dust

In Western psychological terms... the id would be the instinct, the superego would be the thinking mind, and the ego would be the watcher?

Hmm. Best thing for another person? Nothing great.. should I feel bad that there's nothing I really want to brag about? I've never been privy to a dick-measuring contest...are they common?

I shall write often of my adventures, and if it happens that I find a cameraperson worthy of my company, and willing to work for wisdom, and the promise of a lordship, I shall become a phenomenon on this phenomenon they call You Tube. True knights-errant have little need for the meats and breads that the common person cannot live without, for our strength comes from the love we hold for our beloved, which is usually succour enough. It is also true that the property of those I vanquish shall be available to plunder, and that on those long journeys through the wilderness that must of necessity transpire, water and herbs will be sufficient to sustain me. A scoundrel is easily recognised on sight, as anyone who seeks to deny a citizen their freedom or happiness, either physical or mental. A squire has little need at first for fighting -- as a person of lower rank, thou should not be expected to join the fray apart from those instances where I am set upon by base-born hooligans unworthy of my attention, who shall be easy enough for one such as thyself to pummel into submission.

“Live in each season as it passes; breathe the air, drink the drink, taste the fruit, and resign yourself to the influence of the earth.” “I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” “There are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not philosophers.” “One farmer says to me, 'You cannot live on vegetable food solely, for it furnishes nothing to make bones with;' and so he religiously devotes a part of his day to supplying his system with the raw material of bones; walking all the while he talks behind his oxen, which, with vegetable-made bones, jerk him and his lumbering plow along in spite of every obstacle.” “The church is a sort of hospital for men's souls and as full of quackery as the hospital for their bodies.” “As long as possible live free and uncommitted. It makes but little difference whether you are committed to a farm or the county jail.” ― Henry David Thoreau, Walden I could quote the whole book... or simply suggest everyone reads it...

Indeed, though of course ye must realise good sir that Game of Thrones is but a fiction, a fantastical reimagining of the true tales of Arthur, Amadis, and other worthy knights-errant of history. ... Is Reign any good?

Verily, though we must rely on second- or third-hand accounts of the adventures of the knights of yore, modern technology affords a great and noble opportunity for future generations to look upon the prowess and bravery of those of us still with chivalry running hot through our veins. But I'm not sure I can afford a camera and the operator's wage as well as all the other stuff...

Art thou sure? You'd get to ride an ass..?

Sure..mostly agreed. I am of the firm belief that language is the basis for a majority of disagreement/debate. For example, "Atheism as a religion" is almost entirely a linguistic issue, and most of the on-topic debate in that thread is disagreement over what constitutes "atheism" and "religion". If we can agree upon definitions for these terms, we have little more need for discussion. The problem is, I think, often down to people's subjective definitions of -- and subsequent attachment to -- certain words. For example, I would suggest that an atheist -- defined as someone who disbelieves in any God/gods -- can still be religious, as my definition of religion doesn't require belief in God (but is a system of rites, ritual, obedience, and the firm or fervent belief that some thing is better than other things). An outspoken atheist, however -- one who feels attached to the label (being proud of having figured out that God probably doesn't exist and figuring himself smarter than someone who does believe in God) -- will generally take offence at being labelled religious, as he inextricably associates religion with belief in God. On the other hand, we could just use different language: Some people who believe gods are not real are quick to mock or harangue those who do believe in some sort of god -- some even to the point of being fervent and vitriolic in their disbelief, and in their hatred of the belief in and ritualistic worship of deities. It is not uncommon for these same people to put their faith instead into something called "science". The hysteria that can result from their disbelief in gods and passionate belief in science as an answer to the troubles of the human race often takes a similar shape to the very practices that they disparage. This is, as far as I can ascertain, often the case. Whether or not it means that atheism is a religion is fairly irrelevant.

I'm just trying to ascertain whether or not there might be more to the teachings than most English translations make us aware of I understand that we have quite different ideas about it all, though, which I actually think is quite a good thing I would absolutely love to agree with you, but the fact remains that the character 王 refers and has always referred to the king / monarch / leader (originally, the greatest warrior in the land), and that these lines appear in all versions of the text (as far as I'm aware...?) What else would you have it translated as?

I know, it was more of a joke. Though I dare say I didn't ask enough with regard to this passage... and I did mean that about going away for a week, and that I hope to find these questions neatly answered on my return

I'm going away for a week, and hope to find this all having been questioned quite thoroughly in my absence

You're surely not suggesting I never ask questions? I thought my constant questioning was beginning to annoy people..

Because here, it's not in the sense of peace. The character has had many meanings, and at the end of a sentence: 用於句尾，有疑問的語 "Used at the end of a sentence, implying doubt" You're right to question my interpretation of this.. and I should've questioned it more. It's a question, not a statement. Which is a bit better, actually.

I'm fairly new here, but it seems to me that there aren't many "religious Taoists" around, so... your question, as asked, might well go unanswered. I would suggest that Taoism is first and foremost a philosophy, or way of looking at things, and not a religion to be practiced. There is no obedience to authority, there is no prayer for help, there is no Hell for sinners. (In my opinion) worship, fixed morals, systematic structure, etc.. these are all antithetical to the ideas of Laozi and Zhuangzi. And as far as the cultivation side -- qigong, taiji, meditation, dietary practices, etc -- these all came later, and while useful (and I do practice qigong & meditation myself), they are not intrinsic to Daoist philosophy, and are not necessary in order to "follow the Way" That's not how everyone sees it, but... in my opinion...

大曰筮 A greatness we can only guess at, 筮曰遠 To have to guess, it surely goes far A note on the translation here: the character that I have replaced with 筮 is a fairly complex thing, made up of 音 欠 水 臼, and like 筮 apparently meant "divination" I figured that divination is/was basically a structured way of guessing at stuff... or, in nicer terms, "guess" is the word we would use nowadays.

My GD translation 又壯蟲成 Something immense gave way to all form; 先天地生 Born before Heaven and Earth, 敚綉蜀立不亥 Morphing and hazy, singular and limitless, 可以為天下母 It is the mother of all things; 未智亓名 Its name is unknown, 字之曰道 We refer to it as the Way; 吾為之名曰大 Were I forced to, I’d name it Great; 大曰筮 A greatness we can only guess at, 筮曰遠 To have to guess, it surely goes far, 遠曰反 Going far meaning to return; 天大地大道大王亦大 Heaven, Earth, the Way, and also the King, are Great; 国中又四大 This realm has four Greats, 而王居一安 And the King is one; 人法地 Man is of the Earth, 地法天 The Earth is of the Heavens, 天法道 The Heavens are of the Way, 道法自然 The Way is of itself I see that the bit about the King has been mentioned. It is unclear to me whether or not this was something the original author wanted to write about or, as others have suggested, a political convenience. It does seem like it was just slipped in there so as to keep someone out of trouble. "Heaven, Earth, the Way.. oh, and the King, he's also one, I guess..." Certainly that's been (and still is?) the done thing in many kingdoms around the world. Other than that, it's a very cool chapter, with some wonderful Chinese, and though I'm sure I haven't done it justice I hope the meaning shows through.

TTC ch.9 http://ctext.org/zhuangzi/perfect-enjoyment

Is this coming from the OP's comment "people need to be treated with respect and love" ? What about when it is honest? There are people who genuinely feel love for others. What about about treating people with kindness? Isn't that a kind of love? And showing a little of the love that you feel for being alive, because they are also alive, and you're sharing this experience..? The level of love we can show clearly varies very much from person to person. I'm not good at showing emotion, whether positive or negative, but there are people who genuinely love other people and are able to show it. I have realized and forgotten many times in my life that a smile and a nod, even when you're having a shitty day, even to someone who's not smiling back at first.... can make you and that person feel a little better. I'd say I do that out of love.

In one way, at least, it probably makes understanding these texts easier. When I look at Laozi, Sunzi, Kongzi etc, I have modern meanings stuck in my head for many characters, though they didn't necessarily mean that at the time. Modern characters can have fewer meanings than they did back then, as many original meanings have been lost. I guess you often don't have these preconceptions..? Actually, apart from the fact that I (obviously!) don't know every character there is, having lived on the mainland and learning 简体字 simplified Chinese, I'm still learning to recognize 繁体字 the traditional stuff. So you're not alone. I'm often looking up meanings in simplified, traditional, and ancient... We're all just muddling through

I won't say that that meaning isn't there... but I don't know if it's quite as overt as all that...?

ha! I suppose "best", in the Taoist sense, might mean most in line with the Way? Best for everything. Life / the ten thousand things / men.... they might not want to return to a certain way of living, but it's precisely because of that desire to do things (and fail, and mess things up, and be unhappy because of it) that they need to be guided (not forced) back into a simpler way of life.

"敲破尊鼎，损毁家当" The very original meaning, if we want to use that, was to break a ritual Ding (or household ornament generally). So, perhaps a sense of extreme misfortune? Like breaking a mirror? Of course, in Sun Tzu (for example) it does indeed refer to "defeat" in war, as opposed to 腾 victory Which is why it is hard to say "Definitely no" to your theory.... Not about what they want. About what's best.

This is closer to reality, but still seems a bit odd. One writer, originally, OK; but just one post-editor? Well, I'm unsure as to whether he meant 學不學 or 教不教. Learn or teach? Or does the character mean both? We have in ch.2 a pretty close parallel: 是以聖人居亡為之事 As the wise man lives without acting, 行不言之教（學） And teaches (learns) without talking, 萬勿作而弗怠也 Life flourishes without resting, 為而弗志也 Acts without ambition The character in the GD ch.64 is the same as here, 行不言之教, which would mean that in 64 he meant 教不教 though it's equally possible that the ch.2 line was supposed to be 行不言之學 -- “learn without talking"

Nobody disagrees with me! Oh! I assumed you read Chinese, as you've done such an excellent job with the text.