Opinions on Big Bang/Taoist cosmology

[Chris McKinley]

Anybody have any views on the relationship between Big Bang's "something from nothing", including the initial manifestation of postive and negative energy, and the Taoist creation myth?

[Repulsive Monkey]

interesting question that and one which theoretically could spark off a 100 mile long thread if we're not careful!

How about the Primordial void being Wuxi. In itself it is Yin/insubstantial and then creation is Yin's natural progression to Yang (as Yang always follows Yin), and therefore begets substantiality. Or as the CLassics say, Yin and Yang are the two components of its mother Wuxi. First there is nothing then with intent a stirring begets both elements of all life, or if want to be classicist 1000 myriad things, and all life seperates between there naural propesity of balance betwixted Yin and Yang.

[kungfu cowboy]

No, but I really wish I did.

"I ain't got time for no jibber-jabber!"-----Mr. T

[mantis108]

What a truely "wonderful" (pun intended) question.

The following is my own understanding of the subjuct and does not represent any "school" of thoughts rather than my own.

Quite frankly, the Big Bang is a misunderstanding hence misinterpertion of the I Ching which is somehow jammed with Tao Te Ching's "Tao". The first passage of the Tao Te Ching did not define Tao as anthing at all. Rather it stated what Tao is not.

The problem is that when western scholar (even most eastern ones) interpert Taoist literature, they invitably are western baised.

Spirituality and sexuality are somewhat connected. I think many Pyschologists have worked on this before too. Anyway the point is that, Big Bang theory, which is quite Christianity as well, is very much partical orgasm (male ejeculation). That happens because western societies (including the Arabic world) are patriarcheies. Asian countries, especially Chinese, were once upon a time matriarch (wave orgasm). If you study I Ching history, the supposed creator of the subject was Fu Hsin, who in Chinese myth, was the co ruler then turned sole ruler of the world with his sister after the great flood. They, like Adam and Eve replendish the world with everything. There would be the obscured turning point of matriarch became patriarch in Chinese culture. This makes the I ching acquired (Confucius, who studied I Ching extensively believed in patriarch system as well) a slightly partical orgasm flavor which is of course more comprehencable and palatable for the western scholars (mainly Christian educated) who came into contact with the I Ching that is believed to be a significant part of Taoism and Chinese thoughts.

Big Bang "singularity" is not "the" theory to explain Wuji and Taiji. Quantum theroies and Relativic theories (these appears to be more matriarch than the big bang) offer much more than the Big Bang. In fact, you might want to check out something called the boot strap theory. It offers some interesting views.

There is no easy answer my friend, because in Taoism and Buddhism, there is only moment (4 dimensional). The journey is in the instance and the instance is the journey. Where it starts and ends could not and need not be identified. Sorry about the long windedness. :)

Mantis108

Contraria Sunt Complementa

[Braden]

I see the pre-, during, and post- big-bang states as functions that overlap/coexist with our current perspective on the universe, implying a sense of holistic integrity. Taken as a whole, the universe ossilates cyclically with big expansions and big contractions, but never completely (in the sense of our theoretical 'present' perceptions) achieves big bang, as it never achieves absolute heat or cold death (any one of which would end the cycle). Looking at individual parts, the universe does not even follow this behaviour, but rather moves pseudo-randomly.

[Fu-Pow]

There is little connection between eastern mysticism and modern cosmology. The connection is purely semantic. In other words, don't count on any quantum physicists joining the Taoist and Buddhist religions anytime soon. If you want some good background on the subject I would suggest Fritjof Kapra's "Tao of Physics" and also a book called "Science and Religion" by Ian Barbour. Kapra makes the connection. Barbour reveals why it is only a semantic argument.

Peace

Fu-Pow

http://www.fongs-kungfu.de/assets/images/lionhead.gif

"Choy Lay Fut Kung Fu does not encourage its students to abuse or harm others with no reason. Nevertheless, in times when Kung Fu must be performed, Choy Lay Fut requires the student to change from a gentleman into a fierce and cold fighter."

-Lee Koon Hung,
CLF:The Dynamic Art of Fighting

[Braden]

"don't count on any quantum physicists joining the Taoist and Buddhist religions anytime soon."

If you'll scroll down the page you'll find a thread where we discussed who is perhaps the leading quantum physicist and how he does indeed suscribe directly to taoist thought.

[TheBigToad]

Seriously when talking about a subject, especially one of this caliber please know enough to even seem somewhat intelligent as to not place yourself in a situation where your foot and mouth will come to have a very intimate moment together.

The problem is that the Daoism that is talked about on this board is hardly at all what Daosim truly is. Now before I get the smart assed remark from a number of you "so called" Daoists that just love to force your fortune cookie wisdom up everybody's ass, you need to understand that before Daosim meet up with Buddhism and this fantasy world of Wizards and gods and goddess and devils and empty rituals and furture seeing with the I-Ching. Daoism was a simplistic and to the point philosophy which helped guide someone through the obstacles of life in the world around them, life in their bodies and minds and let people see the correlation between them all.

Physics does indeed link what we are just now finding out about the universe and what the original aspects of Daosim and even the silly fantasy Daosim talks (albeit with empty intent) about.

Ideas such as Quantum foam, inter-linking all things organic and non organic as dependent on each other is long been an eastern idea whereas Western's Neutron physics believed things to be separately existing of each other, this has only recently been disproved.

In Science we say Void or the unknown and then gave birth to matter and then the lack of matter or antimatter. Daoism will say Wuiji then gave birth to Yang and then Yin.

Since the subject of I Ching has come up, and since it is worthless to try and explain the book through it's legendary creator, when need to actually examine the book. If we look at evolutionary threoy with start with hexagram one, heaven over heaven or the creative or the originating. If you are reading from Thomas Cleary then you are in a sad state of affairs indeed.

The 6 unbroken yang lines alone show total power and creative force, unyielding and unwavering, ever expanding. What ever was the device that set off this evolutionary bomb was great indeed.

I'm not going to babble with fake daoists on this board. Anybody who wishes to discuss this further in a manner devoid of jade elixirs and the magical yin/yang pony and whatever the hell else your "daoism" talks about feel free to e-mail me and maybe we can both learn something together.

I am the big toad and this is my pond.

[mantis108]

For the record, I am not a Taoist nor am I a Buddhist (nor Hindu for that matter). I would say I am spiritually more inclined to these "ISM" , quasi-TBH if you will. Althought my interest in these spiritual matters is quite strong, it doesn't compell me to religiously live my life according to their doctrines. Anyway, I will offer my view(s) on any matter, whether it is relevant to anyone, I guess it is upto the person(s). Just wanted to clarify that I have absolutely no intention to "convert" anyone. :)

Mantis108

PS I think Karen Armstrong has some works on reconciliating the "Big Five" religions on spirituality level (non doctrine level). If we can peel through the surface, may be we can see nature of(in) human or human of(in) nature. Just a thought.

Contraria Sunt Complementa

[origenx]

Think of the universe, which is surmised to be composed of equal amounts of matter and anti-matter as a sine wave. A sine wave is "something," and yet its sum is zero (nothing). All its peaks and valleys cancel each other out. The same with yin/yang.

[Fu-Pow]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If you'll scroll down the page you'll find a thread where we discussed who is perhaps the leading quantum physicist and how he does indeed suscribe directly to taoist thought [/quote]

But is David Bohm in the majority?

Here's a little blurb I pulled off the web:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Cool Reception in Physics

Bohm's theories never received a full, serious reading in the mainstream physics community, to his considerable disappointment. His work met with reactions ranging from lack of understanding or interest to dismissal or even suspicion. There are several reasons for this, which tell much about the state of science today.

Bohm lamented that physics is primarily concerned with prediction and control, rather than with truth. Because his theories offered little to enhance prediction and control, many scientists were simply not interested in them. Indeed, Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics was criticized because it did not yield results that differ from orthodox quantum theory, which makes it difficult to test against conventional interpretations. In this sense, Bohm's theory was charged with failing to satisfy Popper's (1969) falsifiability criterion for a legitimate scientific theory. Yet this very criticism could be leveled at any of the interpretations of quantum theory. There are at least eight different interpretations, each of which is consistent with the Schroedinger wave equation and the experimental results of quantum mechanics. (6) Which of these theories is "correct," if any, is not a question that can be settled by resorting to the experimental evidence. Indeed, as Bohm points out, "all the available interptations of quantum theory, and indeed of any other physical theory, depend fundamentally on implicit or explicit philosophical assumptions, as well as on assumptions that arise in countless other ways from beyond the field of physics. (Bohm and Peat 1987, 102).

[/quote]

Sounds more like philosopher than a scientist.

a priori knowledge= referring to principles and judgements valid without reference to sense impressions. (logic) proceeding from cause to effect.

a posteriori=referring to principles and judgements based on inductive reasoning. (logic)proceeding from effect to cause

induction=a method by which the general validity of a mathematical statement or theorem may be inferred from a demonstration of its validity for a specific case (cases)

He is using an a priori argument yet he cannot test his argument a posteriori. Therefore is it really science or just philosophical conjecture?

Fu-Pow

http://www.fongs-kungfu.de/assets/images/lionhead.gif

"Choy Lay Fut Kung Fu does not encourage its students to abuse or harm others with no reason. Nevertheless, in times when Kung Fu must be performed, Choy Lay Fut requires the student to change from a gentleman into a fierce and cold fighter."

-Lee Koon Hung,
CLF:The Dynamic Art of Fighting

[Braden]

That blurb is pretty accurate in describing Bohm's new interpretation of quantum mechanics. His classic interpretation is still the definitive work on the subject. His new interpretation definitely started as philosophy (which isn't particularly rare in science); the tone of his new theory upon publication was that further investigations along his line of thinking would yield a _scientific_ theory.

Besides which, the point of that little blurb was that, although Bohm's new interpretation doesn't (as of yet) provide better measurement - looking at it the other way around, none of the other theories do over Bohm's either. Neither do they have advantages such as parsimony. Their only advantage is that they were proposed sooner - which shouldn't hold much weight. I would argue that the other theories actually have some serious weaknesses in comparison, because all of them (except perhaps for some ideas proposed by Bohr) rely upon irreducible lawlessness, which is certainly a very tough think to explain scientifically.

[This message was edited by Braden on 08-23-01 at 04:11 PM.]

[Wongsifu]

can i be corny huh huh pleez can i be corny

The big bang :D :D :D

I wongsifu shall strike fear into the hearts of trolls and mma guys who **** me off on these forums oh and in real life.

[mantis108]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Since the subject of I Ching has come up, and since it is worthless to try and explain the book through it's legendary creator, when need to actually examine the book. If we look at evolutionary threoy with start with hexagram one, heaven over heaven or the creative or the originating. If you are reading from Thomas Cleary then you are in a sad state of affairs indeed.

The 6 unbroken yang lines alone show total power and creative force, unyielding and unwavering, ever expanding. What ever was the device that set off this evolutionary bomb was great indeed.[/quote]


I believe the study of I ching should start with the very creation of it, which means what is the contribution of Fu Hsi? You are right, my friend, that it is about evolution and I Chang has its own share of evolution (Fu Hsi-King Wen-Confucius or other Taoist scholars). I also understand that the question at hand is about the "origin". Anyone who study I Ching should know that Fu Hsi was accredit to be the creater of I Ching and his contribution was the primodial moduel of the Pagua which IMHO had addressed the cosmological view points of the ancient Chinese. It had at least addressed the explosion and inplosion (the cosmic rhythum) of the universe. That is the reason why I brought up Fu Hsi not because he is cool as a legend. It certainly feesible to look at creationism or evolution from the 64 hexagrams but remember that arrangement is in fact a much later creation accredit to King Wen (Chau Dynasty around 11th century BCE). Also by that time, patriarchel system is well in place in Chinese culture. I do agree with evolution; however, I am saying we have to look futher back in time to gain a thorough understanding of Chinese culture and thoughts. BTW, I study I Ching in Chinese and have not read translations of the I Ching in English. The only translation work of Cleary which I have read is "the book of five rings". He did a decent job but personally I perfer the Victor Harris's version which is because VH seems to have martial art (Kendo?), a first hand experience in the subject so to speak. Anyway, I don't think we see eye to eye on this one but it's worthy the rebuttal. Thanks :)

Mantis108

Contraria Sunt Complementa

[Repulsive Monkey]

it always an honur to be in the presence of a Master like our Venerable Big Toad. It's always beneficial to now know who is and who is not in league with the Tao. I refer back to the Tao Te Ching a second time by way of response : Those who speak of the Tao do not know of the Tao, those who know of the Tao do not speak of the Tao.
By the way Thomas Cleary has provided many well respected and prefered texts on Eastern philosophy and practice. His translations are probably the best you can get your hands on. I do hope your reading any Richard Wilhelm editions for your tanslations? Just look at the mess he made of "The of the Golden Flower" script, and his less than benficial attempts at Taoismm i general.

[Anarcho]

"He is using an a priori argument yet he cannot test his argument a posteriori. Therefore is it really science or just philosophical conjecture?"

Okay, when you say "just philosophical conjecture" you seem to be implying that a priori truths are somehow less reliable than a posteriori truths. Why do you think that? Would it be any less valid for me to say "physics uses an a posteriori argument to support the big bang theory, but it cannot be justified a priori"?

Also, interestingly, the falsifiability criterion mentioned previously as being introduced by the (philosopher) Karl Popper which you rely on is a philosophical principle, and thus you probably want to reject it as well, since it's "just philosophical conjecture". Without philosophy there is no science, but the reverse is not true.

[MasterPhil]

RM: With all due respect, your understanding is too scholarly. Not wrong but not completely right. And yes, there are better translations/commentaries than the ones you mentioned. If really serious about your study of the classics, learn classic mandarin and interpret the chinese symbols for yourself. But be reminded that true understanding must be lived, not just learned.

Daoism is perhaps one of the most difficult philosophical subject to really "understand". Its vocabulary and ideas are very simple and easy for everybody to understand. But our egos get excited and make our minds complicate things and our understanding suddenly becomes flawed.

Daoism is very hard to explain as there is hardly anything to explain. Read the classics. Look around you. Be centered/present in your mind and body. If you don't understand it, you won't understand even if I explain it. When ready, throughout your life, keeping an honest heart and humble mind, understanding will gradually come through satoris/mind flashes and the better your understanding, the more you'll laugh at your own past foolishness! :)

ST

p.s. It's getting late and this post doesn't make half the sense it made when I first reflected on it, lol. Don't worry, it's not that important anyway, the sun will still come up tomorrow and so I smile :)

Surrounded by chaos, the true taoist laughs...

[MasterPhil]

Good joust guys! This is getting even more interesting than HollyfieldVSForeman! On to round 2? Seriously, you guys just reminded me why I still read the forum despite all the b*llsh*t and idiocy you can find on it.