Philosophical vs. religious Taoism - Split Discussion

[Limahong]

On 4/1/2017 at 7:33 AM, teamdialectics said:

I'm curious about various schools of Taoism, their history, why they are different to each other, and what they're like in practice today.

 

Hi teamdialectics,

 

Have you followed up on the Taoism leads dawei has so kindly shared with us?

 

If so, where are you now positioned?

 

- LimA

Edited June 4, 2017 by Limahong
Correct typo error.

[Limahong]

Hi Marblehead,

 

Have you wondered if teamdialectics have followed up on the "various schools of Taoism, their history, why they are different to each other, and what they're like in practice today"?

 

Are you still wondering?

 

Excuse me I am now wandering off in search of cookies and milk.

 

- LimA

[Mig]

I think the problem is the English translation of philosophical and religious Daoism. IMHO, I would get rid of those western concepts and stick with Daojia and Daojiao or avoid the philosophical word to describe Daojia. Just saying

[Wu Ming Jen]

Let's look at Taoist religion The gods are an archetype of successful relationships and the best of humanity making civilization. The gods were actual people who lived exemplary lives. The gods all have jobs. The Gods are not real they are symbolic to show the way.  This is much different than western religion. We can't even call Taoism religion by western standards.. 

 

Much of taoist religion was fabricated after the introduction of Buddhism that quickly was infused with taoism in China.

 

At the inception of what we call Taoism there is no division between religious or philosophical Taoism.

 

Think of the subject matter, the Tao, it contains all things so we can not look small and break things into sub categories and little pieces, we miss the bigger picture. 

[Marblehead]

2 hours ago, Limahong said:

Hi Marblehead,

 

Have you wondered if teamdialectics have followed up on the "various schools of Taoism, their history, why they are different to each other, and what they're like in practice today"?

 

Are you still wondering?

 

Excuse me I am now wandering off in search of cookies and milk.

 

- LimA

We each have our own journey and searches, etc.  I don't go into the depth that is being spoken to here so I limit myself to what discussions I get involved in.  There are a number of members here who do go into the depth of Taoism and all the associated practices.  They will speak when they feel they have something to add.

 

Yes, I will forever wonder as I doubt I will ever find all the answers.

 

Yes, milk and cookies are good.

 

[Limahong]

 

13 hours ago, Mig said:

 

I think the problem is the English translation

 

 

Hi Mig,

Any translation from one language to another will entail some ‘lost in translation’. Not only translation into English. An English classic translated into Chinese may have its ‘origin’ rearranged.

 

It will be great for me if I can read the Daojia and Daojiao in their original linguistic forms (i.e. Chinese). But unfortunately I cannot because I failed linguistically as a student.

 

Did I look down on myself for having failed thus? No. When I was seven years old, how do I choose not to learn as a colonised British subject?

 

Did I blame my parents in any way? No. Why? They had struggled to bring food to the table. Yet they lived as Taoists dutifully and secularly (without questions) as dictated by familial and filial norms.

 

My siblings and I were brought up thus by our parents – responsibly and accountably; and we are grateful for the lineage to have descended humbly down upon us thus.

 

No better way for us. We have every wish to pass down the Taoist baton thus - in turn responsibly and accountably in modern everyday living. We are cognizant that nothing is cast in stone.

 

The long/short of the debate in ‘philosophy versus religion’ Taoism cannot be measured.

 

Why? How do you debate on something that defines a person’s life (perhaps predestined by The Divine in the first instance). Can we ever understand his blood, sweat and tears for being born a Taoist and then …

 

I had struggled until the recent past when I begin to understand that dichotomies, divisions, contradictions … are not intended by Taoism. Why? The roots of Taoism are non-dualistic. They seek harmony.

 

I like your - ‘Just saying’; you are nicely sensitive.

 

- LimA

Edited June 5, 2017 by Limahong
Correct typo error

[Marblehead]

1 hour ago, Limahong said:

 

I like your - ‘Just saying’; you are nicely sensitive.

 

- LimA

I'm not so much.

 

[Limahong]

Hi Marblehead,

 

When it comes to the Taoist ‘philosophy vs religion’debate, these are registered on this thread:

 

Dawei - If we debate their dichotomy, then we are just seeing and thinking within our realm of local understanding... If we let them unite...  we should see something more complete,

 

Wu Ming Jen - At the inception of what we call Taoism there is no division between religious or philosophical Taoism.

 

Mig – Just saying.

Our friend is witty (brevity is the soul of wit). We can suppose he meant this – I am just saying and not debating.  Debate? No way (as in wuwei). I told you - he is witty

 

Marblehead - I'm not so much

You are trying to copy Mig’s wit (imitation is the sincerest form of flattery). I am sure this is what you have in mind – I’m not so much as just saying; I bloody well mean it. Debate? What bloody debate? No!

 

Me? I rest my case. It is past midnight at my end. I have brushed my teeth. Goodnight.

 

- LimA

[Limahong]

20 hours ago, Marblehead said:

We each have our own journey and searches, etc.  I don't go into the depth that is being spoken to here so I limit myself to what discussions I get involved in.  ............................

 

Yes, I will forever wonder as I doubt I will ever find all the answers.

 

Yes, milk and cookies are good.

 

Hi Marblehead,

 

I am up again in search of milk and cookies. It is sort of a routine since I joined TDB.

 

But this newly acquired habit will soon be nipped in the bud as I am getting closer to a better understanding of Taoism from within, I will be less dependent on external resources, including milk and cookies.

 

At this moment I am inclined to believe that the cultivation of the Tao starts from within oneself, Isn't what Nei Gong is all about?

 

I have come across Nei Gong often at TDB but I kept it at arm's length. Why? I do want my mind to be programmed and coloured by words.

 

I buy this from OldSaint - "don't really want to elaborate on what 'source' is because language always falls short when ...  trying to describe nondual things".

 

I equate OldSaint's "source" to The Tao/Taoism. And I link the later to Reality. The entities in this connection/continuum are all non-dualistic.

 

I am now accepting myself as dualistic; and a better understanding of The Tao/Taoism will reduce this duality in me.

 

How do I cultivate such an understanding? From first-hand experiences in wuwei living and listening to myself more with humility.

 

When duality is reduced, there will be less struggle - converging to more peace.

 

Thank you for "what is".

 

- LimA

 

Edited June 5, 2017 by Limahong

[Marblehead]

3 hours ago, Limahong said:

I am now accepting myself as dualistic; and a better understanding of The Tao/Taoism will reduce this duality in me.

 

How do I cultivate such an understanding? From first-hand experiences in wuwei living and listening to myself more with humility.

 

When duality is reduced, there will be less struggle - converging to more peace.

 

Thank you for "what is".

 

- LimA

 

You did very well here.

[Limahong]

Good morning Marblehead,

 

Thank you. You lead me on together with dawei (thank you also).

 

Have to internalise what have just appear brfore me.

 

I look forward to simplicity and fun ahead.

 

- LimA

[Limahong]

On 6/5/2017 at 6:43 AM, Wu Ming Jen said:

 

Think of the subject matter, the Tao, it contains all things so we can not look small and break things into sub categories and little pieces, we miss the bigger picture. 

 

Hi Wu MJ,

 

I like your thoughts on "little pieces" and "bigger picture".

 

I have them associated with 'little drops of water' and 'the ocean' respectively.

 

In this direction ('ocean' => 'droplets of water') - I can mentally picture the constitutional processes in between.

 

But in this direction ('droplets of water' => 'ocean') - I cannot mentally account for the configurational processes in between. Some water droplets may not reach the ocean; they be trapped in icebergs and remained so for the longest time.

 

To cut to the chase:

(i) Taoism can account for Taoist "little pieces".

(ii) Taoist "little pieces" may not accrue to Taoism.

(iii) So we should not split hairs with Taoist "little pieces"?

 

- LimA

Edited June 7, 2017 by Limahong
Correct typo error.

[dawei]

 

 

On 6/4/2017 at 5:47 AM, Limahong said:

It was only yesterday that I have these figured out:

 

(i) Taoism (Daojia) is not dualistic even though it is into yin/yang. It is just objective “what is”.

 

(ii) Teachings, lineages, schools, practices … of Taoism (Daojiao) can be dualistic (depending on the directions of ‘coming/going’).

 

(iii) Taoists (as followers of Taoism) – too can be dualistic; here the variants are even more complex as they are fastened to individual practitioners.

 

 

I have said this in the past:

 

 

Quote

That is my experience asking monks at Daoist temples to explain the difference. The standard first response is that there is none. If pushed to make some explanation I usually got:
Daojiao - teachings of the Way

Daojia - followers [family] of the Way

To make a distinction seems a more academic effort to take snapshots of time and see the 'process of its evolution' but in the process it misses the 'cumulative and integrative' nature. I think Robinet said it well.

One can always catch this mistake when someone is trying to claim philosophical daoism precedes the religious and then doesn't consider what preceded all that.

 

 

And another related topic:

 

 

 

And this here:

 

Quote

 

I once said that Daoism seems to evolve as:

 

Primitive Naturalism > Divining and Mythology > Shamanism/Spiritualism > Political Philosophy > Alchemy > Religion > Dark Philosophy > Modern Philosophy

 

To me, it is not "When did folk religion become Daoism", but rather: When did Daoism reveal folk religion?

 

Folk Religion goes back to primitive cultures and that is where we need to look to understand the unfolding of Daoism and the eventual syncretic text known as the DDJ. LZ and ZZ both refer to those prior and that is something I won't overlook.

 

 

Hongkyung Kim provided this quote in his book on LZ:

Du Daojian (1237–1318) stated, “Laozi that the Han people discussed was Laozi of the Han dynasty; Laozi that the Jin people discussed was Laozi of the Jin dynasty; and Laozi that the Tang and Song people discussed was Laozi of the Tang and Song dynasties.”

 

He later said that one cannot prefer one period LZ at the expense another period LZ. I would content this basic point when looking at Daoism if one is to understand the entire history.

 

The evolving nature of how Daoism reveals itself means it inherently always has a prior and thus syncretic in nature. We see this in the LZ, ZZ, and how Sima Qian describes Daoist and thus how Huang-Lao is based.