GENIUS FORUMS

Why did Lao Tsu say this:

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.

instead of this:

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery and the manifestations.
Ever desiring, one can only see the manifestations.

hmmm?

Matt,

Your interpretation is still sound.

The mystery naturally relies upon the manifestations for its existence.

I assume Lao Tsu arranged his wording for poetic expression.

The mystery is perfect enlightenment, where there are no forms (manifestations).

Steve,

Hmmm. Are you accusing Lao Tsu of selling out? If he was truly a sage, it would be weird to prioritize the poetic form over the message, wouldn't it? Maybe the TTC came from an oral tradition, though. I could see that.


Greg,

I don't think enlightenment gets rid of the forms, I think it just changes them into manifestations of the mystery, so to speak.

One can see the mystery in the manifestations.

Matt Gregory wrote:Hmmm. Are you accusing Lao Tsu of selling out? If he was truly a sage, it would be weird to prioritize the poetic form over the message, wouldn't it? Maybe the TTC came from an oral tradition, though. I could see that.

No, I don't think Lao Tsu would sell out. Its tough to say whether the form we presently see is the true original or not. The Chinese tradition has a written history of a more poetic nature, so it may be safe to say that Lao Tzu was simply following suit.

Yeah, Greg, that.

Steve, yeah, but that's kind of what selling out is: following suit.

Well, not in the sense of following the tradition of your ancestors.

I guess I really don't care about that anyway. The word "why" has different . . . um . . . dimensions. :)

Matt Gregory wrote:Why did Lao Tsu say this:

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.

instead of this:

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery and the manifestations.
Ever desiring, one can only see the manifestations.

hmmm?

I think that the manifestation and mystery are there in both cases, and that one who has no desires notices the mystery because he has nothing invested in the manifestation and realizes it's empheral nature. Conversely one who desires has everything invested in the manifestation and so he notices the things so that he can fulfill his desires, but does not pay attention to the mystery because he is focused on things.

Kind of like:
Ever desireless, one can see past the manifestations to the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see past the mystery to the manifestations.

or

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery while only sensing the manifestations
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations while only sensing the mystery

If you wanted to get really technical and broaden desire beyond just psychological desire to include all types of desire such as biological, instinctual, evolutionary, etc. I mean really we only sense any manifestations because they aid us in our survival, help to find food, avoid pretators, find a mate, etc. Of course these type of desires, like I said, are beyond the psyche, so there's no point in making that part of us desireless, you'd probably die a pretty quit death. But it makes you think of how desires are the root of manifestations. And things aren't necessarily as how we perceive them, but as the associations in your brain have made them to be. Asking why you perceive something to be a certain way, I think actually leads you to the mystery; whereas only asking how you can get something you desire, leads you to the manifestations. When you're desireless, on a psychological level, you would stop projecting certain manifestations onto the world, certain associations which are an integral part of manifestations in general would not arise, such as desirability and such. The way the world manifests would change so that your mind would see the mystery more easily. Of course because of the biological needs of our body manifestations would still occur; you, or your mind, would just be somewhat detached from them, and thus your mind would see the mystery. Things manifests slightly different for each person, that's what makes us individuals; it's the likeness, not the sameness in the manifestations that make us humans, or sane.

Matt Gregory wrote:Why did Lao Tsu say this:

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.

instead of this:

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery and the manifestations.
Ever desiring, one can only see the manifestations.

hmmm?

Perhaps because the QRS understanding of the Daodejing and Daoism does not actually correspond to the reality of Daoism?

That's possible, but how to decide that?

Matt Gregory wrote:Why did Lao Tsu say this:

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.

instead of this:

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery and the manifestations.
Ever desiring, one can only see the manifestations.

hmmm?

Here's a more detailed one from the Buddah which may flesh it out for you:

"When one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."

I have an analogy:

Ever desireless, one can see the forest,
Ever desiring, one can see the trees.

:)

Cat,

cat10542 wrote:I think that the manifestation and mystery are there in both cases, and that one who has no desires notices the mystery because he has nothing invested in the manifestation and realizes it's empheral nature. Conversely one who desires has everything invested in the manifestation and so he notices the things so that he can fulfill his desires, but does not pay attention to the mystery because he is focused on things.

Kind of like:
Ever desireless, one can see past the manifestations to the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see past the mystery to the manifestations.

or

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery while only sensing the manifestations
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations while only sensing the mystery

If you wanted to get really technical and broaden desire beyond just psychological desire to include all types of desire such as biological, instinctual, evolutionary, etc. I mean really we only sense any manifestations because they aid us in our survival, help to find food, avoid pretators, find a mate, etc. Of course these type of desires, like I said, are beyond the psyche, so there's no point in making that part of us desireless, you'd probably die a pretty quit death. But it makes you think of how desires are the root of manifestations. And things aren't necessarily as how we perceive them, but as the associations in your brain have made them to be. Asking why you perceive something to be a certain way, I think actually leads you to the mystery; whereas only asking how you can get something you desire, leads you to the manifestations. When you're desireless, on a psychological level, you would stop projecting certain manifestations onto the world, certain associations which are an integral part of manifestations in general would not arise, such as desirability and such. The way the world manifests would change so that your mind would see the mystery more easily. Of course because of the biological needs of our body manifestations would still occur; you, or your mind, would just be somewhat detached from them, and thus your mind would see the mystery. Things manifests slightly different for each person, that's what makes us individuals; it's the likeness, not the sameness in the manifestations that make us humans, or sane.

I'm sure there is a lot I could say about this, but damned if I can think of anything.

How would you tie cause and effect into those two lines of Lao Tsu's? Do you think what he was saying is related to it or no?

Dave Toast wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:Why did Lao Tsu say this:

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.

instead of this:

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery and the manifestations.
Ever desiring, one can only see the manifestations.

hmmm?

Here's a more detailed one from the Buddah which may flesh it out for you:

"When one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."

I don't see the connection, I'm afraid. It sounds to me like it's saying if something is born then there's no reason to think it doesn't exist and if it dies then there's no reason to think it exists.

cat10542 wrote:I have an analogy:

Ever desireless, one can see the forest,
Ever desiring, one can see the trees.

:)

Hmmm, I don't think it captures the nature of the Tao very well. Any forest you can imagine is just another tree with respect to the Tao.

First I thought I'd post some actual alternative translations that I found online:

The translation you were using:

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations
These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness
Darkness within darkness
The gate to all mystery

Some others:

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.

Through knowledge, intellectual thought and words,
the manifestations of the Tao are known,
but without such intellectual intent
we might experience the Tao itself.

Both knowledge and experience are real,
but reality has many forms,
which seem to cause complexity.

By using the means appropriate,
we extend ourselves beyond
the barriers of such complexity,
and so experience the Tao.

To experience without abstraction is to sense the world;
To experience with abstraction is to know the world.
These two experiences are indistinguishable;
Their construction differs but their effect is the same.

Beyond the gate of experience flows the Way,
Which is ever greater and more subtle than the world.

The secret waits for the insight
Of eyes unclouded by longing;
Those who are bound by desire
See only the outward container.

These two come paired but distinct
By there names.
Of all things profound,
Say that their pairing is deepest,
The gate to the root of the world.

It's good to keep in mind that the Tao te Ching is translated from ancient Chinese, so various interpretations exist. Some of them aren't that great, but looking at various ones when your trying to understand Lao Tsu's intent can be very helpful.

Matt Gregory wrote:How would you tie cause and effect into those two lines of Lao Tsu's? Do you think what he was saying is related to it or no?

Yes, I do think cause and effect are related to those two lines. I'm not sure what exactly you're asking about though. But I'll try to answer.

At the very least:
Being desireless causes you to see the mystery
Desiring causes you to see the manifestations

Along another line of thought: manifestations arise because of comparisons. Nothing would be what it is without it's opposite. This is expounded on in chapter two. Beauty only exists when there is ugliness, and good only exists when there is evil. By calling something beautiful, you imply that there is something ugly. By calling something good, you imply that there is something evil. Thus comparisons manifest together. So if there was no good then there would be no evil. Also, I think it's interesting how for example in chapter 18, how the idea of certain things don't arrise till they are gone. When everything is working smoothly there is no need for the ideas of kindness and morality, of filial piety and devotion, of loyal ministers. It's not to say those things aren't 'good', just that they only arise when things aren't 'good', they arise out of necessity of comparison. So perfection remains unnoticed, and it's only through the perception of imperfection that we define things. So what we define is only an outward form, we must look within to find the Tao. So by desiring you are holding one to one thing, but also it's opposite, to transcend that you have to stop desiring, empty oneself, and thus realize the mystery. The Tao te Ching makes use of veridical paradoxes to express ideas, so while things may seem contradictory at first, if you look at the implications of the ideas, then you can better understand what truths it's pointing toward.

Matt Gregory wrote:

cat10542 wrote:I have an analogy:

Ever desireless, one can see the forest,
Ever desiring, one can see the trees.

:)

Hmmm, I don't think it captures the nature of the Tao very well. Any forest you can imagine is just another tree with respect to the Tao.

Lol, I should have stated that I was playing off of the saying "he can't see the forest for the trees"

The forest and the trees are the same thing. The forest represents the big picture and the trees the details; the forest, the concepts and the trees, the facts. That's why I drew the analogy. Of course any comparison only works metaphorically and not literally.

I do think that those two lines of the Tao in a way express the difference between intuition and sensation. The difference in being focused on the big picture, the mystery, or the details, the manifestations, as a matter of perception.

cat10542 wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:How would you tie cause and effect into those two lines of Lao Tsu's? Do you think what he was saying is related to it or no?

Yes, I do think cause and effect are related to those two lines. I'm not sure what exactly you're asking about though. But I'll try to answer.

At the very least:
Being desireless causes you to see the mystery
Desiring causes you to see the manifestations

Along another line of thought: manifestations arise because of comparisons. Nothing would be what it is without it's opposite. This is expounded on in chapter two. Beauty only exists when there is ugliness, and good only exists when there is evil. By calling something beautiful, you imply that there is something ugly. By calling something good, you imply that there is something evil. Thus comparisons manifest together. So if there was no good then there would be no evil. Also, I think it's interesting how for example in chapter 18, how the idea of certain things don't arrise till they are gone. When everything is working smoothly there is no need for the ideas of kindness and morality, of filial piety and devotion, of loyal ministers. It's not to say those things aren't 'good', just that they only arise when things aren't 'good', they arise out of necessity of comparison. So perfection remains unnoticed, and it's only through the perception of imperfection that we define things. So what we define is only an outward form, we must look within to find the Tao. So by desiring you are holding one to one thing, but also it's opposite, to transcend that you have to stop desiring, empty oneself, and thus realize the mystery. The Tao te Ching makes use of veridical paradoxes to express ideas, so while things may seem contradictory at first, if you look at the implications of the ideas, then you can better understand what truths it's pointing toward.

Thanks! That was very insightful. I've always been boggled by chapter 18. I'm going to go ponder it some more.

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations
These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness
Darkness within darkness
The gate to all mystery

What does "this appears as darkness" mean? I don't understand that whole line, actually. I can understand that the mystery and the manifestations are actually the same thing and therefore spring from the same source, but is it just saying that we'll never know why they both come into existence? Is it addressing the question of why is there something rather than nothing?

Then there's that "darkness within darkness" line . . .