dynamictao

5. 故恒無，欲以觀其妙。

6. 恒有，欲以觀其徼。

 

5. Hence, when Tao is always invisible, one would grok its quale.

6. When Tao is always visible, one would observe its boundary.

 

 

There is no doubt that the picture is still dualistic. However, when you see the "Invisible" but it is visible only by grokking its illusiveness. Illusiveness is when Tao was hidden but has the high potential power to create. Another words, you can only see the Invisible by intuition to sense the presence of Tao.

 

When you sees the Visible but Tao is still invisible. One can only see the Visible by the manifestation of Tao. By the manifestation of Tao, it means when all thing are created by Tao and become tangible. BTW All tangible things have a boundary which can be described as the limitation of Tao.

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,

 

 

5. 故恒無，欲以觀其妙。

6. 恒有，欲以觀其徼。

 

5. Hence, when Tao is always invisible, one would grok its quale.

6. When Tao is always visible, one would observe its boundary.

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?

So far, there is no one has the wisdom which is comparable to his.

The way (style) he writes the book is superb, but the principle of Tao is universal,as in Pre-Socratic and the Buddha.

So dont take it personal if you feel like you are in limbo.

There are exceptions of course. and thats just my opinion which isnt really a firm thing either!

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?

2006. Do you mean "The Principle of Oneness and Field-Being Philosophy" ?

 

I notice you don't mention "Heng" in that paper. Does it works its way into later revisions?

 

And Xuan is an important part of that explanation... I saw this blog reference from Wulf, whom i know you footnote in your paper.

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.

 

I believe "Profound" is a better translation for 玄(xuan2) than "Mystery".

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.

Glad to see some are on the road less traveled.

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.

I will be sure to get back to y'all on this. So far, what I have read, I am impressed.

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

I've not read the entire paper yet but it seems that it speaks to this very subject:

 

http://www.cnphenomenology.com/modules/article/view.article.php/c7/711

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.

I agree. The Guodian Chapter 40 clearly says:

 

The things of this world are generated from You; are generated from Wu. Thus, it infers "generated from You and Wu". Complete symmetry.

 

Later versions have 'You' repeat to end as ; [and] You are generated from Wu.

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.

In the TaoTeChing (and ChuangTzu and LiehTzu) however, there is a before and after. The ineffable Tao precedes creation; they do not appear simultaneously. In the TTC ch. 42, creation takes places in a series of steps. The other books add more steps between those from ch. 42.

 

From the TTC ch. 42;

 

道生一，(Tao gave birth to the One)

一生二， (the One gave birth to the Two)

二生三， (the Two gave birth to the Three)

三生萬物 (the Three gave birth to Everything)

 

When reading the TTC from a religious point of view, the return to Tao at death could be a return to the ineffable or to the Yin-Yang matrix of creation. For the reason of practice, it's important to understand the steps of creation.

 

From the ChuangTzu ch. 13: "If you speak of the Way and not of its sequence, then it is not a way; and if you speak of a way that is not a way, then how can anyone make his way by it?"

 

Watson, Burton, The Complete Works Of Chuang Tzu, Columbia Univ. Press, p. 146-7.

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 think if you read it carefully, you'll find that the article has identified a few critical points about the difference in the meanings of both characters as indicated in red.

三、 《老子》對「恒」「常」字使用不同

劉笑敢先生曾考察說：

「王弼本中第十九章(筆者案：『第』字誤植，當為十九章)中有二十八個『常』。......但是，帛書本多用『恆』字，在第十九章(筆者案：

『第』字誤植，當為十九章)中用到二十九處『恆』，而『常』就僅在兩章中用到三處。竹簡本中則『常』字一見，『恆』字四見(筆者案：似有誤，應為六見)。今本用『常』是避漢文帝劉恆之諱，其結果是我們看不到『常』與『恆』的區別。」

沈善增先生也說：

「從帛書甲本可知，《老子》古本原是既有『恒』又有『常』的，儘管『恒』較多而『常』較少，但『恒』『常』不同義。漢初為避漢文帝劉恒之諱，把《老子》中的『恒』都改成了『常』，這樣，『恒』『常』就混淆了。」而劉殿爵先生則曾指出作「恆」字、「常」字的重要不同處，他說：

「今本《老子》無『恆』字，只有『常』字，帛書本雖多作『恆』字，但『常』字也並非完全沒有。例如十六章：是胃復"命"常也。知常、明也。不知常，；(乙本作『芒』)"作，兇；(乙本『兇』字殘缺)知常，容；"乃公。五十二章：是胃襲(乙本『襲』字殘缺)常。從文例看，似乎『恆』字只作修飾語用，如『恆道』、『恆德』、『恆名』、『恆善救人』，而『常』字則作名詞性詞用，如『知常』、『襲常』。只有在一種句式中，『恆』、『常』互見。上引十六章：復命，常也。又二章：先後之相隨，恆也。『常』、『恆』都是單字謂語，至於語法功能上有無差異，便很難判斷了。」又，劉笑敢先生乃再將劉殿爵先生的重要發現證之竹簡本《老子》，他也得出相同結果說：

「總起來看，竹簡本和帛書本對『常』與『恆』字的使用是一致的。如此說來，『常』在《老子》中主要是名詞性功能，因此可以看作是老子的名詞或概念，而『恆』主要是作修飾語，不是名詞，不能作為老子的思想概念。」準此，既然帛書本與竹簡本《老子》，皆同樣展示老子對「恆」、「常」字使用的不同，那麼原來《老子》中本作修飾語用，而在通行本中因避諱改成「常」字之處，如今可能便需改正回作「恆」字為是，不然其間的區別也只有持續被隱沒。

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.

 

I know you are very fond of the article. However, in Chapter one, Heng (恆, eternal) was used in the Tao Te Ching as an adjective to describe that Tao is eternal. Even thought one of the hexagons in the Yi Jing was named as "Heng" but it has nothing to do with the TTC.

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.

Yeah, it is impossible to totally purge our unconscious mind.

 

I am curious as to how you are going to handle Wu and Yu. Yu comes from Yu is consistent with science as the universe is understood presently. Bang! Then energy and gasses (Chi and Mystery [potential]) then came the other elements (Manifest).

 

But yes, I do understand the why of your efforts. I just want to see how you scientifically justify it. Hehehe.

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.

 

 

May be you would like to take a look at this about how the character 恆(heng) came about:

Heng(恆) and chang(常)

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.

Actually, this does not deviate from your assessment in "Dynamic Tao".

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.

 

Why are you picking on this character with special interest....???

 

I think I know what you are talking about but can you elaborate on that. Let's see if we are coping with the same idea.....???

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, good point. I do think there are certain keywords which might help to normalize various positions... Heng and Xuan come to the top of my list. thanks.

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.

But from the beginning of reviewing the DDJ, different people saw different principles conveyed. Han Fei Zi may not of agreed with Huainanzi who may not of agreed with Zhuangzi who may not agreed with wenzi who may not of agreed with Hesheng Gong who might not agreed with the celestial masters, etc.

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 agree.

 

Your translation do agree with 陳鼓感. You have probably heard of him because he is one of the professors in Taiwan who is very familiar with the classic Tao Te Ching. All my translations are the reflections of his book.

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.

Correction:

 

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.

 

Have you translated Chapter One of the Tao Te Ching, into English, in your own words...??? If you have, then I would like to read it. It might be interesting from you....!!!

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:

1. 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.

2. Wu 無names the origin of the myriad things;

   Yu 有 names the mother of the myriad things.

3. Therefore,

   In Heng Wu 恆無, we observe their mysterious appearance;

   In Heng Yu 恆有, we observe their fading boundaries.

4. Both appear simultaneously, as different manifestations of the same (Tao).
5. Profound upon profound, they are the gateways to all mysteries.

True ,and I like hearing that said . But since I think the principles go largely misunderstood , could you elucidate what the principles are , as you see it ?

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.

 

Please keen in mind, I am only speaking from a Chinese point of view.

 

The main difference are not believing in the same thing. The philosophical side are scholars and atheists who just study the concepts or principles of Tao Te Ching. The religious side are those who interpret the Tao Te Ching as dogma and create their own deities to worship. Therefore, from the Chinese point of view, one who accepts some Taoist concepts and incorporates them in their own life and worldview, their own "personal philosophy", can be seen as a "real" scholar. Only one who practice the Taoist religion are considered as a "real" Taoist.

 

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.

I tend to agree... at least you are willing to see both sides of the issue; East and West.

An idea written in Chinese may look different from the same idea written in English, but the idea is the same.

If the idea is universal, then it will appear in the East and the West.

If Lao-tzu wrote a "principle" in ancient Chinease and if the principle is understood, then the same principle may be written in other language. But now, different people see different principles. This appears not only in translation, but is true also within ancient and modern Chinese interpretors.