Considering Yin and Yang to be the Tao

[AugustGreig]

Before the universe existed, there was something formless and mysterious. For lack of a better word Tao. When it gave birth to one, that is "God" or pure consciousness. Consciousness split into yin and yang, and then produced an idea. That is the birth of all things.

[CityHermit!]

On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 8:36 PM, Bindi said:

 

Is the Dao beyond Yin and Yang or another instance of Yin and Yang?

Well, to ask this kind of pushes aside what I mentioned about referring to different traditions that may not be in agreement about Dao to begin with and that getting into Yin and Yang, which they also don't agree about, is a distraction from that disagreement and is besides the point. If you have two different takes on Dao and on Yin and Yang then that kind of needs to be resolved first before the question you're asking, or an answer to such, becomes meaningful.   

[Bindi]

Quote

Dao constitutes the absolute “beginning” in that all beings have causes and conditions that derive logically from a necessary foundation. The ground of being, however, cannot be itself a being; otherwise, infinite regress would render the logic of the Laozi suspect. For this reason, the Laozi would only speak of Dao as “nonbeing” (wu). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laozi/

 

 

But I am still left wondering if nonbeing/wu/Dao is a philosophical alternative to God as the 'ground of being.' I did read that 'God' fell out of favour with the Chinese at a certain point, was 'Dao' the replacement philosophy? 

[Marblehead]

2 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

 

But I am still left wondering if nonbeing/wu/Dao is a philosophical alternative to God as the 'ground of being.

Although I do not hold to the idea, I have said before that any religious person could replace "Dao" with "God" and there would be no conflict.

2 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

I did read that 'God' fell out of favour with the Chinese at a certain point, was 'Dao' the replacement philosophy? 

I doubt a concept of "God" (personified) was ever really in favor with the Chinese.  Sure, they had their myths but most understood they were only myths.

 

[Apech]

2 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

 

But I am still left wondering if nonbeing/wu/Dao is a philosophical alternative to God as the 'ground of being.' I did read that 'God' fell out of favour with the Chinese at a certain point, was 'Dao' the replacement philosophy? 

 

 

No it is far more subtle and profound than that.  The Dao is both the origin of everything and also the 'way' by which they persist.  It is not a person or being like a god (or indeed God) because to be a being implies name, function, designation and limit.  Historically it is more the case that god worship emerges when humans fail to understand the Dao and see it as a power or being to be adored or implored for something.  Having said that it was clearly the Bronze Age view that the world was filled with spiritual entities responsible for change - but that is more like polytheism than god as absolute.

[Bindi]

And yet, from the Shang (1600–1046 BCE) the royal ancestors were called di (帝), "deities", and the utmost progenitor was Shangdi (上帝 "Highest Deity"). Shangdi is identified with the dragon, symbol of the unlimited power (qi),^[14] of the "protean" primordial power which embodies yin and yang in unity...the name Shangdi should be translated as "Highest Deity", but also have the implied meaning of "Primordial Deity" or "First Deity" in Classical Chinese. The deity preceded the title and the emperors of China were named after him in their role as Tianzi, the sons of Heaven. In the classical texts the highest conception of the heavens is frequently identified with Shang Di, who is described somewhat anthropomorphically. 

 

Shangdi appears most commonly in earlier works: this pattern may reflect increasing rationalization of Shangdi over time, the shift from a known and arbitrary tribal god to a more abstract and philosophical concept,^[14][15] or his conflation and absorption by other deities.

 

Edited September 8, 2018 by Bindi

[Marblehead]

6 minutes ago, Apech said:

and limit.

Very important inclusion.

 

[Apech]

21 minutes ago, Bindi said:

And yet, from the Shang (1600–1046 BCE) the royal ancestors were called di (帝), "deities", and the utmost progenitor was Shangdi (上帝 "Highest Deity"). Shangdi is identified with the dragon, symbol of the unlimited power (qi),^[14] of the "protean" primordial power which embodies yin and yang in unity...the name Shangdi should be translated as "Highest Deity", but also have the implied meaning of "Primordial Deity" or "First Deity" in Classical Chinese. The deity preceded the title and the emperors of China were named after him in their role as Tianzi, the sons of Heaven. In the classical texts the highest conception of the heavens is frequently identified with Shang Di, who is described somewhat anthropomorphically. 

 

Shangdi appears most commonly in earlier works: this pattern may reflect increasing rationalization of Shangdi over time, the shift from a known and arbitrary tribal god to a more abstract and philosophical concept,^[14][15] or his conflation and absorption by other deities.

 

 

The hierarchs of the Shang and Zhou projected the 'origin' back as the first ancestor of their lineage, so reflecting themselves in their image of the divine.  These names have hung around and are now used by Chinese Christians and others for God and so on.

[dawei]

10 hours ago, Bindi said:

But I am still left wondering if nonbeing/wu/Dao is a philosophical alternative to God as the 'ground of being.' I did read that 'God' fell out of favour with the Chinese at a certain point, was 'Dao' the replacement philosophy? 

 

8 hours ago, Bindi said:

And yet, from the Shang (1600–1046 BCE) the royal ancestors were called di (帝), "deities", and the utmost progenitor was Shangdi (上帝 "Highest Deity"). Shangdi is identified with the dragon, symbol of the unlimited power (qi),^[14] of the "protean" primordial power which embodies yin and yang in unity...the name Shangdi should be translated as "Highest Deity", but also have the implied meaning of "Primordial Deity" or "First Deity" in Classical Chinese. The deity preceded the title and the emperors of China were named after him in their role as Tianzi, the sons of Heaven. In the classical texts the highest conception of the heavens is frequently identified with Shang Di, who is described somewhat anthropomorphically. 

 

Shangdi appears most commonly in earlier works: this pattern may reflect increasing rationalization of Shangdi over time, the shift from a known and arbitrary tribal god to a more abstract and philosophical concept,^[14][15] or his conflation and absorption by other deities.

 

 

I don't think I'm trying to answer or counter anything with this but just to expand on issues regarding 'God' in ancient china.

 

In Daoist thought, at least as I understand its cosmology, 'gods' are a part of the arising as the immaterial before the material.  From a chronological point of view, thus why Dao is said [in the DDJ] to be 'before Di'.   

 

The oldest reference in the oracle bones is to Di to which sacrifices were made and appeared more 'transcendent than immanent' (Wiki Shangdi).   There is some interesting relationship of the character of Di corresponding to the formation of stars.  Somewhere on the forum I shared an interesting document on this.

 

 

Shangdi was regarded as the ultimate spiritual power by the ruling elite of the Huaxia during the Shang dynasty: he was believed to control victory in battle, success or failure of harvests, weather conditions such as the floods of the Yellow River, and the fate of the kingdom. Shangdi seems to have ruled a hierarchy of other gods controlling nature, as well as the spirits of the deceased

 

The Shang Dynasty seems to first prefix Di as Shangdi (highest Di).   Although the Zhou introduced the idea of a "Mandate of Heaven" to legitimize their new rulership via blessings from god(s), they suggested retroactively to Shang that they had this Mandate previously; of course by doing so, they suggested this was a previous concept and not their own invention.   It seems a little reasonable that the Shang viewed this loosely so but Zhou defined this as a stamp of approval from Heaven;  Zhou would replace Shangdi with Tian (divine force of heaven which deserved worship).  

 

Confucius was a huge fan of Zhou and lamented the waning of the Rites of Zhou.   Confucius seems to add immanence to transcendence regarding Tian and thus brings in an idea often mentioned of Dao.   That may be the current view of Dao as Confucius also held to concepts of Dao.   Confucius was also into ancestor worship of the Zhou period.  For Confucius, Heaven was to be followed in a way Daoist would say to follow Dao:

 

The Master said, "At fifteen, I had my mind bent on learning. At thirty, I stood firm. At forty, I had no doubts. At fifty, I knew the decrees of Heaven. At sixty, my ear was an obedient organ for the reception of truth. At seventy, I could follow what my heart desired, without transgressing what was right."

 

It is interesting to note that the bronze character for Tian (Heaven) looks like a person:  

 

Below, left to right, is Bronze, Seal, Oracle Bone:

 

           

[Bindi]

I'm more or less just exploring the topic myself, I read this just now in the wiki article on yin and yang: 

 

Quote

...Duality is found in many belief systems, but yin and yang are parts of an oneness that is also equated with the Tao. The term 'dualistic-monism' or dialectical monism has been coined in an attempt to express this fruitful paradox of simultaneous unity/duality.

 

 

 

[Rocky Lionmouth]

Dualistic monism and dialectical monism seem clumsy, a little ad-hoc or forced definitions.

 

Paradoxicality of the whole business is off for me also, the Dao is and yin and yang are within it, like house with host and guest, a wave on the sea (water, motion, air etc in interplay).

It seems to be a huge fuss to start to label differently. Honestly yang could be yin and vice versa, it’s just a naming of things interplaying within oneness.

Yin is it by virtue of being in relation to yang and again, vice versa is also true.

We breathe in and out, that is not paradoxical is it?

There is a body which air enters and leaves, there is air and so on... that is a yin-yang relationship description.

 

Theres plenty of Gods in the traditions and beliefs, but if there is Tao they are within it also. God the Almighty of the tradition of Abraham also existed within a nothing before xhe became Logos. God is creator of creation, creation is not God (in the monotheistic abrahamitic mainstream ideas at least) and together they’re there, somewhere. God is greater as the takbir says, but the existence of God is not complete on its own. Like the sum of all sums is always X+1...

 

or what am i missing?

 

[Bindi]

30 minutes ago, Rocky Lionmouth said:

Dualistic monism and dialectical monism seem clumsy, a little ad-hoc or forced definitions.

 

Yes maybe, hopefully just a little side track. 

 

30 minutes ago, Rocky Lionmouth said:

Paradoxicality of the whole business is off for me also, the Dao is and yin and yang are within it, like house with host and guest, a wave on the sea (water, motion, air etc in interplay).

It seems to be a huge fuss to start to label differently. Honestly yang could be yin and vice versa, it’s just a naming of things interplaying within oneness.

Yin is it by virtue of being in relation to yang and again, vice versa is also true.

We breathe in and out, that is not paradoxical is it?

There is a body which air enters and leaves, there is air and so on... that is a yin-yang relationship description.

 

The issue might be that I am perceiving yin and yang as more fundamental within our own minds than the endless permutations of yin and yang in the world, which are ever-changing depending on what something is paired with - the 'school' of yin and yang.

 

I'm seeing yin and yang as the actual subtle body representation of the two lobes of the brain, with qualities akin to the different processing styles of each lobe. This is my basic understanding at the moment, almost certain to be rejected out of hand by all and sundry, but nonetheless the foundation for how I am approaching this topic. 

 

30 minutes ago, Rocky Lionmouth said:

Theres plenty of Gods in the traditions and beliefs, but if there is Tao they are within it also. God the Almighty of the tradition of Abraham also existed within a nothing before xhe became Logos. God is creator of creation, creation is not God (in the monotheistic abrahamitic mainstream ideas at least) and together they’re there, somewhere. God is greater as the takbir says, but the existence of God is not complete on its own. Like the sum of all sums is always X+1...

 

or what am i missing?

 

 

My interest in the early Chinese God was based on the line "Shangdi... embodies yin and yang in unity..." I'm in effect just trying to follow the trail of yin and yang. 

[Apech]

12 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

Yes maybe, hopefully just a little side track. 

 

 

The issue might be that I am perceiving yin and yang as more fundamental within our own minds than the endless permutations of yin and yang in the world, which are ever-changing depending on what something is paired with - the 'school' of yin and yang.

 

I'm seeing yin and yang as the actual subtle body representation of the two lobes of the brain, with qualities akin to the different processing styles of each lobe. This is my basic understanding at the moment, almost certain to be rejected out of hand by all and sundry, but nonetheless the foundation for how I am approaching this topic. 

 

Brain function (or the subtle energy field of it) , left and right, could with care be seen as an instantiation of yinyang especially as whatever you consider being the 'yang' side will have the seed of yin within it and visa versa.   

 

12 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

My interest in the early Chinese God was based on the line "Shangdi... embodies yin and yang in unity..." I'm in effect just trying to follow the trail of yin and yang. 

 

[Rocky Lionmouth]

On 2018-09-09 at 3:05 AM, Bindi said:

 

Yes maybe, hopefully just a little side track. 

 

 

The issue might be that I am perceiving yin and yang as more fundamental within our own minds (...)

 

I'm seeing yin and yang as the actual subtle body representation of the two lobes of the brain, with qualities akin to the different processing styles of each lobe. This is my basic understanding at the moment, almost certain to be rejected out of hand by all and sundry, but nonetheless the foundation for how I am approaching this topic. 

 

Ah! Sorry i was a bit thick but i get your perspective a bit better now. That is interesting and i think mr Effortless Cat above had a nice point also.

 

Would you elaborate a little more please?

 

This perhaps overly OT but I’ve always had problems with the concept of a subtle body, i never seem to be able to grasp what the term indicates. My impression is that the subtle plane is separated from the physical, sort of our own metaphysical body, or would it be more of a flow-chart in real time? I’d appreciate any input.

 

I like the idea of yin and yang to describe our mental capacities on a brain level. Personally i’d say right is yang for its creative and lateral fame while left would be the sequential processing, receptive yin of reason.

There is pure creativity and order in both but the left-right lobe idea seems to be pivoting on their dissimilar characteristics.

Linking physical structure, especially of systems we dont really control so much, to yin and yang is of import i think. I’ve been mulling over the parasympathetic and the sympathetic nervous systems enter and shift with yin and yang regulation of our bodies and functions, balancing and shifting. Idk if it could be relevance for others, it’s not well formed as of yet

[Bindi]

On 10/09/2018 at 1:09 PM, Rocky Lionmouth said:

 

Ah! Sorry i was a bit thick but i get your perspective a bit better now. That is interesting and i think mr Effortless Cat above had a nice point also.

 

Would you elaborate a little more please?

 

This perhaps overly OT but I’ve always had problems with the concept of a subtle body, i never seem to be able to grasp what the term indicates. My impression is that the subtle plane is separated from the physical, sort of our own metaphysical body, or would it be more of a flow-chart in real time? I’d appreciate any input.

 

I like the idea of yin and yang to describe our mental capacities on a brain level. Personally i’d say right is yang for its creative and lateral fame while left would be the sequential processing, receptive yin of reason.

There is pure creativity and order in both but the left-right lobe idea seems to be pivoting on their dissimilar characteristics.

Linking physical structure, especially of systems we dont really control so much, to yin and yang is of import i think. I’ve been mulling over the parasympathetic and the sympathetic nervous systems enter and shift with yin and yang regulation of our bodies and functions, balancing and shifting. Idk if it could be relevance for others, it’s not well formed as of yet

 

It is a big topic, how the brain relates to yin and yang, I think there are two parallels, right lobe left lobe, which is like the mundane level and generally acknowledged as being two different ways of processing information, but there is also the True Yin and True Yang level which as far as I have understood it relates to some sort of hopelessly intertwined dual essence of self, which I see as two 'subtle' blocked channels within ourselves related to emotions (water) and mental activity (fire). 

 

The Neijing Tu clearly shows the water channel extending from the lower body to the head, perhaps the yellow line within the water channel is the 'fire' channel. I have to qualify though that I think fire is not the best word, I prefer the word 'light'. True Yin and True Yang have to mix, water and fire don't mix, but water and light can mix perfectly well. 

 

Generally the left brain lobe is considered to be the more verbal and linear processor, and the right brain lobe is considered to communicate pictorially and could be categorised as a global processor.