October 2019 – Thinking Accurately Education

Let’s talk (some more) about the Tao

Tao Te Ching

1. The things which from of old have got the One (the Tao) are–
Heaven which by it is bright and pure;
Earth rendered thereby firm and sure;
Spirits with powers by it supplied;
Valleys kept full throughout their void
All creatures which through it do live
Princes and kings who from it get
The model which to all they give. All these are the results of the One (Tao).
2. If heaven were not thus pure, it soon would rend;
If earth were not thus sure, ‘twould break and bend;
Without these powers, the spirits soon would fail;
If not so filled, the drought would parch each vale;
Without that life, creatures would pass away;
Princes and kings, without that moral sway,
However grand and high, would all decay.

3. Thus it is that dignity finds its (firm) root in its (previous) meanness, and what is lofty finds its stability in the lowness (from which it rises). Hence princes and kings call themselves ‘Orphans,’ ‘Men of small virtue,’ and as ‘Carriages without a nave.’ Is not this an acknowledgment that in their considering themselves mean they see the foundation of their dignity? So it is that in the enumeration of the different parts of a carriage we do not come on what makes it answer the ends of a carriage. They do not wish to show themselves elegant-looking as jade, but (prefer) to be coarse-looking as an (ordinary) stone.
Chapter 39

There is, I think, something about the Tao that is quite appealing. But, the Tao Te Ching is more a book about wisdom (and ethics?) than about the things we have been thinking about.

Let me ask you a question. Can a system of ethics (and/or wisdom) be disconnected from its epistemological/ontological/cosmological underpinnings?

I would say yes–if you give up its claims to authority.

In other words, when the Tao Te Ching contains a proposition that you personally dislike, you are free to discount it, to ignore it, to skip it.

1. Not to value and employ men of superior ability is the way to keep the people from rivalry among themselves; not to prize articles which are difficult to procure is the way to keep them from becoming thieves; not to show them what is likely to excite their desires is the way to keep their minds from disorder.
2. Therefore the sage, in the exercise of his government, empties their minds, fills their bellies, weakens their wills, and strengthens their bones.
3. He constantly (tries to) keep them without knowledge and without desire, and where there are those who have knowledge, to keep them from presuming to act (on it). When there is this abstinence from action, good order is universal.
Chapter 3

Hmmm…

But, let’s be honest, there’s still something strangely intriguing imbedded in there–some inherent wisdom that’s worth further investigation.

I started my research by looking at a timeline of Chinese history.

Then, I went to Britannica.com, and found that the Tao Te Ching first appeared in the 6th century, B.C. That would have been during the Zhou dynasty (1045-256 B.C.), which conquered the prior Shang dynasty (1556-1046 B.C.). Although much of ancient Chinese history seems to lapse into legend, it appears that the Shang dynasty was preceded by the Xia dynasty (2100-1600 B.C.). I wondered, What were the beliefs of ancient Chinese people before the Tao Te Ching?

After much research, I found this:

“Laozi doesn’t invent the conception of ‘Tao.’ More than two thousand years before Laozi’s Tao Teh Ching, ‘Tao’ appeared in I Ching (Yi Jing), the Book of Changes.”
Xuan Weng, in “BRIDGING CULTURES IN A THIRD SPACE: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY OF TEACHING CHINESE IN AMERICAN CHINESE SCHOOLS,” Graduate School of the University of Maryland – College Park, 2010

Further study finds this by Richard Wilhelm: “The Book of Changes — I Ching in Chinese — is unquestionably one of the most important books in the world’s literature.”

I don’t profess to be as knowledgeable as Richard Wilhelm, but let’s look into this a little bit more together.

One site says: “When you consult the I Ching, you build up a hexagram line by line according to the results of coin tosses or one of the other methods, such as sorting yarrow sticks or pulling marbles from a bag. All the translations will tell you how this works – it’s absurdly simple. And so you are pointed to a particular collection of texts – and, if one or more of your six lines is in the process of changing from solid to broken or vice versa, then there are also line texts to read, and the second hexagram that’s formed after the lines have changed. A hexagram isn’t just a convenient chapter heading – it’s also a very simple, elegant picture of how the energy is flowing through the situation.”

Another site says: “A more modern method uses a series of coin tosses using three identical coins (copper pennies will work) with an identifiable heads and tails. In each case, the process is done six times, with each outcome producing one line of the hexagram.”

Hmmm…

Interestingly, though, we also find this: “Centered on yin and yang (and represented through the straight and broken lines in hexagrams), the Yijing is one of the main sources of Chinese cosmology.”

And this: “The texts that explain the meanings of the hexagrams describe the particular Cosmic Principles of Harmony associated with them. They set the standard by which we need to examine our ideas and beliefs regarding the hexagram subject. “

So, it is not the 64 hexagrams of the I Ching themselves but the texts, and the various translations of the texts associated with them that interpret them that we should be focusing on?

“The first hexagram is made up of six unbroken lines. These unbroken lines stand for the primal power, which is light-giving, active, strong, and of the spirit. The hexagram is consistently strong in character, and since it is without weakness, its essence is power or energy. Its image is heaven. Its energy is represented as unrestricted by any fixed conditions in space and is therefore conceived of as motion.”
Richard Wilhelm Translation of text of I Ching, 1950

Hmmm…

I looked further, and found the 1899 translation by someone named James Legge, which referred to the 3rd volume of the Sacred Books of the East (“Shu King,””Shih King,” and “Hsaio King”) and some comments that he had made in the preface there. So, finding that book online, I looked it up.

This is what I found: “The version of the Shû that appears in this volume is substantially the same as that in the third volume of my large edition of the Chinese Classics, and which was published in 1865. I wrote out the whole afresh, however, having before me not only my own version, but the earlier translations of P. Gaubil in French and Dr. Medhurst in English. Frequent reference was made likewise to a larger apparatus of native commentaries than I had formerly used. Going to the text anew, after more than twelve years devoted mainly to the continuous study of the Chinese classics, I yet hardly discovered any errors which it was necessary to correct. A few verbal alterations were made to make the meaning clearer. Only in one case will a reader, familiar with the former version, be struck with any alteration in this. The Chinese character 帝 (Tî), applied repeatedly to the ancient Yâo and Shun in the commencing books of the classic, and once in the 27th Book of the fifth Part, was there translated by ’emperor,’ while it is left untranslated in the present volume, and its name transferred to the English text.

Before adopting this change, I had considered whether I ought to translate Tî in all other instances of its occurrence in the Shû (and invariably in the Shih), and its intensified form Shang Tî (上帝), by our term ‘God.’ Gaubil rendered Tî for the most part by ‘le Seigneur,’ and Shang Tî by ‘le Souverain Maître,’ adding sometimes to these names Tî and Shang Tî in brackets. Medhurst translated Tî by ‘the Supreme,’ and ‘the Supreme Ruler,’ and Shang Tî by ‘the Supreme Ruler.’ More than twenty-five years ago I came to the conclusion that Tî was the term corresponding in Chinese to our ‘God,’ and that Shang Tî was the same, with the addition of Shang, equal to ‘Supreme.’ In this view I have never wavered, and I have rendered both the names by ‘God’ in all the volumes of the Chinese Classics thus far translated and published.”

What?

He continued: ” What made me pause before doing so in the present volume, was the consideration that the object of ‘the Sacred Texts of the Religions of the East,’ as I understand it, is to give translations of those texts without any colouring in the first place from the views of the translators. Could it be that my own view of Tî, as meaning God, had grown up in the heat of our controversies in China as to the proper characters to be used for the words God and Spirit, in translating the Sacred Scriptures? A reader, confronted everywhere by the word God, might be led to think more highly of the primitive religion of China than he ought to think. Should I leave the names Tî and Shang Tî untranslated? Or should I give for them, instead of God, the terms Ruler and Supreme Ruler? I could not see my way to adopt either of these courses.

“The term Heaven (天, pronounced Thien) is used everywhere in the Chinese Classics for the Supreme Power, ruling and governing all the affairs of men with an omnipotent and omniscient righteousness and goodness; and this vague term is constantly interchanged in the same paragraph, not to say the same sentence, with the personal names Tî and Shang Tî. Thien and Tî in their written forms are perfectly distinct. Both of them were among the earliest characters, and enter, though not largely, as the phonetical element into other characters of later formation. According to the oldest Chinese dictionary, the Shwo Wăn (A.D. 100), Thien is formed, ‘by association of ideas,’ from yî (一), ‘one,’ and tâ (大) ‘great,’ meaning—what is one and undivided, and great. Tâi Thung, of our thirteenth century, in his remarkable dictionary, the Liû Shû Kû, explains the top line of it as indicating ‘what is above,’ so that the significance of the character is ‘what is above and great.’ In both these dictionaries Tî (帝) is derived from 丄 or 亠 (shang), ‘above,’ or ‘what is above:’ and they say that the whole character is of phonetical formation, in which I am not able to follow them; but Tâi Thung gives the following account of its meaning:—’Tî is the honourable designation of lordship and rule,’ adding, ‘Therefore Heaven is called Shang Tî; the five Elementary Powers are called the five Tî; and the Son of Heaven—that is, the Sovereign—is called Tî. Here then is the name Heaven, by which the idea of Supreme Power in the absolute is vaguely expressed; and when the Chinese would speak of it by a personal name, they use the terms Tî and Shang Tî;—saying, I believe, what our early fathers did, when they began to use the word God. Tî is the name which has been employed in China for this concept for fully 5000 years. Our word God fits naturally into every passage where the character occurs in the old Chinese Classics, save those to which I referred above on p. xxiii. It never became with the people a proper name like the Zeus of the Greeks. I can no more translate Tî or Shang Tî by any other word but God than I can translate zăn (人) by anything else but man.”

Going back again to his notes on the I Ching, I found: “Those who object to that term say that Shang Ti might be rendered by * Supreme Ruler’ or ‘Supreme Emperor,’ or by ‘Ruler (or Emperor) on high;’ but when I examined the question, more than thirty years ago, with all possible interest and all the resources at my command, I came to the conclusions that Ti, on its first employment by the Chinese fathers, was intended to express the same concept which our fathers expressed by God, and that such has been its highest and proper application ever since. There would be little if any difference in the meaning conveyed to readers by ‘Supreme Ruler’ and God ;’ but when I render Ti by God and Shang Ti by the Supreme God, or, for the sake of brevity, simply by God, I am translating, and not giving a private interpretation of my own. I do it not in the interests of controversy, but as the simple expression of what to me is truth ; and I am glad to know that a great majority of the Protestant missionaries in China use Tt and Shang TI as the nearest analogue for God.”

Tao…(the Way?)

“The mysterious Laozi’s ancient wisdom may be hard to translate, but the meaning is clear – learning to be self-aware could improve modern life.”
the Guardian

In researching Taoism, and the Tao Te Ching by Laozi, I first turned to an article on the subject by the British news organization.

Self-awareness is an admirable quality, but let’s look at Taoism’s epistemological position.

One site tells us that the Tao is “the reality beyond human perception, a reality that Taoists strongly associate with the natural world.” That may have been hard for someone to translate, but it certainly seems even more difficult to comprehend.

Another site called “Taoism 101” begins with the admonition: “Don’t concentrate on the meaning of Tao…”

And, turning to the Cambridge University Press (the publishing arm of Cambridge University in the U.K.), we find:

“The more you know, the less you know; the less you know, the more you really know.”
Aristotle

The Cambridge Press article goes on to say: “If we know our own True Self…then we shall know all things.” The implication, then, is that only sages (those who know their true self) can know all things.

sage = "From a Taoist viewpoint, this term refers to one whose actions are in complete harmony with his surroundings - both the immediate environment and the universe as a whole." (JadeDragon.com)

Well, that’s ok, right?–“Someone whose actions are in complete harmony with his surroundings”–I have to admit, I’d like to be one of those “sages,” wouldn’t you?

So, what, then, can I expect to know?

Well, as we’ve done before, let’s take a look at the ontology and cosmology of the Tao Te Ching.

One paper I found, called: Born out of Nothingness: a Few Words on Taoism, says:

“The basis of the Taoist worldview is one unified pulsating cosmos and all its manifestations. Taoist thinkers interpret existence as a continuous process. They consider complementary forces to be the source of movement. The world creates itself out of its own potential existence.”
Tatiana Danilova
National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine”

“The world creates itself out of its own potential existence”?

Another site, called An Insider’s Look at Taoist Cosmology says:

In the beginning, there was an endless void, known as Wu Chi, or Tao. The Tao is a universal energy, from which all things emanate.
From this vast cosmic universe, from Tao, the One emerges.
As the One manifests in the world, it divides into two: the Yin and the Yang, complementary conditions of action (Yang) and inaction (Yin)…
From this dance of Yin and Yang emerges the five elements: wood, fire, metal, water, and earth….
From the five constituent elements come the “ten-thousand things,” representing all of manifest existence, all of the objects, inhabitants, and phenomena of the world that we experience…

I am trying to think of things that emanate from something else without some actor, some entity, bringing them forth. The first example that comes to mind is the butterfly, emerging from its chrysalis. Or the birth of a baby. Is that what Taoist cosmology is describing?

Attempting to understand, I reluctantly found myself at a wiki site, which includes this as an explanation: ” Firstly, (the Tao) is the eternally existing Origin of the world: it knows no limits in space or time. According to Laozi, it is an undifferentiated whole which precedes the existence of Heaven and Earth. It is empty, silent and formless; it grows independently and is inexhaustible; and eternally revolves without ever stopping. It is the Source of all beings.”

” The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It’s an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (Star Wars)

Even with its inscrutability, one reading is enough to realize that there is much that is attractive, useful, and even profound that is in the Tao Te Ching, but as a source of ultimate truth, it seems wanting. Yet, it does sound interestingly familiar…

“There is a thing, formless yet complete. Before heaven and earth it existed. Without sound, without substance, it stands alone and unchanging. It is all-pervading and unfailing. We do not know its name, but we call it Tao. .. Being one with nature, the sage is in accord with the Tao.“
Tao Te Ching

“Finding means: to be free…”

In our last blogpost, we talked about Hinduism, but today we go on to consider the Hindu founder of–what he called the “middle way” between various forms of Hinduism–Siddhartha Gautama , “the Buddha” (6th century BC). The stated purpose of Hinduism had been “to achieve Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha.”

dharma = "(in Indian religion) the eternal and inherent nature of reality, regarded in Hinduism as a cosmic law underlying right behavior and social order." (Bing)

artha = "the pursuit of wealth or material advantage" (Britannica.com)

kama = "obtaining enjoyment from life"

moksha = "enlightenment"

But the Buddha renounced artha and kama. He focused on dharma and a revolutionary doctrine called nirvana (“quenching” or “blowing out”) . Hinduism had taught that the soul is eternal, and that by passing through multiple lives, and reincarnations, and by way of karma can eventually achieve moksha.

karma = "(in Hinduism and Buddhism) the sum of a person's actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences."

But Gautama (Buddha) taught that many cycles of these multiple births and rebirths can be skipped by following the noble eight-fold path.

THE NOBLE EIGHTFOLD PATH:

Right understanding
Right thought
Right speech
Right action
Right livelihood (no trading in animals for slaughter, dealing in weapons, dealing in slaves, dealing in poison or dealing in intoxicants.)
Right effort
Right mindfulness (putting aside greed and all distress )
Right concentration (pleasant abiding)

A good way of understanding the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism is by thinking of the Protestant Reformation in 16th century Europe. One source says:

“Gautama did for India what Luther and the Reformers did for Christendom.”
The Journal of Sacred Literature

Buddha’s teachings (contained in the buddhavacana) seem, though, more similar to a self-help program, kind of like Tony Robbins’ 5 Steps to Take Control of Your Life Now.

But, from just a strictly epistemological point-of-view, the question is, Are the buddhavacana‘s propositions true?

> The universality of suffering lies at the core of Buddhist teaching. The nature of suffering, its cause, and the noble eightfold path toward its elimination constitutes the main focus of Buddhist search for enlightenment.

That sounds reasonable (and even admirable).

>Buddhists don’t acknowledge a supreme god or deity.

But that implies no after-life, doesn’t it?

One site answers that this way: Nirvana is about “getting off the Ferris wheel of reincarnation…“ But what happens then?

The site goes on to say: “Where Buddha departed most radically from Hinduism was in his doctrine of anatta, the notion that individuals do not possess eternal souls. Instead of eternal souls, individuals consist of a bundle of habits, memories, sensations, desires, and so forth, which together delude one into thinking that he or she consists of a stable, lasting self.”

So let’s sum up.

Buddhist teaching is about escaping suffering in this life. It is not concerned with the next. So that’s its ontology. And its cosmology? We are told about the Thirty One Planes of Existence through which beings are born and reborn. And we are told that:

“The material universe consists of an infinity of world systems scattered through boundless space, each coming in to existence and passing away through beginningless and endless time “
Rev. Tri Ratna Priya Karuna

But what about a first cause?

After a fair amount of research, I found this: “One of the basic tenets of Buddhism is the concept of interdependence which says that all things exist only in relationship to others, and that nothing can have an independent and autonomous existence. The world is a vast flow of events that are linked together and participate in one another. Thus there can be no First Cause, and no creation ex nihilo of the universe, as in the Big Bang theory.”

Hmmm…

Even though so many famous people (such as Angelina Jolie, Orlando Bloom, Keanu Reeves, Leonard Cohen, Tina Turner, Steve Jobs, and Tiger Woods) are okay with that, I’m not sure that I am.

I checked the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and found something called The Cosmological Argument which says:

“…Philosophers infer deductively, inductively, or abductively by inference to the best explanation that a first or sustaining cause, a necessary being, an unmoved mover, or a personal being (God) exists that caused and/or sustains the universe. “
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

So, despite its popularity among Hollywood celebrities, singers and song-writers, entrepreneurs, and golfers, and even considering Gautama’s laudible, well-intentioned sincerity, it seems that we have to look further than the buddhavacana to find the source of ultimate truth.

Better than a light?

In our last blog, we talked about Hinduism, thought by many to be the oldest religion, with its collection of “sacred” texts, known as the Vedas. But how can we judge them as a possible source of ultimate truth?

What are our standards?

I went to one website which talks about epistemology and talks about different kinds of knowledge. They talk there about something called propositional knowledge.

Propositional knowledge (or declarative knowledge) = "knowledge that some proposition is either true or false." (Bing)

So how can we know if the propositions contained in a religious text are true or false?

This, I think, is where it becomes valuable to think of epistemology, ontology, and cosmology in relationship with one another.

The Vedas, obviously, are written from the perspective that they are true. Assuming that they are, we therefore would have to accept their view of reality (that the physical world is only an illusion, as in Dr. Strange or The Matrix). We might also take another look at their understanding of God. One site says that “Brahman created Gods and humans in such a way that they had to be dependent on each other. Gods had power but could not make food for themselves and humans did not have power but they could make their own food.” This almost makes me think of the Valar in J.R.R. Tolkein’s The Silmarillion. Do they sound like gods to you?

god = "(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." (Bing)

god = "(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity" (Bing)

We are told that “Indra is the most popular and praised god in the Vedas. In the Rig Veda, more than half the hymns invoke 3 gods, with Indra being the one who has the maximum number of hymns ( 250 hymns). He is the lord of the heavens. He is the god of thunder and rain and a great warrior.”

https://www.templepurohit.com/vedic-gods/

Doesn’t that sound an awful lot like Thor from Norse mythology, as seen perhaps in Marvel Studio’s Avengers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAiVYy_Lz-w

Britannica.com tells us that “The Rigveda contains many other Indo-European elements, such as ritual sacrifices and the worship of male sky gods, including the old sky god Dyaus, whose name is cognate with those of Zeus of ancient Greece and Jupiter of Rome (“Father Jove”). The Vedic heaven, the “world of the fathers,” resembles the Germanic Valhalla and seems also to be an Indo-European inheritance.”

So, isn’t it safe to say that Hinduism’s Vedas are starting to look a lot like the Norse, Greek, and Roman systems that we–all our lives–have been told were only mythology?

mythology = "a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition," or

mythology = "a set of stories or beliefs about a particular person, institution, or situation, especially when exaggerated or fictitious." (Bing)

Let’s go on to Hindu cosmology. One site says: “…Before the creation of the universe Lord Vishnu is sleeping in the ocean… His bed is a giant serpent with thousands of cobra like hoods. While Vishnu is asleep, a lotus sprouts of his navel (note that navel is symbolized as the root of creation). Inside this lotus, Brahma resides. Brahma represents the universe which we all live in, and it is this Brahma who creates life forms.“

As we have already noted in our earlier blog, the Vedas say that God (Brahman) and the universe (and, thus, Nature) are one.

“Brahman is present in every particle, every molecule, every object, life, element and breath.”
Ackland Art Museum (on Hinduism)

This belief is usually referred to as pantheism.

pantheism = "a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God." (Bing)

Is that what you believe?

Doesn’t pantheism suggest to you that cutting down a tree for fuel, or for materials for home-building, or killing a steer or a chicken for food, is a form of sacrilege (Brahman = God = the Universe = Nature)?

Paul Harrison, known as the president of the World Pantheist Movement, says, “We should relate to the universe in the same way as believers in God relate to God. That is, with humility, awe, reverence, celebration and the search for deeper understanding.”

Let’s unpack that together.

Pantheists seem to be suggesting that we should inter-relate with our environment as one would inter-relate with an all-knowing, all-powerful God. But does that seem reasonable? Is that a proposition that you can accept as true?

All in all, doesn’t Hinduism–though perhaps an attractive alternative to western Judaeo-Christian traditions because of its mystical (inscrutable) other-worldliness)–seem a bit difficult for you to reconcile with your intellect? In spite of Sherlock Holmes’ advice, we may have to leave Dr. Strange to the world of Marvel comic books heroes, and continue our search for ultimate truth elsewhere.