Zhongyongdaoist

Thanks for starting this, I have had Cleary's translation for years, but knowing about its controversial dating I have not wanted to delve into it. I'll read the papers that you posted and see if they spark anymore interest in me.

Ok, the day was busier than I thought and this is not quite as refined and elegant as I might wish, but here it is: Proof that given Daoist terminology and basic cosmology, neither Heaven and Earth or the Sage could be ren, and that both the Ten Thousand Things and humanity would be worse off if they were. As I have said the trouble is in the first four lines and in particular the second and fourth lines. just a quick fairly literal translation: Heaven, Earth, not benevolent take the 10,000 things like straw dogs Sage, not benevolent takes the people like straw dogs. These four lines set up a formal analogy between the subjects and objects of the first and second lines and the third and four lines. The sage is related to heaven and earth, both are characterized as not benevolent and treating certain things in certain ways. An similarity between Heaven and Earth and the sage is strongly implied. This can be supported by citations from other Chapters such Chapter 2 in which the sage is given attributes that are like those attributed to the “Great Tao” in Chapter 34, thus: Chapter 2: and Chapter 34: The similarity of Heaven and Earth and the Sage implied by the structure of Chapter 5 can also be supported by further citations from the text. So let's look at some other chapters and see what else they tell us about Heaven and Earth and the Sage and see why not only are they not benevolent it would be bad if they were, to start let's take a quick look at Chapter 18: That this is a process of degeneration in which each succeeding term is worse then its predecessor can be represented in the following way allowing this “>” to represent “better than”: Great Way>benevolence and righteousness>wisdom and shrewdness>great hypocrisy. Apparently this degeneration can only happen among people, but if it could affect Heaven and Earth, the Ten thousand things would also suffer. For the purposes of this discussion I am going to invoke Chapter 38 in which benevolence and righteousness are separated and dealt with in two different lines and amend to above to: Great Way>benevolence>righteousness>wisdom and shrewdness>great hypocrisy. And it may even be said that “wisdom” is better than “shredness”, but I don't wish to push further comparisons that far. All we need is the first section, but the rest kind of adds emphasis. It can be assumed that Heaven and Earth have not degenerated in this way, but still embody the Dao. Only humanity can manifest benevolence and righteousness, so when the Dao was lost among humans, benevolence and righteousness appeared, and after that even worse things happened, this means that benevolence and righteousness are a degeneration from Dao. So it can be assumed that Heaven and Earth embody the Dao and that the sage having returned to the source also embodies the Dao. If this is granted then neither can, or should either be benevolent because they are better then benevolent and since benevolence is a degeneration from the Dao, it would be worse both for the the 10,000 things and for the people, if Heaven and Earth or the sage was benevolent. Thus no matter how odd the image of treating things like straw dogs may strike us, it is better than a benevolent Heaven and Earth or sage treating things or people like precious puppies. On a purely speculative note, I suspect that straw dogs was used for its humor and shock value and should be seen as part of the the Dao De Jing's tendency to employ paradox and the inversion of “common sense”. In regard to rulership we can compare this to Chapter 17 where: Where following our early convention: Hidden Ruler>loved and praised ruler>feared ruler>despised ruler and create the following equivalences: Dao = Hidden Ruler Benevlolence = loved and praised ruler Righteousness = feared ruler etc. I won't pursue exact details because of differences between Chapter 18's and Chapter 38's description of the degeneration process. The Dao and the sage are both like the first Hidden Ruler and the benevolent like the second whom the people loved and praised. The one they feared may have been the righteous ruler and on down the line. So you see, call them what you want straw dogs or whatever, both people and the 10,000 things are better off not being in a benevolent world, or with a benevolent ruler, as long as both truly embody Dao. It should be noted that they could be worse off then then being ruled by a benevolent ruler, as rulership styles go, it is not the bottom of the heap. Q.E.D. I will remind everyone that this proof assumes Daoist terminology, Confucian terminology is different and Ren in particular does not have a meaning exactly like Daoist. As I said in an earlier post I hope to examine that later.

My favorite: Why does E=mc2 by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw, Da Capo Press Well written, it is an excellent introduction to Special Relativity, I don't remember much about its discussion of General Relativity, but it is probably very good also.

I think this: summarizes the fundamental issues admirably. It's about people liking and not liking words and what they imply. That's understandable, without words we have nothing, but those words are in a context and that context helps to define them. Part of the context is the structure of the passages and also how they fit into the overall structure of the DDJ and its doctrines and style. When I first read the Tao Te Ching in D. C. Lau's translation be when I was sixteen in the mid sixties, I was not particularly troubled by chapter five, I can't remember how Lau translated it, and I don't feel like digging out that copy, but one reason I was not troubled was because I looked at its structure and even then saw part of the way out of the dilemma in this very aspect of structure, this of course is part of my proof, which I will get to today. Really I will, but first I want to summarize a little more what is at issue. Two things bother people about this passage, first the implication that the sage is not a "sugar daddy" and second, well those straw dogs. If only Laozi had said "The sage is a sugar daddy, he treats the people like precious puppies", everyone would love this passage, well maybe not everyone. The thought makes me nauseous. I hate cute, but a lot of people would have just loved it and thought Laozi a fine fellow. Being told, as some do, that really “Straw Dogs” are, like Zhuangzi says, part of a religious rite: doesn't help much either, because it still has the people being “sacrificed” for the sages purposes. As I collected and read many different translations of the Dao De Jing in the late 60s and early 70s, Chapter 5 become something of a touchstone for evaluating these translations. I would always turn to it and a couple of others to see how that author handled it and I noticed that it was more troublesome to some translators than others. The more a person was involved in “Taoism” the more they hemmed and hawed about it, but an “impartial” scholar like Waley could simple say that “the sage is ruthless” and be done with it. As I went along I began to wonder if a look at the original Chinese would be helpful, something that was not easy in the mid 70s. When I finally could look at the original Chinese it didn't help at all and at best showed that a simple literal translation was misleading and a complex one full of the ideological commitments of the author, but none of these people paid much attention to the structure of the passages, nor asked the question, “if neither “Heaven and Earth” nor the Sage are Ren, what are they?” and further is that question answered in a way that expands understanding, in the text of the Dao De Jing? The only useful thing that the Chinese text did was show that the text involved a “not” statement rather than an identity statement, actually for proof purposes, more useful then it sounds. Having brought up Waley I want to examine his commentary Chapter 5 and his comments on Ren in particular, which are very interesting and I would like to look closer at that commentary because it brings up important aspects of what I said earlier about my “proof”: especially about Confucian terminology, but this post has already been long enough and so that discussion will have to wait. Since I have kept promising it for so long, my next post will be my “proof”, because of all that has been said from its present form needs slight revision in exposition, in particular I have wondered how formal to make it, but probably for most people keeping it less formal will be better than putting it in a formal logical framework. So, sometime in the next eight to twelve hours, its proof time, right now I have to go out and do "stuff".

Yes, I think so. 1. Heaven and Earth are not benevolent partial; 3. The Sage is not benevolent partial; However, I still would like to translate them as: 1. Nature has no mercy; 3. The Sage has no mercy; I would have to disagree with both of you because none of this addresses the fundamental issues of the text, it merely shifts around words without adding understanding. Nor would putting in Harmonious Emptiness' "conformism" help either: "Heaven and Earth are not conformists" "The Sage is not a conformist either." While the idea of a non-conformist Sage may sound appealing, it is ridiculous applied to Heaven and Earth. Marblehead as a materialist, would have to say that Heaven and Earth "can't care", but he is unwilling to say that about the Sage, so he settles for "impartial". Unfortunately ChiDragon's preferred translation leaves the text open to the charge that the four lines are a Legalist interpolation, a criticism that actually has some historical possibility, but would not satisfy those who want to see the Dao De Jing as a coherent text. My solution solves the problem, but today is shaping up to be a busy day and my posting may have to wait until tomorrow (about 9:00 am where I live). Edit: Corrected Spelling of ChiDragon's name, added "help either" after "conformism" above.

All good points, but this is more about Harmonious Emptiness's problems with Chapter 5 of the Dao De Jing than anything else. He's been trying to come up with a solution for sometime as these threads indicate: Straw Dogs One and here: Straw Dogs Two Where he explored a different avenue then attempting to demonize Ren and blame all the ills of Chinese society on Confucius. All of which is completely unnecessary because understanding Chapter Five and why neither Heaven and Earth nor the Sage can be Ren is not that hard if you pay attention to the structure of the passages and the teachings of a few other chapters. I wrote out a short proof of it yesterday and was going to post it today, but I decided to post my warning about the dangers of quoting Zhuangzi to condemn Confucius first. If anyone is interested they can find it here: Confucius was Sage: Testimony of a Hostile Witness Since, including the above, I have done a lot of posting here today, the proof will have to wait until tomorrow. Among its highlights will be that using Daoist definitions, both the Ten Thousand Things and The People would be worse off if Heaven and Earth and the Sage were Ren. Not as bad as they could be, but not as good off. That is of course using Daoist terminology which is not exactly the same as Confucian terminology, though comparisons can be made once the terms are looked at a little closer. So until tomorrow, or thereabouts, if tomorrow proves to be as busy a day as it looks like.

I'm glad you will finally be posting with us again!

I might add to the Epistemological nature of the Microcosm/Macrocosm analogy, that it would make the type of long pointless discussion appearing in the thread: Objective Vs Subjective completely unnecessary. The terminology involved in "objective" and "Subjective" was created in the Seventeenth Century as a psychology of the senses related to the revival of Epicureanism, a branch of Greek Atomism, that began around 1600. Its primary systematizer was John Locke, whose model of the mind at birth as a "blank slate", also sometimes called the Latin "tabula rasa", meant there was no inborn knowledge and all that one could know in "knowing" oneself was what one had observed or deduced from those deductions. This served his fundamentally Puritan agenda perfectly, because unlike the previous positions of the Catholic Church, based on the Classical Tradition, there could be no inborn virtues, nothing that a man may know, or virtue he might develop on his own, thus he was wholly at the mercy of God for salvation in Jesus. Subsequent materialism kept these ideas going by taking for granted many things that seem simple because they are "natural", but these days it is clear from the efforts of AI and computing, that things we think are simple are very complex and may even not be computable and if they are not computable, they cannot be mechanical and if they cannot be mechanical then the whole edifice of materialism is revealed as a mere facade and for the shame it is. This discussion has of course been greatly simplified for brevity's sake. For example "tabula rasa" has Classical and Medieval precedents and Quantum Computing may solve many problems, but with Quantum anything, we are just not in Kansas anymore.

The notion that all one needs to know is oneself is founded on the Microcosm/Macrocosm analogy, well represented by this quote attributed to Paracelsus: In the West it became fundamental to Metaphysics and Ontology, but originated as an Epistimological theory: Like is only known by like in Empedocles because it solves a lot of problems created both by Parmenides on the one hand and the early Greek Atomists on the other. This doctrine was worked out by Plato in a very profound way and continued to influence Western Philosophy up to Hegel. It existed in China as can be seen in this quote from the Confucian, Mencius: and was also used in Daoism. In Plato, as becomes very clear in Plotinus, all things, including our own divine being as already there within us, it allows this type of knowledge of God: as is found in the Corpus Hermeticum. The text which I emphasized above, "If, then, thou dost not make thyself like unto God, thou canst not know Him. For like is knowable to like", emphasizes the epistemological origin of this practice and it is only the Microcosm/Macrocosm analogy that makes it possible. This is a very Western approach approach to God as the fullness of Creation and the unifying One at its root, though the approach to the One as the one itself is also part of Western Philosophy especially in Plotinus. Edit: Changed had to hand in "Parmenides on the one hand" above.

Click on this: 易, which comes from this: and you will be taken straight to the Chinese Text Projects online version of the Yi Jing.

Yes, for good or ill, outside of our imagination Steam Punk just doesn't fly.

If only this was more than a caricature founded on a parody, it might be possible to learn something of Ren. This is from one of the Fundamental Texts of ConFucianism the Zhonyong: Only the peson who has truly realized chéng, 诚, usually rendered as "sincerity", but in this case "authentic" is a better translation, can be truly Ren and then 仁 refers to the trinity of Heaven, Earth and the Sage. Only a person who takes the conduct of a Sage as his example can achieve this, not a nonperson who lives solely to the expectations of others. A Confucian will always be mindful of the expectations of others, but will always look to his Heaven conferred nature as his model, and thus transforms the expectations of others, by living true (another meaning of chéng) to himself (herself too, of course).

Again a return to the plant analogy can be useful. When you plant an acorn it grows into an oak. In the process it develops many aspects which change as it realizes its potential. If you plant an acorn and a lime tree grows, that would be a transformation. If you plant an acorn and horses sprout from the ground, well now that would be a real transformation! It is also interesting to think about the complement to transformation, which is transubstantiation. In the Roman Catholic interpretation of the sacrament of communion, the form of wine and a bread wafer remain the same, but the substance underlying them supposedly changes from ordinary "corruptible" hyle into the incorruptible body of Christ. Whether this actually happens in a Roman Catholic Mass or not is an interesting question, but whether it does or not, the idea of transubstantiation is quite an interesting one to add to your list of things to contemplate.

Regarding this: I'll refer you to what I said here: To discover that Mencius viewed the end of Confucian self-cultivation as becoming a 'shen' or 'god' was quit a revelation, but this passage in Mencius is only part of the picture. How it relates to the teachings of the Zhongyong on chéng (诚) will be the subject of future posts. For now, I think I have given everyone plenty to think about. However probably the most important thing that I said was here: While these are references to Aristotle's hylomorphism (Substance/form), the Chinese lǐ/qì (理氣, Principle/"matter-energy") cosmology that dates back at least to Hafeizi, who in turn credited it to his study of the Dao De Jing, is a close enough "twin" to Aristotle that a study of Aristotle is useful. Call it what you want qi or spirit, the Chinese have long considered that all of creation is a condensation or refinement of one substance, what Aristotle would call "prime matter", in Greek hyle. But without the differentiation provided by "principle", in Aristotle "morphe" in Plato "idos", there would be no difference between heart and liver. Thus the importance of principle or form and my objection to the overuse of "transformation". In becoming a shen/xiān, a cultivator is not transformed, which means a change of form, instead he/she realizes the full potential inherent in their bodies, what I have called "the Form of Humanity", thus Mencius, "a man must be a sage before he can satisfy the design of his bodily organization." A change yes, a transformation, no.

Thank you for asking for the clarification. Sometimes when we post on a thread we don't have time to be mindful of everyone who may read it. I have posted this elsewhere: To directly answer your question no, the yellow court is not reducible to the solar plexus, but is in the general area of the solar plexus and may actualize and harness for its own purposes some of the potential of the solar plexus. There have been two threads in which I have posted which deal with the middle Dan and the two Huang Ting Chings, you can review them here: The Middle Dan and the Heart and Solar Plexus In which I also quote the above post, and: The "internal" and "external" texts of the Huang Ting Ching Where I originally posted it. There is of course a lot more that can be said about all of this, but I hope that this is a helpful start.

In saying this: I was not unmindful of this: Which is why I continued with this: and this: But intended to point out a common mistake and source of confusion, a "bottom up approach" rather then recognizing the wholistic controlling function of the three Dans, that is why I said it was first. I am glad that dawei had more time to elaborate on the Heart/Lung connections. Being particularly mindful of this: Is why I finished with this: emphasizing the functional and substantial continuity. I will point out that I think the word "transformation" is overly used and not always appropriate to describe apparent changes and suggest that instead this process is better thought of as a change from potentiality to actuality, with the "form of humanity" being completely realized in the alchemical process. And I hope that my pointing out a suggestive quote from the Confucian, Mecius: Will add more to contemplate, without creating confusion.

First of all the three dan are not reducible to the functions of the organs that are in that area of the body. Though they are related to and develop from the potential inherent in the bodies functioning, in particular the Sanjiao or "three burners" channel, they are the result of certain types of self cultivation. The most direct of these is the Neidan procedures of the schools related to the Taoist Yoga text. Other schools are the meditative/ritual alchemical schools of religious Daoism as represented by the two Yellow Court Canons and and the Shang Qing and Ling Bao schools. The study of a TCM text like Giovanni Maciocia's Foundations of Chinese Medicine, can give an insight into the function of qi within the body, which is very complex and the relationship between jing, qi and shen which is part of the normal and healthy function of the human body, and this knowledge is very helpful to cultivation, but the three dan only truly exist in the medium to advanced cultivator and discussions about them from the lower perspective of TCM are as misleading as confusing the function of the roots of a plant with the function of its leaves and flowers.

Regarding atheist churches, please note the "Religion of Humanity" and follow the link below: Rare, but a great improvement over Marxism.

BaquaKicksAss posted this in another thread, I'm sure she won't mind me quoting it here for your benefit: Good luck.

Your use of the word "Atheism" should be replaced with "Marxism" in order for it to be valid. As it stands I call it misleading. (Emphasis mine, ZYD) You can deny that Marxism was an organized and militant atheism all you like, but it doesn't change facts. Marxism was all about establishing atheism as a state institution. This is typical: and the rest of the article expands on it. I left you or anyone else who wishes to separate themselves from Marxism an out when I said: But denying the atheistic nature of Marxism simply undermines your claim to objectivity. I can understand that you are uncomfortable with the connection, but really it has little to do with you and how you think or act as a person who takes their own brand of atheism seriously.

I'm afraid that you missed the point, neither theism or atheism inspires violence, it is rather the setting in which they are placed. Quakers are theists and believe in “friendly persuasion” and pacifism, because they believe this is what God wants. It is beliefs about God or gods that inspires action, or non-action for that matter. Now in regard to Marxism and its descendants, and yes the government of the Peoples Republic of China is Marxist in inspiration, it is a Marxist belief that only violence will lead to people being freed from the superstitious belief in God that keeps them in mental chains because of beliefs in a “divine right of Kings”, divine retribution, etc. The “evangelical” nature of Epicureanism, which is the inspiration for Marxism, goes back to antiquity and was part of Epicurus original teachings. Epicureanism was one of the original “cults” in the sense that they lived in communes and actively practiced conversion to “free” people from the “superstitious” fear of the gods and how the gods would punish them for not acting “right”. While orthodox Epicureanism is not libertine, it popular interpretations, with its emphasis on hedonism, were often used as rationals for libertine excesses. The English Civil War and the French Revolution set two powerful examples of the violent overthrow of Monarchy and the Religious institutions that supported them, and whatever Diderot and D'Hollbach might have thought about either, Marx and his collaborator Engels did pick up the cue and adapted violence as part of their teaching. About the use of violence, here is Marx and Engels: and here is Engels: and Wikipedia on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat All of these in the name of freeing the people from the constraints of religion and giving them the gift of atheism. In terms of violence it goes down hill from there. During the Twentieth Century the attempt to establish and maintain "atheism" as a state institution caused millions of deaths. Mere Islamic terrorists pale in comparison. I hope they never catchup. Thus it is the "ideology" in which theism or atheism is embedded which creates the violence, but atheism per se is no proof against violence and theism not necessarily an incitement to it.

He felt that having Christianity support his ideology that his quest to conquer the world would be more acceptable to others: He would use anyone or anything to further his aims and destroy them when they were no longer useful to him. the Christian Church, both Lutheran and Catholic, supported Hitler: That Hitler was quite willing to turn on his "supporters" as the: Night of the Long Knives aptly demonstrated. . . . the article tries to link Hitler with Nietzsche's philosophy: If this is what you are talking about: I am astonished that out of such a long and tightly argued discussion you would focus on such an insignificant aspect of it. It certainly clarifies the nature of your attachment to Nietzsche. It leaves me wondering if you understand the meaning of the word faux. Postscript: I had prepared this before post, which covers the issues nicely. I decided to post it anyway, to avoid the appearance of not having a response.

HGA as Fierce Guru.

Another Nazi meaning for "88": The German "eighty eight" One of the most effective pieces of artillery in the Second World War.

Some real reasons: Baron D'Hollbach Denis Diderot Who with their friends literally, yes pun acknowledged and intended, conspired to turn: The French Enclyclodpedia into an instrument of propaganda for the revival of Epicureanism that I have mentioned before. This was to a great extant the inspiration for Marx who combined his Epicureanism with a touch of Hegel to come up with "Dialectic Materialism".