A question re: The Tao of Pooh <grin>
Woody Hanscom
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 --
Nathan Engle
Woody Hanscom wrote:
> Just tossing out a question into the void (this being my first foray into
> a.p.t)...
Howdy.
> 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.
IMO it presents some principles pretty darned well. If those were all
you ever walked away with you'd still be a winner.
> 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.)
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"
Aileen
wo...@alaska.net (Woody Hanscom) wrote:
>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.)
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
James G. Gilley
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
Johnny
how about a tao te ching with pictures and no words?
looks like a pretty good book to me.
Errol Hess
>Happy reading!
>Jim
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
Michael Mabin
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?
Sh@de
Johnny wrote:
> how about a tao te ching with pictures and no words?
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
Bill Snyder
Johnny <joh...@b-goode.net> wrote:
>how about a tao te ching with pictures and no words?
>
>looks like a pretty good book to me.
>
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 (wsn...@powergrid.electriciti.com)
"But I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now."
Steven Ericsson Zenith
> "Gia-fu Feng now directs the Stillpoint Foundation, a Taoist meditation
> centre in Colorado. He is the author (with Jerome Kirk) of Tai Chi - A
> Way of Centering - & I Ching, which was published in 1970.
>
> Jane English is at the moment teaching a course in Oriental thought and
> modern physics at Colorado College (with Gia Fu-Feng as guest
> lecturer)."
>
> Of course that was 15 years ago so they may have moved.
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/
Harry Flashman
Errol Hess (er...@kite.preferred.com) wrote:
: >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
James G. Gilley
sir...@clark.net (Harry Flashman) wrote:
>Interesting. His bio says that he study for 14 years under a Zen master.
>Odd sort of occupation for a Translator.
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!
Nathan Engle
James G. Gilley wrote:
> 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.
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.
James G. Gilley
Nathan Engle <nen...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> 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.
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 . . . .
Nathan Engle
James G. Gilley wrote:
> Nathan Engle <nen...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> > Strange. Somehow I find that approach far more attractive than
> >I would the accumulated labors of dozens of scholars.
> Strange. Somehow I never thought that bad scholarship is Taoist.
Perhaps not. I guess I just remain to be convinced that broad
general treatments are the same thing as bad scholarship.
> Would you read a cookbook from a bad cook?
Nope. My wife can assure you I just don't read cookbooks of any
kind.
> Or how about a technical manual by someone who doesn't work in the
> field?
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.
> Some people enjoy scholarship. To reject thier joy is laziness, not
> wu wei.
Mmmm. If you say so. Personally I figure it's sufficient if
they get joy for themselves. They don't need my rapt adoration.
> I think I will go find a professional cyclist to fix my computer, I
> don't think I am seeing this right . . . .
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?
James G. Gilley
> 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?
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.
dez
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
Nathan Engle
James G. Gilley wrote:
> >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?
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> I don't think we should compare Stephen Mitchell with Lao Tzu or
> Einstein, anyways. It makes us look a bit foolish.
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 think we both accept the extreme difficulty in translating such a
> difficult work as the Tao Te Ching, especially from Chinese to
> English.
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.
> Sorry, but there are other translations out there that are
> just plain -better-.
"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.
> 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!
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.
> 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.
So, on those grounds would you say that you've made progress?
Nathan Engle
dez wrote:
> A friend bought me Stephen Mitchell's Tao Te Ching translation, and my
> impression is that he doesn't understand Taoism too well.
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.
Icy Coo
In light to your question
If you liked Tao of Pooh try Te of Piglet
WellBeing
On Sat, 08 Feb 1997 08:31:33 -0500, Nathan Engle <nen...@indiana.edu>
(Nathan Engle) expressed the following viewpoint(s):
> 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.
Sounds like intellectualized claptrap rather than scholarship.
WellBeing
Markus
James G. Gilley <old...@ptw.com> wrote in article
<32fbb...@mournblade.ptw.com>...
>
> > 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?
>
> 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.
---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
James G. Gilley
Nathan Engle <nen...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
>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.
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!
>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.
What do you mean by "cicles?" [Seriously, not a Taoist joke.] It
sounds like me.
>> 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.
> So, on those grounds would you say that you've made progress?
On these grounds, would you say that -you've- made progress?
Jim
Nathan Engle
> >pretty, but I think that just helps to deter readers from going around
> >in circles.
> What do you mean by "cicles?" [Seriously, not a Taoist joke.] It
> sounds like me.
By "circles" I mean pathes of intellectual reasoning which start
nowhere and end up in pretty much the same place.
> > So, on those grounds would you say that you've made progress?
> On these grounds, would you say that -you've- made progress?
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".
dez
Nathan Engle <nen...@indiana.edu> wrote in article
<32FC82...@indiana.edu>...
> dez wrote:
> > A friend bought me Stephen Mitchell's Tao Te Ching translation, and my
> > impression is that he doesn't understand Taoism too well.
>
> Hmmm, what was it about the text that makes you feel that way? Does
> he make strange assertions?
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
James G. Gilley
"Markus" <Markus....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>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.
What the hell is this?
You tell me that I should not discount it when I've read it and you
haven't? I never said that Mitchell does not meet academic criteria,
I said he did not write a good translation, and I then speculated that
it was due to his lack of study in Chinese and Taoism.
This is really agitating that such detached, relative Taoists as have
posted on this thread are so threatened by scholarship. What's the
virtue in having a greedy, ignorant person slap together a translation
of the Tao Te Ching and sell it for a lot of money? I don't see the
virtue. You guys might as well get your medical advice from someone
off the street. If you don't think Taoism is sophisticated and
complicated enough to warrant years of study and contemplation, then I
suggest you go find something that does. What's fun about Taoism is
that it is difficult to understand (due to it's simplicity? I know
not. Regardless, it warrants time and effort - YOU ALL ARE EVIDENCE OF
THAT BY BEING ON THIS LIST).
Another thing - I am not seeking a perfect translation. Mitchell's
work may shine in places that he understood very well. Overall,
though, it is weak largely due to (and since nobody refuted this yet,
it still may be true) his method. He compared many translations, and
put together a collage, that in his opinion, best revealed the spirit
of the Tao Te Ching. Remember, he is mainly a Zen student. No matter
whether Taoism is Zen without Buddhism or not, the philosophy under
those names in the West is different. I know, because I studied them
both, and I wouldn't say that unless they were two different studies.
Whoever wants to be Taoist and relies on Mitchell will do fine. In my
opinion, though, other translations are more beautiful, deeper, and
have been thought out a lot more.
Jim
Nathan Engle
James G. Gilley wrote:
> This is really agitating that such detached, relative Taoists as have
> posted on this thread are so threatened by scholarship.
Yeah, sorry about that. You'd think we would have learned by now
that the true essence of Taoism lies in analyzing a bunch of words and
having detailed arguments about what they mean. I ought to be
ashamed of myself.
> You guys might as well get your medical advice from someone
> off the street.
Hey, we get spiritual advice from people on Usenet - you already
know we can't be *that* discriminating.
> If you don't think Taoism is sophisticated and complicated enough
> to warrant years of study and contemplation, then I suggest you go
> find something that does.
Actually I already tried that but I just never got the hang of
painting the colors on those plaster statues of Elvis.
> What's fun about Taoism is that it is difficult to understand (due
> to it's simplicity? I know not. Regardless, it warrants time and
> effort - YOU ALL ARE EVIDENCE OF THAT BY BEING ON THIS LIST).
Well ok, I want to thank you for setting me straight on that
point. Up til now I thought I was here just to pass a few quiet
moments with amiable companions. Boy do I ever feel silly.
Markus
Nathan Engle <nen...@indiana.edu> wrote in article
You know Nathan I think only those who have been through the
academic mill and come full circle can truly understand.
Markus
peter li'ir key
> What's fun about Taoism is that it is difficult to understand.
i reread this a few times.
this reminds me of that guy who came in saying
there was no secret to taoism. he did all this
digging and came up with exactly nothing. which
isn't surprising at all.
there is no secret to taoism. there is no hidden
mystery.
but humans seem to find it difficult to let things die.
preconceived notions are dear to the heart. humans are
barely taught how to live, dying is rarely something
humans are taught.
people will say they are happy to be living,
but will they say they are happy to be dying?
easy, difficult, life, death, joy, sorrow, yin, yang
pick and choose, but you get what you get.
peter li'ir key
k...@springhaven.org
Tom Jobes
Sez James G. Gilley:
: Whoever wants to be Taoist and relies on Mitchell will do fine. In my
: opinion, though, other translations are more beautiful, deeper, and
: have been thought out a lot more.
I'm coming into this thread a little late. Could you name your favorite
translations?
Tom
---
tomcat ____ I thought I'd seen someone who seemed at last
\ _/__ To know the truth
\\ / I was mistaken
\/ Only a child laughing in the sun
-- David Crosby
Tom Jobes
Sez James G. Gilley:
: What's the
: virtue in having a greedy, ignorant person slap together a translation
: of the Tao Te Ching and sell it for a lot of money? I don't see the
: virtue.
Where do you get the impression that he's just being greedy? What belies
his motivation to you?
I have read two other of Mitchell's works - an edition of Whitman's Song of
Myself, and a translation of a set of letters by Rilke. I find him to have
a good sense of the spirit and the beauty of a work that he's translating,
and I think he enjoys putting that across.
I haven't read any other translation of the TTC - the only other one
I've tried was so plodding that I put it down in boredom. If a
translator has no sense of spirituality, what can he/she know of the Tao?
As far as the phrases where he seems to change the meaning of the original,
(although I wouldn't be able to identify a change), that's where I'd
like to see another readable translation.
James G. Gilley
tom...@netcom.com (Tom Jobes) wrote:
>Where do you get the impression that he's just being greedy? What belies
>his motivation to you?
I admit that I wrote this in a fit of passion. Earlier I mentioned
that I did not mean to belittle Mitchell as a person or seeker.
However, I was referring to Mitchell's occupation as a translator, and
that some (including me) feel that he over-stepped his abilities with
this translation. Again, I will pass on the heresay that hasn't been
contested of his method - he patched together his translation from
other translations. Remember, Te is sometimes translated as
"integrity." Hmmm. . . .
>I have read two other of Mitchell's works - an edition of Whitman's Song of
>Myself, and a translation of a set of letters by Rilke. I find him to have
>a good sense of the spirit and the beauty of a work that he's translating,
>and I think he enjoys putting that across.
That's nice. I haven't read anything else by Mitchell because I am
not interested in him, but in Taoism. When reading his translation I
found it to be different that what I think Taoism is - and I think I
have a good enough understanding of it to warrant such an opinion.
*It is only my opinion.*
>I haven't read any other translation of the TTC - the only other one
>I've tried was so plodding that I put it down in boredom. If a
>translator has no sense of spirituality, what can he/she know of the Tao?
What do you think Taoism is? Here you have left me in the dark. If
you read a translation that I think is very good, then obviously we
have very different ideas of what Taoism or, ahem (I don't even like
the word), spirituality, is. If you care about my opinion, let me
know what the translation is. If you don't think I'm spiritual, then
I would not ask me anymore questions - I might infect you!
>As far as the phrases where he seems to change the meaning of the original,
>(although I wouldn't be able to identify a change), that's where I'd
>like to see another readable translation.
Go for it!
Tommy the cat is my name! . . .
Hey baby, do you want to lay down with me?
Hey baby, do you want to lay down by my side?
Hey baby, do you want to lay down with me?
Hey, baby; HEY BABY!!
- Primus
Jim
James G. Gilley
tom...@netcom.com (Tom Jobes) wrote:
>I'm coming into this thread a little late. Could you name your favorite
>translations?
The thread right before me between li and dez contained a post from li
that mentioned several translations. Not being an expert in the
subject, and liking li's posts, I'd suggest to look there. I have one
based on the Ma-wang-tui texts by Robert G. Henricks that is solid.
My favorite so for is by Jane English and ------ Feng (don't remember
the first name).
Tom Jobes
Sez James G. Gilley:
: tom...@netcom.com (Tom Jobes) wrote:
: >Where do you get the impression that he's just being greedy? What belies
: >his motivation to you?
: I admit that I wrote this in a fit of passion. Earlier I mentioned
: that I did not mean to belittle Mitchell as a person or seeker.
: However, I was referring to Mitchell's occupation as a translator, and
: that some (including me) feel that he over-stepped his abilities with
: this translation. Again, I will pass on the heresay that hasn't been
: contested of his method - he patched together his translation from
: other translations. Remember, Te is sometimes translated as
: "integrity." Hmmm. . . .
By my understanding, most translators of long-established works like this
compare their text with existing translations in the process of deciding
how to phrase things. Clearly, there are at least a few passages that you
think he's gone too far out on a limb - can you then fault him for staying
too close to home in others? I see no indication of lack of integrity on
his part.
: >I have read two other of Mitchell's works - an edition of Whitman's Song of
: >Myself, and a translation of a set of letters by Rilke. I find him to have
: >a good sense of the spirit and the beauty of a work that he's translating,
: >and I think he enjoys putting that across.
: That's nice. I haven't read anything else by Mitchell because I am
: not interested in him, but in Taoism. When reading his translation I
: found it to be different that what I think Taoism is - and I think I
: have a good enough understanding of it to warrant such an opinion.
: *It is only my opinion.*
: >I haven't read any other translation of the TTC - the only other one
: >I've tried was so plodding that I put it down in boredom. If a
: >translator has no sense of spirituality, what can he/she know of the Tao?
: What do you think Taoism is? Here you have left me in the dark.
I'm not sure that I call myself a Taoist (although I *am* sure that I
don't call myself a "mitchellist" :-) ). I just know that my understanding
of taoism seems to correspond closely to my spirituality, and I'm interested
in learning more.
: If
: you read a translation that I think is very good, then obviously we
: have very different ideas of what Taoism or, ahem (I don't even like
: the word), spirituality, is. If you care about my opinion, let me
: know what the translation is. If you don't think I'm spiritual, then
: I would not ask me anymore questions - I might infect you!
: >As far as the phrases where he seems to change the meaning of the original,
: >(although I wouldn't be able to identify a change), that's where I'd
: >like to see another readable translation.
: Go for it!
I'll have to look up the translator's name when I get home, but I remember
having the distinct impression that his scholarly approach was more like
an archaeologist pawing through another culture's dead remains than like
a Taoist looking for his philosophical roots.
Perhaps I was merely seduced by Mitchell's poetics and was impatient with
another's more prosaic scholarship. I don't know Chinese, so perhaps I'll
never be able to judge their relative accuracy. Also, these two are the
only translations of any taoist work that I've attempted.
By the way, if you don't even like the word spirituality, then I don't see
how you can consider yourself a Taoist, but then I suspect that our
understandings of the word "spiritual" (with all of its associations with
organized religions in this culture) are probably more divergent than our
senses of the Tao. To me taoism seems closely aligned to my spiritual
search for acceptance and awareness of existence - my own especially, but
also the universe's.
: Tommy the cat is my name! . . .
: Hey baby, do you want to lay down with me?
: Hey baby, do you want to lay down by my side?
: Hey baby, do you want to lay down with me?
: Hey, baby; HEY BABY!!
: - Primus
: Jim
Flirting on apt? :-)
Tom Jobes
Sez James G. Gilley:
: The thread right before me between li and dez contained a post from li
: that mentioned several translations. Not being an expert in the
: subject, and liking li's posts, I'd suggest to look there. I have one
: based on the Ma-wang-tui texts by Robert G. Henricks that is solid.
: My favorite so for is by Jane English and ------ Feng (don't remember
: the first name).
I'm afraid that post has rotated off my server, but I've heard Henricks'
name. I'm reading a history of Chinese philosophy by someone named Feng,
but it's at home. I'll have to check it out either way.
Tom
---
tomcat ____ I thought I'd seen someone who seemed at last
\ _/__ To know the truth
\\ / I was mistaken
\/ Only a child laughing in the sun
-- David Crosby
Tom
---
tomcat ____ We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom
\ _/__ that is in it - and stop there; lest we be like the cat that
\\ / sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot
\/ stove-lid again---and that is well; but also she will never sit
down on a cold one anymore. -- Mark Twain
Nathan Engle
James G. Gilley wrote:
> My favorite so for is by Jane English and ------ Feng (don't remember
> the first name).
That's Gia-Fu Feng. It's a beautiful book - great photography, and
lovely language in the translation. I found it a little easy to get
carried away with the flowery words though.
Tom Jobes
Sez Tom Jobes:
: I'll have to look up the translator's name when I get home, but I remember
: having the distinct impression that his scholarly approach was more like
: an archaeologist pawing through another culture's dead remains than like
: a Taoist looking for his philosophical roots.
: Perhaps I was merely seduced by Mitchell's poetics and was impatient with
: another's more prosaic scholarship. I don't know Chinese, so perhaps I'll
: never be able to judge their relative accuracy. Also, these two are the
: only translations of any taoist work that I've attempted.
The other translator's name is D. C. Lau. I plan to give it another try this
weekend. Perhaps I will see something I missed before, or perhaps not. I'll
let you know.
Tom Jobes
Sez Tom Jobes:
: Sez James G. Gilley:
: : The thread right before me between li and dez contained a post from li
: : that mentioned several translations. Not being an expert in the
: : subject, and liking li's posts, I'd suggest to look there. I have one
: : based on the Ma-wang-tui texts by Robert G. Henricks that is solid.
: : the first name).
: I'm afraid that post has rotated off my server, but I've heard Henricks'
: name. I'm reading a history of Chinese philosophy by someone named Feng,
: but it's at home. I'll have to check it out either way.
Sez Nathan Engle:
: That's Gia-Fu Feng. It's a beautiful book - great photography, and
: lovely language in the translation. I found it a little easy to get
: carried away with the flowery words though.
Different person, then. The history is by Fung Yu-lan. (I suspect that
Fung/Feng is one of those Peking/Beijing things.) So far an interesting
book, by the way. _A Short History of Chinese Philosophy_.
Matthew T. Latourette
.0...@mournblade.ptw.com> <32FABF...@indiana.edu> <32fbb...@mournblade.ptw.com> <01bc1553$c5216420$1e8c71a5@pdez> <32FC82...@indiana.edu> <01bc1767$488e7fe0$238c71a5@pdez>
:
Distribution: world
dez (pd...@iquest.com) wrote:
: Nathan Engle <nen...@indiana.edu> wrote in article
: <32FC82...@indiana.edu>...
: > dez wrote:
: > > A friend bought me Stephen Mitchell's Tao Te Ching translation, and my
: > > impression is that he doesn't understand Taoism too well.
: >
: > Hmmm, what was it about the text that makes you feel that way? Does
: > he make strange assertions?
: > --
:
: 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:
:
: 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.)
:
Nothing wrong with updating language if you think it will get the point
across more easily to your audience. Did it interrupt the flow because
the rest of the book used more traditional analogies and this one stuck
out like a sore thumb? Or did it interrupt the flow just because you were
expecting obscure, ancient, esoteric language?
: 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.)
:
Seems pretty close to my Gia-Fu Feng translation:
"Why does everyone like the Tao so much at first?
Isn't it because you find what you seek and are forgiven when you sin?
Therefore this is the greatest treasure of the universe."
: 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
Matt Latourette
li
Tom Jobes wrote:
> Different person, then. The history is by Fung Yu-lan. (I suspect that Fung/Feng is one of those Peking/Beijing things.) So far an
interesting book, by the way. _A Short History of Chinese Philosophy_.
=========
Tom,
You may be right about Fung Yu-lan being an author who might only be
printed from China. I have one book, a recent gift, from Fung Yu-lan,
described on the title page as, Chuang Tzu, A New Selected Translation
with an Exposition of the Philosophy of Kuo Hsiang. This book was
printed in Beijing. It is also exceptional, if I may be so bold as to
be a judge in this case. Will you tell us how _A Short History of
Chinese Philosophy_ goes? Also, anyone who knows more about who Kuo
Hsiang is, could you please tell me more? Thanks.
Li
MGArtWorks
>[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?]
The pronunciation is with a 'd' sound, but the spelling depends on which
system you want to use to write Chinese phonetics in our alphabet. For
instance, the older Wade-Giles system would use 'taoism', 'tao te ching'
and 'Laotzu', whereas the newer Pinyin, in current use in China and
Taiwan, would use 'daoism', 'dao de jing' and 'Laozi'.
(I'm new to this group, so if this is boring information that you've heard
over and over again, forgive me.)
Errol Hess
tom...@netcom.com (Tom Jobes) wrote:
>I'm coming into this thread a little late. Could you name your favorite
>translations?
>Tom
I wish I could find Huxley's translation, which I remember liking very
much thirty years ago. My favorite which I have copy of is Lin
Yutang's (in _The Wisdom of China and India_). Second favorite is R.
B. Blakney's, which although it has a Christian bias has a paraphrase
of each chapter which I find useful.
Errol Hess
roa...@aol.com
This thread is, in the words of my favorite juvenile court judge, dis-gust-ing.
Fangoa
for more about Stephen Mitchell, there was in interview with him in
Psychology Today a month or two ago.
Tom Jobes
Sez li:
: Tom Jobes wrote:
: > Different person, then. The history is by Fung Yu-lan. (I suspect that
: > Fung/Feng is one of those Peking/Beijing things.) So far an
: > interesting book, by the way. _A Short History of Chinese Philosophy_.
: Tom,
: You may be right about Fung Yu-lan being an author who might only be
: printed from China.
I guess I was extremely unclear in my wording. By "Peking/Beijing things"
I meant Wade-Giles vs. Pinyin, but I couldn't remember the names of the
systems. I.e. I was wondering if "Fung" and "Feng" are the same name.
The full reference is _A Short History of Chinese Philosophy_ by Fung Yu-lan,
edited by Derk Bodde, The Free Press (MacMillan), New York, 1948. Fung's
other works translated into English are listed as _The Spirit of Chinese
Philosophy_ trans E. R. Hughes and a multivolume _History of Chinese
Philosophy_ trans Bodde. I don't have publication info on these last two.
: I have one book, a recent gift, from Fung Yu-lan,
: described on the title page as, Chuang Tzu, A New Selected Translation
: with an Exposition of the Philosophy of Kuo Hsiang. This book was
: printed in Beijing. It is also exceptional, if I may be so bold as to
: be a judge in this case. Will you tell us how _A Short History of
: Chinese Philosophy_ goes? Also, anyone who knows more about who Kuo
: Hsiang is, could you please tell me more? Thanks.
The _Shorter History_ has a chapter discussing him, but a) I haven't gotten
that far yet and b) it's no doubt largely a subset of the book you have.
THere's also another thread going right now which discusses the neo-taoists.
JadelNTao
Tom writes:
I guess I was extremely unclear in my wording. By "Peking/Beijing things"
I meant Wade-Giles vs. Pinyin, but I couldn't remember the names of the
systems.
My apologies for lack of understanding. Sometimes I whizz through the
posts and shoot off a reply impulsively without thinking. Of course, you
were quite clear in your wording.
Tom:
> I.e. I was wondering if "Fung" and "Feng" are the same name.>>>
Attempting another foot in mouth, there is a translator by the name of
Gia-fu Feng, (1919-1985) who also did a translation of the Inner Chapters
of the CT. Additionally, he collaborated with Jane English on a TTC
translation.
Fung Yu-lan is a little older, being born in 1895.
As you see, Feng is the last name of one gentleman and the first name of
the other. Please, I hope this somewhat redeems my previous
scatterbrained response.
Tom:
The full reference is _A Short History of Chinese Philosophy_ by Fung
Yu-lan,
edited by Derk Bodde, The Free Press (MacMillan), New York, 1948. Fung's
other works translated into English are listed as _The Spirit of Chinese
Philosophy_ trans E. R. Hughes and a multivolume _History of Chinese
Philosophy_ trans Bodde. I don't have publication info on these last two.
==============
Thank you for this helpful information.
<snip>
Tom:
The _Shorter History_ has a chapter discussing him, but a) I haven't
gotten
that far yet and b) it's no doubt largely a subset of the book you have.
THere's also another thread going right now which discusses the
neo-taoists.
===========
Yes, it is a thread that is interesting and informative and will hopefully
continue for awhile.
li
MGArtWorks
There are plenty of translations available from various tao-oriented web
sites. Aside from those few mentioned already, there are ones by Aleister
Crowley, Peter Merel, Charles Muller, Thomas Cleary, Legge, and Rosenthal.
Some are more philosophical, others more poetic, depending on the mindset
of the translator.
Also, regarding the accuracy of translation, there can never be a
definitive, literal, fully accurate translation of the TTC. (And maybe
that's a good thing.) The Chinese of Laotzu's day is now so archaic that
there is tremendous room for debate and individual interpretation.
Mai
The Pseudosophist
Our roving reporter, Nathan Engle <nen...@indiana.edu> writes:-
>James G. Gilley wrote:
>> Nathan Engle <nen...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>> > Strange. Somehow I find that approach far more attractive than
>> >I would the accumulated labors of dozens of scholars.
>
>> Strange. Somehow I never thought that bad scholarship is Taoist.
>
> Perhaps not. I guess I just remain to be convinced that broad
>general treatments are the same thing as bad scholarship.
They are not. When it comes to things such as the Tao, it is not the
period or intensity of study or scholarship that is important. What
matters is the understanding gained from whatever depth or intensity of
study the scholar is capable. To my mind, the Mitchell translation made
perfect sense, and was far more readable than many books written by
eminent scholars on any subject. Once you accept the basic paradox that
that which can be named is not the answer, the rest is easy, even if it
does not sit well with Western 'rational thought'
>
>> Would you read a cookbook from a bad cook?
>
> Nope. My wife can assure you I just don't read cookbooks of any
>kind.
>
>> Or how about a technical manual by someone who doesn't work in the
>> field?
>
> 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.
Very few experts in any field can put over their ideas in a way that can
be understood by lay people. The best that we can hope for is someone
who understands enough to open the doorway to further knowledge. Once
the door is open, then we are free to choose our own path until we reach
the next door.
--
Trevor Clarke, aka The Pseudosophist
Ps...@u537.demon.co.uk
The Pseudosophist
Our roving reporter, dez <pd...@iquest.com> writes:-
>Nathan Engle <nen...@indiana.edu> wrote in article
><32FC82...@indiana.edu>...
>> dez wrote:
>> > A friend bought me Stephen Mitchell's Tao Te Ching translation, and my
>> > impression is that he doesn't understand Taoism too well.
>>
>> Hmmm, what was it about the text that makes you feel that way? Does
>> he make strange assertions?
>> --
>
>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:
>
>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.)
>
>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.)
>
>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.)
>
>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
of the Tao or the lack thereof. It is the translation of concepts that
do not map well into language anyway into a language used by a different
culture at a different time. To even begin to understand the Tao, it is
necessary to look beyond the language used to describe it. Therefore it
matters little whether the symbology of the language derives from
ancient China or modern day America.
It is hard enough to translate between French and English, languages
which relate to similar cultures. Many concepts do not travel well
eeven here. The fact that Mitchell's translation of the Tao Te Ching
also has to address concepts that are not familiar to the Western mind
and run orthogonal if not directly counter to the Judeo-Christian values
that pervade our culture even if we do not subscribe to these religions.
It is a sign of a closed mind to denounce everything that is not
understood as crap. Much of this work is of value, do not deride it for
those areas where it does not conform to your understanding of Taoism.
The book may be at fault, or your understanding may be at fault. Do not
decide until you are certain which.
dez
pseudo wrote:
> I think that the central problem is not one of Mitchells understanding
> of the Tao or the lack thereof. It is the translation of concepts that
> do not map well into language anyway into a language used by a different
> culture at a different time. To even begin to understand the Tao, it is
> necessary to look beyond the language used to describe it. Therefore it
> matters little whether the symbology of the language derives from
> ancient China or modern day America.
Agree that the translation task is (literally) impossible, but disagree
that symbology is interchangeable. Such words as "God" have taken on a
very strong meaning in Western culture, a meaning which I do not believe
assists someone from Western culture in understanding the TTC. Certainly,
Mitchell's statement about the Tao, that "it is older than God" is not the
best way to convey meaning, at least IMO.
> It is a sign of a closed mind to denounce everything that is not
> understood as crap. Much of this work is of value, do not deride it for
> those areas where it does not conform to your understanding of Taoism.
> The book may be at fault, or your understanding may be at fault. Do not
> decide until you are certain which.
I do not recall denouncing Mitchell's entire work. Although I pointed to a
few areas in which I thought Mitchell had gone too far with his cultural
makeover, I recall saying that Mitchell offers a unique perspective. I
agree with you that "Much of this work is of value." (Unlike some others,
I actually have read (and own) a copy of his book (although I admit that I
did not buy it.))
By the way, are you the next Mitchellite on the newsgroup?
dez
The Pseudosophist
Our roving reporter, dez <pd...@iquest.com> writes:-
< other discussion snipt>
>I do not recall denouncing Mitchell's entire work. Although I pointed to a
>few areas in which I thought Mitchell had gone too far with his cultural
>makeover, I recall saying that Mitchell offers a unique perspective. I
>agree with you that "Much of this work is of value." (Unlike some others,
>I actually have read (and own) a copy of his book (although I admit that I
>did not buy it.))
>
>By the way, are you the next Mitchellite on the newsgroup?
>
>dez
I am not any sort of '...ite'. I defended Mitchell's book because I had
read it and found it of value to me in my path. I would have used
similar arguments for any text that had given me similar assistance,
such as the I Ching (Wilhelm/Baines translation) and Rober Lee Wing's I
Ching Workbook.
My understanding of Taoism is limited, not least by my intellect.
However, I recognise that what works for me may work poorly if at all
for others. I try to retain an open mind and to encourage others to do
the same. Whether they do or not is their choice, I cannot (and have no
wish to) control others' destinies.
If my arguments appear too pro Mitchell for your liking, that is
unfortunate, as it means that either I have failed to make myself clear,
or you have misinterpreted my words. It matters not which, as the
result is the same, in that the message has become distorted. When it
comes to things as nebulous as the Tao, such results are unavoidable.