Wrong?

[wandelaar]

What claims made in the Tao Te Ching are simply wrong? And I don't mean in an ethical sense (for one can endlessly debate on that), but in a factual sense. If I remember well it is said that natural disasters will happen as a result of immoral acts by a ruler. Such a claim seems highly suspect to me.

 

But in this topic I am interested in reading about the ideas of the other Bums (that is: you) on this issue.

Edited August 7, 2018 by wandelaar

[Daemon]

You might find it useful to consider Global Warming.

☮️

[ernobe]

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

If I remember well it is said that natural disasters will happen as a result of immoral acts by a ruler.

 

That's the view Jing Fang, according to http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Han/personsjingfang.html :

 

Quote

His main subject of research were natural disasters, about which he also loved to talk in memorials to the emperor. According to his view, natural disasters were an expression of failings in government.

 

[OldDog]

Perhaps that thinking was considered factual 2500 years ago. Remember, the ruler was devine, an extension of heaven. Not a far leap back then to blame the emperor if there were floods or drought.

[Wu Ming Jen]

Natural disasters are an extreme condition to regain balance. When humans on the planet make stuff and it gets destroyed was it a disaster? 

 

I have never known humans to be responsible for natural disasters only the disasters and disease they make for themselves.

 

 

[wandelaar]

22 minutes ago, Daemon said:

You might find it useful to consider Global Warming.

☮️

 

In that case there is a natural explanation of cause and effect. That's not what I mean. Consider the case where a ruler spends his life with gambling, women, drugs, an so on without caring about the welfare of his people, and suddenly his whole palace with everything in it is destroyed by a meteorite. That sort of thing. Could the immoral behaviour of the ruler be seen as the cause of the meteorite destroying the palace?

[silent thunder]

Well said Wu Ming Jen.

 

Nature shifts...  always shifting and flowing.  Nature is fuild and never still and always Nature is just out of balance while ever balancing.  The very motion of nature is the constant shift toward balance, while absolute balance is never expressed.  Not ever once is nature fully in balance, as that would be static, without movement or change. 

 

Nature shifts constantly.  When it shifts rapidly, humans (ant like colonies that we are) experience it as destructive to what is important to us and refer to it as a disaster.  Yet these storms are merely neutral energy, shifting towards balance.  Sun shines with no distinction on the murderer and the healer.  Rain falls without preference in the forest and the desert... in the desert it grows thorns, in the forest, flowers.  There are no disasters in my perspective, nor anything wrong in the universe of expression... whether manifest or not.  The universe of manifest is as it is and can be no other way.  Any notion of disaster, or wrong is a mental projection of a mind, willing/wishing/projecting expectation that the manifest should be other than it is.

 

These storms and disasters are merely shift on a rapid scale that affects us in frightening and destructive ways, yet to the overall health of the planet, they are the perfect expression of movement towards balance and are thus not destructive in the long game, but preservative, preventative and utterly beneficial... to the organism of earth as a whole, not to the particular cells/humans involved in the areas of rapid shift.

 

Consider the constant warfare within our own bodies.  In your colon at this moment, (unless you're fasting), is a multilevel destructive storm like process of decay and destruction that is utterly required for your vitality and overall health.  Across your entire endocrine and circulatory systems there are myriad murder cells waging war and carrying away the broken, defunct, or invasive cells.  When viewed under a microscope, the processes of our own bodies are engaging in what would appear on that level to be outright warfare.  Yet when we pull back our perspective to the organism as a whole... vitality and health are expressed. 

 

In the entire history of the earth... has any singular leaf, or a raindrop ever fallen in the wrong spot?

My sense is there are no accidents.  Conditions arise and nature manifests and shifts.

Thinking occurs.  Action occurs.  Stillness (relative) occurs.  wrong and right?  not so much... not for me anyway.

 

Edited August 8, 2018 by silent thunder
spelling

[rene]

2 hours ago, wandelaar said:

What claims made in the Tao Te Ching are simply wrong? And I don't mean in an ethical sense (for one can endlessly debate on that), but in a factual sense. If I remember well it is said that natural disasters will happen as a result of immoral acts by a ruler. Such a claim seems highly suspect to me.

 

But in this topic I am interested in reading about the ideas of the other Bums (that is: you) on this issue.

 

Hi wandelaar -

Could you (or anyone) tell me which Chapter that's in?

I don't recall anything similar in the F/E rendition - but my memory is sideways sometimes.

Thanks!

[wandelaar]

2 minutes ago, rene said:

Hi wandelaar -

Could you (or anyone) tell me which Chapter that's in?

I don't recall anything similar in the F/E rendition - but my memory is sideways sometimes.

Thanks!

 

I don't remember the chapter. Maybe it has a positive formulation in the sense that everything in nature will go well (I remember something about gentle or timely rain) as long as the ruler acts well morally speaking. I only mentioned it as an example of the kind of claims that could be considered suspect.

 

So here I am mainly interested in other examples from the Tao Te Ching. And when we have those other examples the next interesting thing would be investigating how that impacts on philosophical Taoism as a practically feasible doctrine.

[rene]

19 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

I don't remember the chapter. Maybe it has a positive formulation in the sense that everything in nature will go well (I remember something about gentle or timely rain) as long as the ruler acts well morally speaking. I only mentioned it as an example of the kind of claims that could be considered suspect.

 

So here I am mainly interested in other examples from the Tao Te Ching. And when we have those other examples the next interesting thing would be investigating how that impacts on philosophical Taoism as a practically feasible doctrine.

Ah, okay thanks!

 

It's an interesting query, yours. One small difficulty with the investigation might be that so many translations are rather biased, sometimes intentionally others not, by the renderer's beliefs going in.

 

For example, in your other thread - the differences found between translations (Ch18&38) seemed to lead to different conclusions as to LZ's anti-Confucian intentions. By the same token, Christian slanted translations might have a whole different set of 'errors' than say a Buddhist slanted translation.

 

Whether it's the most accurate or the least accurate translation - what I like about the Feng/English rendition is that it feels free of any specific bias... and any 'bias' is easily spotted in a version's treatment of two lines in Ch1.  

 

Fun stuff!

Thanks again!

[wandelaar]

The Feng/English rendition is OK with me. It's a beautiful and sober translation that doesn't try to force things one way or another.

[rene]

18 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

The Feng/English rendition is OK with me. It's a beautiful and sober translation that doesn't try to force things one way or another.

 

Agree, very much so.

 

I don't recall there being any errors (in the factual sense you describe) in the F/E -but maybe others have seen them.

 

I can see how there might easily be factual errors in translations by those who may have had an agenda while rendering...to support their own position(s).

 

[Fa Xin]

3 hours ago, wandelaar said:

 

In that case there is a natural explanation of cause and effect. 

 

What else is there?

[Fa Xin]

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

 

I don't remember the chapter. Maybe it has a positive formulation in the sense that everything in nature will go well (I remember something about gentle or timely rain) as long as the ruler acts well morally speaking. I only mentioned it as an example of the kind of claims that could be considered suspect.

 

So here I am mainly interested in other examples from the Tao Te Ching. And when we have those other examples the next interesting thing would be investigating how that impacts on philosophical Taoism as a practically feasible doctrine.

 

So supernatural stuff

 

I don't see much of that in the DDJ.  The gentle/timely rain could very well be interpreted in a metaphorical sense.

 

The other possibility is that our world is much more connected than we are able to perceive... that things like how we act could have some sort of impact on something like the weather.   I have no opinion on that ... but I do have an open mind.

 

 

[flowing hands]

5 hours ago, wandelaar said:

What claims made in the Tao Te Ching are simply wrong? And I don't mean in an ethical sense (for one can endlessly debate on that), but in a factual sense. If I remember well it is said that natural disasters will happen as a result of immoral acts by a ruler. Such a claim seems highly suspect to me.

 

But in this topic I am interested in reading about the ideas of the other Bums (that is: you) on this issue.

 

I have never seen this quoted and certainly doesn't appear in my transmission. I think you have to be specific in your questioning and quote from a translation directly, giving the translator and verse number, therefore the discussion can be valid.

[wandelaar]

This topic isn't about my example! So it doesn't even matter whether or not I remembered it well. As I said before:

 

2 hours ago, wandelaar said:

I don't remember the chapter. Maybe it has a positive formulation in the sense that everything in nature will go well (I remember something about gentle or timely rain) as long as the ruler acts well morally speaking. I only mentioned it as an example of the kind of claims that could be considered suspect.

 

So here I am mainly interested in other examples from the Tao Te Ching. And when we have those other examples the next interesting thing would be investigating how that impacts on philosophical Taoism as a practically feasible doctrine.

 

[Stosh]

About mandate of heaven ...

 

Scanning Lin Yutang at terebess, ch 39 for instance

 

Without clarity, the Heavens would shake, 
Without stability, the Earth would quake, 
Without spiritual power, the gods would crumble, 
Without being filled, the valleys would crack, 
Without the life-giving power, all things would perish, 

Without the ennobling power, the princes and dukes would stumble. 
therefore the nobility depend upon the common man for support, 
And the exalted ones depend upon the lowly for their base.

 

There is plenty in Laozi which one could construe as endorsing tien ming , (in chapters  13 16 18 22 23 26 and so on)  .............. mandate of heaven, being revoked, or, for considering a ruler worthy but it seems more that he felt it was just the natural consequence of being a crappy ruler that things would go downhill.

After a long search for Confucius comment on it , I could find even less in analects.

It seems an idea that coalesced without specific overt statement on it by either of them,, maybe Xunzi says more. 

[rene]

18 hours ago, Fa Xin said:

 

So supernatural stuff

 

I don't see much of that in the DDJ.  The gentle/timely rain could very well be interpreted in a metaphorical sense.

 

The other possibility is that our world is much more connected than we are able to perceive... that things like how we act could have some sort of impact on something like the weather.   I have no opinion on that ... but I do have an open mind.

 

 

 

Aw...you really gonna make me say it?

How about Both, (supernatural and metaphorical) at the same time?

 

Some may perceive it as one or the other - and use their interpretations to build entire ideas around - or to support their existing systems!

 

 

[rene]

17 hours ago, wandelaar said:

This topic isn't about my example! So it doesn't even matter whether or not I remembered it well. As I said before:

 

 

We know. Because of difficulties outline earlier - flowing hand's suggestion is a good one, if you'd like to explore this more (I'd be on board for that!) so...pick a translation, so we're all looking at the same one, that's not overly biased in any direction and we can see where this goes. Or - if you've already set this down, that's okay too.

[rideforever]

17 hours ago, wandelaar said:

doctrine

 

Why do you think it is a doctrine ?

[Nintendao]

22 hours ago, wandelaar said:

Could the immoral behaviour of the ruler be seen as the cause of the meteorite destroying the palace?

 

Not unless you factor in other scientifically wrong things, like archangels altering the course of the meteorite. Even ruling that out, I would still venture some non-linearity of space and time. Cause/effect usually respectively adhere to before/after, but following on a circle instead of a line can sometimes get dizzy. That is to say, had the ruler not been so preoccupied with bullcrap, then he could have done something more useful like cultivate the level of vision needed to see the future and not build his house where a rock was falling.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Nintendao
Grammatical tense

[wandelaar]

27 minutes ago, rene said:

We know. Because of difficulties outline earlier - flowing hand's suggestion is a good one, if you'd like to explore this more (I'd be on board for that!) so...pick a translation, so we're all looking at the same one, that's not overly biased in any direction and we can see where this goes. Or - if you've already set this down, that's okay too.

 

Probably it was this chapter:  http://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu32.html

 

I don't know for sure whether there is also a negative version in the Tao Te Ching, where Heaven reacts by sending down a disaster.

 

22 minutes ago, rideforever said:

Why do you think it is a doctrine ?

 

Lao tzu never had a problem in taking sides and stating his position. That's why his ideas can be called a doctrine, with Chuang tzu that term would be too strong. But I don't think it is interesting to have that discussion again. It isn't relevant to this topic either.

 

Edited August 8, 2018 by wandelaar

[rideforever]

4 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

That's why his ideas can be called a doctrine

 

If you copy what he says, isn't that just fake and manipulation ?
He had a arrived at being absorbed in existence, and described what he saw; but if you copy what he saw and understood you will not enter absorption, it will be "as if".

[Jeff]

6 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

Probably it was this chapter:  http://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu32.html

 

I don't know for sure whether there is also a negative version in the Tao Te Ching, where Heaven reacts by sending down a disaster.

 

 

Lao tzu never had a problem in taking sides and stating his position. That's why his ideas can be called a doctrine, with Chuang tzu that term would be too strong. But I don't think it is interesting to have that discussion again. It isn't relevant to this topic either.

 

 

I think your chapter as posted...

 

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 32

The Tao is forever undefined.
Small though it is in the unformed state, it cannot be grasped.
If kings and lords could harness it,
The ten thousand things would naturally obey.
Heaven and earth would come together
And gentle rain fall.
Men would need no more instruction
     and all things would take their course.

Once the whole is divided, the parts need names.
There are already enough names.
One must know when to stop.
Knowing when to stop averts trouble.
Tao in the world is like a river flowing home to the sea.
 

Is incredibly accurate.

 

[silent thunder]

While all paths stem from and return to source...

Can one walk another's path? 

 

andedit to add: 

what's that old quote... "something something something... as you would a small fish?" 

Edited August 8, 2018 by silent thunder