stan herman

Uh-huh

Right, one might say the tao is not anything, and everything is the tao. . . if one wanted to, that is...

I put it on my list. Thanks for the interesting story. I think the story of China--both past and especially future--is fascinating. For instance, how will these new phenomena like democracy and globalization influence developments and how will the Chinese culture influence them?

drawel, that sounds fascinating for a scholar. I'd be very interested in your reaction to Kissinger's observations. The book is On China, and the material about earliest China is pretty short. Why don't you get it from the library or on Amazon and let me know. The thing Kissinger does is identify China as a civilization, not just a nation, then he highlights traits (I can't remember the Chinese expressions, but there was one for '(avoidance of) encirclement, others for various processes to make strength out of weakness, and more.) They persist from earlier times, used repeatedly in dealings with neighboring countries and eventually by Mao with world leaders. The example I used re the British, was meant just as an easier to relate to case, not re the time of warring princes

The 'different light' applies to reading a number of the Tao verses. Rather than reading them as an attempt to express the 'truth' about the subject, they are often subtle attempts to retain the Middle Kingdom's superiority even when faced with greater opposing power. For example, when forced to accept British terms after a conflict, they spoke as though out of generosity they were granting a favor to the barbarians. If you're interested in the historic context of Chinese philosophy, I heartily recommend Kissinger's On China.

Well said

Tulku, I'm in sympathy with the thrust of your message and the energy you put to it, in the sense that it's a call to us to take responsibility for our lives and spiritual development. At the same time though I'm unconvinced by its specifics. Splitting mundane from spiritual One of the frequent patterns I see among us is the inclination to split the mundane world from the spiritual one. This is done in a couple of ways, 1) renouncing worldly concerns as illusory and irrelevant or 2) attempting to 'reform' the mundane world by criticizing its self-centered behaviors and converting everyone possible to selfless, loving feelings and ethics. If one decides to live as a monk or hermit the first way may be appropriate. If one decides to be an activist preacher or politician, the second may be. However, as an ordinary citizen, if one subscribes to either course he or she is mistaken. It is an act that builds a segregated culture in which spiritual seekers either disconnect themselves from the rest of society and its doings or are shunted aside as irrelevant eccentrics by those busy making a living, asserting their ambitions and otherwise 'making their marks' on the world. 

Perhaps for most seekers this is an unavoidable, necessary stage--at least for a time. (It was for me.) But the divorce need not be permanent. In fact, it may be possible to pursue one's spiritual development in ways that simultaneously improve one's performance effectiveness in the normal and regular functions of daily work and living. There are methods and processes that can not only move one in the direction of enlightenment, but increase one's skills and smarts in the everyday games of life at the same time. Best wishes

14. For some, intellect is the means to bring all things under control. To comprehend cause and effect they collect data and sort them, measure them and interpret them, classify them and predict them. When considering the future remember the remote past. One who is aware of the stream of causes back to the primeval cause and forward to the ultimate cause is less concerned about causes. She knows that causes can be traced, but ultimately the cause of the causes can not be. Yet there are no accidents. Each thing happens, according to the laws of nature, because it must, for reasons that make it inevitable. And this is the way the system has always been, causes that are traceable but ultimately unknowable. Know this and become master of all moments.

10. If you are a skilled planner, can you trust yourself without a plan? Can you trust your spontaneous self to carry you through? If you are able to control important events can you allow smaller ones to go their own way? If you can lead courageously, can you follow humbly? If you can roar and charge forward like a tiger, can you wait patiently and nourish like a cow? Has your thirst for praise and recognition been sufficiently quenched for you to achieve significant deeds and allow the credit to flow to others? And all of these without exertion? If you have these skills, generate them but do not cling to them, develop them but do not depend on them, lead them but do not compel them. This is the way.

TN Probably the most important things I've 'received' from reading->writing->reading the Tao's verses and the discussions of them on this site is first, an appreciation of patience and second an appreciation of others' views that are very different from my own. Views I would have dismissed as plain wrong earlier, on further consideration, I explored my own mind to find ways for them to make sense. Following are my versions of a few selected verses that were significant for me. Let me add, that I started from an impatient and not very tolerant position. Those who are already conditioned to patience and tolerance of others' views may benefit from some quite different lessons. To me leaning is a process of filling in one's holes until we become whole, and each of us has different holes. 9. Ever climbing, ever reaching. Ever striving, ever surpassing. Ever gaining, ever accumulating. Ever the same. For some these alone are the ways to attain. And so for fifty years or more they repeat the pattern until stopped by circumstances, disillusion, or by death. There are alternatives--a less locked and linear point of view. The reconsideration of ever onward and upward, and the re-valuing of pauses and side paths. The recollection that attainment can also be the filling of holes, and that each of us has a different whole to fill.

Another piece of interesting information from "On China" that seems to cast a quite different light on the messages of many Tao verses/chapters. The Chinese court of the Middle Kingdom regularly practiced what many would call appeasement in the face of potential enemies--relying on the long run in which the enemy would be absorbed into the superior Chinese culture. So, many of the apparently submissive stances (the greater yielding to the lesser) were probably code talk for subterfuge. See below insert re the Five Baits. What do you think? (Having difficulties attaching this file)

Another piece of interesting information from "On China" that seems to cast a quite different light on the messages of many Tao verses/chapters. The Chinese court of the Middle Kingdom regularly practiced what many would call appeasement in the face of potential enemies--relying on the long run in which the enemy would be absorbed into the superior Chinese culture. So, many of the apparently submissive stances (the greater yielding to the lesser) were probably code talk for subterfuge. See below insert re the Five Baits. What do you think?

"天下太平 ... Tian Xia Tai Ping "There is peace under Heaven" and war too...

Very nicely said. Seems to me one's definitions of "the negative" also change. For example, one may start by thinking violence is an utter negative, then after some length of meditation experience one may recognize violence as one of the energies of the universe, from the microcosmic to the cosmic levels. And that violence is a force in the omnipresent process of change. One may still prefer peace, but come to appreciate it is only one side of the coin.

For you I'm sure it is. For me 'duality' is too diverse to equate to breathing. But both choices seem to be quite similar.

Both this and its predecessor well said, M. The operational description of rationality/logic almost always is different than the theoretical. I know a number of people who believe themselves to be thoroughly rational, and they reason that way until they come to a step in the process that leads them away from their cherished belief.

I wonder how many people here would choose to 'mediate' there emotions in favor of logical thinking??

Seems to me my interpretation of 63 is pretty close to the mainstream--closer than usual? 63. Particular factors, special conditions and exceptional situations, affect outcomes. The ability to distinguish is required to glean triumph from failure. When your head is not bent by anxiety opportunities can be perceived more clearly. Complicated problems are best penetrated by plain thinking. Arduous projects are best begun with easy steps. Intense controversies are most readily resolved in lesser details. Great issues turn on small pivots. Therefore, the wise person does not concentrate long on intractable dilemmas, but rather on small and simple choices. Solving small problems prevents their growth to intractable dilemmas. Btw M. I just started to read Kissinger's On China. He begins with some broad historical-philosophical review of ancient Chinese history. I found it interesting and relevant to the Tao in its time. China viewed itself as more of a civilization than a nation--the epitome of civilizations. It also had a perspective that tends to 'explain' the focus of both Lao Tzu and Confucius. In the long view China saw itself as rising and falling in a cycle that went from the 'chaos' of warring princes to the divine order of the emperor, then dissolution. Repeatedly. My impression is that both Confucius and Lao Tzu wrote to encourage stability--peace and calm and order. Not progress, innovation or excitement. I may be quite mistaken in my interpretation. What do you and the other China-knowers think. The historic context of any philosophical writings would have to influence the philosopher of the time, don't you think?

I do like that! A duality compared to _______ living (a life)

M, not sure you got my meaning in the 2nd. Let me try it another way: the POWER of logical thinking is lesser than the POWER of emotions, sensations and instincts. Except in the cases of truly disinterested scientist, logic can be used to make a case for damn near any position you want to take. Ask any lawyer. Your last comment is an example of logic in service to emotional belief. I'm not criticizing, just observing.

What's Your Favorite Verse -- and Why? Don't get me wrong, I like the discussions--the different translations and interpretations and reactions, but what I'm most interested in are the people who speak here, what they find within the Tao most relevant and important to their lives. Refer to any translation/interpretation you like. So I'll start with a couple of my favorites 36. Power is most secure when not displayed Large egos are vulnerable to slight Aggression is vulnerable to counter-attack High status is vulnerable to failure. Still, power is the flour of change Egos provide its yeast Aggression gives the heat for baking and Status turns the oven on. And so the Tao makes bread. ------- I like this because it seems to me to present a more balanced, truer and dynamic picture of the way the world really works. 37. In the midst of action hides tranquility. Those who find it act without exertion, allowing their natures to select their choices and motions. Leaders who know tranquility are not obsessed by maximum yields or compelled to self-righteous destinations. Setting aside the weighty burden of an ultimate goal they guide people more gracefully through both difficult and easy times, continuing without concluding. Though it must be sought, tranquility can not be found by hunting. It eludes the hunter, until, of its own free will, it seeks out the one who awaits it. -------- This one speaks to me personally. What I have needed to learn through most of my life has been patience and calm. I've been a hard driver and a goal seeker (still am, but less so now). I 'worked hard at' becoming more patient for years without much effect until, quietly it snuck up on me. Maybe it was a matter of aging--like good bourbon? What about you?

Here's the way it looks to me: For many, perhaps most, their ideas of what is proper (and/or what they desire to believe) rule their observations--what they will (and won't) look at, as well as how they interpret what they see. That which it seems might contradict or threaten those notions of propriety is forbidden from consideration. The power of logic is a myth. It is 'feelings' (emotions + sensations + instincts) that govern thought, perhaps for almost all of us. Logic (and language) are merely an engine to rationalize our impulses.