Takaaki's "American Taoism"

[dawei]

Here is a simple one from Merriam-Webster

1 : a ground of dispute or complaint

 

Does ZZ dispute or complain?

[Mark Saltveit]

Well, I don't think Marblehead or I quarrel either, by that definition. But we do like to mix it up in the playground of ideas. And that is exactly what I see in Chuang Tzu, especially his jousting with Huizi (e.g. "The Joy of Fishes"), what Chad Hansens describes as "two like-minded but disagreeing intellectual companions engaged in the joys of productive philosophical argument."

 

Of course each of us probably thinks we're Zhuangzi and our colleague is Huizi. :-)

 

Zhuangzi could also be pretty scathing, as in "Owl and Phoenix," where Huizi is presented as the Prime Minister of Liang, fretting that Zhuanzi coveted his position. He tries to have him arrested, and ZZ evades the police but shows up in person, and tells Huizi a parable about an exquisite phoenix who "eats only the most exquisite rare fruit, drinks only from the clearest springs."

 

He tells Hui, "Once an owl chewing a dead rat, already half decayed, saw the phoenix fly over, looked up, and screeched with alarm, clutching the rat to himself in fear and dismay."

 

"Why are you so frantic, clinging to your ministry and screeching at me in dismay?"

[Marblehead]

Of course each of us probably thinks we're Zhuangzi and our colleague is Huizi. :-)

I've made that mistake on occasion. Hehehe.

 

Yes, arguement, for me, does not include the word "angry". Just a passionate discussion.

[zerostao]

i like Chuang Tzu much respects too. however i am in the old esoteric ways. Hua T'o, and Yellow Emperor (even ones i wont mention) dont get mentioned nearly enough on this forum. those old forest hermits that taught Li Yuen and Dong Haichuan baguazhang, they were Taoists

[dawei]

Yes, arguement, for me, does not include the word "angry". Just a passionate discussion.

 

Yes, that was the point of my definition... and not everyone wants a discussion to be an argument either

Edited February 4, 2013 by dawei

[dawei]

i like Chuang Tzu much respects too. however i am in the old esoteric ways. Hua T'o, and Yellow Emperor (even ones i wont mention) dont get mentioned nearly enough on this forum. those old forest hermits that taught Li Yuen and Dong Haichuan baguazhang, they were Taoists

 

Agreed... This would be an interesting topic. It would be about time that someone pointed out that Daoism is bigger than LZ and ZZ

[Marblehead]

Bumping this up to see if anyone else wishes to speak to it. (I'm not done yet.)

[zerostao]

Bumping this up to see if anyone else wishes to speak to it. (I'm not done yet.)

radio edit

Edited February 5, 2013 by zerostao

[Marblehead]

maybe flowing hands will join in also ?

Yes, that would be nice.

[dawei]

maybe flowing hands will join in also ?

 

Shangdi

 

 

 

and who is Ch'i Po?

 

The Yellow Emperor's minister who is best known as the dude explaining TCM in the Yellow Emperor's Classic of Medicine.

 

Maybe this is getting off-topic... Maybe a new thread ?

[zerostao]

okie

Edited February 5, 2013 by zerostao

[Marblehead]

Anyhow, I was going to make an extended post regarding this concept (American Taoist) and Takaaki's definition of it but have decided to make just a short comment.

 

"American Taoism" as presented by Takaaki is not Taoism at all. Not even a little bit. It is Materialism plain and simple. And this is driven by greed - a desire to have more than enough.

 

True, there are many of all nations and cultures who follow this ideal of greed, not just Americans. Yes, even the Chinese practice it. Always have. That was what the Warring States period was all about. And that is what Lao Tzu spoke against. And that is what Chuang Tzu spoke against.

 

I will suggest that there are many Americans and people of other nations who practice the Way of Tao and most of them don't even call themselves Taoists. Some wouldn't even know what Taoism is.

 

So, bottom line, the Way of Tao begins with the Three Treasures. And I would suggest that with just these concepts as guides for one's interaction with the external world would lead one along a path of peace and harmony.

 

Best wishes to all who walk the Path of Tao.

[dawei]

MB... I have yet to really decipher the meaning of American Taoist. It was becoming a sticky note on anyone from America whether they choose the label of Taoist or not. Which seems a bit provincial to create a daoist cast system.

 

I for one have never used any label. Yet, while on TTB, I have been called, Spiritual, Scholar, and American Taoist. What should be clear is that they are all wrong as each one is grabbing an elephant part and describing their emotion at the moment.

 

It all seems a bit silly in a reductionist point of view but as you may of suggested, such 'patterns' are natural to some. To simply state wrong conclusions and live by those thoughts.

 

There is a famous saying: "The mind [intention-Yi] leads the energy [Qi].

 

 

As I come from a Medical Qigong perspective, what the mind thinks and how the body response is of interest to me. I wonder how the the body reacts to being lead astray like this.

 

This "natural pattern" is to lead astray.... natural and astray... How do you reconcile this to 'falling away from Dao'?

[Marblehead]

Hi Dawei, I will speak to your entire post as it includes important concepts.

MB... I have yet to really decipher the meaning of American Taoist. It was becoming a sticky note on anyone from America whether they choose the label of Taoist or not. Which seems a bit provincial to create a daoist cast system.

I think that the label "American Taoist" really isn't a valid label. In my mind, Taoism is not a philosophy that needs a national recognition. One follows (or at least tries to) the Way of Tao or they don't. It's that simple.

 

I for one have never used any label. Yet, while on TTB, I have been called, Spiritual, Scholar, and American Taoist. What should be clear is that they are all wrong as each one is grabbing an elephant part and describing their emotion at the moment.

I do agree with you although I have no problem with putting labels on myself. At least if I do it others won't be trying to put labels on me that are misreprestations of what I truely am. I have never called myself an "American Taoist". I have no idea how I could link "American" with "Taoist". "American" really says nothing. However, one of my labels is "Atheist"; that says something.

 

It all seems a bit silly in a reductionist point of view but as you may of suggested, such 'patterns' are natural to some. To simply state wrong conclusions and live by those thoughts.

I totally agree. Once we label ourself, or someone else, we are putting limits on ourself and others. And I would suggest that this would restrict the natural flow of life. I think we would miss out on a lot of life if we put too many limits on ourself.

 

There is a famous saying: "The mind [intention-Yi] leads the energy [Qi].

 

As I come from a Medical Qigong perspective, what the mind thinks and how the body response is of interest to me. I wonder how the the body reacts to being lead astray like this.

 

This "natural pattern" is to lead astray.... natural and astray... How do you reconcile this to 'falling away from Dao'?

I agree with you although I am not as much "into" that aspect of life as you apparently are. I do accept the concept of "Chi" energy into my life but I rarely talk about it.

 

I do however, agree that we must attain and maintain harmony between mind and body.

 

I suppose that best response I can offer your question is that I try to listen to my body (and my mind as well). When I find my mind or body out of harmony with the natural flow of Tao I try to reestablish the harmony. Of course, this applies to my external world as well.

 

Generally speaking, when we "fall away from Tao" it is because there is too much Yang and too little Yin; we have likely moved too far into "Yo" and forgotten about "Wu". This would be a good time to stop, to ask ourself what we are doing (including thinking) and why we are doing it. There might be a justifiable reason for the purpose of attaining a goal. That's fine, I think, as long as we get back to attaining harmony as soon as the goal is accomplished.

[takaaki]

Anyhow, I was going to make an extended post regarding this concept (American Taoist) and Takaaki's definition of it but have decided to make just a short comment.

 

Maybe you should make that extended post because somehow you strike me as being honest without any clue as to what honesty is (i.e. no postering). I was working halfway through my reply to one of your posts explaining being an anarchist and responsibility but also decided to hold back and stop when Aaron became insistent that I was out to upset the apple cart here at Tao Bums.

 

"American Taoism" as presented by Takaaki is not Taoism at all. Not even a little bit. It is Materialism plain and simple. And this is driven by greed - a desire to have more than enough.

 

You got that part right about materialism but I need to defend myself on the part about greed.

 

I would like to emphasize that, firstly, the American Taoist is neither Taoist nor American in the accepted sense of those words; and , secondly, I am not touting American Taoism which has nothing to do with the American Taoist who follows no "isms", no doctrines, no lore that can be told.

 

True, there are many of all nations and cultures who follow this ideal of greed, not just Americans. Yes, even the Chinese practice it. Always have. That was what the Warring States period was all about. And that is what Lao Tzu spoke against. And that is what Chuang Tzu spoke against.

 

It is not possible to perceive greed without the greedy person. It is the action or behaviour that is being judged as one of greed; otherwise, greed as a pure idea has no meaning. So, why is greed associated with Americans when, as you say, it is a universal trait?

 

I never saw Americans as greedy. Successful, yes; driven by passion to create, definitely. It is this creative passion that distinguishes the successful American, and nowhere else in the world, except America, is this quality so celebrated and admired as a cultural characteristic. It is what gives America style. And the Dao De Jing, to me, speak to this style of living – your Way - at the height of human excellence in doing what you love. It has nothing to do with acquiring wealth as a primary goal. But what about the money, the net worth amounting to billions of dollars that always seem to go with the territory of success? What about it? Is this the problem?

[Mark Saltveit]

I'm American, Taoist, and successful (hey, I'm the world palindrome champion!) Where do I collect my billions? Because in my experience you can't even count on thousands going along with the territory of success.

[Birch]

Is this one of those 'know them when you see them' things? I have a pretty clear vibe about the idea of an 'American Buddhist' (those would be the Ken Wilber(s), the 'Daniel Ingram(s), the other guy who talks about punk and Buddhism and whose name I can't remember). I'd throw Alan Watts in there - although I believe he leant more Tao than Buddhism - maybe the lack of austerity and the booze. But I don't know about 'American Buddhism' or 'American Taoism'. Could it be that practicing Taoism or Buddhism lessens cultural influences on a person (whether their nationality is here or there)?

[ChiDragon]

I would like to emphasize that, firstly, the American Taoist is neither Taoist nor American in the accepted sense of those words; and , secondly, I am not touting American Taoism which has nothing to do with the American Taoist who follows no "isms", no doctrines, no lore that can be told.

 

I always let him pass by without a challenge to MH. I'd accepted of just what he said because that is his style. I know that is his way of understand as an American Taoist. I don't think I can get anymore out of my friend here.......

[Mark Saltveit]

Ken Wilber? Daniel Ingram? Punk Buddhist guy? Alan Watts? At least Watts wrote one book on Daoism (and a ton on Buddhism). I'd say those guys are American Buddhists at best.

 

Americans who've actually written books (and get disparaged) are Benjamin Hoff (Tao of Pooh), Wayne Dyer (though he seems off his Tao kick now and on to the next New Age subject), Ursula Le Guin (translation of DDJ and some science fiction novels and stories influenced by Daoism, such as Lathe of Heaven and The Trouble with Omelas) and Stephen Mitchell (did most popular version of the DDJ).

 

I like Le Guin, Hoff is cute but pretty approximate, don't see much value in Dyer or Mitchell. (What the hell is "The Second Book of the Dao"? He's not even really trying to be accurate at this point, if he ever was.)

[Marblehead]

I always let him pass by without a challenge to MH. I'd accepted of just what he said because that is his style. I know that is his way of understand as an American Taoist. I don't think I can get anymore out of my friend here.......

So right you are. I have said what I needed to say and I see no reason to discuss it further.

 

(And even if I did I would only be repeating myself.)

[ChiDragon]

An American who studies Taoism may be called as a Taoist. Thus an American Taoist may not be practicing the religion of Taoism.

A Chinese who practice the religion of Taoism is called a Taoist. Those Chinese who only study Taoism may not be called as a Taoist.

Edited February 8, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Birch]

Ken Wilber? Daniel Ingram? Punk Buddhist guy? Alan Watts? At least Watts wrote one book on Daoism (and a ton on Buddhism). I'd say those guys are American Buddhists at best.

 

Americans who've actually written books (and get disparaged) are Benjamin Hoff (Tao of Pooh), Wayne Dyer (though he seems off his Tao kick now and on to the next New Age subject), Ursula Le Guin (translation of DDJ and some science fiction novels and stories influenced by Daoism, such as Lathe of Heaven and The Trouble with Omelas) and Stephen Mitchell (did most popular version of the DDJ).

 

I like Le Guin, Hoff is cute but pretty approximate, don't see much value in Dyer or Mitchell. (What the hell is "The Second Book of the Dao"? He's not even really trying to be accurate at this point, if he ever was.)

I did write 'American Buddhist' :-)

I wouldn't know who to consider for Taoism, except maybe some people on here:-)

[dawei]

Generally speaking, when we "fall away from Tao" it is because there is too much Yang and too little Yin; we have likely moved too far into "Yo" and forgotten about "Wu". This would be a good time to stop, to ask ourself what we are doing (including thinking) and why we are doing it. There might be a justifiable reason for the purpose of attaining a goal. That's fine, I think, as long as we get back to attaining harmony as soon as the goal is accomplished.

 

Although I disagree about "too much Yang", that is worthy of another thread. At birth we are the purest Yin we can be. There is an inevitable march towards too much Yang. Each person will possess this in different degrees and different lengths of time.

 

Goal? Is that related to 'too much yang' ?

[thinker]

I'm surprised at a sentiment that I seem to see reflected here occasionally, that there can be no such thing as "American Daoism". If my understanding is correct then there's more than one Daoist sect in China. Moreover, Daoist sects exist in countries other than China. Most, if not all of them, are considered legitimate. What if a new sect, called "Earthly Masters", came to exist in China. Would you reject its authenticity solely because it was new, or would you judge it on its own merits? What if an identical sect came to exist in America, and instead of being called "Earthly Masters" it was called "American Daoism". Would you reject it solely because you didn't like the name? Or the country of origin? Or would you judge it on its own merits? If it's possible for a new Daoist sect to arise in China today and be legitimate, then isn't it also possible for a new Daoist sect to arise in America today and be legitimate?

In my initial post in the "Lobby" I wrote that I was "Slowly working on my own translation of the DDJ". Someone responded "1,000 Monks = 1,000 different Translations of the DDJ." In a Daoist forum on another system (LinkedIn) I've noted the extreme lack of judgmentalism exhibited by most Daoists. Why then, if Daoists are so loathe to be judgmental, do some so quickly lose this reticence and leap to deny even the possibility of a legitimate, culturally American offshoot of Daoism, while simultaneously accepting the legitimacy of multiple Daoist offshoots existing both within and across multiple Asian countries, each with its own culture?

My sense is that some Daoists aren't drawn to Daoism as much as they're drawn to a sort of idealized, Western vision of Asian culture (reverence for the venerable master, highly ritualized tea ceremonies, ancient wisdom being passed down to worthy students, and so forth). That is, they seem drawn to Daoism as the religion that most strongly satisfies their latent sinophilia. Once they become Daoists, they're reticent to accept the idea of Daoism without Asian culture, as if it delegitimizes their own beliefs. At some point recently I read on TaoBums a post to the extent that a necessary part of being a Daoist was a reverence for this and that element of Chinese culture (humility when learning at the feet of the master, appreciation of ritual, etc...). I got the sense that, had the poster been Catholic, he would have written that in order to be a good Catholic one had to like Italian food.

Religions travel and adapt constantly. Perhaps it might be helpful to consciously divorce sinophilia from Daoism before considering the idea of an American offshoot. After all, there's a Catholic church in China. There are mosques in France. There are even adherents of Voodoo in the US. Is there some reason that Daoism can't adapt too, and still be Daoism?

Another good question to ask might be "What is Daoism"? After all, how can you argue about whether or not there can be an "American Daoism" if you can't state what "Chinese Daoism" is in terms that allow for a comparison?

[takaaki]

I'm American, Taoist, and successful (hey, I'm the world palindrome champion!) Where do I collect my billions? Because in my experience you can't even count on thousands going along with the territory of success.

 

It will come, eventually. Perhaps, not in your lifetime. You will be famous too. Look at Van Gogh. He died poor and even lost an ear.