Aaron

Hello Apech, I think we're working on different wave lengths, because what you've just said sounds suspiciously like what I've been saying all along... I think you're not agreeing with the way I'm saying it, which is an excellent example of what this chapter is all about. Aaron

If she's really tone deaf, no amount of training will help. I would ask yourself why it bothers you so much? You want her to sing in a certain way or not sing at all? Why? We're actually talking about this in the Tao Teh Ching section in Chapter two... If all the world saw beauty as beauty, that in itself would be ugly... So if everyone thought she sang beautiful that would be ugly. Also be aware within everything that's ugly there is a small amount of beauty, look for the beauty a bit more and perhaps you'll be able to overlook the ugly. (I.E. the joy she seems to have when she's singing?) Aaron

Hmm... My question wasn't so much that, but rather do you think this is meant to imply or is talking about farming, since that was the primary source of food at the time this was written? As in the Sage doesn't farm? As far as whether the sage is involved or not, I'm not sure if that actually alters what's being said to that great a degree, the general message seems to be the same. It's like two people reaching the same point, but taking different roads to get there. Aaron

Hello Apech, I understand what you're saying and if you read very closely you'll see I was saying the same thing. My point is that you cannot say a person's perception of reality doesn't exist, in that sense, abstraction is as real as the actual image. It all has to do with perception. Also many early Taoists saw Buddhism as a simpler form of Taoism, and perhaps this similarity in perception was one of the reasons? With that said, I have a question for you, If all the world stops judging, what happens then? What do we base our understanding of reality on? Are we supposed to spontaneously act, seeing things only as they "truly" are? Aaron

Hi Dawei, I left out that last line from all the translations... I didn't want to confuse people. Apparently it had the opposite effect. Anyways thanks for your input... so is it about farming or running a farm or is this sage wandering around the wilderness perpetuating nature? Aaron

I know I said I liked Feng better, but I think Wu might have been more in line with what most people translated these lines as. I kind of get the feeling that the Sage in this instance is being referred to as a farmer and it's talking about raising a crop... just the general vibe I get. Aaron

Hello Rene, For quick contrast, I went through and found some other translations for those lines, here they are. (Tr. Sanderson Beck) Therefore the wise manage affairs without interfering and teach beyond the words. All things rise, and they do not turn away from them. They give them life, but do not take possession of them. They act, but do not rely on their own ability. They accomplish, but claim no credit. (Tr. C. Gansen) The truly wise accept this, and they work diligently without allegiance to words. They teach by doing, not by saying; are genuinely helpful, not discriminating; are positive, not possessive. They do not proclaim their accomplishments... (tr. Robert Henricks) 10. Therefore the Sage dwells in nonactive affairs and practices the wordless teaching. 11. The ten thousand things arise, but he doesn't begin them; 12. He acts on their behalf, but he doesn't make them dependent; 13. He accomplishes his tasks, but he doesn't dwell on them; (tr. Lin Yutang) Therefore the Sage: Manages affairs without action; Preaches the doctrine without words; All things take their rise, but he does not turn away from them; He gives them life, but does not take possession of them; He acts, but does not appropriate; Accomplishes, but claims no credit.

Hello Rene, I see it... very interesting. I might have to take a closer look at other translations and see what they came up with. Very different ideas going on here. I kind of like Feng's translation more than Wu's in this instance, since it seems more in line with what I think is being espoused in the Tao Teh Ching. Aaron

Hello Apech, I think you're missing the point and in a way drawing an absolute. You see the diamond as flawed, when in fact it is flawless. Just as the person who sees the diamond as flawless, doesn't realize it is flawed. Long and short, high and low, you can't have one without the other. This isn't so important really and in my opinion it's not meant to be dwelled on, the important thing is not to value the diamond, that way you wont desire to own it and it can never be stolen from you. Also the world is abstract, we just view reality in it, or perhaps the world is reality and we decide to make it abstract? The question of the chicken and the egg comes to mind. Just kidding. What's important to remember is that we don't have to be right, right happens whether we believe it to be or not. If we can just accept that it's a diamond as its intended to be then there can be no argument. Aaron edit- Changed a statement and tried to make my comments less harsh. I'm not trying to instruct, just express my opinion.

I don't think you can compare hypnosis with magic. I've practiced self-hypnosis for years and I understand that there are some rituals (especially in qabbalism) that actually use self-hypnosis as a means to foster things such as out of body experiences, but it's not the result of magic. Aaron

I think it's important to point out that living naturally has nothing to do with being at peace, rather it has to do with living in accord with what's natural. Killing several million people because you are trying to create a pure race is not natural. The last part "whatever is against Tao soon ceases to be" holds some truth to it, but even that can be called into question. It's as simple as the first time you ever asked, "why do good things happen to bad people?" In the end, soon is relative. Soon may be a thousand or so years for a boulder that falls into a river, or a couple centuries for a civilization that constantly wages war on others. The thing to keep in mind isn't so much the "soon" but rather the "ceases". This is just my western philosophical take on it. Aaron

Hello folks, I had some ideas regarding chapter two. I've always thought that this chapter isn't necessarily about non-judgement so much as understanding the nature of absolutes, that when one begins to apply absolutes, they deny the true nature that exists within everything. An example would be that every truth holds within it a small lie, or that, what one person might consider a "flawless" diamond, may still seem flawed to someone else. Nothing is completely good, nor completely bad, rather everything complements each other. On another level I think this also applies to morality as a whole, that we should never just accept something as being good, just because everyone else does, but rather try to view it objectively. The last two lines are the most important to me, because they express the entire meaning of this chapter in just two lines, that if you do not value something, no one can ever take it away from you, because you never really own it in the first place. Aaron

I think that sounds fine. Thanks for taking the time to add the section. Aaron

NOTE this topic/thread has been moved to the Tao Teh Ching section located at the top of the Taoist Discussion section of The Tao Bums. If you would like to comment, please refer to that thread. Aaron P.S. Thanks for adding the new section!

Hello Rene, I'll pop the Feng/English up there along with the Wu if you want. Aaron

Well I can see by the various replies that there are many people more knowledgable than I about this stuff, so I'd rather leave the commentary to other people. If I have something to add, I will, but I'm trying to listen to the rain drops right now. Aaron

I wanted to make a comment, based on my own beliefs and not necessarily a Taoist idea. In my many years, part of them growing up in a very religious Southern Baptist family, I've been exposed to people who are highly religious. There is a difference between religious and spiritual in my opinion. The person that is religious is following tenets many times because they feel they are required to or have been taught that it is the right thing to do. People that are spiritual tend to follow their beliefs because they want to, there is something they find that compels them to "practice what they preach". One thing I find with spiritual people is that they tend to be less pushy about their religions because they tend to have the opinion that they are not all that important to it, rather than be a gift to their ideology, they view their ideology as a gift to them. When you speak to these people there is a passion that is alive and often time you'll listen, not necessarily because you believe what they say, but because you see they have a deeply held belief that what they believe, isn't true by rote, but by practice. In contrast, the religious people I see can be passionate, but often times that passion is motivated by something else, anger, hate, loathing, perhaps something they feel inside about themselves that they push on others. These people talk, not with passion, but zeal. They preach, not because they believe that their ideology works and that their lives reflect that, but rather that their ideology is the only true one that anyone can follow. These are the people who are in tolerant religions, but don't practice tolerance. These are the people that feel the need to go into a place, whether it's a forum or a neighborhood and preach the good word. The need in these instances, isn't to convert because there is a love there, but rather because they feel it somehow makes them a better person and helps them to feel better about themselves. I'm not saying that anyone has done this here, but rather just giving my own opinion about the people I've met on the way. An old saying is, "Religious people believe because they're afraid of going to hell, spiritual people believe because they've already been there." Aaron edited for lots of typos

Hello people, I apologize, I didn't know we were waiting to start chapter two. I posted the next chapter earlier today. I should've read the thread more clearly, but there was a lot posted and I only glossed over most of it and missed the reference. If you wish to wait until the conversation is finished on one, I think that's fine. I thought it might be good to post a chapter, let it sit for a couple days and then post the next. People can still talk about the previous chapter, but it also allows us to continue to the next with thoughts on the prior one still fresh in our minds. If you don't agree with that method, then that's fine too. Either way it works. I like seeing people's viewpoints, especially the various ideas people are mentioning regarding the history and characters, I've actually learned a lot and come away with a different perspective on the chapter. Aaron

Hello Dawei, Thanks for the insight. I wasn't aware of that, but it does bring up some interesting thoughts regarding the later manuscripts. I'll have to take some time to see what the ramifications may be in the long run. I think what I'll do is read the Henricks version again and compare it to the Wu (which I think is based on the Wang Bi) and see how different the two are. In the meantime, I'm going to take a break from the forums. I have started to realize that I know much less about Taoism than I thought I did. I've studied the Tao Teh Ching (Wu's version) for around 20 years, but I have only read the Zhuangzhi once and I've yet to learn anything about Qigong or Tai Chi, other than cursory attempt to learn Tai Chi around 17 years ago, which I gave up because I didn't have the patience for it at that time. With that in mind, rather than talk about a text, without sufficient understanding, I will begin to study these other facets of Taoism and get back to you. Til then I'm taking a break from the forums and focusing on personal enrichment, for lack of a better term. I wish you well and everyone else also. Aaron

Hello Marblehead, I am by no means a religious Taoist or even a philisophical Taoist. I think anyone that practices the Tao shouldn't feel the need to identify themselves as one. I am simply me. This of course is not about Chapter one, so I would suggest rather than continue to debate religion here, if you wish you can private message me and I'll pass along my e-mail, or we can even start another thread for that purpose. Aaron

Hello Marblehead, Very nice! I wish you luck with that. Aaron

I don't cultivate anything, I just let it grow of its own accord. That's a topic for a different thread though. Aaron

Well if you feel that the way to practice the Tao is to toss stones at people, that's fine. Everyone has their own way. Aaron

Hello Marblehead, Taoist Philosophy for most people is a religion, there's no need to bring God into it in order to make it so. In regards to the Tao Teh Ching, the first chapter presents a very religious ideal of the universe. The Tao is presented tantamount to God (by the way I'm not a Christian, just presenting an argument). I can't see how relating philosophical Taoism to a religion is bad, unless one decides that religion is bad. If thats so, I think the problem stems more from one's concept of religion than it does Taoism. I think Henrick's translation isn't accurate, but rather reflective of converting Taoism to western ideals. When you read Wu or Feng, translators that were raised to speak Chinese first, then learned English, I believe you get a better idea of the original intent. This doesn't mean that someone from the West can't understand the Tao Teh Ching, but rather, that I personally prefer reading a translation that is done by someone who is a native speaker. However, if that translation resonates with you, then you should share it, so that we can see where you are drawing your thoughts from. Aaron

So your "sincere" intent was just to post the qoute out of spontaneity, there was no purpose at all, nor nothing that directed you to? My question then is, what was the purpose of your post? Or is that some hidden mystery that will manifest itself in time? Aaron