Eva Wong: Shambala Guide to Taoism Discussion

[doc benway]

Here is our first book discussion thread -

Shambala Guide to Taoism by Eva Wong.

Let's start with a discussion of the first section which covers the history of Daoism.

 

With all due respect to Daoism, Daoists, and Ms. Wong - when I read through the history section, it reminded me of how much I dislike the trappings of religion. The ritual, ceremonies, superstitions, pomp, and circumstance, politics... all that stuff. I have very little use for it or interest in it. In any and all religions. I know that many folks really appreciate that aspect of it but it just reminds me of how illusory, superstitious, and political it all is...

 

That said, I thought she did an excellent job of presenting the historical perspective of Daoism from the shamanic, prehistoric origins to the current, modern incarnations for someone interested in a concise summary. I can't speak to accuracy or bias, but it was enough for me to feel like I have a place to start from which I can base more in depth study if I chose to. The additional reading suggestions seemed worthwhile though I was only familiar with a handful of them and can't comment on their balance and scholarship. I think it was a very good selection for beginning our book club - thanks for the suggestion to all those who supported it.

 

I'll also try to move the relevant posts from the previous thread which I'll close for clarity's sake...

[satyagraha]

I am not even closed to finishing

[Oolong Rabbit]

reposting my comments from the other thread here:

 

Well, I chewed through the first 200 pages while I was stuck for 8 hrs at LaGuardia (my flight got bumped twice ) coming back from Lin's meet. A lot of interesting details about the various sects, although it gets pretty confusing when you not only have sect X, but you then have Northern and Southern offshoots of sect X that differ greatly. I found the sections on ceremonial and divinational taoism slightly boring, but the sections on magical and alchemical taoism were terrific. It might have just been my state of mind at the time, or perhaps I just have more affinities with these paths. She sure demystifies some of the alchemical processes, and even takes a swipe at Charles Luk haha.... I am really looking forward to reading the next section on Meditation and discussing it with you all.

[doc benway]

Here are posts from the book selection thread that were started on this book:

 

My local library had a copy of the book. Even if it didn't they could get one within a few days. My book shelves overfloweth, so my 2008 resolution is using the library more.

 

I just started reading the book. Her experience and enthusiasm really comes out.

 

Jumping the gun..

 

From the first chapter on Taoism shamanic roots, I can't tell how literally she takes the old legends. The early shamans who could turn into bears. Does she take the stories literally? Its not clear to me, doesn't really matter. Though in religion its interesting to see how fundamentalist the writer is. She certainly takes the concepts of magic and talismans seriously.

Michael

 

 

Hi Michael,

so we're starting? Good!

 

Yes, she is definitly mixing her own tradition with the facts. But she her writing style is pleasent and interesting.

 

I think there are many traditions around the world where people transform into animals. Or have their soul get into animals, and then come back and report (A la Old Granny Weatherwax in Terry Pratchett ), or has the soul of an animal enter into theirs. after all werewolves are quite a universal tradition.

 

So I wonder how different those practices would be from sciamanic practices in other parts of the world.

 

I know someone asked Bruce at some point if there was still an unbroken sciamanic tradition in China, and he said that there was. It was a personal question, so I did not got to learn more about this, but maybe if anyone knows more on this they could share it.

 

 

Lets make it personal. Where do we stand on Shamanistic transformation? Turning into an animal, I don't think so. Controlling an animal with ones thoughts and body language, yes. Transfering your consciousness into an animals body, maybe.

 

Another level- gaining knowledge through spirits? I don't know if I believe in that. I think we're smarter and more intuitive then we realize. I often think those who Channel are really accessing inner knowledge that they won't consciously cop to.

 

Could be wrong though.

Michael

 

 

Some time ago I was speaking with a Buddhist. Asking her about the concept of Death in Buddhism. Eventually we went on to speak on Daoism and Buddhism. And she asked me how old was Daoism. I said 5000 years. She found that very interesting, and asked me some references. On the spot I could only give her Eva Wong book. And reply that I remembered by teacher speaking about Daoism being 5000 years.

 

In fact, right now, that I am writing I remember that when I went to my first Kung Fu school, there also they said that we should imaging on the altar a 5000 years old sage. Again 5000 years. And people who play Go (in Chinese WeiQi), say that the game is also 5000 years. And interestingly according to Eva Wong Daoism came down from Tibetan mountains. Which also the game of Go is said to come fown from.

 

SO in any case eventually I went to Alan to ask for clarification. I thought that being an archeologist he would be able to tell me better, but I would never have expected his answer.

 

Alan- The story of 5000 years, is essentially bollocks. 5000 years ago China was essentially in stone age. There is no evidence whatsoever that Daoism is that old. The oldest copies of the DDJ is about 400 to 300 BC. Confucius is a couple of centuries earlier. Lao Tzu probably never existed, as there are conclusive evidence that the DDJ was written by multiple hands. Then the story of Lao Tzu being older than Confucius is essentially a story in the Chuang Tzu placed there for Chinese Politics. But the fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Daoism is older than Confucianism.

 

Me- But Eva Wong, Bruce.

 

Alan- Eva Wong, is essentially telling her own oral tradition, and so is Bruce. But one thing is the oral tradition that is passed down, and one thing are external evidences.

 

Me- if somwthing is passed through Oral tradition, they need to register the time. And some how update their story as time goes by.

 

Alan- Exactly

 

Me- So if Bruce hard 5000 years from his teacher, than it should be 5030 by now, but he is not going to make this change. So the oral tradition has a serious difficulty in estimating big length of time

 

Alaon- yes.

 

Me- But I heard about ancient remainings, and tombs, and drawing in caves...

 

Alan- [sorry, guys I do not remember all here] Yes, we have drawings of people in Chi Gung postures from ..., and we even have a tomb from the ... period, where the dead person was placed between a mosaic [if I remember well] of a dragon and a mosaic of a tiger. But what is all this telling us?

 

Me- that the concept of duality was already present.

 

Alan- yes, and maybe more. Also that the position of being between the duality was considered beneficial. But we have no books, no scrolls. Consider that even the words "yin" and "yang" were not even being developped at the time of the DDJ [this is particulary sweet if you find them in translations of the DDJ in english. Where a chinese word is being translated into another chinese words that didnt exist at the time!]. They only started appear later. So there might be a tradition in the making, or an oral tradition that with the DDJ suddenly emerges to the light. But at the moment we have no proofs of this. And in any case 5000 years is just bollocks.

 

From that moment "5000 years"became a standing joke between me and Alan. I know he gets really annoyed when Bruce says that Daoism is 5000 years old. While I get really annoyed when anyone, and in particular Bruce, says that some effect in meditation are due to "quantum effects". So we often push each other buttons by joking on it.

 

I thought I would put this here, as people are starting to read the book. I think it is important to consider how much of what we read is objective, and how much is Eva's particular oral tradition. Still I think that as we move from the shamanic origin to more recent history the book become more historical and less mythological.

 

Pietro

 

 

Hi Pietro,

 

I guess it maybe depends on what you define as "Taoism". The shamanistic religions certainly seemed much closer to the Tao than modern society even though the term taoism may not not have been formally used, and some of the concepts may have been crude. I think that's where Eva is getting her date from and she says as much in the book.

 

Brgds!

 

 

Agreed. It surely depends on the definition!

But the definition must make sense.

If you find the same cave with similar remainings in China or somwhere else in the world, then in the one case you call it shamanism, and in the other daoism? Such a definition looks preposterous to me (or actually post-pre-erous ).

 

At some point you need to draw the line. And there seem to be some qualitative difference between the Daoism of the classical period, and the Shamanism before that. So I think you might find some of that "Daoism which is similar to the one in the classical period, and different from the one in the shamanic period" before Lao Tzu. But certainly not thousands of years before. And hardly not in the stone age.

So you have Shamanism (undifferentiated, thousands of years ago), Shamanic Daoism (differentiated, have some of the elements that are then carried out as modern Daoism), Classical Daoism (the one of Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, etc...). How far will you make the Shamanic Daoism go back? Before it is just the same as everywhere else in the world.

 

 

It seems to me that it's not unusual for people to look for the origins of things in antiquity.

This tendency leads us to look as far back as we can to see the roots of development of a tradition or system.

The earliest roots may be barely recognizable but can give us some insight into what gave birth to our traditions.

In fact, if you trace things back far enough or deep enough - they're all the same...

 

 

given that not many people have a clue (or hard data) about "

the Daoism of the classical period" and the "Shamanism before that" this statement is not quite meaningful.

 

what is that difference, again? what is the classical period?

 

Also you guys seem to be pretty sure that shamanism was "before". amusing.

 

 

given that not many people have a clue (or hard data) about "

the Daoism of the classical period" and the "Shamanism before that" this statement is not quite meaningful.

Well, considering that this is a discussion internos between person who are in the book club;

given that the book club is at the moment reading a book from Eva Wong on the History of Taoism;

given that such book has two chapters (chapter number 1, and number 2) describing two different type of Daoism, one called the shamanic origins, and the other called the classical period;

given that such chapters don't just describe the period in which those type of Daoism mostly originated (or emerged), but also how were the Daoism from those periods different;

given that we do have hard data (texts) from both those perios. (For example for the Classical period we have the Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. While for the shamanic period we have texts that are collected in The Daoist Experience);

given that more than this we have the luck to have the possibility to ask to an archeologist for descriptions abotu more non textual data, archeologist who is particularly interested in that period;

given that some of us (me in particular) is studying with a Daoist, who is a recognised lineage master, and claims that the teaching he received are coming directly through oral tradition from the Lao Tzu tradition.

 

I would claim that instead we do have enough material for this discussion.

We are here refering to the period in which the DDJ was written to about when Daoism became a religion.

Circa 300/400 BC to 300 AD. Some people would make it start earlier.

Well, the archologists seem to be pretty sure that shamanic practices were present before the philosophy that gave rise to the DDJ was developed. Now this about the origin. No one here have said that Shamanism stopped there.

are you really amused, or are you just pretending to show a superiority that you don't really posses?

 

"Procurator", I appreciate your comments. They are often harsh, and direct. But please as you ask (actually require) everybody to do their homework, do yours to. We are here discussing the Shambhala Guide to Taoism, from Eva Wong. Have you read it?

agreed

 

 

no, i read academic works not pop history. Wong is a valid practitioner but her attempts at historicity are flawed and often naive.

 

For academic critique of her version of history see this:

http://venus.unive.it/dsao/pregadio/articles/notes/wong.html

 

but far it be from me interrupt your learened discussion, mine was just a tangential comment in passim

 

 

Hello Procurator, I think you must have confused the links. Pregadio is of course a serious academic voice, and he is indeed making a review of Eva's work. But only in respect to the book "Understanding Stillness". If you have a specific review on this book I am sure we are all interested. In the link you provided (thanks, by the way) the only part that seem to be more general to me seems:

Which indeed again shows Wong as a person who is presenting her own version of Daoist History. Which by the way is also something that she is presenting in the introduction of her book.

 

We chose this book for various reasons, but essentially because it was accessible, introductory, and had some historical information (albeit not always objective). Getting immediatly into something harder might not have been fair for all the people who had up to now a passing interest in Daoism.

 

If you had doubts on the book we were reading you should have voice your opinion before. Like Taomeow, who by writing a critique of Luk's book was able to stir the whole group from that book. If you make the critique in the right moment you will indeed have an effect on the whole community. So, please do. FOr example right now we are collecting suggestions for the next book to read. Isabelle Robinet, History of Taoism, has been suggested. Regrdless of the fact that I will read that book anyway, I have some doubts over reading two books on the history of Daoism. One after the other.

 

Considering that we need a book in English (either written in English, or translated). Considering that it needs to be accessible for the current minimal level of this group (not the average, not the top, the minimal). What would you suggest?

 

 

that is a tough one. There are not many books that are both easy to read and serious.

 

you guys could read this website for general reference and discuss individual articles one by one.

http://www.eng.taoism.org.hk/general-daois...m/pg1-2-1-1.asp

 

This one is informative and lively written (i am not sure 'sup with the crazy price on amazon now)

http://www.amazon.com/Taoist-Master-Chuang...6376&sr=8-1

 

this one is considerably more boring but the presentation is simple

http://www.amazon.com/Taoist-Body-Kristofe...6649&sr=1-1

[Pietro]

since the quote did not work, could you please either move the original messages, or better just assign a different color for each of us. RIght now it is so hard to read.

 

And yes, it is all for a laugh, but let's make it proper, or at least nice.

[Pietro]

Thanks! This makes it so much easier to read!

[Mal]

Thanks for moving / coloring the quotes

 

I'm still in, just a slight mail delay. Perhaps I'll be forced to skim the history part The lack of rituals and ceremonies is what I like most about Taoism

[Taomeow]

How seriously does she take things like Emperor Yu turning into a bear and the River Luo writing and the Hetu map appearing on the backs of celestially sent animals so on?.. As seriously as one is serious about accepting the taoist paradigm instead of picking and choosing therefrom whatever might fit one's

current paradigm, whatever that happens to be.

 

I know a Chinese lady whose daughter married an American to the chagrin of the girl's grandparents and some members of the extended family, who thought it was a bad idea. However, they were having a large family gathering for the New Year celebration and serving all the traditional (and weird) festive foods (a minimum of 24 dishes, usually more). The young American husband redeemed himself at that gathering. The mother-in-law explained proudly: "He does have respect and trust for our culture. HE ATE EVERYTHING! No picking, no yuck, no eeew, no no-thank-you-I'll-pass, no stupid American superstitions about what's edible. He ate everything like one of us. And we accepted him into the family."

 

That's my approach to taoism. If I want to be part of it, no picking for me, no "this can't be true," no "this is a silly Chinese superstition," no "I don't like religious stuff," nothing like that. What's good enough for Emperor Yu is certainly good enough for me. And what's trustworthy enough for Eva Wong, the daughter of a taoist father and the descendant of a few dozen generations of same who went before her, is trustworthy enough for me. What is NOT trustworthy for me is anything a scholar will dismiss on the basis of having been steeped in the German-made modern educational system in existence for about 150 years and conceived specifically as a method to "break and tame a young mind" (I kid you not). This is not trustworthy to me at all. None of it. I accept bear emperors anytime before I accept biomechanical fundamentalism, the religion of modern Western denomination, an arrogant, bullying Johnny-come-lately triumphantly fragmenting everything integral it touches -- and ultimately the most idiotic one that ever existed if you ask me.

[gendao]

I know a Chinese lady whose daughter married an American to the chagrin of the girl's grandparents and some members of the extended family, who thought it was a bad idea. However, they were having a large family gathering for the New Year celebration and serving all the traditional (and weird) festive foods (a minimum of 24 dishes, usually more). The young American husband redeemed himself at that gathering. The mother-in-law explained proudly: "He does have respect and trust for our culture. HE ATE EVERYTHING! No picking, no yuck, no eeew, no no-thank-you-I'll-pass, no stupid American superstitions about what's edible. He ate everything like one of us. And we accepted him into the family."

They must have been Cantonese.

 

Personally, I think the "food = culture" litmus test is rather reductionist and not necessarily synonymous. But, I digress...

Edited March 4, 2008 by vortex

[Taomeow]

They must have been Cantonese.

 

Personally, I think the "food = culture" litmus test is rather reductionist and not necessarily synonymous. But, I digress...

"You are what you eat" is what I believe.

 

Spiritually and metaphorically too, but first and foremost physically.

 

I read somewhere that modern Western diets are deficient in 94% of nutrients essential for human metabolism. To me it means people who eat these diets are only 6% human. But I digress too...

[Oolong Rabbit]

So what do you guys think of Eva Wong's description of internal alchemy? I think she gives more than most of what I have read anywhere else, and in plain english. She doesn't spell everything out, but I think altogether she gives enough clues that you can start putting some pieces of the puzzle together. Still not sure I would recommend experimenting with it willy nilly though.

[Pietro]

...

What is NOT trustworthy for me is anything a scholar will dismiss on the basis of having been steeped in the German-made modern educational system in existence for about 150 years and conceived specifically as a method to "break and tame a young mind" (I kid you not). This is not trustworthy to me at all. None of it. ...

 

 

Hello again.

 

As you can imagine I am not very fond of this take it all or take it none attitude. And I am aware of how the education system was studied to tame the young mind. But I only read about it on Zinn's People's History of the United States.

There it was not connected with scientific method, nor with the idea of dissecting a topic to understand it better at all. In fact I am not very convinced with the two being in any relation. Apart for a mere historical collusion.

 

So do you think you can give me some references on the history of the education system?

Because I do believe that a lot of ill things came from that.

And I am very upset with the way in which kids have been and are still being schooled.

But I do believe that eliminating the rational investigative attitude, to eliminate the scholar system would amount to throwing away the baby

 

with the bathwater.

 

Pietro

 

So what do you guys think of Eva Wong's description of internal alchemy? I think she gives more than most of what I have read anywhere else, and in plain english. She doesn't spell everything out, but I think altogether she gives enough clues that you can start putting some pieces of the puzzle together. Still not sure I would recommend experimenting with it willy nilly though.

 

 

I find very interesting the movement from external alchemy to internal alchemy. Also because right now I see the opposite movement happen. Because of the evolution of medicine, and the studies about the way the brain, and the hormonal system works, there seem to be more and more people who are looking for external drugs to give them the pill of immortality. Or at least of long life.

 

And with reason, if it is true (as I read it has been shown) that once you give hgh to 80 year old people, on average few of them die. Of course the jury is out on the topic of using the drug for long term prevention from old age.

 

The other thing that I would like to understand is when exactly did Buddhism came to China. And what reference does it have to alchemical practices. Understood that neo taoism, from 1000AD was a synergetic movement that put together Daoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. Still before that moment Daoists and Buddhist and Confucianists coexisted. Fought, interbred. I wonder how responsibe is Buddhism for the alchemical school itself. But this is part of my quest to understand the origin of the water/fire duality.

 

Pietro

[doc benway]

 

And I am very upset with the way in which kids have been and are still being schooled.

But I do believe that eliminating the rational investigative attitude, to eliminate the scholar system would amount to throwing away the baby with the bathwater.

Are you familiar with "The Happy Child" by Steven Harrison?

Superb book on education in America from a non-dual perspective.

 

Because of the evolution of medicine, and the studies about the way the brain, and the hormonal system works, there seem to be more and more people who are looking for external drugs to give them the pill of immortality.

That's a very interesting perspective - the similarity between external alchemy and modern Western medicine...

[Pietro]

Are you familiar with "The Happy Child" by Steven Harrison?

Thanks. No I was not aware of Harrison book.

That's a very interesting perspective - the similarity between external alchemy and modern Western medicine...

Well, from what I know researches on aging are being very well funded at the moment. Both in the US and in Europe. Plus there are many people who do not study aging directly but have it in the back of their mind. As Joffrey West (video).

[Procurator]

 

I find very interesting the movement from external alchemy to internal alchemy. Pietro

i share that interest. One point of view that there was none - i.e. the internal and the external were always equally valid and coexsistant. I have been told by a reputable source that there are practitioners of external alchemy in China even now.

 

 

That's a very interesting perspective - the similarity between external alchemy and modern Western medicine...

except there is none beyond both dealing with pills.

 

 

 

The other thing that I would like to understand is when exactly did Buddhism came to China. And what reference does it have to alchemical practices.

very direct but it is a very complex issue.

[Pietro]

except there is none beyond both dealing with pills.

...

and the aim, ...and the understanding the ingestion of external material can help reaching that aim.

 

Kind as usual, eh?

 

very direct but it is a very complex issue.

enlighten us.

[宁]

I agree on the picking part, fitting stuff into your paradigm wont get you anywhere, because if you fit them, they cannot shape you no more. This is their power: they are so apart of your paradigm, that you have to build some kind of conceptual and body-mind bridge. This is as good as a definiton of practice, as any.

 

Regarding science and alchemy, i cannot help one very amusing observation regarding the vision of one of my main teachers. He is not the guy to get dragged away into the so complex taoist paradigm... he will face taoism on his own terrain. That is, modern science. If taoism has objective values, they can be discovered or acknowleged one way or another... you know, he's so funny... he couldnt care less about metaphoric alchemy texts... "Sup wit dat stuff??" He's not in a hurry also, his master is a little puzzled about this too. LOLZ.

 

L1

[Procurator]

...

and the aim, Kind as usual, eh?

 

No. Not the aim. Medicine is concerned with the survival of physical body. Alchemy does not care less about the physical body. Ingestion of an alchemy pill leads to creation of something that may sometime look like a physical body but in fact is its direct opposite. Consider that in chinese alchemy some methods had their aim not to prolong life but to bring on the death of the phisical body - total opposite of western medicine. Western synogists explained such deaths by the stupidity of the alchemists who allegedly did not understand that mercury and lead are poisonous. In reality of course its the scholars like Livia Kohn who dont have a clue.

Edited March 8, 2008 by Procurator

[Procurator]

 

enlighten us.

hmmm i donno know..i am just an old itenerant monk but if we all are up to a little homework, why not?

http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=16920

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/taoism/

 

and then a little multiple choice test

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~kaplan/eas201/201-09ta.pdf

[doc benway]

 

except there is none beyond both dealing with pills.

 

That's a very superficial assessment. What is driving each group? If you explore the motivation, the thought process involved, there are very obvious and profound similarities - probably more than some would care to admit.

 

 

Alchemy does not care less about the physical body.

That is incorrect. Many alchemical traditions focus a great deal of attention on physical and psychological health. The alchemical process can be long and demanding and requires a healthy organism to make the journey. Ultimately, the organism may be transformed and eventually discarded entirely, but the road to that point can be long.

[rain]

..............

Edited April 17, 2008 by rain

[rain]

...............

Edited April 17, 2008 by rain

[Mal]

I'm still in, just a slight mail delay.

 

I'm still experiencing the same slight mail delay 20th of May and still no books. A bit of a slipage from the the 5th of May delivery date they promised.

 

Oh well it they ever turn up I'll try to spark up a discussion.

[Mal]

But probably not before 2~5 days after the 11 of April because it looks like my order was lost Amazon are shipping a replacement and they have to credit and then re-charge my card.

 

The credit takes 3 days to come through so I no longer have $80 for the weekend..................

 

it's all good

[Mal]