Aaron

So this is Marbleheadist philosophy or Taoist Philosophy? If it's Taoist Philosophy, I can't see how one could not compare it to the Tao Teh Ching. Just an observation. Aaron

Very well said. I would add that there is a common misconception, as you've pointed out, that the Tao is the essence, and that the manifest in some way isn't. I think that's why it's so important to grasp the fundamentals of chapter one, it reminds us that the Tao isn't just what we can't see, but also what we can see. Also it reminds us that the Tao that we're talking about isn't the Eternal Tao, we can never talk about that. "He who knows does not speak, He who speaks does not know." In other words, if you ever hear someone tell you what the Tao is, they obviously do not know. Aaron

My point (made through cajolery) was that making the qoute is a bit hypocritical if you're intent was not to do what was being said. It would be better to ask, "why do so many Buddists come to this forum trying to convert people?" Or we could just mention the recent post on "enlightenment being assured" and go from there. I don't really care so much about it, because it's no skin off my nose. Most Taoists feel no need to try to convert others to Taoism, though they do tend to rise up in arms if you attempt to contradict traditional views. In the same way MOST Buddhists believe that there's no need for conversion, but in the same way they teach their children about Buddhism from an early age (as do Taoists). It is normal (not necessarily natural), if we believe what we have learned is beneficial and "true" to try and tell other people about that truth. In fact if one is working under the pretenses of society, especially Western society, it would be bad form not to. Honestly though, when was the last time someone came up to you on the street and asked, "have you heard the good news of the Tao?" The fact is, the misinformed will feel the need to make people aware of the truth, the informed will realize everything is already true. Aaron

Hello Rene, Feng is very interesting to read. His translation is different from many of the other translations out there and it definitely gives you an idea of how different Chinese translators viewed the text. In regards to chapter one, I think you have hit it on the nail, the chapter explains as simply as possible what the Tao is. Now in the same way, if one is wise, when they hear of the Tao, they practice it diligently. If one is average, they hear of the Tao and waver between belief and disbelief. The foolish hear of the Tao and laugh. We need the foolish to remind us that it's not as important as we'd like to believe it to be. The Tao will be there whether we "practice" it or not. The practice of the Tao isn't about necessity, but rather whether or not someone feels the need or desire to practice it. I think that's why the Sages of old didn't attempt to convert people, but rather just did what they felt was needed. Aaron

I'm not sure what you're trying to gain from this topic? Are we discussing forced conversion or that Buddhists didn't feel the need to convert or are you trying to comment on something that's happening on this forum without pointing fingers? If you could clarify, I think it would help to get the topic going. Aaron

Two things, first your translation is really not that good, I would suggest reading another copy, it's not even placing the lines in the correct order. Second this chapter doesn't need a lot of explanation, all you really need to say is "these are the things that you shouldn't do and if you do do them, this is what will happen". The premise of this chapter is that your actions are a representation of yourself, just as the Tao Teh Ching references repeatedly that a Sage teaches through his actions, so to we should remember that we are judged by our actions. Actions speak louder than words. Aaron

Having problems with the website. I hit edit and keeps wanting to reply for some reason... corrected this with prior post. Aaron

Hello Marblehead, I'm not sure how what you said is different from what I just said, am I missing something? In regards to creator, I am not implying God, but rather the CREATOR, the creation force that created everything. I'm sure that many former Christians will find the use of that word uncomfortable, but I think it's the best word for the description. I respect John C. H. Wu's translation because he was not only a Chinese philosopher, but also a well known and respected translator. His use of the word mystery, for me, doesn't imply that you cannot understand these things, but rather that they are mysterious. Also the physical manifestation is more than just outward appearance, it's also how the physical world works, so with that in mind, it is quite mysterious. Aaron

I want to thank everyone who's participated in this thread. It's nice to know I'm not the only one who thought this might be a good idea. In my opinion, I think a subforum would be best. Aaron

I think that any discussion of chapter one should take into account that the chapter was not included in the oldest copies of the Tao Teh Ching. In particular, chapter one doesn't appear in the Guodian slips, nor do many other chapters. I don't think that this necessarily discounts the validity of the chapter. Many academics believe that the Tao Teh Ching was not written by one man, but rather by many. With that in mind this chapter may have appeared to clear up some misconceptions that occured after the earliest versions of the Tao TEh Ching started to become popular. The first two lines of Chapter One state, Tao can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao. Right off the bat we have a distinction between the 'Tao' and 'Eternal Tao'. What we are being told is quite simply that what we are talking about, what we are about to hear, is not about the 'Eternal Tao'. Names can be named, but not the Eternal Name. Again, what we hear is that, although we can apply names to things, there is something that cannot be named. In my opinion what is being said here is that even calling it the 'Eternal Tao' isn't adequate, that there is something that exists that we can never describe or apply names to, something that is beyond description. The only thing we can do with words is give a description of what we can see and know. As the origin of heaven-and-earth, it is nameless: As 'the Mother' of all things, it is nameable. There are two important things to keep in mind when reading these two lines (other than what's already been said about the previous lines), first that this unameable force was the creator of all things, second that it was 'the Mother', as in, not 'a mother', but 'the Mother', the force that gave life to everything in existence. As the creator of all things we can name it 'the Mother'. So, as ever hidden, we should look at its inner essence: As always manifest, we should look at its outer aspects. This is the first reference to the duality of things to occur in the later texts of the Tao Teh Ching, the idea that there is an inner essence and an outer aspect. The essence cannot be seen (don't get confused by the 'look' reference), only the outer 'aspect' can. The important thing to keep in mind is that one should not exclusively look at one or the other, rather 'we should look' at both the 'inner essence' and 'outer aspect'. These two flow from the same source, though differently named; And both are called mysteries. In these lines we are being reminded that the 'inner essence' and the 'outer aspect', although different, come from the same source, and that regardless of whether one can see it or not see it, they are both linked to 'the Mother'. I believe that this is a reminder that one is no more important than the other. When we examine the following passages, the remainder of the Tao Teh Ching, we need to keep in mind that everything that comes from the Tao should be held in equal esteem. The Mystery of mysteries is the Door of all essence. Stop for a second and notice the two capitalized words 'Mystery' and 'Door', this is important, because just as Tao, Eternal Name, and Mother are given significance by being captalized, so are the 'Mystery' and 'Door'. This isn't just any mystery, this is 'the Mystery', the first mystery, the first unknown, the original. Only by understanding this mystery can we pass through the 'Door', the only way of opening ourselves to all essence. I don't think that this is meant to imply that essence is more important than the outer aspect, but rather that this is the only true entrance to 'all essence'. Explaining the difference between 'all essence' and 'essence' isn't necessary, except to say we can experience some 'essence' and still not experience 'all essence'. I hope this is helpful for anyone reading. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to express them. Aaron

Hello Apech, I think the important thing to keep in mind is that Lao Tzu's Tao Teh Ching talks about war and never sheds a good light on it. I think if one applies those passages they can see that Lao Tzu was not talking about conflict, or defending one's self from conflict in a martial sense, but rather noting that there was a natural way for things to occur. This doesn't mean that one can't apply the ideas of the Tao Teh Ching to martial arts, I'm just making the point that it wasn't Lao Tzu's intent that it be used as such, and rather, that those people who started to apply it to those principles were more or less using it as a way to justify it and make the practice more palatable. Aaron

Hello people, So essentially we assume they were, but have no proof to verify it with? See in my own experience with the Lao Tzu I have never felt that the Sages were martial artists. What I sense is that if I was going to compare them to anything it would probably be a philosopher. In particular, there is no indication, or mention of martial prowess whatsoever, so I assume that they were not considered to be these things. I think this notion came about later on, as the influence of traditional Chinese practices began to influence religious Taoism. When they started to imply elements of the i-ching, traditional folk medicine, and other philosophies to the Tao, this allowed for a martial practice to form. Just my own thoughts. Again any proof to the contrary would be greatly appreciated. Aaron

Hello people, I'm glad others see a need for something like this. Aaron

Tao can be talked about, but not the eternal Tao. Names can be named, but not the eternal name. As the origin of heaven-and-earth, it is nameless: As "the Mother" of all things, it is nameable. When talking about the Tao, keep in mind that it can't be talked about, only those aspects that we can see that spring from it can be talked about. The Tao is only experienced, it can never be expressed in words. To say you know the Tao is like being a blind man and saying you know what the color red looks like. You can feel something that's red, know that it is red, but you can never really know what red is completely without seeing it. Aaron

What would YOU do if you were in a situation such that fighting were unavoidable? What would YOU do if you saw someone being attacked, or otherwise physically victimized, and you lived in an area that SFJane described, where police response can take upwards of 20 mins? Would you speak up? Would you step forward? Would you keep your head down? Would you yield? Hello SZ, In response to your question, I would do what I felt needed to be done at that time. I will not, however, learn martial arts under the assumption that I 'might' need to use it in the future. Even then, in the example you've provided, I think a handgun would be much more appropriate anyways. Aaron

Actually there's no real reason to circumcise your child anymore. The medical benefits are unnecessary if you make sure they're clean under there. As far as the foreskin being too tight, that normally passes with time as well. As Leo has pointed out, the practice was originally done for religious reasons. The United States, and Canada to a lesser extent, are still very moralistic countries, in that they (we) have yet to give up a lot of the traditions that have been passed down for religious reasons, despite the fact that these religions encourage, rather than command it (except for the jews of course). With that said, I had a friend in school that wasn't circumcised and he always waited for everyone to leave the showers after PE because he was afraid someone would find out. It's really sad that such emphasis is placed on a few inches of skin. Aaron

Jenn, I have not had what you would call an easy life. If what you desire is compassion from those you care about, then I'm afraid you may be setting yourself up for failure. You can't make someone care about you, plain and simple. If the people you love don't have compassion for you, perhaps you should look at the deeper question and ask why? As far as compassion goes, I've had this debate recently and my argument is that compassion is one of the fundamental human emotions, we're wired to feel it at birth, however as we grow older our environment begins to reprogram that wiring. An example is the classic sadist. Most sadist grow up in an environment where they feel a great deal of suffering, their way of coping with that suffering is to try and gain control over it by exerting it on others. Exerting suffering on others is a pleasurable experience. Another example is the classic masochist. Most masochists grow up in an environment where they feel a great deal of suffering, their way of coping with that suffering is to try and gain control over it by enjoying the suffering others impose on them. Suffering for them is a pleasurable experience. In a perfect world sadist would find masochists and everyone would be happy. I would suggest trying to figure out what you want from these people, what you really want. It sounds to me like you want someone to validate your own suffering, so I will do that for you. You have suffered, it was horrible and you shouldn't have had to go through it. Now I would suggest that you look for a therapist that you can talk to and try to come to terms with this. Your answers aren't going to come from this forum, they will only come when you have understood the reality of your experience. Aaron

I werked as a coppe-riter and editor fore yeers and I can tell you, peeple misspelling werds and not putting, commas and periods where, theyre suposed to be. Is, annoyying. I lerned to reed, and rite, using fonix. It werked for me. I wish other peeple wer as foretunate. Aaron

Hello Sloppy Zhang, I understand what you're saying. I think we're just going around in circles, so perhaps we should accept that we've expressed our views and move on. I accept that some people feel martial arts as a form of self defense is appropriate and there's nothing wrong with that. Now if you accept that some people feel it isn't then we can talk about more important things, like how screwed up Luke must have been when he realized he kissed his sister... wow... talk about scarring. I have doubts that any amount of jedi training will get rid of that. Aaron

There is nothing wrong with lust. It's not sinful and it harms no one, including yourself. Everyone in their lifetime experiences lust and men experience it quite often. Lust is what keeps the human race going. I would suggest that you do this... examine whether or not you're really hurting someone or yourself. If not, then don't worry about it so much. Fantasies are natural and if you say they're not then you're calling every thirteen year old boy in the world unnatural. Stop allowing others to dictate right and wrong for you. Man up and make the decision for yourself. Aaron

Hello Sloppy Zhang, There is absolutely no way to defend against that. Everytime you step out your door something bad might happen. It's not necessarily a mugger, it could be a terrorist or even food poisoning. I tend not to worry about those things so much and just live my life to the best of my ability. In regards to the Sages being martial artists, I'm very much a philisophical Taoist with bits of mysticism thrown in, so I'm not big on alchemy, the i-ching, the immortals, or magic per se. I believe that if the Sages were martial artists, then Lao Tzu would've presented them as such, and in my opinion I don't see that. Again, if you like martial arts or feel the need to study martial arts for any reason, that's fine. My argument is that one should do it for the right reason. I attended Job Corp for two years. I'm not sure if you know about it, but most of the people that are in Job Corp are court mandated or have been kicked out of school and have nowhere else to go. Anyways, I had to navigate a sea or red and blue, crips, bloods, BGD, and posse. I never once got in a fight, because I understood the rules, you stay low, mind your own bussiness and don't pick sides. Now on the other side of the coin, you can't show weakness either. Wu-Wei in that instance was learning when you couldn't back down. There is a way to survive without resorting to violence. And even if you do end up encountering a violent person, there is no certainty that martial arts will defend you, in fact the chances are, if you are killed outside your home, you'll most likely be shot rather than beaten to death (this is conjecture, I don't have stats to prove this, consider it a dramatic exercise). So if I do study martial arts (and I am going to start learning Tai Chi and Qi-Gong) it's not because I want to defend myself (which isn't really something that will happen with either of those anyways), but rather to enrich my understanding of the principles of Tao on another level. Anyways I'm going to bed. It was a pleasure talking with you, have a good night. Aaron

Hello V, I am not opposed to your ideas, in fact I believe strongly in rebirth, but I tend to feel that our previous life plays little to no part in our rebirth. I also believe that one must first learn something before they can transcend this cycle of rebirth, but I am not convinced that buddhism is the lesson that must be learned. I suppose that is my argument, more than the idea of duality vs non-duality, or transendence, that this is all conjecture to some extent. I'm not entirely certain that anyone has ever reached enlightenment, if only because the people that I've witnessed that claim to be enlightened seem to suffer from the same human frailities they claim to have transcended. This isn't meant as an attack per se, but rather just an observation that I've come upon. The reason I tend to stick to Tao-ishness, is that it seems more in line with the natural order of things. Aaron

Hello SZ, The gun issue might be true, but my statement about avoiding conflict is still valid. In the event that a homeless man attempts to assault me, I will run, very fast. If that doesn't work, then I will fight if I adsolutely have to. I'm not saying one shouldn't fight, I'm just saying that if I'm smart the chances this will happen will be slim at best. First I will avoid anyone who looks like they might assault me. Second, I will avoid neighborhoods that I think I might be assaulted in, and last, but most importantly, I will do my best to mind my own bussiness (wu-wei at its finest) and thus reduce my chances of any of this happening dramatically. I'm not even saying studying martial arts is wrong, rather I would recommend that if self-defense is the reason you're learning martial arts, then there are better alternatives that require less time and effort, mace comes to mind. For me, learning martial arts because you feel a need to defend yourself stems from fear, if you are that afraid that you need to learn martial arts, perphaps the healthiest thing to do is examine exactly why you are afraid? My nephew learned Karate for instance, not out of fear, but because he thought it was "awesome". I can understand that reasoning and I never discouraged him from his pursuit. However if he came to me and said "I want to learn Karate because the kids at school are bullying me" I would've said, well that's a poor reason to learn Karate. If one learns to practice the principles of the Tao Teh Ching in their lives then I think there is absolutely no need to learn martial arts for self defense. I'm positive that none of the Sages were martial artists, rather they had an intuitive understanding of how the world worked and how to interact with the world in a way that was harmonious. Perhaps the best thing to do, if you feel the need to defend yourself, is figure out why you need to defend yourself and then how you might avoid having the need to defend yourself. That will save you money on lessons and enrich your life at the same time. (Notice the hard vs soft thing going on here? ) Aaron

Hello Vaj, You've obviously ignored my previous comment and that's fine, but what I would ask is "how does this actually relate to Taoism?" It seems to me that you're doing exactly what you claim not to be doing, attempting to convert people to Buddhism. Everything being discussed here is Buddhist in nature and has nothing to do with Taoism. I would love to hear some passages from the Tao Teh Ching or even the Chuang Zhi that might support some of your arguments, because for the life of me I can't think of any. Enlightenment is not Taoist in concept. In fact there is no need to become enlightened according to the Tao Teh Ching, rather there is need to become aware of ones place in the universe and the Tao. Awareness is not the same as the Buddhist idea of enlightenment because it doesn't require you to break any cycle, but rather become aware of the cycle that exists everywhere. Aaron

If you really want to make an argument for Buddhism being similar to Taoism, perhaps you should take a Zen approach, just keep in mind that the similarity ends at the religious dogma and other such trappings. Nothing you've stated so far is even remotely Daoist in concept. I think one needs to keep in mind that the idea of enlightenment wasn't an original Taoist concept, rather it's something that evolved over time, because it became an ideal in Chinese culture. Taoists weren't of the idea that one needed to transcend anything, but rather that one needed to become aware of the Tao. We are already a part of the Tao, it is within us and we are within it, there is no need to transcend it or break free from it, rather we need to become aware of what the Tao actually is. When one talks about the Tao, words will always fail, because it is not something that can be explained, rather it can only be experienced. "The Tao that can be talked about is not the eternal-Tao, Names can be named, but not the Eternal Name." Aaron