takaaki

No. I will check it out. Thanks for the information. You are very helpful.

I meant you no offense. I am not familiar with what is what in Taoism. What is the difference between a Wudang priest and a Mao Shan shaman? I did not realize that there are Chinese Taoist priests preaching to English-speaking people in the west. I thought you are the only western Taoist shaman with Li Erh's guidance reaching out to the western world.

The Three Treasures are mentioned in the Dao De Jing? Which Chapter of the Dao De Jing are you referring to?

I don't know what the Three Treasures are. I googled and found this youtube of a Chinese Flowing Hand explaining the Three Treasures. Frankly, I don't understand what he is talking about. I understand the English but not the message being conveyed. Would you be kind enough to clarify with respect to its application in your own life?

I was wondering what that lifestyle would be, the one a Taoist choose to lead. By Taoist, I mean the kind that I am, an English-speaking Taoist who draws inspiration from the Dao De Jing in English. Richard Gere is a Buddhist, not the kind chanting in the temples of Bangkok but somewhat like an English-speaking Taoist in Buddhist garb living in the west. Does an English-speaking Taoist really have the freedom to choose whatever lifestyle?

None of you Taoist have any feelings for life on Earth? That's telling.

Are you needing scientific validation of your taoist education? You know you are on your own when you walked down that path away from a scientific reality.

You do have a lively imagination.

Amazing! I was wondering why Li Erh would have chosen you, an English-speaking westerner, instead of an English-speaking Chinese Daoist shaman from Hong Kong to bring his teaching to the west. On second thought, you could be the right choice. China was the single most powerful economy since Li ErH’s time, some 1500 years before Genghis Khan, right up to the birth of America about two hundred years ago. After that, China went into decline and is still a relatively poor country despite her effort, over the last 30 years, to improve the impoverished condition of her massive population. Millionaires are unfortunate by-products of the struggle for economic well-being of any society. Is being poor the Way of the Dao De Jing? I don’t think western intellectuals see the Dao De Jing as a book on philosophy. They are attracted to its western-translated worldview which has a spiritual aesthetic. They may think this kind of spiritualism is free of gods and rituals but they are there just the same but in less obvious forms. Walking in the woods and taking in nature is, in essence, a rite of choice. Catholics prefer a prayer session with the rosary. So, how do you propose to bring Li Erh’s shamanistic teaching to the west? Did he lay out the game plan or did he just gave you the Dao De Jing in its uncorrupted form and said, “Go forth and teach.”

How did he teach you in English? Did he use the English language to teach you and you wrote down what he said as he spoke? Or did you tape-record the teaching sessions and made transcriptions afterwards? Why does the English speaking world needs to understand the Dao more than any other? The Dao De Jing is a fascinating piece of work to me. I first came across it in its translated English form that has become popular to westerners; so naturally, I never saw it as shamanistic in nature, let alone realize that it was the work of a Chinese immortal. The translated English form of the Dao De Jing has great appeal in the English-speaking world today because it gives liberalism a spiritual dimension. A political manifesto based on equality and freedom speak to the nature of the eternal Dao which has become the Earth Mother of environmentalists. Even the atheist has found an acceptable Creator in the godless Dao. Are you saying that Li Erh is not happy with all that and wants to set the English-speaking world right though you? What you have described here is not disputed and would be corroborated by the Chinese Daoist priest or shaman who has been performing such rites through the ages. Since you are practising the same form of Daoism as he does, do you feel that the English-speaking world should convert to Daoist shamanism?

Flowing Hand didn't say he created his Chapter 60. He declared categorically that he got it directly from Li Erh (aka LaoTzu). This means all bets are off on every manuscript on the Dao De Jing ever found. If you don't believe him, which is another matter, your discussion with him is over. What you are talking about is a form of Taoism that sprang up in the sixties in the west. It has appeal to free-spirited people who resonate to a pure spiritualism that is devoid of ritualism. And the Tao gives you that. The form of Taoism that defines the cultural life of the general Taiwanese or Chinese practitioner predates your form of Taoism. It is what Flowing Hand is also practising. Naturally, he is their shaman and his word is more than accurate. It's the truth.

Are you all words, mon ami?

Pardon me, Aaaron; but the actual meaning is under dispute on account of Flowing Hand's claim that the texts themselves have been distorted through the ages by scribes. Yours is one take of the Dao De Jing and many would agree with you. I do wish we all think alike but we don't, unfortunately. Shamans don't manipulate the world; celebrity politicians, rock stars, and mass-media do. Shamanism is not institutionalized and shamans, as Flowing Hands said, function like artisans to provide a service when called upon to do so. What is Taoism, in your opinion? I wish all the Chinese in Taiwan and South-East Asia are listening in.

ChiDragon, thank you for reviewing my re-arrangement of your translation of Chapter 60. To avoid confusion, I present that re-arranged translation below with assigned line numbers for easy reference. 1. If the Tao were to come upon the world (thereby, instilling harmony), 以 道 莅 天下 2. Then ruling a big country would be (as easy) as frying a small fish. 治 大 國, 若 烹 小 魚. 3. And ghosts would lose their (godlike) power (over people). 其 鬼 不 神; 4. When ghosts have lost their (godlike) power, 非其 鬼 不 神, 5. Such (godlike) power cannot harm anyone. 其 神 不 傷 人; 6. (godlike) power cannot harm anyone. 非其神 不 傷 人, 7. Just as the (sagely) ruler does not harm anyone. 聖人 亦 不 傷 人. 8. When these two together do no harm. 夫 兩 不相 傷, 9. Then, virtue (and ethics) return (and dispatched off) to ? 故 德 交歸 焉. You asked (I have replaced your quoted lines numbers to match the above): "Let's look at the "two", in line 8, were referred to the ghost(鬼) and human(人). Since the ghost and human do no harm, (9.)then, the virtue are credited(归) to them mutually(交)." The "two" in line 8 referred to the entities in Line 6 (godlike power 神) and Line 7 (sagely ruler 聖人). They do no harm because the godlike power (of the ghost) has been neutralized and rendered as harmless as the sagely ruler. There is no virtue to be credited to anyone as explained below. Pardon me for misleading you through my clumsiness. The word "who" should not have been used. I have removed it as shown in Line 9 of the above re-arranged translation and used just the question mark (?) to stand for 焉. Line 9 is just saying that, in a naturally peaceful harmonic world (Tao), there is no need for (man-made) virtue and ethics (德). How to return them to from whence they came?

What if the last line No. 9 was meant as a rhetorical question? I would like to offer a different rendering using your translation, if I may, to make this plausible question a fitting close to Chapter 60. Lines No. 1 through 8 (according to your translation) could be phrased to give the following meaning: If the Tao were to come upon the world (thereby, instilling harmony), Then ruling a big country would be (as easy) as frying a small fish. And ghosts would lose their (godlike) power (over people). When ghosts have lost their (godlike) power, Such (godlike) power cannot harm anyone. (godlike) power cannot harm anyone. Just as the (sagely) ruler does not harm anyone. When these two together do no harm. Then, virtue (and ethics) return (and dispatched off) to who? 故 德 交归 焉 (P.S. The reason why I suggest the closing question is because it seems consistent with Laozi's disdain of artifices, such as ethics of conduct and rule of law, all of which are rendered obsolete in a world that is in sync with the natural state of the Tao.) My words inserted in parentheses for clarity.

Your Line 9 has no question mark. This is the case for most translations. I was wondering why that was the case.

Thanks for the text but I meant the original one, if any, that Flowing Hand got from Li Erh. He wasn't clear about how he communicated with Li Erh. Did the master dictate in English or no language was used and Flowing Hand, in a trance state just scribbled down in English the way shamans write out fu's ( 符) .

Personally, I am hesitant to close the door on the shamanistic claim since we don't really know who wrote the Dao De Jing. If one wants to see it as the work of a shaman, there is nothing much to do about it. One woman could use the frying pan to fry fish while another use it to whack her husband's head. If you have a defensible argument against the shaman's claim to the Dao De Jing, let's hear it. Your translation does make sense and it does follow the Chinese text better than Flowing Hand's. However, his has the authority of Li Erh and that would be tough to put aside. Until Flowing Hand comes back to take a look at your translation, I do have some questions about it. Line 1. Why do you use "frying" for 烹 and fish for 鲜? Line 9. 故 is absent in your translation which contains "people" even though no such character is present. Also how do you read 焉 ?

There may be a Chinese shaman somewhere with the original Chinese text. Flowing Hands is not Chinese and that was probably why he got it in English. I did pose the same question. I sure would like to get my hands on the original Chinese text.

Was the transmission of this teaching to you directly in English? Or was it in Chinese form that was subsequently translated into English as shown in your Chapter 60? If the teaching was given to you in Chinese, could you show me your Chinese text for study? This is a valid claim. The authenticity of the ancient texts as well as its author is a matter of open debate to this day. Adding to this controversy is the never-ending archeological finds, the last one as recent as 20 years ago, turning up ever older arrangements of these manuscripts. You do have a good argument for creating a reasonable doubt on the integrity of the Chinese writings themselves. Your success at invalidating the veracity of all the Chinese texts hinges upon the contention that the original Dao De Jing was the work of Li Erh, your immortal master. Here again, you leave us with two choices: 1. Accept the Chinese texts associated with Chinese scholars and historians, or 2. Accept the Dao De Jing transmitted to you by Li Erh. And you are asking us to pick No. 2. I am sure there are people here who would go your way if they believe in Li Erh and his version of the Dao De Jing works for them. Magically, the Dao De Jing has become many things to many people and each has drawn from it a different outcome. For you, it is the fate of a shaman. What fate, in your shamanistic view, would befall those who choose No. 1?

The context of this discourse pertains to the assertion that the Dao De Jing is a shamanistic "treatise". I am sure your observations would contribute to clarity of the discussion.

Well, you are dead right. The translation (which looks like Feng's) that you used as example doesn't make sense to me either. Just because no one else questions its admissibility and most people swallow it wholesale doesn't mean you can slip in your translation which makes sense even though it is unconnected to the Chinese text. To be fair, the Chinese text itself, on the whole, doesn't make sense either. It is like a puzzle, a Rubic cube, that scholars have been trying to solve since the Dao De Jing was discovered. This has allowed the Chinese themselves to slip in their own renderings of the ancient text to create Taoism. You have based your position on the premise that the Dao De Jing was produced by a shaman for shamanistic purposes. I am not refuting that. You could be right. No one has successfully debunked the notion that the Gospels were written by spiritualists for the religious purpose of worshipping Jesus. It would help your cause to use a translation that bears some connection to the Chinese text. We are left with two choices: 1. Accept the nonsensical Feng translation, or 2. Accept your sensical rendering that has no connection to the Chinese text.. And you are proposing that we choose No. 2?

Your Chapter 60 translation bears a message that is different from that of the Chinese text. Your translation does not contain one of the most distinctive statements associated with the Dao De Jing: "Ruling a big country is like cooking a small meal". Please explain.

Hello my friends, I am Takaaki from Narita, Japan. I am interested in learning more about the Dao De Jing. I like travelling and learning about different cultures. My new job will take me to South East Asia. I look forward to studying the Dao. Best wishes to all of you.

Thanks for the greeting, Clarity. What is the Yuen Method?