Talk:Five precepts (Taoism)

Untitled

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

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)

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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Five precepts (Taoism)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This reminds me of robber Chi. Where is Tao in these moral commandments. Precepts such as these are best left to buddhist monks. 'taoist precept' is kind of laughable. Its bad enough 'ism' has to be added to the way in order to attempt to talk about it, now there is a moral code to be followed. One that undoubtedly is judged by a man. A man named the 'supreme elder lord of all things' or some such nonsense. Try really hard to follow these precepts, or, swim like happy fish. I suppose it's up to you.

Last edited at 07:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

---

• Five Precepts (Taoism) → Five precepts (Taoism)
• Ten Precepts (Taoism) → Ten precepts (Taoism)

– Lowercase for consistency with the outcome of the RM at Talk:Eight precepts from 7 months ago, and for consistency with the article at Five precepts. Possibly, Five Precepts (Taoism) should just be merged into Five precepts, since they are basically the same precepts. I also wonder about the Five Pillars of Islam, but I don't feel ready to approach that question yet. See also the somewhat-related ongoing RM discussion at Talk:Eastern Catholic Churches. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• OpposeNeutral per this conclusive n-gram (n-gram flawed, did not include all lower case. Tie goes to the runner?) and per Ten Commandments and Five Pillars of Islam. Eight Precepts also seems the proper name, and no reason to bring all the others down(cased) with it. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• And opposed to a merge, where the answer seems addressed in the wrongly-worded lede: "The Five Precepts are the same as the Five Precepts of Buddhism; however, there are minor differences to fit in with Chinese society." They are either "the same" or include "minor differences". I'm going to boldy go toss in "nearly the same" for accuracy and remove the counter-descriptors in that sentence. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Regarding Ten Commandments, one justification I saw in a Talk page discussion is that it is considered the title of a specific written work, whereas my understanding is that these are not. If we don't move this one then we ought to do something about Five precepts and Eight precepts. I can't see a justification for inconsistency between these three four. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• The article states that these precepts came from The Ultra Supreme Elder Lord's Scripture of Precepts (not dated or linked), and within the direct quote 'five precepts' is mentioned but lower-cased. The partial sentence summary presented as the 'five precepts' seems misleading, as the full text includes much more information. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support – n-gram stats clearly show that sources don't treat these as proper names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicklyon (talk • contribs) 04:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.