dust

Weren't we..? All true. As this is all being discussed under the tentative aegis of Daoism... can we reconcile all this planning with the spontaneity we find in, for example, the Zhuangzi?

I know this is the Chinese way, but... yes, has always seemed a bit extreme to me. Hot tea, cold beer; apples & oranges, cigarettes & whisky... everything in moderation!

I don't believe it, but.. I don't think it's entirely implausible that he was, at some point, a student of Hinduism or Buddhism. Firstly: Teaching-wise, as Michael said; Jesus and the Buddha were kindred spirits. More so than Jesus and Muhammad, or Buddha and Laozi, etc. Secondly: As I remember from the Gospels, he's born, and everyone makes a big fuss... then around 30 years later he begins his teaching. Actually, the Sinai Bible makes no mention of his life at all before he was 30 (nor of his resurrection). Where did he appear from? There's no evidence of him being in India or nearby, but there's no evidence of him being anywhere in particular, is there? Geographically, it's entirely plausible. Travel would've been pretty easy. And it seems likely to me that if he'd studied in India, he would have been just another robe in the crowd, hardly noteworthy enough for anyone around him to devote themselves to memorializing his travels. The world was just as full of inquisitive travelers and foreign students then as it is now. Thirdly: The modern New Testament, as editorialized as it is, is clearly not a full and true testament to his life or teachings (the Sinai Bible, which contradicts much of the modern NT, is the earliest extant version, and even that was written over 300 years after his death). It seems very obvious to me that he wasn't born of a virgin, he didn't walk on water, he didn't raise the dead, and he didn't rise from the dead himself. I might look to the texts that did not garner such widespread popularity close to his lifetime, such as so-called “Gnostic gospels”. From the Gospel of Thomas (the extant manuscript dated to around 340AD -- as early as the Sinai Bible): Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

Without Manhattan, though? One can argue that it was the 'skill' or 'cleverness' of the allied powers deciding to develop the Manhattan Project (and subsequently inventing the bombs), but hypothetically: If they'd failed? If they'd taken another 10 years? I don't know enough detail to argue whether or not either of the World Wars, or any other war, was 'skillfully' or 'cleverly' fought by those involved. Might we not argue that at that point in history, the situation was completely different from the way it could ever have been in Sunzi's time..? Indeed.

故兵聞拙速，未睹巧之久也；夫兵久而國利者，未之有也 Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. Giles Therefore, I have heard of military campaigns that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen military campaigns that were skilled but protracted. No nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare. Sonshi Both translations fine; and with a subtle but interesting difference. I prefer the Sonshi phrasing. Is it true though? Surely there have been wars that were both inevitable and all but impossible to end quickly?

I think Jesus was a Buddhist. As a major teacher, yes, but not the teacher. I mean, some idolize him, relying only on the TTC, but others seem to ignore Laozi (and Zhuangzi) almost completely. It is often claimed that Taoism existed prior to Laozi, and that it has developed beyond anything he may have said. On the other hand, to call oneself a Buddhist or a Christian, surely one must adhere to the specific teachings of the Buddha or Christ (as far as we can ascertain what they were) as these traditions are founded upon what they first taught?

Mary Black, Frances Black, Sinead O'Connor.. bit of a Celtic women's night

I was responding to Michael's post about the modern view of karma, and was simply offering a comparison to illustrate why one might claim that the average Buddhist does not necessarily understand concepts such as karma any better than anyone else. When it comes to Daoism, there is no (edit: universally accepted) central teacher like Gautama or Christ, so people can make it whatever they want it to be within certain, very loose, boundaries.

I might compare Buddhism with Christianity (or most other teachings/religions/systems). The average modern Buddhist applies 'original' Buddhist wisdom in life as much as the average modern Christian follows the actual teachings of Christ. In other words, almost not at all. Growing up in Protestant and Catholic schools, and knowing a fair amount of what's in the NT, it has always bothered me when people claim to be Christian whilst very blatantly ignoring, and even opposing, almost everything Jesus taught. Living in China, and knowing something of Gautama Buddha's teachings, it started to bother me in a similar way when I would watch Chinese people going to temple to pray, asking Buddha for blessings and riches but knowing nothing of actual Buddhist theory. So.. a person can call himself a Christian, or Buddhist, or anything else, but it's my experience that, worldwide, very few people have any true understanding of their claimed practice. One does not have to identify as a Christian or Buddhist to see this (in fact, it probably helps to be on the outside looking in to see it).

Something else from a latecomer. Maybe useful going forward. I read something in the previous pages regarding the use of 'temple'. Not sure if this was mentioned, but back then, 廟 would be reserved for referring to the temple of the Imperial palace, and could easily be referring to the Imperial palace/court itself. More importantly, though, the character is paired with 算, for the structure 廟算 Giles, Minford, and Sonshi all translate this along the lines of "calculations in the temple", but it's more likely a phrase that originally meant something along the lines of "looking to the court or Emperor for a battle plan", and when Sunzi writes means simply "battle plan / plan an attack". The word 'temple' should not be translated so literally. http://www.zdic.net/c/9/db/216675.htm

Well don't labour too hard on adding translations based on my suggestion; like I said, I know very little, and my evaluation of any translation at this point isn't worth much. I spent a while yesterday comparing the Giles and Sonshi versions of a single line (a line MH quoted, According as circumstances are favorable, one should modify one's plans.). The 2 versions are quite different, so I wrote out a whole response comparing each word choice and similar choices from other chapters, and attempted my own translation, before I realized that they both got the point across pretty well. Points being, I don't know much, and a variety of (good) translations is almost never detrimental..

Yeah... it's a funny one. Looking at any dictionary, ancient or modern, 弱 is listed as weak, infirm, delicate, feeble, young, soft. As the opposite of 强 strong (not necessarily rigid), it often seems to make most sense to translate as weak (not necessarily flexible). TTC 36: 柔弱勝剛強 soft weak overcome hard strong But I don't know if the modern English 'weak' does line up precisely with the word 弱 in Laozi or Sunzi's time. Their ancient Chinese 弱 probably meant any type of person who might be considered infirm, enfeebled; anyone who needed taking care of; the young, the old, the sick, the pregnant, etc. And we're talking of a kind of power, right? The power the infirm has over the robust; the power of manipulation. Just a thought...

I'd like to become at least somewhat familiar with the text, and I'd be happy to look at the Chinese when necessary (though I realize nobody's looking for long translation discussions). Not having had the energy to get deep into the LZ or ZZ recently, I think SZ might offer some relatively 'light' study... Though I know very little about the text so far, I've had a look here, and it would seem that the Giles, Gagliardi, and Ames translations all get the point across pretty well... though my preferred translation style is almost certainly found here; it is perhaps slightly less elegant than some, but seems much closer to the Chinese than any of the others. As Giles's is on ctext, it offers easy comparison with Chinese; if I end up contributing further, I'd probably suggest using a combination of Giles and the Sonshi version (loyal, to the point, and also available for free online).

To be honest, I know I should not be claiming that there is such a thing as "pure Daoist theory" -- let alone that I know what it is! That was arrogant of me. I should perhaps have said "Daoist theory as found in and based around [insert texts] does not allow for...". Well, either way, my Daoism, as found in ZZ and LZ, does not 'allow' for rebirth or a judicial version of karma...

As I understand it, karma/kamma originally means 'action', right? (With 'result' implied, because every action has a result?) Cause and effect is a pretty fundamental principle. Almost every way/system of looking at the world recognizes the process. And so when one says something like "This is your karma", it is the same as saying "This is your action" -- "This is your doing". And if one accepts that one is no more than a part of the Greater Action, one might accept that as well as everything they do being (their) karma, everything that happens to them is also (their) karma. Confusion arises because humans have a need for morality, for laying blame around, and for explaining things in ways that make them feel like they have a greater control over their lives than they actually do. So, one day I punch a man, and the next week I fall out of a window, and some say that my fall is a direct result of my punch; that this is all a result of the Cosmic Judiciary called karma -- it 'proves' that my action was immoral, that I have been punished for it, and that if I had just been a better person I wouldn't be in this mess. Sometimes, this could be seen to be true. Without that punch and all consequential actions, I might not have been in the position the next week to fall out of a window. It might even be that the man I punched comes back to push me, that this is a direct punishment; it might look like there is a cosmic policeman making absolutely sure that everything I do, good or bad, is repaid in kind. But of course, I might never see that man again; I might go on to live a happy life free of punishment. There's no Cosmic Judiciary, only an endlessly complex pattern of cause and effect. Then again... if I punch a man, I might end up feeling bad about it. And my guilt could be said to be a karmic punishment. But this view of karma is only going to affect people who give a shit in the first place, so it's not exactly universal. As my understanding goes, the Buddhist concept pratityasamutpada, interdependent origination, 缘起, absolutely fits with the Daoist understanding of things. And so the idea of karma as 'action' based on this endlessly complex pattern of cause and effect fits very well with Daoism. And so no, pure Daoist 'theory' does not allow for concepts such as rebirth or reincarnation, let alone the idea that the Cosmic Judiciary is going to turn one into a slug in the next life because one wasn't diligent enough in this life.

I'm hoping some of our more astrophysically savvy members can explain some stuff. Almost nothing about the movie made any sense to me -- the science, the situation, the choices people made...but I'm really curious about the science. Obviously, spoilers follow. Just a few things that bothered me: On a starving planet, a destitute USA has enough resources to fund NASA with enough money to create space ships and stations and send people through wormholes to attempt to colonize 12 different planets in another galaxy... in secret? Lumbering 20th Century take-off from Earth, but BSG Viper-style spaceships from then on? Cryo-sleep in underwater zip-lock bags? What has Mann been smoking? Is he just insane? Because his plan seems entirely unnecessary. Why not just tell them all the truth and suggest moving on? Can't they look at the planets to see/detect what's on them, rather than touching down? Someone flying into a black hole ends up inside it, just a little out of breath? No other side effects, like... death?? A future humanity has discovered way to, inside said black hole, condense 5 dimensions into 4 and make it look all pretty so that gravity can be communicated across time and space? Sending highly complex equations using Morse code? Cooper ends up magically transported back to somewhere near Saturn? Cooper meets his daughter finally, then... just leaves? And nobody seems to care that he was there in the first place? I wanted to like it, I was excited to watch it, but... it just seems like nonsense..which would be OK if it wasn't purporting to be highly sensical and scientifically possible...

Wasn't sure which way it'd swing. Seems like everyone's basically in agreement. I'm glad I haven't opened myself up to a lengthy discussion on physics that I don't understand Though the agreement of my fellow Bums that the movie does indeed not make much sense doesn't help me with its wholesale acceptance by many people I know (and the majority of the internet, apparently)..

Yeah, I figured as much. But as the whole basis of black holes is that gravity is so strong that even light cannot 'escape', I still can't suspend disbelief quite enough to imagine a man floating inside one. Cool stuff. Honestly don't know why they couldn't have done something like this with all their futuristic tech. Yeah. I'm sure someone, somewhere, has an explanation for how this happened, but I'm not sure it'd make any sense. True. Though another thing that I don't get is the audience reaction. Everyone seems to love it -- 8.7 on IMDb! In an age where so many people are in love with science (and not without good reason, sometimes), one would think that there would be at least a little critical thinking applied, rather than outright acceptance of every premise, both in terms of the movie's physics and its emotional stuff. Yeah.. I've no problem applying it, for the most part. We know that a Marvel movie isn't going to make any sense at all, and we accept it for what it is. And in something like Sense8, once we've accepted the original (some might say outlandish) premise, it only needs to follow its own internal logic to make sense. And I would be able to accept many of the above things about Interstellar if it weren't for the fact that: 1. they have famous physicists claiming that it's all basically possible -- unlike a Marvel romp, people are taking it somewhat seriously. 2. let's say I suspend disbelief entirely on the scientific side of things; it's all just a vehicle for the emotional stuff, a tool to learn something about my own humanity, or whatever. There are still some emotional and character-based occurrences that render the human side of the movie almost entirely nonsensical too. ???

As so often, Louis CK says it best: "The entire reason sex exists is to have babies. That's the only reason it exists at all, but we're such a narcissistic species that ... we just wanna UGGHH ... we just wanna spray jizz everywhere just for no reason ..."

Kind of a spin-off on the "Language we trick ourselves with" angle; what language are our governments currently using to hoodwink people? Let's have a quick look at various definitions of propaganda: Propaganda is a form of information that panders to our insecurities and anxieties. -Jacques Ellul Propaganda is indifferent to truth and truthfulness, knowledge and understanding; it is a form of strategic communication that uses any means to accomplish its ends. -Walter Cunningham Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist. -Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell Propaganda is a form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. -Richard Alan Nelson Propaganda is intentionally-designed communication that invites us to respond emotionally, immediately, and in a either-or manner. -Neil Postman I am suggesting that we limit the scope to examples of propaganda (as defined in any of the above ways) used by current or very recent governments or other authoritative entities, and in the form of language manipulation. I'd imagine that most propaganda involves manipulation of language. Now, a video. democracy, peace process, humanitarian aid; Chomsky on some tricky language (from 1990 but still relevant, I think): Then, something fairly recent from the UK: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/to-help-fuel-their-propaganda-machine-against-the-poor-our-government-has-now-decided-to-redefine-the-word-welfare-9873127.html Including: redefining "welfare" to include certain state pensions (including teachers' pensions) and child protection, and redefining the fire service as a part of "criminal justice". I'm certain that my fellow bums can come up with some far more sophisticated examples, however. Whatever you think fits the bill. And I'd really love explanations as far as possible so that everyone who reads through this at any point is clear on what's being suggested..

Buddhism also tells us to use our own logic and experience to decide what to believe, not just relying on teachings, right? The Zhuangzi chapter 《 至樂 》 Perfect Enjoyment gets across an idea of life and death rooted in Dao. http://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu2.html#1 http://ctext.org/zhuangzi/perfect-enjoyment "When she first died, was it possible for me to be singular and not affected by the event? But I reflected on the commencement of her being. She had not yet been born to life; not only had she no life, but she had no bodily form; not only had she no bodily form, but she had no breath. During the intermingling of the waste and dark chaos, there ensued a change, and there was breath; another change, and there was the bodily form; another change, and there came birth and life. There is now a change again, and she is dead. The relation between these things is like the procession of the four seasons from spring to autumn, from winter to summer. There now she lies with her face up, sleeping in the Great Chamber; and if I were to fall sobbing and going on to wall for her, I should think that I did not understand what was appointed (for all)." "The seeds of things have mysterious workings. In the water they become Break Vine, on the edges of the water they become Frog's Robe. If they sprout on the slopes they become Hill Slippers. If Hill Slippers get rich soil, they turn into Crow's Feet. The roots of Crow's Feet turn into maggots and their leaves turn into butterflies. Before long the butterflies are transformed and turn into insects that live under the stove; they look like snakes and their name is Ch'u-t'o. After a thousand days, the Ch'u-t'o insects become birds called Dried Leftover Bones. The saliva of the Dried Leftover Bones becomes Ssu-mi bugs and the Ssu-mi bugs become Vinegar Eaters. I-lo bugs are born from the Vinegar Eaters, and Huang-shuang bugs from Chiu-yu bugs. Chiu-yu bugs are born from Mou-jui bugs and Mou-jui bugs are born from Rot Grubs and Rot Grubs are born from Sheep's Groom. Sheep's Groom couples with bamboo that has not sprouted for a long while and produces Green Peace plants. Green Peace plants produce leopards and leopards produce horses and horses produce men. Men in time return again to the mysterious workings. So all creatures come out of the mysterious workings and go back into them again."

I think she understands the LZ better than many, but when she says something like this: "Lao Tzu knows that getting all entangled with the external keep us from the eternal, but he also understands that sometimes people like to get dressed up." or this: "The Tao de Ching, though very old, is accessible because the Chinese characters haven’t changed." I begin to wonder..

It has a vaguely "Eastern spiritual" ring to it, I suppose. But do any of the 3 statements actually hold true? Is everyone who's sad about the past "depressed"? And can't we be "depressed" without even thinking of the past? (perhaps the future, or our present situation?) And can't one be anxious while thinking about a past or current situation? And if one is at peace, is this always attributable to being "in the present"? Can't someone be at peace thinking of a memory, or future possibilities? In my opinion, not the wisdom of a great sage..

This isn't exactly on-topic, but I don't want to SHOUT AT PEOPLE ON FACEBOOK who are never going to know any better so thought I'd vent my annoyance here https://www.pinterest.com/pin/564990715730724773/ A FB friend shared this today. Again: not, as far as I can tell, attributable to Laozi. Also, a load of trite nonsense..! I know that it shouldn't matter, but (like many people here) I greatly admire the text, and each time I see something like this...

Well, yes, anything that happens concerning the genesis, development, or extinction of any kind of life can be placed in the 'evolution' discussion box. And yes, many more species than just the large, furry, pretty mammals many of us get so emotional about are going extinct every day. And from a detached, purely logical, some might say 'enlightened' standpoint, it doesn't matter what dies when -- everything's going extinct eventually, and whether or not humans are responsible for some of it? Well.. it's all just part of the natural process of the planet... But I wonder... if one really sees things from such an unemotional perspective, what's the point of being alive? Why go through the meaningless and monotonous daily ritual? After all, I'm just a human, I'm going to die anyway, and there's nothing very special about this place is there? Humans are not Vulcans. We are emotional; our self-awareness and "intelligence" might separate us from the other animals, but we still depend on pleasure and pain -- probably even more so than any other species -- and it is absolutely logical for (some of) us to want to live on a planet that is populated with an array of flora and fauna, and for us to not want to be responsible for the obliteration of the environment which created us (or any particular bit of it). We can appreciate the fundamental and inescapable nature of evolution whilst still having an appreciation for our individual lives and the lives of others; and I strongly question the character of any person who genuinely doesn't care if the pandas die out... (Sorry Karl, went off on one there. Not implying that you hate pandas or anything)