Asia On Technology

[scameter]

I'm curious: how does the various forms of thought originating from Asia, such as Taoism, Hinduism, Shinto and Buddhism, view technology? Anyone have any insights?

[Taeguk]

Hi! :)

scameter, you wrote:

how does the various forms of thought originating from Asia, such as Taoism, Hinduism, Shinto and Buddhism, view technology?

That seems like an awfully broad question! <_<

I don't think any of those religions you mentioned have specific thoughts on "technology" any more than, say, Christianity or Judaism or Islam have specific views on technology. Aside from a few minor groups like the Amish, there aren't any "forbidden" devices unless the use of technology directly contradicts official dogma (i.e. the Roman Catholic ban on birth control).

As far as I can tell, the same is true for all those religions you mentioned: unless the use of technology would violate some principle, there's no real religious or philosophical "views" on technology. Some especially austere Buddhists extend the Precept to abstain from intoxicants to include excessive TV, but there's no "official" interpretation of the 5 Precepts that includes this. The Eightfold Path does require "right livelihood", so (in theory) a good Buddhist would avoid working for companies whose use of technology is considered unethical, like arms manufacturers. Bhikkus (monks) are supposed to forgo luxary, so they (in theory) tend to live without many technological amenities, but there's no official ban on technology. My local Buddhist monastary has several computers, which the monks use to help them with various projects, like managing records and translating the sutras from Chinese or Pali into English.

Recently some environmentalists have been incorporating Taoist attitudes toward nature into their theories, but I haven't heard of any strongly Taoist eco-movements. Taoism of course is suspicious of human intervention in the course of natural or cosmic events, so this makes sense. However, the later "vitalizing" or "alchemical" traditions of Taoism (the ones concerned with achieving immortality) have occasionally been cited by transhumanists and futurists as the ancient precursors to their techno-utopian projects. Again, though, there isn't really a strong "transhumanist Taoist" movement any more than an eco-Taoist movement. And there certainly isn't any official Taoist teaching on technology! The Tao Te Ching and the writings of Chuang Tzu are full of allusions to the sort of technology used at the time they were written. A Taoist is (again, in theory) probably somewhat more environmentally conscious than your average person, but aside from that there's not really a special "Taoist" attitude toward technology.

Interestingly enough, hacker culture often has an affinity with Zen and Taoism. "Hacker Koans" used to be pretty popular in some circles! And you can check out the Tao of Programming (http://www.canonical.org/~kragen/tao-of-programming.html), one of many humorous tech-themed spin offs of the Tao Te Ching. :lol:

Practically speaking, Asians have no aversion to technology. The economic growth of India and China depends heavily on technology, as did the economic success of Japan and the so-called "Four Little Dragons of Asia" (South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan). And non-Asian Buddhists, Hindus, etc. all use technology as much as their Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and athiest counterparts. :)

[scameter]

Hmm... interesting. A rather quick answer, but complete and concise, as usual from you my friend. :) I wonder if the same extends to all of science.

[Thomas Knierim]

Many Asian nations embrace modern technology. They even seem to be more enthusiastic about it than most Europeans. Mobile phones, laptops, PDAs, flat screens, are all very popular consumer items. Here in Thailand, for example, you may find people living in traditional wooden houses on stilts - but they still have mobile phones, colour TV, and other gadgets. It's even more extreme in places like Hong Kong, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Shianghai. In Singapore, for example, the government has just installed an island-wide WiFi network which every citizen can use for free.

I don't see much of a connection between traditional Asian thought systems and modern technology.

Cheers, Thomas

P.S.: Taeguk, thanks for the Tao of Programming link. Hilarious! So, you have to program in machine language to be close to the Tao? :lol:

[Taeguk]

Hi again!

scameter, you wrote:

Hmm... interesting. A rather quick answer, but complete and concise, as usual from you my friend.

Well thanks! :) Of course, there very well might be teachings on technology I'm not aware of, which is why my response was so short! :lol:

As it is I'm not nearly as familiar with Hinduism as I am with Buddhism and Taoism, but I've never heard of a stance on technology that's particular to Hinduism.

You also muse:

I wonder if the same extends to all of science.

Hmm, well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by science and technology! :)

These days, we're apt to use the word "technology" in a very narrow sense---specifically refering to computers, ipods, televisions, anything "high tech". But technically, any sort of "tools" or skilled know-how can be considered "technology", from the earliest wooden and stone tools our ancestors used!

The word "technology" comes from the Greek techne which was used to refer to any kind of "skilled discipline", from breeding horses to fishing to painting to making clay pots. Then as now, I think science plays heavily into technology, since all techne require episteme or knowledge.

The method or mode of episteme that we associate with the word "science" has definitely allowed our techne to advance to a high degree beyond what our ancestors had. And I don't think Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Shinto, etc. have any problem with the methods of science or its fruit in the form of technology.

What I think all of those religions/philosophies/ways of life would caution us, however, is that ultimate reality cannot be grasped through the intellectual process which science often employs. Rationality and even empiricism cannot go beyond a certain point. To "go beyond" (although there is nowhere to "go"), one must employ supra-rational means (not sub-rational): an awareness or attention which is honed through meditation and culminates in an "awakening" or enlightenment.

Of course, there are those who would argue that science has at this point arrived at the same place the mystics have, but through a different route. That's why you have books like The Tao of Physics which try to draw parrellels between certain post-Copenhagen interpretations and mysticism. Whether or not such connections exist is certainly debateable, although I don't claim to know enough about quantum physics to give an opinion one way or another!

One area where I do think mysticism and science converge is the formation of scientific hypotheses. Sometimes it seems as if the scientist has a certain intuition which swings his thoughts in a certain direction. Everything that might come after may be rational, but the initial intuitive experience which sets off a chain of reasoning (and subsequent experimentation) seems to come like a burst of lightning.

Thomas, you wrote:

P.S.: Taeguk, thanks for the Tao of Programming link. Hilarious! So, you have to program in machine language to be close to the Tao?

Apparently! :lol: I thought you'd appreciate that! I suppose the interplay between yin and yang could be translated into binary?

Come to think of it, I wonder if you could make an analogy between Verse 42 of the Tao Te Ching and binary code?

The Tao gives birth to the One.
The One gives birth to two.
Two gives birth to three.
And three gives birth to the ten thousand things.

Tao gives birth to 1

With the presence of 1 the possibility of its absence also arises; we have 1 and 0.

01, 10, etc....?

Maybe I should leave the computer commentary to Thomas or someone who knows what they're doing! :lol:

[scameter]

<_<

[Thomas Knierim]

The Tao gives birth to the bit.
The bit gives birth to the byte.
The byte gives birth to the character.
And the character gives birth to the ten thousand strings.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Everything from something, one.

[Winfried]

I'm no expert in this field, but I thought Taoism considered knowledge to be the source of all evil. As technology comes forth from knowledge, and requires knowledge to use it, I don't think a 'pure' Taoist (whatever that is) would be all jolly and gay about technology.

[Taeguk]

Hi! :)

Winfried, you wrote:

I'm no expert in this field, but I thought Taoism considered knowledge to be the source of all evil. As technology comes forth from knowledge, and requires knowledge to use it, I don't think a 'pure' Taoist (whatever that is) would be all jolly and gay about technology.

You raise an interesting point! :)

I think you're refering to verse 19 of the Tao Te Ching:


Throw away holiness and wisdom, and people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice, and people will do the right thing.
Throw away industry and profit, and there won't be any thieves.
If these three aren't enough, just stay at the center of the circle and let all things take their course.

(Mitchell Translation)

It does seem to be rather "anti-intellectual", now doesn't it? :lol:

But is this verse actually just arguing for a sort of "sub-rational" Way? Consider another translation of verse 19 (this one from thebigview's Tao Te Ching translation (http://thebigview.com/tao-te-ching/)):

Give up wisdom, discard cleverness,
and the people will benefit a hundredfold.

Give up benevolence, discard moral judgements,
and the people will rediscover natural compassion.

Give up shrewdness, discard gain,
and thieves and robbers will disappear.

These three false adornments are not enough to live by.
They must give way to something more solid.
Look for what is simple and hold onto the Uncarved Block.
Diminish thoughts of self and restrain desires.
(McCarroll translation)

The emphasis, it seems to me, should be on the final verse: these three false adornments are not enough to live by. It's not that "knowledge" "morality" and "industry" are evil. After all, Taoism doesn't look at things in terms of "good" and "evil", it looks at things in terms of harmony with the cosmic cycle of change!

Therefore, given that the cosmos is governed by an endless cycle of change, that all phenomena are transient, and that all opposites are complementary, how are we to live? :think: Lao Tzu's answer, of course, is that the only dependable "thing" (although it is wu chi: no-thing at all) we can live by is p'u: the "Uncarved Block" or Tao, or the Way. The eternal, primordial simplicity.

The Way is the Whole, and when we substitute a Part for the Whole, treating that part as if it were the Whole, suffering and disharmony inevitably result. Human knowledge is at best a limited part, and we can't live by that part. So the problem, then, is not that knowledge is the source of evil, but rather that when we attempt to live by anything other than the Way, we naturally fall into a state of disharmony.

There is a time and a place for knowledge, but we can't make it our foundation because Tao cannot be known (although it can be experienced).

Consider this quote from Chuang Tzu:


You train your eye and your vision lusts after color.
You train your ear, and you long for delightful sound.
You delight in doing good, and your natural kindness is blown out of shape.
You delight in righteousness, and you become righteous beyond all reason.
You overdo liturgy, and you turn into a ham actor.
Overdo your love of music, and you play corn.
Love of wisdom leads to wise contriving.
Love of knowledge leads to faultfinding.
If men would stay as they really are, taking or leaving these eight delights would make no difference.
But if they will not rest in their right state, the eight delights develop like malignant tumors.
The world falls into confusion. Since men honour these delights, and lust after them, the world has gone stone-blind...

Again, consider the latter part: "If men would stay as they really are taking or leaving these eight delights would make no difference." The emphasis again is not on ignorance over knowledge , yin over yang, but on [i]balance. It is only when we will not rest in this balanced "right state" that our knowledge, desires, morality, etc. "develop like malignant tumors."

As for technology, it depends on what you mean by technology. In its broadest sense, there are numerous references in Taoist writings to artisans, craftsmen and tradesmen---that is, people who employ a specific techne. The most famous of these are probably Wen Hui's butcher, Duke Hwan and the Wheelwright, and Khing the carpenter. In all of them, their technical skill is exhalted (although they each acknowledge that they follow the "Tao beyond all taos"). So it would seem that the Tao is actually the ground for all of our "technical taos". Again, the implication is that because the Way grounds all of our "human ways", according with the Way can only be beneficial for our human "ways" (technology).

I do think though that a "pure" Taoist would be very much against any kind of technology that damages the ecosystem. That's why you find a marked Taoist influence on certain ecological movements (particularily so-called "Deep Ecology").

On the other hand, it's important to keep in mind that this perspective is only the early or mystical tradition of Taoism! (often called "Lao-Chuang", "Tao-Jia" "philosophical Taoism" or "Literati Taoism"). The later magical strains of Taoism sought longevity and ultimately physical immortality through various alchemical practices, breathing exercises ("inner alchemy"), proper diet, tantric sexual practices, and devotion to the Taoist gods. In this sort of Taoism, esoteric knowledge of immortality was very highly prized.

[Winfried]

If men would stay as they really are, taking or leaving these eight delights would make no difference.
But if they will not rest in their right state, the eight delights develop like malignant tumors.
The world falls into confusion. Since men honour these delights, and lust after them, the world has gone stone-blind...
Does this mean that we shouldn't experience any form of growth, and stay in our childlike 'pure' state? If it does, it really seems to contradict the entire western world (of thought). I really should dig into this deeper.

Also, Taeguk, are your quotes from personal translations (do you understand/read chinese), or are they from 'popular', so to speek, translations? As you point out yourself, some of the translations of ancient texts seem to contradict eachother, while they should be the same, because they're from the same text.


It's one o'clock in the morning, I'll go and catch some sleep. -_-

[Taeguk]

Hi again, Winfried! :)

You wrote:

Does this mean that we shouldn't experience any form of growth, and stay in our childlike 'pure' state? If it does, it really seems to contradict the entire western world (of thought). I really should dig into this deeper.

Well, yes and no! :lol:

Remember that for Taoism the entire cosmos is a process of change or "transmutation". So to a certain extent, it is impossible to remain "unchanging" when the entire universe is in a continual cycle of change! Indeed, much Taoist wisdom states that one must above all be open to change, be accepting of whatever the present moment happens to bring.

On the other hand, Tao, which underlys and governs the eternal t'ai chi of the universe is considered to be "limitless" (wu chi) and "eternal". By opening oneself to Tao, the sage returns to what Chuang Tzu calls ying ning, a tranquility or calm which is pervasive and present throughout all change. Because the "perfect man" is rooted in an unchanging serenity, he/she is open to all change. Stillness underlying activity; the perfect balance of yin and yang.

Here's a quotation from the writings of Chuang Tzu on this very matter:

Lao Tzu:
Can you be like an infant
That cries all day
Without getting a sore throat
Or clenches his fist all day
Without getting a sore hand
Or gazes all day
Without eyestrain?
You want the first elements?
The infant has them.
Free from care, unaware of self,
He acts without reflection.

Disciple: Is this perfection?

Lao Tzu:

Not at all.
It is only the beginning;
This melts the ice.
This enables you to unlearn,
So that you can be led byTao


As you can see, this is only what "melts the ice"!

One thing to keep in mind is that a common fallacy is for people to assume that "natural" means "original". So is it "unnatural" for a puppy to turn into a dog, because the puppy starts out smaller? Is it "unnatural" for a seed to sprout into a tree? It seems to me that nature is a dynamic process which necessarily involves growth and change. Taoism also shares this view, and is about finding balance within the natural ebb and flow of the Process of the whole. So I think that Taoism is not advocating stagnation, but on the contrary an openness to growth and change.

This is, of course, just my interpretation. There is no "orthodox teaching" in Taoism, so a certain extent, we're all on our own!

You also ask:

Also, Taeguk, are your quotes from personal translations (do you understand/read chinese), or are they from 'popular', so to speek, translations? As you point out yourself, some of the translations of ancient texts seem to contradict eachother, while they should be the same, because they're from the same text.

Unfortunately I know only a few Chinese hanzi in the "modern" script (the Tao Te Ching was originally written in the "Seal" script Chinese)!

As far as contradictory translations go, the Tao Te Ching is interpreted in many different ways! It's a very subtle, esoteric document and is hardly a straightforward text even in the original Chinese. "Wu Wei" doesn't make much more sense in Chinese than it does in English. To make matters even more difficult, Chinese is a very difficult to translate into Indo-European languages.

So one translation is likely to differ very much from another, and there is definitely not one "standard" interpretation. Depending on which translation you consult, the Tao Te Ching is either a Machiavellian political treatise, a dense philosophical tome, a collection of aphorisms, a mystical poem or advice on qi gong. It's either a deeply religious work or a deeply secular, naturalistic work.

Nobody really seems to agree on what is being said! I've seen all kinds of arguments break out online between linguistic scholars, Taoists who have been ordained by daoshi, qi gong masters, Ch'an Buddhists, philosophers, new-age hippies, historians and Confucians. Each has a different take on it, and each thinks their take is the "real" one. Very heated arguments, oftentimes with the participants behaving in a characteristically un-Taoist manner! :lol:

The translations I cited you can find in any bookstore; both have their strengths and weaknesses. The Mitchell translation is very loose with the original text, and is often critcized for being more of a poetic interpretation instead of a straight up translation. However, it is also praised for being very easy to read and relatively easy to understand. I think it's a good translation to begin with, but definitely not a definitive interpretation.

The McCarroll translation on thebigview is more literal, and certainly much closer to the main text. It's not always the most explicit and can sometimes feel a little archaic, but overall I think it's a good translation. It's less straightforward than the Mitchell translation, but also more nuanced.

The Chuang Tzu quotes I've taken from Thomas Merton's poetic interpretation, which has become something of a modern classic.

If you're looking for translations, Winfried, I suggest you check out this site:Tao Te King von Lao Tsu (http://home.pages.at/onkellotus/TTK/_IndexTTK.html)

It has hundreds of Tao Te Ching translations in English, German, and numerous other languages as well!

To give you an idea of how different a translation can sound, let's examine just a few different interpretations of the opening line:

The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name.
(the Legge translation, one of the first English translations from the 19th Century)

Existence is beyond the power of words
To define:
Terms may be used
But are none of them absolute. (Bynner, a very loose, poetic translation)

Even the finest teaching is not the Tao itself.
Even the finest name is insufficient to define it. (Rosenthal)

Green tea is wonderful. There are many words that can describe its aroma, its flavor. I can tell you of the temperature of the tea as I sip it from its cup. The smells that fill my nose just as my tongue tastes the first drips. I can explain to you the benefits of the tea. But, you still have not experienced the tea. You only have a rude concept of what it might be. Unless you sip from the cup yourself, you are not experiencing the real. And this is true with the Dao. (the LaRose/"Siji Tzu"; more of an interpretation than a "translation")

The Way as “way” bespeaks no common lasting Way,
The name as ‘name’ no common lasting name. (Roberts)

A way can be a guide, but not a fixed path; names can be given, but not permanent labels (Cleary)

Another example of how confusing it can be translate into English, check out the various translations of wu wei in to English: Ancient Paradox (http://www.texaschapbookpress.com/magellanslog24/weiintro.htm). We have everything from the classic "Act without action" to "do that which is not done by doing" to "act in repose" to "act without lust of result" to "It's not your turn."

As you can see, these are all different! Yet through reading all of them one gets a sense of what is actually meant (hopefully). My advice is to seek out different translations compare them (or learn Chinese!)

Get some rest, Winfried! :)