If it doesn't work for you, that's no surprise. It doesn't work for lots of people. It works for me. — T Clark

Cheers T Clark, it actually does work for me. It and the Bhagavad Gita are two of my favorite texts.

it actually does work for me. It and the Bhagavad Gita are two of my favorite texts. — Janus

Then why were you so argumentative?

Then why were you so argumentative? — T Clark

I was questioning the justification for this interpretation which was being presented as the one true interpretation:
:

"Tao follows what is natural". Therefore, if you wish to follow the Tao itself, do not follow the Tao itself, follow instead what the Tao itself follows: you should follow what is natural, not the Tao itself.

"What is natural" = Nature.

In some other translations, the last line says "Tao follows itself". That, is an entirely different interpretation. — Arcane Sandwich

I wanted to know why the OP was saying that the Dao is not Nature. To my mind I did not receive a satisfactory response, so I continued to question what was offered.

I have argued that the text, being poetical, does not have one true interpretation. The OP took it personally, so I decided to desist. I've no desire to offend anyone, and I always assume that people who post on a philosophy forum are open to having their ideas critiqued, until they show that they are not so open after all.

EDIT: Moliere this might interest you, given our most recent philosophical conversation elsewhere on this Forum. — Arcane Sandwich

I've noticed on this forum if you edit in an "@' that it will not snag the person whose been '@"-ed -- just an fyi.

But I've been reading along (and obviously re-reading along) because I find the topic interesting -- only silent because I don't have anything to say.

It's at that border where sometimes something pops to mind and sometimes I just appreciate that others are talking about it.

I was questioning the justification for this interpretation which was being presented as the one true interpretation: — Janus

I misunderstood. I thought you were trying to call into question the entire approach of the Tao Te Ching, which would have been outside the scope of the discussion as described in the OP.

:up:

I was questioning the justification for this interpretation which was being presented as the one true interpretation:
:

"Tao follows what is natural". Therefore, if you wish to follow the Tao itself, do not follow the Tao itself, follow instead what the Tao itself follows: you should follow what is natural, not the Tao itself.

"What is natural" = Nature.

In some other translations, the last line says "Tao follows itself". That, is an entirely different interpretation. — Arcane Sandwich


I wanted to know why the OP was saying that the Dao is not Nature. To my mind I did not receive a satisfactory response, so I continued to question what was offered. — Janus

Your response was in the OP itself:

Tao follows what is natural. — Lao Tzu (Laozi)

I've said my piece about that, several times. So, there are only two explanations here: either you still fail to understand that this is the topic that the Thread is investigating in a collaborative manner, or you are simply trolling.

I have argued that the text, being poetical, does not have one true interpretation. — Janus

You did not argue anything, you simply blurted out an opinion and wrongly assumed what my own thoughts about it are. You offered no argument whatsoever.

The OP took it personally, so I decided to desist. — Janus

The author of the Original Post, as in, myself, did not take anything personally. Again, stop assuming and stop making accusations, you uncivilized, uneducated barbarian.

I've no desire to offend anyone, and I always assume that people who post on a philosophy forum are open to having their ideas critique — Janus

Does a soccer player get kicked out of the game for receiving a warning in the form of a yellow card? No, he does not. Have I prohibited you from critiquing my ideas? No, I have not. Again, stop assuming and stop making accusations, you rude, uncivilized, uneducated barbarian.

until they show that they are not so open after all. — Janus

Again, have I prohibited you from critiquing my ideas? No, I have not. Again, stop assuming and stop making accusations, you rude, uncivilized, uneducated barbarian.

I have reported your comment, and this is the second warning from me that you're getting. If you keep up your disruptive behavior, the moderation team will have to step in. Drop the attitude or get kicked out of the Thread. Let a thousand flowers bloom and may your head roll if you dare to cut a single one. Plant one, cut one, or simply watch them grow. Your choice.

you rude, uncivilized, uneducated barbarian. — Arcane Sandwich

This ad hominem shows you are obviously taking it personally. Others, with more balanced views have said they did not see me being disruptive but merely questioning. I have carefully read your responses, and they did not satisfy me at all. I still don't know why you want to separate Dao from Nature.

Call the mods in: I am confident they will not see my questions as disruptive. The disposition of one who finds reasonable critical questions disruptive rather than acknowledging them as being simply disagreements is more that of the proselytizer than the philosopher in my view.

Anyway, I have no desire to offend, so I won't bother you again.

Anyway, I have no desire to offend, so I won't bother you again. — Janus

You're not offending me personally, you're disrupting the Thread. This isn't my Thread, it's a public Thread, and you're doing a disservice to it by trying to see if I personally tolerate your lack of etiquette. It seems like you don't understand the rules of etiquette when discussing the Tao Te Ching. This isn't the coffee shop, and it's not the book reading club either. This particular topic has its own subset of specific rules, in addition to the general rules that any topic of conversation has.

Call the mods in: I am confident they will not see my questions as disruptive. The disposition of one who find reasonable critical questions disruptive rather than acknowledging them as being simply disagreements is more that of the proselytizer than the philosopher in my view. — Janus

And your view is mistaken. Your questions are not disruptive: your attitude is the disruptive element here.

you rude, uncivilized, uneducated barbarian. — Arcane Sandwich


This ad hominem shows you are obviously taking it personally. — Janus

It's not an ad hominem, it's a description of your character. It would be ad hominem if I said that your views are mistaken because of your personal characteristics. But since I've said no such thing, it does not qualify as an ad hominem. Go educate yourself on what an ad hominem is, before incorrectly using that term.

Others, with more balanced views have said they did not see me being disruptive but merely questioning. — Janus

Good for them. I have no obligation to share their views, just as you are under no obligation to share mine. You are still here after all, aren't you?

I have carefully read your responses, and they did not satisfy me at all. — Janus

Here's what you're saying: "I'm not satisfied. Satisfy me."
Newsflash: I'm under no obligation to satisfy you.

I still don't know why you want to separate Dao from Nature. — Janus

Again:

Tao follows what is natural. — Lao Tzu (Laozi)

And your view is mistaken. Your questions are not disruptive: your attitude is the disruptive element here. — Arcane Sandwich

You know only my questions, you don't know my attitude. and it is presumptuous of you to think you do.

It's not an ad hominem, it's a description of your character. It would be ad hominem if I said that your views are mistaken because of your personal characteristics. — Arcane Sandwich

It is an ad hominem because instead of addressing my arguments on their own terms you presume to know my character and dismiss what I say on account of that, which is of course absurd. Did you really think my views were not mistaken?

Here's what you're saying: "I'm not satisfied. Satisfy me."
Newsflash: I'm under no obligation to satisfy you. — Arcane Sandwich

Of course you're not obligated. I had no intention of disrupting the thread, and even if I had you had no obligation to respond at all. you could have just ignored my posts. That's what I would do if I thought someone was being intentionally disruptive. I had thought that you might be interested in alternative views and in presenting actual justifications for your own views, but apparently not.

Anyway. I have no interest in attempting to engage with you further.

You know only my questions, you don't know my attitude. and it is presumptuous of you to think you do. — Janus

False. Your attitude is observable in the way that you choose to express yourself and communicate yourself in your written text. Lawyers and judges have no problem identifying the intentions of a person in a written communication of theirs. Nor, for that matter, ordinary people like you and me. So, stop lying.

It is an ad hominem because instead of addressing my arguments on their own terms — Janus

False. I already addressed your arguments on your own terms, many times.

you presume to know my character and dismiss what I say on account of that — Janus

False. I actually know what your character has been throughout this conversation, in the same sense that a Lawyer could, and in the same sense that any ordinary person can.

which is of course absurd. — Janus

False. It would be, if such was the case, but such is not the case, as I have already explained in my previous post. You don't understand the concept of what an ad hominem fallacy is. It's not identical to "just an insult". It is instead a type of fallacious reasoning. It requires at least two premises, and a conclusion that is deductively obtained. Ad hominems are not fallacious in account of their logical form, since they are indeed deductively valid arguments. That is why they are informal fallacies. It is their unsoundness that makes them fallacious. There you go, a free class on what an ad hominem fallacy is. Do you really think that this is the best use of my time, and of the Thread's attention? You could have learned this all by yourself.

Did you really think my views were not mistaken? — Janus

Your views are mistaken. If you disagree, explain why you disagree. Simple as that. Or, just tuck tail and run away. Or are you going to say that saying such a common saying is also a fallacy on my part?

I had no intention of disrupting the thread, — Janus

But you did it anyways. The fact that you're having this conversation with me is disruptive to the Thread. And you're dragging me into that Chaos as well. Because now I'm disrupting the Thread just as much as you are, and I take exception to that. This is not how a noble book such as the Tao Te Ching deserves to be spoken about. Do you even understand this basic concept, yes or no?

you had no obligation to respond at all. you could have just ignored my posts. — Janus

I have no obligation to remain silent either, especially in a Thread that I started, even though it's a public Thread, about a topic that I am passionate about. I tolerated you enough during the first messages of our exchange, but you keep doubling-down on your mistaken opinions.

That's what I would do — Janus

You do you, and let me do me.

if I thought someone was being intentionally disruptive. — Janus

I don't care if it was intentional or not. You're the one that said that I can't know your intentions, aren't you?

I had thought that you might be interested in alternative views — Janus

Yes, I am. That is why I started a Thread about it in the first place. Why do I have to explain such basic things to you? Do you not know these things already?

and in presenting actual justifications for your own views — Janus

If you don't like my justifications (i.e. "actual"), then explain what's wrong about them, instead of disrupting the Thread.

but apparently not. — Janus

Oh, so you know the inner workings of my mind, but I don't know the inner workings of yours? Is that it? I can't know your character or your attitude, but you somehow can know my character and my attitude? Do you see how senseless and mistaken your opinion is, on this specific point?

Anyway. I have no interest in attempting to engage with you further. — Janus

Then why are you doing it? Engage or don't engage, I don't care. If you want to talk about the Tao Te Ching here, you are welcome to do so. If you want to argue with me over the rules of this conversation, then I will ask that you relate that to the Tao Te Ching in some way. Otherwise, I'll just keep pointing out the fact that your interventions just keep impoverishing the quality of this Thread, and what's worse is that you've turned me into your accomplice in that sense.

I have no desire to engage further but if you insist on misrepresenting me then I feel compelled to correct you.

False. Your attitude is observable in the way that you choose to express yourself and communicate yourself in your written text. — Arcane Sandwich

False. I actually know what your character has been throughout this conversation, in the same sense that a Lawyer could, and in the same sense that any ordinary person can. — Arcane Sandwich

And your interpretations are infallible? I guess not since my attitude was never one of wishing to disrupt the thread. And the fact that others disagree with you about my attitude shows your idea of an "observable attitude" to be false.

False. I already addressed your arguments on your own terms, many times. — Arcane Sandwich

You may believe that. It is not the way I see it. Call in the mods and let's see what they think.

Your views are mistaken. If you disagree, explain why you disagree. Simple as that. — Arcane Sandwich

What views are you referring to and why do you think they are mistaken. Answer that, and if I think you are right, I will change my views and if I disagree, I will defend the views in question.

But you did it anyways. The fact that you're having this conversation with me is disruptive to the Thread. — Arcane Sandwich

I am merely defending myself against your personal attacks. You are disrupting your own thread.

This is not how a noble book such as the Tao Te Ching deserves to be spoken about. Do you even understand this basic concept, yes or no? — Arcane Sandwich

I love the Tao Te Ching, and I have said nothing against it. I have merely questioned assertions you have made about its correct interpretation and asked you to explain them, which, as I see it, you are yet to do. I question the very idea of a correct interpretation.

but apparently not.
— Janus

Oh, so you know the inner workings of my mind, but I don't know the inner workings of yours? — Arcane Sandwich

I'm not claiming to know that. I only know how it appears to me—hence "apparently". Perhaps you should learn to read more carefully.

Otherwise, I'll just keep pointing out the fact that your interventions just keep impoverishing the quality of this Thread, and what's worse is that you've turned me into your accomplice in that sense. — Arcane Sandwich

If my "interventions" that is questions have impoverished the thread, then how much more have your ad hominem attacks on me done so?

Shall we leave it here? Or if you want to answer my questions about precisely which views of mine are mistaken and why you think they are we could resume a civil discussion. It's your call.

I have no desire to engage further — Janus

Then why do you keep doing it?

if you insist on misrepresenting me then I feel compelled to correct you. — Janus

Then why do you need to state that you have no desire to engage further?

And your interpretations are infallible? — Janus

I don't know. Are they? You tell me.

I guess not — Janus

"Guessing" is not a valid methodological element of any philosophy worth it's salt.

my attitude was never one of wishing to disrupt the thread. — Janus

Who cares what you wished or didn't wish? Right now, you and me are both disrupting it, because we're detracting from the Main Topic, which is Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching.

the fact that others disagree with you about my attitude shows your idea of an "observable attitude" to be false. — Janus

So you just state that as a sound methodological thesis? Seems a bit flimsy to me. Is your observation or experiment repeatable? Do social scientists use that concept in their actual scientific work? Or do you just freestyle it in the sociology department?

You may believe that. It is not the way I see it. Call in the mods and let's see what they think. — Janus

I don't need to follow your orders. I will call in the mods when, and if, I see fit to do such a thing.

What views are you referring to and why do you think they are mistaken. Answer that, and if I think you are right, I will change my views and if I disagree, I will defend the views in question. — Janus

I'll let you choose. Pick some view of yours, and I will explain to you why that view in particular is mistaken. Or, like I said, just tuck tail and run away.

I am merely defending myself against your personal attacks. — Janus

And I am merely defending the Quality of this Thread against your qualitatively impoverishing comments.

You are disrupting your own thread. — Janus

Gee, I wonder who should take the blame here? Any ideas, Doc?

I love the Tao Te Ching, and I have said nothing against it. I have merely questioned assertions you have made about its correct interpretation and asked you to explain them, which, as I see it, you have to do. I question the very idea of a correct interpretation. — Janus

And I do not, for there is indeed such a thing as the correct interpretation of a written text.

I'm not claiming to know that. I only know how it appears to me—hence "apparently". Perhaps you should learn to read more carefully. — Janus

Perhaps you should learn how not to derail a public Thread, to say nothing of also learning how to get a public Thread back on track.

If my "interventions" that is questions have impoverished the thread, then how much more have your ad hominem attacks on me done so? — Janus

I explained to you why the statement "ad hominem = insult" is false. An ad hominem is not identical to an insult. An insult is just a statement. An ad hominem is a series of statements. The fact that I have to explain something so basic to you is an example of the consequences that your disruptive behavior brings to this Thread.

Shall we leave it here? — Janus

Do you whatever you want. I'm not going to "shut up", if that's what you're implying. If you say something, then I will probably say something back. Simple as that.

Or if you want to answer my questions about precisely which views of mine are mistaken and why you think they are we could resume a civil discussion. It's your call. — Janus

See above. Pick a view of yours that you believe that I disagree with, and I will explain to you why your view is mistaken. And relate it to the Tao Te Ching in some way, specifically to Chapter 25.

Otherwise, yeah, you're just impoverishing the quality of this conversation, which happens to be about a noble book that deserves better.

(Edited for quality)

:roll:

Arcane Sandwich :roll: — Janus

That is another example and instance of a qualitatively impoverishing comment. Emojis impoverish the quality of any serious conversation. And the Tao Te Ching deserves better. It demands seriousness.

As the author of the Original Post (OP) of this public Thread, I have the authority to put this Thread back on track. And that is exactly what will happen now.

However, we are so, sooo far away from the Main Topic (Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching), that first and foremost, some ambience is required to get back to the Main Topic.

Therefore, I share the following song with the intention (I intend it as such) of getting back to Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching:



And here are the lyrics to that:

From out of static time has grown
Existence formed by substance unknown
Prelude to matter, shift of disorder
Completion of bonds between chaos and order

The era of seasons, the essence of being
The continuous process awakens the living
Absorber of every flickering sun
Arranging the pieces to vivid perfection

The stream of mortality flows uncontrolled
A boundless downward spiral to prospective void

Existence takes its toll,
extinction unfolds

The Colossus falls back from its threshold

The cosmic grip so tight. Heed the celestial call
The rise, the voyage, the fall- tangled womb of mortal soil

Universal key of inception, pulled out of the grind
The growing seed of creation and time
Complex fusion, the bond of four- the nature's core
Universal ritual, aesthetic beauty adored
The pendulum upholds the carnal deceit
Eternal, endless, indefinite

The paradox, render and the merge is complete

Nothing but the process is infinite
Nothing but the process is infinite
Eternal, endless, indefinite — Borknagar

@Wayfarer, is it too much of a stretch of the imagination to relate the lyrics of this song, to the first part of Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching?

Eternal, endless, indefinite — Borknagar

And what does that "look like", from an Anthropological Point of View? It looks more or less like the following:



EDIT:

Armored horses,
gloves of steel.

Silver blades,
time to reveal.

We're the tyrants
that guard the land
Proud upon our gilded thrones.

Servants of the great ancestors
Who guarded the gates to infinity.

Once kings of shadows
on these blackened fields.

All the might and domination ruled the realms of the above

Inconquerable walls.
Weapons of might.

Splendor and nobility.
Barbaric times.

We're the tyrants
that guard the land
Proud upon our gilded thrones.

Kings remain
at their thrones.
Immortal and invincible, the mighty live on.

Armies hoovered across the land, here roll the Rivers of Red, beyond that has no man been.

Moments of time roll
Deep within the mind
Thoughts roam free and endless
Remembering the tyrant's time.

We're the tyrants. — Immortal

Let's try the following, simply as a working hypothesis:

Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and Earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion. — Lao Tzu (Laozi)

From out of static time has grown
Existence formed by substance unknown
Prelude to matter, shift of disorder
Completion of bonds between chaos and order — Borknagar

Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
I do not know its name
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it great. — Lao Tzu (Laozi)

The era of seasons, the essence of being
The continuous process awakens the living
Absorber of every flickering sun
Arranging the pieces to vivid perfection — Borknagar

Being great, it flows
It flows far away.
Having gone far, it returns. — Lao Tzu (Laozi)

The stream of mortality flows uncontrolled
A boundless downward spiral to prospective void

Existence takes its toll,
extinction unfolds

The Colossus falls back from its threshold — Borknagar

Therefore, "Tao is great;
Heaven is great;
Earth is great;
The king is also great."
These are the four great powers of the universe,
And the king is one of them. — Lao Tzu (Laozi)

The cosmic grip so tight. Heed the celestial call
The rise, the voyage, the fall- tangled womb of mortal soil

Universal key of inception, pulled out of the grind
The growing seed of creation and time
Complex fusion, the bond of four- the nature's core
Universal ritual, aesthetic beauty adored
The pendulum upholds the carnal deceit
Eternal, endless, indefinite

The paradox, render and the merge is complete — Borknagar

Man follows Earth.
Earth follows heaven.
Heaven follows the Tao.
Tao follows what is natural. — Lao Tzu (Laozi)

is it too much of a stretch of the imagination to relate the lyrics of this song, to the first part of Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching? — Arcane Sandwich

I don’t really go in for such comparisons. I will sometimes post graphics or videos to make a point, but rarely, and usually when their direct.

I don’t really go in for such comparisons. I will sometimes post graphics or videos to make a point, but rarely, and usually when their direct. — Wayfarer

Thank you very much, Wayfarer.

That’s OK! I appreciate your courtesy.

If everything that can be said misses the mark then there is no point discussing it. On the other hand how could you know if the mark has been missed if you don't know what it is? — Janus

The "mark" is the "problem." The mark is not a place, or a fact, or a destination. You're already the mark. If the mark is the hand pointing, of course it's missing the mark when it points [away]. Then why point? Because with all of our pointing; not just wisdom like so-called Taoism; but calling a certain fruit an apple, proposing that e=mc², etc etc, we've succeeded at something spectacular and functional, and thereby forgotten that the hand pointing is the mark. At least, the wisdom like taoism and phenomenology, etc etc, is attempting to remember that the hand pointing has been and will continue to be the mark. But because we are so attached to the [language of] the pointing, and forgotten that the hand pointing is the mark, pointing is the only thing we've got. How could you know? That's the problem. You can't know the hand pointing at the mark, knowing is pointing. You must be the hand pointing at the mark. Then both pointing and mark finally fall away.

OK, so the translations contradict one another. How do you know which is correct, or considering what I said just above, how can there be a correct and incorrect at all? — Janus

I have argued that the text, being poetical, does not have one true interpretation — Janus

Yes. There are many translations and interpretations. Different approaches and readings.
From: https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html

***

I'm currently working on the Jane English updated version but still keep others in mind.

Downloadable with photographs and script.
2011 Edition - with over 100 photos

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html — Amity

***

Twenty-five

The human being follows the earth.
Earth follows heaven.
Heaven follows the Tao.
Tao follows what is natural. — Jane English

It's interesting to consider what is meant by 'follow'. Some see this as a hierarchy. With the Tao at the top. For example:

Humanity, Earth, Heaven, and the Tao are called the four great powers. There is clearly a hierarchy with the Tao at the top. — T Clark

I see this as one depiction of the hierarchy of steps between the Tao and the king or humankind. — T Clark

Here, there seems to be a separation between vertical levels. 'Low' humans, portrayed as basic, climbing upwards to reach the Taoist Way. Perhaps, an eternal return. I like to think that humans form part of Nature's cycle. We 'follow' as in accompany. So, the form or structure is more of a circle than a ladder.

As humans we are part of nature, we can honour it, or not. We can listen to music, hear the birdsong or that created by humans. For whatever reason. We follow, or flow with, the circle of life and its seasons. The 'power' element variable. Being or doing 'great' is wide-ranging. In a colourful and creative spectrum.

The Jane English version:

Therefore, “Tao is great;
Heaven is great;
Earth is great;
The human being is also great.”
These are the four great powers of the universe,
And the human being is one of them.

***

To return to the circle. As depicted in the Yin-Yang symbol:

Here is the Tao that can be told, and it shows the eternal Tao (the Tao that cannot be told) — Arcane Sandwich

[The Yin-Yang symbol is inserted ]

***
Further information:

Taoist Cosmology. How do Yin and Yang relate to qi (chi), the Tao, and the Five Elements? This is Taoism's story of the creation and maintenance and continuous transformation of the universe.

Taoist practitioners enter into a "path of return"—a movement from the myriad things of the world back into wuji. The Immortals, or those who have entered the Tao, are those who have completed this "path of return."

Yin Qi and Yang Qi give birth to the Five Elements, whose various combinations produce the Ten-Thousand-Things.

The operation of the Five Elements can be seen within the human body, within an ecosystem, or within any other living system. When the elements of a system are in balance, the cycles of generation and control function to both nourish and contain one another. When the elements are out of balance, they "overact" on and/or "insult" one another. — Learn Religions - 8 important Taoist Visual Symbols

From Jane English:

Yin-Yang and The Ten Thousand Things

The traditional yin-yang (feminine/dark-masculine/light) symbol below shows a bit of yin in yang and of yang in yin. A phrase that appears often in Tao Te Ching is “the ten-thousand things,” as in this excerpt from that book:

Tao begot one
One begot two
Two begot three
And three begot the ten-thousand things.
The ten-thousand things carry yin and embrace yang
They achieve harmony by combining these forces
— Tao Te Ching, Chapter 42

This image below, Yin, Yang and the Ten-Thousand Things, came to me in meditation around 1988. It shows yin-yang opening up and bringing forth their rainbow children, all of creation, the “ten-thousand things.”

[Image]

Expanding on that traditional symbol and rather than seeing yin and yang as opposites, we can realize a co-creative balance of masculine yang and feminine yin in our lives, so that their children, the rainbow of our creativity, the ten-thousand things, can be born.

Tao may be found not only in the undivided ground of being, nor solely in the polarity of yin and yang, dark and light, dynamic and receptive, but also everywhere in the full rainbow spectrum of the ten-thousand things: all the myriad ways the un-nameable whole is divided into discrete beings.
—from page 16 in the book A Rainbow of Tao — Tao - Earth Heart Blog - Jane English

***

Anyway. I have no interest in attempting to engage with you further. — Janus

I hope you can continue to engage with the text. Even if you just read along...
I've returned to the TTC, after a prolonged break. Sometimes, we need that. :sparkle:

However, we are so, sooo far away from the Main Topic (Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching), that first and foremost, some ambience is required to get back to the Main Topic.

Therefore, I share the following song with the intention (I intend it as such) of getting back to Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching: — Arcane Sandwich

Nothing quite like a bit of ambience. I hope you don't mind but I'd like to share the harmony of singer/musicians playing tribute to George Harrison and 'All Things Must Pass':


“All Things Must Pass,” the title song of George Harrison’s 1970 triple album, was inspired by Timothy Leary’s poem All Things Pass, an adaptation of the Tao Te Ching. The Beatles rehearsed the song in January 1969 but did not include it on the Let It Be album. Billy Preston was the first to release the song, as “All Things (Must) Pass,” in 1970.

All Things Pass
by Timothy Leary

All things pass
A sunrise does not last all morning
All things pass
A cloudburst does not last all day
All things pass
Nor a sunset all night
All things pass
What always changes?

Earth . . . sky . . . thunder . . .
mountain . . . water . . .
wind . . . fire . . . lake . . .

These change
And if these do not last

Do man's visions last?
Do man's illusions?

Take things as they come

All things pass


Translation:
Language: English
Author of original: Lao Tzu — All Things Pass - Timothy Leary

https://www.poemhunter.com/lao-tzu-2/

Twenty-five

Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and Earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
I do not know its name
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it great. — Lao Tzu (Laozi)

I need to revise what is meant by the Tao as it corresponds to Nature, related to humanity.
Turning to wiki:

The Tao or Dao[note 1] is the natural way of the universe, primarily as conceived in East Asian philosophy and religion. This seeing of life cannot be grasped as a concept. Rather, it is seen through actual living experience of one's everyday being.

Theconcept is represented by the Chinese character 道, which has meanings including 'way', 'path', 'road', and sometimes 'doctrine' or 'principle'.[1]

In the Tao Te Ching, the ancient philosopher Laozi explains that the Tao is not a name for a thing, but the underlying natural order of the universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe because it is non-conceptual yet evident in one's being of aliveness.
The Tao is "eternally nameless" and should be distinguished from the countless named things that are considered to be its manifestations, the reality of life before its descriptions of it.

The word "Tao" has a variety of meanings in both the ancient and modern Chinese language. Aside from its purely prosaic use meaning road, channel, path, principle, or similar,[2] the word has acquired a variety of differing and often confusing metaphorical, philosophical, and religious uses.

In most belief systems, the word is used symbolically in its sense of "way" as the right or proper way of existence, or in the context of ongoing practices of attainment or of the full coming into being, or the state of enlightenment or spiritual perfection that is the outcome of such practices. — Wiki - Tao

So, how we read and interpret words in a passage is important. Engaging with others who have different beliefs or perspectives is important. Reaching agreement in everything is not possible or probably not even desirable. What matters is how we engage. To show respect and not to be dismissive. To reach the best kind of understanding possible.

***

To return to the beginning:

Tao as the 'natural way of the universe'. Is it? What is the universe?
How amazing, and terrifying, is our progress. Zooming out:

The universe is everything. It includes all of space, and all the matter and energy that space contains. It even includes time itself and, of course, it includes you. — Nasa Science - What is the Universe?

If it doesn't work for you, that's no surprise. It doesn't work for lots of people. It works for me.
— T Clark

Cheers T Clark, it actually does work for me. It and the Bhagavad Gita are two of my favorite texts. — Janus

I'm curious. How does it 'work' for you? From what perspective or belief? How meaningful is it in your everyday experience? The actual practice of Taoism or reading/interpreting the TTC?

I hope you don't mind — Amity

I do not. Your contributions to this thread are substantive and greatly appreciated.

I do not. Your contributions to this thread are substantive and greatly appreciated. — Arcane Sandwich

I'm glad to be part of a worthwhile discussion. Your OP motivated me to take another look at the TTC.

I hadn't come across the translation by Gia-Fu Feng (馮家福 Feng Jia-fu, 1919–1985) and Jane English (1942–) Vintage Books, 1989.

Thank you for the introduction. It's wonderful. I'm curious. Why choose that one? Out of so many.

Here, there seems to be a separation between vertical levels. 'Low' humans, portrayed as basic, climbing upwards to reach the Taoist Way. Perhaps, an eternal return. I like to think that humans form part of Nature's cycle. We 'follow' as in accompany. So, the form or structure is more of a circle than a ladder. — Amity

This is a good description, although I don't think Lao Tzu saw humanity as a lower level - maybe just more complicated. The Tao Is absolute simplicity or, actually, what comes before absolute simplicity. This is Gia-Fu Feng's translation of Verse 1.

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery. — Tao Te Ching, Verse 1

I think this shows respect for both the Tao and the 10,000 things, which represent the multiplicity of distinctions in our everyday world. Humanity is one of the 10,000 things.

Why choose that one? Out of so many. — Amity

The Jane English version is "more ancient", more "ancestral" in its expressions. Compare it to Stephen Mitchell's translation, regarding the 10.000 things:

Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things. — Lao Tzu (Laozi)

Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe. — Translated by Stephen Mitchell, 1988

The Jane English version is objectively superior to Stephen Mitchell's version. I am aware that I said something controversial in the previous sentence. Such are the intellectual luxuries that the Tao Te Ching affords. You will not be able to speak like this in your ordinary life. This is Chinese Philosophy. It is entirely different from Western Philosophy. The only people that understood this point were Hegel and Schopenhauer. Just them. No one else in the West is in that club, at least not during the 19th Century. Today, matters are different. Today, many of us are in "that club".