rene

CD hi You originally posted: I asked "Patented by whom"? You replied: You added the idea of "Wu Wei" into your original statement. There is a difference between "let nature take its course" and "non-interference". Lots of "reading into" and "adding onto" occurs all the time; no one is immune. What I try to do - is to see if the underlying essense comes through, informing the nei xin, and if it resonates ~~ regardless of any differences between renditions. Thanks for your reply. (-:

I like to think there's something for everyone. I love the Feng rendition from the 70's with the B&W photos. It was my first, and I still have the book. That said - Feng was heavily edited by Toinette Lippe for the publication. LOLOL

Patented by whom? Thanks!

MH - that sounds like you are saying that if you disagreed with something you really wanted to agree with - then the speaker must have just been being joking/sarcastic/ironic/etc - and actually really meant just the opposite of what he/she said. Is that what you were trying to convey? Thanks!

Yep. We're just a-trippin over all the damn Mystery around here....

hi regarding: I'm surprised at your astonishment, lol. Those who pick up the LZ to read are unlikely rulers...yet the underlying resonance in the ideas seem to be something many relate to - even if the rendition is lousy. The point of it being a manual for rulers, could easily be overlooked or dismissed as not germane to their life. No? But this is not the topic at hand... and I really look forward to this thread. Warm regards

dustybeijing - Bravo. Oh..this is going to be fun. (-: Small request? Please do not remove sections of your OP. It's gold and will take some time to reply to a lot of it. Might surprise you (or likely not) but I am in full agreement with your premise; and I've been waiting for this to arrive. Edit: Sorry. I had to add the content of the OP. Too good to disappear.

It does yes. And, I like the other uses because it reinforces that the coefficient of the concept is based in Mystery. (-:

I like those words, too. They seem to function well without extraneous flotsam slipping in as frequently occurs with other terms for these two ideas. I like Wu and Yu (You) as well... when all conversing participants are familiar. For most times though M & M works best. (-: Looking forward to your next selection! warm regards (& Happy New Year!)

(-: That's Laozi's "Both" First found in Chapter One. And elaborated on in the remaining eighty chapters, for those who needed more.

Nice one MH (-: ZZ sure uses a whole lot of words to *explain* a few lines of LZ LZ 1: The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. LZ 56:Those who know do not talk. Those who talk do not know. I'm still thinking "LaoZi for Dummies." I do however like that it pokes at the idea one can "find" Tao through cultivation. Nothing wrong with cultivation - as long as it doesn't reinforce (and most paths do) that Tao is something separate that needs to be "found". Big business there - keeping seekers ready to spend too much energy time and $$$ looking for something that was never lost in the first place!

Maybe ZZ is basically a "LaoTzu for Dummmies" book ? Laozi 29: Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it? I do not believe it can be done. The universe is sacred. You cannot improve it. If you try to change it, you will ruin it. If you try to hold it, you will lose it. *********** And I'm not goin anywhere MH. Your ideas are still read by me. Like they have been off and on for the last 15 years. And you know i've been 'laoist' since my first breath. All is well. (-:

Repeating and emphasis warranted. Signed in just to "Like" it. Bravo. (-:

dawai - 10,000 thanks for that. You just nailed the reason for my distaste of ZZ. Too similar to the traditions that push emptiness at the expense of the fullness - and vice versa. Looks like I'm just a Laozi girl. (-: ************* The rest of your post is wonderful as well; and I'll continue reading/replying where warranted but my primary curiosity has been satisfied. Both.

Taoist Texts Hello and thank you for posting that. Yes - the meeting between Laozi and Kongzi, as found in the Confucian records, is one of the few 'outside proofs' extant. Nice to see it referenced. (-: warm regards

dustybejing - thanks for your reply!

CD! Any picture of me is NOT porn!! ************** dustybejing - wonderful post - the comparisons are very helpful ! Regarding this: The context in which that line resides - is it speaking of attributes of Dao? Or is it more like: 'those who dwell in the Way can experience (feeling) and (trust)' ? Thanks! (I'm starting to think my ideas about ZZ may have been too harsh - but the jury's still out on that so dont go gettin all excited yet, MH.)

Those who understand generally are. It's what flows from understanding - that can vary widely. (-:

In the spirit of GMP's post... Chuangtzu - mystery emphasis Confucious - manifest emphasis Laozi - both Maybe C & C took what they could relate to from the wholeness of The Laozi and created from there. One source, arising in two different directions. Sounds familiar, heh.

Ah..okay. Is this what you were wondering about 子泰 (re purpose)?

Hi, 子泰, nice to see you (-: Other than two different 'writers' having two different 'voices' - are you asking if maybe ZZ was poking at LZ in some manner? Or? I'm curious as to your thoughts about 'purposes'. Thanks!

Emotionless. Great, that is a state of Wu Wei. Do you know how hard for someone to reach to this level of cultivation? Thus it's better than screaming and yelling at your mom. Wow. There aren't enough words to convey how wrong I think this is. Of course screaming and yelling isn't generally useful. But to encourage what rara believes would be an otherwise flatline existance - isnt really useful either. It is possible to have passion and emotions and to live and enjoy life fully while also experiencing and reflecting the calm peace found in perceiving the unity.

Excellent start, MH. Oh, I will. (-: Regarding the above, to me LZ spoke of ways to interact with the material (manifest) that doesn't exclude the mystery. ZZ, as you pointed out, speaks more to the metaphysical - almost dismissing the material at times. LZ reflects the balance, interaction and importance of both. Many more thoughts to come, but one at a time for me. Thanks again for the thread, friend.

Marblehead: glad you're going to do this - thanks!! dawei - IMO - if ZZ did any reductionism - then it was deconstructing ideas that others added on to Dao and LZ. Dao, and the clarity underlying LZ, are already in their simplest form. *************** Actually - this might not be too far off the OP's topic. Especially if The Laozi is viewed to be an "instruction manual" . warm regards

Rara - I noticed you "Liked" only those posts that said it's your mom who doesn't understand. Just an observation. Best of luck, Rene Edit - that wasn't quite the case. Apologies; I was wrong. (-: