Why Taoism?

[ChiDragon]

Hi chenping...

 

I would be very interested if you were able to give examples of the difference you describe, so that we could understand more what you get when looking at life in a serious way, and what you get when you are looking at getting along with people in the west.

 

A comparison on some specific points.. so that we may have an idea of some kind about that to which you refer.

 

Let me give it a try......

Ref: http://taocurrents.org/2012/10/09/anarchy-and-a-classical-tao-of-laws/

In classical Taoism, when the sage-ruler enters a state of wu-wei, the disorder around re-organizes into a pattern of Tao, albeit one in constant flux.

 

Hence the sage says,

I take no action and the people are transformed of themselves;

I prefer stillness and the people are rectified of themselves;

 

The above quote has a western flavor to it. The mistake lies on the words "sage-ruler enters". The Tao Te Ching had never said that the sage-ruler enters a state of wu-wei. Rather Lao Tze was only suggesting that they should rule the people with Wu Wei because the rulers never did.

 

The last two statements should interpreted as:

故聖人云

我無為而民自化。

我好靜而民自正。

 

Hence the sage says(form the native point of view):

I am Wu Wei; then, the people will be self contained.

I am quietistic; then, the people will be self imposed.

 

Wu Wei, here, has the meaning which implies that the ruler is "rid of desires and craves for luxuries". Thus less tax burden on the people. Just leaving the people be and let them live on their own with less decree from the government.

 

Things like that will make a lot of difference in the interpretation of the Tao Te Ching.

Edited March 12, 2013 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

Classical Chinese is very complicated, and I am happy to let the experts translate for me. When I quote a specific translation, I double-check it against other academic translations for accuracy and analyze whether the translation is in harmony with classic Taoist philosophy, religion and practice.

 

silas.......

I think you are doing a great job. You have my most honorable respect for that.....

[silas]

 

Let me give it a try......

Ref: http://taocurrents.org/2012/10/09/anarchy-and-a-classical-tao-of-laws/

 

The above quote has a western flavor to it. The mistake lies on the words "sage-ruler enters". The Tao Te Ching had never said that the sage-ruler enters a state of wu-wei. Rather Lao Tze was only suggesting that they should rule the people with Wu Wei because the rulers never did.

 

The last two statements should interpreted as:

故聖人云

我無為而民自化。

我好靜而民自正。

 

Hence the sage says(form the native point of view):

I am Wu Wei; then, the people will be self contained.

I am quietistic; then, the people will be self imposed.

 

Wu Wei, here, has the meaning which implies that the ruler is "rid of desires and craves for luxuries". Thus less tax burden on the people. Just leaving the people be and let them live on their own with less decree from the government.

 

Things like that will make a lot of difference in the interpretation of the Tao Te Ching.

 

ChiDragon,

 

The issue is that your definition of wu-wei and my definition differ. My definition is an extension of the practice of meditation in the TTC and mysticism of Tao itself.

 

Also, there is a question about your translation itself. Below is a page from Jonathan Starr's Tao Te Ching which has a character by character analysis of each chapter. The first line is really better translated as "I practice wu-wei" or "I take no action". Also, the translation of the character for transformed makes more sense than "self contained" because the character suggests some form of action - eg, change or transformation.

 

 

 

 

 

[ChiDragon]

silas....

When we are start saying my definition is different than yours, that is where trouble begins. In Chinese classic, using a set of limited modern definition of the characters and translation done by semantics is not the way to go.

The issue is that your definition of wu-wei and my definition differ. My definition is an extension of the practice of meditation in the TTC and mysticism of Tao itself.

Your definition is "an extension of the practice of meditation in the TTC" deffer from my is because you are not looking at it from a philosophical point of view. Besides, interpreting the Chinese classic is not feasible to do it by semantics. It should be done by logical means within context.

[silas]

silas....

 

When we are start saying my definition is different than yours, that is where trouble begins.... Your definition is "an extension of the practice of meditation in the TTC" deffer from my is because you are not looking at it from a philosophical point of view. Besides, interpreting the Chinese classic is not feasible to do it by semantics. It should be done by logical means within context.

 

Then let us agree to disagree because all viewpoints are within Tao, so we may proceed on our way without conflict.

[newbjpt13]

You guys have gotten me more interested in better English translations of some of the books listed here. Can anyone give me what translations they feel are translated into English best? The last time I read TTC was about 2 years ago and I doubt it was the best translation. That being said I don't take the books as seriously in a dogmatic mannerism .

I really enjoy more traditional Taoist books but don't view them as precepts that must be followed exactly and more as a tool to open and free our minds. I do feel though that studying those Philosophical books is important to help prevent what religious Taoists call "disintegration into evil" when studying energy practices like the meridians and such. On that note I bow out of this discussion and hope people leave their recommended translations.

[Aaron]

Hi Aaron, yin-yang appears throughout the TaoTeChing, so it applies to ch. 67 as well. Plus, the actual text of ch. 67 (the translation above is from DC Lau, an academic, who translated with the eye and mind of a scholar) speaks of balance.

 

This interpretation reconciles with the Taoist rejection of doctrinal morality.

 

Oh God... please don't tell me you just said the Taoist rejection of doctrinal morality? Did you miss my last discourse on this subject? Taoism is just as moralistic a doctrine as any other philosophy or religion out there. I can go through line by line and list all the moral imperatives Lao Tzu gives his readers. I constantly get irritated when people who want to live a lifestyle that suits them use the Tao Te Ching as an excuse to do so. I'm not sure what Tao Te Ching you're reading, but it sounds like you've cut out the parts you don't like and are only paying attention to those that you do.

 

Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with balance or neutrality, it has to do with harmony and not struggling with things. There is a big difference between the two. Now I'm not going to argue with you about this, but unless you provide me with this long list of evidence regarding balance, please don't expect me to accept this as factual, especially since I've been reading the Tao Te Ching for over 20 years and have already had (and disproved) this argument more time than I can count.

 

Aaron

Edited March 12, 2013 by Aaron

[Aaron]

You guys have gotten me more interested in better English translations of some of the books listed here. Can anyone give me what translations they feel are translated into English best? The last time I read TTC was about 2 years ago and I doubt it was the best translation. That being said I don't take the books as seriously in a dogmatic mannerism .

 

I really enjoy more traditional Taoist books but don't view them as precepts that must be followed exactly and more as a tool to open and free our minds. I do feel though that studying those Philosophical books is important to help prevent what religious Taoists call "disintegration into evil" when studying energy practices like the meridians and such. On that note I bow out of this discussion and hope people leave their recommended translations.

 

John C. H. Wu and Robert Henricks are my two favorite. Wu was a native born Taiwanese who went to great lengths to translate as close to the original text as he could. Henricks is a scholar who did the same.

 

Aaron

[三江源]

 

Let me give it a try......

Ref: http://taocurrents.org/2012/10/09/anarchy-and-a-classical-tao-of-laws/

 

The above quote has a western flavor to it. The mistake lies on the words "sage-ruler enters". The Tao Te Ching had never said that the sage-ruler enters a state of wu-wei. Rather Lao Tze was only suggesting that they should rule the people with Wu Wei because the rulers never did.

 

The last two statements should interpreted as:

故聖人云

我無為而民自化。

我好靜而民自正。

 

Hence the sage says(form the native point of view):

I am Wu Wei; then, the people will be self contained.

I am quietistic; then, the people will be self imposed.

 

Wu Wei, here, has the meaning which implies that the ruler is "rid of desires and craves for luxuries". Thus less tax burden on the people. Just leaving the people be and let them live on their own with less decree from the government.

 

Things like that will make a lot of difference in the interpretation of the Tao Te Ching.

Thanks chen ping.. so this example you give here is of the difference between "I enter a state of wu wei" and "I am wu wei".. and in the latter example wuwei is to do with frugality which is good economically? Have I read you correctly?

 

So is it only in the western reading that wuwei is considered to be an internal state that one cultivates for inner harmony/sagacity?

[silas]

Oh God... please don't tell me you just said the Taoist rejection of doctrinal morality? Did you miss my last discourse on this subject? Taoism is just as moralistic a doctrine as any other philosophy or religion out there. I can go through line by line and list all the moral imperatives Lao Tzu gives his readers. I constantly get irritated when people who want to live a lifestyle that suits them use the Tao Te Ching as an excuse to do so. I'm not sure what Tao Te Ching you're reading, but it sounds like you've cut out the parts you don't like and are only paying attention to those that you do.

 

Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with balance or neutrality, it has to do with harmony and not struggling with things. There is a big difference between the two. Now I'm not going to argue with you about this, but unless you provide me with this long list of evidence regarding balance, please don't expect me to accept this as factual, especially since I've been reading the Tao Te Ching for over 20 years and have already had (and disproved) this argument more time than I can count.

 

Aaron

 

In my post above (#115), I talk about the practice of classical Taoism and the philosophy of classical Taoism. The practice is wu-wei - without forethought or intention or coercion. Taoists spontaneously follow the spontaneity of the Tao. The philosophy comes from Taoist understanding of Cosmology and celestial mechanics. The TTC's philosophy plays with paradox, including morality, to get one to give up the distinction and live in wu-wei.

Edited March 12, 2013 by silas

[ChiDragon]

Thanks chen ping.. so this example you give here is of the difference between "I enter a state of wu wei" and "I am wu wei".. and in the latter example wuwei is to do with frugality which is good economically? Have I read you correctly?

 

So is it only in the western reading that wuwei is considered to be an internal state that one cultivates for inner harmony/sagacity?

 

 

hehehehe.....I'm not chen ping....

 

The latter example is not to do with frugality which is good economically. It is less attention to the people from the government, so the people will live freely. It means that there are less laws which set forth to burden the people. Another words, leave the people alone and let they live in a way with minimal interference. Remember, Wu Wei is to take no action to interfere with the course of Nature.

 

I'll have reservation on the western reading about Wu Wei.....!!!

Edited March 12, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

I do expect a lot of resistance to treat Lao-tzu to be a rational philosopher as Parmenides and the Buddha. But the evidence is convincing now.

 

If I may ask, and I am serious as I know you are very serious in your works and I have enjoyed reading them:

 

1. Do you view any tradition prior to LZ? What 'ancients' or past sages does he refer to?

 

2. Do you view his land of Chu as 'superstitious, mystical barbarians' as the other areas did? And why did other areas think of Chu in this way, which could include their strong shamanistic and spiritual tendencies?

 

3. Is there any reason to have resistance towards seeing the spiritual, primitive, shamanistic naturalism which spooked the other lands as something that this 'official in the imperial archives' had privy to grow up in and read and work with?

[dawei]

The TaoTeChing is religion because many of its precepts cannot be understood without the metaphysical. The TTC is (among other things) a manual for the ruler or king, and its verses must teach the king to rule harmoniously or the people will revolt. Although some of it can be interpreted in a rational manner, many of the verses are about the transcendental - and this transcendental is REAL, not a metaphor.

 

For example, the mystical concept of wu-wei which is handled by the emperor makes no sense without the metaphysical.

 

In TTC ch. 57 it says:

 

I take no action and the people are transformed of themselves;

I prefer stillness and the people are rectified of themselves;

 

 

As I just posted, the influences to Chu, and Lao Zi are in fact well established.

 

Shen Dao (慎到) or Shen Zi (慎子) was from Qi but his works were found on bamboo in Chu... he appears to have first penned the idea of Wu-Wei with an appeal to how heaven operates (ergo, DDJ5 is almost taken from Shen Dao too).

 

I don't completely disagree with your point of the metaphysical angle but I think we are too stuck on looking at one book among an obvious borrowing. LZ may of made it more metaphysically understandable but it is clear that other thinkers knew this too.

 

This form of wu-wei could be interpreted as non-interference with the people, as laissez faire government or even anarchy, as following nature or the natural flow. However, government that does absolutely nothing usually fails. If my understanding of chinese history is correct, the chinese government in the 1800s did nothing about the Opium War either, because many religious advisors said to "do nothing" and the problem would resolve itself. What happened is one of china's most traumatic events that set the stage for the Communist takeover in the 20th century. Drug addicts followed their nature into addiction and the government fell into chaos.

 

The mystical form of wu-wei assumes that the Tao is an actual entity, that the king must connect to it and interpret the patterns for harmony and bring Tao to the people to maintain peace. This is religion. See Anarchy And A Classic Tao Of Laws.

 

I find a few problems with pushing this point... among them is that the Qing dynasty was ruled by the non-Han folks called Manchu's... and your trying to imply these northeast barbarian Manchu's were applying Wu-Wei? Please... Let's keep the history in check here. The Manchu were 'a semi-sedentary people' from Liaoning province. I have visited their family grounds which now is a forgotten past footnote in dynasty history.

 

But they were remarkably inept at political-military control of such a vast land. They forced all western trade to the southern ports, far from the capital Beijing... The western sin in the opium wars is a smear most forgetten. And while they banned the drug and could not, from a distance, enforce the ban, the Qing eventually did so. They tossed the drugs into the water just as the American Revolutionaries tossed the British Tea (actually, chinese tea) into the Boston Harbor.

 

This is not mystical Wu-Wei but the performance was repeated many centuries later in Jerusalem as Jesus threw the sellers out of the temple...

[dawei]

The TTC alone gives us Taoist Creation Theory, a sophisticated understanding of the entity Tao, the mechanics of this reality, not to mention statecraft. When combined with the Chuang Tzu and Lieh Tzu for a theory of afterlife, the 3 books comprise a full religion.

 

Sorry... These few lines are simply lacking in any detail.... All those who expound detail is because they put that book down to see other ancient texts which might explain the detail. You need to read the Tai Yi Sheng Shui and Huainanzi as the best sources of taoist creation theory. LZ is but a footnote compared to these texts.

[dawei]

Yes, that is true. But that doesn't mean they could convey classical Chinese thought in English. I am quite happy with Philosophical Daoism derived from English translations of the Tao Te Ching. It helps me to get along with people in the west. But when I have to deal with life in a serious way, I look to the Chinese texts.

 

I tend to agree... at least you are willing to see both sides of the issue; East and West.

[dawei]

You guys have gotten me more interested in better English translations of some of the books listed here. Can anyone give me what translations they feel are translated into English best? The last time I read TTC was about 2 years ago and I doubt it was the best translation. That being said I don't take the books as seriously in a dogmatic mannerism .

 

I really enjoy more traditional Taoist books but don't view them as precepts that must be followed exactly and more as a tool to open and free our minds. I do feel though that studying those Philosophical books is important to help prevent what religious Taoists call "disintegration into evil" when studying energy practices like the meridians and such. On that note I bow out of this discussion and hope people leave their recommended translations.

 

An honest request should get an honest response... I can only give you an opinion

 

I would say to balance the views as follows:

1. Hinton (poetic brevity and conciseness)

2. Chan (scholarly, philosophical and thorough)

3. Flowing Hands (spiritual and universal)

4. Hua-Ching Ni (religious and universal)

 

Thus, you get a

(1) a westerner who is widely noted for his translations of chinese poetry and philosophy;

(2) a Chinese whose publications are always cited by sinologist;

(3) a shaman master to provide a higher level of understanding;

(4) a traditional taoist master with many publications;

[dynamictao]

If I may ask, and I am serious as I know you are very serious in your works and I have enjoyed reading them:

 

1. Do you view any tradition prior to LZ? What 'ancients' or past sages does he refer to?

 

2. Do you view his land of Chu as 'superstitious, mystical barbarians' as the other areas did? And why did other areas think of Chu in this way, which could include their strong shamanistic and spiritual tendencies?

 

3. Is there any reason to have resistance towards seeing the spiritual, primitive, shamanistic naturalism which spooked the other lands as something that this 'official in the imperial archives' had privy to grow up in and read and work with?

 

1. After a while I do not go back to read about what the trandition 2500 years ago near the village where Lao-tzu live. This is because of the simple question I have been interested in: "How can we interpret the Tao Te Ching?" In the same spirit as an amateur reading ancient Greek philosophies, we rarely rely on their "background" tradition to interpret. Lao-tzu certainly referred to his tradition when he wrote, but I have no clue to what he referred to. Nevertheless, I would accept any answer as valid.

 

2. Again, I am less than qualified to touch such a question. This would require a lot of research. I tend to assume that 2500 years ago, most people would fall under some kind of "spiritual awe of nature" - as we are still the same, but in different ways.

 

3. I attribute this to our god-given limitation of a short life. Each of us can only find a corner that can provide some certainty or some light on the meaning of his/her life. For each of us, we are already in our own deep "tradition" and we are trying to make this one complete. Making one complete is more than enough. If we search, we will find something important by accident, to ourselves and maybe also to others.

[dynamictao]

I tend to agree... at least you are willing to see both sides of the issue; East and West.

 

An idea written in Chinese may look different from the same idea written in English, but the idea is the same.

If the idea is universal, then it will appear in the East and the West.

 

If Lao-tzu wrote a "principle" in ancient Chinease and if the principle is understood, then the same principle may be written in other language. But now, different people see different principles. This appears not only in translation, but is true also within ancient and modern Chinese interpretors.

[Stosh]

An idea written in Chinese may look different from the same idea written in English, but the idea is the same.

If the idea is universal, then it will appear in the East and the West.

 

If Lao-tzu wrote a "principle" in ancient Chinease and if the principle is understood, then the same principle may be written in other language. But now, different people see different principles. This appears not only in translation, but is true also within ancient and modern Chinese interpretors.

True ,and I like hearing that said . But since I think the principles go largely misunderstood , could you elucidate what the principles are , as you see it ?

[dynamictao]

I have called it "The Principle of Oneness" or "Nonduality."

Here is an exerpt (Tao Te Ching: The Logic of Tao Philosophy Draft - abbriviated)

 

The principle of Tao is Oneness or Nonduality as the base of all reality. We may summarize it as The Principle of Oneness 恆一原則:

 

When we represent one reality by two true manifestations, such as True Wu and True Yu, the two manifestations will have opposite characteristics, but they are equivalent representations of the same reality.

 

To describe the two true manifestations, we define two conventional objects, such as Wu and Yu, to represent the two opposite parts of the whole domain. Therefore, each manifestation, as a whole, will comprise simultaneously both opposite parts in order to restore the wholeness. For this reason, the true manifestations will appear as vague, self-contradictory, and indeterminate, in terms of the conventional objects. They are called profound, mysterious, and with great subtlety.

 

According to this Principle of Oneness, any “division” of a reality will result in “multiple” equivalent manifestations of the same reality. A reality is thus indivisible, since each “part” will still reflect the “whole.”

---------

Many people may be familiar with this common problem in all philosophy. This principle is reflected in Chapter 1 of the TTC.

(As I promise elsewhere to make my new Kindle eBook (TTC: The Logic of Tao Philosophy) free on May 1, 2013) A shorter summary is alreday in the Introduction to my translation (a Kindle eBook: TTC: An Ultimate Translation). A sample is also free.

Edited March 14, 2013 by dynamictao

[dynamictao]

True ,and I like hearing that said . But since I think the principles go largely misunderstood , could you elucidate what the principles are , as you see it ?

I forget to mention this:

If you read Chinese, my Chinese article: 「道家哲學的邏輯」The Logic of Tao Philosophy, in the Tamkang Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (淡江人文社會學刊), Vol. 49 (2012), pp. 1-32. describe the whole principle of Tao. http://www2.tku.edu.tw/~tkjour/ Go to 期別查詢 Then go to 第四十九期.

Edited March 14, 2013 by dynamictao

[ChiDragon]

I forget to mention this:

If you read Chinese, my Chinese article: 「道家哲學的邏輯」The Logic of Tao Philosophy, in the Tamkang Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (淡江人文社會學刊), Vol. 49 (2012), pp. 1-32. describe the whole principle of Tao. http://www2.tku.edu.tw/~tkjour/ Go to 期別查詢 Then go to 第四十九期.

 

Have you translated Chapter One of the Tao Te Ching, into English, in your own words...??? If you have, then I would like to read it. It might be interesting from you....!!!

Edited March 14, 2013 by ChiDragon

[chenping]

Chuang Tzu tells a story of when he was offered a job at the palace but turned it down because he felt he had enough and didn't want to be bothered with being responsible to others.

 

The moral of the story is somewhat different to me. Taking a job at the palace is similar to getting stuck in a dead situation. Every situation in life pins you to the fabric of society. In the palace, that godly tortoise has an assigned exalted place but is dead. In each of our respective family, each one of us also has an assigned place and just as situationally dead. Even here in this forum where we waggle our tails in the mud, each of us also has an assigned place among the others. That palace tortoise has been dead for 3000 years. Each post made in our Tao Palace is equivalent to being dead for one year. Looks like I have been dead for 63 years.

Edited March 14, 2013 by chenping

[ChiDragon]

I believe that the moral of the story was:

Chuang Tzu was an optimist. He felt why should he be bothering with the worries and problems of others. He would rather be wandering and live as a free individual.

Edited March 15, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dynamictao]

 

Have you translated Chapter One of the Tao Te Ching, into English, in your own words...??? If you have, then I would like to read it. It might be interesting from you....!!!

 

It has been known to many scholars that Chapter 1 contains everything about Tao, but it has never been properly decoded.

The keyword is Heng, which indicates "wholeness" - no dualistic separation - so only things with Heng have "reality." In my translation, I use True for Heng, in this sense.

 

Chapter 1 shows a clear principle now; all other Chapters are footnotes to Chapter 1.

 

The following arrangement based on the Mawangdui and Wang Bi王弼texts by dividing this Chapter into five verses:

1. Tao may be spoken of, but it is not the Heng Tao 恆道;

   Name may be described, but it is not the Heng Name 恆名.

2. Wu 無names the origin of the myriad things;

   Yu 有 names the mother of the myriad things.

3. Therefore,

   In Heng Wu 恆無, we observe their mysterious appearance;

   In Heng Yu 恆有, we observe their fading boundaries.

4. Both appear simultaneously, as different manifestations of the same (Tao).
5. Profound upon profound, they are the gateways to all mysteries.

Profound means "no clear distinction of Wu and Yu" here. The mysteries are in Heng Wu and Heng Yu.

This interpretation leads to a very basic logic structure that is in many other philosophies.

 

Verses 4 and 5 also appear in a different textual arrangement. However, it will also show the same logical structure.