MasterMischief Explores Taoism

[MasterMischief]

EDIT: I changed the title since I intend to use this thread for more than just the Tao Te Ching.

The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and
unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and
unchanging name.

So we can never fully understand the Tao?
Is the Tao different for each individual?  It seems that it would have to be.
If you think you know, you don't know?  Does this mean you should always question what you think you know?
Is there a point to attempting something that can not be achieved?  I have often heard it say we should strive for perfection knowing full well that we can never achieve it.  However, I could argue that it is not perfection we are striving for, but improvement.  Improvement is possible and surely it is worth striving for.  Is it the same with the Tao?
Is this an easy out?  Should anyone say Taoism is about any one thing in particular, you could always point back to this first line and say, "No, not quite."

Anyone feel like guiding a foolish llama?   ;D

[Paladin]

The Tao, just is. Its alot like Zen from what I understand. Its purity within and without. Meditate with me on this.

[MasterMischief]

If it just is, then it really does not need any help from me.

I do not think purity can just be.  Does not purity require 'protection' from 'contaminants'?  If I wish to be pure, do I not need to take action?  Or perhaps inaction.  Something to cleanse me of my current impurities.  Something that requires me to alter my current being.

[Paladin]

If it just is, then it really does not need any help from me.

I do not think purity can just be.  Does not purity require 'protection' from 'contaminants'?  If I wish to be pure, do I not need to take action?  Or perhaps inaction.  Something to cleanse me of my current impurities.  Something that requires me to alter my current being.

Not nessarily. Purity can come in many forms. You can be someone who works every day with dirt and dung in fields and yet still have purity of soul/ Theres Purity of heart, mind, body ect.

Tao is just a way of thinking. the thing id its words of wisdome that everyone interprits diffrently to acieve an understanding. Its always going to be diffrent to each person.

[MasterMischief]

Its always going to be diffrent to each person.

I suspected as much.  I think I can accept that.

Not nessarily. Purity can come in many forms. You can be someone who works every day with dirt and dung in fields and yet still have purity of soul/ Theres Purity of heart, mind, body ect.

I did not mean physical dirt.  If my soul is already pure, do I really need to do anything?  Surely we can agree that for the majority of us, our soul is not pure.  Is that not why we seek out some form of spirituality?

That is an assumption and maybe that is my stumbling block.  I feel that my soul is not pure.  I am not saying I am completely corrupted, but I know I can be a better person.  I do not believe I can be a better person without making some change in myself.  Therefore, I can not continue to just be who I am.  I want to change.  I want to purify myself.  Is that against the Tao?

Tao is just a way of thinking. the thing id its words of wisdome that everyone interprits diffrently to acieve an understanding.

I am exploring, out loud, my interpretations hoping others might chime in with different perspectives.  Exactly as you have done.  Thank you.  Bows.

[Paladin]

Yet I have done nothing but shopw what enlightenment I got from the Tao, and from Sun Tzu, and from Bushido. I read many things and try to understand them, it is only after many tries do I realize that I already understsood it somehow.

[MasterMischief]

It occurred to me earlier today that I should practice hating nothing.  That everything in the human experience has its place.  This was a bit alien to me as I have long felt there are things worth hating.  Hate itself.  Osama bin Laden.

As I continued to explore this idea, I thought about the concept that there can not be light without darkness.  Can love exists without hate?  Does that mean that hate has its place?  Surely Osama bin Laden has reasons for doing the things he does.  Without being in his place, how can I know his true reasons and therefore, how can I truly judge him?

I do not know that I could ever get to that level.  But it does seem like I could find a lot more peace in my life if I could set aside my own ego and really listen to others.  Instead of trying to show people my perspective, if I embrace theirs.  Also, if I also learn to embrace other things I hate, dislike or which annoy me.  For example, boredom.  Does it have a place in the human experience and, if so, why spend so much energy resisting it.  Find a way to enjoy it for what it is.  Find beauty instead of frustration.

Anyway...just a llama rambling.

[DarklingAlice]

I have always wondered about the use of the second 'dao' in that first line. I tend to read it as:
"The way that can be spoken/taught/expressed is not the eternal way."

If the way could truly not be trodden, then Laozi's entire effort is in vain. What would be the point of all the rest of the Dao De Jing if one could truly not walk in the way? Rather the way cannot be defined, named, etc. Laozi cannot just say 'X' is the way. Instead he has to talk around it, and express the qualities of the way in an attempt to guide the student to it.

This is the way of ineffable things. It is rather similar to the Greek concept of ataraxia.

I do not think that the Dao is variable, again it would call into question the entire purpose of the text. We can have different experiences of Dao, but at the same time it is not infinitely flexible and there are flat out wrong interpretations (e.g. the violent Daoist cults of the later Han).

[MasterMischief]

How does one know if one has a wrong interpretation?

[Paladin]

Thats just it, there is no wrong interpretation.

[MasterMischief]

Thats just it, there is no wrong interpretation.

So violent interpretations are o.k.?




What is the difference between Tao and Dao?

[DarklingAlice]

What is the difference between Tao and Dao?

Just the romanization systems. Chinese is poorly and non-uniformly romanized.

[Starlequin]

Actually, violent interpretations of the Tao are perfectly fine. The only problem with them is one that humans have; the universe has no problem with it. It is called 'violent', so humans view it as 'bad'. The Tao is not about 'good' and 'bad'. There is no 'pure' and 'impure'. There is no 'right' and 'wrong'. There is only 'is' and 'is not'.

Your earlier view of striving for improvement vs. striving for perfection is much the same. One who strives for improvement can eventually look back upon his journey and think to himself, "OK. I have improved enough. I can feel comfortable with stopping now." However, one who strives for perfection never takes that moment to look back. His journey is an eternal one, and so he never stops. You could say he stops at the point of death, but again, 'death' is a human concept, a counter to 'life'; 'life' is seen as 'good', while 'death' is seen as 'bad'. It is the duality of the human experience that keeps many from reaching enlightenment, and it is this duality that must be transcended to truly begin walking the path of Way and No way.

A simple way to view the Tao is this: Observe a block of wood. Within the wood may sit a cup, a bowl, an ornament, or a chair. The wood is uncarved, and so has no form but its form, and so can take any form.

A simple way to view the Tao is this: Observe a doorway. The door is made of wood. The door frame is made of wood. The hinges are made of metal. But the doorway is made of nothing, and it is the nothing that makes the doorway useful.

A simple way to view the Tao is this: Observe water. On its own, water simply is. Pour the water into a cup, and the water becomes the shape of the cup. Pour the water into a pitcher, and the water forms to the pitcher. Pour the water into the ocean, and the water becomes the ocean.

These ways are not the Way. But like a traveler lost in the forest, if he takes the wrong path often enough, eventually it will lead him to the right path.

[Oniya]

I have two stories that seem to apply here - one fairly well known, the other told to me by a man I greatly respect.

Once, a long time ago, there was a wise Zen master. People from far and near would seek his counsel and ask for his wisdom. Many would come and ask him to teach them, enlighten them in the way of Zen. He seldom turned any away.

One day an important man, a man used to command and obedience came to visit the master. “I have come today to ask you to teach me about Zen. Open my mind to enlightenment.” The tone of the important man’s voice was one used to getting his own way.

The Zen master smiled and said that they should discuss the matter over a cup of tea. When the tea was served the master poured his visitor a cup. He poured and he poured and the tea rose to the rim and began to spill over the table and finally onto the robes of the wealthy man. Finally the visitor shouted, “Enough. You are spilling the tea all over. Can’t you see the cup is full?”

The master stopped pouring and smiled at his guest. “You are like this tea cup, so full that nothing more can be added. Come back to me when the cup is empty. Come back to me with an empty mind.

The other story was told to me by someone with a Tsalagi life-view (and a wicked sense of humor).

As we go through life on our Path, we learn a lot, and we discard the waste right there on the Path behind us.  So, as you go through life, it's important to seek out your own Path.  But if you must follow someone else's Path - strap on the hipwaders, because I can guarantee you, it's piled high and deep.

[Jude]

GREATER POOP: Are you really serious or what?
MAL-2: Sometimes I take humor seriously. Sometimes I take seriousness humorously. Either way it is irrelevant.

GP: Maybe you are just crazy.
M2: Indeed! But do not reject these teaching as false because I am crazy. The reason that I am crazy is because they are true.

GP: Is Eris true?
M2: Everything is true.
GP: Even false things?
M2: Even false things are true.
GP: How can that be?
M2: I don't know man, I didn't do it.

GP: Why do you deal with so many negatives?
M2: To dissolve them.
GP: Will you develop that point?
M2: No.

GP: Is there an essential meaning behind POEE?
M2: There is a Zen Story about a student who asked a Master to explain the meaning of Buddhism. The Master's reply was "Three pounds of flax."
GP: Is that the answer to my question?
M2: No, of course not. That is just illustrative. The answer to your question is FIVE TONS OF FLAX!

[DarklingAlice]

Actually, violent interpretations of the Tao are perfectly fine. The only problem with them is one that humans have; the universe has no problem with it. It is called 'violent', so humans view it as 'bad'. The Tao is not about 'good' and 'bad'. There is no 'pure' and 'impure'. There is no 'right' and 'wrong'. There is only 'is' and 'is not'.

How do you reconcile that with this:

Fine weapons are none the less ill-omened things. (people despise them, therefore, those in possession of the Tao do not depend on them.) That is why, among people of good birth, in peace the left-hand side is the place of honour, but in war this is reversed and the right-hand side is the place of honour. (Weapons are ill-omened things, which the superior man should not depend on. When he has no choice but to use them, the best attitude is to retain tranquil and peaceful.) The Quietist, even when he conquers, does not regard weapons as lovely things. For to think them lovely means to delight in them, and to delight in them means to delight in the slaughter of men. And he who delights in the slaughter of men will never get what he looks for out of those that dwell under heaven. (Thus in happy events, the left-hand side is the place of honour, in grief and mourning, the right-hand is the place of honour. The lieutenant general stands on the left, while the supreme general stands on the right, which is arranged on the rites of mourning.) A host that has slain men is received with grief and mourning; he that has conquered in battle is received with rites of mourning.

He who by Tao purposes to help a ruler of men
Will oppose all conquest by force of arms;
For such things are wont to rebound.
Where armies are, thorn and brambles grow.
The raising of a great host
Is followed by a year of dearth.
Therefore a good general effects his purpose and then stops; he does not take further advantage of his victory.
Fulfils his purpose and does not glory in what he has done;
Fulfils his purpose and does not boast of what he has done;
Fulfils his purpose, but takes no pride in what he has done;
Fulfils his purpose, but only as a step that could not be avoided.
Fulfils his purpose, but without violence;
For what has a time of vigour also has a time of decay.
This is against Tao,
And what is against Tao will soon perish.

The concept of individual truth plays heavily into many post-modern philosophies, and perhaps it plays into Zen as well (I know basically nothing about Zen). Tao is not Zen. Tao is not expressed in koans. Laozi wrote an excellent text in pursuit of a specific state he called Tao with specific guidelines. To say that a violent interpretation of Tao is acceptable is rubbish, it is an attempt that flies in the face of the Tao te Jing. Just as anyone who said that Tao was 'pulling back to fullness' would be at direct odds with Tao. There is clearly a correct and incorrect way in Taoism, to say otherwise is absurd.

[Starlequin]

<shrugs> OK.

[MasterMischief]

These ways are not the Way. But like a traveler lost in the forest, if he takes the wrong path often enough, eventually it will lead him to the right path.

So if I just ignore all this philosophizing and get back to doing what I was doing, I have found my Tao?  Or, at the very least, I will end up in the same spot anyway.

But if you must follow someone else's Path - strap on the hipwaders, because I can guarantee you, it's piled high and deep.

This strikes a cord with me.  As I have explored, I have begun to think I must find my own way.  That is not to say I can not find guidance from others, but when I meet the Buddha on the path, kill him.

MAL-2: Sometimes I take humor seriously. Sometimes I take seriousness humorously. Either way it is irrelevant.

I take humor seriously and seriousness humorously, however, I do not believe either to be irrelevant.  I find a great deal of truth in humor and that humor can be a great aid in dealing with truth.

Of course, do not ask me to define 'truth'.

To say that a violent interpretation of Tao is acceptable is rubbish, it is an attempt that flies in the face of the Tao te Jing.

I certainly do not consider myself pro-violence.  However, violence does exist.  Surely, if something exists, it has its place.  Many animals eat other animals.  This is violent.  Are these animals 'wrong'?

When I was younger, the world was black and white.  Now that I am older, the world is full of grey.  It seems to me that truth (remember, I asked you not to make me define it) is often a matter of perception.  Perhaps, like everything else, violence too has a yin and yang, a 'good' and 'bad'.

[DarklingAlice]

So if I just ignore all this philosophizing and get back to doing what I was doing, I have found my Tao?  Or, at the very least, I will end up in the same spot anyway.

Mmm...Tao is a state of 'effortless effort' as they like to say, but ironically it seems that it requires practice and discipline to get to that state. You can ask any Tai Chi master, and will be told that you do not achieve Wu Wei through laziness.

There is a parable: Once upon a time there was an artist who painted horses. However, try as he might he could never capture them fully. The foam around the mouth of a running horse had always eluded him. So he tried everything he knew. He went to every great artist and tried to learn their ways. He followed all the instructions, but again and again he failed. Only when he had exhausted all other options he despaired and gave up. He tossed his sponge at the painting...and lo the droplets that spattered against the mouth made the foam he had so long tried to produce through his effort.

Tao is like this. Tao cannot be taught. You cannot learn it as you learn academic philosophies. But if you do not strive to begin with, you will never reach it. If you do not paint at all, you can never make so much as a poor portrait, much less one that captures the real. If you do not pull back the bow, you will never learn the difference between pulling back to fullness and reaching the opportune balance. If you do nothing you will accomplish nothing, rather than accomplishing without effort.

I certainly do not consider myself pro-violence.  However, violence does exist.  Surely, if something exists, it has its place.  Many animals eat other animals.  This is violent.  Are these animals 'wrong'?

When I was younger, the world was black and white.  Now that I am older, the world is full of grey.  It seems to me that truth (remember, I asked you not to make me define it) is often a matter of perception.  Perhaps, like everything else, violence too has a yin and yang, a 'good' and 'bad'.

I think the confusion here is being caused by the word 'violence' which is here translated form the character 'qiáng'. In context however I do not believe that it is referring to killing or hunting. Rather to the attitude with which it is done. This is the character used to form the compounds that represent (in its most negative interpretations) things like robbery, rape, intimidation, etc. It implies and intensity, force, and anger to actions that are not in accordance with the Taoist concepts of imperturbability and respecting balance. The tiger that kills a deer to eat is not violent and is not acting in discord with Tao. The tiger that rampages through a village slaughtering needlessly and killing for its own sake? I believe that is the kind of violence Laozi refers to.

Therefore a good general effects his purpose and then stops; he does not take further advantage of his victory.
Fulfills his purpose and does not glory in what he has done;
Fulfills his purpose and does not boast of what he has done;
Fulfills his purpose, but takes no pride in what he has done;
Fulfills his purpose, but only as a step that could not be avoided.
Fulfills his purpose, but without violence;

It is also notable that putting the terms good and bad (or evil) into play re: Taoism is usually unproductive. Right and wrong are more productive. And neither Yin nor Yang corresponds to good nor bad. Things that are right and in accordance with the Tao are balanced in their yin and yang. Things that are wrong are unbalanced.

[MasterMischief]

Thank you very much, DarklingAlice.  This is something I have been struggling with.  Part of me understands wei wu wei.  I have seen it in my own life where things fall into place.  But taking to its extreme seems absurd.

[MasterMischief]

Somewhat related...I found the following quote which I put on my whiteboard at work.  Someone asked me about it and wanted some more context.  I could not find the source of the quote.  The best I found stated it was attributed to Chuang-tzu.  Does anyone know which writing I can find the full context in?

Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing. This is the ultimate.

[Oniya]

http://www.vl-site.org/taoism/cz-text2.html

I'm not sure if that precise quote is in here - I did a search on the quote, found a couple spellings of the author's name (damned inconsistent romanization!) and then looked through Wiki for sources and related works.

[MasterMischief]

Thank you.  I found that site as well, but a quick search through the text did not reveal the quote.

[Oniya]

There were a couple of dead-tree sources listed in the footnotes of the Wikipedia article.  Might be worth a peek, especially if your local library can order them for you.

[MasterMischief]

Getting back to my original post...

The explanation I like the best so far is, "The map is not the territory."  I do not remember where I saw it, but as an ex-soldier, it certainly rang true for me.

[MasterMischief]

Always without desire we must be found,
If its deep mystery we would sound;
But if desire always within us be,
Its outer fringe is all that we shall see.

Sounds rather Buddhist to me.  I do not mean that as a slight.  I am interested in Buddhism as well as some of it speaks to me.

Anyone else think of Tommy Boy where Tommy asks for the chicken nuggets and Richard is like, why don't you do that when you are trying to sell parts?

This is why Taoism interests me.  I have experienced when things just work out when I do not 'try too hard'.

But...surely, some desire is 'good' or, maybe a better term, useful?  I desire to be a good father.  Does that mean I can never be a good father?  Or is it more that, I should not 'try to hard' and learn to 'just be' a good father?

[Oniya]

I'm not entirely sure that 'without' is being used in the sense of 'lacking', and might instead be used as an opposite to 'within'.  If your desire to be a good father is always completely internalized, then all you're going to have is wishing.  If, instead, it extends outside of you, then you'll have the entirety of 'being a good father' to experience.

Of course, this could be linguistic gymnastics.

[MasterMischief]

That is a very interesting interpretation.  Desire without action will always merely remain desire.

I must think on this more.  Thank you.

[MasterMischief]

I am reading the Essential Chaung Tzu, and I am completely lost.

Pity the llama?

[LordGuan]

It is also notable that putting the terms good and bad (or evil) into play re: Taoism is usually unproductive. Right and wrong are more productive. And neither Yin nor Yang corresponds to good nor bad. Things that are right and in accordance with the Tao are balanced in their yin and yang. Things that are wrong are unbalanced.

I daresay the extent of this idea throughout chinese philosophy goes even further than this. Not only are wrong things unbalanced, but anything that is unbalanced is horribly wrong. The concept of balance was at the core of china's government for six thousand years, for the emperors held power based on the idea that only they were mandated by the gods to  hold the world in balance. As long as that balance was maintained, they were unchallenged, but when things started to get out of control it meant the end of a dynasty and a start of a new one.

[Mnemaxa]

I am about to stomp on a lot of toes here. 

Tao is. 

That is the problem you are trying to deal with.  The descriptions, the words, the comments, the explanations, they do not really solve or mean anything.  They're just descriptions and words and comments and explanations.  Questioning yourself is perfectly acceptable, as is questioning your methods.  What you feel and do is as much a part of tao as you are, regardless of how you feel about them or about yourself.  Meaning is for philosophers and teachers and students. 

Practicing what you believe is practice, it isn't actually achieving.  Achieving is also pointless.  What you need and want are not what you think they are, they're only symptoms of where you stand in the tao, not troubles or blocks placed in your path to be overcome.  They are a disease, a dis-ease.  And all dis-ease can be treated with the right application of the cures that they demand.  Once you have accepted the dis-ease and identified it, you can then deal with it properly, and move on to whatever else needs doing. 

Good and evil, right and wrong, balance, imbalance, all these are words used to define things.  Defining something is only a step, and it is a step in the direction of treating the symptom of dis-ease.  Meditating on these things does not solve the dis-ease, it serves only to help identify the cures and formulate a plan of action.  When you have progressed with the tao, you persist in a state of clear minded awareness without needing to resort to meditation and thought.  You feel the dis-ease, and then solve the dis-ease and then can move on to the next thing.

The idea that you are on a path leading to some form of enlightenment or success is ridiculous, because there is no path.  You are moving because you will always move, and how you move is what you are learning to do.  Movement and stillness are the same thing from differing perspectives.  You learn perspectives by meditating on things, and this leads to some measure of understanding.  Understanding only matters insofar as it does not lead you into the way of believing these are stumbling blocks, important, good things, lessons, traps, troubles, or other objects.  They are dis-ease,  and dis-ease is simply a way of saying 'I am uncomfortable and should do something about it'.  When you have done what you have decided to do, then you can move on. 

The simplest way to put it, is this:

Do what you feel and believe is proper, and take the responsibility for having done so without regret. 

There is the potential for greatness in all directions by such a philosophy, but the tao does not judge.  It is and nothing more.  You must understand the tao you are in because only through that understanding can you act or not act as appropriate to you.  The tao is not one thing, not many things.  It is, as you are, and you are in it as it is in you.  You cannot gain true understanding of the tao from others, because they are in the tao as you are, but they are not you.  Only you are you, and only you can understand your place in the tao, because your tao is where you are.

What was your question again?

>Edited for one minor grammatical, but fairly important little letter missing.

[Mnemaxa]

I am reading the Essential Chaung Tzu, and I am completely lost.

Pity the llama?

Avoid translations of Chinese text if you can, unless they are VERY basic.  You'll miss a lot of the symbolism and the references because the translations don't actually exist in English and unless you've taken a lot of courses in Chinese history and writing.

Simplify. 

Get Deng Meng Dao's  (not tao, but Dao) books, 365 Tao and Everyday Tao (the second is especially useful).  You don't need to delve into complexity for greater understanding.

[Oniya]

Hey Max - any opinions on 'The Tao of Pooh' and 'The De of Piglet'?  I remember seeing these on a friend's shelf, but didn't have the opportunity to page through them.

[Mnemaxa]

Hey Max - any opinions on 'The Tao of Pooh' and 'The De of Piglet'?  I remember seeing these on a friend's shelf, but didn't have the opportunity to page through them.

I heartily recommend both.  I like them because they are admitted by the author to be 'personal interpretations' right from the start, and thus YMMV.  But the basics are always the best place to start and end.

To expound on them, they're not your traditional sort of teaching tools.  they're a very basic breakdown of how these two lovable, sweet characters actually fit into the tao - or rather, how the tao fits into them?  In either case, the characters themselves have their say int he books, and it quickly becomes very easy to see why the author chose these two characters; there is no more simple, straightforward sort of fellow than Pooh Bear, while the character of Piglet is never in doubt or in disarray. 

[MasterMischief]

Hello, Mnemaxa.  Welcome to the fray.

The idea that you are on a path leading to some form of enlightenment or success is ridiculous, because there is no path.

You cannot gain true understanding of the tao from others, because they are in the tao as you are, but they are not you.

Get Deng Meng Dao's  (not tao, but Dao) books, 365 Tao and Everyday Tao (the second is especially useful).

Somewhat joking and somewhat serious.  Why?

If there is no path and I can not learn from others, what exactly with the books provide?

Do what you feel and believe is proper, and take the responsibility for having done so without regret.

I can do that most of the time.  Without regret tends to be the difficult part.  7 Habits of Highly Successful People helped me learn to not waste so much time and effort on things outside of my control.

Thanks for your replies.

[Mnemaxa]

Those particular books give you one word in a single page.  A common word, and often a useful word.  The word is then explained in terms that lead to a better understanding of what you are striving for. 

They are not manuals.  They are not instruction books.  They are not explanations.  They are simply statements of, "this is how this word can be applied in respect to tao or those who study tao in various manners". 

As an example:

Positioning

Heron stands in the blue estuary,
Solitary, white, unmoving for hours.
A fish! Quick avian darting;
The prey is captured.

People always ask how to follow Tao. It is as easy and natural as the heron standing in the water. The bird moves when it must; it does not move when stillness is appropriate.

The secret of its serenity is a type of vigilance, a contemplative state. The heron is not in mere dumbness or sleep. It knows a lucid stillness. It stands unmoving in the flow of the water. It gazes unperturbed and is aware. When Tao brings it something that it needs, it seizes the opportunity without hesitation or deliberation. Then it goes back to its quiescence without disturbing itself or its surroundings. Unless it found the right position in the water's flow and remained patient, it would not have succeeded.

Actions in life can be reduced to two factors; positioning and timing. If we are not in the right place at the right time, we cannot possibly take advantage of what life has to offer us.

Almost anything is appropriate if an action is in accord with the time and place. But we must be vigilant and prepared. Even if the time and the place are right, we can still miss our chance if we do not notice the moment, if we act inadequately, or if we hamper ourselves with doubts and second thoughts.

When life presents an opportunity, we must be ready to seize it without hesitation or inhibition. Position is useless without awareness. If we have both, we make no mistakes.

Deng Ming-Dao

Nothing particularly profound or unusual in this.  It is simple, even basic; this is really nothing you didn't already know.  But the perspective of the explanation is different.  And when you apply the fundamentals to your own life, when you learn these very basic things and become aware of them, you progress.  Not along a path, or in a direction, but in the tao.

[MasterMischief]

Position, timing and awareness.  I like that.  Thank you again, Mnemaxa.

[Mnemaxa]

You are very welcome.

[MasterMischief]

I am still going to keep reading the Tao Te Ching.  I may not understand it.  I may not come to the same conclusions that were originally meant.  But I am finding useful wisdom.

And I like to over-analyze things.

[Oniya]

Just leave your mind open to what the words can tell you - presuming that it's going to give you anything in particular will result in your mind trying to cram the words into that meaning.

[MasterMischief]

I am not sure I agree.  I believe I am usually a pretty fast learner.  I attribute that to not taking something just at face value.  Whenever I am presented with something new, I like to see how it can apply to other things in other contexts.

So as I read, something may give me a new perspective to apply to everything around me.  I guess that is trying to cram something into that meaning.  I just like new perspectives and a variety of ways to look at things.

[MasterMischief]

Under these two aspects, it is really the same; but as development
takes place, it receives the different names. Together we call them
the Mystery. Where the Mystery is the deepest is the gate of all that
is subtle and wonderful.

A few weeks back, I was thinking about something I had read.  I do not remember where now.  Anyway, it said that when athletes are 'in the zone', that is like Tao.  To get to that level, they have to practice...a lot.  That connected with someone else, here I believe, mentioning that you have to practice following the Tao.  That connected for me.  If that is it, it really is not action without action, it is efficient action.

But the key, at least for me, is that it does not just happen.  You have to put in the time and the effort to get there.  Of course, this presents me with a new problem.  How do I practice something I do not fully understand?

Does the development above mean practice or, the 'advancement' achieved through practice?  Further, as you 'develop', do you see things differently and thus give them different names?  'Action without action' becomes efficient action.

[Oniya]

Most things that we practice, we don't fully understand.  We try them, we fail at them, we try them again.  Just like the football player, it takes time for us to learn the ins and outs of the 'plays' until they are second nature - but when it 'clicks', there's no mistaking it.

[MasterMischief]

That is a good point.  However, the football player has better direction, even if he does not fully understand how his role integrates with the rest of the team.  There are clear, defined objectives.

[Mnemaxa]

That is a good point.  However, the football player has better direction, even if he does not fully understand how his role integrates with the rest of the team.  There are clear, defined objectives.

Again with words.

Seeking understanding IS the practice.  The practice ends when we understand.  The follower of tao understands that this is impossible to achieve in any lifetime, or any number of lifetimes.  What you CAN achieve is a current understanding of your current relation to tao and its current relation to you.  I am not being obtuse; it is simply that you try and grasp at meanings where there are none. 

A name is simply a description that we use to communicate with to others our conceptualized thoughts.  That is all a name is.  You notice, I am sure, that I do not capitalize the word 'tao'.  The reason is simple - all 'tao' means is 'the way'.  Saying 'Tao' is only putting emphasis on a name, which isn't actually tao.  Tao is tao.  When you stop worrying about what the tao is, what it means, and simply work at understanding where you are and what is going on around you, you stop considering the name, stop considering tao, and start practicing tao.  When you no longer need to practice being aware of yourself and what is happening around you and act in accordance to those happenings and your nature, you will have stepped into a larger world.

[MasterMischief]

Thank you again, Mnemaxa.  Once again, your post proves very insightful.

Stop focusing on 'tao'.  Stop focusing on some 'way'.  Start focusing on how I interact with the world around me.

[MasterMischief]

I found this taoist site.  I am skeptical about the I Ching mysticism, but found some good stuff in Tao Living.

[MasterMischief]

After reading The Tao of Competition I found the following quote from Rex Hudler.

Be a fountain, not a drain.

I thought it very concise and, in my case, very true.  I realize how much energy I spend finding fault with others (or the Wii and Netflix).  I am trying to recognize the negativity I put out and either stop it or replace it with positivity.

It ain't easy.

[Mnemaxa]

After reading The Tao of Competition I found the following quote from Rex Hudler.

Be a fountain, not a drain.

I thought it very concise and, in my case, very true.  I realize how much energy I spend finding fault with others (or the Wii and Netflix).  I am trying to recognize the negativity I put out and either stop it or replace it with positivity.

It ain't easy.

A fountain only gives.  It cannot accept.  Without emptiness, there is no place for knowledge or anythign else to go.  Emptiness is as ,much a virtue as fullness - it is emptiness that makes containers useful, and it is fullness that makes them complete. 

[MasterMischief]

Thank you for that perspective.

I did not take 'being a fountain' as never accepting.  I see your point, but I did not go quite so literal.

For me, it is more about recognizing what I am putting into the universe.  Do I want it to be positive or negative, because what I put out comes back to me eventually.  I realize labeling something as 'positive' or 'negative' is falling into a bit of a trap.  If I call something beautiful, then I create ugliness.  Maybe, I am just not at that level yet where I can avoid discriminating.  Maybe, I am not at that level where I can avoid using words as a crutch.

I do realize I put a lot of what I would classify as negativity into the universe and it uses up a lot of energy that could be better spent.  So I am just trying to get a handle on that.

[MasterMischief]

A quote I stumbled upon today.

"Daoist don't want cars and televisions, they want cookies."

So, apparently daoism is like the dark side.   ;D

[MasterMischief]

Friday, I discovered an error in the code used by another department.  The department I am in, I believe, is considered less tech savvy.  I did my best to point out the error as politely as possible.  I was told that no one had complained about the results, implying the code was fine and had been unchanged for years.  I was told to go back and run the code with my proposed change and see if there was a difference.  I did and there was.  I returned later to inform the individual that it made quite a bit of difference.  She said yes, she knows and I felt very brushed off at that point.

I have little doubt she will fix the code.  I did not tell anyone else about this.  I have very mixed feelings about this entire situation.  I did not tell anyone else because I did not want to be pointing out someone else's mistakes especially since I believe she is going to fix it and because I would like to eventually transfer into that department.

On the other hand, it could be something I could put on my review.  Would I be tearing someone down just to build myself up?  What if she does not fix it?  Should I tell my boss?  The only reason I even went poking around in the code to begin with is because we are in the middle of an internal audit and the auditors wanted a report that is somewhat similar to the report with the faulty code.

I think my biggest issue is that I felt 'blown off'.  And if that is really all this is about, then I simply need to move past that.  The problem is fixed and it is just my ego having a hissy fit.

I welcome others' thoughts on my situation.

[meikle]

"The highest good is like water
Water gives life to the ten thousand things and does not strive.
It flows in places men reject and so is like the Tao."

I felt like that line from the Tao Te Ching seemed appropriate for the situation you posted about here.

[MasterMischief]

Thank you for your input, meikle.

Maybe I am making progress because I already moved on from that situation.  Just to let those of you playing the home edition know, I did nothing further.  The more I thought about it, the more it seemed it was just my ego complaining.  So I told him to sit down and shut up.

[MasterMischief]

The Horse Lover really hit me.  I realize I spend a lot of time doing things that really are not important.  I should be spending more time with my daughter.  Just thought I would share.

[MasterMischief]

I finished the Tao of Pooh today.  Very interesting.  I am not sure I agree with all of it, but it is definitely food for thought.

Biggest take away: Busybacks.

[MasterMischief]

It occurred to me today that the tao may not be a path or way.  Instead, it may be something to strive for that can never be achieved.  In some ways, like perfection.  It is important to note I am not saying tao = perfection.  My point is more than no one can ever be perfect.  Maybe no one can every fully achieve the tao.

And like perfection, just because we can never achieve it does not mean we should not strive for it.  If everyone were perfect, it would be a very boring world.  Again, this may be a similarity to the tao.  If we ever did fully achieve it and/or if everyone fully achieved it, the world may be something we would not wish to live in.

[MasterMischief]

A couple of things occurred to me Friday.  Maybe Taoism is not linear and maybe Taoism shuns absolutes.

Linear thinking has its purpose when you need to lower your head and simply bull over whatever challenge you are facing.  However, it is not as useful if it is your singular method.  Not every challenge can be simply bulled over.  Sometimes you need to evaluate the situation and seek creative ways of over coming it.

This is what I am starting to see with Wei Wu Wei and the focus given to water.  Seek the path of least resistance, or cause the least disturbance, or to put it in yet another way, work harmoniously.

Absolutes are a mental block for me.  I always see things in extremes.  The fact that Taoism seems to avoid defining itself even in one of its most sacred text is very frustrating for me.  How can I possible know that I want to try something if no one can tell me what it is?

But the world is not black and white.  As soon as you define something, it looses some of its usefulness.  If you try to define a set of rules, then you remove the power to appropriately put things into context.  For instance, I am sure many people would agree that killing is bad.  But is it always bad?  In self defense?  Is it bad to kill an insect?  Is it bad to eat meat which indirectly causes the death of an animal.  We could all argue over these points until we are blue in the face which I think only emphasizes my point.  Absolutes are difficult to find in the universe.  You could argue math, but don't make me pull out imaginary numbers.

What I am getting from Taoism that it is up to the individual to decide what is right or wrong.  A dangerous proposition to say the least.  I mean what is to stop us from having a bunch of psychotic killers running around?  Could it be that anyone smart enough to grasp this concept would have to be smart enough to know just doing whatever you want to is far from harmonious?

Maybe by not defining the rules, it is forcing the individual to examine a situation far more deeply.  What are all of the implications of any given action.  And when you get to that level, you begin to see how interconnected everything is.

[Jude]

We could all argue over these points until we are blue in the face which I think only emphasizes my point.  Absolutes are difficult to find in the universe.  You could argue math, but don't make me pull out imaginary numbers.

e ^ (i*pi) = -1 according to math; y'know, where e and pi are transcendental numbers and i is imaginary, and -1 is... -1.  I just thought I'd add a little mathematical absurdity.

[MasterMischief]

-1 to you too, buddy.   ;D

[Serephino]

I thought I'd be helpful and post some stuff.  I think it's Buddhist principles, but you said you were interested in that too, and the stuff is just plain interesting and helpful. 

October 21, 2010 
  Tricycle Daily Dharma   
  Placing the Mind   
  Many ways of placing the mind have been taught by the great lamas. They have
  taught, for example, that we should not run after the past, not call the
  future to us, and not be moved by the thought present in our minds now. We
  should remain completely focused on our reference point, abiding within the
  essential nature. When we become accustomed to this through study and
  practice, various meditative experiences will arise. 

[MasterMischief]

I am finding the eastern philosophies/religions much more appealing than the western.  To me, I think the western ones somehow got hung up on the messenger and lost the message.

[Serephino]

I completely agree with you there.  The 'letter' I posted earlier sums it all up pretty well.  Even Pagans can fall prey to their egos.  I've seen it happen, and it's a very sad thing. 

[MasterMischief]

I do not think any religion or philosophy is immune to egotism.  I daresay it is a weakness of humans in general.  Most religions seem to encourage humility.

[MasterMischief]

I found 365 Tao online and I check it daily for the thought of the day.  Wednesday's bothered me a bit.  Below is the thought:

There are many people who endeavor to know Tao. In the greatest sincerity, they take music lessons, read scriptures, learn foreign languages, study nutrition, change their dress, and go to temples -- all in the hopes that they will reach Tao. Sadly, they miss it by a hair's breadth. For a person to awaken to Tao, someone must give them a spark. Perhaps this is what is called direct transmission. It is odd, but this is the only way that knowledge of Tao is passed on.
Book knowledge can help and give one a deep theoretical background, but the true understanding of Tao still comes person to person. There is no other way.

So if you have any true understanding of Tao, you got it from someone. If you meet someone else who needs that spark and you are in the position to give it, then do so. Don't be selfish. There are so many people out there who want guidance and who cannot get it. If you can make a difference for at least one person, then you have tremendous merit indeed.

Someone did give me a spark, but I am no longer in touch with him.  I found him incredibly intriguing, but he left my life just as suddenly as he entered it.  Don't worry, he is not dead.  He just quit the place where I work, so I do not see him as much anymore.  I did not know him long enough that I would say he was a close friend that we would stay in touch after he left.  It was just that I recognized something in him.

I am rambling here though.  I do not feel like there is anyone in my life right now to help me as I stumble around blindly.  If I can not find my path through reading and figuring it on my own, then I am screwed.  At least it would appear for now.  I guess that is o.k.  Do any of us really find what we spend our life looking for?  Life is short and I should enjoy the journey no matter where it may end.  Whether I figure out the Tao or not.  Whether I find my 'path' or not.  If it were really so attainable, would there not be more enlightened people in the world?  And what is so great about being enlightened anyway?

[MasterMischief]

I like to post a quote up on my whiteboard at work each day.  Just something for me to think about, really.  Although I have gotten a lot of compliments.  Anyway, today's quote was from Buddha, "To understand everything is to forgive everything."

One way I have learned to cope with life is to better understand how I arrived at a certain situation.  For a long time I was bitter and angry because I felt people were jerks.  When I realized it was not likely out of malice, that people simply did not know the little things they did that hurt my feelings, it was easier for me to let go of that anger.

[MasterMischief]

Worthwhile

I was just thinking there are so few positive threads in the Politics and Religion section.  This seemed fitting:

It seems that the more you want to love, the more hatred tempts you.

Last week, one of my quotes for the day was “To understand everything is to forgive everything.”  I believe it was from Buddha, but it seemed very Taoist to me.  For me, it does seem difficult to remain angry at someone when I understand where they are coming from.  But it is very difficult to set aside our ego.  We have this need to be right and insist those who disagree with us are wrong.  The more I dig, the more it seems we are all right and wrong at the same time.

Western society does not seem to revere humility.  In fact, it seems a curse.  Without humility, we can not set aside our ego.  We can not honestly seek understanding of a viewpoint strongly different from our own.  Satan succumbed to arrogance, and it seems we are all following his example.

[MasterMischief]

I wish there were more positivity in the Politics and Religion area.  In fact, I started this thread hoping to add something more than the usual polarization.  I am still thinking on how I might be able to bring that about.

[MasterMischief]

I was thinking today I see two premises:

Everyone has a different perspective
All perspectives are valid

Therefore, we should try to act with Compassion, Humility and Moderation.  This may not be the sum total of Taoism, but it seems like a good place to start.

Now, the second premise poses a problem with something like...say a serial killer where I think most people would agree that perspective may not be valid.  I do not have a 'fix' for this yet, but I think the premises still work for the most part.  I do think it is important to remember this failing though.

I am also considering that human perspectives are not the only valid ones.  Honestly, I do not think we are 'better' than animals.  In fact, I believe we are animals.  We just developed brains instead of claws.

This could be problematic, as I am not suggesting PETA level of reverence for animals.  I eat meat.  I think this may be one place where moderation comes in.  It is good to be compassionate for animals, but you do not have to take it to an extreme level where you will not tolerate the killing of an ant.  I am against unnecessary violence against animals.  I see no real purpose to dog or cock fights.  If people want to beat the sense out of one another for money, more power to them.  The animal does not have a choice and there are plenty of people willing to beat the sense out of one another for money, so I do not see the need.

It also occurs to me that the human race as a whole needs to demonstrate more compassion to the race as a whole before we can really attain a level of demonstrating a meaningful compassion to animals.  If we still treat our own species like crap, can we be expected to treat another species any better?

Oh...and I feel for the Libyan people.  I wish them well and hope they win their freedom.

[MasterMischief]

Entertainment

It seems people never tire of seeking new thrills. They crave entertainment, and they want newer, sharper experiences. Events do not even need to be actual -- people are more than content with recreations, displays, and stimulating machines. Music must be amplified. A historic location must have museums, shops, and festivals. Life must have elaborate ceremonies with images, music, speaking, dining, and drinking.

Followers of Tao regard all reality as being projections of our minds. All phenomena are subjective and relative. Therefore, it is folly to further entangle ourselves in confusion. True reality lies in withdrawal from the swirling variations of the outside world. It lies in looking within and then slowly peeling away the layers of subjectivity. What will remain is not a core of objectivity, but a kernel of truth that absorbs rather than reflects. If we enter into this kernel, our minds cease to continue their habits of creating stimulating realities, and we enter into a silence that feels perfect and whole.

I still like entertainment to distract my mind.  However, as of late, I have been able to see more of the beauty that surrounds me.  The feel of grass beneath my bare feet.  The moon.  The laughter of a child.  It can be nearly anywhere you look.  It is just not always easy to look for it.

[MasterMischief]

I pulled out the Tao Te Ching last night and my 7 year old daughter asked me what it was.  I tried to explain as best I could.  I do not think I full understand it myself.  She then asked me to read some to her.  I have a hard enough time understanding it myself, but I saw no reason not to read some for her.

I read the first part, which, of course made absolutely no sense to her.  I suggested that we try Ron Hogan's translation, since that one makes more sense to me.  I read the part about stop wanting things and she asked me to explain.  I said that I thought it was telling us not to want silly things.  And I asked her what she thought was important.  I was expecting something like love or family.

Food, she says.  Water.  I was stunned.  My daughter is a genius.  Love and family is important.  But so is food and water.  The truth and simplicity of her response, I think, is exactly what the masters would have said.  We must not loose sight of what is important even when we take it for granted.

[Heidili]

*smiles*
That IS something we so easily forget. Through the day there are so many things we "need". We forget there are such clear differences between "need" and "want".

Even a need like "food" can be broken down further, can't it? Do we NEED that super delicious mouth watering chipotle chick burger with sweet potato fries and a vanilla milkshake? Or do we want it?

God I'm hungry now....

[MasterMischief]

Agreed.

I also think it hints that while the Tao is often exceedingly complicated, it is also very simple sometimes.

[Oniya]

It helps that children have an easier time bringing the 'Beginner's Mind'.  After all, at seven, most people have no preconceptions about these things.

[MasterMischief]

Delving into Toaism, I have a new respect for Uncle Iro from Avatar: the Last Airbender.

[Oniya]

Uncle is awesome anyways.  Exposure to Taoism just makes him more so.  ;)

[MasterMischief]

He was an amuzing character on his own and at a superficial level.

What I appreciate is I find him an excellent example since I can not seem to find Taoists in my area that I can pester with all my questions.  And by example, I do not mean someone to follow, just and example of one possible path.

[MasterMischief]

There is dark and light in all of us.  Should we embrace the dark just as we would the light?  How much do we embrace it?  Do we try to deny it?  Push it into the recesses of our mind?  Deny what we are?

I am suddenly reminded of weeds.  Maybe we should not embrace or try to hide the darkness, but plant over it.

[Oniya]

The herbalist in me would have pointed out that many herbs are 'plants of opportunity' - also known as weeds.  Mint, if left untended, can take over any space it has access to.  Bamboo, so useful in so many ways, will as well.  I've seen bushes choked out by grapevine, which could have produced fruit if properly managed.  I wonder if perhaps our negative thoughts can also have 'good uses', as long as we don't let them over-grow their usefulness.

[MasterMischief]

I can see that.

However, to play with that idea, let us take it to an extreme.  How can wanting to inflict harm upon another have a 'good' use?

[Oniya]

In that case, I would say that the 'weed' has overgrown its use.  With a few exceptions, thoughts of wanting to harm someone don't come out of nowhere - there's a (pardon the pun) root cause for reaching that extreme.  That is where one decides to properly tend the weed or to let it run rampant. 

Let's take a random example:  A man sees a co-worker get a promotion.  He can let the weed take over and stew in thoughts of wanting to do away with his rival and get the job that way, or he can tend it properly, and use those thoughts as incentive to improve his own performance on the job, thereby earning a similar promotion on his own merits.

[MasterMischief]

Well played, m'lady.  I believe you are on to something there.

[Oniya]

It made me think in order to see if my initial reaction could still fit, I'll admit. 

[Pointless Digression]

I was thinking today I see two premises:

Everyone has a different perspective
All perspectives are valid

Your choice of the word, "valid" is an interesting one. Valid does tend to be used interchangeably with "true," but in formal logic and argument, they are not the same thing. Validity is a necessary condition for a true argument, but not a sufficient condition. A person can have a perfectly valid argument where the conclusion(s) follow(s) from the premise(s), but still be wrong.

In addition, you used the word perspective, which is another term loaded with multiple meanings. I'm assuming that you mean it in the sense of a point of view, a context for evaluating and synthesizing beliefs, opinion and experiences.

I'm not sure I agree with a statement that I understand to mean, "All points of view are equally reliable measures by which to assess reality." Because validity, as I said, is not a sufficient indicator of truth.

[MasterMischief]

We would have to agree on what 'reality' means.  I used 'perspective' because, from an individual stand point, how else can one define 'reality'?

Are you familiar with the story of The Blind Men and an Elephant?  Which blind man's reality is more real?  We know that our senses can deceive us.  We know that we do not know everything.  So how can we be sure we are more than a blind man feeling only a part of the elephant?

[Pointless Digression]

The biggest flaw with the story you mention is that when the three men get together to compare notes, the story ends with its little Aesop. Why didn't they return to the elephant to explain how they had come to their impression and try to demonstrate the nature of the elephant to each other, and come to a consensus?

As an empiricist, that's what I would do if I came to a different interpretation of the same data reviewed by my colleagues.

[MasterMischief]

I'm afraid I can not help you then and my premise, from your perspective, is false.

[MasterMischief]

The Universal Unitarian church that I found offers Tai Chi during the week.  I am very interested in taking it.

[MasterMischief]

I am finding it easier and easier to just let go.  Granted, this may be the 'wisdom' of age, but I find difficult times easier to ride through and I find much peace in my life.

[MasterMischief]

I have been neglecting my Taoism studies.  At least I do not have to enter a confessional and admit my lapses to some strangers.

Wait.  I think I just did.

Anyway, despite neglecting my studies, Taoism has given me a useful perspective to apply to my everyday life.  It has not helped with the recent passing of one of my feline family members.  I realize that death is merely part of life but I still miss her.

It has helped me see that extremes are not a good path for me.  That is something that I am beginning to really appreciate about Taoism, its apparent lack of absolutes.

[Oniya]

I have been neglecting my Taoism studies.  At least I do not have to enter a confessional and admit my lapses to some strangers.

Wait.  I think I just did.

Yeah, it doesn't get much stranger than us.

[MasterMischief]

I think it is easier to bare one's soul to 'strangers' online.  If they reject you, you can just write them off as jerks and move on.  And E is a very friendly and accepting community.

[Aemirys]

*quietly enters the room so as to not disturb anyone and takes up a place in a quiet corner to listen and arranges herself in the Bound Angle Pose (Baddha Konasana)*

[MasterMischief]

*quietly enters the room so as to not disturb anyone and takes up a place in a quiet corner to listen and arranges herself in the Bound Angle Pose (Baddha Konasana)*

See, my experience with Taoism has been that it is far less concerned with reverence.  Which suits me.  I do not think life should be taken seriously.  Laughter heals.  Humor makes us think.

I love at the end of Kung Fu Panda when Sifu is trying to mediate and all Po can think about is eating.  Eating is natural.  It sustains life.  What is meditation compared to nourishment?  Not that meditation does not have its place.  I just think we need to not forget about actually living while we contemplate our purpose for living.

You are most welcome and please feel free to join in, Aemirys.

[Oniya]

Well, there are some of us who sit in the back of class until we figure out what we can contribute.  Once we get to that point, though, it can be hard to shut us up.  ;)

[Aemirys]

See, my experience with Taoism has been that it is far less concerned with reverence.  Which suits me.  I do not think life should be taken seriously.  Laughter heals.  Humor makes us think.

I love at the end of Kung Fu Panda when Sifu is trying to mediate and all Po can think about is eating.  Eating is natural.  It sustains life.  What is meditation compared to nourishment?  Not that meditation does not have its place.  I just think we need to not forget about actually living while we contemplate our purpose for living.

You are most welcome and please feel free to join in, Aemirys.

I just thought I would sit back and listen for a bit and while I'm doing that I thought that incorporating some of my yoga poses seemed both appropriate and complementary.

[MasterMischief]

Well, there are some of us who sit in the back of class until we figure out what we can contribute.  Once we get to that point, though, it can be hard to shut us up.  ;)

That is my usual approach, except I can not seem to find a 'classroom' in my area.  I found something online, but the leader seems more interested in pushing his vegitarian agenda than teaching Taoism.  I had hoped to find others who could help me in my exploration with this thread, which I have.

I just thought I would sit back and listen for a bit and while I'm doing that I thought that incorporating some of my yoga poses seemed both appropriate and complementary.

Certainly.  As I said, this thread was kind of my own exploration.  I also wanted to create a more positive thread in the Politics and Religion area.  There were too many Christian vs. Non-Christian threads and too much hostility.

[MasterMischief]

While I can understand and appreciate the utility of Wu Wei, I still struggle with confronting certain issues I see in my life, particularly gay rights.  I admit this may have more to do with my understanding of Wu Wei.  I believe that people should be treated the same and should be afforded the same rights as everyone else regardless of their gender attraction.

What would be the taoist response?  Is there one?  Taoism seems to suggest (to me) that any change I seek should come from within.  I accept gay/queer/transgender.  So what change should I seek from myself?  Is it that I should seek to understand those who do not accept?  Seek first to understand, then be understood?  I admit that is difficult to do without becoming angry.  Then again, nothing worth doing is easy.  If it were easy, everyone would do it already.

[DarklingAlice]

Can you elaborate on your understanding of Wu Wei and the conflict you see?

As I understand it, the principle of acting without acting doesn't prevent you from effecting change (in some cases it may even require it) nor does it require that change come from within. The principle is that action should be taken that is harmonious with nature and thereby without effort. To use the classic example: think of water. Water is capable of effecting vast change in the world with great destructive potential, but without doing anything but reacting in accord with the natural world surrounding it. It's the classic paradox confronting most people first encountering tai chi chuan, how can strength, force, and intention come with such relaxed motion? We tend to associate strength and effort with change, but it doesn't have to be. The challenge is pulling it off.

Y'know, Kung Fu Panda isn't a terrible example of a Daoist parable. Especially the second one (although it wasn't as good of a movie).

[MasterMischief]

Honestly, I am not sure I understand Wu Wei.  Just when I think I have it, it slips away.  Chuang Tzu's waterfall speaks to me.  It seems to suggest that instead of trying to change my circumstances, I should find the benefit of them.  That it is mostly a matter of perspective.

But I have also understood Wu Wei to mean to act with the utmost subtlety and efficiency.  That it is not no action, but easy action.

I happened to enjoy the second Kung Fu Panda just as much as the first.  And Po's insight against the canon balls seems appropriate.  So how do I redirect hatred?

[Oniya]

Direct your hatred^* towards the actions, rather than the person/people committing the action.  When my sister and her wife came to my parents' house the Christmas after their commitment ceremony, I had used a wedding sampler pattern to make them a commemorative piece.  That was my way of showing support in a way that 'spoke' to anyone who saw it.

In another instance, (my parents are quite conservative and stuck in the '50s sometimes), I didn't restrict the invites to my wedding to 'please' anyone - my parents and other straight-laced relatives got to spend the day with my very civil, but very 'unique' gaming buddies.  As a still-unknown member of my family said: 'We've spent the whole day with these people, and they're intelligent, articulate, and well - um - fun!'  Text does not convey the utter surprise of the anonymous speaker, unfortunately.

^*Personally, if I know the person, it's more disappointment than hatred, because most of the people I surround myself with aren't intentionally hateful.

[MasterMischief]

I do not hate the haters.  It is their hate I want to try and redirect.

I do not know of anyone in my circle of friends that is gay.  I do have a couple of aunts that are in a same sex relationship.  But then, I am pretty sure all of my friends are already gay-positive.  I do not think it would be very Wu Wei to start dragging people off the street to meet my gay aunts.   ;D

[MasterMischief]

 
I just happened upon a new meaning for Wu Wei here.

Wu wei is an important tenet of Taoism that involves knowing when to act and when not to act.

It occurred to me with this definition, could you say that wu wei is wisdom?

Going back to my previous difficulties, this certainly makes sense for me. Unfortunately, it does not, of itself, offer any answer for me. It is still up to me to recognize when I should do something and when not to do something.

Maybe what I need is patience. Maybe I should watch for an opportunity to present itself and be prepared to make the most of that opportunity. I do not like it when other people try to cram their beliefs down my throat. I am sure I would encounter more resistance and possibly do harm should I attempt to strong arm my beliefs on others. No one said doing the right thing would be easy. Patience is never easy.

When I was younger, I took on these 'crusades'. Back then, it was drugs and alcohol. I have mellowed on those topics. I do not think my efforts yielded much except perhaps convincing my class mates I was some kind of narc.

Maybe I should focus more on love instead of the anger of the injustice I perceive. I should be a fountain and not a drain.

I am not expecting to find the answer here and now. This is really mostly an internal dialogue for me. Not that I do not appreciate other's input. I just do not want people to feel they need to 'help' me. I am not even sure where I am going. How can anyone know how to help me get there? :)

[DarklingAlice]

I am not expecting to find the answer here and now. This is really mostly an internal dialogue for me. Not that I do not appreciate other's input. I just do not want people to feel they need to 'help' me. I am not even sure where I am going. How can anyone know how to help me get there? :)

I know it is trite by now but: Dao ke dao, fei chang dao. Ming ke ming, fei chang ming?

Since you like Kung Fu Panda 2 (and I should clarify I do like it, just think that it is less of a good movie than one), think of Ox and Croc. I know that in the context of the film their refusal to fight is not necessarily admirable...but it proved to be the right decision. When Po and the furious five used force at the inopportune moment they brought nothing bur destruction and pain to themselves and others. It was only later, and only by finding an imperturbability of mind in the opportune moment that Shen was overcome.

[MasterMischief]

Am I understanding you to mean, right action wrong time?  Timing and execution are just as important as intention?

[DarklingAlice]

Laozi certainly had a thing for timing. There are entire passages of the Daodejing that can be summed up as: 'wait for the opportune moment, do something awesome, profit (secretly)' although...that would probably do them disrespect to phrase it that way.

As an example let us say that you find the seeds of the rare flower that grows, blooms, and dies in one day. Further it can only grow at all on a single specific day of the year. The fool plants the seed before its time and toils day by day to make it grow. He pours his labor into the ground, futilely performing all the right actions but with no result. The wise man waits until the opportune time, plants the seed, nurtures it, and watches it grow without wasted effort. The wise man will also accept its passing at the end of the day.

Or, if we must keep using the Panda...a wise man accepts that his peach tree will bloom in its own time and always produces peaches.

Another example that Laozi uses is that of a sword and a bow. If you draw a bow back beyond the point of balance it can break. If you sharpen your sword every day in anticipation of the moment to use it, you will only weaken it and it will fail you when the moment to use it actually comes.

[MasterMischief]

You have given me much to think about, DarklingAlice.  Thank you.

[MasterMischief]

When people see things as beautiful,
ugliness is created.
When people see things as good,
evil is created.

Being and non-being produce each other.
Difficult and easy complement each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low oppose each other.
Fore and aft follow each other.

Therefore the Master
can act without doing anything
and teach without saying a word.
Things come her way and she does not stop them;
things leave and she lets them go.
She has without possessing,
and acts without any expectations.
When her work is done, she take no credit.
That is why it will last forever.

Is the ultimate objective to be completely impartial to everything?  That seems impractical.  Not to mention, Taoism seems to dislike absolutes.

Is it that we should simply be mindful of the duality of the universe?  I certainly see plenty of examples of that in my life.  For everything I find beautiful, someone else will find it ugly.  You can not have light without darkness.  Does it follow that we must have evil then?  Must we accept it?

[MasterMischief]

 
According to Wikipedia on Hermeticism:

As stated above In Hermetic religion the supreme Deity, or Principle, is referred to variously as 'God', 'The All', or 'The One'. The absolute is the central focus of Hermeticism and therefore it is difficult to assign it a position among the traditional Theistic religions, or along the monotheistic and polytheistic spectrum.

Hermeticism transcends both Monotheism and Polytheism as well as Deism and Pantheism within its belief system, which teaches that there is a transcendent God, The All, or The One, of which we, and the entire universe, participate.

In addition:

"That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above, corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracles of the One Thing".

I see a lot of similarity with Taoism. Is there similarity between religions because the Truth reveals a little of itself to everyone or because humanity is bound by similarities?

[Oniya]

The 'as above, so below' tenet is seen in various Pagan faiths as well. 

[MasterMischief]

More similarities.

[MasterMischief]

I caught myself talking in riddles and imagery today which gave me a new perspective on taoist writings.  I hated Shakespere in highschool because it was not vernacular.  I like (or at least I used to) crisp, consise writing.  I still can not bring myself to read Tolkien.

But today, I think I had an insight in why imagery can be preferred.

[MasterMischief]

 
My random thought for the day.

There is the possibility for success in everything. You need the tools, the time and the capacity. Have these things at your disposal. Then find the opportunity to execute.

[MasterMischief]

I was doing some light reading today when something occurred to me.  It is very much, I think, how the Tao Te Ching opens...but in my own words.

Can anyone ever truly know what is meant by a text without actually being the author?  Can you ever know exactly why they chose certain words?  Can you ever understand their unique life perspective?

[MasterMischief]

I found a local Taoism discussion group.  "Those who know, don't talk" aside...it was very insightful.  I am looking forward to the next session.

I have decided I need to talk less next time.  I was like an over excited puppy.  >.>

[MasterMischief]

When you step but lightly through the world,
You are but lightly affected by it;
But when you pass through events with a deeper tread,
Their tricks and schemes are profound.
Thus the gentleman knows
Simplicity is better than a show of dexterity.
Thus he knows
A rude single-mindedness is better than a distorted
show of manners.
--Hung Ying-ming

[MasterMischief]

My thought for the day: Life is a circle.

[MasterMischief]

Those who stand on tiptoes
do not stand firmly.
Those who rush ahead
don't get very far.
Those who try to outshine others
dim their own light.
Those who call themselves righteous
can't know how wrong they are.
Those who boast of their accomplishments
diminish the things they have done.

Compared to the Tao, these actions are unworthy.
If we are to follow the Tao, we must not do these things.

What?!  You mean I can not tell everyone what a totally awesome llama I am!  Screw you, Tao!

I had read somewhere that people like us not for how we make them feel about us, but how we make them feel about themselves.  I started to pay closer attention to my friendships and acquaintances as well as observing other's relationships and I realized there seemed to be a great deal of truth in this.

I have tried to apply it to my own life.  I find it is much easier when you do not feel the need to be the smartest or coolest or the anything-est.  Just listen to people and they will love you.

I'm still totally awesome though.   ;D

[rick957]

That's really insightful, MM.  Thank you for sharing that.

Side question, is that also the McDonald translation (which you also quoted in that other thread)?  Do you find that translation superior, or is it just the one you happen to have?  I'm reasonably sure that the copy of the Tao Te Ching that I used to own (and might still, I'd have to check) was translated by Stephen Somethingorother, who also translated a wide variety of poetry and other religious texts that I found interesting.  (Rainer Maria Rilke's poetry, for example.) 

[MasterMischief]

It was just the one I had handy.  When I want to look over different translations, I go here.  I found Ron Hogan's to be the most accessible.

Tao's neutral:
it doesn't worry about good or evil.
The Masters are neutral:
they treat everyone the same.
Lao Tzu said Tao is like a bellows:
It's empty,
but it could help set the world on fire.
If you keep using Tao, it works better.
If you keep talking about it,
it won't make any sense.

Be cool.

See anything in there that sounds familiar?   >:)

[rick957]

:P

;)

...
Is "Be cool" really contained in the translation of the text itself?  Hehe, I love that.

[MasterMischief]

That is Ron's translation. But is he so far off? How many times have you heard someone say, 'They are trying too hard.'? I think our lives could use a little more calm, a little less worry about things we can not control.

[rick957]

*nods slowly and sagely in agreement*

It just struck me as playfully anachronistic, being such a modern-sounding expression.  :)

"Be cool, home slice!"

[MasterMischief]

Ron's translation is playfully anachronistic. I highly recomend it. It is like reading The Big Lebowski's philosophy.

[MasterMischief]

Incidentally.

[MasterMischief]

Thought for today: Laughter is the shortest distance between two people.

[MasterMischief]

Your attitude while still in the world
Should be open and free,
saving others from the grief of discontent.

The benefits you leave after you are gone
Should flow the length of time,
steeping others in feelings of ease.
--Hung Ying-ming The Unencumbered Spirit

Leave the world a little better than you found it.  What energy do you put into your relationships?  Is it positive?  If you died tomorrow, what would you want your legacy to be?  Would it be your job?  Do you put as much energy into what you want to be your legacy as you do your job?

[MasterMischief]

I was reading Tao: The Watercourse Way.  One of the quotes kind of stuck me.  It was something attributed to Lao Tzu and it was in the line of "Without laughter, the Tao would not be what it is."

Immediately, my mind fired back, "Without sorrow, the Tao would not be what it is."  The Buddhists say that life is suffering and then try to avoid suffering.  But isn't that trying to avoid life?  Doesn't suffering simply hollow out a space for joy to refill?

[Oniya]

Without light, what is darkness?  Without darkness, what is light?

[MasterMischief]

And we are right back to the symbol of Taoism, yin/yang.

[Oniya]

*bows*  ;)

[MasterMischief]

I always appreciate your input Oniya.

Off topic, I would be very interested in discussing your own beliefs if you would be willing.  If I remember correctly, you classify yourself as a branch of Paganism, correct?

[AndyZ]

When people see things as beautiful,
ugliness is created.
When people see things as good,
evil is created.

Being and non-being produce each other.
Difficult and easy complement each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low oppose each other.
Fore and aft follow each other.

Therefore the Master
can act without doing anything
and teach without saying a word.
Things come her way and she does not stop them;
things leave and she lets them go.
She has without possessing,
and acts without any expectations.
When her work is done, she take no credit.
That is why it will last forever.

Is the ultimate objective to be completely impartial to everything?  That seems impractical.  Not to mention, Taoism seems to dislike absolutes.

Is it that we should simply be mindful of the duality of the universe?  I certainly see plenty of examples of that in my life.  For everything I find beautiful, someone else will find it ugly.  You can not have light without darkness.  Does it follow that we must have evil then?  Must we accept it?

I'm not Taoist, but I would consider myself a philosopher.  I haven't read through everything in this thread, but if my random thoughts and input would be welcome, I'll try.  If it's undesired, you have but to let me know and I'll quit.

First, I would say that with many things involving a master or an end goal, anything which involves a path is simply planting down a north star.  Similar in some ways to a WWJD bracelet, it provides an end path that someone faced with indecision might look towards this guidance in a moment of trouble.

What this [poem?  stanza?  tenet?  not sure the word] reminds me of is a dictator attempting to control everything, and efforts to counteract that.  One of the chapters in my novel is named "A closed fist is smaller than spread fingers" in a similar attempt to explain how when you attempt to control everything, you can't accomplish nearly as much as when you work alongside the natural order of things.

Now, that doesn't mean that you don't do anything, but it seems to me more of a spiritual Judo.  In Judo, you use the assailant's force rather than trying to counter with your own, if I remember it correctly.  It seems like a guiding hand would work best as a light touch instead of an irresistable force.

I don't know if that explanation makes any sense or not.  If it does and you want me to try to look at some of the others, please repost them since I'm iffy on which have and haven't been discussed already.

[DarklingAlice]

I was reading Tao: The Watercourse Way.  One of the quotes kind of stuck me.  It was something attributed to Lao Tzu and it was in the line of "Without laughter, the Tao would not be what it is."

Immediately, my mind fired back, "Without sorrow, the Tao would not be what it is."  The Buddhists say that life is suffering and then try to avoid suffering.  But isn't that trying to avoid life?  Doesn't suffering simply hollow out a space for joy to refill?

Interesting, and I do like the dualism inherent in that interpretation; though I would propose a different take. Laughter and sorrow aren't really opposites. Joy, happiness, etc. and sorrow are opposites. However, laughter is something else; and, importantly, it's not just happiness that invokes laughter (e.g. the absurd or even anxiety). Laughter is a physical reaction that lies beyond our control. It's something that happens to us. And you can't really fake it. In that way it is like the Tao, it's something ineffable and in some ways unavoidable. You can laugh when you least expect it and sometimes when you yearn and strive for it, it escapes you.

[Oniya]

I always appreciate your input Oniya.

Off topic, I would be very interested in discussing your own beliefs if you would be willing.  If I remember correctly, you classify yourself as a branch of Paganism, correct?

It's an - unusual branch of Paganism.  I'm not sure it's the best thing to put it out in public, but I'd be willing to discuss it in private.

[Kirce]

Books that I really recommend about Taoism or related to it:

Tao Te King (John C. H. Wu version)

I Ching (Thomas Cleary)

Analects (Simon Leys)

Art of War I & II (Thomas Cleary)

Lie Tse (Eva Wong)

Chuang Tse (Martin Palmer and Elizabeth Breuilly)

Wen-Tzu (Thomas Cleary)

[MasterMischief]

I'm not Taoist, but I would consider myself a philosopher.  I haven't read through everything in this thread, but if my random thoughts and input would be welcome, I'll try.

Your random thoughts are most welcome.

Now, that doesn't mean that you don't do anything, but it seems to me more of a spiritual Judo.  In Judo, you use the assailant's force rather than trying to counter with your own, if I remember it correctly.  It seems like a guiding hand would work best as a light touch instead of an irresistable force.

I don't know if that explanation makes any sense or not.  If it does and you want me to try to look at some of the others, please repost them since I'm iffy on which have and haven't been discussed already.

It makes sense, but let's take an extreme example.  Unprovoked murder.  Do we just say, "Stop or I'll say stop again"?

Well maybe.

Interesting, and I do like the dualism inherent in that interpretation; though I would propose a different take. Laughter and sorrow aren't really opposites. Joy, happiness, etc. and sorrow are opposites. However, laughter is something else; and, importantly, it's not just happiness that invokes laughter (e.g. the absurd or even anxiety). Laughter is a physical reaction that lies beyond our control. It's something that happens to us. And you can't really fake it. In that way it is like the Tao, it's something ineffable and in some ways unavoidable. You can laugh when you least expect it and sometimes when you yearn and strive for it, it escapes you.

Point.  I think what my mind was trying to tell me is that this is a non-starter.  And maybe it is something that needs to be pointed out to others who have not caught on to this yet.  If the Tao is everything, then removing any one part makes the Tao not be the same as it is.  Does everything have a purpose even if we do not see it yet?

It's an - unusual branch of Paganism.  I'm not sure it's the best thing to put it out in public, but I'd be willing to discuss it in private.

Fair enough.  I will send you a PM.  I always enjoy your insight.

Books that I really recommend about Taoism or related to it:

Thanks for the recommendations.

[Kirce]

You're welcome!

[Sure]

Out of a sense of curiosity, do you ascribe to a particularly branch of Daoism? If not, what rituals, beliefs, and rites do you ascribe to, and would you mind telling me how you chose these specifically? If you perform no rites/rituals/pick a word, how do you justify this? Also, I believe I saw you in another thread saying something to the effect that you mix in Buddhism (if you never said this, my apologies and ignore this question). How do you reconcile the differing beliefs of these two systems, particularly with regards to death?

PS: I say 'Daosim' not to be contrary, but because I'm used to writing Daoism, and if I write Taoism I'm going to end up writing Daoism by accident instead sometimes and it's better to just be consistent.

Edit: Missed a space, decided to edit.

[AndyZ]

Your random thoughts are most welcome.

Glad to hear.  I'll set this to Notify then and watch for your thoughts on specific points.  Nudge me if I ever get too far from the Tao, as I admit my inexperience with it, but I have enough understanding of philosophy that I can probably hold my own.

It makes sense, but let's take an extreme example.  Unprovoked murder.  Do we just say, "Stop or I'll say stop again"?

Well maybe.

Let's consider that everything has a reason, that people act a certain way as a result of their lives, and that human beings are capable of listening to reason and changing their ways.

Unprovoked murder, therefore, is an effect, not a cause.  To get to the heart of the matter, we must examine the reason that an unprovoked murder would take place.  Of course, unprovoked would suggest that there was no cause, but every effect requires a cause, if only that the murderer was completely psychotic.

I'm getting far too esoteric for my liking, so I'm going to drop down to another example.

Although I would expect that anyone who witnesses an attempted murdering would be compelled to immediate action, such instances within our lives are rare and extreme, and such actions would likewise be rare and extreme.  It is difficult for one to engage in a heated problem without oneself becoming heated as well, and it seems like passions and extremes would run contrary to these teachings.

Now, there will always be those who engage in heated matters, who handle violence in defense of the common person.  I would say that many policemen (and arguably military members, but this gets grayer) put their lives on the line so that the ordinary person does not have to fear a life of perpetual violence.  It seems as though a Master would seek to avoid becoming a law officer in order to avoid that aspect of life.

I could see an argument that a true Master would see the murder before it came to pass.  Being aware and accepting of the world, perhaps a Master observed Mr. A get cut off by Mr. B while driving, and Mr. A pulls over to suddenly go to a gun store.  (An unlikely example, but it's spur of the moment and I'm tired.)  There are many actions which the Master might take, from begging Mr. A for money, to chatting him up in conversation, and if those fail, perhaps more extreme methods might be necessary such as calling a tow truck on Mr. A's car.  If the Master must resort to such drastic methods, however, perhaps he is not a Master at all.

I feel as though a true Master would be able to set up a situation such that the Master seems completely uninvolved, making it seem as though life itself wanted Mr. A to learn a lesson.  In a movie, Mr. A might be driving erratically, trying to catch up with Mr. B in order to ram his car.  I could see a Master doing any number of things such as calling the cops that someone is speeding, to a movie example of splashing a bucket of water upon the street in order to force Mr. A to retake control of his vehicle.  Mr. A may even learn a lesson that his haste and anger nearly led to the destruction of his vehicle and perhaps even a life.  Then again, maybe not, but it's not in the nature of the Master to rub it in.

I've seen a number of movies and anime where a travelling martial artist will witness a crime either about to take place or soon after, and will make events occur in similar matters to this.  An assailant's gun might mysteriously be out of bullets (because the martial artist "borrowed" them) or a barrel might accidentally fall onto the assailant, not injuring him but pinning down his arms so that he can't fire.  Even though the martial artist is more than capable of turning an inexperienced gunman into hamburger, he chooses a path with less resistance.

Although this method would work for short-term solutions, it does nothing to get to the root of the problem.  The gunman had some cause, some reason for attempting to shoot the man, and there is little reason to expect that he won't try again next time.

Locking the gunman up does nothing to actually address this problem, but simply ensures that the gunman is physically incapable of shooting his intended victim.  This requires a degree of force equal to the amount that the gunman is willing to exert in order to free himself, which means that prison guards must keep him confined.

It seems like a true Master would look for another way, perhaps speaking with the man and learning what reason he might have for attempting murder.  If the problem can be resolved peacefully, no force need be indefinitely maintained in keeping the two separated.

[MasterMischief]

Out of a sense of curiosity, do you ascribe to a particularly branch of Daoism?

Possibly, but I would not know what name to put to that branch.  I think it is important to point out I do not classify myself as a Taoist.  As the title of this thread should suggest, I am exploring Taoism.  Trying to see if it makes sense for me.  Some of it does, but then there are parts of Christianity that make sense for me as well.  I certainly do not classify myself a Christian.  Nor does that stop me from reading the Bible or other Christian writings when something strikes my fancy.

If not, what rituals, beliefs, and rites do you ascribe to, and would you mind telling me how you chose these specifically? If you perform no rites/rituals/pick a word, how do you justify this?

I have absolutely no room for mysticism, so I do not currently practice any rituals or rites.  I am curious about meditation because I keep hearing such positive things about it.  However, I doubt I would ever see it as a spiritual ritual.  It would be something I would do for its own benefits: relaxation, focus, what have you.

My own beliefs?  That is a lengthy subject.  I do not believe in a god or even some kind of supreme intelligence.  However, I acknowledge that our knowledge is limited and that there could be something out there we have yet to observe.  Considering man's long history of creating things that do not exists, I simply find it unlikely.

The universe does seem to have its own way about itself.  Not in an intelligence like way, it simply is the way it is.  Taoism seems to hint at this, but to also give some kind of purpose behind it.  I do not really believe there is a purpose behind it, but I do see utility in trying to to go against the way things are.  Of course, there are areas where I break that belief as well .  I am not convinced that doing nothing about gay rights (for one thing) is the best course of action.

As far as Taoism is concerned, I see utility in being more aware of my surroundings and how my own actions affect those surroundings.  As I mentioned above, I see utility in not always fighting against the way things are.  I see utility in finding new perspectives.  I see utility in acting efficiently.  These things, I see as part of Taoism.  It is entirely likely they are my own interpretation and not at all what the 'masters' intended.  I am perfectly cool with that.  I do not want to be like Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu or even Jesus.  I want to be me, but with wisdom.

Also, I believe I saw you in another thread saying something to the effect that you mix in Buddhism (if you never said this, my apologies and ignore this question). How do you reconcile the differing beliefs of these two systems, particularly with regards to death?

Refusing to classify myself as a Taoist, Buddhist or even Christian, I feel free to mix whatever beliefs I want.  I think there already is a great deal of blurring between Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism already.  That is probably its own thread.

I reconcile the differences by which ever one makes the most sense to me.  I believe some sects of Buddhism believe in reincarnations, but I am not sure they all do.  My exploration of Taoism seems to suggest that when we die we simply become part of the universe again.  It seems rather vague, but for me, it fits that we just push up daisies.  I do not believe in a soul or afterlife.  My body is made up of elements that existed before I was conscious and will continue to exist after I am no longer conscious.  I do not worry about it and I do not fear it.  It is just the way things are.

And as an example of something I have taken from Taoism (and, again, this may be my own interpretation), I have come to the conclusion that I would not want to live forever anyway.  If I lived forever, life would not be the precious gift that it is.  It would eventually become a burden and I would likely want to die.  So I accept that it is what it is.  I should appreciate the now.

PS: I say 'Daosim' not to be contrary, but because I'm used to writing Daoism, and if I write Taoism I'm going to end up writing Daoism by accident instead sometimes and it's better to just be consistent.

I am reading the Watercourse Way and the author is just now talking about how one goes about romanizing Chinese.  It seems the scholars can not agree, so I do not worry about it.  When it comes right down to it, I am only interested in what the Tao can do for me.  I do not care if it wants to be called The Tao or The Dao or The Way or even The Golden Chicken.  ;D

[MasterMischief]

All things have their backs to the female
and stand facing the male.
When male and female combine,
all things achieve harmony.
--Tao te Ching 42 Stephen Mitchell translation

To me, this immediately meant moderation.  I also got the feeling that there was a hint that 'female' here meant 'bad'.  Not that Lao Tzu was saying that female is bad, but that society seems to believe that.  Feminine is weak, yielding and that is to be avoided.  Except, no.  Sometimes you should strike and sometimes you should retreat.  One is not inherently less than the other, they are simply different and work well when applied at the right time.  Moderation.

Yeah, stuff is starting to click which makes me wonder if it is time to move on to something else.  Everything clicks if you put enough into it, right?  Should I moderate my exploration of Taoism?   ;D

[AndyZ]

I think Yin was female and Yang was male.  Together, they make the symbol for harmony, where everything fits together.

Interestingly, on the symbol, each side seems to face the other's back, and turn away from the other's front.  I might be being too literal, though.

I'm definitely going to agree that any philosophy is "tarnished" to some degree by the society in which it exists.  The best thing you can do is simply catch them consciously and discard them, as you have done.

No argument that once things click, you can stop persuing them, or at least look for the more advanced versions.  Perhaps you should only stop for a while, see how things work compared to how applied.  Is there some sort of "test" you can take?

[MasterMischief]

Interesting that you followed me here.  Lao Tzu would agree with you that government needs to be much, much smaller.

I am not aware of any test.  I was more of a mind of researching another religion for a while.  Until it started to 'click'.  I have not poked around Islam much.

[AndyZ]

I'm the one who mentioned my own random philosophy and then went on to talk about the master and controlling everything vs. spiritual Judo.  There's definitely some correlation, though ^_^

[MasterMischief]

Lao Tzu seemed to be suspicious of language.  Here on E, labels are often considered things of evil.  Labels do rely heavily on assumptions.  However, I think that those assumptions are absolutely necessary for quick communication.  They remain useful tools, but like Lao Tzu, perhaps we should be suspicious of them.

I find that I base many of my assumptions (and maybe most people do) on the words other people use.  For instance, and this is just the first one that popped into my mind as striking an emotional reaction and immediate judgment on the person who would use it, 'libtard'.  This board is largely liberal, so I think most people would have the same emotional reaction to such a label.

Instead of verifying many of the assumptions I immediately have about someone who would use such a word, I go on the defensive.  I think, for me, that may be a mistake.  In all likelihood, I know nothing about this person.  I do not know what life experiences they have had which colors their perception (and all of our perceptions are colored by our own life experiences).  Even if this person is exactly who I think they are, going on the defensive accomplishes nothing.  It is tilting at windmills.  It is likely there is nothing I can say in the next minute, hour,days or even weeks that will ever change their mind.  Change just does not happen that way.  It is better I learn something from them.  That can happen in minutes.

Water does not try to carve the Earth.  It just flows where it can.  And in doing so, it does carve the Earth.

[AndyZ]

I think you can use labels without being insulting.  While "libtard" is obviously insulting, calling someone a "llama" would not be if there's some non-pejorative reason for calling someone such.

For every insulting label, there's usually a non-insulting label.  Can you call someone gay, or socialist, or the like without being insulting?  Yes, if they actually are these things.  If we're unable to use words to describe, then either we utterly fail in any attempt at communication, or we must by luck end up with someone who thinks exactly as we do, so that anything uncertain must by default mean the same thing to both people.

Now, there are certainly words which serve no other purpose than to insult, because non-insulting labels already exist.  When we fall into the issue that we can no longer converse civilly and fall into insulting each other, further dialogue is usually meaningless.

I've heard arguments of attempting to deprive an insult of its power by repeated use of those who would otherwise be labelled by the word, but in my experience, it doesn't seem to work.  If it did, people not of that particular racial persuasion would be welcome to use the word.  Thus, the alternative seems preferable, simply to allow such words to fade from usage.

[MasterMischief]

Yes, but language is so much more than just insults and non-insults.  What is the different between small, tiny and miniscule?  How might you use those same words, assuming we can agree on their meaning, in different places and in different ways than I might.  For instance, tiny and miniscule are far more descriptive to me and I am more likely to use them when I want to invoke emotion.  For me, small is far too bland a word even when it is exactly the correct word.

[Oniya]

Yes, but language is so much more than just insults and non-insults.  What is the different between small, tiny and miniscule?  How might you use those same words, assuming we can agree on their meaning, in different places and in different ways than I might.  For instance, tiny and miniscule are far more descriptive to me and I am more likely to use them when I want to invoke emotion.  For me, small is far too bland a word even when it is exactly the correct word.

Reminds me of a joke I heard once.

Man 1: There are no two words that mean exactly the same thing.
Man 2: You're wrong about that - what about 'vision' and 'sight'?
Man 1: I'll prove it to you.  My wife is a vision, but yours is a sight.
*rim shot*

(I think that might have been Henny Youngman, now that I think about it.)

[MasterMischief]

That is a good one, Oniya.

[AndyZ]

Well, creating a chart, I'd rank small as the least little, and minuscule as the littlest.

Using apartments as an example, I'd probably use small as "livable, but smaller than average." 

Tiny I'd give to this guy: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44004150/ns/business-real_estate/t/new-yorker-pays-month--square-foot-apartment/#.T-C1pBdYsm8

Minuscule would be this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsule_hotel

It was Mark Twain who said that the difference between the right word and the almost right word is like the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.

[Edit: Wrong guy.  Corrected thanks to Llama love ^_^]

[MasterMischief]

I think it was Ben Franklin who said that the difference between the right word and the almost right word is like the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.

Mark Twain

[AndyZ]

ty ^_^

[MasterMischief]

He also said he did not give a damn for a man who could spell a word only one way.  So I get the impression ole Clemens  was not so hung up on rules.

[Sure]

I am reading the Watercourse Way and the author is just now talking about how one goes about romanizing Chinese.  It seems the scholars can not agree, so I do not worry about it.  When it comes right down to it, I am only interested in what the Tao can do for me.  I do not care if it wants to be called The Tao or The Dao or The Way or even The Golden Chicken. 

Ah, names: The Three Bags of Rice Way of Daosim probably has the funniest, in my opinion, name. Then again, the Way of Peace Daoism scores points for irony, since they were extremely militant and touched off over a century of warfare.

Anyway, thank you for your answers. If I may ask another question, if you mainly base your beliefs off of 'making sense', how do you tell what 'makes sense'? As in, what are the methods you use?

Also, perhaps I am wrong, but I believe that it is the conceit of Daoism that life is inherently good, and one of the goals of Daoism being eternal life. I distinctly recall one of the issues of Buddhism and Daosim coexisting in some philosophies was that Buddhism saw death as a good thing and Daoism saw it as a bad thing. Furthermore, within folk beliefs I know individuals can be raised up to Gods and one is supposed to make sacrifices to ancestors to help them get along in the afterlife.

If nothing else, I know that the Vinegar Tasters imply that Daoism believes life to be the 'natural' state and inherently good, as opposed to Buddhism's belief life is dominated by pain or the Confucian belief for the need for rules to correct, create, and maintain goodness.

[MasterMischief]

If I may ask another question, if you mainly base your beliefs off of 'making sense', how do you tell what 'makes sense'? As in, what are the methods you use?

Does it seem to explain my previous experiences and does it seem to work when applied to new experiences.  Furthermore, does it require some special circumstance (supernatural) which clashes with my current understanding of the world.  If it does, is this new belief more likely.

I am not sure I am including everything that goes into my thinking process or that I am even expressing it very well.  For instance, Jesus' do unto others concept (although I believe, now that I have explored outside of Christianity that Lao Tzu beat him by a few hundred years)...if I treat others well, they tend to treat me well.  I also do not risk breaking laws and finding myself imprisoned.  Despite Jesus' other claims, I can believe in this tenet without accepting supernatural beliefs.  So I accept it not because god said so, but because it just seems good policy.

Also, perhaps I am wrong, but I believe that it is the conceit of Daoism that life is inherently good...

It seems to me that Taoism really questions the whole concept of good and bad.

When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.
--Tao Te Ching Chapter 2 Stephen Mitchell translation

How do you measure what is good without comparing it to that which is bad.  In this way, one can not exists without the other.  How do you define living without defining non-living?

My own feelings on life and immortality are, to steal from President Obama, evolving.  The more I have thought about it, the more I am leaning away from wanting immortality.  I think life would become boring at some point.  Life is only prized because it is fleeting.  We have such a short time we want more.  But if we had more time would we want more or would we long for an end?  Hard to know without actually experiencing it.

...and one of the goals of Daoism being eternal life.

Some branches of Taoism, perhaps.  The more I have explored, the more I have found Taoism just as splintered as say Christianity.  When I first started exploring, I ran into a bunch of talk of gods and immediately dismissed it as yet another polytheistic religion.  Then I found there were two schools...religious Taoism and philosophical Taoism.  So I looked into philosophical Taoism.  But now it seems that is not quite a clear distinction and that it really is a matter of which branch you go down.

I really do not have much interest in the I Ching or acupuncture which seem tied to Taoism in some branches.  There may be something to acupuncture, which I do not think has supernatural elements, but it seems that it is an example of the placebo effect.  Reading Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, I have seen nothing that talks about believing in gods or that eternal life is the ultimate goal.  The goal seems to be to enjoy life by working with it instead of fighting against it.  'Bad' things happen.  'Good' things happen.  Minimize the 'bad', delight in the 'good'.  In fact, there seems to be an unspoken goal of learning to enjoy the 'bad'.

[MasterMischief]

I was reading some more of the Watercourse Way and something else hit me.  How useful is a house with no doors or windows?  And what are doors and windows but a way to create a void?  That void is useful.

What is death but the void of life?  Imagine a world where everyone lives forever.  How long before we need a void...somewhere to put all the new life?  Without access to some other void (like a new frontier, space) we need death.

[Oniya]

Personally, I think acupuncture 'works' by stimulating endorphin and possibly inflammation responses in 'appropriate' places - slightly more measurable than the placebo effect, but I'm not sure by how much.  Acupressure, on the other hand, I haven't figured out, but I have friends who swear by one pressure point or the other to relieve minor symptoms like headaches or nausea.

[AndyZ]

I was reading some more of the Watercourse Way and something else hit me.  How useful is a house with no doors or windows?  And what are doors and windows but a way to create a void?  That void is useful.

What is death but the void of life?  Imagine a world where everyone lives forever.  How long before we need a void...somewhere to put all the new life?  Without access to some other void (like a new frontier, space) we need death.

There's a game set upon similar philosophies (Mage the Ascension Euthanatos Revised) where they explain their policy about life by comparing existence to a birthday party.  What would happen if you have a birthday party where the guests never leave?  They'd eat all the food, continue to make a horrible mess, break your toys, etc.  Can't seem to find the book to give a better definition.

Never thought about the prospect of a new frontier, though.  I've read stories where immortality becomes available and the old never leave their positions to make room for the young.  Space travel would at least delay the inevitable in that prospect.  (Assuming the universe is finite; an infinite universe would not delay but solve that problem if world-hopping exists.)

[MasterMischief]

When a country is in harmony with the Tao,
the factories make trucks and tractors.
When a country goes counter to the Tao,
warheads are stockpiled outside the cities.

There is no greater illusion than fear,
no greater wrong than preparing to defend yourself,
no greater misfortune than having an enemy.

Whoever can see through all fear
will always be safe.

When I first read this, I thought about where I was just a few months ago.  I would have called 'rubbish' on this instinctively.  Everyone has enemies.  Expecting the world to just be some kind of utopia is naive at best and dangerous at worse.

Now, I do not think that is what it means.  Of course you can protect yourself.  But how many of your enemies are born of your own actions?  If you really dig down far enough.  Osama bin Laden did not just attack us out of the blue.  We screwed him over during the Russian occupation.  I am not trying to justify his actions, but his terrorism did not happen in a vacuum.

How much of our fear is imagined?  How much could we let go of?  Everyone can not be our friends and we will have to defend ourselves at some point, but aren't the rewards greater in making friends than making enemies?

[MasterMischief]

This is really just for me: Am I trying too hard?

[AndyZ]

When a country is in harmony with the Tao,
the factories make trucks and tractors.
When a country goes counter to the Tao,
warheads are stockpiled outside the cities.

There is no greater illusion than fear,
no greater wrong than preparing to defend yourself,
no greater misfortune than having an enemy.

Whoever can see through all fear
will always be safe.

When I first read this, I thought about where I was just a few months ago.  I would have called 'rubbish' on this instinctively.  Everyone has enemies.  Expecting the world to just be some kind of utopia is naive at best and dangerous at worse.

Now, I do not think that is what it means.  Of course you can protect yourself.  But how many of your enemies are born of your own actions?  If you really dig down far enough.  Osama bin Laden did not just attack us out of the blue.  We screwed him over during the Russian occupation.  I am not trying to justify his actions, but his terrorism did not happen in a vacuum.

How much of our fear is imagined?  How much could we let go of?  Everyone can not be our friends and we will have to defend ourselves at some point, but aren't the rewards greater in making friends than making enemies?

I would actually recommend that we have to stop oscillating between ignorance and terror.  Rather than falling into the extremes of paranoia and naivete, so that anyone who doesn't like us only has to wait until we fall asleep again in order to take another shot.  The USA has dealt with Muslim Extremists since Thomas Jefferson.

People are desperate to look to the government to protect them, and the government (meaning both parties) is all too happy to pass madness like the PATRIOT act, the NDAA, and create groups like the TSA.  I think we'd be better off getting milder security measures which can be in effect in perpetuity.

I also don't agree that there's no greater misfortune than having an enemy.  Enemies can be of our own making, but placating evil rarely causes it to be content.  However, there are certainly better ways to handle matters.  JFK and Reagan showed themselves as masters of staring down an enemy without escalating to a war, and I'd much rather be known as the embodiment of the paradox of power than the world police.

There's a pendulum effect with which you're most likely familiar.  After we hit one extreme, we escape that only to jump to the alternate extreme.  I feel as though that this particular [stanza?  poem?  whatever the word is] hit the pendulum to speak to a society in which there is far too much security and to suggest to jump straight to a society in which there is not enough security. 

This kind of jump can hurt its own cause, because it itself calls for something extreme.  As you said, of course you can protect yourself.  A similar example would be the regulation talk from earlier: we might be able to come to an agreement that there's too much regulation, but it would be complete madness to drop to no regulation whatsoever.

Balance and moderation once more lead the day.

As far as making friends, it entirely depends on how we go about the process.  When I was a child, I'd invite other kids to come over and play with my toys, read my books, and eat my snacks, thinking that this somehow made them my friends.  The opposite actually took place, since they had no respect for someone so desperate to buy friendship.  True alliances should come out of mutual respect, and any political favors should be based on an exchange between equals instead of a gift.

[Oniya]

I would actually recommend that we have to stop oscillating between ignorance and terror.  Rather than falling into the extremes of paranoia and naivete, so that anyone who doesn't like us only has to wait until we fall asleep again in order to take another shot.  The USA has dealt with Muslim Extremists since Thomas Jefferson.

I really agree with your post (and to keep the relevance, I believe that the Tao talks about avoiding extremes in general).  I'm curious about this bit here, though:  What 'Muslim' terrorists were we dealing with in Jefferson's time?

[AndyZ]

Here's a Snopes rundown: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/jefferson.asp

Also a Time Magazine article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994562-1,00.html

I'd throw in the usual bit that you can be against the Crusades without being against Christianity (and I can easily throw in half a dozen similar examples) but we likely all know already that it's not all Muslims.  We need a better term than "Muslim Extremist" but I don't know one.  Perhaps Jyhadist?

I brought it up partly because it well predates anything with Osama bin Laden, and if we want to look back to American/Middle East relations, we should look back as far as possible.  Otherwise, it makes it far too easy for someone to just look back a little further and say, "Well, X happened first."

The other aspect is the question of alliances with other countries.  Did Jefferson do the right thing?  I'm not familiar enough with the Tao to properly give its stance, although it seems unlikely to me that the Tao would voluntarily suggest creating more force to hold a situation in check.

I would consider paying the tribute to be more upon the stance of buying friends rather than making true alliances, especially when the tribute is not given as a voluntary choice and people are being taken as slaves.  Given the choices of accepting the status quo or defending against the attacks, I would choose the latter.  However, I will accept that there may be another option.

Most likely the balance is between the two extremes of being the world police and submitting to piracy.  With government, however, it is exceptionally common to grow only in one direction, building up rapid inertia until the pendulum swing necessitates a substantial swing in the other direction.  In this case, it can be argued that we put too much into the military, placing troops all over the planet and, as some would say, sticking our noses where they don't belong.  After extensive buildup, the other side of the pendulum would suggest removing the military altogether, which would put us in the situation of being helpless were we to be attacked.

The moderation to this example, if the premises are accepted, would be to shrink the military without removing it altogether.

One hypothesis about how to do this would be to revert to the way things were done before excess overtook moderation.  For an airplane security example, one could look at how airplanes handled security before the TSA.  When new technology necessitates changes, one might instead look at whose authority handled matters, and allow the authority to revert to them.

[MasterMischief]

We need a better term than "Muslim Extremist" but I don't know one.  Perhaps Jyhadist?

It is a little hard to follow you here.  Are you speaking about the Barbary pirates here or the present extremists?  Because I would just call pirates pirates.  I am sure there are plenty of Christian pirates.  There are plenty of Christian extremists too, but we tend to just call them extremists instead of mentioning their religion.  The media seems intent on whipping up anti Muslim sentiment.

I brought it up partly because it well predates anything with Osama bin Laden, and if we want to look back to American/Middle East relations, we should look back as far as possible.

Maybe.  I was looking for an easily obtainable example of someone most of us consider evil incarnate and seeing if he could be made sympathetic.  I believe he could.  If you just want to point fingers, you have a different motivation than I and I suggest you present it in and of itself.

I do not think the Tao is about laying blame.  It is about recognizing how our own actions have consequences and how we often do not see we can be our own biggest problem.

Most likely the balance is between the two extremes of being the world police and submitting to piracy.

Agreed, although I think 'police' is a poor label.  Police are generally not involved in creating the law.  They simply enforce it.  Or foreign policy is about creating and enforcing laws on others and then claiming it all in the name of self defense.

[AndyZ]

It is a little hard to follow you here.  Are you speaking about the Barbary pirates here or the present extremists?  Because I would just call pirates pirates.  I am sure there are plenty of Christian pirates.  There are plenty of Christian extremists too, but we tend to just call them extremists instead of mentioning their religion.  The media seems intent on whipping up anti Muslim sentiment.

Maybe.  I was looking for an easily obtainable example of someone most of us consider evil incarnate and seeing if he could be made sympathetic.  I believe he could.  If you just want to point fingers, you have a different motivation than I and I suggest you present it in and of itself.

I do not think the Tao is about laying blame.  It is about recognizing how our own actions have consequences and how we often do not see we can be our own biggest problem.

I believe that we should look into motivation and find out why people do the things that they do.  On this, I think we can agree.  People can argue about whether figures become sympathetic or not, or if you're just assigning blame, but I've always seen those as tangents to the primary issue.

When Jefferson spoke with Ambassador Abdrahaman, the reason was made pretty clear:

"The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners."

This is not isolated to Muslims.  Take a look at the Hutaree, which was constantly labelled a "Christian militia" by the media, as a recent example.

If you try to chalk it up as that they're crazy, or wrong, or just labeling them as pirates or extremists, you end up marginalizing them without taking any attempt to understand.  There may not be a difference in effect for a person who kills out of hatred and a person who kills out of a chemical imbalance, for example, but being able to treat the cause allows for actual healing.

Whether we sympathize with Osama bin Laden or whether we blame ourselves for his attacks thanks to the Russian occupation has less bearing than understanding the reasons and seeking a solution.  Obviously, wiping out all Muslims would not be a moderate solution, even if we could pull off such a horrendous act.

If we look at Christian pirates, then either they're completely ignoring the parts of their religion about not killing and stealing (which means they're not really acting Christian), or they've come up with some reason that they believe that Christians need to do such things, which should be addressed.

Agreed, although I think 'police' is a poor label.  Police are generally not involved in creating the law.  They simply enforce it.  Or foreign policy is about creating and enforcing laws on others and then claiming it all in the name of self defense.

You caught me: I was reusing a label someone else created and didn't spot it.  Thank you.

[Oniya]

Thank you - I'm not sure what I thought the Barbary pirates were about before, but I hadn't made the Islamic connection.  Jyhadist does carry the appropriate 'violence' connotation (as one can be an extremist and keep to one's self, in theory) - again, if it's really necessary to call a spade more than a spade.  Knowing motives helps in finding solutions, but if knowing those motives shows that there is no negotiable solution, the difference between Jyhadist and Crusader Knight becomes much smaller.

[MasterMischief]

If we look at Christian pirates, then either they're completely ignoring the parts of their religion about not killing and stealing (which means they're not really acting Christian), or they've come up with some reason that they believe that Christians need to do such things, which should be addressed.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Matthew 10:34-35

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Luke 22:36

And even for believers, Jesus was a bit hard core.

For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
Matthew 15:4

And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
Acts 3:23

If you try to chalk it up as that they're crazy, or wrong, or just labeling them as pirates or extremists, you end up marginalizing them without taking any attempt to understand.

Maybe they are just taking what they want out of context and using it for their own desires just like many Christians, just like everyone.

[Sure]

For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
Matthew 15:4

Honora patrem, et matrem: et, Qui maledixerit patri, vel matri, morte moriatur.

Honor father, and mother: And, who speaks ill of father, or mother, should pass to death.

And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
Acts 3:23

Erit autem: omnis anima quæ non audierit prophetam illum, exterminabitur de plebe.

Moreover it will be: every soul who does not hear that prophet will be sent away from the people.

Exterminare does not mean destroy by any stretch of the imagination. It is formed from ex (out of) and terminus (boundary).

Also, as a note, neither of these are the words of Jesus. The first quote is recounting what God said to the Jews (Matthew 15:3), the second is said by Moses (Acts: 3:22).

As to the rest:
The Matthew quote is slightly out of context: the message, in context, is not "I want you all to fight each other" but "You should value God above anything, including family".

Likewise, the Luke quote is out of context. Jesus is telling his disciples to arm themselves because he knows that he is about to be taken to be crucified. It is not a general command to all followers.


Now, I do agree it's possible that people use these quotes to justify their actions, but they would be revealing their ignorance in doing so. The devil can cite scripture to suit his purpose, after all.

PS: I do hope you don't mind me talking about Christianity in your Daoism thread? If so, I just have to say, I didn't start it. :P

[AndyZ]

Thank you - I'm not sure what I thought the Barbary pirates were about before, but I hadn't made the Islamic connection.  Jyhadist does carry the appropriate 'violence' connotation (as one can be an extremist and keep to one's self, in theory) - again, if it's really necessary to call a spade more than a spade.  Knowing motives helps in finding solutions, but if knowing those motives shows that there is no negotiable solution, the difference between Jyhadist and Crusader Knight becomes much smaller.

I am a horrendous teacher.  Apologies, Oniya.

The labeling issue should likely be addressed, though.  I'll start up another thread to that effect.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Matthew 10:34-35

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Luke 22:36

And even for believers, Jesus was a bit hard core.

For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
Matthew 15:4

And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
Acts 3:23

Maybe they are just taking what they want out of context and using it for their own desires just like many Christians, just like everyone.

I could explain that some of those quotes lose a lot in the translation and others are completely out of context, but your "out of context" phrase suggests you already know that.  If anyone else needs me to explain those quotes, let me know.

If someone went around killing people that had no respect for their parents and gives the explanation of pointing to an out of context quote, I would expect that priests would make sure their congregation better understood about "death of the soul" and the loss of Heaven instead of simply being slain, especially if it was a significant percentage of the flock who fell into this misunderstanding.

Now, it's possible that they point to those quotes after the fact and that it's not the real reason.  If it's not the real reason, then these are not the issues that we need to address.  However, I'd need to know what that is before we can discuss it, and it would have to be something that millions of people would be willing to die and kill for.

[Oniya]

I am a horrendous teacher.  Apologies, Oniya.

No, no - you did fine.  I might drop in on that other thread.

[MasterMischief]

PS: I do hope you don't mind me talking about Christianity in your Daoism thread? If so, I just have to say, I didn't start it.

I do not mind and I did, definitely, start it.  I appreciate your input.

If it's not the real reason, then these are not the issues that we need to address.

The real reason was my ego felt the need to defend Islam.  And that is something I need to address.  I also thank you for your input.

The Master has no mind of her own.
She works with the mind of the people.
--Tao Te Ching Chapter 49, Stephen Mitchell translation

This is my problem.  I spend so much energy trying to be understood without first understanding.  It is really quite simple.  I need to stop worrying about what other people are doing or not doing and focus on what I am doing and not doing.  All this external focus is inefficient.  Internal focus is where the real change is.

Internal focus is the new pink.  I wonder if I can make that stick.

[AndyZ]

I'll take responsibility for bringing up Christianity.  It might have been better to break Godwin's law and explain that I have enough German ancestry to understand that an entire group of people aren't responsible for a subset.  If asked, I can also explain how, while the actions aren't justified, it can be shown what actions were taken by non-Germans in order to help facilitate WW2, similar to our llama friend's point about Osama bin Laden.  However, for now I'll just drop it and move on.

What I was trying to explain about Taoism is that Taoism is itself an extreme, a push towards internal focus which came about as a response to an overwhelming amount of external focus.  I believe that whoever invented the Tao pushed the pendulum all the way to the other side.  (I could well be wrong, and have no historical proof to back this up, but I just see a pattern.)

I'll use the example of a provocatively-dressed woman who gets raped.  Rape is undeniably evil, but the woman might attempt to use internal focus to understand why it happened to her, which would lend itself to the conclusion that it was her manner of dress which led to the rape.  This would be incorrect; rapists are just evil.

Let's look at the example of a man who is walking down the street and gets mugged.  Internal focus might suggest to the man that it's unsafe to simply walk down the street, and that he should change his habits.  External focus would suggest that it's the fault of the mugger, not of himself, that he's getting mugged, and that he should get some way to protect himself.

While it's easy to argue that it wouldn't have happened if the man never left his house, it creates an imbalance of behavior.  People should certainly be able to walk down the street.

Certainly, internal focus is both valuable and necessity, but one cannot abandon all external focus in order to focus upon internal focus.  This would create an imbalance.

[Edit: Example changed and original crossed out.]

[MasterMischief]

I do not think you could have picked a worse analogy.   :-\

[AndyZ]

Sorry.  Changed it.

[MasterMischief]

Goal: Stop being so judgmental and reactionary.

Simple, right?   ::)

[MasterMischief]

Yesterday, I bumped into the co-worker who originally introduced me to Taoism.  It was nice to see him again and I really miss talking to him.  We used to walk around our building during breaks.

He mentioned a poem he had read recently that ended with something to the effect, "I trust my enemy to kill me."  We had been talking about viewing someone who points out our weaknesses as the most benevolent teachers.

He considers those who point out his faults
as his most benevolent teachers.
He thinks of his enemy
as the shadow that he himself casts.

He said that the original translation 'kill' was more 'destroy' and it makes sense if you put it in the context of destroying one's ego.

[AndyZ]

I tried living by a similar philosophy about ten years ago, but found that for most people, emotions got too much in the way.  It can be better to try to live in harmony between emotions and logic, and try to find nicer and more polite ways to handle matters.  Now, that doesn't mean I'm good at it...

[MasterMischief]

I am not sure polite is always the best way.  Generally?  Sure.  But that probably deserves more thought and better arguments than I am prepared for right now.

Today it occurred to me...

I find it increasingly difficult to communicate with others because their vocabulary, which is based upon their life experiences, is vastly different than mine.

I am not suggesting I should become a hermit or that I am dysfunctional and anti-social.  This is just something that has frustrated me for some time and only today a big lightbulb went off for me.  I have spent so much energy trying to get people to use my vocabulary.  One only has to peruse some of my posts in Politics, Religion, and Other Controversies to see some of my transgressions.

How much of this frustration could I remove by focusing on understanding other's vocabulary?

[AndyZ]

The vocabulary issue is a primary problem associated with the Internet.  Normally, people speak in whatever manner best befits their region, and regions develop their own dialect.  Put this into the Internet and many different dialects are forced to clash against one another while remaining at comparative odds within the offline region.

With only one region (which would be offline for the majority of existence), people end up simply meshing together, with a few "indigestible" words sticking around from the native language due to the habitat's language (in our case, English) lacking the proper word.  Thus we get bits like naivete, and in France, the word for grenade is grenade.

The general populace is not forced to come to terms with questions like Football, Soda, and so on.  Both sides are pretty content to keep using their own words and phrases, and visitors to the areas can switch to words like "American Football" and "Pop" when it becomes necessary.

I would be curious if you had some sort of technique for handling this issue, though.

[Oniya]

I am not sure polite is always the best way.  Generally?  Sure.  But that probably deserves more thought and better arguments than I am prepared for right now.

Today it occurred to me...

I find it increasingly difficult to communicate with others because their vocabulary, which is based upon their life experiences, is vastly different than mine.

I am not suggesting I should become a hermit or that I am dysfunctional and anti-social.  This is just something that has frustrated me for some time and only today a big lightbulb went off for me.  I have spent so much energy trying to get people to use my vocabulary.  One only has to peruse some of my posts in Politics, Religion, and Other Controversies to see some of my transgressions.

How much of this frustration could I remove by focusing on understanding other's vocabulary?

When I come up against an unfamiliar term - or a term that someone is using in an unfamiliar way - I try to take the opportunity to learn a new word/usage from it.  Sometimes, that's just a Google to make sure that it is being used in a correct manner, sometimes it takes some conversation.  When it's all said and done, I come away with more than I walked in with - either in vocabulary, or in understanding.

And on top of that, it can help with crossword puzzles.  ;D

[MasterMischief]

Andy, you bring up good points about regional dialects. Internet communication also completely lacks body language which is a large part of communication. But I think those issues are often harmless and/or easily resolved. For me, a thick accent including a liberal dose of new words or familiar words used in new context only takes about 15 minutes before I can follow along reasonably. In fact, I often find myself using regional colloquialisms soon after encountering them even when no longer exposed. I enjoy word play. I was thinking more of things which you and I would both recognize and, if forced to define in our own words, those definitions would match closely. However, there would be connotations to those words which would affect how we use them and how we subconsciously understand their meanings. As an example, big and large have similar meanings. I am sure you and I would agree to the same definitions for both words. However, I always see 'big' as a less formal word. I would be unlikely to use it in a technical document. There is also a feeling of slow and clumsy for me with that word. Something I rarely think about consciously. More of a mental image at the invocation of 'big'. Large, for me, is a more 'proper' word. I would use it in a technical document and there is not the same feeling of slow or clumsy automatically attached to it. Honestly, I could not tell you why I have those added meanings/feelings that distinguish those two words for me. I certainly would not insist they are true for others. But they are very real for me. I can only assume that other people have the same kind of non-spoken 'baggage' attached to words. Liberal might be a label of pride for one person and a slur for another. This can get really interesting when you start tossing words like 'good' and 'right' around.

[AndyZ]

The closest thing I could guess is that you've read a lot of things where big and large are used in very different ways, and those differences have left an impression.  However, I'll admit that I don't fully understand for the big and large stuff, other than the lightning and lightning bug quote.

As far as words like liberal, I think that connotations arise purely because so much of the nation has lost the ability for civil discourse.  The two party system allows for pure demonization in order to feed more power to their respective sides.  It's like, you know I'm not a Socialist, but I have respect for people who wear the label openly and stand by their beliefs.

About a month ago, I tried to tell someone that I'm closer to Libertarian than anything else, and he immediately assumed I was for all sorts of things like "going Galt" and all such.  This is a big part of the issue: the inherent nature of a political party suggests that people are going to all agree with one side or the other, despite that this goes against human nature.  Combined with the way parties have an easier time tearing the other down instead of building up, it's natural to immediately think of the worst part of a system.

The GBLTQA Community has an interesting way of handling this: they have a label they use and a support group.  While this may be necessary in parts of society where people are openly hostile, I wouldn't want this method to become the norm for every sort of behavior which doesn't follow the cultural mandate.  The hard part about pushing people into groups is that they don't always agree, as I think I already mentioned with political parties.

I think that's really the sad part about the federal government.  We can't have federal laws without forcing both sides across the entire country to abide by them.  But, that's a tangent.

This is why I'm not big on some of these cute names that are thrown around for bills and laws.  I can disagree with the PATRIOT Act and still be a patriot.  The whole argument with the Affordable Care Act is that Republicans claim that it isn't affordable care.  Abraham Lincoln talked about how if you call a tail a leg, a dog has four legs, and calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so.  Civility is long dead in politics, and I'd be against an attempt to force it to return, but I'd much rather see names where people can agree on what it's about rather than having to resort to coming up with their own little monikers.

May have run off the rails on this post...

[MasterMischief]

If you can talk about it,
it ain't Tao.
If it has a name,
it's just another thing.


Tao doesn't have a name.
Names are for ordinary things.


Stop wanting stuff;
it keeps you from seeing what's real.
When you want stuff,
all you see are things.


Those two sentences
mean the same thing.
Figure them out,
and you've got it made.

Tao Te Ching, Ron Hogan translation


I remain skeptical of the first line of the Tao Te Ching.  However, through my journey, I have found a new perspective.  The Tao will be different for each person.  Perhaps that is why it is so difficult to name.  No person can tell another person what to do.  We all have to decide for ourselves.

Focusing on outcomes leads to frustration.  Frustration often leads to blame.  The origination of this frustration is within oneself, yet we seek to place the blame elsewhere.

Life happens to us.  Much of it is outside of our control.  However, we possess the remarkable ability to choose how we respond.  Therein lies our power.

[MasterMischief]

I am still judging.  Still working on that.  I find it scarey how easy it is to become the very thing I hate.  We all are really the same.

[AndyZ]

Would you like some practice exercises?

[MasterMischief]

 XD  My life is a practice exercise.

[AndyZ]

If you can talk about it,
it ain't Tao.
If it has a name,
it's just another thing.


Tao doesn't have a name.
Names are for ordinary things.


Stop wanting stuff;
it keeps you from seeing what's real.
When you want stuff,
all you see are things.


Those two sentences
mean the same thing.
Figure them out,
and you've got it made.

Tao Te Ching, Ron Hogan translation


I remain skeptical of the first line of the Tao Te Ching.  However, through my journey, I have found a new perspective.  The Tao will be different for each person.  Perhaps that is why it is so difficult to name.  No person can tell another person what to do.  We all have to decide for ourselves.

Focusing on outcomes leads to frustration.  Frustration often leads to blame.  The origination of this frustration is within oneself, yet we seek to place the blame elsewhere.

Life happens to us.  Much of it is outside of our control.  However, we possess the remarkable ability to choose how we respond.  Therein lies our power.

I think it's important to recognize here that language is a purely subjective construct.  We do not go through life dealing with exactly the same things, in exactly the same way, nor is language uploaded directly into our brains via an identical algorithm for each person.

Now, we can understand each other to a significant degree, but minor fluctuations remain.  I think that this is most telling with first names, how someone can claim that another person doesn't look like a Dana.  Short of the actual definition of the name, this is impossible to judge.  Besides, since names are given at birth, it's practically impossible to tell whether someone will live up to a name until they've already been given it.

I think we went over this with big.

As far as choosing how we respond, another issue is that we do have emotions.  Sometimes I wonder if anger should be handled in that one should accept their anger but not any actions which such an emotion would cause them to take.  I don't know if that makes any sense.

[MasterMischief]

I think trying to suppress emotions only makes them worse.  Acknowledge and direct.

[MasterMischief]

Can one really be a taoist?  Everyone's path is different.  I guess Taoism is just as varied as Christianity.  Or is it that people are varied?

[Lux12]

EDIT: I changed the title since I intend to use this thread for more than just the Tao Te Ching.

The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and
unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and
unchanging name.

So we can never fully understand the Tao?
Is the Tao different for each individual?  It seems that it would have to be.
If you think you know, you don't know?  Does this mean you should always question what you think you know?
Is there a point to attempting something that can not be achieved?  I have often heard it say we should strive for perfection knowing full well that we can never achieve it.  However, I could argue that it is not perfection we are striving for, but improvement.  Improvement is possible and surely it is worth striving for.  Is it the same with the Tao?
Is this an easy out?  Should anyone say Taoism is about any one thing in particular, you could always point back to this first line and say, "No, not quite."

Anyone feel like guiding a foolish llama?   ;D

The point of the know is not to avoid thinking about it or not trying to understand, it's about just being the Tao.One becomes the Tao by simply being the Tao.As someone else has said, the Tao is not the same for everyone.It's like trying to find one's own Dharma or similarly in the western occult tradition of Thelema one's True Will.One can make a conscious to move toward these things, but ultimately one has to just be these things.

[MasterMischief]

Should I just let injustice be?

[Lux12]

Should I just let injustice be?

You misunderstand just being.If to prevent injustice is part of the Tao or part of your Tao then it should be that way.If you are virtuous then you will be virtuous, there is no need to think about doing the right thing you will just do it.If everyone were actively aware of the Tao then there would be no injustice.Disharmony comes from being out of sync with the Tao, this unbalance causes suffering. However, everyone does not follow the Tao, therefore there is imbalance and injustice.

[MasterMischief]

Right up until you bump into someone whose tao is injustice.

[Lux12]

Right up until you bump into someone whose tao is injustice.

You still do not understand.Someone's personal place in the Tao cannot be injustice.Injustice is what occurs when the Tao is gone against.

[MasterMischief]

Someone's personal place in the Tao cannot be injustice.

How can you be certain?

[Lux12]

How can you be certain?

One I've been studying Taoist philosophy for quite some time now and it's pretty much outright stated that bad things happen because people go against the natural balance a.k.a. the Tao.

[MasterMischief]

But I am not convinced that is the only cause of Bad Things^TM.

[Lux12]

But I am not convinced that is the only cause of Bad Things^TM.

Well according to Taoism that is the reason.It should also be noticed that Taoism does not consider death bad.

"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."

[MasterMischief]

Death may not be a Bat Thing^TM, but I can think of others that are natural.  Perhaps it is that I mislabel them 'bad'.  This requires pondering.

[Lux12]

Death may not be a Bat Thing^TM, but I can think of others that are natural.  Perhaps it is that I mislabel them 'bad'.  This requires pondering.

Very true.Humans often mislabel that which they do not entirely understand.

[MasterMischief]

My mother really disappointed me today.  I do not want to get into what she did as that is not what I want to discuss in this post.  What I do want to discuss was that I was able to let go of that disappointment.  Or, at least, mostly let it go.  I think a little is still lingering.  But for the most part I have moved on.  My exploration of the Tao has given me the perspective needed to do this.  To recognize what is going on and how it is affecting me.  And what to do about it.  It brings me a great deal of peace in my life.

I still consider myself an atheist which I do not see as a contradiction for someone following the Tao.  I do not know if the philosophy of the Tao would stand up to the scrutiny of scientific examination.  I have noticed that applying it to my own life brings me some measure of clarity and the aforementioned peace.

This has been a delightful journey and I hope that it last a while longer.

[Oniya]

As I understand it, the Tao does not make claims one way or the other about a Supreme Being.  As a result, it should be compatible with either belief, non-belief, or uncertainty in that respect.

[Driskoll]

As I understand it, the Tao does not make claims one way or the other about a Supreme Being.  As a result, it should be compatible with either belief, non-belief, or uncertainty in that respect.

Yes and no I think. In the few times that I've studied the Dao De Ching the question of what exactly the Dao is has come up a lot. This quote in particular has always made me think it's more than simply a belief or way of life.

And yet this ineffable Dao was the source of all spirit and matter, and being expressed was the mother of all created things.

Of course this doesn't make the claim that it is some kind of higher being, only that it created all things. This seems to be somewhat undermined though by other parts of the Dao De Ching.

Those who know do not talk.
Those who talk do not know.

This part here could really be referring to any subject, including the understanding of the Dao itself. So according to Daoism, those with an understanding of the Dao would not share it openly, and those who do speak of it, like me, don't really know what the hell they're going on about. 

[Oniya]

And yet this ineffable Dao was the source of all spirit and matter, and being expressed was the mother of all created things.

Of course this doesn't make the claim that it is some kind of higher being, only that it created all things. This seems to be somewhat undermined though by other parts of the Dao De Ching.

I admit, I haven't studied the Dao - I've picked up bits and pieces from various places, but I hope that my cup is not already full.  ;)

The thing that stands out to me in the quote you gave here is that 'being expressed [it] was the mother of all created things.'  It made me think of the difference between things that are expressed, and those that are unexpressed.  I can be happy, but if I don't express that happiness, it doesn't 'create' a smile.  I can have an idea for a story, but until I express it, the story isn't created.  Having something in your head, but not acting on it, creates nothing.

Oh, interesting bit - and very 'Dao-ish':  The word 'ineffable' literally means 'incapable of being expressed' in its first definition.  So, the Dao is incapable of being expressed, and when it is expressed, it creates all things.  Koan?

[Driskoll]

The thing that stands out to me in the quote you gave here is that 'being expressed [it] was the mother of all created things.'  It made me think of the difference between things that are expressed, and those that are unexpressed.  I can be happy, but if I don't express that happiness, it doesn't 'create' a smile.  I can have an idea for a story, but until I express it, the story isn't created.  Having something in your head, but not acting on it, creates nothing.

Oh, interesting bit - and very 'Dao-ish':  The word 'ineffable' literally means 'incapable of being expressed' in its first definition.  So, the Dao is incapable of being expressed, and when it is expressed, it creates all things.  Koan?

Interesting. I hadn't thought about this quote in those terms before. I do know that the concept of dualism is brought up throughout Daoism though, so perhaps here what we're really talking about are the differences and similarities between expression and creation. 

To take your example, if you are happy but don't outwardly express it, that happiness would still exist, but not in any observable way like a smile. I argue that in some sense you would have already created that happiness, but it would be a happiness that only you knew existed. The same could be said for a story, for it could be a story you had already created in detail, but also a story that wasn't expressed anywhere outside of your subjective frame of reality.

I bring this up because there have always been thoughts and beliefs that certain parts of Daoism relate very well to certain theories within quantum physics. There is the theory that whatever one perceives doesn't actually exist until one is there to perceive it. In other words, our own consciousness creates our subjective reality, but doesn't express our reality in an objective, physical way for others to see.

Getting back to the concept of the Dao, if the Dao truly is ineffable, I don't know that it must also mean that the Dao is incapable of creation. Perhaps the Dao was simply the first consciousness to create it's own subjective world just by existing, through which all other conscious beings came into existence to create their own subjective worlds. If that was the case I could see how the Dao could earn the title of "mother of all things" without ever having to outwardly express itself.

I hope I made some sense there. I tend to ramble and jump from place to place when I talk about stuff like this. I'm also not sure if I really believe in this either, but this is my best attempt at making some sense out of the rather abstract concepts in Daoism. If the quote really is a koan though, then applying logic to it as I've tried to do is kind of pointless :P

[Oniya]

I bring this up because there have always been thoughts and beliefs that certain parts of Daoism relate very well to certain theories within quantum physics. There is the theory that whatever one perceives doesn't actually exist until one is there to perceive it. In other words, our own consciousness creates our subjective reality, but doesn't express our reality in an objective, physical way for others to see.

I've recently been educating myself on quantum physics too - if you haven't read it, the Dancing Wu Li Masters is an excellent book, with a touch of the Eastern philosophy that you mentioned.  The duality that something can be in two different states until you test for one or the other does fit in nicely with the idea that something can express itself and yet be ineffable.

[Driskoll]

I've recently been educating myself on quantum physics too - if you haven't read it, the Dancing Wu Li Masters is an excellent book, with a touch of the Eastern philosophy that you mentioned.  The duality that something can be in two different states until you test for one or the other does fit in nicely with the idea that something can express itself and yet be ineffable.

Thank you! I'll defiantly have to get that one. There are also quite a few books by Amit Goswami that deal with quantum physics and spirituality. You might like them if you haven't checked them out already. I've heard a lot of good things but I have yet to actually read them myself :-[ 

[MasterMischief]

I am thinking that the Dao is all things, the universe and whatever may or may not be outside of the universe.  However, my understanding of the universe and your understanding of the universe is different.  It is defined for each of us by our past experiences.  The language we would use to describe it may be very different.  The words themselves may mean different things to each of us.

Therefore, there is no way to truly explain it.

I think there is something to this.  On the other hand, language is an incredibly useful tool and I do not think we simply toss it out for its possible shortcomings here.  The Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu's writing are not the message.  They are meant to lead the reader to the message.  A figure pointing at the moon, if you will. 

[HairyHeretic]

I am responsible only for what I say, not what you hear or understand.

[MasterMischief]

If I do not understand anything, you must be responsible for everything.

[Oniya]

He who knows not, but knows that he knows not knows more than he who knows but knows not that he knows.


Something.

*boing*

[MasterMischief]

Today was about humility.  It is something I have lost sight of again.  It is too easy to slip back into bad habits.  When I was younger, I feared everyone was 'better' than I.  Now, I find myself all too often thinking I am 'better' than others.  There is no 'better'.  Only different.  And different is a blessing.

[Cessali]

An easy trap for Westerners to fall into is to attach a self-referent egotic stake to the notions of better or worse with reference to oneself.

We observe that someone is possessed of a superior skill or talent than someone else.  One thought arises: the perception that the other is more skilled.  The second thought, which follows from the first and is a conditioned, this-is-not-to-be-certain reaction (instilled in us by culture/society/peers), is that the one more skilled is thus better as a human being because of it.  Hold two oranges of differing juiciness in front of a sage and ask them which is better, and the sage will ask you what you mean when you say "better".  Tastier?  To whom?  An animal that likes fruit will judge the juicier orange as better/tastier.  A tiger has absolutely no opinion on which orange is better, nor does the eagle or the mantis shrimp.  By the same token, the sage will also quite readily say that those two oranges are in fact different.  One is juicier, after all.

The mistake that comes with hubris is not in evaluating that one is more skilled or talented than others.  The mistake comes when the prideful soul then uses that data to come to secondary conclusions that do not necessarily follow-- that they are more favored by the divine, that they are to demean those more (or less) [fill-in-the-blank] than they, that their shit glitters gold, that their success in one field predicts success in similar and unrelated fields, or any number of other easy-to-fall-into cognitive traps and illusions.

Keep at it.  Don't take anything at face value, especially your own reactions in things you know you're biased towards.  Habits are particularly insidious that way, especially if you don't have a new habit to replace it with.

When you can acknowledge someone is inferior with the same detachment and compassion that you acknowledge someone is superior, that's generally a pretty decent sign.

[MasterMischief]

Thank you, Jarick.  That was insightful.

[MasterMischief]

This really resonated with me and I wanted to share.

Dualistic thinking is a sickness.
Religion is a distortion.
Materialism is cruel.
Blind spirituality is unreal.

Chanting is no more holy than listening to the
murmur of a stream, counting prayer beads no more
sacred than simply breathing, religious robes no
more spiritual than work clothes.

IF you wish to attain oneness with the Tao, don't get
caught up in spiritual superficialities.
Instead, live a quiet and simple life, free of ideas and
concepts.
Find contentment in practice of undiscriminating
virtue, the only true power.
Giving to others selflessly and anonymously, radiating
light throughout the world and illuminating your
own darknesses, our virtue becomes a sanctuary for
yourself and all beings.

This is what is meant by embodying the Tao.


--Hua Hu Ching Chapter 47

[WindWhisperer]

It is my hope to be able to read through this and  gain knowledge and enjoy opinions within it.
This is very cool to find.
See ya later.

[MasterMischief]

Glad you found something of interest. I look foward to hearing your thoughts.