Mig

At the end, where that energy comes from? It's not about the origin but the energy comes from somewhere? The energy that makes move earth comes from somewhere. I'm not talking about the manifestation but the source of that propulsion, whatever makes this planet rotate and how energy starts. Just wondering

Did I miss something? Why calling it invisible as it seems that in the 5K words book is talking about the origin of things. If I read Zhuang zi: 齊物論: 古之人，其知有所至矣。惡乎至？有以為未始有物者，至矣盡矣，不可以加矣。 The understanding of the men of ancient times went a long way. How far did it go? To the point where some of them believed that things have never existed - so far, to the end, where nothing can be added. B. Watson translation Isn't he already talking about things have never existed and is confirmed in the DDJ Ch 40 天下万物生于有，有生于无 The myriad things of the world are born of being Being is born of non-being . Derek Lin translation Just wondering

Mostly on the meaning of words as many commentators have pointed out some words have evolved and you find in today's mandarin it doesn't mean the same thing

What the purpose of saying that Lǎo zǐ wrote those lines about the Dào? As a reader, what's in it for me whether it was nameless or nothingness? What's the reason to understand those lines and how that can be helpful?

And what is the reason of the question? 無名 and 有名 are key terms in the DDJ, and are found also in chapters 32, 37, and 41. It seems to me that isolating one term from one chapter may fall into confusion and the terms or the lines may be lost in translation. The editions by Heshang Gong and Wang Bi are popular and are used as a reference with all the commentaries from different scholars throughout ages. It seems to me that the importance is to know how those lines are helpful to understand the whole text and how to apply that knowledge for those who are interested in using it as practical manual and cultivation tool. Your thoughts?

It seems that the whole concept of noun and verb is a very European concept that it makes me wonder if the ancient philologists or scholars paid attention to it or the explanation or commentary was more important. It also makes me wonder when a Chinese reader how they understand both terms,yǒu wú有无 in plain Chinese. I keep reading many postings focusing character by character and forgetting that the language had evolved for the past thousand years. The ancient Chinese apparently didn't rely on tones and the pronunciation was very different from today. So there was certainly another way to explain when they taught and learned from commentaries on how to interpret line by line, structure by structure and put it into perspective as a manual to be understood. Later in history we see how many terms changed and being used by different lineages as well as mixing Buddhist or confucianist concepts. I think what is important is to know what the native scholar can teach or explain how those terms can be understood. Just saying

Thanks and let's see if I follow you with this reasoning and probably I am overthinking. But for the sake of clarity, I have a garden in the backyard and if I let the nature takes it course, the garden will be devastated by insects, weeds and even the soil may lack nutrients, so I should just let nature do its thing? If I take care of my garden, I need to work daily to keep it clean, off insects, weeds and other mammals and birds that like my veggies or fruits and I feel that in obstructing nature. It seems that the Chinese term is more explicit than English when you say順其自然 shùn qí zì rán

I am always lost with those big words and sentences that anyone can get lost. What does: "let nature take its course". Could you give an example? Of course I have to follow day after day or night after night because that is how it is, nothing I can do about it. If there is an earthquake I cannot follow the devastation of destruction and I better find refuge somewhere. Also, I cannot do anything about or against an earthquake. So what is left? How can I do not interrupt the course of nature? Thanks

Have you checked this: I ching numerology : based on Shao Yung's classic Plum blossom numerology

how do you know that nature is the mother to all beings on earth? if there constant destruction and survival in nature, what's the purpose of creating each being. What kind of mother is that? If I look in the animal kingdom animals have some kind of affection to each other in their pack, so it is not all violence that I see in nature

I keep reading in different texts to follow nature, emulate water and be connected to nature and I am wondering did they think or do they still think nature is all good. When you look at nature, there is always something going on, not for the best for humans but to survive as nature is not clement. So why don't they mention the bad side of nature, the cruelty of nature and the disasters we see every day and in the wilderness nature has no benevolence (DDJ Ch 5). Why is so important to obtain the Dao if Dao is related to nature? Just wondering and you can probably can help me to understand better the idea behind "nature" Thanks

I think in the Historian Records for Sima qian, chapter 63, ‘Biographies of Laozi and Hanfei’ [laozi hanfei liezhuan老子韩非列传]: there is a passage about the Master Kong talking about Laozi as a dragon. ，吾知其能飛；魚，吾知其能遊；獸，吾知其能走。走者可以為罔，遊者可以為綸，飛者可以為矰。至於龍，吾不能知其乘風雲而上天。吾今日見老子，其猶龍邪！ I know that birds can fly, I know that fish can swim, and I know that wild animals can run. Those that run can be [trapped in] nets. Those that swim can be [caught by] fishing lines. Those that fly they can [be shot by] arrows trailing a silk string. But with dragons I cannot know if they ride the winds and clouds and ascend to the heavens. Today I met Lao Zi, who is just like a dragon! What's this story all about?

If that manual was used as a manual and with all the philosophical currents and the religious moralists, why didn't they stop the carnage, looting and destruction from what we know in China history. What's so new about that little booklet?

Isn't that what happened throughout all mankind history? and isn't there is no winner or loser in a war, everyone losses except those old geysers who send young kids to kill each other?

Thanks for the translation and observations. If the entire book is to never go into battle why battles have always existed especially in China? As for the translation why people translate: The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.