Forsake knowledge

[rene]

lienshan, hi

 

I rejected wisdom ... the Zen wisdom of a great master ... with an arguement pointing at the reality.

 

I'm still ontread and not offtread: Reject wisdom! or Reject knowledge! or Reject experience!

 

The character Laozi used could mean any of these three possiblities, but which one?

 

Is there any way that Laozi could have meant:

 

"Reject only wisdom! or Reject only knowledge! or Reject only experience!" ?

 

Perhaps underlying the ambiguity you find, the "only" is implied.

 

Whatcha think?

 

 

 

[ChiDragon]

lienshan, hi

 

 

Is there any way that Laozi could have meant:

 

"Reject only wisdom! or Reject only knowledge! or Reject only experience!" ?

 

Perhaps underlying the ambiguity you find, the "only" is implied.

 

Whatcha think?

 

Are we under estimate Lao Tze's wisdom.....??? Or we don"t have the wisdom to interpret his wisdom.....???

 

In the paradoxical classic, Lao Tze never say what he meant and never meant what he said. But at the end, he always meant what he said and said what he meant.

 

"Reject only cunning wisdom! or Reject only undesirable knowledge! or Reject only unpleasant experience!" ?

 

 

PS....

As a general rule, when Lao Tze say thing in a negative logic, one must interpret it the opposite.

Edited April 29, 2013 by ChiDragon

[flowing hands]

'Give up Sainthood, stop preaching,

let people follow the Dao and it will be a hundred times better for everyone.

 

If people are at one, is there any need for religion or morality?

 

Give up ingenuity, don't look for profit and bandits and thieves will disappear.

 

It is more important to follow the ways of nature;

to observe its order and workings,

to see the simplicity,

to realise one's true nature,

to cast off selfishness and dispel desire.

 

For here lies the way of Dao'.

 

Li Erh would never write about filial piety; a Confucian idea, not Daoist.

 

He would definitely get rid of organized religion and rule others by turning away from advancement and taking from nature only what people needed to survive.

 

There are no rules in Daoism, so why would he speak of morality?

[rene]

CD - i was using only in a different manner; for example.

 

 

Yin is not only yin, within is the seed of yang

Yang is not only yang, within is the seed of yin.

 

**********

 

flowinghands - there are lots of rules in "Daoism"... but that is of no concern.

 

Li Ehr's Dao is something else entirely. (-:

 

warm regards

 

 

 

 

[ChiDragon]

rene....

"Reject only cunning wisdom! or Reject only undesirable knowledge! or Reject only unpleasant experience!" ?

I think we had brought the yin out of the Lao Tze's wisdom.

[lienshan]

stop preaching

 

That's a great definition of wisdom; the one way communication.

 

The Guodian line must therefore deal with knowledge; the two way communication:

 

Forsake knowledge! Reject debate!

 

And experience is according to many of the tread's contributers the word to use in the last line of chapter 41

 

What's forever enough: Enough experience is enough!

[3bob]

ok Rene, and I should read the entire string for better context of what has been said.

[dawei]

Li Erh would never write about filial piety; a Confucian idea, not Daoist.

 

This exact line is exactly why I say that the entirety of the first three lines are to be considered incomplete... this line alone proves it. Not Daoist thought.

 

If one doesn't grasp this, then the whole section really won't make sense.

[rene]

This exact line is exactly why I say that the entirety of the first three lines are to be considered incomplete... this line alone proves it. Not Daoist thought. ...

 

Yes, and the fourth line of Ch19:

 

These three are outward forms alone; they are not sufficient in themselves.

 

- proves it as well, imo

 

warm regards

[dawei]

Yes, and the fourth line of Ch19:

 

These three are outward forms alone; they are not sufficient in themselves.

 

- proves it as well, imo

 

warm regards

 

A warm kiss of agreement... on both cheeks... just to give it an European sign of formal agreement

[rene]

A warm kiss of agreement... on both cheeks... just to give it an European sign of formal agreement

 

[Harmonious Emptiness]

 

[my translations of the beginning of, Guodian text, chapter 19]

絕智棄便，

Break from (do not be attached to) Sagliness, discard/throw away convenience

民利百倍。

And the people will profit a hundred fold

絕巧棄利，

Do not be attached to cleverness, throw away profit

盜賊亡又。

Then bandits and theives will disappear

絕偽棄慮，

Break from falseness, throw away worries

 

民復季子

And the people will attend to their familial duties (return to youngest brother).

 

The last line was changed to

 

民復孝慈

People return (to) filial piety and compassion

 

This exact line is exactly why I say that the entirety of the first three lines are to be considered incomplete... this line alone proves it. Not Daoist thought.

 

If one doesn't grasp this, then the whole section really won't make sense.

 

What do you know about old terms for filial piety?

 

季youngest 子brother (in Guodian) was changed to "畜茲 raising livestock time" in MWD2 and "孝茲 filial piety time" in MWD1, then later "孝慈filial piety and love" (in Wang Bi).

 

季 Youngest looks similar to 孝filial piety which may be the reason for the later Confucian spin, but filial piety is generally more about obedience to seniors, rather than care for junior siblings.

 

 

The Daoist version of filial piety, thus, would not based on the obeisance of juniors to seniors, but of seniors taking care of juniors , the capable taking care of the incapable, like the role of water and the Sages.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Harmonious Emptiness

[dawei]

Chapter 19 is about the "Fall from Dao"... It is a purely Confucian ideal which unfolds and is the point of the decay. Milton wrote about this in Paradise Lost.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

The Daoist version of filial piety, thus, would not based on the obeisance of juniors to seniors, but of seniors taking care of juniors , the capable taking care of the incapable, like the role of water and the Sages.

 

Chapter 19 is about the "Fall from Dao"... It is a purely Confucian ideal which unfolds and is the point of the decay. Milton wrote about this in Paradise Lost.

 

I have to disagree with you. Responsibility to the needs of the family is no Confucian invention, nor did it ever require Confucianism to exist. Obsequious obeisance to all seniors/superiors.. maybe...

[dawei]

The responsibility factor may be true... but Lao Zi clearly shows it is an entropic cycle... fall from Dao leads to social and human chaos.

[flowing hands]

There are no rules, the Dao is ever changing, people and life will do and not do accordingly.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I think the line following the ones in discussion pretty much explains what is meant:

 

"此In the case of 者these 三three

以to 為make 文expression is 不not 足sufficient"

 

ie., He's referring to these things when they are just show and not substance.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Harmonious Emptiness