Am I on the right track? Any deeper insights? Let me know what ya'll think. — MrLiminal

I have a strong interest in Taoism as expressed in the works of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. I have never found a philosophy closer to my own understanding of how the world works. If you look at my discussions and posts you'll see that the Tao is never far from my thoughts. That being said, you're asking for a lot. I'm not sure what to offer. Here are a couple of things.

This is a link to dozens of different translations of the Tao Te Ching along with other Taoist texts. When you get deeper into it, reading more than just one version can be very helpful. I like Stephen Mitchell, which is very non-traditional but is good for beginner westerners. To get deeper into a more "authentic" version, I like Gia-Fu Feng and Lin Yutang. There are plenty of other interesting ones.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html

This link goes to a very brief, clear, and insightful summary of Taoist principles from a western point of view.

https://superbowl.substack.com/p/taoism-minus-the-nonsense

And this is to a discussion I started several years ago about my favorite verses from a very personal point of view. I only got up to about verse 25 before people lost interest.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10427/my-favorite-verses-in-the-tao-te-ching/p1

I also recommend Alan Watts "Tao - the Watercourse Way." It's a good simple introduction with some depth.

So, I'd love to discuss this with you, but I don't know where you'd like to start.

Thank you for the resources! I will have to check those out later. I think the biggest thing that appeals to me is, as my name implies, the liminality inherent to the philosophy; the way yin becomes yang and yang becomes yin and both are counterparts of the same process. It informs a lot of my thinking and, tbh, has made it difficult to connect with other people. As a white guy stuck in the Bible Belt, I don't run into a lot of non-dualist explorers of the Way, lol, so it's hard to tell if I'm even understanding it correctly.

I'm not sure if this is Tao related or not, but one of the things I've been thinking about lately is how sand can appear rough or smooth depending on your perspective. If the sand is small enough, it appears smooths, but if you zoom in, it is usually rough and jagged. I feel like that kind of contradictory truth speaks to how I understand the Tao, though maybe I'm off base.

My understanding of the Tao is that we are all a part of a greater whole — MrLiminal

I disagree with that, for mereological reasons as well as metaphysical reasons. I am not a "part", in the mereological and metaphysical sense of the term, of any "whole", in the mereological and metaphysical sense of the term. I am an individual. There is no object in the world of which I am a part of. And if you say that I'm a "part" of the Universe, then I'll just say that the Universe is not a single object, it's instead a plurality of objects that compose no further object. The same goes for equivalent notions, such as Cosmos, Reality, Multiverse, Tao, or what have you.

I disagree with that — Arcane Sandwich

@MrLiminal is talking about what the Tao Te Ching says and his description is a pretty good one. If you want to disagree with a 2,500 year old philosophy which, I assume, you don't understand very much if at all, your opinion is not very useful.

MrLiminal is talking about what the Tao Te Ching says and his description is a pretty good one. — T Clark

It is, I agree.

f you want to disagree with a 2,500 year old philosophy — T Clark

I do, yes.

which, I assume, you don't understand very much if at all — T Clark

Then explain it to me.

your opinion is not very useful. — T Clark

It isn't.

I'm glad that we agree for the most part, @T Clark.

I've been fascinated by both Taoist philosophy and non-dualism generally for quite some time, but it's been difficult to learn about in the West for a variety of reasons. " — MrLiminal

It's because we don't speak the language in which the book in question was written.

"The Tao that can be explained is not the Tao," and all that. — MrLiminal

Wittgenstein 101, basically.

But I'm wondering if anyone else has any knowledge on the topic, as I'm eager to learn more and get other people's takes. — MrLiminal

I don't think anyone has knowledge on the topic of the Tao, and this is by definition: "the Tao that can be explained is not the Tao.". What I would add to this, to qualify my words, is that there is knowledge about the book: the Tao Te Ching.

Thank you for your input, but we are specifically discussing Taoist thought in here. If you don't agree with it to begin with, I'm not sure our discussion will get much of anywhere. I'm not looking to debate it, as I get plenty of people telling me it doesn't make any sense when I try to talk about it irl; I want to learn more about it and discuss it with people who aren't going to dismiss the concepts. I've appreciated our discussions in other threads, but you obviously don't subscribe to Taoist thought, so I'm not sure what you're hoping to add to the conversation.

Thank you for your input, but we are specifically discussing Taoist thought in here. If you don't agree with it to begin with, I'm not sure our discussion will get much of anywhere. I'm not looking to debate it, as I get plenty of people telling me it doesn't make any sense when I try to talk about it irl; I want to learn more about it and discuss it with people who aren't going to dismiss the concepts. I've appreciated our discussions in other threads, but you obviously don't subscribe to Taoist thought, so I'm not sure what you're hoping to add to the conversation. — MrLiminal

Legalism. That's what I'm hopping to add to this specific conversation, about Taoist thought.

Will you allow me that, yes or no?

Am I on the right track? Any deeper insights? Let me know what ya'll think. — MrLiminal

Why don't you pick a verse of the Tao Te Ching you'd like to discuss.

That's what I'm hopping to add to this specific conversation, about Taoist thought. — Arcane Sandwich

He's made it clear what he's interested in. You should back off.

Why don't you pick a verse of the Tao Te Ching you'd like to discuss. — T Clark

I second that motion. Pick a verse from the Tao Te Ching that you'd like to discuss, and let us proceed.

It's neither my place to allow or disallow, I'm just unsure what you're hoping to accomplish when you come into a discussion of Taoism and open with your total non-belief in its principals, and I don't really see how what you've said so far connects to legalism either tbh.



Honestly I think one of the things I'd like to discuss is, if the Tao cannot be explained, why do we have the Tao Te Ching? I'm familiar with the generalities of it, but it does seem deliciously ironic in a very Taoist way. Also, do you have a favorite translation? I read it once forever ago and don't remember which translator I read. Curious how it varies from edition to edition.



I've enjoyed our conversations before, Arcane, but it really seems like you're overstepping your bounds here. We have been very respectful and have not been rude to you, and the topic of this thread is very clear. If you have something related to the topic, feel free to share, but please try to stay on topic and do not accuse others of being rude when we have not been.

please try to stay on topic and do not accuse others of being rude when we have not been. — MrLiminal

But then why do I have to put up with backseat moderation, if that's against the site's rules?

Pick a verse from the Tao Te Ching, and let us proceed. I won't warn the two of you again. I have already flagged several posts in this Thread for the moderation team to consider. @T Clark suggested that, and I agreed with him. By definition, I am not being disruptive, and you two are not moderators, so cut it out with the backseat moderation. Stay on topic, or I'm reporting you both.

@Arcane Sandwich

Arcane, T - please remain civil to each other. @MrLiminal. If any of you wish not to engage with Arcane Sandwich's responses due to considering them off topic, please do so.

Arcane, T - please remain civil to each other. MrLiminal. If any of you wish not to engage with Arcane Sandwich's responses due to considering them off topic, please do so. — fdrake

My apologies, then.

My apologies, then. — Arcane Sandwich

No worries. You didn't do anything against the site rules. No one knows exactly where a thread will go, and we rarely keep things on topic with mod actions.

No worries. You didn't do anything against the site rules. No one knows exactly where a thread will go, and we rarely keep things on topic with mod actions. — fdrake

I was apologizing in general. My apology was, first and foremost, to you as an Administrator. Secondly, it was for @T Clark for being uncivil towards him, and thirdly, it was for @MrLiminal for not entering this thread with the proper etiquette.

Thank you for accepting my apology, @fdrake

For a specific verse, here is one from Wayne Dyer's translation:

“It is through selfless action I will experience my own fulfillment."

As much as I love seemingly contradictory lines like this, this is one I've experienced issues with irl. I've been told I would "Light myself on fire to keep others warm," which seems like it falls within the selfless action, but I have not seen it lead to much fulfillment long term, and have been told repeatedly by people I, essentially, need to be more selfish. How do you see this line working in a practical sense?

Thank you for accepting my apology, fdrake — Arcane Sandwich

:heart:

For a specific verse, here is one from Wayne Dyer's translation:

“It is through selfless action I will experience my own fulfillment." — MrLiminal

I agree with this. It makes philosophical sense. It makes ethical sense. And it makes moral sense.

've been told I would "Light myself on fire to keep others warm," which seems like it falls within the selfless action — MrLiminal

I sincerely, honestly, do not think so. That example, "lighting yourself on fire to keep others warm", does not fall within the selfless action. At least not necessarily so. It depends on each specific case. In some cases, it will fall within the selfless action (i.e., if you give your life to save theirs), and in other cases, it will not (i.e, if you sacrifice yourself to merely amuse them).

I have not seen it lead to much fulfillment long term, and have been told repeatedly by people I, essentially, need to be more selfish. — MrLiminal

Yes, those people are correct, from a purely technical point of view.

How do you see this line working in a practical sense? — MrLiminal

Quite easily. Do for others what others would do for yourself, in such a way that both are benefited by such actions. For example, I have something that you want, and you have something that I want. What I want from you will benefit me, and what you want from me will benefit you. For example, if you play the guitar, and I play the piano, I would want you to teach me some things about the specifics of the guitar as an instrument, and in exchange I would be willing to teach you something about the specifics of the piano as an instrument.

I'm very interested in non-dualism, but I've found the versions derived from Hindu and Buddhist sources rather more intelligible than the Tao, as the Tao is so quintessentially Chinese in character. I studied various Taoist texts in undergrad comparative religion, and they're edifying, illuminating, and, in the case of Chuang Tzu, also often hilarious. I recall a particular translation of a collection of a Taoist physician's notebooks that originating early in the Common Era that had vivid descriptions of day-to-day life in that culture. But I always had the feeling that to really penetrate 'the Way' would take much deeper engagement with Chinese language and culture than I was equipped for. One of the reasons being that there are great differences between English translations of Tao Te Ching, so plainly there must be things, if not lost in translation, being interpolated into it.

As far as 'being part of the larger whole', perhaps that is something that many traditional cultures afforded more so than in today's world, which if fragmented and individualised, and with a powerful undercurrent of nihilism. But I'm sure that if you incorporate Taoist disciplines and ways into your life, then they can become a support for that sense. It is after all an immensely durable cultural form which has existed continuously since the dawn of civlization.

I don't know that "mutually beneficial" is the same as selfless, as it is by definition, beneficial to both parties.

↪MrLiminal
I'm very interested in non-dualism, but I've found the versions derived from Hindu and Buddhist sources rather more intelligible than the Tao, as the Tao is so quintessentially Chinese in character. I studied various Taoist texts in undergrad comparative religion, and they're edifying, illuminating, and, in the case of Chuang Tzu, also often hilarious. I recall a particular translation of a collection of a Taoist physicians notebooks that originating early in the Common Era that had vivid descriptions of day-to-day life in that culture. But I always had the feeling that to really penetrate 'the Way' would take much deeper engagement with Chinese language and culture than I was equipped for. One of the reasons being that there are great differences between English translations of Tao Te Ching, so plainly there must be things, if not lost in translation, being interpolated into it. — Wayfarer

I read it in Spanish first, then years later in English. It's a trip.

As far as 'being part of the larger whole', perhaps that is something that many traditional cultures afforded more so than in today's world, which if fragmented and individualised, and with a powerful undercurrent of nihilism. But I'm sure that if you incorporate Taoist disciplines and ways into your life, then they can become a support for that sense. It is after all an immensely durable cultural form which has existed continuously since the dawn of civlization. — Wayfarer

Could be.

I don't know that "mutually beneficial" is the same as selfless, as it is by definition, beneficial to both parties. — MrLiminal

I mean it as mutualism in the ecological, biological sense of the term. And I mean it in the ethical and moral senses of the term as well.

I'm less familiar with the Hindu sources but I have dabbled in some Buddhist thought as well, though not to any great degree. Can you elaborate on what makes them more accessible? My understanding is that part of the "impenetrableness" of the Tao is a feature and not a bug.

I'm also interested in how some of the older Western schools of thought approached some of the ideas found in Tao and Buddhism, but seem to have different reactions to it. In particular, I remember some aspects of (I think?) Gnosticism and cynicism having some interesting parallels, though they seemed to take it in different directions.

Honestly I think one of the things I'd like to discuss is, if the Tao cannot be explained, why do we have the Tao Te Ching? I'm familiar with the generalities of it, but it does seem deliciously ironic in a very Taoist way. — MrLiminal

You're exactly right, and that's right at the heart of what the Tao means to me. Of course Lao Tzu understands the irony of speaking about what cannot be spoken about. I've always seen it as a kind of a joke. For me, the Tao Te Ching is about pointing with words rather than explaining with them. Lao Tzu is showing us things, not telling us about them. It's the first contradiction in a book full of them. If you've read all the way through the Tao Te Ching, you've seen that there are verses that seem to contradict each other. That gets even stronger when you start looking at more than one translation.

My approach is to take each verse and each translation as a snapshot of something that can't be covered in a single photo. The result is impressionistic. Keep in mind - the Tao Te Ching is not about the words, it's about the experience Lao Tzu is trying to show us.

do you have a favorite translation? — MrLiminal

I started with Stephen Mitchell's translation and I still like it a lot. It's very westernized and you'll hear lots of criticism that it's "inauthentic." Be that as it may, you should definitely look at other translations. For more authentic ones, I like Gia-Fu Feng and Lin Yutang. They're both found on that web page I linked to you, but I like lots of other versions too. Here are a couple of links that provide comparative translations.

https://ttc.tasuki.org/display:Code:gff,sm,jc,rh/section:meta
https://www.bu.edu/religion/files/pdf/Tao_Teh_Ching_Translations.pdf

For a specific verse, here is one from Wayne Dyer's translation:

“It is through selfless action I will experience my own fulfillment." — MrLiminal

This is from Verse 7. Let me think about it for a bit.

I remember some aspects of (I think?) Gnosticism and cynicism having some interesting parallels, though they seemed to take it in different directions. — MrLiminal

You'll find ideas central to the Tao Te Ching in many other philosopher's work. It struck me that Kant's noumena is a very similar concept to the Tao. The idea that there is something fundamental below the level of our conscious awareness is common.

the Tao is so quintessentially Chinese in character. — Wayfarer

I believe you. Can you please explain that to me? Please be charitable to my intellect, I'm not very smart.

I'm less familiar with the Hindu sources but I have dabbled in some Buddhist thought as well, though not to any great degree. Can you elaborate on what makes them more accessible? — MrLiminal

I will say something about my background. I came of age in the 60's, there was an influx of interest in Eastern culture and ideas. I got various popular eastern books about then, notably including Alan Watts. I took it seriously - I believed that there really is such a thing as enlightenment, in the Eastern sense, which is not the same as believing in God, although with some crossover. (Amusing line in a recent streaming series I watched, the female lead tells a young girl she's adopted 'meditation is what you do so you don't have to go to Church'.) I went to University late, as a mature-age student, and designed my curriculum around those pursuits - philosophy, comparative religion and anthropology being central to it (psychology rather less so). I majored in Comparative Religion, which is a fantastic subject in my opinion (and not at all to be confused with 'divinity' or 'biblical studies'.)

At the end of that, I thought that (and I still think that) Buddhism has the best overall product offering, so to speak. I'm not going to launch into a conversion pitch, but I will mention one very impactful book, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, Shunryu Suzuki. It was a published set of Dharma talks by the Japanese Sōtō Zen Roshi (teacher) who founded the San Francisco Zen Centre in the late 1960's. Sōtō Zen in particular is extremely direct and philosophically profound.

As for gnosticism - there's a parallel term in Buddhism, 'Jñāna', which is from the same indo-European root as 'gnosis'. It's always been an element of Buddhist and Hindu teachings. It means 'saving insight' - basically, enlightenment, in that Eastern sense. And though it's something I never have and probably never will attain, I believe there is abundant textual evidence that it is real.

Please be charitable to my intellect, I'm not very smart. — Arcane Sandwich

Pardon me, but I think that's rather disingenuous, considering the erudition you have shown in your (let's see) 190-odd comments since joining the other day. I think you're whip smart. I'm just saying, I find Chinese culture and language remote and incomprehensible from my Anglo upbringing. Whereas Indian languages, notably Sanskrit and Pali (the formal language of early Buddhism) are Indo-european languages. You can trace the connections between ancient Greek, Indian and Persian cultures (did you know the name 'Iran' is a version of 'Aryan'?) And Indian philosophies, notably Mahāyāna Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, have had huge cultural impact on the West since about the mid-19th Century. So overall, I have found the Indian sources (including those filtered through Chinese and Japanese culture, like Zen), more approachable than the Chinese. (It's not like that for everyone. I know a New Zealand guy who learned classical Chinese and wrote a doctorate on Chinese Buddhist texts, in Chinese. I'm in awe of his achievements but I could never emulate that.)

I'm just saying, I find Chinese culture and language remote and incomprehensible from my Anglo upbringing. — Wayfarer

Same. It's unfortunate. Anecdote: I'm thinking about learning Mandarin, but I don't know if I should.

Whereas Indian languages, notably Sanskrit and Pali (the formal language of early Buddhism) are Indo-european languages. — Wayfarer

They're as difficult as Mandarin, I would say. Not that I would know anything about that, though.

You can trace the connections between ancient Greek, Indian and Persian cultures (did you know Iran is a version of 'Aryan'?) — Wayfarer

Yes, everyone knows that, it's no big deal. Honestly. There are more important things to discuss.

And Indian philosophies, notably Mahāyāna Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, have had huge cultural impact on the West since about the mid-19th Century — Wayfarer

Not really. I think Christianism had a far stronger impact in these 2,000 or so years of Christian history.

So overall, I have found the Indian sources (including those filtered through Chinese and Japanese culture, like Zen) — Wayfarer

Same. That is what they are, essentially.

(It's not like that for everyone. I know a New Zealand guy who learned classical Chinese and wrote a doctorate on Chinese Buddhist texts, in Chinese. I'm in awe of his achievements but I could never emulate that.) — Wayfarer

Neither could I. You would have to love the Mandarin language in order to do that, you would need to love Asian culture in general to do that. But I don't think this is a problem that we have as Westerners. It's a problem that we have as Euro-descendants. It's a problem at the level of "continental awareness", or "awareness of the continent that one belongs to." For example, my heritage is entirely European, but I wasn't born in Europe. I've never even been to Europe, not once. Instead, I feel like a South American, because that's literally what I am: a person that was born in the continent of South America, in 1985. And I have joined this Forum because I want someone to tell me, why was I born in South America, and not Africa, or Europe, or Oceania, or Asia, or North America, or Antarctica.

Sorry if that last part was Off Topic. Let's get back to discussing the Tao Te Ching, the Tao, and Taoist thought.

P.S.: Thank you for your answer to my question, @Wayfarer