ChiDragon Posted September 8, 2012 Now that's good advice! I am so 'over' trying to clarify, to you, what I'm trying to say, or asking you what you might have meant by something you've said. Whew! Glad that's over. (-: warm regards Don't worry, somebody over here will understand you...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) Now back to ZZ.... Please let's me know does this make any sense. Tao to both LaoTze and Zhuang Tze was the creator of the Universe. Both of them reckon that Tao has no beginning and no ending. Even though that all things do die(life and death are only a form of big change) but, at the end, that was all belong to Tao. To understand Tao, one has to understand the reasons behind all things, then one's own nature won't be interrupted by any external means. Keeping one's true self will preserve one's true life. The meaning for the Virtue of Tao and the ability to reason lies here. Not knowing "Tao" was to be suitable for the intrinsic quality of Tao. "Knowing" Tao was too gross. "Not knowing" is internal; "knowing" is external. Not knowing is knowing; knowing is not knowing; then who knows what does "knowing" in "not knowing" means....??? Tao was not to be heard by the ears. It can be heard by the ears is not Tao. Tao was not to be seen by the eyes. It can be seen by the eyes is not Tao. Tao cannot be spoken, spoken of it is not Tao. If one answers immediately when someone ask what Tao is, then that is not the one who knows Tao. Tao cannot be asked. If asked, then it cannot be answered. Only the one who has grokking power, then one can truly understand Tao. Edited September 9, 2012 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rene Posted September 10, 2012 Sam, hi From your post (#43) ... In essence what I am arguing is that tao in Chuang-tzu's inner chapters is used in two senses: The first (generally negative) is the 'way' of a philosopher. ... Chuang-tzu...suggests that we 'stand on the axis/pivot' of all these different taos and adopt any one at any time.... The second use of tao (generally positive) is the pragmatic 'way' of the skilful craftsman, which is associated with heaven t'ian and the mysterious word shen. It is my view that the real message of the inner chapters is a rejection the analytic taos of philosophy (which ultimately divvies up the world into concepts - ie "is it a noun or a verb") and a celebration of the 'mystical' shen found in skilful activity (which, incidentally allows you to 'last out your years' in peace). It seems since your "first use" lines up with my 'first meaning' and your 'second use' lines up with my 'second meaning' - that we are indeed comparing apples to apples - i.e. - that we're comparing LZ's Tao to ZZ's Tao, rather than comparing Tao to the "skillset of a craftsman". Do you agree that we're on the same page so far? LOL If so, then it sounds like you're saying that ZZ suggests there is no singular Tao at all (not even in LZCh1 ?) but rather only many Tao's. Am I reading you right? Thanks! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rene Posted September 11, 2012 It seems they are discussing feasible - advantageous paradigms from various perspectives to me and ... it seems to be an umbrella concept they can all fit under despite their differences. Please continue I apologize for butting that in. Stosh Stosh, jump in anytime! and yes, umbrella, and this one would be huge. Sorry delayed reply, was re-reading thread and just found your post. warm regards Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
