COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS CONCERNING DAOISM (TAOISM)

[henro]

Laozi was not a Daoist in the same way as Jesus was not a Christian. The formalization of Daojia occurred centuries after the time of the writing of the Daodejing.

 

 

I completely agree, and this is why it is difficult for some, including me, to accept that one must be an ordained priest to be a true daoist. The "religion", came later and is a manifestation of a group of people who in many cases simply wanted to control others. This applies as much to Christianity as it does to daoism, and many other world "religions".

 

 

"True daoism" is simply whatever practices lead one to live their life in accordance with the dao. That's it, nothing else. The trappings and ceremonies that may have led one person or group of people there, may not work for everyone.

Edited March 18, 2011 by robmix

[Stigweard]

I completely agree, and this is why it is difficult for some, including me, to accept that one must be an ordained priest to be a true daoist. The "religion", came later and is a manifestation of a group of people who in many cases simply wanted to control others. This applies as much to Christianity as it does to daoism, and many other world "religions".

 

 

"True daoism" is simply whatever practices lead one to live their life in accordance with the dao. That's it, nothing else. The trappings and ceremonies that may have led one person or group of people there, may not work for everyone.

Actually on a personal level I entirely agree with you, and so does Master Ni Hua Ching whose teachings I adhere to.

 

Master Ni has quite forthrightly said that alot of contemporary Taoism is far removed from the natural subtle way of ancient China; from the natural spiritual insight of the truly achieved Shenxian. It is for this reason that he refers to the tradition passed to him by his father as 全道 Quandao -- The Integral Way.

 

[Marblehead]

Further, the page you reference, and many of your posts suggest the idea that there is no philosophical daoism:

 

 

Oh!, he is well aware that there is such a thing and that there are such people because I keep popping up randomly in various threads.

[Mark Saltveit]

Very interesting discussion, thanks all. Stig, the quotes you cite appear to reflect one particular scholarly opinion, that of the school represented by the Daoist Center, Komjathy and Kirkland. (Do they have a name? Culturalists, I suggest?) I'm not sure that this is a consensus view by any stretch; it seems designed to make the point that Philosophical Daoism is a fiction. (In his Misconceptions article, Komjathy is so insistent on this point that he won't even type the words Philosophical Daoism without strikethrough, to make sure no one thinks he approves.)

 

He may be 100% correct but I'd want to read some potentially contrasting opinions before assuming that. I suppose it depends whether you capitalize the phrase Philosophical Daoism. Is he saying that no one in China has ever taken the DDJ and Zhuang Zi to heart without being part of a formal orthodox Daoist sect? Or simply that Philosophical Daoism is a trend of thought at best but not a formal Religion, of the type studied in his discipline (Religious Studies)? Something closer to Existentialism, say -- all very fine and good but it ain't no durned Religion!!!

[RyanO]

And I STILL don't understand how he gets the whole Taoism pronounced with a hard "t" thing. I mean, maybe someone with no exposure to the concept would read it this way, but that is not at all common usage. He makes it seem like in the West Taoism is mostly pronounced with a hard "t" and that The Tao of Pooh, for instance, is intended to be pronounced that way. BS!

[Stigweard]

Oh!, he is well aware that there is such a thing and that there are such people because I keep popping up randomly in various threads.

 

Very interesting discussion, thanks all. Stig, the quotes you cite appear to reflect one particular scholarly opinion, that of the school represented by the Daoist Center, Komjathy and Kirkland. (Do they have a name? Culturalists, I suggest?) I'm not sure that this is a consensus view by any stretch; it seems designed to make the point that Philosophical Daoism is a fiction. (In his Misconceptions article, Komjathy is so insistent on this point that he won't even type the words Philosophical Daoism without strikethrough, to make sure no one thinks he approves.)

 

He may be 100% correct but I'd want to read some potentially contrasting opinions before assuming that. I suppose it depends whether you capitalize the phrase Philosophical Daoism. Is he saying that no one in China has ever taken the DDJ and Zhuang Zi to heart without being part of a formal orthodox Daoist sect? Or simply that Philosophical Daoism is a trend of thought at best but not a formal Religion, of the type studied in his discipline (Religious Studies)? Something closer to Existentialism, say -- all very fine and good but it ain't no durned Religion!!!

To the extent that I agree with Komjathy & Co., and I don't subscribe to their degree of exclusiveness, is that both the philosophy of Dao and the more, shall I say, esoteric practices of Dao are an integral part of the whole tradition. In my experience and learning you are only sailing half-masted to only pull out one part of the Daoist tradition and say, "This is the most pure part so this is all I will study".

 

From my own experience the philosophy only comes alive when you engage in the practices that are synergistic with that philosophy. There is something quite profound when you take the words and philosophies from a text, for example Yin/Yang theory, and actually experience them as a living, breathing phenomena. It takes the philosophy from a level of understanding to a level of "knowing".

 

The same with neidan practice. The philosophies of both Laozi and Zhuangzi are quite an accurate prescription on how to handle one's Qi for beneficial development. I love Zhuangzi's story of the butcher whose knife never finds obstructions. That is priceless neidan instruction.

 

I also find it ironic that pretty much all Philosophical Daoists justify their position through the exclusive notions that somehow their Lao-Zhuang Daoism is somehow "purer" and "more authentic" to all other forms of Daoism. Especially since the fundamentals of their philosophical world view includes the inclusive liberality of Laozi.

 

My point once again is that right from the outset Daojia included both philosophy and practical application. The philosophy guided the practice and the practice gave life to the philosophy. It was a synergistic and integral whole.

 

Yes I believe that contemporary orthodox Taoism has become too contrived and enmeshed with religious artifice made worse by communist manipulation. So personally I would issue strong caution to anyone interested in going in that direction.

 

I believe we do need to look much closer instead at the original texts of the Daojia, especially but by no means exclusively the Laozi and Zhuangzi, to reintegrate the fundamental world view that inspired all the associated practices.

 

To do that though we must, like Zhuangzi's butcher, cut through the misinformation around Daoism. Part of it is what Komjathy has said in the OP. Part of it is the propaganda spawned by Protestant colonialists that there was a division of philosophical and religo-esoteric Daoism. And part of it is the cloud of artifice woven by centuries of orthodox Daoist exclusivity.

 

Perhaps this reinvestigation will invigorate a new expression of Daoism that we could call Daobumjia (actually I think that is kinda cute ).

 

Edited March 18, 2011 by Stigweard

[dawei]

So if we use your comment "The Daoist tradition consists, first and foremost, of ordained priests and monastics and lay supporters", there were no daoists at the time these texts were written ? We have people who were not taoists writing text that became religious documents for ordained daoists ?

Yes, it seems a group can adopt any texts they want for their use and then claim them all as part of their lineage. When I hear people call the Yi Jing a daoist text, it seems this 'adoption' has occurred, to me.

 

 

Yet, if the primary daoist text were written before any organized religion aren't we then indeed speaking about a philosophy that was turned into a religion ?

The only issue I see with this clean-cut transition is that there has always been a spiritual aspect; or dare I say it pre-dated the philosophical.

 

Here is how I loosely see it, although I will admit I've never seen such a sequence drawn up:

 

Spiritual/Shaman (Pace of Yu) >>

Spiritual-Alchemy (Dao Yin) >>

Spiritual-Alchemy-Philosophical (Qigong) >>

Spiritual-Alchemy-Philosophical-Political (Huang-Lao) >>

Spiritual-Alchemy-Philosophical-Political-Religious (Organized religions)

[dawei]

Is he saying that no one in China has ever taken the DDJ and Zhuang Zi to heart without being part of a formal orthodox Daoist sect? Or simply that Philosophical Daoism is a trend of thought at best but not a formal Religion, of the type studied in his discipline (Religious Studies)?

I think it's subjectively practiced or followed. My observation is that one finds many more in mainland china who utilize the practical (philosophical) aspects of Daoism (learned in school and general life) and what spiritual aspects they may have are handled more at buddhist temples; and yet in Taiwan the religious applications (and daoist temples) are more important.

 

I do think that the Philosophical Dao distinction is more a western classification conceit but can be understood as part of the whole unfolding. What part each takes for their personal application or growth is their choosing... but I agree with Stig's next comment and my experience is the same.

 

 

In my experience and learning you are only sailing half-masted to only pull out one part of the Daoist tradition

I didn't want to quote your whole post but I pretty much agree with all of it.

[Stigweard]

Yes, it seems a group can adopt any texts they want for their use and then claim them all as part of their lineage. When I hear people call the Yi Jing a daoist text, it seems this 'adoption' has occurred, to me.

Yes I am aware that this is a frequent occurrence:

 

"The teaching of Tao originated in prehistoric times. For many generations people searched out methods by which to develop themselves. These methods are numerous and some have even been formalized as different schools which emphasize one or two things and make other aspects secondary to one's personal cultivation. Here I would like to give you some idea of the many effective methods which are practiced among achieved ones.

 

~ Nei Tan, Internal Medicine, which can support a person's spiritual future through refinement of the physical, mental and spiritual essence,

~ Tai Shi, Internal Breathing, which is higher than external breathing, although both are usually practiced together,

~ Tao Yin, Energy Channelling, for purposes of health and spiritual benefit,

~ Chun Shih, Visualization or concentration,

~ Fu Erh, External Nutrition, using natural herbs and other things,

~ Shing Jeau, Walking, for gathering and refining energy,

~ Fuh Chi, Internal Energy Maintenance,

~ Bei Gu, to stop eating food completely (especially helpful to those who are cultivating spiritually so that they can stop looking for and preparing food for themselves - eventually they combine their life with the environment),

~ Fu Chi, Intaking Natural Energy through breathing and swallowing, which should be practiced with Bei Gu,

~ Fang Jung, Sexual Cultivation,

~ Fu Jyeo, Secret Talismanic Characters, Words and also Invocations,

~ Jing Tan, Golden Elixir,

~ Shr Jeah, Method of Exuviation into a New Life."

 

p3, Ni Hua Ching, "Workbook for Spiritual Development of All People", Seven Star Communication, CA, 2005

 

The only issue I see with this clean-cut transition is that there has always been a spiritual aspect; or dare I say it pre-dated the philosophical.

 

Here is how I loosely see it, although I will admit I've never seen such a sequence drawn up:

 

Spiritual/Shaman (Pace of Yu) >>

Spiritual-Alchemy (Dao Yin) >>

Spiritual-Alchemy-Philosophical (Qigong) >>

Spiritual-Alchemy-Philosophical-Political (Huang-Lao) >>

Spiritual-Alchemy-Philosophical-Political-Religious (Organized religions)

Yup I am digging what you are saying here

[Aaron]

Hello Stig,

 

I think after further reading of your posts, I would have to say that you are coming across very much as an elitist. When I read your post I was surprised to find that you actually say that the only real way to appreciate Taoism is if you follow the practice as you and those you admire have defined it. (Even after I mentioned this is a common practice in my previous post and you chose to ignore that particular comment as if it was delusional.)

 

So let me make sure I'm getting this right, if John Q Public decides that they enjoy the Tao Teh Ching, but don't necessarily want to practice Tai Chi of Qigong, then they're obviously not experiencing Taoism as it's intended, despite the fact that the Tao Teh Ching and Chuang Tzu aren't Qigong texts.

 

I see it as the paradox of cultivation. You're either a cultivator or not. If not, then you obviously are not practicing the authentic tradition. I've see this attitude with the I-Kuan Tao followers before. It's nice to know this air of superiority doesn't necessarily restrict itself to sects and fundamentalists.

 

If this seems a bit harsh, it's only because I'm not sure what you're actually saying, because you seem a bit wishy washy on this point. So here's the question, are Western Taoists (who choose not practice Qigong of Tai Chi) practicing a valid form of Taoism or is your own view the only valid one? I hope life is treating you well.

 

Aaron

Edited March 19, 2011 by Twinner

[Stigweard]

[Mark Foote]

I completely agree, and this is why it is difficult for some, including me, to accept that one must be an ordained priest to be a true daoist. The "religion", came later and is a manifestation of a group of people who in many cases simply wanted to control others. This applies as much to Christianity as it does to daoism, and many other world "religions".

 

 

"True daoism" is simply whatever practices lead one to live their life in accordance with the dao. That's it, nothing else. The trappings and ceremonies that may have led one person or group of people there, may not work for everyone.

Let me take it a step further. Unless and until we can write a "manual of meditation" that our friends and neighbors can actually use, we are likely headed toward deep do-do.

 

To me, there's a thread here; I look at the teachings we have access to now (and we are so amazingly fortunate to have both the living and the dead traditions opened as never before), and they don't manage to do what Western science has done. Break the relationships down into a language that any intelligent person can prove for themselves, and then build on. I looked right away to the stretches originally associated with Taoism, and the eight brocade is a meditation manual; so were the sutta volumes of the Pali cannon, in places; there was a seated meditation manual written in China around 12th century CE, which Dogen used to write his Fukanzazenji. Folks are trying to put it into words, in a way that will convey something that everybody can use.

 

Ok, so the thing can never be completely described in words, and as Godel proved the whole of mathematics cannot be put on an axiomatic basis unless the axioms also produce contradictions. Even so, we have the relationships of mathematics, we have some amazing descriptions of relationships that are fundamental to human well-being from all recorded history including the walls of the pyramids. We can take this to another level.

 

Of course, I haven't succeeded in communicating a description of the relationships that are fundamental to human well-being directly to any one yet, either. But I keep trying! Here's one you might like (Apech,you've already seen it): Waking up and Falling Asleep

 

Thanks, Stigward, for an interesting and engaging discussion; I learned a lot, already.

[angelo]

I would think it's possible for someone to live their whole life without learning of Taoism, yet spend more time in the Tao than some of the proclaimed 'Taoists'

[Stigweard]

I would think it's possible for someone to live their whole life without learning of Taoism, yet spend more time in the Tao than some of the proclaimed 'Taoists'

Agreed

[Aaron]

 

If someone read and enjoyed the book "The Art of Sex" but never actually had sex themselves then I would say that they are not experiencing sex as it's intended. Does that make me a sex elitist? Does me pointing out that this one book about sex is not really the whole experience of sex earn me the "air of superiority"?

 

In casual speech I call myself a Daoist, but formally I recognize that I haven't earned that distinction and probably never will because at this stage I have little motivation to become part of the Taoist orthodoxy and I haven't achieved a what I would consider to be an adequate level of study and personal achievement.

 

As a nickname I think of myself as a "pedestrian of dao" - 道行人 daoxíngrén.

 

You seem to have taken this discussion quite personally, why is this?

 

 

Hello Stig,

 

If I've taken it personally, it's because you're insulting and belittling thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people who do not fall into your paradigm of what Taoism is. You are defining what Taoism should be and how it should be practiced and suggesting that people that do not follow this paradigm are not Taoists and shouldn't call themselves Taoists... simple answer and I think quite accurate.

 

What I see from this post and your other thread, "Taoism the controversy continues" or whatever it was called, is an attempt to trumpet your own agenda and beliefs as the correct beliefs and denouncing and trivializing anyone that doesn't match these beliefs. My point about starting threads doesn't stop there, in fact most of your threads tend to be about enforcing your own agenda, not incorporating diversity, but rather enforcing a very close minded idea of what Taoism is, that idea being what you consider it to be.

 

I would say that from this post and your others you have much work ahead of you if you wish to understand Wu Wei and many other concepts involved in Taoism. What you do is bring about controversy, rather than harmony. You justify your actions because you think they are good, but in this case good is irrelevant, because it's not the intention that matters, but the effect.

 

If I could offer some advice it would be to ask yourself before you post your next thread, if your posting to feed your own ego or to further your own agenda, or is it an attempt to make the Tao Bums a better place, a more inclusive place, where people can come to together and talk about Taoism without having others question the validity of their practice?

 

Food for thought.

 

Aaron

Edited March 19, 2011 by Twinner

[Marblehead]

I have to respond to this post.

 

I love Zhuangzi's story of the butcher whose knife never finds obstructions.

 

Yes, great story! It took me a couple reading to appreciate the full meaning of the concept being presented.

 

I also find it ironic that pretty much all Philosophical Daoists justify their position through the exclusive notions that somehow their Lao-Zhuang Daoism is somehow "purer" and "more authentic" to all other forms of Daoism. Especially since the fundamentals of their philosophical world view includes the inclusive liberality of Laozi.

 

I hope that this is not true in my and others' views. I think it is more at feeling that what Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu presented is complete and there is no need to make it any more complicated than that. "Purer" is a subjective value judgement and is valid for only the one who judges.

[Marblehead]

I would think it's possible for someone to live their whole life without learning of Taoism, yet spend more time in the Tao than some of the proclaimed 'Taoists'

 

I wanted to give you more points than just one for this post byt the board will not allow it so here is one more point: +1!

[devoid]

I wanted to give you more points than just one for this post byt the board will not allow it so here is one more point: +1!

 

In that case, I'll chip in

[Apech]

Hello Stig,

 

If I've taken it personally, it's because you're insulting and belittling thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people who do not fall into your paradigm of what Taoism is. You are defining what Taoism should be and how it should be practiced and suggesting that people that do not follow this paradigm are not Taoists and shouldn't call themselves Taoists... simple answer and I think quite accurate.

 

 

 

I did not understand Stig to be insulting anyone but that this thread is more of an exploration of what can be included in the term taoism (sorry daoism) legitimately.

 

I don't think it is the practice (of Qi Gong or cultivation) that is important but perhaps the inner realisation or understanding which marks out the genuine Taoist from the dilettante. This can be reached in a number of ways including through intellectual analysis of the texts ... i.e. true philosophy as well as physical/energy work.

 

To someone who just reads Lao Tzu and likes the sound ... that's more or less the same as poetic appreciation ... but someone who lives their life informed by the profound nature of the Tao ... this is more like the original meaning of philosophy ... i.e. lover of wisdom ... where wisdom is a real thing and not just an abstract idea.

 

 

 

 

[Stigweard]

[Aaron]

 

Hi Aaron,

 

Thank you for your response. You have raised some interesting points.

 

Firstly, let’s forget about the “thousands of people” you are trying to champion here. Your comments are the way they are because YOU are personally offended by my views and are trying to make a personal attack on my character as a form of rebuttal.

 

Not the best form of debate, but let me help you out here.

 

I am just a try-hard Aussie bloke who has had insufficient training and practice to call myself any sort of authority. I have never sat at the feet of any Taoist lineage holder, and the teachers I have had aren’t in any way achieved Taoist masters.

 

Fundamentally flawed, I struggle every day with the conditioned patterns of my past. I am not really gifted in any way; any progress I have made is because I have to work twice has hard as normal folks might and is made harder by my seemingly endless capacity to self-sabotage.

 

My life has not been ideal and this is by my own making. When I was younger I wasted and destroyed my vitality through “unfortunate behavior”. I still suffer from the scars and am still trying to salvage what I can of my health to rebuild a foundation for my future cultivation.

 

I can be an arrogant, outspoken, self-centered, insufferable know-it-all and it bewilders me every week that my students keep coming to my classes. I feel like a fraud sometimes to be the one instructing because my students shine with so much more virtue than the scraps of achievement I might have.

 

Sometimes when I post here at TaoBums I get caught up in my own words, sometimes I get narcissistic with my own opinions and I have blessed every occasion that another Bum has stepped up and smacked me up the side of the head. So, just the same as all those other occasions, I thank you for being the one to have a swipe at me.

 

And yes I also like to create topics that provoke discussion and even debate if need be. This forum has taught me that some of the most incredible wisdom and insight come about in the midst of people passionately bringing their views to the table. This thread alone has forced me to do more research and uncover new insights about my own study and training – absolutely priceless.

 

If you don’t see the “good” in this discussion then that is entirely your problem. Do you think you have made it any “better” by venting your anger with your repeated personal attacks?

 

This discussion is about a view on Daoism that is entirely valid and is one that is supported by traditional teachers, scholars, historians, and anthropologists. Personally I don’t agree with the extreme exclusiveness that Daoist orthodoxy can carry on with. However, out of simple respect for the tradition that has inspired me most of my life, I have to give them the right to classify what is and is not part of their religion/tradition.

 

I also claim my right to speak my mind about my views of Daoism and, as I always do, I will speak my view forthrightly and provide all relevant supporting references when and where required.

 

All I have done is outline what is deemed to be the prevalent consensual understanding of what Daoism is. I have also supported this view to a certain extent by voicing that the holistic cultivation of Dao should include both philosophical and practical pursuits. If this ruffles some feathers then so be it, maybe those feathers needed to be ruffled.

 

If you disagree with my statements … EXCELLENT!!! Tell me why you think my views are flawed and tell it to me straight. I am more than aware enough of my own faults and inefficiencies not to get offended.

 

But please, I am sure that we can both passionately and respectfully debate the issue at hand without falling into the quagmire of attempting to degrade each others personal character.

 

 

Hello Stig,

 

I've told you and others have as well, you simply deflect or ignore what you don't want to deal with. I'm done. I've said my peace, no need to say more.

 

Aaron

 

edit- And believe it or not, I'm not upset, just a little perplexed regarding your attitude. I wish you well.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Twinner

[Marblehead]

Hello Stig,

 

I've told you and others have as well, you simply deflect or ignore what you don't want to deal with. I'm done. I've said my peace, no need to say more.

 

Aaron

 

edit- And believe it or not, I'm not upset, just a little perplexed regarding your attitude. I wish you well.

 

Hi Aaron,

 

You and Stig need to talk with each other more. You both are good Taoists. And even though you may speak from different positions, neither of you are hypocritical about your beliefs.

 

 

Hi Stig,

 

Hang in there fella'. Not everyone agrees with me either. Hehehe.

[Apech]

 

 

 

 

 

My life has not been ideal and this is by my own making. When I was younger I wasted and destroyed my vitality through "unfortunate behavior". I still suffer from the scars and am still trying to salvage what I can of my health to rebuild a foundation for my future cultivation.

 

I can be an arrogant, outspoken, self-centered, insufferable know-it-all and it bewilders me every week that my students keep coming to my classes. I feel like a fraud sometimes to be the one instructing because my students shine with so much more virtue than the scraps of achievement I might have.

 

 

 

But Stig ... we still love you here on TTBs ...

 

PS. is 'unfortunate behavior' a euphemism for something really really naughty?

[Marblehead]

But Stig ... we still love you here on TTBs ...

 

PS. is 'unfortunate behavior' a euphemism for something really really naughty?

 

Now don't you go start thinking of ways you can be really, really naughty.

[dawei]

this thread is more of an exploration of what can be included in the term taoism (sorry daoism) legitimately.

I might actually turn it around and say the exploration is really this: What daoism reveals can be included as making up the "universal aspect". Daoism is but a shadow of the universal; The DDJ but a slice. Thus, viewing daoism from only the philosophical aspect alone is to look at a slice of what Daoism reveals about the universal aspect. There should be nothing right or wrong about what parts one chooses. There should be no inferred belittlement either.

 

The message I take from Stig, which I agreed with but will express with my own thought, is that as you expand the realms revealed by Dao[ism], your slices begin to add up more and more and a view of [what I call] the "universal" beings to form.

 

IMO, Daoism (and I prefer to just say Dao) is not the universal itself. It is a part of it. I liken it to what I call "living the many-realms". The realms that I would offer as a start include:

physical

emotional

psychological

mental

philosophical

spiritual/soul

energetical

vibrational

 

In my vision, all these realms interact with us and are maybe like concentric circles but in x-Dimensions.

 

To me, these make up the universal.

 

I would say everyone lives within and experiences the universal but may only get slice(s) of it. That is how I personally re-interpret Stig's points to my theory. Choose your realm(s) and experience life.

Edited March 19, 2011 by dawei