Talk:Tao/Archive 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Tao=Logos?

Some guy removed the content and redirected this page to Taoism, as if Tao = Taoism, or as if the term could be adequately covered in that page. His reason was "unncessary page". If Tao is a principal only used by Taoists, then, perhaps. But Tao is also an important doctrine used by the Confucianists. And Confucianism != Taoism. They both use it, and they use it differently. Maybe the way currently the page has it is insufficient, but Tao != Taoism. --Menchi 23:26, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Separate page?

To define the Tao one must bridge the gap between object and perception since the Tao is by nature a non-dualistic entity, so maybe having a separate page from Taoism is unnecessary. I'm not comfortable giving up my dualistic prejudices, though, so a separate page about the actual Tao might be useful to distinguish it from the practice of Taoist ideas.

• I have corrected the misspelling "seperate" in the comment above. --sébastien 20:58, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Flaws

To say that artwork representing tao is flawed doesn't specify whether the flaws are intentional or not. So I like "artwork attempting to convey the Tao is characterized by flaws" to make the distinction.

To my eye, this does not clarify what You indicate needs clarification.

Tao or Dao

User 206.116.41.75 added the following paragraph to the article:

It is unknown why the Tao (Dao) is sometimes spelt with a 'T', Tao. Both ways are accepted, however spelling with a 'D' mat be prevailing, because that is the way it is pronounced. If one compares the muscular pronounciation of Dao or Tao, they will conclude that pronoucing it with a 'D' is slightly less effort, which is one principal of the Dao.

There has been an extensive discussion on the use of "Dao" vs. "Tao," (or Daoism vs. Taoism) which can be found at Talk:Taoism. Essentially, the debate centres on the common English usage ("Tao") and Chinese pronunciation (which sounds more like "Dao"). A good summary of the phonetics involved (taken from the Talk: Taoism page) is the following:

... (W)hen a Chinese native says the Chinese word, a native of English will hear what he thinks is "Dao", though it isn't. In Mandarin, there're two versions of "t": with/without aspiration, but no "d" at all. In English, on the other hand, "t" at the beginning of a word is pronounced with aspiration, "d" without. The Chinese consonant in question lacks aspiration AND voice, so it has one feature from English "t" (lack of voice) and one from English "d" (lack of aspiration). In this particular context it often renders itself as "d" in the English speaker's consciousness, but it is still not "d", and objectively from a phonetical point of view it's as far from English "d" as it is from English "t".

I propose that we avoid discussion of the pronunciation of the word in the article on Tao. However, there has been discussion of adding a page on "Spelling of Dao/Daoism." That makes sense to me if someone who knows the linguistics wants to work on it. For now, I've removed the paragraph from the article. I'm also going to do a redirect from Dao to Tao. Sunray 20:34, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

Tao Austronesian Indigenes Disambiguation

I propose that this comment: Tao is the native name of the Taiwanese Austronesian indigenes formerly known as the Yami. It means "people". be removed, as it is wholly irrelevant, and a disambiguation page be created. --sébastien 20:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

It could just be added to the top, minus the "it means people" part, but perhaps there are enough links at the top of the page to warrant a seperate disambig page where they can all go, with one link at the top of this page to the disambig . . . --Heah (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Spelling of Tao

It is probably this ambiguity you speak of which makes English speaking writers prefer a 'T' rather than a 'D.' Let me explain. If we used 'D' we would succumb to that echo which inevitably takes people away from reality. At the same time a 'T' would create a link to Chinese which doesn't necessarily exist. Now, this second argument would lead us to using a 'D,' which must be where the Chuang tzu in us steps in and says something like, "Look at the structure of the argument, not just the argument itself," and we immediately see that where this discussion started was with the dislike of stupidity, and this is cultural, namely belonging to our culture. Now, we have a dislike for blanket statements on the one hand (which is how my ear interprets hearing a 'D') and we have a sensitivity to making judgement about other cultures on the other hand (referring to not wanting to use a 'T'). Since it was aspiration which started this debate, we ought to examine how it fits into the discussion. In quality, the first facet has more of an aspirative quality, while the second has more of a quiet quality. Our own dislike of our own unintelligent people causes us pain, but our relationship to the Chinese probably just causes us to feel cautious but attentive. A 'T,' therefore, has more resonance. To round things out, we use a 'D' sound to make amends with people who think wisdom is about knowing things.

Glamorous objects

I've removed the following sentences from the paragraph after the Amadeus quote:

The essential quality of this understanding is an appreciation for a famous lie no one ever seems to want to pin down. As for the question of whether using this appreciation constitutes practicing Tao, the answer is inevitably 'No,' but sometimes, 'Sorry I'm too tired or busy to think about such things.' When luck is in the air, one might get a 'Did you at least like it?'

While it is an interesting commentary, it is written in a style that is unencyclopedic. It is a personal observation (see Wikipedia: No original research). The observation is nevertheless an important one and could be re-written and included, IMO. Sunray 15:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if the term "glamorous" is too esoteric in this context? It is likely to be understood by an uninformed reader according to its more common meaning. -Jmh123 19:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I've been wondering if someone would raise that. I've never liked the way it is worded. I fully support modifying it. BTW, perhaps we could do something about that Amadeus quote while we're at it. Though it seems to apply, it seems somehow too western in its sentiment. Sunray 19:51, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to get my red pen to that entire segment. It has a certain poetic beauty, but really goes quite far afield. I fully support a fuller, more radical edit. Have at it! -Jmh123 19:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Quite frankly, a lot could be said for scrapping the entire entry and starting over. Unfortunately, I'm not up for that at the moment. Anyone else? -Jmh123 20:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree but we should try to add a little bit more before removing the blabla on "glamorous objects"... gbog 03:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The Tao in other Asian languages

I removed the reference to Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese language versions for Tao in the lead sentence:

Tao or Dao (Chinese: 道; pinyin: "dào"; Wade–Giles: tao; Japanese On: Dou, Tou; Sino-Korean: To; Vietnamese: "Đạo"), refers to a Chinese character that was of pivotal meaning in ancient Chinese philosophy and religion.

My thinking is that the inclusion of these extra words makes the lead sentence less readable. However, Langdell, who added them sent me a message saying that the influence of Taoism in these countries should be noted. I agree with his point, but am not sure how best to do this. Do others think we should restore the paragraph as worded above, or would it be better to make reference to the influence of Taoism in these countries in the article on Taoism? Sunray 05:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think if those words in other languages could be put in a "namebox" on the right side. Influence on other countries should be added either. BTW there is a problem with On'yomi article wich seem to redirect on itself. gbog 06:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent Edit

The text "the energy feeding its constant change and emptiness" is feeling in the right direction but is technically incorrect as the Tao cannot be conceived as energy. Energy may be a possible rendering for the word 'Te' for which there is as of yet no wikipedia article but not for Tao which is forever unmanifest and beyond form. The text has been provisionally replaced with: 'Beyond being and non-being, prior to space and time, Tao is the intelligent ordering principle behind the unceasing flow of change in the natural world. Regarding the Asian characters/translations of Tao, Sunray is probably correct to remove them for the sake of form but does anyone have the necessary skills to create a namebox for them? User:Langdell

Tao Te Ching and governance

Langdell has referred to the Tao Te Ching as a "treatise on governance." This doesn't seem to be quite the right term. Governance has the following meanings:

1. The act, process, or power of governing; government.
2. The state of being governed.
3. Control or authority.

I've removed the phrase for the time being. Perhaps he (or someone else) could explain the sense in which the Tao Te Ching is related to governance. Sunray 08:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Langdell is correct in that parts of the Tao Te Ching emerged from a discourse (prevalent at the time the text was emerging) regarding how a state should be governed, and by whom. There is evidence that the text was accorded importance by members of the ruling class for that reason, and was considered a "Legalist" text. See the introductions to Hendricks' translations based on new mss. found. See also articles by Chad Hansen. This aspect of the TTC was mentioned by H.G. Creel (Chinese Thought - 1960) and is also discussed in Waley's intro to The Way and its Power (1958), so it is not a recent interpretation. I'm not arguing for a reversion, as I found Langdell's edit to be stylistically awkward. We need also to maintain a distinction between this entry on Tao, and the entry on the TTC. -Jmh123 14:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well said. The notion of TTC being a "treatise on governance" seemed too extreme a statement. I've reworked the paragraph in a way that may better incorporate Langdell's point. Sunray 15:26, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The TTC as a treatise on Government

If it is not obvious from reading the text (you must read it in its entirety), perhaps the place to start is in considering who the Tao Te Ching was written for. Was it written for 'ordinary folk'? Farming people, soldiers, craftsmen, carpenters, stonemasons? Of course not. None of these people could read a word. We are talking about ancient feudal society where the only people who could read were a tiny fraction of the populace. The nobility in short, along with their lawyers, priests, tax collectors and generals. Mass literacy, one easily forgets, is a very recent phenomenon. Those who read the TTC would have been people whose main concern was power. As the gospels testify, the meek and the poor are not those most in need of spiritual instruction let alone tips on how to rule the country! As for my edit being stylistically awkward that is quite true and is due to an attempt to reformulate an existing (incorrect) statement by a previous author (without offending by entirely removing it) about Taoism as a body of 'metaphysical speculation'. As regards keeping Tao and TTC separate this is a good point but one should bear in mind that this article is about the central concept of the Taoist religion and the TTC is the principal text of this religion. It is therefore well nigh impossible to write this article without ascribing a central role to it. However, the article as it stands does a very poor job of explaining what exactly the Tao is and means and simply quoting sections from TTC is not good enough, granted. User:Langdell

Yes, and I do agree with you that quotes should not be overdone. I'm uncertain how to react to the quy that wants to put his favourite version of the TTC in there. I'd remove the earlier one, but it scans better in English. Sunray 01:09, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Langdell. Please don't take me the wrong way. I mean no disrespect when I say your argument is compelling but flawed. Here's why. Suppose everyone could read and write back then. Mass litteracy would only mean mass communication that is faster than speech or word of mouth. The Tao Te Ching would have been available to read, if people had bothered to read it. Even then, it's not guaranteed that all those who could read it would understand it.

The proliferation of the Tao Te Ching, like most ideas, required evangelizing by those who have been moved by its message. Even today, how many people in our great, mostly literate nation have heard of the Tao Te Ching? How many have read it? I took an impersonal survey of my co-workers, about 30 engineers and programmers. Only four have heard of it -- none have read it (although one guy has the book). None of them know what it is really about. On the other hand, my grandmother, illiterate like most men and women of her generation, can recite page after page of various scriptures like she wrote them herself. How did that happened? She, along with the vast majority of illiterate South Vietnamese farmers who attended temple, heard it over and over through ritual prayers and sermons. I tell you, the rice farmers of that province "don't know much about science books" but they sure know a lot about the Tao.

This is what I was taught:

The three "jewels" of the Tao Te Ching are:

1. Bring happiness to others, including your enemies. Being courteous to a nice person is easy; being cordial to someone who annoys you, that takes skills.

2. Be frugal, even if you are a gazillionaire, so that your resources are not wasted and can go toward helping others.

3. Do not place yourself above or before others. For example, do not assume leadership yourself -- only when others choose you to be their leader do you have true authority. Also, a good leader serves and protects his constituents. Like a good sheperd, he does not walk in front of the flock. Instead, he walks behind them so that he can watch over them.

The Tao Te Ching is timeless -- its message will never go out of style and will always be true.

The Tao Te Ching is a treasure, a priceless gift to humanity.

The Tao Te Ching was written for everyone.

cann0tsay 07:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The many paths

In the Japanese tradition the concept of dao was applied to many disciplines, all of which came to be regarded as paths to awakening. A lot of these were of a martial nature, but not all. Could we not have a listing here of these various practices, such as judo, kendo, chado, kyudo, and so forth? Haiduc 11:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Tao and Christianity

I am not quite sure that the following is correct:

A perhaps closest approximation in relatively common usage to the Tao may be Logos in the Christian religious sense: "In the beginning was the Word (literally from the Greek, "Logos"), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). Moreover, in the words of Pope Ratzinger, "Christianity is the religion of Logos"...providing a fundamental point of commonality with Taoism when the Tao is considered to be 'like' -- if not, in fact, identical to -- the Logos or Word.

To me the closest western approximation to the concept of Tao is Logos, sure enough, but in the pre-socratic and not Christian sense, for the Tao lacks the Will, which is a characteristic of God in the monoteistic religions.

In any case since the two concepts are probably not equivalent, I would personally drop the sentence altogether, or clarify in more depth the analogies and differences, but this is probably beyond me (at the moment :) so I think I'd better express my doubts, and leave the rest as a matter open for discussion.

Regards.

I think that the closest aproximation of the dao in christianity would be the concept of the "holy ghost" or "holy spirit" as used in the new testament. The way that it acted by not acting, and that you had to listen by not listening to it is pretty taoist. The concept that the more it was filled, the more potential that it had to be filled is also pretty taoist. The concept of the holy spirit can be interpreted as holy spirit and mundane spirit (spirit before tao) and that as you acquire more holy spirit, your regular spirit becomes enlightened. If we sublimate the term "enlightened" for holy, then we can see a real point of unity here.

I would say that the tao is actually diametrically opposed to the mechanistic modalities postulated by the "logos" as used by the Greeks. They kind of used that term to mean a purity of order in opposition to change.

Jedi

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.