devoid

In that case, I'll chip in

Nice - also accompanied with some more interpretation. Thanks.

Hi Twinner, Marblehead, About the this oneness and universal consciousness discussion. I can understand both of you although you disagree so much on this point - here's a bit of perspective on both views which might help you agree to disagree To the mainly philosophical taoist there needs not be any such thing. Why? Because the Tao Te Ching and other scriptures don't prescribe it. In fact, I consider this one of the prime reasons why hard-line scientists who won't have a word of divinity apart from conceding that they don't know what brought about the enormous mass to start the big bang are able to accept and endorse taoist philosophy. To the taoist practioner who has meditated to a certain level / degree, one gets glimpses of such universal bliss which is talked about. For anybody who has ever experienced that one knows in an instant in ones heart what is meant with such concepts. Anybody who has experienced this will also know that they can't explain it in words. On a side-note, a discussion of this might be worthwhile in a separate thread. The question to ask then becomes: is such an experience (of a universal consciousness) at the core of the tao? Many people agree that it is, while yet many people disagree. To give you an idea of what I mean, let me tell you that I am sympathetic to both views and perhaps oddly don't consider them opposing views: On the one hand, I can understand when Marblehead gets irritated by the esoteric mumbo-jumbo which often accompanies it and yet at the same time, I too have often experienced what Twinner is on about. Thus, in a sense you're both right. Marblehead in the physical realm and Twinner in the state (or realms if you prefer) which can only be reached through meditation when joining the xin and the yi. Edit: Typo

Many thanks for the Lin translation and your perspective, Mr. T. The tools idea is also a nice one. Lin also winds off with the same type of opposite as discussed above: "Thus the greater whole is undivided", again making up a counterpoint to the carving / modelling. I was wondering if anybody would be able to shed some light on the final sentence of this chapter based on the original Chinese text / characters?

Good question. There's a neat description of the origin of the letter w on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W

Hi Marblehead, As always - thanks for posting. I'll try throwing in an interpretation: This chapter speaks very much to balance and seeking balance within what is given / available to us. I think this chapter can easily be misunderstood as a call for non-action, whereas in reality it is not. Rather it is a reminder that there are many things that we cannot change no matter how hard we may want to - instead of trying to run around and change the things we can't we should instead learn to live with them. By being pliable and adapting to the forces around us we can find opportunity in what may otherwise be interpreted solely as irritation. I wish that the chapter would have been rounded off with a note on that, but well...

Nice - on this one, I think it is funny how the final line seems a bit out of place at first (yet isn't necessarily upon further examination): The whole thing suggests nicely to consider everything holistically and that one should act as a decent role model in anything one does. It then goes onto say that one should not forget ones humility. And this is where it can seem a bit out place to suggest that one should be gentle when molding things. At second glance though, I think that the idea of cutting, carving or splitting as little as possible suggests that all we need to do is look to our original nature rather than necessarily try to change (ourselves) according to what we have been taught. I think that is pretty neat. Edit: typo

Absolutely - all is Tao here! BTW: IMO music often helps people be without being now that we're at those type of action/non-action sayings so commonly used in the scriptures.

The Beatles - surely, you don't think you can mention the Beatles without me beginning to cloud my mind with curiosity!? On a side note, yesterday, I was listening to Wilson Pickett and asked myself why I hadn't mentioned him last time spoke of Otis Reading and the Rolling Stones on the high-jacking thread. There's probably little relevance to the subject in question, but I happened to listen to Wilson Pickett's cover version of Hey Jude (by the Beatles) when thinking about this. Long story to get Wilcon Pickett into the discussion as well, huh?

Hi Marblehead, Thanks for posting. I think many misinterpret the concept of doing nothing. On a very rudimentary level - if we do nothing, we will die - we need to breathe, eat, etc. The same can be said for the mind: Surely being in a coma is not a desirable state for anybody (unless perhaps if invoked temporarily as a medical necessity). Thus, what does doing with doing really mean? It means that we are able to do things without thinking about them. This includes our heartbeat, our breathing (unless we consciously regulate it) etc. It includes walking (again unless we consciously regulate it). That is why the concept of doing without doing is so central to gong fu - only if we can get to the point that we are able carry out chores without that preoccupying our intellectual minds can we use our minds for new endeavors. In other words, we must empty the mind (while continuing to function and perhaps even thrive) before being able to undertake the next challenge - i.e. learning new stuff or meditating on whatever we fancy. Sorry if that got a bit long, but I think this is a very central concept which is too often talked about, but not properly understood and discussed. Edit: Typo

Hi Twinner, Thanks for posting. I think it is a nice piece you wrote. The funny thing with the tao is that one can try to describe it as much as one likes and still never provide a fairly complete description - IMO that's all that the Chinese proverbs tell us and also IMO this is very true. The understanding of the tao is, after all, subject to the experience and interpretation of the individual. Even if somebody could express (in words) their full understanding of the tao it would still be unlikely to cover everybody's experience and interpretation. That of course leads to the interesting question of whether one should not try to describe the tao because any description will contain shortcomings and may be biased. I guess the perfectionist would suggest to leave the tao at that while the pragmatist and eager student would say, let's talk about it to use that as a means to improve our understanding of the tao.

Hi Stig, You can keep asking me questions back all you like - I asked the first one: What do you or the author found this on? We can discuss Daoist Tradition - let me state up front that I didn't introduce the term and I think it is silly - I shall demonstrate why shortly (while simultaneously answering your question). You may try to suggest that Daoist Tradition is very different from Taoim and considering oneself a taoist, but please recall the context in which you have presented these words: Common misconceptions on taoism. Taoist Tradition is not clearly definable - in fact the term suggests that a (one) general tradition exists. This is in fact not the case because many traditions exist and just as importantly many practices exist. To really find out what it means to practice taoism we should look at the roots rather than only at the tradition which can be found in certain sects. The roots are a quite large number of documents which exist in various versions. A document that all people seem to agree on considering inherently taoist is the Tao Te Ching. However, many more exits, but this is where the agreement between taoists begin to come apart - often scriptures such as e.g. those in the taoist canon are discussed - yet there is no firm agreement as to exactly which bodies of text should be included. Listen, I will be happy if you can point towards a generally accepted source of taoist text which suggests that taoism is defined first and foremost, by ordained priests and monastics. I don't think this exists and so you have me complaining.... The ball is in your camp, Stig - you can ask me all the questions you want, but I will continue to have a problem with you telling taoists that they are nothing but mere sympathisers of taoism because they don't practice according to rules of certain sects within taoism. Edit: Typo

Are you serious? If I say something is unfounded, it means that I have not yet heard the argument why this postulate holds true. That leaves you with two cardinal choices: a) prove me wrong (e.g. by quoting a generally accepted source - as an example the Tao Te Ching would be very convincing, but I would accept many other sources (all of which I believe nobody is able to list canonically) or you can b] live with my disagreement and continue to listen to me complaining that this view is biased and does not represent taoism properly. Let me tell you in advance, though, that I will not buy into the Confucian argument of respect for elders, system and tradition as a 'catch all' for this postulate. Edit: if you write 'b' or 'B' followed by ')' it gives you - I now changed this back to 'b]' as the sunglass smiley was not intended.

Hi Stig, As discussed in a different thread, I think this is a great article - thanks for posting. I do however have a bone to pick with the above quote. As you already know, I am not crazy about the sympathizers vs. adherents classification, but that is not the bone of contention here: I completely disagree with the following: "The Daoist tradition consists, first and foremost, of ordained priests and monastics and lay supporters.". While clearly the opinion of the author, I believe this statement is unfounded.

I have nothing to add on this one other than I enjoyed all the posts: Thank you

Hi Marblehead, Among all the Atheistic-Nietzschian-Optimistic-Philosophical Taoists I know, I can whole-hearted and honestly say that you're my favorite one of them! NB I am also enjoying this discussion very much - even if I haven't posted a lot on it till now

Hi Stig, Thanks for clarifying. Just one observation (and this comes from my experience in traveling to China occasionally on business and meeting with regular Chinese people who are not part of any taoist sect for what I am aware) - like me, they come across as fairly agnostic about it and realize that the taoist philosophy is one of balance that speaks to their common sense. The point I am trying to make here is that it seems to me that you are trying to compare taoist sect leaders in China with westerners who have become interested in taoism. Of course this will tell you that the two groups are fundamentally different. What I am suggesting though is that most Chinese I have come across accept Taoism as a philosophy and embrace it for what they believe it is worth - just like their western peers they approach it pragmatically (sympathizers in your speak, although my guess is that many would take offence at the suggested labeling). All I'm suggesting here is that you make the mistake of comparing the pedestaled practitioners from one culture / geography with average Joe practitioners of another, but that's just my five cents. Regardless, I wish you lots of success in your research - my thoughts are meant as food for thought rather than personal criticism - I hope you can make use of it in that spirit

Hi Stig, I am wondering if there's really a good reason to box people into these type of groups to understand their relation to Taoism? (apart from perhaps input for a PhD thesis or similar ) IMHO the two categories presented are much too stereotypical - kind of the opposite of the insightful article on common western misperceptions on daoism which you recently posted (and which I enjoyed very much, by the way: thank you ). Outside of any specific requirements which some taoist sects may impose on their members, there is no requirements or impositions in any of the general teachings that I have come across which suggest a need for organizing taoism (as in congregating, establishing churches, producing or using altars, praying, etc.). Neither have I come across any demand of exclusivity in the great old texts that we discuss on this forum, such as the type which can typically be found in e.g. monotheistic or organized religions / philosophies.

This is the shortest form I know of: -takes just below 3 minutes without the title screens

IMHO wuwei is simply a description of a state of harmony (i.e. balance on many fronts) - in such a state, a natural equilibrium (resting point) has been reached. As such, wuwei can be used to describe many things - both of physical as well as spiritual nature.

I have been away for some days, so coming in a bit late to this one... Marblehead and dawei: Many thanks for posting! The more I read your posts the more I see this chapter as the essence of Sun Tzu the Art of War. To me, chapter 26 of TTC suggests that one must stay true to ones principles and operate from the center of these - in other words, this is the principle of personal integrity which shines through the entire Sun Tzu treatise.

IMHO there is no correlation between the two (indian chakras and the chinese eight extraordinary vessels).

Hi TaoIsTruth, I can only give you some general advice: I am of the firm belief that only you can be your own judge of what is good for you and not. When uncertain, take a step back and think about it again. Proceed only when you feel comfortable and ready. I think it sounds like you already figured this out on your own, though: I can only encourage you to keep that up (i.e. questioning, pondering, experimenting, regrouping, etc.) Happy searching

Hi Friends, Xiejia suggested at some stage that we move these discussions somewhere else. What do you all think about requesting to have the Sun Tzu chapter discussions moved to the Tao Te Ching forum? (At first, I thought it would need it's own forum, but when reading the Tao Te Ching forum's subtitle it makes sense: "Forum to discuss classic Taoist texts such as the Tao Teh Ching, I Ching and Chuang-Tzu.") Regardless of what we might agree to to or not, here's chapter 3: