takaaki

Hello everyone!

 

My question is - what concepts does one need to accept to call himself a Daoist?

 

My answer would be simply - "The Dao produced One, One produced Two, Two produced Three, Three produced ten thousand things."

Which Chapter is this? I would like to look at the Chinese text before I reply.

Is that ok with you?

@dawei...

"she does a good job of making sure I am not a Taoist."

Why was that...???

Good question. I would also like to know what dishes Dawei's wife will be preparing.

What about your wife? What dishes will she be preparing?

Have you have spent any time living with chinese or in china? For myself, I see much more going on than a simple case of a diffusion of responsibility.

 

But your welcome to have other conclusions based on any direct experience and discussions with hundreds who have similar experiences too.

Which is worse? Not lending a hand to help a little girl lying in the street in China or pushing a man onto the tracks of an oncoming train and watching him die in America?

I am not dissing any culture. I am curious to know how you think and form judgments in the tradition of Confucius.

Words in a book can be interesting but life is where we find Dao... The TTC may be a finger pointing to Dao... for those that need it. There are too many books out there to care about one book... and Dao is still known without books.

Forgive me for not pointing my finger directly at the moon. Let me rephrase my question.

I am not a Taoist. I can throw the Dao into the rubbish bin.

You say you are not a Taoist, can you throw the Dao into the rubbish bin?

And I mean, chucking all that crap attributed to Laozi aka Li Erh.

You can belittle him if you want.. but he is not a Taoist... he categorically stated as such. Others label him.

I was not belittling him. I was belittling you, for want of a better, inoffensive word.

John Chang didn't know and couldn't explain the things he could do. He came up with his spin based on his cultural background and a mix of Chinese Chi magic. You are impressionable and remind me of a Chi story.

After ten years of teaching his disciple at his West Lake temple in Hangzhuo, the Tao Master told his disciple, "It is time for you to leave. Don't return until you have realized the power of the Tao Te Ching."

Twenty years passed and one day, while the Tao Master was seated in meditation by the lake, his disciple ran up to him and announced excitedly, "Master, master, I have realized the power of the Tao Te Ching."

"And what is this power you have realized?" asked the Tao Master.

"Watch this," the disciple replied as he stepped out onto the lake and walked on its watery surface. When he was way out, he turned around, and, standing on the water, beamed at the old man, "What do you think, Master?"

"You spent all that time to learn how to do that? Why don't you just use a frigging boat?"

That is actually also a cross-cultural phenomenon seen in various high-population densities known as "diffusion of responsibility/bystander effect/Genovese syndrome."

So, Seth would probably brand your ethnic attribution as:

Personally, I prefer the forum of free debate, though! But, that's just me - everyone has a different threshold!

What is your point? Can you clarify?

I am not a Taoist. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I am not a Taoist. I can throw the Tao Te Ching in the rubbish bin.

You are not a Taoist, you say. Can you throw the Tao Te Ching in the rubbish bin?

The PRC is considered communist, which is supposed to make the government take all people as one class all deserving the same thing. This seems far more inclusive sounding than capitalism. Yet in practice, which is more individualistic? Evidently, there is no "which one" since both places are comprised of so many varying groups, ideologies, histories, etc..

Of course there is "which one". Cross any border and the change in the place is dramatic in terms of language, social norms and values.

Both capitalism in the US and communism in the PRC are as individualistic.

In the US, everyone eats at the buffet table laden with food and you are on your own: you grab what you can and it's each man for himself. Americans call this capitalism.

In the PRC, everyone eats in the dining hall all seated down nicely as the food is doled out on every man's plate. The American-style free-for-all takes place in the kitchen and the chock full pantry where the guys in charge - from the Central Committee in Bejing right down to the Headman in Menghai County - are. Americans call this corruption.

Maybe there is a better term than "American Taoist" to be used for the purpose here. Perhaps "fairweather Taoist." When the conditions are nice, the fairweather Taoist accords with Taoist teaching, when conditions make these principles difficult to follow, they don't follow them.

 

This would more than likely describe 85%+ of people who try to live by the guidance of one sage or another though, so it might be a bit too inclusive in this case...

I think I'd better have "American Taoist" copyrighted and go after anyone messing around with it for trademark infringement. I see billions of dollars in the picture and need to protect the brand.

The point of a discussion forum is to discuss the issue raised. You raised a question to everyone... I asked you to explain your point with gave specific examples.

 

If you don't want to explain your assertions then why state them? What is the reluctance in folks to discuss what they claim?

Perhaps, it is because of a your lack of receptivity on account of low I.Q.. I have said what I truly feel and this is expected to upset you and cause disharmony even thought you asked for it. It is uncomfortable for a Chinese to be brutally frank. Westerners have no qualms about being offensive in social interaction.

The point of a discussion forum is to discuss the issue raised. You raised a question to everyone... I asked you to explain your point with

How about we take what may appear to be a fairly easy example.

 

Is this guy, John Chang, a Taoist? After a one word answer, Why?

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Magus-Java-Teachings-ebook/dp/B004DNW61G/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1

Yes, John Chang is a Taoist. The reason is because his brain is fried like Colonel Sander's Kentucky Chicken.

A Taoist is a person whose brain works like a computer hard drive with a Taoist operating system (TOS).

You are a Taoist, Dawei, and you are proud of it. And there is nothing wrong with that.

John Wu was a Catholic. He was a person whose brain worked like a computer hard drive with a Catholic operating system (IOS).

Good points all. I think you may have misread the Western mind though.

 

Regarding fortune - I presently have good fortune, there are many who have bad fortune right now. Because I have an excess most of the time I can share that excess with the less fortunate. If I didn't have good fortune I wouldn't be able to do that. And had I not become a Taoist I doubt that I would have done it.

The Catholic Church does a lot of good works among the sick, the poor and the uneducated all over the world. The US Government has its marvellous Peace Corp. I suppose nothing would have been done also if these two organizations didn't have their "teachings" and the money to do all that.

True charity is invisible; when it has acted, its tracks can be seen on the ground of heartlessness.

Do you all see the nuance in the two statements....???

Very good, sir. You've got it nailed down right on the button like a straight-shooting American.

The American Taoist does not practise anything because his life is a natural movement of inborn spontaneity - no acting according to politically-correct sentiments, no rehearsed good manners, no responses conditioned by fear of breaking the law (e.g. Muhamad Ali's refusal to fight Vietcongs).

The Chinese scholar is the guiding light of society. The sage, whose life is an instinctive movement of perfection, has no need to practise anything. If Jesus had been Chinese, I would grant him the respect accorded to a Chinese scholar.

Therefore,

all western translators like (Watts, Legge, Wilhelm) of the Tao Te Ching are western intellectuals.

all Chinese translators (like John Wu, Lin Yutang, Gia Fu Feng) of the Tao Te Ching are Chinese intellectuals.

To set the record straight, Mao Zedong (who was a Chinese intellectual) destroyed the works of intellectuals (but not the Chinese classics) because they bred superstitions that hold back social progress.

What seems interesting to note is that among 20 asian translations in english, they all choose not to translate Dao at all.

The reason for not translating Dao is because it has appeal as an alternative for western atheists. John Wu was a Catholic and to him, Dao, makes a nice Chinese name for God.

This is a good place to clear the air about the Chinese characters, thoughts and concepts.

You are a very dedicated teacher, and I would like to offer my deepest respects and wishes for the Chinese New Year.

Can you clear the air for us with regard to the meaning of the Year of the Water Snake?

And also, advise us how to greet each other appropriately for the New Year.

What is the appropriate greeting in Chinese (accompanied by English translation) for our western Taoists (including Dawei) of the English version of the Tao Te Ching?

And what is the appropriate greeting in Chinese (accompanied by English translation) for fellow Chinese scholars of the Chinese version of the Tao Te Ching?

Greed is an important concept for me just as is fear. (Almost opposites. Hehehe.) (The greedy will take chances, the fearful will not.) And yes, greed requires a greedy person, an unwillingness to share of their good fortune.

Yes, greed does invite unnecessary risks. Unwillingness to share is something else.

The western mind perceives existence in terms of self among others and all are connected.

My Chinese mind perceives existence in terms of self unconnected to others. Your bad fortune has nothing to do with my good fortune. Each answers to Heaven for his lot. It is not my place to act on behalf of Heaven to effect change in your life. Non-interference. Each has his place. This is the basis of China's foreign policy which the western world does not understand.

I didn't say that they can't read. Perhaps they can translate from character-to-character but they do not have the full capability to interpret thought-to-thought. Anybody can translate the characters by looking up in a dictionary. The problem with their ability was to select the right meaning for the interpretation. However, sometimes the definitions in dictionary do not include the classic definitions. Thus they will mistranslate the classic with modern definitions.

Thought-to-thought would apply to western thinking which is the process of mentation at a very simplistic level as in me, you, here, there, eat, this, sit, there, chop, chop.

Classical Chinese thinking, which is metaphorical, is very complex in comparison and would need a concept-to-concept approach. (This is why Chinese scholars love the classics so much. It's like the enjoyment of fine cuisine by gourmands. Even Shakespeare, which is not much better than street entertainment, in my opinion, does not come close.)

So, when a translation is made, one would begin trying to match (classical Chinese) concept to (western) thought and ends up fitting (vernacular Chinese) thought to (western) thought.

Another good question to ask might be "What is Daoism"? After all, how can you argue about whether or not there can be an "American Daoism" if you can't state what "Chinese Daoism" is in terms that allow for a comparison?

Your question is not complete. The good question should be be framed as follows:

"What is Daoism to you?"

I'm American, Taoist, and successful (hey, I'm the world palindrome champion!) Where do I collect my billions? Because in my experience you can't even count on thousands going along with the territory of success.

It will come, eventually. Perhaps, not in your lifetime. You will be famous too. Look at Van Gogh. He died poor and even lost an ear.

I am not sure of the reluctance to discuss this as we keep hearing over and over (probably from 4-5 members over the last year or two) how westerners will never understand the meaning and have no ability to do so... but nobody is willing to actually get beyond the accusation and simply give examples.

You really want me to say what I truly feel and not the words of one who kneel? The Dao De Jing is the creation of astounding human clarity about the truth - what one truly feels. It speaks out not only about life but more importantly about ourselves, and meant for true action to bring about a better world. Not even Genghis Khan or Emperor Qin would be up to the task.

The English translations are just lovely poems. Are you a man of action, Dawei? I don't mean playing soccer or drinking wine.

Anyhow, I was going to make an extended post regarding this concept (American Taoist) and Takaaki's definition of it but have decided to make just a short comment.

Maybe you should make that extended post because somehow you strike me as being honest without any clue as to what honesty is (i.e. no postering). I was working halfway through my reply to one of your posts explaining being an anarchist and responsibility but also decided to hold back and stop when Aaron became insistent that I was out to upset the apple cart here at Tao Bums.

"American Taoism" as presented by Takaaki is not Taoism at all. Not even a little bit. It is Materialism plain and simple. And this is driven by greed - a desire to have more than enough.

You got that part right about materialism but I need to defend myself on the part about greed.

I would like to emphasize that, firstly, the American Taoist is neither Taoist nor American in the accepted sense of those words; and , secondly, I am not touting American Taoism which has nothing to do with the American Taoist who follows no "isms", no doctrines, no lore that can be told.

True, there are many of all nations and cultures who follow this ideal of greed, not just Americans. Yes, even the Chinese practice it. Always have. That was what the Warring States period was all about. And that is what Lao Tzu spoke against. And that is what Chuang Tzu spoke against.

It is not possible to perceive greed without the greedy person. It is the action or behaviour that is being judged as one of greed; otherwise, greed as a pure idea has no meaning. So, why is greed associated with Americans when, as you say, it is a universal trait?

I never saw Americans as greedy. Successful, yes; driven by passion to create, definitely. It is this creative passion that distinguishes the successful American, and nowhere else in the world, except America, is this quality so celebrated and admired as a cultural characteristic. It is what gives America style. And the Dao De Jing, to me, speak to this style of living – your Way - at the height of human excellence in doing what you love. It has nothing to do with acquiring wealth as a primary goal. But what about the money, the net worth amounting to billions of dollars that always seem to go with the territory of success? What about it? Is this the problem?

are you able to explain the difference in general terms?

.. do you have a sense of there being a significantly different meaning construed?

Although your question is not meant for me, I would like to answer it.

As someone who can read the Chinese text of the Dao De Jing, I can categorically say that the Chinese version is fundamentally different in meaning from the English version. Mind you, this doesn't imply that all Chinamen who can read Chinese agree with each other on the meaning in the Chinese version. Some of them are western-educated, live in the west among westerners, assimilated into western cultures and have western values. These are the Chinese, like Gia Fu Feng, John Wu, and Lin Yutang, who played a part in creating the English version.

For me, the Chinese version has a different message to the English one. And one has to be thoroughly Chinese to understand this viewpoint of mine. A western professor, regardless of his scholarship, has no idea what the world is to the Chinese mind that could compose the Dao De Jing. Gia Fu Feng and John Wu, if they are alive, would disagree with me.

I might agree to some degree. But I am not sure I would go as far as to make western sinology, research, and scholars as purely acting off western values. That would seem to jeopardize research methodologies.

I don't think any human being can avoid acting off values. Even machines, which are programmed by humans, act off values of the human programmers. There is no such thing as objectivity. All viewpoints are subjective and conditioned by the observer unless he is a wooden chair.

But I think this raises a very interesting point (ie: based on western values) and this may not be the thread to pursue it but I think if you gave examples then this would be an interesting line to discuss.

If he gave examples, he would be nailed to the cross for saying what he truly feels. Let's stick to words of those who kneel.

 

There is a big difference, in the meaning on lines 5 and 6, between the two versions. Let's go over it again.

Received Version of Chapter 1

5. 故常無，欲以觀其妙。

6. 常有，欲以觀其徼。

 

5. Hence, when Tao is always invisible, one would grok its quale.

6. When Tao is always visible, one would observe its boundary.

 

These two lines were referring to the states of manifestation of Tao.

 

**************************************************************************************************************************

Common Version:

5. 故常無欲，以觀其妙。

6. 常有欲，以觀其徼。

 

5. Always without desire, one would grok its quale.

6. Always with desire, one would observe its boundary.

 

These two lines were referring to the states of desire of a person.

 

Since Chapter One was given an introduction of Tao, it wouldn't make any sense by jumping out of the subject and talk about someone's states of desire. There was no connection there, it was just out of context. Do you see the difference in the outcome, by place the comma in different a position, of the two versions.....???

Yes, I do see what you are clarifying. One refers to the states of the Tao while the other refers to states of the person.

The Common Version is pointing to desire as the determining factor in seeing the manifested world that hides the mystery behind it. This Version could have Buddhist influence and it makes sense in terms of Buddhist logic, if you accept that.

The Received Version is pointing to Tao as the determining factor in causing the manifestation of the world that we perceive.

What is the message here?

Scholastic analysis for:

Received Version of Chapter 1.

3. 無，名天地之始。

3. Invisible, it was named as the origin of heaven and earth.

4. 有，名萬物之母。

4. Visible, it was named as the mother of all things.

 

7. 此兩者同出而異名

7. These two come from one origin but differ in name,

 

The key to draw to a conclusion is based the logic in line 7. It says these "two" from one origin but differ in name.

 

The two differ in name were referred to the "無" and "有", "Invisible" and "Visible", the two name given to Tao in two different states. The two states were:

1. The beginning(origin) of heaven and earth, Invisible, Tao was in an unmanifested state.

2. As the mother of all things, Visible, Tao was in a manifested state.

 

The origin was referred as "Tao".

 

Everything seems to be felt in place and the logic flows.

 

 

PS....

Please keep in mind from a scholastic point of view, Lao Tze hasn't teaching any of his philosophies in Chapter One. Indeed, he was only given an introduction of Tao.

If we are to be scholarly rigorous, we need to observe the protocols of scientific inquiry and be clinically exacting. This is to ensure that our undertaking is professional and stays that way. No spin, no quackery.

To begin, I would like to examine Line 1.

1. 道可道，非常道。

1. Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

The above English translation has been accepted in the western world; yet, it doesn't say what the Chinese text says.

The word "tao" is not an English word but anglicized Chinese i.e. made English in form. Correct translation should be complete as follows:

1. The Way that can be spoken is not the eternal Way.

The above, although still not consistent with the meaning of the Chinese text, is at least in proper English. This correction has significant importance in eliminating a major distortion of the Tao Te Ching by westerners in the English-speaking world.

Please comment.

 

To be honest with you. Your reasoning are lack of substance. It is monotonous that your presentation only goes back and forth between the first and third party without any of your own ideas. I have given you my legitimate reasons but you were just not able to digest. Anyway, this is only my most humble opinion. No malice was intended.

My guess as to why the book is question was not translated was a lack of interest to do so by westerners who, I feel, can translate anything from Chinese regardless of the accuracy of the final product. Academic studies of the Dao De Jing by Chinese scholar are pretty involved and technically complex. Only the Chinese would find such classical Chinese studies of interest at the linguistic level. Westerners have got what they want - the captivating English translation of the Dao De Jing in poetic form. They would much prefer to study the profusion of possible meanings behind the English version.

Common Version of Chapter 1

1. 道可道，非常道。

2. 名可名，非常名。

3. 無名，天地之始。

4. 有名，萬物之母。

5. 故常無欲，以觀其妙。

6. 常有欲，以觀其徼。

7. 此兩者同出而異名，

8. 同謂之玄。玄之又玄，

9. 眾妙之門。

 

The commas in lines 3, 4, 5 and 6 has been moved one place to the right. This common version was used by many to do the translation.

 

3. 無名，天地之始。

3. Having no name, it is the beginning of Heaven and Earth.

 

4. 有名，萬物之母。

4. Having a name, it is the mother of all tings.

 

5. 故常無欲，以觀其妙。

5. Always without desire, one would grok its quale.

 

6. 常有欲，以觀其徼。

6. Always with desire, one would observe its boundary.

 

 

With the comma in different a place, do you see the difference in the translation between the Received and Common Versions....???

 

As a scholastic approach, the first thing to do is to place the comma in their proper place. That will give the translator a general idea about the context within perspective to see the overall picture of a Chapter.

I can see the difference in punctuation between the Received Version and the Common Version, but the general message of Chapter One has not fundamentally changed. Both versions are like the faces of the same woman with different shades of lipstick and eye-shadow. It's still the same face.

Am I wrong?