What does 道(Tao, tao) mean chapter by chapter.....?

[ChiDragon]

I had asked you not to speak for others.

[dawei]

I am not speaking for others. I am letting others answer your inquiry where those answer reside...

 

True research is like practice. A quick dictionary lookup is not the answer. If you are not truly interested in answers then this is just a game...

 

If you only seek to get everyone to agree to your point; then this is just like a cult post.

 

What do you want to achieve by this? Hint: This was Steve's meaning, IMO !

[ShenLung]

I think Laozi describes the way just fine. This is turning into an argument over minutia instead of a discussion. If I were Laozi, I would add this:

 

The Way is like lightning; when the storm clouds gather,

the path of the heavenly light is laid

before the light emerges, the path is.

 

Understanding is like love. When one is in love, one knows it with absolute certainty. It is not an intellectual realisation, it is deeper, bones deep - no, deeper still. Intellect cannot approach this.

[ChiDragon]

stanford

As a verb, perhaps on account of the directionality involved, dao also conveys the sense of “speaking.” Thus, the opening phrase of chapter 1, dao ke dao, literally “Dao that can be dao-ed,” is often rendered, “The Way that can be spoken of.” Because dao is paired with “name” (ming) in the next line—“ming ke ming,” “the name that can be named”—forming a parallel couplet construction, there is thus reason to interpret the verbal usage in the sense of something verbalized, as opposed to a pathway that is travelled on, trodden, or followed. This is also how most commentators in traditional China have understood it: the many normative discourses that clamor to represent the right way are seen to be fickle, partial and misleading. In most English translations, the capitalized form—“Way” or “Dao” (or “Tao”)—is used, to distinguish it from other usages of the term.

 

Thank you for your proper response.......

[dawei]

Thank you for your proper response.......

He simply quoted my link... I guess it was easier to wait for someone to do that and then type some response rather than just look at the link??? You certainly keep it fun here

[ChiDragon]

Sorry, you had not done it properly. Thus I have to give him the credit....

[dawei]

He properly found it. So he deserves singular recognition in this thread for doing the obvious as most men do; Listening and then researching and then sharing... What an idea for us all

 

This gets more fun as the hours pass. Did you still need somone to post the entirety of Hinton's translation so you don't have to take your feet off the foot stool while you post

[ChiDragon]

Do you know what is Wu Wei....???

 

Please don't cite anything but just say yes or no.

 

If yes, then follow it.....

 

If no, just continue with your fun.

Edited December 28, 2012 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

No.

 

[if there is no interest to research of what is shared then there is Nothing to follow as it is readily available for those who truly want to read and know].

 

For all those who give a crap about information sharing: I have read Hinton's chinese translations for many years to cover many poetry publications and philosophy. His DDJ translation is one of the most succinct and direct.

[ChiDragon]

I remembered someone was telling me anything that I'd said was only my opinion. hmmm.............

[dawei]

No.

Think the Zen Mu Koan... but does Mu mean?

Edited December 28, 2012 by dawei

[ChiDragon]

wow......we are really derailing this thread now.

 

Please give it to me in Chinese.

[dawei]

I remembered someone was telling me anything that I'd said was only my opinion. hmmm.............

Yes. I provided my opinion and recommendation and links. You've been kind to accept it. Thanks.

[dawei]

wow......we are really derailing this thread now.

 

Please give it to me in Chinese.

Sometimes, I really get a great laugh with you... honestly, the exchange is worthwhile. Sit back. I'll get the next cup of green tea...

 

The Zen Koan Mu: 無

 

http://peterspearls.com.au/the-zen-koan-mu.htm

 

 

This koan is possibly the most famous of all and is the one most often used by the leading Zen masters of today: Because of this, the Chinese/Japanese character for MU is sometimes displayed in the dojo or teaching space where Zen students gather.

 

One day a troubled monk approached him, intending to ask the Master for guidance. A dog walked by. The monk asked Joshu, "Has that dog a Buddha-nature or not?" The monk had barely completed his question when Joshu shouted: "MU!"

 

The character for MU literally means "nothing." Joshu's answer was quite simply "Nothing," which was not to say that a dog lacks Buddha-nature. Naturally, both Joshu and the monk knew that Buddha-nature is inherent in all creatures without exception, which is why Joshu's "MU" should never be interpreted as a denial of this fact.

 

The only purpose of his response was to break the monk of rational thinking in trying to understand the truth of Zen and to get him to aspire to a higher understanding of reality beyond affirmation and negation, in which all contradictions disappear on their own. Joshu's "MU" is neither a yes nor a no. It is an answer that surpasses the opposition of yes and no and directly points to Buddha-nature, to the reality beyond yes and no.

 

Those who believe they can solve the koan MU through deductive reasoning will only spin their wheels and not gain an inch on MU. Clinging to words and expressions and attempting to interpret and understand MU intellectually is like trying to hit the moon with a stick, or trying to relieve an itch on your foot by scratching your shoe. The old masters said, "Attempting to solve MU by rational means is like attempting to break through an iron wall with your fist."

[konchog uma]

Thank you for your proper response.......

 

thank dawei. its a quote from his link. i asked you for an example and you didnt give one.

[Marblehead]

Are we still having fun?

 

Anyway, Chapter 4 presents some of the characteristics of Tao. But even here we are not speaking of the eternal Tao, that is, we are not defining Tao.

 

I don't remember exactly where right now but somewhere in The Chuang Tzu he said that the Tao cannot be defined but some of it characteristics that we are aware of can be spoken of.

 

Anyone disagree that "Tao" is used as a noun in Ch. 4?

[Imperial]

It is the "Way" so it is a path?

Credit and source: http://internalart.tripod.com/taoism/ifyou.htm

[ChiDragon]

@ anamatva.....I think the object here was for the responder to offer the info.

 

@ MH.....no disagreement.

 

@ imperial.....It seems to me you are not responding correctly. Please use something from the TTC...!!!

Edited December 28, 2012 by ChiDragon

[ShenLung]

Are we still having fun?

 

Anyway, Chapter 4 presents some of the characteristics of Tao. But even here we are not speaking of the eternal Tao, that is, we are not defining Tao.

 

I don't remember exactly where right now but somewhere in The Chuang Tzu he said that the Tao cannot be defined but some of it characteristics that we are aware of can be spoken of.

 

Anyone disagree that "Tao" is used as a noun in Ch. 4?

 

Yes, MH, I agree that defining Tao as a noun is usefull for discussion .. but as Tao preceeds 'beingness' (not a word, but go with it) can it be a noun, per se? Bah, putting an experiential truth into intellectual terms .. not good for development of self realisation. I think we confuse ourselves.

[Marblehead]

It is the "Way" so it is a path?

 

Fair question. Almost. Hehehe.

 

It is the "Way" so is it a path?

 

The "Way" would still be a noun. A path would still be a noun.

[Imperial]

@ imperial.....It seems to me you are not responding correctly. Please use something from the TTC...!!!

Sorry, I misread the topic post. My apologies.

[Marblehead]

Yes, MH, I agree that defining Tao as a noun is usefull for discussion .. but as Tao preceeds 'beingness' (not a word, but go with it) can it be a noun, per se? Bah, putting an experiential truth into intellectual terms .. not good for development of self realisation. I think we confuse ourselves.

That, Sir, is an arguement we will get to if this thread holds together and we look into the other chapters that use the word "Tao". Interesting though the thought that there must be a noun to actuate a verb. (I'm not saying this is a truth, merely that is was my thought.) (I hope I didn't just create God with that thought.)

[Marblehead]

Anyhow, before going to bed I will present the next mention of the word "Tao" and that is in Chapter 5. (Interesting this so I will post the first four lines and then lines five and six. Basically, just more characteristics:

 

The Tao doesn't take side;

it gives birth to both good and evil.

The Master doesn't take sides;

she welcomes both saints and sinners.

 

The Tao is like a bellows;

it (the Tao) is empty yet infinitely capable.

 

(Apparently Mitchell didn't like the connotations of "straw dogs" so instead used the dualities of 'good and evil'.)

[ChiDragon]

Anyhow, before going to bed I will present the next mention of the word "Tao" and that is in Chapter 5. (Interesting this so I will post the first four lines and then lines five and six. Basically, just more characteristics:

 

The Tao doesn't take side;

it gives birth to both good and evil.

The Master doesn't take sides;

she welcomes both saints and sinners.

 

The Tao is like a bellows;

it (the Tao) is empty yet infinitely capable.

 

(Apparently Mitchell didn't like the connotations of "straw dogs" so instead used the dualities of 'good and evil'.)

 

There is no Tao in this Chapter from the original classic. This chapter was mistranslated by Mitchell.

 

It should read....

Heaven and Earth ................sides;

[ShenLung]

That, Sir, is an arguement we will get to if this thread holds together and we look into the other chapters that use the word "Tao". Interesting though the thought that there must be a noun to actuate a verb. (I'm not saying this is a truth, merely that is was my thought.) (I hope I didn't just create God with that thought.)

 

God is an interesting concept. Can there be such a thing as God with no religeon attached to it? Can God be what we call "I"? If the "I" conciousness and the "God" conciousness are sitting in the same place, manifesting, fulfilling, and recognizing the existence of all things (the 10000 things) what does this say of the "I" nature, and what real power is inherent in this?

 

I am begining to think that Tao is just the begininning of a more comprehensive understanding.