Taoism’s empty hub vs. religion’s transcendent seal

Ever ready to reduce the complexity of reality to a simple dichotomy, here I go again:

Virtually all of the debate over spirituality comes down to choosing between an empty hub or a transcendent seal.

By "seal" I don't mean an animal. Rather, my much beloved "Daoism Explained," by Hans-Georg Moeller, talks about the difference between (1) Taoism's here-and-now view of reality and (2) the Truth is there-and-then perspective of most religions (likely every religion).

Moeller says these outlooks are encapsulated by two images. One is of a wheel consisting of spokes connected to an empty hub. The Daodejing says:

Thirty spokes are united in one hub.
It is in its [space of] emptiness,
Where the usefulness of the cart is.

Moeller comments:

At the center of the wheel there is the hub, just as at the center of any efficient scenario there has to be an empty middle. This element of the scenario has four main characteristics: it is positioned at the center, it is empty, it does not move and thus it is still, and, fourth and finally, being a center it is single.

The Tao is the whole shebang, spokes and hub. You can't have a wheel without both. Yet as the wheel turns, the spokes move around and around, while the hub remains stationary. So the Tao (or Dao) is both movement and stillness, fullness and emptiness, spokes and hub.

Since the Dao is like a wheel, it is – for instance, unlike a rock (which is, as it is generally known, a quite important image in Christianity) – less a foundation or a principle for things than a structure or a pattern of happenings.

The image of the wheel demonstrates that the Dao is not to be understood as a divine source or a higher "form" in the Platonic sense. It is neither an ultimate origin or creator, nor a fundamental law of logic or nature.

However a seal, as in what a king signs proclamations with, is. The impression left by a seal is a copy of the seal itself. Less permanent, less real. But only a favored person, close to the king, is able to see the seal.

We peons only perceive the impressions. Which are the laws of nature, the physical creation – everything down here in materiality that supposedly emanates from a transcendent divine realm.

Following Moeller's philosophical language, the signifier (creation) is separate and distinct from the signified (God). This is like the difference between a copy and the original, such as a painting of a mountain and the mountain itself.

The pattern of representation is based on the gap between the full reality of the signified and the deceptive reality of the signifier. Within this pattern the two constituting elements (signifier and signified) are not equally real. One is more than the other.

This representational structure creates an "ontological" hierarchy between the signifier and the signified. The "ontological difference" entailed in this pattern is quite alien to the ancient Daoist philosophy of presence.

…There is an "ontological" hierarchy included in the relation between the seal and its impressions: by representing the seal, the impressions are of less "being" or reality – they are always secondary.

Between the hub and the spokes there is not such a hierarchy. The spokes in no way "represent" it – and they do not lack any authenticity of being in comparison with the hub.

…Unlike the relation between the seal and its impressions, the relation between the hub and its spokes is not one of presence and representation, but rather a relation between nonpresence and presence. The empty hub is nonpresent, but it nevertheless balances and unites the spokes that present the wheel.

I love it. To me this isn't dry and dusty philosophical language (though it is that also), but a deliciously moist description of two alternative approaches to living life.

I also love the ardent debates that go on in this blog between me and me, and also between various commenters to my posts – who often use a new post (entirely appropriately) as a means of carrying on a Hub vs. Seal debate.

At least, that's how I see it: Hub vs. Seal. Nonpresence vs. presence. Immanence vs. transcendence. Reality here and now vs. reality there and then. It's all good vs. there's good, better, and the best.

I used to be a committed Seal'er. My book about the Greek philosopher Plotinus looks favorably on the Plotinian notion that Platonic forms (better) mediate between this world (good) and the transcendent One/God (best). Each level of reality has a different level of being.

As Moeller said, in that view some things are more than others. Now, I'm much more in the hub camp. Yet I still have some lingering seal tendencies, for sure.

Anyway, all this is food for thought and self-examination. Empty hub or transcendent seal? Which spiritual image are you most attracted to? Or is there another image that seems more true to you?

Comments

[tao]

Thannks, but I already done sealed down my hub, and healed up my sub.

[tao]

Actually I meant to say: "sealed up my hub, and then headed down to my pub".

[Tucson]

I'm always present as no thing. This appearance known as 'me' is only what is sensorially perceived by who/whatever is conceiving it, but I am only present as my absence.

Many are concerned with "enlightenment", but many of us have heard sages say this realization is already the case and no attempt to attain it should be made since it is not anything to be acquired. Yet people steadfastly perform all sorts of disciplines to get it.

Realization or 'liberation' is simply getting rid of the idea that we aren't free, but it is hard to accept that we exist only as a concept, that our 'self' is but a phantom. Never having been bound, we have no need of liberation.

So, why all this bother?

What appearance is as non-appearance becomes aware of what it is via appearance.

The hub becomes aware of what it is via the spokes.

[william]

"The hub becomes aware of what it is via the spokes"

Does infinite pure awareness need the spokes to be aware of self or does this pure awareness become aware of its potential or express itself via the spokes?

Would the hub even be aware without the spokes?

"At least, that's how I see it: Hub vs. Seal. Nonpresence vs. presence."

How can there be nonpresence? Does not all consciousness contain awareness? How could infinite not be in presence. In Christian terms they would say the spirit of god is always within us.

"Each level of reality has a different level of being."

From my point of view each level of perceived reality has a different level of consciousness.

Reality may only be this pure awareness of infinite isness so when we talk of different levels of existence the word perceived must be used. Infinite means unbounded there is nothing but isness. Even the word isness is misleading no word can define that that is even that that is cannot define what most call God.

Calling this infinite isness nothingness or emptiness is only a way of expressing pure awareness. Pure awareness would indeed look and feel and would be realized as emptiness or nothingness, when in realty it is everything quite the opposite of nothingness. Paradox after paradox.

"Yet as the wheel turns, the spokes move around and around, while the hub remains stationary."

Not sure this is true Brian the hub does not remain stationary but the center of the hub does remain stationary and appears to us as empty space.

There is a plane or point at the very center of the hub that does not move I think this is what Moeller is talking about. Maybe he is talking about the empty space in the center of the hub.

But then the universe appears to us for the most part empty but is it. Dark matter and what looks to us like empty space may not be all that empty. Many believe that astral worlds or other dimensions occupy this “empty” space. Something is going on in that empty space and as yet they do not know what. String theory anyone? Many believe that we are only seeing about 5% of phenomena that exists in the universe.

[Esteban]

Brian wrote: "At least, that's how I see it: Hub vs. Seal. Nonpresence vs. presence. Immanence vs. transcendence. Reality here and now vs. reality there and then. It's all good vs. there's good, better, and the best."

Is it really one vs. the other, i.e. reality here and now vs. reality there and then? I think one can more accurately frame the dichotomy as realized here and now vs. unrealized here and now. Regardless of the approach taken, the goal is the same. The THEN of the Seal = the HERE AND NOW of the Hub.

Unfortunately, intellectually embracing the concept of presence does not equal the realization of presence. Nor does each repetition of a mantra bring one one rep closer to attaining the there and then. By means of one path or the other, one hopes for an EXPERIENCE of reality, and lo and behold, the state of presence thus experienced is the same.

Choose your method, make it so.

[tao]

William writes: "Reality may only be this pure awareness of infinite isness so when we talk of different levels of existence the word perceived must be used. Infinite means unbounded there is nothing but isness. Even the word isness is misleading no word can define that that is even that that is cannot define what most call God. Calling this infinite isness nothingness or emptiness is only a way of expressing pure awareness. Pure awareness would indeed look and feel and would be realized as emptiness or nothingness, when in realty it is everything quite the opposite of nothingness. Paradox after paradox."

-- more meaningless pseudo-spiritual double-speak.

William also writes: "...the hub does not remain stationary but the center of the hub does remain stationary and appears to us as empty space. There is a plane or point at the very center of the hub that does not move"

-- more absurd contradictory nonsense.

[Tucson]

William: "Does infinite pure awareness need the spokes to be aware of self or does this pure awareness become aware of its potential or express itself via the spokes?"

--Absolute is not a self. When it makes a 'self' out of itself then a universe (spokes) appears. That is the only way it knows itself. I am that, but I am not..

I become aware of me (big bang)
Time and space are born
Objects appear (including myself)
Dualism occurs
Universe appears
There is identification with objects and phantom egos
Suffering occurs.

"I" vanishes
Then, so does space and time
Objects and dualism cease
As does the universe
No phantom egos
No suffering
I am, but there is no me.

So, it sounds like the absolute is nothing without it's objects. Well, it is and it isn't. At this point anything said is paradox and all can be said about it is: indescribable, inconceivable, formless, in Sanscrit..Anami or nameless.

What else would you expect God to be?

What else could God be?

You might ask, "If God is nameless and formless how do you know it?"

'You' don't.

[william]

“The hub becomes aware of what it is via the spokes"

You use the word it I used word self I agree with you it is more appropriate thanks for pointing that out. Self is a perception based in consciousness and consciousness has its home in awareness.

Please note you still sign your name Tucson bob not it. This has been my point all along. Intellectually we can talk about it but as yet we do not encompass the intelligence or love to be it, of course knowing at least intellectually we were always it. Another one of those paradoxes.

There is a vast difference between knowing about something and what the Buddhists call a knowing beyond knowing which Dr Hora calls intelligence. An operational definition of words is paramount when discussing just about anything.

I have given you sort of koan to our Zen mediation leader and see what she thinks of it. The word apperceive has two definitions I take it you mean the one where it states, “to perceive something while being conscious of perceiving. This sounds like awareness to me. One master that I study calls this seeing the underlying reality of phenomena.

Tao as always you are your same sweet self or should I say same sweet it. As I read my posts I can tell that my style of writing comes across as all knowing my point has always been we are not all knowing and who cares what I say.

Why the defensiveness? Defensiveness is based in doubt not certainty. Doubt is a good thing it drives us to seek. It is when we try to hide doubt with our defensiveness that we approach stagnation or what some call religion. Maybe I should start every sentence with “in my view”. So Tao if you decide to read my posts insert in my view to the beginning of my every sentence.

Tao may want to go out, look at a bicycle, and see if the hub is stationary or if it moves with the spokes when you spin the wheel. This actually may be a pretty good analogy because when I (spokes) move god (hub) moves being one and the same.

Wow cannot believe Tao that you do not see at least intellectuality that what most call nothingness or emptiness is everything (all and all) you may want to spend some time meditating on that one. What looks and feels like a void or vacuum to us is to the best I can define it today; pure awareness infinite oneness.

Your personality makes it twoness Tao, kind of. The difference between the perceived “you personality” that you defend as Tao and what Tucson bob calls “it” is ignorance. Now don’t get upset with the word ignorance. Look up the synonyms for ignorance and it is no big deal it is the ego that goes nuts when someone calls it ignorant.

The ego would rather be called sinful or even evil but never ignorant, hence Christianity. Interesting to me is the Adam and eve story has more to say about ignorance then sin.

Tell a Christian they are sinful and they will agree with you but tell them they are ignorant and you will have a fight on your hands. Without that ignorance there is no Tao, or Tucson bob or William. And to think we are all one and the same. Tao you are I and I is you isn’t that pleasant to think about.

[Tucson]

William objects: "Please note you still sign your name Tucson bob not it."

Well, even 'it' is a thing.

Who thinks that he has a self? Another self?

And who conceives that second self?

Still another self?

Evidently.

But that can go on indefinitely, an endless progression of selves conceiving themselves, which becomes meaningless and absurd in determining who we are.

We are told in certain traditions to get rid of the self, but if any of these sequential selves is absurd, or illusory, how about the first?

It was never there. It is just as impossible and absurd as any self in the endless progression.

Who conceives the first self?

THIS which is not any 'thing' except as appearance as "Joe", "Mary", "William", "Tucson" or "Rita".

So we ask any one of them, "Who are you?"

Anyone can say, "I who am no 'thing' am everything." An insect can say it too.

Any of them is everything else and no 'thing' at all at the same time.

We can know ourselves as appearance and still know we are not.

The actual realization of this, however, is not an intellectual process that words will ever encompass to anyone's satisfaction, but it can be 'seen' intuitively.

How? It just happens. Boing!

[william]

n “More meaningless pseudo-spiritual double-speak.”

“More absurd contradictory nonsense.”

Tao maybe you have never heard the statement “it is not what we say but how we say it”. God knows I need help in this department as when I post people take it as some kind of sermon or something. Don’t read anything I state as truth. Truth: what is truth even Jesus did not answer that question to those not ready to hear it.

Now these types of remarks are considered attacks according to ACIM operational definitions. The reality of these types of attacks is that to attack anyone is to attack your perceived self. Because god is all and all; you are I and I am you. We only perceive ourselves as separate self’s due to our ignorance (i.e. unawareness or lack of knowledge) although I prefer the word intelligence to knowledge, because most people associate intellectual capability with intelligence.

This is the mystery behind karma. Karma works not as a law created by a designer but by the mere fact that to attack another is to attack self. How could infinite oneness be any different?

Tao as you lay your head down on your pillow tonight think to yourself, oh my god! William and I and everyone for that matter are joined at the hip of awareness or lack of.

Tucson bob wrote: “When it makes a 'self' out of itself then a universe (spokes) appears.”

This in my view is a correct statement. The difference between the “self” or “selves” (i.e. twoness) and the itself, meaning god, is ignorance. It is actually innocence but that is too deep to talk about now. Without this ignorance there would be no selves only itself. May want to look up the synonyms for makes.

[tao]

William writes:

"my point has always been we are not all knowing"

-- You seem somehow obsessed with "all-knowing". "all-knowing" is a pretty much a useless concept.

"Why the defensiveness?"

-- Defensive about what? I have not defended anything. So I think you are rather confused William.

"Doubt is a good thing it drives us to seek."

-- Doubt about what? There is no doubt in Self-knowledge. And seeking is born out of avidya.

"we try to hide doubt with our defensiveness"

-- You mean you (not "we") have doubt, and you have defensiveness. Speak for yourself, not for others.

"go out, look at a bicycle, and see if the hub is stationary or if it moves with the spokes when you spin the wheel."

-- Btw, fyi, I am not part of the "hub vs spokes" debate. Nevertheless, I don't think you understand what is meant by "hub". I think a better term would be 'axis', not hub. Because the axis does not move.

"when I (spokes) move god (hub) moves being one and the same."

-- Not so. I think you are confused again. The spokes are not the axis.

"cannot believe Tao that you do not see at least intellectuality that what most call nothingness or emptiness is everything (all and all)"

-- I don't know what you are referring to. I think you are confusing me with someone else. I have not discussed or mrentioned aything about "nothingness", "emptiness", or "everthing". These are all your own concepts.

"you may want to spend some time meditating on that one."

-- I don't meditate. Don't have any need for meditation.

"What looks and feels like a void or vacuum to us is to the best I can define it today; pure awareness infinite oneness."

-- What are you trying to say? You seem to be very much caught up in words and concepts, and rather hung up in the intellect and mind.

"Your personality makes it twoness Tao, kind of. The difference between the perceived “you personality” that you defend as Tao ... is ignorance."

-- I think you are very confused, even a bit goofy in the head. I do not "defend" any such "personality". You have some funny idea in your head that has nothing to do with me.

"don’t get upset with the word ignorance. Look up the synonyms for ignorance and it is no big deal it is the ego that goes nuts when someone calls it ignorant."

-- You are obsessed with this term "ignorance". And you keep insisting people are "upset", when in fact no one else has even said anything about it. I thik you are a bit nutty and you project your own issues onto others.

"Tell a Christian they are sinful and they will agree with you but tell them they are ignorant and you will have a fight"

-- I am not a Christian.

"Without that ignorance there is no Tao or Tucson bob or William."

-- Tao or Tucson are just names. Ignorance is nothing. Being does not depend upon ignorance.

"And to think we are all one and the same. Tao you are I and I is you"

-- That is total rubbish. Utter nonsense. You are lost phony spiritual rhetoric.

"what is truth even Jesus did not answer that question to those not ready to hear it."

-- Truth? Truth is just an idea. And Jesus is just a fiction.

"Now these types of remarks are considered attacks according to ACIM operational definitions."

-- Who gives a damn about "ACIM" bullshit. You are so lost dude.

"to attack anyone is to attack your perceived self."

-- You are the one who is perceiving and thinking "attack". I don't think you have any idea what the hell you are talking about. I think you are goofy in the head.

"Because god is all and all; you are I and I am you."

-- God is just an idea... and you are full of nonsense.

"We only perceive ourselves as separate self’s due to our ignorance"

-- More meaningless pseudo-spiritual bullshit.

"to attack another is to attack self."

-- Aberrations of reference. You have mental problems. Get some help.

"How could infinite oneness be any different?"

-- Seriously, go get some professional help William.

[Jake Harris]

What a blessing it was to find this site. I do IT support and im at my desk 6 hours a day online. What a simple lasting answer. that which is unseen and seen in everything. I have considered myself a daoist, taoist for little over 2 years. ive been on this quest for the last 6 months or so. a quest of self... the true self with all the un-needed stripped away..never complete ever changing. when i speak of the way everything is clear and still. sometimes i feel like i have all the answers and everything is complete.. but i know this isnt true i dare not make such claims. but the answers and the beliefs i have come to hold dear ring true to my soul there. growing up in church me and mother tried them all. i did everything was told but still there was an emptiness in me. now that i have surrendered to that..?? nameless .. and can see its connections in everything. life death viewpoints from a far if you will. they must coexist as does everything. if death were lost what would become of life. i can only imagine the tao splitting of itself. the beuty of it all the simplicity this website by far one of the best. thank you

love and light
Jake Harris