Tao Te Ching Ch1 part 1 ~ as I see it ~

[Thea]

For me, as a Christian, it is God that provides us with morality. But what I like about part 1 of the poem is that we share the need for The Deity that provides us with morality.

It’s my interpretation, ~ as I see it ~ (Mawangdui characters; Kroll dictionary)

Tao Te Ching Ch 1 part 1:

As for the belief system that I can speak about;
it considers the customary belief system to be wrong.

道 可 道 也 dao4 ke3 dao4 ye3
< doctrine | can | speak | (GP, 也⋯也) as for >

非 恆 道 也 fei1 heng2 dao4 ye3
< consider wrong | normal | doctrine | (GP) >

As for the moral code that I can speak about;
it considers the customary moral code to be wrong.

名 可 名 也 ming2 ke3 ming2 ye3
< moral | can | denominate | (GP, 也⋯也) as for >

非 恆 名 也 fei1 heng2 ming2 ye3
< consider wrong | normal | moral | (GP) >

The physical world in itself
has no morality;

无 名 wu2 ming2
< lack | moral >

萬 物 之 始 也 wan4 wu4 zhi1 shi3 ye3
< myriad | things in the physical world | its | origin | (GP) >

it’s the Mother of mankind [Dao]
that provides us with morality.

有 名 you3 ming2
< provides with/has/is | moral >

萬物 之 母 也 wan4wu4 zhi1 mu3 ye3
< ten thousand wight | its | mother [ch25 名unknown, 曰Dao] | (GP) >

 

[Dao Hao Now]

That appears to be a problem with look at thing through a Christian lens, it distorts everything to a Christian perspective rather than what it actually is.

the Dao is not a god!

 

[Thea]

… the Dao is not a god!

See Ch 25, “it unambiguously identifies the Way as a cosmogonic principle that existed before and created the physical universe”.

Bryan van Norden What Is It Like to Be a Philosopher?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

See Ch 25, “it unambiguously identifies the Way as a cosmogonic principle that existed before and created the physical universe”. (Bryan van Norden
What Is It Like to Be a Philosopher? )

Yeah, like I said….. If you look at it through a Christian perspective (lens) YOU see a god.

When you look at it through a Daoist perspective (you know; the one it was written in) there is no god.

 

[Thea]

When you look at it through a Daoist perspective (you know; the one it was written in) there is no god.

... there was a fad a few years ago of people arguing that “dao” never referred to a metaphysical entity in the seminal period when Confucianism and Daoism first originated.

… I did a search of occurrences of the expression in early texts, and I noticed something particularly interesting about the use of the term in passage 25 of the Daodejing:

There is a thing that is amorphous yet complete,
Born before Heaven and Earth.
Still! Alone!
Standing alone and unchanging,
Going everywhere without being in danger.
It can be considered the mother of Heaven and Earth.
I do not know its name.
I bestow upon it the courtesy name of “Way.”

This passage settles the issue that was under debate because it unambiguously identifies the Way as a cosmogonic principle that existed before and created the physical universe (“Heaven and Earth”).

From: Bryan van Norden
What Is It Like to Be a Philosopher?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

*Sigh* Like I said, look at it through a Christian perspective……
Bryan Van Norden is a Presbyterian

I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume you’ve never met a Daoist.

Maybe look through some actual Daoist books or websites rather than some Christian’s view of what Daoism is all about.

 

[Thea]

*Sigh* Like I said, look at it through a Christian perspective……
Bryan Van Norden is a Presbyterian

I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume you’ve never met a Daoist.

Maybe look through some actual Daoist books or websites rather than some Christian’s view of what Daoism is all about.

I prefer to read what Laozi said.

Ch 25
…
Born before Heaven and Earth.
先 天地 生 xiān tiāndì shēng
…
It can be considered the mother of Heaven and Earth.
可 以 為 天下 母 kě yǐ wéi tiānxià mǔ

I do not know its name.
I bestow upon it the courtesy name of “Way.”

未 知 亓 名 字 之 曰 道 wèi zhī qí míng, zì zhī yuē dào
…

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Yeah, alrighty then……
Laozi….the founder of the philosophical Daoism.
That guy? Yeah, probably no need to look at it from his point of view!

You do you then. Apparently you’re not interested in actually learning anything.

Are you as comfortable with people from other faiths representing what the message of Christianity is, or would it probably be more accurate to consult …oh, I don’t know…..maybe a Christian?

 

[Thea]

Yeah, alrighty then……
Laozi….the founder of the philosophical Daoism.
That guy? Yeah, probably no need to look at it from his point of view!

You do you then. Apparently you’re not interested in actually learning anything.

Are you as comfortable with people from other faiths representing what the message of Christianity is, or would it probably be more accurate to consult …oh, I don’t know…..maybe a Christian?

You seem to have lost track of what this topic is about. This:

For me, as a Christian, it is God that provides us with morality. But what I like about part 1 of the poem is that we share the need for The Deity that provides us with morality.

… The physical world in itself has no morality;

it’s the Mother of mankind [Dao] that provides us with morality. …

 

[Twilight Hue]

See Ch 25, “it unambiguously identifies the Way as a cosmogonic principle that existed before and created the physical universe”. (Bryan van Norden
What Is It Like to Be a Philosopher? )

The Dao is like the Hindu Brahman.

It's completely indescribable.

 

[Thea]

The Dao is like the Hindu Brahman.

It's completely indescribable.

Thank you very much for your reply. That’s what I think too. E.g. in Ch 25:

I do not know its name.
未 知 亓 名 wèi zhī qí míng,

I bestow upon it the courtesy name of “Way.”
字 之 曰 道 zì zhī yuē dào

 

[Dao Hao Now]

You said
“You seem to have lost track of what this topic is about.”

“… what I like about part 1 of the poem is that we share the need for The Deity that provides us with morality. “

Was that not the topic?

I took that to mean: “we” (meaning Christians and Daoists) share the need for the deity that provides “us” (again meaning Christians and Daoists) with morality.

I tried to explain to you that Daoists do NOT believe in a god much less one that provides anyone with morality. And, specifically that the “Dao” is not a god.

Talk about false prophets!

Alas, some folks are prefer to live in their own fantasy. One can lead a horse to water…..

 

[Thea]

… “Dao” is not a god …

We already did this bit. See:

… Born before Heaven and Earth. …
It can be considered the mother of Heaven and Earth.
I do not know its name.
I bestow upon it the courtesy name of “Way.”…

 

[PureX]

For me, as a Christian, it is God that provides us with morality. But what I like about part 1 of the poem is that we share the need for The Deity that provides us with morality.

It’s my interpretation, ~ as I see it ~ (Mawangdui characters; Kroll dictionary)

Tao Te Ching Ch 1 part 1:

As for the belief system that I can speak about;
it considers the customary belief system to be wrong.

道 可 道 也 dao4 ke3 dao4 ye3
< doctrine | can | speak | (GP, 也⋯也) as for >

非 恆 道 也 fei1 heng2 dao4 ye3
< consider wrong | normal | doctrine | (GP) >

As for the moral code that I can speak about;
it considers the customary moral code to be wrong.

名 可 名 也 ming2 ke3 ming2 ye3
< moral | can | denominate | (GP, 也⋯也) as for >

非 恆 名 也 fei1 heng2 ming2 ye3
< consider wrong | normal | moral | (GP) >

The physical world in itself
has no morality;

无 名 wu2 ming2
< lack | moral >

萬 物 之 始 也 wan4 wu4 zhi1 shi3 ye3
< myriad | things in the physical world | its | origin | (GP) >

it’s the Mother of mankind [Dao]
that provides us with morality.

有 名 you3 ming2
< provides with/has/is | moral >

萬物 之 母 也 wan4wu4 zhi1 mu3 ye3
< ten thousand wight | its | mother [ch25 名unknown, 曰Dao] | (GP) >

I'm very skeptical of this interpretation. It's not in keeping with ANY other interpretation I've come across.

 

[Thea]

I'm very skeptical of this interpretation. It's not in keeping with ANY other interpretation I've come across.

Can you read the characters?

 

[PureX]

Can you read the characters?

Can you read them without bias?

I've read several stanslations and though they were somewhat different to each other, they were not in keeping with yours at all. I prefer Mitchell's. It's the more coherent of the lot, I believe.

 

[Thea]

Can you read them without bias?

Hi PureX!

That’s not my intention. See my old post:

I have started reading the Tao Te Ching from characters. I am reading it from a totally biased perspective, i.e. my perspective as a Christian.

 

[Thea]

… this interpretation. It's not in keeping with ANY other interpretation I've come across.

Thank you very much for your praise, it puts me in excellent company indeed. Both Jesus and Laozi came with something radically new.

 

[Thea]

… I prefer Mitchell's …

Enjoy. Each to his own.

Stephen Mitchell does not even know Chinese.

His book has been totally discredited.

See page 119 onwards, Paul R Goldin - After Confucius
https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/31688/625891.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

 

[Thea]

… I prefer Mitchell's. It's the more coherent of the lot ...

Easy enough to achieve if you can’t read the Chinese text.