Just tossing out a question into the void (this being my first foray into
a.p.t)...

The only exposure I have had to taoism as of yet is through happening upon
the book The Tao of Pooh a few years ago. I'm quite glad I found the book
and the ideas presented in it when I did, as it did a lot to keep me from
going over the deep end at that time in my life. I am curious, however, as
to how well it presents the principles of taoism. What I read I liked, and
have kept with me since then, and I'm becoming more interested in
exploring this further. What may be some good books to start learning more
about this with? Any help/ideas would be appreciated. (And it appears this
turned into a few seperate questions...<grin>. Ah, well.)

Woody
wo...@alaska.net

--
-- wo...@alaska.net -- http://www.alaska.net/~woody/ --
-- Come visit the home of Gig's Music Theatre - the  --
-- best outlet for all-ages live music in Anchorage! --
--      http://www.alaska.net/~woody/gigs.html       --

    Howdy.

    IMO it presents some principles pretty darned well.  If those were all
you ever walked away with you'd still be a winner.

    Hey, Madelynn wrote a book on the subject (check http://members.aol.com/gr8tao).
If I was gonna recommend something for you I'd probaby go for something light like
P.G. Wodehouse novels.  I hear a merry heart doeth good like a medicine...

--
Nathan Engle             Electron Juggler
Indiana University       Dept of Psychology
nen...@indiana.edu       http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~nengle
"Some Assembly Required"

hi woody!

my first exposure to the tao was also the tao of pooh!  i don't know
how many traditional, 80-year-old chinese taoists would recommend it,
but for someone (like me) who grew up in a western, judeo/christian
oriented society, it was a very nice introduction to the concepts!  i
also read "the te of piglet" (another book by benjamin hoff) and
thought that was great too!

the next book i found (and HIGHLY recommend!) was stephen mitchell's
translation of "tao te ching" (published by harper & rowe/harper
perennial).  i particulary like this translation of the tao because i
find it to very unpretentious and very accessible.  mitchell's "notes"
on each chapter were extremely helpful to me.

as mitchell says in the intro of his book,

"i have often been quite literal -- or as literal as one *can* be with
such a subtle, kaleidoscopic book as the tao te ching.  but i have
also paraphrased, contracted, interpreted, and worked with the text,
played with it, until it became embodied in a language that felt
genuine to me.  if i haven't always translated lao-tzu's words, my
intention has always been to translate his mind."

(by the way, mitchell's book is also available on audio-cassette.  i
really enjoy listening to it in the car or on my walkman when i'm on
the go!)

hope that was helpful!

aileen
a...@datasync.com

Just a note on S. Mitchell.  Correct me if I am wrong.

Stephen Mitchell is not a Taoist scholar.  Neither is he a Taoist.  In
fact, I don't think that he is even well versed in Chinese religion.
He is a translator.  He did this book because he thought he could make
some money.  He mentions that the Tao Te Ching is a kaliedoscopic
book, but he does not understand what this means.  Apparently he
slapped together a mixture of other translations (played with, worked
with, etc.... BAH).  
It's not that his translation is wrong.  However, one would, upon
investigation, find it to be inferior.  One of my favorites, for
asthetic, as well as literary reasons, is a big book with lots of
illustrations.  I hope that someone here can supply the author or
publisher.  I read it in Borders and other large bookstores.  It's
really big and black and white and beautiful.

Happy reading!
Jim

how about a tao te ching with pictures and no words?

looks like a pretty good book to me.

old...@ptw.com (James G. Gilley) wrote:

Stephen Mitchell is a seeker, and has sought in many places.  His book
on Jesus, The Gospel According to Jesus, makes the subject seem like a
Buddhist.  It is his peculiar insight.  As the Tao te Ching was Lao
Tsu's.

Errol Hess

Who is Stephen Mitchell?  

Benjamin Hoff wrote the Tao of Pooh, did he not?  Or is this thread so far
off topic that I have no business being here?

discussing the various facets of Daoism. Bear in mind that this isn't the
FIRST book about daoism I have read, but it is definitely good, despite the
seeming childish topic.
        Has anyone read "the Tao of inner peace" by Diane Dreher? I kinda
liked that book, but found "Tao of pooh" more easy to understand and follow.
[also more entertaining ;D]
        [one more note: JUST in case anyone is wondering why I spell it both
"daoism" AND "taoism", let me ask you this: do you say it with a 'T' sound or
a 'D' sound?]
(btw, this isn't my real email address, if you want my real one, post and
I'll reply to you)                      just my 2 yen, later all.
                                                        -sh@de

There already is one; it is referred to as The Ox Herding Pictures.  I
prefer the 12 series over the 10.

Oops, wrong news group.  Those pictures are Zen aren't they?
--
Bill Snyder (wsny...@powergrid.electriciti.com)
"But I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now."

Feng died in 1985. Jane English continues to publish the translation and
associated imagery that she did with Feng back in 1972. Her publishing
house is called Earth Heart and can be found at:

        http://www.merrymac.com/mspage/earth/earth.html

At one time (70's and early '80's) this was the only version of the Tao Te
Ching one could find in English book stores and the volume did a lot to
bring a greater understanding of Taoism to the West.

Steven
--
Steven Ericsson Zenith - mailto:ste...@thetemple.com
The Temple of the Immortal Spirit - The Western TAOIST -
http://www.thetemple.com/

: >Just a note on S. Mitchell.  Correct me if I am wrong.
:
: >Stephen Mitchell is not a Taoist scholar.  Neither is he a Taoist.  In
: >fact, I don't think that he is even well versed in Chinese religion.
: >He is a translator.  He did this book because he thought he could make
: >some money.  He mentions that the Tao Te Ching is a kaliedoscopic
: >book, but he does not understand what this means.  Apparently he
: >slapped together a mixture of other translations (played with,

Interesting. His bio says that he study for 14 years under a Zen master.
Odd sort of occupation for a Translator.

Scott

Sorry, I'm still not impressed.  Zen master, shlem master.  I still
find the translation lacking because of the guidence of my "masters"
who told me what to look for in a translation.  You will find that
another wrote of Mitchell's translations of Christian texts as well.
I guess that Zen master was pretty damn good, Mitchell can understand
anything!  I was trying to point out that Mitchell is not a bad guy,
or a lacking spiritual person, but that he is not an expert in Taoism
or Chinese or in the scholarship of the Tao Te Ching because he has a
broader base of knowledge.  Maybe he should have stuck with the Lotus
Sutra - or perhaps, maybe he already has!

    Strange.  Somehow I find that approach far more attractive than
I would the accumulated labors of dozens of scholars.  I guess I'll
have to read Mitchell's books now.

--
Nathan Engle             Electron Juggler
Indiana University       Dept of Psychology
nen...@indiana.edu       http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~nengle
"Some Assembly Required"

Strange.  Somehow I never thought that bad scholarship is Taoist.  
Would you read a cookbook from a bad cook?  Or how about a technical
manual by someone who doesn't work in the field?
Some people enjoy scholarship.  To reject thier joy is laziness, not
wu wei.  
I think I will go find a professional cyclist to fix my computer, I
don't think I am seeing this right . . . .  

    Perhaps not.  I guess I just remain to be convinced that broad
general treatments are the same thing as bad scholarship.

    Nope.  My wife can assure you I just don't read cookbooks of any
kind.

    How long have you been around the computer industry?  It's been
a long time since I've read a manual that I thought was put together
by engineers instead of technical writers.

    Mmmm.  If you say so.  Personally I figure it's sufficient if
they get joy for themselves.  They don't need my rapt adoration.

    Good man.  You might be surprised how many CS students here in
Bloomington are avid cyclists.  My first computer-related employer
doesn't have any formal degree at all.  One of my co-workers at that
job was a sociology major.  One of his (and my) later co-workers was
a licensed optometrist before she figured out that she hated looking
at peoples' eyes.

    As you can tell I'm not wild about putting people in little boxes
and assuming they have nothing relevent to say about anything outside
their little world.  Albert Einstein might have been a great physicist
but for my money his most important observations were about socialism
and the human condition in general.  And y'know I've even heard it
said that Lao Tzu's job title wasn't Eminent Philosopher - do you
also discount that humble librarian's words because of his lack of
credentials?

--
Nathan Engle             Electron Juggler
Indiana University       Dept of Psychology
nen...@indiana.edu       http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~nengle
"Some Assembly Required"

Point well taken.  I did not discount Mitchell's scholarship in lieu
of investigation.  I read it for myself, and rationalized my dislike
with common understanding.  I am one who makes great claims without
the credentials to back it up.  I don't like discounting opinions
because of personal histories, either.  But I find that most good
things are done by people who have a lot of training and experience.
You may not have a CS degree to program, but you surely better have
programmed before - and to make an excellent one, usually is because
the person loves what they do, and do it often.  I don't think we
should compare Stephen Mitchell with Lao Tzu or Einstein, anyways.  It
makes us look a bit foolish.
I think we both accept the extreme difficulty in translating such a
difficult work as the Tao Te Ching, especially from Chinese to
English.  Sorry, but there are other translations out there that are
just plain -better-.  The one's I know of are from lifetime scholars
of Chinese and Taoism (or of English, if he/she is Chinese).  Please
don't confuse new people to Taoism with relativity jokes, especially
if you're having trouble understanding them yourself!

When I began studying Zen, mountains were mountains, and the sea was
the sea.
After some studying, the mountains were no longer the mountains, and
the sea was no longer the sea.
After even more studying, the mountains were again the mountains, and
the sea was again, the sea.

A friend bought me Stephen Mitchell's Tao Te Ching translation, and my
impression is that he doesn't understand Taoism too well.  

For the record, I'm just a Joe off the street.

dez

    In terms of the highly specialized and detailed scholarship going
on these days that's probably true, but very frankly I suspect that
most of the stuff that's considered "good scholarship" is only really
digestable and usable by other scholars.  That's why I don't have much
use for it.

    In the academic world where that sort of intellectual infighting
makes the difference between tenure and the unemployment line I can see
why there's so much emphasis on that sort of detailed work, but I just
don't think it necessarily compels much admiration from anyone outside
those narrow fields.

    That's true, but IMO this is a case where you're talking about an
engineering discipline where the worth of the resulting product can be
readily judged by laymen, whereas with academia I feel as though the
rest of us have little on which to base our judgments when academic
work is so obscure and esoteric.

    Now now.  You needn't feel so self-conscious.  Rest assured that we
all look foolish in any event.   Lao Tzu and Einstein were both just
men like the rest of us.  We only really revere them now in death because
time has allowed their personal follies to fade in comparison with their
other accomplishments.

    I'm not necessarily sure I'd agree with that.  One of my favorite
translations is the one by Tam Gibbs based on Man Jan Cheng's lectures
titled _My_Words_Are_Easy_To_Understand_.  I believe along with Cheng
that Lao Tzu wasn't joking when he wrote that.  It doesn't take deep
scholarship to extract deep meaning from the Tao Te Ching - the contents
of the heart are far more important.

    "Better" depends entirely on what you intend to accomplish.  IMO
the purpose of the Tao Te Ching is simply to serve as a signpost, and  
scholars only do themselves a disservice by getting too caught up in
deciphering the words.  Tam Gibbs's translation isn't particularly
pretty, but I think that just helps to deter readers from going around
in circles.

    If you say so.  Lao Tzu described himself as being confused, so
personally I'm not sure that the scholar's clarity is any more worthy
of imitation than Lao Tzu's humble confusion.

    So, on those grounds would you say that you've made progress?

--
Nathan Engle             Electron Juggler
Indiana University       Dept of Psychology
nen...@indiana.edu       http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~nengle
"Some Assembly Required"

    Hmmm, what was it about the text that makes you feel that way?  Does
he make strange assertions?  I confess there are some times when I hear
Madelynn talking about her beliefs when she almost convinces me that we
aren't following the same thing.  In a way I suppose we're not - she has
a good close-up view of the "orthodox" side of the business which I just
don't really find that compelling.

--
Nathan Engle             Electron Juggler
Indiana University       Dept of Psychology
nen...@indiana.edu       http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~nengle
"Some Assembly Required"

In light to your question
If you liked Tao of Pooh try Te of Piglet

On Sat, 08 Feb 1997 08:31:33 -0500, Nathan Engle <nen...@indiana.edu>
(Nathan Engle) expressed the following viewpoint(s):

Sounds like intellectualized claptrap rather than scholarship.

WellBeing

James G. Gilley <old...@ptw.com> wrote in article
<32fbb23...@mournblade.ptw.com>...

---snip--

I would say if your going to use the right tool for the right job make
sure you understand the job. If I want in depth study of sintax and
semantics I will go to a scholar. If however, my goal is to understand
the Tao in it's simplicity, a scholar well versed in complexity might not
be the best choice. I also have not read Mitchell's work but I would not
discount it because it does not meet some academic criteria of
scholarship.

Here is a favorite of mine ---

"The way is always uncontrived,
yet there's nothing it doesn't do.
If lords and monarchs could keep to it,
all beings would evolve spontaneously.
When they have evolved and want to act,
I would stabilize them with nameless simplicity.
Even nameless simplicity would not be wanted.
By not wanting, there is calm,
and the world will straighten itself."

        TTC 37

Markus

Are you kidding?! [by saying something so true, that is]  I studied
Taoism at a University.  Ooohhh my God!  I -hated- it.  It killed my
interest in Taoism for a long time.  I did swallow some pretty large
pieces of information that are valuable, however.

Yes.  And later on you refer to the intensity of which individual
passages are scrutinized (my int.).  This is extremely tedious and
takes the fun and grace out of the literature.  But, to put our
conversation in perspective, lest we die by the same sword, we are
comparing a conglomerate text (mitchell) to real translations by
longtime students of Taoism and Chinese.  I didn't mean scholars as
University professors, but as diligent students.  

I wouldn't allow acedemics to be so mystical.  Like you said, they are
human, and do as we do in a different state of mind.  Thier work is
not obscure or esoteric.  However, you won't catch me reading the
Translator's Notes!

What do you mean by "cicles?"  [Seriously, not a Taoist joke.]  It
sounds like me.

On these grounds, would you say that -you've- made progress?

Jim

    By "circles" I mean pathes of intellectual reasoning which start
nowhere and end up in pretty much the same place.

    Frankly I'm not sure whether I'm making progress or not.  What I
do know is that I feel better entertaining the possibility that I can
make progress than I do if I just submerse myself in a state of
ongoing self-doubt.  Juan Matus called it "Acting Without Believing".

--
Nathan Engle             Electron Juggler
Indiana University       Dept of Psychology
nen...@indiana.edu       http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~nengle
"Some Assembly Required"

Nathan Engle <nen...@indiana.edu> wrote in article
<32FC8204.6...@indiana.edu>...

Maybe it isn't his understanding so much as his incorporation of concepts
that seem to have no place in a translation of the Tao Te Ching.  For
example:

4:  "It is hidden but always present.  I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God."  (Where did "God" come from?)

6: "It is always present within you.  You can use it any way you want."
(To me, this seems related to the "personal empowerment" movement.)

46: "When a country is in harmony with the Tao, the factories make trucks
and tractors."  (Obviously not a literal translation.  It struck me as odd
in a translation of an ancient Chinese text.  It certainly interrupted the
flow.)

62: "Because, being one with the Tao, when you seek, you find; and when you
make a mistake, you are forgiven.  That is why everybody loves it."
(Unable to read the original Chinese, this one may be OK, but it seems to
have incorporated a Christian bent.)

I don't mean to belittle Mitchell's attempt.  We all view the universe
through a distorted lens.  Certainly, when you hold a cracked mirror up to
the world, you can see infinite possibilities.  Thus, everyone who makes an
attempt has something to contribute.  

dez