Dao, Dhamma, Dharma, Logos and Word

Are these all the same thing? I am lately inclined to think so.

What is the Law at the centre of Life? What is it that Man seeks to fulfill His existence? What is it all about? I'm lately inclined to think it is this Dao, Dhamma, Dharma, Logos or Word.

For each word we have a teacher. Dao is Lao Zi. Dhamma is the Pali for what Buddha taught. Dharma is the Sanskrit for the plethora of Hindu teachings. Logos is the Greek which became adopted by early Christian writers for the Law of God and also in John's gospel Jesus Himself. In English it is transcribed weakly as The Word. I'll use Logos in place of all these.

What is Logos (Word). Logos is the measure. Ordinary words are logos because when a word matches with a thing we know what it is: it becomes measured. Jesus is The Ruler: He is The Measure of all things: The Final Judge. All these are logos.

In Dhamma and Dharma there is also the implication of the Relgious Life. This is understood by Christians to be the "following of Jesus" which means the acceptance of his Rule. As indeed Islam itself means (submission to the Will/Rule of God).

Dao has a further implication which means Path or often translated as Way. The Way of Lao Zi, The Way of Jesus, The Way of Mohammed, the Way of Buddha: Logos is also Dao.

So comparing these terms is actually insightful as to the meaning of each one. As I have found myself studying Buddhism has led me closer to Jesus rather than away! In that we see a snippet of the Logos. This Law is truly profound, something that sets the mundane mind from the transcendent mind. So what is the Logos of Life?

It was covered in the dialectics post previous and I propose now (tho it will take a long time to full sink in - if at all) that this is the same insight as the Logos. This if I am right is the door to Heaven.

The Logos is the Fundamental Law from which all other things become. This is why Lao Zi says that for those who know the Dao the short look tall and the tall look short. Both tall and short depend upon the Dao. This is why Jesus' teachings seem counter intuitive. Nietzsche made a life's work from showing that Jesus teaches the exact opposite of what life is all about. Yet Nietzsche didn't see that from the Logos all things look upside down. It is not the powerful proud leaders who will inherit the Earth (as we would naturally expect) it is the meek: completely incomprehensible to the mundane mind: yet log-ical to the logos.

So why is everything upside down in reality? It is because of dialectics. A very tall person taken to a universe where everything was the same length: would they still be tall? This is a many layered question. It is not simply a matter of there not being anything taller or shorter than the person. In such a world there would not even be a concept of height or length. It is hard to imagine a world where things have no length, but it is important to realise that this does not mean that they have no matter. We can all exist quite happily as we are without length! Infact we do. Length only arises when we come to compare things. A tall thing is only tall when it is intentionally compared with a short thing, and vice versa. Thus the person who identifies with being tall can only do so by living in relation to short people. Ironically (and irony, hubris and tragedy are the eternally appearing cracks in the mundane reality reminding it of the Transcendent Divine Logos) then the tall person sees himself through the eyes of the short person. They are thus a short person! QED: and the Logos creates its mark upon the living and the dead.

Yet how does the Logos operate in less personal reality? I return to 1985 and the white board at school registration with my friend Tim. In a world all of green then nothing is green. Its an inexact thought experiment so it didn't reveal the truth very clearly: and I was ridiculed by others for the propositions of worlds of green and pure geometric shapes. Yet in a world without other colours how can there be any colour? It is not that things do or do-not have colour in this world, the point is that "colour" simply isn't applicable. The inhabitants of such a world just don't look for colour in things - there is no intention. It is interesting in the mundane world how humans (who don't have a colour) have become stuck with this concept and applied it to one another and themselves!

At the root then is the issue of existence. It was by birthday yesterday and I am each year becoming more aware of my mortality and conditional existence. In particular the practice that remains in the East of recognising the crutial role played by ones mother in our existence. It brings up the central problem of our Life that of trying to exist. Very quickly viable individuals balance their body functions and learn to feed thesmelves, but from here onwards the struggle is for "recognition": trying to exist socially and be recognised by others. Don't we see the Dao already?

For the mundane we seek to understood and acknowledged by other people: this gives us our spiritual nourishment. It is no accident that I missed "My Muse" yesterday: she was the One who for me at least gave me a belief in myself as a "real entity": through her eyes at least I could Live. Yet she died: what a catastrophy for that model of existence! This is mundane life: I livd through her eyes. When she died so did I!!! Yet I didn't: how ironic - the sign of lacking transcendence.

To the transcendent, from the standpoint of those who see from the Logos, those who Exist infact do not exist and those who do not exist do infact exist. Those who Live are Dead and those who are Dead Live. Why? Because to be recognised socially is to accept another persons word that you exist! Thus it is actually their existence that you know and not your own! "My Muse" existed while I did not! (This is a negative Hegelian dialectics).

Thus to see myself as Alive is really to see myself through the eyes of Death - I am Dead to have such a thought. To see myself as Dead is really to see myself from the position of the Alive. It is the understanding of Mortality which confers the meaning of Life. Tentatively suggest that this may be a more fruitful approach to the relationship between Jesus' Death and Eternal Life. In reality however we know that we neither live nor die outside the dialectic, and those who see the Logos see those who run to Life as the Dead and those who face Death as the Living.

And so the mirror world goes on. Those who are convinced they are morally good are really looking through the eyes of the Evil... etc

Those who think they are Correct are really looking through the eyes of the Ignorant: and at that point I must stop incase I come to think that this writing is either Logos or not-Logos!