Aaron

Okay... not getting sucked into this. Have a good day. Aaron

I think I do understand what your intentions are and, though chapter 81 does relate to this chapter, I don't think your intentions were meant to remind us of the meaning of this chapter, but rather to point fingers at the various people who were arguing in this thread. I've known you long enough to know when to nip things in the bud, so please don't press this issue. If I was mistaken I apologize. Aaron

Hello Takaaki, I would be happy to explain this chapter to you. First you must remember that reading this chapter without reading the previous chapter or following chapter will end up being a bit confusing, so I would recommend that you do that first, but foregoing that, here is my explanation. As I mentioned before, we have to read the preceding chapters to get a full understanding of Lao Tzu's intentions with chapter 10. When we do that we understand that Lao Tzu is directing the questions in Chapter 10 to the ruler, not the common ordinary citizen. Now that doesn't mean the common ordinary citizen can't benefit from answering these questions himself, rather it is just that Lao Tzu's desire was to use the Tao Te Ching to bring harmony to a China that was at war in his lifetime, ruled by various petty rulers bent on overcoming the people and the neighboring states through violence and bloodshed, oftentimes using the resources available for warfare, rather than the well being of the people. Keeping this in mind lets look at the first two verses... What Lao Tzu is asking is whether the ruler has been able to maintain a state of harmony in their chi and jing. Straightforward question, but one that the vast majority of people (including the ruler) had not been able to achieve. The following two verses ask... In these verses Lao Tzu is asking the ruler, more or less, whether or not they have achieved a state of wholeness and perfect integrity. This can be determined by reading Chapter 55 of the Tao Te Ching, which goes into more detail regarding the state of the newborn babe. The next two verses ask... Another important question, has the ruler maintained a degree of insight that is empty of all impurities? Again, the vast majority of people would have to answer no to this question, including the ruler. Now the following question is an important one, because it addresses the nature of the court at that time... Has the ruler been able to do away with intrigue and manipulation? Have they been straight forward and honest in their endeavors? Again, most rulers would have to answer no, since intrigue was an integral part of the court system in Lao Tzu's time. Now the following two chapters refer to esoteric terminology, but actually ask a very straightforward question... In practicing sex, has the ruler been able to take the submissive role? Not only that, but have they given jing, rather than just take jing from their female partner? In those days the vast majority of sexual practices revolved around taking jing from the female partner and the notion of sharing or giving jing, of endeavoring to take on the feminine role would be quite shocking indeed. So again, most rulers would have to say no to this question as well. This question is another one that most rulers would answer no to. First most would never claim enlightenment and second, remembering the state of most courts, the vast majority of rulers would have so many machinations in play, that there would be no way they could claim to be detached and non-active. So why all the questions? Well Lao Tzu is putting them on the spot. He's saying, "Look at you. You are not like the Sage Kings of old, rather you are an imperfect ruler. You have much work to do in order to become like the sage kings." And after saying this, in a non-direct, non-combative way, he directs them to do the following... Essentially this passage was a reminder to the ruler to take care of their people, to allow them to live their lives freely, to not seek recognition for the acts they do, and to not practice violence, but rather lead the people to harmony. And if they can do this, then they are practicing hidden virtue, virtue without ulterior motives. edit- To clarify, the questions Lao Tzu asks aren't the important part of this chapter, it's the final few passages, when he explains what hidden virtue is. So we can argue about the semantics of the first half of this chapter, but that doesn't take away from what Lao Tzu is actually telling us to do. Remember he only asks if the ruler was able to achieve the first few things, he tells a ruler what he needs to do in the last part. So first half, pay attention to, but it's not as important as the second. If you miss the second half of this chapter, then the first is pointless. I hope that clarifies things for you. Aaron

Chidragon, the last post is off-topic, please keep your comments on topic. This is regarding the off-topic discussions that led this thread astray for several pages, please refrain from making further off-topic comments. Aaron

NOTE: IF YOUR COMMENTS ARE NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO CHAPTER 10 OF THE TAO TE CHING, THEN THEY NEED TO GO SOMEPLACE ELSE! This subforum is intended for discussions regarding chapter 10 of the Tao Te Ching and it's meaning, not off-topic discussions regarding one's own personal beliefs regarding Taoism. I would ask that you continue any off-topic discussions in the Taoist Discussions section of this forum. If you have any questions regarding this, please see the subforum FAQ. Aaron

Hello Takaaki, I am an authority on the Tao Te Ching. I've studied it for over 20 years. I have a thorough understanding of its teachings. Now I might not have an extensive academic knowledge regarding the differences between the different tracts found, such as the Mawangdui and Guodian texts, but I do know what it's saying. You obviously don't know what the Tao Te Ching is saying and much of what you postulate in this topic has nothing to do with an examination of the Tao Te Ching, but rather your own opinion regarding Taoism. Please stop that, since that isn't what this thread and subforum are meant to be. This whole American Taoist crap needs to go somewhere else. Now, in regards to you presenting yourself as an authority, well if you're not, then you certainly believe your opinions regarding it are the only correct ones. You are also quick to attack others and give them what you believe are clever put downs hidden in compliments. Your understanding of America is vastly off base as well, especially in regards to the spiritual nature of our nation. The thing most people don't want to talk about is that the religions that did come to America to be able to practice without oppression, more often than not were the most ultra conservative that were being suppressed in Europe, not just because they deviated from popular religious thought, but were in fact, in many cases, cults. As a result of this spiritual legacy of ultra conservatism, we are one of the most sexually confused nations in the world. We also happen to be one of the most violent nations, as far as crimes per capita go. Your idealization of America is a bit unfounded and perhaps indicative of your actual knowledge regarding the topic at hand. If you want to laude yourself as an American Taoist, that's fine, but be sure to clarify that it has little to nothing to do with Taoism, but rather is your own loosely defined ethos of materialism. I see a lot of people that want to deny that the Tao Te Ching is a moral text, that it advocates behaving any way you "feel" is right, but that's the furthest thing from the truth. These people have no knowledge of Tao, Taoism, or the Tao Te Ching, but rather look for a philosophy that will allow them to behave any way they choose to, without having any moral repercussions. The irony is that regardless of what one believes, there will always be moral repercussions, so long as we continue to define things as right and wrong, which you seem to be adamant about. How great is the difference between "eh" and "oh"? Must I believe what others believe? But perhaps even more importantly, why the hell do people need to believe the way you believe? You are not that clever, nor are you that knowledgeable that you need to go around clarifying other people's errors, nor should you be touting yourself as someone who knows what Taoism actually is, when you clearly haven't got the slightest clue. Taoism is more than just folk lore, qi, and philosophy, which is something you have missed. You need not believe in the folk lore and spirituality to understand Tao, but believing in these things doesn't prevent one from understanding it either, if it did, then Lao Tzu would've been the first person misled by his own "superstitions". I hope that clarifies some things. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them for you, but please keep in mind, if it isn't directly related to Chapter 10 of the Tao Te Ching, they need to be directed someplace else. Send me a private message linking to your new topic if you want. Aaron

Takaaki, You present yourself as an authority on the Tao Te Ching, but really, what right do you have to claim yourself as such? The three treasures are compassion, frugality, and never striving to be first in the world. Treat other people with respect, do only what is needed, and stop striving to win arguments and that will be your first step towards understanding these treasures. Until then you will only appear to be argumentative, and remember the argumentative man is not good, the good man is not argumentative. Aaron Oh, and correcting people's spelling only makes you look petty.

Kind words are not sincere, Sincere words are not kind. The crafty man is not wise, the wise man is not crafty. The compassionate man does not taunt others, nor does he gloat over their failings. When you've learned to be compassionate to others, then you will have the capacity to offer others worthwhile advice regarding the topic, til then I recommend you work on cultivating virtue in your life, because your last few posts show you are severely lacking in this area. Really? LOL? Smiley faces? It's a bit sadistic. Let your anger and hate go, the capacity to enjoy the suffering you cause others, that would be the first place I'd start. Aaron

K is a friend of mine, so I felt it proper to reply to her post. Anyways, nothing I said was wrong or right, just a description of what's going on here. Again, I only responded to be polite. In the future be aware that I have believed at the time that I was saying the last word on a topic and come back and said something again, in that sense I am very much a liar. So rather than call me a hypocrite, call me a liar, it's more sincere, even if it's not kind. Also the delicious for the mind comment seemed a little a mean too and is a excellent example of what I've been saying regarding this topic. Perhaps you should define your own beliefs about compassion? Should you only have to be compassionate to those people you like or everyone? If the latter, is that really practicing compassion as Lao Tzu, Buddha, Jesus, and the other religious prophets advocated? Important questions. Now, unless someone asks me another question, that's the end of my participation. Aaron

It's not just a matter or showing rather than telling, although that's what Lao Tzu advocated, it's a matter of what is going on under the surface here. Anyone that visits this thread can see first off that the only thing happening here is one group competing with an another for dominance. Relative, absolute, what a load of bollocks. The fact of the matter is that no one here has shown, or expressed compassion, just condescension and malice. No one arguing the way the people here are doing need to prop themselves up as being knowledge about compassion. So my suggestion to them is to practice more, speak less. Here's a bit of chapter 81 the Tao Te Ching for those who are struggling with this concept... SINCERE words are not sweet, Sweet words are not sincere. Good men are not argumentative, The argumentative are not good. The wise are not erudite, The erudite are not wise. The Sage does not take to hoarding. The more he lives for others, the fuller is his life. The more he gives, the more he abounds. The Way of Heaven is to benefit, not to harm. The Way of the Sage is to do his duty, not to strive with anyone. (tr. John C. H. Wu) That's the last chapter of the Tao Te Ching for a reason. Take it to heart, understand it, and then you can begin to understand compassion. Aaron

Okay, so this is the last I'll say on this topic. I think the problem that the majority of people in this thread have is that they're talking about compassion, rather than practicing it. If you practice compassion then there is no question about relative or absolute, you understand what compassion is through the act itself. The other problem is that you're defining it by intention and not outcome. If a guy gives a sandwich to a homeless guy to impress the girl he's with, does it matter why he did it, or is it more important that the homeless guy got something to eat? Yes it would be nice if everyone practiced compassion for the right reasons, but the fact is, we probably do a lot of compassionate things without knowing it. Perhaps we should stop examining our motives regarding compassion and just PRACTICE compassion. So if you want to nitpick about compassion, feel free to continue, but if you're in this thread talking out your ass about compassion, but doing nothing compassionate for other people, then maybe you need to stop talking and start doing? When you start doing, then you can come back and talk about it. Or of course you can just be a closet hypocrite. Aaron

Compassion is seeing someone is sick and asking if there is anything you can do for them. Compassion is getting some food for a homeless person. Compassion is shutting up when you could say something nasty. Compassion is being nice to someone, even though they might not deserve it. Compassion is changing yourself, rather than worrying about changing others. Compassion is blind. Compassion is all-seeing. Compassion is not easily defined. Aaron

Well the only mention of anal that I can think of is the anal stage in cognitive psychology. Anal retentive is a Freudian term, but not widely recognized as an actual psychological condition. Now if you were actually contacted by the moderation staff regarding using that term, I wonder why I never was? I've actually questioned whether someone was being anal and although I do have a degree in psychology and worked as a case manager and counselor for a brief period, I am by no means a psychological professional. Perhaps there's something more to this than meets the eye? Anyways, my new policy is just not to respond to people that whine and threaten other people. They are better served by being ignored, because more often than not you will simply offend them without knowing regardless of what you say. Aaron

The notion of classifying Taoists. Lao Tzu would probably have a good laugh over it. Aaron

I think you may be the one over analyzing this. my point is that there is a distinction between being compassionate for moral reasons such as Christian or Judaic ideology, and doing it simply because it is the natural thing to do. The irony is that I can remember you telling us how you felt the need to instruct your children in right and wrong but you seem to be contradicting that now by saying that compassion isn't something that needs to be taught but rather it is something that we can naturally act upon. If that's true then why did you need to teach your children right and wrong? an even more important question is whether or not your lessons in right and wrong have somehow caused your children to be incapable of acting intuitively compassionate. perhaps it's the notion of teaching right and wrong that prevents us from being able to understand on an intuitive level what compassion really is? So when I say that we need to unlearn in order to learn compassion again that's what I'm talking about. Aaron

It's better just to let this go. Aaron

What is an open heart, but awareness? What is a compassionate act? The society that we live in debates compassion, with one side saying that helping others is hurting them and the other saying not helping them is hurting them. Compassion is a very simple idea, but the fact is we've been raised so far from this ideal that understanding it on the innate level you ascribe to is impossible and idealistic. If we could just wake up one day with an open heart and just be compassionate, there wouldn't have been the need for books such as the Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu, Heart Sutra, Holy Bible, etc., we would just naturally behave compassionately. Now the secret is that we really don't need to these books, we just need to start being compassionate, but the fact of the matter is that very few of us start off with the degree of empathy needed to practice compassion as virtue, rather than just a moralistic act (which is what the books I mentioned are teaching). Compassion should be a high virtue, in other words an act done out of empathy for another's suffering, however even then one should understand what actions harm and benefit others, rather than just doing what "feels" right. This is the problem I have with your rendition, because one can cause a lot more harm than good acting "compassionately" if they don't understand the right actions that need to be taken. This is akin to sending a psychopath to priest for treatment, rather than a psychologist. You need to understand the problem as much as you can before addressing it. For instance if a child is being swept away by a flood, the compassionate thing may be for the mother to jump in to the water to save the child, but if you know that in all likelihood she will die as well as the child, do you stop the mother from jumping in? Or maybe you jump in to save the child instead? Is this still compassion if you are dying for the sake of a child who most likely can't be saved? That is why I say compassion means skillful action. That is why I say it requires awareness and practice, not just impulse. Aaron

Compassion means skillful action is a very confusing phrase, but despite what many have said, it is a true statement. Think of it along these terms. When I was a young man learning to play basketball, my coach would constantly chastise me for making mistakes during the game. "Get your head in the game," he'd scream from the sideline. In other words, pay attention. When I finally learned this lesson I went from being a player with decent fundamentals, to being a great player. Remember though, attention isn't enough, in order to be successful one must also have skill, and regardless of the amount of natural talent one has, one will rarely be able to compete with a well trained player, without a bit of training of their own. So it requires a degree of skill to be able to be a competent basketball player, but it also requires a degree of awareness. If one is just aware, he might see what is going to happen, but lack the skill to do what needs to be done. If one has the skill, but not the awareness, then he cannot prevent what is going to happen in the first place. Compassion means skillful action in that you have to cultivate the skills necessary to be able to practice compassion as a virtue. The vast majority of us will not just wake up one day and begin to act virtuously, it requires much unlearning and relearning. Aaron

He never called you anal. There you go with the internet bullying again. Stop threatening to report people, simply because you see some sort of slight that isn't there. (Although in a roundabout way it was probably referring to you, but it wasn't a direct insult, so you wont get very far by reporting him.) Aaron

Actually they're discussing the veracity of chapters translated by Flowing Hands, so they are staying on topic, or at least as on-topic as anyone else here is. Aaron

Flowing Hands can dispute what he wants to, but what I know is that if you translate the oldest copy of the Tao Te Ching with the newest copy, the message is still there. Creating a message doesn't mean it's the actual message. Taoism can be classified as many things, but I am actually talking about the general philosophical belief, in other words what was expressed by Lao Tzu within the Tao Te Ching. Do you think the general Taiwanese or Chinese practitioner would consider Flowing Hand's translation to be accurate? Aaron

Everything else is unimportant regarding the definition. the primary classification for shamanism is the belief that one can access the spiritual world through an altered state of consciousness. Otherwise it is more often than not classified as a folk religion or indigenous religion. Aaron I actually remembered that from Religious Studies in college, but I checked and Wikipedia uses the same definition. Most people have a stereotypical view of what Shamanism actually is, so it's not surprising that my comment might have confused you.

Yay! I was finally able to get a browser where I could actually see what I was typing using my tablet. First, regarding intent and a fact, I am NOT a Buddhist expert in regards to the sutras and I was under the impression that it was effect not intent. I can see now through the various posts that intent does have a part to play. I've always looked at right speech from a Taoist point of view, in that good speech causes no quarrels, however with the idea that intent is important regarding karma one could say that even if your intentions are good if you say something that upsets somebody or hurts them then it is your responsibility to make that right if you can. I think the general rule with both Daoism and Buddhism is that you do your best to cause no harm with the words you speak. the problem is that in order to do so we must set aside the ego and think of others when we choose our words, and this can be difficult because oftentimes we allow emotions to guide our discourse rather then what we know is the compassionate thing to say. With that said the issues in this thread regarding name calling and insults is an excellent example of how we often times may believe what we I have to say is the right thing to say when fact it is only harmful and hurtful. Perhaps if we took the time to just read what we write and then judge how we would feel about it if it was said to us (or put ourselves in the other person's shoes) we could save others a great deal of harm and also engender harmony within our own little community. In the end it's no so important what other people say, but what we say ourselves. Aaron edited due to voice app confusion.

Druidism isn't shamanism, they're two different belief systems. Shamanism is simply a belief system revolving around the idea that one can interact with the spiritual world in an altered state of consciousness. Which in light of what Flowing Hands is saying, I can see why he says the Tao Te Ching is shamanistic treatise. Aaron

This translation of Chapter 60 needs a great deal of work. I know you say it was mystically transmitted from Lao Tzu, but it has nothing to do with the actual meaning, which is simply that a man of Tao's kingdom is one of harmony. This has nothing to do with harmony, but rather the manipulation of the world by shamans and spirits, which in my opinion, is the last thing Lao Tzu would've advocated. The sage LEAVES THE WORLD ALONE! He does not interfere with other people's lives and when he does help they don't realize he has helped. That's the first and most important lesson we learn about the Sage. I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but in my opinion, it's not Taoism. Aaron