Log in

No account? Create an account
Leave your Ego at the Door [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ website | Daily Tao - just a random good site ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Links:| Qi Journal Homepage, Qi Gong (Chi Kung), Qi, World Tai Chi & Qigong Day, Welcome to Xiang Qi - The Art of Chinese Chess, ]

Nietzsche and Chuang-Tse [Jul. 27th, 2006|03:53 am]

I'm a philosophy student at SUNY Plattsburgh and recently took a course on Nietzsche and another one on Ancient Chinese Philosophy. I'm considering writing my final thesis on Nietzsche and Chuang-Tse.

In Zarathustra, N writes:

"My brother, if you have a virtue and she is your virtue, then you have her in common with nobody. To be sure, you want to call her by name and pet her; you want to pull her ear and have fun with her. And behold, now you have her name in common with the people and have become one of the people and herb with your virtue.

You would do better to say, "Inexpressible and nameless is that which gives my soul agony and sweetness and is even the hunger of my entrails."

May your virtue be too exalted for the familiarity of names: and if you must speak of her, then do not be ashamed to stammer of her..."

He goes on, but what caught my eye was the "inexpressible and nameless" passage. It reminds me of the first line of the Daodejing. "The way that can be named is not the true way."

As far as I am aware Nietzsche never read anything about or by any Daoists, however it seems that Nietzsche's thought and Daoist thought intersect in alot of ways.

I'm especially interested in the similaritiy between Nietzsche and Chuang-Tse. Both use humor to illustrate points, both have very round about ways of discussing things, and both seem to be aiming at describing the same universal truths.

I'd be thrilled to hear anybodies stance on the mixture of the two and even more thrilled if anybody could recommend a good place to start researching the two (outside their written works, as I've read most of Nietzsche and around 1/2-3/4 of Chuang-Tse.
link3 comments|post comment

Emptiness and it's purpose [Mar. 19th, 2006|12:22 pm]
If the emptiness of a room is what's important, does not adding things to the room make the emptiness less significant?
If the emptiness of a glass is what's important, does not adding water to the glass make the emptiness less significant?
If the emptiness of the mind is what's important, does not adding knowledge to it not make the emptiness less significant?

Or is what replaces the emptiness of a greater significance then the emptiness it's self?
If not this then should I not begin removing things from my room to make way for more emptiness?
The more that is added to a room, does it create a living conflict with the emptiness?
The more that is added into the body, does it not create a living conflict with the subtle voice of the body?
The more that is added to the mind, does it not create a living conflict with the mysteries hidden within the mind?
By living conflict I mean a conflict that is alive.
Feng Shui? Is Feng Shui of the mind possible or obtainable?

Is the thinking mind full of knowledge and chatter,
and the moving body full of consumption and waste,
not in a state of being that is difficult to pick up on the
subtleness and mysteriousness of life?
link4 comments|post comment

(no subject) [Feb. 20th, 2006|03:22 pm]

[music |the notwist - propeller 9]

"The Tao begot one.
One begot two.
Two begot three.
And three begot the ten thousand things.
The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang."

what i've come to understand from this is that space and time is subject to the tao.
if reincarnation is true, and that our minds do not disperse back to the tao and stays intact, does this mean that when i die, i will not only be able to be born into any life anywhere on earth (or the universe), but at any time between all life begins and ends?
link11 comments|post comment

(no subject) [Dec. 15th, 2005|03:00 pm]


For those who don't know much about Taoism, here's a history of it. It's very neat.
link3 comments|post comment

(no subject) [Dec. 9th, 2005|06:30 pm]

Life is not about being right or wrong.
There is no pride to be swallowed by forgiving, simply because there isn't a right and wrong. The sense of right and wrong comes from the deceitful sense of self that we develop instead of keeping our Buddha nature.
Therefore, what is the source of conflict?
link18 comments|post comment

Does Unity go against the Tao? [Nov. 9th, 2005|08:27 am]

ok, where do politcs fit into Taoism for people?

I'm not meaning who's who in the current office, but trends in cultural power. The TTC (and Art of War if you like it) are pretty specific about the running of govts & such & how to treat others. But what about protest & revolution & going against the crowd - is harmony letting things be as they are or is it sticking up for someone (or a group) that has been treated unfairly because others have too much & don't want to share?
link16 comments|post comment

(no subject) [Nov. 4th, 2005|09:47 am]
I recently was told by a teacher of religion that Taoism is the lazy mans religion.
I mentioned to this person that I feel that Taoism as I see it is as dynamic as the universe I live in.
She looked at me funny and said we should go for coffee.
I said I prefer tea.

Other than the philosophers in here does any other practicing Taoist have similar feelings and thoughts about the Tao?
link50 comments|post comment

(no subject) [Nov. 4th, 2005|08:50 am]
I would have to say Wu Wei is my favorite Taoist author!

Who is yours?

*Editing to help Trevoke along the way. *

Who is your favorite author on the subject of Taoism?
link20 comments|post comment

(no subject) [Nov. 1st, 2005|03:07 pm]


A website that has a lot of articles on health, taoism, martial arts, feng shui, and so on and so forth. Very well-written, I landed on it while researching 'wu wei' (non-action) for someone in a taoist community.

Cross-posting to : trevoke, tao_talk, pilgrimssolace, _tao_te_ching, _martial_arts (I feel like I need to spread this one out).
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Oct. 31st, 2005|10:45 pm]

I had an IM discussion recently with theangst about what love was, and he told me that he wanted to try and be able to fall in and out of love on purpose (based on a website like howstuffworks.com or something) by controlling the hormones that create the feeling. I vehemently disagreed with that, essentially calling it 'unnatural'.
Now, tonight I had a thought. Pick someone; anyone. It is possible to love them. I don't really want to use 'fall in love', as I still make this refer to that particular emotion that I don't know/understand. It is quite possible that they are one and the same, experience will tell. However, the way I was suggesting to love the person was not an active process, but merely a conscious opening up of the self to love. Agape, I guess, or simply just plain love.
There is more to this, of course, but that's your appetizer and my reminder of where my thought process started, should I ever forget.

link15 comments|post comment

[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]