COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS CONCERNING DAOISM (TAOISM)

[Stigweard]

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,

 

Sure one of the "tactics" of a debate can be to keep attention where your position is strong. Have I used this before? No doubt I have.

 

Another attention-shifting debating tactic, quite often used in politics, is to wage character assassination against the speaker whose view you don't agree with. The purpose is to get the conversation focused on the speaker's character as a way of both directing attention away from the topic at hand and to invalidate the view of the speaker.

 

This is a ploy most commonly used by people who know all to well that their own counter-views on the topic lack in substance and fortitude. I have to admit that I regard this form of debating with disdain.

 

Another reason though for people to indulge in personal attacks is because the speaker's views may be threatening their own cherished views, and because of the personally felt emotional response they feel they need to react personally. The thing is though that if you were really secure within your own views no amount of contrary views or comments would cause you to react defensively or emotionally.

 

So which is it for you Aaron?

[Marblehead]

Hi Dawei,

 

Interesting post.

 

However, while you are gathering slices of pie in order to get a whole pie don't be messing with my slice, Okay?

[Stigweard]

Hi Stig,

 

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

Aye, you and I have had differing views before especially on the Philosophical/Religious debate. But I have always respected you the next morning

 

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

 

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

LOL not telling

[Stigweard]

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.

Yup, following this line of the discussion, and there a few, I would obviously say that I completely agree with you. If Daosim does find it's basis on the Tian, Ren, Di - Heaven, Man, Earth / Spiritual, Mental, Organic, as convention seems to indicate, then our cultivation of these three spheres must take place simultaneously.

 

Edited March 20, 2011 by Stigweard

[Mark Saltveit]

 

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"?

 

 

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?

[Stigweard]

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?

 

Sure lets play with this.

 

The analogy that I was making was that the person just reading the book on sex is like the person who only focuses on "philosophical Daoism" and claiming that this is what Daoism "truly" is all about.

 

In your example the sex philosopher actually made the bridge to combine both the philosophy of sex with the actual practice of sex ... and no doubt they found out that the practice was oohhh so much more enjoyable then just reading the philosophy

 

Now if our sex philosopher come practitioner then tried to claim that the sex they were having was actually "true" Tantric sex (especially if they were trying to sell DVD's on "Tantric Sex"), then I believe that your Tantric adherent who had the proper training would have quite acceptable grounds to say something to the contrary.

 

[Mark Foote]

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?

 

Yo!, right on, Mr. Saltveit!

 

Do we accept that anyone who wants to master a wisdom tradition must study under a lineage master? That's what we're debating here, to my way of thinking.

 

People are writing and speaking about the wisdom traditions. The more I read what the real scholars have to say, the more I realize how much was borrowed, how much was improvised, how much missed the mark in what the masters had to say.

 

The Gautamid taught the meditation on the unlovely, and scores of monks a day "took the knife" while he was on retreat; does that sound like his teaching was on the mark from the day of his enlightenment? (Pali Text Society, "Samyutta Nikaya", Volume 5, Chapter on In-Breathing and Out-Breathing).

 

Dogen borrowed most of his meditation manual "Fukanzazenji" from a Chinese manual, and rewrote it something like 40 times; did he feel it was important, and imperfect? (thanks, Carl Bielefeldt, “Dogen’s Manuals of Zen Meditation”, from the Koroku Fukan zazen gi; pg 175, ©1988 Regents of the University of California)

 

Have the words evolved over the years? I would say; the writings of Yuanwu and Foyan in 12th century China are particular favorites of mine.

 

The master-disciple relationship that characterizes Eastern wisdom-tradition training has little to do with the forms that are taught, or the scriptures that are passed down, or the ritual associated with the tradition. The Eastern traditions generally teach the form as the embodiment of the tradition, and then they go on to claim that there is something outside the form that must be transmitted from master to disciple. For example, in the Soto tradition they teach the posture and form of zazen and commend everyone to shikantaza as the way (see “Shobogenzo-zuimonki”, sayings recorded by Koun Ejo, translated by Shohaku Okumura, 2-26, pg 107-108, ©2004 Sotoshu Shumucho), and then they state that Zen Buddhism cannot be mastered without a master-disciple relationship with a lineage teacher.

 

The difficulty is in the description of shikantaza, in teaching the posture and form of zazen as the movement of mind, as Shunryu Suzuki alluded to when he said:

 

"Sometimes when you think that you are doing zazen with an imperturbable mind, you ignore the body, but it is also necessary to have the opposite understanding at the same time. Your body is practicing zazen in imperturbability while your mind is moving." (Tassajara, Sunday June 28 1970, from www.cuke.com: Whole Body Zazen)

 

My contention is that we can teach the fundamentals of the movement of mind, it's the same as waking up and falling asleep, and that with a little help from the peculiarly American discipline of cranial-sacral osteopathy we can teach the meaning of "pure hit sit" (shikantaza). As Issho Fujita says, we sometimes assume particular poses and postures as a reflection of our state of mind; what, then, is the state of mind that is inherent in the lotus posture? Or any other posture we find ourselves in?

 

I don't know if I'm the only one in the U.S.A. who had to teach himself how to sit the lotus. Sometimes I think that, because folks I know either could sit the posture, or gave up on it, but nobody actually learned it. It's not perfect, my lotus, but I like doing it for 30 or 40 minutes in the morning. I like doing it because I understand there's really nothing to do, as I said in waking up and falling asleep:

 

"There's really nothing I can do to practice waking up and falling asleep, other than to accept being where I find myself at the moment. The beautiful part of it is, that's exactly the practice of waking up and falling asleep."

 

Is waking up and falling asleep zazen? If so, do we need a lineage holder to teach us how to wake up and fall asleep? If not, then where will you find it (this zazen)?

Edited March 20, 2011 by Mark Foote

[Mark Saltveit]

The analogy that I was making was that the person just reading the book on sex is like the person who only focuses on "philosophical Daoism" and claiming that this is what Daoism "truly" is all about.

 

But where do you see anyone saying that? Not since 1950, that I know of.

 

In your example the sex philosopher actually made the bridge to combine both the philosophy of sex with the actual practice of sex ... and no doubt they found out that the practice was oohhh so much more enjoyable then just reading the philosophy

 

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.

 

Now if our sex philosopher come practitioner then tried to claim that the sex they were having was actually "true" Tantric sex (especially if they were trying to sell DVD's on "Tantric Sex"), then I believe that your Tantric adherent who had the proper training would have quite acceptable grounds to say something to the contrary.

 

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.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Mark Saltveit

[Stigweard]

Do we accept that anyone who wants to master a wisdom tradition must study under a lineage master? That's what we're debating here, to my way of thinking.

Erm ... nope this is got very little to do with whether you have to study under a lineage master.

 

Though granted this view may be held amongst the exclusionists like Kirkland and Co. I must make it clear that in no way do I believe that you have to be formally ordained in a Daojia lineage in order to attain Dao.

 

But where do you see anyone saying that? Not since 1950, that I know of.

Right here on TaoBums there has been numerous occasions of people implicitly claiming that Taoism was first a philosophy that then became a religion and that somehow the philosophy is more "pure".

 

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.

LOL the Tantric devotee in my example only had an issue when the our sex practitioner tried to claim that what they were doing was Tantric sex. My Tantric devotee cares little for how other people have sex.

 

This is fun !!

 

Here's where I think your analogy goes off the rails, and mine is, I humbly submit, more apt.

It only goes off the rail in your mind because you are not representing my original example properly and have added new contextual features.

 

In my example we have a Joe who is a sex philosopher who has only read the "Art of Sex" and claims his sex philosophy is "true" sex.

 

But Susan, who is a sex practitioner, says that Joe isn't really experiencing sex as it is intended.

 

Now in your example you have added George who is a Tantric sex practitioner who is saying that Tantric sex is the only real sex, and non-tantric practitioners are "frauds" when they claim they have experienced sex.

 

By the way, it could be quite acceptably argued that you haven't really experience the heights of sexual pleasure until you have practice Tantric sex (trust me )

 

Now in your example our friend Joe actually does make the transition into becoming at a sex practitioner. And at the very basic level, that is what I personally am advocating with Daoist practice ... don't just be a theoretic Daoist by only cultivating your mind with Daoist philosophy (which by the way is incredibly beneficial), discover the full spectrum of the Daoist worldview by also cultivating the physical (i.e. with yangshen) and the spiritual (i.e. with neidan).

 

But yes within Daoist orthodoxy there are your exclusionists who will say that even this is not good enough and you must become a part of a Daoist lineage to really experience Dao and have the right to call yourself a Daoist. To reemphasize, I personally don't fully agree with this, however I do respect their point of view and will subsequently not formally call myself a Daoist nor will I claim the authority to teach Daoism.

 

Edited March 20, 2011 by Stigweard

[Mark Saltveit]

This is a very interesting discussion thanks (though I think you might be mixing my quotes up with the other Mark a bit).

 

Right here on TaoBums there has been numerous occasions of people implicitly claiming that Taoism was first a philosophy that then became a religion and that somehow the philosophy is more "pure".

 

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?

 

LOL the Tantric devotee in my example only had an issue when the our sex practitioner tried to claim that what they were doing was Tantric sex. My Tantric devotee cares little for how other people have sex.

 

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.

 

LOL the Tantric devotee in my example only had an issue when the our sex practitioner tried to claim that what they were doing was Tantric sex. My Tantric devotee cares little for how other people have sex.

 

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)

 

what I personally am advocating with Daoist practice ... don't just be a theoretic Daoist by only cultivating your mind with Daoist philosophy (which by the way is incredibly beneficial), discover the full spectrum of the Daoist worldview by also cultivating the physical (i.e. with yangshen) and the spiritual (i.e. with neidan).

 

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?

 

But yes within Daoist orthodoxy there are your exclusionists who will say that even this is not good enough and you must become a part of a Daoist lineage to really experience Dao and have the right to call yourself a Daoist. To reemphasize, I personally don't fully agree with this, however I do respect their point of view and will subsequently not formally call myself a Daoist nor will I claim the authority to teach Daoism.

 

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?

[Marblehead]

Right here on TaoBums there has been numerous occasions of people implicitly claiming that Taoism was first a philosophy that then became a religion and that somehow the philosophy is more "pure".

 

Hehehe. Okay, I have to respond to this before I read any further.

 

I am one of those who claim that Taoism was first a philosophy and then, over time, became an 'organized' religion. Please take special note of the word "Organized".

 

Yes, it is true that what Lao Tzu expressed in the TTC (granting that a person "Lao Tzu" actually existed) is a collection of thought from both the physical and spiritual aspects of Chinese culture.

 

And I will submit that the philosophy of Taoism is more purely philosophical without the religious aspects of what alter became Religious Taoism.

 

Prior to Chuang Tzu there was no organized Religious Taoism. Yes, there were many spiritual aspects that were later incorporated into Religious Taoism.

 

I alway do the best I can to express the fact that I "AM NOT" a religious person. There are no gods or divities in my belief system to explain what the human mind cannot explain based on his/her observations of physical reality. I have frequently used the words, "I don't know." (Opinions and understandings are different animals.)

 

So yes, I will stand by my statement that Philosophical Taoism evolved first and then Religious Taoism evolved from that. (But I will never deny the roots of Philosophical Taoism.)

 

As to the word/concept "purer", I ask only, "Is anything pure after man's value judgements have been placed upon it/them?"

 

I suggest that the answer is "No."

 

I was a Philosophical Taoist (although very crude) before I ever read the TTC. One does not need a teacher or a book in order to live the life of the Way. And it is my opinion that one does not need religion, gods or divinities in order to walk the path of Tao.

 

All the above are my opinions and understanding. They are all true for me. They may not be true for anyone else. But then, that doesn't matter. And whether someone considers me to not be a Taoist doesn't matter either. No matter the judgements placed on a person, if they walk their talk they are living the Way of Tao. (Some stars go "BOOM!".

 

Peace, Love & Happiness to Y'all!

 

(Oh!, and contentment too.)

[Marblehead]

To reemphasize, I personally don't fully agree with this, however I do respect their point of view and will subsequently not formally call myself a Daoist nor will I claim the authority to teach Daoism.

 

 

I had a problem with this as well.

 

Stig is a Taoist. Now, sure, that is just a label and really has no value, just as my "Philosophical Taoist" label has no value. It is merely an attempt to define what already is.

 

I will never offer respect to anyone who says that "their way" is the only way. The Way of Tao is non-descript, non-definitive. If one presents themself as being the holder of the Truth they are presenting themself as God and as we all know, God does not exist. (Hehehe. Okay, we all don't know that but that's beside the point.)

[Easy]

Hey,

 

When Stig writes that he is not a Taoist, and then Marblehead writes that Stig is in fact a Taoist it becomes clear that this is not a philosophical debate but one of linguistics. As such it cannot be resolved due to the elusive nature of that thing through which humans write and speak. Until there is a universally accepted definition of the words Tao and Taoist then the debate that has taken place on this thread is nonsensical. The first chapter of the TTC (seminal to the context of "Taoism") indicates that by its very nature the Tao cannot be defined...it is by definition impossible to define. So without the ability to define Tao, how can one define Taoist within the boundaries of the context of Taoism? This reduces the problem from one of philosophy to one of marginally intellectual entertainment.

 

I am an old man and I have long since become bored with ideas, debates etc that are essentially only entertaining. I am however highly entertained by the behavior of those engaged in the debates. Occasionally it becomes evident that a few of the debaters are using the process not just for a chance to strike some thoughtful appearing posture, but to make themselves clearer to themselves. If their increasing clarity makes a coherent and sensible change in their behavior than this helps to slow my waning respect for humanity.

[Marblehead]

Very nice observation Easy!

[devoid]

Hehehe. Okay, I have to respond to this before I read any further.

 

I am one of those who claim that Taoism was first a philosophy and then, over time, became an 'organized' religion. Please take special note of the word "Organized".

 

Yes, it is true that what Lao Tzu expressed in the TTC (granting that a person "Lao Tzu" actually existed) is a collection of thought from both the physical and spiritual aspects of Chinese culture.

 

And I will submit that the philosophy of Taoism is more purely philosophical without the religious aspects of what alter became Religious Taoism.

 

Prior to Chuang Tzu there was no organized Religious Taoism. Yes, there were many spiritual aspects that were later incorporated into Religious Taoism.

 

I alway do the best I can to express the fact that I "AM NOT" a religious person. There are no gods or divities in my belief system to explain what the human mind cannot explain based on his/her observations of physical reality. I have frequently used the words, "I don't know." (Opinions and understandings are different animals.)

 

So yes, I will stand by my statement that Philosophical Taoism evolved first and then Religious Taoism evolved from that. (But I will never deny the roots of Philosophical Taoism.)

 

As to the word/concept "purer", I ask only, "Is anything pure after man's value judgements have been placed upon it/them?"

 

I suggest that the answer is "No."

 

I was a Philosophical Taoist (although very crude) before I ever read the TTC. One does not need a teacher or a book in order to live the life of the Way. And it is my opinion that one does not need religion, gods or divinities in order to walk the path of Tao.

 

All the above are my opinions and understanding. They are all true for me. They may not be true for anyone else. But then, that doesn't matter. And whether someone considers me to not be a Taoist doesn't matter either. No matter the judgements placed on a person, if they walk their talk they are living the Way of Tao. (Some stars go "BOOM!".

 

Peace, Love & Happiness to Y'all!

 

(Oh!, and contentment too.)

 

Very nice post, Marblehead - I enjoyed it.

[Marblehead]

Very nice post, Marblehead - I enjoyed it.

 

Thanks. That was done in a fit of rage. (Hehehe. Not really.)

[dawei]

I am one of those who claim that Taoism was first a philosophy and then, over time, became an 'organized' religion. Please take special note of the word "Organized".

 

Yes, it is true that what Lao Tzu expressed in the TTC (granting that a person "Lao Tzu" actually existed) is a collection of thought from both the physical and spiritual aspects of Chinese culture.

 

And I will submit that the philosophy of Taoism is more purely philosophical without the religious aspects of what alter became Religious Taoism.

 

Prior to Chuang Tzu there was no organized Religious Taoism. Yes, there were many spiritual aspects that were later incorporated into Religious Taoism.

The problem I see with this is that the Spiritual aspect was prior to the Philosophical which is prior to the "organized" Religious aspect. Before writing put into words any kind of philosophical framework, we can see that shamanism reveals their connection to the spiritual universe; astrology/astronomy shows their connection to the influences of the physical universe, etc. The spiritual and physical understanding of Heaven-Man-Earth would add in the philosophical and medical and religious aspects later.

 

As far back as we can see, Yin and Yang started as completely separate concepts and not really having any philosophical context until much later. Note that Lao Zi only uses the words once; Yin and Yang are not important to the development of what he is saying, which in my opinion is not just a philosophy but much much more.

 

He may of simply created what is better called an "organized" spiritual-philosophy since the living aspects pre-date him; he lamented the present but wrote of the past. Which leads me to believe he was more spiritual than philosophical.

[Marblehead]

The problem I see with this is that the Spiritual aspect was prior to the Philosophical which is prior to the "organized" Religious aspect. Before writing put into words any kind of philosophical framework, we can see that shamanism reveals their connection to the spiritual universe; astrology/astronomy shows their connection to the influences of the physical universe, etc. The spiritual and physical understanding of Heaven-Man-Earth would add in the philosophical and medical and religious aspects later.

 

As far back as we can see, Yin and Yang started as completely separate concepts and not really having any philosophical context until much later. Note that Lao Zi only uses the words once; Yin and Yang are not important to the development of what he is saying, which in my opinion is not just a philosophy but much much more.

 

He may of simply created what is better called an "organized" spiritual-philosophy since the living aspects pre-date him; he lamented the present but wrote of the past. Which leads me to believe he was more spiritual than philosophical.

 

I cannot speak to this because of my ignorance of the subject. I am sure you are exactly correct. (At least that is how it seems to me that it probably was.)

 

But prior to Lao Tzu we cannot really call these beliefs "Taoist", IMO. They are the beliefs of "the ancient ones".

 

Regarding Lao Tzu directly, I would place my money on the thought that he was more of a political philosopher than anything else. I have seen it said that two-thirds of the TTC is directed to the person who would be a good ruler of men.

 

Yes, there are some spiritual aspects of the TTC but not that many/much. He really does not spend that much time speaking to anything beyond the observable universe. And he certainly did not spend any time trying to define any of it.

[dawei]

I cannot speak to this because of my ignorance of the subject. I am sure you are exactly correct. (At least that is how it seems to me that it probably was.)

 

But prior to Lao Tzu we cannot really call these beliefs "Taoist", IMO. They are the beliefs of "the ancient ones".

 

Regarding Lao Tzu directly, I would place my money on the thought that he was more of a political philosopher than anything else. I have seen it said that two-thirds of the TTC is directed to the person who would be a good ruler of men.

 

Yes, there are some spiritual aspects of the TTC but not that many/much. He really does not spend that much time speaking to anything beyond the observable universe. And he certainly did not spend any time trying to define any of it.

There was at least 5,000 years of tribal plains to state formation transitions prior to Lao Zi... THAT is the PERIOD in which Dao is mostly based on; NOT on the PERIOD of Lao Zi. He did live during the "Warring States Period" after all... political and social turmoil had climax from the earlier periods he reflected back to. So the idea of a political philosophy is relevant and shortly after his time, Dao gave rise to Huang-Lao political philosophy and the Huainanzi, which was a very strong mix of daoism and legalism in a political philosophy. This was a period of transition in how ideas of Dao were applied.

 

Look at the ancient texts and they speak to periods which they referred the ancients followed. Or even Zhuang Zi; he talks of the earlier periods. My personal feeling is if you only read the Lao Zi, then one develops an idea based purely the words he used to describe what was going on in this transitional period of life and concerning Dao. Read other ancient texts, history , and archeology, and it's still not enough... although I have. Because the spiritual aspect was pushed down in the turmoil of the time and became isolated. This eventually happened to Traditional Chinese Medicine too; The 'spiritual' aspect which was there from the beginning is later pushed out. Lao Zi does not attempt to explain Medical Daoism, yet that is probably the most lasting contribution of daoism applied, and which is based on the time prior to Lao Zi.

 

Why did Lao Zi not mention this medical side of applied dao, which pre-dates him? Because "he certainly did not spend any time trying to define any of it", therefore it is not a part of daoism? Daoism is so much bigger than Lao Zi, I can't explain it any other way. Trying to explain the totality of daoism from Lao Zi is like trying to explain the totality of god from the bible. Of course, JMO.

[InfinityTruth]

Stig I seriously misjudged you. When I first read this I did not like it much. Especially since I had been one that had been ripped off by reading that book 'tao of pooh' bs and was headed in that direction with my practice of daoism. I learned nothing from that f'n book and all it seemed to teach was that its cool to be dumb like pooh. But now reading through all the discussion on this post alone I have learned more about daoism then I have in all the time I've studied it(I have however studied it pretty lightly though...lol).

[YMWong]

But yes within Daoist orthodoxy there are your exclusionists who will say that even this is not good enough and you must become a part of a Daoist lineage to really experience Dao and have the right to call yourself a Daoist. To reemphasize, I personally don't fully agree with this, however I do respect their point of view and will subsequently not formally call myself a Daoist nor will I claim the authority to teach Daoism.

 

Guys,

 

this horse has been beaten to death for YEARS!

 

First of all no (chinese) daoist would say that one has to "become a part of a Daoist lineage to really experience Dao". I don't know where you get that, but 'Dao' is a concept that permeates chinese history and therefore it is a common idea to everybody and everything. Confucians have 'their' Dao, Buddhists have 'their' Dao and they all agree it is the same old Dao.

 

The problem of "calling oneself a Daoist" it is very much a semantic issue actually, because the word "daoist" (in english) is a NEW WORD and different people give it different meaning.

As a new word/concept everyone is entitled to call him/herself as such.

 

If, however, one takes the word "Daoist" as the english translation of the chinese word "daoshi" (or similar terms) THEN it is correct to say it cannot be utilized for someone who has not received oral transmission and has been accepted by a lineage master in a specific (chinese) daoist tradition.

 

It is quite simple in fact

 

YM

[Stigweard]

Wow! Lots to respond to ... thanks all

 

Do you know of any solid evidence that the philosophy did not predate the religion?

I am one of those who claim that Taoism was first a philosophy and then, over time, became an 'organized' religion. Please take special note of the word "Organized".

Yes the philosophical treatise of Laozi and Zhuangzi were written before the Han synthesis and formalization of the classification "Daojia". Thus it is quite accurate to say that Lao-Zhuang philosophy predated the organized religion of Daoism.

 

But Lao-Zhuang philosophy was only one part of the complete world view of Dao-centric Chinese culture at the time. Right along side you had active and alive traditions whose ontology found their way into texts like:

 

* Huainanzi 淮南子 -- contains details of jing 精, qi 氣, shen 神, and the cosmology of Tian-di-ren 天地人.

* Baopuzi 抱朴子 -- contains Ge Hong's own researches into the art of transcendence and immortality, topics like alchemy (jindan 金丹, pills), health preserving (yangsheng 養生), meditation and breathing techniques (xingqi 行氣), exorcism, sexual practices (fangzhongshu 房中術), herbalism (fuyao 服藥) and talismanic charms (shenfu 神符)

 

Significantly predating Laozi and Zhuangzi by over a millennium is the Huangdi Neijing 黃帝內經, the contents of which covers Yin/Yang theory and the Wuxing (five elements) and the extensive early methodology of traditional Chinese medicine.

 

The curators of the Han synthesis recognized this, which is why all of these texts were collected and equally called Daojia. And seeing that these curators were over 2000 years closer to the time of the writing of these texts than we are, in addition to the fact that there were actually part of the culture we are talking about, I am quite comfortable in following their lead.

 

And I must emphasize again that this collection of Dao-centric texts was the sum total of Daojia / Daoism at that time. And, in my perhaps not so humble opinion, I believe that you can only get an integral perspective of this overall Dao-centric world view by studying and engaging the full spectrum ... or at least a greater bandwidth than just Lao-Zhuang philosophy on its own.

 

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?

This is a very good question because there is no doubt that Dao in universal and transcends cultural representation. I believe though that, whatever the practice, it must harmonize with the basics of Yin/Yang, Tian-ren-di, Jing-qi-shen, Ziran, Wu wei, the Bagua and the Wuxing. I am sure there are many practices from other cultures and traditions that do a damn fine job of bringing the practitioner closer to harmony with Dao.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Stigweard

[Stigweard]

Hey,

 

When Stig writes that he is not a Taoist, and then Marblehead writes that Stig is in fact a Taoist it becomes clear that this is not a philosophical debate but one of linguistics. As such it cannot be resolved due to the elusive nature of that thing through which humans write and speak. Until there is a universally accepted definition of the words Tao and Taoist then the debate that has taken place on this thread is nonsensical. The first chapter of the TTC (seminal to the context of "Taoism") indicates that by its very nature the Tao cannot be defined...it is by definition impossible to define. So without the ability to define Tao, how can one define Taoist within the boundaries of the context of Taoism? This reduces the problem from one of philosophy to one of marginally intellectual entertainment.

 

I am an old man and I have long since become bored with ideas, debates etc that are essentially only entertaining. I am however highly entertained by the behavior of those engaged in the debates. Occasionally it becomes evident that a few of the debaters are using the process not just for a chance to strike some thoughtful appearing posture, but to make themselves clearer to themselves. If their increasing clarity makes a coherent and sensible change in their behavior than this helps to slow my waning respect for humanity.

Not bad for an old man

[Stigweard]

The problem I see with this is that the Spiritual aspect was prior to the Philosophical which is prior to the "organized" Religious aspect. Before writing put into words any kind of philosophical framework, we can see that shamanism reveals their connection to the spiritual universe; astrology/astronomy shows their connection to the influences of the physical universe, etc. The spiritual and physical understanding of Heaven-Man-Earth would add in the philosophical and medical and religious aspects later.

 

As far back as we can see, Yin and Yang started as completely separate concepts and not really having any philosophical context until much later. Note that Lao Zi only uses the words once; Yin and Yang are not important to the development of what he is saying, which in my opinion is not just a philosophy but much much more.

 

He may of simply created what is better called an "organized" spiritual-philosophy since the living aspects pre-date him; he lamented the present but wrote of the past. Which leads me to believe he was more spiritual than philosophical.

I agree with your sentiments ... but you already knew that

 

I highly doubt that Laozi, if he was a really personage, did not engage in more practical applications of Dao then just philosophy. I have heard it said that Laozi was a court geomancer and diviner for the imperial court of the time.

 

[Stigweard]

Stig I seriously misjudged you. When I first read this I did not like it much. Especially since I had been one that had been ripped off by reading that book 'tao of pooh' bs and was headed in that direction with my practice of daoism. I learned nothing from that f'n book and all it seemed to teach was that its cool to be dumb like pooh. But now reading through all the discussion on this post alone I have learned more about daoism then I have in all the time I've studied it(I have however studied it pretty lightly though...lol).

LOL it's easy to misjudge people if all we have as a gauge is the words in a post.

 

Oh and don't write of the Tao of Pooh so quickly ... it does do a fair job of covering one Taoist principle of Pu朴 -- the uncarved block. Another synonymous Daoist term is Ziran/Tzu jan which means natural, spontaneous, or more correctly translated -- "self-so".

 

Marblehead is a big fan of tzu jan so drop him a line if you want to know more