Sure, I think parables work better than many of the more miraculous tales as they are "honest fictions". I respect some of the parables a lot, in particular the one of the Good Samaritan.

A parable that seems very like Taoism is that of the Lily of the Field. I have seen some critiques pointing out that humans do have to toil in order to live - they can't just get energy as plants do. This may be a picayune and pedantic point - but I also think it is why Lao Tse and Chuang Tzu are perhaps better sages than Jesus Christ - the parables are of a different quality. There is a flexibility there that is absent from other faiths, as well as a more realist stance.

Chuang-Tsu, with his butterfly parable, even seems to have anticipated Cartesian doubt by nearly 2,000 years, which I think is hugely impressive.

I am sure a close examination of the folk believes and rituals surrounding Taoism will reveal an awful lot of bewildering things that are just as offputting as those of any other orthodoxy - I haven't really looked into Taoism in practice as much as sought to learn about the general worldview.


I think so - I get an impression of very confused works that advocate or ban certain things in certain places, and other things in others, and even the opposite things in others - and I simply don't see how this can be a route to universal truth. If a book is the word of God - why is it so unclear and inconsistent and why does it require reformation and reinterpretation and so on? Why would a god communicate unclearly unless he wanted to confuse people?

Tao - with its emphasis on action (or inaction) relative to situation - seems to have the heart of the matter.

I totally agree with you.And have nothing else to say except for...about this


About "anicipate".I see what you mean,but i want to add that every philosopher(better everyone)must have this Chuang-Tzu-Cartesian doubt once.To understand or feel it themselves.Maybe it's one of starts of the philosophy.I mean that even now when we know some history we have to do all this philophical work ourselves,because no one do it instead of us.But it is not mean that study history of philosophy useless.I just try to say that even after that study we must not forget about brain(or soul,if you please)work.

And we did some work here,didn't we?

Sure, I think it has a lot in common with Socrates' "Only those who know they are ignorant can be wise." In order to have an open mind one must be ready to admit one could be mistaken.

The other thing to consider is that there is enormous variation in the spectrum of religious and cultural myths and traditions, which is all well and good. People understand things on various levels - not everyone is capable of the subtelty of thought which marks the Taoist tradition. In Indian thought there is a wide variety of religious thought from riotous polytheism to the most subtle esotericism. So other traditions might be more legalistic, or ritualistic, and so on, which does not necessarily invalidate them - all part of 'life's rich tapestry' so to speak (although of course one's view might be different if one has suffered at the hands of the Church).

Sure, but for every individual some things will be of more value than others, and it's fun to try and figure out why.

Well, let's go back to the primary source, shall we?


Translated by Stephen Mitchell

I don't really have anything to add to this thread, but I would like to say thanks to all those who participated for an enjoyable read.