Paganism and Daoism?

[Simple_Jack]

If I may say so it is a mistake to think that primitive means ignorant or superstitious when it it actually just means first.

 

 

All these things are codifications of what human's originally understood intuitively. This is why the roots of Taoism is in shamanism.

I wasn't inferring that those early (or modern) societies were ignorant or superstitious. Admittedly, saying that they are "primitive" is denoting them as inferior from the perspective of Western developments in history leading up to the industrial age.

 

Sure I can agree that early CHINESE CULTURAL development stems from the belief system and practices of China's tribal ancestors. Though, in terms of its of philosophies that relate to both the societal and individual level there is a recorded history of thinkers that shaped the later developments of Chinese society.

 

We would have have to ask based off of the surviving belief systems of the descendents of ancient peoples or civilizations around today: What is it that they intuitively understand? Can we unanimously compare these aspects with Lao-Zhuangs philosophical ideals? Does this depend on the person and what they interpret onto the teachings of Lao-Zhuang? (thanks to the fact that there aren't many translated works and the ones we do have are both cryptic and vague.)

Edited February 25, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[Phi92]

Personally, I value modern Druidism a lot.

 

Why?

- There is no dogma, you can be a pantheist, monotheist, polytheist, deist... etc.

- They highly value philosophy, ethics, art, spirituality, nature and personal value and choice

- A druid is often described as a sage, a scholar, poet, spiritual wise man and one who knows a lot

 

You can read more here: http://www.druidry.org/

[Simple_Jack]

Though, in terms of its of philosophies that relate to both the societal and individual level there is a recorded history of thinkers that shaped the later developments of Chinese society.

The period of the "Hundred Schools of Thought" before the rise of the Qin dynasty; that's what I was trying to refer to. I can see how Laozi's ideals on rulership of a country were influenced by the tumultuous period of the Spring and Autumn/Warring States period (depending on which timeline attributed to when Laozi was alive and composed the TTC.) Though Confucius's model of social structure and ruling a country are definitely more practical.

 

 

Personally, I value modern Druidism a lot.

 

Why?

- There is no dogma, you can be a pantheist, monotheist, polytheist, deist... etc.....

The belief system laid out on the website would be considered dogma to a materialist/physicalist or an atheist....just sayin (you could group them all under a form of nihilism.)

Edited February 26, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[Apech]

I wasn't inferring that those early (or modern) societies were ignorant or superstitious. Admittedly, saying that they are "primitive" is denoting them as inferior from the perspective of Western developments in history leading up to the industrial age.

 

Sure I can agree that early CHINESE CULTURAL development stems from the belief system and practices of China's tribal ancestors. Though, in terms of its of philosophies that relate to both the societal and individual level there is a recorded history of thinkers that shaped the later developments of Chinese society.

 

We would have have to ask based off of the surviving belief systems of the descendents of ancient peoples or civilizations around today: What is it that they intuitively understand? Can we unanimously compare these aspects with Lao-Zhuangs philosophical ideals? Does this depend on the person and what they interpret onto the teachings of Lao-Zhuang? (thanks to the fact that there aren't many translated works and the ones we do have are both cryptic and vague.)

 

You may not agree of course and that's fine with me ... but I find that there is a general mistake made which is to characterise our early ancestors as primitive in a pejorative sense. This is because we have been taught to value the sophistication which civilisation brings. In other words the more high sounding the words sound the better they are. This to me is just the wrong way round. I think that as we became more civilised (and I use that word to literally mean living in more and more culturally contrived ways) ... the more explanation we needed as to 'what its all about' ... that our history is actually a slow fall from being far more in touch with ourselves and the world and so on. At each step on this downward path we were compelled to produce more carefully developed 'ways' of regaining our innate knowledge ... to codify this knowledge in ways which related to the cultures we developed and with a number of themes ... the mystical being one ... (religious, scientific, philosophical being others) which we return to again and again to express and re-express.

 

So whatever is expressed in the TTC for instance is actually the same knowledge which we have always held but which was/is being increasingly lost.

 

If this were not the case then the Tao would be something constructed ... something you need an advanced degree in Taoist studies to understand ... this is not the case I suspect you may agree.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Apech

[zerostao]

You may not agree of course and that's fine with me ... but I find that there is a general mistake made which is to characterise our early ancestors as primitive in a pejorative sense. This is because we have been taught to value the sophistication which civilisation brings. In other words the more high sounding the words sound the better they are. This to me is just the wrong way round. I think that as we became more civilised (and I use that word to literally mean living in more and more culturally contrived ways) ... the more explanation we needed as to 'what its all about' ... that our history is actually a slow fall from being far more in touch with ourselves and the world and so on. At each step on this downward path we were compelled to produce more carefully developed 'ways' of regaining our innate knowledge ... to codify this knowledge in ways which related to the cultures we developed and with a number of themes ... the mystical being one ... (religious, scientific, philosophical being others) which we return to again and again to express and re-express.

 

So whatever is expressed in the TTC for instance is actually the same knowledge which we have always held but which was/is being increasingly lost.

 

If this were not the case then the Tao would be something constructed ... something you need an advanced degree in Taoist studies to understand ... this is not the case I suspect you may agree.

post of the month

[Rara]

I believe Daoism is a form of pantheism.

 

Yes, I have a Chinese Taoist "pen friend" in Indonesia and he introduced me to this deeper understanding...I tried to once argue with him about God, implying that surely the universe can have the qualities at the very least, but I cannot prove and actual man in the sky. With the language barrier, he thought that meant I didn't believe in God...then he came back and told me a couple of months later that they were Pantheist and asked me to look it up.

 

So I looked it up and slapped myself on the forehead.

 

My girlfriend is Wiccan and before I became Taoist, I used to chuckle to myself a bit at particular ceremonies she attends. A year or two later when I began practising Taoism, I quickly learnt that they are incredibly similar, and despite odd pedantic differences here and there about things, we tend to just work well in harmony with our common purpose of being free-spirits and looking after living things and the environment around us.

[Phi92]

Yes, I have a Chinese Taoist "pen friend" in Indonesia and he introduced me to this deeper understanding...I tried to once argue with him about God, implying that surely the universe can have the qualities at the very least, but I cannot prove and actual man in the sky. With the language barrier, he thought that meant I didn't believe in God...then he came back and told me a couple of months later that they were Pantheist and asked me to look it up.

 

So I looked it up and slapped myself on the forehead.

 

My girlfriend is Wiccan and before I became Taoist, I used to chuckle to myself a bit at particular ceremonies she attends. A year or two later when I began practising Taoism, I quickly learnt that they are incredibly similar, and despite odd pedantic differences here and there about things, we tend to just work well in harmony with our common purpose of being free-spirits and looking after living things and the environment around us.

 

My girlfriend is also Wiccan ^^

 

And I really enjoy what they do! Great people!

[Simple_Jack]

This is because we have been taught to value the sophistication which civilisation brings. In other words the more high sounding the words sound the better they are. This to me is just the wrong way round. to codify this knowledge in ways which related to the cultures we developed and with a number of themes ...

For our ancestors the environment was a living organism, something that was alive. This can still be seen with communities that have retained their traditional beliefs; such as the communities of the Andes, the tribal peoples of Africa, etc.

 

What I meant by primitive is that as the ancient peoples of China started to form civilizations made up of states, empires and then a unified country: Their previous knowledge evolved into more complex systems of thought through the use of logical analysis. The development of a system of ideals through the use of logic is what characterizes that difference [of course I'm not separating this from ideals of a metaphysical nature either. I'm including this as evolving from mystical experiences also.]

 

 

I think that as we became more civilised (and I use that word to literally mean living in more and more culturally contrived ways) ... the more explanation we needed as to 'what its all about' ... that our history is actually a slow fall from being far more in touch with ourselves and the world and so on. At each step on this downward path we were compelled to produce more carefully developed 'ways' of regaining our innate knowledge ...

I don't think the nostalgic glorification of the hunter-gatherer way of life of our ancestors is the answer to the neurosis of modern society. The sages of ancient China wanted to save and uplift their country and they came up with their own ideals of how people can live harmoniously within society. Though I would find it interesting to discuss how being raised in a modern industrialized society has alienated people from their connection to the natural world and how this relates to the dimming of our 'ecological awareness,' in relation to communities that have retained their traditional beliefs.

 

I like to look at our development as sentient beings as a continual wave of rising and declining, in contrast to a linear descent into madness where the cycle then starts all over again.

 

 

So whatever is expressed in the TTC for instance is actually the same knowledge which we have always held but which was/is being increasingly lost.

 

If this were not the case then the Tao would be something constructed ...

What I was trying to say in my previous posts is that the ways of expressing "Dao," was continually evolving in Chinese society. I personally don't take what's expressed in the TTC as if from the day we are born we are losing our "Way" or that society is gradually losing its "Way" from an "enlightened past." I think understanding this concept in Chinese society would take looking at the history of its cultural development and the relation to today's form of "Daoism." This means looking at the classics of the Yellow Emperor and the Yijing; the incorporation of the Yin-Yang school into Daojia's thought or the influences from Zhuangzi, Liezi and others.

 

By the way I'm not asking anyone to agree with me.

 

EDIT: Sentence structure/punctuation.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

We would have to revisit the OP's question and ask which parts of paganism are being compared to specific aspects of Daojia or Chinese culture as a whole. Which is why I said the question is ambiguous.