Tao Te Ching, or Dao De Jing

I thought i'd open up a discussion for it.

Any particular favorite parts?


I find it to be a very thought provoking text, and it contains many truths... Though, I find some of it to be a bit impractical. Much of the text almost seems to be beckoning people to stop learning, and live a monastic life. Perhaps for the few, this is good, but for others it is a bit impractical. However I think if people, ESPECIALLY political leaders, would be a better place.

If nothing else, I think it is a thought provoking read. Though I have not finished its entirety yet, I studied a condensed version in college and decided to purchase a full text which I received in the mail.

Perhaps, it does not necessarily mean to force readers into a monastic life of not possessing things or learning much, but learning to let go of things and be objective when things seem to be out of control.

Any Daoists on this board? Buddhists who have studied Daoist Texts?

I'm still reading it as well and have allowed the "current" to take me.

I also have Zhaugnzi and have read portions of it.

I am intrigued by the Taoist conception of memory.

I have often quoted the 38th:

Superior virtue is unvirtue. Therefore it has virtue. Inferior virtue never loses sight of virtue. Therefore it has no virtue.

I copied this from an online text, I prefer my translation, which I will post later.

Here is a Vaisnava who is deeply rooted in Buddhism and also has studied a bit of Daoism. I've only read a couple books, such as Daoist Body Cultivation, which I found remarkable and some ideas similar to philosophers such as Sri Aurobindo and Alan Watts. One idea in that book was a process of subtlising one's energy and form; similar to purifying one's existence in Hinduism. The end result of this was to go to live with the gods at the end of this life. :)

I've also read the Tao Te Ching and also find it is very deep, thought-provoking, and enlightening. One of my favourite parts is about the Tao being the source of infinite worlds, and also when Laozi mentions being one with the universe. I find it interestingly paralleled in Black Elk and Swami Vivekananda, as well as Alan Watts, etc., many others. I've also had such experiences, and I believe it is a truth that we are one with the universe.

Anyway I thank you very much for creating this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Here is a Vaisnava who is deeply rooted in Buddhism and also has studied a bit of Daoism. I've only read a couple books, such as Daoist Body Cultivation, which I found remarkable and some ideas similar to philosophers such as Sri Aurobindo and Alan Watts. One idea in that book was a process of subtlising one's energy and form; similar to purifying one's existence in Hinduism. The end result of this was to go to live with the gods at the end of this life. :)

I've also read the Tao Te Ching and also find it is very deep, thought-provoking, and enlightening. One of my favorite parts is about the Tao being the source of infinite worlds, and also when Laozi mentions being one with the universe. I find it interestingly paralleled in Black Elk and Swami Vivekananda, as well as Alan Watts, etc., many others. I've also had such experiences, and I believe it is a truth that we are one with the universe.

Anyway I thank you very much for creating this thread.

---

Hello, I have seen you posting before, your posts usually are an interesting read.

What strikes me, is the subtle similarities to some of the philosophers, such as and especially Nietzsche, it has. Not exactly of course, but there are some points of similarity. Largely because, Nietzsche was influenced by Schopenhauer who was known as the "Buddha of Frankfurt" ; Nietzsche praised Buddhism ; "Buddhism is a hundred times more realistic than Christianity: posing problems objectively and coolly is part of its inheritance, for Buddhism comes after a philosophic movement which spanned centuries. ....it no longer says "struggle against sin" but, duly respectful of reality, "struggle against suffering."

I know I quote Herr Nietzsche a lot, but his philosophy has been a profound influence on my ever changing and adapting outlook on life.

Two of my favorite parts of the Tao Te Ching (Stephen Mitchell adaptation)

Poem 57
"If you want to be a great leader
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts
and the world will govern itself

The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self reliant people will be.

Therefore the master says:
I let go of the law
and people become honest
I let go of economics
and people become prosperous
I let go of religion
and people become serene
I let go of all desire for the common good
and the good becomes common as grass.

Poem 58
If a Country is governed with tolerance
The people are comfortable and honest
If a country is governed with repression,
the people are depressed and crafty.

When the will to power is in charge;
the higher the ideals, the lower the results.
Try to make people happy,
and you lay the groundwork for misery.
Try to make a people moral,
and you lay the groundwork for vice.

Thus the master is content
to serve as an example
and not to impose her will.
She is pointed, but does'nt pierce.
Straightforward, but supple.
Radiant, but easy on the eyes.

Poem 60

Governing a large country is like frying a small fish. You spoil it with too much poking. Center your country in the Tao, and evil will have no power. Not that it isn't there, but you''ll be able to step out of its way. Give evil nothing to oppose, and it will dissipate by itself.

How do you think these poems apply to modern American politics?I believe this poem to be critical of big government, the government should stay out of peoples lives and let things be. What do you think? Do you believe a government meddling in people's moral and financial affairs is good or bad? Remember, respect others. I do not intend this to become a debate, merely your interpretation of the poem. Much of this book seems to be a critic of large government and a handbook for leaders. Would the world not be a tenfold better, if the politicians practiced the Daoist concepts in their policy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NickAdams

I'm still reading it as well and have allowed the "current" to take me.

I also have Zhaugnzi and have read portions of it.

I am intrigued by the Taoist conception of memory.

I have often quoted the 38th:

Superior virtue is unvirtue. Therefore it has virtue. Inferior virtue never loses sight of virtue. Therefore it has no virtue.

I copied this from an online text, I prefer my translation, which I will post later.

---

What'd you think of Zhuangzi - kind of chaotic know, with the self-ironization that is so incredibly playful - it reads more like poetry in many places than philosophy.


As for the Dao De Jing - I have undergone a comparative study essentially of different translations, and currently I stick to an Italian one I picked up on the internet, as it seems to ring the best in my year (it certainly is more literal), but on what grounds do we constitute this a religious text - I don't think Laozi, if he existed, would have thought it so - the actual definition between philosophy and religion isn't exactly there, but I think this one falls, by Western understanding, closer to philosophy.

On another note - anybody else find the text quite nihilistic - it seems, from the beginning, Laozi is trying to convince us that the Dao, the infinity, is something of a nihilistic void - anyone else get that feeling?

Tao Te Ching was really amazing, and he was really enlightened. In fact modern culture is something an amalgamation of many things, and we all are representations of the past. Tao is a great source of inspiration to me and I really am in great in debt to him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

In fact modern culture is something an amalgamation of many things, and we all are representations of the past.

---

Nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Tao Te Ching was really amazing, and he was really enlightened. In fact modern culture is something an amalgamation of many things, and we all are representations of the past. Tao is a great source of inspiration to me and I really am in great in debt to him.

---

Yes, we are a reflection of events, and times, but also we are part of the deeper current of reality upon which all forms arise and enter into. We are the Dao when we are born, and at times perchance we stray away from the transparent nature of the Dao, and at other times we become more aware of it and in tune with it. Everything is some part of the Dao. Everything has Dao at its center, and the Dao is the overall, transcendent harmony and existence of all forms. The Dao is the peaceful static substratum, and the dynamic clashing of forms as well, there are no qualities which are not qualities of the Dao. We are not sometimes part of the Dao, but we are always part of the Dao. The Dao does not come and then leave us, it is always our center, and everything in existence is always some expression of the Dao.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Yes, we are a reflection of events, and times, but also we are part of the deeper current of reality upon which all forms arise and enter into.

---

This is maybe an attempt to broaden Blaze's point, I take it, rather than a correction of some sort. A sort of "A-ha" more than a "but," to my ears :-).

Whatever that source is, and however deeply we might realize it is there, we experience it (well, at least in discussion) through events, and times. Even after meditation, we are left with events and times, as well as the depths that we can always point into, deeper and deeper.

And agendas. Agendas that can differ, or co-relate. That's a bit interesting.

But I kind of agree with JBI:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

On another note - anybody else find the text quite nihilistic - it seems, from the beginning, Laozi is trying to convince us that the Dao, the infinity, is something of a nihilistic void - anyone else get that feeling?

---

I think the Tao Te Ching is MAYBE too careful, and maybe too cautious about effort and passion, IF we take the text seriously on its fundaments, and not as a sort of corrective to our often addictive and pathological souls. A reader will, I think, have to take from it different lessons, depending on their differing needs.
It might be a matter of taste, but a strict and universal bliss and oneness isn't all roses, I don't think. In my opinion, it would maybe be more like sand, in an inoffensive pile, that we'd convince ourselves is "all roses." I think the turbulent boundaries are just fine, at least from where I see things. I am a part of it, but just a part, not alone.

But the book realizes this yinging and yanging of oneness and separateness, even in the first chapter (again, the Mitchell 'adaptation'):

Quote:

---

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.

---

Is it maybe nihilistic about its nihilism? You still need desire...
Some translations downplay this balance, but this view rings true for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

I think the Tao Te Ching is MAYBE too careful, and maybe too cautious about effort and passion, IF we take the text seriously on its fundaments, and not as a sort of corrective to our often addictive and pathological souls. A reader will, I think, have to take from it different lessons, depending on their differing needs.
It might be a matter of taste, but a strict and universal bliss and oneness isn't all roses, I don't think. In my opinion, it would maybe be more like sand, in an inoffensive pile, that we'd convince ourselves is "all roses." I think the turbulent boundaries are just fine, at least from where I see things. I am a part of it, but just a part, not alone.

---

I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm just saying it's inherently untrue. What I mean is, the creation, for example, nature, and its innumerable forms. Well, the soul falsely identifies with them, when it is actually not bound by any of those forms.

And duality - I would say that one should really experience non-duality before discarding it. I've experienced peace beyond anything I can possibly describe - which I interpreted as experiencing non-duality - although it wasn't a permanent state. And I understand people who say that they think peace is boring... but they don't quite understand, that there is an infinite bliss and peace... so profound as to make everything else mean nothing.

I'm pretty sure I have experienced that. Hard to compare, of course! Certainly, I have managed to experience non-duality, although I wouldn't claim it lasted for more than minutes on my timer, during meditation, and only in unusual bursts during regular daily life.

And I understand that feeling peace through meditation (or even during stressful and "exciting" times) would be only unfairly characterized as boring.

Anyhow, I'm not discarding the significance of either half of it (neither the duality, nor the non-duality).

I find Taoism close to Vedic literature. I always read Taoism with great passions. I have been transformed through the Tao Path.

We indeed find the Tao Path really great and enlightening and the splendors of what we read in it are matchless in terms of philosophy.

I am a tireless reader of Taoism and the mention of this on this forum has emotionalized me. I find it as a great reservoir of spirituality.

It enriches us and our spiritual journey thru this becomes fruitful

Tao (or better spelled Dao) path seems a little redundant, since Dao itself means path, or better yet, way. The above post then would suggest a sort of misreading I think, in that it is "The Path" rather than the "Daoist Path". The LaoZi would suggest that the Dao, or Way, is existent outside of the religion itself, which isn't actually a religion, and only becomes a codified set of thoughts during the Tang Dynasty, when its cultural position was threatened by the emergent Buddhism, which was eventually the richest and most significant institution in China, and had over 70% of the world's population of the time under its persuasion. Daoism then, or the Dao, is more relative; when read against the ZhuangZi, for instance, the LaoZi offers a more philosophical approach that seems rather open, and full of contradictions. All things are equal, but the LaoZi is also informed with Yin and Yang school philosophy, and is foundational, as well as compliment by thought in Wu-Wei philosophy (action through non-action).

The actual Path though is suggested to exist outside of creation; that is perhaps why it remains untranslated, as an accurate translation is pretty much impossible; the path is everything and nothing; it is suggested to be beyond language, time and place, beyond existence or non-existence. I believe a modern translation is to put it as "being and non-being" but even that is patchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Tao (or better spelled Dao) path seems a little redundant, since Dao itself means path, or better yet, way. The above post then would suggest a sort of misreading I think, in that it is "The Path" rather than the "Daoist Path". The LaoZi would suggest that the Dao, or Way, is existent outside of the religion itself, which isn't actually a religion, and only becomes a codified set of thoughts during the Tang Dynasty, when its cultural position was threatened by the emergent Buddhism, which was eventually the richest and most significant institution in China, and had over 70% of the world's population of the time under its persuasion. Daoism then, or the Dao, is more relative; when read against the ZhuangZi, for instance, the LaoZi offers a more philosophical approach that seems rather open, and full of contradictions. All things are equal, but the LaoZi is also informed with Yin and Yang school philosophy, and is foundational, as well as compliment by thought in Wu-Wei philosophy (action through non-action).

The actual Path though is suggested to exist outside of creation; that is perhaps why it remains untranslated, as an accurate translation is pretty much impossible; the path is everything and nothing; it is suggested to be beyond language, time and place, beyond existence or non-existence. I believe a modern translation is to put it as "being and non-being" but even that is patchy.

---

Perfectly said. It sounds like you have a good understanding of Taoism/Daoism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

Perfectly said. It sounds like you have a good understanding of Taoism/Daoism.

---

I should hope so; I major in what is essentially Chinese culture/language studies, so I hope I know enough at least to appease my professors, though I would need to learn more about classical Chinese to actually start cutting at the real text from a deeper angle.

Though, if anybody is interested, there are very great works published on the subject of Daoism that give a better approach than any mediocre introduction to some half-translated version of the LaoZi; I am told by my professor that French scholars centered around L'Université de Paris are particularly noteworthy in historical and critical work on Daoism.