Takaaki's "American Taoism"

[Mark Saltveit]

Marblehead: But Shanlung, I'm not here to preach, I'm not here to teach.

 

I'll preach for you: Marblehead is God, and I am his prophet! Tremble before the noggin of finest rock!

 

Or we could continue the conversation without Takaaki, which might be more useful. I'm glad to see your presence, Shanlung, and want to hear more of your thoughts in any case. I could play Takaaki's role?

[Mark Saltveit]

Takaaki: Yes, quite clear. As a visitor here, I shall defer to your cultural sensitivity. I apologize for hurting your feelings.

 

You have not hurt my feelings here, and we are all visitors. Perhaps I have misunderstood your intent, in calling yourself "an American Taoist" and portraying American Taoists as rooted in greed and love of money, then later indicating that you are actually Chinese and feel that only the Chinese can understand Taoism. I am not the first to describe you as intending to ridicule Americans, through your play-acting.

 

If I have misconstrued your arguments or intent, I apologize, and would love to hear a more accurate explanation of what has happened.

[Marblehead]

I could play Takaaki's role?

Oh! That will be fun!!!

[Marblehead]

I don't know if Takaaki is still reading this thread but I will make an observation regarding him and he is more that welcome to contest what I say.

 

Takaaki came here to TaoBums with a challenge without knowing how the members would respond to his accusations that no Westerner could understand the TTC and then suggesting that American Taoists were nothing but greedy, materialistic, money hungry people.

 

I responded, of course, just as I would to anyone who came here trying to spread false information. I kept the discussion civil because I wanted to find out why he was making the statements he made.

 

And worse, he suggested that only Chinese could understand the TTC. He is Japanese. Therefore he includes himself in the group that he says cannot understand the TTC.

 

I think he and I had a real nice discussion. True, no conclusions were made. We did end up with a lot of agreements though.

 

But anyhow, yes, perhaps if we can keep this discussion going we can arrive at a generalized conclusion statement.

[ChiDragon]

MH....
Correction: takaaki is Chinese, perhaps with a Japanese name.....

[Marblehead]

MH....

Correction: takaaki is Chinese, perhaps with a Japanese name.....

Yeah, sure. And I'm the Easter Bunny. Hehehe.

[thinker]

One of the problems in pinning down Daoist doctrine is the dislike that many, if not most, Daoists seem to have for doing so. Many Daoists in the West seem to want to turn Daoism into a sort of Eastern Unitarianism, or as I like to think of it, Unitarianism with extra tea. It's as if Daoists hate the idea that Daoist doctrine might be such that they aren't free to do absolutely anything they want to, or as if they can't bare the idea that there might be people in the world for whom they can definitively say "he's not a Daoist".

So let's start with something simple. Should willful genocide motivated purely by sadism be prohibited by Daoist doctrine? Can we say of a person who observably acts in such a fashion that he is not a Daoist? Or is that going too far?

Daoism is not Buddhism. Daoism is not Unitarianism. Daoism is not New-Ageism.

Edited February 16, 2013 by thinker

[Marblehead]

Oh NO!!! It's alive! It's alive! The thread is still alive.

 

(Sorry about that. Now I will go back and read the post. Hehehe.)

[Marblehead]

Or is that going too far?

 

Yes, that would be going too far, I think. There is such a thing called "virtue" that would disallow such acts.

 

The only way genocide could be justified by anyone would be to say that one ethnicity (or whatever) of people were better than another. To do this would be totally against Taoist philosophy.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Marblehead

[dawei]

 

Yes, that would be going too far, I think. There is such a thing called "virtue" that would disallow such acts.

Disallowed by who/what/where/when/how? Man or Dao?

[thinker]

Yes, that would be going too far, I think. There is such a thing called "virtue" that would disallow such acts.

 

The only way genocide could be justified by anyone would be to say that one ethnicity (or whatever) of people were better than another. To do this would be totally against Taoist philosophy.

 

Actually I think that we're in agreement on this, but that I phrased my statement awkwardly and the interpretation got confused. The intent of my statement was that it's obvious that genocide motivated by sadism is disallowed by Daoism, and that a person who engaged in such an act is obviously not a practicing Daoist. I was asking, rhetorically, if it was going too far to state that this was the case. Because if it isn't, that is, if my statement about genocide and Daoism being inconsistent with each other is correct, then we now have a basis on which to begin the process of defining Daoism. We can start by saying that in order to be a Daoist one must not engage in genocide for the purpose of satisfying one's sadistic impulses. This is not a sufficient condition to be considered a Daoist, but it is a necessary one.

 

Of course, that rule is so narrow in application to be almost useless. The reason that I used it is psychological. As I said in the original post, "It's as if Daoists hate the idea that Daoist doctrine might be such that they aren't free to do absolutely anything they want to, or as if they can't bare the idea that there might be people in the world for whom they can definitively say 'he's not a Daoist'." Now we can start to move beyond that. Here's a rule that we can agree on even though it constrains our actions a tiny bit and excludes a handful of historical figures. Now we see that there's nothing wrong with rules that constrain our actions, or that exclude people from being considered Daoists, as long as the rules are in agreement with the doctrine of Daoism. Now we can proceed to work on the problem of defining Daoism without angst, because we know that constraints and exclusions that are in agreement with Daoist doctrine are nothing to get upset about. In fact, a clearly worded set of requirements and constraints would only help Daoism to spread, as it would make Daoism more comprehensible to the layman.

 

For example, we might say that one part of Daoist doctrine is:

 

1. Daoists are expected to behave in accordance with the "Three Treasures", which are commonly translated today as "benevolence", "humility", and "frugality".

 

I phrased it so as to clearly leave open the possibility that a better translation might come along one day. Think of how much good could be done if the Daoist community could go through the entire DDJ and come up with an at least somewhat generally acceptable set of such statements regarding both the beliefs and practices discussed throughout the entire work. A sort of Daoist catechism. Western laypersons considering becoming Daoists would have a good foundation for their decision making without having to paw through a dozen randomly-selected, overly poetic, badly executed interpretations of interpretations of translations of the DDJ.

[Marblehead]

Disallowed by who/what/where/when/how? Man or Dao?

Ha! Two trick questions.

 

By man, of course. Dao doesn't give a shit, you know.

[Marblehead]

Actually I think that we're in agreement on this, ...

Yes, I too think we are in agreement even though we use different words to express ourselves.

 

Actually, we aren't talking about Tao or even the Te of Tao here but rather the 'te' (virtue) of man.

 

Most societies have a pretty good definition of proper virtue within their own particular society. And yes, I think it is fair to say that these societies have made laws defining what is proper behaviour and what are the consequences of not complying with the laws.

 

And I would also suggest that anyone who followed the Way as defined in the TTC would be able to go to any of these societies and live peacefully amongst the natives. And this is because the Way as defined in the TTC is all about living humanely.

 

1. Daoists are expected to behave in accordance with the "Three Treasures", which are commonly translated today as "benevolence", "humility", and "frugality".

Well, being an Anarchist I wouldn't even want one doctrine but yeah, the above, in my opinion would be number one.

 

If a person can live according the the Three Treasures I would say they at least have the main path in sight.

[shanlung]

But Shanlung, I'm not here to preach, I'm not here to teach. The world has enough of both. If the examples I present are favorable then that's good, if not, well, yeah, sad.

 

It is for someone else, like you just did, to point out that two people had an extended discussion of a controversal subject and didn't have to resort to personal attacks.

 

What more can I say?

 

Neither do I preach or teach.

How can I , the perpetual student dare to do that?

The best I can do is to ask "Is the Emperor nekkid?"

 

To what Thinker pondered over,

The intent of my statement was that it's obvious that genocide motivated by sadism is disallowed by Daoism, and that a person who engaged in such an act is obviously not a practicing Daoist.

 

What about simple genocide, done without malice. One of the greatest instrument of genocide is the gun, machine gun or Gatling gun. And artillery and bombs.

That all came about from the invention of gunpowder. Which very likely was stumbled upon by a Taoist in China. Perhaps a Taoist that loved humanity and nature and might even be a Vegan as well. But he invented the gunpowder, done without malice and done with joy for living, perhaps to make beautiful fireworks , or to chase away evil spirits.

 

Should that Taoist go down in history for infamy? , As without him there be no gunpowder and no guns, and no slaughter of hundreds of millions, worse then all genocides combined together.

 

Of course there will also be the samurai sword, tempering process probably invented by a Taoist with love and no malice in his heart.

 

I do wish life can be that easy and answer so clear.

 

I leave that to my betters who know those easy and clear answers to preach and to teach.

 

 

 

Idiotic Taoist

Edited February 17, 2013 by shanlung

[Marblehead]

 

I do wish life can be that easy and answer so clear.

 

True. But we can still be an Optimistic Realist.

[shanlung]

True. But we can still be an Optimistic Realist.

 

Allow me to have a split personality and being an Optimist

and a Realist, and not be both at the same time.

 

 

 

Taoistic Idiot

[Marblehead]

Allow me to have a split personality and being an Optimist

and a Realist, and not be both at the same time.

 

Taoistic Idiot

Hehehe. Okay, you have my permission. (As if that mattered.)

[Mr. T]

"Think of how much good could be done if the Daoist community could go through the entire DDJ and come up with an at least somewhat generally acceptable set of such statements regarding both the beliefs and practices discussed throughout the entire work."

 

there is always the "qingjing ching", sort of what you are describing

 

http://www.silkqin.com/02qnpu/27sjts/sj03qjj.htm

 

later!

[Marblehead]

"Think of how much good could be done if the Daoist community could go through the entire DDJ and come up with an at least somewhat generally acceptable set of such statements regarding both the beliefs and practices discussed throughout the entire work."

 

there is always the "qingjing ching", sort of what you are describing

 

http://www.silkqin.com/02qnpu/27sjts/sj03qjj.htm

 

later!

Yeah, but there already is the Taoist Religion for those who prefer having a list they can go by. You know, kinda' like the Ten Commandments. (But more seriously followed.)

[三江源]

"Think of how much good could be done if the Daoist community could go through the entire DDJ and come up with an at least somewhat generally acceptable set of such statements regarding both the beliefs and practices discussed throughout the entire work."

 

there is always the "qingjing ching", sort of what you are describing

 

http://www.silkqin.com/02qnpu/27sjts/sj03qjj.htm

 

later!

Thanks for the link! Good site to explore, I havent seen it before.

[thinker]

"Think of how much good could be done if the Daoist community could go through the entire DDJ and come up with an at least somewhat generally acceptable set of such statements regarding both the beliefs and practices discussed throughout the entire work."

 

there is always the "qingjing ching", sort of what you are describing

 

http://www.silkqin.com/02qnpu/27sjts/sj03qjj.htm

 

later!

I don't think that the Qīngjìng Jīng relates to what I had in mind. The QJJ is translated in just as vague and poetic a fashion as the DDJ. Let me give another example. From my own perspective, DDJ seems to tell us that the wise man/emperor should use his authority as little as is reasonable. From this we might derive some general statement about the appropriate uses of authority, expressed in simple English, such as:

2. Use your authority as little as is reasonable.

Now compare this to a sample statement from the given link to the QJJ:

"The Great Tao has no name; It raises and nourishes the myriad beings. I do not know its name - So I call it Tao."

Do you see the difference? Imagine that a secretary with a high school degree, who has no experience with Eastern religions at all, comes to you one day and says "I've read some interesting things about Daoism, and I want to find out more about it. Maybe even consider becoming a Daoist. What can I read that would make sense to me?" Would you give her the QJJ, that reads just as cryptically as the DDJ, or something all of whose content reads like "Use your authority as little as is reasonable."? Remember that we're not talking about a monk, for whom mastering all of the fine points is important, we're talking about the equivalent of a Catholic child approaching his First Communion who needs to understand some basics, possibly so that he can make an informed choice about which religious tradition he wants to pursue. Someone who, in the Catholic church, would almost certainly be handed a copy of the Catholic catechism, among other documents, to start with.

I think that a better approach would be a document that contains no mystical or poetic elements at all. One that restricts itself to empirical elements accessible to laymen who have no experience with "qi", or "internal medicine", or "meditation", or "feng-shui", or whatever. Just the "normal" external 5 senses, and statements like "wash your hands before dinner". The more advanced stuff can always be added in later volumes.

This all ignores the fact that there seem to be generally-recognized-as-such Buddhist borrowings in the QJJ that would not be present in any such document developed solely from the DDJ. Thus, one necessary step in converting the QJJ into a solely-DDJ-derived Daoist catechism would be the removal of these borrowings.

Edited February 17, 2013 by thinker

[thinker]

Yeah, but there already is the Taoist Religion for those who prefer having a list they can go by.

 

Where can I find that list?

[Mark Saltveit]

I agree, you Taoistic Idiot. A big part of Daoism's strength is NOT connecting all the dots for the reader, and avoiding fixed pronouncements.

 

on the genocide question, I think the Dao (or Laozi or whoever) would say, "Boy it's really hard to imagine a situation where that would ever be right, but it's a big universe, so maybe conceivably, who knows? But YOU dude are no where near such a situation, so why are you wasting your time thinking about it? "

 

If you're solidly on the path, you don't need to sit around and argue what-ifs, you just know what's right and you do it.

[Mr. T]

valid points thinker...i see what you are saying.

[Marblehead]

Where can I find that list?

There are a few Religious Taoist members here. I'm sure one of them can offer up some. Stig comes to mind.