Taoism and Karma

[Marblehead]

If people stop differentiating amongst spiritual practices (Daoism and Buddhism in this instance), clinging to concepts and ideas only creates more dissatisfaction, limiting our spiritual growth. These two practices are just individual understandings of a eternal, self-contained and multidimensional reality that manifests inside all of us according to our karmic evolution. There is no end to be reached and no beginning to start with. The final dissolution of the ego (karmic imprints, desires and tendencies), which has adopted a myriad of forms during its journey, means revealing within one's mind the point of equilibrium: nirvana, Dao, God. It is indeed a journey and a very long one.

 

I can't argue with that.

 

I have already stated that my belief system includes Taoism, Nietzschism, and Atheism. I see not problem with combining belief systems in order for a person to establish a "complete" belief system for themself.

 

However, when we are discussing a particular concept from a particular beleif system we should stay as true to that belief system as possible so that we do not establish a belief based on confusion.

[Patrick Brown]

I have always felt that Taoist Philosophy is incomplete without The Chuang Tzu. (Others have argued with me in this regard.)

I'm not that familiar with Chuang Tzu although I have read bits here and there I really should get a copy. Perhaps the text is available to download, I'll have a Google. I still think the Gia-Fu Feng / Jane English translations of the TTC is a beautiful book and most definitely a gem!

 

I see no problem with combining belief systems in order for a person to establish a "complete" belief system for themself.

Absolutely

 

However, when we are discussing a particular concept from a particular beleif system we should stay as true to that belief system as possible so that we do not establish a belief based on confusion.

Yes and perhaps this is where the problems arise with things such as Theosophy and much of the new age mumbo jumbo? Perhaps that should read new age jumble? Hey at least all that new age stuff turned a few people on.

 

Staying true to a belief system, as you term it, is very true of Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism because even though they share a common root they are an evolution and as such certain ideas are dropped or redeveloped / clarified along the way. It's my opinion that the Vajrayana school of Buddhism is the fruit of this evolutionary process and it's teachings encapsulated within it's art and imagery. After reading quite a few Buddhist texts, which are often convoluted, I've concluded that beyond the "four noble truths" and the "eight-fold path" the main teaching of Buddhism is non-duality. I figure Buddhism is a means to an end i.e. Enlightenment and Taoism is the way one should strive to live once enlightened. So to me Buddhism and Taoism dovetail perfectly.

[Patrick Brown]

As an afterthought I think the main reason Taoism doesn't mention enlightenment is because it's seen as an unfolding without end. So whereas other systems often suggest that enlightenment is a flash of insight or a sudden realisation Taoism sees it as an integral part of the journey. I don't think Buddhists would have a problem with this idea as they talk about realising our innate Buddha nature. Having said that perhaps without the idea of something to be realised / awakened people would just live there life as a monotone and never be truly fulfilled? Perhaps this is what's missing from the TTC?

[manitou]

I think you've hit the nail on the head with that comment! I love the Tao Te Ching but I've always sensed something was not being said! It's hard to explain but perhaps the silence between the words is where the real insights lay.

 

"the sage is alone and depressed"

 

Beyond this words no longer have any meaning.

 

 

Rather than alone and depressed, in Yutang's version, it says something like "I alone (the sage) am muddled and nebulous". He contrasts this with the supposed luminous and knowing attitude of the learned. I think this is because he has filed off all rough edges of opinion about all things. All things just "are", there is no good or bad to it. In the same verse, he speaks of drawing his only sustenance from the Mother (earth). He follows the ways of nature in its totality. He sees life as something which is not only in the state of evolving, it is evolved already! Only we don't know it, we can't see it yet.

 

I think relating karma to yin and yang makes absolute sense, only karma denotes a sense of time, whereas the concept of yin and yang denote a mixing of the two (apparent even in the symbol). I think yin and yang can denote a sense of time, or it can also denote a state of being that does not involve time. All here now.

[manitou]

As an afterthought I think the main reason Taoism doesn't mention enlightenment is because it's seen as an unfolding without end. So whereas other systems often suggest that enlightenment is a flash of insight or a sudden realisation Taoism sees it as an integral part of the journey. I don't think Buddhists would have a problem with this idea as they talk about realising our innate Buddha nature. Having said that perhaps without the idea of something to be realised / awakened people would just live there life as a monotone and never be truly fulfilled? Perhaps this is what's missing from the TTC?

 

 

I see the Sage as an enlightened being. You can tell from the three treasures he possesses: (yutang, again)...Never be the first, Never too much, Love. The way the sage got to that point was to go internal. He had to master the ego to never be the first. We are born competitive creatures, from the moment the first sperm hit the egg. His ego had to be subjugated in order for him to be satisfied with letting others 'be the first'. This awareness alone is FANTASTIC to remember in everyday life! Never be the first. How often that will rub up against us! In traffic? Waiting in line? If you think about it, the reason we get antsy waiting in line or in traffic is because we think our particular itinerary is so very important, and all others around us are like a sub-cast. But the Sage knows that inside each and every other being is Himself at the bottom, the flame of awareness that's within everyone. Our time just isn't any more valuable than anyone else's time. The Sage realizes that 'all time and space are his', if he stays in awareness. Things will be perfect when he arrives; all people who are supposed to be there will be there, much as in a healing ceremony. Serendipity is our friend.

 

Never too much. Western society teaches us just the opposite. Accumulate the stuff and Achieve the Dream. This is ultimately, baloney, if happiness and contentment are what one seeks. Our nature is such that we always want 'more'. Our nature is such that we never seem to reach contentment with the position we hold, the money we make. More would always make it better, supposedly. The Sage has learned differently. Once he realizes Who He Is (his god-nature or however you want to say it) he is able to surrender the need to be first and the need to accumulate bigger and better.

 

And Love. I think this word says it all. If the Sage can stay in awareness of Love at all times, then all his dealings with everything reflect Love, and he is generating no new negative karma for himself for future working through. He makes no judgments of people as 'good' or 'bad'; rather, he sees each human as someone who has something to give, no matter how small.

 

I think the concept of the Sage and the realization of the Buddha nature are the very same thing.

Edited October 24, 2011 by manitou

[Patrick Brown]

Rather than alone and depressed, in Yutang's version, it says something like "I alone (the sage) am muddled and nebulous". He contrasts this with the supposed luminous and knowing attitude of the learned. I think this is because he has filed off all rough edges of opinion about all things. All things just "are", there is no good or bad to it. In the same verse, he speaks of drawing his only sustenance from the Mother (earth). He follows the ways of nature in its totality. He sees life as something which is not only in the state of evolving, it is evolved already! Only we don't know it, we can't see it yet.

 

I think relating karma to yin and yang makes absolute sense, only karma denotes a sense of time, whereas the concept of yin and yang denote a mixing of the two (apparent even in the symbol). I think yin and yang can denote a sense of time, or it can also denote a state of being that does not involve time. All here now.

"Twenty

Give up learning, and put an end to your troubles.

Is there a difference between yes and no?

Is there a difference between good and evil?

Must I fear what others fear? What nonsense!

Other people are contented, enjoying the sacrificial feast of the ox.

In spring some go to the park, and climb the terrace,

But I alone am drifting, not knowing where I am.

Like a newborn babe before it learns to smile,

I am alone, without a place to go.

Others have more than they need, but I alone have nothing.

I am a fool. Oh, yes! I am confused.

Others are clear and bright,

But I alone am dim and weak.

Others are sharp and clever,

But I alone am dull and stupid.

Oh, I drift like the waves of the sea,

Without direction, like the restless wind.

Everyone else is busy,

But I alone am aimless and depressed.

I am different.

I am nourished by the great mother."

I see the Sage as an enlightened being. You can tell from the three treasures he possesses: (yutang, again)...Never be the first, Never too much, Love. The way the sage got to that point was to go internal. He had to master the ego to never be the first. We are born competitive creatures, from the moment the first sperm hit the egg. His ego had to be subjugated in order for him to be satisfied with letting others 'be the first'. This awareness alone is FANTASTIC to remember in everyday life! Never be the first. How often that will rub up against us! In traffic? Waiting in line? If you think about it, the reason we get antsy waiting in line or in traffic is because we think our particular itinerary is so very important, and all others around us are like a sub-cast. But the Sage knows that inside each and every other being is Himself at the bottom, the flame of awareness that's within everyone. Our time just isn't any more valuable than anyone else's time. The Sage realizes that 'all time and space are his', if he stays in awareness. Things will be perfect when he arrives; all people who are supposed to be there will be there, much as in a healing ceremony. Serendipity is our friend.

 

Never too much. Western society teaches us just the opposite. Accumulate the stuff and Achieve the Dream. This is ultimately, baloney, if happiness and contentment are what one seeks. Our nature is such that we always want 'more'. Our nature is such that we never seem to reach contentment with the position we hold, the money we make. More would always make it better, supposedly. The Sage has learned differently. Once he realizes Who He Is (his god-nature or however you want to say it) he is able to surrender the need to be first and the need to accumulate bigger and better.

 

And Love. I think this word says it all. If the Sage can stay in awareness of Love at all times, then all his dealings with everything reflect Love, and he is generating no new negative karma for himself for future working through. He makes no judgments of people as 'good' or 'bad'; rather, he sees each human as someone who has something to give, no matter how small.

 

I think the concept of the Sage and the realization of the Buddha nature are the very same thing.

Yes I try but often forget although I am getting better!

 

"Seventy-one

Knowing ignorance is strength.

Ignoring knowledge is sickness.

If one is sick of sickness, then one is not sick.

The sage is not sick because he is sick of sickness.

Therefore he is not sick."

 

[Marblehead]

As an afterthought I think the main reason Taoism doesn't mention enlightenment is because it's seen as an unfolding without end. So whereas other systems often suggest that enlightenment is a flash of insight or a sudden realisation Taoism sees it as an integral part of the journey.

 

I'll buy that. There is no destination - it's all about the journey.

 

... perhaps without the idea of something to be realised / awakened people would just live there life as a monotone and never be truly fulfilled? Perhaps this is what's missing from the TTC?

 

Responding with only a quick thought, I think you may well be right. Where's the end based only on Taoist Philosophy? Death. How cold!!! But then, remember, it is the journey (life), not the destination (death).

[Marblehead]

Rather than alone and depressed, in Yutang's version, it says something like "I alone (the sage) am muddled and nebulous". He contrasts this with the supposed luminous and knowing attitude of the learned. I think this is because he has filed off all rough edges of opinion about all things. All things just "are", there is no good or bad to it. In the same verse, he speaks of drawing his only sustenance from the Mother (earth). He follows the ways of nature in its totality. He sees life as something which is not only in the state of evolving, it is evolved already! Only we don't know it, we can't see it yet.

 

I think you did good with that Manitou.

[manitou]

I'll buy that. There is no destination - it's all about the journey.

 

 

 

Responding with only a quick thought, I think you may well be right. Where's the end based only on Taoist Philosophy? Death. How cold!!! But then, remember, it is the journey (life), not the destination (death).

 

Thanks for the kind words, Marbles.

 

Maybe death isn't hot or cold, good or bad. If we buy into the concept of infinity at some level, then that means that we've always been here, we're here now, and we'll always be here. We're in the figure 8, that's all. Our lifetimes are the intersection of past and present, right at the junction of the 8.

 

There is a life stream that draws us to its centre; it's the reason we all bother to hang around forums like this. I think it a bit of a mistake to draw boundaries on our philosophies, because then they're just beliefs. A belief is just that - a construct of the mind, and mindset of choice. In my experience, a construct of the mind doesn't lead to where we really want to go.

 

There is an essence obtained by triangulating the Essence within the construct of multiple lines of philosophical ideologies, and I believe I see in reading many posts in this forum that there are other self-realized mongrels here. No pedigree whatsoever, us mutts. But those of us who came up via the mongrel route have seen truths in all paths and, wonderfully enough, can talk in any forum that involves the ultimate truth being found within one's self. I'm currently reading about the Mystic Warriors of the Plains, and that book was written by someone who could just have easily been a Taoist. The room where all paths meet is the room of Wu-Wei. It has its counterpart in every discipline that gets down to the void, the Essence, within.

 

The Sage is a shaman. He is Budda. He is the Nazarene. He is Gandhi. He is the Dalai Lama. And I'm really going to go out big here: He is Obama.

Edited October 24, 2011 by manitou

[Marblehead]

If we buy into the concept of infinity at some level, then that means that we've always been here, we're here now, and we'll always be here.

 

Of course, you now I don't buy that.

 

And it's not a Taoist belief either.

 

Just had to say that because of the title of the thread.

 

What you spoke of above is Buddhism - reincarnation.

 

Taoists don't have reincarnation either. Hehehe.

 

But I do understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with much of it. Sorry.

[Patrick Brown]

Of course, you now I don't buy that.

 

And it's not a Taoist belief either.

 

Just had to say that because of the title of the thread.

 

What you spoke of above is Buddhism - reincarnation.

 

Taoists don't have reincarnation either. Hehehe.

 

But I do understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with much of it. Sorry.

 

LOL!

This is the thing about TTB's I love, yes Manitou's post was beautiful and enticing, even erudite, but:

 

Well he left out the drunken fools and the piss-artists and the many people I have met in my life who are really rather beautiful even with all their flaws. I really loved the thing about the twisted circle (!), pretty sure I've used that one before, but hey non-attachment and that includes ideas and concepts. I have mentioned the "two truths" of Tibetan Buddhism before and it's easy to find on Goodle if you need to read it.

 

No I will do whatever I like as long as it doesn't hurt anybody.

 

Even the very highest realise, well one would hope, that we are all looking after number one. Yes we will do everything in our power to help those in need who appear on our path but the thread of ego remains, as it must and as it only can be.

 

Now lets get pissed, or not, but at least sing:

 

[Marblehead]

Now lets get pissed, or not, but at least sing:

 

I'm sitting down already! Right here at the computer.

 

Nice song.

 

The beginning reminded me of the song by "What's His Name" on the Sitar and he was tuning it and the croud gave him a really nice applause. He said something like, "Thank you. I am glad you enjoyed my tuning. I hope you enjoy the song just as much."

[rene]

... and I believe I see in reading many posts in this forum that there are other self-realized mongrels here. No pedigree whatsoever, us mutts. But those of us who came up via the mongrel route have seen truths in all paths...

 

manitou, hi, wonderful post. One of the easiest tells (for me) as to where someone might be on their own path is if they recognize, within yet others' words, of what is being pointed at rather than getting hung up on terms that are specific to one tradition. It might be that those who follow the 'mongrel route' have more ease in recognizing that which underlays all in full support - because without a nomenclature of our own, listening with the heart (intaking through the nei xin), becomes second nature instead of the words->ears->mind path. Once the moon is found, all pointing fingers are easily understood; the common aspect easily seen in each path. (-:

 

warm regards

[Patrick Brown]

I'm sitting down already! Right here at the computer.

 

Nice song.

 

The beginning reminded me of the song by "What's His Name" on the Sitar and he was tuning it and the croud gave him a really nice applause. He said something like, "Thank you. I am glad you enjoyed my tuning. I hope you enjoy the song just as much."

 

 

More good stuff here:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=HDykXpBiIr0

[Marblehead]

Lots of optimism there.

 

That was a long prelude. I almost gave up on hearing anything.

 

So where were we?

 

Taoism and Karma?

 

No connection.

 

Incompatible thoughts.

 

Change 'Karma' to 'cause and effect' and you have a different story.

[manitou]

Marbles - I don't want to get mean here, you're one of the more wonderful presences here on the forum. But it seems like lately you've appointed yourself as the protector of what is Taoist and what is not. Maybe the forum needed protected, I can understand your concern.

 

But we are allowed to think, I think. If something in a Daoist paragraph sends one off on a discussion about connections to other ideologies like Buddhism, so be it. I've noticed that a couple times you've said something like 'I don't believe it, therefore that's not Taoism'. I don't think this is an open minded mindset at all. This is true attachment to a structure.

 

Isn't it Just Possible that we're all talking about the same thing here? That Taoism, buddhism, Shamanism, all the isms - are merely different parts of the elephant to the blind man? It's the path that starts up the hill that is different; when we get to the other end, guess who we meet? Everyone who has gone that far, regardless of where they started!

 

To insist that people color within the lines is missing the whole point, IMO.

[XieJia]

Maybe we should try with a bigger hammer;

either way.

 

 

[Patrick Brown]

There's the old saying about baby and bathwater and in the context of this bend in the road I don't think there's anything wrong with throwing out ideas but never never throw out open mindedness!

 

I've often heard it said that perhaps the Taoist masters just chose to leave karma and reincarnation out for some specific reason. So what might that reason be? It takes the student out of the now or perhaps karma and reincarnation are only relative truths so distract from the deeper truth? As I've said before perhaps what isn't said is the more profound teaching one might even say esoteric!

 

God that was hard work writing that as my brain is currently Swiss cheese!

Edited October 25, 2011 by Patrick Brown

[Marblehead]

Marbles - I don't want to get mean here, you're one of the more wonderful presences here on the forum. But it seems like lately you've appointed yourself as the protector of what is Taoist and what is not. Maybe the forum needed protected, I can understand your concern.

 

But we are allowed to think, I think. If something in a Daoist paragraph sends one off on a discussion about connections to other ideologies like Buddhism, so be it. I've noticed that a couple times you've said something like 'I don't believe it, therefore that's not Taoism'. I don't think this is an open minded mindset at all. This is true attachment to a structure.

 

Isn't it Just Possible that we're all talking about the same thing here? That Taoism, buddhism, Shamanism, all the isms - are merely different parts of the elephant to the blind man? It's the path that starts up the hill that is different; when we get to the other end, guess who we meet? Everyone who has gone that far, regardless of where they started!

 

To insist that people color within the lines is missing the whole point, IMO.

 

Fair criticism. I shall use a bigger hammer. (That is, present my rationale.)

 

The opening post of this thread was a question (paraphrase): Is Karma a Taoist concept?

 

The simple answer is "No."

 

But the thread has gone into a deeper discussion of Taoism and the concept of Karma.

 

Let's be honest. There are various disciplines of religion and philosophy. There are many who frown on any misrepresentation of their religion or philosophy.

 

Just think if someone said, "Christians believe in reincarnation." You would see an absolute, total, and immediate denial of this statement.

 

The Taoism of the Hippie era was a farse. They used the philosophy to justify being lazy, using drugs and having sex orgies.

 

The new age Taoism is a mixture of many different belief systems and it is just dishonest to present something under false pretense.

 

The fact that I want to keep Philosophical Taoism as pure and true to the teachings of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu should, I think, be a feather in my hat and not a point of criticism.

 

I cannot and will not allow my belief system to b misrepresented on this forum. If we are talking about Philosophical Taoism then that is what we should be talking about. If we are talking about Christianity then that is what we should be talking about.

 

If we are talking about life in general then there are no limits. If we are talking about spirituality in general then there are no limits. But if someone tries to invoke a God into Philosophical Taoism I will, as I have always done, remind everyone that there are no Gods in Philosophical Taoism.

 

I have never told anyone that "my way" is the best way for anyone except myself. It is up to each individual to find the "best" way for them. If they wish to combine Christianity with Buddhism, Taoism, and Zoroasterianism and live according to whatever aspects of that collection they selected it is my opinion that they have every right to do so.

 

But to say that Philosophical Taoism teaches the concept of Karma would be an outright lie and I will call "Bullshit" on any such statement.

 

So if you feel I have taken it upon myself as the defender of Taoist philosophy that is fine because that is what I am doing and that is what I will continue to do.

 

The Buddhists were given a sub-forum here so that they could discuss Buddhist concepts without the interference of my (and others) interferring with the discussion. I have made only one post in that sub-forum and that was more of just a joke than anything else.

 

I think it would be wrong for anyone to misrepresent Buddhism and tere are Buddhist members here who will call out anyone who attempts to do so. I think that this is the right thing to do.

 

So even though I understand what you are saying and I agree that we all should work together, regardless of life philosophy or religion, for a better and more peaceful world, I think we should still call a horse a horse and not pretend that a horse is a camel. The horse and the camel have different qualities even though they have similar qualities as well. Same goes for philosophies and religions.

 

In closing, if a concept cannot be found in the writings of Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu then it is my opinion that it is not a Philosophical Taoism concept. If anyone presents contrary information I will call it out and perhaps ask for references to justify the statements.

 

But beside all that, you go ahead and hold to your belief system as it appears it is useful to you. However, some of what you say is useless to me and I am sure some of what I say is useless to you.

 

However, we oftentimes agree with what the other has said. This is good.

[Marblehead]

There's the old saying about baby and bathwater and in the context of this bend in the road I don't think there's anything wrong with throwing out ideas but never never throw out open mindedness!

 

I've often heard it said that perhaps the Taoist masters just chose to leave karma and reincarnation out for some specific reason. So what might that reason be? It takes the student out of the now or perhaps karma and reincarnation are only relative truths so distract from the deeper truth? As I've said before perhaps what isn't said is the more profound teaching one might even say esoteric!

 

God that was hard work writing that as my brain is currently Swiss cheese!

 

Good try. Hehehe. But ... ..., well, you know.

[Patrick Brown]

Good try. Hehehe. But ... ..., well, you know.

 

 

Yes even though I stated Taoism and Tibetan Buddhism dovetail nicely for me you're right to point out that they are distinct and separate. I don't have a problem with their distinctness because they work for me.

 

Buddhism lead to my realisation, insight whatever you wish to call it and Taoism reminds me of the way. I haven't discarded Buddhism because it keeps me awake, as it were, especially the imagery. Also having a reasonable grasp of many of the concepts of Buddhism means I have something to offer to others that may be struggling.

 

I'm probably more hippie in my Taoist views/ways but alas I missed the orgies, I really shouldn't be so lazy!

 

And again I agree that philosophical Taoism should indeed be defended although I'm not that familiar with the inner chapters I've always stated that the TTC is the core of Taoism and much if not all of the mystic stuff claiming to be Taoist is balls! But hey if people want to engage in promiscuous sex that's their choice. All the cultivating powers stuff gets on my tits as well.

 

Taoism is the most accessible and simple system around and that's it's strength. A few simple texts and a spot of Tai Chi and bobs your uncle! Hmm yeah I need to get back into my Tai Chi but as said I'm rather lazy and it's tricky to get motivated when you looking after an elderly mother as I am.

[konchog uma]

Just think if someone said, "Christians believe in reincarnation." You would see an absolute, total, and immediate denial of this statement.

 

christians certainly do believe in reincarnation. Except according to church doctrine they believe in only 2 options, heaven or hell. Just wanted to point out that its still reincarnation.

 

The Taoism of the Hippie era was a farse. They used the philosophy to justify being lazy, using drugs and having sex orgies.

 

hahaah i can't stop thinking of bagwan shree rajneesh and his rolls royce collection teeheehee

 

not that he was a daoist or anything. Just that i can't stop thinking about him now

[rene]

Fair criticism. I shall use a bigger hammer. (That is, present my rationale.)

 

The opening post of this thread was a question (paraphrase): Is Karma a Taoist concept?

 

The simple answer is "No."

 

But the thread has gone into a deeper discussion of Taoism and the concept of Karma.

 

Let's be honest. There are various disciplines of religion and philosophy. There are many who frown on any misrepresentation of their religion or philosophy.

 

Just think if someone said, "Christians believe in reincarnation." You would see an absolute, total, and immediate denial of this statement.

 

The Taoism of the Hippie era was a farse. They used the philosophy to justify being lazy, using drugs and having sex orgies.

 

The new age Taoism is a mixture of many different belief systems and it is just dishonest to present something under false pretense.

 

The fact that I want to keep Philosophical Taoism as pure and true to the teachings of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu should, I think, be a feather in my hat and not a point of criticism.

 

I cannot and will not allow my belief system to b misrepresented on this forum. If we are talking about Philosophical Taoism then that is what we should be talking about. If we are talking about Christianity then that is what we should be talking about.

 

If we are talking about life in general then there are no limits. If we are talking about spirituality in general then there are no limits. But if someone tries to invoke a God into Philosophical Taoism I will, as I have always done, remind everyone that there are no Gods in Philosophical Taoism.

 

I have never told anyone that "my way" is the best way for anyone except myself. It is up to each individual to find the "best" way for them. If they wish to combine Christianity with Buddhism, Taoism, and Zoroasterianism and live according to whatever aspects of that collection they selected it is my opinion that they have every right to do so.

 

But to say that Philosophical Taoism teaches the concept of Karma would be an outright lie and I will call "Bullshit" on any such statement.

 

So if you feel I have taken it upon myself as the defender of Taoist philosophy that is fine because that is what I am doing and that is what I will continue to do.

 

The Buddhists were given a sub-forum here so that they could discuss Buddhist concepts without the interference of my (and others) interferring with the discussion. I have made only one post in that sub-forum and that was more of just a joke than anything else.

 

I think it would be wrong for anyone to misrepresent Buddhism and tere are Buddhist members here who will call out anyone who attempts to do so. I think that this is the right thing to do.

 

So even though I understand what you are saying and I agree that we all should work together, regardless of life philosophy or religion, for a better and more peaceful world, I think we should still call a horse a horse and not pretend that a horse is a camel. The horse and the camel have different qualities even though they have similar qualities as well. Same goes for philosophies and religions.

 

In closing, if a concept cannot be found in the writings of Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu then it is my opinion that it is not a Philosophical Taoism concept. If anyone presents contrary information I will call it out and perhaps ask for references to justify the statements.

 

But beside all that, you go ahead and hold to your belief system as it appears it is useful to you. However, some of what you say is useless to me and I am sure some of what I say is useless to you.

 

However, we oftentimes agree with what the other has said. This is good.

 

 

And my preference would be that only the writings of Lao Tzu get to use the overarching label "Taoism" exclusively! But... such is not to be.

 

So, for me, Laoist it is.

 

And maybe for you Lao-Zhuangist it is.

 

If you want references, google 'lao-zhuang daoism'. There's a whole bunch of folks just like you.

 

warm regards

[Jetsun]

Taoism is the most accessible and simple system around and that's it's strength. A few simple texts and a spot of Tai Chi and bobs your uncle! Hmm yeah I need to get back into my Tai Chi but as said I'm rather lazy and it's tricky to get motivated when you looking after an elderly mother as I am.

 

I'm not so sure about that, the inner aspect of Taoism is alchemy which is a very complicated and confusing area of study. I'm not sure just reading Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu is enough to really significantly change your life, it hasn't been for me anyway, which is why so many hundreds of supposed Taoist techniques and practises have emerged to try to transform people, yet it is also unclear to me how many of these techniques if any of them are genuine methods of Taoist alchemy, even Tai Chi may not be Taoist in origin.

[manitou]

 

The new age Taoism is a mixture of many different belief systems and it is just dishonest to present something under false pretense.

 

 

 

 

Here's my problem. There were old smart guys. They're dead now, at least in this dimension. I don't think any one of them intended for their words to be encased in cement. The Sage, better than anyone I can see, embraces change through and through.

 

When we cling so hard to dogma and structure, we render it more inflexible as the centuries go on. Does not this whole thing seem like an evolution? Can you not see that all things will ultimately evolve into One? If you back way out and zoom in on the universe, this is happening everywhere. World communications, for starters. 'Religious' understandings mix, because we're now capable of having worldwide conversations with each other. It's like being a fundamentalist. They become more out of touch because they take their tome very literally. The more literally they take it, the more out of touch they seem.

 

Maybe we are the great minds of today, and we're standing just a little higher on the ladder than we were when we started this, communally. I think to find the dovetails between the different philosophies (BTW, the word philosophy doesn't seem to involve 'heart' at all; I think the sage uses Love in all his actions, not philosophy) is a huge step in the right direction. There is a life force at work here, regardless of whether we call it Tao or even God (not the Christian god-out-in-the-sky thing) or Brahman. What does it matter? The underlying order of things remains constant regardless of what continent we're on and what 'religion' is predominant.

 

The constant thing I see is the question that seems to be implanted in the very bottom of man's heart. What's it all about, Alfie? (That one was for Marbles because I know he'll remember that movie, he's an old fart like me).

 

But perhaps you're right, Mr. M-head. Maybe it's a good thing that we preserve what you consider to be the genuine article (as found in the book studies, which you are WONDERFUL about leading!) I'm probably not suited as well for that, because I tend to be a bit of a loose cannon about all this stuff. Most of us spiritual mongrels are. I see things in the TTC relating to the Sage that you do not; I feel that you feel that I take things too far. Perhaps my trying to understand the inside of the Sage and his motivations is just really way too arrogant, and perhaps your preservation of your interpretation (the correct one, no doubt) is just what we need.

 

I think I'll start hanging out more in the General Discussion rather than the book studies; my metaphysical legs don't seem to fit within the structured box that we're trying to preserve.

 

But at any rate, Marbles - despite our occasional spats, I do love you. You are kind and gentle and very friendly to the new ones here. You are an absolute rock here.