What defines a Daoist?

[Mark Saltveit]

kaaazuo:

 

Daoism is Chinese culture and Chinese culture is Daoism.

But then the stubborn could argue that not all Chinese culture is Daoism, and not all every Chinese is a Daoist.

Such arrogance is beyond the pale.

 

Is this a joke? Or is it opposite day?

[kaaazuo]

Chuang Tzu asked: When is a tree not a tree?

Lao Tzu said: When a Daoist is not a Chinese.

 

A Japanese may be a Christian or even a cook, but he is still Japanese!

Does this sound funny?

[Marblehead]

Chuang Tzu asked: When is a tree not a tree?

Lao Tzu said: When a Daoist is not a Chinese.

 

A Japanese may be a Christian or even a cook, but he is still Japanese!

Does this sound funny?

Sounds totally logical to me. (That is my arguement in the other thread.)

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Daoism is Chinese culture and Chinese culture is Daoism.

 

But then the stubborn could argue that not all Chinese culture is Daoism, and not all every Chinese is a Daoist.

 

Such arrogance is beyond the pale.

Wow, we're really gonna have to go through this all again eh?

 

Daoism came from China, yes.

You might get away with saying that Confucianism is simply Chinese culture, as it is a part of it, but even that would be stretching it to say that all Chinese people are Confucian. Nonetheless, Daoism was largely taught as a tempering of the prevailing hegemonic culture in China which was not following Daoist principles of naturalness.

 

There really isn't anything in Daoism that didn't simultaneously exist in other cultures when it came about. If anything, the other cultures did these things so naturally that nobody felt the need to write about them.

 

Like being natural for example. Do you really think Chinese people were the only one's to appreciate and value naturalness? Further, do you really think Chinese culture is the greatest example of living naturally, internally and externally?

 

Some of us don't live in a society where these things are easy, so we need reminders like the Dao De Jing to help us stay on the path. This doesn't mean those who wrote it down somehow own what was written. It already exists everywhere, but some people wrote it down to keep from veering from this path.

 

Anyway, this is the wrong topic.. take this argument to the "American Taoist" topic where there are already many pages arguing about these types of bigoted and agoraphobic views. Just because you don't want to accept someone because they don't look like you doesn't mean they are incapable of wisdom. To the contrary, your preconceptions only keep you from seeing what actually exists, so why should anyone expect you to know what's true or false in the first place?

Edited February 20, 2013 by Harmonious Emptiness

[thinker]

Nonetheless, Daoism was largely taught as a tempering of the prevailing hegemonic culture in China...

 

Amen.

[Mark Saltveit]

When is a Christian not a Jew? Or an Israeli, if you prefer?

[kaaazuo]

Before westerners discovered China, there was no China. Not to westerners then and not to the Chinese ever. It’s the same situation with India which exists only in the western mind.

 

It is critical to be aware of how each sees through a cultural prism and keep pointing to the second nose that doesn’t exist on someone else’s face. Not to the other guy, anyway.

 

So, when each talks about Daoism this and Chinese people that, it is a vision that is absolutely real to the talker. The awareness of this truth (of mine) is the beginning of (Chinese) wu-wei: non-interference with the talker and don’t mess with that vision.

 

More importantly, don’t get negative.

Edited February 21, 2013 by kaaazuo

[Harmonious Emptiness]

 

It is critical to be aware of how each sees through a cultural prism

 

When you actually get to know people from other cultures, you realize that nobody is all that different.

 

If you ask me, I'd say traditional African cultures are living the Dao more than anybody (any other cultures) right now

[Mark Saltveit]

 

kaaazuo:

More importantly, don’t get negative.

You mean, like calling people "beyond the pale" and "stubborn" and talking about their "arrogance" because they don't agree with one's sweeping declarations of "truth"? Oh, wait. That was you.

[dawei]

Dawei, I think we may just see this differently, and that's fine. From my point of view, much of what you describe is simply Chinese culture rather than the roots of Daoism --

 

 

I would agree that trying to exactly distinguish what is cultural vs 'daoism' is blurred (and what Kaaazuo seems to imply); how can one separate the cultural influences which contributed to the framing of life and thought? (rhetorical). What arose in China is what we know as Daoism, and it started with Fuxi, IMO.

 

This pre-dating is seen in many areas:

1. LZ quotes from the Yi Jing (Book of Change)

2. LZ quotes from the Yellow Emperor

3. LZ quotes from Shen Dao

4. LZ references past 'sages'

5. ZZ mentions numerous people who "attained Dao"... including the Yellow Emperor

6. Sima Qian explains Dao Jia but it is really Huang-Lao philosophy of that day... He is saying the Yellow Emperor is part founder of Daoist thought.

7. Most histories on TCM will state Fuxi as it's founder and say it is daoist thought.

8. Tracing Yin and Yang backwards ends up with Fuxi... as a daoist thought

 

Thomas Clearly said in his translation of Balance and Harmony that LZ was transmitting Taoist lore.

 

I see the connection and it's more connected than disconnected.

 

I think many Chinese who don't follow Daoism embrace TCM and qigong, and many who do follow Daoism don't embrace those traditions. They may actually be more entwined with Daoism in the U.S. these days, as China increasingly adopts Western ideas.

 

I think a misconception is the idea of chinese following (or not) Daoism and embracing (or not) TCM or Qigong. They generally treat all of these like the air they breath; it is what establishes life and is a part of life and their life. They generally cannot talk about it's influence or their understanding of it, yet they wear it on their sleeves and it is plain to see. Those who make a more conscious decision are generally seeking the temple study and ordinations. I would guess that this number is so small it's not work writing out the decimals.

 

It is really only in the west where ideas are compartmentalized and broken down into the puzzle pieces and then re-arranged as to what picture we want to create.

 

 

I agree though that the article cited is not Komjathy's most careful work. If I remember correctly, that's just something he posted on the Center for Daoist Studies' web site, not a published paper. He is more careful in his wording in, for example, his article "Tracing the Contours of Daoism in America" (Nova Religio, 2004).

 

I found that paper and find it more problematic in trying to understand Daoism as he says anyone who wants to call themself a Daoist should be considered one, even if they seem to have no appearance of following the basic ideas. He says this 'self-identification' criteria is necessary as it comes from the needs of the western mind to deal with Taoism... and he labels this "Western Taoism" or "American Taoism".

 

Maybe this is similar to how Buddhism, Chinese Buddism, and Zen Buddhism are labeled. Different names get applied as it evolves and travels across countries. I am now beginning to think that the phrase "American Taoist" may not be such a bad idea.

 

 

But Sima Qian wrote around 100 B.C.E. and no one in the West even heard of Daoism until the 1800s, almost two millenia later. I have trouble believing that "the West" picked up a false picture from Sima Qian that no one in China believed.

 

I actually think it is quite easy to see how the west picked up the wrong ideas due to compartmentalization. It starts with the missionary and Jesuits who read and were explained these philosophical schools and then made sense of these with a western frame of mind. Most ritual, cultivation, or mystery which portrayed badly on western beliefs or faith were put aside or not woven into Daoism. Zhuangzi was overlooked and first translated by the Germans (I think).

 

Livia Kohn mentions this in her book, "Daoism and Chinese Culture". As does Kirkland in "Taoism - The Enduring Tradition" state how Jesuits treated their ritual as "superstition". But Sima Qian played right into western compartmental thinking when he created the so-called "School of Six" (which might of been his father's idea). The rich, historical complexity of Daoism was reduced to a philosophy rather than life itself.

[kaaazuo]

Can one ever get to know people from other cultures? The reason why none of them is all that different is because they appear the same and all look alike: a sea of faces, a field of grass.

 

What about getting to know someone from one's own culture; like oneself, for instance? Is that possible?

Edited February 21, 2013 by kaaazuo

[Harmonious Emptiness]

1 in every 7 marriages in the US is interracial. Yes people can get to know people from other cultures if they're not diseased with bigotry and prejudice.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Marblehead]

What defines a Daoist? At minimum, being able to hold to The Three Treasures.

 

I just had a failure. I guess I have more work to do.

[dawei]

Can one ever get to know people from other cultures? The reason why none of them is all that different is because they appear the same and all look alike: a sea of faces, a field of grass.

 

What about getting to know someone from one's own culture; like oneself, for instance? Is that possible?

 

I think your point is that until one tastes in their body/mind/soul the thousand pressures specific to that culture, the thousand stories which guide your thoughts, the thousand do's/don't and rituals which make one forget their individualism, the thousand exceptions to every rule, etc... it is not really easy to know another like yourself.

[Mark Saltveit]

Your point is well taken, and I don't disagree. There's not doubt that living in a culture gives a deeper understanding than reading about it; growing up in it is better than just living in it; having family there for generations is better than just growing up in it, etc.

 

At the same time, fresh eyes can also be a source of strength, bringing new vigor to an older tradition, and allowing one to see things that are invisible to someone inside, because it's the water that they swim in. For better or worse, the U.S is standard bearer for the "fresh eyes" approach and China (along with India and Egypt) are the longest-simmering cultures.

 

I don't think you can dogmatically say that one approach or the other is better; there's a yin and a yang between these approaches, too. Otherwise the United States could have no culture at all, no Christianity, no Aristotelianism, no Existentialism. And yet, China is openly appropriating American ideas and culture much more than the U.S. is appropriating China's.

[Mark Saltveit]

Mark Saltveit, on 19 Feb 2013 - 23:38, said:

 

But Sima Qian wrote around 100 B.C.E. and no one in the West even heard of Daoism until the 1800s, almost two millenia later. I have trouble believing that "the West" picked up a false picture from Sima Qian that no one in China believed.

 

I actually think it is quite easy to see how the west picked up the wrong ideas due to compartmentalization. It starts with the missionary and Jesuits who read and were explained these philosophical schools and then made sense of these with a western frame of mind. Most ritual, cultivation, or mystery which portrayed badly on western beliefs or faith were put aside or not woven into Daoism. Zhuangzi was overlooked and first translated by the Germans (I think).

 

I agree, it's easy to see how certain people may have gotten misconceptions, and the early mistakes have been and continue to be corrected as Westerners get a more nuanced view.

 

My point is, these "misconceptions" are valid disputes that were discussed in China for many centuries before anyone in the West thought of them. They are not simply Western mistakes. They were not invented by Westerners, and they represent real disagreements in China as well as the West.

[Mark Saltveit]

I would agree that trying to exactly distinguish what is cultural vs 'daoism' is blurred (and what Kaaazuo seems to imply); how can one separate the cultural influences which contributed to the framing of life and thought? (rhetorical). What arose in China is what we know as Daoism, and it started with Fuxi, IMO.

 

Isn't this true of every philosophy and religion in world history? Buddhism started in India, but we accept Chinese Buddhists. No one is arguing that Buddhism is India and India is Buddhism. No one argues that only Greeks can really understand Plato or Aristotle, or that only Israelis can understand Christ's teachings, or that every French person is Existentialist.

 

Religions and philosophies rise out of a cultural and always refer to it, but they get a name precisely when they take on an independent life of their own, and that is precisely when they become available to people from different cultures (and times). Christianity didn't "start with" Abraham., though Jesus spoke of Abraham's covenant that he was fulfilling.

 

By kaaazuo's logic, a Chinese capitalist in Shandong today, who owns a heavily polluting factory, pays off corrupt bureaucrats and is a fervent Christian, whose parents were die hard communists and embraced the Cultural Revolution and hated Daoism as feudal superstition -- that capitalist is a Daoist. What sense does that make? Not everyone in a cultural feels the "thousand points of pressure," as beautiful and insightful as that image is.

[dawei]

Mark Saltveit, on 19 Feb 2013 - 23:38, said:

 

 

I agree, it's easy to see how certain people may have gotten misconceptions, and the early mistakes have been and continue to be corrected as Westerners get a more nuanced view.

 

My point is, these "misconceptions" are valid disputes that were discussed in China for many centuries before anyone in the West thought of them. They are not simply Western mistakes. They were not invented by Westerners, and they represent real disagreements in China as well as the West.

 

I am not quite sure that what was original conveyed by Sima Qian was intended to be understood as separate and unrelated 'schools of thought'. Chinese history is one of mix and match more than compartmentalization. He state the Daoist position as a melting pot of the 'best of the rest'. And one sees Confucians and Legalist also talking about "Dao" (to their own purpose to some degree).

 

So I don't think there is great misconception until the exchange occurs with the west. If one considers that the west does not really mix philosophical constructions but this is common in the east. The Jesuits did finally see that the three main thoughts mixed (Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism), they were never capable of understand how to completely let them be individually understand and completely mixed in a natural way.

 

If there was some misconception on the part of the chinese, then I would be interested to read someone's take on it.

[dawei]

Isn't this true of every philosophy and religion in world history? Buddhism started in India, but we accept Chinese Buddhists. No one is arguing that Buddhism is India and India is Buddhism. No one argues that only Greeks can really understand Plato or Aristotle, or that only Israelis can understand Christ's teachings, or that every French person is Existentialist.

 

Religions and philosophies rise out of a cultural and always refer to it, but they get a name precisely when they take on an independent life of their own, and that is precisely when they become available to people from different cultures (and times). Christianity didn't "start with" Abraham., though Jesus spoke of Abraham's covenant that he was fulfilling.

 

By kaaazuo's logic, a Chinese capitalist in Shandong today, who owns a heavily polluting factory, pays off corrupt bureaucrats and is a fervent Christian, whose parents were die hard communists and embraced the Cultural Revolution and hated Daoism as feudal superstition -- that capitalist is a Daoist. What sense does that make? Not everyone in a cultural feels the "thousand points of pressure," as beautiful and insightful as that image is.

 

I do agree that religions and thoughts pass around the world. It does seem to me that they often take on new words (Greek Orthodox, Chinese Buddhism, etc). It also seems that Daoism is closest to Christianity in terms of eternalness, life, and an way to live.

 

Livia Kohn says there are three kinds of Daoist and almost suggests that while one can pickup one or two, that they may not be a true Daoist until they have all three under their belt. She may be suggesting one is not Daoist in the Chinese sense but is one according to one of the three they embrace.

 

I probably lean towards this in some degree. I think these few threads on Daoist and American Daoism have been useful to discuss.

[zerostao]

"one of mix and match more than compartmentalization"

"west does not really mix philosophical constructions but this is common in the east."

inter-disciplinary thought is as important as critical thinking.

i sure look like a westerner, but luckily for me, imo, i inherited the heart, soul, mind, spirit of

my native american ancestors,

[zerostao]

" I think these few threads on Daoist and American Daoism have been useful to discuss."

yes and it has always been in the mix (pun intended?) in the discussions since my arrival and probably b4

on ttb. but these threads specifically speak to it. the differeance.

maybe i shouldnt do it becoz of his temporary absence, but i do so in fondness and in a friendly manner.

but i kinda look at chidragon as leaning towards the "american taoist" camp.

and flowing hands as not being in the "american Taoist" camp.

westerners seem to have to put everything neatly into some compartment with a well defined label that fits with their already existing notions,((not very wu wei imo)) instead of immersing with an open mind what is new to them and experiencing it rather than scholary study of, and i dont look at this as some novelty theory.

edit> forgot to italicize the quote

Edited February 22, 2013 by zerostao

[thinker]

Isn't this true of every philosophy and religion in world history? Buddhism started in India, but we accept Chinese Buddhists. No one is arguing that Buddhism is India and India is Buddhism. No one argues that only Greeks can really understand Plato or Aristotle, or that only Israelis can understand Christ's teachings, or that every French person is Existentialist.

 

Religions and philosophies rise out of a cultural and always refer to it, but they get a name precisely when they take on an independent life of their own, and that is precisely when they become available to people from different cultures (and times). Christianity didn't "start with" Abraham., though Jesus spoke of Abraham's covenant that he was fulfilling.

 

By kaaazuo's logic, a Chinese capitalist in Shandong today, who owns a heavily polluting factory, pays off corrupt bureaucrats and is a fervent Christian, whose parents were die hard communists and embraced the Cultural Revolution and hated Daoism as feudal superstition -- that capitalist is a Daoist. What sense does that make? Not everyone in a cultural feels the "thousand points of pressure," as beautiful and insightful as that image is.

 

All of this is why I maintain that some form of sinophilia is involved. In the West today there seems to be a fascination with Asian culture in general, Chinese and Japanese in particular. We don't seem to have a similar degree of fascination with Indian, Greek, Israeli, and so forth cultures. Hence, when it comes to Daoism, there's an intense desire on the part of many Daoists to irrevocably glue Chinese cultural elements to it. I think that it would be more in keeping with Daoism if those who felt that way were to separate out the two influences and treat them as separate practices. i.e., if they were to consider themselves to be aficionados of Chinese culture and Daoists, and thus allow Daoism to continue onward unencumbered by a collection of cultural traditions that aren't a part of it, except in the accidental sense that they were a part of the culture in which the religion was founded.

 

I think that transplanting religions among cultures, and watching them adapt to the new conditions, is a good way to understand the religion better. In such circumstances, those elements of the religion which are not merely cultural trappings may become more apparent.

[dawei]

westerners seem to have to put everything neatly into some compartment with a well defined label that fits with their already existing notions,((not very wu wei imo)) instead of immersing with an open mind what is new to them and experiencing it rather than scholary study of, and i dont look at this as some novelty theory.

 

A few thoughts:

 

The different perceptions between what is a religion and a philosophy in countries may differ. Daoism as a practice in China is really more the ritual and religious aspects. I see the common folks more inclined to perform some Buddhist ethics or rituals in the home and thus are more inclined to consider themself Buddhist rather than Daoist.

 

Chinese do not really 'practice' the philosophical aspect of Daoism; they simply live what is formed within and experience what is outside as life. I take the comment that Daoism is Chinese culture in this way. There is no way to really separate it; it is not external to the culture. Thus, one doesn't practice what is a natural part of life; one practices what is external or not acquired yet.

 

In the west, Daoism is not in the culture, it is external and mostly taken as a philosophy to adopt, study, practice, and spend time trying to grasp its inner meaning and put it into practice. This corresponds to some comments I've made in the past that 'practice' is not natural and we don't get back to any resemblance of Wu Wei until we stop practicing and grasping and get back to living.

 

The idea to experience rather than study something which is external to one's culture is probably preferable but not doable for most as one's own layers of cultural conditioning prevents it on some level. Thus, one may be trying to un-brainwash themself from what is formed within.

 

If one was either able to really let the layers go or was more naturally predisposed to another cultural way, then it would probably be easier to adopt another way or let it soak in. Some are more gifted and it comes natural. For some, it may take a lot of practice.

[dawei]

Hence, when it comes to Daoism, there's an intense desire on the part of many Daoists to irrevocably glue Chinese cultural elements to it.

 

What Daoist? If western ones, most seem to prefer the separate approach you mention next. if eastern ones, they are practicing religious Daoism (as they don't practice philosophical Daoism as I explain in my previous post) and don't really care what others are doing with the label.

 

I think it may be more of common folks who if they were to explain Daoism see no way in which it is separate from culture.

 

I think that it would be more in keeping with Daoism if those who felt that way were to separate out the two influences and treat them as separate practices. i.e., if they were to consider themselves to be aficionados of Chinese culture and Daoists, and thus allow Daoism to continue onward unencumbered by a collection of cultural traditions that aren't a part of it, except in the accidental sense that they were a part of the culture in which the religion was founded.

 

This is exactly what happened in the west... And then western scholars began to make the case that Daoism is not two separate aspects of Philosophy and Religion. What they seem to have missed the boat on is, while they may be correct in regards to indigenous Daoism, they are not getting your next point (or not accepting of it).

 

I think that transplanting religions among cultures, and watching them adapt to the new conditions, is a good way to understand the religion better. In such circumstances, those elements of the religion which are not merely cultural trappings may become more apparent.

 

I don't disagree.

Edited February 22, 2013 by dawei

[shanlung]

I rather go on a simpler approach.

If that entity, sentient or otherwise,from which ever part of the world or from far far away, think that he/she is a Taoist, then he/she is a Taoist regardless of his/her upbringing.

 

And if he/she practise serenity and be one with the Chi/ Earth, even if he/she has not declare he/she is a Taoist, he/she nonetheless, is a Taoist.

 

Background is incidental to whatever you are now.

After all, I started as a Christian, the captive audience of a Methodist missionary school.

http://shanlung.livejournal.com/111670.html

 

Taoistic Idiot