Dao De Jing, 1st Chapter - 老子:第一章

[beancurdturtle]

Wow! Nice to find this message board. In my experience it's not often I run into other Philosophical Taoists (受理古老道教). I know that a first post that is all about my thoughts on the first chapter of the Dao de Jing may seem a little narcissistic, but it's actually quite the opposite.

 

I'm just basically heaving myself into the deep end here. I assume there are people with more and people with less study, understanding, and actualization of the Tao here then me. So I'll let my thoughts sink or swim as they may.

 

Just a note; the English translations I usually use are Peter Merel's interpolations. Having read probably more than 15 English translations over the years, Merel seems to me to have the best grasp on a neutral point of view that is very approachable to westerners.

 

 

老子:「道德经」:第一章

 

道可道，非常道。名可名，非常名。

　　无名天地之始﹔有名万物之母。

　　故常无，欲以观其妙﹔常有，欲以观其徼。

　　此两者，同出而异名，同谓之玄。

 

玄之又玄，众妙之门。

 

Laozi:"Dao De Jing":First chapter

The Way that can be experienced is not true;

The world that can be constructed is not real.

The Way manifests all that happens and may happen;

The world represents all that exists and may exist.

 

To experience without abstraction is to sense the world;

To experience with abstraction is to know the world.

These two experiences are indistinguishable;

Their construction differs but their effect is the same.

 

Beyond the gate of experience flows the Way,

Which is ever greater and more subtle than the world.

My thoughts:

The first time I read the Dao de Jing I was very mystified(想法是多云的). This did not happen because the basic ideas of Philosophical Daoism(古老道教) are difficult. It happened because the ideas are foreign to the way Western minds are taught.

 

We Westerners are taught to examine(验) everything, categorize(类别) everything, find a purpose(目的) for everything. This is almost the opposite of the basis for Daoism. Understanding Daoist philosophy requires a complete shift of thought(移流派) to knowing that everything(万物) has no relevance(相关性) - no relevance, unless you conceptualize(想像) it in relation(联系) to something else. And individual things become more concrete(实) when conceptualized in relation to their opposites(对面).

 

So, in the first chapter, Laozi jumps right out with the fundamental concept of the Dao, or "the way." The Dao is the only thing that is real. Everything else - from simple thoughts to the blood in your veins - is manifested from the Dao. Even in the simple effort to understand what the Dao is - and what everything else is - by using language and concepts to define the Dao or the myriad things, we are separating them from what they really are.

 

When we stop categorizing, rationalizing, defining, and finding a purpose for everything. When we simply experience and accept life as we flow through it. Then we will become familiar with peace and have more harmony in life. Then we can know better what the Dao is, still be unable to explain it and also understand why it can't be explained.

 

Does that make sense?

[sean]

Wow, awesome first post. That is quite a translation of DDJ, I've never read Merel's translations before. Reading it just now struck me really hard. Very profound. Thanks for posting, and for your thoughts. Looking forward to your contributions.

 

Best regards,

Sean

[beancurdturtle]

I've never read Merel's translations before. Reading it just now struck me really hard. Very profound. Thanks for posting, and for your thoughts. Looking forward to your contributions.

 

Best regards,

Sean

哪里，哪里？

 

Your words are too kind.

 

I think the value in Merel's interpolation is, he avoids the trap so many others fall into - he doesn't try to make it profound.

 

The Dao de Jing becomes more pragmatic and simple the longer you are exposed to it. Profoundness is overrated.

 

Haha!

[Dirtgrain]

When we stop categorizing, rationalizing, defining, and finding a purpose for everything. When we simply experience and accept life as we flow through it. Then we will become familiar with peace and have more harmony in life. Then we can know better what the Dao is, still be unable to explain it and also understand why it can't be explained.

 

Does that make sense?

Hoo-ah. I'm sick of categorizing and cataloguing and defining. I read an anonymous quote in a dictionary of quotations once. It was a suicide note, and all it said was this: "All this buttoning and unbuttoning." That always registered with me.

[Taomeow]

Please welcome, and please consider:

 

your suggestion that "when we simply experience..., etc." we sort of get it right on autopilot follows the translation version that asserts, "The Way that can be experienced is not true" -- have you noticed?..

 

Looks like you might want to pick one. Either we simply experience, and it's the true Way. Or we simply experience, and it's not the true Way. Either one is fine by me, but you can't really have it both ways, what d'you reckon?

 

By the way, as an experiencer of the Way whose experiencing most certainly includes, but by no means is limited to, the reading, writing and speaking of taoist philosophemes, I submit that only the Way that is experienced is true. I believe that's what Laozi meant too when he said what he really said:

the name of the experience is not the experience, the map of the territory is not the territory, the Way is not the philosophy of the Way.

[mYTHmAKER]

You cannot name the unnamable.

You name it - you make it less than it is.

Names are rough guides to the truth.

[Nigel]

Look to neuroscience and you'll find that we are hardwired for delusion. It's a glorious miraculous delusion but it's still delusion.

 

Plato and his teacher said it. Lao Zi said it too.

 

A being of thoughts and experiences must draw close to that place which is not thoughts or experiences, but gives rise to both. That's the gateless gate. The place where the Gate fades into not-Gate. It's not profound or not-profound. It is what it is. Sitting down there, we can watch everything be born.

[beancurdturtle]

Please welcome, and please consider:

 

your suggestion that "when we simply experience..., etc." we sort of get it right on autopilot follows the translation version that asserts, "The Way that can be experienced is not true" -- have you noticed?..

 

Looks like you might want to pick one. Either we simply experience, and it's the true Way. Or we simply experience, and it's not the true Way. Either one is fine by me, but you can't really have it both ways, what d'you reckon?

 

By the way, as an experiencer of the Way whose experiencing most certainly includes, but by no means is limited to, the reading, writing and speaking of taoist philosophemes, I submit that only the Way that is experienced is true. I believe that's what Laozi meant too when he said what he really said:

the name of the experience is not the experience, the map of the territory is not the territory, the Way is not the philosophy of the Way.

Well of course. That's the essence of my concluding paragraph.

 

Many people look too literally/critically at the individual words or lines in the verses - they'll miss the spirit of the communication. Zhuangzi might find a good deal of humor in focusing on just one word within one context.

 

So, in everything in life - including the reading of the Tao, and especially when reading my writing - it's best to stop categorizing, rationalizing, defining, and finding a purpose (or meaning). Just live it.

 

Please consider: "To experience without abstraction is to sense the world" is also in the same verse according to Merel's interpolation. This may seem to be in contradiction with the line you chose to quote. It's not. The context of the word "experience" changes within the verse (not unusual for words in Ancient Chinese writing).

 

You've chosen to use the word "experience" as the kingpin for your analysis. But "experience" - especially in this discussion - is a wiggly word. An easy example; the meaning of "experience" changes depending on whether you are actualizing the Tao, or considering the Tao from a philosopher's viewpoint. I can have it both ways.

 

I don't "want to pick one" meaning for the word "experience" - that would be contrary to the spirit of my writing.

 

The way that is lived is true.

 

You cannot name the unnamable.

You name it - you make it less than it is.

Names are rough guides to the truth.

You betcha! Have you read Zhuangzi?

 

Look to neuroscience and you'll find that we are hardwired for delusion. It's a glorious miraculous delusion but it's still delusion.

 

Plato and his teacher said it. Lao Zi said it too.

 

A being of thoughts and experiences must draw close to that place which is not thoughts or experiences, but gives rise to both. That's the gateless gate. The place where the Gate fades into not-Gate. It's not profound or not-profound. It is what it is. Sitting down there, we can watch everything be born.

And be well amused while doing so.

Edited June 4, 2007 by beancurdturtle