The Relationship Between Religious and Philosophical Taoism

[Birch]

"I have never seen any scientific study that has ever presented varifiable proof and evidence that anyone has ever had awareness of anything prior to birth."

 

- me neither AND has anyone seen any scientific and verifiable proof and evidence that anyone ever DID NOT have awareness of anything prior to birth? That's the stuff I' d be down for spending research $ on. Why aren't we doing that?

 

 

"It is true that everyone does not remember their dreams. But not all people dreams in a depth where they had any realization of dreaming so they basically did not dream. Yes, there are those who say that everyone dreams. I do not agree with this assessment.

 

The same applies to after death."

 

- How? You're much better than me for explaining things and I'd love to be able to work it out how the consideration of dreams can be equivalent to the consideration of death. I don't expect an answer right away because people have spent thousands of years on this already. I spend a considerable amount of time on it too. I don't know if I'm getting anywhere much;-)

 

"I cannot prove any of this because it does not exist." - nope, you're usually better than this.

 

- "I cannot prove any of this"

- "It does not exist"

 

What form would proof take?

 

Hopefully you see this as helpful (like a cat might help its owner to realise where the fridge is, or what comfy feels like) I'm also doing it to help myself since I haven't honed my logic as much as I should have and you're much better at it that I am.

[Marblehead]

Actually, I think GIH's points were pretty logical.

 

I mean, think of how we reason in general: we take what we know from our experiences and theorize on how they can be applied to other situations. In GIH's examples you can take dreaming, obviously the perception and provability of the phenomenon have issues, but they still exist, so it's not really that much of a jump to apply it to death.

 

The problem is PROVABILITY. And for a lot of people, THAT'S the problem. Not the logic or reasoning behind the point.... but proving it.

 

But there's a lot of stuff that we haven't really proven but that still goes on all the time so..... yeah.

 

Hi Zhang and GiH,

 

Please understand that I am not really disagreeing with anyone nor am I trying to force my understanding on anyone.

 

All I am saying is that we should use logic and reasoning when accepting a thought as an element of our belief system.

 

You folks have had your experiences and I have had mine. All I am suggesting is that we consider whatever the concept to judge whether or not it is going to be useful to us in living our life to the fullest.

 

I have my delusions in my personal life. They help me maintain my inner peace and contentment. But, whenever I go out into the 'real world' I am aware that not all my delusions are going to apply so I set them aside for the time I am interacting with the 'real world' and live according to the realities of other people but when I get back home I return to 'my world' where nothing can harm me.

 

The base subject here is the difference between religious and philosophical Taoism. I know that I sometimes refer to religion as a crutch but I really mean no insult by saying that. Remember, I am an Atheist. This is how I am supposed to believe.

 

I admire the both of you for the intelligent thoughts you bring to the discussions. That we do not always agree is more a matter of our past experiences and learning than it is anything else. We are different Manifestations. Can't get away from that no matter how many times we say "We are One."

 

So when someone says they have experienced a prior life I will generally chime in and suggest that the speaker re-examine their logic and reasoning.

 

We really shouldn't all think alike. That would result in such a boring life. But we can, after a discussion of our differences agree that we each have the right to believe however we feel we should believe.

 

Yes, I most often place more limits on 'reality' than most people do. But that is a result of my experiences and learning. Others will think differently. That's okay.

 

But, as I have mentioned before, when a subject is being discussed and I feel knowledgeable enough to speak on the subject and I have a differring opinion, I feel I should offer my understanding so that those who have not yet formed a belief have more options (choices) to choose from.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

 

Hopefully you see this as helpful (like a cat might help its owner to realise where the fridge is, or what comfy feels like) I'm also doing it to help myself since I haven't honed my logic as much as I should have and you're much better at it that I am.

 

Hi Kate,

 

Hehehe. Don't give me too much credit here. Most of what I say has already been said by others - I am just using my own selection of words.

 

The scientific method includes varifiability and repeatability.

 

Varifying means that we look at the answer in detail to insure that it exactly answers the question (theory). (Of course, the question needs to have been valid.)

 

Repeatability means that the process can be conducted by others and the same answers result.

 

We can never prove that something does not exist. All we can say is that we have found no evidence that it does exist.

 

Science is currently working on the theory of Dark Energy. They have not yet found proof the it exists because they have yet to find a means of detecting and measuring it. They have found evidence that it should exist because its existence is the only answer to explain events that happen in the universe. So for now it is still a theory - not a fact.

 

Last night I was conscious of dreaming. (My long distance telephone service, of all things. Hehehe.) I normally sleep dreamless. That is to say, none of my unconcsious brain activity was strong enough to transfer into my conscious mind. That I have no recall doesn't mean I didn't dream, it just means that I was never conscious of the event. Therefore I cannot prove that I dreamed but at the same time I cannot prove that I did not dream.

 

I have experienced deja vu once in my life. This is the only way I have to explain the experience. But that doesn't mean I had a prior life. It could have been the recall of unconscious memory that came to fore and I had and have no conscious knowledge of the information. (Maybe something I had heard or read or seen and consciously forgotten.)

 

The thing is, any proof of life before birth or life after death should stand up to the scientific method if there is such a thing. At this moment in time, to the best of my knowledge, there has never been even one study that could be used to prove its existence. Of course, on the other hand, it has never been proven to not exist. I therefore suggest that the probability of its existence is extremely small.

 

I have chose to not believe in the concept. I am therefore right. Others have chose to believe in the concept. Therefore they are right. But this is only on a personal level.

 

And as I have said before, if it helps a person live a fuller life then I suppose that they should continue to believe. It is just taht we should not confuse our delusions with our reality. They have a tendency toward getting us in trouble when interacting with others.

 

Enough for now. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

[Sloppy Zhang]

- me neither AND has anyone seen any scientific and verifiable proof and evidence that anyone ever DID NOT have awareness of anything prior to birth? That's the stuff I' d be down for spending research $ on. Why aren't we doing that?

 

Actually I saw this brief news snippet the other day about people who have out-of-body-near-death-experiences, and in certain hospital rooms with critical patients, they put various signs throughout the room in positions that can't be viewed from the patients point of view. If the patient were to "die", and then be revived, they plan on asking the patient what he/she saw. If that person really had an OBE when they "die", then they should be able to tell info about the room or the hospital that they would have no way of knowing.

 

But I don't think this is so much a serious study as it is a little test. There are plenty of people who say they have OBE's, more than enough potential study subjects there but..........

 

The issue with applying the "scientific method" with death is... well.... morality. You'd have to have people die and come back every so often. Sure, it'd be under "controlled conditions" but.... I mean, you could ask for volunteers, but what are you going to tell them? "In this experiment I will kill you, but only for a while, I want to bring you back and ask you what you saw."

 

Which again is why people who say they can astral project or have all kinds of OBE's really need to step up because they could really expand on what we consider humans capable of doing *hint hint*

 

You folks have had your experiences and I have had mine. All I am suggesting is that we consider whatever the concept to judge whether or not it is going to be useful to us in living our life to the fullest.

 

I have my delusions in my personal life. They help me maintain my inner peace and contentment. But, whenever I go out into the 'real world' I am aware that not all my delusions are going to apply so I set them aside for the time I am interacting with the 'real world' and live according to the realities of other people but when I get back home I return to 'my world' where nothing can harm me.

 

I partly agree and partly disagree.

 

Everyone has their own view which helps them get through stuff, yes.

 

But I don't think they are delusions.

 

And I don't think they need to "set aside" their "delusions" to function in the real world. I try to take my "delusions" into the real world and actually get them to work in my day to day life! THAT is what people should be doing.

 

Otherwise you're just one of those Sunday Christians that pick up their Bible to look all Holy, but as soon as they leave Church they drop all that Christian business because, y'know, in today's world that stuff just doesn't "work". Best to "get real".

 

On the original subject- I read that whole paper that was posted in the OP and it sucked

 

He pretty much repeated the same thing every 4 pages..... "westerners are carrying out colonialism every day" "they are explaining some other culture while ignoring the culture's own self image". I thought that the author would say, you know, a little bit about "real" Taoism, but he just said the same thing over and over and over........

 

Yes, westerners are bad, we ignore everything about everyone else and only use what's good for us...... now tell us something we DON'T know!

Edited October 12, 2009 by Sloppy Zhang

[Marblehead]

I partly agree and partly disagree.

 

Everyone has their own view which helps them get through stuff, yes.

 

 

Hehehe. I never expected full agreement. If I was a writer of books I would write a book so to be able to better express myself. Of course, there would still be those who wouldn't agree with me.

 

And I don't think they need to "set aside" their "delusions" to function in the real world. I try to take my "delusions" into the real world and actually get them to work in my day to day life! THAT is what people should be doing.

 

Yes, you expressed this better than I did.

 

Yep. For some reason most of us always look for the worst we can find in others. Never mind that there has always been a waiting list of those from all over the world who want to migrate to the Western world, especially the United states.

 

I wonder how long the waiting list is for those wanting to migrate to Iran or Lybia or even Mainland China.

 

And if we are religious people we will always find reasons why those who are not religious are wrong. Just as I find reasons to not be religious.

 

That Americans accepted Taoism is a feather in Taoisms hat. That the base philosophy and religion may have been altered some in order for it to be compatible with the realities in America should not be considered as a negative. IMO.

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

Edited October 12, 2009 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Is awareness generated from the body, as the physicalist may say, or in some way independent of it?

 

I believe this is a very good question because I believe your answer to it affects your morals and how you live your life, as well as the quality of life for you and people around you as well.

 

If I were a physicalist, I would say no. I would say that alive means oxygen/nutrients are flowing into the brain and the brain is creating a sense of being. Once that supply is cut off, the awareness shuts off like a light switch.

 

Precisely.

 

Now, I might not be able to draw a boundary between a lighted room and a dark room, but it is clear when the light is on and when the light is off. The same goes for Zeno's paradox where you cannot travel across the room because first you would have to travel 1/2, but before that, 1/2 of that, etc. Just because you can draw an infinite number of points doesn't mean you can't walk across the room.

 

How would you respond to such an argument, GIH?

 

It's not an argument because it has no thesis. You're not really arguing for or against anything. You're just restating the Zeno's paradox.

 

However, if I may, I will speak to what I believe is your concern here.

 

Zeno's paradox shows that when you try to find some substance in a boundary, you cannot. However, when we step back and refrain from analysis, nothing is more obvious than the apparently distinct phenomena. For me this is a demonstration how something can be real and yet be insubstantial at the same time. So substantiality is not a necessary precondition for apparent reality.

 

This shows how it's very easy and possible to live your whole life in a dream and not ever know even once that all that time it was no more and no less than a dream. And when I say this, I don't use the word "dream" in a pejorative sense. Dreams are what we make of them.

[Marblehead]

[goldisheavy]

Hi GiH,

No. Please don't misunderstand my intentions.

 

I don't misunderstand. I know you haven't been trying to actually trick me or anything like that. My aim was to demonstrate and make plain to you your pattern of thought. How you do this thing in your mind... make assumptions, jump to conclusions, etc... I wanted to expose it and used that statement as a rhetorical device for that purpose.

 

Yesterday does not exist. Sorry. Only 'now' exists.

 

That's not the point. The point is that while you could not prove that "yesterday" exists we behave as if it does. For example, if you loaned me $5 dollars two days ago, do I still owe $5 today? We behave as if I still do owe you $5 bucks. But if yesterday is not real, why not just forget the 5 bucks? Can you prove you loaned me $5 dollars? Actually you cannot. You can produce video footage, promissory notes, etc...all the things we accept conventionally as proofs, but in a strict philosophical sense they wouldn't prove anything about the past. And yet we behave as if the past was real.

 

So clearly you engage in irrational behavior. Now, if you can admit this, then you will understand that this is not a choice between a rational and an irrational behavior when you choose whether or not to believe in past lives (and future lives). It's a choice between two equally irrational, equally baseless views. This is where humility comes in. It's the realization that your current belief is groundless. It doesn't mean it's worthless or that it sucks! It just means it is one among many. This is also why religion is never humble, because religion is always exclusivist on some level. Real humility has nothing to do with lowering oneself or with respecting others. You can disrespect everyone and spit on everyone's face and still be humble. Alternatively you can bow to everyone and have the highest respect for everyone you know and be very arrogant. The question is: do you realize the basic groundlessness of your beliefs or not? If you do, you are humble. If not, you are arrogant. It's that simple.

 

Many people on this forum who proclaim to value humility and who ask others to be humble are actually extremely arrogant folks. They all know who they are and I know who they are.

 

Agree. The experience was reality. How our mind treats the experience will determine what significance we place on the experience. In your example, if I dream that I was flying in my dream. wake up and still think I can fly, go to the top of a ten story building and fly off the building I am going to be in real trouble. Therefore it is important to distinguish between our imagination and the reality of the physical world.

 

You're leaving a lot unsaid. So that's not the whole of "why" it's important. Why would you go to the 10th floor to try flying? Why wouldn't you attempt to fly off the floor right where you stand? So obviously your example there is crooked and shouldn't be taken for granted by anyone who values reason.

 

Yep. I dreamed last night. But we need to stop there for a moment. I can explain dreams. They are our conscious recognition of our unconscious mental activity. Some people even dream when they are awake.

 

However, I have never seen any validated proof of anyone ever having had a prior live.

 

And you've never seen any validated proof of anyone, other than yourself, ever dreaming.

Edited October 12, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Marblehead]

I don't misunderstand. I know you haven't been trying to actually trick me or anything like that. My aim was to demonstrate and make plain to you your pattern of thought. How you do this thing in your mind... make assumptions, jump to conclusions, etc... I wanted to expose it ...quote]

 

Yep. I make assumptions and although I don't jump much any more I can draw conclusions fairly rapidly. To whom are you exposing this new-found information? I have already stated that there are some things I just do not accept as valid. My conclusions are based on my esperiences in life. They have served me very well. They have kept me from wasting a lot of my time trying to see something that doesn't exist.

 

The point is that while you could not prove that "yesterday" exists we behave as if it does. For example, if you loaned me $5 dollars two days ago, do I still owe $5 today? We behave as if I still do owe you $5 bucks. But if yesterday is not real, why not just forget the 5 bucks? Can you prove you loaned me $5 dollars? Actually you cannot. You can produce video footage, promissory notes, etc...all the things we accept conventionally as proofs, but in a strict philosophical sense they wouldn't prove anything about the past. And yet we behave as if the past was real.

 

Five dollars really doesn't mean that much to me. However, if someone claimed that I didn't lend them fire dollars when we both knew I had that would allow me to make a value judgement of the person. And I promise they would never borrow anything else from me ever again.

 

Yesterday did happen. It is in my memory and it is nearly everyone else's memory. I can't unlend the five dollars. Yesterday is gone. But yesterday it was today. That's a fact. The fact that the five dollars is no longer in my wallet indicates that my memory of yesterday is valid.

 

So clearly you engage in irrational behavior. Now, if you can admit this, then you will understand that this is not a choice between a rational and an irrational behavior when you choose whether or not to believe in past lives (and future lives). It's a choice between two equally irrational, equally baseless views. This is where humility comes in. It's the realization that your current belief is groundless. It doesn't mean it's worthless or that it sucks! It just means it is one among many. This is also why religion is never humble, because religion is always exclusivist on some level. Real humility has nothing to do with lowering oneself or with respecting others. You can disrespect everyone and spit on everyone's face and still be humble. Alternatively you can bow to everyone and have the highest respect for everyone you know and be very arrogant. The question is: do you realize the basic groundlessness of your beliefs or not? If you do, you are humble. If not, you are arrogant. It's that simple.

 

I engage in irrational behavior? Now that's funny. IMO it is very rational to not believe in past lives. There is no proof of such a thing that I know of. So for me to not believe in something I don't believe in is very rational indeed.

 

Humility? I am being humble when I say that I don't believe it such stuff. And my current belief system is not groundless. It is based on observation and the understanding of natural processes. So where do you see a flaw in my belief system? That I don't believe in past lives? Where is your evidence for past lives? I would sooner believe in the Easter Bunny because Easter candy and Easter eggs do show up every year. If I weren't watching who was putting that stuff out I would think that the Easter Bunny really did it. There is nothing even close to Easter candy or Easter eggs to even cause me to think about the possibility.

 

Many people on this forum who proclaim to value humility and who ask others to be humble are actually extremely arrogant folks. They all know who they are and I know who they are.

 

I have never claimed to be humble. In fact, I am very proud of who I am. But then I'm don't consider myself to be arrogant either. But humility and arrggance have nothing to do with whether or not there is such a thing as past lives.

 

You're leaving a lot unsaid. So that's not the whole of "why" it's important. Why would you go to the 10th floor to try flying? Why wouldn't you attempt to fly off the floor right where you stand? So obviously your example there is crooked and shouldn't be taken for granted by anyone who values reason.

 

What did I leave unsaid? Did I forget to say, "I love you."? I don't think I should say something like that because people might get the wrong impression. I love women. I wish to be very clear on that.

 

Why not go the the tenth floor if you feel so strongly that you can fly? Hey! Do it big time! Now there you go telling me that I should use reason but you are criticixing me when I use reason as a base for disagreeing with what you are suggesting. Hummm.

 

And you've never seen any validated proof of anyone, other than yourself, ever dreaming.

 

Not seen. But I have heard of it from others and read studies concerning it and heard the explanations of it and the information presented was logical and reasonable so I accepted it. I really am open-minded. Just give me some freekin' proof. Don't tell me that elephants can fly and then point to the Dumbo Octopus and say, "See. That elephant can fly through the water." It's not an elephant - it is an octopus.

 

I don't believe in ghosts either. Wanna' try to convince me that ghosts exist? I would present you with the same request: Show me some proof. If one doesn't believe in something and it wouldn't effect their life in any way whether or not they believed in it why would they want to believe in it in the first place? Believing that something exists that there is no proof of its existence is called being delusional. Schizophrenics have that condition on a regular basis.

 

So do you believe that I have a computer?

 

Peace & Love!

Edited October 12, 2009 by Marblehead

[forestofclarity]

Well, the boundary analysis may lead one to a realization of emptiness, but what has this to with life / death? Death may be very empty, but also very real.

 

This shows how it's very easy and possible to live your whole life in a dream and not ever know even once that all that time it was no more and no less than a dream. And when I say this, I don't use the word "dream" in a pejorative sense. Dreams are what we make of them.

 

You can prove the reality of before-birth and after-death awareness through simple logic. Start with the boundary analysis and take it from there.

[zuowang]

Interesting argument going here,but it is all demons of the mind labeling and judging the same coin. Practice is the only thing that matters. Sit, dance, sing, pray, ride tiger return to mountain, guard the valley spirit, and cheer everyone else in their practice. To me this is the Tao

[Marblehead]

Interesting argument going here,but it is all demons of the mind labeling and judging the same coin. Practice is the only thing that matters. Sit, dance, sing, pray, ride tiger return to mountain, guard the valley spirit, and cheer everyone else in their practice. To me this is the Tao

 

I'm not sure about riding the tiger but I agree with the rest of the stuff.

 

Peace & Love!

[exorcist_1699]

Although I dislike all those religious Taoist rituals and costume, I do believe in immortality and other Taoist supernatural power, so likely people classify me as a religious Taoist. I do not think philosophical Taoism anything wrong , I just think there is no need for people to limit themselves.

 

In fact, I doubt the classification of philosophical and religious Taoism appropriate due to the uniqueness of the concept qi , which in Chinese has moral, medical and spiritual (if it jumps to the shen level) implications that you can't find in the West any idea equivalent . I think , likely believers of philosophical Taoism are people who can't initialize qi , or who can only initialize qi ( more precisely ,post-heavenly yin-qi ) at low level and circulate it in their body to cure some not so severe diseases. That is , they are people who never push their qi to the shen level; in that case, of course, hardly can they believe in the so-called religious Taoism , and its claim of having so many of strange powers. However, the point is, when you cultivate qi to certain level , its delicate spiritual characters inevitably appear regardless of how you call them : philosophical or religious ; it is therefore not right to arbitrarily limit them to any arena which you yourself not fully understand ...

Edited October 13, 2009 by exorcist_1699

[goldisheavy]

My conclusions are based on my esperiences in life.

 

More like, your experiences in life are based on your conclusions.

 

They have served me very well.

 

You mean you are content.

[Marblehead]

More like, your experiences in life are based on your conclusions.

 

Really, my friend, I said exactly what I meant.

 

You mean you are content.

 

You can bet your ass on that one!

 

Also happy and at peace with myself as well.

 

What more could a person ask for?

 

Peace & Love!

[Stigweard]

Although I dislike all those religious Taoist rituals and costume, I do believe in immortality and other Taoist supernatural power, so likely people classify me as a religious Taoist. I do not think philosophical Taoism anything wrong , I just think there is no need for people to limit themselves.

 

In fact, I doubt the classification of philosophical and religious Taoism appropriate due to the uniqueness of the concept qi , which in Chinese has moral, medical and spiritual (if it jumps to the shen level) implications that you can't find in the West any idea equivalent . I think , likely believers of philosophical Taoism are people who can't initialize qi , or who can only initialize qi ( more precisely ,post-heavenly yin-qi ) at low level and circulate it in their body to cure some not so severe diseases. That is , they are people who never push their qi to the shen level; in that case, of course, hardly can they believe in the so-called religious Taoism , and its claim of having so many of strange powers. However, the point is, when you cultivate qi to certain level , its delicate spiritual characters inevitably appear regardless of how you call them : philosophical or religious ; it is therefore not right to arbitrarily limit them to any arena which you yourself not fully understand ...

Well posted

[Stigweard]

Bump