Anabhogya-Carya

Fair enough. I happened to include my personal view within the question of whether this is the generally accepted view of Taoism or not.

How mysterious..................

Hear Yee Hear Yee! Indulgences for sale! Come see his most grand pontifical holiness! Cut your time in purgatory!

Alas, I am saved. Fear my nail polish thou creatures of the abyss!

I was not suggesting. I was asking.

You are right. Stop responding to my posts and furthering conversation if you don't like the content.... and I am not actually suggesting this! Forums are for discussion, opposing or not.

Never said it was. I was just wondering if it is generally excepted in organized Taoism that costumes, rituals, talismans are such are truely magic and powerful. I was wondering if the stuff Mak Tin Si is talking about is representative of the view of "proper" Taoism. If not, than wonderful, i would love to get more involved with Taoism. If yes, than I have little interest in being involved (never said anything about not learning about it) with Taoism. And thus would take what I found enlightening about it orignially and call it nothing. It was a statement posed to get answers to a question.

wow, everything is magic in taoism isn't it. If I paint my fingernails with taoist nail polish will I be defended from black magic? I apologize in advance for my cynicism. I could not help it...

mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest one of all?

Hardly. When I read a philosophical text like Plato's "Republic" or Nietzsche "beyond good and evil" am I using them as a christian would use a bible? If i read any book and find it has value and insight, am I using it as a bible? If so, then it appears we all have many bibles. I never said the Tao Te Ching is the only thing I look to for guidance. Yes, but I was refering to the discussion about which Taoism is right Taoism. Both seem to have problems with each other, and both claim to be true, putting the defenition of Taoism into shady territory. The "ism" creates alot of conflict. And this form is called the "Tao Bums" not the "Religious Tao Bums" or "Philosophical Tao Bums" so i think both discussions are appropriate here... unless of course by "Tao" you mean religious Taoism, but that was hardly the immpression I have gotten on this forum.

Because I am interested in the experience.

Have you tried opium tea?

Are you calling gnosticism invalid because it uses what it likes and innovates upon what was? This is what all religions do. Is the "Taoism" without religion and dogma not Taoism? That can be answered once you give me a good defenition. And sure, Taoism is interpreted differently in the West then it is in China, Christianity is probably interpreted differently (and molded into pre-existing culture) in the Philippines, are they not true Christians? Is European Christianity not true Christianity, because it borrows pagan rituals? If the inclusion and rejection of certian elements of faiths in a culture is not representative of the "true" religion, than we are devoid of "true" religion on earth. Any Taoist group you look at is going to call themselves Taoist or some variant, whether they use all the books, or magic or rituals, etc. If one person leaves folk magic out of Taoism are they not a Taoist? That is how new religions are made my friend, by borrowing and ommiting. And yes, I speak of Buddhism and Hinduism. And I agree that combining elements of many systems is more akin to spirituality, but that was not my point. I was looking for a definitive answer to this "true" Taoism you all speak about. You seem to think it itself is immune to change and interpretation. And I see how wonderfully you avoided defining true Taoism. What is this reality you speak of? And to think that religions do not evole and change is close minded. Maybe the Taoism of 1500 years ago is not the Taoism of today or maybe it is, I never claimed to know. All I said is that Mak Tin Si does not have a monopoly on the defenition of Taoism. I am lost in a sea of interpretation and have no idea what Taoism is anymore. I never claimed to be a Taoist, mainly because I don't think anyone seems to know what Taoism is. And your last point applies to us all, save the language.

Thats analogous to saying eastern orthodox christianity is not real christianity because it draws from different influences and practices different things from Roman catholicism. I do not think Taoism is a monolithic religion and I do not think that mixing elements from traditions (especially traditions that have so much in common) lessens people's claims that they pratice Taoism or want to achieve harmony with Tao (which I think is the fundemental purpose of it, not a bunch of magic and dogma). Like I said, it depends on who is defining Taoism. I ask you to give me a defenition of Taoism. I do not care if Mak Tin Si is a priest, or has some esoteric hereditary knowledge, it does not make his idea of what Taoism is any more true.

I was making a point..... The "my" and "your" are independent of any specific individual.

Amazing. Makes me feel even more confounded and insignificant than I already did.

My real Taoism is not your real Taoism. Your real Taoism is not real in my real Taoism, and my real Taoism is not real in your real Taoism. Who's real Taoism is real Taoism?

It could not possibly be a time transcending metaphor! OR maybe it is.

How wonderfully ironic.

Don't we all have our panties in a bunch.

Brilliant!! I faintly remeber the Tao Te Ching saying something about lust.... hmmm.

No need to get attitudinal............ Paradox is the essence of the Tao Te Ching.

I applaud you.

I know it was taught to you... who taught it? surely it was not the Tao Te Ching.

There is no reverence of the Tao as a deity in the core ancient text. Any diety, or magic that was incorporated into Taoism from outside sources (Chinese folk religion, Confucianism, Buddhism) has little relevence in the Tao Te Ching. I believe that ritual is important in a psychological, community and focusing sense, but I do not believe that Taoism should have a dogmatic ritualization systematized into the metaphysical and epistomological aspects of it as it is limiting (i.e. to reach to the Tao you must do this, or, this god says you must do this) And no, I do not know if there is any gods, nor do you, nor does anyone. Again, I do not see the Tao as a diety to be worshiped, I see it as something (and nothing and everything, etc.) to be realized. I do not think anyone can realize the Tao by becoming too attached to Taoism as a system.