Talk:Tao

Not that bad

Just wanted to say that I am actually impressed with this article. This is by its nature arguably the most difficult wikipedia article to write (assuming a sincere interest by the authors to be NPOV), and I think it is well done.

Of course many people may read this article and say "ok, wait...what?", but that's kind of the point. Anyways, I just wanted to drop by and say good job, and I sincerely hope the article stays (roughly) in this form. Short is definitely best, and academia has little place here outside of historical references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.227 (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Although it is not writ badly, it is full of mistruths and does not contextualize Tao/Dao except to selected texts.

After reading it, I feel it is misinformation. It distracts, it diseducates, and ultimately puts the concepts down as absurdities in crazy old books.

It is allowed to put even copyrighted quotes, and there is no real article length limit.

Please consider, without seeing at least the manner in which the Dao is the Path of All Ways, and that this is fully generic - not specific at all - it is the only theory of existence which is experiencially complete and entirely self supported.

It addresses the questions of the fundament of being and the fundament of universe in a manner far more satisfying to the intellect than the smaller and smaller questions of no consequence the physics begs of us.

Truly fascinating is a lot of people, in their practice of the Tao, do not obtain nessesarily the right questions. This is to do with the breath of the eye of the mind, and even in those different modes of being, the Dao is materially relevant for extending the view beyond the thread of reason that is the language in our minds.

As you can see, attempting to explain digresses indefinitely into mysteries. That is because the concept is naturally beyond the understanding.

It is also 'the set of all sets, where sets may contain any elements of any sort and mode of interaction' as thus it is unchanging. We find ourselves within it, and are thus constrained and enabled in exploring it. That is Tau.

But of course, once you obtain more esotheric facts, outlandish theories, and 'non-binary' information, these concepts gain power very very quickly. 84.241.194.69 (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The personhood issue

The Tao is a supposed (there is no globally accepted and well recorded evidence) divine field and lifepath.

It's not the personhood of the cosmos as for example the Abrahamic person-god.
On the other hand, the Tao is supportive of life and of personhood (before the person merges with the supposed "universal whole").
Even in some rare heresies in which the Tao can be neutral when not nurished (or negative towards an evildoer); still it has prosopophilic (friendly towards the personhood of man/humans [or even animal personhood according to variant criteria of personhood]) nature.

Indirectly friendly towards personhood; or directly friendly towards personhood but not personhood itself (because many doctrines exist).

A common misconception is that native East Asian culture can be atheistic at the core (antispiritual) and spiritual at the same time. Usually the texts which promote that are metalogically shallow.

For example, CGTN in an indirect way, tries to present as Communism-friendly many archaic beliefs. Usually without specific analyses about the supposed core linkage, but with generalities and stories. We can erroneously claim that Jesus was a Communist for sharing food, or that Hitler was a kind person for working long hours for his country. Rhetorical/oratorical claims might seem impressive, but can be flawed if the examination approach does not include metalogic analysis of the component notions within the elaborations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4107:9e00:c1bd:91f8:1207:801b (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Originated in China due to adv civ early on, is a generic eastern origin/dominant, but no way generic to China or Chinese (racial/nationalist misrepresentation)

would be nice if it said 'history and origins' and then went all 'Chinovision' on the subject. That way modern additions get a natural place, and the subject content rather than worldy instantiation can take prime. 84.241.194.69 (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Issue with lede

The grammar definitely needs some work. Wikiblame points to here where the confusing sentence was added in an IP edit. I think it should read:

"... natural order of the universe as discerned intuitively to realize one's potential and wisdom ..."

Since I'm not sure of the original intended meaning (see link), any help improving that sentence would be appreciated! — zmm ~talk~ 21:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

We could just revert back. Text before that one was

Within the context of traditional Chinese philosophy and religion, the Tao is the intuitive knowing of "life" that cannot be grasped full-heartedly as just a concept but is known nonetheless through actual living experience of one's everyday being.

Replaced text is

Within the context of traditional Chinese philosophy and religion, Tao is the natural order of the universe whose character human intuition must discern in order to realize the potential for individual wisdom. This intuitive knowing of "life" cannot be grasped as just a concept but is known through actual living experience of one's everyday being.

To my mind this at the least requires a citation. The phrase "natural order of the universe" does not occur lower down the article.

Things get worse with this edit [1] where the "natural order" phrase becomes the first definition in the article. Chaging the first sentance from

Tao or Dao is a Chinese word signifying the "way", "path", "route", "road" or sometimes more loosely "doctrine", "principle" or "holistic beliefs".

to

Tao or Dao is the natural order of the universe whose character one's human intuition must discern in order to realize the potential for individual wisdom, as conceived in the context of East Asian philosophy, East Asian religions, or any other human thought that accords with them on this principle.

I'm no Taoist scholar, but I think the concept of way or path is the primary meaning. I think we might want to change back to an earlier version. --Salix alba (talk): 22:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Italics?

I think Tao is a pretty borrowed-into-English word at this point, right? Thus, I don't think it should be italicized as a foreign-ism as per MOS:FOREIGN. Remsense聊 01:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)