dawei
-
Content count
12,597 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
87
Everything posted by dawei
-
What Daoist? If western ones, most seem to prefer the separate approach you mention next. if eastern ones, they are practicing religious Daoism (as they don't practice philosophical Daoism as I explain in my previous post) and don't really care what others are doing with the label. I think it may be more of common folks who if they were to explain Daoism see no way in which it is separate from culture. This is exactly what happened in the west... And then western scholars began to make the case that Daoism is not two separate aspects of Philosophy and Religion. What they seem to have missed the boat on is, while they may be correct in regards to indigenous Daoism, they are not getting your next point (or not accepting of it). I don't disagree.
-
A few thoughts: The different perceptions between what is a religion and a philosophy in countries may differ. Daoism as a practice in China is really more the ritual and religious aspects. I see the common folks more inclined to perform some Buddhist ethics or rituals in the home and thus are more inclined to consider themself Buddhist rather than Daoist. Chinese do not really 'practice' the philosophical aspect of Daoism; they simply live what is formed within and experience what is outside as life. I take the comment that Daoism is Chinese culture in this way. There is no way to really separate it; it is not external to the culture. Thus, one doesn't practice what is a natural part of life; one practices what is external or not acquired yet. In the west, Daoism is not in the culture, it is external and mostly taken as a philosophy to adopt, study, practice, and spend time trying to grasp its inner meaning and put it into practice. This corresponds to some comments I've made in the past that 'practice' is not natural and we don't get back to any resemblance of Wu Wei until we stop practicing and grasping and get back to living. The idea to experience rather than study something which is external to one's culture is probably preferable but not doable for most as one's own layers of cultural conditioning prevents it on some level. Thus, one may be trying to un-brainwash themself from what is formed within. If one was either able to really let the layers go or was more naturally predisposed to another cultural way, then it would probably be easier to adopt another way or let it soak in. Some are more gifted and it comes natural. For some, it may take a lot of practice.
-
I think this may be one of those things that if you have not observed it and immediately connected it to some core cultural influence then no amount of explanation may make sense. I've talked to dozens upon dozens about this, east and west, and they simply knew it and even stated examples themselves. The point is one of a core cultural influence and the resulting behaviors we see. It is not really about comparing to another group so much or who is killed; it is seeing that behavioral outcome (whatever it may be) based on some cultural conditioning. When one westerner said to me that Chinese are essentially rude to beggers in their homeland... I reply that this is simply their way of expressing a core cultural influence as I describe. This core influence can then be seen in sometimes disparate actions but in fact there is a connection between them all if traced back to the core influence.
-
I do agree that religions and thoughts pass around the world. It does seem to me that they often take on new words (Greek Orthodox, Chinese Buddhism, etc). It also seems that Daoism is closest to Christianity in terms of eternalness, life, and an way to live. Livia Kohn says there are three kinds of Daoist and almost suggests that while one can pickup one or two, that they may not be a true Daoist until they have all three under their belt. She may be suggesting one is not Daoist in the Chinese sense but is one according to one of the three they embrace. I probably lean towards this in some degree. I think these few threads on Daoist and American Daoism have been useful to discuss.
-
I am not quite sure that what was original conveyed by Sima Qian was intended to be understood as separate and unrelated 'schools of thought'. Chinese history is one of mix and match more than compartmentalization. He state the Daoist position as a melting pot of the 'best of the rest'. And one sees Confucians and Legalist also talking about "Dao" (to their own purpose to some degree). So I don't think there is great misconception until the exchange occurs with the west. If one considers that the west does not really mix philosophical constructions but this is common in the east. The Jesuits did finally see that the three main thoughts mixed (Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism), they were never capable of understand how to completely let them be individually understand and completely mixed in a natural way. If there was some misconception on the part of the chinese, then I would be interested to read someone's take on it.
-
I'll put on my mod hat from another forum I help with. I would typically agree. Some exceptions might be the 'history' of a poster where mods know the trend and word games, etc which are not as apparent in a post but amounts to a pattern of baiting, belitting, etc. I agree with this. I rarely can recall a time when a warning was not issued as a first step. Now, it is possible that a fast exchange occurs where all hell breaks loose and no mods are online. And then it cools down and nobody is fighting anymore. I think what should be considered is if it has already cooled off, then mods have to be careful not to 'stoke the fire'. In such cases, a cool warning or acknowledgement that things have cooled off and lets get back to topic and not have such outbreaks. etc. I will say once mods get involved in 'explaining' and exchanging, it can easily turn south. What happened with Turtle I've seen 100 times. It was a predictable outcome. Not because he deserved it but because that is simply a typical outcome when nobody takes a step backwards (including mods). There is a mod on our board who when he gets in a tit-for-tat with a member will often go to the mod forum and say he doesn't want to make a suspension decision as he knows his emotional buttons have been pushed. So mods vary. And that is a microcosm that posters vary too. I am not a fan of mods stating facts like they need to be completely transparent. Like you said: Most of the time, the post itself shows the problem and a warning shows the mods are aware. A PM is actually a good idea because a poster may decide to walk away from a post and not really see any warning directed to them. So what happens is they go to another thread and the emotion is still high and the post something there which appears they are ignoring a warning they never saw. This is not a court of law. Rarely are both sides presenting any facts, particularly publicly. IMO, such exchange should be in PM as one doesn't need to start a match of picking sides and ganging up. But I do think the general point made by this entire thread is a need to show in a timely fashion some action has occurred. In light of no warning, a thread like this starts in honest concern but becomes a proving ground to tear apart the policies and causes issues you mention and end with someone suspended. It would be good to remember this pattern in the future.
-
Is there such thing as a "life purpose" outside of the one we create for ourselves?
dawei replied to Unseen_Abilities's topic in General Discussion
The purpose is in the varied arising. The meaning is that source and self are one. -
I think your point is that until one tastes in their body/mind/soul the thousand pressures specific to that culture, the thousand stories which guide your thoughts, the thousand do's/don't and rituals which make one forget their individualism, the thousand exceptions to every rule, etc... it is not really easy to know another like yourself.
-
Here is what I am saying... in any which way which makes sense: 1. One will find at the base/core cultural influence a disassociation to strangers in need of help. 2. The flip side comes with a fear of what can occur to them, given it is none of their business. 3. In proverb form, it could be stated as: Approach another's trouble and that trouble befriends you. 4. Lao Zi said: Ill fortune is that beside which good fortune lies; 5. There is a lack of desire to see the need to help another. Or: Look out for number 1. 6. Takaaki said it clearly in one post as (I hope correctly paraphrased): Chinese don't see any need to help another get to heaven. This is one of a million kaleidoscope cultural mirrors. It may not be easy to see in the midst of everyday activities. But once understood, then one can 'see' the action for what it is.
-
I would agree that trying to exactly distinguish what is cultural vs 'daoism' is blurred (and what Kaaazuo seems to imply); how can one separate the cultural influences which contributed to the framing of life and thought? (rhetorical). What arose in China is what we know as Daoism, and it started with Fuxi, IMO. This pre-dating is seen in many areas: 1. LZ quotes from the Yi Jing (Book of Change) 2. LZ quotes from the Yellow Emperor 3. LZ quotes from Shen Dao 4. LZ references past 'sages' 5. ZZ mentions numerous people who "attained Dao"... including the Yellow Emperor 6. Sima Qian explains Dao Jia but it is really Huang-Lao philosophy of that day... He is saying the Yellow Emperor is part founder of Daoist thought. 7. Most histories on TCM will state Fuxi as it's founder and say it is daoist thought. 8. Tracing Yin and Yang backwards ends up with Fuxi... as a daoist thought Thomas Clearly said in his translation of Balance and Harmony that LZ was transmitting Taoist lore. I see the connection and it's more connected than disconnected. I think a misconception is the idea of chinese following (or not) Daoism and embracing (or not) TCM or Qigong. They generally treat all of these like the air they breath; it is what establishes life and is a part of life and their life. They generally cannot talk about it's influence or their understanding of it, yet they wear it on their sleeves and it is plain to see. Those who make a more conscious decision are generally seeking the temple study and ordinations. I would guess that this number is so small it's not work writing out the decimals. It is really only in the west where ideas are compartmentalized and broken down into the puzzle pieces and then re-arranged as to what picture we want to create. I found that paper and find it more problematic in trying to understand Daoism as he says anyone who wants to call themself a Daoist should be considered one, even if they seem to have no appearance of following the basic ideas. He says this 'self-identification' criteria is necessary as it comes from the needs of the western mind to deal with Taoism... and he labels this "Western Taoism" or "American Taoism". Maybe this is similar to how Buddhism, Chinese Buddism, and Zen Buddhism are labeled. Different names get applied as it evolves and travels across countries. I am now beginning to think that the phrase "American Taoist" may not be such a bad idea. I actually think it is quite easy to see how the west picked up the wrong ideas due to compartmentalization. It starts with the missionary and Jesuits who read and were explained these philosophical schools and then made sense of these with a western frame of mind. Most ritual, cultivation, or mystery which portrayed badly on western beliefs or faith were put aside or not woven into Daoism. Zhuangzi was overlooked and first translated by the Germans (I think). Livia Kohn mentions this in her book, "Daoism and Chinese Culture". As does Kirkland in "Taoism - The Enduring Tradition" state how Jesuits treated their ritual as "superstition". But Sima Qian played right into western compartmental thinking when he created the so-called "School of Six" (which might of been his father's idea). The rich, historical complexity of Daoism was reduced to a philosophy rather than life itself.
-
I agree with about 2.5 opening pages of Komjathy's paper ... and then I simply disagree with a number of his comments. He shares his POV in the opening lines: "Popular misconceptions concerning Daoism are numerous and increasingly influential in the modern world. All of these perspectives fail to understand the religious tradition which is Daoism, a religious tradition that is complex, multifaceted, and rooted in Chinese culture." He seems to have a pre-determined notion of the religious tradition which is Daoism. The religious movement was the very last and most modern movement. Naturism, shamanism, spiritualism, alchemy, immortality, philosophy... had already contributed their share... finally religious daoism arose... last but not least. The points that TCM and Qigong are not daoist seems far off my radar. If one wants to pluck a name, then names arise in time but the influences which created TCM and QIgong are documented in archaeology beyond dispute. K.C. Chang, the most well known chinese archaeologist, may of prophetically stated that scholars and archaeologist needed to pay attention to each others works. But this is simply my point of view. I view Dao as a very wide net working from the original creation and including anything that exists. Certain folks seemed to have figured the Great Way and utilized this understanding to further all things arising and communicating between heaven and earth. This is in no way comparable to Confucianism or Legalism. Yet they shared common ideas. It may be closer to the Yin Yang school and it did easily share ideas. What we may be missing is that we are in the end still trying to do what the west likes to do: Compartmentalize when the early scholars tended towards mixing... and Daoism is the ultimate blender of creation.
-
I think what is being raised by a few recent posts are very good points. I want to find Thinker's article as I am usually willing to read the opposite side of my thought. So yes, I am one who says Daoism is bigger rather than smaller. And I agree with the comments of ZeroTao and Kaazuo. H.E. shares an interesting story on 'truth', which is an elusive thing, particularly in classical chinese. The problem with comparing Daoism and Confucianism is like comparing Christianity and Existentialism. The former ones include creation myths and span into the non-existent, while the latter are simply more like behavioral science. I don't disagree with looking at D&C as two indigenous strains but it stops pretty quickly, to me, with the last word. One issue which I feel is not accepted enough is that in the period prior to the warring states, such thought was not broken down but rather they all mixed as they wanted. The Guodian Bamboo of Lao Zi shows distinct sharing with Confucius texts and was non-disparaging; later revisions reflect disparagement towards Confucianism. Sima Qian, the great historian, was a follower of Huang-Lao and defined Daoism as that which was the best of all the other thoughts merged together. I don't say this to suggest that is Daoism (although it may be it's redeeming value) but to show that sharing philosophical thoughts was more the norm. After the great compartmentalization of Sima Qian into the Six Schools, it seems the west followed this without realizing it was a painting of colors which blend. I don't consider Daoism a school of thought. If we put it that way, then we can date it near Lao Zi and we can compartmentalize the philosophical Daoism too.
-
I have that book but have only skimmed parts.
-
Ok.. I see your point. I would probably agree more than less with the previous point made about Fuxi. Chinese can tends towards singular acceptance of something in a way that westerners would not. And once one ascended to the order of a "Daoist", I would tend to think they would tend to believe the same history and founding. IMO, the importance placed on Fuxi (and other figures) can't be quite understood by the west where myth and history are cleanly separated. But I am not sure you analogy works. IF you said some would argue that Abraham founded Christianity, that might be similar... but I think that argument could be made! LOL Fuxi is accorded as having understood Dao and to have accomplished much in that direction. As to Lao Zi... I would bet that was not an actual name but more of a title: Old Master. It seems likely he his surname was Li (李 "plum"), and his personal name was Er (耳"ear"). I don't have a strong opinion about how many authors there might be but believe there was some oral tradition. I am more opinionated that we should understand the influences and time periods leading up to it better.
-
Not sure I understand how it is boring. Or your tiring of hearing this? Agreed. Interesting that Fuxi and Nuwa are depicted as serpents. Yes, that picture... and another one I have. Worship seems a very old practice in most every culture.
-
I am not sure I follow... what evidence do you use as your basis for your opinion? What is it about Fuxi (or what you know about him) that disqualifies him?
-
Practice, lifestyle, and personal preference
dawei replied to Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan's topic in Daoist Discussion
enuf said... -
I have never heard of SORL... but after spending the day reading on Chu and Shamanism in literature, art, and archaeology I was alarmed at how Chu depicted alien portraits in 500 BC in documents but pottery goes back several thousands of years. My immediate reaction was to do the following: 1. Sit back in chair. Get comfortable. Adjust back as a little pain in the tailbone always says 'hi'. 2. Give several long, clearing breaths; Slow in and even slower out. (someone might want to know if this is to the lower dan tian or where? To where ever you need it! ) 3. Let the energy rise from the centers to the skin; then outward to the universe; Connect. 4. This is my crude way. I am sure others have it much more refined. Intervention arose... and it stopped there... So I asked you. Your response is more than enough. It validates my query even if it does not answer it. An answer is often not required... which I suspect you know. I need to repeat the above steps for your response... as I am not at the point of instantly absorbing your thought. But I suspect that I could query you without writing a question here.
-
Some folklore on them: 1. Yes... brother and sister... but I heard she was the boss as there are more creation stories for her. And they prohibited marrying same family members thereafter. 2. According to "Duyi Zhi" (獨異志) by Li Rong of the Tang Dynasty (618-907), sectioned as “opening of the universe”, there were a brother and a sister called Nvwa, living in Kunlun Mountains (崑崙), and there were no ordinary people at that time. They wished to become husband and wife, yet, felt shy about it. Thus, the brother took his younger sister to the top of the mountain and swore: "If Heaven allows us to be husband and wife, please let the clouds gather; if not, please let the clouds scatter." Then, the clouds gathered together. The younger sister came to live with her brother. She made a fan with grass to hide her face. The present custom of women taking a fan in their hands originated from that story. 3. The Qin is an instrument attributed to Fuxi. It has 7 strings for Yin, Yang, and the 5 elements. 4. Huaiyang is thought to be the capital of King Fuxi and where he died. In the north stands the Taihao Fuxi Mausoleum or Renzu Temple, the “Ancestor Temple”. It was first built in the Spring and Autumn Period and then developed in the Han with a temple built in front. It was built with the logic of Fuxi’s eight diagrams. There is terse inscription showing Fu Xi's importance: "Among the three primogenitors of Hua-Xia civilization, Fu Xi in Huaiyang Country ranks first.” The ceiling depicts the 64 hexagrams. 5. There is a well known picture of Fu Xi and Nu Wa as husband and wife (with lower halves intertwined as snakes) which dates to the late Han period. Fuxi is holding a carpenter’s square (矩,Ju-symbol of earth) and Nuwa is holding a compass (規, Gui-symbol of heaven). The words together as Gui Ju mean a rule, custom, keeping order or well-behaved. Thus, these words also hold the meaning as measuring some distinction (ie: between right and wrong). This is seen as one of the oldest archtypes of comparing heaven (round) and earth (square), and as a representative dualism of Yin and Yang (Fuxi as yang oversees Earth as yin; Nuwa as yin oversees heaven as yang). 6. Nuwa is celebrated each year at the Wa Huang Gong Temple in Hebei Province. There is a Nuwa temple in Longcheng Village, Qinan county of Gansu Province. Some of the minorities in South-Western China hail Nüwa as their goddess and some festivals, such as the "Water-Splashing Festival," are in part a tribute to her sacrifices. Nüwa is also the traditional divine goddess of the Miao people.
-
I did read through most of it but I did not see that part you quoted. I have read some of his other works too. The more I read about the time of Chu, in the time of LZ, I can see why Kirkland might say some of these things. Chu was called "superstitutions" and "barbarian" by the north. Chu seemed, by the northerners, to collect myth, monsters, and ghosts faster than time moved... And if one sees their art, pictures, and writings on shamanism, spirits, and deities... it isn't that far off an observation to the commoner. What may be missing is what is the usual suspect in this: A spiritual movement is rarely understood by common folks and it gets most bothersome when what they mistake for discomfort may be their spirit moving. But it is very clear that Chu provides the background for the later alchemy, religious and immortality movements, IMO. I personally think the LZ in it's current Wang Bi version is different from its original form. But we see some consistent thought in other writers/writings of that time. And LZ did reference people before him, as Zhuangzi did by actual name. So it is in a certain tradition of thought, IMO, which seems to have found a center in Chu. Little referenced is that the founder of the Han Dynasty, Liu Bang, was from Chu and the court changes he made in the Chu style. And then you have Emperor Wu's affinity with Daoism. So while some like to say that Daoism arose in popularity in the Han, it may be more accurate to say it was the shamanism of Chu relabeled as Daoism on some level. . It clear to me that the Chu-Shaman emphasis on the two great orders/ways (man and universe) is the forerunner of what LZ made simple by avoiding too much reference to deities.
-
Glad to see someone chime in on the question as I was spending the day reading some of my books collecting dust on Chu, Shamanism, and Xi Wangmu. Glad to see you included her in the list. I agree with what you say and I think probably the "3 Sovereigns and 5 Kings" were probably Shaman-king-Taoist of some sort. But it is clear that something unique arose in the State of Chu in regards to Shamanism. The northerners seemed to fear their "beliefs in spirits and ghosts" and thus labeled them barbarians for their "religious rites and ways". --- I wanted to ask you but not sure if you know this issue: In the oracle bones, there is a reference to Xi Mu (Mother of the West) but some say it is not definitive enough to say if this is the same as Xi Wang Mu (Queen Mother of the West) because there is a big gap when each is referenced. I don't have a problem with the association of the two as one. Any thoughts on her?
-
TO ME, he is calling it out, like here: "In the Western imagination, the Taoism of China has been ignored in favor of a Taoism of our own devising" Who is arguing the DDJ is itself a distorted Daoism, the paper? Kirkland's paper complains about an issue I feel (which flowing hands has said a few times): There seems to be little concern to understand the historical timeframe leading up to the DDJ and instead a modern lens is used. This may belong in the DDJ is a Shamanistic text thread, but IMO, we would benefit from understanding this more. I personally would like to better understand why the DDJ emerges from the State of Chu. Chu traces it roots to Fuxi and the Yellow Emperor and there may be some question whether it is seen as foreigners.
-
Yes, that is an interesting influence which I have seen in a few others. Thanks for sharing that.
-
Advantages and Disadvantages of staying in the Lower Dan Tien
dawei replied to Dogen's topic in General Discussion
I recall older text stating to always have your mind at the LDT. One advantage is the focus can help to develop the LDT while keeping the mind empty. I believe this also puts the body in a tendency towards 'openness'. But I do think that not everyone can simply jump directly into this full-time as their body/energy may not be ready for it. So one has to be able to listen to their body's response to doing it. I have an opinion that chinese do this more naturally as it seems to me [by observation] that their LDT overheat fairly easy. I think the key is to realize that it is already (and always) in the LDT, just that some are not aware of it. So I don't see getting the brain into the LDT as a goal but rather the goal is to become aware that it is already there. From a visualization point of view, one can get a picture of their brain like an elevator and going to the 'bottom floor'. When I do some meditation like this, as it lowers it disappears or dissolves so that I don't hold the picture too long. I ultimately empty myself of the very idea of one thing moving to another place. And one has to also let go of the idea of empty and open. There should be no thought or distinction in the end. I think of this as similar to how one has has a developed awareness which is not aware of their awareness. This may be similar to Wei Wu Wei. -
This is how I understood your comments and see it. One often imposes their own 'view' onto anything the absorb internally or externally. IMO, there are at least three levels of initial influence: Blood/DNA, culture, and worldview. Due to 'variation', the weight of each one can supercede any other two. And if one moves beyond that in practices (meditation, energy, spiritual, immortality, etc) then it becomes a shell game of primary influences.
