rene Posted September 8, 2012 I love the way he talks of the Tao without even having to mention the Tao. He can talk of everything without mentioning anything. Agree! Tao is easily there. It's just allll thooooseeee wordddddsss.... lol. glad you joined in, shanlung! stay and keep us lined up! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shanlung Posted September 8, 2012 Agree! Tao is easily there. It's just allll thooooseeee wordddddsss.... lol. glad you joined in, shanlung! stay and keep us lined up! Or is he a butterfly dreaming the dreams of a human Dreaming the dreams of a fish. Taoistic Idiot Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted September 8, 2012 I love the way he talks of the Tao without even having to mention the Tao. He can talk of everything without mentioning anything. The Idiotic Taoist Welcome to the world of Chinese classics. The classics were written in metaphors. The metaphors can talk about the subject, actually, without have to mention it but giving hints or clues about it. The reader must be able to read metaphors in the classics rather than reading it like the modern writings. In comparison, the modern writings are much more direct and easier to understand. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted September 8, 2012 Or is he a butterfly dreaming the dreams of a human Dreaming the dreams of a fish. Taoistic Idiot Did you mean that: Zhuang Tze dreamed himself as a butterfly or The butterfly dreamed itself as Zhuang Tze. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shanlung Posted September 8, 2012 Welcome to the world of Chinese classics. The classics were written in metaphors. The metaphors can talk about the subject, actually, without have to mention it but giving hints or clues about it. The reader must be able to read metaphors in the classics rather than reading it like the modern writings. In comparison, the modern writings are much more direct and easier to understand. Chuangtsu essays were Rorschach blots after Rorshach blots. That he used words were just incidental. Idiot on the Path Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rene Posted September 8, 2012 Or is he a butterfly dreaming the dreams of a human Dreaming the dreams of a fish. Is there a difference? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shanlung Posted September 8, 2012 Is there a difference? In the dream world, it does not matter at all be you a butterfly or a fish, or just a dream. For all we know, the reality that we think we are in are just figment of a vast vast dream. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rene Posted September 8, 2012 No difference, then. Thanks! warm regards Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted September 8, 2012 Chuangtsu essays were Rorschach blots after Rorshach blots. That he used words were just incidental. Idiot on the Path I think Zhuang Tze writes parables but not in essay format and not incidental but intentional. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted September 8, 2012 Let's follow the logic... 道1 可道2，非常 道1 Tao is the subject here, isn't it proper to state the subject at the beginning like: 道1可道2, If Tao(道1, noun) can be spoken(道2, verb) of , 非常道1 Then, it is not the eternal Tao1. If Tao1 can be spoken(tao2) of, then, it is not the eternal Tao1. I have no argument with that. Those things and those non-things that we can talk about are aspects of Tao. But no, they are not the eternal Tao because all things and all non-things are in constant flux, constantly changing. IMO Tao is not even a thing. This is because it is undefinable. The Way (Tao as a verb), however, con be observed and can be talked about. And even the processes of Tao (Tzu Jan) can be talked about. But I totally agree that those aspects of Tao that can be talked about are not the eternal Tao. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted September 8, 2012 Let's follow the MH's logic... 道2 可道2，非常 道1 道2可道2, If speak(道2, verb) can be spoken(道2, verb) of , 非常道1 Then, it is not the eternal Tao1. If speak can be spoken of, then, it is not the eternal Tao. Is this sound okay....??? Hehehe. True. Even the words used in a failed attempt to speak of Tao are not eternal. Even the 'right' words will likely one day be 'wrong'. It is useless, IMO, to attempt to define Tao, the noun. Ah!, the blind men describing the elephant. However, I recall a discussion where I stated that even though Tao cannot be described I suggest that it is possible to experience Tao. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted September 8, 2012 Or is he a butterfly dreaming the dreams of a human Dreaming the dreams of a fish. Taoistic Idiot Now wait a minute. Fish eat butterflies and man eats fish. Be careful what you would be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted September 8, 2012 Chuangtsu essays were Rorschach blots after Rorshach blots. That he used words were just incidental. Idiot on the Path Hehehe. I like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted September 8, 2012 In the dream world, it does not matter at all be you a butterfly or a fish, or just a dream. For all we know, the reality that we think we are in are just figment of a vast vast dream. The dream is real only as long as the dreamer dreams. When I am not dreaming I cannot be a butterfly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) " The Way (Tao as a verb)," When "way" was capitalized, then it becomes a noun and no long a verb to my understanding. I would use lower case "t" for tao if it is a verb; and capital "T" for Tao as a proper noun. Edited September 8, 2012 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted September 8, 2012 " The Way (Tao as a verb)," When "way" was capitalized, then it becomes a noun and no long a verb to my understanding. I would use lower case "t" for tao if it is a verb; and capital "T" for Tao as a proper noun. I actually do that with the word "Virtue" to differentiate between the Virtue (Te) of Tao and the virtue of man. Haven't found enough reason to do so with "Tao/tao" and "Way/way" yet. Back to Chuang Tzu. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) I actually do that with the word "Virtue" to differentiate between the Virtue (Te) of Tao and the virtue of man. Haven't found enough reason to do so with "Tao/tao" and "Way/way" yet. Back to Chuang Tzu. I see that you give no room for exceptions and room to talk. PS.... I must defend the truth when it was being jeopardized. There are some words are just verbs but some can be both verbs and nouns. When we are talking about Tao, we are still on the course with Zhuang Tze. Edited September 8, 2012 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rene Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) I actually do that with the word "Virtue" to differentiate between the Virtue (Te) of Tao and the virtue of man. Haven't found enough reason to do so with "Tao/tao" and "Way/way" yet. Haven't found enough reason?? That's just mean, marblehead. You need a reason?? How about because many of us do the same thing with 'Tao' or 'Way' that you do with 'Virtue'? Tao or Way = LZsCh1 Tao tao or way = the tao-s or way-s of man I'd think doing whatever we can to facilitate the exchange of ideas would be reason enough. It surprises me that you apparantly wouldn't agree with that capitalization method, even enough to find a 'reason' to assist with clarity. It's such a little thing. Not sure I care to spend the energy to type out "LZsCh1 Tao" just because you are unable or unwilling to grant the same courtesy others extend to you with your "Virtue/virtue". And this has nothing to do with nouns or verbs. It has to do with basic kindness and helping each other finding words that can work. Edited September 8, 2012 by rene Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted September 8, 2012 I see that you give no room for exceptions and room to talk. Yep, I do that now and again. That is called the way of man. Sometimes different from the Way of Tao. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted September 8, 2012 Haven't found enough reason?? That's just mean, marblehead. Well, it never seemed to be a problem before the events of today. So what would Chuang Tzu say? "Get over it." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted September 8, 2012 Yep, I do that now and again. That is called the way of man. Sometimes different from the Way of Tao. IF "Tao" was translated as "Way", then the "Way of Tao" is the "Tao of Tao." IMO The "Way of Tao" is actually meant to be the Principles of Tao. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rene Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) Well, it never seemed to be a problem before the events of today. So what would Chuang Tzu say? "Get over it." Now that's good advice! I am so 'over' trying to clarify, to you, what I'm trying to say, or asking you what you might have meant by something you've said. Whew! Glad that's over. (-: warm regards Edited September 8, 2012 by rene Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rene Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) dbl post Edited September 8, 2012 by rene Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted September 8, 2012 Now that's good advice! I am so 'over' trying to clarify, to you, what I'm trying to say, or asking you what you might have meant by something you've said. Whew! Glad that's over. (-: warm regards Hehehe. Belly laughs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted September 8, 2012 IF "Tao" was translated as "Way", then the "Way of Tao" is the "Tao of Tao." IMO The "Way of Tao" is actually meant to be the Principles of Tao. Totally agree. I use the word "Tzujan". The plot thickens though, when we talk of the way of man. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
