dust

Well, I'm not saying that it's not relevant at all, just not to the above information. Actually, I think whether or not it was one person or many who wrote the DDJ certainly has a bearing on how we perceive the DDJ: if it was one person, the worship of an all-knowing man called Laozi might seem more justified; if it was many, it is simply a collection of wisdom from many wise people. I prefer that idea of connectedness. Authorship also has a bearing on how we translate -- if written by different people at different points in time, the same words might have different meanings in different chapters. But that's not relevant here, I agree.

I apologize if it seemed like I wanted to argue about whether or not Laozi was a real person. I don't...! It seemed relevant to mention in justifying going back to explore the 甲骨文 version of 德 , which I found very interesting. I suppose it wasn't all that relevant! As far as your second point, of course, everything changes. But the original meaning of something is always the original meaning -- whether or not the meanings of characters in the Laozi have changed, the original meanings will always be the same, whether we know them or not. I just enjoy trying to figure out what they were...

Yes, I changed my approach when I realised how negative that other post sounded. I said, "I'd like to clear this up", and asked that you (we) not continue to get angry about it all. Doing my best to clear it up. I then layed out an example that I believe illustrates my point (why guesswork will sometimes be involved; why you are wrong) and you ignore it in favour of attacking my conflicting emotions. This is not helpful. However, it does serve to further illustrate my point. Some people don't know what they want. In such a case, you are your only frame of reference. You are wrong. And the irony of it all is that you're not even following your own advice. You haven't asked me how I'd like to be treated. You've simply decided that I'm a bad or stupid person and proceeded to argue and get angry with everything I say.

Could you explain Zen? Better than, for example, Alan Watts? Please, go ahead. Enlighten me. It's not. I'd love it if spirituality were potatoes. But I haven't said that spirituality is potatoes. Just that it can be found in potatoes. Many things have many meanings. I invite you to clearly define science, or life, or human, or blue. A simple definition of science that I just found calls it "knowledge attained through study or practice" http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html So... science is kung fu. Spirituality is a form of science. Knowledge is knowledge. I honestly am having trouble figuring out what you're trying to say. Perhaps clear up your English a little.

I don't know what this means. The possibilities are as infinite as the people who make them. Spirituality, like art and science and politics and ethics and running marathons, is a purely human thing, so how could it be anything other than personal? Yes. Yes, yes. You've got it. Now move on? I'm pretty sure....yep, yep. I did. I quoted Alan Watts in my first post: "Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes." This was my original point. Spirituality doesn't have to be anything more than the taste of a sandwich. That..is...all.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_variation_over_time Pretty sure we're living longer now. Not sure this newfound longevity is the wonderful achievement we make it out to be. edit: Of course, I wouldn't suggest that plants and oxygen are a bad thing. Looking at Beijing today, I appreciate the wonderful oxygen-filled air of my current home.

There are surely more than 4 versions. I'd guess...as many versions as there are people? How many versions would you like to limit it to? How many versions are there of H2O? How many personal versions are there of art? Or what it is to be human? How long is a piece of string? His point seems to be to try and shit on the beliefs/experiences/lifestyles of the people who frequent this forum.. I appreciate the attempt, I guess.

Very interesting! Of course, it depends on when one believes Laozi lived as to which text is really relevant, and I would really suggest that there was never a Laozi and that the DDJ was written by many, over time. But either way, we can just go back to the beginning. Looking at the original meaning of the character, it appears that the original form of 德 was constructed very similarly to 道 , and had a much closer meaning. 道 彳人 亍 a person travelling on a road 德 彳直 亍 “straight” along the road ("straight" being an eye with a straight line attached, signifying direct light / looking straight ahead)

So everything non-science is religion, and spirituality is personalized religion? And this is nothing more than people scamming others by trying to sell books with unfounded claims? You're the one choosing to define it as such. If this is how you define and see spirituality, I understand why you don't want it. But this is not what it is to me. To me, the scam artists (and as far as I can tell, guys like Chia are nothing more than that) are not what it's all about. (Just for a moment assuming that there was one man called Laozi:) Laozi hasn't tried selling me anything. Buddha hasn't tried selling me anything. What's wrong with wonderment? I have an immense sense of admiration for existence, for myself and everything around me. And it's the so-called spiritual teachings and musings of Laozi, Gautama, Watts, and others that have informed my wonder. Also science, to an extent. I see no reason to disregard anything that helps us to appreciate life.

Also, I am curious about life on other planets, but we don't need to go into space to seek it because it exists right here.. in the form of pugs! They must be from another planet..

if you don't know I don't know.. It's made me happier. And "better". Infinity is right to ask for your definition of spirituality. Your concept of it seems rather arbitrary. For me, and many others, as Brian and CT and I and others have tried to explain, spirituality is simply... wonderment. Again, I understand why you're down on religion, but it is not as simple as religion. Religion is obedience, simple as that. Spirituality can be many things. I've never really thought of myself as "spiritual", but after this conversation especially, I kind of do now. Because, like Einstein, I find happiness and solace and wonder in life, and in many aspects of life; the study of biology, the artistic process, my own existence. It's that wonder which I identify with, and I identify the identification of that wonder with "spiritual" teachings.

Yeah. I feel like I should've just waited for you (Brian) and Steve to say your pieces....done. Oh well. I know a little better how I feel about things now. Science is evil and must be stopped at all costs.

So just to sum up... science will create great technologies and medicines and find truth, leading ultimately to the happiness of all men. Right? Have you watched the re-imagined Battlestar? That is almost precisely how I see the future. More technology, robots, forced exploration in search of a new home planet... and people better off without it all. edit: Also, you are a robot, albeit a very complex organic one. For me, that's just fine.

I don't believe in evil. There is only treating others well or not. Most people do not. If mistakes are caused by religion, what is religion caused by? Birds? Rocks? Or humans? Human ignorance, depravity, whatever. Not "evil", but something contrary to happiness. Religion is just a tool. So we'll all be happier the longer we live? If you could live for 1000 years, you'd be happier than if you only lived for 10? For me, it's about quality, not quantity. Science has helped a lot so far in augmenting the quality of life for some people, but that's only a part of it. Science has also helped people to massacre in the name of religion and cause global climate change. People are the cause, science the tool, the same as religion. Wanna bet? Well...OK...have fun with that..! Do you not see that without scientific "advances" we wouldn't need to think about leaving Earth? Do you not see the ridiculousness of the whole thing? That we've got to a point where we're using up our source and are planning to travel the universe looking for other things to use up? And why would you want to live on a spaceship? I cannot for the life of me understand the lure... Again, it is the very demand that science has put on the planet that has caused this supposed need to explore space. I don't really know what your point is. Laozi the man never existed, and the TTC doesn't belong to anyone. If the points of Taoism stay, that's all that's relevant. The teachings are still useful.

It's not about "sin", it's about how people treat each other. How people act. You do accept the idea that people being nice to each other is better than people being nasty? Technology makes lives easier, but that doesn't make happiness any more plentiful. There are people with 2 iPads and a Ferrari who are miserable and people living in the forest with nothing but a hut and a spear who are quite content. How can you possibly believe that science is responsible for happiness? Cars, planes, guns, television, the internet, nuclear energy, nuclear bombs... all of these things can be useful. They can all also be harmful. Real well-being is down to the person, not the gadgets that he can buy. Are you kidding? Longevity is nice, but not when it comes at the expense of other things. Right now, the fact that we're all living longer isn't actually benefiting mankind as a whole. We eat better in the West. You know why? Because other people eat worse. As long as people are people, there will be those who have and those who don't. Someone always wants more. We feel great about our society because we have more than poor farmers in other countries, forgetting that it's those farmers who enable us to live like we do. Science is not going to change the way people are (until it does -- genetic modification -- and that's a different discussion, I think). I'm not sure why everyone's so excited about being able to "go into space". It seems to me that we're already in space, living on a planet in the middle of a solar system, so.. we know what that's like. And our home is a pretty wonderful place. I have no desire to leave it. Yes we still have war, and poverty, and we're not happy. You think the scientifically advanced countries are the ones without war, without poverty, and with total happiness? Some of the most wonderful and happy people I've ever met have been poor and unscientific. Some of the biggest douchebags I've ever met have been science-minded. Intellectualism does not lead to happiness. That's as much of an established "fact" as religion not leading to it. So your point is that the DDJ is unnecessary because of Tom Hanks? OK, let's say that's true. Everything one can get out of the DDJ is similarly available in Forrest Gump and other movies. That just means that Laozi thought has found a new vessel. It doesn't make Daoist thought any less valid. If it's the same idea, it's the same idea. Your point is irrelevant.

I'd like to clear this up. Let's say you're swimming in a lake, and see a person in the middle of the lake, barely moving. It looks like they're drowning or have drowned, and there's no one else around. What do you do? 1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you You would either want them to save you, or you wouldn't. I would want to be saved, because I don't believe that in my case this would ever be a result of attempted suicide. I think most people would say, "I would want to be saved", and would go ahead and save the person. But what if it was a suicide? You save them based on knowledge of your own preference, not theirs. Maybe you're wrong. 2. Do not unto others as you would have them not do unto you You would either want them to not let you die, or not save you. In the end, the same result as (1) 3. Do unto others as they would have you do unto them You cannot ask them what they want. They might be drowning by accident, or they might be trying to drown. Your action will be informed by your best guess as to whether or not they look like they want to die. But this will be all but impossible to discern. Ultimately, then, your action will probably be informed by what you think you would want someone else to do for you, because you are your only frame of reference in this case. 4. Do not do unto others as they would have you not do unto them Ultimately the same result as (3) Do you see, then, that none of these "rules" are universally applicable? There will often be a certain amount of educated guesswork, and all we can do is our best. This was my point. Please stop being angered.

Why are we talking about the Bible? It's a religious book, a book of obedience. One can find spirituality in it, but no more than in a book about the anatomy of insects or the life of Abraham Lincoln... Again, you're confusing religion and spirituality. They are not the same. Of course they're not on the same levels. Different things rarely are...! Science is a system of experimentation and prediction designed to find out more about existence. What is stuff made of, how does it work etc. Spirituality is anything in which people find wonder, guidance, comfort, happiness. Perhaps for you, science is the mode by which you learn about the wonder of the universe and your place in it. Scientific knowledge has helped me greatly. But it's not the only good thing in the world. Calling science "the pursuit of truth" doesn't make it any less potentially dangerous. Science has never yet found an ultimate truth, and if it did, would that make humans any less shitty? Are you so sure that the more we know about physics and chemistry and biology and maths, and the more we're able to use that knowledge to do new things, the happier we will all be? Because I don't see science making anyone happier. Science doesn't tell us how to treat each other, or how to treat ourselves. Scientists are not immune from being arseholes. Who says spirituality has to be entirely internal? There's a time for self-reflection but that's not all of it. Agreed No, it's not. Yes, and all versions since have been wrong. Nobody now agrees on a single scientific model of things. And science doesn't challenge the ideas of Daoism, Buddhism, or many other -isms. I live my life without a single unfounded belief (edit: well, that's not really possible, is it? but as far as I can...), and find use for the teachings of Laozi and Zen tradition. As I just said, science doesn't provide any help on how to make life better. Technology gives tools for making certain things easier, which is nice, but easier =/= better. They are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, I did. I said "Well, I suppose we don't always know what others want. People are all different." That is exactly what I said. You can scroll up and read it. It was the first thing I said. You ignored that first sentence and are claiming that's not what I said. You are the one stuck on the word "guessing", as if that was my whole point, and my objective was simply to twist your words. Continue to get angry if you like, but I'm bored of this nonsense. You sound like a petulant child.

Examples? I agree -- authority must be questioned. However, teachers will always be necessary -- in any arena. Spirituality is not the same thing as belief in spirits. Not for everyone. "Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes." - Alan Watts Religion is obedience. Science is what one can prove. Spirituality is simply the belief that there is something wonderful going on. One can follow science fully and still be spiritual. Science is no less dangerous than religion. They are both nothing more than human constructs designed to make life easier, or easier to understand. Mankind is at just as much risk of putting too much faith into hypotheses and technology as we are in prayer and holy books. Anything involving people is inherently dangerous. I say all this not to try and convert you back to spirituality (whatever that might mean). If your "spiritual quest" hasn't been fulfilling, find something else to do, by all means. But don't group all philosophies and beliefs that don't fit 100% with modern scientific thought as nonsense that "has to go".

Whoaa..... chill... You said: "dont do to others what they dont want us to do to them" & "Do unto others as they would have us do unto them" So I said: "we don't always know what others want" My point is, changing the wording doesn't make it any easier. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you: What if I want to be harmed? Does that mean I should harm others? Do unto others as they'd have us do unto them: What if they want to be harmed? Should I ever harm someone? We can't possibly know what others want or don't want all the time. Everyone has different wants. In the case of the hungry or poor, sure, we assume they want food or money. But it's not always so simple.

Try everything once. Know what you like and what you don't, what you can eat and what you can't. Then, just listen to your body, and listen to the earth. We usually know what we need, and the earth knows what to give us. Eat local, eat with the seasons, eat what you want. And unlearn all the Western nonsense about diets and any particular food group being good or bad. It's all good. Just my humble opinion. Little story.. Visiting Hainan province (Chinese island) in February last year, I and a few friends took to chewing areca nuts wrapped with calcified lime and betel leaves (basically, a tropical seed that people chew like gum -- tastes great and you spit red all day). After this little holiday in the sun, I went to Liaoning province in northern China to spend spring Festival with some other friends, and took a bag of the areca nuts up with me. We drank beer and ate lots of food and had a great time, and I got a couple of them chewing on the areca too, as a taste of the tropical south. The thing is, areca nuts are native to the tropics. Hainan is hot; Liaoning in February is cold. I went from blazing sun to sub-zero temperature in a day, and these foreign areca nuts were still fresh and juicy. After a day or so, still chewing them every so often, I noticed my mouth starting to get a little sore. By the second day, I couldn't touch any sharp/acidic food or drink without fairly severe pain in my mouth. My friend from Liaoning who had been chewing the areca with me had the same issue. Eventually, we connected the dots. We stopped chewing the arecas, and after another day or so the pain went away. I learnt a simple lesson from that: eat with the climate, eat with the seasons. Also, beer is good everywhere, areca nuts are not.

Yes, yes yes I was meaning to do the very same, but have been distracted. Interesting to know, thanks Indeed. The meaning is the important thing, and the chapter's meaning doesn't change either way. But still, I'm very much enjoying the linguistic aspect of it all...

I'll try to remember in the future I've tried not to state anything as fact thus far, but it seems fairly obvious that pronunciation changes over time (and place). This isn't an idea unique to Karlgren -- it's a universal feature of language... I didn't pay much attention to the phonetic alphabet or phonetics generally in school; it seemed easier just to learn pronunciation by hearing and speaking. So I won't pretend to understand half of what's going on in the following article, but from the half I do understand, it seems that there have been a lot of changes even in the last few hundred years.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Chinese_phonology

I realise what the traditional understanding is... I simply don't agree. I also don't think you can say what is "correct" or not, especially when there is no consensus. Feng: Taste the tasteless Addiss: Taste without tasting Henricks: Find flavor in what has no flavor Wu: Savour the savourless Assuming that the GD writer meant 未 as 味 , there are still many interpretations.. And as far as the pun: how do we know how they pronounced these characters in Chu? Are we sure that the pronunciation of every character in the DDJ 2300 years ago was exactly the same as now?

You're right, of course. It always has. Others such as Henricks have transcribed it as the received version: 味 , but it's clearly not written as that But if 未 means "without having yet born fruit" or simply "not yet", 未亡未 doesn't really mean anything, does it? Doesn't make sense to me, anyway. So perhaps it is meant as 味 after all...? "Taste without tasting", or "Flavour knows no flavour"