Dao and Logos

[Master Vigil]

That's not what I meant. What I mean is, because of the different cultural understandings, what he thinks the Chinese mean by Tao is not what the Chinese mean by Tao. Therefore I concluded that what he means by Tao and Logos, is more in line with what the Chinese mean by Chi.

[ben d]

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

That's not what I meant. What I mean is, because of the different cultural understandings, what he thinks the Chinese mean by Tao is not what the Chinese mean by Tao. Therefore I concluded that what he means by Tao and Logos, is more in line with what the Chinese mean by Chi.

An interesting opinion,.... it follows that perhaps you would also think that my understanding of what the Indians mean by Brahman is in fact what they really mean by Prana.

[Master Vigil]

Hehe. I wouldn't say that, I would say that logos would be more comparable to chi and prana, not Tao and Brahman.

[ben d]

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

Hehe. I wouldn't say that, I would say that logos would be more comparable to chi and prana, not Tao and Brahman.

It now dawns on me that your conceptual understanding of 'Logos' is quite different to my understanding. Hope this will address it.

Here is some conceptual understanding of Logos by Heraclitus (500 BC), and even after allowing for the distortion introduced due to the imperfect reinterpetation and translation, it seems clear that what is being conveyed is quite similar to that of Tao,.. not Chi.

But then how could it be any other way?.. there is only one Oneness, not two.


LOGOS AND THE UNITY OF OPPOSITES

T ranslations of Heraclitus are by Richard Hooker ©1995.

FRAGMENT 1
(quoted in Sextus Empiricus, Against the Mathematicians )

Men have no comprehension of the Logos, as I've described it, just as much after they hear about it as they did before they heard about it. Even though all things occur according to the Logos, men seem to have no experience whatsoever, even when they experience the words and deeds which I use to explain physis, of how the Logos applies to each thing, and what it is. The rest of mankind are just as unconscious of what they do while awake as they are of what they do while they sleep.

FRAGMENT 50
(quoted in Hippolytus, Refutations )

Listening to the Logos rather than to me, it is wise to agree that all things are in reality one thing and one thing only.

FRAGMENT 10
(quoted in Aristotle, On the World )

Things which are put together are both whole and not whole, brought together and taken apart, in harmony and out of harmony; one thing arises from all things, and all things arise from one thing.

FRAGMENT 88
(quoted in pseudo-Plutarch, Consolation to Apollo )

As a single, unified thing there exists in us both life and death, waking and sleeping, youth and old age, because the former things having changed are now the latter, and when those latter things change, they become the former.

FRAGMENT 51
(quoted in Hippolytus, Refutations )

They do not understand that what differs agrees with itself; it is a back-stretched connection such as the bow or the lyre.

FRAGMENT 54
(quoted in Hippolytus, Refutations )

The unapparent connection is more powerful than the apparent one.

FRAGMENT 67
(quoted in Hippolytus, Refutations )

God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, fullness and hunger; he changes the way fire does when mixed with spices and is named according to each spice.

Greek Philosophy: Heraclitus

[Master Vigil]

Is logos God? Or is it an effect of God? From your previous posts, I was under the impression that is was an effect of God. That is why I compared to to the effect of Tao. Only the first Fragment sounded very Taoist, and it spoke of Logos very much in a way that Tao is spoken about. But I am still confused as to it's relation to God?

[Master Vigil]

If I wanted a better understanding of Logos, what would be a good book to reference?

[ben d]

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

Is logos God? Or is it an effect of God? From your previous posts, I was under the impression that is was an effect of God. That is why I compared to to the effect of Tao. Only the first Fragment sounded very Taoist, and it spoke of Logos very much in a way that Tao is spoken about. But I am still confused as to it's relation to God?

Truth has no beginning, no path, no ending, it just is. It is beyond conceptual thinking. Logos is a concept, as is Allah, Tao, Nirvana, Brahman, God, etc.. These words are all meant to convey the universal theme of oneness that underlies the apparent diversity of cosmic creation. Concepts, ie. words. are only valuable for representing something real, but they are not real in themselves except as a concept. IOW, they stand in relation to that which they represent like a map of the world represents the actual planet earth.

It is my understanding that the Truth behind the Logos and the Truth behind God, is one and the same,..there is only one oneness. Surely if there is true understanding of this, misunderstanding due to semantics disappears and the true light of the oneness expressed in all religions and in all languages begins to 'shine' through.

To try and elaborate further on the Oneness by employing conceptual thinking to divide the Oneness into parts, ideas, attributes, theories, etc., which is a differentiave process and results in a movement that takes one further from the unspoken Oneness and further into the field of cosmic multiplicity.. Therefore it is said,..'The Tao that can be described is not the eternal Tao'.

However, concerning the cosmic expression of the unspoken Oneness, ie. the 'effect', the 'ten thousand things', the 'Tao that can be spoken', that is what all human learning and science is addressing,... endless books, theories, beliefs, etc., and there is nothing wrong with that. But for those who ponder the greatest mystery of all,...the transcendent oneness behind the effects, conceptual thinking is not appropriate since it is based on dualistic mind processes and is a differentiative process whereas what is required is an integrative one. Think..the Gestalt whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

If I wanted a better understanding of Logos, what would be a good book to reference?

The kingdom is within,... the lamb's book of life, all is there.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

If I wanted a better understanding of Logos, what would be a good book to reference?

Plato.

The ancient Greeks believed that all of physical existence is modeled after an 'Ideal', or divine plan, for existence. They believed that there is first the ideal of a man or of a tree, and of a forest, etc., and then because this ideal exists, matter then attempts to fulfill that ideal. However, matter specifies, while the ideal remains pure, and perfect. So the ancient Greeks sought out the pure and perfect ideal within the their not-so-pure or perfect specific physical examples. And this seeking out of the pure ideal was the foundation of their culture. They did it in all aspects of their lives. This divine ideal that underpinned the nature of all things, was called the "logos". The logos was not "God". It was more the perfect (divine) conception (ideal) of physical existence which governs the way physical existence is.

The ancient Greeks loved athletics because it was through their athletes (not just their physical structure, but through their heroic and honorable struggle to win) that they believed they could see this perfect ideal man within the specific man.