or death and who knows it...namely the Tao

 

(oops, namely the Tao which can not be named  )

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

4 minutes ago, 3bob said:

 

agreed except for that "immortal" that was never limited by birth or death and who knows it...namely the Tao

 

(oops, namely the Tao which can not be named  )

 

Hehehe.  Yes, this even applies to religious believers, I think.  The creator did not exist before (s)he created things unless you can say that the creator created (his)herself.

 

Can we say that non-existence is immortal?

 

[Jeff]

14 minutes ago, 3bob said:

In Taoist terms the "One" is "born" (and lasts for an extremely long cosmic cycle if we stick with the said implication of it being born) after which the "One" also "returns" or undergoes dissolution of any type form no matter how subtle, then the whole cycle starts over again.

Thus if only the Tao remains after the dissolution of the One (and never really went anywhere)  could there be other beings remaining unique and independent of such a cycle that takes the "One" which they exist within? (via the process of the 'Two", The "Three' and the "Ten Thousand"?  Further is there any type of immortal that we often hear about that exists outside of and or outlasts the "One".

 

The “One” is not really born, but more emerges (or is perceived). There is not simply one “One”, as there theoretically can be infinitely independent “Ones”. The comparable in Hindu beliefs would be like there could be multiple independent Brahmans (not just one big one). Finally, a One can be superseded or become sort of a subset of a new “and bigger” One. With such a superceding, new “transmissions” (or rules) exist, so in a sense you could say that the Universe evolves.

 

Finally, each sentient being is in essence their own “localized” One, sort of like fractals writhin fractals.

[3bob]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

The “One” is not really born, but more emerges (or is perceived). There is not simply one “One”, as there theoretically can be infinitely independent “Ones”. The comparable in Hindu beliefs would be like there could be multiple independent Brahmans (not just one big one). Finally, a One can be superseded or become sort of a subset of a new “and bigger” One. With such a superceding, new “transmissions” (or rules) exist, so in a sense you could say that the Universe evolves.

 

Finally, each sentient being is in essence their own “localized” One, sort of like fractals writhin fractals.

 

There are not multiple independent Brahman (s) in Hinduism, nor multiple independent Tao (s)  as pointed to in chapter one of the TTC in Taoism...I would agree that in a sense the universe does evolve but only within itself and per the process of the Two, The Three, The Ten Thousand etc... thus there can be no "One" that is superseded by another "bigger" One.  Btw, where did you get such an idea?  For even so-called "multi-verses" are still contained within the "One". As for the term "born" I  agree that it is not the best and emanation as you imply could also be used in its place.

Edited July 11, 2018 by 3bob

[3bob]

...and what is localized is only a local -matrix- in time and space for Brahman to use so to speak, while the singular Brahman is in no way limited or localized Itself, whether in time and space or by any type of matrix. (and for those that may want to correlate this concept/point with the "Eternal Tao" and Brahman I wouldn't disagree - although such is taking liberties with two different systems or schools that may not consider such to be kosher.  

Edited July 11, 2018 by 3bob

[Jeff]

8 minutes ago, 3bob said:

 

There are not multiple independent Brahman (s) in Hinduism, nor multiple independent Tao (s)  as pointed to in chapter one of the TTC in Taoism...I would agree that in a sense the universe does evolve but only within itself and per the process of the Two, The Three, The Ten Thousand etc... thus there can be no "One" that is superseded by another "bigger" One.  Btw, where did you get such an idea?  For even so-called "multi-verses" are still contained within the "One". As for the term "born" I  agree that it is not the best and emanation as you imply could also be used in its place.

 

Yes, I know there are not multiple Brahmans in Hinduism. I am saying that with the Tao is in a Taoist framework, it would translate like that.  There is no concept of universal Self/Brahman (or biggest) in Taoism (or Buddhism). In Buddhist terms, Buddha stated it as Brahman was a “God” that followed his lead when ultimate emptiness was realized (or a subset that could be affected  and changed/directed).

[3bob]

2 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Yes, I know there are not multiple Brahmans in Hinduism. I am saying that with the Tao is in a Taoist framework, it would translate like that.  There is no concept of universal Self/Brahman (or biggest) in Taoism (or Buddhism). In Buddhist terms, Buddha stated it as Brahman was a “God” that followed his lead when ultimate emptiness was realized (or a subset that could be affected  and changed/directed).

 

I dare say that Buddhists and the historic Buddha do not understand "Brahman" as noted by (most) of their own teachings of Its denial....although that could also be debated indefinitely !  Anyway,  Brahman is not and was not a god. (while Lord Brahma is)  Btw, there is the concept of the "Eternal Tao" in Taoism which some might correlate with the Eternal Brahman - which I'd say would be on the right track even if not totally kosher per either school.  Throwing Buddhism into this mix and along these lines will drive many people nuts.

[Jeff]

4 minutes ago, 3bob said:

 

I dare say that Buddhists and the historic Buddha do not understand "Brahman" as noted by (most) of their own teachings of Its denial....although that could also be debated indefinitely !  Anyway,  Brahman is not and was not a god. (while Lord Brahma is)  Btw, there is the concept of the "Eternal Tao" in Taoism which some might correlate with the Eternal Brahman - which I'd say would be on the right track even if not totally kosher per either school.  Throwing Buddhism into this mix and along these lines will drive many people nuts.

 

I think your attempt to try do directly compare Brahman to the Dao is very challenging, and like you said with the Buddhists, it may drive many Daoists nuts too.  

[3bob]

...not really or all that challenging, for instance there is a saying in :  TTC. 25

"THERE was Something undefined and yet complete in itself,
Born before Heaven-and-Earth.
Silent and boundless,
Standing alone without change,
Yet pervading all without fail,..."
 

Which happens to be quite similar to (some of the) pointers about Brahman.

 

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by 3bob

[3bob]

4 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Hehehe.  Yes, this even applies to religious believers, I think.  The creator did not exist before (s)he created things unless you can say that the creator created (his)herself.

 

Can we say that non-existence is immortal?

 

 

I'd say non-existence and existence have complications like those of life and death (which we often assign)...a complication that the Eternal Tao does not have. Btw, lets not forget the quote below:  (hehehe)

 

"There was a beginning. There was a beginning before that beginning. There was a beginning previous to that beginning before there was the beginning.  There was existence; there had been no existence. There was no existence before the beginning of that no existence. There was no existence previous to the no existence before there was the beginning of the no existence. If suddenly there was nonexistence, we do not know whether it was really anything existing, or really not existing. Now I have said what I have said, but I do not know whether what I have said be really anything to the point or not."

Edited July 11, 2018 by 3bob

[Jeff]

2 hours ago, 3bob said:

...not really or all that challenging, for instance there is a saying in :  TTC. 25

"THERE was Something undefined and yet complete in itself,
Born before Heaven-and-Earth.
Silent and boundless,
Standing alone without change,
Yet pervading all without fail,..."
 

Which happens to be quite similar to (some of the) pointers about Brahman.

 

Let us actually look at chapter 25 of the TTC in it’s entirety....

 

25
Something mysteriously formed, born before Heaven and Earth. 
In silence and from within the void. 
Alone and constant, ever present and flowing. 
It is the Mother of the Ten Thousand Things. 
I do not know its name, so I call it Dao. 
For lack of a better word I call it great.  
Being great it flows. 
It nourishes the Ten Thousand Things far and away. 
From whence it came I do not know.  
Therefore the Dao is great. 
Heaven is great. 
Earth is great. 
The Ten Thousand Things are great. 
These are the four great powers of the Universe, And one of them is the Ten Thousand Things. 
Man follows the Earth. 
Earth follows Heaven. 
Heaven follows the Dao. 
Dao is what is natural.  

 

As the TTC states, there are four great powers in the universe... Man, Earth, Heaven and Dao. The Dao is the mother that gives birth and nourishes. Is a man/ten thousand things one of the four great powers in Brahman/Hindu based systems, or is it seen more like just a movie that is playing out?

[3bob]

in Hinduism man as Satguru could be said to be great, thus not just as a movie of the mind playing out like many other movies do, (so to speak).  Btw, you used a different translation of chapter 25 than I did, also The 'Eternal Tao" is not really nameable nor can its power really be delineated by or limited to human beings,  earth spirits, or heavenly spirits as related to the  part of the saying that you pointed out.  

 

Anyway, the three lines I highlighted earlier do have correlations just as many other lines do...but I'm not going to go there much more in this string. 

Edited July 11, 2018 by 3bob

[Jeff]

17 minutes ago, 3bob said:

in Hinduism man as Satguru could be said to be great, thus not just as a movie of the mind playing out like many other movies do, (so to speak).  Btw, you used a different translation of chapter 25 than I did, also The 'Eternal Tao" is not really nameable nor can its power really be delineated by or limited to human beings,  earth spirits, or heavenly spirits as related to the  part of the saying that you pointed out.  

 

Anyway, the three lines I highlighted earlier do have correlations just as many other lines do...but I'm not going to go there much more in this string. 

 

So a Satguru makes independent decisions and actions? I didn’t realize that and had thought was more avatar like, and not similar to a sage with independence. Is that the case with a Jivamukta too?

 

I didn’t say anything about the power being limited, they are more just layers. Also, if you check out the various versions listed on the forum here...

 

 

You will see that they all pretty much talk about the four great parts all being “great”.

 

 

[dawei]

8 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

The “One” is not really born, but more emerges (or is perceived). There is not simply one “One”, as there theoretically can be infinitely independent “Ones”. The comparable in Hindu beliefs would be like there could be multiple independent Brahmans (not just one big one). Finally, a One can be superseded or become sort of a subset of a new “and bigger” One. With such a superceding, new “transmissions” (or rules) exist, so in a sense you could say that the Universe evolves.

 

Finally, each sentient being is in essence their own “localized” One, sort of like fractals writhin fractals.

 

As an addict to Taoist cosmology, I was formulating a post but your beat me to some point... 

 

Laozi is not the best source of Taoist cosmology... there are about 4-5 texts which are much more revealing.  His is more a summary of the manifest unfolding.

 

The Taiyishenshui states, in one study:

that the Taiyi sheng shui is the only text which explicitly reflects the idea of reciprocal assistance and interdependence among different phases of the cosmologic process. To be specific the Taiyi sheng shui says: “太一生水, 水反輔太一, 是以成天” (Taiyi [Grand One] gives birth to water. Water returns and assists Taiyi, thereby forming Heaven.) This passage clearly implies a reciprocal interaction and interdependence between the cosmogonic phases of Taiyi and water. To be specific, although Taiyi generates water according to the Taiyi sheng shui,, water assists Taiyi in forming the other cosmogonic stage of tian 天. Likewise, though the Taiyi sheng shui offers an account of somewhat hierarchical steps of genesis similar to those offered by other Chinese texts on cosmogony, the Taiyi sheng shui is particularly noteworthy in that it explicitly illustrates reciprocal interaction between the different cosmogonic stages.

 

The other very ancient text, HengXian, Primordial Beginnings, is also a better text for Taoist cosmological understanding.

 

To the comments so far, it may be like a wave coming to the shore that splashes up and returns to sea and then returns to the short to 'return and assist', over and over... thus creating a new expansion of One on each return.  I get that some might call that Two, Three, etc.   but that is from the perspective of the manifest and not original origins, whereby the original One becomes a new One each time.  

[Marblehead]

4 hours ago, 3bob said:

 

I'd say non-existence and existence have complications like those of life and death (which we often assign)...a complication that the Eternal Tao does not have. Btw, lets not forget the quote below:  (hehehe)

 

"There was a beginning. There was a beginning before that beginning. There was a beginning previous to that beginning before there was the beginning.  There was existence; there had been no existence. There was no existence before the beginning of that no existence. There was no existence previous to the no existence before there was the beginning of the no existence. If suddenly there was nonexistence, we do not know whether it was really anything existing, or really not existing. Now I have said what I have said, but I do not know whether what I have said be really anything to the point or not."

Yes, Chuang Tzu was wiser than I am.  But even he didn't state a conclusion.

 

And, of course, we know that "empty space" really isn't empty.

 

[Jeff]

4 minutes ago, dawei said:

 

As an addict to Taoist cosmology, I was formulating a post but your beat me to some point... 

 

Laozi is not the best source of Taoist cosmology... there are about 4-5 texts which are much more revealing.  His is more a summary of the manifest unfolding.

 

The Taiyishenshui states, in one study:

that the Taiyi sheng shui is the only text which explicitly reflects the idea of reciprocal assistance and interdependence among different phases of the cosmologic process. To be specific the Taiyi sheng shui says: “太一生水, 水反輔太一, 是以成天” (Taiyi [Grand One] gives birth to water. Water returns and assists Taiyi, thereby forming Heaven.) This passage clearly implies a reciprocal interaction and interdependence between the cosmogonic phases of Taiyi and water. To be specific, although Taiyi generates water according to the Taiyi sheng shui,, water assists Taiyi in forming the other cosmogonic stage of tian 天. Likewise, though the Taiyi sheng shui offers an account of somewhat hierarchical steps of genesis similar to those offered by other Chinese texts on cosmogony, the Taiyi sheng shui is particularly noteworthy in that it explicitly illustrates reciprocal interaction between the different cosmogonic stages.

 

The other very ancient text, HengXian, Primordial Beginnings, is also a better text for Taoist cosmological understanding.

 

To the comments so far, it may be like a wave coming to the shore that splashes up and returns to sea and then returns to the short to 'return and assist', over and over... thus creating a new expansion of One on each return.  I get that some might call that Two, Three, etc.   but that is from the perspective of the manifest and not original origins, whereby the original One becomes a new One each time.  

 

Is it an expanded “One”, or could it also be interpreted as a new One? Kind of like new “sentiment beings” bubble up (or waves deliver) a new “individual” One all the time?

[Jeff]

5 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Yes, Chuang Tzu was wiser than I am.  But even he didn't state a conclusion.

 

And, of course, we know that "empty space" really isn't empty.

 

 

Sure it is...

 

Chapter FOUR

 

The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled.

Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things!

Blunt the sharpness, Untangle the knot, Soften the glare, Merge with dust.

Oh, hidden deep but ever present!

I do not know from whence it comes.

It is the forefather of the ancestors.

 

The Tao being “empty” is the point itself, and also why it cannot be “named”.

[Marblehead]

5 minutes ago, Jeff said:

The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled.

Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things!

Blunt the sharpness, Untangle the knot, Soften the glare, Merge with dust.

Oh, hidden deep but ever present!

I do not know from whence it comes.

It is the forefather of the ancestors.

 

The Tao being “empty” is the point itself, and also why it cannot be “named”.

My understanding.

 

Mystery (wu) is the source of the Manifest (yu).

 

Hey!, it can't be named because it is a mystery.

 

[Jeff]

11 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

My understanding.

 

Mystery (wu) is the source of the Manifest (yu).

 

Hey!, it can't be named because it is a mystery.

 

 

Agreed. Empty, but still potential. The motion of nothingness. 

[3bob]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

So a Satguru makes independent decisions and actions? I didn’t realize that and had thought was more avatar like, and not similar to a sage with independence. Is that the case with a Jivamukta too?

 

I didn’t say anything about the power being limited, they are more just layers. Also, if you check out the various versions listed on the forum here...

 

 

You will see that they all pretty much talk about the four great parts all being “great”.

 

 

 

so a Jeff can make assumptions and or put words in my mouth?