sree

You are a self-professed member of a Taoist cult. This is your choice. My approach to the studying of the Classics is that of a scholar. We have nothing in common.

Precisely! 玄牝 was another stumbling block.

And definitely not a 谷神 spirit or a 齐天大圣. Chinese scholarship in the tradition of Confucius was the passion of incorruptible brilliant minds in the quest for living life the right way and not as hedonistic, selfish brutes. It was the realization of 天人合一.

I don't see a set meaning in any word. But I do feel that each Chapter has only one central message that cannot be massaged to your liking or to suit your particular worldview. This belief, that no two people think alike and everyone is an individual with equal rights to be different, may work in choosing your happy meal at McDonald's but not in the defusing of a bomb. I don't see a spirit. If you are seeing things, then you are reading literal meanings into every translated word.

Mr Chi, judging from the discussion thus far, each has gone away with his own take on Chapter 6 which seems like a magician's hat. One guy pulls out a rabbit, the next a dove, yet another a red scarf...and so on and on. The wonderful thing is that everyone is happy with his or her prize of wisdom. No quarreling allowed. Western science, on the other hand, is exacting. If it is a rabbit, it is not a hare; if it is a dove, it is not a crow. And if you don't get it right in double quick time, you don't get to eat. So, what is the value in the study of the Tao Te Ching? Does our survival depend on getting it right? Or has it fallen to the level of Shakespeare affording a display of wit and wordplay with much ado about nothing? Surely, Chinese scholarship in the tradition of Confucius was more serious than this. Let's look at your translation below. Why is such a straightforward verse 谷神不死 so befuddling? Chapter 6 The Mysterious Female 1. 谷神不死 2. 是謂玄牝。 3. 玄牝之門 4. 是謂天地根。 5. 綿綿若存， 6. 用之不勤。 English translation: 1. The spirit of the valley never dies. 2. It is called the mysterious female. 3. The door of the mysterious female, 4. It is called the root of heaven and earth. 5. She seems existed eternally, 6. With her endless reproduction capability.

Yes, I would like to discuss holding your tongue by 孫悟空 . The only way to resolve this is with Tao magic. Do you dare to accept the challenge?

Mr Chi is talking about Chapter 5 and elaborating on the meaning of 多言數窮，不如守中. Why are you trying to provoke him? You said that Aaron is the moderator. What are you? In the imperial court of China, mandarins and officials were constantly pushed around by the harem watch-dog, the spy for the ruler, who framed false charges and was brutal to officials.

Perhaps we should conclude in accordance with the ending of Chapter 5: Between Heaven and Earth The empty vessel Makes more sound 多言數窮，(more words count less) 不如守中。 (Hold your tongue)

I said to take it or leave it. Which part of this statement you do not understand? I take offense with your accusation. Do you understand what bigotry means? One meaning is intolerance of race or religion. Do you see evidence of this in my debate with anyone in this forum? Do you see any incorruptible Chinese anywhere? Find me one and I will give him my stamp of approval. I don't know what you are insinuating. When it comes to cheating, the Chinese are right up there with the sneakiest crooks on account of their long history of hardship, misery and suffering. It has to do with survival. It is not unreasonable of me to say that only a Chinese can appreciate Chinese philosophy in a way that Chinese can. There is nothing elitist about this. Can you understand and appreciate Wagner the way Germans can?

Mr Chi, the argument is not about what the Tao Te Ching says but about what people purport what this Chinese Classic says. There is this western rule against plagiarism which is stealing what is not yours to say. In this case, it is reverse plagiarism: forcing the Tao Te Ching to say other people’s nonsense. This is not right. Freedom of speech gives one the right to say what one wants. It doesn’t give one the right to put what one says into other people’s mouth. What you say makes obvious sense. A Chinese baby suckling at its Chinese mother’s breast has no digestive issues. A non-Chinese studying the Tao Te Ching is like a kitten insisting on drinking dog milk. It not only suffers indigestion and colic but also end up with dogshit.

True. This is what debate is for: to find out whether or not what you and I know is either true or false. And you are right, I don’t know what you know. I only know what you say which is what I am examining. I am not making speculations on the rest of the stuff you keep in your head unsaid. I wouldn’t do that because I am not a shaman. I am sure a westerner with the education can translate Chinese into English better than Chinese intellectuals. But I am not talking about the Chinese language even at the classical level. I am talking about Chinese philosophical thought. Only an incorruptible Chinese can grasp that. I would even disqualify Lao Tze himself if he was foolish enough to attempt it. I reiterate again that I am not talking about the Chinese language but Chinese philosophical thought. Forget about wisdom, even at the literary level, translation injures the poetic grace of classical Chinese; word-for-word metaphrasing yields no meaning; and paraphrasing is interpretation, not translation. The Tao Te Ching is inaccessible to non-Chinese and the corrupt. Take it or leave it. Mao Zedong was not a Chinese philosopher. He was at best a Chinese intellectual and at worst a common thug. Confucius was a Chinese philosopher. Lin Yutang was not a Chinese philosopher. Gia Fu-Feng, like Lin Yutang, was a Chinese intellectual. The primary qualification of a Chinese philosopher is incorruptibility. I told you that being smart is not enough although this attribute seems to be the only thing that counts in western cultures. Mao Zedong’s large bed was littered with books and young female sexual companions. To lump this ass together with Confucius is offensive to me. All things being equal, I would say so on account of there being more Chinese than Swiss. Right now it is about 1.3 billion mainland Chinese (not counting 50 million Overseas Chinese and 23 million Chinese in Taiwan) to about 8 million Swiss. I don’t know how many Chinese there were when the Tao Te Ching took shape some 2,600 years ago but there were no Swiss back then. This is not a matter of ethnic superiority. I am merely pointing out a fundamental difference between Chinese philosophical thought and western thinking. At the practical level, as you said, people are more or less the same; although, I would give the edge to westerners judging from their superior ability in building better lifestyles and more equitable societies. I wish this were enough but as Jesus said, “man cannot live on bread alone”; especially, when he is living under the threat of nuclear annihilation. There is a reason to compare, and I did so to show no two translations are the same. They are like blind men’s testimonies of what the elephant is like. I am telling you no such thing. I stand by my opinion that the Tao Te Ching cannot be translated and any motive to do so is suspect. Ok, whatever you say, my friend.

You have no idea how unconnected Chinese philosophical thought is to western thinking. Please don’t confuse this with the comparison between the mind of the Chinese intellectual and that of the likes of Henricks, who presumably is not Chinese. These two are in the same bullpen. Western thinking is basically deductive in nature and applicable to discernment of the superficial. It is like a rake that cannot be used for digging through the rocky crust to the center of the Earth. It is a tool accessible to anyone with an intelligent quotient (IQ). Some of the greatest western thinkers and visionaries have criminal minds. On the other hand, Chinese philosophical thought is not for the taking just because you can think. You cannot have it, no matter how clever, if you are corruptible. The Chinese intellectual is not incorruptible. Corruption and wisdom (of the Chinese kind) are mutually exclusive. So, just because one is Chinese doesn’t mean one has the key to unlock the door of the Tao Te Ching. One also has to be incorruptible. By comparing Mr Chi’s English translation with that of Henrick’s, my intention is to show the stark difference between the two. The Chinese text has yet another meaning. So, we are talking, not about the Tao Te Ching. We are talking about Henrick’s perception of the Tao Te Ching. It is his own personal opinion, that’s all. Let’s say we are talking about the Henrick Ching. Excellent! This set the bases for your argument. I hope you will allow me to question your premises which are your presuppositions taken for granted to be true. And they are as follows: I hope you realize you are making a leap of faith that is as impressive as Flowing Hand’s for someone who has left that basket. What you call your understanding is a codification of beliefs, a doctrine that marries the universe (which is a western concept of the totality of existence) to Taoist nonsense. I am not using the word “nonsense” in a derogatory manner but to point out that it is non-sensical in a scientific context. To assert that this universe is a sub-set of Tao is similar to asserting that this universe is a subset of God and that the universe consists of the Holy Spirit and Jesus who lived among man. Do you have any scientific proof of the connection between the cause and the effect? What you have stated here are propositions. You still have to provide verifiable proof if you are a scientist and not a shaman. I am not suggesting that one translation is better than the other. Each translation conjures a picture quite different from another. And Heaven knows what scenario the Chinese text depicts. And this is the teaching you have derived from your understanding of The Henrick Ching. This is fine. Has our argument been resolved? Do you now agree that the Tao you are talking about is not the eternal Tao?

Let's look at Mr Chi's translation, with accompanying Chinese text, for comparison. 5. Hence, when Tao is always invisible, one would grok its quale. 6. When Tao is always visible, one would observe its boundary. 5. 故常無,欲以觀其妙。 6. 常有,欲以觀其徼。 "Cause and effect" comes from the western concept of causality whereby an action/event will cause another action/event. Regardless of disparity in meaning between Hendrick's translation and the Chinese text, can you tell me how you justify your claim that Lines 5 and 6 have something to do with causality? Are you saying that desire is the cause and the materialization of the object of desire is the effect? How does it work? Can you explain - in a rational manner of western science - how one causes the other? (Please note that we are discussing Hendrick's personal viewpoint.)

You are right, Mr Chi. Thanks anyway. I made a wrong request. Marblehead was referring to the Tao Te Ching.

Mr Chi, could you be kind enough to post, in your usual manner you do with the Tao Te Ching, the Chuang Tze Chapter that Marblehead cited as Chapter 1? I am not familiar with the format of western translations. My Chinese version has Inner and Outer Chapters. Thank you for your help.

Blame this on the ideology of individualism, the need to be different. The freedom to choose - isn't that great? Free will empowers the individual. Why? Upbringing, I guess. One's circumstances in life is a factor. And lastly, the available mindsets to choose from.

That was the Buddha story which is like a fairy tale. To be one of a kind has a narcissitic appeal that incites us to ape the ideal which is a blueprint. Consequently, we all inevitably end up as identical monks. It is therefore not surprising that you believe that you are unique. Individualism is also a fairy tale. It inspires you to be special just because your nose is not as fat as mine. Where in the Tao Te Ching teaches the importance of observing 'cause and effect'? Chinese philosophy is not the opposite pole of western science. The two are fundamentally different approaches in the understanding of life. Additonally, Chinese philosophy is not Eastern thought. It is a class by itself and cannot be lumped together with the philosophy of India and the Middle East. At the cultural level of practical living, people are nothing more than cattle in separate pens. Their cultural differences have no fundamental significance. Philosophical wisdom is something else. Just because we are all apes doesn't mean that the answers chimps come up with are merely because they can't ask the same questions as us. Western science has also inquired into the origin of life. It's the same question dealt with in the Tao Te Ching. One peered into the heavens through powerful telescopes for his answer while the other looked within. You think so? Which western medical doctor would ever think of dealing with an ailing kidney by pricking the patient's toe? Do you think US hospitals will ever staff up their emergency rooms with Taoist shamans?

I hear you, Mr Chi. But why do people who study the Tao Te Ching cling to sentiments? Do we apply Wu Wei only to animals in the wild but not to how we conduct ourselves in society and with family? Ok, I accept it as it is because you say that is the Way (Tao) for Nature. What about us in society? What is our Way (Tao) as 天人合一 ?

You and I have different worldviews which I am trying to reconcile. I am sure there are many buddhas in your world which is as fascinating as the worlds of other spiritualistic belief systems. It is strange that you and I have derived such fundamentally diverse understanding of the Tao Te Ching. While you see a realm of buddhas and immortals, I see nothing more than a scholastic commentary on practical life. Actually, I don't believe that there ever was a Buddha or a Jesus. They are the stuff of compelling stories that argue for a meaning in life. Chapter 5 says there is no meaning at all. No Buddha, no Jesus, Nothing.

If you look at the state of our dog-eat-dog society, it consistently reflects Mother Nature's law of survival of the fittest. There is no meaning in having a point in either case. You shoot your mother and you sell your daughter in order to survive. I have no problem with that if we embrace this honestly. My criticism is directed at your hypocrisy, your pre-occupation with the Tao Te Ching. What is the point to that? Lions have no qualms about cruelty and they don't study the Tao Te Ching. Why do you?

Mr Chi, what do you think of this: Su Ch'e commentary on this verse explains: "Heaven and Earth are not partial. They do not kill living things out of cruelty or give them birth out of kindness. We do the same when we make straw dogs to use in sacrifices. We dress them up and put them on the altar, but not because we love them. And when the ceremony is over, we throw them into the street, but not because we hate them. (Wikipedia) Chapter 5 seems to be pointing to our sentimental delusions. They shape our perceptions to our detriment in social relationships. I agree that there is question of disaffection on the part of the lion in attacking the calf but the act is still cruel. My objection to the way nature is set up is on account of the pain and terror that the calf has to suffer. What is the point to this? Protecting ourselves from pain and terror is a reasonable impulse. There is no sentiment here. We have bodies vulnerable to disease and injury. We are subject to random and deadly lightning strikes not to mention earthquakes and hurricanes. What is the point to that?

The impartial software code is ruthless, It sees both immortals and mortals as straw dogs. Seems like you can make a slip just like other mortals. That doesn't protect us from preying on one another. Apart from the constant killing, we have enough nuclear weapons fused and ready to drop the Dao on its butt and blow it to smithereens. Seems that way, and mankind is not going to change anytime soon. This is why we all are trying to escape this screwed up realm. It is a sinking ship and we are trying to jump off like rats onto transcendental liferafts wherever we find them.

At a certain level? True. This is the code of the warrior. Strike first. Win every battle before it is ever fought, said Sun Tzu. I commend you for your positive attitude.

Chinese philosophical inquiry is not a western scientific quest for knowledge that culminates in the publication of verifiable proof for peer review. This is why there was only one Buddha. The rest are just monks.

Mercy refers to forgiveness or compassion on the part of those in power over victims in an ethical context. 天地 (Heaven and Earth) is not an entity exercising control over 萬物 (the ten thousand things). Therefore, 不仁 in this regard may not refer to a lack of mercy because it is inapplicable to 天地, a non-person. Ok, I agree that your argument has merit. Man is not included in 萬物 (ten thousand things) because Man is more than that. This only holds true when Man is life itself and not manifesting as a human individual called Gia Fu-Feng living out a personal life in California. This is pretty heavy stuff. I am impressed with the reach of your scholastic grasp. Jesus did say, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". Here was not an individual human person but Man and Heaven integrated as one. But Mr Chi, how come we are not integrated as one but broken up into bits and pieces? Actualy, it is not beyond human control. If we want to do it, we could capture all lions and feed them vegetarian pellets. But I get what you mean. And I still have issue with the way life or nature is set up. The brutality and selfishness in society stem from that set up. Accepting the brutal way of life of the lion as natural and rejecting the brutality in society as something to be stamped out doesn't seem right. What is your interpretation of 芻狗 (straw dog)? Is it an effigy like the kind burned at Chinese funerals?