The Dao De Jhing is a shamanistic treatise

[ChiDragon]

I'm not convinced.

 

Can you justifiy the use of the word "ruler" in line 7?

 

The original characters were

7. 聖人亦不傷人.

 

Throughout the study of the TTC, sometime ago, it was established that 聖人 can be interpreted as gentleman, sage, a virtuous person or a ruler.

 

You seem to be very forgetful and have a tendency with fluctuation in your thinking. If I have to remind you the definitions that had been established every time, when the argument comes up, then it is very cumbersome.

 

Based on line 1. Ruling a big nation is like frying a small fish.

To answer your question with justification, the first line was a dead give away that the sage is a ruler.

Edited January 14, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Guest munky]

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?

[takaaki]

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?

[takaaki]

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.

[ChiDragon]

I sure would like to get my hands on the original Chinese text.

 

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.

Edited January 14, 2013 by ChiDragon

[takaaki]

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 ?

[takaaki]

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) .

[ChiDragon]

If you have a defensible argument against the shaman's claim to the Dao De Jing, let's hear 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 ?

 

It takes to understand the whole Tao Te Ching in order to deny the Tao Te Ching is not a shamanic document. Based on the mistranslation and misinterpretation of one chapter, unfortunately, it cannot represent the Tao Te Ching as a whole as a shamanic document.

 

Line 1. Why do you use "frying" for 烹 and fish for 鲜?

海鲜: in classic, it was understood as the fresh catch from the sea or fish.

 

There are two way to cook a fish. One way is to steam it; another way is to pan fry it. Steaming a fish does not required careful handling. However, when the fish was being fried, it take a special care to turn it over in the pan.

 

The metaphor in line 1 was implicating that a ruler has to run a country with special care as analogous to pan frying a small fish.

 

The character 焉, in classic, was to be placed at the end of a sentence as a "question mark".

[takaaki]

 

The character 焉, in classic, was to be placed at the end of a sentence as a "question mark".

 

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

[ChiDragon]

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

 

In classic, there were no punctuations. There are some special characters were used as punctuations.

 

Sometimes, there are auxiliary characters were used at the end to make the sentence sound better.

 

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.

Edited January 14, 2013 by ChiDragon

[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.

Edited January 14, 2013 by takaaki

[ChiDragon]

1. When these two together do no harm,

2. Then, virtue (and ethics) return (and dispatched off) to who?故 德 交归 焉

 

Let's look at the "two", in line 1, were referred to the ghost(鬼) and human(人). Since the ghost and human do no harm, (2.)then, the virtue are credited(归) to them mutually(交).

 

2. 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.

Edited January 14, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Wayfarer]

Hi folks,

 

Just stumbled across this thread and I've read around 9 pages of it so I apologise if some of this has been said. I wanted to give my perspective as a Druid and a Daoist practitioner regarding Shamanism and TTC.

 

There are European mummies found in the Tarim basin dated to 4000 years ago; they look like how we expect healers, Druids, and pagans to appear - tartan, pointed hats, buried with herb and potion containers. When I first began Tai Chi in 1992 much was written about how much of the healing and geomancy understandings came from "The sons of reflected light" - which could in theory represent the Chinese view when first seeing Westerners. The romans wrote that Druidry had ventured as far as the Middle East and in both practices you see many similarities. Does this in my view make the TTC shamanistic or philosophical? No, it is neither.

 

Shamanism looks at the nature of animals, plants and trees, at their spirit, the spirits of ancestors, gods of rivers, valleys, hillocks, woods, it uses sweat houses, potions and drugs to give altered states, it uses herbs for healing, animal guides and so on...such practices can be found everywhere in the world if you look back far enough. Even so, I don't see the TTC as having anything at all to do with Shamanism - the Spirit/Tao that is referred to may have similarities with the spirit(s) and way(s) of Shamanic practices but nonetheless does not mean it is a work of Shamanism which as it happens were passed on through word of mouth and were seen as harmful to write down their secret ways for anyone to have access to. You can of course read whatever you want into these things for instance:

 

One of the first tales you learn in Druidry is that of Ceridwen and Taliesin...Ceridwen had a cauldron where she was brewing the elixir of life, of immortality - her son Morfan who was said to be extremely ugly was told to keep well away from this brew but he was splash by three of its drops and in licking his thumb became immortal. Is this any different than the cauldron Taoists talk of in our stomach area where the three drops of spirit, energy and life-force come together to form the jade elixir and make one immortal? The tale continues where Ceridwen chases after her son who in trying to escape changes shape into various animals to flee his mother who also changes shape to catch him - in the end he turns into a seed and she as a hen swallows him, to give birth later to Taliesin an enlightened Bard of the British Isles. Could this refer to the same as Taoism - our ignorance of truth is ugliness and our awakening is beauty and no matter what shape IT takes, it remains IT?

 

To me, the Tao Te Ching is not philosophical, shamanic or religious, it simply points to a Truth - the Way the universe is and that there is only Tao which you notice or you don't. As there is only Tao, there is a single way of 'being' and if you are unaware you 'do' in a manner that often goes against this single way. It also speaks of energy or flow as does the I-Ching; supposedly earlier than the TTC. It is just a way of being, written by someone we don't know but someone who Knew. Did the same person write both books, did he write Wen-Tzu also? Who cares? Read the books, or read the world outside you - both say the same thing for it is the nature of the Uncreated, the Nameless. Nothing is beyond that, nothing within it. The myriad creatures are not present, they are IT - what appears different or to change is changeless. What use is there then to talk of difference?

 

Hope this helps a little,

 

Heath

[Marblehead]

You seem to be very forgetful and have a tendency with fluctuation in your thinking. If I have to remind you the definitions that had been established every time, when the argument comes up, then it is very cumbersome.

Indeed I am and because of my forgetfulness I will continue to ask questions whenever I don't remember. You should know me by now - I'm going to challenge you every chance I get.

[Aaron]

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'.

 

Stanza 60

In dealing with evil, let Heaven do the biding. For Heaven can see all things,

and everything will find its just reward.

In dealing with evil, seek for the Daoist Shaman.

For he is in touch with Heaven and so is able to deal with evil.

Evil is powerful, so avoid any conflict and leave well alone.

Those who dabble in such things will only harm themselves and others.

Then the Shaman's job is made more difficult and he may lose his life.

The Shaman is a treasure to the people, for he calls

up Saints and Immortals, and when the people are starving,

he opens up Heaven and beautiful rain will follow.

He protects all things within a balance and performs selfless actions.

He is a Sage and is treasured by Heaven.

 

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

 

Aaron

Edited January 14, 2013 by Aaron

[Aaron]

Hi folks,

 

Just stumbled across this thread and I've read around 9 pages of it so I apologise if some of this has been said. I wanted to give my perspective as a Druid and a Daoist practitioner regarding Shamanism and TTC.

 

There are European mummies found in the Tarim basin dated to 4000 years ago; they look like how we expect healers, Druids, and pagans to appear - tartan, pointed hats, buried with herb and potion containers. When I first began Tai Chi in 1992 much was written about how much of the healing and geomancy understandings came from "The sons of reflected light" - which could in theory represent the Chinese view when first seeing Westerners. The romans wrote that Druidry had ventured as far as the Middle East and in both practices you see many similarities. Does this in my view make the TTC shamanistic or philosophical? No, it is neither.

 

Shamanism looks at the nature of animals, plants and trees, at their spirit, the spirits of ancestors, gods of rivers, valleys, hillocks, woods, it uses sweat houses, potions and drugs to give altered states, it uses herbs for healing, animal guides and so on...such practices can be found everywhere in the world if you look back far enough. Even so, I don't see the TTC as having anything at all to do with Shamanism - the Spirit/Tao that is referred to may have similarities with the spirit(s) and way(s) of Shamanic practices but nonetheless does not mean it is a work of Shamanism which as it happens were passed on through word of mouth and were seen as harmful to write down their secret ways for anyone to have access to. You can of course read whatever you want into these things for instance:

 

One of the first tales you learn in Druidry is that of Ceridwen and Taliesin...Ceridwen had a cauldron where she was brewing the elixir of life, of immortality - her son Morfan who was said to be extremely ugly was told to keep well away from this brew but he was splash by three of its drops and in licking his thumb became immortal. Is this any different than the cauldron Taoists talk of in our stomach area where the three drops of spirit, energy and life-force come together to form the jade elixir and make one immortal? The tale continues where Ceridwen chases after her son who in trying to escape changes shape into various animals to flee his mother who also changes shape to catch him - in the end he turns into a seed and she as a hen swallows him, to give birth later to Taliesin an enlightened Bard of the British Isles. Could this refer to the same as Taoism - our ignorance of truth is ugliness and our awakening is beauty and no matter what shape IT takes, it remains IT?

 

To me, the Tao Te Ching is not philosophical, shamanic or religious, it simply points to a Truth - the Way the universe is and that there is only Tao which you notice or you don't. As there is only Tao, there is a single way of 'being' and if you are unaware you 'do' in a manner that often goes against this single way. It also speaks of energy or flow as does the I-Ching; supposedly earlier than the TTC. It is just a way of being, written by someone we don't know but someone who Knew. Did the same person write both books, did he write Wen-Tzu also? Who cares? Read the books, or read the world outside you - both say the same thing for it is the nature of the Uncreated, the Nameless. Nothing is beyond that, nothing within it. The myriad creatures are not present, they are IT - what appears different or to change is changeless. What use is there then to talk of difference?

 

Hope this helps a little,

 

Heath

 

Druidism isn't shamanism, they're two different belief systems. Shamanism is simply a belief system revolving around the idea that one can interact with the spiritual world in an altered state of consciousness. Which in light of what Flowing Hands is saying, I can see why he says the Tao Te Ching is shamanistic treatise.

 

Aaron

[konchog uma]

from where do you get that definition of shamanism?

 

as i have learned, shamanism is a lifestyle, not a belief system, and it has as much to do with opening the ordinary state of one's consciousness up to being able to interact with the invisible world as it has to do with altering one's state to do so.

 

most shamans i have seen employ altered states, but for things like deep healing, or soul retrieval, etc. They are in touch with the spiritual world without altering their state.

 

sorry to split hairs, just curious if you pulled that definition from somewhere, or if it was your invention...

Edited January 14, 2013 by konchog uma

[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?

Edited January 14, 2013 by takaaki

[deci belle]

I sure am glad tao isn't words

 

Sure am glad y'all'r' hav'n fun!!❤

[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.

Edited January 14, 2013 by takaaki

[takaaki]

I sure am glad tao isn't words

 

Sure am glad y'all'r' hav'n fun!!❤

 

Are you all words, mon ami?

[deci belle]

and the source of yours, hmmmmm?

 

Your dialogue with Chi is off-topic seeing as this thread is titled "The TTC is a shamanic treatise"

 

Furthermore, since the source of the TTC is not words and I know the source of the TTC, your comment is the height of literalist conceit— not to mention utter hypocrisy (if you know it too).

 

Kindly take this exercise in literalist jargon to the translation section where it belongs.

 

Or are you too full of words over there and you need the space? If so, carry on~ we have plenty of space here.❤

[ChiDragon]

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.

 

Based on the English sentence structure, lines 8 and 9 are one complete sentence, thus we have:

When these two together do no harm, then, virtue (and ethics) return (and dispatched off) to?

 

My original translation:

8. 夫兩不相傷,

9. 故德交歸焉.

 

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

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

Since both do no mutual harm to each other, then, the virtue of peace was returned to the people.

 

Annotation: Since no harm was done to all, then(there was no question about it), it was the people who were ended up with the benefits of peace.

Edited January 14, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Aaron]

from where do you get that definition of shamanism?

 

as i have learned, shamanism is a lifestyle, not a belief system, and it has as much to do with opening the ordinary state of one's consciousness up to being able to interact with the invisible world as it has to do with altering one's state to do so.

 

most shamans i have seen employ altered states, but for things like deep healing, or soul retrieval, etc. They are in touch with the spiritual world without altering their state.

 

sorry to split hairs, just curious if you pulled that definition from somewhere, or if it was your invention...

 

Everything else is unimportant regarding the definition. the primary classification for shamanism is the belief that one can access the spiritual world through an altered state of consciousness. Otherwise it is more often than not classified as a folk religion or indigenous religion.

 

Aaron

 

I actually remembered that from Religious Studies in college, but I checked and Wikipedia uses the same definition. Most people have a stereotypical view of what Shamanism actually is, so it's not surprising that my comment might have confused you.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Aaron

[Aaron]

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

Aaron