dynamictao

It is pretty clear that Tao philosophy is an authentic philosophy. It is similar to other discussions of Nonduality, Oneness, Wholeness, Totality, etc. I have been working only on the philosophy side. I have no expertise in its relation to Sharmanism. My book "Tao Te Ching: The Logic of Tao Philosophy" will be published as a Kindle Book at Amazon. I promised the forum that the book will be made free on May 1. You do not need a Kindle to read it. You can use Kindle program on any PC, iPad, to read it. Please go to www.amazon.com, then search for Kindle book with the Title or my name "Wayne L. Wang" to down load the book.

This seems to agree with one of Wang Bi's interpretation that associate "Wu with Tao" and Yu with the phenomenal world. (But I am not really sure this is what you mean.) I do not agree with Wang Bi on that point only (Most other points are really great). I discuss some reasons in my book. I actually also follow through that route, the logic would end up the same. [Note Wang Bi has "Wu is the origin of Heaven and Earth", so he can say Wu is Tao.] Since we all develop different ways to resolve our own problems and we have used many special words with our definition (I use manifestation, but it is not in a dictionary of philosophy by Reese). I would think, for now, that as long as you have a consistent view, there is no special reason to disagree or change. I had to choose the way I choose, because it works for me. The best I can do now is to wait for a better way to appear,

In 5 and 6, do you indicate that "you see the invisible when it is invisible" and "you see the visible when it is visible"? If that is the case, then the picture is still dualistic? The way (style) he writes the book is superb, but the principle of Tao is universal,as in Pre-Socratic and the Buddha.

Now I think the picture is very clear. It will be just a matter of time that we can get it right. This is my feeling now, but who really knows?

The principle is in "The Basic Theory of Tao Philosophy" paper. At that time, I have not realize the critical nature of Heng. In that paper, I have the Equation for Heng Wu and Heng Yu already - as the first step to an analytic formulation. I have not put any of the current formulation in my www.dynamictao.com website (I will do that after my book is done.) Wulf has been a very good site, but I have not visited for the last few year.

The important aspect is that "it cannot be expressed with simple words (Wu and Yu)". It will remain "vague, self-contradictory, and indeterminate" if expressed in words. This is the conclusion I have (with my model). I have settled down for now as "profound" because it is less defined and less speculative. Whatever is used, the definition shall follow that. In the model, it is a "superimposed state" of Wu and Yu.

I have been alone for a long time. I did not expect ready acceptance from anyone. Most people still believe that Tao is mysterious. There is no reason to get over the problems or paradoxes. Even in a conference in 2006, I stated that there is no self-contradictions in the Tao Te Ching. No one was surprised and no one bother to challenge. Over the years, someone will claim that the mystery of Tao is over, but they all only last a few years. The mystery seems to be well fortified. My Chinese article was a translation from my English draft for a book. I was surprised that the reviewers accepted my article. Now I am re-writing my English book. I hope the ideas will get discussed. That is why I have re-written it many times, in order to minimize ambiguities when it first comes out. I do believe that the approach is reasonable in light of other ancient philosophies and basic science. I am glad that I see some help here.

Congratulation! I never know why the article did not shock the world.

Yes. This is the main article. I would like to see your comments. I had a copy somewhere. I am not sure this article has gotten the attention it deserves.

Agree. The repeatition of Yu is not a problem. It is "taking only the second half of a sentence" as an independent concept that created the problem.

We are getting into very tricky points. I do not think we can get into too much here. This is about how we treat "time." I have no problem with sequencial time as described above. But again, we need to recognize the time "segments (separate instants)" as dualistic concepts. It is not simple to reconcile with overall "nonduality."

I agree with the above discussions that Heng is used as an adjective. When I was reading Prof. Qing-jie Wang's article, his discussions must have pointed to something that help a lot or I have "projected" what he wrote to fill some gaps in my own thought. Anyway, that is not important for me now. I have to make sure that my own thought and model are self-consistent.

We can interpret Heng as "eternal" if "eternal" here includes "changes and unchanging". It is used as an adjective to mean "whole", "holistic", "non-duality" etc. So Heng Tao, Heng Name, Heng Wu and Heng Yu are "realities". What I get from that article helps me put my own thought together. His article is about Heng Tao. I am not sure that Professor Qing-jie Wang will agree with my interpretation. We are often projecting what we read into our own space and try to fit it into our own space. So far so good.

Scientific thought with "before" and "after" the Bang is already a dualistic thinking. Tao should be viewed with nonduality all the way from the beginning. In science, "before" and "after" are re-connected in the theory. There will be no conflict between the model for Tao logic and the "scientific" view. I just have to made sure that I can write this out clearly. The "science" you mention is at the object level (dualistic, traditional realism), there yiu need to introduce interactions between the objects. I am pretty sure that there will be no conflict.

Yes. The article discusses the changes from Heng to Chang. However, the most critical meaning was not identified. The analysis of Heng in I-Ching by Wang Qing-jie (He was in Hong Kong) clicked my mind in a irreversible way. “Laozi’s Heng Dao and Appropriation of Nature,” in Asian Philosophy, vol.10, no.2, 2000, pp.149-163.

After all, I may have been running in a circle. I have not reviewed what I wrote in the first book. There must have some continuity. A major difference is the treatment of Wu and Yu. It is now clear that I still have the concept of "Yu comes from Wu" in that book. Now I am pretty sure that a simple "Yu comes from Wu" is incorrect. The symmetry of Wu and Yu became clear to me since 2006.

For me, I have no choice now. "Heng" came to me as the last element to tie Chapter 1 into a totally coherent picture for me. Wang Qingie was mainly talking about "Heng" in the I-Ching; it shocked me to find what he said. I actually come to the conclusion about the Principle of Oneness in 2006. Since then, I have been looking for a good reason to declare that Lao-tzu has logic. Wang Qinjie's paper discusses "Heng" and I find it as the last missing link to have the whole principle crystallized. It greatly simplifies the presentation of the principle. In Chapter 1, "Heng" tags something as real (Wu, Yu, Tao, Name). There is no need to speculate much. Wu and Yu are two objects we use to describe manifestations and Heng Wu and Heng Yu are two "real" or "true" manifestations. Here "True and Real" refer to the true manifestations of the principle of Tao. I have detailed discussion in the Chinese article, and will have even more generalized discussions in the forthcoming Kindle eBooks.

Yes. If we understand these two keywords "Heng" and "Xuan" in Chapter 1, then we are close to having the whole philosophy. . Another concept is "simultaneity, as the manifestations" of the same Tao (principle). These are all in what I call "The Principle of Oneness." It is the nature of all Nonduality thoughts.

What I hope is that, after we understand the principle, these people are just saying the same principle in different frames of mind. For many years, I just try to find where they have in common and set aside where they differ. What they have in common may represent their "satori" of Tao and have some truth. Anyway, somebody else may be interested in the differences. "Heng" is called the keyword that has been missing for the last 2000 years (by Wang, Qinjie).

Yes. I visited him many times in Taiwan. I am not sure if he has seen my new article, although I added his name in my thank list AFTER the article was accepted. My use of two simple equations may appear strange to many people. However, the equations are much easier to reflect the intrinsic relationships. I just check his book again, and I am happy that his "parsing of the text" supports the model I use (Other people start to see this is the only way to interpret this Chapter). It is the meaning of Heng that crystalized everything for me, see (Qingjie Wang Heng Dao and Appropriation of Nature - a hermeneutical interpretation of Laozi Asian Philosophy, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2000 pp. 150-163). You may find the Chinese article interesting to you too.

It has been known to many scholars that Chapter 1 contains everything about Tao, but it has never been properly decoded. The keyword is Heng, which indicates "wholeness" - no dualistic separation - so only things with Heng have "reality." In my translation, I use True for Heng, in this sense. Chapter 1 shows a clear principle now; all other Chapters are footnotes to Chapter 1. The following arrangement based on the Mawangdui and Wang Bi王弼texts by dividing this Chapter into five verses: Tao may be spoken of, but it is not the Heng Tao 恆道; Name may be described, but it is not the Heng Name 恆名. Wu 無names the origin of the myriad things; Yu 有 names the mother of the myriad things. Therefore, In Heng Wu 恆無, we observe their mysterious appearance; In Heng Yu 恆有, we observe their fading boundaries. Both appear simultaneously, as different manifestations of the same (Tao). Profound upon profound, they are the gateways to all mysteries. Profound means "no clear distinction of Wu and Yu" here. The mysteries are in Heng Wu and Heng Yu. This interpretation leads to a very basic logic structure that is in many other philosophies. Verses 4 and 5 also appear in a different textual arrangement. However, it will also show the same logical structure.

I forget to mention this: If you read Chinese, my Chinese article: 「道家哲學的邏輯」The Logic of Tao Philosophy, in the Tamkang Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (淡江人文社會學刊), Vol. 49 (2012), pp. 1-32. describe the whole principle of Tao. http://www2.tku.edu.tw/~tkjour/ Go to 期別查詢 Then go to 第四十九期.

I have called it "The Principle of Oneness" or "Nonduality." Here is an exerpt (Tao Te Ching: The Logic of Tao Philosophy Draft - abbriviated) The principle of Tao is Oneness or Nonduality as the base of all reality. We may summarize it as The Principle of Oneness 恆一原則: When we represent one reality by two true manifestations, such as True Wu and True Yu, the two manifestations will have opposite characteristics, but they are equivalent representations of the same reality. To describe the two true manifestations, we define two conventional objects, such as Wu and Yu, to represent the two opposite parts of the whole domain. Therefore, each manifestation, as a whole, will comprise simultaneously both opposite parts in order to restore the wholeness. For this reason, the true manifestations will appear as vague, self-contradictory, and indeterminate, in terms of the conventional objects. They are called profound, mysterious, and with great subtlety. According to this Principle of Oneness, any “division” of a reality will result in “multiple” equivalent manifestations of the same reality. A reality is thus indivisible, since each “part” will still reflect the “whole.” --------- Many people may be familiar with this common problem in all philosophy. This principle is reflected in Chapter 1 of the TTC. (As I promise elsewhere to make my new Kindle eBook (TTC: The Logic of Tao Philosophy) free on May 1, 2013) A shorter summary is alreday in the Introduction to my translation (a Kindle eBook: TTC: An Ultimate Translation). A sample is also free.

If you Lao-tzu as a god, then it is a religious Taoist; if you treat Lao-tzu as a philosopher, then you are a philosopher. It is unavoidable that a religious Taoist mat claim both, but it is rarely possible for a "Tao philosopher" to claim to be a "religious Taoist." Maybe, in the early days, people do not believe Tao as a philosophy, so both are lumped into the word Taoism. I get frustrated that I have to explain to my friends that I am not a "Taoist" because I cannot invoke any power from any god and I know nothing about the religious Taoist rituals. My work on Tao is purely on its philosophical content of the Tao Te Ching as I am interested in philosophy in general (Buddhist and Greek especially and some modern Western thoughts). My friend (a professor) gave me a quote: "The difference between Tao philosophy and Tao religion is like the difference between dog and hot dog." Such as quote is not appropriate, but it shows the frustration about the confusion. It is pretty clear that I am not a Taoist, according to my use of the word.