Who's a taoist who's not a taoist

[Rob Patterson]

I'm a bit confused with who is considered a Taoist writer and who isn't. Laozi and Zhuangzi fall squarely in the Taoist camp for me. But what about Wang Chung or Wang Bi. There' considered neoTaoists, but their writings isn't anything like Laozi or Zhuangzi. They often come totally different conclusions. How can they be considered Taoists?

 

-Rob

[thelerner]

You're in a sticky situation when you ask that question. There's no pope taoist. Taoism is so old that its philosophy and practice gets pretty diverse. Most people who say they are taoists are those who admire and hopefully practice some aspect of taoist philosophy. Real (formal religious) taoists would not consider most of them (or us)taoists. Few of us do prostrations and prayers to the Taoists pantheon of gods.

 

Here's an article on this point from an American (old neighbor of mine) who works

w/ the real guys -http://www.fengshuitimes.com/article/detail.asp?aid=93&cid=9&pg=1

 

 

On the other hand if taoism teaches us anything its that words are not the way, the map is not the reality and labels are traps.

 

 

Michael

[Tao Parrot]

That's a funny paradox, really. If you call yourself a taoist, you're not.

[forestofsouls]

Deng Meng Dao in his Chronicles of Tao writes:

 

"Taoism is the method of studying and bringing ourselves into harmony with the Tao-- or, still further, it is the procedure for uniting with the Tao itself. The sages say 'The Tao is forever, and he that possesses it, though his body ceases, is not destroyed.' However, there is no one simple method. People are different, and the Tao is never static. Different ways of life must be tailored according to the needs and destinies of individuals."

 

This, to me, is a good definition of Taoism.

[el_tortugo]

That's a funny paradox, really. If you call yourself a taoist, you're not.

 

I wonder what you are if you think that you are some form of a Tao Bum?

[Leidee]

It depends on who you share ideology with as to who you will consider to be taoist writers or otherwise.

 

You ask, "how can they be considered taoists?". Well, anyone can consider anyone to be anything, can't they?

 

Look at Catholocism for a moment.

 

If you can recognise that as many Catholics as exist on this planet right now equals as many different view points on Catholicism, then hopefully you can being to understand that there are no hard and fast rules about anything when it comes to people's closely held beliefs and opinions (whether they write them or otherwise).

 

L

[Pietro]

It depends on who you share ideology with as to who you will consider to be taoist writers or otherwise.

 

You ask, "how can they be considered taoists?". Well, anyone can consider anyone to be anything, can't they?

 

Look at Catholocism for a moment.

 

If you can recognise that as many Catholics as exist on this planet right now equals as many different view points on Catholicism, then hopefully you can being to understand that there are no hard and fast rules about anything when it comes to people's closely held beliefs and opinions (whether they write them or otherwise).

 

L

 

Well, not exactly. A catholic is a christian first of all. And to be a christian you must believe that jesus was the christ. Nothing more, nothing less. You believe it? Fine you are a Christian. You don't believe it? Fine you are not. And please don't have too many doubts, for they mess the statistics.

If you are a Catholic you are not just a christian, but you also believe a bunch of other things, and catholics repeat this list every sunday (or whenever they go to mass, which at times can be more or drammatically less). Not going to mass does not stop them from being a catholic, but not believeing those things does. And is a very clear list, where each point has been defined by decades if not centuries of history. (refer to the history of dogmas on this).

 

So, no. In the case of catholicism you cannot make up the definition as you see fit.

There is a very precise definition.

 

For taoist such a definition is not present or not widespread.

 

I actually asked to Bruce what does it mean to be a taoist. I shall post all that in a post soon (read: when I have the time).

Edited June 6, 2007 by Pietro

[Leidee]

*edit*

 

Digression...

Edited June 6, 2007 by Leidee

[hagar]

I'm a bit confused with who is considered a Taoist writer and who isn't. Laozi and Zhuangzi fall squarely in the Taoist camp for me. But what about Wang Chung or Wang Bi. There' considered neoTaoists, but their writings isn't anything like Laozi or Zhuangzi. They often come totally different conclusions. How can they be considered Taoists?

 

-Rob

 

Yoda would probably disagree with me on this but here's my take on it: I guess "Taoism" is a concept that was later addded to a whole conglomerate of schools of thought with some intersecting and common themes of thought/practice. In my reading of the classics of Taoism, the writings of different lineages and times changes according to the nature of the context that it is presented and written.

 

And the level of understanding of many writers are also different. But the main reason for such lack of coherence is that much that is written as "Taoist" philosophy is built upon a comment of a comment on earlier texts and traditions, and according to the influence of Confucianism and Buddhism. In such a way you have difference in emphasis, like in Chang Po Tuan who emphasizes not to attach to form, and influenced by Chan. Then you have Wang Che who is to the outmost influenced by hedonism and an equivalent of Epicureism.

 

These are just examples to prove my point. If you want to dwell into what is most taoist, look for what is most unconventional, novel and fresh. That is closer to the source of what may be deemed Taoism. Chuang Tzu, and its contemporary "Orignial Tao" (forgot the whole name) have this freshness to it, along with Lao Tzu.

But ofcourse this is all translation, and what really reveals true understanding of the Tao is a study of a lifetime.

 

h

[Uncle Fester]

I'm a bit confused with who is considered a Taoist writer and who isn't. Laozi and Zhuangzi fall squarely in the Taoist camp for me. But what about Wang Chung or Wang Bi. There' considered neoTaoists, but their writings isn't anything like Laozi or Zhuangzi. They often come totally different conclusions. How can they be considered Taoists?

 

-Rob

 

There is more than one way to skin a cat...

[Taoist81]

Well, not exactly. A catholic is a christian first of all. And to be a christian you must believe that jesus was the christ. Nothing more, nothing less. You believe it? Fine you are a Christian. You don't believe it? Fine you are not. And please don't have too many doubts, for they mess the statistics.

If you are a Catholic you are not just a christian, but you also believe a bunch of other things, and catholics repeat this list every sunday (or whenever they go to mass, which at times can be more or drammatically less). Not going to mass does not stop them from being a catholic, but not believeing those things does. And is a very clear list, where each point has been defined by decades if not centuries of history. (refer to the history of dogmas on this).

 

So, no. In the case of catholicism you cannot make up the definition as you see fit.

There is a very precise definition.

 

For taoist such a definition is not present or not widespread.

 

I actually asked to Bruce what does it mean to be a taoist. I shall post all that in a post soon (read: when I have the time).

 

Not to nit-pick but the Nicene Creed isn't the end-all-be-all of it anymore. There are Independant Catholic Churches, the Church of Anitoch etc. that are recognized as having valid apostolic succession but hold beliefs influnenced by Theosophy. But these people are part of the "catholic church" and consider themselves Catholics. Some Christians also have a very different understanding of "Christ", so different that other Christians claim they are not Christian. Who is right? It is likely the answer is: they both are.

[Ian]

I'm a bit confused with who is considered a Taoist writer and who isn't. Laozi and Zhuangzi fall squarely in the Taoist camp for me. But what about Wang Chung or Wang Bi. There' considered neoTaoists, but their writings isn't anything like Laozi or Zhuangzi. They often come totally different conclusions. How can they be considered Taoists?

 

-Rob

 

According to Sean's teacher Liu Ming, who is one of not many people who can translate ancient chinese, the term "taoist" was coined by Confucians to describe everything they thenselves were not. So it probably covers a pretty broad range....

[fatherpaul]

I'm a bit confused with who is considered a Taoist writer and who isn't. Laozi and Zhuangzi fall squarely in the Taoist camp for me. But what about Wang Chung or Wang Bi. There' considered neoTaoists, but their writings isn't anything like Laozi or Zhuangzi. They often come totally different conclusions. How can they be considered Taoists?

 

-Rob

 

Laozi was not a taoist

Christ was not a christian

[Pietro]

Laozi was not a taoist

Christ was not a christian

 

Laozi was a taoist

Jesus was not a christian

[fatherpaul]

Laozi was a taoist

Jesus was not a christian

 

as you wish

[Pietro]

as you wish

 

wrong again.

Laozi was a taoist because taoism was already a tradition firmly estabilished when he appeared.

Jesus was not a christian because there was no christianity at the time.

[fatherpaul]

wrong again.

Laozi was a taoist because taoism was already a tradition firmly estabilished when he appeared.

Jesus was not a christian because there was no christianity at the time.

 

laozi is a mythical person not a taoist

[Pietro]

laozi is a mythical person not a taoist

 

you are right, sorry.

 

The point remains that Taoism was already estabilished when the tao te ching was written.

[fatherpaul]

you are right, sorry.

 

The point remains that Taoism was already estabilished when the tao te ching was written.

agreed

[goldisheavy]

I'm a bit confused with who is considered a Taoist writer and who isn't. Laozi and Zhuangzi fall squarely in the Taoist camp for me. But what about Wang Chung or Wang Bi. There' considered neoTaoists, but their writings isn't anything like Laozi or Zhuangzi. They often come totally different conclusions. How can they be considered Taoists?

 

-Rob

 

 

I don't see how knowing the answer to this question will help you. What matters is how these people affect your thinking, and not what label is best to apply to them.

 

Before asking a question it helps to ask yourself what purpose will getting an answer serve?

[林愛偉]

Words can be used to describe what is indescribable. Why because there is somehting labeled indescribable which makes it describable.

If words are empty, then even the thought of it should not even arise, even for the sake of saying so.

Explanations can be made, and very directly as well. It is the capability of the mind to properly understand things which makes words useful or not.

Sure everything is empty, and empty is everything, but if words are false, and emptiness is everything, then one should easily be able to go and come as they please... and that means die and live when they want to without the drama of suicide. Because with the skill to come and go as one pleases, it is not suicide, because there is nothign which dies.

 

Words ae useful...but only to those who have the conditions in mind which need words. It is all based on ones conditions. Nothing more.

 

If it wasn't like this, Laozi wouldn't even bother to write anything regardless of who asked, and the Buddhist sutras wouldn't even be written. For those who need words, there are words, for those who don't need words, there are none. For example, Shakyamuni Buddha once held up a flower infront of a geat large assembly, and only Arya Mahakasyapa understood the Mind to Mind transmission. The Dharma of no words. BUT because living beings have defiled minds, attached minds, words are used as the expedient to detach from them. Once the concentration is turned back to the mind, further cultivation is needed to see one's original nature.

As in the teachings of Daoism, they are only expedients to get us to detach, forget the dualities and return the light inside to see our original nature. Because people's afflictions are heavy, Daoism uses its methods to cultivate morality, and virtue as well as intuitive wisdom.

 

When talk like "Everything is empty", "no words are needed" , "its all useless..words are empty" is presented, it is a total contradiction to itself and the speaker. Sure they are empty, but WHO labels them as empty?

 

Peace and Happiness,

Aiwei

Edited June 18, 2007 by 林愛偉

[ZenStatic]

Not to nit-pick but the Nicene Creed isn't the end-all-be-all of it anymore. There are Independant Catholic Churches, the Church of Anitoch etc. that are recognized as having valid apostolic succession but hold beliefs influnenced by Theosophy. But these people are part of the "catholic church" and consider themselves Catholics. Some Christians also have a very different understanding of "Christ", so different that other Christians claim they are not Christian. Who is right? It is likely the answer is: they both are.

 

Actually, the Nicene creed *IS* still the be all end all. The other churches that are influenced by theosophy and such are considered to be in schism with Rome, and therefore cannot ordain Bishops, which means that they are out of valid apostolic succession. Judeo-Christian religions are not really flexible when it comes to allowed beliefs. It is all pretty well spelled out, just some churches that have broken off redefine things to fit their own ends, as happens in almost all religions. Thats the reason I have felt I must break away with that belief system, because I feel that the force that governs the universe would never punish people for not joining 1 club over another. With as many types of people as there are, there is that many ways. As I was once told by someone, its sort of like the governing force is fishing in a lake. And all religions are different fishing poles. It doesnt care which one you bite, as long as it gets you in the boat at some point.

[Taoist81]

Actually, the Nicene creed *IS* still the be all end all. The other churches that are influenced by theosophy and such are considered to be in schism with Rome, and therefore cannot ordain Bishops, which means that they are out of valid apostolic succession. Judeo-Christian religions are not really flexible when it comes to allowed beliefs. It is all pretty well spelled out, just some churches that have broken off redefine things to fit their own ends, as happens in almost all religions. Thats the reason I have felt I must break away with that belief system, because I feel that the force that governs the universe would never punish people for not joining 1 club over another. With as many types of people as there are, there is that many ways. As I was once told by someone, its sort of like the governing force is fishing in a lake. And all religions are different fishing poles. It doesnt care which one you bite, as long as it gets you in the boat at some point.

 

Not exactly. Most independent Catholic Churches and the Church of Antioch link back to a "wandering bishop" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopi_vagantes) and thus have valid apostolic succession. They may or may not be recognized by the "Mother Church" but the members are nonetheless "Catholic". What that title means depends greatly on who you are talking to and it is not necessarily limited to following the nicene creed.

[Taomeow]

I actually gave it some thought a while back. Here's what I came up with in response to a similar question posted at another forum -- When is a taoist a taoist? From a to z, take your pick:

 

a) When I say so

b ) When my teacher says so

c) When my online buddy says so

d) When my online adversary says or implies it's not when I say so

e) When ten thousand hollows begin to roar, i.e. when Zhuangzi says so

f) When she looks good enough to be her own granddaughter

g) When she is Chinese but neither Communist, Buddhist, Confucian, or Christian

h) When she isn't Chinese but eats even pizza with chopsticks, uses dit da jow on a taiji push-hands bruise, wears silk jeans, pearl powder, jade earrings, and can occasionally be seen in Chinatown's herb shops giving recipes of how to combine those herbs to nourish kidney yin to anyone who understands English

i) When she hasn't fit in anywhere else she tried

j) When she can move distant heavy objects with a snap of her fingers

k) When the red dust settles and the water becomes clear

l) When taoist is in vogue, a cool thing to be

m) When taoist is a safe thing to be, i.e. when no one is waging a war on any taoist terrorists

n) When it's her inherited or adopted-into formal lineage

o) When it's in her blood

p) When Sun Bu-er starts calling her "sister"

q) When Eva Wong says so

r) When Thomas Cleary says so

s) When Winnie the Pooh says so

t) When Jesus touches her forehead and says, Rise and Walk the Way and Know Its Power! Be a taoist, blessed child!

u) When Deng Ming-Dao says so

v) When Joseph Needham says so

w) When her name is wind and she blows differently on ten thousand things so each can be itself

x) When Fu Xi has finished calculating all the "whens" to come

y) When the Jade Emperor says so

z) When the Three Realms agree on her taoist destiny

Edited June 21, 2007 by Taomeow