PDA

View Full Version : The Tao of Pooh discussion


dizzle
June 9th 2003, 08:25 PM
Okay, we are beginning our discusson on The Taoh of Pooh....


I was given this book way back in my pagan days, and I remember enjoying it then, and when I saw it mentioned by Hired Gun the featured article, I thought it would be good for our discussion, and I wanted to read it again as a Christian. I again enjoyed it, but as usual my mind went looking for a contradiction, which apparently isn’t too hard in Taoist thought since niggling things like contradictions don’t stand in the way but simply are How Things Are.

But first something simplistically cool that I liked:

A saying from the area of Chinese medicine would be appropriate to mention here: “One disease, long life; no disease, short life.” In other words, those who know what’s wrong with them and take care of themselves accordingly will tend to live a lot longer than those who consider themselves perfectly healthy and neglect their weaknesses.

Now some criticisms… this was a particular blow against at least some of Christian thought:

Our Bisy Backson religions, sciences, and business ethics have tried their hardest to convince us that there is a Great Reward waiting for us somewhere, and that what we have to do is spend our lives working like lunatics to catch up with it. Whether it is up in the sky, behind the next molecule, or in the executive suite, its somehow always farther along than we are – just down the road, on the other side of the world, past the moon, beyond the stars….

There is LOT wrong here mixed in with what is right. Of course it presumes that there is not a Great Reward, if there is, then it is reasonable to work towards it so that we are not sacrificing tomorrow for the simple pleasures or sins of today. Also of course in the Christian life, if it is a strenuous and stressful working towards, it is not the true Christian walk but a vain works-based striving. I do not think the author would appreciate this difference.

Now there was also a lot of talk about Essential Nature and Being Who We Are, and here is where I saw the big honking contradiction. I am very well aware of Who I Am, and frankly, it is not very Pooh-like. I would be miserable being Pooh-like. “Simple” serenity is not my cup of tea if I am expressing myself properly. I am most happy and fulfilled not being Pooh. So while the author stresses to be at harmony with our Essential Nature, he basically dismisses as faults any Nature that is not Pooh-like. Bah! What pretentiousness in declaring that it is superior to simply hear the birds sing then to wonder what bird is singing. Thank you very much, I like to wonder.

Sher
June 9th 2003, 08:43 PM
I'm going to try to get my hands on this book and participate ... not for the Taoism ... but for the Pooh-ism. Of all the 100 Acre Woods characters ... I am attracted to Pooh, but probably least like him (more like Owl/Rabbit, with a bit of Tigger :teeth:)

This should be rather interesting ...

Patroclus
June 9th 2003, 08:54 PM
One of the main points of Taoism is the idea of the best man. According to Lao Tse, the best man is like water: not somebody who blasts his way through life, but moves with the pull of nature, and accepts obstacles.

This is fine, and in a way, I like this idea. The problem is that Hoff uses examples of "why," or what incentives are involved in Taoism. One of his examples is the story of the Chinese man who lived 256 years (I don't have my book with me). If, however, the best man is like water, and is not struggling against nature, then struggling against death is not proper either. What Hoff fails to mention is that the good Professor was not just a man who lived well, but who was an herbalist.

Furthermore, I did a little research, and the story is a little too good to be true.

Ryokan
June 10th 2003, 09:01 AM
Actually, Dee Dee.I don't think that Taoism has to be against Christianity at all, even though I am not a CHristian. If we truly are made in Gods image and likeness, and made to serve, then by simply being as we are, tools of Gods will, we will obey obey him better and more truly than if we serve with the hope of a great reward. We'd love God like children love, just because, not like men do, who love because a person does something for them. And doesn't Jesus say something to the effect of you can't enter the kingdom of God except as a child. Also, in the Garden if Eden, was it Eve's need to "grasp", to have worthless knowledge, that caused her to eat the apple, the first sin? Eve was the first owl and the first rabbit.

Also, just being doesn't necessarillly imply serenity, just acceptance.

Patroclus
June 11th 2003, 06:20 PM
I don't think that DeeDee was saying that all the principles are necessarily antithetical to Christianity. However, Hoff's rhetoric was certainly atagonistic to Christianity.

I, personally, do no think that Hoff gave a very good representaion of Taoism.

Ryokan
June 12th 2003, 09:04 AM
I definitely agree that Hoff's rhetoric was anti-christian, but I don't think that Taoism, particularly the kind advocated by Hoff, is antithetical to forms of Christianity and or Christian mysticism.

And I think Hoff does a good job presenting Taoism in a way that is understandable and meaningful to western minds, replacing Chinese mythological figures with Pooh and company as he does. It is important to have an understanding of Chinese history, particularly during the warring states period, Chinese mythology and traditional medicine,and most of all Chinese legalism in order to understand Taoism, but the Tao of Pooh is just an introductory text.

dizzle
June 18th 2003, 06:44 AM
06-10-2003 @ 09:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119230#post119230)
Ryokan:


Also, just being doesn't necessarillly imply serenity, just acceptance.

But it was very unaccepting of who Rabbit and Owl were "just being." That was the contradiction that I saw.

FYI - i am trying to entice Flipper into joining this thread. He really need to come back to TWeb (he is on sabbatical)

Ryokan
June 18th 2003, 10:17 AM
that is the inherent contradiction of Zen or Buddhism. Everyone is "just being". It can't be avioded. But, according to Taosim and Huff, the trouble sets in where you try to do more than just being. You grasp, and fail. And you have owl or rabbit type problems.

And I agree. We need Flipper!

Passant
June 18th 2003, 07:12 PM
If anyone is interseted, I met a Christian/Taoist at Apologetics.com, A really nice guy too.

SynchroKnight
June 26th 2003, 10:51 PM
I must say I have to agree with most thats been said already.

I enjoyed the book when I read it several years ago. I also found it a reasonably good intro to Taoism for westerners. It got ones feet wet without overwhelming them with esoteric jargon.

Hoff definitely brought a western spin to the philosophy (sort of like Stephen Mitchell did with his translation of the Tao Te Ching)

I was always most facinated with the concept of "wu wei" (doing without doing). That moment when you let go intellectually from whatever it is you are doing and function almost on instinct, with amazing results. I've experienced it myself on a few occasions when drawing or sketching. Its like I simply allowed my education and training to take over and before I realized it, the work was finished. I'm sure people from other disciplines have had similar experiences.

As for Hoff's rhetoric, he takes aim at scientific and philosophic types as well as Christians. Dee Dee, you should see him go after the feminists in the Te of Piglet. ;)

"time for a little hunny"

TuckEverlasting
August 25th 2005, 12:22 PM
Just give me a couple more years, DD; I'll have this one read eventually. I'm on page 15 already! :read:

dizzle
August 27th 2005, 06:10 PM
It is very interesting and clever.

wyote
November 22nd 2005, 05:35 AM
It is very interesting and clever.


I'll have to read this book... ... ... someday.
Seriously though, I'm a few books into a study of Taoism...



(oops... looks like I'm a little late...)

dizzle
November 22nd 2005, 06:56 AM
No matter. It is an enjoyable book. Cute but not in a cutesy way if that makes any sense.

Ryokan
December 1st 2005, 01:05 AM
I liked it. Although I wince at the clumsiness of my old posts. :blush: