Why Taoism is different

[exorcist_1699]

 

It seems in Taoist teachings it is never directly stated that it is one way or another, but traces of a greater mind seem to litter its words. Like the words "pre-heavenly qi" or "post-heavenly qi". These words seem to insinuate that there is order in the heavens, and that the regulation of this order is beyond the abilities of the conscious ego and mind.

 

The fact that most Chinese Taoists accept the linkage of Tao to qi may perplex many Western readers of Laotzu as in the book there seems to have no mention of it , let alone speaking of concepts like pre-heavenly qi .

 

I think there are two reasons:

 

1)Although in Laotze you can't find the term qi, in other Taoist writings such as Chuangtzu and Huangdi Neijing , which written in the times afterwards not far from Laotzu , and are generally accepted as the Taoist classics, qi are mentioned in details as the key element of our life and our cultivation . As there are already

English translations of these two books, readers can find them out themselves .

 

2) Nobody oppose that in Laotze there are lot of words admiring nothingness and wuwei ( achieve something great by seemingly doing nothing ; people may find it interesting when comparing the concept with Hegel's " Cunning of Reason" ..) , however, I have to say that they are not only Taoist ways of handling our personal life , political and military matters, but also basic principle governing our spiritual cultivation: wuwei does give rise to high-quality qi .

 

Because grasp of concepts such as post-heavenly qi and pre-heavenly qi may sound difficult to some people , I think some kind of operational definition maybe helpful : qi that you can initiate by paying attention to certain place of your body, likely the location called dantian , is called post-heavenly qi ; qi that you can initiate by paying attention to nothing/nowhere under a much clearer mind ( Awakening ) is called pre-heavenly qi .

 

 

Of course, it is only an operation repeatedly done successfully by a small group of people ,some kind of

collective truth in a small range no match to any scientific test , so I oppose calling it any scientific truth ;

 

There is some truth beyond the reach of science .

Edited September 26, 2009 by exorcist_1699

[Marblehead]

Hi to Marblehead,

 

Thanks for reading; I don't blame you for bailing on my attempts to describe my medicine. Who would put up with the stuff, if they didn't have to?

 

Thanks, all; yers, Mark

 

Hi Mark,

 

Yes, there is much that has been said regarding the subject. Much is good and much is bogus. I do not have the interest to properly investigate all of it so I just speak to none of it.

 

I will, however, never understate the importance of controlling one's Chi. How one goes about this is, I think, individual practice because I think that one shoe does not fit all feet. We each must find what works for us.

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

 

Very nice post Exorcist_1699.

 

Happy Trails!

[openlyhidden]

The existence of a much bigger , everlasting Mind outside us , in the universe , or even as the Creator of this universe , is the common belief of most of the religions . However, only Taoism explains it in the context of the jing- qi -shen framework . Because of such an explanation and practice ,and , because all those elements mentioned are inside us , as the most basic elements of our existence ,it makes the climbing of a small, humble

individual ,step by step , onto the Heaven , becoming part of this bigger Mind itself possible .

 

Without it , the external Mind/God is always something super, beyond our reach .

 

The recognition of such jing-qi-shen framework is also the criterion which differentiates Taoism from

Buddhism , and other religions /philosophies.

[Vajrahridaya]

The existence of a much bigger , everlasting Mind outside us , in the universe , or even as the Creator of this universe , is the common belief of most of the religions . However, only Taoism explains it in the context of the jing- qi -shen framework . Because of such an explanation and practice ,and , because all those elements mentioned are inside us , as the most basic elements of our existence ,it makes the climbing of a small, humble

individual ,step by step , onto the Heaven , becoming part of this bigger Mind itself possible .

 

Without it , the external Mind/God is always something super, beyond our reach .

 

The recognition of such jing-qi-shen framework is also the criterion which differentiates Taoism from

Buddhism , and other religions /philosophies.

 

Yes, in Buddhism there is no universal mind that is the essence of all things. There is only realization of the universal process that is without a transcendent universal essence, but the Buddha realization is itself transcendent. So, I do agree... it is different. Taoism is different from Buddhism and Buddhism is different from all other spiritual traditions which posit a truly existent source of all things that is singular, shines from it's own side and is universal. Buddhism does see a universal truth though and that is endless relativity.

 

p.s. transcendent as in beyond the regular mundane persons vision of the world, as any other spiritual traditions claim.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

Yes, in Buddhism there is no universal mind that is the essence of all things. There is only realization of the universal process that is without a transcendent universal essence, but the Buddha realization is itself transcendent. So, I do agree... it is different. Taoism is different from Buddhism and Buddhism is different from all other spiritual traditions which posit a truly existent source of all things that is singular, shines from it's own side and is universal. Buddhism does see a universal truth though and that is endless relativity.

 

p.s. transcendent as in beyond the regular mundane persons vision of the world, as any other spiritual traditions claim.

 

You obviously haven't understood Chuang Tzu then. Those Taoists who appreciate Chuang Tzu also understand non-monism of Tao. Buddhists love to think they are unique though. They'll be damned to admit someone or something might have a similar insight.

Edited September 28, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Stigweard]

You obviously haven't understood Chuang Tzu then. Those Taoists who appreciate Chuang Tzu also understand non-monism of Tao. Buddhists love to think they are unique though. They'll be damned to admit someone or something might have a similar insight.

I am sincerely interested to hear your understanding of Chuang Tzu's "non-monism of Tao".

 

Could you please refer to which chapters etc.

 

Cheers

 

[Vajrahridaya]

They'll be damned to admit someone or something might have a similar insight.

 

No, I'd feel blessed! Honestly... As Stigweard said, please illumine us!

[Marblehead]

I'm reading and I'll be back.

 

Happy Trails!

[Tiller of the Soil]

Tao-ISM cannot be what it is not wich is a mental construct, a practical "spiritual" science or way of thinking and being that aligns one with the INDESPRIBABLE TAO. TAO is CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM, JUHAHISM, BUDDHISM, ecetera ecetera. US -vs- them is Illusionary Taoism. TAO not TAOISM

 

it is only different is the sense that to each and every practitioner in accordance with their own internal and external conditionings, past and present will in innumerable ways practice and relate.

 

Tiller of the Soil

[Marblehead]

Tao-ISM cannot be what it is not wich is a mental construct, a practical "spiritual" science or way of thinking and being that aligns one with the INDESPRIBABLE TAO. TAO is CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM, JUHAHISM, BUDDHISM, ecetera ecetera. US -vs- them is Illusionary Taoism. TAO not TAOISM

 

Tiller of the Soil

 

Well, darn, Tiller!

 

Although I agree with you, if I practiced wu wei according to what you just said I would no longer be able to speak about this subject.

 

Therfore I am going to acknowledge your post, ..., and then ignore it. Hehehe.

 

Nice post none-the-less.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

Tao-ISM cannot be what it is not wich is a mental construct, a practical "spiritual" science or way of thinking and being that aligns one with the INDESPRIBABLE TAO. TAO is CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM, JUHAHISM, BUDDHISM, ecetera ecetera. US -vs- them is Illusionary Taoism. TAO not TAOISM

 

it is only different is the sense that to each and every practitioner in accordance with their own internal and external conditionings, past and present will in innumerable ways practice and relate.

 

Tiller of the Soil

 

Quite monist of ya.

 

Ooops, I meant to say how modest of ya.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Quite monist of ya.

 

I'll be getting to that shortly V.

 

Be patient, Okay?

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

I'll be getting to that shortly V.

 

Be patient, Okay?

 

Happy Trails!

 

ya ko.

[Marblehead]

Hi All,

 

As the word "monist" seems to be important to some (personally I don't care one way or another) regarding Taoism I submit the following definition and what I say hereafter regarding the word "monist" as it applies to Taoist Philosophy will be with the consideration of this definition of the word.

 

I do not need anyone to agree with me; I do not need anyone to disagree with me. It is just the way it will be when I speak.

 

1. The view in metaphysics that reality is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system.

 

2. The doctrine that mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being.

 

 

Happy Trails!

Edited September 28, 2009 by Marblehead

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi All,

 

As the word "monist" seems to be important to some (personally I don't care one way or another) regarding Taoism I submit the following definition and what I say hereafter regarding the word "monist" as it applies to Taoist Philosophy will be with the consideration of this definition of the word.

 

I do not need anyone to agree with me; I do not need anyone to disagree with me. It is just the way it will be when I speak.

 

1. The view in metaphysics that reality is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system.

 

2. The doctrine that mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being.

Happy Trails!

 

Very good, that is the definition of the word.

[Marblehead]

[Marblehead]

So what's left? one might ask if we cannot speak about Tao?

 

What's left is that we can speak about the Way (Tao).

 

This is the bestest thing about Taoism. We acknowledge the existence of Manifest reality.

 

So where do we start in defining why Taoism is different?

 

I suggest that we start with the prime tenant of the belief system.

 

So is there a prime tenant (reason for establishing the belief system) of Taoism?

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

If Tao is the emptiness of the mutual dependency of yin/yang then maybe we're getting closer to a mutual ground here between Buddhism and Taoism.

 

 

 

Chapter 1, lines:

3. The nameless is the beginning of the ten thousand things;

4. The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.

 

Chapter 3 2, line:

1. The Dao is constantly nameless.

 

Chapter 37, line:

1. The Dao is constantly nameless.

 

Analyze this. Tao (Dao) is nameless. If it is nameless then it is unidentifiable. If it is unidentifiable no absolute attributes can be assigned to it.

 

It is neither the beginning nor the end. It is neither the cause nor the effect. It is neither creation nor destruction. It is none of the dualities man has created in order to describe the manifest world.

 

 

But, then we get into this stuff and it all sounds very familiar to me having studied lots of Vedanta. It sounds like an intellectual excuse for an un-substantive substratum. As in a formless and complete non-conceptuality that is the source of all observables and observability...?

[Stigweard]

If Tao is the emptiness of the mutual dependency of yin/yang then maybe we're getting closer to a mutual ground here between Buddhism and Taoism.

Ok then ... how would you define "the emptiness of the mutual dependency of yin/yang". To start with please give your perception on what "emptiness" means.

 

[Marblehead]

If Tao is the emptiness of the mutual dependency of yin/yang then maybe we're getting closer to a mutual ground here between Buddhism and Taoism.

 

I hope we do achieve that because I would really like to see some honest and helpful discussions between the Taoists and Buddhists here, especially regarding the similarities and how the two belief systems can and do suppliment each other.

 

However, there really isn't anything I can say about Tao in order to respond to your post. The best I can do is let you ask a question and I will present to you what Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu said about it if they mentioned it at all.

 

I'm thinking ... Okay, let me put my butt on the line here in reference to your post. It is a given in Taoism that yin/yang are mutually dependant. Yin and Yang are the polarities of Chi. I really don't want to say that Tao is the emptiness because then I would have to include: However, Tao is also the fullness. You see, I cannot have only one half of a duality if I am going to speak of dualities (and I really don't like to speak of dualities all that much because without fail it sets one against the other).

 

I pride myself for being able to talk about beauty without the need to contrast it against something that I need to classify as ugly. There is beauty in all things, it just depends on 'what' we are looking for.

 

Enough for now.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

Ok then ... how would you define "the emptiness of the mutual dependency of yin/yang". To start with please give your perception on what "emptiness" means.

 

 

It's not an existent, an ineffable intangibleness. It's a quality of being, and all beings are interdependent, therefore empty of any sort of inherent existence and only exist due to mutual dependence so are relative. Due to the empty quality of all things and consciousness, there is movement, dynamic because there is no stasis. The experience of timelessness is merely an experience of a potency of consciousness but is not a true existent beyond concept.

 

The experience of emptiness is expanded consciousness where one is able to see how things work together directly without having to think about it, it's a direct insight that leads the mind to be luminous and clear, so wisdom is the same as cognizance in this recognition.

 

So, emptiness is not a source, but really just a quality that does not itself have qualities as it's not a true existent. It's just for instance the wetness of water or the illuminating power of light.

Edited September 29, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Wait!!! Wait a minute please! You guys are getting me confused. Hehehe. (And that's not very hard to do.)

 

Back to this:

 

But, then we get into this stuff and it all sounds very familiar to me having studied lots of Vedanta. It sounds like an intellectual excuse for an un-substantive substratum. As in a formless and complete non-conceptuality that is the source of all observables and observability...?

 

Short answer: Yes. However, (yes there are a lot of 'howevers' in Taoism) the yes applies to the Mystery (wu). Knowledge (consciousness) lies in the realm of the Manifest. Intuition (I don't know of a better word to use) lies in the realm of the Mystery.

 

Everything in the Manifest, including consciousness, is mutually dependant on Chi. It is Chi that has given 'potential' 'thusness'.

 

With the 'wu' mind one can intuit 'potential' but it cannot be 'known'. (Sure, we can say we 'know' it but that really is not true.) (How can we 'know' what has not yet presented itself?)

 

And V's response to Stig's question is, in Taoism, the Mystery. There is no disagreement. There is only a difference in the words that are being used to describe the indescribable.

 

But in the Manifest we can describe the Manifest and as we observe and understand the processes we can assume (yes, only assume) the processes apply to the Mystery as well.

 

Remember what I said before. 'Everything that is, is, always has been, and always will be.' All 'things' and all 'non-things' simply take different form (or non-form) over time because All is dynamic (subject to change).

 

Happy Trails!

[Mark Foote]

[Marblehead]

Yep, Mark. You are right. I don't talk about practice. Hehehe.

 

However, I do hold to the concept of personal Chi and I do focus it now and then for a single specific purpose.

 

I did understand what you said in the second half of your post and have no reason to disagree so I will accept it as is and maybe someone else will want to speak to it.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

thanks for the opportunity to sing, thanks to the choir, thanks be- & back at ya! yers, Mark

 

Sounds like dependent origination, as in Chi originates dependently and does not have a unique and ultimate self, in and of itself.