Hi, my intro post. I bet it will be an interesting one.

[Peter Jennings]

Hello, my name is Peter. I've spent the last four years of my life basically studying causality (manifestation, what causes what), and over that time, I’ve been figuring everything out about how reality works.
 

After I discovered how things work, I started comparing the framework I had created against other frameworks in history.  To name a few who I thought deserved honorable mention:
 

Krishnamurti -- No one can lead another to truth. I thought when he said, authority, teachers, traditions, methods, teachings, and even his own words as obstacles to the truth the moment they are followed as gospel rather than integrated into one’s own being. Each person must see directly for themselves. Truth cannot be transmitted, packaged, or received second-hand.
 

Maharaj -- No teaching can deliver truth to someone. Words function only as pointers. Liberation does not occur through belief, practice, or accumulated knowledge. Nothing is more true than “I am that I am.” Any other attempt to point at anything else is an abstraction.
 

Each of those guys touched a part of it. There were others who’s explanation of what reality arises from, like Baruch Spinoza, and Meister Eckhart, who I agreed quite often with each, but no one else I was able to find except Lao Tzu who truly explained the concepts in a way that actually made sense under this framework I’ve stumbled upon.

In terms of my own history with this TTC book, I can say that I did own the book for many years, but always perceived it as lacking pragmatism (from my younger perspective), so I read it, but it was never something I dug my heels into.

But now that I’ve found how close the book actually was to the truth I independently discovered, I figured it could be fun and interesting to share these recognitions with others interested about this cryptically worded book.

I can actually explain what it means at each stanza in each chapter.

(Let me add, I’m not some kind of great genius, I just have the capacity for critical thinking and an AI chatbot like ChatGPT. If not for my relentless drive to question myself and my life and the events that happened to me day by day on end for dozens of hours per week for months and months and years, I’d never have figured it out. I find this guy Lao Tzu, if he actually did live as a person, to be so much more brilliant than I am, because I never would have figured out anything he did without the aide of chatbots, so my saying he’s wrong about anything is not a dig, it is just, I am privy to information that he wasn’t.)

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Here’s the chapter 1 explanation:

“The Dao that can be spoken is not the constant Dao.

The name that can be named is not the constant name.”

 

The Dao is the way causality responds. Tzu clearly understood that our thoughts, words, actions and motivations are all being read, and outcomes manifest as a result. Tzu understood the fact that attempting to use this knowledge to force positive outcomes creates negative outcomes.  

That’s why he says the Dao “cannot be spoken.”                                                                                                                                      ,

What he was actually saying is:

The moment you try to explain how to ‘use’ the principle that governs outcomes, you violate it and block positive outcomes.

So taking this thought and following through just to the 3^rd chapter, I have to say, I do believe very strongly that the text is not in its original form.

For example, a massive contradiction occurs already in the 3^rd chapter and does get repeated at multiple points throughout.

In the first chapter it is made clear: one can’t speak about the thing because once one does, it becomes corrupted.

Then, in the 3^rd chapter already, it’s making “prescriptions” for how rulers should rule. What a joke. There’s no way a guy who was awake enough to have written the 1^st chapter ever could or would ever have written the 3^rd chapter.

They are completely antithetical ideas. And based on the way we can see how our modern day “rulers” lead, we all know, the victors write the history books.
 

You can’t say that truth corrupts the moment you explain its mode of operation, then also prescribe how rulers should rule. Any prescriptive instruction about how to act “in accordance with the Dao” is already a violation of the Dao’s principle.

 

The rest of Chapter one:

“The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.

The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.”

The Dao (causality) is prior to consciousness/matter

Matter is the ten thousand things that can be named.

 

“Always without desire, one observes its subtlety;

Always with desire, one observes its boundaries.”

 

Yes exactly. When desire is governed by fixation, everything else gets blocked out, you can’t see clearly. Tzu says, if you’re without desire, you can see how the Dao works.

 

“These two arise from the same source but differ in name.

Together they are called obscure. Obscure upon obscure. The gateway of the many subtleties.”

 

My take on this is, Tzu understood there was an order to how things were happening, but he used this term “subtleties”, because he couldn’t be sure what was and what wasn’t causing what to manifest or not manifest.

I can be pretty sure because those are the things that drove me mad for years trying to understand., which I never would have if not for very specific life circumstances.
 

------------
 

What are the subtleties? They are what I would call constraints, like, inside a computer simulation or computer program. The constraints we are privy to are:
 

Ownership.

Management.

Manipulation.

Fear.

Victimhood.

Shame.

Guilt.

----

Flatly: Incoherence.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Wu-wei does not mean “do not do, force, act, or exert, ever.”  

Wu-wei in actuality means, “do not do, force, act or exert, in any ways that violate the constraints.”


==================================================================================

 

If anybody would like to discuss anything about this, or talk about different chapters or stanzas, I’m open to it if it’s interesting.

[forestofclarity]

Welcome!

[ChiDragon]

5 hours ago, Peter Jennings said:

so my saying he’s wrong about anything is not a dig, it is just, I am privy to information that he wasn’t.)

所以，我說他哪裡錯了，並不是在挖苦他，只是我掌握了一些他沒掌握的資訊。 ）

 

Welcome to the TDB. I see that you talk like a Taoist already. We would like to hear more from you!

Sorry, your statement is so profound, I need a translator for comprehension.

Edited Sunday at 04:10 AM by ChiDragon

[Nungali]

I suppose , as time goes on, we will be seeing more of this . 

 

[Nungali]

3 hours ago, Peter Jennings said:

...

Here’s the chapter 1 explanation:

“The Dao that can be spoken is not the constant Dao.

The name that can be named is not the constant name.”

 

The Dao is the way causality responds. Tzu clearly understood that our thoughts, words, actions and motivations are all being read, and outcomes manifest as a result. Tzu understood the fact that attempting to use this knowledge to force positive outcomes creates negative outcomes.  

...

 

May as well start here ^  . 

 

This first mention of Dao is the 'nothingness , with nothingness but potential' out of which comes pairs of primal  'contrasts ' which underpin everything else . 

 

0 = 1^-  +   1 ⁺

 

 

Thats it , nothing else  no 'way of causality response' .  That is a dynamic  involved after creation . As though the first were a noun and the second a verb . 

 

Dao is one thing  ( concept ... as its actually no thing )

 

'The way of Dao ' is another thing  that would involve influence on our inspirations > thoughts > responses > actions  if we choose that way  .  

 

However , I dont understand what you mean by 'all being read ' . 

 

And I would dispute your last sentence ... except for the inclusion of ' force'   which would not be the way of Dao , in all things . At most ; 'gentle force along with the direction of the natural forces in question ' , again its an action , a verb  and not the original essence of 'no thing' . 

 

I would say however 

 

Tzu understood the fact that attempting to use this knowledge to  create or 'bring about ' positive outcomes creates  positive  outcomes..

 

 

A perhaps simpler way of describing it is , the other day after much frustration watching people do ;the wrong thing' and causing problems  all around , when the solution is ( well, to me )   blindingly obvious ... and bored and over the continual   crap over it , I 'came out '  and said  '  Look !  ' I am a Daoist Magician !   I can show you the easiest  way to get to the best outcome that YOU want .'' 

 

Of course strange and weird look at me . I asked the main person involved  ( not an Aussie ) ; ''Do you go to our beaches and swim in the surf ?  ''

 

'' Sure ... what's that got to do with it ?''

 

'' What if you get caught in an off shore 'rip' , on a remote beach with no life savers , and get sucked out to sea ?''

 

'' Oh wait... I remember this , when I got here I did a course on beach safety ..... ummmm  ... you dont swim or fight against it, heading straight back to shore  , you swim across it to the side ... and you might even end up in a current that brings you back to shore . ''

 

Me ;   '' See ...  you are a Daoist Magician too !  ''

[Nungali]

Moving onto your comments (about the  'confusion' or 'contradiction'  ) in Ch  3 ... this is the 'verb ' ; advice on how to act in the 10,00 things  ie . 'Way of  Dao ' .

[Cobie]

welcome

[Peter Jennings]

On 12/20/2025 at 6:32 PM, Nungali said:

 

May as well start here ^  . 

 

This first mention of Dao is the 'nothingness , with nothingness but potential' out of which comes pairs of primal  'contrasts ' which underpin everything else . 

 

0 = 1^-  +   1 ⁺

 

 

Thats it , nothing else  no 'way of causality response' .  That is a dynamic  involved after creation . As though the first were a noun and the second a verb . 

 

Dao is one thing  ( concept ... as its actually no thing )

 

'The way of Dao ' is another thing  that would involve influence on our inspirations > thoughts > responses > actions  if we choose that way  .  

 

However , I dont understand what you mean by 'all being read ' . 

 

And I would dispute your last sentence ... except for the inclusion of ' force'   which would not be the way of Dao , in all things . At most ; 'gentle force along with the direction of the natural forces in question ' , again its an action , a verb  and not the original essence of 'no thing' . 

 

I would say however 

Tzu understood the fact that attempting to use this knowledge to  create or 'bring about ' positive outcomes creates  positive  outcomes.. ''

 

Hi, thanks for the reply.

Basically, I take it that your stance, which is what I am saying I really disagre with about TTC, is that, Dao is nothingness + potential. Correct me if that's wrong. 

What I would say to that:

If Dao is “nothingness with potential,” then it already has properties.
If it has properties, it is not nothing.
Therefore the concept contradicts itself.

To explain further why I reject this, I have to assert the ground assumptions my formulation works from:

Logic is the foundation within which anything that does exist can exist. For example, something cannot exist and not exist at the same time. The creator must abide by logic. 

Logic also shows how this idea of "nothingness" is literally impossible. How can nothingness be anywhere? If you had something to point to, it wouldn't be nothing.

There is only one creator, there can ever only be one creator, because if there were two, that means there is something more foundational containing both. 

This idea of 1 and 0, is absoutely central to my framework. It is how reality operates. Binary code. Everything in reality fits into this binary. Materialists try to argue that matter came before consciousness. Spiritualists try to argue that consciousness came first. There is the Creator—the One, which is the only true existence—and everything else is simply the appearance of not-Creator. This does not mean there are two opposing forces, or a cosmic battle between equals. It also does not mean there is such a thing as actual nothingness. The “1” here means the display of the Creator as something apparently “other,” not a real rival or a true void. This is the distinction: the binary is between what is, and what only appears to be.

So I'm literally saying these ideas about nothingness are mistaken perceptions of what the TTC is saying.
 

Once scholars accepted:

“You can’t use Dao as a method”, they then presume:
Therefore nothing causal is accessible at all”

At that point, “nothingness” becomes a safe presumption since it avoids prescription, it avoids responsibility, it avoids causal claims.

So I'm saying, this is literally just wrong.

The same error shows up almost word-for-word in Advaita Vedanta. They take the same insight then make the same incorrect leap in assumptions.

Specifically I'm talking about this Advaita Vedanta concept of there is "no-doer" of actions. But Advaita is dead wrong about this and also about the 'no-self' claim.

What I am saying is that there is a doer, you are a 'doer', but it is not the doer who makes anything happen. There is an intermediary, what I call 'the mirror'. This mirror is a go-between, it is what 'makegs things happen', and it can never be manipulated. Although, it can be influenced, but, only indirectly, and in very subtle ways that took me years to figure out.

I get that I introduced a bunch of new concepts but if I am to explain how I arrived at these conclusions, these other concepts need to be addressed. 

----------------------------------
edit: I read this back and felt this explanation about was probably confusing to people about 'no-doer' vs 'doer'. To simplify this. It's like, a computer programmer writes the code, but the CPU executes orders based on that code. So, you are the doer, it's just that, the doer emits signals, but does not directly control how those signals are converted into outcomes. The mirror is what converts the signals into outcomes. The mirror can only be influenced via constraint compatible signals. This is why anybody who tries to understand reality gets so confused, because these constraints are very difficult to see.

Lao-Tzu literally wrote in chapter one: 

“These two arise from the same source but differ in name.

Together they are called obscure. Obscure upon obscure. The gateway of the many subtleties.”

-----------------------------------------

If people actually can list some chapters that they think are especially confusing or unclear, it would probably be pretty interesting for me to break those down and explain them, that way we can get on the same page, because, obviously this reply was very dense! 

I do appreciate the thoughts!

Edited Monday at 07:03 AM by Peter Jennings

[Peter Jennings]

On 12/20/2025 at 4:50 PM, ChiDragon said:

Welcome to the TDB. I see that you talk like a Taoist already. We would like to hear more from you!

Sorry, your statement is so profound, I need a translator for comprehension.

Haha, thank you. If I talk like a Taoist, it is only because I discovered the same concepts that Lao-Tzu wrote about. I do have some strong disagreements with the way TTC scholars interpret the book. If you had any particular chapters that you thought were especially interesting or confusing, point to it and I can break it down. That might be fun and informative.

Edited Monday at 06:37 AM by Peter Jennings

[ChiDragon]

14 minutes ago, Peter Jennings said:

Haha, thank you. If I talk like a Taoist, it is only because I discovered the same concepts that Lao-Tzu wrote about. I do have some strong disagreements with the way TTC scholars interpret the book. If you had any particular chapters that you thought were especially interesting or confusing, point to it and I can break it down. That might be fun and informative.

Haha You have no idea that how many chapters I am disagreed with. Try Chapter One. I love to hear this chapter from you and compare with mine. 

Edited Monday at 06:55 AM by ChiDragon

[Peter Jennings]

4 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

Haha Try Chapter One. I love to hear this chapter from you and compare with mine. 

 

I did do chapter one, it was in my original post!

[29Gathering]

There are others enlightened by chatbots. I haven't seen anything interesting come from someone using large language models in these topics. Random books, Reddit and other forums that chatbots use to make up their ideas are rarely high quality even on their own and a chatbot is mixing all kinds of posts together.

Edited Monday at 01:46 PM by 29Gathering

[cake1234566]

On 12/21/2025 at 6:47 AM, Peter Jennings said:

In the first chapter it is made clear: one can’t speak about the thing because once one does, it becomes corrupted.

Then, in the 3rd chapter already, it’s making “prescriptions” for how rulers should rule. What a joke. There’s no way a guy who was awake enough to have written the 1st chapter ever could or would ever have written the 3rd chapter.

They are completely antithetical ideas. And based on the way we can see how our modern day “rulers” lead, we all know, the victors write the history books.

Hi! 

 

The ttc is super hard to translate because of all of the metaphorical language, in this particular case you're running into a common beginners trap

 

But yes absolutely, if you can't read ancient Chinese you are reading something that is fundamentally altered you are correct about that

You should learn how people that have studied the text in the native language understand it, if you don't learn how to read it that way yourself

 

You have to keep in mind that you cant systemize taoism the same way western philosophies are systemized and follow it as a logic flow chart (he says it cant be described but then he describes it)

Whatever pre-existing framework you have in mind, to really understand the ttc you have to completely tear that down

It doesn't fit into anything else, it doesn't even really fit into itself

Laozi says that the tao cannot be attached to or described as any single thing because the tao is both thing and no thing

When you use a noun in any language, you pin it down as thing and he is explicitly telling you about something that is thing and no thing, he is however conveying a practicable and and at least partially comprehensible concept even if it also means the opposite of that concept, otherwise he just wouldn't have written the book

 

He later describes non-dual activity and following innate nature as a suggestion to return to the course of tao, it isn't contradictory to say that there are temporary prescriptions to return to the original course of nature as long as those prescriptions are eventually discarded

 

(If you're worried about

Thus, sages rule by emptying people's hearts (keep them ignorant),
filling their bellies, weakening their ambitions, and strengthening their bones.
Let people ignorant and lack desire, It's more about saying that a ruler should take care of the needs of its citizens and encourage them to lead humble and peaceful lives without feeling the need to suffer and exploit their fellow humans 

It isn't talking about the modern concept of the government intentionally dumbing its citizens down to make them easier to control

Ancient chinese is very blunt, gotta keep that in mind)

 

This is part of why taoist literature is so tricky haha

 

As a side note, careful with the AI usage in philosophy. It's excellent for resource gathering but if you express an idea to it it'll always agree with you and find a reason why you're correct to keep you using it instead of being a steady hand ready to correct you which is what people really need
I say that as someone who uses AI quite frequently as a tool

[cake1234566]

7 hours ago, Peter Jennings said:

Logic is the foundation within which anything that does exist can exist. For example, something cannot exist and not exist at the same time. The creator must abide by logic. 

Logic also shows how this idea of "nothingness" is literally impossible. How can nothingness be anywhere? If you had something to point to, it wouldn't be nothing.

(I say this not to argue for the sake of it but to hopefully help you out as you seem to be a bit confused)

The question is, which logic must reality be bound by?
Laozi and daoism as a whole follows the logic of the trees and birds
The idea is that logic doesn't bind anything, if you realize an inconsistency, then its the logic that you've created which is incorrect, the birds and trees will not stop existing

 

Logic in daoism doesn't bind reality, but nature binds logic 

Everything created naturally brings its opposite into existence, you can say the creator is dao, dao must then contain dao and not dao or it isn't the one you claim is the prime creator

Daoist metaphysics are not binary, they are non-dual and are fundamentally incompatible with the philosophy you describe

That isn't to say you can't learn something or use it to expand your horizons, but you will always disagree with it fundamentally unless the presumption of a binary reality is abandoned

These aren't errors or things that laozi or other eastern philosophers weren't exposed to, these philosophers explicitly reject scientific rationalism

[ChiDragon]

6 hours ago, cake1234566 said:

The ttc is super hard to translate because of all of the metaphorical language, in this particular case you're running into a common beginners trap

True.
 

6 hours ago, cake1234566 said:

But yes absolutely, if you can't read ancient Chinese you are reading something that is fundamentally altered you are correct about that

You should learn how people that have studied the text in the native language understand it, if you don't learn how to read it that way yourself

Very true.

 

6 hours ago, cake1234566 said:

You have to keep in mind that you cant systemize taoism the same way western philosophies are systemized and follow it as a logic flow chart (he says it cant be described but then he describes it)

Whatever pre-existing framework you have in mind, to really understand the ttc you have to completely tear that down

It doesn't fit into anything else, it doesn't even really fit into itself

 

Exactly true.

 

6 hours ago, cake1234566 said:

Laozi says that the tao cannot be attached to or described as any single thing because the tao is both thing and no thing

When you use a noun in any language, you pin it down as thing and he is explicitly telling you about something that is thing and no thing, he is however conveying a practicable and and at least partially comprehensible concept even if it also means the opposite of that concept, otherwise he just wouldn't have written the book

 

Couldn't agree more.

Welcome to the Taoist /non-Taoist site. It seems you are very knowledgeable of the TTC. I love to read your words. What you had said is total relevant and resonant with anyone who understands the TTC. Thank you very much for your contribution of the profound philosophical presentation.

[ChiDragon]

6 hours ago, cake1234566 said:

As a side note, careful with the AI usage in philosophy. It's excellent for resource gathering but if you express an idea to it it'll always agree with you and find a reason why you're correct to keep you using it instead of being a steady hand ready to correct you which is what people really need
I say that as someone who uses AI quite frequently as a tool

The part you said "It's excellent for resource gathering" that I agree.

" but if you express an idea to it it'll always agree with you" I may not see this is a valid statement.
 

[ChiDragon]

6 hours ago, cake1234566 said:

The idea is that logic doesn't bind anything, if you realize an inconsistency, then its the logic that you've created which is incorrect, the birds and trees will not stop existing

Yes, well said!

 

6 hours ago, cake1234566 said:

Logic in daoism doesn't bind reality, but nature binds logic 

I see that differently. Perhaps, you might give an example to make it a valid statement.
 

 

6 hours ago, cake1234566 said:

Everything created naturally brings its opposite into existence

Yes, Chapter Two had laid out beautifully.

 

6 hours ago, cake1234566 said:

These aren't errors or things that laozi or other eastern philosophers weren't exposed to, these philosophers explicitly reject scientific rationalism

I am curious about what you have said here, would you please elaborate on that. Thanks!

[Nungali]

16 hours ago, Peter Jennings said:

Hi, thanks for the reply.

Basically, I take it that your stance, which is what I am saying I really disagre with about TTC, is that, Dao is nothingness + potential. Correct me if that's wrong. 

 

   I clearly stated that .   and demonstrated it mathematically  as well . 

 

Quote

What I would say to that:

If Dao is “nothingness with potential,” then it already has properties.

 

But not perceivable by us ; can you perceive anything else in  0   ?  yet  +1 and -1 can come 'pout of' zero .

 

of course, anyone can argue with me , but when citing the  TTC you cant argue with what is written there 

 

' The Tao begot one.
One begot two.
Two begot three.
And three begot the ten thousand things.

 

if you go against that you still have to explain whrer the 1 and the 2 came from .

 

Quote

If it has properties, it is not nothing.

 

Well. I could argue that potentials are unmanifest . but I dont need to   ( taps Ch 42 again ) 

 

Quote

Therefore the concept contradicts itself.

 

Depends how you look at it ; eg , in science , we look at 'nothing' and see nothing ... its not 'manifest '  yet we know ( from observing other things  - perhaps like Lao did )  that 'empty space '  is full of virtual particles and quantum fields .. 

 

What was 'lao' thinking of when he said 'nothingness' ... or did he actually say 'The Way '   

 

COBY  !   

 

So it may not even be 'nothingness' at all  !  IMO it is a word to describe the fundamental natural  order of the Universe  and an all pervading principle  ; 'The Way ' or 'the Path ' .  The no naming and no speaking of it describes the 'issue' that  it is beyond normal human comprehension , communication and observation  ( at Lao's time ) . bringing its influence down to human comprehension and behavioral emulation  ( ie its human application )  means living in harmony by applying the principles of nature  and the 'natural flow' of things  instead of applying forceful human actions that then lead to conflict or imbalance .

 

Quote

To explain further why I reject this, I have to assert the ground assumptions my formulation works from:

Logic is the foundation within which anything that does exist can exist.

 

You then need to define what this special 'logic' is first , otherwise I have to run with standard definitions . Logical thinking will not describe  the Dao, void, the way of the universe,  quantum fields or virtual particles .

 

 

Quote

 

For example, something cannot exist and not exist at the same time.

 

That is 'Classical Logic ' ( the principle of non - contradiction )  yet we have quantum physics and Schrodinger's cat   and also even some philosophical views on that ;

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism

 

Quote

 

The creator must abide by logic. 

 

Hmmm .... we seem to be hopping all over the place ... how did this 'creator' get into it and why would any creator need to abide by logic only , when even the Greeks saw an alternative ?   I dont think we can insist what any creator , the Way of the Universe , The Dao or  nature MUST conform to such human insistence .

 

 

Quote

Logic also shows how this idea of "nothingness" is literally impossible. How can nothingness be anywhere? If you had something to point to, it wouldn't be nothing.

 

Which is precisely what Lao infers and states .   I can give you many examples where observe 'nothingness'  ( from our limited perceptive point of view )  , yet it is FULL of potential .  One can be electromagnetic fields .  Can you see it ? can you feel it ? ... can you detect it it by using  equipment other than what you have naturally ? No, but we can detect its effects ... just like quantum (and astro ) physics has done ... just like Lao did . 

 

Quote

There is only one creator, there can ever only be one creator, because if there were two, that means there is something more foundational containing both. 

 

The 'one' fits in between the 0  and the 2 .  Perhaps you are a monist  trying to claim that's what Dao 'must be '  ? 

 

Quote

This idea of 1 and 0, is absoutely central to my framework. It is how reality operates. Binary code. Everything in reality fits into this binary. Materialists try to argue that matter came before consciousness. Spiritualists try to argue that consciousness came first. There is the Creator—the One, which is the only true existence—and everything else is simply the appearance of not-Creator. This does not mean there are two opposing forces, or a cosmic battle between equals. It also does not mean there is such a thing as actual nothingness. The “1” here means the display of the Creator as something apparently “other,” not a real rival or a true void. This is the distinction: the binary is between what is, and what only appears to be.

 

... and that ^ is a manifestation of the two that came out of the one,  that came out of the Dao and ... dont forget you need to include  ... generated the three . 

 

In your theory , if the  '' ... “1” here means the display of the Creator '' , then I assume the Creator is the 0  ?   We have two things ; creator and the created . 

 

0  or Dao postulates a pre state to that . if the creator 'created'  they must have existed before the creation  ( as 1 'thing' ) and then created  OR creator and created ' generated ' together . - either way , they are potentials that came out of 0 . 

 

Let's say there was a 1 creator  ( which you seem to call 0 ? )  , first you would need to describe how that came into existence ... aside from void , 0  or Dao (according to your theory ). In any case there is a stage where we have 1 or 'creator' then creator creates  your ' 1 -  the display of the creator ( I am assuming you mean 'the creation,  ie the '10,000 things' ).  Now we have two things ( your 1 and 0 )

 

BUT that creates a third dynamic  that didnt exist 'before ' , now creator can observe know and be aware of creation , something that could  not have happened before the split into 0 and 1  ( minus 1  and positive 1  ... actually make that n⁺ and n^-  ) . So now the third principle comes into action, forming the basic primal 'ideal' ( not yet 'real' - physically manifested )  triad .

 

and from that comes the fourfold world of 'the real', the  'material' ,  forces and principles  - the 10,000 things .

 

Quote

So I'm literally saying these ideas about nothingness are mistaken perceptions of what the TTC is saying.

 

Literally ?  Well, is it actually about nothingness or the way 'heaven'  works ?

 

Quote

 

Once scholars accepted:

“You can’t use Dao as a method”,

 

Hang on , why should we accept that  ?  Do not all who proclaim to be Daoists  use a 'Daoist method' in their actions and beliefs ?  Ie they try to emulate the way of heaven / natural order . 

 

 

Quote

 

they then presume:
Therefore nothing causal is accessible at all”

At that point, “nothingness” becomes a safe presumption since it avoids prescription, it avoids responsibility, it avoids causal claims.

So I'm saying, this is literally just wrong.

 

Well ... you can say  that     ... but you might be wrong      

 

 

Quote

The same error shows up almost word-for-word in Advaita Vedanta. They take the same insight then make the same incorrect leap in assumptions.

 

I'll let 'one of those guys'  answer this for you . 

 

 

Quote

Specifically I'm talking about this Advaita Vedanta concept of there is "no-doer" of actions. But Advaita is dead wrong about this and also about the 'no-self' claim.

What I am saying is that there is a doer, you are a 'doer', but it is not the doer who makes anything happen. There is an intermediary, what I call 'the mirror'. This mirror is a go-between, it is what 'makegs things happen', and it can never be manipulated. Although, it can be influenced, but, only indirectly, and in very subtle ways that took me years to figure out.

I get that I introduced a bunch of new concepts but if I am to explain how I arrived at these conclusions, these other concepts need to be addressed. 

 

Tracking our originating information and interpretations that lead to  the arrival  conclusions is a way of  seeing the validity of those conclusions . .

 

if they are at fault , well ..... 

 

 

Quote

----------------------------------
edit: I read this back and felt this explanation about was probably confusing to people about 'no-doer' vs 'doer'. To simplify this. It's like, a computer programmer writes the code, but the CPU executes orders based on that code. So, you are the doer, it's just that, the doer emits signals, but does not directly control how those signals are converted into outcomes.

 

Quote

The mirror is what converts the signals into outcomes. The mirror can only be influenced via constraint compatible signals. This is why anybody who tries to understand reality gets so confused, because these constraints are very difficult to see.

Lao-Tzu literally wrote in chapter one: 

“These two arise from the same source but differ in name.

Together they are called obscure. Obscure upon obscure. The gateway of the many subtleties.”

 

Of course the 'two' are obscure as they pre-empt the 10,000 things . The 3 is also obscure as it resides 'above the abyss' in the ideal triangle that generates manifest realities .

 

Quote

-----------------------------------------

If people actually can list some chapters that they think are especially confusing or unclear, it would probably be pretty interesting for me to break those down and explain them, that way we can get on the same page, because, obviously this reply was very dense! 

I do appreciate the thoughts!

 

Its all in CH 42      

 

.

Edited Monday at 10:43 PM by Nungali

[Cobie]

 

59 minutes ago, Nungali said:

… when citing the  TTC you cant argue with what is written there 

 

What’s written there is:

 

道 生 一 

一 生 二 

二 生 三 

三 生 萬 物

 

(ch. 42   Henricks , MWD )

 

Your translation merely is one of many possible interpretations.

 

 

Edited Monday at 11:27 PM by Cobie

[ChiDragon]

17 hours ago, Peter Jennings said:

If Dao is “nothingness with potential,” then it already has properties.
If it has properties, it is not nothing.
Therefore the concept contradicts itself.

Rephrase:

If Dao is “invisible with potential,” then it already has properties.
If it has properties, it is not nothing.
Therefore the concept does not contradict itself.

 

 

17 hours ago, Peter Jennings said:

Logic is the foundation within which anything that does exist can exist. For example, something cannot exist and not exist at the same time. The creator must abide by logic. 

Logic also shows how this idea of "nothingness" is literally impossible. How can nothingness be anywhere? If you had something to point to, it wouldn't be nothing.

Good point. Very logical. I would replace the word "nothingness" to "invisible", then, there is no argument. Laotze had already defined Tao is either visible and invisible in Chapter One. It was the first thing that he pointed out before anything else.  If someone misread that, then, there is no need to go any further for the translation.  Sorry, the way it was written is very paradoxical. That was his style of thinking. He always say something negatively but ended up positive. No one can deny the authenticity of the TTC that was not written by him. Laotze was a wise man, a sage to be exact.

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Cobie said:

 

 

What’s written there is:

 

道 生 一 

一 生 二 

二 生 三 

三 生 萬 物

 

(ch. 42   Henricks , MWD )

 

Your translation merely is one of many possible interpretations.

 

 

 

Thats what I thought . 

 

My translation is , actually, what it is NOT ... it isnt just  zero , void .... nothingness'   

[Nungali]

48 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

Rephrase:

If Dao is “invisible with potential,” then it already has properties.
If it has properties, it is not nothing.
Therefore the concept does not contradict itself.

 

 

Good point. Very logical. I would replace the word "nothingness" to "invisible", then, there is no argument. Laotze had already defined Tao is either visible and invisible in Chapter One.

 

 

... line  6  and 8       

 

48 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

 

 

It was the first thing that he pointed out before anything else.  If someone misread that, then, there is no need to go any further for the translation.  Sorry, the way it was written is very paradoxical. That was his style of thinking. He always say something negatively but ended up positive. No one can deny the authenticity of the TTC that was not written by him. Laotze was a wise man, a sage to be exact.

 

[Peter Jennings]

18 hours ago, 29Gathering said:

There are others enlightened by chatbots. I haven't seen anything interesting come from someone using large language models in these topics. Random books, Reddit and other forums that chatbots use to make up their ideas are rarely high quality even on their own and a chatbot is mixing all kinds of posts together.

Hi, not sure what you're talking about. I'm not using chatbots to understanding anything. I have my own framework, then it just happened to be the case that TTC happened to align with what I already discovered as true.  I don''t think you read or understood at all what I was saying.

[Peter Jennings]

14 hours ago, cake1234566 said:

(I say this not to argue for the sake of it but to hopefully help you out as you seem to be a bit confused)

The question is, which logic must reality be bound by?
Laozi and daoism as a whole follows the logic of the trees and birds
The idea is that logic doesn't bind anything, if you realize an inconsistency, then its the logic that you've created which is incorrect, the birds and trees will not stop existing

 

Logic in daoism doesn't bind reality, but nature binds logic 

Everything created naturally brings its opposite into existence, you can say the creator is dao, dao must then contain dao and not dao or it isn't the one you claim is the prime creator

Daoist metaphysics are not binary, they are non-dual and are fundamentally incompatible with the philosophy you describe

That isn't to say you can't learn something or use it to expand your horizons, but you will always disagree with it fundamentally unless the presumption of a binary reality is abandoned

These aren't errors or things that laozi or other eastern philosophers weren't exposed to, these philosophers explicitly reject scientific rationalism

You make the same mistaken contradictions I have already detailed that TTC scholars repeatedly make in their misunderstanding. 

You didn’t actually engage with any points I made. You labeled it as if I have fallen into some sort of “beginner’s trap,” and assumed I don’t understand anything and implied I’m outsourcing my thinking to AI which is 100% wrong.

As I've said, I can explain it all because I came to these concusions on my own, then just found later that TTC fit the same system I discovered.

If you'd like to have an exchange of information, let's do that.

I don't have time now to reply to all the others, I will get back to them in the future, have a nice night.

[29Gathering]

One thing to know is that Tzu(or more modern spelling zi) is not a surname, but just part of the name.