dynamictao

The two taos that are complete and must be reflections of tao are not "tao". Tao preexist time, sequence and order. So tao existed before existance. Its emerging and materielizing into forms and functions is also tao.

 

Tao is not a thing that can be named but the path it has taken can be seen.

I agree with your observations - reminding me of Heng Tao, Heng Wu and Heng Yu. (I am stuck with my logical structure)

"Before existence" prior to our assigning of names in the phenomenal world.

Marblehead

Thank you. I made a decision about 14 years ago: to repay the society with something with Tao.

I had no clue of what I can do. I was like a butterfly flapping the wings days and nights.

Nothing significant happens for a long time.

But suddenly I see the butterfly effect. The sky becomes very clear.

So I try to share.

As the beginning of my updated book. The logic is not to remove the mystery of Tao.

"The translation of the Tao Te Ching presented in this book is based on the principle and logic of Tao"

"We may say that the interpretation can project more accurately the mystery of Tao."

I should apologize that, due to my constant effort to modify the presentation, many typos and errors are introduced despite my friends's efforts to review it. This is coming to an end now. The new versions will be much stable.

Wayne

I have updated both The Logic of Tao Philosophy and The Tao Te Ching: An Ultimate Translation. For those who have downloaded the Kindle books, Amazon should notify you to download the new version. (Amazon says it take more tha 4 weeks!)

For a very few who have bought the printed books, should let me know and I will see how to get updates.([email protected]).

The Logic has been updated, and the Translation will be updated in a few days.

The new versions are marked with [First Edition] now.

Wayne

Make sure you get the updated version when Amazon makes them available for you to downloand.

I am not yet familiar how Amazon does that. New updates should correct may typos and smooth out some key ideas.

Some key ideas are due to some discussion in the forum.

Thanks for downloading.

Wayne

When you stated 2000 to 3000 years of the TAO gone by in stagnation until you wrote your masterpiece, that did not seem like you took other views very much . The Taoist Masters in the last 2 thousand years in Hui Shan, ChingCheng Shan and Wudang Shan and their findings had been all dismissed by you as meaningless stagnant works.

 

>>> Not at all. What I present is only a view on Tao for people who have looked for "Logic" only. or a new way to speculate.

>>> All others were looking for something else and , of course, they have found what are great for their purposes.

 

 

The wanting to combine insights of many to have many views aka the 5 blind men and elephant is not even valid as that is at best a simplistic fable.

>>> Interesting. I have shared my view on the "Blind" man issue in the following way:

>>> If we have award for all the blind men and they will try to understand what others have found; then they will figure out the "Truth."

>>> If we arward only a sole winner, then they will argue against each other; then they will never find the "Truth."

>>>

Look at the talk of taijichuan here.

 

>>> In my view, all these practices are authentic and, when properly executed, will have the same benefit of understanding Tao.

>>> All masters are trying to share their ways of achieveing the same unity with Tao.

>>>

 

Or you think the TAO is a lot more simple than taijichuan and jing to have the principles and logic so nicely laid out in diagrams and words?

>>> Tao is not simple, although the basic basic basic principle may be simpler.

>>> Something we get this basic principle simly as "Tao cannot be described" and that is enough as a wonderful inspiration for some people.

>>> Something, "No word" is the best wisdom.

 

I can only admit my mind is nowhere the level of yours. I wish you happiness and success in your search.

>>> We are all at different levels, but all levels are equivalent in Tao.

 

I just want to eat when hungry, and drink when thirsty and remain a lowly idiot and leave my betters to professorships and chairships.

>>> Isn't that what Tao is!

 

I think the world is big enough for all to go their own way in peace.

>>> Yes. Each of us has the whole world. Remember "You are the World"?

>>> Hope everyone is happy.

When the Tao that you think is the Tao, IS NOT the Tao.

 

And when even the Name that you think is the Name, IS NOT the Name.

 

My hat off to you to be able to get beyond that most fundamental restrictions to go

and formulate the very principle and the Logic of Tao Philosophy.

 

Logic is a nested series of lenses that focus on whatever facet or view chosen.

In that focusing, the interconnections will be lost as that is the very principle of focusing.

 

And for all I know, Tao is nothing, but a web of connections , and without those connections, there might not be Tao in the first place.

 

But then, being an idiot, I know I miss so many things that I am sure you be delighted to point out

the errors of my ways.

 

Idiotic Taoist

I do not see anything "wrong" in your observations.

I think many people see the same thing, but we may have different "web of conciousness" to feel it.

We share our ways of seeing it, so each of us can gain more insight to build a better web for our selves.

Only the web-buider can known what is wrong with his/her web.

Outsider has no way of knowing what is wrong.

There are many ways to represent the same thing. That is why I respect any point of view.

Logic is not the truth. It is just a way to "steer" to a conclusion showing the assumptions.

I hope we are having fun to share our own thoughts.

Like in science, every theory is waiting to be proved wrong!

"too much emphasis on the character 恆(Heng)"

I agree that I have to watch carefully.

I just share what I have found interesting and useful to myself.

Whatever inspiration works should be pursued (without expecting agreement).

Who knows?

Lao-tzu may be laughing at the way we try to understand his jokes.

Share!

Wayne

Thank you for response....

here some thoughts about heng2:

 

In the moment - one is accepting "complementing" as an essential feature of 道 -

one understands what is depicted by the guodian-version of 恆:

夕 + 卜 between 二.

(for example guodian-laozi-ddj#32 : http://www.alice-dsl.net/wulfdieterich/Guodian_ddj32.htm)

For me it describes 道 in its complementary feature.

The twilight in between points to the not ending change of sun 恒 (day - night) or moon 恆 (waning-waxing) ... thus it is pointing to complementary change generally caused by polarity of sky-earth...

and thus it is pointing to the experience of "complementing" between visible and invisible.

"True" or "real" seems for me to be a judging rendering of héng

"complementing" would be for me a sinograph-describing rendering of héng

Wayne

Thank you for response....

here some thoughts about heng2:

 

In the moment - one is accepting "complementing" as an essential feature of 道 -

one understands what is depicted by the guodian-version of 恆:

夕 + 卜 between 二.

(for example guodian-laozi-ddj#32 : http://www.alice-dsl.net/wulfdieterich/Guodian_ddj32.htm)

For me it describes 道 in its complementary feature.

The twilight in between points to the not ending change of sun 恒 (day - night) or moon 恆 (waning-waxing) ... thus it is pointing to complementary change generally caused by polarity of sky-earth...

and thus it is pointing to the experience of "complementing" between visible and invisible.

"True" or "real" seems for me to be a judging rendering of héng

"complementing" would be for me a sinograph-describing rendering of héng

It is enlightening to see how Heng was written in Guodian.

There is no problem in calling Tao a complementary of any two opposites.

We may start Chapter 1 by saying that:

Lao-tzu defines Wu and Yu to describe the myriad things. but he soon

finds out that neither Wu nor Yu can describe the myriad things.

Only the complementarity of Wu and Yu can describe the true myriad things.

He calls these complementary states: Heng Wu and Heng Yu.

They can represent Tao.......etc.

So we may say that the principle of Tao is "Complementarity."

Complementarity of any opposites is the way to have wholeness or Oneness.

This may be useful and consistent. Thank.

Wayne

i understand here - that "heng wu and heng you" make a 兩 (pair) - a complement...

and as pair they represent : 一陰一陽之謂道 - isn't this just the idea of

"Tao as Principle of Oneness " ?

Best regards

wulf

I would say Wu and Yu are complementary so they generate two realistic views: Heng Wu and Heng Yu.

However, are Heng Wu and Heng Yu complementary? Heng Wu and Heng Yu can each represents the principle of Tao.

One yin and one yang, as complements, can represent Tao, just like one Wu and one Yu, as complements, can represent Tao.

The complements of Wu and Yu form Heng Wu and Heng Yu.

Any two opposites can represent Tao, if they are properly comlementing each other.

This really help clearing up the terminology.

Wayne

We may now summarize our discussion with a simple principle. Tao is Oneness. In Tao philosophy, Oneness is the basis of all realities, so we may summarize the principle of Tao as The Principle of Oneness 恆一原則:

"The Oneness or Nonduality of Tao appears as a pair of Dualistic Realities in the world."

 

I still cannot get over your idea of "Oneness or Nonduality of Tao". Then, you've contradicted yourself with "Nonduality of Tao appears as a pair of Dualistic Realities in the world."

How about the following?

In terms of dualism, the absolute reality (Tao) is monistic or non-dualistic. The phenomenal world is more complicated. All entities in the phenomenal world are associated with names 名. The objects are dualistic and complementary. In our model, Heng Names 恆名represent reality, so each of them must be a whole and non-dualistic. The manifestations, Heng Wu and Heng Yu, are non-dualistic and they are "dual but equivalent" representations of Tao. The two manifestations are two-and-one at the same time. The manifestations are ontologically equivalent to each other.

Wayne

 

Linguistically, "wu and you" are the dyad. The emphasis should not have too much weight on "heng" because "heng" is only an adjective.

 

恆無 and 恆有 should not be brought out of context. These two terms should not be interpreted in relation the "Wu and You" because they are compound with the "heng". As a result, these two terms become adjectives. However, these two terms must interpreted with more meaningful relationship with the philosophy of Lao Tze.

 

恆無: always none(無) which means "invisible". "Invisible" was referred to Tao before or at the origin of the Heaven and Earth(the Universe). Thus 恆無 has the linguistic meaning that "When Tao is always invisible,...."

 

恆有: Always has(有) which means "exist". "Exist" was referred that Tao was manifested. Thus 恆有 has the linguistic meaning that " When Tao was always manifested,....."

 

 

It all depends on the meaning of 恆 Heng. Professor Qingjie Wang's (Hong Kong) papers on Heng Dao talk about the meaning of Heng in the Book of Changes. As I recall in or outside of his papers, that Heng has been taken to be Tao itself. (「道、恆也。」 or 「恆、道也。」??? ) Along this reasoning, 恆無 Heng Wu carries the flavor of "the state of Wu in Tao or according to Tao."

Does your interpretation establishes "visible" (Heng Yu) and "invisible" (Heng Wu) as "dualistic" view again, or Heng Wu and Heng Yu are parallel? It may be possible to keep the discussions nondualistic. Good points. I did an analysis along Wang Bi metaphysics, and conclude that the same Logic may be applied ( I did not publish that, since it will only confuse the issue.

Initially it is a complicated isssue. That way I decide to discuss "The Logic of Tao Philosophy" separate from "The Ultimate Translation" so we can put the Logic on the table to have open discussions. [i hope most people have downloaded a free copy of Kindle book. I may be allowed for one more day to make it free.]

Wayne

when can i get your book

Sorry you just missed it.

I offer both Kindle ebooks free for the last two days (June 1,2) - as was announced in this forum 2 weeks ago. There were about a totle of 300 downloads. (The books are available at Amazon.)

The short descriptions are available (see earlier posts on this topic).

I have found more typos and will be fixing them.

The main idea is not very complicated, so the corrections are mostly not critical (But they will be done.).

Dynamictao

I Ilike your idea of "Tao as Principle of Oneness"

-

The problem of understanding is in using the term Duality.... as i see it...

 

 

The term "Duality" / Dualism" means:

two different beings fighting each other.

God and Devil - that is a Duality.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dualism

-

The term "Complement" means:

two parts building a one.- making complete...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complement

 

heng wu - heng you

are "complements".

(Nice to see you here - I think this time it is right, but who knows?)

We are trying to create a new definition of many such terms. Some classical definitions may create problems.

I should add them to the keyword list I have in the book.

How about calling "God" and "Devil" as "dualistic opposites"?

Wu and Yu constitute a "whole" so they are dualistic and complementary?

Maybe complementary should be used only at the object level?

Each actuality (Heng Wu or Heng Yu) are whole and complete.

Can we call Heng Wu and Heng Yu as "dualistic realities"? "parallel realities"?

They are Two and One at the same time. They are "ontologically equivalent." Heng Wu and Heng Yu are individually "whole." Maybe they are dualistic whole. I the model, they are ontologically equivalent "actualities."

It is good that we can discuss the basic terminology here. I will review how they are used in the book.

I will add more terms to the Appendix of my book (The Logic of Tao Philosophy).

(It looks that whoever downloaded earlier version of the book cannot re-download the updated versions! I am updating the books for typos and some clarifications.) My goal was to keep the book readable to most, since I believe the logic can help our understanding of the Tao Te Ching.)

I feel bad about many typos, please wait a few days before you order the book "The Logic".

 

This is my new interpretation (in TTC: An Ultimate Translation):

 

道沖，而用之又弗盈也。

 

Tao pours down upon us; however,

However, when received and used, it does not brim over.[1]

 

Tao never become full.

[1] The word 冲 means showering with water as in making tea, etc. Tao shows down on us, but will not make us (as vessels of Tao) full. When a vessel is full, it is no longer useful as a vessel.

Tao can be received and used without overflowing.

That is the nature of Tao - we shall never feel fed up and shall never stop seeing its usefulness.

We shall not need to empty our cup, because we never feel full.

This is my new interpretation (in TTC: An Ultimate Translation):

道沖，而用之又弗盈也。

Tao pours down upon us; however,

However, when received and used, it does not brim over.[1]

I think I heard of his dad , Phuc

Vietnamese dude right?

Hi,

???

Thanks for moving it.

I had trouble finding a right spot for this "free offering".

Somehow most download last time were from outside the North America.

The books are published as POD (Print on Demand" by CreateSpace, and Kindle, so they can be updated anytime.

Both are associated with Amazon.

This is really convenient to incorporate comments from readers.

I hope to get some of the ideas discussed here.

Thanks.

This is what I have in "TTC: An UltimateTranslation"

When a lord obeys it, all things will settle by themselves,

Heaven and earth will harmonize to rain sweet dew, and

The people, under no mandate, will self-balance.

My complete translation is also free for download as the Kindle book (TTC: An Ultimate Tranlation) for the same two days (June 1,2, 2013). You don't need to have a physical Kindle to read it.

You can use Kindle Reader on any PC ot Tablet to read it.

Search for "Wayne L. Wang" or "Tao Te Ching: An Ultimate Translation".

I will only offer that Heng is anciently synonymous with Ji (think TaiJi or WuJi) and Dao and The Great One. It seems that each ancient text offers a slightly different view and angle to the use and meaning of all these primordial generative effects on the myriad things.

This is how I would take Heng to mean. Did Prof. Qingjie Wang discuss this? I would assume he did, but have to check again.

My current translation is: (But I may change "infinite" to "Great Oneness" as 大一.)

We do not know its name and call it Tao.

We reluctantly describe it as infinite. [1]

With infinity, it can sustain;

With sustaining, it can reach far;

Reaching far, it can return all (back into Oneness).

Tao is infinite; heaven is infinite; and earth is infinite.

Their Unifying Power is also infinite.[2]

Among the four infinities,

The Unifying Power is the most important.

Note on Chapter 16, I have

"The Unifying Power (王 wang) is a character that unifies three horizontal lines (heaven, man, earth) with one vertical line (as oneness). According to 說文, Wang (王) is where all under heaven belong to, or return to, for guidance: 王, 天下所歸往也. Wang (王) as the Son-of-Heaven (天子) is the divine mediator of man and heaven. Wang is the one who is thoroughly intimated with Te. 《管子·兵法篇》通德者王。董仲舒曰:“古 之造文者,三画而连其中谓之王。三者,天、地、人也;而参通之者,王也。”《说文》王,有天下曰王。帝与王一也。. See also Chapter 25 and 66."

BTW: The Kindle Version of my book "The Logic of Tao Philosophy" will be free for download from Amazon on June 1 and 2, 2013 (California Time Zone). It is a major revision.

Here are two excerpts from my two books.

Feel free to share the files with your firends.

Excert from Tao Te Ching: An Ultimate Translation:

Book_Translation_Preview_2013_May_17a.pdf

Excerpt from The Logic of Tao Philosophy:

Wayne

I have re-edited my book "The Logic of Tao Philosophy" and will publish it in Kindle again.

This revised version has gpne through 2 weeks of work and should be must better than before.

 

You can done get the book free from Amazon Kindle store again on June 1, 2013.

I have added one more day (June 2, 2013) for free download.

Even if you have downloaded the previous copy on May 1, please download again this revised one.