110576_1494798793

I’ve just reread my copy of Stefan Stenudd’s translation and commentary of the Tao Te Ching. Here’s his version of chapter 80. Let the country be small, And the inhabitants few. Although there are weapons For tens and hundreds of soldiers, They will not be used. Let people take death seriously, And not travel far. Although they have boats and carriages, There's no occasion to use them. Although they have armor and weapons, There's no occasion to wear them. Let people return to making knots on ropes, Instead of writing. Their food will be tasty. Their clothes will be comfortable. Their homes will be tranquil. They will rejoice in their daily life. They can see their neighbors. Roosters and dogs can be heard from there. Still, they will age and die Without visiting one another. I was reading his commentary on this chapter and this is a small part of it- I have some problems with this chapter. It describes what Lao Tzu regards as a dream society, but I find it kind of boring. No travel, no visions, no aspirations, and no curiosity. Nothing but the routine of everyday life. It's certainly peaceful and secure, but isn't it also dull? What Lao Tzu is describing is almost my lifestyle! And I love it! I live on acreage in the sticks, near a very small country town. I lived here for almost a year before I knew the name of any neighbour. We had a very bad flood event thirteen months ago and the people from the district would go to the local sport ground beside the pub to meet and share information about food drops, road conditions, weather reports and communication issues. I met other people from my street that I had not even seen in the four years I had been here! And they were saying they were meeting neighbours for the first time in years! Everyone keeps to themselves but will give a hand whenever it’s asked for. Now I’m great mates with one neighbour, even though we only speak to each other every few months. My wife, on the other hand…well, she sometimes agrees with Stefan! You can find a PDF copy of his book on his site, http://www.stenudd.com/

I looked at a few other Tao forums but they were either filled with combative posts or members only posted once in a blue moon. I like the array of different world-views here and there are (comparatively speaking) very few self-declared experts. Most posters, I think, are quite humble. The thing I like most about this site is Marblehead's chapter by chapter discussions of the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu. Reading everyone's opinions and ideas is better than reading any single author commentary!

That's not very anarchistic of you. I got my invite when White Wolf Running On Air posted in an open forum.

G'day all. I don't usually get involved in politics until voting day but I just want to say I was so relieved when Obama got elected in 2008. So relieved... The world would no doubt be a very different place if a Republican had have gotten elected in 2008. And I don't mean that in a good way! ralis mentioned that White Wolf Running On Air might be an Australian and what about Australian politics. I don't know if White Wolf Running On Air is Australian or not but I can tell you that our current Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, reminds me a lot of George W. Bush. I don't like either of them as men, politicians or leaders. And I am yet to find anyone who will admit to voting for the Liberal National Party. Funny that... That's my two bob worth.

Cool! It also works with XP. The file scrnsave.scr can be found at C:\WINDOWS\system32 Thanks for that 3bob.

Hi DAO rain TAO. I think the biggest problem you're going to have is deciding just how original a Daoist transmission you're willing to settle for. For example, do you know who started the first Daoist Daojiao school? Was it a schism of a school that was both Daojiao and Daojia? Did your 'original' school use a text more like the one discovered at Guodian or more like the Mawangdui? Did they even use a text or were the teachings of the founder circulated orally? I'm basically an atheist (with some pantheism thrown in), partly I suppose because no gods have bothered introducing themselves to me. Are you looking at following Daoism in a religious sense, following even their gods? This is just personal opinion, but some of the Daojiao gods are pretty far out. But then maybe that’s just how gods are supposed to be… I’m not writing this to put you off your search. I just think that if you are looking for something, you need to have a pretty good idea of just what it is you’re looking for. Don’t suspend logic when searching for the natural because the natural is logical, not supernatural. The DaoDeJing is all about naturalness and being natural. But then all searches of your sort are personal, so who am I to say what is right or wrong? LOL! Maybe you will receive your enlightenment somewhere down the track (or Path...). Good luck on your search. I've just reread Robert Henricks’ book on the Guodian Tao Te Ching and he has an interesting note on a Daoist god you may be interested in. The god is Taiyi, the "Great One", a Daoist (pre-Daoist?) creation god. He is writing about a short book called the "Taiyi shengshui" which was found in the Guodian tomb. I'll quote it. It's from page 123 of Henricks' "Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching". ...Taiyi, the "Great One". Does this mean that the "Great One" is the 'name' (ming) of what we 'refer to as' (wei) or 'designate' (zi) the "Dao"? Not necessarily. Relevant here are the lines in chapter 25 of the Laozi, where speaking of the source of heaven and earth, the author explains: "I do not yet know its name[ming]; I simply 'call it' [zi zih] the Dao. Were I forced to give it a name, I would say it's 'The Great' [da]." Lines 10-12 make the same distinction between what something actually is , that is, its "name", and how we "refer to" that thing, what it is "called" (wei), that is, its "designation" (zi).

It's not hidden. All of the different Daoist schools exist only because they are different. It's what happens when something like religion evolves from a text as simple as the DaoDeJing. Sects and schisms... No-one knows what Laozi meant except the expert you're currently talking to. And if anyone says otherwise, they're heterodox and can't be trusted. I'm only writing as someone who believes Laozi wasn't a religious Daoist or that there was even a religion based on Daoism at the time the DaoDeJing was composed. I'm no expert though... I found the following quoted text at http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/chin/hbcanondaw-u.html The names of Daoist Schools that come up most commonly are: Língbǎo 灵宝 (靈寶) "Spiritual Treasure." A sect of Daoism, apparently having its roots in Hàn dynasty local religious practitioners. Lóngmén 龙门 (龍門) "Dragon gate." A sect of Daoism, centered around Nánjīng and in Jiāngsū province. Sometimes classed as a subdivision of Quánzhēn 全真. Quánzhēn 全真 "Total Reality." A sect of Daoism widespread today. There are some Quánzhēn temples in the United States. Shàngqīng 上清 "Consummate Purity." A sect of Daoism that is associated with Mount Máo or Máo Shān 茅山 ("grass mountain") in Jiāngsū province, and therefore sometimes also called Máoshān Daoism. It particularly stresses use of the Yellow Court Scripture or Huángtíng Jīng 黄庭经) (黃庭經. The founder was a woman named Wèi Huácún 魏华存 (魏華存) (251-334), who married and raised a family but was subject to visions of immortals. Shénxiāo 神宵 "Spirit Night." A sect of Daoism possibly originating around Mount Lú or Lú Shān 庐山) (廬山) (also called Lǘ Shān 闾山) (閭山). The liturgical forms used are of a "popular" nature, i.e., derived from non-canonical sources, and considered "heterdox" by many Daoist priests. Sometimes also called Lúshān Daoism. This is the only major liturgical group whose texts are not secretly transmitted. Zhèngyī 正一 "Orthodox Unity") (Also written Zhèngyǐ 正乙). A sect of Daoism, founded by Zhāng Dàolíng 张道陵 (張道陵) and today the principal orthodox sect. Because the head of the sect, always a descendant of the founder, is referred to as the "Celestial Master Zhāng" (Zhāng Tiānshī 张天师 [張天師]), this is sometimes called the "Celestial Master Sect."

I was just blown away by Lao Tzu's (or whoever's...) down to earth writing. For example, chapter eleven. Everyone I read that to goes, "Wow..." It's just so obvious but who ever gives it a thought? And the simple truth of if you treat every task as potentially difficult, then you can prevent a seemingly simple task becoming difficult in the future. You just have to be aware that every difficult task was once simple in its beginning. There is just so much in so little.

G'day all. I just had a read of this news article and thought it would be of interest to a few of the members here. An Australian-developed tai chi-based exercise program has helped people reduce their blood sugar and blood pressure, according to a new study. ... The gentle nature of the program makes it attractive to people unable or fearful of participating in conventional types of exercises. ... Dr Liu said the program, known as SMILE Wellness, could be the first to scientifically demonstrate significant benefits of exercise alone for the management of diabetes, weight and depression. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/health/2014/01/28/14/29/tai-chi-program-reduces-blood-sugar-study

Tai Chi and ballroom dancing both require a tremendous amount of concentration to learn. I felt like an uncoordinated baby when I was trying to follow an old man's moves while learning Tai Chi. People three times my age were gracefully going through the moves while I looked like...I don't know what. And trying to coordinate two feet, two legs, two arms and keep in time to a beat while holding onto another person is also frustratingly difficult to get the hang of. I wonder if being totally mindful of what you are doing is the key to the success of both activities in the management of diabetes, weight and depression. Perhaps people just have to be taught mindfulness?

I read a few books on meditation a few months ago and one had information on studies from around the world that showed meditation and tai chi can lower blood pressure and improve overall health. Two of the books were "Seeking silence in a noisy world : the art of mindful solitude" and "Simple Zen : a guide to living moment by moment". I'm sure it was one of them. I found it really fascinating, though, that a simple (well, difficult really!) set of exercises could have such a profound affect on the body as it does on the lowering of blood sugar levels.

Thanks ChiDragon. I know Laozi was only personifying the Dao, giving it female attributes, not saying it was literally female.

Here's a great book on that subject I read a few months ago. Burning books and leveling libraries : extremist violence and cultural destruction by Rebecca Knuth. It doesn't just tell of the extremes groups will go to to erase the printed cultural history and heritage of a group, but also how far some have gone to try to protect their libraries from destruction. From memory it deals mainly with 20th century events but ends with the destruction of Iraqi libraries last decade. Books can sometimes be so threatening. Years ago, I read an eyewitness account of Pol Pot's takeover of Cambodia and one of the things that I remember most about the book was the author's description of the deserted streets being covered in wind blown paper from all of the destroyed books and manuscripts. Later, the author was part of a work detail to collect the paper so it could be reused.

A naturalistic pantheist is someone who reveres the entire Universe; all of Nature, including themselves. They don't believe in a god per-se. Here’s a link to part of a website run by a group who see themselves as naturalistic pantheists. If I was to write anything about them it would just be a cut and paste. http://www.pantheism.net/beliefs.htm I agree that there doesn’t seem to be anything in Laozi’s writings to suggest he worshipped the Dao as a creative entity. However, he does give the Dao femaleness and a sense of mothering, so by personifying it I’m not sure he saw it as just a thing in the sense that the sun is just a thing or a rock is just a thing. Also, by giving the Dao a female aspect he is one up on the makers of the Abrahamic religions in that they gave their mothering role to a ‘male’ that acts very much like a male. What do you think Laozi’s definition of ‘atheist’ would be, given the religious beliefs of his culture? It's just an interesting thought... The main point of my post, which probably (obviously, LOL!) wasn’t clear, was Laozi’s view of Dao and De and whether or not his understanding of it would cause him to be in agreement with the website statement of "There is a single kind of substance, energy/matter, which is vibrant and infinitely creative in all its forms. Body and mind are indivisibly united." Yes, there was no mention of him following a religion as we see it by him in the Dao De Jing and animism was common in ancient China. That’s one reason I find it hard to see him as 100% atheist in the modern sense we see it as. Whether or not he was doesn’t make any difference to me, though, because I don’t see the Dao De Jing as a source of religious inspiration but as a manual for keeping out of trouble. I actually meant naturalistic pantheism in the way that everything is connected because it all arose from the Dao. If there was a way to write pantheism with the theism… Laozi mentions the Dao as a mother, so if there is one mother then everything that issues forth from that mother is related. If you also were to see the mother in a parental role, then you would have a much easier life if you followed the parental rules of that mother. So I guess what my original intention to write was more like- From seeing the Universe in (possibly) the same perspective as Laozi, I have come to better see the inter-relationship of the world around me and I understand that by my following the ‘rules of nature’ (going with the flow) my life will have less moments of stress, and also by following those rules I could be an example to others who may also do the same which could have the knock-on effect of making my life even more trouble free. I have probably muddied the waters even more. But... …O.K, now I’ve had my turn at going way off topic, LOL! I’ll try harder not to next time…

I remember years ago, before my first reading of the Dao De Jing, looking up at the sky and thinking, "Wow, I'm feeling a connection with the Universe! I can see my place in it..." Then some of the latest news stories popped into my head, completely uninvited, and my next thought was, "Oh crap, I don't even want to be associated with this Universe, let alone be one with it!" But since reading Loazi's book (or whoever's; the author or redactor doesn't hold as much importance as the message) I can again say "Wow, I'm feeling a connection with the Universe! I can see my place in it..." and by my actions (or non-actions; funny how everything can be seen from two sides and still make sense after reading chapter 2) I can make a difference and and maybe the people that I interact with will do some of what I do (or don't do) and start a chain reaction and slowly make this a Universe one to feel good about associating with. Or at least the infinitesimally small bit we inhabit. I was just reading the above quotes and thinking, "I wonder if Laozi could have been a naturalistic pantheist..." There is actually a website about naturalistic/scientific pantheism and one of their principles is "There is a single kind of substance, energy/matter, which is vibrant and infinitely creative in all its forms. Body and mind are indivisibly united." It was just a thought that popped into my head that I thought was worth sharing, based on the talk of Dao, gods and deities.

Thanks dawei. To me, the Dao seems to be like a high pressure system that never collapses. Chapter 14 sort of touches on that, in that, like an area of pressure that is higher than its surroundings, the Dao can’t be seen, heard or felt, only its affects can be observed. This chapter, 4, says it is so evident, yet so hidden (in my opinion, lol!) A low pressure area, on the other hand, can be seen, heard and felt where it is because it has such a direct affect on its surroundings, and unlike the Dao, a low pressure area sucks in its surroundings, as if it is taking everything away, not adding to it (think hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes and waterspouts). Could you please link to the post by D.B you mention? It sounds interesting. Yes, some translators like Legge, Mabry and Mitchell say in this chapter the Dao is older than God (I’m assuming the Judeo-Christian god) but if gods have to be mentioned in a translation of this chapter then I like the way Byrn (?) does it – I don't know who gave birth to it. It is older than the concept of God. That version still doesn’t get rid of the Christianised concept of the Dao as ‘the God’, though, because Christians could argue that their god never had a concept of ‘god’ because their god was the first god and is the only god. Oh well… But yes, I am also sure Laozi meant he believed the Dao existed before anything, maybe even eternally before anything because the Dao goes out and by going out, returns.

This is great! It's just how I see this part of chapter 4. I'm having a bit of a muck around with my own 'translation', more of a paraphrase, really. I've come up with - The Dao is like an empty bowl, Yet it may be drawn from without needing to be filled. It is as bottomless as an abyss, The source of all things. It dulls the sharp, Separates the knotted, Shades the bright, Conforms the dust. So evident, Yet so hidden. Ever present and eternal, It is the child of none, The predecessor of all. I've written lines 5 to 8 as if they would apply to people, only not as overtly as Harmonious Emptiness. The sharp are the sharp witted, those that rely on their wits to get their own way. The knotted are those that are followers who can't think for themselves; the herd-like 'sheeple'. The bright are those with book-smarts but not necessarily life-smarts. The dust are like the followers of all the supernatural belief systems, bringing them back to a belief in the natural order.

I agree. Chapter 48 says those that seek knowledge collect something every day and those that seek the Way let go of something every day. I was attracted to the Dao De Jing because of its simple rules for living an uncomplicated life and the way Laozi described concepts I had never given any thought to, like you and wu. I have tried not to get bogged down in trying to understand exactly what the Dao is, just to try to follow it. Sometimes when I have some quiet time (a luxury I occasionally find myself possessing thanks to following the Way as much as I can!) I like to think about what it is. I think, though, that it's important not to think I know what it is, or think I have some special knowledge of it that lets me think I know something that others don't. If that were to happen I would probably cease seeing the Dao De Jing as a great instruction book to leading a freer life and see it as something I can bamboozle others with by proclaiming my greater knowledge of it. I've read some articles written by self-professed experts of the Way, and frankly, they sound like fundamentalists. I prefer Laozi's description of it as an elusive indescribable mystery; that's just me at this point in time. But no matter how mysterious and incomprehensible it might be for me, like Marblehead, I like talking about it!

Hi to Stosh, Brian and flowing hands. I see the Dao as the producer and emitter of potentiality. I just looked up what ‘potentiality’ actually means and this is the definition from WordWeb – The inherent capacity for coming into being. Then I looked up ‘potential’, the adjectival form – Existing in possibility. The noun form of ‘potential’ means – The inherent capacity for coming into being. This, to me, is as simple and profound a definition I can give for the Dao. I don’t see the Dao as having any human emotions such as love or caring. I see it as something that is ‘out there’ doing what it does because it just does. I don’t even think it knows what it is doing or even that it is aware of its existence or even capable of knowing or awareness. I also don't think the Dao is a creative force that specifically created me or even knew I would one day exist or even care that I exist. I exist only because the potentiality that was each of my parents became my parents. Hmmm... I could probably ramble on like this forever... I think Laozi saw the Dao as a ‘something’. If we use Derek Lin’s translation of chapter one, Loazi says that “its wonders” and “its manifestations” emerge together. They have to emerge from something. Lin offers a description of “its wonders” and “its manifestations” as something like two sides of a coin. They are distinctively different but they lead to one another. In my opinion, it is all but impossible to describe just what the Dao is in words. Sometimes when I am sitting beside the creek and just letting my mind wander while contemplating the Dao, I have flashes of inspiration but when I try to put those flashes into words in my mind, I quickly get frustrated because I can’t even describe my own thoughts to myself!

Yes Marblehead, I was quite glad when I happened upon that book. I particularly liked what it said about potentialities. I finished reading Alan Watt's "The Way of Zen" and it reminded me of some of what I understood from that book. It's one of the reasons I always try to treat people as individuals, no matter what they believe and who else believes the same. Just because A agrees with B doesn't make A the same person as B. It stops stereotyping and pigeonholing people.

Hi ChiDragon. I can comment but I’m not too sure of its value… I like these lines. I’m not sure what you mean here, as I’m not sure who or what would be around to name the Tao ‘Invisible’. But you do bring out something very interesting. Before the Tao manifested anything, there would have been nothing to know of its existence, so in effect it would indeed be ‘Invisible’! Once it revealed itself in its creation of the ten thousand things then it could be given a name and that name would be ‘Visible’ to each of the ten thousand things. I had to make line 5 a little more easier for myself to understand. I had never heard of the words “grok” or “quale” before. I hope what I’ve written is what you meant. 5. Hence, when Tao is always invisible, one would grasp its indefinable conscious experience. Does this mean to be at one with the Dao? To have a complete understanding? A sort of enlightenment? I can see this as being true, especially as it is linked to line number 5. You can only know it in a finite way. That’s what makes your rendition of line 5 so interesting. Yes, the unknowable or unobservable Dao and the knowable or observable Dao are both unfathomable. Laozi called the Dao ‘Great’ because that’s the best he could come up with. The gate of all changes… In my last post I quoted a part of Bracke’s book and when I read your line 9 I was reminded of what he wrote about potentiality. Everything changes and everything has the potential for change. Even the Dao changes and that is why it is impossible to name. I’m not sure about the value of my comments but this was a good exercise for me as it caused me to have a good think, and that is always good. Thanks for the invitation ChiDragon.

Hello again Dawei. I was searching for Chan’s translation and commentary (I’m assuming Wing Tsit Chan?) and came across this which I found very interesting and related to what you wrote. Quoted text from “The Divine Matrix: Creativity as Link Between East and West” by Joseph A. Bracke (1995), pages 125, 126 There never was a "time" when absolutely nothing existed, because otherwise to this day nothing would exist. From strict nothingness, nothing proceeds. Only from non-being in the sense of potentiality does being or actuality proceed, and even here the priority of non-being or potentiality to being or actuality is logical rather than temporal. In point of fact, non-being always co-exists with being as its immanent ground or ontological source of existence and activity. Both being and non-being, therefore, are manifest in everything that exists. Being is manifest in the entity's actuality, that which it already is. Non-being is indirectly manifest in its potentiality to become something else. Of the two, non-being is the more mysterious since the potentiality of an entity to become something else becomes apparent only as it is beginning to pass from one state of actuality to another. In "the rustlings of leaves and the twilight of the twilight of the evening", says Kuang-Ming Wu, "one feels the presence of non-being in Nature." In this sense, as already noted above in analyzing the first chapter of the Tao Te Ching, the Tao that cannot be named is properly indentified with non-being; whereas the Tao that can be named is linked with being or the One as "the mother of all things". On this most fundamental point, Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu are clearly in accord, as the following passage from the Chuang Tzu makes clear: In the great beginning, there was non-being. It had neither being nor name. The One originates from it; it has oneness but not yet physical form. When things obtain it and come into existence, that is called virtue (which gives them their individual character). That which is formless is divided [into yin and yang], and from the very beginning going on without interruption is called destiny (ming, fate). Through movement and rest it produces all things.

All things in the world are born out of being. Being is born out of non-being. Thank you for the welcoming, dawei. Since I’ve been ‘into’ the Dao De Jing, I’ve learnt to see things in an entirely different way than to the simplistic way I was used to before. Chapter 11 was the first real eye-opener for me. These words above from chapter 40 also give a great lesson on the equality of all humans. Every one of us is the child of a mother and a father. And because every one of us was once a non-being, every one of us is a product of our experiences and our learning. Every one of us can change our attitudes and the way we see the world around us. We just need to be shown we can and then want to.

I like what you wrote here. I think it takes time to see things as they are. The trouble with people, especially urbanised Westerners, is that there are a million other things we ‘need’ to be doing. If we’re too busy being busy then we miss out on the opportunity to see things as they are and then we fall into the trap of following someone else’s viewpoint for expediency’s sake. I meet people that think I’m a bit thick because I don’t have an opinion on a subject I know nothing or too little about. I also can’t give an opinion on something I haven’t seen but I can give an opinion on the manifestation of that same thing. It took me a while but I think I see what you’re getting at. You don’t need to be “full of desire” to see the manifestations of the Dao. Anyone can see them because they are there all around us. Unless…we are so wrapped up in our own blind thinking that we only see the world in a very narrow way, ignoring whatever goes against our way of ‘seeing’ and ‘knowing’ things. I think organised religion is very much like that. A person that holds the same faith as that religion is valued more than someone who doesn’t, even though the ‘heretic’ may be a more humane human being than any believer of that faith.

Thanks Marblehead and ChiDragon for the feedback. I said in my in introductory post in the Lobby that I think Laozi expressed so much in so few words. I think if you just sit quietly and let the words do what they want with your thoughts you can get a much better understanding of them than just reading them and trying to force a meaning to come to the surface. There is such a deeper meaning to the writing than what first pops out. I think that’s one way of looking at- Free of desire, you see its mysteries. Full of desire, you see its manifestations. If you just read the words dispassionately you’re only going to get a meaning that makes sense to you at this moment in time, and that’s if they even do make sense to you. If you read them and then let them have time to be tossed about inside your head and then given a chance to settle, they return to becoming ideas again and you’ll get an understanding that takes into account your whole life experience. Chapter 15 could say something about that, settling messy thoughts and then being able to use the result. I have a story that sort of poorly explains what I mean. I live on a five acre block beside a creek in the country. At the back of my block is a hole in the ground. When I first saw it I didn’t know what made it. A few weeks later I saw a hare eating grass near the fence beside the creek, around the middle of my block. I thought to myself that the hare probably made the hole but wondered why it was feeding so far from its burrow. A little while later I decided to take a photo of the hare and went walking down closer to where it was feeding. The slope is uneven and can be slippery so I had to be careful about where I was walking and I only got within about a hundred metres of the hare when it turned around and bolted for its burrow. It was then that I got an understanding of why the hare was feeding so far from its burrow! The hare could run fast and its burrow was dug into the side of the creek bank so it could get into the burrow and its pursuer probably wouldn’t even know where it went. If you’re looking at a hole and thinking about a hole, then you’ll only see the hole. If you’re looking at a hare and thinking about a hare, then you’ll only see the hare. When you see the hare and think about the hole, you’ll see there could be some sort of connection between the two. But it was only when I was surprised by the hare running off in the direction of the hole while I was trying to negotiate the uneven slope that I had a more complete understanding of the connection, even though I wasn’t really giving any conscious thought to either the hare or the hole. Sorry about the wordy response… I like the saying, “The less we know, the longer the explanation.”