Re: Dao De Jing [was Re: Promoting Lojban]

[Lin Zhemin <ljm@ljm.qqjane.net>]

Sat, 20 Feb 1999, zo xod(xod@bway.net) cusku di'e
> I was trying to say "The real Tao cannot be discussed". Who knows if that
> English was a good rendering of the original Chinese! But it sounds good
> to me.

I don't think so. Maybe you're acquaintant to Indian philosophy (while I
don't really know). But the original text is just something like
"the Dao which can be told is not the eternal Dao", which implies, the Dao
that you're talking about may be right in this mean time; but it may
definitly change one day. So the one you're trying to define would _never_
stand on the test of time. :-)

Chinese philosophy is very logic. It just eliminated many words, many
accusative words and many subjective words. <Grin> It has the notion of a
linear "time", which doesn't appear in Indian philosophy. (While time is
like a river in Indian philosophy, it's the water in the river in Chinese
one.)

Hope that I'm not blowing it up! <Joke>


-- 

.e'osai ko sarji la lojban.	==> ½Ð¤ä«ùÅÞ¿è»y¨¥¡C
co'o mi'e lindjy,min.		==> ¦A¨£¡A§Ú¬OªL­õ¥Á¡C
Fingerprint20 = CE32 D237 02C0 FE31 FEA9  B858 DE8F AE2D D810 F2D9