Is this forum still about Taoism...?

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

But it's absurd for adherents of religious Taoism to now disqualify the original kind of Taoism as found in classics as not being the real thing.

as usual there is not a single logical argument, only insults;)

1 hour ago, SirPalomides said:

"Philosophical Daoism" is a fake construct

of course it is. because those who use that term never define it. what does it even mean? that the historical Lao-zi or Zhuang-zi were atheists or something? or they do not refer to religious rites in their books?

[liminal_luke]

My practice has been profoundly shifted in Taoist directions (or at least what I take as Taoist directions, for the skeptically inclined) by my time on this forum.  It doesn't take much.  Just one post -- if it's the right post -- can open up years of productive exploration.  

Edited February 15 by liminal_luke

[SirPalomides]

21 minutes ago, Master Logray said:

 

道家 & 道教

 

家 and 教 do not correspond to the terms "philosophy" and "religion." What else you got? 

[ChiDragon]

4 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

 

家 and 教 do not correspond to the terms "philosophy" and "religion." What else you got? 

道家 are those who study and follow the principles in the Tao Te Ching.
 
道教 is definitely referring to the Taoist religion. 

[SirPalomides]

11 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

of course it is. because those who use that term never define it. what does it even mean? that the historical Lao-zi or Zhuang-zi were atheists or something? or they do not refer to religious rites in their books?

 

What's weird is that this distinction doesn't even work in a Western context before maybe the 17th century or so. Plato, Aristotle, etc. are clearly "religious" thinkers and philosophy has an inherent religious dimension. So basically we're taking a set of categories that only (and debatably) apply in a very narrow window of Western intellectual history, and applying it to a set of ancient Chinese texts for which it is completely irrelevant. 

[SirPalomides]

3 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

道家 are those who study and follow the principles in the Tao Te Ching.
 
道教 is definitely referring to the Taoist religion. 

 

They do not refer to distinct "philosophical" and "religious" schools. 道教 includes the study/following of the principles of the Tao Te Ching, so by your own definition 道教 belongs to 道家. 

Edited February 15 by SirPalomides

[Unota]

What...? Is this the 'can we separate religion and philosophy in Daoism' debate again?

[Master Logray]

 

 

 

The Daoist Encyclopedia

FYSK Daoist Culture Centre Database

Similarities and differences between religious and philosophical Daoism

 

 

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Religious Daoism ( 道教 Daojiao) is the indigenous religion of China, which holds longevity and immortality as its highest object of faith. It advocates attaining Longevity ( 長生 Changsheng) and Immortality ( 成仙 Chengxian) through a process of Nourishing Life ( 養生 Yangsheng), Cultivation and Refinement ( 修煉 Xiulian), and the practise of virtuous conduct, in order to escape death and reach eternity. Philosophical Daoism ( 道家 Daojia) is a current in the history of Chinese philosophy, while religious Daoism is a religion. However, the two are intimately related. The core concept of Daoist thought, `Dao'( 道 Dao), was inherited and transformed by Daoist religion, while Laozi, the founder of Daoist philosophy, was incorporated into religious Daoism as the `Supreme Venerable Sovereign' ( 太上老君 Taishang Laojun) divinity. The ''Book of Dao and its Virtue'' ( 道德經 Daodejing) and the Book of Master Zhuang ( 莊子 Zhuangzi), classics of Daoist philosophy, became `Perfect Scriptures' ( 真經 Zhenjing) of religious Daoism. The inheritance and transformation of elements of Daoist philosophy by Daoist religion shows both the links between the two as well as the differences between them. We can say that the value orientations of religious and philosophical Daoism are fundamentally different

According to later scholars, the development of Daoist philosophy can be divided into three stages: Lao-Zhuang Daoist philosophy ( 老莊道家 Laozhuang Daojia) of the pre-Qin era; Huang-Lao Daoism ( 黃老道 Huanglaodao) of the Qin and Han dynasties; and the 'Science of Mysteries' ( 玄學 Xuanxue) Daoist philosophy of the Wei and Jin dynasties. After the Wei and Jin, `Philosophical Daoism' became a thing of the past, as Daoist philosophy came to be completely replaced by Daoist religion. Therefore, after the Jin dynasty, references to the `Daoist School' ( 道家 Daojia)actually refer to the Daoist religion, when not specifically designating the philosophical Daoism of the pre-Qin, Qin, Han, Wei or Jin dynasties. We can thus say that after the Jin, religious Daoism took the place of Daoist philosophy in terms of social role and function.

According to the Guide to Chinese Thought by the American Prof. T. Bishop, `there is no reason to see Daoist religion as a product of the degeneration and corruption of a pure Daoist philosophy. The relationship between the two should be seen in a different light. The ideological system of the Daoist religion includes many aspects lacking in Daoist philosophy, which are of utmost importance to peoples' practical life: for example, Daoist philosophy appeals to logic and the spirit, while Daoist religion appeals to peoples' emotions, feelings and interests. Religious Daoism makes full use of peoples' sense of fear and mystery, which are ignored by philosphical Daoism." When looking at the differences between religious and philosophical Daoism, we can see that although the two are mutually complementary, Daoist religion is more significant to the practical lives of common people.

In order to understand Daoism, it is necessary to understand the clear difference between religious and philosophical Daoism, as well as their intimate relationship.

[ChiDragon]

24 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

 

They do not refer to distinct "philosophical" and "religious" schools. 道教 includes the study/following of the principles of the Tao Te Ching, so by your own definition 道教 belongs to 道家. 

FYI 道教 was derived from some of the philosophy from part of the Tao Ta Ching. However, they had ignored the majority philosophical part of the Tao Te Ching.

道家 are the scholars who study the philosophy as a whole of the TTC. They do not worship the deities of the Taoist religion.

Edited February 15 by ChiDragon

[SirPalomides]

Quoting the bare assertions of an online encyclopedia does not resolve the basic problem that these categories are nonsensical. And categorizing 玄學 as Daoism is just wrong. 

[Master Logray]

4 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

Quoting the bare assertions of an online encyclopedia does not resolve the basic problem that these categories are nonsensical. And categorizing 玄學 as Daoism is just wrong. 

 

So one of the most prominent temple and the Hong Kong Taoist Association are just wrong.

[SirPalomides]

3 minutes ago, Master Logray said:

 

So one of the most prominent temple and the Hong Kong Taoist Association are just wrong.

 

I'm glad you agree. 

[wandelaar]

Quote

Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.

 

Friedrich Schiller

 

This says it all. No use to continue.

[ChiDragon]

26 minutes ago, Unota said:

What...? Is this the 'can we separate religion and philosophy in Daoism' debate again?

Yes, again!

[Master Logray]

1 hour ago, Unota said:

What...? Is this the 'can we separate religion and philosophy in Daoism' debate again?

 

This debate was hundreds of years.   Anyway, from the viewpoint of another lazy person, the debate is more for academic, or for tea house, or for forum.  The 2 groupings do not imply 2 different groups of people.  A Taoist priest can be well versed with YiJing and DDJ.   A Taoist philosopher most likely goes to the same temples and worship the similar gods with similar rites.   Cultivators very often are not well educated or even illiterate to read DDJ (they got periodic teachings by mouth) and only go to temple once a year.

[Sherman Krebbs]

My understanding is that the status of Daoism as a "religion," rather than a philosophy, dates back at least to the 13th century, when  following a visit from the Quasi-Daoist Monk Ch'ang Ch'un in the winter of 1223, Chinggis Kahn issued a decree (later rumored to be false) giving Daoists tax exempt status.  That decree was later recognized by the Yuan dynasty.     

 

During that time, there were serious political and philosophical disputes between the Buddhists (the favored religion of the Yuan) and the Daoists, and absent tax exempt status, the Daoist monks would have had a much harder time getting their wu wei on. : )

 

Interestingly, following much political turmoil between the two sects, in the summer of 1255, Mongke Kan decided that the philosophical issues between the two had to be settled in a public debate.  That debate was held and the Daoists were allegedly defeated (although they did not admit defeat).  Shortly thereafter there was a second debate in 1258, in which Confucians were established as the referees.  And, big suprise, the Daoists were soundly defeated again.  

 

Got this from a book called Imperial Nomads by Luc Kwanten. 

[Unota]

As for the separation from religion thing:

 

In my personal view I just think you can just do 'whatever you want forever.' You can detach your practices from the historical beliefs however you want. You can twist it to suit you personally however you want. You can know as little or as much about it as you want. What am I going to do about it? Even the uneducated cultivators are not doing anything to harm me, even if it annoys me a bit that people don't seem to understand that the DDJ can only be truly understood through personal interpretation because it was written in vaguely interpreted ways on purpose. When you read a translation, you are only reading what it means to the person that translated it. Which, is why you have a bunch of translations that seem vastly different from each-other.

 

I also think that trying to detach religion from a system that is deeply tied into these beliefs historically, shows an aversion to religion in general, which I don't entirely agree with. Religion is tied to the evolution of culture, the foundation of how people thought and why they did things. I think if you completely detach the religious aspect from the philosophical aspect, then you reject it as a whole.

 

As for the, why there are so few daoist posts, and why I don't typically interact or add my own:

 

I think it's silly to argue about things unless I just want to put my own personal opinion out there, which I don't really think matters that much, and I'm not usually inclined to do. That might be the case for other people, which is probably, why we don't have a lot of 'forum fodder,' as Keith put it. It just kind of feels like...a waste of time to me. Maybe if that is something that you like to do. I'm sure that there are people that get genuine enjoyment from debate. But I would rather be doing other things.

 

I do really like legends and learning about them. I like learning about inner spirits. I like learning about historical figures which may or may not have even existed, or the progression of external to inner alchemy throughout history, and what 'external alchemy' looked like in certain time periods. But I don't really feel like starting a whole thread about it.

 

I also think that a lot of things people posted about on here in the past have been a bunch of 'new age nonsense,' and I think that the concept of achieving some sort of spiritual 'superpowers' or 'immortality' via things like 'staring at the sun' have always been a depiction of self-inflated ego, even throughout history. People took things like mercury pills to live forever. (Question: Why would you do something like that? Why would you even want to?) Despite the fact that I love to read about it, I have no personal interest in applying 'alchemy' to myself and will not talk about it in any related threads. And, like Keith said, a lot of this is all more something you put to practice rather than typically talk about.

 

And, from observation, I also think that a lot of these daoists on this forum are grumpy old men with too much free time. I am not particularly interested in having any discussions with any of them. I think that a lot of Daoists are very...self-absorbed. And it comes across in the way that they speak. I like the Buddhists more.

 

This is probably the most 'opinion' that I have put into a post. But I feel obligated since for once, people are actually talking about something that interests me.

[blue eyed snake]

.

Edited February 15 by blue eyed snake
double post

[blue eyed snake]

28 minutes ago, Unota said:

even if it annoys me a bit that people don't seem to understand that the DDJ can only be truly understood through personal interpretation because it was written in vaguely interpreted ways on purpose. When you read a translation, you are only reading what it means to the person that translated it. Which, is why you have a bunch of translations that seem vastly different from each-other.

 

some years ago there were threads about the several classics that i happily followed, 

several translations, how people thought about it, how you could interpret. 

 

I liked that, also memory of @Marblehead who instigated at least one of those threads, he  interpreted everything strictly rational, i am more inclined to interpret in terms of energy and reincarnation but it did not matter in the least.  found it very interesting to read the different views on these old texts. 

 

and I do not think we will ever really grasp the meaning, to really grasp that you should be a Chinese person living in the time it was written, but we can learn from it and colloquial conservation about it is nice. 

[wandelaar]

@blue eyed snake That's the kind of topics I was referring to. And those are no longer seen today....

 

[Cobie]

4 hours ago, wandelaar said:

The expressions for the two forms of Taoism are in the Kroll Dictionary. Cobie probably knows where to find it.

 

~~~<>~~~
Kroll 

~~~<>~~~
 

(page 80) 道 

 

5. ideas and teachings especially associated with the texts Zhuangzi and Laozi (or Daodejing); 

e.g. 道家 dao4 jia1,

lineage of the Way, bibliographic category refers to these and related texts, often defined as ‘philosophical Daoism’ in contrast to next.
a. practices especially associated with movements and texts relating to masters of self-cultivation, pursuit of immortality, and various organised religious communities, esp. those ultimately deriving from the Way of the Celestial Masters (tianshidao 天 師 道) founded in mid-2nd-c. CE;

e.g. (medieval [*] ) 道教 dao4 jiao4,

teaching of the Way, from early 5th-c. CE a term assoc. with groups and texts just described, often defined now as ‘religious Daoism’.

[* Kroll (see page X) (medieval) means that this meaning was not in use before the third century CE.]

 

However

 

~~~<>~~~

Taoist Texts

~~~<>~~~
 

(https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/55282-taoism-according-to/?do=findComment&comment=1018711  ) 

 

… this quote above [Kroll] reflects the hilariously ignorant notion that 道家 were some kind of rational philosophers. They were not as this quote below proves:

《道虛 - Daoxu》

 

 

 

Edited February 15 by Cobie

[wandelaar]

Thanks! Clear enough. Thus philosophical Taoism as practiced in the West stands in the tradition of 道家 dao4 jia1 and cannot rightfully be disqualified as a "fake construct" invented by ignorant western "cultural imperialists".

[Cobie]

36 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

… Thus philosophical Taoism as practiced in the West … cannot rightfully be disqualified as a "fake construct" invented by ignorant western "cultural imperialists".

If there is such a thing as “a ‘fake construct’ invented by ignorant western ‘cultural imperialists’ “,

then Kroll (an American) could be part of it and his dictionary entries might be skewed. 

https://www.colorado.edu/alc/paul-w-kroll  

 

 

Edited February 15 by Cobie

[wandelaar]

37 minutes ago, Cobie said:

“Thus” hmm ... not really imo. I would think that if there’s such a thing as “a "fake construct" invented by ignorant western "cultural imperialists", then Kroll is part of that. 

 

That's why it's nonsense. I consider Kroll as a respectable source, while Taoist Texts clearly isn't. His links are usually interesting but besides the point. The link you quoted is to an early skeptical text, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunheng

As I said before the Tao Te Ching and other Taoist classics contain mystical and magical elements, which is only to be expected given the time they were written. As usual Taoist Text is first setting up a straw man ("the hilariously ignorant notion that 道家 were some kind of rational philosophers") in order to shoot it down. Nobody here said they were rational philosophers. But they could be described as philosophers (for lack of a better word), that's all that is claimed. Better ignore Taoist Texts altogether. Which I have done by putting him on my Ignore List, but unhappily by you quoting him I'm reminded of the continuing influence of his machinations.

Edited February 15 by wandelaar

[blue eyed snake]

2 hours ago, wandelaar said:

@blue eyed snake That's the kind of topics I was referring to. And those are no longer seen today....

 

 

yes, i get that but we can't force that to come back.

 

I am not much of a reader in this department and my contributions were sparse, and nowadays i am becoming forgetful. My connection with Daoism stems from childhood really. My mum had the DDJ and the picture on the outside intrigued me.

Mom, why is that man riding a cow.

 

Spoiler

 

funnyly I now have a picture from the oxherding series in my livingroom.

Life is like a series of evolving patterns or something.

Spoiler

 

later i read van Gulik, still as a kid. Now that of course is fiction but the writer was erudite and very well introduced in the Chinese culture. 

 

at first i read them from the library , later I bought me the whole series. There are several stories and persona's that clearly show s the reader some insight in Daoism.

 

there's one book were a Daoist "wizard" dies, the main person, judge Dee asks a peasant where master Crane is.

 

Oh he died, bowing, we now use his little house to store wood.

What happened to his body?

There was no body sir, people like him only leave nails and hair. Peasant bows and walks away.

 

of course, just fiction, but since I ve read about the Buddhist rainbow-body this part sticks.

 

Now I wonder, has van Gulik based this story ( or rather this persona) on a story about a master Crane that is known in the classics?

A master who dies alone and nothing but nails is found?