Myths & Misconceptions

[寒月 Hanyue]

Slightly inspired by a recent thread.

 

I thought people might find it fun to share some of the areas that they have come to find out,as they have continued in their practice, studies, research, are in fact more grey than black and white. Areas where plenty of 'myths' or 'mis-conceptions' are still continually perpetuated. I don't think evidence needs to be posted (though being able to back up what is posted is always best) &, as its a bit of fun.

 

For example, some 'myths' or 'mis-conceptions' are;

 

I ching, Tao te ching, Chuang tzu are Daoist texts.

 

Taijiquan is a martial art with Daoist origins.

 

The Samurai trained in koryu bujutsu for the battlefield.

 

The religion and meditation practice of the Samurai of old was Zen.

 

Qigong is thousands of years old.

 

The 'West' has never had an approach to practice of a similar nature to qigong.

 

The monks in monasteries actually fully participate in and immerse themselves in meditation rituals because it is a primary focus.

 

The role of meditation and energy work by the individual has always been a primary focus within religious traditions in the East.

 

 

(edited for clarity)

Edited April 12, 2011 by snowmonki

[Marblehead]

Okay, I'll play this game.

 

 

I ching, Tao te ching, Chuang tzu are Daoist texts.

 

Granted, the I Ching was written before Lao Tzu's time.

 

The TTC; The Book of Tao and its Virtue. How much more Taoist does one need get?

 

Chuang Tzu; Supplimented everything Lao Tzu spoke to except the concept of government. (Chuang Tzu did not trust governments.) But he also got a little more spiritual than Lao Tzu had.

 

These two, the TTC & Chuang Tzu are indeed Taoist texts. They contain the roots of all future Taoist thought whether it be philosophical, governmental, or religious.

 

 

Hehehe. How's that for a rebuttal?

[寒月 Hanyue]

Jesus was not a Christian

Buddha was not a Buddhist

Lao Zi (and Chuang Zi) were not Daoists

 

What gets projected backwards and assimilated by emerging and self identifying groups is a different thing to founding something specifically and with intent.

 

Where I said "I ching, Tao te ching, Chuang tzu are Daoist texts." I should have written, I ching, Tao te ching, Chuang tzu are not texts written by Daoists.

 

The first statement can be read several ways, the latter is less ambiguous, thanks for pointing it out

Edited April 12, 2011 by snowmonki

[Marblehead]

Jesus was not a Christian

Buddha was not a Buddhist

Lao Zi (and Chuang Zi) were not Daoists

 

What gets projected backwards and assimilated by emerging and self identifying groups is a different thing to founding something specifically and with intent.

 

Where I said "I ching, Tao te ching, Chuang tzu are Daoist texts." I should have written, I ching, Tao te ching, Chuang tzu are not texts written by Daoists.

 

The first statement can be read several ways, the latter is less ambiguous, thanks for pointing it out

 

Hehehe. Good. Agree, Jesus was not a Christian and I will agree that Buddha was not a Buddhist although some could present a very good arguement against this opinion.

 

Lao Tzu was not a Taoist. I will grant you this. I think it could be a good arguement that Chuang Tzu was in fact a Philosophical Taoist with leanings toward mysticism.

[寒月 Hanyue]

Hehehe. Good. Agree, Jesus was not a Christian and I will agree that Buddha was not a Buddhist although some could present a very good arguement against this opinion.

 

Lao Tzu was not a Taoist. I will grant you this. I think it could be a good arguement that Chuang Tzu was in fact a Philosophical Taoist with leanings toward mysticism.

 

Ah, well you see. This is why I started this thread. There is NO SINGULAR DEFINITIVE understanding, explanation or perspective on much of this. The more you dig, the more you find that the actual evidence is thin and the rest is educated speculation by historians, or modern historians who speculate using the writings/accounts of 'history' written long ago.

 

Many myths I have found debunked for myself over the years, are myths precisely because there is no actual truth within them, they are arguable and debatable and hence there is always an alternative view that can be taken. I find it odd though, why some stick firmly only to one side of things?

 

Anyway back to the reply at hand.

 

Lao Tzu was not a Taoist. I will grant you this. I think it could be a good arguement that Chuang Tzu was in fact a Philosophical Taoist with leanings toward mysticism.

 

Thank you. I'm glad you are reading my posts in the spirit they were intended.

 

Mmm Zhuang Zi. Well some say he was a Daoist 'thinker' called Zhuang Zhou, but there is, apparently, no reliable historical data that supports this at all. It can be argued that in fact the writings were created later by a 'commentator' called Guo Xiang.

 

So Zhuang Zi's existence as an actual person is not established, let alone whether he had leanings towards mysticism. So maybe the Zhuang Zi as a text cannot be said to have been written by a 'Daoist', so much as an editor who liked the current burgeoning Daoist thought, and backdated it?

 

Of course I am not trying to say either account is true, but it is interesting to know what do we actually know, what do we know to be actually true or false and what lies in between.

 

Care to add any 'Myths' of your own? They do not have to be historical.

 

 

Best,

Edited April 12, 2011 by snowmonki

[Sloppy Zhang]

I am very confused

 

Perhaps it would be best to format it this way-

 

Myth: something

 

My understanding: something else.

 

 

Because right now I can't tell if people are posting myths, or their understanding of what's what as they've come to know it

[Marblehead]

Care to add any 'Myths' of your own? They do not have to be historical.

 

Best,

 

Hehehe. I wish I could but there really just aren't any in my life that I am aware of. (How hard-headed you gonna' be Marblehead?)

 

I was very deep into Greek Mythology when I was a teenager (the early years).

 

Actually, myths serve a useful purpose in life because they have a way of teaching a life lesson in an enjoyable manner. (Even the ones based in fear are sometimes very useful.)

 

The thing is, at some point in our life we should recognize that they are myths and their purpose is to teach a lesson and should not be taken literally as so many people tend to do.

 

I am sure that others will come along in this thread and present some considerations.

 

(Oh, there are a lot of myths in NA spirituality but in the most part I try to stay away from them except for the lessons they present.)

[寒月 Hanyue]

I am very confused

 

Perhaps it would be best to format it this way-

 

Myth: something

 

My understanding: something else.

 

 

Because right now I can't tell if people are posting myths, or their understanding of what's what as they've come to know it

 

Sorry mate. I did wonder what would happen if the thread became a bit more 'debate' style.

 

The only myths posted are the ones in the OP.

 

I specifically did not want to use the format you suggest because the point of the post was to create an opening, not to seal it shut. It wasn't about 'this is wrong, this is right'.

 

The point was simply to see if members of the forum wanted to pass on any interesting mis-conceptions or myths about Daoism, martial arts, cultivation and any other topic that usually gets discussed here.

 

Not to debate each one to death to see who/which is more 'right'. That said, some debate is fun and keeps the thread entertaining.

 

Best,

Edited April 12, 2011 by snowmonki

[寒月 Hanyue]

Hehehe. I wish I could but there really just aren't any in my life that I am aware of. (How hard-headed you gonna' be Marblehead?)

 

I was very deep into Greek Mythology when I was a teenager (the early years).

 

Actually, myths serve a useful purpose in life because they have a way of teaching a life lesson in an enjoyable manner. (Even the ones based in fear are sometimes very useful.)

 

The thing is, at some point in our life we should recognize that they are myths and their purpose is to teach a lesson and should not be taken literally as so many people tend to do.

 

I am sure that others will come along in this thread and present some considerations.

 

(Oh, there are a lot of myths in NA spirituality but in the most part I try to stay away from them except for the lessons they present.)

 

I am NOT talking about the cultural mythologies and stories of a culture. That is a very different topic.

 

I am talking about supposed 'facts' that you were told/learned in your time of cultivation study that you subsequently discovered were not so written in stone. IE the are 'myths' or 'mis-conceptions'.

 

[Jetsun]

Buddha saying "life is suffering" is a myth

 

What he said was life is "lfe is Dukkha" which doesn't have an exact translation but it is more accurately translated as discomfort due to change, or things being off like the spokes not being aligned in a wheel, so the translation of suffering is perhaps too harsh or negative and doesn't convey the intention of the saying accurately.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Jetsun

[寒月 Hanyue]

Buddha saying "life is suffering" is a myth

 

What he said was life is "lfe is Dukkha" which doesn't have an exact translation but it is more accurately translated as discomfort due to change, or things being off like the spokes not being aligned in a wheel, so the translation of suffering is perhaps too harsh or negative and doesn't convey the intention of the saying accurately.

 

Awesome stuff, thank you for sharing. This is the kind of thing I had in mind. You learn these things, but they are often not discussed much, and yet the 'myths' are still what gets the most press. So if anyone has anything like this, how about sharing

 

Best,

[Otis]

Ditto on the "life is suffering" bit. Also, the unfortunate translation of the Pali word for "clinging/craving" into the English word "desire", creating a puritanical anti-desire myth that I don't think is true or useful.

 

Also, in early conversations, I heard people use "the middle way" as if it meant: "live a moderate life". Whereas, I now understand it to mean: "don't take anything too literally, because opposite ideas are often true at the same time". In fact, the "middle way" is exactly about this topic, living/understanding in the gray.

[Aaron]

Myths are the embodiment of our subconscious and conscious, hence the reason so many mythologies have similar archetypes. When you are talking about things like Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, I'm not sure it's fair to characterize them as myths in the same sense as the Greek Gods or pantheons and such, because they served a different purpose. Myths are meant to help us rationalize those things we cannot understand, to come to terms with a world that at times makes very little sense to us. Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu (or at least the commentaries attributed to them) didn't do this per se, in fact they did the exact opposite. Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu said that there are no answers, that the greatest mysteries could never be explained. If anything these two texts seem to encourage us to give up myths, in the sense that myths will never explain anything of real substance, and instead focus on those things we do have power over. We can do things to ease suffering, other than pray. We can behave in a way that is beneficial to ourselves and others, we don't need an ultimate force to be able to do this.

 

Now to say Myth's don't exist in Taoism as a religion, isn't true of course, but what I'm trying to point out is that the basic texts that we attribute (as westerners) to Taoism, the Tao Teh Ching and Chuang Tzu, aren't per se, mythological in context, in fact science is proving a bit more each day, that what the Tao Te Ching was talking about 2,000 years ago, wasn't just on the mark, but incredibly accurate.

 

With that said I think the question that may be better off being asked are Facts and misconceptions regarding Taoism.

 

Aaron

Edited April 12, 2011 by Twinner

[寒月 Hanyue]

Ditto on the "life is suffering" bit. Also, the unfortunate translation of the Pali word for "clinging/craving" into the English word "desire", creating a puritanical anti-desire myth that I don't think is true or useful.

 

Also, in early conversations, I heard people use "the middle way" as if it meant: "live a moderate life". Whereas, I now understand it to mean: "don't take anything too literally, because opposite ideas are often true at the same time". In fact, the "middle way" is exactly about this topic, living/understanding in the gray.

 

[寒月 Hanyue]

Myths are the embodiment of our subconscious and conscious, hence the reason so many mythologies have similar archetypes. When you are talking about things like Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, I'm not sure it's fair to characterize them as myths in the same sense as the Greek Gods or pantheons and such....etc

 

Aaron

 

PLEASE, EVERYONE, DO NOT CREATE THREAD DRIFT BY GOING OFF INTO TANGENTS ABOUT WORLD MYTHOLOGY THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT.

 

The use of the term "Myth" is not accurate, but is used in the context of common parlance regarding stories about things that are not 'true' but an amalgamation of repeated tellings.

 

Thank you,

Edited April 12, 2011 by snowmonki

[rene]

.

De = Virtue : with Virtue = moral virtue, as in, She was a virtuous woman, well versed in propriety, manners, and contempt for all things beneath her.

 

Folks new to these things often misunderstand in what sense 'Virtue' is being used; frequently there is too little energy spent by those do know the difference to help clarify the true aspects of De. Keeping De tied up with 'morality' however often functions as a tool for those with other agendas.

 

Nice thread, snowmonki (-:

 

warm regards

[aridus]

Sounds like semantics and word play to me. Making things dissimilar when convenient and similar when convenient.

[aridus]

Ditto on the "life is suffering" bit. Also, the unfortunate translation of the Pali word for "clinging/craving" into the English word "desire", creating a puritanical anti-desire myth that I don't think is true or useful.

Clinging or craving is clinging or craving. A desire to eliminate desire is still a desire. That is why they get it wrong, not because of 'mistranslation' of the word, but because of misplacement of their motivation.

 

Also, in early conversations, I heard people use "the middle way" as if it meant: "live a moderate life". Whereas, I now understand it to mean: "don't take anything too literally, because opposite ideas are often true at the same time". In fact, the "middle way" is exactly about this topic, living/understanding in the gray.

Moderate skepticism is skepticism in moderation.

Edited April 12, 2011 by aridus

[aridus]

It is also ironic to talk about how gray and then say "things don't mean exactly this" (black) "but they mean exactly this instead" (white)

[Otis]

Sounds like semantics and word play to me. Making things dissimilar when convenient and similar when convenient.

If "convenience" is the aim, then it is problematic. But if precision is the aim, then it seems useful.

 

We all know that no one word will accurately reflect the concept, and no one concept will accurately reflect what the concept points at. Fine-tuning our meanings seems like a good way of getting rid of (some of) the non-essential.

[Otis]

I think "enlightenment as an attainment" is an unfortunate story, that serves no useful purpose.

 

The story creates an impenetrable and inscrutable barrier between the "haves" and "have nots", without creating any more illumination than that. It creates a horrible trap, for those who think they have arrived (the trap of certainty, of self-importance). It also entraps the seekers in a goose chase after a future distant goal, instead of encouraging them to focus on accepting the world and themselves here and now.

 

Do we become compassionate by focusing on attainment, and hoping that it opens our hearts? Or do we just practice opening our hearts?

 

Do we become clear by focusing on attainment, and hoping it dispels our ego? Or do we just start letting go of unnecessary beliefs, and feel ourselves becoming lighter, thereby?

 

If we seek to escape life, become omniscient, or rise above other people, these goals IMO will cripple the path of becoming lighter. Becoming lighter is not about accomplishments or winning; IME it comes from being fiercely honest, self-skeptical, fearless and loving.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Otis

[aridus]

If "convenience" is the aim, then it is problematic. But if precision is the aim, then it seems useful.

 

We all know that no one word will accurately reflect the concept, and no one concept will accurately reflect what the concept points at. Fine-tuning our meanings seems like a good way of getting rid of (some of) the non-essential.

This is as true as another truth can be, but also has its limitations. Too strict definitions lose their usefulness. There is a back to the front. Too strict is the back of not strict enough. There's "too far" for both directions.

 

Everything has a back and a front.

 

I think the main thing that I zoomed in on with the "precision" thing is that first it was said that qigong is not thousands of years old. If we want to be specific about its current incarnation, and when use of the term began, then this is probably true. However, this conflicts with the statement about the idea that westerners did not have something analogous to qigong.

 

What this says to me, that in order to prove a point, qigong is used in a stricter sense to say how long it hasn't been around, then a broader sense to include things analogous to qigong. If things analogous were also included in the first statement, it loses its power, because things that are analogous to qiogong have been around for an extremely long time. So to me this is semantics and flipflopping the view.

[Otis]

This is as true as another truth can be, but also has its limitations. Too strict definitions lose their usefulness. There is a back to the front. Too strict is the back of not strict enough. There's "too far" for both directions.

 

Everything has a back and a front.

 

I think the main thing that I zoomed in on with the "precision" thing is that first it was said that qigong is not thousands of years old. If we want to be specific about its current incarnation, and when use of the term began, then this is probably true. However, this conflicts with the statement about the idea that westerners did not have something analogous to qigong.

 

What this says to me, that in order to prove a point, qigong is used in a stricter sense to say how long it hasn't been around, then a broader sense to include things analogous to qigong. If things analogous were also included in the first statement, it loses its power, because things that are analogous to qiogong have been around for an extremely long time. So to me this is semantics and flipflopping the view.

I see what you mean.

[Aaron]

Hello Snowmonki,

 

I wasn't actually trying to cause a drift towards discussing other mythologies, I'm not sure where you got that from. My point was that your question, whether using the colloquial or literal definition of Myth was a bit ambiguous.

 

In regards to your question, why is any of this important? Does it really matter if Tai Chi originated with Taoism, or if the I-Ching was a Taoist text? I'm not saying this to be difficult, because at one time I did think it was important, but now I see it more as a means of trying to define authenticity, when in fact authenticity is very much a subjective measure.

 

I think 90% of the people on this board can answer your questions, but perhaps the answer doesn't matter, what matters is whether or not these texts and ideas hold merit today. Anyways, I'll leave you to your discussion and I hope you find your answers.

 

Aaron

Edited April 13, 2011 by Twinner

[manitou]

Buddha saying "life is suffering" is a myth

 

What he said was life is "lfe is Dukkha" which doesn't have an exact translation but it is more accurately translated as discomfort due to change, or things being off like the spokes not being aligned in a wheel, so the translation of suffering is perhaps too harsh or negative and doesn't convey the intention of the saying accurately.

 

Thank you for this clarification. I could never quite understand all the emphasis on getting away from 'suffering'. But change? That makes perfect sense now. Life is fluid and we must realize it as so. Not so easy to do, because our ego seems to like to ride on our opinions.