[dorchadas]

Sadly the Tao of Pooh does not outline the basic tenets of Daoism. As van Norden says in the chapter on the Daodejing in his Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy:

> The Tao of Pooh by Benjamin Hoff ... is a charming work that has attained a wide readership. There is nothing wrong with enjoying it for itself. But it reveals much more about how the Daodejing as been appropriated to illustrate Western Romanticism than it does about the Daodejing itself. (See later in this section for more on Romanticism).

and, later on, here's what he has to say about the appropriation of the Daodejing and Daoism for Romanticism:

> We see a similar trend in the West. In particular, contemporary Westerners often project onto the Daodejing the assumptions of Romanticism. In reaction against the emphasis on reason that was characteristic of the Enlightenment, Romanticism championed the importance and wisdom of one's passions. But the dichotomy of reason and passion is Western, not Chinese, and the individualism characteristic in some forms of Romanticism is quite alien to the Daodejing. Consequently, we should be on the lookout for how Romantic preconceptions can distort our appreciation of the text.

Sadly, there's not many good non-academic introductions to Daoism out there, and the most popular translation - Stephen Mitchell's - was done by someone who can't even read Classical Chinese, but thought his Zen teaching was a 'good enough' guide to allow him to translate it.

-----------

All this is to say I'm glad the book worked for you, and helped you find peace. It's just not Daoism (nor is Alan Watts!)

[opportune]

What would you recommend as an introduction to Daoism, even if academic?

I am not an expert on the subject but IMO Taoism has a very similar phenomenon to Buddhism (and indeed all religions or popular philosophies really) in that the “classical”, original, core teachings are pretty different from the organized later movements under the same name. So the context - philosophical, historical, sociological, spiritual - in which you approach the subject and whether you’re doing so on the basis of the original thing or its more organized movements might make it so people interested in it under different contexts both think the other is ignorant or incorrect.

I haven’t read the Tao of Pooh myself but I want to point this out because I think it’s possible to understand Taoism (the classical philosophy) and concepts like Wu-wei without necessarily knowing anything about Neidan and or “Taoist Magic”

[spandrew]

This is fine though. All of these things, including the original sources, are philosophies as product of the time they were written. Ie. It makes sense for them to change as the society around them changes.

If one guy reads the Tao of Pooh and it helps him 'be' — that is the point. Laozi would likely agree: don't overthink it.

[coldtea]

>If one guy reads the Tao of Pooh and it helps him 'be' — that is the point. Laozi would likely agree: don't overthink it.

That's still a Western way to see it.

For Laozi that wouldn't "be the point". The point of his teaching was not to help people "be" in any which way, but to be in a particular way, within a certain philosophy of the world and our duties in it.

[p3rls]

Laozi would see it as fulfillment of his final mission to the western gates. Let us remember, the old master wasn't even going to leave any writings for you at all until he was kidnapped during his final attempt to emigrate from the orient.

[dorchadas]

Personally, if you're interested in the early 'philosophical' side (which I don't think can - or should - be disentangled from the 'religious' side; the separation of religion and philosophy is inherently a post-Enlightenment, Western phenomenon, and doesn't really apply outside that cultural situation), van Norden's chapters on the DDJ and the ZZ in his book I quoted from above are a good start. But there was a 'religious' tint to a lot of this, even very early on.

If you're more open to how the three strands ('religious', 'philosophical' and 'literary') of Daoism have merged and mingled throughout history, I really like Ronnie Littlejohn's Daoism: An Introduction published by I.B. Taurus. It's essentially an introductory textbook, but does a good job at showing how these things have always been interacting (indeed, there's quite possibly Nedian references in the DDJ/ZZ/LZ!) and that trying to separate them really isn't possible (indeed, as said, it's an inherently modern, Western distinction between 'philosophy' and 'religion'), while looking at how they've changed over time.

[dorchadas]

Oh I forgot to mention Coutinho's An Introduction to Daoist Philosophies, which looks at the three early Daoist texts -- the Laozi, the Zhuangzi, and the Liezi. I haven't read it yet, but have heard decent things. He specifically works from a comparative perspective as well, which makes it more interesting.

[Tao3300]

Hoh hoh! Have you not heard that that dao which has a recommended introduction is not the true dao?

[lannisterstark]

The 'no true libertarian' problem all over again lol

[duopixel]

The Tao Te Ching itself is the best introduction to philosophical Taoism (the religion is something else). Perhaps certain passages can be obscure, but they reveal their meaning in time.

Take a look for yourself https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html

[dorchadas]

The dichotomy between 'philosophical' and 'religious' Daoism is ahistorical, and stems from the influence, especially, of the Jesuits. They were tied together and mixed together from the beginning, especially neidan traditions.

Yes, there's two words - but they were often used interchangeably.

[everydayDonut]

Wow thank you for this! I suppose that's what the answer could have been for me, a kind of bridging between my lifelong reverence and pursuit of reason, and the passion or intuition that I didn't understand in others or myself.

I'm still early into reading the James Legge translation, but I've heard that there are many interpretations of the original. Is the tao of pooh not even close to daoism then?

[stryan]

Not OP and it's been a long time since I've read the Tao of Pooh, but from what I recall it's alright, but it really doesn't cover much of the real meat of Taoism. Much like Alan Watts, it provides an interesting philosophy, possibly even a helpful one, but it's not Daoism. Like watching an American re-make of a foreign movie :)

I'd be a bit wary of older translations[0] and try to get a reputable new one if you can. I recommend either Thomas Cleary's[1] or Victor Mairs; the latter was made based off the oldest copy of the Tao Te Ching we've found so far and includes a lot of interesting historical background.

If you want a more historical look I recommend Early Daoist Scriptures by Stephen Bokenkamp, which is fascinating if a little dry. There's also The Taoist Body by Kristofer Schipper which goes into how Taoism is practiced in modern Taiwan: Kristofer was actually ordained as a Taoism priest and learned many rituals supposedly wiped out in China during the Cultural Revolution.

[0] I think Legge's translation is actually alright, but it was really a crap-shoot back then. Infamously, Richard Wilhelms translation of "The Secret of the Golden Flower" is said by some to be so badly done as to in some parts convey the exact opposite of what the text says.

[1] Thomas Clearly (who was also the biggest critic of Wilhelms translation, for context) published a collection of his TTC and Chuang Tzu translations as one book, The Essential Tao, if you're looking to read the latter too. I highly recommend it

[everydayDonut]

I like the movie metaphor, some turn out to be very different from the original and I don't always like that.

This seems like a great list you've compiled, thank you. The deeper dives you've recommended sound very interesting too. I think I'll bookmark this

[stryan]

You're welcome! I realized I'd be remiss in not mentioning David Hinton as well: he's an American poet who's also a professional Chinese translator and has produced many excellent translations[0] over the years. He has a very distinct translation style were he translates as much of it as directly as possible (which is already difficult going from Ancient Chinese to Modern Chinese, let alone English) and really helps you get how different the thought really is while still keeping the originals poetic quality.

[0] I recommend his translations of the inner Chuang Tzu chapters and the I-Ching, as well as his book China Root.

[EdwardDiego]

I quite liked Thomas Merton's translations.

[stryan]

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Thomas Merton! He was a truly wise man and I have several of his books (highly recommend Zen and the Birds of Appetite and The Wisdom of the Desert!) and enjoy his "The Way of Chuang Tzu ". But Merton wasn't a translator and was instead arranging others translations, as well as interpreting passages in his own way. So while I'd certainly recommend his books I wanted to stay within the bounds of direct translations.

[EdwardDiego]

Fair comment, and I appreciate you clarifying, I'll check out the translation you mentioned :)

[javert]

Perhaps the Tao of Pooh is better than the original Taoism, or is an improvement.

If you like TOP better, or think it's more correct, or more wise, that's fine.

(I don't think so, but someone else might.)

I also strongly disagree with some of the sibling comments which insist that Taoism does not have a non-mystical (i.e., non-religious) core. As a disclaimer, I'm not really an expert. But I can see that there is a wise and rational framework there, that does not depend on make believe.

[coldtea]

>Sadly the Tao of Pooh does not outline the basic tenets of Daoism.

I mean, one would surely expect a certain amount of straying from scholarly excellence and some limits to its historical accuracy on the subject, given the book features Winnie-the-Pooh...

[carabiner]

Reminds me of how "zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" has nothing to do with zen.

[cypherpunks01]

"Not very factual on motorcycles, either" : )

[2-718-281-828]

would you mind elaborating? it's been for years on my book list. but if it is neither about zen nor about motorcycles on a meaningful level then i can probably remove it.

[cypherpunks01]

Both of the above are little quips from the author in his own short introduction to the book - his main point is that nobody should confuse the book with any work on Zen Buddhism. I just remembered these lines from the book's intro reading it many years ago, The line about motorcycles is him just being modest - he knows how to fix his bike, this does feature in the book.

It is a philosophy and adventure book, not about Zen, but filled with many of the author's own unique ideas. He studied Eastern religions and they do inform some of his ideas, which he combines with Western thought in an interesting way. It's off-beat, but I personally found it to be pretty inspiring and would definitely recommend reading it for anyone interested in philosophy.

[ccmonnett]

I would not let the author's tongue-in-cheek title discourage you from reading what is a very widely respected, well-received book :). Unless the rest of the books on your list are exclusively about motorcycle repair, in which case... still consider giving it a read.

[brightlancer]

I know virtually nothing about Daoism, but I know a lot about Christian theology and there is not agreement on what Christian belief _is_. It gets even funnier when we compare Christian theology and its interpretations of the Old Testament to Jewish theology and its interpretations of the Hebrew Bible (which Christians made their Old Testament).

So, who decides what Daoist belief _is_? And isn't?

[mario-main]

>there is not agreement on what Christian belief _is_

this isn't true at all. It's quite simply an Abrahamic religion based around following the teachings of Jesus Christ. There are plenty of different doctrines and interpretations but you can tell what is and isn't a Christian church.

Same thing with Daoism. Daoism is both a religion and a philosophy with very specific teachings and traditions. You can argue about how to interpret it, but that's not what pop philosophy books like The Tao of Pooh are doing.

[brightlancer]

> It's quite simply an Abrahamic religion based around following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

First off, that's not true.

Second, your argument is tautological: Daoism is a path based around following the tenets of the Dao; Confucianism is a path based around following the teachings of Confucius; Buddhism is a path based around following the teachings of Buddha.

Even if it were true, it wouldn't mean anything.

> There are plenty of different doctrines and interpretations but you can tell what is and isn't a Christian church.

Are Mormons Christian? Lots of Christians don't think so.

Are Catholics Christian? Lots of Christians don't think so (despite the Roman Catholic Church being the largest Christian church).

You're assuming agreement that does not exist.

> Same thing with Daoism. Daoism is both a religion and a philosophy with very specific teachings and traditions.

Christianity does _not_ have specific teachings and traditions.

Catholicism has very specific teachings and traditions. It's a huge church and they've got tons of groups and committees and panels to write books about what Real Christians™ must believe and how they must behave. And they kick out people who are vocal about disobeying.

But of course, non-Catholic churches have different teachings and traditions. Not that they agree, either. If you wander around the Southern US, you'll find tons of Christian churches that are each just a few dozen people, and their teachings and traditions can be unique.

So if Daoism is like Christianity, then there isn't agreement.

If Daoism has specific teachings and traditions, then how is that maintained? Who decides (or decided) what those teachings and traditions are?

[andsoitis]

> > There are plenty of different doctrines and interpretations but you can tell what is and isn't a Christian church.

> Are Mormons Christian? Lots of Christians don't think so.

> Are Catholics Christian? Lots of Christians don't think so (despite the Roman > Catholic Church being the largest Christian church).

> You're assuming agreement that does not exist.

These are all Christian denominations [0], i.e. distinct religious bodies within Christianity and identified by traits like doctrine. Various Christian denominations have good reason to seperate themselves because each have different doctrine around Trinitarianism, salvation, papal primacy, the nature of Jesus, etc. If you are cynical, you might say they each compete for mindshare and power within the Christian religion.

For instance, the Mormon Church (LDS Church) is a restorationist, nontrinitarian Christian denomination in the branch of Mormonism. [1]

As a non-Christian, it might be easier to look from the outside in and not get distracted by the doctrine and authority differences.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denomination...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_...

[Tao3300]

It seems weird to call Mormonism a Christian denomination because of the whole extra book where Jesus visits North America. That's a massive deviation. It's the same as saying Catholicism or Rastafarianism are denominations of Judaism. You're leaving out a lot!

Mind that I don't think Jesus talking to Native Americans, hying to Kolob, and sacral underwear are any more farfetched than anything in the King James, but I wouldn't call it the same thing except in the very loosest sense.

[rrrrrrrrrrrryan]

Do Catholics or Rastafarians call themselves Jewish?

If a group self-identifies as Christian, they're probably Christian. At the very least, they're much more Christian than all the people that don't identify as Christian.

If a religious group is based on following the teachings of Jesus Christ, and claims to be Christian, I don't see how you could ever claim they're not without going full No-True-Scottsman.

[freedomben]

I think you're missing the points made earlier. The definition of Christian varies depending on who you ask. The word itself conveys nothing other than perhaps "worships Christ." All the rules added for what "Christians" must accept are disputed. If "worships Christ" is the definition, Mormons clearly are Christian (cue all the "but that's a different Jesus!" cries). If your definition is "believes what Pastor Johnson believes" then they wouldn't be. This is no different than any other ill-defined word.

[dragonwriter]

> >there is not agreement on what Christian belief _is_

> this isn't true at all.

Yes, it is.

> It's quite simply an Abrahamic religion based around following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

That's not even the most common of the competing ideas, in part because it is useless because it just pushes the lack of consensus out one level because there is no consensus on what, if anything, are “the teachings of Jesus Christ”.

There is a broad consensus among the theologians of communities making up the vast majority of self-described Christians on what thr boundaries of Christianity are, but it excludes a fair number of other self-descibed Christians, and even common members of those communities often have narrower definitions.

> but you can tell what is and isn't a Christian church.

Lots of people “can tell”, but they won’t agree. Where its important to a discussion, people who are careful will define the term as it applies to the specific discussion. There is no one true right answer separate from specific context of usage. (This is true of language generally, but its especially true of trying to do binary in/out boundaries of communities or other spaces with near-continuous variation.)

[kgwxd]

Why should anyone care what van Norden has to say on the subject anymore than anyone else? Anyone who adopts an idea to paint themselves an “authority” on it shouldn’t be trusted, especially in this domain.

[mario-main]

van Norden is an award-winning scholar who has dedicated his entire life to classical Chinese philosophy. He has taught the subject at universities for decades. I think his PhD earns him the privilege of being seen as more of an authority on this particular subject than Benjamin Hoff, whose credentials are a BA in Asian art and learning a Japanese version of Qigong as a hobby.

[kgwxd]

None of that means anything. Classical != right/accurate/useful. That mindset just gives authority to age, which does not correlate.