Common misconceptions concerning Daoism

[Apech]

I'm not here to challenge anyone. I like to know other people's views on life. We all should share something and learn.

 

 

I think Louis Komjathy has been discussed on here before. His views are dismissive of any western philosophical Taoism etc. which he think an invention and not authentic. From a cultural point of view he may have a point and there are according to Eva Wong' s 'Taoism' many kinds and schools of Taoism anyway. Some of these are more philosophical than others while some are mixed with Buddhism and so on.

 

I'm not a fan of fundamentalism in any system of thought which seems to want invalidate anything modern as basically inauthentic. Ignoring for instance any adaptation which has occurred throughout history ... and invalidating anything that amounts to a recent insight or realisation. But its worth discussing how there might be a form of Taoism now in the west which would not be recognised as such by the Chinese.

 

(I will now shut up and go back to Buddhing and Christian Mysticism).

[Mudryah]

I understand.

[Marblehead]

I'm not here to challenge anyone. I like to know other people's views on life. We all should share something and learn.

Hehehe. I have shared so much there are some members who complain that I post too much.

[ChiDragon]

Hehehe. I have shared so much there are some members who complain that I post too much.

 

Yeah, but you did not say much........

[Apech]

 

Yeah, but you did not say much........

 

How could anyone post 18,517 times and not say very much .... ???

[ChiDragon]

Are they relevant to the subjects most of the time or just exclamations......???

Edited September 2, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

How could anyone post 18,517 times and not say very much .... ???

It's easy but you need to learn from a Master. I will be starting a new course soon. Cost of the course will vary based on one's entry level.

[Stosh]

It should be called the snow leopard school.

[shanlung]

 

Posted in memory of Stigweard.

 

 

I do not understand above.

Did he go to a better world and now having discourse with LaoTse and ChuangTze and Jade Emperor even?

Or he just left the forum, and of course , went on to a better world as well.

 

Idiotic Taoist

[Apech]

It's easy but you need to learn from a Master. I will be starting a new course soon. Cost of the course will vary based on one's entry level.

 

The check is in the post.

[Marblehead]

I do not understand above.

Did he go to a better world and now having discourse with LaoTse and ChuangTze and Jade Emperor even?

Or he just left the forum, and of course , went on to a better world as well.

 

Idiotic Taoist

As far as I know he is still alive and well. He was a very inspirational member of this board. He is a Religious Taoist.

 

He made his decision to stop posting on this board because of reasons I will not mention.

 

He was one of our first, if not the first, moderator when it was decided that we needed moderation yet Stig was personally opposed to moderation and especially the manner that it evolved into after being established.

 

I do understand the owner's need for assistance in managing the board in preventing dangerous content and constant spamming. However, censorship of free and non-dangerous posts and content is not representative of Taoism, IMO.

 

Change is eternal. Destructive change is deadly. Better leave before we die (internally). Some of our members have elected to leave. I'm a fighter but I am also an Anarchist. The war must be just. Is there ever such a thing? Some say no so they rather leave than fight.

[shanlung]

 

As far as I know he is still alive and well. He was a very inspirational member of this board. He is a Religious Taoist.

 

He made his decision to stop posting on this board because of reasons I will not mention.

 

 

I must have missed the fun he was having in one of my periodic bout of absence.

 

Good to know he is still a mundane on this planet and contactable by email and not by Ouija board, or by the IChing.

 

I never know if I am a Religious Taoist and I dare not say I am Religious as I know of folks a lot more religious than me.

I hesitate to say if I am Philosophical Taoist as I can just barely spell philosophical and besides, using multi sounding words isn't my cup of tea.

 

An Idiot is about all I can manage here and elsewhere.

 

Besides, experts are about a dime a dozen, and that, I can leave to my betters.

 

Idiot on the Path

[Marblehead]

Good to know he is still a mundane on this planet and contactable by email and not by Ouija board, or by the IChing.

He also has his own web site. You can find it by doing a search on him.

[NotVoid]

I see nothing much wrong with what Louis Komjathy wrote. Based on my own limited knowledge and experience with daosim (taoism), what Komjathy wrote seems accurate enough to me. Daoism is a word used in English to describe what are for the most part various native views, beliefs, practices, and traditions, which are organzed to varying degrees, and which have been and are practiced in China and surrounding countries and which also have varying degrees of commonality amongst them. The degree of commonality amongst these various practices and traditions can vary quite a bit from what I have encountered. In my opinion, and I think this is basically what Komjathy was pointing out, is that daoism has not ever been an intellectual pursuit, nor is it whatever a person wants to imagine it to be. It does have a fairly traceable history and development, although sometimes a less than clear history, especially as we look further and further into the past,

 

In my own view, maybe about 90% or so of what is discussed in 'daoist' discussions in the West has little much to do with actual daoist practices and traditions and views that have arisen and existed in China or surrounding areas. Daosim really has little at all to do with intellectual concepts and whatever else we would like to imagine to mix in the pot with that, but at the same time what is called daoism involves some widely varying traditions and views, with definite mixtures and influences from other external traditions having evolved over time as well, so I think there is no really easy or clear cut definitive way to define what daoism is. That doesn't mean that daoism can be whatever a person wants to imagine it is however.

 

It may actually be easier to describe what daoism is not. Looked at from this approach, there really is no such thing as 'philosophical daoism'. Daoist traditions certainly may contain various philosophical concepts to aid in practical every day living and that sort of thing, but the core of what is called daoism has little to do with philosophy in my opinion. If you look at the actual known history of daosim, I am pretty sure you will be hard pressed to find actual practicing 'daoists' who mainly sat around philosophising. Sure, you can probably find daoist 'scholars' here and there thoughout history who may have taken a more intellectual approach to it and who may have written some texts, but such people would not really be 'practicing daoists' in my view.

 

Although texts by Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi were certainly influential in the development of daosim, in my view daosim can't at all be understood by an intellectual analysis of a few daoist texts such as these, While one could certainly argue that such texts present some philosophical ideas on how to live better or how to approach life, I personally think the core concepts that are actually being discussed in such texts are actually anti-philosophy. That might seem nonsensical at first consideration, but I think that this is essentially what is there. On the surface there is some guidance for living a better life and improving oneself, but at the same time beneath the surface at a much deeper level is the core which I will describe as 'anti-philosophy' and 'anti-action' for lack of better words. If you think of those terms from the intellectual or literal point of view however, you will probably get off track. The words 'anti-philosophy' and 'anti-action' that I am using is just a way to point at something that is otherwise very difficult to describe if not impossible to describe. It is not literally anti-philosophy and anti-action, but the core of what is written seems to me to point towards something that is outside philosophy and outside intellectual grasp, and outside 'normal action' or outside 'endeavour'. Although such texts have a strong influence in daoism, still much of actual daoist traditions and practices seem to include many other views and maybe even diverge from these views in many ways.

 

I think Westerners believe that focusing on the writings of people such as Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi is getting back to a more 'pure core' of what daosim should be or was, and there may be some real value to that approach, but in my view too often Westerners seem to view such texts strictly as a philosophy or from mainly an intellectual point of view, and in so doing I think the main core of what is being alluded to is missed, and one only gets a very shallow surface view. I think there is much that is not said outright in such texts, although if one looks at such texts from the point of view that there may be much more pointed to or hinted at in such texts than what one can ever get from intellectual analysis and understanding, I think we can at least start to get some sense of what else may possibly be pointed to in those texts. If we also realize that many daoist traditions were transmitted in person and orally from teacher to student, and that many of the key practices may never have been written down or may have only been alluded to in cryptic writings, then it would seem a stretch to assume that what is written in texts like the dao de jing or zhuang zi covers all important daoist views and practices and approaches in detail. To me, the opposite seems much more likely to be true given what we know about daoist traditions. To summarize, I personally agree for the most part with what Komjathy wrote about common Western views about daoism.

Edited September 3, 2013 by NotVoid

[shanlung]

is that daoism has not ever been an intellectual pursuit, nor is it whatever a person wants to imagine it to be. It does have a fairly traceable history and development, although sometimes a less than clear history, especially as we look further and further into the past,

 

Komjathy can write whatever he choses to write. I find it amusing when he claimed infallibility and being the self anointed Pope of Komjathy brand of Taoism. On the basis that he got some PhD or string of titles. Not even a full professorship as a few months ago, we even got a full professor casting pearls and assoc professorships here.

 

And do one need PhD for something which is not going to be any intellectual pursuit? Where the more one analyse, the more one must remove the interconnections and to focus on what? Where for all I know, it is the interconnections that make the whole which matter, and not the just heart with no body and no soul and no nothing.

 

Because someone with a PhD think that is so.

 

If we also realize that many daoist traditions were transmitted in person and orally from teacher to student, and that many of the key practices may never have been written down or may have only been alluded to in cryptic writings, then it would seem a stretch to assume that what is written in texts like the dao de jing or zhuang zi covers all important daoist views and practices and approaches in detail. To me, the opposite seems much more likely to be true given what we know about daoist traditions. To summarize, I personally agree for the most part with what Komjathy wrote about common Western views about daoism.

 

In which case why not read the works of someone who were there with Taoist Masters in China and walked with them and talked with them to get an inkling of what is being those cryptic writings?

 

Such as John Blofeld who was doing that in 1930s in China taking the pain to read and know Chinese and walking and living in Taoist Monasteries?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Blofeld

 

Or you just prefer to throw away the baby and look for treasure in the bath waters of Komjathy who knew all to be known of those cyptic writings?

Who got a PhD whereas John did not.

 

Then do so

 

Never mind me

 

Just a stupid Idiotic Taoist

[NotVoid]

Hi Shanlung. To be honest I can't really understand what your point is or what you are finding a problem with. Whether Komjathy is a professor or PhD or not seems to have little to do with the matter. What matters to me is whether what he wrote makes sense or not and has some truth to it or not. I personally think what he wrote is at least fairly accurate. I gave a lot of reasons why I think this is so, but I get the feeling you did not really read what I wrote and just seem to maybe have a large chip on your shoulder about professors or PhD's. I also don't understand your statement about why not read works of someone who wrote about Taoist masters he encountered, as I have read some of Blofeld's books (a long time ago), but I also have my own personal experience with some taoist 'masters' and taoist traditions. I write as much if not more from own personal experience as from anything I have read. Shanlung, you seem to be somewhat out of sorts. Hope things get better for you if things haven't been going so good for you, and that you also find a suitable place to retire to, if you haven't already.

[shanlung]

 

 

By all means.

Enjoy whatever you enjoy and go on your Path in peace.

I wrote for whoever reading this thread and not just for you.

 

I tend to shy away from those who decide they and only they know the one and only truth/Tao.

To each their own.

 

Taoistic Idiot

[NotVoid]

I tend to shy away from those who decide they and only they know the one and only truth/Tao.

 

Ok, well I personally don't think Komjathy was doing that, and I certainly am not. People expressing their point of view from their own understanding and personal experience is of course not at all deciding that "they and only they know the one and only truth/Tao", but just people expressing their own point of view. Anyone who has differing views is welcome to express their point of view here so I don't see any problem at all. People attacking Komjathy because he is a professor or PhD doesn't make much sense at all. He is actually a practicing and ordained daoist from what I understand. If anyone has problems with something specific he said, they can express their own point of view on the matter, but dismissive comments based on him being a professor or PhD and that sort of thing, or speculation and insults adds nothing useful to the conversation that I can see.

[dawei]

NoVoid... your just void of understanding our resident idiot taoist.... The points he makes is not the counter-points you are

 

making...

 

It is like you are now talking to air itself...

 

Moral of the story: Don't argue with an idiot... especially when others say the idiot is right