Takaaki's "American Taoism"

[Marblehead]

I think most arguments rely on a physical understanding and metaphor of cultural specificity. And if our understanding is purely about a physical body alone, then the arguments make sense to me.

 

But if there is energy and light and spirit... then that means there are connections beyond the body. Over millenia , we have probably shut down most of those connections but they exist. For those who gain access to something beyond the physical, whether they realize it or not, then there are no cultural boundaries just as Dao is unbound.

Excellent point. I can honestly say that I have experienced these connections. But I don't speak to them because I have no way to explain them with words. They were experiences, that is all I can say.

 

But then, we all should know that I try to remain as materialistic as I can.

[Marblehead]

An American Taoist doesn't however imply there is an American Taoism...right?

Correct. I doubt that anyone could support the assertion that there is an "American Taoism". The philosophy/etc is of Chinese origin. And I thank them for that.

[dwai]

This is a very good presentation. I feel the same way about the Tao Te Ching being a Chinese cultural artifact. No foreigner can understand it in a way a Chinese can. Same with the Gita for your countrymen. This is not meant to diminish western scholars of Asian classical works. No woman sees a child in the same way as its own mother.

 

Please note that I am not specifically implying that just because someone is born into a particular country or linguistic group they would automatically understand these better than a non-native.

 

What I am trying to say is that it is easier to comprehend the meaning beyond the words, the language behind the language if one is a native. It seems like "genetic" memory to me (although I know it is not)...

 

TaoMeow said it right. For anyone to learn Daoism, they have to learn from a Master of Daoism and be a disciple. They have to be so in the traditional Chinese/Daoist sense (not suggesting one has to become a priest etc) and the traditional Daoist training.

 

 

More than anything else, one has to have an empty cup and respect for the tradition that they are learning. After their preliminary learning period, they must have gratitude for what they have learnt. A while after that, they must not succumb to the allure of fame, money etc and cannibalize/bastardize that which they have learnt. They must also resist the temptation of making everything "same" (the honestly dumb notion that just because every valid mystical tradition leads to the same place, they must therefore be homogenized into oblivion until only a goop remains).

 

Each "path" has it's own beauty, it's own "Way" so to speak (a little way to the highway). These account for our experiences and knowledge gained while on the path. So, while it's important to acknowledge that these all might lead to the same mountain top, each path is unique and deserves to be cherished, celebrated and retained in it's own right.

[Mr. T]

hey all!

 

this has been a great discussion, and i'm sorry for posting this a little late in the conversation, seeing as how many really thoughtful perspectives have been put forth, but anyway...

 

the original description of an "american taoist" or "american taoism" basically outlined how the person went against all of the three sacred treasures. essentially, as i read it, did quite the opposite of how they are outlined in the ttc. it seems that the three treasures are at the heart of taoist philosophy, a very essential part.

 

so how can one do the exact opposite of all three and then claim the namesake? i would suggest a more descriptive title, along the lines of "american philosophy of doing the oppostie of the taoist three treasures"...that's pretty catchy. other than that, it seems amazing that one would align themselves with the taoist philosophy and tenents if they disagree with them...

 

just my thoughts. call it something different so as not to confuse any true tao students who may come along in the future...i mean no discrespect to any of you, but lets practice common sense...

 

later!

[Marblehead]

Hi Mr. T,

 

Everyone is welcome into the conversation. The more people, the more ideas to consider.

 

What you have spoken to, in my opinion, is what American Taoism was during the 1960s and into the 1970s. Many people picked up on the "wu wei" and did nothing. As ChiDragon has expressed, that is not "wu wei". Wu wei is more at "do nothing that is contrary to the nature flow of things".

 

So yes, anyone can practice the concepts found originally in Chinese Taoism. Will this make them Chinese? Hehehe. Of course not. Will they be able to live a better life? Quite possibly.

[Mr. T]

hey mh,

 

i quite agree. and i also acknowledge the taoist idea of "taking the useful and discarding the unuseful", such as is being done with the american idea of what is wu wei. but that is not what was put forth in the original post. perhaps an even more descriptive name for this new twist on american philosophy could be, "american philosophy that does the opposite of the three treasures of taoism but retains the idea of wu wei".

 

as far as a practitioner or cultivator becoming chinese, that is irrelevant. i feel only a small segment of the "taoist" community is a chinese-o-phile, you know, the people with asian art all around and drinks wierd teas and really wishes they were asian...

 

i feel that most of us study tao to improve our lives and i think most of us experience that change to greater or lesser extents. but that is not what is being discussed here in this thread...we are discussing the idea of labeling a particular way of thinking as something that is practically the opposite of that thinking based on the outline in the op. and the "church of what's happening now" is just as lively today as it was in the 60's, i just think it is not discussed as much becuase it has become more taboo in our modern culture. just my two cents...

later!

[AsheSkyler]

"We have a saying in my country. It says that you can put a tuxedo on a goat, but, it's still a goat."

 

Did I miss a sentence in the Declaration of Independence that said "And, yea, all things in our new nation that were not of those icky British shall attach the word 'American' as a prefix or suffix to themselves and be known henceforth as either 'American-<insert title here>' or '<insert title here>-American'." Why is that? Our offical "seal of approval"? Or are we cultural cattle ranchers that have to burn everything on the butt when we get it?

 

So please don't play dress-up word games with the goats anymore. Let them mingle and eat their grass in peace.

[Marblehead]

Yeah, and how does that other saying go? "You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig."

 

Anyhow, the reason the opening post was what it was is because I mentioned that I am a Materialist. I am that. I am many other things too. If all these things that I am offers me a very good life can it be considered wrong?

 

If I say I follow most of the teachings in the TTC am I a Taoist? Well, I feel I can put that label on myself. The TTC doesn't teach materialism but it does not teach against it either. Lao Tzu likely figured that was something he didn't need to speak to.

 

So the big question was: Can an American be a Taoist? My answer is absolutely Yes. Does an American have to become a Chinese citizen if (s)he claims to be a Taoist? Absolutely No. Would learning the TTC be easier if one were born and raised in China and read the language and all its past usages perfectly? Absolutley Yes. Are there people who can translate the TTC from Chinese to English and capture not only the written character as well as the cultural flavor of the people when it was written? I suggest absolutely Yes. Do all people who call themselves Christian follow the path of Jesus? Absolutely No. Do all people who call themselves Taoist follow the path of Lao Tzu? Absolutely No.

 

I'm done for now. Hehehe.

[zerostao]

i agree there can be and there certainly are american taoists. i do not think there is an american taoism tho, the closest thing to an american taoism would have been certain ancient american indians before arrival of europeans. Taoism is way much more than just about TTC and i do consider TTC a very important and remarkable contribution to all mankind.

 

for me wu wei ziran common sense gets one on the way but there is more

 

@asheskyler, which coal fields?

[Mr. T]

marble,

 

yes to those things you said. i do believe americans can become, and some are in fact, taoists. and please don't get me wrong, i am not saying that anything you are doing is wrong or incorrect in any way. if your way has been successful for you and you attribute that to following the tao teachings, then excellent! i truly am happy for you and your success. my only contention is that we should be leary about putting labels on things...and i pretty sure this is something you already know so i am preaching to the choir, as they say. i think many people would cry foul if we started calling it "american christianity", etc., etc. anyway, i'll go back to lurking now! see ya!

[AsheSkyler]

@ Marblehead:
Would you believe I went and Googled both the pig and goat for giggles?

 

 

@ zerostao:

A few of the strip mines in Alabama. None quite so large as a few I've seen out in the desert, but big enough some have huge cranes.

[Mark Saltveit]

American Christianity

Which certainly exists! I am certain Christ would be horrified by "The Book of Jabez" and the prosperity gospel, but that book sold 3 million copies.

 

 

I doubt that anyone could support the assertion that there is an "American Taoism". The philosophy/etc is of Chinese origin.

Well, here's the question. Did the DDJ and ZZ describe something that is real and true about the universe? If they did, there's no reason someone from another culture (even America -- Emerson, perhaps, or Thoreau) couldn't access it independently. Neither book had been translated into English in time for them to read it, AFAIK.

 

If you say that Daoism is intrinsically part of Chinese culture, that implies it is not true or universal. Ironically, you're belittling it and making it a cultural artifact, just some intellectual trend that lasted longer than most. Like individualism in the U.S., perhaps.

[dwai]

Which certainly exists! I am certain Christ would be horrified by "The Book of Jabez" and the prosperity gospel, but that book sold 3 million copies.

 

 

Well, here's the question. Did the DDJ and ZZ describe something that is real and true about the universe? If they did, there's no reason someone from another culture (even America -- Emerson, perhaps, or Thoreau) couldn't access it independently. Neither book had been translated into English in time for them to read it, AFAIK.

 

If you say that Daoism is intrinsically part of Chinese culture, that implies it is not true or universal. Ironically, you're belittling it and making it a cultural artifact, just some intellectual trend that lasted longer than most. Like individualism in the U.S., perhaps.

 

Thoreau read Vedanta

[Marblehead]

my only contention is that we should be leary about putting labels on things...and i pretty sure this is something you already know so i am preaching to the choir, as they say. i think many people would cry foul if we started calling it "american christianity", etc., etc. anyway, i'll go back to lurking now! see ya!

I quite agree. I have numerous labels I put on myself so that others know where I am "coming from" during particular discussions. And true, the labels mean nothing, really; it is how we walk our talk that matters.

[Marblehead]

@ Marblehead:

Would you believe I went and Googled both the pig and goat for giggles?

Sure, I believe that. I don't even remember the source of either one.

[Marblehead]

Well, here's the question. Did the DDJ and ZZ describe something that is real and true about the universe? If they did, there's no reason someone from another culture (even America -- Emerson, perhaps, or Thoreau) couldn't access it independently. Neither book had been translated into English in time for them to read it, AFAIK.

 

If you say that Daoism is intrinsically part of Chinese culture, that implies it is not true or universal. Ironically, you're belittling it and making it a cultural artifact, just some intellectual trend that lasted longer than most. Like individualism in the U.S., perhaps.

True. And I was careful when I said that: "... of Chinese origin."

 

This is not implying that it is not universal. (I don't like talking about universals anyhow.)

 

And Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu wrote of "human nature" not just Chinese peoples' nature.

[Marblehead]

marble,

 

... and please don't get me wrong, i am not saying that anything you are doing is wrong or incorrect in any way.

Hehehe. Good decision.

[Aaron]

American Taoism, as professed by Taakaki, has nothing to do with Taoism, but rather materialism. As I pointed out in the discussion on the 10th chapter of the Tao Te Ching, if something quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it most likely is a duck, but Taakaki's ideas aren't remotely like Taoism, they're self-absorbed, me-me ideology that contradicts much of what Taoism teaches.

 

In regards to westerners being unable to understand Taoism, I'm sure that makes certain people feel special,and as someone who has a deep respect for social relativism, I can also say that it may be true. In the same way, though we may not grasp Taoism in the same manner as the Chinese, that doesn't mean that our own understanding of the Tao Te Ching is any less valid, or that we hold the three jewels to be any less virtuous.

 

Compassion, frugality, and never striving to be first in the world, so long as we remember to practice these three virtues, then we can understand what Lao Tzu was talking about. If American Taoism starts anywhere, it should start there.

 

Aaron

Edited February 1, 2013 by Aaron

[takaaki]

If you say that Daoism is intrinsically part of Chinese culture, that implies it is not true or universal. Ironically, you're belittling it and making it a cultural artifact, just some intellectual trend that lasted longer than most. Like individualism in the U.S., perhaps.

 

My opinion is as follows:

Daoism is not part of Chinese culture. The Chinese version of the Dao De Jing is part of Chinese culture and it is indeed a Chinese cultural artifact. The English version of the Dao De Jing is part of western culture and a western cultural artifact.

 

My definition of the Taoist in "American Taoist" has nothing to do with Chinese culture but everything to do with that free primal human quality the Chinese Tao Te Ching speaks to.

 

America, land of the free, does it her own way, namely, the American way - MY WAY. So, if I am of this wonderful American culture, why look elsewhere to get inspired to be free? Why not go American? It's still the same Dao

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlKJ-0bnxdA

[Ya Mu]

i agree there can be and there certainly are american taoists. i do not think there is an american taoism tho, the closest thing to an american taoism would have been certain ancient american indians before arrival of europeans. Taoism is way much more than just about TTC and i do consider TTC a very important and remarkable contribution to all mankind.

 

for me wu wei ziran common sense gets one on the way but there is more

I agree with this. Bold part mine.

 

But to take the concept further, given that Taoism is a practical thing, that a person can be a (any country) Taoist, I say also a person can be AND anything else.

 

Why? Depends on what one believes I guess. But why does anyone practice any particular method, whether it be religion, philosophy, or internal technique? I would submit the reason is that they feel it leads them to truth. If this is so, if Taoism is truth, and if it IS practical, then one could practice Taoism and any other thing that contained truth. For truth is truth and it doesn't matter if it comes from whether Christianity, Buddhism, Native American Spirituality, etc

 

Of course some of the tenants of any particular thing would not be embraced as when one begins practicing a truth illusions can drop to the wayside. But if the core is truth, why can't there be a Taoist Buddhist, a Taoist Christian, a Taoist ANYTHING? How many have thought along this pattern? In other words a Christian Mystic that allows Wu Wei is doing the same thing that a Taoist does, is she not? He/she is dancing to the same pattern, is he/she not? In that sense, I am a Taoist Christian Buddhist Zoroastrian Zen Shaman. In other words the universal truth from anything HAS to be the same IF it is truth.

 

And it certainly doesn't matter what country or planet in our universe that it is practiced in, nor does it matter what you call it. Personally, I found as much Truth from Lightning as I found from practicing Buddhism or Taoism, although the Truth in each is the same. In fact, I would prefer to take the ism out and just say that Tao practices me.

[Marblehead]

America, land of the free, does it her own way, namely, the American way - MY WAY. So, if I am of this wonderful American culture, why look elsewhere to get inspired to be free? Why not go American? It's still the same Dao

This part I will gladly agree with. You have the right to do your life "your way". But likewise, so does everyone else. We all even have the freedom to read a philosophical book and pick and choose those concepts that 'feel right' to us and discard the rest.

 

May you find some happiness along your path.

[takaaki]

This part I will gladly agree with. You have the right to do your life "your way".

 

Ok, then American Taoist, let's read our own American Tao Te Ching along with our very own American Tao Master.

 

[Marblehead]

Ok, then American Taoist, let's read our own American Tao Te Ching along with our very own American Tao Master.

Okay, so now you can call yourself an Anarchist as well. But remember, along with this freedom we are granting ourself there is the attachment of responsibility. We must take full responsibility for all our thoughts, words and actions (or inactions). Pretty awesome responsibility.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Marblehead

[takaaki]

Okay, so now you can call yourself an Anarchist as well. But remember, along with this freedom we are granting ourself there is the attachment of responsibility. We must take full responsibility for all our thoughts, words and actions (or inactions). Pretty awesome responsibility.

 

Anarchist? You really think so? Sounds awful. What are we rebelling against? I thought the right Way was one of absolute order.

Edited February 1, 2013 by takaaki

[Marblehead]

Anarchist? You really think so? Sounds awful. What are we rebelling against? I thought the right Way was one of absolute order.

Hehehe. Order based on who's criteria? If we are going to do things (live our life) our way then there is no order. All is chaos. However, we must do the right thing. That is, the right thing for us without infringing on others. If we demand to be able to do things (live our life) our way then we must also allow others the same right - to be able to do their thing (live their life) their way.

 

Rebelling, as a part of an anarchists view, is only rebelling against those people and institutions that try to prevent us from living our life "our way". Individual anarchism, which I hold to, is not the same as social anarchism. Social anarchism would reconstruct society; individual anarchism is concerned with only the individual (me or you).

 

A good creed is "Do no harm". That is to say, do no unnecessary harm to any other living creature. Note the word "unnecessary". This is important. We have the right to defend ourself with whatever means necessary. As I have stated before, "Do what needs be done, nothing less, nothing more."

 

So yes, if you (or I) are going to do things our way we must always do the 'right thing'. And what we do will be based on our own values. Whatever we allow for ourself we must also allow for all others. That old Christian saying has some value, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Of course, we must make allowances for those who do unto us things we didn't want them to do unto us.

 

But still, bottom line, we must take full responsibility for all our thoughts, words and actions (or inactions).