Te Tao Ching...Theistic? A linguistic challenge...

[ChiDragon]

Well, guys....

Sorry. I am not a warlock..............

[flowing hands]

Maybe dance a little, breath some mountain air and be utterly alone for some time; the warlock will surely come!!!!

[manitou]

Sometimes I think the word we're looking for to see what existed prior to the One is....latency.

 

The Oak is in the Acorn.

[ChiDragon]

Chi Dragon: Knowing as you do, the ancient chinese ideograms and their colloquialisms, and knowing, as you do, the modern english (american, generally, I hope) and it's colloquialisms, I am hoping for a more comprehendable rendering of TTC from you. What I can grok, I grok .. but the stuff that gets me stuck is in those coloquial expressions that make sense for the people at the time, and get lost in translation.

 

A gentleman, telling a lady " I will knock you up" means two entirely differnt things, depending upon whether one is a gentleman in America, or a Gentleman in England. Getting a translation that can cut through this miasma of meanings is of vital impotance. Can you help with this?

 

oops.....

Sorry, I missed you post. I have most of the Chapters translated in the TTC section. If you have any question, I am glad to give you a satisfactory response. Thank you very much for your interest in my pertinent knowledge about the Tao Te Ching.

 

Are you asking me about the translation for 君子(gentleman)"....???

Edited January 6, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Riyue]

Hi everyone,

 

I'm new to this sub-forum so please understand that I am VERY ignorant about the Te Tao Ching.

 

I have Stephen Hendricks books which contain the Te Tao Ching in translations from the 2 archaeological finds from southwest and northern China respectively.

 

So, My question is this:

 

I've been keeping an eye out for linguistic similarities in various cultures, in particular the use of the the word "God."

 

In the following languages, God or a divine being is described as follows:

Theos (Greek) God.....Theia (Greek) Goddess

Deus (Latin) God

Deva (Sanskrit) God (divine being similar to an angel)

Shang Di/Ti (Chinese) God

Te (Aztec) God....Tenochtitlan....Teotl....etc.

 

Could it be that the Te Tao Ching is actually a Theistic work?

 

I have also noticed that "reuniting" with this consciousness/a state of being outside of space/time is THE main thrust of the Te Tao Ching and not creating elixirs giving a long life span...If I'm right of course. Western Alchemy echos the same sentiment as well.

 

Please comment!

Thank you!

Stefos

 

Stefos

 

Take this translation of ddj 1:

As for the Way, the Way that can be spoken of is not the constant Way.

-

It implies that there is something like a "Constant Way".

The next step could be that "Constant Way" stands for God...

Thus one can conclude that ddj is theistic...

-

But the ancient chinese allows a different translation:

The way - to be spoken of -

is the way

of counterrunning patterns,

of complementing yin-yang-sky-earth.

Here you can conclude that ddj is naturalistic...

--

the naturalistic reading is coherent with ddj 25:

dao fa zi ran:

things' development is rooting in themselves ...

(implying that there is not something "Supernatural")

---

the great thing of ddj is that it reports about liberation from shamanism... theistic views ...

-

but there have been great efforts up to now to destroy this and to make it to be forgotten again.

[ShenLung]

oops.....

Sorry, I missed you post. I have most of the Chapters translated in the TTC section. If you have any question, I am glad to give you a satisfactory response. Thank you very much for your interest in my pertinent knowledge about the Tao Te Ching.

 

Are you asking me about the translation for 君子(gentleman)"....???

 

You are too kind, thank you for doing the work.

 

The reference to the two gentlemen, one from america and one from england was just an example of how, even though both speak the same language, we use the language in different ways. If we english - speakers can have such differences in meaning with our own language, in our own time, how much more challenging to understand what is written in another language, in another time!

 

I will look for your chapter translations in the ttc study section, and again, thank you!

[Marblehead]

I will look for your chapter translations in the ttc study section, and again, thank you!

When you do that please look at my criticisms of them. Hehehe.

[dawei]

Here is an interesting read:

 

http://www.daoistcenter.org/Daoism_Misconceptions.pdf

[ShenLung]

When you do that please look at my criticisms of them. Hehehe.

 

Not to worry, MH ... if I want to know about the elephant,

and all I have are six blind men,

I don't rely upon the perception of only one!

[ChiDragon]

I don't rely upon the perception of only one!

 

I think it was called "open-mined" with an open heart.....

Edited January 6, 2013 by ChiDragon

[flowing hands]

Stefos

 

Take this translation of ddj 1:

As for the Way, the Way that can be spoken of is not the constant Way.

-

It implies that there is something like a "Constant Way".

The next step could be that "Constant Way" stands for God...

Thus one can conclude that ddj is theistic...

-

But the ancient chinese allows a different translation:

The way - to be spoken of -

is the way

of counterrunning patterns,

of complementing yin-yang-sky-earth.

Here you can conclude that ddj is naturalistic...

--

the naturalistic reading is coherent with ddj 25:

dao fa zi ran:

things' development is rooting in themselves ...

(implying that there is not something "Supernatural")

---

the great thing of ddj is that it reports about liberation from shamanism... theistic views ...

-

but there have been great efforts up to now to destroy this and to make it to be forgotten again.

 

How can you validate this statement? If the concept of God did not figure in the Chinese world view in 600 BCE, what view do you think that Lao Tzu or anyone else would have taken?

[ChiDragon]

You are too kind, thank you for doing the work.

 

The reference to the two gentlemen, one from america and one from england was just an example of how, even though both speak the same language, we use the language in different ways. If we english - speakers can have such differences in meaning with our own language, in our own time, how much more challenging to understand what is written in another language, in another time!

 

I will look for your chapter translations in the ttc study section, and again, thank you!

 

Shenlung....

I do appreciate your thankfulness and the kind words. BTW From the virtuous teaching in the Tao Te Ching: "Given is not to expect something in return". I thank you again for your thoughtfulness anyway.

 

Speaking about gentlemen, it would be quite interesting compare a Chinese gentleman to the gentlemen that you have referenced. Anyway, a Chinese gentleman know as 君子(jun1 tze). A 君子(jun1 tze) was classified as an educated scholar with high morality in conduct. The gentlemen have high regards and respect among themselves. However, they do not open the door for a lady as a gentleman in the west. Unfortunately, there were alot more of the discriminating attitudes are not worth mention for the ancient scholastic gentlemen.

Edited January 15, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Riyue]

How can you validate this statement? If the concept of God did not figure in the Chinese world view in 600 BCE, what view do you think that Lao Tzu or anyone else would have taken?

 

 

For me:

ZI RAN - things' development roots in themselves... in their nature...

...validates memorizing ... writing... reciting the original chinese characters given in Guodian Laozi

[dynamictao]

This is my interpretation.

 

The "God" in TTC Chapter 60 appears as an holistic order (represented as Tao). It is not a personified God in the Tao Te Ching, but it could be easily construed to be a theistic god. This “god” is also observed in the Yi-Chuan易傳as: “God is prior to the differentiation of Yin and Yang.”

 

Heng (True) Tao 恆道 is an undivided whole, whose manifestation in the phenomenal world is called, by Lao-tzu, as “the god 神” in Chapter 60. This god is Oneness. All objects are then subject to the power of this “god.” All objects seem to be driven by the forces that bind them together. Such forces drive every object to conform to the Oneness nature of Tao (as God) .

 

In Chapter 4, the primordial lord (象帝) is the power that that creates the phenomenal world, by separating "One" into heaven and earth (as symbolized in 帝).

[manitou]

It's curious - the earlier mention of the shaman wearing deer antlers by Flowing Hands and Chi Dragon - the more I study this stuff, the more I realize how very merged all the traditions become.

 

It occurs to me that a great part of shamanism is in the 'pretending' to be something else. An animal that has particular qualities that they wish to adopt for their purposes - hunting animals, animals of cunning, animals with a particular type of vision. Could this not all be part of the innate understanding of the Oneness of all, particularly in the ancient cultures? We and the animals are One - and with intent and ceremony (in other words, wearing the antlers or the bear's head and hide for the purpose of emulating the deer or the bear). The deer is smart, fleet of foot, humble in nature. The bear is awesome in its destructiveness. Wearing the hide of a mountain lion (ceremonially) would add a different dimension to the hunt.

 

It sure seems to me that the ancient shamans (wouldn't you think they overlap with Daoists?) had an inkling of the god-spirit that we are (for lack of a better word). By pretending to be anything they wanted to help with their pursuits, they were able to tap into something that we have lost through the generations.

 

I'm just not sure that shamanism equates to 'theistic views', as someone earlier said. I think rather that the shaman saw all life as One and imitated those parts of it that he needed. He innately knew that to tap into the way of nature, this was the way to achieve success with whatever he was doing.

 

I know this is slightly off topic for this thread, but somehow there is a connection at a level we haven't quite gotten down to.

[ChiDragon]

It's curious - the earlier mention of the shaman wearing deer antlers by Flowing Hands and Chi Dragon - the more I study this stuff, the more I realize how very merged all the traditions become.

 

Clarification....

I did not mention such thing as the shaman wearing deer antlers as in the character of Tao(道). As a matter of fact, I do not believe that the Tao Te Ching was engaged in nor related to any shamanic notion.

[manitou]

 

Clarification....

I did not mention such thing as the shaman wearing deer antlers as in the character of Tao(道). As a matter of fact, I do not believe that the Tao Te Ching was engaged in nor related to any shamanic notion.

 

 

I do see a similarity, but it's in the area of wu-wei, not-doing. I always give pause at using the word 'shamanic' because it's kind of ill-defined at this point in time. My idea of shamanic is Castaneda-shamanic, which may not be anyone else's idea at all; certainly not for the ancient shamanic traditions. When one becomes proficient within the Toltec tradition (don Juan's tradition) the conept of Not-Doing is reflected in Setting One's Intent and the 'power of silence'; the very same principle is involved. Both wu-wei and setting one's intent align themselves with the undercurrent of the life flow and allow life to happen as it will, recognizing that cosmic Love will always be the tendency.

[flowing hands]

 

Clarification....

I did not mention such thing as the shaman wearing deer antlers as in the character of Tao(道). As a matter of fact, I do not believe that the Tao Te Ching was engaged in nor related to any shamanic notion.

 

How can you study a monumental work without knowing your history, knowing culture and what has been retained about the period in time when Li Erh wrote the DDJ?

[dynamictao]

Maybe an interesting question is:

How much do we really know, or need to know, about the culture and the history of the TTC?

Just a thought.

[Marblehead]

Maybe an interesting question is:

How much do we really know, or need to know, about the culture and the history of the TTC?

Just a thought.

Depends on our own personal needs, doesn't it?

[ChiDragon]

How can you study a monumental work without knowing your history, knowing culture and what has been retained about the period in time when Li Erh wrote the DDJ?

 

We have written history precisely recorded by impartial scholars.

Edited February 13, 2013 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

Maybe an interesting question is:

How much do we really know, or need to know, about the culture and the history of the TTC?

Just a thought.

 

We go find out as much as we can what are out there.

[manitou]

I see the TTC as something that needs to be triangulated, period. The essence cannot be obtained from any one translation. The translation of the document is totally dependent on whether the translator is an enlightened one or not. The translation is contingent on the depth of understanding of the Chinese characters, and then also contingent on the proficiency of the translator with the English language. That's why there are so many variables upon interpretation.

 

I'm sure there are many of us that can say that with each reading of another translation, new aspects are seen and realized. We can only see through the eyes of our own experience, and we can only translate through the eyes and realization of our own experience. (I am not a translator but sense that this is true).

 

When all the translations are placed in a fanlike position, it is the overlay of the commonalities that is the essence. This is also true of comparative religion.

 

As far as I'm concerned, it all leads to the One..

 

Happy Valentine's day. Would someone please be my Valentine?

[shanlung]

In Sept last year I wrote here

Tao ke Tao, and where is God

http://thetaobums.com/topic/24825-tao-ke-tao-and-where-is-god/#entry359700

 

My take from my very simple mind as to this question of God.

Even if you chose to laugh at my idiocy, which I freely admit in the first place.

 

I extracted what I wrote above into below.

 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

Tao ke Tao , fei chang Tao
Ming ke Ming, fei chang Ming

The Tao that you think is the Tao, is not the Tao
The Name that you think is the Name, is not the Name


I think my first reading of Tao Te Ching was when I was 12 or 13 years old.
It did not took long for me to decide what I was reading was so laughable and corny.

I went back to read TTC again and again, and yet again , and again.

The TTC grew from a very thin pamphlet into volume thicker than telephone directory.

That simple thin pamphlet I recalled reading was the best. No interpretations and conjured stories to bury what LaoTzu wrote that can then be copywrited.

And the one was was corny was that little boy of 12.

How many of us read and re read the TTC in all its different versions from the thin to the thick?

And read the first couple of sentences, threw them aside and kept digging in the left over bath waters?

And kept asking what is the Tao.

Even to castigate Chuangtzu for not being a real Taoist as his writings never contained and invoke Tao. For all I know, LaoTzu was only a Pretender as he certaining talked of the Tao , even if his first couple of sentences denied everything he wrote subsequently.

When the Tao is beyond immeasurable and beyond infinite, even to think of the Tao and its concept, you cannot but defined the Tao, the Undefinable Tao , within the concept of what you think is the Tao.

Likewise, the Name that you try to give to that Name. Imprisoned the real Name into the representation you made in your mind of that Name. The Name so vast and primordial all squeezed into a tiny container of the Name?

Perhaps that came from the great East and West divide. The West, be it Chrisitianity, Judaism or Islam, demanded the concept of God. And the East? Godless or the refusal to accept the concept of God. But I have so say Judaism tried to limit the damage by evoking unpronouncable JHWH. Which failed as that became Jehovah, and yet another name.

But again, if God is that infinite and everywhere, by giving the thought of God, are people then differentiating anything outside their thought of what God is is then not God? Is God that limited ? That God must exist only within that name, or concept, of GOD? Or the limitation came from the very thinking of the concept God.

So those that want to talk of God, tell me then, where is your God. And why do you wish to limit your God by talking of Him , and of his Name.

My first posting into here came as a hit on a very old webpage I did about 10 years ago, and based on earlier writings I did on BBS before the Internet.

I reproduce that here, what was said by Taoist Master Tseng Lao Weng.

http://www.shanlung....taonirvana.html
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

ENLIGHTENMENT

From: khamba2 -
Date: Wed, Jun 2 1999 12:00 am

Groups: alt.philosophy.taoism


Paul Humphries <[email protected]> wrote:


>Hi!

>I feel a bit skeptical about enlightenment at the moment, so wish to ask
>some questions to anyone who has any ideas..


>When a person reaches the state of pure, total enlightment and absolute
>truth, what does this mean? Is it that they are now learning openly to
>the greatest of their potential? What sort of knowledge of reality
>emerges? What abilities does this give the person? How many truely
>enlightened masters exist, do you think? How do they live? Would they
>have any preferences in taste in music?


>Cheers!



Sorry that I am answering with this is an old letter. I do hope the
words of Taoist Master Tseng Lao Weng can answer a bit of your
question even if he did not mention his preferences for music be it
classical, hard rock or heavy metal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----


I have mourned that many of my books stayed back in my home town
while I was wandering ,working and staying elsewhere.


But a selection of John Blofeld's books followed me.


I thought I quote one of my favorite portion from his book 'Taoism,
The Secret and Sublime' which may help others understand and decide
for themselves if Taoism is a philosophy or a religion.


I myself, never did feel that either path is important.


He was talking to this Taoist Master Tseng Lao Weng.


(now using also his format and capitalizations..)
--------------------------------------------------------


Having heard from me of Sir Edwin Arnold's lovely expression for
entering Nirvana, 'the dew-drop slips into the shining sea', he
exclaimed with delight, but added:


'And yet it does not capture the whole. Since the Tao is all and
nothing lies outside it, since its multiplicity and unity are
identical, when a finite being sheds the illusion of separate
existence, he is not lost in the Tao. By casting off his imaginary
limitations, he becomes immeasurable.


Plunge the finite into the infinite and, though only one remains, the
finite, far from being diminished, takes on the stature of infinity.
Such perception will bring you face to face with the true secret
cherished by all the accomplished sages. The mind of one who returns
to the Source thereby BECOMES the Source. Your own mind is DESTINED
TO BECOME THE UNIVERSE ITSELF!'


The Taoistic Idiot

[manitou]

 

'And yet it does not capture the whole. Since the Tao is all and

nothing lies outside it, since its multiplicity and unity are

identical, when a finite being sheds the illusion of separate

existence, he is not lost in the Tao. By casting off his imaginary

limitations, he becomes immeasurable.

 

 

Plunge the finite into the infinite and, though only one remains, the

finite, far from being diminished, takes on the stature of infinity.

Such perception will bring you face to face with the true secret

cherished by all the accomplished sages. The mind of one who returns

to the Source thereby BECOMES the Source. Your own mind is DESTINED

TO BECOME THE UNIVERSE ITSELF!'

 

 

The Taoistic Idiot

 

 

 

Beautiful post, Shanlung...

 

'Your mind is destined to become the universe itself'. How incredibly put.

 

Take a look at this one sentence though. Maybe you can help me see the connection.

 

Since the Tao is all and nothing lies outside it, since its multiplicity and unity are identical, when a finite being sheds the illusion of separate existence, he is NOT lost in the Tao...."

 

Can you help me figure this out? I would think it would be exactly the opposite!