Compare Lao Tzu To Jesus! (gospel, genesis, atheist, bible)

[d.]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Does Chinese require an "I" as a reference to who or what is doing something? That is, English requires a subject. Walking. is not a complete sentence. Sleeping. is not a complete sentence. I'm sleeping even as I type this. is a complete sentence. But in Chinese, can you state an action or non action without stating who or what is doing it?

yes - a consequence of this is that modern translations of the tao te ching often alternate between masculine and feminine subjects. i don't think there even is such a thing as subjects in ancient chinese - TTC doesn't use it, which apparently makes translation tricky at times - you don't know who does what and says what.

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Had Jesus spoken in Japanese, he could have said, "Love your neighbor!" without implying that "you" should love your neighbor. That is, he could have left it open as to exactly who or which part of a person was doing the loving. Leaving it open might prompt the reader to more readily speculate that it is not the ordinary ego-centered consciousness which is doing the loving.

So, this idea that some languages are more useful in describing religious concepts goes further than merely the number and type of words the language has for those concepts.

yes - good point.

[d.]

there is no greater misfortune than feeling
"i have an enemy"
for when 'i' and 'enemy' exist together
there is no room left for my treasure

thus, when two opponents meet
the one without an enemy
will surely triumph

TTC, verse 69, jonathan star translation

(i must note that this particular verse is interpreted in wildly differing ways, and that i don't particularly care for star's translation - in many cases, i find it strange and misleading. this particular verse though, i like his take on)

[Master Vigil]

We must also remember one very important thing, Lao Tzu NEVER "taught" anything. He agreed to write his philosophy and then left. Unlike christ which physically taught, and physically had to convince people of his qualification to teach (performing miracles, etc...). Lao Tzu's wisdom greatly influenced the world not because of his qualifications, but of what he wrote. The essence of Taoist teachings are not secured in Lao Tzu, or even his teachings. They exist independently of him.

When I read the New Testament, I find hardly any comparable level of humility in Jesus that I find in Lao Tzu. Lao Tzu was so humble, he didn't even want to teach.

[Sunstone]

Tao Te Ching
Chapter 19:

If the sage could abandon his wisdom and skill,
Then everyone would be a hundred times better off.

If the sage could let go of holding the scales,
Then everyone would flow in the web of harmony...

And if the sage can give up looking to gain,
Then there will be no theft or exploitation.

Now while these three things are important
they are not enough:

The people THEMSELVES need to learn simplicity.

They shouldn't need to know more than they do,
And should have as few things as possible.


Does this remind anyone of Jesus’s apparent preference for a lifestyle of simplicity and subsistence poverty?

If so, are Lao Tzu and Jesus advocating simplicity and subsistence poverty for essentially the same reason?