Taoist Texts

People with virtue do not need to be told. People without virtue - do not care who says what. Whoever discards human virtue to go with a neidan one - really really deserves what is in store for him.

yes, greed is always strange. The greedy for desires will not pay for Virtue, because Virtue is a negation of desires; but they will pay for a promise to stay young in order to satisfy the desires, so the greedy for money will sell them that promise. Its a meeting of greeds, which is educational to watch. Q. What are quaifications to be a teacher of immortality? A. (1) Have a webpage that says so (2) Be not dead yet.

You are right Dusty, there is no looking or seeing specified. The reason for that is twofold: first because they talk about fish so there is no question of wheter they see them or not. Of course they do, so that goes without saying.Second: Hui is not interested in merely seeing fish, he is interested why doing so should bring joy to an individual of different species, Zhuang. In reply Zhuang proposes to consider the main question 其本: whether a human can emphatise (know) with another one at all? His proof that a human does that is simple and elegant: The mere fact that you, Hui, have asked me, Zhuang about whether do i feel (know) about the fish, shows that you do empathise with me, otherwise you would not have asked.

may be he was listening to fish 魚部:鱳：魚名。出樂浪潘國。从魚樂聲。 《魚部》

designed to make us), that ZZ certainly had ong-term designes 1莊子與惠子遊於濠梁之上。 Zhuang-zi and Hui-zi were strolling on the fish pond dam at Hao river 2莊子曰：「儵魚出遊從容，是魚樂也。」 Zhuang said: the fish came to the surface, our stroll became enjoyable, due to joy from seeing the fish. 3惠子曰：「子非魚，安知魚之樂？」 Hui said: you are not a fish, why would you enjoy looking at fish? 4莊子曰：「子非我，安知我不知魚之樂？」 Zhuang said: you are not I, how you know I should not enjoy seeing fish? 5惠子曰：「我非子，固不知子矣；子固非魚也，子之不知魚之樂全矣。」 Hui said: I am not you, and certainly can not comprehend your reasons; likewise you are not a fish, so you have no reason to enjoy seeing fish. 6莊子曰：「請循其本。 Zhuang said: that’s is the crux of the question, can one man comprehend another or not 7子曰『汝安知魚樂』云者， You said ‘why should you enjoy seeing fish 8既已知吾知之而問我，我知之濠上也。」 And by that question you have established comprehension between us, now I understood that right here .

May be, but wiki has its doubts so yeah..search on knowing joy gives a surprising number of hits. It was a heavily bandied about concept. And why joy of fishes, who cares about that? I am thinking.

no no none of that and bsedies its clothes that maketh the man and you guys are dapper i am sure i will just point that in those times there was quite a discourse on 'knowing the joy' of others http://ctext.org/pre-qin-and-han?searchu=%E7%9F%A5%E6%A8%82&page=2 http://ctext.org/pre-qin-and-han?searchu=%E9%9D%9E%E6%88%91&page=5#n63221 and i posit that this story is a part of that. So the issue is what exactly is 'knowing the joy of others' and why?

well actually yes thats what makes them stories and not just rants

like this

that might be the paraphrased story but what is its point if any?

these ones. What dya all think this is about? 莊子與惠子遊於濠梁之上。莊子曰：「儵魚出遊從容，是魚樂也。」惠子曰：「子非魚，安知魚之樂？」莊子曰：「子非我，安知我不知魚之樂？」惠子曰：「我非子，固不知子矣；子固非魚也，子之不知魚之樂全矣。」莊子曰：「請循其本。子曰『汝安知魚樂』云者，既已知吾知之而問我，我知之濠上也。」 Zhuangzi and Huizi were walking on the dam over the Hao, when the former said, 'These thryssas come out, and play about at their ease - that is the enjoyment of fishes.' The other said, 'You are not a fish; how do you know what constitutes the enjoyment of fishes?' Zhuangzi rejoined, 'You are not I. How do you know that I do not know what constitutes the enjoyment of fishes?' Huizi said, 'I am not you; and though indeed I do not fully know you, you certainly are not a fish, and (the argument) is complete against your knowing what constitutes the happiness of fishes.' Zhuangzi replied, 'Let us keep to your original question. You said to me, "How do you know what constitutes the enjoyment of fishes?" You knew that I knew it, and yet you put your question to me - well, I know it (from our enjoying ourselves together) over the Hao.' http://ctext.org/zhuangzi/floods-of-autumn#n2828

Unfortunately yes, speaking of alchemy thats true. Also, when instead of answering the question smbody refers you to a teacher - it means that they do not know, all the while pretending to be knowlegable.

Moderately prosperous society (Chinese: 小康社会; pinyin: xiǎokāngshehui) is a Chinese term, originally of Confucian origin, used to describe a society composed of a functional middle-class. The term is most well known in recent years as used by Chinese leader Hu Jintao when referring to economic policies meant to realize a more equal distribution of wealth. In the usages (tifa) of Xi Jinping, the term "China Dream" or "Chinese Dream" has gained somewhat greater prominence. Origins[edit]It has been loosely translated as a "basically well-off" society in which the people are able to live relatively comfortably, albeit ordinarily. The term was first used in Classic of Poetry written as early as 3000 years ago Pope Francis on Twitter: "When a society lacks God, even ... https://twitter.com/pontifex/status/514334822253481984 Sep 23, 2014 - When a society lacks God, even prosperity is joined by a terrible spiritual poverty.

actually kudos to forestofemptiness for positing the issue like that: "running the cosmos". Its a question that LZ took an intense but a passing interest in, answering it with 'the Heaven follows ziran' (the innate autonomous workings). Nobody does run the Heaven, its on a wondrous autopilot with unlimited mileage. So thats that and there is nothing more to say on the issue except imitating it by creating a governing machinery that will runon its own too.

"you need to pay the money"....."that we dont need"...."but we will take it anyway" line these guys should be in stand up.

who is running the cosmos? Thats the thing though, the principles are not universal at all. What happened historically was that the author of TTC was using the logic 'as above so MUST be below' to assure the correctness of governing the below by imitating the Heavenly way above. It was only possive due to a presence of a very special being below, the one with Heavenly qualities - the king. Thats a condition sine qua non. A state without a king or a being who is not a king is out of luck according to TTC.

valar dohaeris

we are all still hangover from the x-mas carousing so hair of the dog all around and pick a chapter

19 道德: 老子曰：夫亟戰而數勝者，即國亡，亟戰即民罷，數勝即主驕，以驕主使罷民，而國不亡者即寡矣。主驕即恣，恣即極物，民罷即怨，怨即極慮，上下俱極而不亡者，未之有也。故「功遂身退，天之道也。」 Lao-zi said: if the war is waged often and the victories are numerous then the kingdom will perish; for the frequent wars inure your people, repeated victories lead to your overconfidence, an overconfident king evermore inures his people, and for such a kingdom not to perish is a rarity. Overconfidence leads to hubris, hubris strain the things to the utmost, the inured people become restless, people being restless leads to the utmost trouble, and for the above and the below to be strained to their utmost and not to perish, there is no such thing. That’s what it means: the victory accomplished to restrain from more wars, that’s the will of the Heaven.

This is interesting. So those immortal true neidan masters need money? How much in total? What an immortal would spend this money on?

I totally agree thats what it says.

hey look Dusty is back. welcome back Dusty!

I know;) that verbiage is a classic example as how they twist the original words. The original saying is explained here Cultivating the Tao: Taoism and Internal Alchemy what is the purpose of using water and fire to boil an empty pot? . and comes originally from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuzhen_pian occuring just once in the text. At no point the text suggests that the pot will be damaged in the process. 鼎内若无真种子，犹将水火煮空铛。 if in the tripod there is no true seed, its like trying to cook heating an empty pot. thats all it says.

actually its doubtful that the original chinese quote meant 'if you heat an empty pot - it will burn out and crack', it was more to the tune that 'if you heat a pot with no rice in it - there will be no cooked rice'.

they paid all the money they had and got nowhere. thats ironic. probably.