Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
On the one hand you say each religion has it's many great attributes and on the other hand you say religion does not have the answers and is all assumptions. Which one is it ??
Cheers ...
How is that a contradiction? Religion has, here and there, done good things for mankind, but, on the other hand, it doesn't have all of life's answers and is based on assumptions.
Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form." Do you understand this teaching? Are you deeply aware of what it is telling you?
No, I am not a Buddhist. And I am slowly discovering that the religion is not much different than Christianity, nor are it's followers much different than Christians. You can take the writings and interpret them however you want. It seems to me that nobody really practices what they preach, though. Every religious person I meet just wants to preach. They all think they have something fresh and new to say. They all want to be the educator...want to feel like they are the one teaching people how things should be.
1 Corinthians 13:4. Love endures long and is patient and kind; love never is envious nor boils over with jealousy, is not boastful or vainglorious, does not display itself haughtily.
Do you understand this teaching? Are you deeply aware of what it is telling you?
Remember, once, the world was flat and the sun orbited the earth....
Yes, and that was when the Church controlled Science. Some still believe that.
Try it for yourself, and see the results.
Act crabbily and dismissively all day to everyone you meet. See the result at the end of the day.
Act kindly and charitably, with Compassion towards everyone you meet. See the result at the end of the day.
Which day did you prefer?
Now do it every day. And you will see the subtle change in attitudes of others. And in yourself.
You will please conduct yourself with dignity, respect and politeness on this board.
Now that, my friend, is contradictory. You know nothing about me, as well. I posted one damn thread and everybody wants to jump in here, lashing out their profound wisdom on the subject. "Oh yes, that's nice and all, BUT....." I see that anything I say against Buddhism, the people here take very personally, yet when OST and others blow off what I see as being important and act as though it is meaningless and trivial...I'm not supposed to take that personally? Maybe Buddhism is meaningless and trivial? Maybe all the beliefs you have stated are just silly. Just cute little phrases that you have to be a long-term member of to "fully-grasp"? Maybe Buddhism is wrong? Maybe it is just like a drug - ignoring reality and just making everything meaningless so it doesn't have to be faced. Isn't that what all religion is? Creating more than is really there in your mind to give life meaning? But...I guess I just don't get it, right? Only a true Buddhist can understand the complicated parts of all of this.
I was very interested in Buddhism. I will try to study it more on my own. Posting this thread about an Atheist blog was probably a mistake on my part.
I posted it as a read for anyone who was interested, and then OST came along warning me against hunting tigers and other ridiculous things, which then turned this into a very unneeded and pointless debate. A debate I was not looking for. Six pages later, and where are we?
Nobody ever wins a debate. Both parties walk away feeling as though they have. I will leave thinking I am correct, and that all religions are alike. You will leave thinking you are correct and that I am just some jerk that doesn't "get" Buddhism.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited November 2007
No religion has ever claimed to have all the answers.... even if, for example, the Bible states that the only way to Heaven is through Jesus Christ, there are still conditions, and people are still required to exercise faith. Even Mother Teresa, who was the epitome of selfless Compassion and kindness, confessed that at the end of her days, she seriously doubted her faith in God. So Religion is infallible (although there will of course always be thos fanatical fundamentalists who vehemently and obstinately refuse to see other points of view).
That is why, after much cogitation, heart-searching and mental analysis, I decided for myself, that Buddhism had far more rational and logical answers than most.
It doesn't ask us to have faith in anything unseen or illogical. In fact, it heartily recommends we don't have. But it still leaves all the choices up to us.
Isn't that why you're here?
To 'test the waters' and find out more?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Nobody ever wins a debate. Both parties walk away feeling as though they have. I will leave thinking I am correct, and that all religions are alike. You will leave thinking you are correct and that I am just some jerk that doesn't "get" Buddhism.
No no no, not at all. You misunderstand me. I don't believe I am correct at all, and that is the whole point of debate, is it not? to listen to the viewpoints of others and to see things from a different perspective? I sincerely hope (1) that you do decide to not leave, and (2) to understand that many schools of Buddhism actually advocate strong debate, in an effort to deepen our own knowledge of wide subjects and to understand that opinions can change.
But I have earnestly tried the above experiment, and have found it to be extraordinarily effective and revealing. Chiefly illustrating the different aspects of my own attitude.
I would never be so condescending as to think of you, or consider you a 'jerk'. Not without knowing that in condemning you, I do so to myself as well. it takes 2 to tango....
Isn't that why you're here?
To 'test the waters' and find out more?
yes, and it looks like I have forgotten that a few times.
It seems to me that a "Buddhist" wouldn't follow Buddhism at all, but would find the truth his/her own way throughout life...as odd as that sounds. Isn't that what the Buddha did? Trial and error, but on his own? I can see using old teachings as a sort of guideline, but it seems that some take it word for word and try to become exactly what a Buddhist is supposed to be...when a Buddhist really shouldn't "be" anything...?
Yes, and that was when the Church controlled Science. Some still believe that.
Yes .. but thr earth centered universe was adopted by the church .. it was the logical mind that proposed the earth was the center of the universe .. it was in fact religous thinkers who became "outcasted" by the church .. the catholic church .. that determined the earth and planets were orbiting the sun. It was also a catholic priest that understood Eistien's equations and proposed the "Big Bang Theory".
So we can not simply divide the world into "religous" outdated sillyness and "science" a new modern way. It's not so simple ... as that...
.. and thats the whole story in a nutshell. So .. at some stage of life some say .. why debate ?? Action becomes more significant. Ofcourse nothing is so clean cut .. we still debate .. but do not take it so serious.
There are many ideas in buddhism that are not strictly "buddhist" ideas .. they can be restated in many areas of modern science. One does not have to be a buddhist to know and use buddhism.
Cheers ...
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
yes, and it looks like I have forgotten that a few times.
It seems to me that a "Buddhist" wouldn't follow Buddhism at all, but would find the truth his/her own way throughout life...as odd as that sounds. Isn't that what the Buddha did? Trial and error, but on his own? I can see using old teachings as a sort of guideline, but it seems that some take it word for word and try to become exactly what a Buddhist is supposed to be...when a Buddhist really shouldn't "be" anything...?
One of the constant trials and challenges of being Human is that we all of us "forget a few times".
For my part, I'm sorry if we've come across as being pedantic or entrenched in our views. But remember, as you have rightly and admirably pointed out, that right from the word go, we have been encouraged to challenge, question and test everything we come across. Trial and error. The Buddha went to extremes to see whether whatever he sought and studied was The Right Way or not, and we're all here, as practising Buddhists, still feeling our way, through the very same trial and error.
He got it.
we could get it if only, like him, we were prepared to release and relinquish that which holds us back.
The other 'problem' is, of course, that with our continued 'attachment' to Buddhism, we're bound to be enthusiastic about it, and might come over as being 'over the top'. But the very fact that we still want to have you amongst us - without, I promise you, trying to wholeheartedly convince you that we are Right and you are Wrong - I hope is an indication of how much we relish having our ideas and concepts challenged.
Nobody is trying to either convince you or convert you. But Buddhism, as I think I stated before, is not a Calling founded on Blind faith or submissive belief. It's a religion rooted in Logic and analysis.
I am a person with a simple mind. I cannot quote lengthy teachings, famous Buddhist quotations or chapter and verse. I can only go by what I have steadily absorbed and understood over the past 16 years or so.
I don't adhere to any one School or Discipline - I glean that which I can understand, and that which sits well with me, and try to walk the talk. Fail, mostly, but I'm up there with Right Effort, anyway!
There are others on this board far more qualified and experienced than I who can discuss matters on far 'higher' levels. Me? I keep it simple, because that's what I'm comfortable with. But enthusiastic? Willing? Eager? An advocate of how Buddhism has helped me grow? You betcha.
But as with every thing I think, say and do, it's all me. I never purport to speak for others, or represent anyone else in general. I would never presume to do so.
Therefore, if you have criticism of whatever I might say, rest assured that it is me you should take issue with, not 'Buddhism' or 'Us'.
Thanks for keeping in.
yes, and it looks like I have forgotten that a few times.
It seems to me that a "Buddhist" wouldn't follow Buddhism at all, but would find the truth his/her own way throughout life...as odd as that sounds. Isn't that what the Buddha did? Trial and error, but on his own? I can see using old teachings as a sort of guideline, but it seems that some take it word for word and try to become exactly what a Buddhist is supposed to be...when a Buddhist really shouldn't "be" anything...?
This is one of the first basic teachings a new Buddhist comes across in their studies. It comes, in part, from the Kalamasutta.
You've been receiving some absolutely wonderful, wise and clear responses to your questions on this thread. But in your responses, please forgive my frankness, it doesn't sound like there has been much Buddhist study or practice. I don't mean this as a judgment or criticism, please understand. I bring it up only because I believe with a mind like yours you'd be able to gain a lot of understanding from what the Buddha taught.
It's difficult not to take your words personally when you write things like:
And I am slowly discovering that the religion is not much different than Christianity, nor are it's followers much different than Christians. You can take the writings and interpret them however you want. It seems to me that nobody really practices what they preach, though.
We're still fallible humans, we're not perfect, but having been on this board for as long as I have I will have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that "nobody really practices what they preach". Not only is there very little "preaching" on this board, but the people I have gotten to know here practice their asses off, if you'll excuse the expression. I have personally witnessed this day after day for over two years.
Anyway, my point is, after you've started your Buddhist studies you'll understand our responses in this thread much better. Please don't take offense to that statement. I'm only going by what you said yourself, that you're not a Buddhist but plan to start studying what the Buddha taught. When you do, come back to this thread and I can guarantee you'll see it in a whole new light.
So don't leave, because you'll soon find out that regardless of how it may seem now, we're actually in agreement, and your mind is more suited for Buddhist understanding than you know. You'll gain so much in your study and practice, in every part of your life, because at the core of it all, Buddhism is about training the mind to see reality as it really is, not as we wish it to be or think it ought to be. I can't wait for more posts from you in the future.
P.S. LOVED that blog, by the way. That woman rocks!
As I understand it, the true aim of what the Buddha taught is mental purification, and consequentially, the cessation of suffering. This is accomplished through a gradual training that leads to deeper and deeper levels of insight in regard to our sensory experience, i.e., a clear understanding of the six sense media (ayatana) will lead to the development of the wings to Awakening (bodhipakkhiyadhamma), and ultimately, to final release (MN 149). Therefore, awakening, which I essentially believe to be a profound psychological event, is not dependent upon holding a philosophical position or viewpoint. In fact, I believe that awakening is achieved, at least in part, through abandoning such things as philosophical positions and views altogether. This is quite similar to Nagajuna's approach as well. That does not mean, however, that having a method of practice that is effective in leading one to awakening, and consequentially the cessation of suffering, is antithetical to the achievement of that goal. Logically speaking, having a method of practice that is effective in leading one to a stated goal should make the achievement of that goal that much easier. This is why the Buddha himself said, "Both formerly and now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress" (MN 22).
Towards this end, he gave a number of teachings and practices that were designed to lead the practitioner an experience that would free the mind from its afflictions, or as they are better known, the mental defilement of greed, hatred, and delusion. The Buddha also said that his teachings were like a raft that was to be used to cross a dangerous river, and once that river had been cross, the teachings had served their purpose (MN 22). Moreover, even though concepts such as rebirth are an integral part of the Buddha's teachings, the Buddha left many metaphysical and philosophical questions unanswered. There were some that he simply refused to answer because they were not useful in the quest to free the mind of its defilements (MN 63). To be more specific, the Buddha did not teach anything other than what related to the cessation of suffering based upon what he himself directly exerienced through years of practice. Therefore, the basic presmise behind what the Buddha taught is simple: If one experiences suffering, and one wishes to put that suffering to an end, then one should put these teachings and practices to the test to see what results they will bring. If, on the other hand, one is not interested in this goal, then there is no need for one to go any further.
That being said, I believe that labels are merely a conceptual distinctions, i.e., they hold no real validity on their own. In essence, it does not matter what you choose to call yourself. What matters most, according to the Buddha's teachings at least, is what you do. As long as your intentional actions do not cause harm to yourself or to others, you can call yourself an "atheist," "Buddhist," or "Gilptord the cave troll" and it does not really matter. This reminds me of a quote attributed to Chandrakirti, an abbot of Nalanda University and disciple of Nagarjuna who lived around the 7th century AD, that I pick up from a Dhamma talk by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. He allegedly said in one of his works, "Words are not policemen on the prowl. We are not subject to their independent authority. They take their meaning from the intention of the person speaking." My advice is that if there are certain teachings that you find helpful or inspiring, then by all means put those teachings into practice. If there are certain concepts that you find too hard to swallow, there is no demand for you to believe them. Many of the Buddha's disciples, if we are to believe the accounts, achieved awakening without ever experiencing memories of past lives, or acquiring supranormal powers, if such things even exist.
Best wishes,
Jason
P.S. A few suggestions for future reading material that I highly recommend, that is if you have not already read them, are A Buddhist Philosophy of Religion by Bhikkhu Nanajivako, Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge by B. Alan Wallace, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris, and Wings to Awakening by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited November 2007
Elohim/Jason, will know about a good, readable translation of the sutras, but you could do worse than go to this website, where there is a lot of really good stuff available. Also, look at this link... An eminent teacher called Thanissaro Bhikkhu is extremely respected and digestible....
The Tao, I believe is Chinese Confuscian, although its lessons are extremely profound and yet simple... Though I love the version you've found....!
But it's all good stuff!
Really, really glad I didn't drive you away, scare you off or pee you off too much!
Comments
How is that a contradiction? Religion has, here and there, done good things for mankind, but, on the other hand, it doesn't have all of life's answers and is based on assumptions.
No, I am not a Buddhist. And I am slowly discovering that the religion is not much different than Christianity, nor are it's followers much different than Christians. You can take the writings and interpret them however you want. It seems to me that nobody really practices what they preach, though. Every religious person I meet just wants to preach. They all think they have something fresh and new to say. They all want to be the educator...want to feel like they are the one teaching people how things should be.
Do you understand this teaching? Are you deeply aware of what it is telling you?
Yes, and that was when the Church controlled Science. Some still believe that.
Now that, my friend, is contradictory. You know nothing about me, as well. I posted one damn thread and everybody wants to jump in here, lashing out their profound wisdom on the subject. "Oh yes, that's nice and all, BUT....." I see that anything I say against Buddhism, the people here take very personally, yet when OST and others blow off what I see as being important and act as though it is meaningless and trivial...I'm not supposed to take that personally? Maybe Buddhism is meaningless and trivial? Maybe all the beliefs you have stated are just silly. Just cute little phrases that you have to be a long-term member of to "fully-grasp"? Maybe Buddhism is wrong? Maybe it is just like a drug - ignoring reality and just making everything meaningless so it doesn't have to be faced. Isn't that what all religion is? Creating more than is really there in your mind to give life meaning? But...I guess I just don't get it, right? Only a true Buddhist can understand the complicated parts of all of this.
I was very interested in Buddhism. I will try to study it more on my own. Posting this thread about an Atheist blog was probably a mistake on my part.
I posted it as a read for anyone who was interested, and then OST came along warning me against hunting tigers and other ridiculous things, which then turned this into a very unneeded and pointless debate. A debate I was not looking for. Six pages later, and where are we?
Nobody ever wins a debate. Both parties walk away feeling as though they have. I will leave thinking I am correct, and that all religions are alike. You will leave thinking you are correct and that I am just some jerk that doesn't "get" Buddhism.
That is why, after much cogitation, heart-searching and mental analysis, I decided for myself, that Buddhism had far more rational and logical answers than most.
It doesn't ask us to have faith in anything unseen or illogical. In fact, it heartily recommends we don't have. But it still leaves all the choices up to us.
Isn't that why you're here?
To 'test the waters' and find out more?
No no no, not at all. You misunderstand me. I don't believe I am correct at all, and that is the whole point of debate, is it not? to listen to the viewpoints of others and to see things from a different perspective? I sincerely hope (1) that you do decide to not leave, and (2) to understand that many schools of Buddhism actually advocate strong debate, in an effort to deepen our own knowledge of wide subjects and to understand that opinions can change.
But I have earnestly tried the above experiment, and have found it to be extraordinarily effective and revealing. Chiefly illustrating the different aspects of my own attitude.
I would never be so condescending as to think of you, or consider you a 'jerk'. Not without knowing that in condemning you, I do so to myself as well. it takes 2 to tango....
It seems to me that a "Buddhist" wouldn't follow Buddhism at all, but would find the truth his/her own way throughout life...as odd as that sounds. Isn't that what the Buddha did? Trial and error, but on his own? I can see using old teachings as a sort of guideline, but it seems that some take it word for word and try to become exactly what a Buddhist is supposed to be...when a Buddhist really shouldn't "be" anything...?
Yes .. but thr earth centered universe was adopted by the church .. it was the logical mind that proposed the earth was the center of the universe .. it was in fact religous thinkers who became "outcasted" by the church .. the catholic church .. that determined the earth and planets were orbiting the sun. It was also a catholic priest that understood Eistien's equations and proposed the "Big Bang Theory".
So we can not simply divide the world into "religous" outdated sillyness and "science" a new modern way. It's not so simple ... as that...
.. and thats the whole story in a nutshell. So .. at some stage of life some say .. why debate ?? Action becomes more significant. Ofcourse nothing is so clean cut .. we still debate .. but do not take it so serious.
Cheers ...
Cheers ...
One of the constant trials and challenges of being Human is that we all of us "forget a few times".
For my part, I'm sorry if we've come across as being pedantic or entrenched in our views. But remember, as you have rightly and admirably pointed out, that right from the word go, we have been encouraged to challenge, question and test everything we come across. Trial and error. The Buddha went to extremes to see whether whatever he sought and studied was The Right Way or not, and we're all here, as practising Buddhists, still feeling our way, through the very same trial and error.
He got it.
we could get it if only, like him, we were prepared to release and relinquish that which holds us back.
The other 'problem' is, of course, that with our continued 'attachment' to Buddhism, we're bound to be enthusiastic about it, and might come over as being 'over the top'. But the very fact that we still want to have you amongst us - without, I promise you, trying to wholeheartedly convince you that we are Right and you are Wrong - I hope is an indication of how much we relish having our ideas and concepts challenged.
Nobody is trying to either convince you or convert you. But Buddhism, as I think I stated before, is not a Calling founded on Blind faith or submissive belief. It's a religion rooted in Logic and analysis.
I am a person with a simple mind. I cannot quote lengthy teachings, famous Buddhist quotations or chapter and verse. I can only go by what I have steadily absorbed and understood over the past 16 years or so.
I don't adhere to any one School or Discipline - I glean that which I can understand, and that which sits well with me, and try to walk the talk. Fail, mostly, but I'm up there with Right Effort, anyway!
There are others on this board far more qualified and experienced than I who can discuss matters on far 'higher' levels. Me? I keep it simple, because that's what I'm comfortable with. But enthusiastic? Willing? Eager? An advocate of how Buddhism has helped me grow? You betcha.
But as with every thing I think, say and do, it's all me. I never purport to speak for others, or represent anyone else in general. I would never presume to do so.
Therefore, if you have criticism of whatever I might say, rest assured that it is me you should take issue with, not 'Buddhism' or 'Us'.
Thanks for keeping in.
You've been receiving some absolutely wonderful, wise and clear responses to your questions on this thread. But in your responses, please forgive my frankness, it doesn't sound like there has been much Buddhist study or practice. I don't mean this as a judgment or criticism, please understand. I bring it up only because I believe with a mind like yours you'd be able to gain a lot of understanding from what the Buddha taught.
It's difficult not to take your words personally when you write things like: We're still fallible humans, we're not perfect, but having been on this board for as long as I have I will have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that "nobody really practices what they preach". Not only is there very little "preaching" on this board, but the people I have gotten to know here practice their asses off, if you'll excuse the expression. I have personally witnessed this day after day for over two years.
Anyway, my point is, after you've started your Buddhist studies you'll understand our responses in this thread much better. Please don't take offense to that statement. I'm only going by what you said yourself, that you're not a Buddhist but plan to start studying what the Buddha taught. When you do, come back to this thread and I can guarantee you'll see it in a whole new light.
So don't leave, because you'll soon find out that regardless of how it may seem now, we're actually in agreement, and your mind is more suited for Buddhist understanding than you know. You'll gain so much in your study and practice, in every part of your life, because at the core of it all, Buddhism is about training the mind to see reality as it really is, not as we wish it to be or think it ought to be. I can't wait for more posts from you in the future.
P.S. LOVED that blog, by the way. That woman rocks!
As I understand it, the true aim of what the Buddha taught is mental purification, and consequentially, the cessation of suffering. This is accomplished through a gradual training that leads to deeper and deeper levels of insight in regard to our sensory experience, i.e., a clear understanding of the six sense media (ayatana) will lead to the development of the wings to Awakening (bodhipakkhiyadhamma), and ultimately, to final release (MN 149). Therefore, awakening, which I essentially believe to be a profound psychological event, is not dependent upon holding a philosophical position or viewpoint. In fact, I believe that awakening is achieved, at least in part, through abandoning such things as philosophical positions and views altogether. This is quite similar to Nagajuna's approach as well. That does not mean, however, that having a method of practice that is effective in leading one to awakening, and consequentially the cessation of suffering, is antithetical to the achievement of that goal. Logically speaking, having a method of practice that is effective in leading one to a stated goal should make the achievement of that goal that much easier. This is why the Buddha himself said, "Both formerly and now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress" (MN 22).
Towards this end, he gave a number of teachings and practices that were designed to lead the practitioner an experience that would free the mind from its afflictions, or as they are better known, the mental defilement of greed, hatred, and delusion. The Buddha also said that his teachings were like a raft that was to be used to cross a dangerous river, and once that river had been cross, the teachings had served their purpose (MN 22). Moreover, even though concepts such as rebirth are an integral part of the Buddha's teachings, the Buddha left many metaphysical and philosophical questions unanswered. There were some that he simply refused to answer because they were not useful in the quest to free the mind of its defilements (MN 63). To be more specific, the Buddha did not teach anything other than what related to the cessation of suffering based upon what he himself directly exerienced through years of practice. Therefore, the basic presmise behind what the Buddha taught is simple: If one experiences suffering, and one wishes to put that suffering to an end, then one should put these teachings and practices to the test to see what results they will bring. If, on the other hand, one is not interested in this goal, then there is no need for one to go any further.
That being said, I believe that labels are merely a conceptual distinctions, i.e., they hold no real validity on their own. In essence, it does not matter what you choose to call yourself. What matters most, according to the Buddha's teachings at least, is what you do. As long as your intentional actions do not cause harm to yourself or to others, you can call yourself an "atheist," "Buddhist," or "Gilptord the cave troll" and it does not really matter. This reminds me of a quote attributed to Chandrakirti, an abbot of Nalanda University and disciple of Nagarjuna who lived around the 7th century AD, that I pick up from a Dhamma talk by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. He allegedly said in one of his works, "Words are not policemen on the prowl. We are not subject to their independent authority. They take their meaning from the intention of the person speaking." My advice is that if there are certain teachings that you find helpful or inspiring, then by all means put those teachings into practice. If there are certain concepts that you find too hard to swallow, there is no demand for you to believe them. Many of the Buddha's disciples, if we are to believe the accounts, achieved awakening without ever experiencing memories of past lives, or acquiring supranormal powers, if such things even exist.
Best wishes,
Jason
P.S. A few suggestions for future reading material that I highly recommend, that is if you have not already read them, are A Buddhist Philosophy of Religion by Bhikkhu Nanajivako, Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge by B. Alan Wallace, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris, and Wings to Awakening by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
I have started to read the Tao Te Ching. Is it really only 44 pages? Or did I not get the full version?
Also, are there any translations of the Suttas that are put in more modern terms?
http://www.beatrice.com/TAO.pdf
The Tao, I believe is Chinese Confuscian, although its lessons are extremely profound and yet simple... Though I love the version you've found....!
But it's all good stuff!
Really, really glad I didn't drive you away, scare you off or pee you off too much!