I've got an un-copywritten translation of some early Upanishads. Anyone think they deserve the dude interpretation?

Count on my vote. A population 5000 years old I guess has some good insights. But aren't they too long?

Shankara compiled what he considered to be the twelve most authentic (and ancient) in a single volume called The Breath many years ago. I have a six dollar Signet Classics version thats under 200 pages. If I did I'd start with Katha(the oldest) and do some of the shortest ones from there.

If we're co-opting Taoist literature how about a Dudeist I Ching?

I use to do modern interpretations of the Wilhelm translation calling it "Tea With Mr Ching".

I've got a few translations of the I Ching. If I leave the Confusious comentaries out for the moment.

Unfortunatly I can't do it from the original Chinese.

Damn I think I've made a rod for my own back here. 

OK, I've already started. I've done a simple conversion of the coin method of pattern creation using oat soda tops.

Is this the point when I should perhaps begin another thread?

To be honest, I was somewhat disappointed.  I feel as though a lot of times the original message was lost in an effort to quote the movie where it didn't always feel appropriate.  Granted, I haven't read the whole thing yet, but this is my strong impression thus far.  Granted, some were fairly well done, or at least most of the piece, but some things just stuck out like the Dude in a beach community.  For instance, in the first chapter:

Tao Te Ching: 1. Tao
The Tao that can be known is not Tao.
The substance of the World is only a name for Tao.
Tao is all that exists and may exist;
The World is only a map of what exists and may exist.

Dudeness that can be known is not Dude.
The substance of the World is only a name for what Abides.
The tumbling of tumbleweeds is all that exists and may exist;
The rug is only a fabrication which ties the room together.

These lines work very well together.  The only minor flaw in these lines is that Tao is a word used throughout the writing to represent a concept, and it is always called Tao to avoid confusion.  But here, we have Tao appear on two separate lines translated as "Dudeness, Dude, and Abides."  This creates a conflict in the ability to follow what is being said, because the object (being Tao, or Dudeness) continues to change it's label.  If I had you call me Fred, and other people called me Bob and Joe, you wouldn't know who the fuck they're talking about.  The Tao te Ching uses the word Tao as a concrete name for a non-concrete idea, but for continuity's sake.  This way, over the course of the first several chapters, the reader becomes familiar with the idea of Tao, and thus it can begin to be referred to by other labels, if necessary.  Hence I suggest this, my fellow dudes: perhaps a term should be agreed upon to take the place of Tao for the most part, something concrete, my suggestion being "Dude."  The reader (presumably being unfamiliar with the heart of the original teachings) will thus have an easier time grasping the idea of Dude.  This subtly changes the first few lines to:

The Dude that can be known is not Dude.
The substance of the World is only a name for Dude.
The tumbling of tumbleweeds is all that exists and may exist;
The rug is only a fabrication which ties the room together.

Moving on:

Tao Te Ching:
One experiences without Self to sense the World,
And experiences with Self to understand the World.

Dude Te Ching:
One experiences without being uptight, or enters a World of Pain,
And investigates complicated cases in order to understand the World.

My interpretation of this line of the Tao te Ching is that it is telling you to put yourself aside in order to experience the world.  Dispose of preconceived notions, because they'll affect your perceptions, and thus influence your opinion about the subject in question.  Therefore, the first part of the Dude interpretation is dead on, "One experiences truth without being uptight," but perhaps the line should instead end there, without a second statement (which the original lacks as well).  The second line here is very close, again, but still feels off to me.  Because the Tao te Ching encourages exploration of the self and comparison of one's experiences to the new information gained from selfless perception.  This means an investigation of the self, so perhaps the second Dude line should read, "And investigates complicated cases within a limber mind to understand the world."

Moving on.

Tao:
The two experiences are the same within Tao;
They are distinct only within the World.
Neither experience conveys Tao
Which is infinitely greater and more subtle than the World.

Dude:
The Dude digs the style of the Stranger, and the Stranger, the style of the Dude;
They are distinct only in front of the bar.
Sometimes you eat the bar and sometimes he eats you
Which is infinitely greater and more subtle than the fucking TOE!

The first two lines here are pretty spot on.  Something doesn't sit 100% with me, but it's close enough for this thought.  But the third line is waaaaaay out of whack: Neither experience conveys Tao vs Sometimes you eat the bar and sometimes he eats you.  The original line is continuing from the previous statement of experiences... while neither your selfless perceptions nor your comparisons of them to your experiences is the entirety of the truth, (entering the 4th line now) it's kind of a piece of it, because the truth is huge and big and mysterious-like.  The third line of the Dude version, "Sometimes you eat the bar..." is very much a "win some lose some" statement, and the fourth doesn't connect to it so well.  Trying to think of a better interpretation, but sadly I must eat before having to go be employed, sir.  I'll return later and finish this statement.

And please remember, this is just like, my opinion, man.  No hard feelings toward anybody.  Take er easy

Are we splitting hairs here? 

I have a couple of books on Tao Te Ching and they have some differences, just like Tao Dude Ching using quotes and concepts from the movie has differences from the original version. I saw it as a "funny" adaptation, and that's why the editorial we wrote it along with the original. I read the original for the concept explained and the Dude for fun.

Am I wrong?

Btw Philthy you seem to have quite a good grasp of the book. Quite cool.