anatman

The follower of knowledge acquires as much as he can every day; The follower of Tao loses as much as he can every day. By attrition he reaches a state of inaction Wherein he does nothing, but leaves nothing undone. To conquer the World, do nothing; If you must do something, The World remains beyond conquest. i'm not going to say much,as others will come on and get much deeper philosophically.

seems to be a story we know well...

Nature is everlasting because it does not have a Self. In this way the sage: Serves his Self last and finds it served first; Sees his body as accidental and finds it endures. Because he does not serve his Self, he is content. in an attempt to understand,i found this one,and no,i don't understand.i do agree with a few of the posters that there is a strong buddhist influence in this.but thanks to everyone for their comments.

i don't get here very often,and still see that the"taoists"and "buddhists"are still at each other.i find this sad as there is really no need. i come here to learn about taoism,and to try to understand the ttc(yeah,that's gonna happen),not argue who has the superior philosophy(neither actually).i find my answers in both(not necessarly at the same time)and sometimes to understand a concept from one,i find i need to compare it to the other. the one thing i like about this forum,as forigen as some concepts may be,at least they're discussed.i can name a few forums that this doesn't happen on. my personal vote(if it counts for anything)is not to make seperate sections.if someone is that dead set on a"buddhist section,or islamic,hindu,asatru,what have you"there are other places on the net for that.

When the strong learn Tao, they practice it diligently; When the average learn Tao, they practice it sometimes; When the weak learn Tao, they laugh out loud; Those who do not laugh do not learn at all. Therefore it is said: Who understands Tao seems foolish; Who progresses in Tao seems to fail; Who follows Tao seems to wander. So the greatest force appears vulnerable; The brightest truth appears coloured; The richest character appears incomplete; The strongest heart appears meek; The most beautiful nature appears fickle; So the square, perfected, has no corner; Art, perfected, has no meaning; Sex, perfected, has no climax; Form, perfected, has no shape. So Tao can not be sensed or known: It transmits sensation and transcends knowledge. i almost included the dudes paraphrase(can't think of a better term)but even for here,i couldn't print it.however,it does make sense. may take on wu wei is from bruce lees masters thesis.basically,"be like water,it can take the form of whatever it is in,...in nature,there is no greater force".

sometimes it's a little easier to understand,most times not.

The loving do not act. The kind act without self-interest; The just act to serve self-interest; The religious act to reproduce self-interest. For when Tao is lost, there is love; When love is lost, there is kindness; When kindness is lost, there is justice; And when justice is lost, there is religion. Well established hierarchies are not easily uprooted; Closely held beliefs are not easily released; So religion enthralls generation after generation. Religion is the end of love and honesty, The beginning of confusion; Faith is a colourful hope or fear, The origin of folly. The sage goes by knowledge, not by hope; He dwells in the fruit, not the flower; He accepts the former, and rejects the latter. found this translation in the tao dude ching.

if i remember correctly,it is said that lao tzu rode off"into the west(sunset)on a white buffalo".if your going to be remembered,that's a classy way(i think). and i find i like hendricks too.

i agree,although a little dramatic in spots. and thank you marblehead.i hesitated about referring to"mother"as earth(even tho that was my first thought).in some of the vedic traditions"mother "can indeed refer to earth,and sometimes goddess(not one of my definitions).i really had to question as to whether that would/would not be personifying tao,and therefore be an incorrect interpretation.you gave me a maybe on that,which i appreciate. i have difficulty with anything that has been translated,no matter who does it.the more it's translated,imo,the further away from the original meaning it becomes.however,reality in this existence is i am limited as to what languages i can read,so it's pretty much english. again,thank you both

not that it makes any difference to most,but henricks is the easiest to read. the"mother"i am guessing is refering to the tao(although that really doesn't seem right).anyway,my take on it is that it means to "let go"(ok i'm looking at it from a buddhist stand point also).a lesson i need to practice everyday. i am probably way off on this and will be corrected soon.such is learning.the tao that can be understood isn't the true tao?

i have heard dr dyers book,and have a 2 set cd that includes his "tao"mantra,and a very nice music cd.i also used to watch him on pbs,and enjoyed his style of teaching. as far as ttc,i have a copy of the"tao dude chang"on my computer,and am going to buy a copy.yes it is a different translation than most are used to.it is not however a joke.

putting it all together makes it much easier to understand.

from what little i know(and this will become apperant)the bodhisattva is an ideal,but the actual existence of them is a myth(imo).i would suspect that the immortals are a different"story"with taoism.again an ideal,but still a myth.

i don't pursue spirituality or religion,but try to make sense of here and now.if that means asking why,then so be it.