dust

谷溪 may I ask why you jumped to this one in particular? 1, 2...56! It has some significance to you too?

<< my avatar fire on the mountain "Strange lands and separation are the wanderer's lot. When a man is a wanderer and stranger, he should not be gruff nor overbearing. He has no large circle of acquaintances, therefore he should not give himself airs. He must be cautious and reserved; in this way he protects himself from evil." The fire's always moving, always at risk of burning out. And the mountain might represent the division between strange lands, too, though personally I see its stillness (the perfect yin to the fire's yang) as a permanence that the traveller is trying to either find, or get away from. Or both. Though I haven't studied the I Ching, and don't understand most of the hexagrams, having been a "wanderer" for the last decade, this one speaks to me a little more than the others.

I dunno.. I had a blind date last year; we talked for an hour or so in comfort, and all was nice. After a while, the conversation turned to politics and she ended up attacking the UK whilst extolling the virtues of the CCP. We got into an argument and finished the date on a less than harmonious note. (I'm not a patriot, by any stretch of the imagination, but would've been incredulous at such nonsense accusations being directed at almost any country) All this to say, I'm glad we got that out of the way on the first date...there was no need to waste more time on it...

Why do you want to "feel like a man" ? What does that mean? You are a man. You shouldn't need to "feel like" one. Having responsibilities, and people to provide for, doesn't make you more "man" than if you didn't, and doesn't make you a "better" / more moral person. You can be a good person without those things. For a woman to handle responsibilities, deal with consequences, and take care of those she cares about... does that make her a man? Or conversely, what makes a woman more "woman", if not those same things? Just friendly advice, I don't mean to come off as preachy or angry or anything, but I'd suggest letting go of this modern social ideal of manliness. Just be a person... taking care of people will come naturally.

What thelerner said. Also, as I see it.. Your very desire to abstain from "selfish" behaviour can itself be thought of as selfish. There's no way around that. Unless... Coming to terms with the idea that there is no ego, no constant self, and that everything we do is ultimately useless and in no way benefiting an eternal self -- this is how, I think, we become selfless. I think this leads to a greater feeling of connection with others, leading to compassion & kindness. But as thelerner said, that doesn't mean you can't do what you want. If you enjoy lifting weights, why not? Be happy. (Unless it's harmful, detrimental to your health or cultivation or someone else's..)

(re Alt-J) That'll teach me not to judge a book by its cover.. Good stuff

I need to check this out. ______________________ Right now, O.C. & Apollo Brown

Yes, fairly large spiders right now. Webs popped up the other day. As a side: I'm glad for the spiders -- there has been a swarm of daddy long-legs in the house the past week or so. Can't stand them. Yesterday I saw one fly into a spider's web in my bedroom, and watched as the spider proceeded to catch it and wrap it up in the corner... good spider.

My argument is generally with his linguistic ability/choices, rather than his understanding of culture. However, I don't want to turn this into a Henricks thread, or my end of it into a Henricks-bashing session (which is probably what it looks like I'm trying to do...!) So I'll try to stop insulting his work... and will post my own translation of 15 soon enough, which you guys can bash

Yes, and this is what Henricks seems to have done. Picked little bits from the GD, but mostly collated it with other versions. Before collation, though, should we not have to bother properly transcribing and translating the GD's actual characters and their meanings?

We agree -- the basic philosophy is the same. No quibbling over the basics! I'd like to read the Scott Cook translation.. but it's out of my price range!

For sure I'm not sure one page would be enough to allay my doubts.. I may pick it up, when I have the money Probably. Certainly, looking at it now, after over 2,000 years of Daoism, one would like to have the TTC, as we know it today, presented in its entirety. The GD lacks in that regard. But the GD is early. If we were to find a text that seemed to be part of the Hebrew Bible -- a collection of chapters, written say ~1,000 BCE, which presented an early version of Genesis, or Exodus, or whatever, but not precisely as we know it today -- would we base translations of this text on our modern understanding of the Bible? Changing words when we felt like it because they didn't fit with what we "know"? Or would we translate the text as we found it, and hope to learn something new about the evolution of the Old Testament?

This. Yes. When looking at the original script, the Henricks GD translation is, as far as I can tell, often off the mark. And horribly clunky. Just looking at the first half.. 长古之善为士者， 必非溺（弱）玄达， 深不可志。 是以为之颂： 夜乎奴（如）冬涉川。 猷乎其奴（如）畏四邻。 敢其奴（如）客。 涣乎其奴（如）怿。 Those who were good at being noble in antiquity Were without doubt subtle and profound, mysterious and penetratingly wise. So deep that they cannot be known. ... For this reason we praise them in the following way: Hesitant were they! Like someone crossing a river in winter. Cautious were they! Like someone wary of his four neighbors. Deferential were they! Like guests. Accommodating were they! Like melting ice. Line 1 "Good at being noble" -- aside from anything else, this is not very idiomatic English, is it? Line 2 The received version (& translations) calls the ancient ones "unfathomably deep" etc, but I can't figure how, in the GD, 必非 doesn't mean "absolutely not" ...? That they were, in fact, "not mysterious or deep beyond ambition". To me, that makes a lot more sense. It was their simplicity, their childlikeness, that made them closer to Dao. This also fits with the description of them in the next few lines: hesitant, cautious, etc. They were not profound, but simple, and therein lay their wisdom. Line 6 猷 is/was a pictograph of a drunken dog. As far as I can tell, it meant "lost", not "cautious" 邻 -- the character in the slips looks nothing like 鄰. It seems like they chose this transcription based on the received version and its translations rather than the character on the slip. Though I can't figure out what character it actually is...! Could it be another version of "neighbour" ? Line 7 敢 means "brave", and at one point, 客 meant not guest but "one under another's roof" -- a pictograph of 各, a foreign invader, under a roof. So this line could equally mean "brave like a stranger in a foreign land". Look at how the characters change with the versions: 敢 嚴 儼 -- brave, solemn, venerable (GD, MWD, WB). Huge changes in meaning, but all based on the same component (敢). To me, this suggests that later versions were playing with and adding to the meaning, but that 敢 may have been the original. Line 8 涣 -- how this? Looks very much more like 觀 (with 见 on the left) to me. 怿 -- how does this mean "melting ice" ? Just..so confusing. There's a very good chance I've missed out on info that Henricks has, but could I be so wrong about all of it?

(just a short scene illustrating the character's apparent dimwittedness) I think I could learn something from Lieutenant Columbo Not putting on a display, They shine forth. Not justifying themselves, They are distinguished. Not boasting, They receive recognition. Not bragging, They never falter. They do not quarrel, So no one quarrels with them. Therefore the ancients say, "Yield and overcome." Is that an empty saying? Be really whole, And all things will come to you. (extract ch.22, Feng) Under heaven nothing is more soft and yielding than water. Yet for attacking the solid and strong, nothing is better; It has no equal. The weak can overcome the strong; The supple can overcome the stiff. Under heaven everyone knows this, Yet no one puts it into practice. Therefore the sage says: He who takes upon himself the humiliation of the people is fit to rule them. He who takes upon himself the country's disasters deserves to be king of the universe. The truth often sounds paradoxical. (ch.78, Feng) The wise man Stands ahead of the people by putting himself behind them, Above them by speaking as from below; Above them, yet the people feel not his presence, Ahead of them, yet the people come not to harm, And all proceed happily without a fuss; By not contending, None under heaven can contend with him (extract ch.66, my translation)

Interesting..I hadn't come to that idea yet. I plan on watching some tonight. Will pay attention to that! Will definitely have a look at Wings of Desire too -- looking on IMDb, it sounds very interesting Yes! I see that..

I've wondered that people's belly/core muscles are weaker than they used to be (and this is why all the fitness trainers focus on core workouts these days). Because we sit down so much, slouched over computers, and when we do try to make our posture better, most people just do crunches or sit ups (which are functionally pretty much useless). But I've never realized some people have a problem because they suck their gut in too much..

Being open-minded is a very good thing, but there's nothing wrong with requiring a little evidence of something in order to believe in it. Certainly I'd need hard evidence before I believed that a man could live on air, forever. Clearly you want to find some belief, so why not look for qigong practice that's a little less far-out? I've felt benefits from certain forms, and nothing from others. I think it's probably as personal/individual as anything else. And as Wayfarer says, find someone to teach you. At least the basics. ^^

It seems silly to me, too, that one should need a disclaimer, but these days people will file a lawsuit over a sandwich that's too short or calling an idiot an idiot Anyway, GMP was just trying to be helpful. A simple "Thank you" would have sufficed, y'know?

No kitty don't fall! My hands are sweating just looking at her.. That is incredible A couple of pics I took in Beijing. Not as amazing as most of this stuff but pretty cool. Modern objects of worship vs the old:

i remember reading about this a year or 2 back, and as I was still in my weightlifting phase, I thought "Cool! If I can increase free T like this it'll be like being on steroids!" Now, I'm wondering why I even cared...

The Hua Hu Jing. Which is why I wanted to be clear that I don't believe in Laozi as a historical figure; and don't believe that the same person or people who wrote the DDJ also wrote the HHJ

True enough. I know that I'm not experiencing existence the way another being might, and it's possible that my whole life has been a dream of sorts. But if that's the case, who do I listen to when I want to "wake up"? There are a hundred different theories about it on this forum alone... Perhaps.. I'm still figuring it all out. There may come a time when I see something you've already seen. But what if I spent my life chasing it, and the idea of awakening was the illusion all along?

I loved that show

Well, I haven't read the HHJ... and I don't believe in the existence of a man named Lao Tzu. I put some faith in the DDJ and its authors -- as much as I put in anything -- but if the DDJ had suggested that everything was false, I would have stopped paying attention a long time ago. It's no way to live, believing that nothing is real. I don't know who I think I am. I know only what I experience, and how I experience it. I experience, therefore something exists. I have stopped trying to pin down any constant "me", instead happy to simply experience everything I can. And on the off-chance it turns out to all be an illusion, at least I'll have experienced it well and been happy!

Well, I suppose that, as my interpretation of the TTC as a whole has always been that the language is often purposefully vague so as to be able to imply many meanings, I just assumed that the 123 was so vague as to let people infer their own stages (as is happening in this thread ) For example, in dawei's translation above, there are a few more than 3 stages overall, and he has separated them into 3 major stages. This distinction is perfectly valid, it makes sense, but someone else will draw a different distinction..and someone else will come up with an entirely different list of stages. But they can all be summed up with a simple 1,2,3. So...the passage deftly sums up how Dao gave rise to all.. But I should emphasise, this is just my original assumption. I'm very open to the idea that the stages were intended to refer to specific things.. edit: (and as such, I'll shut up and just follow the discussion from now on.. )