My Community

The Limber Mind Library => The Dude De Ching => Topic started by: greatspiritmonk on August 20, 2009, 02:32:46 AM

Title: My opinion
Post by: greatspiritmonk on August 20, 2009, 02:32:46 AM
Fuching AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

And A+ for having left the original version. Lao Tzu would be 100% with you.
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: sufidude on September 09, 2009, 07:48:04 AM
I've got an un-copywritten translation of some early Upanishads. Anyone think they deserve the dude interpretation?
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: greatspiritmonk on September 10, 2009, 01:38:12 AM
Count on my vote. A population 5000 years old I guess has some good insights. But aren't they too long?
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: sufidude on September 10, 2009, 02:23:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: greatspiritmonk on September 11, 2009, 01:19:27 AM
Ok man, throw the ball.  8)
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: meekon5 on September 17, 2009, 08:47:17 AM
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".
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: greatspiritmonk on September 18, 2009, 01:41:45 AM
Far out Dude. If well done it could be a good way to feed the monkey. Just keep it as simple as possible. Dude I Ching. Great idea man.  8)
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: meekon5 on September 18, 2009, 08:34:04 AM
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.  ;D
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: greatspiritmonk on September 19, 2009, 01:48:10 AM
Oh yes man. Oh yes.  ;D
But if you make a good job who knows, it could be a companion to the Tao Dude Ching. You know, official material. Great stuff man.
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: meekon5 on September 21, 2009, 05:46:09 AM
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?
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: greatspiritmonk on September 21, 2009, 06:16:36 AM
Quite cool man! Oat soda tops is a great idea. Very cool indeed.

Do what you wish, I'll follow your work anyway. Or anythread.  8)
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: Philthy on September 27, 2009, 01:17:37 PM
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
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: forumdude on September 28, 2009, 12:58:15 AM
Thanks for the input, man. We'll seriously consider everything you're saying.

But one thing we'd like to bring to light is that the Tao Dude Ching is not meant to exactly dupilicate the verses of the Tao Te Ching. Furthermore, yes, we take some liberties for the sake of humor or playfulness, an attitude which the Tao Te Ching places central to the understanding of Tao.

Also, this is just one English translation of the Tao Te Ching - in reality several versions were consulted in fashioning the verses of the Tao Dude Ching, most particularly the new translation by Ames and Hall; in many cases The Editorial We used their "explanations" of the meaning of the verses to form a baseline with which to work from. often we deviated from the actual text as written in order to better elucidate the underlying meaning of the verse as they explain it.

For instance, where you suggest substituting

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.


for

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.


...we've offered up a new twist - that the human mind gives names only to the aspects of tao that are concrete, that seem to "abide" long enough for us to identify them as categories. To maintain integrity in a shifting world, one must have the characteristic of "abiding."

Of course, here the word "abide" deviates from the way we've used it in the rest of the Tao Dude Ching. Mostly we use it to define a state of mind that is calm and flows with the rest of the world rather than fights against it, which is a form of "maintaining shape" as well, of course. but in this particular verse we use the "maintaining shape" idea more strictly. we recognize that things which "abide" are things which can be identified and used as foundations for thought, but should never be confused with absolute truth. One thing about "abide" - it is such a holy Dudeist word that it is very hard to pigeonhole. Like the word "dude", it's a loosely-defined but profound concept, just as "God" or "spirit" is in other religions.

Then when you point out that

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.


overlooks the notion that yourself and the world are interlinked - by investigating complicated cases in the world we also investigate complicated cases within ourselves. it is impossible to separate the two. this is a fundamentally buddhist concept and one which has echoes in taoism as well. so while i agree that your suggestion "And investigates complicated cases within a limber mind to understand the world" may be more accurate in one way, it's not necessary and furthermore makes the line read a bit too long.

On the third one you're absolutely right - it deviates from the original message of the Tao. But not by much. The point of this initial verse is to set the stage for the whole Tao Dude Ching - by showing that it will be in many ways a satire, and in many ways a serious piece of investigation. The third and fourth lines point out essential Taoist/Dudeist truths (life has ups and downs, and don't get hung up on either the small stuff (toes) or huge ideas (TOE = theory of everything)).

I think where we'd like to see some criticism of the Tao Dude Ching is in pointing out ways we might have improved the elucidation of the message - via a better line from the film, via a better-constructed or funnier sentence, or via some other insight that had not occurred to us. The point of The Tao Dude Ching is to both make the Tao more clear (we recommend you read Ames and Hall, as well as "The Parting of the Way" by Holmes Welch) and pragmatic, and also to make it as funny as possible without obscuring the message and inspiration.

That said, any criticism is welcome, including criticism of rebuttals like the one i've given here. The more ideas, the dudelier. I'm grateful to Philthy for weighing in on the matter.


Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: greatspiritmonk on September 28, 2009, 01:07:41 AM
Are we splitting hairs here?  ;D

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.  8)
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: meekon5 on September 28, 2009, 07:21:03 AM
Any time you start to discuss a work like the Tao Te Ching even the original text in Chinese is hotly debated amongst scholars, let alone the translations. I’m led to believe the subtlety of the original transcript used characters that were so well written they themselves could be interpreted a number of ways.

Like many I have a number of translations of the text. My favourite interpretation of all thing Taoist is 'The Tao of Pooh”. It injects that all important dose of humour into the subject very well.

I personally think Lao Tzu was chuckling away to himself as he rode his oxen away from civilization having left the last guard of the last gate with his transcript, thinking something along the lines of "That'll mess with their noodles!".

I think it’s only right that the Tao Dude Ching should also engender good debate.

I think such discussion is important to ensure we don’t become “hide bound” and dogmatic.
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: Philthy on September 28, 2009, 01:40:39 PM
Oh certainly, by no means am I intending to gun this down... far from it.  I think the work is genius.  My only qualm (and the last post was a very longwinded way of saying this) is understandability.  I mean, I was able to pick through it some and grab out the heart of the message, but to some degree it seemed bogged down by vague-ness.  Someone who has never even heard of Taoism and is totally unfamiliar with the ideals can pick up the Tao Te Ching and read it and understand, even if it takes a few pages to begin to do so, and could develop an interest because of the book alone.  But I feel as though someone who picks up the Dude Te Ching (or Tao Dude Ching, though personally I prefer this nomenclature) wouldn't have a clue what any of it means without having seen the holy film.  Not to say this is entirely wrong, hell it may be in line with the intention, but it seems to mew that a religious text needs to be understandable to some degree in order to reach a broader audience.  If this is not the intention, then forget I said anything.

The thing to remember here is that anything religious is bound to peoples' like, opinions, man.  And interpretations.  My problem with Christianity is that a lot of the conflicts caused by it are due to the fact that the Bible is poorly interpreted.  I mean, yeah, it's not Nam and has a few rules, but for the most part the whole thing is a big story with the message of "love each other."  But it is so widely misinterpreted that it has lead to conflicts such as the most prevalent (in my mind) at the time, gay rights.  And this aggression will not stand, man.  While there always needs to be room for interpretation, there also needs to be guidance in such that misinterpretation doesn't get out of hand.  I mean shit, man, we don't need a fucking Dudeist crusade happening a thousand years from now, ya know?

I'm not saying the current document lacks this, necessarily.  Perhaps I just need it pointed out to me, as was done quite well by Forumdude's response.

I dunno man, it is morning, and due to a lack of a strict drug regimen, my mind is feeling particularly un-limber at the moment.  Maybe this afternoon I will glean greater insights.  Hell, I'm not even sure I just said what I meant to.  I'll have to come back with a more limber mind.  Sadly, I don't think I can get any sacrificial beverages until the 1st, but I certainly will have to perform the holy sacrilege and re-witness the holy film at that time.

Much love to everyone for the positive responses to criticism.  Take er easy, friends.
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: greatspiritmonk on September 29, 2009, 12:18:41 AM
I've got the Tao of Pooh too. Nice book, a little too long but nice anyway.
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: meekon5 on September 29, 2009, 12:58:26 PM
Problem with the Tao of Pooh is anyone I lend it to instantly becomes a Poohist rather than a taoist.
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: greatspiritmonk on September 30, 2009, 12:04:33 AM
This is good man, very good.  ;D
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: greatspiritmonk on September 30, 2009, 12:20:54 AM
Philthy, you are right in what you say, but the original version is there right for the sake of understanding.

The problem with Christianity is that it doesn't really exists except for a bunch of people. I'm a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ Dude, or Buddy Christ; that is the real Jesus Christ. The Bible is just a book wrote by men to justify slaying anyone, The Old Testament, or ruling to achieve Heaven, The New Testament. I'm sure Jesus will just throw it away. I guess he had no problems with gay people, well, unless they asked for adoption rights.
Nowadays there is a religion who aims at ruling the world even with the tip of a sword, what Catholics did some centuries ago. This is because very religious people usually have very big problems, almost all of them finds the female form uncomfortable for example. Maybe just one Catholic priest talked against enslaving and killing thousands of Indios or American Indians, the same number fought against Nazis. Religion is always on the side of the government, probably also because otherwise they just shut you up.
There will never be a Dudeist crusade as there was never a Taoist one. We don't care about that shit, unless someone wants to piss on our beloved carpet. Or rug. Or whathaveyou.

 8)
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: meekon5 on September 30, 2009, 08:48:02 AM
For a book that's meant to be a direct handing down of the word from god:

The Bible comprises 24 books for Jews, 66 for Protestants, 73 for Catholics, and 78 for most Orthodox Christians. (Wikipedia), and dont get me started on the Nag Hammadi Library (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html). 

Sorry it was the subject of my dissertation. ;D
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: greatspiritmonk on September 30, 2009, 11:57:59 PM
When I want to have some inspirations I just read the Gospel of Thomas, for me the most reliable source about JCD, at least because it's the oldest and it's a real first draft. All the rest is fiction.

Btw the so called Taoist canon is made of some hundreds books.

When things get complicated everything can go wrong. Dudes.
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: Peter Merel on May 27, 2011, 10:25:34 AM
Hmm. "Original version". Okay ...

There are a bunch of Chinese sites - chinapage.org is the best - that use my translation as their translation. But when Oliver asked to put it in with his religious version I thought that was a very cool idea. And also traditional.

See, part of the reason we have a Lao Tzu is because it was propagated by religious Taoism - "Tao Chiao". The other kind of taoism, Tao Chia which means philosophical Taoism, hid inside the religion because that was the best way to make certain the dynastic book burners couldn't destroy it. And they couldn't, which was cool too.

But as for "Original Version" ... the hundreds of English translations falling into two broad schools of interpretation. The literal, exemplified by Henricks and Mair, and the poetic, exemplified by Mitchell, Red Pine, and, of course, our Oliver.

I see the literalists labouring under a misapprehension that there was a single historical Chinese poem, or at least a small cabal of Chinese people working together at the same point in history compiling a single anthology. This illusion is dispelled by the sharply abbreviated content of the Guodian texts, the oldest recorded Lao Tzu, and by Prof. Victor Mair?s work revealing clear textual relations between Laozi and the Sanskrit Gita.

But the modern poets not only credit this assumption of a single origin, they also fall for the idea that comparing multiple English translations will divine the mythical original. My GNL translation fell squarely into this second trap. It ignored the fact is that both the text of Laozi and the underlying meaning of its words change from culture to culture over the millennia. As Crowley confesses up front in his translation, a modern poet cannot say that what they write is what Laozi means. It?s what they themselves mean.

So in the 20 years since the translation in Oliver's book, I decided to try something new, a scientific approach to the problem. It's up at unlocktao.com . I still take pains to be faithful to the historical texts. But I've worked to develop a simple, systematic theory of reassembly of the whole magilla. And I've had the temerity to re-order lines and chapters to make them make sense in the context of a whole. With a healthy skepticism concerning both English and Chinese dictionaries, I have also made novel but plausible word choices in the new edition.

Perhaps not quite so novel but hopefully more plausible than Oliver's "Fucking Toe!"

Anywho ... since you guys picked up on chapter one, here's my new version of that from unlocktao.com/category/unlocked-chapters :

Life is not the life you live,
Nor mind the thoughts you think;
Mind is the course of all thoughts,
Life, the source of all forms.

Releasing thought yields the formless.
Responding to thought bears form,
Form and thought generating each other
As waves on the surface of mind.

Beneath this surface flows life
Ever deeper and more subtle than thought.


Lebowskifying that I leave to the Lama.
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: cckeiser on May 27, 2011, 01:37:06 PM

Anywho ... since you guys picked up on chapter one, here's my new version of that from unlocktao.com/category/unlocked-chapters :

Life is not the life you live,
Nor mind the thoughts you think;
Mind is the course of all thoughts,
Life, the source of all forms.

Releasing thought yields the formless.
Responding to thought bears form,
Form and thought generating each other
As waves on the surface of mind.

Beneath this surface flows life
Ever deeper and more subtle than thought.



Damn, sounds like fuckin' quantum something or other to me dude.
Thanks for the Heads Up and welcome to our nice quiet beach community! 8)
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: Peter Merel on May 27, 2011, 10:56:41 PM
It's the big picture all right. Pond scum creates the stars. Aliens from outer space inhabit every patch of moss. Carl Sagan got it fuckin' WRONG, dude - we're in every fuckin' pixel in his picture.

Plus the sucker deleted pussy from the Voyager message. I mean that's just a fuckin' disaster waiting to happen. Imagine some nanobot civilization finds the thing and thinks it's a request? Paf, every pussy in the world gets deleted. Sagan needed to get out more, dude.

Anyway, yeah, excellent insight, Chapter 2 on the Unlocking blog is gonna be all about quantum, fractal fuckin'. And how every math class you ever slept through got it wrong, too. There are no fuckin' real numbers, complex numbers, number lines - they're a lie, dude.

And later on, sure, dudes evolved on the fuckin's beach. That's why we're happiest there. And why we got noses and dig oysters.
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: cckeiser on May 27, 2011, 11:16:20 PM
It's the big picture all right. Pond scum creates the stars. Aliens from outer space inhabit every patch of moss. Carl Sagan got it fuckin' WRONG, dude - we're in every fuckin' pixel in his picture.

Plus the sucker deleted pussy from the Voyager message. I mean that's just a fuckin' disaster waiting to happen. Imagine some nanobot civilization finds the thing and thinks it's a request? Paf, every pussy in the world gets deleted. Sagan needed to get out more, dude.

Anyway, yeah, excellent insight, Chapter 2 on the Unlocking blog is gonna be all about quantum, fractal fuckin'. And how every math class you ever slept through got it wrong, too. There are no fuckin' real numbers, complex numbers, number lines - they're a lie, dude.

And later on, sure, dudes evolved on the fuckin's beach. That's why we're happiest there. And why we got noses and dig oysters.

I want some of whatever you're smoking dude! ;D
A little something for your entertainment:

http://youtu.be/tw-IATxGmis
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: Outer Element on May 28, 2011, 11:29:09 AM

 I guess he had no problems with gay people, well, unless they asked for adoption rights.


Could you explain?
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: Peter Merel on May 29, 2011, 10:05:06 AM
@cckeiser,

Thanks for the link, dude. Nice music. Who is that?

As for polysipsism, here's to it from Unlocking chapter 25:

There is a mystery
Without form,
Silent, depthless,
Alone, unchanging,
Ubiquitous and liquid,
The mother of nature.

It has no form, but I call it "formless";
It has no limit, but I call it "limitless".
Being limitless, it expands away forever;
Expanding away forever it returns to myself:

As life is limitless,
So mind is limitless,
So nature is limitless,
And so I am limitless.

For I am a form of nature,
Nature of mind,
Mind of life,
Life of no form.


Dig?
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: cckeiser on May 29, 2011, 01:29:28 PM
@cckeiser,

Thanks for the link, dude. Nice music. Who is that?

As for polysipsism, here's to it from Unlocking chapter 25:

There is a mystery
Without form,
Silent, depthless,
Alone, unchanging,
Ubiquitous and liquid,
The mother of nature.

It has no form, but I call it "formless";
It has no limit, but I call it "limitless".
Being limitless, it expands away forever;
Expanding away forever it returns to myself:

As life is limitless,
So mind is limitless,
So nature is limitless,
And so I am limitless.

For I am a form of nature,
Nature of mind,
Mind of life,
Life of no form.


Dig?


I dig your style dude.8)

Music:
Rigo's Blues
Back Porch Blues:
http://www.rigomania.com/back_porch_blues_page.htm
Tom Rigney and Flambeau
http://www.tomrigney.com/flambeau_page_html_9-02.htm
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: Abideist on May 30, 2011, 04:32:45 AM
What in gods holy name are you blathering about
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: Peter Merel on May 30, 2011, 04:52:24 AM
@Koog-meister,

Those ain't righteous tunes, dude?
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: FuckinA on May 30, 2011, 04:00:45 PM
I'm sorry I wasn't listening...
Title: Re: My opinion
Post by: 4weeddude on July 12, 2011, 03:06:13 PM
Wow ....... all this really ties the mind together........

(http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab78/The14weed/Odds%20and%20Ends/1TrustNoOne.jpg)