Talk:Five Precepts (Taoism)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
 |
This article is supported by the Taoism WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Taoism-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
There is already a Buddhist Five Precepts, which is basically the same as listed in this article. I think someone should point out the differences between the two? Maybe there is leniency with the Five Precepts of Taoism. -- iamwisesun
[edit] 10000 viewpoints
These precepts are not part of the work of Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu who would not have drawn distinctions in such a polar way as this. Both of whom laugh at folk who try to force nature by control or chasing longevity. The latter even joking about a drunken man surviving a fall which would have injured most - so not calling for alcohol 'only as medication'.
Shouldn't distinction be made in this all too brief article to point out that that all the forms of judgment, rules, life lengthening etc are all from schools of Taoism which by themselves are not true to Tao but just a part of?
These viewpoints called the Five Precepts are a form of social control which can be found in all religion and are not true to Tao in it's form of 'not even being definable in words' but are just someone at some time attempting control by siding up to a powerful force.
PS I was very impressed by the new working of the Tao Wiki article but was disappointed to follow a link to this page which seemed off base.
EDIT: I withdraw my points as on rereading the article see it's not all that bad and fits into the framework of the pages on Tao. Note to self 'don't think to early in the day'.
RE-EDIT: Yet it is all very strict for the Tao and people will surely see for themselves on wider reading that these precepts miss the point of the joy of the Tao. I do feel that 'ism as in Taoism misses the point of Tao. Any religion based on Tao looses the Tao - Hey it's only an opinion :-)
Wikishaw (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Happy Fish Dart Without Care
It's strange enough that 'ism' must constantly be added to Tao in order to attempt to discuss it, now, here is a declaration of moral judgments in the name of Tao. Some men in fancy hats who have names like 'supreme ultimate elder' or some such thing are probably qualified to judge Tao. After all, what do I know, I've never tried that hard to be what I am. As for the article on the so called "Five Precepts of Taoism", I was not able to glean from the author how these precepts fit in to the Tao, or for that matter where on earth they came from. The article left me wondering about robber Chi, who was a thief, and who had Tao according to ChuangTzu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.48.101 (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Now that this article has moved me to try really hard to be what I am, I am confused and retract my statements altogether. Sincere appology. Note to self: Don't think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.48.101 (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
