OldDog

That's it, thanks! Where I was looking it translated "body" as "self" ... which carries a slightly different meaning but the overall point of Ch 13 is the same. @wandelaar cited this as ... that our troubles come from having a body. While this true in a strict sense ... no body, nothing to be concerned about ... I think the reading of body as self tells us something different. The manner in which we regard our body ... our physical being ... is our self. It is the self and not the body that is the source of trouble.

Although I recalled it ... when I went searching for it, I could not find it. At this point, I'm not sure it wasn't Zhuangzi or somewhere else. No matter .... since I don't believe there would have been a perscriptive solution offered in those texts ... based on my readings of Laozi and Zhuangzi. I believe both would have stopped short of a full solution. In a sense, I do not view them as complete treatment od daoism ... they simply point the way. So, in my belief in the unity of body, mind and spirit, I would have to look toward some of the cultivation notions that are elucidated in the Nei Ye.

@wandelaar I think studying the Guanzi ... through which ever analyst is a good idea. It demonstrates that daoist ideas ... whether they be philosophical, cosmological or nei gong/nei dan cultivation methods ... were all in common circulation at the time Laozi and Chuangzi emerged and that there was likely less distinction among them than we tend to place on them today. Paints a broader backdrop for understanding daoism.

@wandelaar I checked out the book you are currently reading on the Kwan Tzu. It appears to be an analysis of the material (Guanzi) that is the subject of the book I read a little earlier this year ... Dan G Reid's, The Thread of Dao. When you are finished, I would be interested in your overall impression and what you think the key take-away is.

@wandelaar Yes, that crossed my mind as well but by itself was not ringing true ... or rather complete. That is why I draw attention to the unity of the body, mind and spirit. Without a body ... no place for the mind to exist. Without a mind ... no place for the spirit reside. Care has to be given to all.

The urge to escape the trials and troubles of life is a strong one. Many trials and troubles are born of the physical world ... the world of ten thousand things. One may think that by abanonding the physical world and ones physical needs that they will end up in a better place. I think this is an illusion; neither can it be escaped. Daoism recognizes the body, mind and spirit and their essential unity ... complete with all the trials and tribulations that attend them. This is a problem that daoists struggle with and at the same time what draws people to the daoist way. The personal work that each person does is to engage in the struggle, to find a way to live in the physical world and at the same time approach the dao. In this effort there is waxing/waning, ebb/flow, times of fulfillment/times of dissatisfaction. It is this process that moves us forward incrementally along the way.

Was reading thru this thread because I was interested in topic suggested by the title. I am about to return to meditative practice and thought there might be some fresh insights here. Then I ran across @Daemon comment quoted above. Sort of stopped me in my tracks because I do not particularly think that the scientific method is a good approach for evaluation of wisdom traditions and practices. Not that it can't be done but that it probably not an approach that will yield useful results. Science's approach to any problem/phenomena is to deal with it through the material. The approach seeks to identify physical/material events that can measured. Then it will constrain the system in which the events appear in various ways so that the behaviour can be observed under different conditions. All with the purpose of being able to demonstrate through the methods used that the results can be reproduced. If the results can not be reproduced, the phenomena being examined is discounted and the scientific community will turn its attention toward what can be measured. Any further reference to the problem or phenomena is met with skepticism and deemed not worthy of scientific investigation. Now, not all scientists behave in this manner. Scientists investigating in the realm of quantum mechanics, for example, have learned that because they are not able to reach a conclusion through scientific means just simply means that they have not yet figured out how to do it and place the phenomena in a box labled "Needing Further Evaluation". I submit that wisdom traditions and practices deal with phenomena and events that are highly subjective, variable and do not present themselves consistently, at least to methods of observation preferred in science. Reproducibility is elusive. Research into wisdom traditions and practices is most often done on an individual and personal basis and typically finds its meaning in that realm. So, we should be cautious when someone approaches armed with the scientific method ... particulary those not mature in their discipline. There are science dogmatists out there just as there are religious dogmatists that are not accepting of other approaches. In listening to mature scientists talk, you will find the same reserved quiet demeanor that you find in the Dalai Llama, zen monks, daoist sages. Now, none of this contradicts @Daemon statement that there is no reason that science cannot be used ... but whether it should be used might give us pause. Sorry for the late respose to this thread. But as I read through it I had what felt like a moment of clarity that was worth sharing.

Might be an interesting read. I read thru the Amazon reviews. Some are quite detailed. He gets high praise for philosophical foundstion and interpretation. But there is substantial criticism of his actual translation. Seems that he broke it up and rearranged the pieces to align with the philosophical discussion he wanted pursue. Issue was that it breaks up the flow of the original work. Probably a good idea to have a copy of Watson standing by.

I do not understand this obsession to establish right or wrong, correct or incorrect. I think that most people are OK with the notion of uncertainty ... of the inconclusive nature of existence. It gives people room to speculate, imagine, explore. I ran across this quote. The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers. - Erich Fromm I think one of the lessons of Daoism is that the sage (learned person) makes use of anything that comes his/her way without the need to label it.

The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers. - Erich Fromm

... then Hamza El Din came to mind ...

Qk, guys. Now you got my attention. Great selection, Starjumper. Brings to mind ...

Acting in accordance with Dao ... Choose what you want to do. Do it with full understanding of how existence ebbs and flows. Use that understanding to achieve your goals. Be sincere in your intent. Seek in accordance with the times. Don't just follow blindly. Move with the current of existence. Be open to new experiences.

... or ...

Classic Rock? Sure, why not.

I don't think I would argue with that, per se. In the other thread the discussion about the Mandate of Heaven never go that far. The question of the realatiinship of the Dao to the Mandate of Heaven. It (the Mandate) is certainly spoken of as if it were accordance with Dao. But your point of the inverting of the relationship is a good one ... assuming to begin with that there is a distinction between the Mandate and accord with Dao. It can certainly be read that way. I do not think that Ch 32 makes any assumption about man finding his own way naturally. Seems like the entire chapter is predicated on the ruler and the people being in accord with Dao. That is the only assumption; not that people will naturally gravitate to accord with Dao.

Sorry, should have included the entire Ch 32 from Lin Yutang right off the bat. Tao is absolute and- has no name. Though the uncarved wood is small, It cannot be employed (used as vessel) by anyone. If kings and barons can keep (this unspoiled nature), The whole world shall yield them lordship of their own accord. The Heaven and Earth join, And the sweet rain falls, Beyond the command of men, Yet evenly upon all. Then human civilisation arose and there were names. Since there were names, It were well one knew where to stop. He who knows where to stop May be exempt from danger. Tao in the world May be compared to rivers that run into the sea. Reference to kings and barons is not peculiar to Lin. Others reference rulers, monarchs, lords, princes, marquises, etc.

Fair enough ... could just as easily be hail falling ... or locusts.

DDJ 32 is probably one of my favorite passages. The middle lines are etched in my memory as being the quintessential expression of the Dao. The Heaven and Earth join, And the sweet rain falls, Beyond the command of men, Yet evenly upon all. (Lin) One of the things I like about the Daoism ... and this site ... is the opportunity to understand the DDJ from different perspectives. In another post the subject of the Mandate of Heaven came up. I think it connects with this discussion. Wandelaar inquires about the factual basis of statements from the DDJ and while its been difficult to pinpoint passages as examples, Ch 32 when taken as a whole point to what the ancients accepted as a fact of life. That is, circumstances in the world derive directly from whether ruler holds the Mandate of Heaven. The ranges of events resulting from loss of the mandate could be anything natural catastrophies (drought, flood, earthquake, famine) to socio-political events (revolution, regime overthrow, assassination, war). These reults could be visited directly by Heaven ... or, the people could understand that the mandate was on their side and rebel against authority ... or, realize they were being conquered becuase someone else held the mandate. So, in line with Wandelaar's inquiry, even without specific example of a disaster being visited on the people, it is implied. It seems you can't really talk about the benefit of sweet rain falling without recognizing the potential for adverse results if the actions of the ruler (or mankind for thst matter) are not in accord with the Dao. That, I think is what the inital lines and the concluding lines of Ch 32 are getting at. Just a thought.

Spotted a print of one of Ting Shao Kuang's paintings in a Chinese bookstore. Have always thought his paintings had WOW! https://www.artbrokerage.com/Shao-Kuang-Ting/Wishing-For-Peace-AP-69810

From the world of pop-jazz ...

@Apech Been years since I heard that song. Nice piece of history put to music. Thanks.

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

Yes, while the chronology doesn't fit, the DDJ is not without criticism of ideas that were held in high esteem by Confucius. On the decline of the great Tao, The doctrines of 'humanity' and 'justice' arose. When knowledge and cleverness appeared, Great hypocrisy followed in its wake. When the six relationships no longer lived at peace, There was (praise of) 'kind parents' and 'filial sons.' When a country fell into chaos and misrule, There was (praise of) 'loyal ministers.' Ch18 Therefore: After Tao is lost, then (arises the doctrine of) humanity, After humanity is lost, then (arises the doctrine of) justice. After justice is lost, then (arises the doctrine of) Ii. Now Ii is the thinning out of loyalty and honesty of heart. And the beginning of chaos. Ch 38 These just probably show that ideas of justice, loyalty and piety already existed as part of the fabric of Chinese society long before Confucius promoted/emphasized them as a means to civil order. ... and probably Confucianism, as well. China has had a long history of distrust of religious organizations as a threat to those in power ... and probably not without cause. Sort of a take on ... Keep your friends close but your enemies closer.

I am not as well read as many of you but I have long felt that Confucianism addressed public/social conduct where Daoism deals with inner/personal conduct. This notion in spite of Laozi and Chuangzi being critical of Confucianism. When I read about Confucianism it seems like there is sort of an assumption of Daoist ideals as a common foundation. I could be way off base here. As for Buddhism, I don't see it as incompatible with Daoism in terms of methods but in end goals. From an historical point of view I understand that there was a lot of conflict between Buddhist and Daoist schools as they competed for influence in court. Probably much to the discredit of both systems of belief. Politics is always aa nasty business.