>> But time and space are so relative, they might as well be an illusion.
Most desires and wars are based on illusions.
>> Not to be ethnocentric, but it is a tad difficult to apply this. Is it anti-individualist? A veiled reference to the female anatomy?
LOL! It is none of the above...and I did not even thing of the "Freudian" interpretation until you...and people say I have a one track mind!
The point is perhaps better explained in the next example; When you use a bowl, it is not the "bowl" itself that is useful to you, but the void in the middle that you fill with water (or whatever you desire). This observation is meant to point out a few things, (a) items are defined by their opposites (b) what is "not" (in this example the empty space within the bowl) is more important/useful than what is (the clay that made the bowl). (c) this gives rise to a minimalist approach (my own and Zen's interpretation).
Despite its simple language, understanding Tao Te Ching is hard (even for Chinese, though obviously harder for others) because the imagery and hints and cultural contexts are so distant. This is why volumes have been written about these few verses. Some have found their way into Western thought, however, and are readily understood:
The brittle is easily shattered,
and the small is easily scattered.
Great trees grow from the smallest shoots;
a terraced garden, from a pile of earth,
and a journey of a thousand miles
begins with a single step |
