| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Stigweard
Australia
81 Posts |
 Posted - 07/09/2010 : 10:16:52 PM
|
The answer is, "Yes".
Buddhism describes "essence" as:
an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature.
Bodhisattvayogacary#257;catu#7717;#347;ataka#7789;ik#257; 256.1.7
In the Daodejing it quite explicitly states:
Ch 25
Before Heaven and Earth are born,
there is something formless
and complete in itself.
Impalpable and everlasting,
silent and undisturbed,
standing alone and unchanging,
it exercises itself gently,
and generates itself inexhaustively
in all dimensions.
Ni Hua-Ching
According to Taoist ontology, following the spontaneous manifestation into Yin and Yang, the rest of universal creation came about through a process of change exactly in the same manner as the Buddhist dependent origination. However, if dependent origination is the ultimate reality or the fundamental causation of all things, then Dao would have to be originated by something else.
Now here is a mystery for us. Later in Ch 25 it says:
Thus, in the natural flow of the energy transformation,
human life becomes one of the four great expressions
of the subtle essence of the universe.
It is the way of universal subtle integration.
Humankind conforms to Earth.
Earth conforms to the sky.
The sky conforms to the Subtle Origin.
All good so far, we can see a quite logical flow of dependent origination. Humans have to follow the seasons of the Earth and it's biological reality. Earth follows the patterns of the cosmos and the cosmos follows the harmonious patterning of Tao.
But then we have:
The Subtle Origin conforms to its own nature.
So Tao is dependently originated from Tao. It is self-perpetuating like the Ouroboros snake swallowing it's own tail. How is this possible?
;) |
|
|
jimclatfelter
USA
1026 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2010 : 10:43:50 AM
|
So Tao is dependently originated from Tao. It is self-perpetuating like the Ouroboros snake swallowing it's own tail. How is this possible?
Are you asking "If Dao made the universe, what made Dao?"
My answer is that Dao didn't make the universe. Dao is the universe. The "subtle origin" is now, present tense.
For me it's about seeing the "impalpable and everlasting, silent and undisturbed, standing alone and unchanging" in present tense, first person life. None of this is about the past. It's not a creation theory.
Jim
|
 |
|
|
Steve
USA
575 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2010 : 11:17:10 AM
|
Some information is withheld from ordinary consciousness because were it present in the foreground it would interfere with the human need to eat, sleep, struggle, perfect things, anguish over things, procreate, etc. "Original source" information (e.g., where did dao come from) is, I believe, included in this category. I could not "know" it and be fully human in the same moment.
In Chapter One, Laozi references (without defining) mystery that can be sensed when I am emptied of all desire, including the desire to sense mystery. He doesn't dwell on it, but he recognizes it--this human ability to experience the sublime.
All imo, of course.
(Nice to see you again, Stig.)
|
|
|
|
ChiDragon
USA
2863 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2010 : 12:28:07 PM
|
Does Tao really exist or it just an imaginary figure created by an individual with high wisdom....???
This imaginary creation was prior and above all, even the universe. Hence, Tao is independent and just follows its own natural self. Another word, self-perpetuating, Tao's reaction is the result from its own action. Since Tao was an created image, LaoTze can say anything about it and he can get away with it......
-----------------------------
CD speaks doesn't know.
TTC knows doesn't speak. |
|
|
|
lienshan
Denmark
655 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2010 : 2:07:31 PM
|
Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?
The answer is, "No".
Tao is a name.
|
|
|
|
Nina
USA
6392 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2010 : 5:45:32 PM
|
Hi Stig-
Just a suggestion......
You said: "In the Daodejing it quite explicitly states:"
Then you quoted Hua-Ching Ni.
Hua-Ching Ni's "translation" of the DDJ is based on his theory of "The Integral Way", so it's filled with lots of his own ideas based on that.
Yes, "Daoist" ontology is closely linked to Creation Theory. And the Buddhists have their own spin on that too.
If you want to find a bit more about how the DDJ dealt with the question: "When Did Dao Begin?" you might check out DDJ 4.
Dao is constantly emptying itself, and those who find it useful are without a need to be filled up.
It's as bottomless as an abyss!
It began before any living cell.
It smoothes down sharp edges.
It unties what's tangled.
It softens the harsh glare.
It settles the dust.
It's unfathomable!
Perhaps it began before anything was created.
We don't have any idea whose child it could be.
It seems to have preceded the first concept of existence.
(My translation)
Nice responses from everyone here! 
|
|
|
|
Stigweard
Australia
81 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2010 : 11:46:19 PM
|
Thanks for the discussion :D
To summarize where this is leading my awareness, we have the emergence of Tao as a Universal principle or law, from or upon which the nature of the Universe and its changes are expressed.
An analogy, however insufficient, could be the way sound will make patterns in sand:
The patterning of the sand originates from the sound waves, so in this sense the sand patterns are the physical expression of the Tao of the music. But as I said this isn’t completely sufficient because the sound waves are dependent on the composer etc. etc. However it does provide insight into this mystery.
So let’s turn to the text again:
Humankind conforms to Earth.
Earth conforms to the sky.
The sky conforms to the Subtle Origin.
The Subtle Origin conforms to its own nature.
So the distinctions we know as Heaven, Earth, and Humanity arose because that was the natural response to the Universal harmonic principle we know as Tao. Tao must then have “preceded” Heaven and Earth for the Universe to manifest as Heaven and Earth in the way they have.
To link to some classic Taoist principles, this harmonic patterning of the Universe has been expressed in the Ten Celestial Stems and Twelve Terrestrial Branches:
So this is how Taoists of old observed the “sand patterning” of Universal substance as it expresses the harmonic resonance of Tao.
The question is then: Can this principle of universal harmonic resonance fulfill these requirements as stated in the opening stanza of Ch 25?
- Formless
- Complete in itself
- Impalpable and everlasting
- Silent and undisturbed
- Standing alone and unchanging
|
Edited by - Stigweard on 07/10/2010 11:47:06 PM |
|
|
|
lienshan
Denmark
655 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2010 : 03:50:42 AM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Stigweard[/i]
The Subtle Origin conforms to its own nature.
So Tao is dependently originated from Tao. It is self-perpetuating like the Ouroboros snake swallowing it's own tail. How is this possible?
You find the answer to your question hidden in the Guodian version of chapter 25.
14: you3 zhuang4 hun4 cheng2 xian1 tian1 di4 sheng1 ji4 liao2 du2 li4 bu4 gai3
14: ke3 yi3 wei2 tian1 xia4 mu3 wei4 zhi1 qi2 ming2 zi4 zhi1 yue1 dao4
7: wu2 qiang2 wei2 zhi1 ming2 yue1 da4
6: da4 yue1 kui4 kui4 yue1 yuan3
7: yuan3 yue1 fan3 tian1 da4 di4 da4
14: dao4 da4 wang2 yi4 da4 guo2 zhong1 you3 si4 da4 yan1 wang2 ju1 yi1
14: yan1 ren2 fa3 di4 di4 fa3 tian1 tian1 fa3 dao4 dao4 fa3 zi4 ran2
The symmetrical division of the chapter creates two sentences of keywords:
you3 ke3 wu2 da4 yuan3 dao4 yan1 (the 7 preceeding characters)
gai3 dao4 da4 yuan3 da4 yi1 ran2 (the 7 ending characters)
Existence named great nonexistence, far away is Dao indeed
To better Dao great, far away is big one nature |
Edited by - lienshan on 07/11/2010 03:54:08 AM |
|
|
|
ChiDragon
USA
2863 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2010 : 09:03:44 AM
|
To link to some classic Taoist principles, this harmonic patterning of the Universe has been expressed in the Ten Celestial Stems and Twelve Terrestrial Branches:
The so-called "Taoist principles" actually came from the Yi Jing. Everybody uses these principles, not just the Taoists, I don't think the Taoist should take credit of these principles.
-----------------------------
CD speaks doesn't know.
TTC knows doesn't speak. |
|
|
|
gar
45 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 6:37:57 PM
|
Greetings all,
Perhaps, as in the TOE, theory of everything, essence is a thing and a no-thing and the observer defines it.
in peace,
gar |
|
|
|
Stigweard
Australia
81 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2010 : 3:46:40 PM
|
Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?
I initially said "Yes" to stimulate the discussion, and I thank all for getting stuck into it :)
But what this discussion, here and elsewhere, has yielded is the realization that, just as Laozi has written, it is impossible to provide a definitive "Yes" or "No" to this question.
On one hand then "Yes" Tao is an ontological essence because Tao, being the way in which nature patterns and expresses itself, exists as a universal principle or law "before" Heaven and Earth arose. And also, as the subtle universal law, Tao does meet Laozi's terms:
Ch 25
Before Heaven and Earth are born,
there is something formless
and complete in itself.
Impalpable and everlasting,
silent and undisturbed,
standing alone and unchanging,
it exercises itself gently,
and generates itself inexhaustively
in all dimensions.
But, on the other hand, "No" Tao is not an ontological essence because the subtle universal law is not a "thing" that in any way shape or form can be regarded as a concrete entity. We have also seen that Tao is not necessarily a point of origin with creation flowing out from there in conventional linear terms because the subtle law is ever present with Heaven, Earth, and Humanity ever evolving according to the harmonic nature of Tao.
Other important realizations made here is that the Shengren's path is one of being "free in Tao" in the sense of being "awake" to the "true" nature of Heaven, Earth, Humanity and Tao. Rather than causing needless suffering by living "out-of-phase" with Universal nature, the path of Tao is one of perpetual attunement to the natural emanations of life and, by doing so, live according to the essence of Universal reality. |
|
|
|
Nina
USA
6392 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2010 : 6:35:43 PM
|
Hi Stig-
I don't know if you even read the responses you got here. You don't address them, but seem to want to use this as a place where you can post "blogs". You post the exact same messages at TH, where I guess it's okay since you're a moderator there.
One thing I don't tolerate here is spam. This is a discussion forum, not a place for people to promote their own agendas without giving any consideration at all to the responses they get.
Get my point?
|
|
|
|
gar
45 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2010 : 6:52:51 PM
|
Greetings Stigweard,
It seems to me that if one resonates with chi, the way of Tao combined with the perception of randomness, the path is taken in stride.
in peace,
gar |
|
|
|
Stigweard
Australia
81 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2010 : 11:44:52 PM
|
Interesting comment Nina.
You are right, I haven't "directly" addressed the comments made to the topic. Admittedly my main home is over at The Tao Bums, however, when I have a topic at hand that I need more views on, I certainly like to cast a wider net to get the benefit of differing views. So, contrary to your quite rude assumption that I am spamming, I posted here because I have sincere respect for the members of this forum and wished to learn from their responses. I have done the same at the Tea House and Facebook Taoist Forum.
If you read my subsequent posts you would see that I have very much incorporated a few of the views presented, and I give grateful mention to jimclatfelter and Steve. My only 'agenda' was to bounce some ideas of the good folks here and to progress my own understanding.
Warm Regards :) |
|
|
|
Nina
USA
6392 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 5:08:37 PM
|
Hi Stig-
I'm sorry if you thought what I said to you was rude, but if you post the exact same thing on 4 different internet forums...... that's defined as spam in my understanding.
I looked through your posts in this thread, and didn't find any "grateful mention to jimclatfelter and Steve". Maybe I missed it?
I think the people who post here put a lot of thought into what they write, interact with others who respond, and don't copy and paste what they write into other forums.
I guess you don't get my point.
But....... thanks for taking the time to compose a message responding to me.
|
|
|
|
ChiDragon
USA
2863 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 12:56:07 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stigweard
Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?
I initially said "Yes" to stimulate the discussion, and I thank all for getting stuck into it :)
But what this discussion, here and elsewhere, has yielded is the realization that, just as Laozi has written, it is impossible to provide a definitive "Yes" or "No" to this question.
On one hand then "Yes" Tao is an ontological essence because Tao, being the way in which nature patterns and expresses itself, exists as a universal principle or law "before" Heaven and Earth arose. And also, as the subtle universal law, Tao does meet Laozi's terms:
Ch 25
Before Heaven and Earth are born,
there is something formless
and complete in itself.
Impalpable and everlasting,
silent and undisturbed,
standing alone and unchanging,
it exercises itself gently,
and generates itself inexhaustively
in all dimensions.
But, on the other hand, "No" Tao is not an ontological essence because the subtle universal law is not a "thing" that in any way shape or form can be regarded as a concrete entity. We have also seen that Tao is not necessarily a point of origin with creation flowing out from there in conventional linear terms because the subtle law is ever present with Heaven, Earth, and Humanity ever evolving according to the harmonic nature of Tao.
Other important realizations made here is that the Shengren's path is one of being "free in Tao" in the sense of being "awake" to the "true" nature of Heaven, Earth, Humanity and Tao. Rather than causing needless suffering by living "out-of-phase" with Universal nature, the path of Tao is one of perpetual attunement to the natural emanations of life and, by doing so, live according to the essence of Universal reality.
Stigweard.......
But what this discussion, here and elsewhere, has yielded is the realization that, just as Laozi has written, it is impossible to provide a definitive "Yes" or "No" to this question.
It is impossible to provide a definitive "Yes" or "No" to this question not by just as LaoTze has written; rather it is the way that was interpreted from the mistranslations by many. One cannot come to a conclusion just from one chapter, Chapter 25. I see that there are more chapters which are related to this subject. Hence, I can conclude that the answer is definitely a 'yes' to the question of interest.
Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?
Yes, I can said that Tao is an Ontological Essence of all things by LaoTze's definition......
-----------------------------
CD speaks doesn't know.
TTC knows doesn't speak. |
Edited by - ChiDragon on 07/23/2010 01:00:24 AM |
|
|
|
ChiDragon
USA
2863 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 10:32:34 AM
|
Tao is an Ontological Essence of all things by LaoTze's definition in the following chapters.
Chapter 25
1. 有物混æˆ
2. 先天地生。
1. There was a thing blended together,
2. Before the heaven and earth were born;
Chapter 1
3. 無，å天地之始﹔
4. 有，åè¬ç‰©ä¹‹æ¯ã€‚
3. Invisible(Wu2) was the name given to Tao at the origin of heaven and earth.
4. Visible(You3) was the name given to Tao as the mother of all things.
Chapter 40
3. 天下è¬ç‰©ç”Ÿæ–¼æœ‰ï¼Œ
4. 有生於無。
3. All things in the world came from You3.
4. You came from Wu2.
Note:
1. 有(You3): have; existed; visible; tangible.
2. ç„¡(Wu2): none; nothingness; invisible; intangible.
Chapter 4
1. é“沖而用之或ä¸ç›ˆã€‚
2. 淵兮似è¬ç‰©ä¹‹å®—。
1. Tao is vacuous and its function is inexhaustible.
2. Abyss, alas, it seems like the ancestry of all things.
Chapter 42
1. é“生一。
2. 一生二。
3. 二生三。
4. 三生è¬ç‰©ã€‚
1. Tao engenders One;
2. One engenders Two;
3. Two engender Three;
4. Three engender all things.
-----------------------------
CD speaks doesn't know.
TTC knows doesn't speak. |
|
|
|
ChiDragon
USA
2863 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 4:22:03 PM
|
So, what is all these mean if we put them altogether....???
There was this thing formed by blending together before heaven and earth were born. We don't know what is its name. So, let's call it Tao. At the origin of the universe, Tao was formless, let's call it Invisible(Wu2). When all things become into existence, Tao manifested, let's call it Visible(You3). Therefore, You3 came from Wu2(visible from invisible). Since all things came from Tao, thus Tao is the mother of all things.
Tao is vacuous and it has high potential of creativity with inexhaustible power. Tao engenders One; One engenders Two; Two engender Three; Three engender all things. Hence, it seems like the ancestry of all things.
-----------------------------
CD speaks doesn't know.
TTC knows doesn't speak. |
|
|
|
david
USA
1398 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 10:03:25 PM
|
| I am coming in way tooooo late and don't have the patience to ponder all posts... but there is a difference [of the same] between a principle and it's resulting pattern... like the difference between Wu Ji and Tai Ji... wu and you, etc. |
|
|
|
Stigweard
Australia
81 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 11:33:35 PM
|
@ChiDragon: Groovy groovy :) Thanks for exploring further. So the snake bites its tail once again.
OK so if ç„¡ Wu or nothingness is the "nature" of Tao then can a no-thing be an essence?
Excuse my love for word-smithing, but lets look at the "essence" of essence. Etymologically essence means "basic element of anything", that there is some sort of "beingness" at the core of the subject at hand.
For example, Christians have God, a prime being, as the Ontological Essence of their religion.
But Tao is at its origin Wu, non-being.
So Tao is more of a principle or way in which beingness manifests.
Now linking to David, is there a difference between the formless principle of beingness and beingness? I would say "No" because Tao is ever-present; beingness is ever-evolving and it's phase-changing is consistent with the principle that brought to its current evolution. In other words, the principle that determined Heaven and Earth is the same principle that current beingness is evolving into the next phase of beingness. This is best represented by this image:
|
Edited by - Stigweard on 07/23/2010 11:38:52 PM |
|
|
|
ChiDragon
USA
2863 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2010 : 09:18:50 AM
|
OK so if ç„¡ Wu or nothingness is the "nature" of Tao then can a no-thing be an essence?
Stigweard.....
ç„¡(Wu) or nothingness is not the "nature" of Tao. LaoTze defined well in Chapter 1. By the character itself, it means "nothingness" as an ordinary daily definition. Hence, lots of people took it for granted as "nothingness" to interpret the DDJ. However, LaoTze did not mean it that way. He just borrowed this character to say that Tao was being invisible at the time before or at the origin of the heaven and earth. It just meant "INVISIBLE". Period.
Chapter 1
3. 無，å天地之始﹔
4. 有，åè¬ç‰©ä¹‹æ¯ã€‚
3. Invisible(Wu2) was the name given to Tao at the origin of heaven and earth.
4. Visible(You3) was the name given to Tao as the mother of all things.
Tao is "invisible" at the beginning of heaven and earth. He did not mean Tao is "nothingness". I repeat, Wu means Tao is 'INVISIBLE' or 'INTANGIBLE' at the origin of heaven and earth. Tao is not and never will be "nothingness" in the DDJ as defined by LoaTze. It was just being invisible.
-----------------------------
CD speaks doesn't know.
TTC knows doesn't speak. |
Edited by - ChiDragon on 07/24/2010 09:26:10 AM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?
