The Dao De Jhing is a shamanistic treatise

[Aetherous]

Good choice Marblehead.

 

About the TTC (or Taoism for that matter) being considered atheistic by some "highly respectable Chinese scholars", how about chapter 4?

[Marblehead]

About the TTC (or Taoism for that matter) being considered atheistic by some "highly respectable Chinese scholars", how about chapter 4?

 

Yep. I suppose that one could suggest that this chapter (Chapter 4) could also support the label "Agnostic".

 

The last line in particular:

 

10. It seems to have [even] preceded the Lord.

 

The word "seems" is important here because it infers we do not "know".

[ChiDragon]

[flowing hands]

Lets use Li Erh's version that he dictated to me in English for the English speaking world.

 

Stanza 6

 

The root of Heaven and Earth,

can be found in its spirit.

Search and feel this spirit, for it is ever present; the gateway to all mysteries.

The spirit is the primordial mother of the ten

thousand things.

It is ever present and eternal.

 

Well if this is not shamanistic I'm an alien from Mars!!!

 

Li Erh is telling of the energy of the universe that courses through all being and non-being. He's telling us that this is the root to all mystery and is the very source of all living things. It is always there and will always be beyond when our sun and other galaxies have gone.

[三江源]

.

Edited February 7, 2016 by 三江源

[Cameron]

-

Edited February 6, 2012 by Cameron

[Cameron]

-

Edited February 6, 2012 by Cameron

[konchog uma]

How about y'all shift to shamanic consciousness while you are posting on this.

 

Look through the lense and see what you see.

 

Reading the DDJ is such a wonderful experience because it forces a shift from logical linear consciousness to "dreaming" consciousness, or non-dual awareness, or whatever you want to call it. In my experience anyway. The paradoxes and transcendental concepts always push my awareness out of its shell.

 

"empty the mind and fill the belly" doesn't sound like philosophical advice to me... philosophy is full of concepts and rules, and the DDJ is saying put those down and use the force. So in that instance i can see flowing hands' point. But sometimes it does act as a philosophical treatise... "natural whole virtue is like water, it takes the lowest position and thereby nourishes all things". In that instance there are concepts and rules.

 

Even the "rules" of the DDJ are the rules of nature, not the rules of civilization, so it can't be seen as not shamanic. But i don't think that it is a fruitful enterprise to try to fit the DDJ neatly into either category. I am interested in flowing hands' idea because i think people often fail to incorporate the right-brained awareness that the DDJ instills, opting instead of the left-brained philosophical awareness. But my personal stance on it is all-inclusive.. i don't feel that i have to choose between shamanic or philosophical because to me it embodies both of them nicely.

[Marblehead]

The spirit of loving your wife never dies. What do you call this...???

Shall I continue?

Hehehe.

 

If you have a good wife that is the way it is supposed to be.

[Marblehead]

 

Well if this is not shamanistic I'm an alien from Mars!!!

 

I cannot argue against that. And I assume that you are not from Mars.

[Aetherous]

How about y'all shift to shamanic consciousness while you are posting on this.

 

Look through the lense and see what you see.

 

What do you see, cat?

[dawei]

Let me see. What you have stated I agree with, much confusion has come about in the modern age as the 'tools' of the shaman have been taken away from the whole art.

 

A shaman or shamaness, is someone who firstly communicates with the spirits of the spirit world. The connection between living and non-living is indeed very close and the difference very small. All things share in the one, all things are fired by energy, all things are connected whether alive or dead. The passage in Chuang Tzu where the master confronts the shaman shows how each of them can use energy. Li Erh although was not a shaman in the sense that he had an Immortal master, his connection was deep like a shamans, deep into the spirit of all things. He was the incarnation of a great Immortal in 615 bce, so was born with enormous knowledge and realization, so he did not need an Immortal master to teach him. He was enlightened already.

Unlike our friend 'Chi Dragon', although my master has taught me this treatise and I understand it as well as possible, there are still many realizations that come to me frequently when considering the texts. It is written in the text, but realization of the meaning sometimes only occurs when something else stimulates one to think. Therefore, I throw some spanners in the works and hope to help people to think. People like 'chi dragon' have already lost their way, they think they understand by their own words, I doubt this most sincerely. So lets dig and see what we can throw up and bring to the surface some real understandings.

I have to agree with really everything you have said and glad you have started this thread. It confirms much of what I have thought as I have evolved in my understanding of the DDJ...

 

And in DDJ6, dropping the nonsensical word 'valley' is the final confirmation.

 

I see 'shamanistic' the spiritual wont to connect heaven and earth; this would be essentially code for 'returning to dao'.

 

Anyways... good to hear from a daoist shaman master trying to get a few to open their minds to the deepest meaning of the DDJ

[Harmonious Emptiness]

In Chapter Fourteen, it's quite apparent that there is more being pointed to than a mere philosophical principle. This chapter describes (for lack of a better term I'll call it a) "power" or maybe better a "force" in the way that a current has force simply due to the fact that it "moves with the present." Also, from the perspective of shamanic practices, this chapter shows how to find and, perhaps, approach this power. There are plenty of things to be understood from this chapter, but I don't see how this side of it could be overlooked in the process.

 

 

English/Feng translation (for impartiality)

 

Fourteen

Look, it cannot be seen - it is beyond form.

Listen, it cannot be heard - it is beyond sound.

Grasp, it cannot be held - it is intangible.

These three are indefinable;

Therefore they are joined in one.

From above it is not bright;

From below it is not dark:

An unbroken thread beyond description.

It returns to nothingness.

The form of the formless,

The image of the imageless,

It is called indefinable and beyond imagination.

Stand before it and there is no beginning.

Follow it and there is no end.

Stay with the ancient Tao,

Move with the present.

Knowing the ancient beginning is the essence of Tao.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Marblehead]

I would agree that Chapter 14 has nothing to do with a life philosophy and does speak directly to 'something' beyond the physical universe. Here again I would agree that we have a reflection of the thoughts of the earlier (the ancient) Taoist Shamans.

[Rainy_Day]

Dear ChiDragon,

 

To begin, I have to say that I'm deeply impressed by your dedication to studying Daoism - for instance, the serious effort you're undertaking to understand the Daodejing.

 

I have to give a contrary opinion, however.

 

It's true that many Chinese scholars believe that the Daodejing is atheist. However, you have to understand the cultural context they're speaking from. The thing is that Chinese philosophy, as a category, is a modern invention. It was invented after the New Culture movement (an anti-traditionalist movement), because it was felt that a country is dishonoured by not having some sort of philosophical heritage. Therefore, a group of scholars came together to create "Chinese philosophy" as an explicit counterweight to western philosophy. At that time, the discourse-makers of China were all westernised scholars, who believed in things like social darwinism, scientific materialism, etc. Basically, things which were already in vogue in the West. As a result, even though the scholars who participated in "Chinese philosophy" represented a countertrend, trying to revive "Chinese culture" against the overwhelming influence of "western thought", they were inevitably influenced by these trends.

 

Anyway, to cut to the chase,

 

(1) Chinese philosophy is an artificial category created during the modern era.

(2) In ancient China, there wasn't really anything analogous to modern western philosophy, except maybe Mohist logic.

(3) Chinese scholars are influenced by their own modernist biases. (Okay, this is the really important point - Chinese scholars are often deeply under the sway of modernism. They believe that for Chinese culture to be acceptable to the world, it must be "modernised". Consciously or unconsciously, therefore, they read ancient Chinese classics with a bias, seeking modern elements where none exists.)

 

Personally, as a Chinese person, I believe in western scholars of Daoist studies far more than Chinese scholars of Chinese philosophy. The work is just so much better quality. (I don't believe in western scholars of Chinese philosophy either, however. I read Chinese scholars of Daoist studies, but I usually disagree with their point of view, because they don't seem to believe in Daoism in the first place. A lot of western scholars of Daoist studies are Daoist practitioners in their own right, which increases my respect for them.)

 

My understanding of the current western Daoist Studies position is that the Daodejing originated from an oral tradition of cultivation - the same tradition which gave birth to Neiye. The different passages were originally proverbs or common sayings in this tradition and was only later synthesised into a whole. Some passages were added way later.

 

Of course, one may also subscribe to the religious explanation, which would depend on which Daoist sect one belongs to.

 

Another alternative is to subscribe to the perennialist explanation (e.g. Rene Guenon and people). While I deeply respect Rene Guenon, to accept the perennialist explanation would require the adoption of such an "alternative" worldview, that I'm not ready to do so.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Rainy_Day

[Taomeow]

TTC is definitely many things, and was probably written by several authors, over an extended period of time, according to (e.g.) D.C. Lau the comparative philosopher (and one of the best and most accurate translators and interpreters of the text I've come across). Its shamanic consciousness (undeniable in some chapters, nonexistent in others), philosophical and cosmological forays, alchemical coding, taiji instructions, etc., however, pale before its main message --

a set of admonitions addressed to the ruler, to the powerful, to the overlord, father of the family or father of the nation. (NOT to the disenfranchised who read this book from an erroneous platform of an illusion of their own power and consequently take to heart what shouldn't concern them. The oppressed human being is a defensive in-denial animal as a default state, always finding ways to identify with the perpetrator instead of feeling like a victim, which would be the only honest and possibly eventually productive but pretty terrifying prospect for most people who have ever been alive in post-shamanic "civilized" times. Hence the fecklessness of the message -- the ruler is not interested, and the ruled is barking up the wrong tree when quoting this or that chapter or passage.)

 

This central message is undeniably post-shamanic, since shamanic cultures of prehistory were overwhelmingly (and in deep prehistory exclusively) matriarchal, so the issue wasn't there. A religious interpretation, a later acquisition (Laozi as a deity, and at that as extremely patriarchal as the happy gay family of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost that excludes Mother from the process of divine creation) seems to be derived from the overall zeitgeist (of the period, not to be confused with the popular online movie) rather than from the text proper. I.e. Laozi (and other authors, of which he may or may not have been one) never deifies himself in this work, to his credit.

[Taomeow]

Anyway, to cut to the chase,

 

(1) Chinese philosophy is an artificial category created during the modern era.

 

I absolutely agree. Chinese culture seems to have avoided divorcing conceptual thought from living practice (which is what philosophy is -- which is ALL it is) for much longer than our own.

 

(2) In ancient China, there wasn't really anything analogous to modern western philosophy, except maybe Mohist logic.

Yup.

 

(3) Chinese scholars are influenced by their own modernist biases. (Okay, this is the really important point - Chinese scholars are often deeply under the sway of modernism. They believe that for Chinese culture to be acceptable to the world, it must be "modernised". Consciously or unconsciously, therefore, they read ancient Chinese classics with a bias, seeking modern elements where none exists.)

 

True again. It took about three hundred years of being humiliated with defeats stemming from a non-military non-technological focus of the culture, but finally Chinese intellectuals decided that they are in the wrong and must adopt the ways of the victor. Some of them good, others not so good, still others, pretty darn atrocious, but beggars weren't choosers, at some point it became an almost all-or-nothing deal, so "all" is what was swallowed so as not to be disintegrated into "nothing." It wasn't a choice, it was Pavlovian conditioning. Only time will tell if it was irreversible. I doubt it, China is too old, too "heng," too set in her ways, three hundred years of doing things a bit (or a lot) differently is nothing, a bump in the road. I think...

[Apech]

I think the distinct categories of philosophy, religion and shamanism are quite modern. Until the 18th Century the terms alchemy and chemistry were used inter-changably. All religion (IMO) has its roots in shamanism - since there was a time when there was only shamanism. I don't see any difference between the various forms of mysticism, magic, alchemy and shamanism for instance ... though I accept some people might. Even science was once called Natural Philosophy. So the idea that writing from the time of LZ could be called strictly philosophical in the modern sense is highly doubtful.

[Rainy_Day]

Speaking of shamanism...

 

It is true that Daoism is rooted in shamanism and has had continuous interaction with shamanism up to the present day. It is also true that many Daoist practices are in essence shamanic.

 

The problem, however, of talking about Daoist shamanism is that most Daoist texts and traditions in fact reject the label of shamanism. This is because most Daoist movements, such as the Celestial Masters, were essentially new religious movements (of their times). They needed to differentiate themselves from existing religious practices.

[ChiDragon]

Hehehe.

"The spirit of loving your wife never dies."

If you have a good wife that is the way it is supposed to be.

 

I'm glad that wasn't witchcraft....

[ChiDragon]

Speaking of shamanism...

 

It is true that Daoism is rooted in shamanism and has had continuous interaction with shamanism up to the present day. It is also true that many Daoist practices are in essence shamanic.

 

The problem, however, of talking about Daoist shamanism is that most Daoist texts and traditions in fact reject the label of shamanism. This is because most Daoist movements, such as the Celestial Masters, were essentially new religious movements (of their times). They needed to differentiate themselves from existing religious practices.

 

Thank you for your compliment. Without going into a big argument, I do see some bias in your written statements. However, when you say Taoism, I don't know if you have 道家 or 道教 in mind. You see most westerners are mixing them up by using just one term "Taoism". To explain Taoism, it would be more explicit to express in Chinese.

 

I remember, I had asked you to translate Chapter 1 in your own words. If you had done so, then it would give me an opportunity to see how you view the DDJ.

 

 

People have to decide either using the DDJ to study the Tao philosophy or use it as dogma to create a Tao religion. It has to be one way or the other but not both.

Edited January 28, 2012 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

People have to decide either using the DDJ to study the Tao philosophy or use it as dogma to create a Tao religion. It has to be one way or the other but not both.

I am not sure I follow your point.

 

Is it that people are using it one way or another and they don't use it both ways:

 

you want to imply they should use it both ways OR

 

you want to imply they should not use it both ways

 

I am not sure if the bolded part above is like sarcasm about what people do or more an imperative statement (what they should be doing).

[doc benway]

Looking at whether Dao De Jing is shamanistic or philosophical tells me more about the person offering their opinion and more about our collective ideas about shamanism and philosophy thank it tells me about Dao De Jing.

I think that approaching any teachings as a philosophy or as a manifestation of shamanism is limiting.

 

Philosophy and shamanism are human constructs.

What is... is. How we look at it can be labeled in various ways.

Our methods for approaching 'what is' are limited and limiting.

In fact, that is an important lesson I've learned from Dao De Jing.

 

I think that the more open we can be and active we can be in approaching a teaching, the more we can learn.

Nice thread, flowing hands.

[flowing hands]

Lets get our definitions sorted.

 

Shamanism is not a religion as such, though there may be seen religious ingredients within its practices.

These practices have been taken and organised into religion. Religion has really nothing to do with shamanism. Temple Taoism, which may have a shaman or medium present, is very different to lay shamanism which is the true art. Women in Tao shamanism are viewed equally as men there is no difference, and the word for shaman comes from a woman dancing with feathers; a ritual of shamans that is used to heal groups of people together. In ancient times the shaman/shamaness were the head of the village. Ritual dance and prayers were important for the well being of the people the land and all life around them. They would consult the shaman for many things. The shaman would consult the spirits that lived in the local area. It was a dangerous job for a shaman in those days. When particular shamans became powerful with 'divine' energy and they died, people got to beleive in their spirits. Some shamans became Immortal, their energy lives living forever. So nowadays we have many gods who people beleive in and shamans don't have to open themselves up to any spirit that would come along.

 

Now religion is human made it is more to do with the politics of altering human behavior on mass. Of making the beauty of human life in to a sin, to knock out the beauty of acting naturally and turning things that are natural to be wrong and dirty. To divide people so that they hate each other so much that they will kill someone from another religion. Shamanism connects all people, all life and all spirit. Religion does not.

Edited January 28, 2012 by flowing hands

[ChiDragon]

It is in plain English.

 

You can either interpret the DDJ as a philosophy

 

OR

 

Use it to interpret as dogma or canon for a religion as in the Taoist religion. However, as soon one was used it for religion purposes, the one is in the religion category forever.

 

What I'm saying was that I'm in the philosophy category and you are in the Shamanism category but not both.....!!!!!

 

Do you see the conflicts in thinking between us...???