[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.

[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.

[Tao3300]

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

[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

[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

[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" : )

[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.

[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.

[Tagbert]

That is just an example of different conventions of romanizations of Chinese characters. Both should be pronounced with “d”.