wandelaar

There is an esoteric alternative where the dead have some kind of subtle body composed of a rarefied sort of matter. But I don't know whether the sense of touch would still work there... All this business about life after dead is probably based on wishful (or frightful) thinking. There has been a huge amount of research on spiritualist phenomena but nothing substantial in the sense of ways of communication with the dead has been developed. Of course we cannot absolutely rule out the possibility of survival after death, but on the basis of our current understanding it seems highly unlikely.

As a theoretical possibility that doesn't have to be heavenly at all! Imagine one would exist in complete isolation as if there were nothing else in the world but your own mind/soul left to its own thoughts and emotions with nothing else that you could possibly do. No space to live and move around in, no other things to interact with. Only endless time...........

Not exactly on walking barefoot, but I have a related question: What are good exercises for keeping strong and healthy feet when you have to wear shoes in daily life.

Mair 19:1 is also discussed by Harold D. Roth in his book Original Tao on pp. 171-172.

Well - it all depends. I could imagine a world without physical objects, and in such a world we wouldn't have bodies either. When not having a body, our body naturally couldn't be hurt (because it wouldn't even exist). But when in such a world there would still be communication between minds/souls there also would still be the possibility of getting hurt mentally (by what others mentally communicate to us). Unless of course in such a non-physical world we would be completely isolated minds/souls unable to experience other minds/souls. But that would bring its own kind of suffering: ultimate loneliness. So indeed - doing away with the body isn't the simple solution it looks like...

https://www.google.nl/search?source=hp&ei=EpNwW_mGFtDekgWV87_oDw&q=uzbekistan+capital&oq=Uzbekistan+&gs_l=psy-ab.1.6.0l5j0i10k1j0l4.2785.2785.0.6662.1.1.0.0.0.0.125.125.0j1.1.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.1.121....0.HW5ajSRKR3s As simple as that. One has to know where to stop. That's the Taoist way. One can spend ones whole life gaining knowledge and still know almost nothing as compared to what there is to know. No time will be left for meditation, taking a walk, looking at the stars, smelling a flower, etc. And then one dies, and all the knowledge gained is lost. Lao tzu was wiser than that, he knew when to stop. And that is much more valuable than knowing a lot.

@ OldDog I'm about halfway now, and I can tell you that the book concentrates on the Nei-yeh which is only a small part of the Kuan Tzu. The book gives a translation and analysis of the Nei-yeh and argues that the meditation promoted in the Nei-yeh gives us a good impression of the kind of meditation what was used and/or promoted by the early Taoists who also wrote and/or composed the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang tzu. Now who exactly wrote what and when is an extremely difficult matter. But the important point as far as I am concerned is that the descriptions in the Nei-yeh and the terms used make it highly probable that the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang tzu in certain passages also talk about (roughly) the same type of breathing meditation as the Nei-yeh. The relevant passages in the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang tzu are also discussed in the book. The book is a scholarly work, but when you want to read a reasoned approach to the issue of meditation within the circles of the early Taoists I think it is a good choice.

@ Miffymog The same text is translated and discussed in the book I mentioned in my previous post. Where is the free pdf you mention?

@ OldDog So what is the "solution" given in the text?

I don't like to endlessly repeat this discussion. I am currently reading this book on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Original-Tao-Foundations-Mysticism-Translations/dp/0231115652/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1534091683&sr=8-1&keywords=original+tao When you are interested in this topic you can read there that there are very good reasons to think that already Lao tzu and Chuang tzu promoted a simple form of breathing meditation and that such techniques were known at the time and spoken of in the same terms as used by Lao tzu and Chuang tzu. Some other Bums posted links to some other books on the same subject. Of course there are those who don't like that idea and will hold on till the end of time that it ain't true. But I am happy to consider as probably true whatever seems most likely so, and I am no longer putting any energy in trying to convince those who don't want to see it that way.

@ OldDog Reminds me of the remark of Lao tzu that our troubles come from having a body.

A strange text that feels like some later addition.

Well - I read the whole thread. The most obvious and straightforward interpretation is this one: This is the recognition of the sage that fundamentally - as fallible human beings - we don't know anything. But I don't think this is the whole story, because anybody (whether a sage or not) can and should reach this stage of fundamental doubt at some point in his life when considering the human condition. Now it is very doubtful that animals have found a rational solution to the above problem of knowledge where humans have failed. Nevertheless we see animals generally (but not always) acting and behaving in a manner that is appropriate to their own well being. The same goes for small children and simple people. So apparently rationally solving the problem of knowledge isn't necessary for living. In my mind there are only two commendable positions on this issue: (1) Stay simple and avoid philosophy as the pest, or (2) Go all the way in philosophising beyond the fundamental doubt of human knowledge (what is: curing the flaw by recognising the flaw as a flaw that is essential to being human). And now I come to the second, somewhat deeper layer of meaning to this chapter. And that is: wu wei. Because of our partial animal nature we don't always need to know to be able to act. A large part of our behaviour is instinctual. Here is another reason why Lao tzu promoted a return to simple living: the simpler the life you live, the more you can trust on your natural instincts. Wu wei in the case of more complicated affairs only works when we have become deeply familiar with those affairs, and our ways of dealing with them have become second nature. Such practical knowledge isn't condemned in philosophical Taoism. Quite the contrary: see the stories about mastership in the Chuang tzu. As far as those abilities go beyond what can be learned from books (dregs of the ancients), they can be called a form of knowing by not-knowing. Finally we have the Tao that is beyond words, names or symbols and consequently is beyond rational knowledge. Rational thought has no problem in recognising that there are things one cannot reasonably talk about, except maybe in the form of paradoxes. The Tao as the foundation of everything existing is such a thing. Or rather a non-thing, for if it was a thing it wouldn't be the foundation of all things. Now as we ourselves are among the things of this world, the Tao also acts in or rather through us. So in this sense we have intimate knowledge of the Tao because we are part of it. So here again there is (introspective) knowing and (rational) not-knowing at the same time. (All in my opinion of course... )

What claims made in the Tao Te Ching are simply wrong? And I don't mean in an ethical sense (for one can endlessly debate on that), but in a factual sense. If I remember well it is said that natural disasters will happen as a result of immoral acts by a ruler. Such a claim seems highly suspect to me. But in this topic I am interested in reading about the ideas of the other Bums (that is: you) on this issue.

@ Marblehead Good idea! I will take a look, and most likely there will still be some interesting things in those threads for me to have a discussion about.

Is there a sub-forum somewhere on The Dao Bums (or can it be created) where one can have a decent discussion on the basis of arguments and facts, and where one can make some real progress in understanding philosophical Taoism without topics being continually sidetracked by Bums telling me that I am not supposed to think or reason, that "all is one", that "anything goes" and that everything is subjective and/or up to our own personal interpretation of truth. If those things were actually true, than philosophical Taoism as one of the many ways of Taoism would be just as legitimate as the watered down postmodern/nondual/New Age version. There are all kinds and forms of Taoism here on The Dao Bums and I largely stay away from those that I consider incorrect. I let each Bum follow his of her own path. Paradoxically it doesn't work the other way around. That's why I am currently thinking about the possibility of a sub-forum especially for philosophical Taoists. Is there indeed such a possibility?

Well - that's basically the same as what I wrote. One can give the chapter a non-political personal interpretation such as you did that makes it relevant to modern life. I have no problem with that, as long as it is presented as a modern reinterpretation.

That's right. Lao tzu's proposed solution will involve both the simplicity of the people and the smallness of the villages. But it is mostly in larger political units (countries) that the idea of expanding its power and territory takes hold. So the simplicity of the (common) people is not the whole story.

@ LiT That's what it says, so Lao tzu is no pacifist even as it regards his agrarian utopia. War is acceptable to Lao tzu as a last resort. So I don't see how that invalidates the seriousness of his suggested small villages solution.

@ LiT Thank you! That is the kind of answer I like to read. You think I am wrong, but I have no problem with that. Your reaction is on topic, and that's what matters (to me). I personally think the Tao Te Ching is both on internal and on external affairs. A large part of the Tao Te Ching is about ruling a country and about warfare. I see no reason why Lao tzu wouldn't have actually advocated his agrarian ideal. It would solve the problems of the warring states period at one stroke. And there were similar primitivist currents of thought at the time. On the other hand the solution wouldn't be practical for the modern world because of overpopulation and because most people wouldn't accept such a "step back" in terms of comfort and excitement. And that's why I think your interpretation is a good one, not as a representation of what Lau tzu probably had in mind but as an interpretation that's fruitful for modern people to consider.

Is your opinion on this also subjective?

@ OldDog Yes - that is also my impression. I already have Burton Watson's translation. So it might be interesting to read the more personal translation/interpretation of Graham for an alternative view on the Chuang tzu.

What do the Bums think of this (partial) translation? https://www.amazon.com/Chuang-Tzu-Inner-Chapters-Hackett-Classics/dp/0872205819/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

No obsession here, just asking some concrete and specific questions on the way of Lao tzu. We are on page 5 now, and most of the reactions do their best to not consider the questions posed. Of course I know chapter 1 of the Tao Te Ching, and when Lao tzu would have thought there was nothing more to say on his proposed way he would have stopped right there. As it is, the Tao Te Ching contains a lot of concrete advise on how to live (or rule a country) that's worth considering. But to get to that we should be able to seriously consider the advise from an old man of long ago without immediately jumping on the barricades to defend our personal freedom to choose our own way life. Our freedom is not at stake! Even when it should turn out that Lao tzu disapproves of (aspects of) our current way of life, it is still our choice whether or not to live so. But we will see whether we can get back on topic....

No. I think it highly likely that you are right. But to proceed with this topic we need some concrete examples. So let's just put the question out for others to answer: