Takaaki's "American Taoism"

[Marblehead]

 

Yes, you're lazy son of a gun........

I do not deny that.

[Mark Saltveit]

Ok. So the average chinese off the streets of Beijing is not able to read and understand TTC.

 

It depends what you mean by "understand." It's not a yes or no question. I'm no expert on the evolution of the Chinese language, but I know that the meaning and interpretation of the language has changed a lot. We're talking about 2,400 years distance. Look how different the English of Shakespeare's time is from now, much less Chaucer's; and that's only one third as much time.

 

The Wikipedia page on the subject goes into considerable detail.

There are ,many complications. For one thing, no one knows how Classical Chinese characters were spoken, since there are no phonetics. This is a particular problem with poetry.

 

For other words, the meaning has changed over the centuries. I've read discussions of translations of Taoist works that note that certain meanings only arose centuries after the DDJ and Zhuangzi were written. There is furthermore a common problem with homonyms (like in English, meat and meet) getting confused. This happens even between the three oldest editions of the DDJ, between the Guodian, Mawangdui and Wang Bi editions (all before 250 CE).

[takaaki]

~ takaaki, questioning, debating, challenging is what this discussion forum is for. Disrespecting members is against the rules. You have been reported for belittlling and demeaning the participants of this thread. Please limit yourself to debating the topic at hand rather than the character or intelligence or nature of the posters discussing.~

 

mod team

 

Disrespecting members? Can you produce the incriminating posts that support the accusation?

[takaaki]

Please do not remove takaaki from the forum. We need to hear some negative comments to balance out the objective point of view. Personally, I do not wish just to hear everybody agrees with everything that everybody says. Any contradictory statement was considered to be disrespectful is not the way to go in a Taoist forum. IMMHO The words used here as long as they are not too disparaging should be tolerated to some extent.

 

It is quite alright to remove me from the forum which is privately owned. The owner has the same power of ex-communication as the Catholic Pope at the Vatican.

 

I have stated my truth that the English version of the Tao Te Ching is not the Chinese version in terms of a fundamental moral message. I am neither trying to sell the Chinese version in this forum nor to invalidate the English version that forum members use for discussion here. It is fun to reflect on the English verses and, to some, they offer philosophical solace.

 

To me, as a Chinese, I feel the need to preserve the dignity of the Tao Te Ching, a serious text with a powerful message to rid society - not just among Chinese but wherever people live together - of ignorance and put an end to social injustice. I wanted to point this out to the world here, and elsewhere. And for this, I am accused of being disrespectful.

 

Disrespectful to whom? To those who are practising intellectual imperialism? Imperialists are not just westerners stomping into China, they are also people who would invade Chinese literature, anglicize it and not only appropriate it as their own but also put their stamp of authority on the distorted Classic and proclaim it the real stuff. And this is not disrespectful?

Edited February 10, 2013 by takaaki

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Imperialists are not just westerners stomping into China, they are also people who would invade Chinese literature, anglicize it and not only appropriate it as their own but also put their stamp of authority on the distorted Classic and proclaim it the real stuff. And this is not disrespectful?

 

From what I see, most modern Anglophone scholars are interested in reconnecting the DDJ with its history which has been under attack and deconstruction in China. As you may have noticed, the purest surviving roots of Chinese traditional culture had to leave the country to survive extinction in the cultural revolution. And while you're using 2 TTB members as a microcosm for 2 entire cultures, you might notice that your Chinese member rejects anything that cannot be proven within the limits of Western scientific descriptions. Hardly any proof that his race is a sign that the text will not be adulterated. Further, G.F. Feng, your so often favoured translator based solely on the fact that he was Chinese, tends to leave entire stanzas out of his translation into English.

 

I'm pretty sure there are also many Chinese who actually find it easier to understand the Dao De Ching after it has been translated into English. Sure, they might miss some nuances if they 1) limit their study of Daoism to the Dao De Ching and 2) limit the translators they read, but if if someone doesn't get deep enough into Daoism in total, they will only get so much of the DDJ whether they read Chinese, English, or both. It makes no difference how they come across the DDJ. If they get deeper they will discover more, if they don't then the nuances they pick up will be limited. Stopping translations into English will not change that.

[takaaki]

Stopping translations into English will not change that.

 

So, what you are essentially saying is that the English-speaking world is saving the Tao Te Ching from being destroyed by the Chinese. How wonderful.

 

I rest my case.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

By the Chinese, no. By communism's anti-religious/anti-traditional-spirituality endeavours? Possibly. The state of Taoism in the PRC is a good sign that the hegemonic thinking has little respect for what Taoism is really about, beyond a few easily digestible words that bring in tourism.

 

And I'm not saying white/anglo/etc.. Chinese people in the West are under less constraint to understand the DDJ in a dry scientist manner. The intention to suppress these "old superstitious ways of looking at the world" in a communist society does not lend well to understanding and writing about ancient mystical texts. I'm not at all saying that nothing good in this regard comes out of China, but the climate of the West is simply more advantageous to it. Especially for people who are culturally Chinese, maybe, but speaking English is not the end of the wisdom in the DDJ.

[Marblehead]

Disrespecting members? Can you produce the incriminating posts that support the accusation?

I want to state very clearly here that I have not taken any offense from anything Takaaki has said since he has been here. I have not been mean or cruel to him so this is proof that I have not been offended. He has his opinions just like all of us have. He is questioning some of us. I am responding to him whenever I feel it is appropriate.

 

We are having spirited discussions trying to figure out where the other is coming from. We are also trying to gain an understanding of why we have the opinions we have. Sometimes the questions become very challenging.

 

We must never stop questioning. That would be fatal.

[Marblehead]

I have stated my truth that the English version of the Tao Te Ching is not the Chinese version in terms of a fundamental moral message.

And I will continue to disagree with you here. The moral messages within the TTC are more toward universals that they are specifically Chinese. I realize that there is a history of the Chinese wanting to be isolationists. That's their culture. But they do not have the right to claim sole ownership to intuitional human thoughts. Other cultures have thoughts too. And sometimes the thoughts are very, very similar.

 

So please stop with the "the TTC is only Chinese" BS and lets consider what was said and not spend so much time with who said it. Afterall, even I totally agree with some of the quotes that were supposedly said by Jesus.

[takaaki]

And I will continue to disagree with you here. The moral messages within the TTC are more toward universals that they are specifically Chinese. I realize that there is a history of the Chinese wanting to be isolationists. That's their culture. But they do not have the right to claim sole ownership to intuitional human thoughts. Other cultures have thoughts too. And sometimes the thoughts are very, very similar.

 

You have stated before, when I asked, that it was not important to you even if the English version of the Tao Te Ching that you use has no connection to the Chinese text. I considered your answer intelligent even though I had doubts you realized how clever your answer was.

 

No, I don't believe the Chinese have sole ownership to intuitional human thoughts. My Doberman is sharp and knows my every move even before I become conscious of it.

 

 

So please stop with the "the TTC is only Chinese" BS and lets consider what was said and not spend so much time with who said it. Afterall, even I totally agree with some of the quotes that were supposedly said by Jesus.

 

 

Your above comments show that I still have not been successful in making myself understood. I won't flog a dead horse. Let's blame it on lousy ability at communication.

 

I see myself as Jesus preaching to the multitude. Time and time again, the multitude would get riled and upset and want to throw me out. I have come to understand Jesus' difficult time with the Pharisees and high priests who were incensed with him the way the folks here are with me. But what I cannot get is how come a smart guy like Jesus got himself nailed to the cross?

I am sure he was smart enough to know when to stop riling the mods in Jerusalem.

 

And you say?

Edited February 10, 2013 by takaaki

[Marblehead]

Your above comments show that I still have not been successful in making myself understood. I won't flog a dead horse. Let's blame it on lousy ability at communication.

Then the only choice of wisdom is to continue to discuss until an understanding is had. At least then we could just agree to disagree. We can't do that yet.

 

I see myself as Jesus preaching to the multitude. Time and time again, the multitude would get riled and upset and want to throw me out. I have come to understand Jesus' difficult time with the Pharisees and high priests who were incensed with him the way the folks here are with me. But what I cannot get is how come a smart guy like Jesus got himself nailed to the cross?

I am sure he was smart enough to know when to stop riling the mods in Jerusalem.

 

And you say?

 

True, that is how the story goes. But then he (Jesus), based on the stories, pissed off a lot of powerful people.

 

So wouldn't the wise thing to do be to continue to teach your wisdom in a manner that didn't cause you to get nailed to a cross?

 

I have put a lot of different labels on myself for a purpose. That being that I am not fixated with any one person's philosophy. I have accepted what I have from various philosophies because they have proven to be true based on my observations of reality.

 

I have, to the best of my knowledge, told anyone that they should be like or even think as I do. I only argue my understandings. If I am proven to be delusional I will consider changing my understandings. But I won't listen to BS without calling it BS.

 

You and I have, in thoughts, many things in common. But we also have disagreements; some of which are likely the result of not yet understanding the other.

 

And as I have said before, lack of understanding can be removed only through honest discussion.

 

Anyhow, please limit your comments to constructive thoughts so that others are not offended by what you say. It would be sad, I think, if you had to leave here before you and I achieve an understanding so that we can at least be able to say that we will agree to disagree.

 

And ...

 

Happy New Year!

[takaaki]

By the Chinese, no. By communism's anti-religious/anti-traditional-spirituality endeavours? Possibly. The state of Taoism in the PRC is a good sign that the hegemonic thinking has little respect for what Taoism is really about, beyond a few easily digestible words that bring in tourism.

 

 

With 1.3 million mouths to feed, the Government of China has to root out wasteful superstitions.

 

And I'm not saying white/anglo/etc.. Chinese people in the West are under less constraint to understand the DDJ in a dry scientist manner. The intention to suppress these "old superstitious ways of looking at the world" in a communist society does not lend well to understanding and writing about ancient mystical texts. I'm not at all saying that nothing good in this regard comes out of China, but the climate of the West is simply more advantageous to it. Especially for people who are culturally Chinese, maybe, but speaking English is not the end of the wisdom in the DDJ.

 

And the climate at Tsinghua University's School of Humanities and Social Sciences is not as conducive as that in the West?

[Mark Saltveit]

Disrespectful to whom? To those who are practising intellectual imperialism? Imperialists are not just westerners stomping into China, they are also people who would invade Chinese literature, anglicize it and not only appropriate it as their own but also put their stamp of authority on the distorted Classic and proclaim it the real stuff.

 

At least you are now being honest about the point you are trying to make. Jesus did not pretend to be a "Roman Daoist" for the purpose of distorting and ridiculing Roman thought. (BTW, in the U.S., people who compare themselves to Jesus are usually seen as megolamaniacal or insane, or both. Ditto Napoleon, Einstein, etc.)

 

 

With 1.3 million [i think you mean billion] mouths to feed, the Government of China has to root out wasteful superstitions.

 

And it has very often considered Daoism to be one of those wasteful superstitions. In 1987, when I was in China, the PRC banned anyone from bringing a Daodejing into China (but had no problem with Christian Bibles.)

 

 

You have stated before, when I asked, that it was not important to you even if the English version of the Tao Te Ching that you use has no connection to the Chinese text.

 

I don't think I saw that conversation, and it's hard for me to believe that Marblehead would say that. I certainly don't agree.

 

But don't forget, the Daodejing is not a Chinese book. It is from Chu, and was only claimed as Chinese after the Qin imperialists conquered the kingdom of Chu.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Mark Saltveit

[ChiDragon]

 

And it has very often considered Daoism to be one of those wasteful superstitions. In 1987, when I was in China, the PRC banned anyone from bringing a Daodejing into China (but had no problem with Christian Bibles.)

 

The CCP has the real understanding of the TTC. It has nothing to do with superstitions but political. The reason that the Tao Te Ching was not allowed to bring into China was because the classic is about setting up a non-communist government.

But don't forget, the Daodejing is not a Chinese book. It is from Chu, and was only claimed as Chinese after the Qin imperialists conquered the kingdom of Chu.

Now, this something new to me. Did you mean the people were living in China before the Qin Dynasty are not Chinese. Have you ever heard about that China was ruled under a system of feudality. The Qin Dynasty was only brought all the Chinese together as one nation.

 

Did you know the term "Tian Xia", 天下, means anything "under heaven" was considered to be China during the Warring States. During the Warring States, are you saying that the people fighting among each other were not Chinese at the time....??? Finally, anything was written inside China was not Chinese.....???

Edited February 10, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

I don't think I saw that conversation, and it's hard for me to believe that Marblehead would say that.

You are correct. I never said that. I did say it didn't matter whether the translator was Chinese, English or American as long as they had a command of the Chinese language, both present and past.

 

I have seen translations to English by Chinese people who took a vast number of liberties in translating it.

[ChiDragon]

I have seen translations to English by Chinese people who took a vast number of liberties in translating it.

 

Yes, all that was done on one's own basis with the basic knowledge of the language other than a full understanding of the classic.

 

I did say it didn't matter whether the translator was Chinese, English or American as long as they had a command of the Chinese language, both present and past.

You are a gentleman and a scholar.......

Edited February 10, 2013 by ChiDragon

[takaaki]

You are correct. I never said that. I did say it didn't matter whether the translator was Chinese, English or American as long as they had a command of the Chinese language, both present and past.

 

I have seen translations to English by Chinese people who took a vast number of liberties in translating it.

 

I am not proving that you lied. It could very well have slipped your mind. But I needed to prove that I did not put words in your mouth. Even then, if I have misunderstood your words, I apologize.

 

Lifted from Post No. 143 in "The Way (道)of Living":

 

 

Posted 20 January 2013 - 01:12 AM

takaaki, on 20 Jan 2013 - 00:02, said:

Is it important to you that those three treasures you identified above are precisely what the Chinese text says? Even the Chinese themselves are not in agreement on what the Chinese text says.

 

 

Now you are getting personal. Hehehe.

 

No, it's really not important what the original (whatever that is) text says. What matters to me more than anything else is how does what I have just read apply to my life. There is much in the TTC that doesn't effect my life as I have no desire of ruling the world. But I do want to find the best ways to life my life with the greatest amount of freedom possible and without causing contention with others.

Edited February 11, 2013 by takaaki

[Marblehead]

No, it's really not important what the original (whatever that is) text says. What matters to me more than anything else is how does what I have just read apply to my life. There is much in the TTC that doesn't effect my life as I have no desire of ruling the world. But I do want to find the best ways to life my life with the greatest amount of freedom possible and without causing contention with others.

Alright! Now we are beginning to move forward. This above of yours is exactly how I have felt all along and the reason Taoism is so important in my life.

 

Yes, the Three Treasures are very important in my mind. I have already stated that I have changed "frugality" to "conservativism". I might have to return to the word "frugality" because there are too many negative connotations to the word "conservativism" and it is likely that my use of the word would cause misunderstandings.

 

Yeah, you may have misunderstood me; I may have misrepresented my true thoughts with the word choice I made. This is why it is important to talk and question.

 

But it is true, no one needs label themself. But it is important, in my mind, to live as we talk (Walk our talk) else others will be calling us hypocrites.

[takaaki]

At least you are now being honest about the point you are trying to make. Jesus did not pretend to be a "Roman Daoist" for the purpose of distorting and ridiculing Roman thought. (BTW, in the U.S., people who compare themselves to Jesus are usually seen as megolamaniacal or insane, or both. Ditto Napoleon, Einstein, etc.)

 

I think Jesus, like Lao Tzu, is folklore. But what is the point you have been trying to make about me viz a viz the "American Taoist"? I don't understand exactly what you are accusing me of. Please be direct and clear so that I get it.

 

Using your Jesus example, are you saying that I am creating this idea of the American Taoist for the purpose of distorting and ridiculing the image of Americans and Taoists?

Edited February 11, 2013 by takaaki

[Mark Saltveit]

Using your Jesus example, are you saying that I am creating this idea of the American Taoist for the purpose of distorting and ridiculing the image of Americans and Taoists?

Yes. Is that direct and clear?

[thinker]

So is it fair to say that all sects of Daoism espouse acting in accordance with the three treasures, often translated as benevolence, frugality, and humility? If this is the case, then can we go a step further and state that espousing a doctrine that encourages one to act in accordance with the three treasures is a necessary, although possibly not sufficient, condition for being considered a Daoist sect?

[takaaki]

Yes. Is that direct and clear?

 

Yes, quite clear. As a visitor here, I shall defer to your cultural sensitivity. I apologize for hurting your feelings.

[Marblehead]

So is it fair to say that all sects of Daoism espouse acting in accordance with the three treasures, often translated as benevolence, frugality, and humility? If this is the case, then can we go a step further and state that espousing a doctrine that encourages one to act in accordance with the three treasures is a necessary, although possibly not sufficient, condition for being considered a Daoist sect?

I have stated previously that I believe that living according to the Three Treasures is a good starting point for living the Way of Tao.

 

But let's be careful here. To establish doctrines by which one must live would be nothing less than establishing a religion or a dictatorship (same thing).

 

One of the goals of a follower of the Tao is to live naturally. We all are different. What is natural for one person might be very unnatural for another. And this is true whether it be an American soldier or a Chinaman working the rice fields.

[shanlung]

I find it a little bit sad. The two main characters of this interesting thread found no disharmony with each other reasoning and carried out with respect to each other.

 

I was hoping those two shine light on a facet of the Tao, part of the elephant we blind people are feeling about trying to understand the whole from the bits we glimpse.

 

But again, what I wish for in life and what I get can be so different.

Sadly, that is the reality.

 

Idiotic Taoist

[Marblehead]

But again, what I wish for in life and what I get can be so different.

Sadly, that is the reality.

But Shanlung, I'm not here to preach, I'm not here to teach. The world has enough of both. If the examples I present are favorable then that's good, if not, well, yeah, sad.

 

It is for someone else, like you just did, to point out that two people had an extended discussion of a controversal subject and didn't have to resort to personal attacks.

 

What more can I say?