takaaki

The Dao Bums
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    155

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by takaaki

  2. Posted

    Hey, this chap is not like me!! He comes from Wudang and is not a shaman. I come form Mao shan and I learn my arts from the Immortals.

     

    The three treasures are;

     

    Mercy

    Economy

    Being at one with the Dao

     

    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.

  3. Posted

    I offer the Three Treasures as translated by Robert Henricks in his translation of the Tao Te Ching:

     

    5. I constantly have three treasures;

    6. Hold on to them and treasure them.

    7. The first is compassion;

    8. The second is frugality;

    9. And the third is not presuming to be at the forefront in the world.

     

    For my own purposes I have simplified these to:

     

    Compassion

    Conservativism

    Humility

     

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

  4. Posted

    Actually, I believe that if one held firmly to the Three Treasures of Lao Tzu, regardless of what path one decided to walk one would be walking a Taoist path.

     

    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?

  5. Posted · Edited by takaaki

    Wouldn't a Taoist .lifestyle be whatever lifestyle a Taoist chose to lead?

     

    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?

  9. Posted · Edited by takaaki

    Answer to first question, he told me and I wrote it down. We looked at many english translations to see the expression, he discarded many and used some which he thought was accurate.

     

    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.

     

    At the time, and to a certain extent still now, English speaking nations are very rich and powerful. Li Erh's wisdom of harmony and valuing nature, of looking at things as equal was very much needed. Today there are over a million millionaires in China, I think they need to find the way again!

    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?

     

    When Li Erh came to me, he said that his book was called 'The sacred book of the way and its heart'.

     

    No not through me but through self realization. He showed me what is to come of the world, if we were to follow the wise words of Li Erh perhaps this may never happen? You don't have to believe in the spirit world to gain something from the sacred book. It is asking you to live a simple life and to follow nature. One could and should see that the spirit is part of nature. Western intellectuals only see the sacred book as philosophy. It can never be philosophy for it was a spiritual revelation that Li Erh had that showed the great connections in all things.

     

    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.

    No, the Dao exists in all forms of spirituality that are based on nature and spirit acknowledgement. Although Daoist shamanism is open to anyone whatever race or colour they are, culture can be bridged by these practices. If all peoples believed in nature and our connectivity and valued life as a magical creation we would not need religion or anything else.

     

    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.”

  10. Posted · Edited by takaaki

    He chose to teach me in English, therefore the Dao can be expressed more easily to English speaking people. It can be readily understood, although some of the mystery still remains!

     

    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?

     

    Ancient pictograms and meanings; some are lost there are no equivilant English words. Although I know some Chinese and meanings, my English is better! The text was for the English speaking world, a world that needs to understand the Dao more than any other.

     

    Why does the English speaking world needs to understand the Dao more than any other?

     

    The original text writen by Li Erh is long gone. He wrote many words he told me and discarded many. He told me he wrote this on 'bamboo slithers' and in the end he was pleased with more than 81 verses. But only 81 remain I think because 81 is a fortunate number; 9x9=81. Many martial art patterns are 81 moves long.

     

    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?

     

    Lets put the definition of true shamanism correct. There are no drugs, no altered states by means of drums or dancing. When you beg for the Immortal to come only a sincere heart will alert him to your call. He/she will come to you physically and move you powerfully. You will know when he/she has come. There are no mind games, no way to fool yourself and others. You can't just decide to become a shaman, you are chosen by the Immortal by them coming to you after a period of you showing them your sincere heart and faith. Anything else is plastic shamanism.

     

    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?

  11. Posted · Edited by takaaki

    Flowing Hands can dispute what he wants to, but what I know is that if you translate the oldest copy of the Tao Te Ching with the newest copy, the message is still there. Creating a message doesn't mean it's the actual message.

     

    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.

     

    Taoism can be classified as many things, but I am actually talking about the general philosophical belief, in other words what was expressed by Lao Tzu within the Tao Te Ching.

     

    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.

     

    Do you think the general Taiwanese or Chinese practitioner would consider Flowing Hand's translation to be accurate?

     

    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.

     

     

  13. Posted · Edited by takaaki

    This translation of Chapter 60 needs a great deal of work. I know you say it was mystically transmitted from Lao Tzu, but it has nothing to do with the actual meaning, which is simply that a man of Tao's kingdom is one of harmony.

     

    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.

     

    This has nothing to do with harmony, but rather the manipulation of the world by shamans and spirits, which in my opinion, is the last thing Lao Tzu would've advocated. The sage LEAVES THE WORLD ALONE! He does not interfere with other people's lives and when he does help they don't realize he has helped. That's the first and most important lesson we learn about the Sage.

     

    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.

     

    I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but in my opinion, it's not Taoism.

     

    What is Taoism, in your opinion? I wish all the Chinese in Taiwan and South-East Asia are listening in.

  14. Posted · Edited by takaaki

    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.

     

    9. Then, virtue (and ethics) return (and dispatched off) to who?

    The character 誰(who) was not in the phrase. However, if the "who" was there, then, the phrase would become:

    故德交歸誰焉?

     

    In this scenario, the character 焉 would have been used as a question mark.

     

    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?

  15. Posted · Edited by takaaki

    You are right, this is not a question. Normally, the character was used as a question mark. However, it was used as an auxiliary character in this case.

     

    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.

  17. Posted

    Here is:

    1. 治大國,若烹小魚.

    2. 以道莅天下,

    3. 其鬼不神;

    4. 非其鬼不神,

    5. 其神不傷人;

    6. 非其神不傷人,

    7. 聖人亦不傷人.

    8. 夫兩不相傷,

    9. 故德交歸焉.

     

    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) .

  18. Posted

    I had tried to clarified it but people already have their mind made up that the Dao De Jing is a shamanistic "treatise".

     

    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.

     

    I'll let you read my translation:

    1. Ruling a big nation is like frying a small fish.

    2. With the presence of Tao beneath heaven,

    3. The ghosts cannot extent their power.

    4. It's not only that the ghosts cannot extent their power,

    5. But its power cannot harm anyone.

    6. It was not even that their power cannot harm anyone,

    7. A ruler also does no harm to anyone.

    8. Since both do no mutual harm to each other,

    9. Then, the virtue of peace was returned to the people.

     

    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 ?

  19. Posted

    So flowing hands if the translation was given to you by Lao Tzu does that mean it is the only Dao De Jing congruent with his original teaching? Do you know why he did not also re transmit the original chinese text to a shaman as well as the english version, if currently there is no genuine chinese text of his original script?

     

    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.

  20. Posted

    He came to me and said I want to teach you my true teachings that I wrote down thousands of years ago for the English speaking world. So every day I begged him to come and every day he told a chapter at a time giving me understanding of each chapter.

     

    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?

     

    I was astounded by some chapters as he completely discarded what was said in other translations saying they didn't make any sense at all. As I have said many times on this site, Li Erh was born into a deeply held shamanistic society where people believed in that natural system of spirituality. The chinese people were very fond of transcribing text, especially for imperial exams. The DDJ has gone through multple changes since it was first written, what we have in the original text is not by the hand of Li Erh, it is by the hand of a copyist. These people were renowned for making their own shortened pictograms and personal attributes to the writing. No genuine chinese text exists of Li Erh's original script remains.

     

    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.

     

    So we have mine, sense will show you that what I have produced is the original.

     

    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?

  21. Posted

    It was bothering me too, but I was afraid to ask which might divert to further confusion and out of context.

     

    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.

  22. Posted · Edited by takaaki

    IMO what aload of nonsense! how does the first sentence add up to the next? 'Taking great care and approaching the universe with Tao.'

     

    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?

  23. Posted · Edited by takaaki

    Let me here place the chapter of all chapters that was given to me to show how much emphasis was placed on shamanistic culture when Li Erh wrote the DDJ and how it is so valid for todays understanding of this ancient work. A direct valuing of such practises that cannot be defined as just 'philosophy'.

     

     

    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.

  25. Posted

    Maybe the difference is in our definition of wisdom. How about the word "insight"?

     

    So, for you, there is nothing practical, useful, or insightful to be "gotten from the Tao Te Ching, not even by the Chineses intellectual". Since this is your position, why bother to even discuss the Tao Te Ching?

     

    :)

     

    Hi Jeff, what is your view about the Dao De Jing?