What defines a Daoist?

[Mark Saltveit]

The scholarly consensus is that the Daodejing and Zhuangzi are compilations, that Laozi is a mythical figure and while there's more evidence for a historical Zhuangzi,it's not entirely certain that he authored "his" book either.

 

That said, the DDJ has a striking and very consistent voice, it's short and notably different from the other ancient writings even if you can find a bit here or there that overlaps. Whether one person crafted it, or several like minded people, I don't see the importance particularly. It could of course also be a distillation of a long oral tradition -- how would we know? -- but the consistency and uniqueness of it make that seem less likely.

[dawei]

VERY interesting paper, thanks! Apparently, only some of the sections of chapter 5 of the well known text existed in the Han-dynasty fragments found at Dingzhou, and mostly the odd numbered sections: 1,3,5,7,9,11,13, 15 and 20.

One more link on Wen Zi:

 

http://www.paulvanels.nl/resources/publications/PvE2013WenziDraft.pdf

[Mark Saltveit]

Thanks again, that's excellent. That says it's from an upcoming book -- do you know what the name of the book is, and whether it's out yet?

[dawei]

Thanks again, that's excellent. That says it's from an upcoming book -- do you know what the name of the book is, and whether it's out yet?

 

http://www.paulvanels.nl/publications/index.html

[Taomeow]

Sounds right. Individualism is not a traditional Chinese value.

 

 

How would you explain the Tao Te Ching's transcendental appeal to the west and religious Taoism in China?

 

 

Amen to that.

 

Really cool question, thanks!

 

I can explain the two parts separately because they are separate phenomena altogether, but I don't know if my explanation will satisfy... However:

 

1. My understanding of what is loosely referred to as "the west" is not limited to the so-called "developed" (ha!) countries -- rather, it encompasses the whole of Indo-European cognitive paradigm (often wrongfully reduced to and pointlessly discussed as "Abrahamic religions" -- it is nowhere near this limited though, it is inclusive of Buddhism and Hinduism and, most importantly, Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian traditions and their later derivations, including Western science).

 

So, if this understanding of "the west" is applied, the appeal of TTC to the West is, firstly, the appeal of an exotic whiff of "otherness" (much like someone like me who grew up on meat and potatoes and borscht went crazy for sushi upon first exposure, and retained the love for their nutritious, delicious, aesthetically appealing "otherness" from then on).

 

Secondly, much of this appeal is misguided -- it's like one of those Buddhist restaurants I've been to in China that serve tofu dishes prepared just so as to imitate meat. If you are going to not eat real meat, why eat fake meat?.. They sell "veggie burgers" and "soy dogs" here too... never made sense to me. So, much of TTC's appeal to the West is like that -- people dissatisfied with their own native paradigm (be it Christianity, atheism, or biomechanical fundamentalism, a term I use for the religion-like aspects of modern "scientific beliefs") look to abandon them and stumble upon something that seems like a veggie burger to them -- they are supposedly not eating "the body of Christ" anymore but deep down that's what they are most comfortable with, what they grew up on and are used to, what their system recognizes. So the appeal of TTC is that it can supply both -- the "otherness" some people are after and the "sameness" they are simultaneously after too, even though much of this "sameness" is only superficial, just like the likeness of soy to beef in a beef-alike soy product... but they focus their awareness on that superficial similarity and stay in the same place they've always been, cognitively and spiritually, but with some "new and improved" flavor to it, a whiff of Asia, a soy dog...

 

2. Religious Taoism -- well, that's separate, like I said... I will talk about that a bit later, gotta run...

[Mark Saltveit]

So, much of TTC's appeal to the West is like that -- people dissatisfied with their own native paradigm (be it Christianity, atheism, or biomechanical fundamentalism, a term I use for the religion-like aspects of modern "scientific beliefs") look to abandon them and stumble upon something that seems like a veggie burger to them -- they are supposedly not eating "the body of Christ" anymore but deep down that's what they are most comfortable with, what they grew up on and are used to, what their system recognizes.

I'm curious, where do you see similarity between the Daodejing and Christianity? The parallels aren't obvious to me.

 

Do you think any Westerners might just genuinely like and appreciate the philosophy of Daoism? Or find truth in it?

[Taomeow]

I'm curious, where do you see similarity between the Daodejing and Christianity? The parallels aren't obvious to me.

 

Do you think any Westerners might just genuinely like and appreciate the philosophy of Daoism? Or find truth in it?

 

1. You misunderstood me. I didn't say there's similarity. I said there's superficial similarity that can be found between TTC and any system a Westerner has already been indoctrinated in by the time of the encounter. This superficial similarity is further projected and intensified by a Western indoctrinated aficionado. It is not inherent, it is imposed. This, from my experience communicating with many TTC aficionados (whom I call laoists) both Western and not who read and discuss this book and go line by line and compare versions and comments and it all looks like biblical studies to me, or like cramming for an exam, or whatever. Familiar stomping techniques applied to an "other" stomping ground.

 

2. Anyone might just like and appreciate anything. I like and appreciate Voodoo practices and philosophy. If I stop right there instead of telling a practicing lineage Voodoo sorceress what her philosophy "really means," no harm in that.

 

If instead I tell her that science disproves and Jesus disapproves and what-not... that there's a "scholarly consensus" on her lack of authenticity... that there's no "authoritative text" that confirms the credentials of Papa Legba or Erzulie or Baron Samedi... that I appreciate her philosophy but don't appreciate the opening up to spirit possessions or the killing of the black chicken... that red brick dust in her hands has no magical properties whatsoever as per a lab test our scientists performed on it.. that all her healings are placebo... and so on... catch my drift?..

 

What I think (and said many times on various occasions) is that it does not matter if you're a Westerner or a Chinese of today who has not been steeped in the taoist tradition anymore than you have. The Chinese may (or may not, depending on the upbringing) have a bit of a head-start due to some of the things taoist circulating in the bloodstream of the culture, but to genuinely appreciate the philosophy of taoism, reading a book, back and forth and up and down and diagonally as the case may be, is just not quite where it's at.

[dawei]

 

1. You misunderstood me. I didn't say there's similarity. I said there's superficial similarity that can be found between TTC and any system a Westerner has already been indoctrinated in by the time of the encounter. This superficial similarity is further projected and intensified by a Western indoctrinated aficionado. It is not inherent, it is imposed.

 

This is how I understood your comments and see it. One often imposes their own 'view' onto anything the absorb internally or externally.

 

 

 

 

What I think (and said many times on various occasions) is that it does not matter if you're a Westerner or a Chinese of today who has not been steeped in the taoist tradition anymore than you have. The Chinese may (or may not, depending on the upbringing) have a bit of a head-start due to some of the things taoist circulating in the bloodstream of the culture, but to genuinely appreciate the philosophy of taoism, reading a book, back and forth and up and down and diagonally as the case may be, is just not quite where it's at.

 

 

 

IMO, there are at least three levels of initial influence: Blood/DNA, culture, and worldview. Due to 'variation', the weight of each one can supercede any other two. And if one moves beyond that in practices (meditation, energy, spiritual, immortality, etc) then it becomes a shell game of primary influences.

[deci belle]

When it is accomplished, there is no one to ask; when it is carried out, there is no doubt.

[Mark Saltveit]

I said there's superficial similarity that can be found between TTC and any system a Westerner has already been indoctrinated in by the time of the encounter. ...This, from my experience communicating with many TTC aficionados (whom I call laoists) both Western and not who read and discuss this book and go line by line and compare versions and comments and it all looks like biblical studies to me, or like cramming for an exam, or whatever.

Anyone we know? Now I'm curious. :-)

 

What I think (and said many times on various occasions) is that it does not matter if you're a Westerner or a Chinese of today who has not been steeped in the taoist tradition anymore than you have.

When you say "anymore than you have," are you referring to me personally?

 

I think there are many manifestations of Dao, many different approaches to following this path. I don't think I'm in a position to tell anyone their path is wrong. It kind of sounds like you do, however.

[Taomeow]

 

This is how I understood your comments and see it. One often imposes their own 'view' onto anything the absorb internally or externally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMO, there are at least three levels of initial influence: Blood/DNA, culture, and worldview. Due to 'variation', the weight of each one can supercede any other two. And if one moves beyond that in practices (meditation, energy, spiritual, immortality, etc) then it becomes a shell game of primary influences.

 

Yup... and there's also this spiritual/mystical initiation... How and why "that" realm chooses someone in "this one" to expose, nudge, or (occasionally) grab by the nape of the neck is mystery of mysteries. But that's pretty traditional too in terms of influence...

 

I remember reading a book by a feng shui (? if I remember correctly) master, a Westerner with Chinese teachers, who asserted that when she first started learning FS, a clairvoyant /"sensitive" friend of hers came to visit who didn't know yet about her studies, who supposedly announced to her that there was a semitransparent (and invisible to others) old man, Chinese by the look of him, following her around, peeking at the papers on her desk, studying her bookshelves, or just sitting in the corner watching her with an air of benevolence. True or not, I couldn't tell of course... but I've had some weirdness of my own happen, more than once...

[Taomeow]

Anyone we know? Now I'm curious. :-)

 

When you say "anymore than you have," are you referring to me personally?

 

I think there are many manifestations of Dao, many different approaches to following this path. I don't think I'm in a position to tell anyone their path is wrong. It kind of sounds like you do, however.

1. I'm not even referring to this-here forum. I abandoned a few other forums before getting here. That's how I know. Here, I normally don't read the sections dedicated to book studies, with some occasional exceptions. So, no names to name.

 

2. No, it's a generic "you." I don't know you well yet but I've a feeling that my way of expressing myself might be creating unintended problems when I try to communicate my thoughts to you.

 

3. I ain't no new age positive-this and positive-thatter. On my path, I've been led to believe that being able to tell right from wrong is normal. If you have no reasons to suspect that "anyone's" path may, just may, be wrong... well, then we must be living in a perfect world and I'm entirely at fault for not having noticed.

[Mark Saltveit]

I ain't no new age positive-this and positive-thatter. On my path, I've been led to believe that being able to tell right from wrong is normal. If you have no reasons to suspect that "anyone's" path may, just may, be wrong... well, then we must be living in a perfect world and I'm entirely at fault for not having noticed.

Nor am I, as you may have noticed. I'm a rather skeptical standup comedian, used to calling BS wherever I see it. But you misinterpret my words.

 

I have lots to reason to think that various paths don't work for me and -- from my perspective -- appear to be full of crap. No one has managed to interest me in semen conservation yet, for example, though anyone's welcome to try.

 

What I said was,

 

I don't think I'm in a position to tell anyone their path is wrong.

That's a very different matter. Unless we are establishing a common set of references and standards -- which is what academia does -- or until you choose me as your teacher, it's not really any of my business.

 

It seems like you may have taken offense at my discussion of the scholarly opinion of Wenzi. Well, that's an interesting example. The book -- like any ancient text -- has authority for two main reasons: its historical authenticity as an ancient spiritual/philosophic text, and the actual value that any of us get from it.

 

I don't think either of us can tell the other how much value they get from it. We are ourselves the one and only expert on that subject. We can discuss what the historical lineage or history of the book is, whether it appears to have been written before or after the Huananzi or Zhuangzi for example. That is a factual issue, that scholars are best equipped to decide using archaelology, textual analysis, carbon dating, etc. I'm not a scholar so I defer to their consensus.

 

But enough chit chat. Dish on some false paths! The negative is always more interesting, and usually funnier.

[Taomeow]

All right, here's something negative -- nah, make it a triple negative -- per your request.

 

"It seems like you may have taken offense" is a careful (like in chapter 15 of TTC) way to ascribe a feeling to someone who isn't you -- like those Zhuangzi fish who he told his friend the latter didn't know that he didn't know that they were enjoying themselves because he (the friend) wasn't him (Zhuangzi). Are you assuming I don't know that you don't know what I feel?

 

And here's a quadruple negative: I ain't telling nothin' to nobody, never, about "their" "path." I'm telling about mine. Only. Part of mine is noticing, on occasion, when it's criss-crossed by those of others, where some of those others are coming from. I don't see no reason to pretend I don't notice none, but I ain't no finger-pointer and whoever derives whatever from whatever I say I notice is never looking at my finger 'cause it ain't there. There.

[kaaazuo]

Secondly, much of this appeal is misguided -- it's like one of those Buddhist restaurants I've been to in China that serve tofu dishes prepared just so as to imitate meat. If you are going to not eat real meat, why eat fake meat?..

 

I didn't know what was boscht and googled for the receipe. Looked delicious. I'm gong to try it.

 

Here is the receipe for the fake meat: "The Taoism of the Western Imagination and the Taoism of China" by Russell Kirkland.

 

2. Religious Taoism -- well, that's separate, like I said... I will talk about that a bit later, gotta run...

 

I look forward to see how you cook this dish.

[Mark Saltveit]

Are you saying that Kirkland's paper IS the fake meat, or that he's calling it out? Because that's a pretty extreme bit of writing (which no one has ever published, in 15 years). You may disagree, but arguing that the Daodejing itself distorted Daoism as part of "a marketing ploy" seems pretty inflammatory (and suspect) to me.

 

I'm with you on the fake meat thing, though, ditto decaf coffee. Consume the real thing, or don't. These things are just "let's not and say we did."

[Stigweard]

I hugged a tree today ... I felt pretty defined by that

 

[Marblehead]

I hugged a tree today ... I felt pretty defined by that

Your hair has grown since I last saw you.

[Reed]

This is a very interesting thread which I've greatly enjoyed reading

 

2. Anyone might just like and appreciate anything. I like and appreciate Voodoo practices and philosophy. If I stop right there instead of telling a practicing lineage Voodoo sorceress what her philosophy "really means," no harm in that.

If instead I tell her that science disproves and Jesus disapproves and what-not... that there's a "scholarly consensus" on her lack of authenticity... that there's no "authoritative text" that confirms the credentials of Papa Legba or Erzulie or Baron Samedi... that I appreciate her philosophy but don't appreciate the opening up to spirit possessions or the killing of the black chicken... that red brick dust in her hands has no magical properties whatsoever as per a lab test our scientists performed on it.. that all her healings are placebo... and so on... catch my drift?..

 

Yeah, I think the issue/question for me here (as is usually the case with these type of discussions) is not 'What defines a Taoist?' but 'Who defines Taoism?' I don't think you can answer the first question until you answer the second and I don't think the second question has an answer, personally, because then you would just step back a pace and have to ask 'Who defines who defines Taoism?' etc

 

It reminds me of ZZ's chapter two in some ways:

 

"Suppose you and I have had an argument. If you have beaten me instead of my beating you, then are you necessarily right and am I necessarily wrong? If I have beaten you instead of your beating me, then am I necessarily right and are you necessarily wrong? Is one of us right and the other wrong? Are both of us right or are both of us wrong? If you and I don't know the answer, then other people are bound to be even more in the dark. Whom shall we get to decide what is right? Shall we get someone who agrees with you to decide? But if he already agrees with you, how can he decide fairly? Shall we get someone who agrees with me? But if he already agrees with me, how can he decide? Shall we get someone who disagrees with both of us? But if he already disagrees with both of us, how can he decide? Shall we get someone who agrees with both of us? But if he already agrees with both of us, how can he decide? Obviously, then, neither you nor I nor anyone else can decide for each other. Shall we wait for still another person?

 

http://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html#2

Edited February 18, 2013 by Reed

[dawei]

Yup... and there's also this spiritual/mystical initiation... How and why "that" realm chooses someone in "this one" to expose, nudge, or (occasionally) grab by the nape of the neck is mystery of mysteries. But that's pretty traditional too in terms of influence...

 

I remember reading a book by a feng shui (? if I remember correctly) master, a Westerner with Chinese teachers, who asserted that when she first started learning FS, a clairvoyant /"sensitive" friend of hers came to visit who didn't know yet about her studies, who supposedly announced to her that there was a semitransparent (and invisible to others) old man, Chinese by the look of him, following her around, peeking at the papers on her desk, studying her bookshelves, or just sitting in the corner watching her with an air of benevolence. True or not, I couldn't tell of course... but I've had some weirdness of my own happen, more than once...

 

Yes, that is an interesting influence which I have seen in a few others. Thanks for sharing that.

[dawei]

Are you saying that Kirkland's paper IS the fake meat, or that he's calling it out? Because that's a pretty extreme bit of writing (which no one has ever published, in 15 years). You may disagree, but arguing that the Daodejing itself distorted Daoism as part of "a marketing ploy" seems pretty inflammatory (and suspect) to me.

 

I'm with you on the fake meat thing, though, ditto decaf coffee. Consume the real thing, or don't. These things are just "let's not and say we did."

 

TO ME, he is calling it out, like here:

"In the Western imagination, the Taoism of China has been ignored in favor of a Taoism of our own devising"

 

Who is arguing the DDJ is itself a distorted Daoism, the paper?

 

Kirkland's paper complains about an issue I feel (which flowing hands has said a few times): There seems to be little concern to understand the historical timeframe leading up to the DDJ and instead a modern lens is used.

 

This may belong in the DDJ is a Shamanistic text thread, but IMO, we would benefit from understanding this more. I personally would like to better understand why the DDJ emerges from the State of Chu. Chu traces it roots to Fuxi and the Yellow Emperor and there may be some question whether it is seen as foreigners.

[dwai]

 

TO ME, he is calling it out, like here:

"In the Western imagination, the Taoism of China has been ignored in favor of a Taoism of our own devising"

 

Who is arguing the DDJ is itself a distorted Daoism, the paper?

 

Kirkland's paper complains about an issue I feel (which flowing hands has said a few times): There seems to be little concern to understand the historical timeframe leading up to the DDJ and instead a modern lens is used.

 

This may belong in the DDJ is a Shamanistic text thread, but IMO, we would benefit from understanding this more. I personally would like to better understand why the DDJ emerges from the State of Chu. Chu traces it roots to Fuxi and the Yellow Emperor and there may be some question whether it is seen as foreigners.

 

Anachronism is the biggest hurdle in understanding traditional texts...

[zerostao]

Chu traces it roots to Fuxi and the Yellow Emperor

do you consider Fuxi and Yellow Emperor Taoist?

[Taomeow]

Chu traces it roots to Fuxi and the Yellow Emperor

do you consider Fuxi and Yellow Emperor Taoist?

Chinese taoists consider Fuxi the founder of taoism. (Why so many Westerners have come to believe it's Laozi is mystery of mysteries).

 

The Yellow Emperor is of course taoist to the core -- to say nothing of Xi Wangmu, the Great Mother of the West, who taught him.

 

And let's not forget the shaman-king Yu, King Wen and the Duke of Zhou.

[zerostao]

thank you Taomeow i thought i musta been nuts to think that they were

no one ever wants to talk about these great Taoists on here