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

[flowing hands]

I think to mix the words up of God and Dao is the beginning of misunderstanding. From there, all sorts of diverging paths go away from the Dao. Although Li Erh may have said that the Dao is indefinable, un-namable etc. he also said that it can be found, that it has substance and form. Therefore lets not cloud the issues with western terms that have so many connotations such as 'God', lets leave them out. Such concepts as 'God' did not come into Daoist thinking and world view. 'Immortals' did, these are completely different to the term 'God'. 'God' also refers to a singularity, the Dao does not. The Dao can mean so many things, and can be applied to wisdom and skill based practices, of achieving the ultimate perfection in that process. So we have the Dao of fighting, the Dao of archery, the Dao of writing... etc etc. We have Dao xin which is the way of spiritual cultivation. We never have the Dao of 'God'. We never see Li Erh talk about "dwelling in the infinite and feel the 'God' in your heart."

 

Understanding the beginning and concept of what Dao is from Li Erh's time and view will give far greater understanding. Putting ones own perspective will surely cause complete misunderstanding. This is one reason why I started the thread about the DDJ being a shamanistic treatise, because people generally look upon Li Erh's work from a perspective that they have been told to or how they have been brought up. The translators have their own take and we then add our own when reading. Somewhere there is the truth, but shrouded in mismatch words and conditioning.

[manitou]

I think to mix the words up of God and Dao is the beginning of misunderstanding. From there, all sorts of diverging paths go away from the Dao. Although Li Erh may have said that the Dao is indefinable, un-namable etc. he also said that it can be found, that it has substance and form. Therefore lets not cloud the issues with western terms that have so many connotations such as 'God', lets leave them out. Such concepts as 'God' did not come into Daoist thinking and world view. 'Immortals' did, these are completely different to the term 'God'. 'God' also refers to a singularity, the Dao does not. The Dao can mean so many things, and can be applied to wisdom and skill based practices, of achieving the ultimate perfection in that process. So we have the Dao of fighting, the Dao of archery, the Dao of writing... etc etc. We have Dao xin which is the way of spiritual cultivation. We never have the Dao of 'God'. We never see Li Erh talk about "dwelling in the infinite and feel the 'God' in your heart."

 

Understanding the beginning and concept of what Dao is from Li Erh's time and view will give far greater understanding. Putting ones own perspective will surely cause complete misunderstanding. This is one reason why I started the thread about the DDJ being a shamanistic treatise, because people generally look upon Li Erh's work from a perspective that they have been told to or how they have been brought up. The translators have their own take and we then add our own when reading. Somewhere there is the truth, but shrouded in mismatch words and conditioning.

 

 

Hi Flowing Hands - glad you are here now. Wonderfully interesting points you made. I came to my understanding (from a left brain perspective) from reading repeatedly the translations of 5 people. Yutang, English, Mitchell, can't remember the other two. I've not yet read your translation, but it is on my to-do list real soon. So my left brain did the triangulation (40 years a detective brain) and my understanding of the DDJ is an overlay of what I believed I found to be as the essences of the work. (My 'understanding' comes from self-realization, separate from the above). It is the combination of the I Am consciousness combined with my love of the DDJ colors my perspective; combined with my sense of shamanism and the understanding of manitou, or the 'spirit that underlies everything' in the understanding of the ancients.

 

I have a tendency to believe that a study of comparative 'religions' or philosophies will yield a blend of essence as well. There is also the fact too that the Truth either resonates or it doesn't. It seems to me that Daoism (the philosophy, not the practice) lies the very closest to the inner ring of Truth, right before all is lost in the black hole. There seem to be no words beyond what we find on this forum; perhaps because Daoism comes closest to expressing the unexpressible than any other Way.

 

On a personal note, I apologize to you, Flowing Hands, for any unkind remark(s) I may have made to you when you first appeared on TTB's. Instead, I see now only my own ego doing a little death rattle of its own. Every post you've made on this forum has met the test of resonance to me, and it's a pleasure to communicate with you.

 

So - getting to your point about the Dao being lost when the concept of 'God' arises. How true this must be! When the concept of any God arises, this indicates a dualism. Us and Him. The Dao eschews this, which is why I loved the tome the first time I read it.

 

Manitou

Edited February 17, 2013 by manitou

[shanlung]

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!

 

I cannot suggest strong enough that you, and all others with a deep interest in Taoism and Eastern philosophy/thoughts should have all the books of John Blofeld. John was an incredible man who seemed destined to be the main bridge from East to West.

He travelled about in China, learned the language and had the mindset to get deep into Taoism. He went to many Taoist temples and monasteries and met with incredible Taoist MASTERS whose explanations still shined over the years with clarity that could not be matched.

 

You have seen the earlier excerpt I made from John Blofeld, “The Secret & Sublime: Taoist Mysteries & Magic”

To answer your question (and maybe that from Flowing Hands) here is another. I could not better what was in his book , so another extract for you to understand what you missed in not having Blofeld books in your hands.

 

From an old Taoist master in his dialogue with Blofeld.

 

“The Tao is to be found in inner stillness. It reveals itself as One – timeless, formless, all pervading. In it all creatures and objects have their being. The same may be said of your goldfish and the water in which they swim, but the likeness is only superficial. One could take a fish out of the water and put it back; but the separateness of creatures and objects either from one another or from the Tao is illusory. Apart from the totality, which is the Tao, they have no being. The Tao and the myriad

objects are not two! Unlike water which rises from the lake as vapour and flows back to it in streams, the Tao’s creations do not rise from it, nor do they return to it, they and the Tao having never at any time been apart. They are the Tao. This faculty of being one and many simultaneously is a mystery that can be apprehended but not explained.”

 

John Blofeld might go on to answer questions that you have not even thought of asking as yet.

 

 

Taoistic Idiot

[Marblehead]

"... This faculty of being one and many simultaneously is a mystery that can be apprehended but not explained.”

 

John Blofeld

This statement has so much validity it is worthy of emphasizing and repeating

[manitou]

This statement has so much validity it is worthy of emphasizing and repeating

 

 

And that reminds me of how matter, in its smallest form, is both a particle and a wave. Mindblowing in anyone's world.

[manitou]

“The Tao is to be found in inner stillness. It reveals itself as One – timeless, formless, all pervading. In it all creatures and objects have their being. The same may be said of your goldfish and the water in which they swim, but the likeness is only superficial. One could take a fish out of the water and put it back; but the separateness of creatures and objects either from one another or from the Tao is illusory. Apart from the totality, which is the Tao, they have no being. The Tao and the myriad

objects are not two! Unlike water which rises from the lake as vapour and flows back to it in streams, the Tao’s creations do not rise from it, nor do they return to it, they and the Tao having never at any time been apart. They are the Tao. This faculty of being one and many simultaneously is a mystery that can be apprehended but not explained.”

 

 

We too are goldfish in water; we don't know it, just like they don't know it. The 'water' we breathe in is at a much smaller density, but a colloid it is just the same. As the Tao is One, so We are One. The undercurrent or form or tendency seems to be what you would call Love, Mutual Attraction, Animal Magnetism, any myriad of descriptions of the same thing. This is why we, as seekers of truth, must take the high road in all our daily decisions to the best of our ability; because it taps into the undercurrent, the manitou of this illusion we call life.

 

I so agree with the Master who was speaking to Mr. Blofield when he said 'This faculty of being one and many simultaneeously is a mystery that can be apprehended but not explained'. This is what keeps these forums alive! The sense that we communally seem to get closer and closer putting words to what is unexplainable. It's as though we KNOW it's there; all of mankind is born with the KNOWING that it's there; even avowed atheists must KNOW there's something living within that they deny is there.

 

It is Love, that's all. And we must all love each other because we are One. We are the tentacles on the giant squid who don't realize they're actually attached to each other. We are all the same creature; and it spans time and space. It spans good and bad, all the polar opposite illusions that mankind creates to fit within the confines of our linear minds.

 

I will gladly check out Mr. Blofield's work! I can't get enough of any of this, and I don't care from where I get it. I'm currently reading the works of Mary Baker Eddy, of all things; but how beautifully metaphysical she was! I suspect there's an awful lot of stuff to be gleaned from her writings regarding the mindsets of the healer and the healee, a subject very close to my heart.

[Marblehead]

And that reminds me of how matter, in its smallest form, is both a particle and a wave. Mindblowing in anyone's world.

Hehehe. I still haven't accept the theory that matter is both. I am still convinced that the difference is base on what we are actually looking at rather than the assumed results of looking ot different aspects of the same thing.

[manitou]

Hehehe. I still haven't accept the theory that matter is both. I am still convinced that the difference is base on what we are actually looking at rather than the assumed results of looking ot different aspects of the same thing.

 

I dont think Schroedinger would argue with that.

 

But what I do think that says is that we are somehow sitting at the intersection of time and space. A particle takes up no time. A wave takes up time. Somehow this is how the illusion of linearity is constructed, don't you think?

Edited February 18, 2013 by manitou

[Marblehead]

I dont think Shroedinger would argue with that.

Whether he did or not wouldn't impress me in the least. (Hehehe.)

[flowing hands]

Hi Flowing Hands - glad you are here now. Wonderfully interesting points you made. I came to my understanding (from a left brain perspective) from reading repeatedly the translations of 5 people. Yutang, English, Mitchell, can't remember the other two. I've not yet read your translation, but it is on my to-do list real soon. So my left brain did the triangulation (40 years a detective brain) and my understanding of the DDJ is an overlay of what I believed I found to be as the essences of the work. (My 'understanding' comes from self-realization, separate from the above). It is the combination of the I Am consciousness combined with my love of the DDJ colors my perspective; combined with my sense of shamanism and the understanding of manitou, or the 'spirit that underlies everything' in the understanding of the ancients.

 

I have a tendency to believe that a study of comparative 'religions' or philosophies will yield a blend of essence as well. There is also the fact too that the Truth either resonates or it doesn't. It seems to me that Daoism (the philosophy, not the practice) lies the very closest to the inner ring of Truth, right before all is lost in the black hole. There seem to be no words beyond what we find on this forum; perhaps because Daoism comes closest to expressing the unexpressible than any other Way.

 

On a personal note, I apologize to you, Flowing Hands, for any unkind remark(s) I may have made to you when you first appeared on TTB's. Instead, I see now only my own ego doing a little death rattle of its own. Every post you've made on this forum has met the test of resonance to me, and it's a pleasure to communicate with you.

 

So - getting to your point about the Dao being lost when the concept of 'God' arises. How true this must be! When the concept of any God arises, this indicates a dualism. Us and Him. The Dao eschews this, which is why I loved the tome the first time I read it.

 

Manitou

 

Well, its damn difficult being who I am. Most people would ignore me, many think I'm crazy and a lot of TB's just humor me out of politeness! But I feel that if anyone was to read my posts they would see that I am revealing more and more greater understanding and insight. Of course I leave a lot out, for the secrets of the way must only be revealed to those of a truly pure heart.

 

I am still hanging in there and will in the coming years make great effort to stop the nuclear war starting in less than seven years. I do not expect people to treat me with respect or to believe what I say, that would be asking far too much. Those that follow the Dao ask very little of people, but have faith with both the followers of Dao and the non followers of Dao. One can never offend Heaven; a sage is beyond offense or praise, so he follows the way of Heaven. 'Working without taking credit'. So no offense has ever been taken. I am here just to share and to understand others, the real people whom I must influence will never be on TTB's, this influence will take a different tack.

[Marblehead]

Well, its damn difficult being who I am.

Your problem is minimal. Imagine yourself trying to be me.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

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).

 

One could easily argue that the Primordial (Divine) Lord, as described in Chapter Four is very very similar to descriptions of "Yahweh" in the Jewish Torah/Christian's Old Testament, who "humbles the exalted and exalts the humble."

 

Here is my translation:

 

Chapter Four

 

01 道沖,而用之,

dào chōng, ér yòng zhī,

All is immersed in Dao, thereby it’s usefulness arrives

All is immersed in Tao, as a result, being useful is its function and character, and should be made use of

All is immersed in Tao, therefore it is to be used

[2^nd character = to immerse in water. Consider that a pot of water will overflow when you put something in it.]

 

02 或不盈。

huò bù yíng。

This way it is not full

 

03 淵兮,

yuān xí,

So profound and deep!

 

04 似萬物之宗。

sì wàn wù zhī zōng。

Like this, the myriad things have been revealed

 

05 挫其銳,

cuò qí ruì,

Putting the clever back in their place

 

06 解其紛,

jiě qí fēn,

Uncomplicating the confused, loosening and untying the knots

 

07 和其光,

hé qí guāng,

Bringing harmony to the overzealous, and taming their fires(child fire = bright light)

 

08 同其塵。

tóng qí chén。

Grounding them and reconnecting them to the earth, (making them like ash)

 

09 湛兮

zhàn xí

Oh, the profound depth!

 

10 似或存。

sì huò cún。

Seemingly also alive

 

11 吾不知誰之子，

wǔ bù zhī shuí zhī zi,

I don’t know where it came from or who’s child it is

 

12 象帝之先。

xiàng dì zhī xiān。

(It is) the manifestation, expression, appearance, of The First, 先Primordial, 帝Divine Lord

 

 

Edited February 23, 2013 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Also, "humbling the exalted/proud and exalting the humble" is the main activity of the Egyptian god Ma'at (harmony/balance/rhythm) and also the widely worshiped African god Ogun.

 

The way of describing these gods seems to be maybe metaphoric, as in: the warring kings of Africa and Israel use the metaphor of a Primordial Lord, in human terms, while architects and artists of Egypt describe a god fulfilling particular role.

 

Like sports fans see life as a baseball game, musicians see a symphony, race car drivers see a race track, chefs see an alchemy of flavours, parents see a guardian, scientists and physicists see a bio-mechanical structure, and people who live freely and spontaneously with/in nature see The Dao

[Mo Tzu]

And let's not forget that Legge was a Christian and in his translation there is a ref. to God. One assumes pre Confucius there was only Tao (creator) of Heaven and Earth and the 10,000 things. It's all semantics really but my belief is Tao is the all prevading force that creates all living things, if this is God, well that's fine with me. The practice of cultivation still remains the same, whatever. Every culture has a name for the something that has created all. Surely that's because we all come from the same source, so we all come to a similar (or same!) conclusion when complimenting what's out there, and who am I.

Blessings to all.