Talk:Tao/Archives/ 4

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)


 * Though years after this edit, Tao is definitely not God, as Tao is not sentient and in religion God is. Also, the reference of Paths to Rome is useless. This could be in 'verbs used'.
 * Tao is not a religion (if anywhere close, a believe).--Maddehaan (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Etymology
The etymology section where it talks about "warriors" and "Dao" is nonsense. Whoever copied that from that cited book should have known that book is a kind of "joke book" for tourist on their first trip to China and the etymologies are absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianlkennedy (talk • contribs) 02:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

New Intro
I propose to amend the intro as follow:
 * Tao or Dao (道, Pinyin: Dào, Cantonese: Dou) is the order of the Universe, when used in Wuji, Tao is a primordial state of non-being in ontology, a state without bounds or limits in the Taoist cosmogony, intangible, unfathomable and un-analyzable empirically and taxonomically (Tao Te Ching; Verse 1). Tao is the unmoved mover, the first cause in teleology and in Taoist eschatology.


 * The first manifested state from Tao is Taiji, a state that which is with bounds, the concept of Being becoming intelligible, and a state where Being was in a state of Becoming, the equivalent of Plato’s demiurge, or a supra-being in the Chinese creation story (TTC Verse 1 and 42). This state is referred to as the Oneness (TTC Verse 39), the monad in metaphysics, just before and necessary for creation.


 * In philosophy, Tao can also be understood as the world outside in the allegory of the cave in Plato’s The Republic, before that world took shape or form. The substance in Aristotle's ousia was akin to that world outside, and Tao was the cause. In the Traditionalist School Tao would be the unity in the primordial tradition. By a stretced analogy, Tao might be the Singularity before the Big Bang theory with a difference that Tao is still present today.In the Taoists’ cosmology, Tao in its manifested state was the prime cause of the ying and yang, two aspects, four realms, Wuxing, Bagua, sixty-four gua and all sentient beings. In the Chinese theology the supra being out of Tao transformed twice- the first time as the Three Pure Ones and again in the Five Supremes before the incubation of the first man and woman.


 * By definition Tao is a Chinese character commonly translated as a path or a way.


 * Lao Tsu, the author of the Tao Te Ching, was the first to provide a comprehensive definition of Tao and the states of beings thereafter, and he is venerated by the orthodox Taoists as the originator of Tao or Daozu. The school and knowledge based on the concept of Tao and De is called Taoism, which is a way of life specifically a way of transcending life by way of attuning the energy within the human anatomy by Xiuzhen, in tandem with a code to conduct to lead one’s life as part of Xiushen. Lao Tsu taught that, He who follows the Tao is one with the Tao, and Being at one with the Tao is eternal, though the body dies, the Tao will never pass away. (TTC Verses 16 & 23)

Comments invited. ACHKC (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as an improvement. It is harder to read, and the tone generally asserts things rather than reports them. A good example is the statement "the equivalent of Plato’s demiurge". There is no source provided for such a statement, and if it is your conclusion then it violates our no original research policy. I don't think that it will survive in its present state. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bradeos on this. However, the following sentence in the current intro is confusing and needs reworked: "The concept of Tao differs from Western ontology, however; it is an active and holistic conception of the world, rather than a static, atomistic one." It is ambiguous whether the atomistic concept is Western or Eastern. And there has not yet been a mention of "Western ontology" before this sentence so I don't see how this can be a "however" concept. At least yours clears that up somewhat. --Jokeyxero (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for this and related talk pages
I'm sure the romanization discussion is common enough here that it might merit placing a template to address it at the top of the talk page. Just thought I'd drop in and suggest it. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * that's an excellent idea. I'll do that when I get a chance.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That was eight years ago, but I still think it is a good idea and am now going to add such a template to the talk page. I have never created an FAQ for a page before, and the template documentation was worthless (I have almost finished revising that to make it practical), but am now giving it a shot.  KDS4444 (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The Tao is not a concept
The Tao by it's very nature is not an object or capable of conception in itself which is evidenced by almost every translation of the Tao Teh Ching, in fact it is more to do with the nature of conception and by definition is undefinable and inconceivable. Something should be added to this effect to avoid confucian. Chuangzu (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The text states that 'Taoism holds that it (Tao) can be known'. It would be nice to know which branch of Taoism claims this. The statement is contradictory and misleading. It is more accurate to claim the Tao can be experienced. One can experience something without any requisite knowledge of it. 75.7.3.148 (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are presenting a false dichotomy. The article text is not asserting prequisite knowledge. The statement in no ways implies such a thing. The experience of Tao is the same as knowing Tao. The concept of knowledge through experience is fundamental to both Taoism and general philosophy. Vassyana (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "The experience of Tao is the same as knowing Tao." That's as bad as my original objection. The concept of experience without knowledge is more fundamental to Taoism than your Westernized notion of it. Are you even a Taoist? 75.6.252.57 (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

largish revisions?
@Vassayana - you might have gone a bit heavy on the axe there; discussion would have been nice, and would have saved the hassle of retrieving what's salvageable from the page history. It's probably a good practice to drop a notice on the talk page and wait for feedback before you stubify an article. -- Ludwigs 2 11:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Ludwigs here, certain major aspects of the subject now do not appear, for instance "the Tao Returns" I've restored a little of this.--Salix (talk): 12:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs2, I took the initiative on a rarely edited article (8 edits in the past three months). The talk page is practically a ghost town. I also dispute the salvage value of what I removed. It was quite clearly original research and much of it was just plainly wrong. We are encouraged to remove material that is counter to our basic content policies. We are similarly encouraged to engage in bold editing. It shouldn't be problem at all on rarely-edited articles in uncontroversial topic areas. I am quite honestly not understanding your objection given this context. Vassyana (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Salix alba, I will not revert (BRD and all that), but I would beseech you to not restore blatant original research removed from articles and to reconsider your restoration on this article. Restoring editorial commentary on a highly subjective primary source is not the way to improve coverage. We should expand the article with sourced information. I was fully aware that the chopped article was incomplete, hence the under construction and expansion request tags. Vassyana (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Vassayana - no one is looking for a fight here. we (or at least I) would just prefer a somewhat slower, more deliberate, more communicative approach.  Please keep in mind that what you're seeing as a "rarely edited" article is what I see as a stable and generally well accepted article.  not a perfect article, mind you, but one that needs refining rather than deleting.  I'll tell you honestly, most of the things your objecting to were revisions made to fix the truly speculative piece that was here about a year ago, but they were made to incorporate what worked in that version.  Further, I feel confident that I can substantiate many of the things you're concerned about (I just need to dig my TTC library out of whatever box its in and get the proper references).  so, now that you know the article isn't abandoned, please tell us what your specific concerns are, so that we can discuss how best to address them.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We will have to agree to disagree about the interpretation of the low traffic here. (I see a much neglected article, not a stable and well-accepted one.) Moving on, like I said, I'm not about to edit war or get into a scrap over anything. I was bold, others were free to revert. And thus, we're to the D part of BRD. :-) My primary concern is that the majority of the removed material, including the limited restored portion, are essay-like swaths of original research. They are blatantly based on a personal interpretation of the Tao Te Ching that takes a lot of liberties filling in the blanks and context. That alone is seriously problematic, in my eyes. However, it is also inappropriate to present the Taoist view as the sole interpretation of the characteristics of the Tao. Certainly, this article will (and should be) heavily weighted towards Taoism, as it is dominant in sources and explores the concept the most. However, Confucianism is another major tradition that has its own body of material about tao. The best way to address my concerns is to remove the editorial commentary, replacing it with sourced statements. I intend on using my access to references to expand and improve the article. I explicitly encourage you (or anyone else willing to contribute) to do so as well. Indeed, I'd be quite happy for any improvements you'd be willing and able to contribute. If during the process of expansion we have any disagreements, I'm sure we can cordially and easily work them out here. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I never agree to disagree: conflict may sometimes be inevitable, but legitimizing the conflict as a permanent feature of the discussion is something I choose not to do. And yes, I know that tends to irritate people (because it means that no one can simply rest on their given assumptions), but I honestly don't know how to get around that.  I'm open to suggestions, if you have any.


 * I'm happy to work with you to improve the article, only (as I said) I'd prefer a somewhat slower, more interactive/communicative approach. I look forward to seeing what positive changes you make; I was just dismayed by the rapid and extensive deletions you began with.  'nough said.  However, I would like to draw out one point, which I think goes to the article's main purpose.  Tao is a metaphysical concept, and like all metaphysical concepts it has a relationship to primary sources different than, errr... temporal works.  Wikipedia avoids primary sources on most articles because modern research draws its authority from collective verification: something is accepted when a number of researchers see it, not when the first researcher sees it.  Metaphysical texts, however, start from the premise that the author has a unique and authoritative perspective that others should aspire to, and what you generally end up with in the literature is a number of individual authors who make what are probably better called sub-primary interpretations (to the extent that they offer interpretations of the primary source based on their own experiences, which they believe should be considered authoritative in their own right).  You generally can't discuss a metaphysical concept without some reference to some authoritative primary text.  Without discounting the danger of OR, there is a danger on the other end of reducing the article to a mere list of contradictory interpretations that will neither inform nor explain.  The current 'Characteristics of Tao' section is probably too prose-ish, and could use some substantive quotes from various interpreters (something I had planned to do but never got around to, incidentally), but it does capture the common characteristics repeatedly ascribed to tao in the primary source.  If you want to article to convey a sense of what tao is, you can't really do without a section like this.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it even more important in religion and philosophy articles to scrupulously avoid depending on primary sources. They are simply far too open to interpretation and very difficult (when even possible) to directly discuss without engaging in original research. Good sources should make the reference to the primary sources for us. While the current material may indeed make reference to common characteristics in the primary sources, it is composed more of personal interpretation than pure reference to, or reporting of, the primary source. On the general point about "just" presenting conflicting viewpoints without tying it together, that is exactly what we should do unless a reliable source ties it all together for us. (That shouldn't be controversial. It's basic content policy. WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV.) Regardless, I should be making some edits to the article today. Let me know if anything is problematic. Also, please let me know if you feel that I'm leaving any lacunae or individual points need more examination. Vassyana (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * of course, but I am hesitant to apply even core policy if the result is an impoverished or misleading article. #1 rule of wikipedia is that we're building an useful and informative encyclopedia; everything else is secondary.  hopefully none of that will be an issue, though.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think the structure and expansion I have started to undertake is a good direction to go in? What do you think needs the most focus and improvement? Vassyana (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * well, mostly you're making me wish I was at home with my books - I hate running across interesting things like this when I'm off visiting.
 * I like the structural stuff you're doing, and I find myself interested in the confucianism elements you're adding (I don't know much about confucianism, personally, so this is useful). you do need to be careful with trans-linguistic issues - for instance, tao can be used as a noun, verb, or adjective in Chinese (mostly because Chinese dialects are a bit loose with distinctions between those parts of languages).  In english, we never say "I tao" or "the tao broomstick".  I'll fix that.  but otherwise it's looking good.
 * I do want to harp a moment on a worry I expressed earlier. I'm thinking particularly of the Keller cite, which (while understandable, particularly from a western intellectual perspective) actually stands in contradiction to the primary sources. Negative theology implies a dualistic worldview - one needs to make the assumption that there is tao and not-tao, and then reject not-tao.  but in taoism those kinds of dualities are all manifestations (the children of tao) and so it's meaningless to try and decide whether they are or aren't tao (might as well hold up an empty glass and ask whether it contains the sky).  what the article had earlier (that tao is similar to the western notion of immanence) was actually a good bit closer to the way tao is presented (in the TTC, at least) than to any apophatic ideation.
 * and really, how often in your life do you get the chance to say 'apophatic ideation'? that's just toooo much fun.
 * let me do some tweaking on what you wrote (limited, because as I said I don't have my texts). other than the complaints I made, though, I've got no complaints.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The God that can be named or described is not the Real God." That would be a wonderfully succinct summary of negative theology. Thus, it seems spot on to me. Otherwise, good feedback. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * except Tao isn't God. you're missing the dualist element here: negative theology only makes sense where there is a separation between God and the world (be that a physical separation as in Abrahamic religions or a type/class distinction as is seen in certain forms of Hinduism and Buddhism.  however, numerous chapters of the TTC and other Taoist texts explicitly argue against seeing tao as a separate, independent 'object'.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are seeing a dualistic element that isn't necessarily there. Apophatic theology isn't necessarily based on dualism, but rather serves as a response to ineffability. It is a solution for the limitations of human expression, just as its parallel serves in Taoism. It is not an expression of a dualistic worldview. Vassyana (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about the last paragraph of the new section: "The Tao Te Ching distinguishes between the nameless Tao and the myriad 'things' of the earth . This suggests that the word 'Tao' may be used to emphasize particular aspects of the broader (unnamed) Tao. Liu Da asserts that Tao is properly understood as a experiential and evolving concept. The I Ching, a text integral to both Taoism and Confucianism, supports these conclusions. Not only are there differences in the personal interpretation of Tao, but what people perceive in Tao is likely to be founded in their own character." First off, the leading line isn't quite correct, I don't think. while TTC1 is notoriously difficult to interpret, it seems to me that it's ultimately trying to suggest the unity of things, not make distinctions between them. distinctions are epiphenomenal. more to the point, though, I'm not sure what the first two lines are trying to do - they don't seem to connect with the Liu Da or I ching quotes that follow. I was tempted to just remove those two lines, but I'm thinking maybe you're going somewhere with that that I don't see? let me know, if so. -- Ludwigs 2 04:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have revised the sentence to helpfully making it a bit clearer what is being said by the source. Also, because you correctly note that interpretation of the passage can be quite varied, I attributed the view. Does that help clarify the point and flow of the information? Vassyana (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * that is better written. can you provide one or both of the following: (1) a quote from Liu Da that explains this claim in his words, (2) a link or proper reference to Liu Da's work (Liu (1981) isn't specific enough - I mean, I could guess you mean Liu Da, Tao Te Ching, (1981), but it would be better to have a specific book/article title and publisher.  mostly I want to see what he's actually saying, because your representation of his words don't quite fit with the usual interpretation of that passage that I see in other authors.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add the publication information to the bibliography. I will rectify the oversight. Vassyana (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

More large revisions
I've considerably expanded the scope of coverage both recently and overall with my changes. (For example, now there are sections about Tao in the Confucian, Neo-Confucian, and Buddhist traditions.) What do people think about the current version? I think that the word/concept needs to be placed in some historical context. That is, I believe it would be good to document the evolution of its usage through history if we can locate some sources. (Anyone know of any good sources for this?) I think all of the current sections could easily be expanded further, but are there any particular details that you think are missing? I've been thinking that it might be good to also have sections (sourced independently from the primary sources) about the Tao in the Tao Te Ching, Inner Chapters of Chang Tzu, and Analects of Confucius. I'm digging around for sources for sections on those, as they seem to the three most prominent texts. If anyone has pointers for sources on that, let me know. Thoughts? Comments? Rotten tomatoes? Vassyana (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone give it a good run through and copy edit?
 * If anyone is familiar with the citation templates, can you please convert the refs?

If anyone is up for it, the lede needs a rewrite to better serve as an introduction and reflect the article. Also, I neglected to mention that I also believe a section about Western interpretations of Tao should be added. It's not terribly high on my list of priorities, but I'll keep an eye out for sources. As with other points, if anyone has good leads for sources, please share them. Vassyana (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I quite like the current introduction; it seems to me to be succint and comprehensive, not getting caught up in the "description creep" that sometimes happens with complex topics like this one. Slac speak up! 00:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

New Section
I'm adding a new introduction on "The Chinese word". Should some of the current "Characteristics" section be merged or deleted? Any corrections or revisions will be welcome. Keahapana (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Tao/Dao genuine copyedit errors in section 'Loanwords'
I can't make these edits myself as I'm not a registered user and don't wish to be.

Someone's done some stupid blind editing with this section:
 * Since 1982, when the International Organization for Standardization adopted Pinyin as the standard romanization of Chinese, many Western languages have changed from spelling this loanword dao in national systems (e.g., French EFEO Chinese transcription and English Wade-Giles) to dao in Pinyin.
 * The dao/dao "the way" English word of Chinese origin has three meanings, according to the Oxford English Dictionary.
 * 1. a. In Daoism, an absolute entity which is the source of the universe; the way in which this absolute entity functions.
 * 1. b. = Daoism, daoist
 * 2. In Confucianism and in extended uses, the way to be followed, the right conduct; doctrine or method.
 * The earliest recorded usages were Dao (1736), Tau (1747), Taou (1831), and Dao (1971).
 * From original references to Chinese philosophy, the English word dao has generalized in usage, for instance, The Dao of Steve film.

1. Dao is Pinyin, Tao is Wade-Giles (source http://www.daochinasite.com/eng/study/wg.shtml) - therefore the phrase 'dao in national systems' should surely read 'tao in national systems'.

2. The OED entry is under Tao. Not Dao. The entry actually reads 'Tao', 'Taoism', 'taoist' etc in every case where the quoted text here has 'Dao' etc. The 1736 citation is spelt 'Tao'. The 1747 citation is indeed spelt 'Tau', likewise 1831 'Taou'. 1971 Dao is fine too. (source http://oed.com/view/Entry/197633?redirectedFrom=tao#eid - logged in users only, available through Athens/Shibboleth/library card number) dao/dao here should clearly read tao/dao. Or the other way round if you prefer.

3. You won't be surprised to hear that the 2000 film is called 'The Tao of Steve' and not 'The Dao of Steve'...

Undo this lunacy, please! I don't mean to start a riot. Do whatever you want with preferred Romanizations, truer/more faithful choices, questions of pride etc. Just don't misquote things to make nonsense! 87.194.30.190 (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Intro Sein?
Good work on the Intro until we get to "There is a close analogue ... "Sein", generally translated as Being, but it would be more accurate to understand that Tao also would include Nothingness as well", Tao is an ontological state of non-Being, or before Being, thus "Sein" cannot be an analogue in any true sense of Tao. Likewise the "Nothingness" in this sentence is probably better read as "emptiness" which can only come into context when understood with Being or substance. The world outside the Platonic Cave, before it took shape (Heraclitus' Logos) is perhaps the closest to this 'potentiality' that is Tao.ACHKC (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Heraclitus Logos/Tao
I think it's worth looking at the Greek Heraclitus and the way his Logos relates to Tao. It is not identical - but then again neither is the Tao of one school of Taoism identical to another. It is debatable whether the Logos of Heraclitus was clearly theist - or that the Tao of many schools of Tao do not drift in that direction too. It is also of interest that he was operating at the other end of Asia at exactly the time that the concept of Tao emerges into general view. Western and Eastern philosophers (particularly the latter) can spend rather too much time accentuating the differences between them - and indeed there are many - but back at that early stage Heraclitus, at least, would have been, perhaps, more at home in China that in Ephesus - his home in Greek Asia Minor. Like Lao Tse he despaired that the common people would understand him - and like Lao Tse opens his work by telling them they won't.

I have spent (40yrs of) my life practicing and studying Taoism and the way it meshes into other philosophies. Taoism is not a football team that we defend against other philosophies. I wasted a long time stressing about how it seemed to have been hijacked by strict non-dualist translators for their cause - whereas I view it as far subtler than that. Taoism is a viewpoint that an illiterate left alone all their days watching sheep on a mountaintop could arrive at. It is also a concept that a classical scholar of the subject might never grasp.

I came to Heraclitus only recently, I am no classicist. When he had despaired of the city - he went to live in the mountains and eat herbs - sounds kinda familiar. I - as a Taoist - would have found him good, grumpy company I guess.

I created a link to him on the Tao article - it was edited out - I have made it more tentative, merely encouraging the comparison - I hope it sticks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.81.102.61 (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Additions to articles are more likely to "stick" if backed by a good source. Heraclitus is mentioned in Zhang Longxi, The Tao and the Logos: literary hermeneutics, East and West, p.30. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Observation - The Persian empire (of which Ephesus was a part) at the time had very good communications via well-maintained roads - probably the best of any society in existence up to that time - and extended as far as modern Tajikistan, and there is good evidence that educated men must have traveled these roads on Imperial business. To Quote Herodotus "There is nothing in the world that travels faster than these Persian couriers." Also "No race is so ready to adopt foreign ways as the Persian." (Both quotes from "A History of the World in 100 Objects" Neil MacGregor 2010 Allen Lane.) The China of this Time was in a state of confusion - but at this very time Chinese ideas were spreading around Asia (Chaos creates migration)(e.g. MacGregor mentions in the same section the spread of bronze bell designs in the other direction to Korea etc.) Tajikistan is more or less equidistant between Ephesus and the Chinese heartland. If I was to find similar pot-shards at each end of such a possible conduit I would be surprised but not confounded. Ideas leave only written or spoken accounts passed down to us - these are the equivalent of pot-shards - but ideas are "light" they can travel fast. I am not in any way putting forward the conclusion that these thoughts had a common source - I am merely saying that absence of artifact evidence of a link is not evidence of absence of a link of ideas. Similarities with contemporary thinkers are worthy of note here - by a simple "compare" link - even if we rightly avoid squeezing even the slightest conclusions from that observation in this article.188.81.102.61 (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Absence of artifact evidence of a link is not evidence of absence of a link of ideas". No, but it does raise the question of whether "links between ideas" are appropriate to include in an encyclopedia article. I believe claims about the relationship between Tao and Heraclitus (as well as contrasts between Tao as "Eastern philosophy" and "Western philosophy") fall under the heading of "original research". The statement "[Tao] is worth comparing to the original Logos of Heraclitus" is a statement of opinion, not a fact, however grounded in your own experience and research. I can easily imagine another thesis arguing the worthlessness of such a comparison. You might instead say "some" or "many" have compared Tao to the logos of Heraclitus, but in that case you fall into the weasel-word trap of terms like "some" and "many" and would have to back up the claim not with references to research making such comparisons (you can find research on just about anything), but to research showing that the Heraclitus comparison is such a significant stream within research on Tao that it is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. I would like to remove the "thesis" claims about the eastern/western contrast and comparison to Heraclitus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faff296 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Chinese?
Do, the transliteration of 道 in Japanese, redirects here. In this form it is well known to English readers in the names for judo, kendo, aikido, etc. And also, for example, Korean arts such as taekwondo.

The lead here currently emphasises that the topic is specifically Chinese. Is that balanced? If the concept really is associated to China, to the exclusion of all independent countries that shared a common script, then which region, which language, which ethnic group, which dynasty, which philosophers, etc? I'm thinking it would be better for the lead sentence to say "Tao, Dao, or Do, is an Eastern philosophical concept that is traditionally attributed to Laozi and is central to Taoism. The word can signify a way, path, journey, doctrine, principle, discipline, or the verb to speak."

The lead also contains the blatantly unsourced editorialisation "It is worth comparing to the original Logos of Heraclitus, c. 500 BC". Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Everything on the main page is by definition misleading
If we really want to represent what the Tao is, delete everything on the article page so that it is blank, and then have all information here as commentary on that.

That way, Tao will be more accurately represented by the article page.... LeapUK (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not helpful to the lay reader. KDS4444 (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This is humorous and argumentative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.243.38.113 (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I know. But it isn't the purpose of our article talk pages to make clever commentary— the purpose is to improve the article, and adding pointless sections to the talk page only hinders that process.  Plus, some smart alec reading that suggestion might decide to take it as a kind of serious joke and implement it.  It wouldn't last long, but it didn't need to be joked about in the first place.  Not here, anyway.  KDS4444 (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Introduction needs work/western philosophy terms/comparisons need to be removed
My understanding from much reading elsewhere is that the term "tao" was commonly used elsewhere in Chinese thinking for the general purpose of describing "way" "method", "principle" etc. The Lao Tzu however defined a particular and identifiable concept of "the nameless way" and went to great lengths to describe this particular way. Later philosophies and philosophers attempted to further clarify the particular term and even to relate it to Confucian tao (the Neo-Taoists) but these were modifications of that particular meaning.

This is more or less what the body of the article seems to say but the introduction provides a muddier picture. Here it seems as though the word tao was understood and used by everyone in pretty much the same way as the Lao Tzu used it, but the Lao Tzu was unique only presumably because it was ... well what? In particular, Confucius used it in quite a different sense from the (early) Taoists and it is this difference that I came here to find.

And PLEASE let's put an end in Wikipedia to cluttering articles on Eastern concepts with Western Philosophical terms and comparisons. Apart from the dubious nature of these comparisons (it is like trying to use the language of ship construction to explain aircraft construction: why?) and the unnecessary jargon, there are plenty of university texts where Philosophy undergrads can find such discussion and perhaps even find it illuminating. --24.244.23.102 (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have removed the reference to "Western ontology" from the lead and replaced it with a referenced statement about Taoist values on the spaces between things.  I hope this reads as an improvement (the word "ontology" has always made my eyes glaze over anyway).  If not, feel free to revert back.  I am hesitant to claim I know anything about Taoism, but since this is a referenced statement from a published source, I think it will work here. KDS4444 (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The chinese is 道， there is this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chih 知. as in 知道. which means to understand. this is modern language. I deleted a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_(philosophy_and_religion), which seemed to fit nothing chinese/korean/japanese, others that like daoist thought. 到了道. Literal, arrived (finished arriving) at path. This seems like it should have a place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.243.38.113 (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts ~ Suggestions on the Locations and Spellings
This text becomes a somewhat interesting but slow read when the words Tao/Dao, Te/De, Ching/Jing are used in a mix.

I understand some wish to move to the technically correct spellings while others wish to keep the spellings they are used to by ancient tradition. Possibly some might want to keep the hodgepodge.

My suggestion is to store the text with the Chinese Unicode character as a placeholder, then if one searches for Tao (as one should, by ancient right!) just "sed s/道/Tao/" the codes away and if one searches for Dao (as one should, for sanity and correctness!) just "sed s/道/Dao/". And similar for wherever.

To make the set complete; create a page that jumps randomly and writes Tao or Dao as it pleases. "Ta Dao!" is what I would call it ... 130.238.241.231 (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand you, and I think maybe you are crazy. KDS4444 (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Tao/Dao inconsistency
This article isn't very consistent about which version of the word it uses, so I'm going to start switching the daos in the body to taos (where appropriate, obviously -- there are plenty of points in the article where doing that would be bad) unless anyone objects. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also gonna go after the many, many cases where just "Tao" or "Dao" is used and "the Tao" would be more appropriate. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Go for it, dude. That's what we need here: bold action.  KDS4444 (talk) 06:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not finishing what I started a few months ago, I got through a good chunk of the article but then for a while I didn't have enough downtime to sit and dig for the original forms of quotes. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

IPA
Should the IPA for this article include both "tau" and "dow"? KDS4444 (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Details: this article starts with an IPA explaining that both "tau" and "dow" (my own sloppy respellings, pls forgive) are common-usage pronunciations of the word "Tao".  I also am finding that both are given in some pretty reliable sources (the OED, among others).  However, when I do a Google Books search on "Tao" and "pronounced" I get very consistent results that indicate "dow" is the most common English phonetic transliteration of the word.  I am NOT suggesting ANY change with regard to the romanization of "Tao" vs. "Dao", but am wondering how other editors feel about removing "tau" from the common-usage pronunciation IPA in the lead sentence, or at least putting it after "dow".  I have heard the .ogg file of a native Chinese speaker saying the word, and to my English ear it sounds pretty clearly like "dow", but that is neither here nor there: the vast majority of published reliable sources don't even suggest that "tau" is an optional valid pronunciation at all, but seem to rather clearly indicate that despite the T in the beginning of the written word, it is, in English, pronounced like a letter-D.  I understand fully that there is no equivalent Chinese sound, and that the word Tao begins with a sound that is between English T and D.  There appears to have already been a lengthy discussion on the talk page of the article on Taoism with regard to which letter to use. That is not what I am getting at. I am getting at the way that English language sources say the word is to be pronounced in English, and those sources virtually all (not 100%) point to "dow" (and do not even mention "tau").  I would like others' input before making such a change, however.  Thoughts?  KDS4444 (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 12 days later and not a soul has surfaced to either oppose or support the above request for comment. I am going to take this as a general sense of indifference to the matter, and am going to boldly make the change to the IPA section without waiting further. If anyone disagrees with this action prior to the close of this RfC, please revert and ping me.  Otherwise, this looks like it is a dead fish.  KDS4444 (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)