Is ‘Dao’ more easily translated as ‘God’, or ‘Nature’?

[vonkrankenhaus]

53 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

may be you will agree with this definition:

dao is qi--for example, Tao Hongjing in his Yangsheng Yanminglu23 cited Fuqijing24 (Breathtaking Scripture) that "dao is qi."

 

I am reading that. 

 

But Dao cannot be Qi.

 

Qi is the movement between the poles of a polarity.

 

Dao is "The Way", which is not material, and exhibits no physical polarities at all.

 

Dao has no beginning/end, no top/bottom, etc.

 

"One", which arises due to "The Way", IS material.

 

One DOES have a top/bottom, beginning/end, and so forth.

 

So I can see how "One" is a material "thing", and I can see how One will exhibit Qi.

 

But I cannot see how Dao can be taken as a "thing" except by mistake or by playing language for socio-political reasons.

 

Got anything else, additional sources dealing with this? I am curious.

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[Phoenix3]

To repeat part of my question,

 

Is the Dao personal or impersonal?

 

My knowledge of Daoist literature would suggest impersonal, but one wonders why so many cultures personify the Dao as a personal being as one of its most important attributes.

[Lost in Translation]

11 minutes ago, Phoenix3 said:

Is the Dao personal or impersonal?

 

It seems to me that Tao is filtered through our perceptions. We can't actually perceive Tao, only its behaviors, and being human we tend to anthropomorphize things so we may personalize the Tao. Is this correct? Probably not. Is it incorrect? Probably not. In truth we just don't know. Many people might say they do know, and maybe they do -- I'm not them and I can't see through their eyes --  but I doubt it.

[Walker]

12 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

So my question to you is - did you ask him the question, already knowing the answer?

Cuz that's what I call a "fake question" - when someone asks a question that they think they already know the answer to.

haha.

And so why would you ask such a question? Seems like a waste of time to me.

Or.... did you realize that Red Pine just didn't know the answer and so you were left to look elsewhere for the answer?

If that was the case - then I'm just curious - where did you find the answer to your question?

 

I have a lot of admiration for Red Pine--I wouldn't bust his balls just to bust his balls. 

 

This was almost a decade ago, so my memory's a tad hazy, but it was a simple exchange, and I'm pretty sure I remember it reasonably clearly. At the time Red Pine was delivering a talk that mostly centered on Buddhism, with "emptiness" (空, in Buddhist contexts) occupying a central enough part of the lecture that I felt compelled to ask afterwards what he thought the important similarities/differences between Daoist and Buddhist discussions of emptiness (空 as well a 虛, in Daoism) are. He replied succinctly, "Daoists don't talk about emptiness, because they're only interested in qi," or something to that effect, and effectively closed the book on my question. Perhaps he was just having an off day or was jetlagged or whatever, but the fact is that one cannot read more than a few pages of inner alchemy texts without seeing that the Daoists are quite interested in emptiness, and thus I came to the conclusion that Bill Porter does not read these types of books. Early on he spent a lot of his time in Taiwan in a Buddhist monastery (in the Dharma Drum organization under Master Shengyen/聖嚴法師, if I'm not mistaken), and also spent time in the Land of 10,000 Buddhas in California, which is affiliated with Master Hsuanhua/宣化上人... while those temples are probably great places to learn about Buddhism, they are simply not hotbeds of Daoist alchemy. I know people in Taiwan quite steeped in the Dharma Drum organization, and they are taught very little about Daoism in general, and effectively nothing about alchemy.

 

12 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

Just to clarify - Red Pine does say the Taji symbol is the phases of the Moon - but he says the word Dao has the character "head" meaning the face of the Moon.

 

 

If he says that--please dig up the exact quote, if you have the book on hand--that's still simply a very controversial statement. Oracle bone inscriptions of moon (月) and head (首) look nothing alike. The 《説文解字》 does not connect the two characters, nor did the master etymologist Duan Yucai. 

 

As for all the ancient Sumeria/Sanskrit etymology/agriculturalism/Bushmen culture/etc., it's all very interesting in its own right and I am open to the possibility that there are shared motifs, wisdom, practices, etc. in all these ancient cultures, but I think one risks connecting dots that aren't really connected if one runs too wild with these things. From the standpoint of history, I think it's very hard to say that this or that calendrical tradition or representative god/dess found in one corner of the ancient world (and interpreted by some modern person millennia years later) tells us anything conclusive about anything else at some other corner of the ancient world. 

 

And then there's another problem. If there was no moon, would there be no Dao? If there was no sun, would there be no Dao? What about two moons, two suns?

 

While we can certainly see yin and yang represented in the two big balls in the sky that we see every day, and while they certainly play a part in lots of Daoist imagery and even specific practices, one finds far more nuanced teachings. Song Longyuan, a Qing Dynasty-era Longmen Daoist-cum-imperial archivist who wrote a brilliant and exhaustive commentary on the DDJ for Emperor Kangxi (who was no lightweight in terms of his scholarship, nor credulous when it came to Daoism--he is recorded as once literally having thrown a book on secret methods for reaching physical immortality back in the face of the person who offered to him) for instance, when talking about the 玄 and 牝, refers to them as wuji and taiji; it is those two vast, intangible-yet-everpresent, distinct-yet-inseparable, not-one-not-two principles that are constantly mating, giving us the seen and the unseen... not the two balls in the sky. 

[Mig]

Why is there this obsession of having a name that is not translatable or may not even have a correspondence in another language, now I see, if it was a German or French term then scholars write and try to pronounce it in German or French, just giving an example. So why if it is Chinese, we need to have a word in English?

[Walker]

14 minutes ago, Mig said:

Why is there this obsession of having a name that is not translatable or may not even have a correspondence in another language

 

It is very difficult for lots of people to believe that these written and spoken teachings are trying to lead them well beyond language, not more deeply into its tangled intricacies. 

[rene]

21 minutes ago, Mig said:

Why is there this obsession of having a name that is not translatable or may not even have a correspondence in another language, now I see, if it was a German or French term then scholars write and try to pronounce it in German or French, just giving an example. So why if it is Chinese, we need to have a word in English?

 

Because some people need to put things in recognizable boxes so they can try to understand them.

 

.

Edited August 2, 2018 by rene

[Taoist Texts]

7 hours ago, vonkrankenhaus said:

So I can see how "One" is a material "thing", and I can see how One will exhibit Qi.

 

But I cannot see how Dao can be taken as a "thing" except by mistake or by playing language for socio-political reasons.

 

Got anything else, additional sources dealing with this? I am curious.

Perhaps this

 

clearly states that Dao is Oneness, which is dispersed as Vital Breath and reunited as the Supreme Venerable Sovereign ( 太上老君 Taishang Laojun ). The term 'Supreme Venerable Sovereign' is a respectful title given to Laozi in Daoism.

 

and this

 

According to a famous statement, found in one of the appendixes to the Book of Changes (Yijing), "one Yin and one Yang, this is the Dao."

 

and finally this

 

Lao Dan replied, 'You must, as by fasting and vigil, clear and purge your mind, wash your spirit white as snow, and sternly repress your knowledge. The subject of the Dao is deep, and difficult to describe

 

 

hehe)

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by Taoist Texts

[Tung]

I listened  a pod-cast  with an resertecher who had searched for the origin of the word god, and he came to the conclusion the the original meaning of the word was, nature or the will/way of nature.

[vonkrankenhaus]

12 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

Perhaps this

 

clearly states that Dao is Oneness, which is dispersed as Vital Breath and reunited as the Supreme Venerable Sovereign ( 太上老君 Taishang Laojun ). The term 'Supreme Venerable Sovereign' is a respectful title given to Laozi in Daoism.

 

and this

 

According to a famous statement, found in one of the appendixes to the Book of Changes (Yijing), "one Yin and one Yang, this is the Dao."

 

and finally this

 

Lao Dan replied, 'You must, as by fasting and vigil, clear and purge your mind, wash your spirit white as snow, and sternly repress your knowledge. The subject of the Dao is deep, and difficult to describe

 

 

hehe)

 

 

Dao cannot be the "One" that arises due to Dao.

 

Looking at Zhou Dunyi TaiJiTu, this "One" arises from WuJi, from "Non-Polarity" or "Emptiness" (No Things are there).

 

"Infinity" cannot exhibit Polarity - it is already on Top and Bottom infinitely, and Left/Right - Infinity is already in both directions of any Polarity.

 

Some Thing must "move" and thus define itself from the Emptiness, creating the "One" and thus Polarity" (YinYang) all at once.

 

Zhou Dunyi says "Yang is Motion" and "Yin is Rest" at the arising of One, creating instantly "Polarity".

 

One appears, and we see Polarity arise, as shown in TaiJiTu - in Zhou Dunyi Tu this is represented by trigrams for Fire and Water as a hexagram inside, or "of", the "One".

 

So One Yin and One Yang - this is TaiJi, the "Supreme Polarity", and not "Dao".

 

So yes, Dao can be "deep" in a figurative sense - Dao is The Way, the "manner" in which all of this happens.

 

 

What do you think of this? What am I missing?

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, vonkrankenhaus said:

 

What do you think of this? What am I missing?

What do you miss is  a "because", meaning you make a statement without supporting it with any logical reasoning. It is quite natural, no westerner can understand these things without a teacher. Since you exhibited a genuine curiosity for knowledge, i will explain briefly what dao is as a primordial Chinese archetype: imagine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element) which has a definitive  pattern of beneficial, feminine action. Or a predictable all-encompassing solitary and superior Goddess. That will give you an idea of what dao is for the chinese. Naturally, the westerners are free to indulge in their own fantasies.

[thelerner]

In trying to understand a concept I swing from metaphor to metaphor.  Keeping a few in my pocket to pull out depending on circumstance.

Right now

Dao means hunger. 

So I'll eat. 

[vonkrankenhaus]

40 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

Or a predictable all-encompassing solitary and superior Goddess. That will give you an idea of what dao is for the chinese.

 

Seems to me that would be WuJi if anything and not Dao.

 

In terms of "because", I would say that there is a "Way" things happen. Very few phenomena could be said to vary from what we see happening in general. Since this is implicated in ALL phenomena, this Way they happen is too huge for the human being to see in any ordinary manner, to immense and thus unfathomable to grasp.

 

And at some point, all of the things we see had not happened yet. We see new phenomena every day that did not exist as they are today.

 

These things arose from "Nothing", or "No Thing".

 

The only way for "Nothing" to change, and change is a constant, is to become "Something".

 

That "Some Thing" will exhibit Polarity, the first of these would be something like "Movement/Stasis" and "Being/Non-Being".

 

TaiJi is obviously about Polarity. Just look at the various Tu of it.

 

Qi then, would be Movement or "Change" between the poles of Polarities.

 

Like thermodynamics, or elecricity, are exhibiting.

 

Is that enough "Because"? Or am I still missing something?

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[Phoenix3]

14 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

According to a famous statement, found in one of the appendixes to the Book of Changes (Yijing), "one Yin and one Yang, this is the Dao."

 

But this means Dao is two things. As one yin and one yang can have two forms.

[Phoenix3]

12 hours ago, Tung said:

I listened  a pod-cast  with an resertecher who had searched for the origin of the word god, and he came to the conclusion the the original meaning of the word was, nature or the will/way of nature.

 

He’s wrong. It comes from gott, which means bull.

 

edit: it’s been mentioned previously in this thread.

Edited August 2, 2018 by Phoenix3

[vonkrankenhaus]

54 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

no westerner can understand these things without a teacher.

 

I have had many Chinese teachers. I'm not saying all of them would agree with what I am writing now, but I did grow up from childhood immersed in Chinese culture and philosophy, and underwent traditional Gongfu and medicine training, which I am still involved in decades later. Just tossing that out for background to what I am writing.

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[Wu Ming Jen]

I just had a conversation with god about the Tao. We came to an agreement that his sex and being personified and worshiped has done a lot of damage.He understands now that even gods depend on the Tao to exist.

 

Soooo the compromise is that God is having a sex change and will be known as a goddess just like 2500 years ago. 

 

This goddess will love people and nurture all of humanity. It is not much but it is a start.

[Stosh]

Did you have a good day Honey? Why yes ! I did   I insulted all my western colleagues ,and spoke about the Chinese like they were monolithic in opinion, you know,  like they were all replicas. 

[rideforever]

Daoism is a Chinese path which is grounded and impersonal, the path of energy is like that as it is at the bottom of the chakra tower, the further up you get the more personal it gets.
Consciousness for instance is closer to will and more personal.
But the question whether Dao itself is personal ... what does this q mean ? 
Your concern should be yourself not the whole.   

For instance if someone asks you if your father is personal ...
Hmm .... not sure what this question means ?

[Marblehead]

Let's remember, Dao is a verb, not a noun.

 

 

[Taoist Texts]

2 hours ago, vonkrankenhaus said:

Or am I still missing something?

in a nutshell. when we say "dao is a way" we just substitute one word for another. What's a "way"?

 

In contrast to this, the chinese always think in terms of "body/thing" (ti) and its "function" (yong). An apple tree is the body, producing apples is its function. There cant be no function without a body. Similarly there cant be no 'way' (whatever that means) without a source-thing.

 

 

Quote

And at some point, all of the things we see had not happened yet. We see new phenomena every day that did not exist as they are today.

 

I respectfully disagree. 

Quote

Ecclesiastes 1:9 NIV  ...
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

 

Quote

These things arose from "Nothing", or "No Thing".

Yes people say that, never explaining as to why or how.

 

 

[Lost in Translation]

14 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

the chinese always think in terms of "body/thing" (ti) and its "function" (yong). An apple tree is the body, producing apples is its function. There cant be no function without a body.

 

This is very good to know! Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I've never thought about this before but I can see how this would, and does, cause confusion.

[dawei]

My head is spinning on a topic that I usually relish... the deep discussion of proper associations and word meanings and 'verb, not a noun' are all great stuff to read.   I'll try to summarize my thought:

 

1. Dao is not a thing.  Things arise and become manifest as the ten thousand things.  Something tangible

2. Dao is genderless; it contains both/and.   That does not mean Dao is One ... oops , that should be a #3.

3. Dao is not One.  I started this very titled thread many years ago.  Dao is not form... and is neither formless. 

 

Now.. a few stated an insight which could be said that, our perception,  our experience, our practice, our understand based on the previous shows us an understanding that we know from daoist cosmology:   Dao is a source concept.  Not quite the first mover, that would be wrong, IMO.  More like Deism, whereby Dao is responsible [as a source] but does not interfere [though immanent] via an unfolding of life.  The re-furl should not be missed.  This is all just manifest point of view.     If one can get beyond this view, then there are other 'stories to tell'.   

[dawei]

8 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

This is very good to know! Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I've never thought about this before but I can see how this would, and does, cause confusion.

 

Just realize, explanations that rely on duality is a manifest explanation... not a Dao understanding but a Dao unfolding. 

[Lost in Translation]

1 minute ago, dawei said:

Just realize, explanations that rely on duality is a manifest explanation... not a Dao understanding but a Dao unfolding.

 

Also realize that language determines words, and words determine thoughts. Only through silence can truth be known.

 

Spoiler

 

Never could resist a good Who!