Is philosophical Daoism (daojia) agnostic?

[dawei]

The catholic church divided itself enough to become the protestants... and watered down enough to become cults.

 

Yes, the Great Way will also became the Way of Cults... and already has.

 

It is the Way... of everything and anything.  Continuously moving on...

 

So what is the point of being stuck in a label like Philosophical Daoism ?

[Marblehead]

The catholic church divided itself enough to become the protestants... and watered down enough to become cults.

 

Yes, the Great Way will also became the Way of Cults... and already has.

 

It is the Way... of everything and anything.  Continuously moving on...

 

So what is the point of being stuck in a label like Philosophical Daoism ?

And what is the point in being stuck with any labels?

 

Our solar system; the three planets: Venus, Earth & Mars.  They are planets.  But surely Venus is too hot, Mars is too cold and small, Earth is just right.

 

Earth has many ways.  Man has many ways.  I prefer my way.  Other may think I'm crazy.

[Geof Nanto]

The catholic church divided itself enough to become the protestants... and watered down enough to become cults.

 

Yes, the Great Way will also became the Way of Cults... and already has.

 

It is the Way... of everything and anything.  Continuously moving on...

 

So what is the point of being stuck in a label like Philosophical Daoism ?

 

Daoism as a tradition is like a mother with many children. It has developed with a great diversity of practices and beliefs.  I certainly don't label myself a philosophical Daoist, or for that matter any sort of Daoist. What interests me is the support Daoist based praxis and classical Daoist texts have given me. Daoism resonants with, reinforces and helps grow my own experience of life. Thus, it is not Daoism as such I seek to join; what I seek is more immediate experience of the ineffable Dao itself.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Darkstar

[dust]

So what is the point of being stuck in a label like Philosophical Daoism ?

 

 

吾道无名

[Marblehead]

吾道无名

Yeah, that was easy for you to say.

[Stosh]

From what im reading elsewhere, its actually the Chinese who are the ones confused about the philosophical dao. Ill explain, there were several philosophical schools, not all of which had to do with spirituality. They were more like schools of thought on political science. What was called Daojia school included some works which based the political philosophy, on rationale which also applies to spiritual growth. The religious folk used this as an important work for that reason -daojiao. At the time the lines between religion state, and just plain ol social philosophy were blurrier. Now we see politics as secular, the western philosophical idea , on philosophical daoism ,is that its not a religion per se its an Inspirational grouping based on daoist paradigm. To the eastern viewer it is either the religion with all its affectations and cultural affilliations, or its purely a sociopolitical subject.

The original sentiment on Lz and Zz was that it was a sociopolitical paradigm which had spiritual implications,,but wasnt a religion in and of itself shamanist or otherwise. Just like Confucious didnt write up a religion either. So it is the western idea which approximates the original , it just overlaps in name and spiritual significance with Shamanist or religious Daoism.

Im tentative on this , I may adjust it later.

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

... its actually the Chinese who are the ones confused about the philosophical dao.

I would likely agree with that thought.

[Stosh]

I would likely agree with that thought.

Well that could be taken several ways. The implied if. ,, Is there.

Surely you might agree that The writing of the ttc and zhuangzi was not to create a new religion...and yet it goes beyond political advice.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Well that could be taken several ways. The implied if. ,, Is there.

Surely you might agree that The writing of the ttc and zhuangzi was not to create a new religion...and yet it goes beyond political advice.

Agree that neither Lao Tzu nor Chuang Tzu were intent on starting a religion.  They siply, IMO, wanted the people to treat each other better, to take pride in who and what they were.

 

And I think that modern China is finally beginning to come around to this understanding even if they are not reading Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu.  (Sure, the scholars read them but I doubt many "common" people read them.)

 

So yes, the two texts present a possible way of life.  One of internal peace.  The Chinese are pretty close to that and while I don't care for their form of government, it is mainly because of their government that the average Chinese person is attaining an understanding of their own self-worth.

[Stosh]

I too hope they ,and everyone find peace prosperity etc, the world is changing so very fast, and it can be hard to know where to rest.

[Rara]

I'm not in a position to say either way...Tao Te Ching and Zhuangzi both dabble in mystical ideas yet these can be just simple imagery, analogy or metaphor.

 

I picked up the texts knowing that I wanted them to suit my views anyway! I personally don't care for labels, agnostic, atheist, religious...I think these miss the point entirely.

 

It's ok to wonder...but don't get caught up in it all. Tao is your life...the screen you're reading this on, the senses, your breath, the flowers outside. Enjoy these! You will find your God quicker...whatever that God is.

[Stosh]

Good point, IMO, your life, ,,its your read on the texts . The Tao laughs at us all

Take the thingie about the snare,,

Once the rabbit is caught, the snare isn't important , its purpose was to catch the rabbit,,, simple right? 

Well if you were to look at this same snip from different angles , it can still work out readable as true. Watch,, 

 

Since the universe is what exists , however it got here , is finished. But if its here it got here somehow so its not over.

If the purpose of the state is to ensure the well being of the people , the state cant harm the people, or it serves no purpose. 

If the King gets what he needs to run the state , the opinions of the people are irrelevant. 

and simplest view, The ends justify the means. The ends cant justify the means if they defeat themselves.

 

This is just one example , thing is , that , that which is true, isn't biased to serve only one view. I haven't found where Lz or Zz really break from this ironic principle. A chapter Where either takes a stand which puts their feet squarely and unequivocally on a bias about the affairs of men. The story which can't be spun. I'm open to it , I just don't see one.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Stosh

[3bob]

there can be no divorce among aspects related to the truth except in limitations of perception.