"an open letter to taoists" (Jesus Christ, reject, Earth)

[cardw]

I have enjoyed Stephen Mitchell's English translation of the Tao te Ching. This may or may not be related to the Tao, but I read the first part of A Course in Miracles and one of the first exercises was to go through the day and look at each thing you saw or experienced and say to yourself, "That means absolutely nothing."

When I did it I found out through my reaction what I was holding on to and what I found to be emotionally important to me. I also became aware of how meaning for different things in my life was largely made up.

It was a new awareness for me and when I read the Tao to Ching there was a feeling of affirmation and connection with that exercise. There was also a reordering of priority that seemed to simply happen without as much self consciousness about the process.

[anders]

From a review:

"This is not a translation of the Dao De Jing. This is an interpretation. Stephen Mitchell puts his personal spin on many passages and teachers of Asian Religion an Philosophy warn against his writing on this subject. When compared to the original text there is much that differs. This is a version that incorporates more new age western thinking than classic Daoist thought. If you're looking for comforting ideas this is the text for you, but if you're looking for Doaist text try the translation by Red Pine"

Ayway, my favourite so far is the translation by John C. H. Wu, named Tao Teh Ching. If you have unlimited time on your hands, you could explore a number of different renderings including the Chinese text at http://zhongwen.com/dao.htm

[ChrisP]

Originally Posted by anders

From a review:

"This is not a translation of the Dao De Jing. This is an interpretation. Stephen Mitchell puts his personal spin on many passages and teachers of Asian Religion an Philosophy warn against his writing on this subject. When compared to the original text there is much that differs. This is a version that incorporates more new age western thinking than classic Daoist thought. If you're looking for comforting ideas this is the text for you, but if you're looking for Doaist text try the translation by Red Pine"

Ayway, my favourite so far is the translation by John C. H. Wu, named Tao Teh Ching. If you have unlimited time on your hands, you could explore a number of different renderings including the Chinese text at http://zhongwen.com/dao.htm

I was just telling someone you were still around

Mitchell's translation is a good place to start, but once you get into the ideas Wu's is an excellent translation indeed.
The link in my sig takes you to a page with plenty of translations available also

[Storm Moon]

I got halfway down the page and closed the window. This isn't new to me at all. I see this with most of today's religions. It's pitiful and down right disrespectful IMO

[Jonathan Rex]

The Tao Te Ching is a beautiful addition to human literature. The problem is not in the Tao, it is in your inability to comprehend the Tao.

[Jonathan Rex]

Why Christians have such a hard time understanding the Tao really does baffle me. Perhaps it is because Taoism does not promote dogmas or Greek style stories and provide the reader with fancy tales of wars and other such mind vacations. It is very likely that the Tao is so simple that the modern mind cannot grasp at it.

But here is my response to that letter:

"Those who know don't say, and those who say don't know."
This can be taken in several ways. The Christian likely understands it to mean: "Those who understand the truth don't teach it, and those who teach the truth do not understand it." However, that is not what is being said. Lao Tzu lived in a period of time where China's Dynasties were at war. It was the same time frame as Confucius. Confucius in fact is said to have met Lao Tzu and left the encounter disturbed for quite some time. He is reported to have said to his disciples, "Do not go to this man, Lao Tzu. He will disturb your mind. This man is a dragon and his wisdom knows no boundaries." (Dragons in China do not mean the same thing as Dragon's to Westerners. Dragons in China are powerful, magical and wise creatures. Everything must be taken in context. What Lao Tzu was saying here is this: "Those who know the answers and the truth are not speaking out, those who are speaking out do not have the answers or the truth."


Question 1 (From the link posted):
"If the Tao is truly inexpressible, how is it that these attributes of the Tao are then being expressed?"

When people say that God is love or God is good or God is this or that . . . do they mean it literally? Those are attributes of God. In Arabic (Islam) Allah has 99 names describing 99 different attributes. It is the same in Hebrew/Aramaic (Judaism). El Olam, Elohim, El Shaddai, etc. El and Al both mean "God." The word that follows is a different attribute such as "God Almighty" or "The Lord God" and so on. In the Tao you will find the phrase: "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The way that can be named is not the eternal way."

If I ask you, "Who are you?" You will tell me that you are Tommy or James or Christopher. But that is not you. That is a name. Then you may tell me what you do. You may describe your career or your hobbies. But that is what you do. That is not "you" . . . Describe your self without using any attributes. It cannot be done. Yet no matter how many attributes you use to describe you, you will never be defined and explained entirely because you are a continuously evolving and eternally changing concept. You cannot be defined. Neither can God. Neither can the Tao. Not entirely.

Statement 1 (from the link provided):
"The God of the Bible is monotheistic, separated from the universe, and personal. You are describing a monistic 'God' who is all. The two are not the same."

No, the God of the Bible is not Monotheistic. Elohim is a plural word. In Genesis 1:26 it says, "Let US make man in OUR image under OUR likeness." God became Monotheistic with Moses (ThutMOSIS) who was Akhenaten's half brother. Akhenaten worshipped ATEN (the first monotheistic God). God is many in one just as we are the infinite in individual finite forms. We are all part of God and God is within all of us. Whether you call it God or the Tao is irrelevant.


Statement 2 (from the link):
"Since no butterfly is ever known to have questioned whether or not he was a butterfly, much less recorded such a predicament, it is probably safe to assume that you are Chou and not the butterfly."

But what are you? Are you nothing more than senses? Are you sight, hearing, tasting, feeling and seeing? Those are nothing more than electrical currents to the brain. If you take away your senses what are you? There is an energy within you that is within the butterfly. That energy is the Tao or God. We come from God and return to God. God is within all and all is within God.

Question 2 (from the link):
"Has it ever occurred to you that Taoism itself may be a yin of misguided thinking, in need of deliverance from the 'yang' of truth? Jesus once said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life."


I wonder if it has ever occurred to the author of this link that "The Tao" means literally, "The Way" and Buddha's Dharma meant literally "The Truth" . . . Yeshua was saying: "I am the Tao, The Dharma and The Light, none can come to the father (God) but by Me." This is not literal in the sense that Yeshua (Jesus) was to be worshipped as the Tao because Yeshua told men to worship "The Father" and denied being good when he said, "Why do you call me good? None is good but the Father who is in Heaven." and "I do only what the Father shows me." Yeshua was simply using personification. When Yeshua said "I am the Way" he was speaking as "The Way" and not as Yeshua Ben Yosef (Joshua son of Joseph). But Christians take literally what was a personification. When Walt Whitman wrote his poem Native Moments did he intend for you to read it as Walt?


"Native Moments - when you come upon me - ah you are here now,
Give me now libidinous joys only,
Give me the drench of my passions, give me life coarse and rank,
To-day I go consort with Nature's darlings, to-night too,
I am for those who believe in loose delights, I share the midnight orgies of young men,
I dance with the dancers and drink with the drinkers,
The echoes ring with our indecent calls, I pick out some low person for my dearest friend,
He shall be lawless, rude, illiterate, he shall be one condemn'd by others for deeds done,
I will play a part no longer, why should I exile myself from my companions?
O you shunn'd persons, I at least do not shun you,
I come forthwith in your midst, I will be your poet,
I will be more to you than to any of the rest."





I hope that I have provided the answers to those questions well enough to benefit you in your search for the truth.

Christians need to practice their faith more and preach it less.

[anders]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Rex

The Tao Te Ching is a beautiful addition to human literature. The problem is not in the Tao, it is in your inability to comprehend the Tao.
...
Yeshua was saying: "I am the Tao, The Dharma and The Light ...

Great post(s)! But (and I'm, as always, using the modern transcriptions) I think that it also is possible to have Mr. Josephson's quote as "I am the Dao, the De and the Light," to make it even more Daoistic.

This of course doesn't mean that Y. is any kind of solution to Daoists, but that he sounds that as if he has understood its message.

On translations, by the way: The link seems to think that Max Müller made the translation. MM was the editor of the series Sacred Books of the East (SBE). The translation was actually by James Legge. The result was great in their days, but is of course slightly dated now. SBE vol. 39, containing the Tâo teh king as they name it, was first published in 1891. There are innumerable reprints, the last one I know of from 1993.

[Jonathan Rex]

Originally Posted by anders

Great post(s)! But (and I'm, as always, using the modern transcriptions) I think that it also is possible to have Mr. Josephson's quote as "I am the Dao, the De and the Light," to make it even more Daoistic.

This of course doesn't mean that Y. is any kind of solution to Daoists, but that he sounds that as if he has understood its message.

On translations, by the way: The link seems to think that Max Müller made the translation. MM was the editor of the series Sacred Books of the East (SBE). The translation was actually by James Legge. The result was great in their days, but is of course slightly dated now. SBE vol. 39, containing the Tâo teh king as they name it, was first published in 1891. There are innumerable reprints, the last one I know of from 1993.

It is a Western mentality to get wrapped up in trivial translation matters. If the message is maintained, the translation accuracy doesn't matter. For instance:

Man 1: "Each culture has their own way of living. Live your way in its purity, as it was meant to be lived and allow others to live their way as is best for them."

Man 2 (Translating Man 1 in 20AD to Jewish farmers): "We are like seeds which grow into plants. If you plant us too near one another, then we cannot grow properly and our roots will invade one another's space. We all need space to grow."

Man 3 (Translating Man 2 in 1600's to a Native American): "Wolves do not make their pack with Buffalo. They run among their own, in their own ways and share the land separately. Men are like these animals. They must keep to their own ways, and let others do the same. A wolf will not try to make a Buffalo hunt animals. Buffalo eat grass. A Buffalo will not try to force a Wolf to eat grass. Wolves eat meat. Be like the Buffalo and let the white man be a Wolf. If you both do as your wise men taught you to do, then there will be peace. If you both worship the Great Spirit in your own ways and allow each other to do the same in their own, all will be well."

Man 4 (Translating Man 3 in 2007 to Americans): "Do palm trees and pine trees grow side by side? Of course not. Palm trees need warm weather and pine trees cooler weather. Each has their own needs, but both belong to the same dirt. Both begin as seeds and grow towards the sun. Both need water. They may look different and prefer a different environment, but they are the same. Human beings are similar."


All four versions are speaking the same message. The Tao that can be defined is not the Eternal Tao. Lao Tzu was not the first to recognize the Tao. He was just the first to write about it. Others seen it in other ways.

[Jonathan Rex]

It would be nice to see more Taoists and Buddhists posting on this site.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Rex

The Tao that can be defined is not the Eternal Tao. Lao Tzu was not the first to recognize the Tao. He was just the first to write about it. Others seen it in other ways.

The I-Ching is much older than Lao Tzu, yet many of the same concepts are expressed in it. In fact, the I-Ching is based so thoroughly on the idea of the 'flow of existence' that the people who use it believe that it can 'read' this flow and predict the future. And not only that it can predict the future, but it can advise the user as to how best prepare for it.

Whether or not one believes that the I-Ching is an oracle or not, just a simple reading of it will reveal a whole collection of taoist wisdom. And for me, it also helped in some way to come to understand the Chinese language, which is based on imagery rather then on sounds made by the mouth.