Contradiction In Taoism

One of the key ideas of TaoChia is that ContradictionIsNotOnlyNecessaryButBeneficial.

For example, the TaoTeKing is literally "The book about the virtue of the Tao", but it starts by saying "The Tao that can be explained is not the real Tao". If the Tao cannot be explained, why write about it? Give me my MoneyBack?.

Contradiction is not a key or necessary idea in TaoChia, and te is not necessarily translated as virtue. Likewise the first line of TaoTeChing isn't what you've read. It is, literally, "Tao that [is/can be] Tao'ed is not Tao". That's to say the word is used as both noun and verb. Nothing in there about explanation. Wherever you're getting your english translation is glossing a lot.

Suggest you purchase several English translations and read 'em side by side to get an idea about how rubbery the text can be. Henricks is generally regarded as most authoritative these days.

As for what the first line means, it's the same as what Popeye means when he says, "anyway you slice it, it's baloney". --EasternWuss

What is it to "Tao something"? I read it as: Get the criteria for achieving it or mastering it.

I think you're missing context. Try Tao as "Flow" for a moment. Of course Tao is more fundamental than "Flow", but that gets at it. Read Watts "The Watercourse Way" for more on this. It's quite legit to say in English "The flow that flows isn't the distinction/abstraction/word/concept/construct/whatever-you think-is-between-your-ears-or-in-the-world-representing flow". But the first line is just as legitimately "the flower that flowers isn't some cosmic/platonic/ideal flower" or any one of thousands of other variations. The first chapter suggests that whatever way you follow or understand or "master" in the world is just your abstractions, not something fundamental to what's going on. So "any way your slice it ...".

You can't master the Tao in the same way that you can't master every art. Let me explain. If you could master several thousand arts, there would always be another art which you didn't have the time to master or the master to teach you. Even if you could master that art, there woul be several thousan that you didn't get to even know that existed.

Mastery isn't really relevant. Try thinking about "harmony" instead.

Why the Tao is the criteria for success. Well, that's my crazy idea. It could be also the way to achieve success: Seize the opportunities. Or maybe just the virtue-circle of the idea that starts all over again, like the water that starts as ice on the mountain, goes own the river to the sea, evaporates and snows on the mountain again, pure, because that is the beggining.

Part way there, but success isn't relevant. Have you not read ChuangTsesHorse?

I couldn't find ChuangTsesHorse.

I think you are the one not going with the flow. I may be wrong here, but the Tao can't be explained. My explanation is incorrect and yours too. We are both wrong, but anyway both have some truth within. Let me explain again. It is said in the TaoTeKing that the Tao is like water in the sense that it tends to go down. Yet there is always more water coming down. Somehow it goes up, after of course it gets to the sea, because the sun evaporates it. So the flow of the river never stops, but it always goes down. Why down? Because it is easier than to go up. LOL. So if you are Taoist you will do first what is easy, like water does, without any effort. When all easy things are done, you will grab what is not so easy and then you will just see what's the smallest change you can do to fix it. Like water, without any effort, making use of the natural forces that exist. That way you will succeed. Was it that you succeeded or that nature succeeded? Who cares?

As they say "truth is a three-sided coin" - it's a matter of context. In TriteSayingsComeInPairs, "truth" is found by the synthesis of contradicting truths. Either truth alone is inadequate, but by expanding the scope by including contradictions, a deeper understanding is/can be achieved. -- TheNameThatCanBeNamedIsNotTheRealName?.

[Strongly agree. And the first line is shorthand for the whole work.]

Okay, somebody hold these guys up while I empty their pockets. First, there is no first line. Second, there is no whole work. Third, there is no truth. Ten thousandth, there is no taoism.

Look, I can see this is getting away from you so I'll say it slow enough for you to catch it and kill it. Taoism says that all you gotta do to understand what you are is take responsibility for everything. Including the stars in the sky and the dreams that wake you in a cold sweat. It's all you baby, and none of it is anyone else's. But if you don't think it's all you, well the rest of it is what you might call the tao. Now by these rules the moment you call the rest of it the tao you have to take responsibility for it, and then you might just think that it's still not all you. The Tao that Actually Taos Ain't your Tao. That's it - that's the first line. Got it now? --EasternWuss.

You may be right, and you may be wrong (actually, you're wrong), but certainly you're taking the fun out of responding to you.
- Actually, "they" are saying, that it is you that is taking the fun out of responding to them.
  - I think this is attempting to be funny and clever, but it comes across more as incoherent.
  - You were expecting a page about taoist contradictions to be coherent?
  - It's not necessary to be incoherent, but ok. Anyway, many posters to pages on eastern philosophy are just poking fun at the subject, which is understandable, but IMHO should be confined to a little needling and jokes here and there. Here, it seems to have grown to dominate the page, which is unkind to those who are actually interested in the topic.
  - True enough, although humor is a major ingredient in any worthwhile philosophy. I'd venture to say the page creator wasn't up to the task of maintaining the page
  - Agreed on both counts.

You're confusing Zen Buddhism with Taoism.

[Describe the difference. Are there not KoansMetaphorsAndParables also in Taoism?]

Historically, both originate from 6th century China, when Buddhism arrived and was fused with native Chinese traditions. They are not, on the other hand, identical, despite similarities in a number of regards. (The word "zen" comes from the Chinese word "ch'an".)

If you can't describe a distinction between 'em, they're one critter.

Taoism is much older than Zen Buddhism. There is no single philosophy that can be called Taoism. The Taoism of the TaoTeChing doesn't say much about responsibility. It emphasizes "no action" ("wu wei").

More to the point, (some) Zen aspires to enlightenment, a mind clear of distinctions, names, forms, and so on, where Tao accepts that these are necessary to a harmonious life. Tao just says you should set 'em aside as soon as you've achieved your intent. (some) Zen says you should set 'em aside and leave 'em set. (other) Zen says you should just get in the habit of sitting yourself. ThouArtGod, who cares?

[No one is suggesting they are identical, or one better than the other. I am just curious as to the purpose of ContradictionInZen?, which I think is more evident, it's relation to ContradictionInTaoism if it exists, and understanding what specifically the speaker above thought was the confusion between the two. I have read TheTaoOfZen? http://www.shared-visions.com/explore/culture/taoofzen.htm but it's been a while.]

Are you talking about contradiction in Zen in the context of koans? That is a teaching tool (and an art form) used to point the way towards the ineffable, not a philosophy of contradictions per se, of course.

Taoism is older, that's quite true (well, older in China, at the very least), but it changed its character sharply in the 6th century for the reasons I described; it incorporated many influences from Buddhism. That was true, the other way around, in India, too, when Buddhism incorporated many influences from the older practices there.

Nor is there any single philosophy of Buddhism, or even Zen Buddhism. Things splinter. We still find it handy to label them for convenience, despite the inherent inaccuracy of labels.

I've seen "wu wei" translated multiple different ways, but ok.

The thing isn't that "contradiction is beneficial." Taoism is not about hypocrisy.

What it's saying, is that the reality can't be spoken.

Speak rubbish. There is no reality. There is no speech.

If you say, "John is happy," -well, what about the days he's not happy? Okay, so we correct it: "John is happy some times and sad other times." Ah, but we know John- isn't he more happy than most people? Correction again: "John is happy some times, and sad other times, but on the whole, he's generally more happy than most people." Okay, but what about all those other feelings? This makes John look like he's two dimensional- only happy or sad. So, we could keep on correcting, forever and ever, trying to say something that's actually very simple.

Pah, that ain't taoism. That's EprimeLanguage.

So, the TaoTeChing, a book about Reality, starts with: "The Tao that can be spoken about is Not the True Tao."

It's not a book about reality. And it doesn't start that way. In fact it doesn't start any way. Go read Henricks and quit making it up as you go along.

It's not Rationalist; It's Trans Rationalist. Because it is not saying that the idea of things making sense is wrong. Only that, we frequently live in illusion, even when we believe we're talking Rationally (see AynRand), and that it's near impossible to communicate the Reality of things.

Nonsense. By definition every thing is real. They're just parameterizations of distinctions, right? And so there are no illusions. Except, of course, illusion itself.

You'll note that the Tao Te Ching focuses on brevity. You'll also note that it says that people like myself, who talk about the Tao, are pretty much doomed to inability to express. "The sage dare not speak of it," and all. Well, I'm being un-sagely here.

Rubbish. You are the sage. You have been the sage from the moment you started saying the word "sage".

See? This is an apparent contradiction. But in reality, it's not.

Ridiculous. There's no contradiction at all. And in reality there is too.

Even the Tao Te Ching was written.

Nope. It's only ever been read.

Ah, is this the right page for an argument?

I told you once.

[http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm]

CategoryEasternThought