Adrian Posted March 24, 2003 Just something for thought.(RAW ON) Do we mean to promote (esp #2) peace when we say NO WAR? What does it mean to oppose (esp #1, #4) war? Is opposition to war somewhat hypocritical? If you have MS Word (my version is old) type oppose and then hold shift F7 (thesaurus) then type war and do the same. See the similarities? What image/s is brought to mind when we hear or read the word war?(esp #1, #3 note:37/ 40 search results) If so far you are following my point then you may see sense in my following statement. I don't oppose war(e.g #7) , I promote peace. All this may seem somewhat petty however it seems that the more you hear, the more you think. Does talk of food tend to make you hungry? Is all this talk of war making you angry? Conflict of a violent nature is occurring in many places around the globe. If we tell other people to stop warring then will all be at peace? By no means am saying that I think we should withdraw from our efforts to lessen conflict. Infact I wish to promote further reflection upon ourselves in search of solutions that will lead to peace. Now might be an appropriate time for a quote. "...be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Ghandi www.shaman-australis.com/~earthpod/didj.html [ 23. March 2003, 22:12: Message edited by: Adrian ] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nabraxas Posted March 24, 2003 i think i see your point, & generally agree. however at some point the false logic ov "war" itself must be opposed- generally once war has started it's too late & your argument is spot on- but i believe in "peacetime", "war" & preparations for/profiteering from "war" should be strongly "opposed". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torsten Posted March 25, 2003 while conflict should be something we should be able to overcome with our evolutionary advantage, I feel that at this stage conflict is definitely a natural thing for human beings (as well as animals). War on the other hand is a human creation .... probably one of its worst. I can tolerate conflict, but I can't tolerate war. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yeti101 Posted March 28, 2003 Fighting for Peace? Ask the students in Sydney on wednesday about that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gwydion Posted March 28, 2003 Yeah, and ask the policeman who threw eggs, too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Auxin Posted March 28, 2003 Totally off subject, but I gotta ask- Its rare for people to quote Lao Tsu nowadays. Yeti101, are you Taoist? And my Tao Te Ching says it different- "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name." Thats from the translation by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English in 1972. Do you have a different translation or are you making a philosophical statement? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nabraxas Posted March 30, 2003 my herrymon maurer version says "if tao can be taoed, it's not tao. if its name can be named, it's not its name." - the words are different but the source the same. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nabraxas Posted March 30, 2003 & to bring the topic back to war here's what that 2500 year old book says on the subject- "where armies are briars & brambles grow. bad harvests follow big wars. be firm & that is all: dare not rely on force. be firm & not haughty, firm but not boastful, firm but not proud, firm when necessary, firm but non-violent. what others have taught, i also teach: men of violence come to death by violence. whoever said this is my teacher" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thelema Posted March 31, 2003 my Mabry version is "The Tao that can be described in words is not the true Tao" "The Name that can be named is not the true Name" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yeti101 Posted March 31, 2003 I got that translation from: Translated during the summer of 1991 by Charles Muller Revised, July 1997 When citing please use the URL: http://www.human.toyogakuen-u.ac.jp/~acmul...ntao/laotzu.htm Though I have read many others. I feel that the translation I cited reflects both the dynamic nature of the Tao, and the idea that one can never completely follow it, nor is it something that one can deliberatley strive for. Am I a taoist? I'm not sure. I'm actually quite anti religion, as some of you will know, but in my entire time studying religion and philosophy, I have never come across anything that so intuitively appealed to me as a way of making sense of things, primarily because taoism implies that there is no point trying. I don't think Lao-tzu was some a super natural being, but I do think he knew alot about huma nature. Also on the topic of war: Victory is never sweet. Those for whom victory is sweet Are those who enjoy killing. If you enjoy killing, you cannot gain the trust of the people. On auspicious occasions the place of honor is on the left. On inauspicious occasions the place of honor is on the right. The lieutenant commander stands on the left. The commander-in-chief stands on the right. And they speak, using the funerary rites to bury them. The common people, from whom all the dead have come Weep in lamentation. The victors bury them with funerary rites. [ 31. March 2003, 14:15: Message edited by: Yeti101 ] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Auxin Posted March 31, 2003 Funny how we can go from peace and war to taoism. My current favorite Lao Tzu quote is: "Better stop short than fill to the brim. Oversharpen the blade, and the edge will soon blunt. Amass a store of gold and jade, and no one can protect it. Claim wealth and titles, and disaster will follow. Retire when the work is done. This is the way of heaven." That just goes along perfectly with the benefits of middle path (in between extremes). Maby Lao Tzu was influenced by the same pre-buddhist philosophies as Buddha? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
