Tao Te Ching

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

I think this is a better explanation, I was never really into Buddhism as I think Buddhism is largely a world denying religion. I think Buddhism focuses on suffering and is more like Stoicism than Epicureanism. Epicureanism focuses on pleasure as much as suffering.

---

I don't disagree, actually. The world-denying (or rather life-denying) aspect of many Buddhist teachings is what led me to abandon Buddhism. Funny you should mention Stoicism. That's what I looked into after I left Buddhism. But I found the Stoics lacked the Buddhists' compassion. As much as Buddhism focuses on suffering, they also have a deep thread of compassion that I haven't found anywhere else. Those teachings really helped me survive some deep depressions Eventually, I ended up spending time with the Epicureans. It's a shame so little of Epicurus' work survives, because I think he was brilliant and probably would have had a lot to offer us in present post-postmodern times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

Taoism is the Chinese philosophical system that most happily compares with Epicureanism.

In the story of the vinegar tasters, Lao Tzu thinks it tastes sweet. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...on_biggrin.gif

---

I like what I've read of Taoism... or what I can understand of what I read, lol. Those mystical translation don't help.

I agree with you, Baby, though:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baby

But, the teachings are so married to the sramana culture of ancient India -- an entire class of spiritual seekers who basically lived a life of wandering homelessness -- that it's difficult to apply many of the principles if you want to live a secular life, with a job, with a family, etc. That's ultimately what led me away from Buddhism. It was simply impractical, although a lot of it is great advice.

---

that is not true. You can apply its principles anywhere, in any circumstance. In fact when you fully realize its teaching, you realize that you don't have to quit anything, it's just your attitude on it.

Here's an example: say you can quit everything but something, let's say eating chocolate. If you keep depending on it, of course, you have a problem; if you necessarily quit eating chocolate, you still have a problem, because if you are not dependent on it, why do you have to quit now? See what I mean? It sounds hilarious, but there are other - more complex - examples, most of the people don't even want to think that their loved ones - spouse, parents, etc - may have an accident and die. Or that they may get broke or anything bad. But in order to not suffer, you don't necessarily have to be a Zen master to realize that you just have to get used and accept the idea, instead of living in lying yourself that it won't ever happen. All that matters is to not be attached to anything, at that point there is nothing specific to be done, but then of course, nothing stops you from testing yourself, though if you need that it means you haven't reached the top, so what's the point? This is what Buddha found after his enlightenment, he previously had tried the methods of the hermits, which didn't work. In fact I'd argue that asceticism is a passion larger than one's earthly passions put together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Ineffable

I agree with you, Baby, though:

that is not true. You can apply its principles anywhere, in any circumstance. In fact when you fully realize its teaching, you realize that you don't have to quit anything, it's just your attitude on it.

Here's an example: say you can quit everything but something, let's say eating chocolate. If you keep depending on it, of course, you have a problem; if you necessarily quit eating chocolate, you still have a problem, because if you are not dependent on it, why do you have to quit now? See what I mean? It sounds hilarious, but there are other - more complex - examples, most of the people don't even want to think that their loved ones - spouse, parents, etc - may have an accident and die. Or that they may get broke or anything bad. But in order to not suffer, you don't necessarily have to be a Zen master to realize that you just have to get used and accept the idea, instead of living in lying yourself that it won't ever happen. All that matters is to not be attached to anything, at that point there is nothing specific to be done, but then of course, nothing stops you from testing yourself, though if you need that it means you haven't reached the top, so what's the point? This is what Buddha found after his enlightenment, he previously had tried the methods of the hermits, which didn't work. In fact I'd argue that asceticism is a passion larger than one's earthly passions put together.

---

True. You can definitely practice the core ideas of Buddhism in a lay setting, and benefit greatly. In fact, that's exactly what I do. I still contemplate death, suffering, compassion, all those things, and apply them to life. It helps me untangle myself from the workaday grind and connect with the big picture.

Still, if you read the scriptures, the teachings definitely have a very world-rejecting bent to them. The ideal in Buddhism is a person who has become disenchanted with the world and is "unfettered" by worldly concerns. Nirvana literally translates to "extinguishment" as in putting out a fire. The fires refer to grasping with the six senses (mind is a sense organ in the Buddha's system). This was especially troubling to me in the Buddhist attitude toward sex: the Buddha was definitely sex-negative. In fact, one of the practices for killing sexual attraction that the Buddha prescribes is imagining the person broken down to all their vitals: heart, lungs, chest, intestines, shit, phlegm, piss, bile, etc. This is meant to elicit a sense of detachment.

What the Buddha abandoned when he espoused the Middle Way was self-mortification, not asceticism. Basically, he had joined a group of yogis who believed that if you torture your body enough and put yourself through enough bodily misery, you will gain mastery over form and the soul will find liberation. These were people who would flagellate themselves, starve themselves, expose themselves to the elements, etc. Such people still exist in India today, actually. You can see them on the banks of the Ganges in many of the pilgrimage cities. After enlightenment, the Buddha abandoned such practices. However, he didn't abandon homelessness -- he was certainly living more comfortably than those yogis, but he still wandered from town to town, spending most of his time living in game reserves and fruit groves of rich patrons, dependent on alms for sustainance. The goal was to be unfettered. I just couldn't call myself a "Buddhist" if what I was practicing didn't jive with what the Buddha and most of his followers held up as the ideal.

I tried to write something to explain the Tao Te Ching a bit better, but ultimately I deleted that.

Figure it out yourself is basically what it tells you. :biggrin:

lol, that's what they all say. Figure it out yourself. Be your own lamp. Blah, blah, blah. :p

I saw this thread, and then another one, both typing Tao as SLI. From having spent some time at this forum i gather that when people here type someone/something as SLI they just mean "i don't get it".

Tao makes perfect sense to me, and not in a SiTe way, imo