a whole bunch o' newbie questions

[watercourseway]

hello al. i am relatively new to taoism and i have a couple of newbie questions. i came across something called "tsowang," or 'sitting in forgetfulness." can anyone tell me more about this and what the origins are? is this a taoist or confucian meditation? is this the same thing as shikantaza? is shikantaza basically the japanese version of sitting in fogetfulness or like what dogen means when he said "dropping off of body and mind?" some taoists don't study internal alchemy? is wu wei the most important concept in taoism? and lastly, is the taoist concept of emptiness the same as the buddhist concept of emptiness (heart sutra form is emptiness, emptiness is form)? sorry to be a burden with all these questions and i appreciate any responses!

 

thank you

[Taomeow]

hello al. i am relatively new to taoism and i have a couple of newbie questions. i came across something called "tsowang," or 'sitting in forgetfulness." can anyone tell me more about this and what the origins are? is this a taoist or confucian meditation? is this the same thing as shikantaza? is shikantaza basically the japanese version of sitting in fogetfulness or like what dogen means when he said "dropping off of body and mind?" some taoists don't study internal alchemy? is wu wei the most important concept in taoism? and lastly, is the taoist concept of emptiness the same as the buddhist concept of emptiness (heart sutra form is emptiness, emptiness is form)? sorry to be a burden with all these questions and i appreciate any responses!

 

thank you

No burden at all, and in fact a newbie with questions is a lot more refreshing than a newbie with answers, which is a more common deal !

 

I'll tackle what I can, perhaps others will chime in.

 

"Sitting forgetting" is buddhist in its origins, to my knowledge. Some schools and sects of taoism have historically undergone a process of extensive cross-polination with buddhism and these have adapted some of the latter's techniques and ideas; while others have shielded themselves from such influences, and these are more likely to practice "standing remembering" than "sitting forgetting." E.g., there's lots of taoist meditation techniques aimed at getting one's body to remember how to function at an earlier stage of development -- for instance, fetal, or other-species, or even other-dimensional. A crucial taoist concept, jing, is understood (at a certain level of access) as collective cosmic memory, a kind of archived developmental history of the universe as it manifests through an individual. Working with jing (something done quite a lot in various taoist practices) is all about "remembering" rather than "forgetting."

 

"Some taoists don't study internal alchemy?" Yes, internal-alchemical is a version of taoism that is major, and most schools and sects will incorporate the practice in some shape or form, but not all. For instance, divinational and devotional taoism can be practiced without internal-alchemical work. (There is no such thing as "philosophical taoism," by the way. Taoism is always a practice rather than merely a bunch of ideas and beliefs -- but not necessarily the practice of internal alchemy.)

 

"Is wu wei the most important concept in taoism?" Not by any stretch of imagination. The most important concept in taoism is tao. Personally, I also think of "tao fa ziran" as the second most important one. It means, in loose translation, "tao patterns itself on itself," or "tao follows only itself," or "tao is self-similar," "tao is a fractal," "tao needs no creator," "tao is a copycat whose only role model is tao."

 

"Is the taoist concept of emptiness the same as buddhist concept of emptiness?" No. Unlike in buddhism, in taoism, emptiness is neither a goal nor a destination, I'd say rather it's a tool to use... but this transpires in practice and doesn't really yield to words easily (if at all).

 

Also sprach Taomeow.

[beancurdturtle]

There is no such thing as "philosophical taoism," by the way. Taoism is always a practice rather than merely a bunch of ideas and beliefs -- but not necessarily the practice of internal alchemy.

That's an amusing belief .

 

Taoist Arts and Practices are done by the doer because they have a belief that doing so will achieve a way of being the practitioner believes to be Taoist. A cosmic double belief burrito.

 

Some people require the construct of abstracting the goals of Taoism into a way of doing instead of a way of being. It is very valuable for some to use belief in practice or ritual as a facilitator to achieve a right way of living. That's terrific! Whatever gets the boat down the right tributary is cool as far as I am concerned.

 

Fundamentally Taomeow is correct - the phrase "Philosophical Taoism" is a bit of an oxymoron, and a misleading misnomer. What is usually termed "Philosophical Taoism" should more appropriately be called "受理古老道教" - which loosely translates as "Accepting Ancient Taoism."

 

Whatever name you want to call it, and however much people with different beliefs want to poo-poo it, there IS such a thing as "Philosophical Taoism." Admittedly though, that label is misleading. Philosophical Taoism is grounded in reading, understanding, and actualizing a way of living that Laozi, Zhuangzi, and a few other ancient philosophers from China espouse.

 

For me, the Dao de Jing is a good foundation to understand and live in this world. And Zhuangzi is a treasure - he is the Court Jester who brings clarity to the truths in the Dao de Jing through humor.

 

What is called "Taoist Philosophy" is a way of being - it is not a set of beliefs. It requires no beliefs, it requires no faith, it requires no practice or ritual. It is simply a way of living rightly, in harmony, with integrity, and acceptance - the goal being a frictionless and content way of being.

 

I'll close with a chapter from the Dao de Jing wherein practices and ritual are directly addressed by Laozi:

老子:「道德经」:第三十八章

上德不德，是以有德﹔

下德不失德，是以无德。

　　上德无为而无以为﹔

下德无为而有以为。

　　上仁为之而无以为﹔

上义为之而有以为。

　　上礼为之而莫之应，

则攘臂而扔之。

　　故失道而后德，失德而后仁，

失仁而后义，失义而后礼。

　　夫礼者，忠信之薄，而乱之首。

　　前识者，道之华，而愚之始。

是以大丈夫处其厚，不居其薄﹔

处其实，不居其华。故去彼取此。

 

Laozi: "Dao De Jing": 38th Chapter (Merel's Interpolation)

Well established hierarchies are not easily uprooted;

Closely held beliefs are not easily released;

So ritual enthralls generation after generation.

 

Harmony does not care for harmony, and so is naturally attained;

But ritual is intent upon harmony, and so can not attain it.

 

Harmony neither acts nor reasons;

Love acts, but without reason;

Justice acts to serve reason;

But ritual acts to enforce reason.

 

When the Way is lost, there remains harmony;

When harmony is lost, there remains love;

When love is lost, there remains justice;

And when justice is lost, there remains ritual.

 

Ritual is the end of compassion and honesty,

The beginning of confusion;

Belief is a colourful hope or fear,

The beginning of folly.

 

The sage goes by harmony, not by hope;

He dwells in the fruit, not the flower;

He accepts substance, and ignores abstraction.

Peace, Edited September 11, 2007 by beancurdturtle

[Pietro]

"Sitting forgetting" is buddhist in its origins, to my knowledge. Some schools and sects of taoism have historically undergone a process of extensive cross-polination with buddhism and these have adapted some of the latter's techniques and ideas; while others have shielded themselves from such influences, and these are more likely to practice "standing remembering" than "sitting forgetting." E.g., there's lots of taoist meditation techniques aimed at getting one's body to remember how to function at an earlier stage of development -- for instance, fetal, or other-species, or even other-dimensional. A crucial taoist concept, jing, is understood (at a certain level of access) as collective cosmic memory, a kind of archived developmental history of the universe as it manifests through an individual. Working with jing (something done quite a lot in various taoist practices) is all about "remembering" rather than "forgetting."

Chuang Tzu described sitting and forgetting, way before any buddhist influence:

 

Yen Hui said, "I'm improving!"

Confucius said, "What do you mean by that?"

"I've forgotten benevolence and righteousness!"

"That's good. But you still haven't got it."

 

Another day, the two met again and Yen Hui said, "I'm improving!"

"What do you mean by that?"

"I've forgotten rites and music!"

"That's good. But you still haven't got it."

 

Another day, the two met again and Yen Hui said, "I'm improving! "

"What do you mean by that?"

"I can sit down and forget everything!"

Confucius looked very startled and said, "What do you mean, sit down

and forget everything.'-"

Yen Hui said, "I smash up my limbs and body, drive out perception and

intellect, cast off form, do away with understanding, and make myself

identical with the Great Thoroughfare. This is what I mean by sitting

down and forgetting everything."

 

Confucius said, "If you're identical with it, you must have no more

likes! If you've been transformed, you must have no more constancy! So

you really are a worthy man after all! With your permission, I'd like

to become your follower."

 

My teacher asked Bruce about this practice and he was told that he was not yet at the point that it made any sense to even try it. So not exactly a newbie practice .

 

Agreed about the rest.

[Taomeow]

That's an amusing belief .

 

Delighted to amuse, but can't really take the credit -- you've amused yourself, by pretending I said taoism is incompatible with beliefs. Which is a far cry from what I really said.

 

Taoism may or may not include beliefs -- obviously, devotional or ceremonial taoism are rooted in beliefs (still without qualifying as "taoism" unless you engage in devotional practices yourself, with your physical actions rather than with ideas in your head, or in ceremonial rituals, ditto). Whereas my very own practice, scientific (magical) taoism, is rooted in "hypotheses," "empirical observations" and extensive "experimental work." In other words, it is more or less fact-based rather than faith-based. That's what I believe , but long as I don't limit what I do to "believing," I "qualify."

 

However, "philosophical taoism" does not include "any" physical, body-inclusive practice, and anything that does not include such practice is not "taoism" of any denomination, believe it or not. If you said you're a "taoist" in China, you'd be asked which school or sect is the one your practice is based on. If you responded that you are a "philosophical taoist," you would perplex, or maybe amuse, but hardly be "believed." It has been diffuse common knowledge for at least a few thousand years in the place of taoism's origin that the very point of taoism is that it's a method, not a madness. I.e., you believe what you want to believe, but it is what you do or don't do that counts. (Again in sharp contrast to buddhism, where what you think is what counts.)

 

By the way, does your posting in Chinese mean you read Chinese? If you do, would you kindly help me find out which word is used by Zhuangzi in the original that Pietro's quote (from Cleary? a buddhist?! an ordained buddhist monk!! with his very own buddhist ax to grind!!!) renders as "forgetting?"

[Ian]

Chuang Tzu described sitting and forgetting, way before any buddhist influence:

My teacher asked Bruce about this practice and he was told that he was not yet at the point that it made any sense to even try it. So not exactly a newbie practice .

 

Agreed about the rest.

 

Which "he" wasn't ready? The teacher? Or Bruce?

[Taomeow]

Which "he" wasn't ready? The teacher? Or Bruce?

 

I don't think anyone can be ready for what the fable describes -- I mean, the master boasts of forgetting specific things, which he has to remember in order to boast he forgot them to begin with. It's like the old joke about not thinking of the white monkey. Sit down and think of anything you wish, and you will become enlightened provided you don't think of the white monkey -- not once!

 

Perhaps what he means is wei wuwei, an advanced practice indeed -- which dissolves the mind around the white monkey -- so one can remember the white monkey at all times, but never think of it. However, the moment he says to someone, "I did indeed forget the white monkey," 'tis the end of it, he has forgotten to forget about the white monkey and snapped out of the mind of tao right back into the ordinary human mind! Tricky, tricky!

[Wayfarer64]

I am astounded by the number of new members over the past few months...

 

It is a wonderful thing to happen here and Sean has done an amazine job.

 

As to the thread-

 

Sorry to interject -but I've not been on line much over the past few months...

 

The Tao that we can speak of is just not the Tao...

That is...

 

Where?

 

Could it be anywhere ...? or is it - (by its very nature...), just everywhere that is possible in nature, and can be explained with science and reason as well as that which is beyond the imagined and even that which I/we can not even imagine...

 

 

 

where ever consciousness is expanding in step with the universal flux - through time and space?

...!?

 

 

Is it by its very nature Way-Beyond our abilities to communicate...?

 

So, for me, there is a possibliity that we will each be able to apply one's own connections to the Tao ...(yr inner Taoism)... to any approach to life's options... Any way/path can be on the way

 

If you have heart when facing life's changes or yr just looking for answers to scary questions- Answers can be found in the YiJIng and almost any other Taoist lit...

 

 

BUT- By the wey... I agree that Cleary has a very Buddhist take on Taoism in his translations...

 

 

So welcome newbies... and I Believe we can learn from each other one and all...

[thelerner]

I hope this isn't a tangent but when I think of 'sitting in forgetfulness' I think of a Vispasanna exercise.

 

Here's how I do it. Before I meditate I think upon; I am not my body, I am that which inhabits it. I am not my past, that is just old patterns and memories. I am not my future, that is needless projection. I am not my thoughts, they are like clouds passing through the sky, phantoms. I am not my emotions, I acknowledge them and let them settle like ripples on a pond. I wish to go into the deep silence.

 

I run that more or less through my head each time I do empty meditation. These days I've gone from a warm up of counting my breaths in rounds of 1 to 10, to counting 50 breaths(using 1-1 to 1-10, 2-1 to 2-10 etc.) before letting them go and just sitting.

 

 

Yours

 

Michael

[Taomeow]

You know, WF, this argument, which I'm sure is coming from the goodness of your heart and, usually, from the goodness of other hearts warmed up by it, is as old as tao herself: "anyone can follow the way in his or her unique way." So... since this is easily the most popular (and really nice... it's always hard to argue with nice, you know...) view out there and I happen to disagree with it, I think I might owe everyone (no, not everyone, but at least some of the bums) an explanation as to why. So here goes.

 

Laozi is said to have spent two years in his mother's womb (hence his nickname Laozi, "old boy"). He is believed to have grown into a wise sage precisely because of that, because of that initial advantage. The Chinese believe that the most important time of one's life, the determining, path-setting time, is spent in the womb (in the Earlier Heaven), before birth. They believe the difference between one life and the other is largely the outcome of what happened then and there. So... why don't we compare notes and see whether the part of Laozi's path that is traditionally viewed as the most important one is the same, or even similar, to ours. This can give us a good idea as to whether our paths are, or can ever be, parallel, close, similar --

--or if, alternatively, they will diverge so far and wide from the start that "following Laozi's path" can only be a "verbal possibility," i.e. something one can "say" or "think," but not a realistic systemic possibility, not something that can take place in reality. So let's examine the path where it starts systemically in real life (rather than in someone's head).

 

Laozi's mother took no artificial, empty, or toxic food substitutes while she was pregnant. No chemicals, no frankenfoods, no prescription drugs, nada. She didn't sit in traffic breathing petroleum fumes and assorted carcinogens while pregnant. She didn't polish her nails with brain-blood barrier-piercing neurotoxic solvents and didn't wash her hair with same. She didn't follow a man-made schedule of sleep and wakefulness that wrecks havoc in a woman's hormonal and overall metabolism (all of the messed-up hormones going straight to the baby via the umbilical cord and orchestrating its development in their transmorgified image and likeness). She wasn't partaking of any antidepressants and CNS suppressors like fluoride with her drinking water, so Laozi didn't get any either. She didn't have to yo-yo between a career and her pregnancy, she didn't have to think of her female, pregnant state as a nuisance, as an annoying interference into some "normal" state prescribed by society which treats womanhood, pregnancy, breastfeeding, etc., as an embarrassing and shameful disability, somewhat more stigmatizing than alcoholism and somewhat less than an out-of-control crack cocaine addiction. She never took any crack cocaine either, incidentally. She was producing normal rather than abnormal levels of cortizol and adrenaline because her overall level of stress was human, normal, situational -- rather than chronic and mechanical and induced nonstop by everything at all times (electromagnetic fields, VLF fields, elevated background radioactivity, depleted ozone layer, global warming, not to mention the cumulative effects of the presence in the invisible environment of hundreds of millions of lost souls from all the wars and holocausts still to come, on a scale not only unknown in her time but simply unimaginable). She herself didn't undergo degenerative thymus involution by age five brought about by childhood vaccinations, because she didn't get any, so her immune system and her Protective Qi were working mighty fine, so no autoimmune or chronic degenerative disease was threatening her little boy. She didn't suffer from depression because it's hard to suffer from depression when you are not being repressed in your basic life functions, so her fetus didn't get his monoamines-processing neural pathways rewired before birth by sketchy levels of those of his mother. This, basically, is the very first few inches of the iceberg I would be willing and able to expose in its entirety, all the kilometers-thick mass of it, but I'm going to stop now at the level of these first two inches and assert the following:

 

this iceberg, in its entirety, is in your way in your WAY. (I mean a generic "you," not anyone specifically.) This iceberg is between you and the Way, blocking your Way. This iceberg blocks your access to tao. It was much smaller in Laozi's time, but even then, taoism was invented for the specific purpose of removing it from the way, breaking through the blockage. And today, when it has grown exponentially bigger... anyone tells me it's not there... anyone tells me it's not there I call Captain Titanic.

 

And that's the tip of the iceberg of my personal reasons to believe that natural, spontaneous, unimpeded access to tao "any which way" is a thing of the past, long, long gone past. And that's why I am paying close attention to what people knew about tao who lived in that long gone past, and not much to what people think they know about her now. Because I don't think Captain Titanic knew about the iceberg, or he would have chosen a "very different path" instead of the "any which way" one.

 

Also sprach Taomeow.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Taomeow

[mbanu]

some taoists don't study internal alchemy?

 

Internal alchemy isn't Taoism. It is simply popular with Taoists. It's kind of like how liking Jewish food doesn't mean that you are a follower of Judaism.

 

I don't think anyone can be ready for what the fable describes -- I mean, the master boasts of forgetting specific things, which he has to remember in order to boast he forgot them to begin with. It's like the old joke about not thinking of the white monkey. Sit down and think of anything you wish, and you will become enlightened provided you don't think of the white monkey -- not once!

 

Perhaps what he means is wei wuwei, an advanced practice indeed -- which dissolves the mind around the white monkey -- so one can remember the white monkey at all times, but never think of it. However, the moment he says to someone, "I did indeed forget the white monkey," 'tis the end of it, he has forgotten to forget about the white monkey and snapped out of the mind of tao right back into the ordinary human mind! Tricky, tricky!

 

My understanding is that it does not mean forgetting literally, but rather forgetting the significance of the thing, because one is no longer in touch with the mental and emotional context that created it. He remembers propriety (for instance), but has trouble understanding why he once practiced it, or why he found the idea of not practicing it so terrible. He remembers music, and could play if prompted, but no longer understands why this is important or valuable.

[Pietro]

Which "he" wasn't ready? The teacher? Or Bruce?

Bruce said to Alan (my teacher), that he, Alan, was not ready. Since Alan is a good practitioner inside Bruce school, I assume this extends to nearly everybody else in the school.

 

And of course the assumption is that Bruce being a taoist lineage master in a lineage that claims to come from the time of lao tzu should know the practice and have done it with some level of success at least in the presence of his teacher. After all he has the responsability to bring to the next generation the fullness of the teachings of this school of taoism. From time to time, for example, Bruce might tell us: I had to do this and that, but you don't have to, because I was being trained to become a lineage master, while you don't need to go through it.

 

Of course Bruce is then teaching personally to some (few) students the remaining practices, so that they can then become the next lineage master.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Pietro

[beancurdturtle]

However, "philosophical taoism" does not include "any" physical, body-inclusive practice, and anything that does not include such practice is not "taoism" of any denomination, believe it or not.

This time I'm not simply amused, I am even a bit bemused. Why is it that people who "practice" - internal alchemy, Taoist magic, tantric meditation, Christianity, Islam, or what have you - can be so chauvinistic? You are correct, it is not Taoism of any denomination.

 

However, if it is a denomination, it has been abstracted from Taoism - reference the TTJ chapter 1. If you define, ritualize, codify, denominate, or practicize anything - you have removed it by some degree from what it truly is at the core. This concept is all through the TTJ, and Zhaungzi has great sport with the concept in his exploration of the meaning and power of words. (In case you couldn't tell, I think Zhuangzi is dandy!)

If you said you're a "taoist" in China, you'd be asked which school or sect is the one your practice is based on. If you responded that you are a "philosophical taoist," you would perplex, or maybe amuse, but hardly be "believed." It has been diffuse common knowledge for at least a few thousand years in the place of taoism's origin that the very point of taoism is that it's a method, not a madness. I.e., you believe what you want to believe, but it is what you do or don't do that counts.

This argument is irrelevant. Who believes or disbelieves me is of little concern to me. If you asked Laozi what school or sect his "practice" was based on, how do you suppose he would answer? This is like saying a cat cannot be a cat unless you can identify it's breed.

 

Furthermore, Chinese society - and to some degree Vital Taoism, and a large degree Religious Taoism - is stitched through and through by the Confucian principles asserting that process and rules are things that define a person and a society. Ancient Taoism (or Philosophical Taoism as most call it) rejects this assertion. For example; some people read Zhuangzi and think the fictional anecdotes wherein Confucius is a character are espousing the wisdom of Confucius - where in actuality the purpose is to make Confucius an absurd caricature of his own school of thought.

 

What you do or don't do is irrelevant - behavior is only an expression, and it can be faked. You can do twenty Hail Marys and not be Catholic. You can taijichuan until you're blue in the face and the cows come home, and still be a murderer. I would never say that Taoist Arts and Practices are not useful, powerful, or appropriate. However, who and what you are at your core is what is relevant.

 

Shave a Turkish Angora cat and it doesn't become a Canadian Hairless. A cat is a cat from the core outward.

By the way, does your posting in Chinese mean you read Chinese? If you do, would you kindly help me find out which word is used by Zhuangzi in the original that Pietro's quote (from Cleary? a buddhist?! an ordained buddhist monk!! with his very own buddhist ax to grind!!!) renders as "forgetting?"

I know enough Chinese to confidently assert that any translation of anything from Chinese to English will be flavored (and often flawed) by the translator. I've read enough different translations of Laozi and Zhuangzi by people with different axes to grind that I realize you cannot read just one. This has no relevance to the question "Is there such a thing as Philosophical Taoism?" but it's important when you read Laozi or Zhuangzi to read several translations - ignore the abstraction, and look for the substance.

 

In closing on this issue; Philosophical Taoism is not about denomination, belief, magic, levitation, or anything a person expresses. Laozi did not have a denomination. Philosophical Taoism (or Ancient Taoism if you prefer) is about who you are from the core outward, living rightly, in harmony, with integrity, and acceptance - the goal being a frictionless and content way of being.

 

It's cool for folks to put energy into defining the characteristics of their breed. Some folks are all about being a Maine Coon Cat, a Turkish Angora - or perhaps an Ocicat, how cool is that? I accept it and applaud it if it facilitates your growth.

 

Me? I purr - it doesn't matter that you can't name my breed - I am undeniably a cat.

 

Peace,

Edited September 11, 2007 by beancurdturtle

[forestofsouls]

[snip]

"Sitting forgetting" is buddhist in its origins, to my knowledge. Some schools and sects of taoism have historically undergone a process of extensive cross-polination with buddhism and these have adapted some of the latter's techniques and ideas; while others have shielded themselves from such influences, and these are more likely to practice "standing remembering" than "sitting forgetting."

[snip]

 

"Is the taoist concept of emptiness the same as buddhist concept of emptiness?" No. Unlike in buddhism, in taoism, emptiness is neither a goal nor a destination, I'd say rather it's a tool to use... but this transpires in practice and doesn't really yield to words easily (if at all).

 

Taomeow,

 

What are you talking about? Which Buddhist meditation technique are you referring to? When I see sitting forgetting, I think of the Buddhist practices of stopping-looking (samantha-vipassana). Thinking of old Chinese forms of Buddhist meditation, I think of the sitting practices of the Caodong, e.g. "silent illumination" but this requires one to sit with very clear awareness.

 

How is emptiness a goal of Buddhism? Per Bodhidharma, "The Buddhas expound the Dharma of emptiness in order to eradicate the myriad false views. But should you then cling to emptiness, even the Buddhas will be unable to help you."

[Pero]

Emptiness in not a goal of all of Buddhism. But anyway, what is the difference between Buddhist and Taoist emptiness Taomeow?

[Taomeow]

Emptiness in not a goal of all of Buddhism. But anyway, what is the difference between Buddhist and Taoist emptiness Taomeow?

All similarities between taoism and buddhism disappear if one realizes that buddhism ultimately sees life, the live process following birth, as wrong, and the only "right" way to be, as never being born, never "falling" (from the grace of emptiness and nothingness) into the world of manifestations. Supposedly, once you manifest, you're already screwed! And it's all your fault!! You should work on stopping that or else. So emptiness is a preferred, "right," "good" state to a buddhist.

 

To a taoist, it is nothing of the kind. Emptiness and manifestation is a cycle, and to the same extent that "being is rooted in nonbeing," the opposite is every bit as true -- "nonbeing is rooted in being." Taoism, in other words, is isomorphic (you can go either way between emptiness and the ten thousand things, both directions are normal and natural, and neither direction is "wrong"); whereas buddhism is anisomorphic -- to a buddhist, there's only one "right" direction, towards nonbeing, emptiness, away from being, manifestation.

 

But like I said in the very first post entered above, it doesn't yield to words easily, if at all, but I've an experiential frame of reference. I did buddhism before I discovered taoism. I was following all the prescriptive and prohibitive moves -- right thoughts, right actions, right words, yada yada. Meditations were wonderful and took me out of my body and into emptiness... and eventually my body rebelled and retaliated. Taoist meditations were difficult and painful and extracted me from emptiness (which, when accessed via taoist practices, turned out to be dynamic and creative albeit empty, unlike buddhist emptiness that was lethargic and unimaginative), and put me back into my body and taught my mind to stay put in my body and do the housecleaning. So it did. And when it did, the meaning of the I Ching's hexagram "Difficulty In The Beginning," which is understood as the inevitabe filling of the space between heaven and earth with individualized beings, became clear to me. It became clear that seekers of emptiness who would clean the space between heaven and earth of the process of individuation of beings are basically hostile to life on earth--

what Laozi calls "the followers of Death." Buddhist emptiness is not compatible with life -- one must transcend life in order to "get there." Taoist emptiness is a tool I use in taiji, e.g., and for ten thousand other things too... It's cool... It's alive.

[Todd]

 

But like I said in the very first post entered above, it doesn't yield to words easily, if at all, but I've an experiential frame of reference. I did buddhism before I discovered taoism. I was following all the prescriptive and prohibitive moves -- right thoughts, right actions, right words, yada yada. Meditations were wonderful and took me out of my body and into emptiness... and eventually my body rebelled and retaliated. Taoist meditations were difficult and painful and extracted me from emptiness (which, when accessed via taoist practices, turned out to be dynamic and creative albeit empty, unlike buddhist emptiness that was lethargic and unimaginative), and put me back into my body and taught my mind to stay put in my body and do the housecleaning. So it did. And when it did, the meaning of the I Ching's hexagram "Difficulty In The Beginning," which is understood as the inevitabe filling of the space between heaven and earth with individualized beings, became clear to me. It became clear that seekers of emptiness who would clean the space between heaven and earth of the process of individuation of beings are basically hostile to life on earth--

what Laozi calls "the followers of Death." Buddhist emptiness is not compatible with life -- one must transcend life in order to "get there." Taoist emptiness is a tool I use in taiji, e.g., and for ten thousand other things too... It's cool... It's alive.

 

I suppose emptiness can be used. I used it a lot before I knew what it was. What I didn't know was that it was using me the whole time.

 

About buddhism: your description is of what you THOUGHT buddhism was. You experienced your thoughts about buddhism. I don't know what buddhism is, but I do know that many people have very different experiences of it than the one you described. It may be that the thoughts you ended up with about buddhism were given to you (as perhaps all thoughts are), and it is also possible that the people teaching you buddhism believed similar thoughts, even if only unconsciously. This doesn't change the fact that your experience of buddhism was created by those thoughts, which you carry around to this day, distorting your perception of the possibilities of the world.

 

You also seem to carry around a lot of thoughts about what taoism is. That doesn't mean that you don't have some access (or total access if you're willing to drop the iceberg) to what taoism can point toward. In fact, when you are trying to prove how special taoism is, you often dip into fairly decent descriptions of truth. It is innocent that you might think taoism is special if moving into things related to it led to a return to your body, and to the world. I would suggest that the iceberg you feel separating you from Laozi's truth, is nothing but your thoughts.

 

It is possible to not think about the white monkey. Well, no, maybe not. But it is possible to not have the energy follow the white monkey. Its a kind of skill. It is hard to learn if we don't intend to. It hard to learn if we have no idea what is happening. It is like we are born blind, and with a particular curse (and a blessing) that we must always be moving. We keep bumping into things. Sometimes its a nice soft something. Sometimes it hurts like hell. If we don't recognize that we have some control over our movements, that we can choose to move one way instead of another, even though we have no concept of direction or of movement even, since we were moving before we were conscious, then we just keep bumping into things more or less at random, forever. Waking up is like realizing, "Oh! this is me, moving into things. I'm not sure what movement is, but I'll be damned if I didn't just miss that big sharp thing that I'm always impaling myself on around this time" Thats when things change. Its still darkness, its still moving, but we begin to navigate, even without concepts of how to navigate.

 

On a more down to earth level, we all succeed in not thinking about the white monkey... there i go again... we all succeed in not sending our energy after the white monkey with thousands of things. For example, you might put no energy whatsoever into anything that I'm saying, because you KNOW that it is not true. You've just seen right through it. Its like somebody telling you that you have six fingers on one hand and two fingers on the other. Or like someone telling you the world is a place to be run away from because its wrong. Totally false. No energy.... unless, you think that you need to combat such false beliefs. Thats one that I get trapped in from time to time... Its good to talk, but this all goes so much deeper than any particular THOUGHT... though it is those thoughts, when they are believed, that create our world before love.

[beancurdturtle]

It is possible to not think about the white monkey. Well, no, maybe not. But it is possible to not have the energy follow the white monkey.

Once you realize that thinking, or not thinking, of the white monkey are both irrelevant - then you can be Alice and start talking to the white rabbit instead. Who happens to be equally irrelevant.

 

Doing is overrated - Just be.

 

Good comments.

[Taomeow]

Once you realize that thinking, or not thinking, of the white monkey are both irrelevant - then you can be Alice and start talking to the white rabbit instead. Who happens to be equally irrelevant.

 

Doing is overrated - Just be.

 

Good comments.

 

Um, my Chinese is still quite rudimentary, but according to my studies to date, "just be" as something that doesn't constitute a "doing" of some sort is only possible to formulate in English and other Indo-European languages, but not in a process-oriented language like Chinese. The grammar of a process-oriented language prohibits a petrified "just being" -- everything is a flow, everything is a doing (including the non-doing of the taoist kind which is famous for its very special ability to "do nothing yet accomplish everything." However, the ocean, which is one good example of this modus operandi of things in complete harmony with tao, does accomplish something while doing nothing... whereas an armchair philosopher who now smokes pot, now watches TV, and now reads Tao Te Ching, is also doing nothing -- but accomplishes, also nothing. Nothing for self, nothing for others.) That's why one can say "I am a philosophical taoist" in English, but not in Chinese (not within the structure of accepted grammar anyway, although of course awkward literal translations of foreign concepts are always possible.) In grammatically correct classical Chinese, you can only say "I do taoism," or "I don't do taoism." Which is exactly my point re "philosophical taoism" -- it simply "can't be done," except in the mind of an Indo-European speaker.

 

Good comments indeed, with the exception of your comment re my "chauvinistic" something or other. Name-calling is a good example of something you "do" occasionally without necessarily "being" a "name-caller." Right? Just because you "just do it" on occasion doesn't reduce you to "just being it" -- thank god!

Edited September 12, 2007 by Taomeow

[beancurdturtle]

My silly, precious Meowster.

 

I should admit I am secretly smitten by you. And I should be blushing - because it's no longer a secret.

 

Put out your claws kitty - and prepare to shred my un-funny Philosophical Taoist Top Ten list of the night.

1. You are a silly goose - and I am much sillier yet. And in this enumerated point, I have "called you a name."
   
2. Previously I questioned "Why is it that people who 'practice' - yada yada - can be so chauvinistic?" Ok, sure - I proffered the cloak of chauvinism with a flourish, but I didn't require you to shuck it on. And, to be fair, I should have used "some people." If you were offended - I apologize.
   
3. I was writing English when I wrote "Just be." Chinese linguistics has nothing to do with that oversimplified statement.
   
4. My grasp of Chinese is so-so (马马虎虎), just as is the grasp of my tongue when it's in my cheek. Both of these grasps are sometimes being, and other times doing. And speaking of doing.
   
5. I haven't smoked pot for 27 years.
   
6. I have studied Laozi, Zhuangzi, and other Taoist classics for 21 years.
   
7. I was very much into the Taoist Arts and Practices for the first 8 of those 21 years.
   
8. I haven't owned a television for 13 years. Which roughly coincides to the time period in which I have been a pot smoking, TV watching, armchair "Philosophical Taoist." Well, that without the pot, the TV, or the armchair.
   
9. I already conceded that the label "Philosophical Taoist" is an unfortunate oxymoronic, misleading, misnomer. But a lame label doesn't make the thing labeled moot.
   
10. The vernacular of the common Chinese (受理道教者 accepts Taoism), and my tenuous grasp of the use of English has nothing to do with the question "Is there such a thing as Philosophical Taoism?"
    
11. My assertion that there is such a thing as Philosophical Taoism, backed by my woefully inadequate understanding of Taoism, stands as a battered wheat-stalk against the tornado of your scholarly protestations.
    
12. And yet, Philosophical Taoism is a doing that many people do, including myself. And regardless of your assertion that it is not done - it is. And some people actually do it well.
    

I like your energy and your attitude, and respect your knowledge. If we were in the same room I might try to kiss you - if I could just climb out of this damned armchair.

 

Peace baby,

[Pero]

Taomeow, you have some very strange views on Buddhism. Judging from the way you speak you received teachings on sutra. Nevertheless, non being, nothingness? What?? Those are extremes to be avoided. But I guess it would explain your views, if you have fallen into them when you practiced B. After your description of emptiness in T. view, it doesn't seem to me there is much difference, if any.

[Mandrake]

Taomeow, you have some very strange views on Buddhism. Judging from the way you speak you received teachings on sutra. Nevertheless, non being, nothingness? What?? Those are extremes to be avoided. But I guess it would explain your views, if you have fallen into them when you practiced B. After your description of emptiness in T. view, it doesn't seem to me there is much difference, if any.

 

 

I concur,

comments like the ones earlier, clearly show a superficial understanding of a very deep concept. I get a feeling that it was used in order to act out some feelings of superiority. If little knowledge, better to make more humble statements.

 

All the best

Mandrake

[Ian]

I did buddhism before I discovered taoism. I was following all the prescriptive and prohibitive moves -- right thoughts, right actions, right words, yada yada. Meditations were wonderful and took me out of my body and into emptiness... and eventually my body rebelled and retaliated. Taoist meditations were difficult and painful and extracted me from emptiness (which, when accessed via taoist practices, turned out to be dynamic and creative albeit empty, unlike buddhist emptiness that was lethargic and unimaginative), and put me back into my body and taught my mind to stay put in my body and do the housecleaning. So it did.

 

Curious. Because I'm "doing buddhism" these days, with a buddhist teacher, and the process involves exactly having the attention in the body and doing the housecleaning. And the emptiness I'm crawling slowly towards includes everything and is certainly not lethargic.

 

Would you concede that it might be more precise and a smidge humbler to conclude that you "did one version of buddhism" and that there are others?

[Taomeow]

 

Would you concede that it might be more precise and a smidge humbler to conclude that you "did one version of buddhism" and that there are others?

 

Yes, of course.

 

Buddhism is much bigger than what I know about it, wider, deeper, oh of course, infinitely so. Yet, like anyone else who has an "opinion" about it, whatever it is based on, so too am I quite capable of having an opinion, of gleaning a picture for myself from reading, doing, and talking to others who have done, have read, have followed, have spoken "about" it. If my picture is different from that of others, it's not because it's not humble enough I don't think -- it's because it's mine, and it is what it is. I don't like buddhism. You can tell me I don't like it because I don't know it, don't know all of it, don't know enough of it, and it may well be true. But here and now, in the here-now moment, knowing what I know, having heard and read what I have heard and read, and having experienced what I have experienced, I don't like it. This can't be changed, guys, so please just let me feel what I feel, OK? I'm not inviting anyone to feel the same way about buddhism, and I respectfully decline any and all invitations to feel the way someone else feels about buddhism. I feel about buddhism much the way one of my favorite authors, a radical environmentalist named Derrick Jensen, feels about buddhism. He lectures quite a bit, talking to very different audiences, right, left, young, old, poor, wealthy, powerless, powerful... and usually his message, which can shred anyone's belief system to pieces, is accepted no matter how unorthodox his approach is, with the exception, he asserts, of only two sacred cows he can't touch without alienating the audience -- any audience: buddhism and porn. These two subjects he learned to leave well alone, because any non-liking is off limits, the audience turns immediately hostile. I should leave it well alone too I guess. But before I do, let me say it once again. I don't like buddhism. I don't extend this attitude to any resident buddhists personally, so please nobody take it personally. It's not you I don't like. It's just buddhism...

Edited September 12, 2007 by Taomeow

[Pero]

Sure, no problem.