Chuang-tzu recommendations?
Ole Kvaal
Are there any particular translation (into English) of CT that you would
recommend? The only version I've got right now, is a translation into
Norwegian, which is a rather old one, with a rather stiff language. Online
or paper versions, anything will do. Er - perhaps online versions would do
to begin with, come to think of it.
--
Regards,
Ole Kvaal,
Trondheim,
Norway
============================================================================
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
innocent bystander
news:opr1bgdp...@news.online.no...
> Hi.
> Are there any particular translation (into English) of CT that you would
> recommend? The only version I've got right now, is a translation into
> Norwegian, which is a rather old one, with a rather stiff language. Online
> or paper versions, anything will do. Er - perhaps online versions would do
> to begin with, come to think of it.
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/cz-list.htm
Moonshadao
>
> Hi.
> Are there any particular translation (into English) of CT that you would
> recommend? The only version I've got right now, is a translation into
> Norwegian, which is a rather old one, with a rather stiff language. Online
> or paper versions, anything will do. Er - perhaps online versions would do
> to begin with, come to think of it.
>
Ole Kvaal
> Hi.
> Are there any particular translation (into English) of CT that you would
> recommend? The only version I've got right now, is a translation into
> Norwegian, which is a rather old one, with a rather stiff language.
> Online or paper versions, anything will do. Er - perhaps online versions
> would do to begin with, come to think of it.
>
BTW, how necessary are the notes (which I have in the Norwegian
translation), like, on 'how long is a li?' and stuff like that, to get a
meaning at least on the intellectual level?
innocent bystander
> On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 19:59:39 +0100, Ole Kvaal <okv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> > Are there any particular translation (into English) of CT that you would
> > recommend? The only version I've got right now, is a translation into
> > Norwegian, which is a rather old one, with a rather stiff language.
> > Online or paper versions, anything will do. Er - perhaps online versions
> > would do to begin with, come to think of it.
> >
> BTW, how necessary are the notes (which I have in the Norwegian
> translation), like, on 'how long is a li?' and stuff like that, to get a
> meaning at least on the intellectual level?
In the version i have at home a lot of different emperors, princes, sages,
craftsmen, advisors, embassymen and so on are used as examples in the
stories for instance. If it weren't for the notes on these people's
background the stories would lose a lot of their point in my opinion.
Generally, the notes i've encountered in my versions of tao te ching, Chuang
tzu and Lieh tzu have been really helpful.
{8-])))
>Hi.
Howdy!
>Are there any particular translation (into English) of CT that you would
>recommend?
I've been using
http://www.galileolibrary.com/ebooks/as07/chuangtzu_toc.htm
simply because the copyright has expired.
> The only version I've got right now, is a translation into
>Norwegian, which is a rather old one, with a rather stiff language. Online
>or paper versions, anything will do. Er - perhaps online versions would do
>to begin with, come to think of it.
I prefer to read an actual book.
My eyes tend to fuzz out online after a while.
A book can be taken from room to room
ore outside fur a spell.
Ole Kvaal
> I prefer to read an actual book.
And so do I. . . . .
> My eyes tend to fuzz out online after a while.
> A book can be taken from room to room
> ore outside fur a spell.
. . . . . . . for the very same reasons. So: what
translation/version/copy of the book do you recommend? Or would going to
a place like Shambala be a wise move?
Regards,
Ole K
Russ Lyttle
> Hi.
> Are there any particular translation (into English) of CT that you would
> recommend? The only version I've got right now, is a translation into
> Norwegian, which is a rather old one, with a rather stiff language. Online
> or paper versions, anything will do. Er - perhaps online versions would do
> to begin with, come to think of it.
>
Dover Books has published "The Texts of Taoism", James Legge, trans. in two
volumes, ISBN 0-486-20991-1 and 0-486-20990-3. Somewhat difficult to read
because he was trying to be correct. They do have a lot of good notes and
history and so make good companions to a more readable version.
--
Russ Lyttle
lyttlec(@)earthlink.net
Russ Lyttle
> On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 19:59:39 +0100, Ole Kvaal <okv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>> Are there any particular translation (into English) of CT that you would
>> recommend? The only version I've got right now, is a translation into
>> Norwegian, which is a rather old one, with a rather stiff language.
>> Online or paper versions, anything will do. Er - perhaps online versions
>> would do to begin with, come to think of it.
>>
> BTW, how necessary are the notes (which I have in the Norwegian
> translation), like, on 'how long is a li?' and stuff like that, to get a
> meaning at least on the intellectual level?
>
>
Good notes are necessary. We aren't from China, especially not 5th centuary
BC China.
--
Russ Lyttle
lyttlec(@)earthlink.net
lisa
> On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 19:59:39 +0100, Ole Kvaal <okv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> > Are there any particular translation (into English) of CT that you would
> > recommend? The only version I've got right now, is a translation into
> > Norwegian, which is a rather old one, with a rather stiff language.
> > Online or paper versions, anything will do. Er - perhaps online versions
> > would do to begin with, come to think of it.
> >
> BTW, how necessary are the notes (which I have in the Norwegian
> translation), like, on 'how long is a li?' and stuff like that, to get a
> meaning at least on the intellectual level?
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Ole Kvaal,
> Trondheim,
> Norway
Hi Ole,
Something else you may want to look at is reading a historic primer on
the evolution of Chinese philosophy that led to my favorite part, the
CT. George Henry, a founding member of this group (hey geo, hello,
wherever you are) says go back to the beginning of things, and I don't
think the CT is an exception. Looking at the CT in its historical
context gives it holistic oomph. Arthur Waley's Three Ways of Thought
in Ancient China and Fung Yu-lan's Short History of Chinese Philosophy
are good choices to take a look at. Wing-Tsit Chan's A Sourcebook in
Chinese Philosophy is a favored book by another founder of this
newsgroup, Miller Jew, aka Z (hi Z!) which has about every little
thing in it.
rgds,
lisa
{8-])))
>Jay wrote:
>> My eyes tend to fuzz out online after a while.
>> A book can be taken from room to room
>> ore outside fur a spell.
>So: what translation/version/copy of the book do you recommend?
I would recommend going to a local bookseller
and holding a few different versions in hand. Flip
thru a number of pages. Check out the index or
appendices if any are present. Buy a copy that
feels right to you at the time.
>Or would going to
> a place like Shambala be a wise move?
If Cleary feels right to you
then for you it may be a wise move.
>Regards,
Good luck!
>Ole K
Moonshadao
For the original 'inner chapters' I like the Gia-fu Feng and
Jane English translation. The photos are nice.
daywalker
Moonshadao
James Legge was a western biased, christian missionary
that brought his christian view point to everything
he 'translated' He is possibly one of the worst references
anyone could use about Taoist Philosophy.
daywalker
have you read it?
can you give an example of this bias?
feng-english is more christian.
Ole Kvaal
> James Legge was a western biased, christian missionary
> that brought his christian view point to everything
> he 'translated' He is possibly one of the worst references
> anyone could use about Taoist Philosophy.
>
This is also the problem with the Norwegian translation that I've read so
far (see origianl post): a Norwegian missionary, who not only translated
CT, but also TTC, and wrote a biography on Hui-Neng. I supposed he would
be a bit biased, though.
stealth...@-remove-yahoo.com
wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 09:45:14 -0500, Moonshadao <Moons...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>> James Legge was a western biased, christian missionary
>> that brought his christian view point to everything
>> he 'translated' He is possibly one of the worst references
>> anyone could use about Taoist Philosophy.
>>
>This is also the problem with the Norwegian translation that I've read so
>far (see origianl post): a Norwegian missionary, who not only translated
>CT, but also TTC, and wrote a biography on Hui-Neng. I supposed he would
>be a bit biased, though.
Oddly though, a lot of scholars still refer back to Legge for
different aspects of his translation which has the great value of
being out of copyright <grin>. John C H Wu is also a christian but
there is value in his work as well.
So, read him with caution, but don't dismiss Legge so quickly.
Moonshadao has no grasp of scholarship, so you would be well advised
to take his comments with caution. If something smells of
Christianity, he takes affront immediately. Almost anyone else here
is more knowledgable and trustworthy as a source.
The question of religious bias does enter into it though. A recent
translator and scholar of Lao Tzu used techniques of biblical
scholarship and hermeneutics to explore the layers of the DDJ.
Unfortunately some of the baggage he brought with him was the equation
of Dao with "God", which means that he either misunderstands what is
commonly mean by God or that he misunderstands what is meant by Dao.
But then, this is not unique to our time, there is no "perfect
observer" who brings no bias to his translation or commentary. Victor
Mair, for instance, likes a source outside of China for some core
concepts. If you agree, then it is fine, but it is a distinct point
of view and does imply a bias in favor of one form of interpretation.
LaoWombat
remove "remove" to email
Moonshadao
>
>
> Moonshadao has no grasp of scholarship, so you would be well advised
> to take his comments with caution. If something smells of
> Christianity, he takes affront immediately. Almost anyone else here
> is more knowledgable and trustworthy as a source.
>
Of course, dougie is your best source.
As a 'True Taoist', ole dougie (stealthy_tanuki) here
can extol the 'virtue' of learning. To him scholarship is
Taoism. If you know everything about Taoist liturature, then
by virtue of that knowledge you become a Taoist.
You may have heard that a Taoist lives life spontaneously,
works with out effort, and lives 'harmoniously' within a
natural environment. But to dougie that means, opening a book
with out being told to, reading without practical understanding,
and not spilling his tea on the pages.
daywalker
damn that's terrible
you need a dougie enema
Malcolm
The best book on Tao I've read was written by a Trappist monk, "The Way of
Chung Tzu" by Thomas Merton. Father Merton also wrote "Zen and the Birds of
Appetite" and this devout Christian is one of the most respected sources on
Eastern religion. Alan Watts recommended him.
Malcolm
zisixi
> > Ole Kvaal
> > > Hi.
> > > Are there any particular translation (into English) of CT that you
would
> > > recommend? The only version I've got right now, is a translation into
> > > Norwegian, which is a rather old one, with a rather stiff language.
> > > Online or paper versions, anything will do. Er - perhaps online
versions
> > > would do to begin with, come to think of it.
> > BTW, how necessary are the notes (which I have in the Norwegian
> > translation), like, on 'how long is a li?' and stuff like that, to get a
> > meaning at least on the intellectual level?
> In the version i have at home a lot of different emperors, princes, sages,
> craftsmen, advisors, embassymen and so on are used as examples in the
> stories for instance. If it weren't for the notes on these people's
> background the stories would lose a lot of their point in my opinion.
> Generally, the notes i've encountered in my versions of tao te ching,
Chuang
> tzu and Lieh tzu have been really helpful.
I've not read any versions with notes yet, and still found value.
Moonshadao
Christian Religion and Taoist Philosophy don't mix.
They are in opposition to each other.
Christian is dualistic, Taoism is not.
Also, Tao is not a deity.
daywalker
Moonshadao
>
> You don't seem convinced.
You don't seem intelligent.
daywalker
> daywalker wrote:
> >
> > You don't seem convinced.
>
> You don't seem intelligent.
Put away intelligence.
Moonshadao
No, learning.
Intelligence is need to survive.
I give you a 50/50 chance.
{8-])))
>Malcolm suggested:
>> The best book on Tao I've read was written by a Trappist monk, "The Way of
>> Chung Tzu" by Thomas Merton. Father Merton also wrote "Zen and the Birds of
>> Appetite" and this devout Christian is one of the most respected sources on
>> Eastern religion. Alan Watts recommended him.
>Christian Religion and Taoist Philosophy don't mix.
>They are in opposition to each other.
>Christian is dualistic, Taoism is not.
>Also, Tao is not a deity.
http://www.math.psu.edu/gvn/empty_boat.html
I like Merton's empty boat version.
It reminded me of a writer who is on
a quest to help others, 'not'.
{8-])))
> moon had shone:
>> Also, Tao is not a deity.
>You don't seem convinced.
h'ears a byte m'ore of Merton's CT
Ole Kvaal
>
> I would recommend going to a local bookseller
> and holding a few different versions in hand. Flip
> thru a number of pages. Check out the index or
> appendices if any are present. Buy a copy that
> feels right to you at the time.
Living in Trondheim, Norway (a veeery small city), I'd be more than happy
to find just one copy. :-) or :-(, make your pick.
>
>> Or would going to
>> a place like Shambala be a wise move?
>
> If Cleary feels right to you
> then for you it may be a wise move.
>
Cleary feels right to me, at least what he's done with Zen classics . . .
Thanks a lot for your reply.
daywalker
put away your quest for intelligence.
daywalker
"{8-])))" <me@home> wrote in message
news:dnbovvc27l6dtjuvc...@4ax.com...
I am not interested in reading anybody's
interpretations of the texts, especially from
a monk.
I am interested in translations and trying
to 'feel' which is most accurate.
The reason i said ms did not seem convinced
is that he seems to be forever dealing with the
same issues.
{8-])))
>jay wrote:
>> h'ears a byte m'ore of Merton's CT
>>
>> http://terebess.hu/english/merton.html
>>
>
>I am not interested in reading anybody's
>interpretations of the texts,
All translations are interpretations.
Such is the way of translating words.
>especially from a monk.
A monk might be in a unique position
to distinguish between various schools.
Some translators carry their baggage
into a translation of a text. Others are well
able to set aside one paradigm and are
very able to treat each as separate.
Suppose you have two kinds of bikes,
say you have a Honda and a Harley.
Now suppose you are an expert in one.
Does that necessarily mean anything?
How about if there are two types of fruit,
call them apples and oranges, and you
are very familiar with how to grow one;
does this create an advantage or some
sort of disadvantage in terms of talking
about the other type?
>I am interested in translations and trying
>to 'feel' which is most accurate.
You didn't get that feeling from Merton's?
Various authors are discluded by some
because their "credentials" are not to the
liking of those who are prejudiced. It could
be an idea to weigh a text on its own merit.
Did Merton have an agenda?
>The reason i said ms did not seem convinced
>is that he seems to be forever dealing with the
>same issues.
hmm
Russ Lyttle
I've got that one. It is easily read and, several Koreans have told me,
catches the tone and meaning perfectly. I tend to read it first and then
look to Legge for backup. I didn't mention him at first due to the
intolerance of some people.
--
Russ Lyttle
lyttlec(@)earthlink.net
Moonshadao
Listen dumbass. Taoist Philosophy (tao-chia) is not a religion.
Tao is not a deity. Interpretation of Chuang-Tzu and/or the Tao-Te-Ching
influenced by western religions are inaccurate.
Legge's translation tries to equate Tao and the Judeo/Christian
idea of God and he injects the words "Way of Heaven" in place
of Tao in many places. He of course translates T'ien as the
Judeo/Christian heaven instead of it's actual meaning in Chinese.
TAO and god do not equate.
As for Thomas Merton the following, I think, says it all:
"Chuang Tzu was a Taoist sage, living sometime before 250 B.C. The book
Chuang Tzu is believed to contain both his own writings and writings by
others about him and his teachings. The quotations at this site were
taken from The Way of Chuang Tzu, which was compiled by Thomas Merton (a
Roman Catholic monk) after reading four different translations of Chuang
Tzu. It is an abridged version of Chuang Tzu.
As Thomas Merton says in his introductory note, you enter upon the way
of Chuang Tzu when you leave all ways and get lost. "
http://www.digiserve.com/mystic/Taoist/Chuang_Tzu/about.html
Exactly his intention.
Trying to divert you from a 'real' translation
with an 'abridged' interpolation.
Merton reduces this:
"Everything can be a "that"; everything
can be a "this." One man cannot see
things as another sees them. One can
only know things through knowing one's self.
Therefore it is said, "'That' comes
from 'this,' and 'this' comes from 'that'"
- which means "that" and "this"
give birth to one another. Life arises
from death and death from life. What
is inappropriate is seen by virtue of
what is appropriate. There is right
because of wrong, and wrong because of
right. Thus the sage does not bother
with these distictions but seeks enlightenment
from heaven. So he sees "this,"
but "this" is also "that," and "that" is also
"this." "That" has elements of right
and wrong, and "this" has elements of
right and wrong. Does he still distinguish
between "this" and "that," or doesn't
he? When there is no more separation
between "this" and "that,"
it is called the still-point of Tao.
At the still-point in
the center of the circle one can see the
infinite in all things. Right is infinite;
wrong is also infinite. Therefore it is said,
"Behold the light beyond right and wrong." "
Chuang-Tzu the inner chapters, translation by Gia-fu Feng and Jane
English.
To this:
When we look at things in the light of Tao, nothing is best, nothing is
worst.
Each thing, seen in its own light stands out in its own way.
It can seem to be "better" than what is compared with it on its own
terms.
But seen in terms of the whole, no one thing stands out as "better" ...
All creatures have gifts of their own...
All things have varying capacities.
Consequently he who wants to have right without wrong, order without
disorder,
does not understand the principles of heaven and earth.
He does not know how things hang together.
Can a man cling only to heaven and know nothing of earth?
They are correlative: to know one is to know the other.
To refuse one is to refuse both.
(17:4,5,8, pp. 131-133) - 'The Way of Chuang Tzu', Thomas Merton
Carfully avoiding the wording equating right and wrong.
Christian 'religion' is dualistic.
It separates good and evil and claims good to be superior.
Taoist 'philosophy' is not dualistic.
It sees good and evil as one, which
also negates the ideas of inferior and superior.
{8-])))
>As for Thomas Merton the following, I think, says it all:
>
> ... The Way of Chuang Tzu, which was compiled by Thomas Merton (a
>Roman Catholic monk) after reading four different translations of Chuang
>Tzu. It is an abridged version of Chuang Tzu.
Thanks.
>As Thomas Merton says in his introductory note, you enter upon the way
>of Chuang Tzu when you leave all ways and get lost. "
>http://www.digiserve.com/mystic/Taoist/Chuang_Tzu/about.html
>
>Exactly his intention.
Maybe.
>Trying to divert you from a 'real' translation
>with an 'abridged' interpolation.
Doubt it.
Interesting.
>Christian 'religion' is dualistic.
>It separates good and evil and claims good to be superior.
>
>Taoist 'philosophy' is not dualistic.
>It sees good and evil as one,
If it sees that, then so too with right and wrong.
But given your point about careful wording,
wouldn't it be closer to say evil is within good
and good is within evil and that they are equal?
>which
>also negates the ideas of inferior and superior.
Thanks again.
tiandiren
Like the turkeys in a turkey farm?
sting
daywalker
"tiandiren" <flightof...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ea076b1.04010...@posting.google.com...
we need a new definition of intelligence
mankind is not acting responsibly
how can this civilization last?
jim fish
It isn't going to change the yinyang nature of it no matter what you call
it. The word itself is innocuous, like the word 'desire'. The meaning that
each of us carries for any word is not exactly the meaning for any other
person. Each substantive has its aspects.
> mankind is not acting responsibly
perhaps not.
> how can this civilization last?
It can't, it can only be prolonged.
rgds.
:-)
jim
kitznegari thinks it has wings
>Listen dumbass. Taoist Philosophy (tao-chia) is not a religion.
it sorta is for me. i've made it my way of life, and although i don't
"worship" it, i certainly do think it's keen.
>TAO and god do not equate.
that is true.
but is religion only the prescence of a deity?
>There is right
> because of wrong, and wrong because of
> right. Thus the sage does not bother
> with these distictions but seeks enlightenment
> from heaven.
true :) and that idea makes it easier to "not do". you just watch the ball of
yarn unravel in front of you and are amused by where the string trail leads :)
>Taoist 'philosophy' is not dualistic.
>It sees good and evil as one, which
>also negates the ideas of inferior and superior.
yep.
- k i t z -
i will take you to the oracle, but first i must aporogize.
http://spinning_plates.tripod.com
kitznegari thinks it has wings
kitznegari likes this.
>we need a new definition of intelligence
>mankind is not acting responsibly
>how can this civilization last?
intelligence... the antitao.
kitznegari thinks it has wings
defining things is the root of all "evil" and may be the key to triton's
undoing ;)
>It isn't going to change the yinyang nature of it no matter what you call
>it.
is a bird still a bird if you call it a tuna fish? ;)
>The word itself is innocuous, like the word 'desire'. The meaning that
>each of us carries for any word is not exactly the meaning for any other
>person. Each substantive has its aspects.
the last guy that i officially dated told me that i should try to communicate
with other people using their own terminology for things, and not by having my
own definitions for every little thing. he was annoyed that my definitions of
honesty and love and loyalty did not seem to fit the same ideas that he had
about them. he was not interested in learning how to be happy and enjoying
himself... he was self employed with the tasks of Understanding Important
Things, Going Places In Life and Paving The Way For A Better Tommorrow.
the thing i miss the most about him is his long blond hair and his cupboard
full of chef boyardee pasta. heh ;)
>> how can this civilization last?
how can this civilation first?
>It can't, it can only be prolonged.
everything starts, everything stops. and starts again.
Russ Lyttle
> moonshadao said:
>
>>Listen dumbass. Taoist Philosophy (tao-chia) is not a religion.
>
> it sorta is for me. i've made it my way of life, and although i don't
> "worship" it, i certainly do think it's keen.
>
>>TAO and god do not equate.
>
> that is true.
>
> but is religion only the prescence of a deity?
>
No. Atheism is a recognized religion by the IRS, Inland Revenue, and the
Pope. So is Taoism. Any one may set up a Taoist church, hold meetings, take
up collections, provide chaplins to prisons and the military.
>>There is right
>> because of wrong, and wrong because of
>> right. Thus the sage does not bother
>> with these distictions but seeks enlightenment
>> from heaven.
>
> true :) and that idea makes it easier to "not do". you just watch the
> ball of yarn unravel in front of you and are amused by where the string
> trail leads :)
>
>>Taoist 'philosophy' is not dualistic.
>>It sees good and evil as one, which
>>also negates the ideas of inferior and superior.
>
> yep.
>
> - k i t z -
> i will take you to the oracle, but first i must aporogize.
> http://spinning_plates.tripod.com
--
Russ Lyttle
lyttlec(@)earthlink.net
kamerm
"kitznegari thinks it has wings" <kitzn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040108211003...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> >> Like the turkeys in a turkey farm?
>
> kitznegari likes this.
>
> >we need a new definition of intelligence
> >mankind is not acting responsibly
> >how can this civilization last?
>
> intelligence... the antitao.
"cleverness" might fit better..
> - k i t z -
> i will take you to the oracle, but first i must aporogize.
> http://spinning_plates.tripod.com
-k
jim fish
> >
> > but is religion only the prescence of a deity?
> >
> No. Atheism is a recognized religion by the IRS, Inland Revenue, and the
> Pope. So is Taoism. Any one may set up a Taoist church, hold meetings,
take
> up collections, provide chaplins to prisons and the military.
Yes and no. There are two Taoisms (in a way) one that is defined as a
religion and one that is defined as a philosophy. Although there are
possible lines of demarcation, they ebb and flow. So you could perhaps set
up a temple in a prison under the guise of Tao-chiao (religious Taoism) but
setting up something under the guise of Tao-chia (philosophical Taoism) is
more akin to setting up a group to study Platonic philosophy or any other
that you have in mind.
But both you and kitz have made the valid point that the word religion
carries with it a certain vagueness that might be exemplified by the
statement "I do [whatever] religiously"
Get some attorneys involved and some cash flowing and bureaucrates will
allow for many things to be called religions ;-)
rgds.
:-)
jim
daywalker
oh
sooner or later you
run out of gas
and start walking
{8-])))
>moonshadao said:
>
>>Listen dumbass. Taoist Philosophy (tao-chia) is not a religion.
>
>it sorta is for me. i've made it my way of life, and although i don't
>"worship" it, i certainly do think it's keen.
>
>>TAO and god do not equate.
>
>that is true.
>
>but is religion only the prescence of a deity?
Normal usage generally connotes such a critter.
However, a person may watch football religiously.
Words mean different things to different folk.
Eye herds the word may derive from re+ligare.
Ligaments tie or bind. In a broad sense of the
term, to retie or rebind is what religion does.
Little children are totally together.
After they begin to learn shit and become
enculturated they may get so wound up that they
begin to lose it. A philosophy can be a religion
if it helps one to retie their shit together.
>>There is right
>> because of wrong, and wrong because of
>> right.
Once right and wrong are learned
there is a division in what was previously
undivided. Taoism reties such strings.
Tao unties tangles.
{8-])))
(kitznegari thinks it has wings) wrote:
>>> we need a new definition of intelligence
>
>defining things is the root of all "evil" and may be the key to triton's
>undoing ;)
>
>>It isn't going to change the yinyang nature of it no matter what you call
>>it.
>
>is a bird still a bird if you call it a tuna fish? ;)
Does sound exist without an ear?
kitznegari thinks it has wings
>No. Atheism is a recognized religion by the IRS, Inland Revenue, and the
>Pope. So is Taoism. Any one may set up a Taoist church, hold meetings, take
>up collections, provide chaplins to prisons and the military.
i get annoyed when there is no "taoism" selection box when i'm filling out
surveys that ask me what "religion" i am. i hate filling out "other". that's
like admitting that i'm in a cult that eats cats or something.
daywalker
"{8-])))" <me@home> wrote in message
why wouldn't it?
stealth...@-remove-yahoo.com
Does a [semantic symbol] exist without a [semantic symbol]?
Laowombat
remove "remove" to email
Moonshadao
>
> No. Atheism is a recognized religion by the IRS, Inland Revenue, and the
> Pope. So is Taoism. Any one may set up a Taoist church, hold meetings, take
> up collections, provide chaplins to prisons and the military.
>
If you don't know what you are talking about
find out more information on the subject before you speak.
'Atheist' means 'No Theory', that means no religion moron.
I don't give a shit who recognized it as such.
Tao-chiao is Taoist religion and Tao-chia is Taoist philosophy.
Taoist philosophy is not a religion. TAO IS NOT A DEITY.
Do the larger letters make that easier to understand?
Pull your head out of your ass and figure out the difference.
tiandiren
Ok, what's the "new definition"?
> mankind is not acting responsibly
too many half-baked intelligence?
> how can this civilization last?
Build a lasting culture?
Tiandiren is the whole, One.
tiandiren
> >> we need a new definition of intelligence
>
> defining things is the root of all "evil"
Or, without clear definitions lays the root of all "evil"?
> and may be the key to triton's
> undoing ;)
How do you undo the things that you don't know (for lacking of a
[clear] definition)?
>
> >It isn't going to change the yinyang nature of it no matter what you call
> >it.
>
> is a bird still a bird if you call it a tuna fish? ;)
Yes, [a bird is still a bird if you call it a tuna fish,] only after
awhile you'll be awfully confused.
>
> >The word itself is innocuous, like the word 'desire'. The meaning that
> >each of us carries for any word is not exactly the meaning for any other
> >person. Each substantive has its aspects.
>
> the last guy that i officially dated told me that i should try to communicate
> with other people using their own terminology for things, and not by having my
> own definitions for every little thing.
Quite true, if you wish the other party to know what you mean.
> he was annoyed that my definitions of
> honesty and love and loyalty did not seem to fit the same ideas that he had
> about them.
A good definition lies in its consistency and integrity, so it's in
agreement to the things it described.
No, the description is not the thing it described.
> he was not interested in learning how to be happy and enjoying
> himself... he was self employed with the tasks of Understanding Important
> Things, Going Places In Life and Paving The Way For A Better Tommorrow.
Another ways to transcend the uninspiring mundane routines?
> the thing i miss the most about him is his long blond hair and his cupboard
> full of chef boyardee pasta. heh ;)
Guess that's why your guys don't belong to each other.
>
> >> how can this civilization last?
>
> how can this civilation first?
Because it exists?
>
> >It can't, it can only be prolonged.
>
> everything starts, everything stops. and starts again.
Taekwondo alright, have you try Tai Chi?
tiandiren
daywalker
we need to forge a new mentality,
closer to the heart
stealth...@-remove-yahoo.com
actually, an old mentality
Xin
<span class="chuni">心</span>
heart-mind
LaoWombat
remove "remove" to email
{8-])))
Do hard and soft exist without touch?
Ole Kvaal
>
> 'Atheist' means 'No Theory', that means no religion moron.
> I don't give a shit who recognized it as such.
>
'Atheist/atheism' comes from Greek 'atheos', which means 'No God'. It does
not deny neither theory nor religion. On the other hand, god is probably
nothing more than a theory . . .
--
Regards,
Ole Kvaal,
trondheim
jim fish
> tiandiren:
> Yes, [a bird is still a bird if you call it a tuna fish,] only after
> awhile you'll be awfully confused.
>
> >
> > the last guy that i officially dated told me that i should try to
communicate
> > with other people using their own terminology for things, and not by
having my
> > own definitions for every little thing.
>
> Quite true, if you wish the other party to know what you mean.
<smiling bigger>
> > the thing i miss the most about him is his long blond hair and his
cupboard
> > full of chef boyardee pasta. heh ;)
>
> Guess that's why your guys don't belong to each other.
>>
> Taekwondo alright, have you try Tai Chi?
:-)
root
> tiandiren
:-)
Russ Lyttle
They prove you misunderstood Lao Tzu's comments on learning.
> Pull your head out of your ass and figure out the difference.
A-the-ism means "Belief in No God". Agnosticism is no theory or unproven.
Agnosticism is a religion to. Religion does not require any number of gods.
Any number from 0 to inifinity is good enough.
--
Russ Lyttle
lyttlec(@)earthlink.net
Russ Lyttle
>
>> >
>> > but is religion only the prescence of a deity?
>> >
>> No. Atheism is a recognized religion by the IRS, Inland Revenue, and the
>> Pope. So is Taoism. Any one may set up a Taoist church, hold meetings,
> take
>> up collections, provide chaplins to prisons and the military.
>
> Yes and no. There are two Taoisms (in a way) one that is defined as a
> religion and one that is defined as a philosophy. Although there are
> possible lines of demarcation, they ebb and flow. So you could perhaps set
> up a temple in a prison under the guise of Tao-chiao (religious Taoism)
> but setting up something under the guise of Tao-chia (philosophical
> Taoism) is more akin to setting up a group to study Platonic philosophy or
> any other that you have in mind.
Correct. Followers of the Tao-chia can establish study groups just as
Atheist can. In fact, I think it would be a very good idea for some
knowledgable person to do just that.
> But both you and kitz have made the valid point that the word religion
> carries with it a certain vagueness that might be exemplified by the
> statement "I do [whatever] religiously"
> Get some attorneys involved and some cash flowing and bureaucrates will
> allow for many things to be called religions ;-)
And some one will find a way to get a tax break.
>
> rgds.
> :-)
> jim
--
Russ Lyttle
lyttlec(@)earthlink.net
Russ Lyttle
Zeno's ninth paradox. If you drop a sack of millet does it make a sound? If
you drop half a sack? one grain? the chaff from one grain?
If you don't feel the wind, does it make a sound?
--
Russ Lyttle
lyttlec(@)earthlink.net
Russ Lyttle
Why would it?
--
Russ Lyttle
lyttlec(@)earthlink.net
daywalker
"{8-])))" <me@home> wrote in message
not the same thing
{8-])))
...others wrote:
>> >> >is a bird still a bird if you call it a tuna fish? ;)
>> >>
>> >> Does sound exist without an ear?
>> >
>> >why wouldn't it?
>>
>> Do hard and soft exist without touch?
>
>not the same thing
Does odor exist without a nose?
daywalker
"{8-])))" <me@home> wrote in message
can chickens fly?
Ole Kvaal
> Legge's translation tries to equate Tao and the Judeo/Christian
> idea of God and he injects the words "Way of Heaven" in place
> of Tao in many places. He of course translates T'ien as the
> Judeo/Christian heaven instead of it's actual meaning in Chinese.
>
Just how would you translate Tien? The reason I ask, is that the two copies
I've read in Norwegian also frequently uses the word 'heaven', which
sometimes confuses me a bit . . . .
--
regards,
ole k,
trondheim
Moonshadao
>
> Atheist can. In fact, I think it would be a very good idea for some
> knowledgable person to do just that.
>
Yo moron, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE POSTING TO?
Moonshadao
>
> Moonshadao wrote:
> > TAO IS NOT A DEITY.
> > Do the larger letters make that easier to understand?
> They prove you misunderstood Lao Tzu's comments on learning.
Lao Tzu didn't exist.
The Tao Te Ching was 'oral tradition' until the 'waring states period'
when it was written down. The passages are an accumulation of
philosophy that existed long before then. Lao Tzu translates
as 'old master'. Your comment shows that you have no understanding
of Taoist philosophy.
>
> > Pull your head out of your ass and figure out the difference.
>
> A-the-ism means "Belief in No God".
You get the idea.
So get with the fucking program.
We are not talking about fucking religions
the name of the newsgroup is alt.PHILOSOPHY.TAOISM
Moonshadao
My first kung-fu teacher was Chinese. The name of his 'system' of
martial arts was Tien Shan Pai. He said that translates to
Celestial Mountain Academy. The idea of Tien is 'everything other
than earth'. it has nothing to do with the judeo/christian idea
of 'heaven'. In short, it is just the 'sky' above.
Moonshadao
I forgot to mention That the 'sky' and the 'earth' are
considered to have separate 'chi' and that the 'chi'
of Tien has a influence on the chi of 'earth' so the use
of tein in the Tao Te Ching indicates a belief in that
'influence'.
Moonshadao
Does a bear shit in the woods?
Does the pope wear a funny hat?
Did the pope shit in the woods?
If he did and you aren't there to smell it,
does it stink?
daywalker
> Legge's translation tries to equate Tao and the Judeo/Christian
> idea of God and he injects the words "Way of Heaven" in place
> of Tao in many places. He of course translates T'ien as the
> Judeo/Christian heaven instead of it's actual meaning in Chinese.
read the introduction to Legge's 'The Text of Taoism',
then compare the use of the 'Way of Heaven' in both
Legge's translation and Feng-English to see why you
should try to keep your mouth shut.
Moonshadao
I won't see anything because I know as well as anyone
that a fucking christian missionary has a mission.
The mission was to convert the heathen pagans in china.
The fucker had an agenda to push and he wanted to equate
tao and god so the 'heathens' would see that his god
was the same as tao and perhaps they would follow the other
bullshit that he and the 'christian' church were there
to push on them.
Gia-fu Feng's translation is not the best translation.
it is just the one that I have been reading the longest.
Since 1973 when I bought the book that he and his
'photographer' girl friend, Jane English were selling.
Gia-fu seems to have had a tendancy to try and 'relate'
to western christians. He 'fathered' a Taoist Community
of westerners that came to him to learn Tai-chi and philosophy.
I guess he figured if his audience was going to be western
he would have to try and 'missionary' his translation.
If you insist on being a fucking moron, at least
try to understand why you are one. You talk when
you have no idea of what you are talking about.
{8-])))
>day asked:
>> can chickens fly?
>
>Does a bear shit in the woods?
>Does the pope wear a funny hat?
>
>Did the pope shit in the woods?
>
>If he did and you aren't there to smell it,
>does it stink?
To call a bird a tunafish is strange.
Iirc, somewear in the CT it was said to have said
that things become what they are called.
If the pope's shit is stepped in
by some unknowing bear in the woods
it probably wood p'u-be considered as simply shit
and nothing other than that.
If the pope's shit is stepped in
by someone who values the pope's poop
then it might be called by some other name
and take on properties it normally wood knot.
If shit is called shit it might be stepped around.
If shit is called fertilizer it might be gathered.
Why anybody would call a bird a tunafish
remains a bit beyond m'eye mindsigh.
Moonshadao
So...you're saying that the pope's shit doesn't stink?
(grin)
Russ Lyttle
> Russ Lyttle wrote:
>>
>> Moonshadao wrote:
>
>> > TAO IS NOT A DEITY.
>> > Do the larger letters make that easier to understand?
>
>> They prove you misunderstood Lao Tzu's comments on learning.
>
> Lao Tzu didn't exist.
> The Tao Te Ching was 'oral tradition' until the 'waring states period'
> when it was written down. The passages are an accumulation of
> philosophy that existed long before then. Lao Tzu translates
> as 'old master'. Your comment shows that you have no understanding
> of Taoist philosophy.
I chose to believe that there is enough evidance to support Lao Tzu as a
real person. It is, however, not relevant.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> > Pull your head out of your ass and figure out the difference.
>>
>> A-the-ism means "Belief in No God".
>
> You get the idea.
> So get with the fucking program.
> We are not talking about fucking religions
> the name of the newsgroup is alt.PHILOSOPHY.TAOISM
I do not accept your insistance of putting things in neat either-or
true-false boxes.
--
Russ Lyttle
lyttlec(@)earthlink.net
Russ Lyttle
My "modern" dictionary translates t'ien as heaven. I would like to have a
pre-war C-E,E-C dictionary and a dual language version of the Tao Te Ching,
if anyone can recommend a version. A Chineese only version would be
helpful.
--
Russ Lyttle
lyttlec(@)earthlink.net
Moonshadao
>
I wonder if anyone gives a fuck what you accept?
We are not talking boxes, we are talking groups.
10,000 or more USENET groups. Why? Divison of topic.
If everything were the topic in a particular USENET
group, there would be no need for groups. Everyone
would post everything to one big board and no one
would be able to follow individual topics.
Tao is not God and Taoist Philosophy is not a religion.
So fuck what you accept, reality is your fate asshole.
zisixi
> > daywalker wrote:
> > > Moonshadao
"A Modern Chinese-English Dictionary" translates tian as
sky/heaven, day, overhead, time, season, nature/elements, God/Heaven
"A Chinese-English Dictionary" translates tian as
sky/heaven, overhead, day, a period of time in a day, season, nature,
God/Heaven
Russ Lyttle
Silvie, if you can't read simple English, why should we accept anything you
say about the Tao?
--
Russ Lyttle
lyttlec(@)earthlink.net
kitznegari thinks it has wings
>
> Followers of the Tao-chia can establish study groups just as
> Atheist can. In fact, I think it would be a very good idea for some
> knowledgable person to do just that.
tao-chia... is that like one of those plant things that they advertise back to
back with "the clapper" commercials around christmastime?
cha-cha-cha taochia!
- k i t z -
i will take you to the oracle, but first i must aporogize.
http://spinning_plates.tripod.com
Russ Lyttle
I use the Concise English-Chinese Chinese-English Dictionary. Exact
translation depends on associated characters. Celestial is also a
possiblility. Similar to the way English uses heaven, the heavens, etc.
--
Russ Lyttle
lyttlec(@)earthlink.net
kitznegari thinks it has wings
i grew up on a farm and can confirm chicken flyage. if you gave them a hand up
(aka, tossed them into the air) they could drop for a slow while instead of a
fast one. and flap. they were excellent flappers.
but we did have SOME chickens that one time, somehow, managed to make it up to
the garage roof. we were all perplexed and amused. my dad wanted to take a
picture but we had no film for the cameras.
kitznegari thinks it has wings
>Iirc, somewear in the CT it was said to have said
>that things become what they are called.
tr'u!
>If the pope's shit is stepped in
>by some unknowing bear in the woods
>it probably wood p'u-be considered as simply shit
>and nothing other than that.
*feels her mind boggling*
i think i'm beginning to understand what you say around here, smile guy.
>If the pope's shit is stepped in
>by someone who values the pope's poop
>then it might be called by some other name
>and take on properties it normally wood knot.
the holy shit?
hehehehehe...
>If shit is called shit it might be stepped around.
>If shit is called fertilizer it might be gathered.
and if called poo it would be confused with a strange little bear, or laughed
about by small children.
>Why anybody would call a bird a tunafish
>remains a bit beyond m'eye mindsigh.
i like it when you rub my brain like that... but i am having trouble not-doing
it to myself... i want to do that too!
kitzbrain needs to stretch more and learn to think outside itself...
Moonshadao
No one ask you to accept anything moron.
All that can be hoped for is that you eat shit and die.
Go fuck yourself.
Moonshadao
Both written and published by western culture.
Ask Ichen Shen or Ht Shen or Doctor 9 what it translates as.
Moonshadao
Ichin Shen, sorry for the misspelling
zisixi
>> zisixi wrote:
The first was published at Oxford,
the second was published in BeiJing.
I'd give the detailed publishing info, but it's all in Chinese.
stealth...@-remove-yahoo.com
Check out what Ti was to the Shang and what Tien was to the Zhou,
Graham's "disputers of the Tao is" good on this.
If you what an answer without an agenda, try Zhoubou (Miller Jew) who
may still be lurking.
--
[remove -remove- to reply]
Rannulph Junuh: This is getting embarassing.
Bagger Vance: Oh no sir, this has been embarassing for quite some time
"Legend of Bagger Vance"
Russ Lyttle
Brilliant Taoist come back, Silvie.
--
Russ Lyttle
lyttlec(@)earthlink.net
Moonshadao
daywalker
"Moonshadao" <Moons...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:400042...@aol.com...
> daywalker wrote:
> >
> > > > > "Moonshadao" the idiot dog barking at the gate wrote
> >
> > > Legge's translation tries to equate Tao and the Judeo/Christian
> > > idea of God and he injects the words "Way of Heaven" in place
> > > of Tao in many places. He of course translates T'ien as the
> > > Judeo/Christian heaven instead of it's actual meaning in Chinese.
> >
> > read the introduction to Legge's 'The Text of Taoism',
> > then compare the use of the 'Way of Heaven' in both
> > Legge's translation and Feng-English to see why you
> > should try to keep your mouth shut.
>
> I won't see anything because I know as well as anyone
> that a fucking christian missionary has a mission.
> The mission was to convert the heathen pagans in china.
> The fucker had an agenda to push and he wanted to equate
> tao and god so the 'heathens' would see that his god
> was the same as tao and perhaps they would follow the other
> bullshit that he and the 'christian' church were there
> to push on them.
>
The person you are calling a fucker knew
far more about Taoism and the Chinese
language then you ever will.
I suggest you get your head out of your
ass and take my advise above.
daywalker
{8-])))
>my dad wanted to take a
>picture but we had no film for the cameras.
if there is no film in the camera
ten thou sand words may still knot dew
eye shutters
teh thoughts
daywalker
"Russ Lyttle" <lyt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:xj1Mb.2073$1e....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Jonathan Star's Tao Te Ching boasts the following,
- the first comprehensive verbatim translation
of the entire text of the tao te ching
-literal character definitions that allow the
reader to create his or her own interpretation
- a concordance section that enables the reader
to track the different ways a single character
is used thoughout the work
- grammatical and interpretive notes on
individual terms and verses
- a unique commentary on the first verse,
which represents a complete spiritual
teaching in itself
- a literary translation of the ttc that can be
read on its own or compared with the
verbatim translation
jim fish
"{8-])))" <me@home> wrote in message
Perhaps they don't understand what they are talking about and hope by
changing standard usage they can bs their way through.
-fwiw
jim
Russ Lyttle
I'll start looking for a copy. Is that the exact title?
--
Russ Lyttle
lyttlec(@)earthlink.net
stealth...@-remove-yahoo.com
But, can you trust a translation that starts off by saying that
Ancient Chinese had no grammar?
For dual language, what about gate of all marvelous things
The page also contains negative reviews (too simplified) but also
contains the following:
>Readers who are unfamiliar with Classical Chinese are sometimes frankly puzzled as to why different translators, working on the same text, can come up with such widely differing translations. But to fully understand why this can happen, it would of course be necessary to learn Chinese.
>
>Basically it has to do with the fact that the grammar of Ancient Chinese is as yet imperfectly understood. Another important reason is that the Chinese character or graph cannot really be equated with an English 'word' - they're very different animals. English words can change their form, as in 'run, runs, running, ran,' but graphs have a fixed form and can't do this.
>
>Additionally, graphs will often have a far wider range of meanings than English words. This makes for a language with richer connotations. It's a beautiful language and I don't think that anyone who may be thinking of taking it up will be sorry if they do. Everyone should have at least a little Chinese. Even a little can provide a lot of fun.
>
>One of the reasons I've always loved Classical Chinese is because it's an extremely concise and powerful language, a language of great masculine vigor, and one of the first things I look for in any translation from Classical Chinese is a comparable economy and energy. Some people don't seem to understand this, and I think it's because they fail to realize that words, besides expressing meaning, can also serve to limit meaning, especially in grammatically fussy Indo-European languages such as English where sentences are intended to convey as precise a meaning as possible and in doing so can become (as mine are here) rather wordy.
>
>But ancient Chinese writing isn't like this. Rather than attempting to narrow and delimit meaning, and to pin us down to something particular and explicit, it aims instead to open and expand our understanding. In other words, although it can look deceptively simple, it is in fact richly suggestive, rich in implications. And this rich suggestiveness will generate many different meanings in the minds of different readers.
>
>Proof of this can readily be found by anyone who takes the trouble to compare a few translations of the Tao Te Ching. Those who cannot consult the actual Chinese text will, as I've mentioned, often find themselves puzzled by these differences. What they fail to understand is that, whereas the English ideal is to express one and one thing only, the Chinese strategy is to express many meanings simultaneously. And this is where Professor Gregory C. Richter's text comes in.
>
>Professor Richter has provided an invaluable service to all who are interested in Classical Chinese. Whether you only want to check up on an occasional passage of the Tao Te Ching, or whether you want to learn Chinese inductively by memorizing an actual text, or whether you are taking a formal course and simply want some supplementary study material, or whether you are just plain curious, Richter's text will prove invaluable. Not only has he given us the Chinese graphs in a well-printed large clear font which makes them easy to read (though I wish he had used the traditional full forms rather than the modern simplified forms), but he also provides the pinyin transliteration for each graph, a detailed interlinear graph-by-graph gloss, and a final English translation.
>
>Considering what an important language Chinese is, there really ought to be far more texts like Professor Richter's, and he certainly deserves our gratitude for creating such an invaluable tool. My advice to the interested would be to snap it up before it goes out of print.
>
>One thing he has not provided is instruction in the all-important art of writing graphs (characters, ideograms) correctly. This too is huge fun, and can be an enormous source of satisfaction. For an excellent manual that will teach you how to write Chinese characters beautifully with a pen, you might check out: 'Learn to Write Chinese Characters' (Yale Language Series) by Johan Bjorksten. His models are superb.
>
>Another book I can strongly recommend is 'Sound and Symbol in Chinese' (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, Revised Edition 1971 [1962]), by the renowned Swedish Sinologist Bernhard Karlgren. This is a short and truly excellent introduction, in just 98 pages, which covers: The Ancient Language; Word Formation; The Script; Syntax; and Rhetoric. The book has a fine concluding section of Bibliographical Notes with sections on: Grammar; Phonetics and history of the language; Dictionaries; Script; History of Literature; Standard translations; General Works of Reference, Periodicals, etc. Unfortunately it appears at the moment to be out-of-print, but you may find a copy in the library.
LaoWombat
daywalker
daywalker
<stealthy_tanuki@-remove-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c4n200pujeicauoti...@4ax.com...
To be fair, this is what he says,
'Western languages are rooted in grammar that frames
events in real time, identifies subject and object, clarifies
relationships, and establishes temporal sequences.
Ancient Chinese is based on pictorial representations,
without grammar. Characters symbolize concepts that
can be interpreted as singular or plural; as a noun, a verb,
or an adjective; as happening in the past, present, or future.
Therefore, when translating from Chinese to English, the
Chinese characters must be framed within a perceptual
context to be understood.
For instance, most of the Chinese text of the Tao Te Ching
does not identify the subject or the object. It is left up to
the translator to identify who is doing the talking, from what
perspective, and to whom the message is directed - and
then find the English equivalents to support his interpretation..'
>
> For dual language, what about gate of all marvelous things
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1891688006/qid=1073831136/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/102-0575221-2200103?v=glance&s=books
>
thanks for the link
I think that unless one honestly begins to 'embrace' or
'live according to' the Way, the deeper meanings behind
the text will never be seen.
That is why intellect cannot reach it, and why fools
laugh when they hear about it.