For Taoists of sciforums: "Lessons" for Taoists...

Other Lesson:

Chapter 81:

"The sage does not accumulate (for himself). The more that he
expends for others, the more does he possess of his own; the more that he gives to others, the more does he have himself."

Well... it's self-explanatory...
To give is to receive... ;)

"Giving is the secret of abundance."

Sivananda

Love,
Nelson
 
My Truth predicted in Taoism

Chapter 78:

"Words that are strictly true seem to be paradoxical."

Love,
Nelson
 
Another answer for you concerning to Love...

Chapter 79:

"In the Way of Heaven, there is no partiality of love; it is always on the side of the good man."

Love,
Nelson
 
More teachings concerning me...

Chapter 43:

"There are few in the world who attain to the teaching without words, and the advantage arising from non-action."

Love,
Nelson
 
More Lessons...

Chapter 37:

"The Tao in its regular course does nothing (for the sake of
doing it), and so there is nothing which it does not do.

If princes and kings were able to maintain it, all things would of
themselves be transformed by them.

If this transformation became to me an object of desire, I would
express the desire by the nameless simplicity.

Simplicity without a name
Is free from all external aim.
With no desire, at rest and still,
All things go right as of their will."

This chapter clearly talks about the principle of non-action. From non-action everything is made, everything flows, everything changes. We don't need to make the changes, the changes are natural in the Universe and they happen harmonically, by action and reaction. Without an action, the reaction is natural. ;)

With no desires, changes happen and it doesn't make difference at all to you. As you can't control external circumstances, peace in mind and Heart has those who are desireless. :)

Love,
Nelson
 
Nelson,

This is getting redundant, but ohh well.
I meant that those who use reason are not eventually "able to do anything"... They will diminish with reason until they can achieve nothing...
Click to expand...
If this were true, than the verse would have said:

They will diminish and continue to diminish until they arrive at non-assertion. With non-assertion there is nothing that they *can* acheive

or to put it in other words, it would have said with non-assertion they achieve nothing

But it doesn't say this, it says:

"They will diminish and continue to diminish until they arrive at non-assertion. With non-assertion there is nothing that they *cannot* acheive.

Meaning there is nothing they are unable to do, meaning they can do all, meaning....ahh you get my point. The version of the Tao Te Ching I have translates this word "non-assertion" as "non-action" and that is the whole point of the Tao, to attain a state of non-action. If the verse we have been debating (using tactics of reason I might add), means what you are saying it means, then you have completely turned the Taoist philosophy on it's head, implying that when a sage attains the state of non-action, that this is bad and they are lost. My understanding of the Taoist concept of "non-action" does not mean "doing nothing" in the sense that we normally take this to mean. This is a misunderstanding of the state of "non-action" due to the fact that it is difficult to translate what this means into words, like you brought up and like it says at the opening of the Tao Te Ching.

"The Tao that can be expressed is not the eternal Tao"

But, we should not let this difficulty hinder us from understanding the message, or why would we even be talking about it in the first place?

By the way, what's with the GIGANTIC font Nelson? are we getting a little miffed?
 
"Non-action" I agree...
Reason...
...I don't know...

I like the gigantic words... :D

Love,
Nelson
 
HEAVENS REASON
Is not heaven's reason truly like a streaching bow? the high it brings down, the lowly it lifts up. those who have abundence it depletes; those who are deficient it augments.
Such is heaven's reason, it depletes those who have abundence but compels the deficient. Man's reason is not so, he depletes the deficient, in order to serve those who have abundence.
Where is he who would have abundence for serving the world?
Indeed, it is the sage who acts but claims not, he aquires merit, but he does not dwell on it, and shows no anxiety to display his excellence.
 
I think it's funny that you guys are arguing about what Taoism is. As soon as you guys began arguing, you both lost it. You've both missed the point. You can talk around the Tao, like Truthseeker was alluding to, but you can never really talk about it without sounding like an ass.

I'd like to recommend a good Taoist book - The Tao of Pooh. It illustrates Taoist "principles" using the Pooh book and is written in the same sort of style.

-Xenu
 
Sure you can talk about Tao. The person who says you can not talk about it does not know what he/she is talking about. That is the beauty or is that the lack of....I forget....TAO??.... :D
 
My master quoted once, to seek a higher being than ones self in this life ,is to seek a being that does not exsist.
 
Your master is wise....

But then again..."does not exist" seems too absolute...but with a qualifier like "in this life"...I have to agree....
 
have you read ahlgren's book discipline? the way it connects taoism to particle physics and time travel are stunning to say the least.
 
Yes I have...sorry to say...it is like a sand box.

sandbox-2.jpg
 
A child builds a sand castle...and imagines white knights, kings....damsel in distress....

OR a pyramid....and imagines...King Tut...Cleopatra....

OR...

Get it now?....
 
For Taoists of sciforums: "Lessons" for Taoists...

we must be talking about two different books. unless you just didn't get it? :)

i'm not suggesting that discipline is a textbook on quantum mechanics, nor is it a treatise on eastern philosophy or economics or anything else. i went into the book thinking "oh great this guy is writing his autobiography. yawn." i came out of it fairly startled. the way that the different ideas come together made me rethink a lot of what i've believed for some time. i don't think its seemless, but by his own admission, he's not finished.

i'd be interested in hearing what turned you off about it. from what i gather you believe that ahlgren bit off more than he can chew? or maybe he is aspiring to heights for which he isn't qualified?
 
Originally posted by listening
i'd be interested in hearing what turned you off about it. from what i gather you believe that ahlgren bit off more than he can chew? or maybe he is aspiring to heights for which he isn't qualified?
Click to expand...

Exactly. He did send me the book. Nice guy. So I hate to criticize too much. I was not totally turned off, there is more work needs to be done in separating fantasy and philosophy and science. It is like some one took a rainbow of colors and painted an expression saying this is our future (Cant you see the city, the people, the factory, the flowers, the trees?...where...where...I ask?)

i came out of it fairly startled. the way that the different ideas come together made me rethink a lot of what i've believed for some time.
Click to expand...

Your interpretation of the book - the cliffnotes version please....explain...
 
heh heh. the proverbial utopia...

i am fairly new to ahlgren's work, as well as to this board, so i may be coming at this from a different perspective than you. also, i have become somewhat personally acquainted with the author and have offered to help him in a limited capacity (creating a daily quote, etc) because i really do like the work and i find value in it. the reason i came here is because i was told that some people here are familiar with the work and could comment on the scientific parts.

i was told that the book is a work in progress, whatever that means. i do know that there have been a lot of rewrites in the last year and that ahlgren himself says the book isn't ready yet. i have to agree, but i wonder how long it has been since you read it? i haven't seen earlier copies, but i've heard they are more difficult to get through, maybe something like a sandbox? :)

the cliffnotes version.

to me the story isn't as important as the different theories. the book takes taoism, subatomic physics, economics and finance and pulls them together. i had some problems with the economics part (i found out about the book on an economics board) and i am not qualified to speak on the physics part. paco has said he doesn't necessarily subscribe to the multiverse theory. i have david deutsch on my reading list so i'll see where i stand on that later.

as i understand it the book was written for the lowest common denominator. maybe it is utopian and that's part of the reason i'm here, but i definately got something from it, at least enough that i wanted to find out more.

this isn't the only place i'm asking these questions and so far the response i'm getting is interesting. for the most part the people who read it last summer and fall are more critical than the people who have read it recently. my opinion is that if he cleans it up it can be a great book. the ideas are right on. like i said it made me rethink my ideas on a lot of things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top