From taoism-l-owner@coombs.anu.edu.au Tue Nov 30 03:04:26 1993 To: TAOISM-L@coombs.anu.edu.au From: jdsellmann@uog.pacific.edu Subject: t'ai chi and yin yang symbol Date: Mon, 29 Nov 93 23:18:43 PST John, earlier note got returned, but Steve has already confirmed, the earliest source of the yin yang symbol commonly called the chart of the supreme Ultimate (t'ai chi tu) was transmitted by Ch'en T'uan to the Neo-Confucians. but the form in the Tao Tsang is not like the modern form which has the black and white paisley with the alternate collered dot; the older form shows a circle containing alternate black and white semi-circles. (see Fung Y.L. A history of Ch/ Pi. vol. 2 ch. 9) in the Tao Tsang I've seen other versions of what was called "t'ai chi tu" One is a total blank; an other is a blank circle; more commonly its the circl with the alternate semi-circles of black and white. jim From taoism-l-owner@coombs.anu.edu.au Mon Nov 29 23:59:31 1993 Date: Mon, 29 Nov 93 23:23:47 CDT From: BOKENKAM@UCS.INDIANA.EDU Subject: The yin-yang symbol. To: taoism-l@coombs.anu.edu.au John McRae asks the age of the "yin-yang symbol." In Taoist texts, it's generally called the Taiji (Tai-chi--yes, same as the exercise) tu, but also the "Xiantian tu" (Hsien-t'ien t'u, Diagram of the Prior Heaven). According to Li Yuanguo, writing in his _Sichuan daojiao shihua_ (1985), pp. 56-59, the Taiji tu is NOT really, really old; not even very old. It was crafted by the Neidan patriarch Chen Tuan (871-989???). There is an English version of Li's study in _Taoist Resources_ 2.1 (1990). You will find, in fact, that the whole volume is devoted to studies of Chen Tuan. By the way, John, in answering your previous question about women in Taoism, I neglected to mention the fine section on women in religion in Miyakawa Hisayuki's _Rikuchoo shi kenkyuu: shuukyoo hen_. -- Steve Bokenkamp From taoism-l-owner@coombs.anu.edu.au Mon Jan 3 00:40:35 1994 Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 00:26:52 -0500 (EST) From: Stephen_Y._Chan@transarc.com To: TAOISM-L@coombs.anu.edu.au (TAOISM-L@coombs.anu.edu.au) Subject: Re: Translating Teh as Harmony Peter Alexander Merel writes: > Teh appears in contrast to be something that men can attain, that Lao Tse > suggests they aspire to - all that business in Ch 54 about cultivating it > in various people and systems, and measuring them by it. I'm looking at 2 different translations of the TTC. In the Lin Yutang translation, the word "teh" does not appear, but it appears that the thing being cultivated would be "teh". However, in LaFargue's translation/interpretation, he has linesin the form "cultivate It in {your person/your clan, the village, etc...}, and its Te will be pure" In this case, there is something being cultivated, but it is not the te. LaFargue interprets the "It" as the particular spirit/strengths of the group, in question, thus making it's te purer. So, maybe teh can be nurtured, in the same way that polishing a window lets the light in better, but the light itself isn't enhanced by polishing. > is holding up Teh as a superior moral standard, a way of being in the world; > leaving it untranslated leaves this standard as mysterious as Tao. Well, I think that teh is value-neutral. To perceive tao/teh and all that stuff means (to me) to understand something on its own terms and accept it. A "superior moral standard" sounds too judgemental. I think that the TTC is prescriptive, but its not moralistic. > But more than this, I suggest that harmony is very close to what LT is driving > at. By eschewing ritual, abstractions, excesses, complacencies, by flowing I think that the TTC's advice to readers in positions of power is to use leadership instead of control. Control implies coercion, making people do things which they would not do otherwise by creating a system of rewards and punishments so that irrespective of the individual's nature and personal desires, they will be forced to "do the right thing". It is a one way, dominance relationship. Leadership, on the other hand, requires a different relationship. It means getting to know the strengths, motives and overall character of your followers and then _inspiring_ them, cultivating their person aspects and then coordinating their interaction seemlessly. It is reciprocal, but there is a definite sense of leading and following. A practical situation where the distinction is important is in martial arts. Styles like Aikido and Taiji emphasize becoming sensitive to your opponent's intentions, and then harmonizing and _leading_ them to a more desireable state. Other martial arts may emphasize becoming sensitive to your opponent's intentions, overwhelming them and then imposing your own will on the opponent. You can get your way by leading, or you can get your way by domination. The TTC emphasizes leadership. However, there is a definite sense of leadership and culivation, which the basic term of "harmony" does not bring out. In Taiji and Aikido, if you do not know how to lead, then your harmony is only an extremely well trained form of weakness. > is simply applying an abstraction. Do you feel, then, that it is a sort of > binary quality, that one can only have or have not, like pregnancy? No, I feel that everything has a teh, however, not everyone perceives it correctly. And by failing to perceive it, people fail to deal with things in an efficient, and constructive manner. An example is the gnarly old tree from Chuang Tzu. Woodworkers can't see it's value because it's wood is full of knots, and the tree is not straight. Farmers don't see its value because it doesn't produce fruit. But a Taoist perceives it's use/function/teh, and reclines under it to rest, and relax in the shade. > for a moment that the way I'm masticating him (I like that word!) is > the only, right or best way - it's a way that pleases me, and I hope a > way that will give newcomers a leg up, and old hands food for thought. My Taiji instructor has been trying to guide me toward a more Taoist outlook on life, and if he were looking over my shoulder, he'd doubtlessly tell me that I should learn to appreciate and accept the value of your method, instead of comparing it to my own conception of what's the One True Way. Ho hum...maybe I would be happier as a moralistic Confucian :-( Okay, if it were up to me, I'd translate teh as something along the lines of "intrinsic strengths", "natural virtues" or "essential qualities". Of course, if you use "natural virtues", folks might think that Taoism is some kind of natural law system of morality and put Lao Tzu up there with Aquinas and the rest of the Catholic Church :-) You're not secretly a Jesuit are you?!?!?!?!?! --------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Chan chan+@transarc.com |Transarc Corporation (412)338-6996 |707 Grant St "The best move is very close to the worst move."|Pittsburgh, PA 15219 From taoism-l-owner@coombs.anu.edu.au Mon Jan 3 18:14:25 1994 From: Peter Alexander Merel Subject: Re: Translating Teh as Harmony To: Stephen_Y._Chan@transarc.com Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 09:55:10 +1100 (EST) Cc: TAOISM-L@coombs.anu.edu.au (TAOISM-L@coombs.anu.edu.au) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 7535 Stephen Chan writes, > However, in LaFargue's translation/interpretation, he has >linesin the form "cultivate It in {your person/your clan, the village, >etc...}, and its Te will be pure" I haven't seen LaFargue's translation. Is it new? > In this case, there is something being cultivated, but it is >not the te. LaFargue interprets the "It" as the particular >spirit/strengths of the group, in question, thus making it's te purer. I haven't seen Ch 54 treated this way before, and I'm not certain that introducing the concepts of "spirit/strength" makes the chapter any clearer. Most of the translations I've used suggest that harmony makes for effect, that in this way the weak can overcome the strong. For one of many examples, Henricks Ch 76 lines 9-10: Rigidity and power occupy the inferior position; Suppleness, softness, weakness, and delicateness occupy the superior position. This seems to me to meet the admonitions in Ch 3 pretty well too. But I may be misinterpreting what you mean by spirit and strength - do you mean them in a way that has nothing to do with ambition and power? > So, maybe teh can be nurtured, in the same way that polishing >a window lets the light in better, but the light itself isn't enhanced >by polishing. I think we're not so far apart. Your "light" is Tao and your "window" is Teh, rather like the polished mirror in ttc Ch 10, I presume. I'd say that by letting in more light you're harmonizing with what's outside, though of course there is no inside and outside. We build a world of abstractions with which to understand and interact with our experience; LT suggests that these abstractions ought to flow with and depend upon our experience, rather than opposing or subsuming it. To me, this implies that strength/spirit is found in harmony with Tao. > Well, I think that teh is value-neutral. To perceive tao/teh >and all that stuff means (to me) to understand something on its own >terms and accept it. A "superior moral standard" sounds too judgemental. > I think that the TTC is prescriptive, but its not moralistic. I agree that Teh is value-neutral, but I should say that any prescriptive code of behaviour is a morality. Of course the Taoist doesn't ask what is good and what is bad, he simply strives to follow Tao, to accept it all impartially and compassionately. But I reckon that this does constitute a morality, albeit an extremely flexible one. In particular, I think that the last paragraph of Ch 42 suggests morality: Thus, "The strong and violent do not come to a natural end." I will take this as the father of my studies. (Henricks) > I think that the TTC's advice to readers in positions of power >is to use leadership instead of control. Control implies coercion, >making people do things which they would not do otherwise by creating >a system of rewards and punishments so that irrespective of the >individual's nature and personal desires, they will be forced to "do >the right thing". It is a one way, dominance relationship. Yes, all the admomitions against authority, fear and hope. > Leadership, on the other hand, requires a different >relationship. It means getting to know the strengths, motives and >overall character of your followers and then _inspiring_ them, >cultivating their person aspects and then coordinating their >interaction seemlessly. It is reciprocal, but there is a definite >sense of leading and following. A practical situation where the >distinction is important is in martial arts. Styles like Aikido and >Taiji emphasize becoming sensitive to your opponent's intentions, >and then harmonizing and _leading_ them to a more desireable state. >Other martial arts may emphasize becoming sensitive to your opponent's >intentions, overwhelming them and then imposing your own will on the >opponent. The only martial art with which I have any skill is the Japanese game of Go, known in China as Wei Qi. In Go it is very important to lead your opponent, an activity known as sente, or else, being forced to contend against his lead, you create rigid and vulnerable forms that cause you to lose. However, in the very finest games, the very best players will play so tightly within the winning strategies that they practically cease to compete, advantage resting only in the tiniest details of the board. These games, which result in intricately interwoven "living" groups of opposing stones, are, imho, good examples of harmony. > You can get your way by leading, or you can get your way by >domination. The TTC emphasizes leadership. I think the ttc emphasises not "getting your way" in the first place, but rather fitting 'your way' to 'The Way'. > However, there is a definite sense of leadership and >culivation, which the basic term of "harmony" does not bring out. In >Taiji and Aikido, if you do not know how to lead, then your harmony >is only an extremely well trained form of weakness. By harmony I mean harmony with the Tao. Weakness, passivity, decay, all of these things have their uses and their times - if you try to ignore that, it will return and surprise you. If both you and your opponent are in perfect harmony with your art, then neither of you can win. If you and your opponent are in perfect harmony with eachother, then both of you can win. But if you are in harmony with the Tao, what is it that you are trying to win? Sorry to break into koan. What I mean is, if you accept all that might transpire, then you'll be in harmony with your experience. > No, I feel that everything has a teh, however, not everyone >perceives it correctly. And by failing to perceive it, people fail to >deal with things in an efficient, and constructive manner. I'm not certain that all processes ought to be treated as 'things', or that efficiency and constructiveness are always the best way to deal with them. How can you efficiently and contructively sneeze, or laugh, or cry or eat? You can do these things with harmony (and if you can sneeze harmonically I have a job for you ...) but pursuing them so as to "win" is pointless. > An example is the gnarly old tree from Chuang Tzu. Woodworkers >can't see it's value because it's wood is full of knots, and the tree >is not straight. Farmers don't see its value because it doesn't >produce fruit. But a Taoist perceives it's use/function/teh, and >reclines under it to rest, and relax in the shade. Quite so. > My Taiji instructor has been trying to guide me toward a more >Taoist outlook on life, and if he were looking over my shoulder, he'd >doubtlessly tell me that I should learn to appreciate and accept the value of >your method, instead of comparing it to my own conception of what's the >One True Way. One of the things I appreciate in Taoism, and many others will disagree with me, is its essential relativism :-) > Okay, if it were up to me, I'd translate teh as something >along the lines of "intrinsic strengths", "natural virtues" or >"essential qualities". You're perfectly free to do so. > Of course, if you use "natural virtues", folks might think >that Taoism is some kind of natural law system of morality and put Lao >Tzu up there with Aquinas and the rest of the Catholic Church :-) > You're not secretly a Jesuit are you?!?!?!?!?! No, I was raised as a freethinker. I'm afraid though, that I'm lapsed. I wonder if the masons would have me? -- Internet: pete@extro.su.oz.au | Accept Everything. | UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!extro!pete | Reject Nothing. | From taoism-l-owner@coombs.anu.edu.au Mon Jan 3 22:27:41 1994 Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 22:07:36 -0500 (EST) From: Stephen_Y._Chan@transarc.com To: TAOISM-L@coombs.anu.edu.au (TAOISM-L@coombs.anu.edu.au) Subject: Re: Translating Teh as Harmony Peter Alexander Merel writes: > I haven't seen LaFargue's translation. Is it new? Copyright 1992. > This seems to me to meet the admonitions in Ch 3 pretty well too. But I may > be misinterpreting what you mean by spirit and strength - do you mean them > in a way that has nothing to do with ambition and power? No, my use of spirit has nothing to do with ambition. Though I suppose one could have an ambitious spirit. However, strengths and power are pretty much the same. It seems that you are reading "strengths" to be a kind of shallow, external power. This is not what I'm talking about. A librarian has strengths which a powerlifter does not have, and vice versa. That's what I'm talking about. > I agree that Teh is value-neutral, but I should say that any > prescriptive code of behaviour is a morality. Of course the Taoist Not at all. Suppose I've studied some game theory, and I know that in certain interactions, a particular strategy will generally yield better results than other strategies. I find this value neutral, yet prescriptive. > this does constitute a morality, albeit an extremely flexible one. In > particular, I think that the last paragraph of Ch 42 suggests morality: > > Thus, "The strong and violent do not come to a natural end." > I will take this as the father of my studies. From the side of a small box I have: "SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health." This is not a moral injunction to stop smoking. Its an observation that if I continue along this path, bad things will happen to my longevity - so if I'm smart (which I'm not) I'll quit. > > You can get your way by leading, or you can get your way by > >domination. The TTC emphasizes leadership. > > I think the ttc emphasises not "getting your way" in the first place, but > rather fitting 'your way' to 'The Way'. Ummm, I would disagree, since this makes Taoism too passive. Even within "The Way" there are degrees of freedom - one is able to influence things to reach some desired end, otherwise the TTC would be much shorter, and would probably say something like "I am Lao Tzu of the Tao. Prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile." (is this joke too culture sensitive?) > are in perfect harmony with eachother, then both of you can win. But if you > are in harmony with the Tao, what is it that you are trying to win? Well, in Taoist wu shu, one tries to attain the state of wu-wei, where one does not conceive of winning, losing, acting or not acting. And, paradoxically, by not thinking about overcoming your opponent, you're supposed to end up overcoming your opponent, or rather, they kind of overcome themselves with a little help from you. There's a necessary paradox here, and I think you've made it too consistent. Cheng Man Ching talked about "investing in loss", one gains in the longterm by being willing to lose here and now. True, you might try that wu wei stuff, and just end up dead instead of surviving. But there's a few scrappy old Taoist martial artists who'll testify differently. > I'm not certain that all processes ought to be treated as 'things', or that > efficiency and constructiveness are always the best way to deal with them. How > can you efficiently and contructively sneeze, or laugh, or cry or eat? You can > do these things with harmony (and if you can sneeze harmonically I have a job When I sneeze, I enjoy it immensely. Its a nasal orgasm :-) You're sneezing for a reason, and you ought to just let yourself sneeze, instead of smothering it, or choking it off. Its awfully cold here in Pittsburgh now, and my body wants to shivver - if I let it shivver, I shake like a wet dog, and everyone looks at me funny, but I feel much warmer afterwards. Does that constitute dealing with it constructively, instead of treating it as some annoying response to cold? > for you ...) but pursuing them so as to "win" is pointless. Who said anything about pursuing? You deal with it as it arises. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Chan chan+@transarc.com |Transarc Corporation (412)338-6996 |707 Grant St "The best move is very close to the worst move."|Pittsburgh, PA 15219 From taoism-l-owner@coombs.anu.edu.au Wed Jan 5 06:52:13 1994 From: Peter Alexander Merel Subject: Re: Translating Teh as Harmony To: TAOISM-L@coombs.anu.edu.au (TAOISM-L@coombs.anu.edu.au) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 22:36:38 +1100 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 5399 Stephen Chan writes, > It seems that you are reading "strengths" to be a kind of >shallow, external power. This is not what I'm talking about. A >librarian has strengths which a powerlifter does not have, and vice >versa. That's what I'm talking about. Do you mean what the 'good' librarian and the 'good' powerlifter have in common? If this is simply distinction from their peers, attainment, then we seem to have a circular definition. If, on the other hand, strength derives from a particular attitude or way of behaving, then this way of behaving is what we must describe. I can't see that "having spirit/strength" is an useful definition of such an attitude. Canute, had he all the spirit in the world, could not have turned back the waves - could he? > Not at all. Suppose I've studied some game theory, and I know >that in certain interactions, a particular strategy will generally >yield better results than other strategies. I find this value neutral, >yet prescriptive. Yes, you have a point. >> I think the ttc emphasises not "getting your way" in the first place, but >> rather fitting 'your way' to 'The Way'. > > Ummm, I would disagree, since this makes Taoism too passive. >Even within "The Way" there are degrees of freedom - one is able to >influence things to reach some desired end, otherwise the TTC would be >much shorter, Fitness and harmony do not necessarily mean passivity. Watch a surfer on a wave, or a hawk on the breeze, or a ballerina pas de deux, and you'll take my meaning. All the world ebbs and flows, and matching yourself to these rhythms you find strength and grace; contending, opposing the flow, you become brittle and lost. Don't your martial arts emphasize this? >and would probably say something like "I am Lao Tzu of >the Tao. Prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile." (is this >joke too culture sensitive?) No, I thoroughly cacked myself. >> are in perfect harmony with eachother, then both of you can win. But if you >> are in harmony with the Tao, what is it that you are trying to win? > > Well, in Taoist wu shu, one tries to attain the state of >wu-wei, where one does not conceive of winning, losing, acting or not >acting. And, paradoxically, by not thinking about overcoming your >opponent, you're supposed to end up overcoming your opponent, or >rather, they kind of overcome themselves with a little help from you. But why do you have an opponent in the first place? Isn't it because you both wish to refine your art, and that the art cannot be expressed without your cooperation? Is it too much to think of this cooperation as harmony? And when both you and your opponent are extremely accomplished, are you fighting or are you dancing? > There's a necessary paradox here, and I think you've made it >too consistent. Cheng Man Ching talked about "investing in loss", one >gains in the longterm by being willing to lose here and now. Yes, quite so. If you go after every advantage, then you are easily predicted and defeated. Only by completely harmonizing with your opponent can you be certain that you are not playing into his hands. Sun Tzu said (Ch 6, Ames): "The ultimate skill in taking up a strategic position is to have no form. If your position is formless, the most carefully concealed spies will not be able to get a look at it, and the wisest counsellors will not be able to lay plans against it ... Everyone knows the position that has won me victory, yet none fathom how I came to settle on this winning position. Thus one's victories in battle cannot be repeated- they take their form in response to inexhaustibly changing circumstances." Would it be unfair to describe this skill as harmonizing with the tao of the battle? > True, you might try that wu wei stuff, and just end up dead instead >of surviving. But there's a few scrappy old Taoist martial artists >who'll testify differently. And here I thought that the taoists were to be found lounging around under knotty trees. Really, I think we're mixing traditions here - I doubt Lao or Chuang were experts at flying kicks and jumping backwards up into trees. > When I sneeze, I enjoy it immensely. Its a nasal orgasm :-) Next time try retaining it and circulating it through your microcosmic orbit :-) > You're sneezing for a reason, and you ought to just let >yourself sneeze, instead of smothering it, or choking it off. Its >awfully cold here in Pittsburgh now, and my body wants to shivver - if >I let it shivver, I shake like a wet dog, and everyone looks at me >funny, but I feel much warmer afterwards. > Does that constitute dealing with it constructively, instead >of treating it as some annoying response to cold? The shivering stops you feeling the cold, and the sneezing clears your nose. But if you have a fever and you shiver, you will only increase your temperature, and if you are hiding and you sneeze, you might be found out. It is only in harmony with your situation, your experience, that you find benefit from your abilities, no matter what skill you have with them. This is why we have in Ch 30 (Henricks): The good [general] acheives his result and that's all; He does not use the occasion to seize strength from it. -- Internet: pete@extro.su.oz.au | Accept Everything. | UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!extro!pete | Reject Nothing. | From: kiesch@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Henry Kieschnick) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Tao of Pooh/Te of Piglet Date: 21 Jan 1994 23:34:43 -0800 Approved: toshi@cco.caltech.edu (Toshi Takeuchi) In article <2hpjcs$150@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, wrote: >In article <2hmvg6$j8l@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, Tyagi@HouseOfKaos.Abyss.com writes: >>In that they seem to separate out 'Taoist philosophy' as so many >> Western writers enjoy and then not mention anything about the religion. > The religion seems to be a sort of side-effect actually. A way of >surviving in the context of rises in Buddhism and Islam in the population of (The Taoist religion grew up in China hundreds of years before the birth of Islam) >China. Also, when other thoughts are introduced to your area, you tend to be >affected by them. Taosim, per se, doesn't seem to have a hell of a lot to >deal with an afterlife, but "heaven" and "hell" are mentioned often enough >in it. Its a rather interesting and difficult to explain relationship that >needs to be seen from the inside to be understood. Just like oddities >of any other religion, this can really only be understood from its own >context. I don't think anyone has come up with an adequate explanation of the relationship between Philosophical Taoism (Lao-tzu, Chuang-tzu) and Religious Taoism. Some suggest that the relationship is similar to that between Aristotle and Christianity. That is, Aristotle was certainly important to Christian theologians, but it would be a mistake to describe Christianity as a _degeneration_ of Aristotle. I remember the first time I encountered a Taoist priest on my first trip to China. Having read the Lao-tzu and the Chuang-tzu, I was confident that I knew what Taoism _really_ was, and was dismayed to hear the priest talk about ghosts and rituals and spells instead of lofty topics like the relativity of values, or the inadequacy of language. At the time I dismissed him as an ignoramus. Only later did I realize just how arrogant, not to mention short-sighted, this was. Like a Japanese student going to a Lutheran church service and criticizing the minister for failing to discuss Aristotle, I missed an opportunity to understand what Taoism means to a living Taoist. I think that is the point that Tyagi was getting at when he pointed out the problems with using the word "Taoist" to describe people who read the Lao-tzu and the Chuang-tzu. >>|Personally though, I think the >>|Chuang Tzu is the best "introduction" to Taoism available, and I find >>|Watson's translation though dubious to be extremely accessible. > > I'm not familiar with that translation, but I do find Chuang-Tzu's >works (ya, I guess I do think of Chunag-Tzu as a single author :) more easily >understood and more insightful than the Tao-Te-Ching. Watson's translation is available in either the complete edition or an abbreviated edition called Basic Works. A.C. Graham's translation is almost complete, though he rearranged the original in a way that made sense to him. What translation of the Chuang-tzu do you use? I like Watson's best. Some scholars think Graham's more accurate, but I find it a little eccentric. > >>|-Chris >>Tyagi Uzt > >Wierd John From: millward@hawaii.edu (Christopher Millward) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Tao of Pooh/Te of Piglet Date: 27 Jan 1994 21:02:44 -0800 Approved: nabil@world.net (Aaron Nabil) First of all, I must say, WOW...I honestly didn't expect such lively reactions to my post. Of course, it is great to see and I suppose I should continue the thread. Tyagi@HouseOfKaos.Abyss.com wrote: : 940120 : Chris quotes me and writes: : |[I characterized Benjamin Hoff's books, _The Tao of Pooh_ and _The Te of : | of Piglet_ as:] : | : |: Taoist Philosophical extremism. : | : |I don't understand...what's so extreme about a mock children's book? : In that they portray the author of _Tao Te Ching_ as an individual. : In that they portray 'Confucianism' and Buddhism in poor lights. : In that they seem to separate out 'Taoist philosophy' as so many : Western writers enjoy and then not mention anything about the religion. : In that particularly the latter book is flagrantly political and does : not really present an example of Taoist thinking as is typical. : In that they only barely skim that which is called 'Taoist Philosophy'. : Enough to warrant my claim? : I have no problem with your statements. As I mentioned later, it has been a while since I read the books so I can't comment directly on their content. Although, as a student of the Chuang Tzu, I may find in retrospect much to disparage in the book, I remember it as a pleasant approach. I see it this way. If it convinces even one person who otherwise may have known nothing about "Taoism" of any type to put it down and seek more understanding of pre-Han philosophy or Taoist religion, then it is a success. I wouldn't expect a book starring a cartoon bear to explain "Taoism" to anybody, but it sure is nice to see a book that even mentions "Taoism" spend many weeks on the NYT bestseller list. It makes those of us who have devoted our lives to this learning feel less like aliens when we mention it to others on the outside. : |I'll admit that the books aren't the most ideal "manual" on Taoist : |philosophy available, but they serve as a nice introduction for those : |who find titles like "Self Preservation and Social Function" (my : |current paper) a bit disheartening. : Please name some 'Taoist philosophers' from the Six Dynasties period. : I ask for this because I find the writings of Michael Strickman on : this point very interesting: : "...what is to become of 'philosophical Taoism'? I earnestly hope that : this term will be allowed to revert to the original restricted usage of : its Chinese model, tao-chia..., as a bibliographic classification. It : seems to me that the two opposing faces of Taoism, philosophical and : religious, which have been posited by modern scholars, in reality : represent two such disparate phenomena that they do not admit of : meaningful comparison. Still less do they invite a factitious union : under a single descriptive term. The classics of 'philosophical : Taoism' are anonymous compilations of the Warring States period; in : later times they were indiscriminately read and quoted by the whole : scholar-official class. Did one become a 'Taoist' by citing the : _Chuang-tze_ in one sentence, and a 'Confucian' by referring to the : _Analects_ in the next? It is to the Warring States and early : empire that 'philosophical Taoism' belongs - in short, to the : prehistory of Taoism.* : [* Author's note: "It is important to note that the term 'tao-shia'..., : after the Han, came to be yet another way of referring to Taoist : priests. This does not, of course, indicate any necessary identity : between pre-Han 'Taoist' speculations and post-Han religious : developments; rather, it suggests that we rely too heavily upon : nominal distinctions, as we conceive them, without taking adequate : account of the real extent of Chinese semantic boundaries as : revealed in centuries of usage. Concerning the terminology : applicable to pre-Han thought, I feel that the _Lao-tzu_ should : simply be referred to as the _Lao-tzu_, and the _Chuang-tzu_ : as the _Chuange-tzu_ - each is clearly the product of a distinct : milieu, and the considerable differences between them have often : be remarked by later Chinese authors; there is no intrinsic : justification for creating a 'Taoism' on the basis of these two : texts. Now that nearly everything has been translated at least : once, surely specialists in pre-Han thought could afford to be : just a bit more precise.] : "Who, for example, can name a 'philosophical Taoist' from the : Six Dynasties period? The unwary may reply with an array of : 'neo-Taoists' of the third and fourth centuries; they should be : referred to E. Zurcher's lucid demonstration of the inaccuracy : of this term and the inanity of its implications. : [Author's note: E. Zurcher, _The Buddhist Conquest of China_, : (Leiden, 1959), p. 87.] The Taoists of medieval China were : men and women who ultimately owed their corporate identity to : the revelation received by Chang Tao-ling, and of these Taoists, : T'ao Hung-ching was one of the most 'philosophical'." : 'On the Alchemy of T'ao Hung-ching', by Michael Strickman, : in _Facets of Taoism_, Ed. by H. Welch/A. Seidel, Yale University, : 1979; pp. 166-7. : _________________________________________________________________ : Also see _Taoist Mysteries and Magic_, by J. Blofeld. While he is : not considered, particularly, to be a scholar in Taoism, he does offer : a very important commentary on the relationship between 'Taoist religion, : philosophy and alchemical/mystical practices'. : Responses from the 'soc.religion.eastern Philosophical Taoists' (Weird?) : regarding any of the above would be appreciated. I have noticed this reaction among many who study "religious Taoism" and it occurs to me that there is really a lot os semantic hair-splitting going on. At its heart, we seem to be dealing with the "ism" question. In Western philosophy, it is necessary to qualify everything as part of some school, which is referred to by the following annotation "(adjective roughly describing a vague notion that may be linked to that particular thinker or thought)ism" Thus when we call someone an objectivist, we are referring to a general category that is supposed to allow us to place that particular person. Although this may seem convenient, it is often misleading, and frequently an incomplete form of reference. What I call "taoism" and what others may want to refer to as "Taoism" may be vastly different. That is one reason why I have never referred to myself as a Taoist. I am one who studies Chinese philosophy and in particular the Chuang Tzu. The whole dispute about what can be rightly called "Taoist" seems to me rather silly. I am very aware of the vastly different traditions which Western writers have lumped under the term "Taoism" It often seems that anything that isn't Confucian or Buddhist (two schools of thought with more concrete origins) is labelled Taoist. And, I do admit that I cringe a bit when people refer to Chuang Tzu as a Taoist, because the person who wrote the inner chapters would almost certainly never referred to himself as such. But, as Chuang Tzu understood, language is a tricky thing and more often a source of confusion and conflict than a tool of naming and clarifying. : |Personally though, I think the : |Chuang Tzu is the best "introduction" to Taoism available, and I find : |Watson's translation though dubious to be extremely accessible. : This is debatable. I won't take the time, presently. Let's debate. I'm not sure if I agree with the first statement since it is clearly in conflict with my thoughts above. But (wait, I made that statement didn't I?). Well I suppose that yet again I contradict myself. Everyone has their own opinion about the "best" book to read or the "best" temple to visit or the "best" master under which to study. But, in the end there is no "Way" there are many "ways" to go. The path does not exist until one travels it. And even then, it loses its bearing and behind it seems obscure. I'm not sure what I am addressing so I suppose I will just ramble. Perhaps I should say that the Chuang Tzu is a good introduction to taoism. But good means as much as big and says more about me and my perspective than it does about the Chuang Tzu. And of course CT isn't taoist. Oh well. I suppose I haven't made for a good debater. : |Either : |way, the trick is not to stop at one book and assume you have the whole : |picture. You never get the whole picture anyway, only your piece. : Taoism cannot be learned from books. I don't recall claiming that taoism "could" be learned from books. I only suggested that one not accept "The Tao of Pooh" as a definitive picture of Taoism. I had hoped that by starting with this accessible though flawed little tome, the original poster might move farther into their own explora- tion of "taoism" Now that I think about it...it occurs to me that "taoism" can not be learned and clung to as "learning" Once you catch the fish, the net is no longer needed. And the wheelwright can not "teach" his apprentice the knack of his trade. Again, we are challenged by the limitations of our own understanding of what "learning" is. I would propose that the ability to "forget" and thus let go of our "learning" is one that is sorely underdeveloped today. I have not tried to "teach" and I don't want anyone to "learn" These are narrow categories that assume that I have some esoteric understanding that is in some way greater than the student's and also of intrinsic worth that makes it imperative to pass on. Sounds like the twittering of baby birds to me. Then again, so does this. : |BTW, : |it's been a while since I read them, but as I recall I found the Tao of : |Pooh a bit less didactic and certainly more entertaining. : Me too. : |-Chris : Tyagi Uzt Oh...the end already. Well, I suppose it is late. It was good talking (I mean typing to you. Hope to hear from you soon. Good evening. -Chris -- @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ I'm not in this world to live up to your expectations @ @ Neither are you here to live up to mine @ @ I don't owe no one no obligations @ @ No one owe me none, so everything is fine @ @ -Peter Mackintosh @ @ @ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ From taoism-l-owner@coombs.anu.edu.au Wed Mar 2 13:28:53 1994 From: amlmille Subject: RE: Rejected by Tao? To: Taoism-L@coombs.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 13:10:59 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1053 I am slightly confused by the dialogue between Franf and Pete. I assume that they are discussing philsophical Taoism when they asssert that the Tao is neither personal nor caring. I am curious to know where Frankf encountered the concept of a personal of caring Tao. He rejects this conception of the Tao based on philosophical Taoism without examining the conception of the Tao in later organized Taoist religion. While the Tao in early Taoism (i.e. Lao-tzu) may have been viewed as a mysterious force, the Tao in later religious contexts was viewed as a personal and caring "deity". This "type" of Tao (which is not only distressed by the suffering of people but can also talk!) can be seen clearly in such texts as the early 5th century Ling-pao texts. If I understand correctly, Frankf is blaming Christianity for turning the Tao into a caring entity. Actually, Buddhism, which emphasized having compassion for others and was an important influence on religious Taoism, is more probably the culprit. Amy Lynn Miller amlmille@ucs.indiana.edu From taoism-l-owner@coombs.anu.edu.au Wed Mar 2 13:29:10 1994 From: virgilio@epas.utoronto.ca (P. Divirgilio) Subject: Re: rejected by Tao? (P.Kelly) To: taoism-l@coombs.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 13:10:17 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 4820 Forwarded message: In reponse to Peter: I tend to agree with the concept as a way rather than as a mentality or thought process. It seems that this is the essence of the sense of absence--not that nothing was there in any substantive way but rather that no thought process was perceptible in Tao and that moreover this absence of a thought process could not be separated from conciousness and yet is not synonymous with what we know as the subconscious. The essence is a sort of fractal repetition of the refusal implied by separation, of the not to the point where in its most minute dimension it is the same as the consciousness observing it, but separate because it is observed. The Christian concept of an anthropomorphic Tao is possibly derived from the state in which Christians found Judaism. The essence of the first words of the bible in Hebrew is an act of respiration--literally God breathed out the world or rather the breath went out and then there is the word, bereshit which is interpreted as in the beginning erroneously. Thus, this first misunderstanding is repeated infinitely until it becomes Christian humanism engulfing an essentially inanimate indifferent God as marked by the divinity's many names. In effect, the names mark the actions or states of mind, the ways, the paths of what in Judaism is called God and we are assured that "God's way is not our way" insinuating the same radical separation of paths as is felt in Tao. In returning to the "bereshit" problem, we understand the loophole that the Christians saw and which allowed them to co-opt Judaism. The word means, in essence, "for the first time again" thus implying that even the beginning was not the beginning but some kind of repetition. Thus when the evangelists, who were obviously quite learned in respect to Judaism and Greek, came to deal with the beginning of Christianity they knew that the bereshit guaranteed that they could make any symbolic substitution they wanted. They substituted: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was was God. 2.The same was in the beginning with God. S. John 1:1-2. The Christians reproduced the bereshit in the repetition of the lines but replaced the breath of God with a human word--perhaps a very human and humanistic word, the Greek logos. The movement of the waves or the act of breathing or of mesons moving between dimensions precludes this substitution because there is no symbolic gap nor metaphor into which the human meaning and emotions can be poured. I, first, recognized this when I was studying the Eight Immortals. Nonetheless, this is the principle of Christian assimilation and co-opting based upon a legitimate cannibalism inherent in the first words of the Bible. No, Tao does not reject you anymore than your breath and you mean no more than that smallest molecule of oxygen to Tao--in effect nothing. Your meaning is nothing and there is, as a result, nothing to reject. Best regards, Paul. > > Franf writes, > > > What would it mean to be jected by the Tao? It would mean that there is > >some illusion that the Tao cares. That is anthropromorphizing Tao. > > I can't imagine the Tao rejecting something any more than I can imagine > the ocean rejecting a wave. However I think that asserting that the Tao > does not reject things is also categorizing the Tao, so all I can really say > about the idea is that it means nothing to me. > > >If enough of this non-sense about the caring Tao continues to "Christianize", > >the Tao will disappear. > > Taoism is a personal philosophy. Apart from losing the pleasure of talking > about Taoism, why worry that the Tao will disappear? > > >All personal beliefs and sensations and speculations about Tao are > >illusions. When these erroneous habits fade out, the Tao is ever present. > > The world derives from the Tao. Whether the world is realized or not > does not bear on the presence or realization of the Tao - it is > ever-present and ever unrealizable. Imho, of course. For my money, > suggestions to the contrary are more zen than Taoism. Others, of > course, will disagree. > > >Call not to Tao for assistance, > >It cares not. > >Care not for Tao, and end the journey..., > >It cares not. > > It's as much a mistake to say that Tao does not care as to say that it does not > reject. Better to say that caring and rejection are abstractions, and Tao is a > mystery, and leave the parsing as an exercise for the reader ... > > >Find the highest mountain peak to see reality, > >Tao remains unmoved. > > > >Franf ( A fake monk ) > > I say that Tao is unknowable, but by all means climb your mountain if you like. > > > Pete. > -- Dr. Paul S. di Virgilio, University of Toronto virgilio@epas.utoronto.ca From taoism-l-owner@coombs.anu.edu.au Wed Mar 2 19:16:33 1994 From: Peter Merel Subject: Re: the mystery To: poohbear@mbs.telesys.utexas.edu (a bear of little brain) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 10:59:05 +1100 (EST) Cc: TAOISM-L@coombs.anu.edu.au (TAOISM-L@coombs.anu.edu.au) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3171 Neal writes, >pete, you both seem to have a soft grasp on the idea behind taoism, and i >normally wouldn't continue an issue of semantics, but this 'mystery' stuff >really gets me. >i think that using the phrase serves a useful purpose in helping people >understand tao is not just some god head and not just wilderness. however, i >think the term, 'mystery,' also implies the inability to understand or come >close to the ideas of taoism. Oh dear, perhaps I've been imprecise. What I was trying to say was not that Taoism is mysterious, but that Tao is unknowable. This seems to me to be quite fundamental to philosophical Taoism; From Henricks' translation of Lao Tse, Chapter 14: [...] Boundless, formless! It cannot be named, And returns to the state of no-thing. [...] Follow it and you won't see its back; Greet it and you won't see its head. >as i'm think y'all will agree, taoism is very simple. infact it's right in >front of you, and behind, and inside, etc... Ah, perhaps this is where the confusion arises. I distinguish between "Taoism", the consideration of one's experience in reference to the Tao, and the Tao itself. The mystery I referred to is the Tao; the philosophy is not so mysterious, though of course there are a lot of folks right here on this list who will not agree on what it entails ... >i think tao is simply Everything existing in an unalterable balance. an >individual can push things around on a small scale, but everything just >balances out to this push. actually, an individual's push is probably just a >reaction to another's push, etc. The Tao certainly cannot be described, but I doubt that it is so static as you imagine. Look at the sea - the sea is only the tiniest expression of Tao, but do you imagine it exists in "an unalterable balance"? >of course we constantly see people get caught up in their own little >pushes. i think the idea behind taoism is simply to enjoy the fluidity of >everything balancing; rolling with the waves; soaring with the wind. getting >caught up in one little piece of everything limits one from experiencing >everything. I agree this far. >to experience everything, one must simply let go of the piece that we are >taught to cling to. I do not see that this follows. We are finite creatures - our worlds are abstract, filtered by our mechanisms to suit our purposes. Neither memory nor sensation can convey Tao to us - it is infinitely deeper and subtler than our experience. Therefore we can only describe it as a mystery - beyond description. >my point being...i think this is very simple and apparent, as opposed to >some of the implications of the word, 'mystery.' On the contrary, I think that this is something that we cannot help but forget. In order to keep it in mind we must constantly kick ourselves into wakefulness, thus: Reveal your naked self and embrace your original nature; Bind your self-interest and control your ambition; Forget your habits and simplify your affairs. -- Internet: pete@extro.su.oz.au | Accept Everything. | UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!extro!pete | Reject Nothing. |