This is exactly why people do not understand Taoism, because the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.
So either you 'get' it, or you don't.
This is exactly why people do not understand Taoism, because the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.
I think this implies a seeing beneath the surface, a deeper knowing. The same theme runs through the Upanishads, in relation to Brahman.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 12:15 pm The name that is named is not the eternal name. Yet these two, the named and the unnamed, are the same in source, They are different in their name. Their sameness, their source, is a secret. That source is the secret of all secrets. That secret is the door to all mysteries.
I think what is going on is a little bit more complicated than just not naming things, just not conceptualizing. The conceptual and the non-conceptual have a secret sameness that is a mystery, the Great Non-Dual MacGuffin.
I think the mystery in the Daodejing is important and deliberate.
Exactly. It is just the experience of being completely in tune with the current moment, which is an experience. And this being in tune with the moment is Nibbana, so the path can be explained, but not Nibbana or Tao as such. Basically taoism sees any word or concept as just that, and this is exactly what dependent origination also explains, although in more detail. Taoism doesn't need this explanation, 'they' know that thoughts and words are just thoughts and words.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 12:15 pm The name that is named is not the eternal name. Yet these two, the named and the unnamed, are the same in source, They are different in their name. Their sameness, their source, is a secret. That source is the secret of all secrets. That secret is the door to all mysteries.
I see where you're coming from, perhaps. A general line of "The moment you explain the Dao, you haven't explained the Dao." (?)
There is just no explanation of the intellectual process, which is not needed if one gets it. If one needs this explanation, one needs Buddhism.IMO what is going on is a little bit more complicated than just not naming things, just not conceptualizing. The conceptual and the non-conceptual have a secret sameness that is a mystery, the Great Non-Dual MacGuffin.
I think the mystery in the Daodejing is important and deliberate.
So according to you, both the Tao and Nibbana are being in tune with the current moment? Really?PeterC86 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 12:27 pmExactly. It is just the experience of being completely in tune with the current moment, which is an experience. And this being in tune with the moment is Nibbana, so the path can be explained, but not Nibbana or Tao as such. Basically taoism sees any word or concept as just that, and this is exactly what dependent origination also explains, although in more detail. Taoism doesn't need this explanation, 'they' know that thoughts and words are just thoughts and words.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 12:15 pm The name that is named is not the eternal name. Yet these two, the named and the unnamed, are the same in source, They are different in their name. Their sameness, their source, is a secret. That source is the secret of all secrets. That secret is the door to all mysteries.
I see where you're coming from, perhaps. A general line of "The moment you explain the Dao, you haven't explained the Dao." (?)There is just no explanation of the intellectual process, which is not needed if one gets it. If one needs this explanation, one needs Buddhism.IMO what is going on is a little bit more complicated than just not naming things, just not conceptualizing. The conceptual and the non-conceptual have a secret sameness that is a mystery, the Great Non-Dual MacGuffin.
I think the mystery in the Daodejing is important and deliberate.
Apparently you don't get it (please don't take this personally), but I can offer you this; viewtopic.php?f=16&t=33773&start=270#p546682Dinsdale wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 12:41 pmSo according to you, both the Tao and Nibbana are being in tune with the current moment? Really?PeterC86 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 12:27 pmExactly. It is just the experience of being completely in tune with the current moment, which is an experience. And this being in tune with the moment is Nibbana, so the path can be explained, but not Nibbana or Tao as such. Basically taoism sees any word or concept as just that, and this is exactly what dependent origination also explains, although in more detail. Taoism doesn't need this explanation, 'they' know that thoughts and words are just thoughts and words.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 12:15 pm The name that is named is not the eternal name. Yet these two, the named and the unnamed, are the same in source, They are different in their name. Their sameness, their source, is a secret. That source is the secret of all secrets. That secret is the door to all mysteries.
I see where you're coming from, perhaps. A general line of "The moment you explain the Dao, you haven't explained the Dao." (?)There is just no explanation of the intellectual process, which is not needed if one gets it. If one needs this explanation, one needs Buddhism.IMO what is going on is a little bit more complicated than just not naming things, just not conceptualizing. The conceptual and the non-conceptual have a secret sameness that is a mystery, the Great Non-Dual MacGuffin.
I think the mystery in the Daodejing is important and deliberate.
Could you back up this claim with some Buddhist and Taoist texts?
PeterC86 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 1:26 pmApparently you don't get it (please don't take this personally), but I can offer you this; viewtopic.php?f=16&t=33773&start=270#p546682Dinsdale wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 12:41 pmSo according to you, both the Tao and Nibbana are being in tune with the current moment? Really?PeterC86 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 12:27 pm
Exactly. It is just the experience of being completely in tune with the current moment, which is an experience. And this being in tune with the moment is Nibbana, so the path can be explained, but not Nibbana or Tao as such. Basically taoism sees any word or concept as just that, and this is exactly what dependent origination also explains, although in more detail. Taoism doesn't need this explanation, 'they' know that thoughts and words are just thoughts and words.
There is just no explanation of the intellectual process, which is not needed if one gets it. If one needs this explanation, one needs Buddhism.
Could you back up this claim with some Buddhist and Taoist texts?
Continue the next 2 sentences.freedom wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 2:27 am Here is the original in Chinese for the first two sentences
道 可 道 非 常 道
名 可 名 非 常 名
A Tao(道) that can be (可) a Tao (道) is not (非) an eternal (常) Tao (道)
A Name(名) that can be (可) a Name (名) is not (非) an eternal (常) Name (名)
This means if something exists as a "Tao" then it cannot be eternally as that same "Tao" without changing. Similarly, if something exists as a "Name" then it cannot be that "Name" forever. Why? Because the impermanence of all things. If something exists then it must change and cannot be the same forever. This is talking about the law of impermanence. That's how I understand.
The "named" and the "eternal Dao" are one and the same. The mystery and the surfaces are one and the same similarly. The passionate and the dispassionate are one and the same.The always present name is like a child who has not yet spoken,
like an egg not yet opened,
like the bright pearl in the clam,
and like beautiful jade in the centre of a stone.
Although inside it is bright and shining,
its outside is stupid and dull.
I think you are referring to the last sentences:Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 11:03 pm One layer of meaning that might add context: 天地 means "heaven and earth" and is a Chinese euphemism for "everything." 萬物 means "10,000 things" and is a Chinese euphemism for "all things."
Reading so, we can read:
Without a name, is it the wellspring of everything.
With a name, it is the mother of everything.
They are two equivalent statements consisting of two differently worded "everythings," hence why their sameness is the mystery of all mysteries, the door to all secrets.
The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.freedom wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 10:54 pmContinue the next 2 sentences.freedom wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 2:27 am Here is the original in Chinese for the first two sentences
道 可 道 非 常 道
名 可 名 非 常 名
A Tao(道) that can be (可) a Tao (道) is not (非) an eternal (常) Tao (道)
A Name(名) that can be (可) a Name (名) is not (非) an eternal (常) Name (名)
This means if something exists as a "Tao" then it cannot be eternally as that same "Tao" without changing. Similarly, if something exists as a "Name" then it cannot be that "Name" forever. Why? Because the impermanence of all things. If something exists then it must change and cannot be the same forever. This is talking about the law of impermanence. That's how I understand.
無 名 天 地 之 始
有 名 萬 物 之 母
Since I am not Chinese and do not know much Chinese. I looked up these words:
無 = No, Not
名 = Name
天 = Heaven
地 = Earth
之 = Of, Is
始 = origin, beginning
有 = Have
萬 物 = ten thousands things, all things
母 = Mother
Therefore, I can understand the 2 sentences as:
(Having) No name is the origin of heaven and earth
Having name is the mother of ten thousands things
The first 2 sentences in chapter 1 is about the law of impermanence. This next 2 sentences is describing the operation of that law.
Heaven represents yang, Earth represents yin. Yin and Yang are important concepts in Daoism. All things comes from yin and yang. In other words, yin and yang is everything that exists (at least from Daoism).
The first sentence is talking about the origin of this yin and yang which are the source of ten thousands things. Before it is called heaven (yang), it had no name. Before it is called earth (yin), it had no name. Therefore, both had no name from the beginning. Since both had no name, we cannot identify them at that time. In other words, thing that exists cannot be identified before it exists. However, this does not mean that it comes from nothingness.
We called this liquid (that I have in my cup) as "water". "Water" is the name for that thing. However, there is no "water" without Hydrogen and Oxygen. We cannot find "water" without Hydrogen or Oxygen. Therefore, before "water" exists, we could not identify "water" by itself anywhere. What we had was Hydrogen and Oxygen. Not "water" by itself. However, this does not mean that "water" comes from nothingness. It is from Hydrogen and Oxygen.
Before it is called "water", we cannot identify "water" anywhere. Moreover, water does not come from nothingness. In fact, "water" comes from "not water".
So, the "have" is from the "not having". Or, "not having" is the source of "having". Since "having" something is about existence. What exists must change by the law of impermanence. Therefore, "having" must change to "not having". What we get will eventually go away. What we called a car will eventually no longer called a car. Maybe a dump of steels? Garbage?
The "car" is gone, but it does not simply disappear in thin air without trace. It is now a dump of steels, plastics, broken tires... It is the mother of all those (ten thousands things: steels, plastics, broken tires...).
The law of impermanence is also the law of conservation. Things does not magically disappear or create in thin air. It is changing from this state to other states. That is the operation of the law of impermanence and the law of conservation.
Of course, this is just one of many different interpretations of this difficult and extremely condensed text.
The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 11:03 pm One layer of meaning that might add context: 天地 means "heaven and earth" and is a Chinese euphemism for "everything." 萬物 means "10,000 things" and is a Chinese euphemism for "all things."
Reading so, we can read:
Without a name, is it the wellspring of everything.
With a name, it is the mother of everything.
They are two equivalent statements consisting of two differently worded "everythings," hence why their sameness is the mystery of all mysteries, the door to all secrets.
This is elaborated in the Héshàng Gōng (~200AD), a "commentary" to the Dàodéjīng named after its author. I say "commentary" because it's not at all the sort of "commentarial" text that seeks to expand the original in the sense of analyzing the source text with quotations and comments on them. Instead, it is like a deep meditation on the themes of each chapter.The "named" and the "eternal Dao" are one and the same. The mystery and the surfaces are one and the same similarly. The passionate and the dispassionate are one and the same.The always present name is like a child who has not yet spoken,
like an egg not yet opened,
like the bright pearl in the clam,
and like beautiful jade in the centre of a stone.
Although inside it is bright and shining,
its outside is stupid and dull.
The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 1:21 am Of course.
The thing is, we're talking something deeper than simple non-conceptuality and mere non-dualism. The named and the unnamed, the walk trod and the unwalked way, the passionate and the dispassionate, the conceptual and the non-conceptual, the dual and the non-dual, are one and the same. Their sameness is a mystery, etc., etc., ad infinitum.