Mark Saltveit

Flowing Hands wrote: OK, sure. Uh .. metaphorically maybe. Isn't third eye a Hindu concept thought? Mas o menos. A bit reductive, but yeah. Wait, WTF? I think I missed a step or two of your logical chain of reasoning here.

Such as the person who assigned the task. That's fiendish, I like it.

Suits me. I was the one who asked about websites, and I have a film link too.

If it's Marblehead's American Taoist, I'm intrigued. I don't disagree, Aaron, but there are many voices who do - Komjathy, Kirkland - who are generally dismissive of American Taoists. And they have degrees and everything.

What American Taoist? I've been away, does anyone have a pointer?

>>Yours is a great blog site. How come it does not have a discussion forum to draw in the bugs? Thank you very much. I'm not sure if the village idiot is me, or Steve though. The blog is pretty new. I may create forums (fora?) at some point, but for now I figure people can discuss posts in the comments below each one. That seems to work pretty well on most sites (except for the idiot spammers who post fake comments to show ads. Luckily, akismet does a good job of weeding these out.)

Thanks! Steve's great. Years ago (1993), he wrote a famously sarcastic FAQ on Daoism that you might enjoy. http://www.realchange.org/taoish/authoritative-answers-to-questions-about-taoism/

Steve Bokenkamp, a professor of Chinese and Religious Studies at Arizona State, just posted a detailed analysis of one line of chapter 10 on my blog, Taoish.org, which you might find interesting. One point he makes is that modern translators interpret the DDJ in very similar ways, which Chinese writers from, say, the Han period present much more widely varied meanings. http://www.realchange.org/taoish/mirror-mirrormirror/

Here is an article of mine in the excellent (but sometimes racy) MeFiMag. Let me know what you think. This link is to a PDF of the whole magazine. My article begins on page 8. Comedians as Daoist Misisonaries Mark Saltveit

Funny! You guys are dirty (don't get me started). That's amazing that you just made one up, you should post it on The Palindromist in the forums there. I have another somewhat spiritual one, it's kind of my motto. "Wary, alpine zen; I play raw!" I'm also a standup comedian; here's a YouTube clip where I incorporate that and some others onstage. Not easy to do in a club full of drunks expecting dick jokes, let me tell you. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/11/11022011-palindromes.html Mark

Here's another article on Le Guin and Daoism, which has lots of links to other articles on the subject: http://freedownload.is/pdf/re-visiting-ursula-le-guins-the-dispossessed-anarcho-taoism--3998103.html

Anyone still interested in this topic? I'm starting to actually draft my article on the conflict between scholars such as Komjathy and popularizers such as Ursula Le Guin. Saw this quote here: "It is no surprise for instance that Ursula Le Guin is not a Taoist scholar and these are easy targets." Hmmm, that's where you have to be a bit careful. Le Guin is not a Daoist scholar, but she is a Harvard graduate who grew up surrounded by the founding fathers of anthropology -- notably her own father, Alfred Kroeger. Not to mention that she co-wrote her Daodejing with J.P. Seaton, who is a scholar of classical Chinese and a translator of classical Chinese poetry. Komjathy is an associate professor, and a Quanzhen initiate, but those disciplines may limit his understanding as well as expand it. As another Daoist scholar said to me recently, it's not that complicated to translate the words of the Daodejing. It's understanding what they mean, even in the original language, that is difficult. It's not like it was a clear-cut, 5 step manual for living when it was first written.

Ursula Le Guin is a Daoist anarchist, and has worked that into some of her books, notably the Dispossessed. I haven't read it, but I found an article analyzing her as an anarchist. Her book "The Lathe of Heaven" is her most Daoist novel; the title comes from an archaic translation of the Daodejing, and it's a warning against over-meddling. Post-Modern Anarchism in the Novels of Ursula K. LeGuin

I'm curious -- did you ask Fabrizio if he is a practicing Daoist? And if so, any details? Mark

The best religion is no religion. Religions and isms are bits of truth tied up with string and doled out by self-appointed leaders trying to monopolize it.

Yes! I particularly like Merle Haggard's take on Jimmie Rodgers: Mule Skinner Blues No Hard Time Blues TB Blues http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg6bSnR3hdM&feature=related J Rodgers Medley w Johnny Cash - very loose Also, not Jimmie Rodgers but great (and imitated by the Grateful Dead) Workin Man Blues http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSn9pXJjRi0&feature=related

Mao was a committed Marxist, and as a rule they oppose all religion (opiate of the masses, remember?) He certainly didn't get wu wei. One story is that he was annoyed by bugs at one point and organized millions of Chinese to rip up all the grass around Beijing, at one point. The person who told me this said that decades later, there is still a noted lack of ground cover.

Thanks! Would you mind explaining the strip set notation in a bit more detail?

The Carolina Pantheists are the worst team in American football, though.

I respect that opinion, but hope that you might respect those who disagree. If you are studying Chinese culture and history per se, then yes absolutely you need to know about all of that stuff. But Lao-Zhuang philosophy clearly seems to be the most universal and least culturally-specific element of what later became Daojia. There are millions in China who find value in Aristotle, Christianity and American entrepreneurship. We don't insist that they must understand classical Greek conceptions of mentor/boy relationships, Italian espresso or America's gun fixation to fully appreciate these. There are hundreds of millions of Chinese Buddhists who know very little if anything about India's culture. I don't know of any other context where we require someone interested in another culture's philosophy (or part of that philosophy) to absorb the entire cultural context of that original culture before they can adopt the philosophy. If a philosophy is universally applicable -- and you seem to agree that Daoism is -- why can't it be appreciated in isolation, or adapted to other cultures? If Laozi and Zhuangzi didn't see fit to mention Yin/Yang or Chinese medicine, why should we think it's necessary for modern Westerners to understand these concepts in order to appreciate their work?

Interesting, thanks. Where would one run across the word "daoshi" or find it translated? Does it appear in the DDJ or Zhuang Zi?

This is a very interesting discussion thanks (though I think you might be mixing my quotes up with the other Mark a bit). Well, intolerance is never cool. One of the real improvements in the study of Daoism has been a correction against the wholesale dismissal of Daoist sects by some 20th century scholars. No one should dismiss them, but neither I think should anyone dismiss the ability of those outside these sects to live in Dao, and that is a current issue. I think it's well documented (including by Komjathy) that the philosophy long predated the current religious groups and lineages, by many centuries. Whether the philosophy predated any religious Daoism or not, or separated from religious practice early on, I don't think anyone really knows. Do you know of any solid evidence that the philosophy did not predate the religion? Then I'm not sure who the Tantric devotee, Susan, or George represent in your analogy. Komjathy, Kirkland et. al. have explicity said that people who do not follow a Daoist lineage are not real Daoists (though Komjathy goes back and forth a bit). They have called it a variant, Western New Age religion but not Daoism. No one would blink an eye if Komjathy said "these are not true Quanzhen Daoists" (the group he is initiated into); that is the analogy to the Tantrist in the analogy. But he says they are not Daoist at all. Who in real life is analogous to your sex practitioner claiming they are Tantric? What Western popular author, for example, claims to be a Quanzhen (or, you pick the flavor) Daoist? The public controversy involves certain professors attacking well known authors (Hoff, Dyer, Le Guin, Steven Mitchell, Thomas Merton) for being frauds and not real Daoists, claiming they have no right to write their books on Daoism. I don't know of any of these authors who claim any lineage or specific sect knowledge. Quite the opposite. Le Guin and Merton are quite humble in their books about the limits of their knowledge. (Can't speak to the others) I think we agree. But what is the acceptable range of practice? Must it be a Chinese practice, or are non-Chinese Daoists free to find activities in their own cultures in which to cultivate Dao? Why give the orthodox that power, if you don't agree? Are people less inclined to give them that power wrong to call themselves Daoists? Why?

But where do you see anyone saying that? Not since 1950, that I know of. Yes, exactly. But the practice was one they developed themselves, based on their own instincts and that one book. The tantric devotee says that this experience and practice is invalid, not real sex. Here's where I think your analogy goes off the rails, and mine is, I humbly submit, more apt. The book learning guy doesn't say anything about tantric -- he just claims it's true sex, based on the book the Art of Sex and his experience. Tantric guy is saying that tantric sex is the only real sex, and non-tantric practitioners are "frauds" when they claim they have experienced sex. They're still virgins, in his view. I didn't say anything about teaching or writing, but let's take it that extra step. Our book learning guy, overcome (so to speak) by his new experiences, can't believe so few people in his foreign land have heard of "The Art of Sex" (which is quite old and an odd duck, to be sure), so he decides to write a new book about his experience, his understanding of the Art of Sex, and the new original practice he developed. What's the problem? Tantric guy may think his way is better, and he certainly has a right to complain if book learning guy writes "The Modern Guide to Tantric Sex" or claims he understands tantra (is that even a word?). But does he own all rights to the word "sex," or an exclusive claim to the understanding of it? Especially since tantra wasn't developed until 500 years after "The Art of Sex" was written. In my opinion, "The Modern Guide to Sex" should be judged as an original book, and by the hard-to-describe but definitely real nature of The Sex. But tantric guy's claim is that book learning guy categorically has no right to use the word Sex, even in conversation, without joining and mastering his particular tantric school of Sex. And that any book he writes is invalid, regardless of the actual contents of the book, because of the author's lack of formal training.

Apparently you've been in China too long when you've lost the ability to edit.

Allow me to reframe your analogy. Someone reads and enjoys the book "The Art of Sex" and decides, "Hey, I should try this myself! (Perhaps even with a helper.)" So they do, and find that their experience resonates with everything in the book, and they're quite happy. But X, who is part of a tantric sect that also reads that book among many others, and was taught by a lineage holder priest, says "that's not real sex." Is X elitist? Does X have a right to say that's not real sex? Or should they just say "That's not TANTRIC sex, according to my tradition" without taking it upon themselves to judge others?