Talk:Tao

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Taoism Portal This article is supported by the Taoism WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Taoism-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Tao=Logos? 2 Separate page? 3 Flaws 4 Tao or Dao 5 Tao Austronesian Indigenes Disambiguation 6 Spelling of Tao 7 Glamorous objects 8 The Tao in other Asian languages 9 Recent Edit 10 Tao Te Ching and governance 11 The TTC as a treatise on Government 12 Inclusion of two translations of TTC frist stanza 13 The many paths 14 Tao and Christianity 15 What is the Tao? 16 Moved from article 17 Also moved from article 17.1 Examples of Tao as path 18 Definitions of Tao 19 Tao in the Tao Te Ching 20 Should a discussion of the Yin and Yang be good? 21 On the New Introduction 22 That which cannot be named

[edit] Tao=Logos?

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

[edit] Separate page?

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

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

[edit] Flaws

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

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

[edit] Tao or Dao

User 206.116.41.75 added the following paragraph to the article:

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

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

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

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

[edit] Tao Austronesian Indigenes Disambiguation

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

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

[edit] Spelling of Tao

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

[edit] Glamorous objects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The Tao in other Asian languages

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

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

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

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

[edit] Recent Edit

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

[edit] Tao Te Ching and governance

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The TTC as a treatise on Government

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

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

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

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

This is what I was taught:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Tao Te Ching was written for everyone.

cann0tsay 07:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of two translations of TTC frist stanza

I have a problem with the inclusion of a second version of the TTC in the article. I know everyone has his own favourite version and can bring forward reasons to justify its inclusion. However, the translation by TrueTao.org is just not good English, in my opinion. For example, the use of the word "constant," which is repeated several times, renders the meaning almost impenetrable. The translation says:

"The Tao that can be spoken is not the constant Tao
 The name that can be named is not the constant name..."

What does this mean? What is "constant Tao?" What is a "constant name?" Later in the stanza it says "constantly free of desire..." "constantly filled with desire..." The word "constantly" does nothing but introduce a confusing element into the phrase. If one is free of desire one is free of desire. Adding "constantly" renders it problematic. If one is constantly free of desire, one cannot then be filled with desire. Constantly means always.

Langdell has said that quoting sections from TTC is not good enough. I agree. There needs to be more meat in the article itself. And I don't think we should have two quotations from the TTC. Anyone who thinks we need the second quotation, please speak to that. Sunray 02:00, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sunray, I agree with you that the word "constant" may be confusing. A better word would be "eternal," which is used in Gia Fu Feng and Jane English's translation:

"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
 The name that can be named is not the eternal name." [1]

I think it should be pointed out specifically that some translations say the Tao cannot be known, while others say nothing about the inability to know or understand the Tao. This second group of translators usually say the Tao cannot be told or spoken of. Whether or not the Tao can be known or understood is a fundamental issue. I don't have a favorite translation of TTC, although I am in accord with the second group of translations and have given examples of things that cannot be described truly with words but are understandable through personal experience, ie. the taste of food.

Tao is a fascinating concept and very difficult to truly comprehend. That's why there are those who devote 100 percent of their energies, their entire lives, in studying the Tao. They are called Buddhist monks. These super scholars have been known to confine themselves months at a time, year after year, with the soul purpose of pouring over books and meditating on what they have read in order to truly grasp a certain subject.

Having heard many sermons from Vietnamese Buddhist Masters, I have never heard them say that Tao cannot be understood. I've only heard the opposite, that one needs to understand the Tao in order to attain enlightenment.

One of these masters, the venerable Thich Tam Thanh, who has chosen to be a Buddhist monk in his late teen years, said that even though he had gained teacher status and was confident of his knowledge after ten years of studies and meditation, his understanding of Tao at that ten-year stage seemed shallow after twenty years, and the twenty-year stage seemed superficial after thirty years. He said he was glad he had not written any book at those times, for he would have had to retrieve and burn them all. He also said it has become increasingly difficult for him to give sermons because he knows what he is saying is just not quite right.

By the way, I think he passed away in 2004. Thankfully, his disciples have recorded some of his teachings, one of which is his explanation (in Vietnamese) [2] of the famed Lotus Sutra).

I would like to end my discussing with one of my favorite story: A group of Masters have gathered to expound their knowledge and understanding of the Tao. Many gave eloquent, mesmerizing testimonies. When it came to (eek, forgot his name)'s turn, he simply said nothing. After some time has passed, he left the podium and sat down. The consensus was that he was a person who truly understood the Tao.

Thank you for your time and patience in going through my spiel. Cann0tsay 14:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I would like to acknowledge a mistake in my previous edit of Tao. My statement, "...the Chinese character that was used in the first verse means 'say, speak.'...," is wrong. Literally, first two verses translate to:

"tao can tao not constant tao
 name can name not constant name"  Cann0tsay 18:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ugh, constant again. I liked your suggestion of "eternal." :-) You make the point that the statement Tao "cannot be known" is problematic. I agree with that.

So let’s find another translation. I was weaned on the Gia Fu Feng and Jane English translation, so wouldn't kick at that at all. However, whatever we decide on, I would suggest we find one that meets the following criteria:

1. Illuminates one’s understanding of the nature of Tao;
2. Reads well in English (since this is an English version of Wikipedia)

Great story about the group of masters! Perhaps we should add that to the article too. Sunray 22:37, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, constant again. I got that quote from the Complete Idiot's Guide to Taoism, by Brandon Toropov and Chad Hansen.

Anyhow, I'd vote for Gia Fu Feng and Jane English. We might consider having a link to professor Ellen Chen's version for those who want detailed analysis. She intersperses key Chinese terms; I have not seen that done anywhere else. Also, according to this website, her translation seems to have had rave reviews[3].

Glad you like the story about the group of masters. I'll do more research so that the final version can be more accurate. Cann0tsay 03:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's go with the Gia Fu Feng and Jane English translation. I'm going to try to get a look at Ellen Chen's translation in the next couple of days. It sure does get rave reviews. Sunray 06:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I was able to get a copy of the book by Chen and have had a look at her translation. It is good:

Tao that can be spoken of,
Is not the Everlasting Tao.
Name that can be named,
Is not the Everlasting name.  

Looking at your literal translation, it's clear that she is close. However, it doesn't scan as well in English as the Gia Fu Feng/Jane English version. The words Tao and name need articles in front of them. So for now, I would say let's stick with the version we have as I think it is more accessible. BTW, Chen's book has marvelous commentaries on the TTC. Sunray 21:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Whew! Just got back from a much needed mini-vacation.

I like what you've done. Good job! I notice there's already a link to Ellen Chen's translation in the Tao Te Ching article. Therefore, we probably don't need another one here.

As for the "group of masters" story, I have to scan through over twenty hours of audio recordings; so, it may take a while. Too bad making a living and providing for wife and kids have to get in the way of this :) Cann0tsay 03:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I hope what I'm about to say would help Sunray and those who did not grow up with the word Tao as their normal, daily vocabulary. The Tao that we discuss is an abstract concept, like love. Thus, the usage of the term "Tao" is like the usage of the term "love." Once you understand it this way, it won't be as awkward when you do not see an article in front of Tao. cann0tsay 19:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add that 'eternal' is an improper translation from the Chinese original ch'ang (which modifies tao ['way'] in the first line and then ming ['name'] in the second). The idea of 'eternity' didn't exist in ancient China. The Chinese then may have very well had an idea of things going on and on, but they did not have a sense of 'lasting forever'. 'Constant' or 'unvarying' are more correct translations of ch'ang. 'Eternal' is simply incorrect regarding the era in which the text is supposed to have been written, and therefore was not the intended idea of Lao-tzu. This is important regarding translation and should be included in the article. --Bentonia School 17:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been a few weeks since I posted my thoughts, which can be varified if you wish to do the research into the wording of the Chinese language used to write the text. There seems to be no objections so I will add a section referring to 'eternal' as a non-entity ideology of the Chinese of the era. The section I will add will discuss the problems of translation and promote the use of 'constant', 'unvarying', and other translations of ch'ang rather than 'eternal'. --Bentonia School 14:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The many paths

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

[edit] Tao and Christianity

I am not quite sure that the following is correct:

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

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

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

Regards.

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

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

Jedi

[edit] What is the Tao?

What is the Tao?

In the primary Taoist text, the Tao Te Ching, the legendary author Lao Tzu uses the word Tao to indicate two ideas:

1) the Tao, literally the "Way", is the non-behaviour of the enlightened person

The enlightened person is nothing. This person does nothing, says nothing, knows nothing, etc. This is explicit in the Tao Te Ching.

What is "nothing"? See idea 2.

2) the Tao, literally the "Way", is a metaphor for "nothing"

There is a permanent changelessness underlying the world of perpetual change that we all know. This continuity cannot be named or known, and is best called "nothing" or "nameless". This is explicit in the Tao Te Ching.

How can a person be "nothing"? By emptying oneself of all knowledge and all wisdom, one becomes enlightened. Such a person lives solely in the present and therefore is, does, says, or knows whatever the situation requires, no other, no more, and no less. Such a person has no unnecessary consciousness of past experience but draws on it with perfect efficiency, without effort. Such a person does not imagine the future but anticipates it with timely and effective action, in whatever way will best serve the community, never thinking of self-gain. The enlightened flow in harmony with the permanent continuity, the "nameless." This is explicit in the Tao Te Ching.

Ideas 1 and 2 Harmonized

Idea 1 is that the enlightened person is nothing. Idea 2 is that the enlightened person is anything. When a person submits to the nameless this person unites with it. When a person unites with the nameless the result is selflessness, or harmony. Enlightened behaviour is natural, or, in other words, it is unwilled action in accord with necessity. This is explicit in the Tao Te Ching.

[edit] Moved from article

I have removed the paragraph (in the Characteristics section) about the "Tao" being similar or identical to the "Logos" of Chrisitanity.

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

This is not an accurate assessment of the Christian view of Christ. Christiantheologian 07:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Also moved from article

I've moved the section below from the article, as it relates only to Japanese traditions, yet others were starting to accrue in the manner of advertising on a grocer's bulletin board. This, besides being unsourced, seems a bit redundant also in that the very word means "path". Perhaps it is more appropriate for a separate article on Japanese culture?

[edit] Examples of Tao as path

In the Japanese tradition, it is thought that any human activity, when engaged without reservations and in harmony with the Tao, can become a path to awakening. Some examples of such otherwise ordinary activities raised to the intensity of a spiritual path are:

• Aikido - the Way of harmony and spiritual energy (especially as expressed through martial arts)
• Bushido - the Way of warriorship
• Chado - the Way of tea (best know through the Tea ceremony)
• Judo - the Way of supleness
• Kendo - the Way of the sword
• Kodo - the Way of incense
• Kyudo - the Way of the bow (also known in the West as Zen archery)
• Shudo - the Way of men (the Japanese pederastic tradition)

--Fire Star 01:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Fire Star. If you hadn't done it, I would have (no offense to Haiduc). cann0tsay 08:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions of Tao

I hope we can avoid future confusion by expanding on the various definitions of Tao and creating a comprehensive list -- if not in the main article, then here. The following definitions of Tao is not in any order. Please feel free to add to the list.

1) That nameless, formless, eternal, absolute, unchanging Ultimate Truth referenced in the Tao Te Ching.

2) God, the creator of the universe.

3) Path, as in road, ie. "All Taos lead to Rome."

4) Way, as in a manner or mode of being, living, or acting, ie. the Tao of the warrior, the Tao of the sword, the Tao of The Intercepting Fist, the Tao of men, the Tao of Americans, the Tao of Japansese, the Tao of Physics, the Tao of Pooh, the Tao of surfing, etc.

5) Duty, ie. the Tao of a son, the Tao of a father, the Tao of an elected official, the Tao of a soldier, etc.

6) Religion, ie. the Christian Tao, the Buddhist Tao, the Islam Tao, etc.

cann0tsay 23:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tao in the Tao Te Ching

It is requested that an image be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. This image request is for chinese symbol of Dao.

--Zero00way 06:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's already there, in an infobox at the top (道). --Pentasyllabic 15:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually what's currently there is just a unicode text glyph, so users without a Chinese font installed only see a box or a question mark. I'll try to put an actual image there if I can. Ajnewbold 14:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should a discussion of the Yin and Yang be good?

Should I put in a discussion of the yin = potential, female, unbeing and the yang = actual, male, being in this article? Does anybody have a better definition or a problem with that?

fight back!

I added this to the article.

"Tao is based upon the understanding that the only constant in the universe is change, and that we must change ourselves to harmonize our understanding of the changes around. The change is a constant flow from non-being into being, potential into actual, yin into yang, female into male. The symbol of the tao is the yin yang confluently flowing into itself in a circle."

[edit] On the New Introduction

The old introduction presented some problems. Firstly the Tao of this article is about the Tao of Taoism not the use of the character in other senses. Secondly, the introduction suggested that the concept was subjective in the sense of my way, your way, the Confucian way etc. This does not correspond with the concept of Tao as spoken of by Laozi and Confucius. The whole character of their teaching is to follow the natural way which is independent of any school or particular individual. The Way spoken of by these two sages is not at all subjective. In other words the Tao as spoken of by Confucius is the same Tao as spoken of by Laozi. It is not about a 'their own preferred moral scheme' as the old introduction asserted. On the contrary they always sought to follow Nature, this is the meaning of the Tao. Thirdly, the assertion that Tao did not correspond to a conception of 'natural law' is also false. On the contrary, Tao embodied the very essence of natural law and was the source of all harmony and complexity that could be observed in nature. User:Langdell

[edit] That which cannot be named

I STRONGLY believe that this article would significantly benefit from not trying to draw analogies between the concept of the Tao and other concepts, such as Logos, Dharma, and Gd. The fact of the matter is, each of there ideas exists within very different ideological frameworks. Taking them out of context and treating them only with respect to their superficial definitions does injustice both to the treatment of the Tao in this article, as well as the other concepts themselves.

Early in the article Lau-Tzu is quoted: "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name." Trying to create definitions of the Tao, or similarly drawing analogies to incommensurable world views, significantly parameterizes the notion in someone new to the concept and will undoubtedly hinder their acquisitiion of an adequate grasp of what the Tao may mean. In short, I'm not against analogy as a heuristic device in general, but in this article in particular I find it completely inappropraite. - Shaggorama 09:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)