Five elements in Dao and other traditions

[Anonymous]

Dear Energy Artists,

For a longer time I study Dao Alchemy but I was unable to find an explanation for one crucial question.

It is know that in all spiritual traditions that the Law of Five Elements is the most basic Law of the Universe. So it should be the same for all traditions.

The question is how it all traditions there is Air and Akasha and in Dao tradition only this is Wood and Metal? In Western tradition Akasha is a source of all elements and in Dao tradition all elements are equal and there is no source?

I would be very grateful if you could explain this to me and my friends and students.

Thanks in advance,

Saša

[Anonymous]

in modern days we have about 100 elements in chemistry. Similarly, the Daoist make use of 5 elements to explain things. The Hindus also have 5 elements and although there may be a lot of similarities in their description, there is no reason to expect them to be exactly the same.
You can say the Daoist consider ‘nothingness’, wuji, as the source . From wuji comes yin and yang and then comes the five elements. This is the Dao Alchemy.

[Anonymous]

Daniel thank you for you answer. it is not about the “chemistry elements” but about principles they represent. For example how Wood is an element? Or Earth?

This goes deeper. I’m searching for a connection between those two systems in order to understand the essence of both better.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Daniel thank you for you answer. it is not about the “chemistry elements” but about principles they represent. For example how Wood is an element? Or Earth?

This goes deeper. I’m searching for a connection between those two systems in order to understand the essence of both better.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Hi there- having studied the “hermetic/theosophical” (indirectly from Vedic systems~ India), as well as the Taoist methods.. (as presented in the chinese systems, as well as the Pacific systems ~Malaysia or Indo-nesia)..

-I’d say there are two specific points (although you may just be wanting “how do they relate?” not whether that is the best question.)
First, that the bigger key is to be able to feel (both sense&recognize that quality and more-so to be able to exude-radiate at a place-pt) each of the qualities.. (vs trying to understand-relate ideas, unless that is your pt).
Second, different systems have an underlying logic (contextual richness- what do that context imply? what is focused on, vs is insignificant- for that “context”? (Like two, or more, viewpts of one “thing” each having different emphasis that they can see and work on.)
-There is a tendency to mix and blend systems (not only becoming much stronger in current pop-culture, but is also a big Confucian-y tendency: I wrote before my view about linking five-elements and eight-gua, and four-corners, and the 3 aspects.. all as one-thing all interpreted as parts of the others).. This also relates to Wu Hsing (not perhaps best translated as “elements”, perhaps more five “shapes” of transformation) vs 5 elements (Hermetic, being not the same as Vedic/Hindu); ie Metal (jin), Water (shui),.. Wood (mu), Fire (hou), Earth (tu)… vs Akasha (not really “source of” but simplified in some writings.. when related a group of five, all are interrelated), etc…
[I write the chinese names in parenthesis, to contrast, as Water (shui) is ‘not the same’ as Water (kan, nor dui)– from bagua.. let alone “water” (apas) – different terms, different ideas.)
_______
So the first thing, related to the intellectual idea (whether you can feel vs send-out the quality- or as Bardon writes about “pore-breathing” or infusing, or “pour” into a spot, in the room, etc.)

---

but an idea that might relate- is more a point that is zoomed into, and reveals a circle- that circle has transforms through each element (as processes, not as something you can “see” as “earth” or “fire” etc) then “zooms-out” and shrinks down to, or reveals, the circle is a single pt.. and that “pt” zooming-out, is what it arises from
(the Wu Hsing, of Taoist-chinese is a bit different, -if you want to get into the wu-chi, Tai-Chi, Liang-I (~Yin-Yang: Energetic flow dynamic, changes in time).. this relates more and may reveal the contrast you specifically reference… [emptiness vs fullness, insub vs substantial, unmanifest vs manifestation.. these 3 poles are not both objects as “objects” are only in the later poles]

[along with above, akasha seems to relate more to Tu Hsing, according to Bruce.] -perhaps this is related to how the Vedic world-view is more based upon “spacecious-ness” as more of a foundation, while the Taoist is more based upon “earth-i-ness” … thus trying to link the two systems together misses what either is based upon.

(This is related to above point, re what each viewpt is based-upon, its “logic” so to speak, Currently there is a tendency to, as I call it, blur them-together)….

also “space” has many meanings- which? (just as “house” or “home” has many meanings).. and earth (there are many aspects referenced in this in Chinese philosophy, as well as martial arts).. in regards to Wu Hsing-Tu is cohesision, density,
(ie whenever you feel a loss- of- focus, or loopy.. tired, distracted.. vs to feel “here” =grounded.. which isn’t the same as other uses of the term “grounding”. many hear that term and think, ah just feel down that’s the same.. perhaps.. )
________
So depending upon your interest, if each of the above pts are related, and each are kept differently (especially if you see-relate to the world, through either), that might reveal more.
(just as, depending upon what format you are learning-reading the Akasha based from, is that some re-interpretation, or is it from source of Bardon, or Renaissance-based European, or from the Vedic (vs a “yoga” presentation), etc.. What source-tradition are you accessing? Or, are you referring to some writing that is commenting upon (a summary type reference)?

Either way, cheers

[Anonymous]

Hello, another thought after posting my prior (longer) response.. is that there should-be a distinction between what is considered “western” medieval magical (as defined below) and Vedic (ie Akasha, Tejas, Apas, Vayu, Privithi — which, seed dropping, consider the points of a tetra-hedron, as well as ‘inside’ its core.. then can turn-about view in 3d).

[ This is depending upon what you have been absorbing- you mention in your original question-post ” I study Dao Alchemy ” .. I wonder what system/sources you are using to study it? as it seems you are referencing more the Akasha-type elements, which isn’t in Dao Alchemy (from my view), so I wonder what you might be starting from.. to be sure not diverging from your framework. ]

— Just as I mention contrasting the Bagua vs WuHsing, vs Tattva, as I mention in my prior response (ie using “Water” Kan vs Dui, vs Shui, vs Apas….)
Likewise- I’d contrast, and I’d recommend avoiding the tangent (cul-de-sac?) of blurring medieval elements, and Tattvas.

The former of those- are represented (symbolically- shorthand, but also reveals-encodes the ideas) in 4 triangles. Two of the triangles: one point up (base down), the other two triangles, flat edge top.. and one “up” triangle is empty and the other has a horizontal line through its middle (likewise “down” triangles)…
[if this is obvious, I regret the repetition, as you should have seen this if reviewing what it seems you’ve commented upon, but this isn’t Dao Alchemy.. unless a writer is mixing & matching… ]
(there is also a 5 symbol- a circle with a star in it.. (often an 8 pointed, or an X with up-down-L-R.. which can look like Bagua.. which I think confuses.. so curious, but rabbit-hole.. – I just mention from completeness….)

I mention above, just to give terms to contrast (as I did above, and in prior- using Water).. -this time using “fire”… I’d assert that Tejas is not equivalent to the “up” triangle empty (with no line- base down)…
Nor is the 8-star in a circle (called “spirit”) equivalent, nor synonymous with Akasha (at times also called spirit, or space, vs “lack”.. -nor is this the same as “Emptiness” in the Buddhist, or Taoist, terms.. even though the workds may seem so.. per the translation.)
==============
again, I salute and encourage your interest.. you mention your friends and students- (a study ‘group’ or a class being taught?)

– what sources/references might you be using? largely lists, or are you putting this in practice in some way, so that much might be related to what you are feeling-experiencing and thus able to “do” yourself?

(this can change the use of terms- as using a label to “name” a sensation is personal.. but still diverting from the tradition too much, and yet calling it a tradition, might as well use a different name..)

What purpose/use might you be using this study for?
(just the interest of the subject, and/or the terminology to name something, or perhaps “neo-taoist” type “internal alchemy” maps (with all their imagery) vs from “old-school” taoism (ie the former meditation is quite different from the methods of transformation of the later, which is more TaoTeChing and ChuangTze.. etc… Much of the writings of “methods” are the former.. another area I’d think is important to recognize which is which and to not mix and blur together.)
best luck in your practice (and study)

[Author]

Posts