Attitude (was Re: I've achieved enlightenment. Where the fuck is TANG!!!)

[Tang Huyen]

On 11/16/2012 11:59 PM, Sevenhundred Elves wrote:

> Ah, Tang, glad to see you again! Perhaps you can help with a little
> problem concerning translation from Classical Chinese to English: What's
> the best translation of verse 49 in the Tao Te Ching? I'm particularly
> interested in the lines about belief or faith that I've seen translated
> as
>
> "She trusts people who are trustworthy.
> She also trusts people who aren't trustworthy.
> This is true trust." - some feminist(?) on the Web
>
> It's the word for trust, faith, belief, you name it, that seems to have
> many different yet similar meanings. (I'm by no means attempting to
> translate the thing myself, just checking with you to see how well a
> certain Swedish translator managed to capture the essence of the thing.)
>
> Do you happen to have an opinion on how the lines should be translated?
> Your opinion matters.
>
> Hoping you have the time and leisure to consider this,

Right off, it should be mentioned that the whole of
Daoism and Buddhism is an opinion, not a truth,
even less a reality. It is to their own credit that
they are mere opinion and declare themselves as
such.

"The Way that can be talked about is not the
eternal Way."

"What and what they think it, it is otherwise."

That said, the beginning of the DDJ is more
gereral and more profound. It gets less
fundamental as it goes along. The chapter that
you enquire about, 49, is pure unrelieved opinion.
Some sages behave that way and some don't. It is
true that many sages are clumsy with the world
and can be easily fooled and taken advantage of.
It is also true that many of them voluntarily
make themselves so, namely easily fooled and
taken advantage of. They don't see a self to
defend and protect, therefore let themselves be
doormats for other to walk over but put up no
grievance to that. It would be good to not think
of good and evil, but if they have to think of
either, they would rather think good and take
everything and everybody as good, even if they
thereby put themselves up for deception. It would
be good to not think of trustworthy and
untrustworthy, but if they have to think of
either, they would rather think trustworthy and
take everything and everybody as trustworthy,
even if they thereby put themselves up for
deception. They take themselves to be last-chance
basket, so that some people can dump stuff on. If
they can help some people relieve some pressure,
they feel good for that, their own interest be
damned. (And by the way they have no interest,
which is what Madame Guyon and Kant insist on;
or at least no interest for themselves). It is
an attitude of pure grace, with no consideration
for survival (or little consideration for
survival). But they never impose such an attitude
on anybody else, wise or not (it would totally
defeat its purpose if they were to).

Of course I don't pretend to be anywhere near
that.

But it is all made up, it is all fluff, it is
pure unrelieved opinion, with nothing to back it
up, better just relax and be serene.

Tang Huyen

[Sevenhundred Elves]

Thank you for the commentary. Now I'm beginning to think that I've never
seen a good translation.

<trb snipped due to the repression inherent in the system I'm using>

S.

[Peter Olcott]

I don't know maybe this is a good focus:
To accept everything that occurs in the present moment as the best way
that things can be at this present moment.
Is this something like what you mean by {relax and be serene}?

[Julian]

It's spelt Pangloss not Tangloss.
>

[Tang Huyen]

On 11/17/2012 11:05 AM, Julian wrote:

> Peter Olcott:

>> I don't know maybe this is a good focus:
>> To accept everything that occurs in the present moment
>> as the best way that things can be at this present
>> moment. Is this something like what you mean by {relax
>> and be serene}?

> It's spelt Pangloss not Tangloss.

Pollyannish in American English.

Room for everything and everybody.
It fosters growth. Loss is gain.
Turn the other cheek (but don't
curse the fig tree).

Counter-example: "I tell you the
truth, no servant is greater than
his master". This shows a
hierarchical, establishmentarian
attitude. Another counter-example:
"It is hard for thee to kick
against the goad." This shows
violence and exclusion.

Tang Huyen

[brian mitchell]

Tang Huyen wrote:

>On 11/16/2012 11:59 PM, Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
>
>> Ah, Tang, glad to see you again! Perhaps you can help with a little
>> problem concerning translation from Classical Chinese to English: What's
>> the best translation of verse 49 in the Tao Te Ching? I'm particularly
>> interested in the lines about belief or faith that I've seen translated
>> as
>>
>> "She trusts people who are trustworthy.
>> She also trusts people who aren't trustworthy.
>> This is true trust." - some feminist(?) on the Web
>>
>> It's the word for trust, faith, belief, you name it, that seems to have
>> many different yet similar meanings. (I'm by no means attempting to
>> translate the thing myself, just checking with you to see how well a
>> certain Swedish translator managed to capture the essence of the thing.)
>>
>> Do you happen to have an opinion on how the lines should be translated?
>> Your opinion matters.
>>
>> Hoping you have the time and leisure to consider this,
>

>The chapter that
>you enquire about, 49, is pure unrelieved opinion.
>Some sages behave that way and some don't. It is
>true that many sages are clumsy with the world
>and can be easily fooled and taken advantage of.
>It is also true that many of them voluntarily
>make themselves so, namely easily fooled and
>taken advantage of. They don't see a self to
>defend and protect, therefore let themselves be
>doormats for other to walk over but put up no
>grievance to that. It would be good to not think
>of good and evil, but if they have to think of
>either, they would rather think good and take
>everything and everybody as good, even if they
>thereby put themselves up for deception. It would
>be good to not think of trustworthy and
>untrustworthy, but if they have to think of
>either, they would rather think trustworthy and
>take everything and everybody as trustworthy,
>even if they thereby put themselves up for

>deception...

I find this to be an odd interpretation of that passage. This is the version that SE first posted:

>The truthful I trust.
>The untruthful I also trust.
>The virtue is trust."
>
>I have faith in people who are faithful.
>I also have faith in people who are not faithful.
>Because Virtue is faithfulness.

I see this as saying that Virtue (which I take to mean being in accord or harmony with theTao, or
following the Way) IS trust, IS faithfulness. Similarly with the phrase "This is true trust."
There's no opinion here; there's no taking thought and deeming it preferable to behave in one way or
another. It is a direct pointing at the Way.

[Tang Huyen]

On 11/17/2012 6:18 PM, brian mitchell wrote:

> I find this to be an odd interpretation of that passage.
> This is the version that SE first posted:
>
>> The truthful I trust.
>> The untruthful I also trust.
>> The virtue is trust."
>>
>> I have faith in people who are faithful.
>> I also have faith in people who are not faithful.
>> Because Virtue is faithfulness.
>
> I see this as saying that Virtue (which I take to mean
> being in accord or harmony with theTao, or following
> the Way) IS trust, IS faithfulness. Similarly with the
> phrase "This is true trust." There's no opinion here;
> there's no taking thought and deeming it preferable to
> behave in one way or another. It is a direct pointing
> at the Way.

I have been saying for years that you are realist
and literalist, and you keep jumping in to confirm
my accusation, for free. Recently I added that your
realism and literalism verge on hallucination, and
your above post very much goes in that direction.

The part of my post that you snipped in your reply
was:

<<Right off, it should be mentioned that the whole
of Daoism and Buddhism is an opinion, not a truth,
even less a reality. It is to their own credit that
they are mere opinion and declare themselves as
such.

"The Way that can be talked about is not the
eternal Way."

"What and what they think it, it is otherwise.">>

Such overt declarations are admissions that all
the appended talk (including those declarations)
are mere opinions, not truth, even less reality.
They can well be pointers, but if they point out
something, it includes the ambiguity and
uncertainty of everything (including what is
being delivered in the talk), not the sureness
and certainty as taught by, e. g., Jesus (who
also hallucinates like you, as in front of the
fig trees).

You are an unreformed Christian (i. e., you are
realist and literalist), and in your old age you
are getting hallucinatory, on top of being so.

Tang Huyen

[niunian]

Here is my interpretation:

To the good people I shall show him his way to heaven.
To the evil people I shall also show him his way to hell.
That's the virtueous way to be good and kind to all.

To the faithful people I shall trust his fate to heaven.
To the unfaithful people I shall also trust that he may suddenly waking
up from his fate to hell.
That's the virtueous trust in all.

The sage has no fixed state of mind. He treats different people according
to their own level of understanding, and progress or regress.

[brian mitchell]

Tang Huyen wrote:

>On 11/17/2012 6:18 PM, brian mitchell wrote:
>
>> I find this to be an odd interpretation of that passage.
>> This is the version that SE first posted:
>>
>>> The truthful I trust.
>>> The untruthful I also trust.
>>> The virtue is trust."
>>>
>>> I have faith in people who are faithful.
>>> I also have faith in people who are not faithful.
>>> Because Virtue is faithfulness.
>>
>> I see this as saying that Virtue (which I take to mean
>> being in accord or harmony with theTao, or following
>> the Way) IS trust, IS faithfulness. Similarly with the
>> phrase "This is true trust." There's no opinion here;
>> there's no taking thought and deeming it preferable to
>> behave in one way or another. It is a direct pointing
>> at the Way.
>
>I have been saying for years that you are realist
>and literalist, and you keep jumping in to confirm
>my accusation, for free. Recently I added that your
>realism and literalism verge on hallucination, and
>your above post very much goes in that direction.

In other words, you just hate being challenged in areas you consider yourself to be expert.

>The part of my post that you snipped in your reply
>was:
>
><<Right off, it should be mentioned that the whole
>of Daoism and Buddhism is an opinion, not a truth,
>even less a reality. It is to their own credit that
>they are mere opinion and declare themselves as
>such.

>"The Way that can be talked about is not the
>eternal Way."
>
>"What and what they think it, it is otherwise.">>
>
>Such overt declarations are admissions that all
>the appended talk (including those declarations)
>are mere opinions, not truth, even less reality.

A bad use of the word 'opinion'. Opinions are intellectually derived. Are you saying that the whole
of the TTC is intellectually derived?

>They can well be pointers, but if they point out
>something, it includes the ambiguity and
>uncertainty of everything (including what is
>being delivered in the talk), not the sureness

>and certainty as taught by, e. g., Jesus...

This is your logic-bound take on these things and shows a degree of literalism in your own
understanding. Knowing without the knower doesn't mean that there isn't anything very much of-itself
to be known. Ambiguity exists within the domain of conceptual meaning but doesn't therefore obtain
beyond that domain.

[Tang Huyen]

On 11/17/2012 10:45 AM, Sevenhundred Elves wrote:

> Thank you for the commentary. Now I'm beginning
> to think that I've never seen a good translation.

One thing to notice about Oriental religion and
philosophy is that they are suggestive and not
quite declarative. They don't quite lay things
down for you to believe, like in Jewish
mythology, but only point out fissures in
convention, so that you can follow through and
figure out convention for yourself.

The situation of Buddhism and Daoism is this:
people (us) create suffering for themselves by
attachment, or more overtly, by taking in dead
seriousness some of the things which happen or
do not happen, and if they want to end their
suffering, all that they need to do is to stop
taking such things in dead seriousness, and
rather just relax and be serene. Buddhism and
Daoism do not talk about truth or reality,
other than in an assumed mode (i. e., if
people want to talk about truth and reality,
Buddhism and Daoism will also talk about them,
but only to lead people away from them, for
truth and reality are dead-serious stuff
which only drags people down). Indeed, truth
and reality are traps which belong to the
barrage of things (often called delusion)
which cause suffering. If people want to end
their suffering, they need to do away with
truth and reality, and take things in levity
and humour instead. Buddhism and Daoism only
point to this attitude, which either causes
suffering to ourselves or does not cause
suffering to ourselves, and only this
attitude matters. The beginning of the Way
and Its Virtue (DDJ) has much penetrating
analysis of what makes us unhappy, and what
makes us unhappy is our attachment to fixity
and certainty, like truth, reality and
virtue.

DDJ Chapter 2:

http://taoism.net/ttc/complete.htm

<<When the world knows beauty as beauty,
ugliness arises
When it knows good as good, evil arises
Thus being and non-being produce each other
Difficult and easy bring about each other
Long and short reveal each other
High and low support each other
Music and voice harmonize each other
Front and back follow each other.>>

That is in the line of:

"The Way that can be talked about is not

the eternal Way." DDJ Chapter I.

"What and what they think it, it is

otherwise." The Buddha.

Buddhism and Daoism only point to this
attitude, which is an attitude of
detachment and aequability, of taking
everything in levity and humour. This
attitude is not bound to any content, like
content of belief (e. g., the credo). It
is merely an attitude, and it encourages
freedom from beliefs, freedom from views
and opinions. Of course we need beliefs,
views and opinions, but we can take them
as good servant and bad master. That is
all that Buddhism and Daoism teach. If you
understand that much, there is no more
secret to Buddhism and Daoism, and if you
don't, Buddhism and Daoism can't help you.
Technique is largely irrelevant.

Tang Huyen

[Tang Huyen]

On 11/17/2012 8:21 PM, brian mitchell wrote:

> A bad use of the word 'opinion'. Opinions are
> intellectually derived. Are you saying that
> the whole of the TTC is intellectually derived?

DDJ Chapter 2:

http://taoism.net/ttc/complete.htm

<<When the world knows beauty as beauty,
ugliness arises
When it knows good as good, evil arises
Thus being and non-being produce each other
Difficult and easy bring about each other
Long and short reveal each other
High and low support each other
Music and voice harmonize each other
Front and back follow each other.>>

In Buddhism, the Middlist School
(Madhyamaka) doubles down on this kind of
critique. Nagarjuna is its founder, but
the whole argument is all over Buddhism,
especially the Perfection of Wisdom
scriptures. There is no stone of
convention left unturned.

By the way, Jesus was innocent of this
kind of critique. "I tell you the truth,

no servant is greater than his master".
This shows a hierarchical,

establishmentarian attitude. "It is hard

for thee to kick against the goad." This

shows violence and exclusion. Other than
bashing the rich and criticising the
"tooth for tooth" revenge, Jesus pretty
much adopts the Jewish establishment.
Japanese Buddhism and Japanese Zen also
fail to carry out a critique of the
Japanese national mentality. It is too
serious.

Tang Huyen

[brian mitchell]

niunian wrote:

>Here is my interpretation:
>
>To the good people I shall show him his way to heaven.
>To the evil people I shall also show him his way to hell.
>That's the virtueous way to be good and kind to all.
>
>To the faithful people I shall trust his fate to heaven.
>To the unfaithful people I shall also trust that he may suddenly waking
>up from his fate to hell.
>That's the virtueous trust in all.
>
>The sage has no fixed state of mind. He treats different people according
>to their own level of understanding, and progress or regress.

In light of that, how would you interpret this verse?

The Tao doesn't take sides;
it gives birth to both good and evil.
The Master doesn't take sides;
she welcomes both saints and sinners.

TTC 5

[niunian]

TTC 5

"天地不仁，以万物为刍狗，
圣人不仁，以百姓为刍狗，
天地之间，其犹橐龠乎！
虚而不屈，动而愈出，
多言数穷，不如守中。"

My literal interpretation:

"Heaven and earth is not kind, treating all things as straw dogs.
The Sage is not kind, treating all people as straw dogs.
Between heaven and earth, isn't it like bellows!
Empty yet without stop, more is done yet more is coming.
Talking endlessly is futile, better holding on to the center instead."

Now, lets deal with your poor interpretaion specifically. I think the
Sage does take sides. He takes the side of Tao to hope the good will
stick to their right way and the evil will repent their wrong way.
Because he goes out of his way to help both the good and the evil for the
sake of Tao, he is recognized by all as the Sage.

[noname]

You think it's all made up and opinion because what you know has come
from books; it's much less complicated than you've made it out to be.

[noname]

On 11/17/2012 06:49 PM, Tang Huyen wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 10:45 AM, Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the commentary. Now I'm beginning
>> to think that I've never seen a good translation.
>
> One thing to notice about Oriental religion and
> philosophy is that they are suggestive and not
> quite declarative. They don't quite lay things
> down for you to believe, like in Jewish
> mythology, but only point out fissures in
> convention, so that you can follow through and
> figure out convention for yourself.

Most of that isn't because the guys who wrote it were wise and
inscrutable, but because what they had to say simply does not admit
itself to verbal description; they were stuck with poetry and paradox as
the best they could do.

The Abrahamic tradition seems more dedicated to maintaining control than
to conveying truth, it's rule-based, black-and-white, guaranteeing
either submission to its demands or expulsion from the tribe.

The two approaches are only marginally comparable, similar only in their
forms but dissimilar in their underlying meaning and intent; classifying
both as either "religion and philosophy" makes a hash of it... one is
philosophy, the other is propaganda.

> The situation of Buddhism and Daoism is this:
> people (us) create suffering for themselves by
> attachment, or more overtly, by taking in dead
> seriousness some of the things which happen or
> do not happen, and if they want to end their
> suffering, all that they need to do is to stop
> taking such things in dead seriousness, and
> rather just relax and be serene.

No, no, ten thousand times no. Those things are dead serious and should
be taken in dead seriousness, just not in the way they are usually taken
in dead seriousness. It isn't that people are seeing their proper
significance and taking them too seriously, but that people are not
seeing their proper significance and taking what is not their meaning
seriously. In other words the problem isn't an issue of being too
serious about something, but not understanding correctly what one is
taking seriously.

> Buddhism and
> Daoism do not talk about truth or reality,
> other than in an assumed mode (i. e., if
> people want to talk about truth and reality,
> Buddhism and Daoism will also talk about them,
> but only to lead people away from them, for
> truth and reality are dead-serious stuff
> which only drags people down). Indeed, truth
> and reality are traps which belong to the
> barrage of things (often called delusion)
> which cause suffering. If people want to end
> their suffering, they need to do away with
> truth and reality, and take things in levity
> and humour instead.

Such bullshit, Tang, you seem to have an endless supply of it springing
forth from your misunderstanding. If people want to end their suffering
they need only stop wallowing in it. They will still feel pain and
endure grief but they need not get all suffering over what is simple
sensory or emotional input by allowing it to own them.

> Buddhism and Daoism only
> point to this attitude, which either causes
> suffering to ourselves or does not cause
> suffering to ourselves, and only this
> attitude matters. The beginning of the Way
> and Its Virtue (DDJ) has much penetrating
> analysis of what makes us unhappy, and what
> makes us unhappy is our attachment to fixity
> and certainty, like truth, reality and
> virtue.
>
> DDJ Chapter 2:
>
> http://taoism.net/ttc/complete.htm
>
> <<When the world knows beauty as beauty,
> ugliness arises
> When it knows good as good, evil arises

That bit is a direct reference to literalism, to focusing on form in
preference to its underlying meaning. When people think that going to
church every sunday makes you virtuous, some ugly shit has just been
created by that literalism.

> Thus being and non-being produce each other
> Difficult and easy bring about each other
> Long and short reveal each other
> High and low support each other
> Music and voice harmonize each other
> Front and back follow each other.>>
>
> That is in the line of:
>
> "The Way that can be talked about is not
> the eternal Way." DDJ Chapter I.
>
> "What and what they think it, it is
> otherwise." The Buddha.
>
> Buddhism and Daoism only point to this
> attitude,

Yet both of those quotes have come right out and said the very same
thing in very specific literal terms: the way can not be expressed as a
set of rules (as the Abrahamic tradition appears to attempt), it can
only be pointed to. Any way you describe it is by definition wrong,
even though you can say things about it that are true and correct. The
outside of a box can not be reproduced at its full size within that same
box.

> which is an attitude of
> detachment and aequability, of taking
> everything in levity and humour.

Bullshit, that is utter bullshit Tang, and you should know better than
to tell the rubes that it's all a joke when in fact it is deadly serious.

> This
> attitude is not bound to any content, like
> content of belief (e. g., the credo). It
> is merely an attitude, and it encourages
> freedom from beliefs, freedom from views
> and opinions. Of course we need beliefs,
> views and opinions,

No, in truth we do not need those things, they are excess baggage, the
mere wrappers of past candybars; what we need is the candy which can
only be found in the immediate present where no beliefs, views, or
opinions can exist.

> but we can take them
> as good servant and bad master. That is
> all that Buddhism and Daoism teach. If you
> understand that much, there is no more
> secret to Buddhism and Daoism, and if you
> don't, Buddhism and Daoism can't help you.
> Technique is largely irrelevant.
>
> Tang Huyen

Attitude and technique are inseparable, merely opposite sides of a
single coin, two aspects of one.

[noname]

If it was not absolutely required that everything be exactly as it is at
this moment, it would be some other way; that much is a given. The
difficult part is to grasp why. When you begin to grasp the why that
manifests as what, you will have found the outside end of the yarn and
can proceed to unwind the ball with at least as much cognizance as a cat
if you can maintain a similarly constant level of attention.

> Is this something like what you mean by {relax and be serene}?
>

Tang is a wanty-feely fellow, he wants it to be done for him.

And while it will be done for, one cannot merely relax amid the doing.

[noname]

The phrase "relax and be serene" expresses a wanty-feely need for the
world to become as you wish it to be, without effort on your part,
because you think you deserve it to be so.

The word "relax" has become synonymous with limpness, yet within useful
relaxation there is significant tension, which if imbalanced would cause
action. The way things are (yin) is in constant tension with the way
things ought properly be (yang) and when these are equal the world is a
peace.

It takes far more attention to be awake than it does to relax and go
back to sleep.

[noname]

You're too stupid even to be maroon, Tang. You are the spiritual
equivalent of what Ayn Rand called a "looter". You want to be made
happy because you think you deserve it.

Stop posturing and simply be as you are, there is no other way than to
begin with that.

[noname]

There are no sides for the sage to take, he holds fast to the center (of
the way), meeting everything squarely.

[niunian]

The middle way is not the center of the way. It is the way which is
between the left way and the right way. You can take the side of the left
way. You can take the side of the right way. You can also take the side
of the middle way. The sage is the one who takes the middle way. He can
hold fast his own moral center without compromising with either the left
or the right. The one, who kisses every stupid ass he can hold on to, is
not a sage. He is an idiot and a moral prostitute.

[x]

i love you. :>

[Peter Olcott]

Tang has great wisdom. Like myself this great wisdom is not yet fully
integrated into his being.
If one suffers**, one can know that one does not yet have the way. I
myself still suffer.

** Adverse emotional reaction to conditions.

[Peter Olcott]

I think that the middle way is a perfect balance between a pair of
polarized extremes.

[niunian]

Thank you. It's been a while to see you again. I guess it's because I no
longer subscribe to the fat guy group. To avoid any misunderstanding
about what I have said, I would like to say that I'm no sage and don't
pretend to be one. I always prefer the right way. Hallelujah!

:-)

[x]

you need to know what you need...

[Peter Olcott]

Not more or less than simply ineffable.

> "What and what they think it, it is otherwise.">>
>
> Such overt declarations are admissions that all
> the appended talk (including those declarations)
> are mere opinions, not truth, even less reality.

Some actual, real, and genuine truth can be ineffable.

If one tries to fully specify the entire and exact taste of
strawberries, one is at a loss for the right words because the right
words can not possibly exist.

[Peter Olcott]

Yes, this rings true.

[Peter Olcott]

Yes, the term {opinion} is not nearly as apt as the term {ineffable}.

[x]

LOL :)

[niunian]

The middle way is the way of God which is the way of the Sage in
TaoTeJing. Unless you wish to be the messenger of God, unless you pretend
to speak for God, unless you are compelled to act for the benefit of all,
you better not to think you can handle it so easily.

[Peter Olcott]

On 11/17/2012 7:49 PM, Tang Huyen wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 10:45 AM, Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the commentary. Now I'm beginning
>> to think that I've never seen a good translation.
>
> One thing to notice about Oriental religion and
> philosophy is that they are suggestive and not
> quite declarative. They don't quite lay things
> down for you to believe, like in Jewish
> mythology, but only point out fissures in
> convention, so that you can follow through and
> figure out convention for yourself.
>
> The situation of Buddhism and Daoism is this:
> people (us) create suffering for themselves by
> attachment, or more overtly, by taking in dead
> seriousness some of the things which happen or
> do not happen, and if they want to end their
> suffering, all that they need to do is to stop
> taking such things in dead seriousness, and
> rather just relax and be serene. Buddhism and

Something like the above is working for me.
If one surrenders to {what is} it reciprocates and we meet in the middle

> Daoism do not talk about truth or reality,
> other than in an assumed mode (i. e., if
> people want to talk about truth and reality,
> Buddhism and Daoism will also talk about them,
> but only to lead people away from them, for
> truth and reality are dead-serious stuff
> which only drags people down). Indeed, truth

This seems to ring true, or more aptly it rings good.
Cultivating {I don't know} mind, and living in uncertainty.

I think that here might be a little more to it than this, not much more.

Fully integrated realization anchor's the above attitude into one's
being thus becoming an inherent aspect of one's nature.

[Peter Olcott]

He has a good point about the fluff, Buddha called this conditioning.

Conditioning is an artifice that is placed on top of {what is} such that
one only see {what is} through the distorted lens of conditioning.

[Peter Olcott]

I continue to cultivate {I don't know} mind.

[niunian]

Wrong. The sage suffers gladly. You suffer hopelessly.

That's the difference.

[niunian]

Actually, words are spoken only to the like minded people. That's the
beauty of the words.

[Peter Olcott]

Nothing compels me to do, say, or think anything.
From a Christian point of view: I choose righteousness, whatever that
turns out to actually be.
Since all human righteousness is like unto filthy rags (dirty diapers)
very few get righteousness correctly.

Although God's love always made perfect sense, God's wrath never made sense.
Because of this God chooses to act for the maximum benefit of all.

[Peter Olcott]

To the same degree that one has adverse emotional reaction to
conditions, one has gotten Buddhism and/or Christianity incorrectly.

[x]

depth over span...maybe..

[niunian]

I would be glad if my interpretation can help you better understand the
great TaoTeChing.

[x]

or some balance between them... i don't know. thinking of something ken
wilber said....but i think you're onto it with the i don't know view of
things.. i think the word believe should have some sorta come back by a
philosophical school of thought. not that words can be strictly defined
in casual conversations..but that is where the word is most best used...

[niunian]

Adverse emotional reaction is something that everybody has. If you think
otherwise, you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Peter Olcott]

Everyone, at least for a moment has the full mind of God.

[x]

do you have a favourite translation / transliteration ?

[x]

do you believe in sages?

[niunian]

That's only because you don't know what God's wrath really is. You are
told it's the massive destruction and indiscriminate killing of the
Satan. It's obiviously wrong, yet you continue to believe it anyway.

[niunian]

No, I believe in God and God alone.

[niunian]

No. I prefer my personal interpretation.

[x]

:)

[i2i]

"niunian" wrote in message news:k8asaq$pv$8...@dont-email.me...

fear not. they have a cure for that now.

[niunian]

Don't be so sure. I'm confident when you read my interpretation of the
TaoTeChing, you can actually understand something.

[i2i]

"niunian" wrote in message news:k8atn1$pv$9...@dont-email.me...

- - - -

buffoonville !

[niunian]

Now there is an exception where my words falling on deaf ears. Or, is
that the normal reaction coming from the cluelss idiots who have fucking
ideas about the Tao as it has always been?

[i2i]

"niunian" wrote in message news:k8avng$4dj$1...@dont-email.me...

- - - -

idiotshow !

[niunian]

Indeed, you idiot!

[i2i]

"niunian" wrote in message news:k8b072$4dj$2...@dont-email.me...

coming from you I can only take
that as the highest compliment.

[niunian]

Don't blame me, you self-confessed fucking clueless idiot.

[i2i]

"niunian" wrote in message news:k8b0el$4dj$3...@dont-email.me...

moronskiness !

[niunian]

If that's all you can manage with your little intellectually deficient
brain, you are excused.

[i2i]

"niunian" wrote in message news:k8b0u0$4dj$4...@dont-email.me...

- - -

dumbassness on parade !

[brian mitchell]

Peter Olcott wrote:

>I continue to cultivate {I don't know} mind.

Without seeing any inherent contradiction in this?

[pi]

noname wrote:

> Most of that isn't because the guys who wrote it were wise and
> inscrutable, but because what they had to say simply does not admit
> itself to verbal description;

I used to read your posts as collections of my own thoughts I just
haven't thought yet.

> they were stuck with poetry and paradox as the best they could do.

I am proud to say, I've recently began to find my own thoughts in
them, thoughts I've thought. IMVHO, or perhaps I've just read it
somewhere (I couldn't say where), although the traditional (perhaps
less literary, more humanistic and poetic) thinking styles of e.g.
Hegel and Freud are contemporarily a bit discredited, partly due to
methodological developments of Frege and Goedel (ah, those Germans!),
they are nevertheless the immediate and necessary precursors to what's
considered rigourous thinking these days.

Again, IMVHO, poetry as well as Hegel's and Freud's style
considerations may very gently point at the inexpressible, but
(perhaps) one only comes face to face with it if one attempts to
rigorously express its very existence.

I may, of course, be wrong. I mean, the Buddha did not need any modern
math to come up with exactly the same philosophical results as Goedel
did.

http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1175489178l/520680.jpg

I am sorry, this is just my babbling. Other than that, I completely
agree with rest of your post as well.

pi

[pi]

Peter Olcott wrote:

> Tang has great wisdom.

Yes, indeed, but IMVHO, he's a little shy:

http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1175489178l/520680.jpg

I understand that. I am shy myself. If it hadn't been for Tang and his
encouragement, I would have ceased to post here and never have learnt
all these wonderful things.

Professor Tang, please keep it up, Sir :) And please don't be shy :)

http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/gmlogo9.jpg

pi

[noname]

On 11/18/2012 06:44 AM, Peter Olcott wrote:
> On 11/18/2012 6:34 AM, noname wrote:
>> On 11/17/2012 04:35 PM, Tang Huyen wrote:
>>> On 11/17/2012 6:18 PM, brian mitchell wrote:
>>>

>>>> I find this to be an odd interpretation of that passage.
>>>> This is the version that SE first posted:
>>>>
>>>>> The truthful I trust.
>>>>> The untruthful I also trust.
>>>>> The virtue is trust."
>>>>>
>>>>> I have faith in people who are faithful.
>>>>> I also have faith in people who are not faithful.
>>>>> Because Virtue is faithfulness.
>>>>
>>>> I see this as saying that Virtue (which I take to mean
>>>> being in accord or harmony with theTao, or following
>>>> the Way) IS trust, IS faithfulness. Similarly with the
>>>> phrase "This is true trust." There's no opinion here;
>>>> there's no taking thought and deeming it preferable to
>>>> behave in one way or another. It is a direct pointing
>>>> at the Way.
>>>

Some people have become able to allow physical or emotional discomfort
(such as grief at the passing of a loved one) to simply pass through
them without sticking and covering up their freedom from suffering.

Until that point is reached, I have in the past found it helpful to yell
curses at the pain; it does not change anything real, much, but it does
seem to distract one for a while and prevent engaging in the wallowing
self-pity that is suffering.

[noname]

The contradiction is not real, it is a paradox due to the form of the
words available to express the thought.

[noname]

If that is true then I have "no idea" what I am talking about;
fortunately ideas are not much involved, ideas are the realm of the
thinking mind. If you get upset about something you feel, some physical
or emotional pain, it is an indication that you have not understood what
it communicates, that you are throwing a mental or emotional tantrum
over not having gotten your way... even when you are being given
important clues as to why what you thought you wanted was not what you
really wanted.

[noname]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/

[noname]

On 11/18/2012 06:11 AM, niunian wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 05:38:31 -0700 noname wrote:
>
>> On 11/17/2012 09:56 PM, niunian wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 03:08:46 +0000 brian mitchell wrote:
>>>
>>>> niunian wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> Here is my interpretation:
>>>>>
>>>>> To the good people I shall show him his way to heaven.
>>>>> To the evil people I shall also show him his way to hell.
>>>>> That's the virtueous way to be good and kind to all.
>>>>>
>>>>> To the faithful people I shall trust his fate to heaven.
>>>>> To the unfaithful people I shall also trust that he may suddenly
>>>>> waking up from his fate to hell.
>>>>> That's the virtueous trust in all.
>>>>>

>>>>> The sage has no fixed state of mind. He treats different people

>>>>> according to their own level of understanding, and progress or
>>>>> regress.
>>>>

>>>> In light of that, how would you interpret this verse?
>>>>
>>>> The Tao doesn't take sides;
>>>> it gives birth to both good and evil.
>>>> The Master doesn't take sides;
>>>> she welcomes both saints and sinners.
>>>>
>>>> TTC 5
>>>
>>> TTC 5
>>>
>>> "天地不仁，以万物为刍狗， 圣人不仁，以百姓为刍狗，
>>> 天地之间，其犹橐龠乎！
>>> 虚而不屈，动而愈出，
>>> 多言数穷，不如守中。"
>>>
>>> My literal interpretation:
>>>
>>> "Heaven and earth is not kind, treating all things as straw dogs.
>>> The Sage is not kind, treating all people as straw dogs.
>>> Between heaven and earth, isn't it like bellows!
>>> Empty yet without stop, more is done yet more is coming.
>>> Talking endlessly is futile, better holding on to the center instead."
>>>
>>> Now, lets deal with your poor interpretaion specifically. I think the
>>> Sage does take sides. He takes the side of Tao to hope the good will
>>> stick to their right way and the evil will repent their wrong way.
>>> Because he goes out of his way to help both the good and the evil for
>>> the sake of Tao, he is recognized by all as the Sage.
>>>
>>>
>> There are no sides for the sage to take, he holds fast to the center (of
>> the way), meeting everything squarely.
>

> The middle way is not the center of the way. It is the way which is
> between the left way and the right way. You can take the side of the left
> way. You can take the side of the right way. You can also take the side
> of the middle way. The sage is the one who takes the middle way. He can
> hold fast his own moral center without compromising with either the left
> or the right. The one, who kisses every stupid ass he can hold on to, is
> not a sage. He is an idiot and a moral prostitute.
>

Your anger will serve you best if you listen to it.

[noname]

The difference between a transliteration and a translation is the
understanding supplied by the translator.

http://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html

[niunian]

Do you have a point?

[niunian]

I'm talking about your normal emotional reaction to situations which you
can not control and predict. I'm not talking about how you are going to
respond to such normal human emotional reactions. Can you see the
difference?

[niunian]

It appears in fearing of your suffering due to having normal human
emotions, you have decided to ignore and suppress your human emotion
pretending that nothing has happened. If that is freedom, then all
lifeless corpses are all enlightened beings.

[niunian]

My anger is my powerful servant in fighting the evil of the world. In
fury, I'm the master, my anger is my shot gun.

[niunian]

Just compare Chapter five with the one I made yesterday at the request of
brain mithchell, you can see how stupid that interpretation is. And it
only took me five minutes to get the job done.

[brian mitchell]

I was about to say I disagree with you on the grounds that to cultivate something you must have an
idea of what it is, or what it should be, which would be the antithesis of "don't know mind", but
then I noticed that Peter had written "{I don't know} mind" which for all I know may be a completely
different animal. I still say that the mind that is free from knowing doesn't need cultivating
because it already exists perfectly as that and only needs to be found or realized.

[i2i]

"brian mitchell" wrote in message
news:9bpka85og8qipd70r...@4ax.com...

- - -
- -


I can't think myself to a no-thought state?
can't use concepts to bring myself to a prior
to concepts platform? can't bring my ego to
an enlightened ego status? damn. this is surely
going to tin-foil some of the best spiritual aspirant's
quests.

back to the cosmic cookie drawing board.....

[brian mitchell]

niunian wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 03:08:46 +0000 brian mitchell wrote:
>
>> niunian wrote:
>>

>>>Here is my interpretation:
>>>
>>>To the good people I shall show him his way to heaven.
>>>To the evil people I shall also show him his way to hell.
>>>That's the virtueous way to be good and kind to all.
>>>
>>>To the faithful people I shall trust his fate to heaven.
>>>To the unfaithful people I shall also trust that he may suddenly waking
>>>up from his fate to hell.
>>>That's the virtueous trust in all.
>>>

>>>The sage has no fixed state of mind. He treats different people

>>>according to their own level of understanding, and progress or regress.
>>

>> In light of that, how would you interpret this verse?
>>
>> The Tao doesn't take sides;
>> it gives birth to both good and evil.
>> The Master doesn't take sides;
>> she welcomes both saints and sinners.
>>
>> TTC 5
>
>TTC 5
>

>"????????????
>????????????
>???????????
>??????????
>??????????"

>
>My literal interpretation:
>
>"Heaven and earth is not kind, treating all things as straw dogs.
>The Sage is not kind, treating all people as straw dogs.
>Between heaven and earth, isn't it like bellows!
>Empty yet without stop, more is done yet more is coming.
>Talking endlessly is futile, better holding on to the center instead."

Your translation agrees fairly closely with the one Tang gave a link to:

"Heaven and Earth are impartial
They regard myriad things as straw dogs
The sages are impartial
They regard people as straw dogs

"The space between Heaven and Earth
Is it not like a bellows?
Empty, and yet never exhausted
It moves, and produces more

"Too many words hasten failure
Cannot compare to keeping to the void"
http://taoism.net/ttc/complete.htm

It would interesting to know exactly what "straw dogs" represented in ancient Chinese culture.
Whatever it meant, though, to be impartial is not the same as to be "not kind". One could be
impartially kind to every straw dog one came across. The difference between 'impartial' and 'not
kind' is where interpretation takes over from translation. I'm unable to criticize your translation
because I have no knowledge of Chinese; I do have reservations about your interpretation.

> I think the Sage does take sides. He takes the side of Tao to hope the good will

>stick to their right way and the evil will repent their wrong way...

From that same translation:
"When the world knows beauty as beauty, ugliness arises
When it knows good as good, evil arises"

It seems, according to this version of the TTC at least, that good and evil are both without virtue.
Virtue is an interesting word. It has come to be associated with moral correctness but it originally
meant something much closer to essence or nature. The Middle English word 'vertu' meant that which
makes a thing what it is, more or less.

[niunian]

Straw dogs in the time of Laozi were used as something like flowers in
today's memorial day service in the western world. They are beautifully
made to decorate the ancestral altar for the ceremony. Once the service
is done, they are thrown away as garbages. The translaters of TTC may
have greater language abilities than I, but they have no real idea what
the hell they are translating.

>
>> I think the Sage does take sides. He takes the side of Tao to hope the
>> good will
>>stick to their right way and the evil will repent their wrong way...
>
> From that same translation:
> "When the world knows beauty as beauty, ugliness arises When it knows
> good as good, evil arises"
>
> It seems, according to this version of the TTC at least, that good and
> evil are both without virtue.

That is correct, but are you going to deny that Tao and Te which are
truth and virtue in English are not good because of that?

> Virtue is an interesting word. It has come to be associated with moral
> correctness but it originally meant something much closer to essence or
> nature. The Middle English word 'vertu' meant that which makes a thing
> what it is, more or less.

The TTC is literally translated as the book of truth and virtue. Laozi
was talking about something which is much greater than simple human
concept of good and bad. The middle way is not any compromise. It is the
way to accomplish the greater good and benefit for all.

[niunian]

The fucking Japanese and Korean zen buddhists have distorted Buddhism so
much that they value ignorance and stupidity in place of knowledge and
truth. They are fucked, but are you people going to be fucked also?

[Peter Olcott]

On 11/18/2012 8:33 AM, niunian wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 08:19:35 -0600 Peter Olcott wrote:
>
>> On 11/18/2012 8:12 AM, niunian wrote:

>>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 07:44:08 -0600 Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/18/2012 6:34 AM, noname wrote:
>>>>> On 11/17/2012 04:35 PM, Tang Huyen wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/17/2012 6:18 PM, brian mitchell wrote:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I find this to be an odd interpretation of that passage.
>>>>>>> This is the version that SE first posted:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The truthful I trust.
>>>>>>>> The untruthful I also trust.
>>>>>>>> The virtue is trust."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have faith in people who are faithful.
>>>>>>>> I also have faith in people who are not faithful.
>>>>>>>> Because Virtue is faithfulness.
>>>>>>> I see this as saying that Virtue (which I take to mean being in
>>>>>>> accord or harmony with theTao, or following the Way) IS trust, IS
>>>>>>> faithfulness. Similarly with the phrase "This is true trust."
>>>>>>> There's no opinion here; there's no taking thought and deeming it
>>>>>>> preferable to behave in one way or another. It is a direct pointing
>>>>>>> at the Way.

>>> Wrong. The sage suffers gladly. You suffer hopelessly.
>>>
>>> That's the difference.
>> To the same degree that one has adverse emotional reaction to
>> conditions, one has gotten Buddhism and/or Christianity incorrectly.
> Adverse emotional reaction is something that everybody has. If you think
> otherwise, you have no idea what you are talking about.

If I extrapolate the trend of my own experience I can see where you are
likely wrong on this.
As I surrender to {what is} it reciprocates and surrenders to me, thus
we meet in the middle.

It seems that the best way to be is to not be bothered by conditions,
and once one gets good at this the conditions themselves re-arrange
themselves more favorably.

The best place to be is the midpoint between getting whatever one wants
and wanting whatever one gets.

[niunian]

Wishful thinking. Your emotional feeling is the wild fire that you can
not negotiate with. It will consume you one way or another despite your
effort to contain or suppress its effect on you.

>
> It seems that the best way to be is to not be bothered by conditions,
> and once one gets good at this the conditions themselves re-arrange
> themselves more favorably.

Ignoring what is happening will not make it go away. You only wish they
are not as bad as they already are.

>
> The best place to be is the midpoint between getting whatever one wants
> and wanting whatever one gets.

It's not about what you want or what you get. It's not about you. It's
about what it is and what it should be.

[brian mitchell]

>is done, they are thrown away as garbages...

I see, so they are objects of value while they have life and purpose, but dust when they die. That's
a good image. Thanks.

>The translaters of TTC may
>have greater language abilities than I, but they have no real idea what
>the hell they are translating.

That you can't know, especially when their translation matches yours.

>>> I think the Sage does take sides. He takes the side of Tao to hope the
>>> good will
>>>stick to their right way and the evil will repent their wrong way...
>>
>> From that same translation:
>> "When the world knows beauty as beauty, ugliness arises When it knows
>> good as good, evil arises"
>>
>> It seems, according to this version of the TTC at least, that good and
>> evil are both without virtue.
>
>That is correct, but are you going to deny that Tao and Te which are
>truth and virtue in English are not good because of that?

The way I see it can best be shown with a slight revision:

When the world knows beauty as Beauty, Ugliness arises
When it knows good as Good, Evil arises

The emphasis here is on knowing by naming. It does seem to me that you are often in the business of
identifying (naming) Good and Evil.

>
>> Virtue is an interesting word. It has come to be associated with moral
>> correctness but it originally meant something much closer to essence or
>> nature. The Middle English word 'vertu' meant that which makes a thing
>> what it is, more or less.
>
>The TTC is literally translated as the book of truth and virtue. Laozi
>was talking about something which is much greater than simple human
>concept of good and bad. The middle way is not any compromise. It is the
>way to accomplish the greater good and benefit for all.

Yes, but all, apparently, by doing nothing; certainly not by actively seeking to root out Evil or
promote Goodness. Human concepts of good and bad are not particularly simple. In the Abrahamic
religions and other Western traditions they take on a cosmic giganticism. In the business of the
world they often become legally minute and intricate. It is surely the Tao which returns them to
simplicity?

[niunian]

No. They are objects of symbolic value. Once the ceremony is over, they
are objects of worthless value. They have no inherent value of their own
as they are made of straws. The world however beautiful, the people
however sentient, they are not treated kindly by the Heaven or the Sage.

That's the real meaning of TTC 5.

>
>>The translaters of TTC may have greater language abilities than I, but
>>they have no real idea what the hell they are translating.
>
> That you can't know, especially when their translation matches yours.

From my point of view, they can hardly match mine. They always choose the
wrong word to confuse the reader with their ambiguity.

>
>
>>>> I think the Sage does take sides. He takes the side of Tao to hope
>>>> the good will
>>>>stick to their right way and the evil will repent their wrong way...
>>>
>>> From that same translation:
>>> "When the world knows beauty as beauty, ugliness arises When it knows
>>> good as good, evil arises"
>>>
>>> It seems, according to this version of the TTC at least, that good and
>>> evil are both without virtue.
>>
>>That is correct, but are you going to deny that Tao and Te which are
>>truth and virtue in English are not good because of that?
>
> The way I see it can best be shown with a slight revision:
>
> When the world knows beauty as Beauty, Ugliness arises When it knows
> good as Good, Evil arises
>
> The emphasis here is on knowing by naming. It does seem to me that you
> are often in the business of identifying (naming) Good and Evil.

That's because good and evil is the reality of the world. LaoZi was
simply describing this reality of the world. This reality of good and
evil of the world has confused people to recognize the Truth(Tao) and
Virtue(Te) of Laozi. Laozi was not teaching us to ignore good and evil.
Laozi was teaching us to recognize its true nature so that we can focus
on the Truth(Tao) and Virtue(Te) instead.

>
>
>>> Virtue is an interesting word. It has come to be associated with moral
>>> correctness but it originally meant something much closer to essence
>>> or nature. The Middle English word 'vertu' meant that which makes a
>>> thing what it is, more or less.
>>
>>The TTC is literally translated as the book of truth and virtue. Laozi
>>was talking about something which is much greater than simple human
>>concept of good and bad. The middle way is not any compromise. It is the
>>way to accomplish the greater good and benefit for all.
>
> Yes, but all, apparently, by doing nothing; certainly not by actively
> seeking to root out Evil or promote Goodness. Human concepts of good and
> bad are not particularly simple. In the Abrahamic religions and other
> Western traditions they take on a cosmic giganticism. In the business of
> the world they often become legally minute and intricate. It is surely
> the Tao which returns them to simplicity?

There is doing by not doing. There is also not doing by doing. They both
are powerful tools to accomplish greater spiritual realizations. It's not
to be generalized as do nothing.

[noname]

A large part of the work of cultivating a garden involves weeding.
Rooting out the [no exact word here: places] where "i KNOW this" occurs
is analogous to weeding them from the "mind". Which can be considered
"cultivating".

The big difference seems to be that you can't really go looking for
mind-weeds, but you can learn to recognize them as they crop up and deal
with them one at a time. So basically "mental cultivation" is a war of
attrition fought against a thinker that's accumulated a lot of bad data.

Anyway that's the long version of my comment about it not really being
contradictory. Skepticism becomes really useful when you apply it to
the things the thinker claims to "know". <g>

[noname]

You and Bishop Berkley seem to have a lot in common. His immaterialism
should be right up your alley. "God and God alone".

[noname]

It is those events you cannot control or predict that are most important
to understanding.

Modern "science" would have us believe they are "random" but they are
completely not.

Once you come to grips with their occurrence, there is no real
difference remaining to be seen.

[noname]

On 11/19/2012 06:04 PM, Peter Olcott wrote:
> It seems that the best way to be is to not be bothered by conditions,
> and once one gets good at this the conditions themselves re-arrange
> themselves more favorably.
>
> The best place to be is the midpoint between getting whatever one wants
> and wanting whatever one gets.

Well recognized; now, realize it.

[noname]

On 11/19/2012 06:41 PM, niunian wrote:

> It's not about what you want or what you get.

It is getting what one does not want that causes suffering (dukkha).

> It's not about you.

It is not entirely about you, but you and not-you cannot communicate
without you.

> It's about what it is and what it should be.

"Should be" according to whom, God? If an omnipotent God allows what is
to become out of synch with what should be, it isn't very omnipotent.

[noname]

Screaming is hardly pretending that nothing has happened.

> If that is freedom, then all
> lifeless corpses are all enlightened beings.

It is nearly always easy to respond in a way that comes out reinforcing
one's most closely held delusions; much harder to respond in a way that
moves one ever closer to the center of the way. Harder still to manage
it without effort or delay.

[noname]

If I say that your anger makes me laugh as if it was a joke, what then?

[x]

boom!

[noname]

The understanding of "straw dogs" I have accumulated over the years is
that straw dogs were built in order to be burned in ceremonies; the idea
represented by using "straw dogs" as such is that the things equated
with straw dogs are temporary representations that have no inherent
value. Straw dogs are basically party favors, not something of lasting
importance.

What is being referred to in that verse is that the focus of the sage is
not on people so much as world-as-a-whole. "Heaven and earth" regard
all things as straw dogs, as party favors of no inherent value; heaven
and earth focus not on people or mountains or stars but on the
maintaining of balance, people or mountains are unimportant tokens to be
moved however is necessary in order that balance be maintained.

> Whatever it meant, though, to be impartial is not the same as to be "not kind". One could be
> impartially kind to every straw dog one came across. The difference between 'impartial' and 'not
> kind' is where interpretation takes over from translation. I'm unable to criticize your translation
> because I have no knowledge of Chinese; I do have reservations about your interpretation.
>
>> I think the Sage does take sides. He takes the side of Tao to hope the good will
>> stick to their right way and the evil will repent their wrong way...
>
> From that same translation:
> "When the world knows beauty as beauty, ugliness arises
> When it knows good as good, evil arises"
>
> It seems, according to this version of the TTC at least, that good and evil are both without virtue.
> Virtue is an interesting word. It has come to be associated with moral correctness but it originally
> meant something much closer to essence or nature. The Middle English word 'vertu' meant that which
> makes a thing what it is, more or less.

The word "virtue" as used in the TTC might be better translated as
"integrity" or "purity" (not in the sense of holiness but in the sense
of being without contamination, of being only the pure essence of the
thing).

[noname]

On 11/19/2012 05:03 PM, niunian wrote:

> Laozi
> was talking about something which is much greater than simple human
> concept of good and bad. The middle way is not any compromise. It is the
> way to accomplish the greater good and benefit for all.

That is another example of literalism and the misunderstanding it promotes.

The "greater good and benefit for all" you refer to is unimportant, it
is a straw dog that emerges as a shiny byproduct of harmony with Tao.

Yet men are attracted to the shiny, they want "greater good and benefit
for all", rather than simple harmony with Tao. This is where "good"
becomes a goal of itself and thus "evil" is created as a result of
literalism.

The sage abides in harmony with Tao, and is not enticed from the way by
shiny things. The boddhisatva squats down to speak with a crying child
never noticing that he has stepped on a gold piece, not because the
child itself is important, but because the child is in the center of his
path.

[noname]

On 11/19/2012 05:19 AM, niunian wrote:
> Just compare Chapter five with the one I made yesterday at the request of
> brain mithchell, you can see how stupid that interpretation is. And it
> only took me five minutes to get the job done.

How great you are.

[niunian]

Screaming is suffering. Having normal human emotion which may or may not
lead to your self pity is suffering. Your normal emotion and your self
pity are one and the same. The difference is only in the matter of
degree. If you can only handle the kind of suffering which is lesser than
self-pity, you are still far from any freedom from suffering.

I'm talking about your fear of self-pity. It seems you will do anything
in order to avoid it from happening. You do not dare to face the problem
head on, to embrace your worst nightmare which is suffering.

[niunian]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 02:13:11 -0700 noname wrote:

> On 11/19/2012 06:41 PM, niunian wrote:
>
>> It's not about what you want or what you get.
>
> It is getting what one does not want that causes suffering (dukkha).

There is nothing wrong to suffer in this world. Don't be scared.

>
>> It's not about you.
>
> It is not entirely about you, but you and not-you cannot communicate
> without you.

Why the hell do you need to communicate? to indulge yourself in self
pity, perhaps?

>
>> It's about what it is and what it should be.
>
> "Should be" according to whom, God? If an omnipotent God allows what is
> to become out of synch with what should be, it isn't very omnipotent.

With or without God, there is the truth and reality of the world to
provide order and justice for all things.

[niunian]

If you don't want to understand what I'm saying, please just say so. I
can't respond to your post if you decide to running wildly with your
imaginations to completely go off the topic.

[niunian]

Why should I care?

[niunian]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 02:41:28 -0700 noname wrote:

> On 11/19/2012 05:03 PM, niunian wrote:
>
>> Laozi was talking about something which is much greater than simple
>> human concept of good and bad. The middle way is not any compromise. It
>> is the way to accomplish the greater good and benefit for all.
>
> That is another example of literalism and the misunderstanding it
> promotes.
>
> The "greater good and benefit for all" you refer to is unimportant, it
> is a straw dog that emerges as a shiny byproduct of harmony with Tao.

Your imagination is running wild again. It has nothing to do with TTC
anymore.

[niunian]

Nothing you said can be found in Laozi's original words except the term
"straw dogs". It's all speculations and wishful thinkings made by people
who have no idea about the truth and virtue which Laozi taught.

[niunian]

You have to do better than that. Try to humor me first, then we can talk.