Why Taoism is different

[mat black]

Agreed!

 

I see it as a matter of raising the energy body vibrational rate. It gets to where only certain actions/decisions feel right. They may sometimes be quite bizarre only showing the "why" later, but end up, in hind sight, as the best thing to do. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't always try to do the right thing! Practice makes for a better world.

Oh, beautiful.

It appears that the higher vibration or frequency naturally accords with virtue (harmony?) and brings about a simultaneous lessening of that which is counter to it (discord etc).

Thank you for sharing your understanding and wisdom Ya Mu.

Edited July 13, 2009 by mat black

[Marblehead]

Hi All,

 

Yes, I have always preferrred the word "harmony" over "balance" when talking about virtue. Our balance will constantly change as a result of the externals in our life. But if we can harmonize with those changes we will be doing (or not) the right thing (for us) regardless of the outcome.

 

Peace & Love!

[pabrew]

I am throwing all my efforts into becoming material as possible and enflaming the passions. Personally I think spirituality, purity and longevity are overrated!

 

 

yeah I 've tried that one too - hard to escape your desiny though

[Zedd]

This is a great question and worthy of the long going discussion. I appreciate the invite (though it sounds like a fairly standard thing, to be invited to the "Why Taoism is Different" thread).

 

My general observations of the discussion so far...There appears to me to be two primary ways the Question is being answered: 1) Taoism is different based on a dogmatic religious perspective; 2) Taoism is different based on a subjective/objective, science/non-science (mystical), eastern cognition patterns/western.

 

Regarding the first, it is my opinion the strength of the Taoism has to do with its separateness from any religious thread. I think the ontology outlined in the Tao Te Ching (or however you want to spell/say it) is so sound that any religious structure can absorb the philosophy into its argument without losing the structure of the religion. (Sort of like saying water is wet, I believe in water, therefore my beliefs are true). I have seen much talk in this thread where the Tao is used to rationalize a specific faith (i.e., "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", courtesy exorcist 1699; discussions involving 'emancipation' (a word implying a freeing from bondage, restraint, etc...); and a lot of discussion about Buddhism, specifically about the similarities. In my opinion this is not relevant because Taoism is philosophical ontology discussing existence and lending suggestions how we should approach our existence. It is valid both subjectively and objectively. I think using Taoism to verify Buddhism or any other 'faith' is a logical fallacy of cum hoc. Specifically, because Taoism teaches x, y, and z; and '[insert religious dogma here]' also has beliefs; there is then a natural correlation between the two. Sort of like the aforementioned 'water is wet' analogy, just because the ontology of Taoism is sound, does not mean the faith (pick your belief structure) is true as well. My understanding of the History of Taoism is that Buddhists used the Taoist doctrine of the Unknowing Way, to help proselyte Buddhism into China. (This information based on the readings of Dr. Chad Hanson, Chair Professor of Chinese Philosophy, University of Hong Kong). However, just because the Taoist ontology teaches that there is no way to understand or even name the Way, that Buddhism is true (NOT to say it isn't mind you), is false.

 

Regarding the latter, while the west does have a stronger history of affirming the 'objective' Cartesian method (to the detriment of our society) than the east, clearly the Tao Te Ching understood the Chinese were just as tempted by the same type of thinking. It is my opinion the Taoist bases his orientation to the world based on sound, logical Taoist thinking found in the philosophy. On a distinctive ontological basis, the Tao is without peer. I think the western society's Cartesian approach has been disproven, while the Tao is becoming more and more affirmed.

 

It is very late, my writing is rambling. If any wish to discuss this further or allow me to correct my thinking, please feel free to comment. It is a subjective I love to discuss.

[Marblehead]

Hi Zedd,

 

That was an interesting read. Yes, you did ramble a bit but still.

 

Of course, I consider myself a Taoist so my views are already slanted. Hehehe.

 

I find the most attractive aspect of Taoism (philosophical) is that there are no Commandments. We are given a road map (the Tao Te Ching) and are told which roads might be the best but it is up to us to decide which routes we are going to travel. (Kinda' like when you contact AAA to get travel tips.)

 

Be well!

[Zedd]

I find the most attractive aspect of Taoism (philosophical) is that there are no Commandments.

Be well!

 

To reiterate, there are no commands because Taoism is not a religion per see. It is a philosophy dealing primarily with metaphysics, ontology, and ethics. I understand Buddhism uses the Gods as symbolic structures to teach man, Taoism does not have any of that. It leaves the concepts in language so clean as to be difficult to interpret. The ramifications of Taoism are easily hidden because the ideas are in plain view.

 

Someone in this thread wrote that Taoism was refreshingly open. That is too true. When the Tao began to be integrated into my life, the sheer simplicity of it was like winters first wind in summer. It blew away many of the dogma's that had plagued me all my life. That is the seduction of the truth. I think human desire to experience the happiness the Tao philosophy hints at paradoxically leads us to actively seek that which is un-seeable. And then the more we seek, the harder it is to find. Yet without seeking, we can't find it. It took me a reallllllllly long time to understand that it is how one seeks that is as important as what one seeks. One writer mentioned it was unimportant whether Schrodinger's cat was black or white, only that it caught mice. And very sublty, one can add that it was noticed the cat caught mice. Leaving it there is where the problem begins. Our innate curiosity leads us to ask the question how many mice does the cat eat what does it eat first do black cats catch more than white cats if so why are there any black/white cats at all how does it jump so far why are cats always around when it rains?

[Marblehead]

Hi Zedd,

 

Yeah, it really doesn't matter if the glass is half full or half empty of water. If you are thirsty, drink the watter.

 

I am so glad that I got turned off when I started reading into Taoist religion. That would have taken me right back to where I was when I started my journey.

 

I rarely speak of seeking as it, in my experience, clouds the reality that I am supposed to be paying attention to. Even seeking to clear and clense our mind often presents a blockage for that which we seek. (Another of those paradoxes.)

 

The journey continues.

 

Be well!

[Zedd]

That being said, and after much rambling, what makes Taoism different is that other belief structures are active seekers, whereas Taoism is an active be-er. Anybody for a good India Pale Ale (double hopped of course)!

Edited July 25, 2009 by Zedd

[Marblehead]

I guess we have worn this topic out. And isn't it beautiful? No one has come in and disagreed with us.

 

Be well!

[Stigweard]

[Marblehead]

Edited July 26, 2009 by Marblehead

[Stigweard]

Edited July 26, 2009 by Stigweard

[Marblehead]

Great response Stigweard.

 

I'll be back!

 

Be well!

[Marblehead]

[林愛偉]

The Dao De Jing is not all Daoism. Its a very small portion of BASIC teachings.

Tell a Daoist Monk about the Dao De Jing and they will laugh at you because there is much more to "Daoism"

than what Laozi , Chuangzi and the other Zi s spoke about.

 

Peace,

Lin

[Marblehead]

The Dao De Jing is not all Daoism. Its a very small portion of BASIC teachings.

Tell a Daoist Monk about the Dao De Jing and they will laugh at you because there is much more to "Daoism"

than what Laozi , Chuangzi and the other Zi s spoke about.

 

Peace,

Lin

 

Hi Lin,

 

I can't argue against that at all.

 

Actually, many of the thoughts in the Tao Te Ching already existed in Chinese culture long before Lao Tzu.

 

Be well!

[林愛偉]

Hi Lin,

 

I can't argue against that at all.

 

Actually, many of the thoughts in the Tao Te Ching already existed in Chinese culture long before Lao Tzu.

 

Be well!

 

Correct!

 

What was taught in what is seen in "philosophical" "Daoism" is nothing more than basic tenets of proper virtue and character development. All due to the fact that in the old days, if you had no concept of proper moral and conduct, people didn't like you, and pushed you out to the sidelines until you acted properly.

 

That's why Dao De Jing and many other "philosophical" texts are basic teachings to develop a proper character, to develop into a Great Man, a wise man and one who cares for the people, society and the country.

 

We don't have that in our days. This is why any one following ancient teachings would be seen as a wise person, and its why so many become intellectually wise but lack any real merit because they push aside the meditation, the ceremony and the devotion to dropping their ego and submitting to a higher power other than their own views of a Self.

 

Peace,

Lin

[Stigweard]

[Marblehead]

[Stigweard]

[Marblehead]

Hi Stigweard,

 

Yes, we should end this discussion. I enjoyed it, really.

 

Indeed, our views do differ but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

And my footnote is:

 

When I started my search for a path (it has been many different paths) of life I picked up a book written by Emmanuel Kant, don't remember which one, but in the introduction he wrote (I paraphrase) you must accept everything I say or you cannot accept anything. I immediately closed the book and have never read anything from him to this day. Dogma to me is like chains around my ankles.

 

BTW If you haven't noticed yet, I am a Nietzschian Taoist.

 

Be well!

[Tao99]

alone on top a hill

no one but me to nourish me

 

no gods, no ghosts

no gurus, no lights

 

just the natural course

of the natural way

 

On sturdy ground, the stove set up

the fire burns bright with light

 

The elements cooked

the steam does rise

 

and washes

over me

 

the elixir made, next thing I know

I'm back up in the tree

[Stigweard]

alone on top a hill

no one but me to nourish me

 

no gods, no ghosts

no gurus, no lights

 

just the natural course

of the natural way

 

On sturdy ground, the stove set up

the fire burns bright with light

 

The elements cooked

the steam does rise

 

and washes

over me

 

the elixir made, next thing I know

I'm back up in the tree

 

Nice

[Vajrahridaya]

alone on top a hill

no one but me to nourish me

 

no gods, no ghosts

no gurus, no lights

 

 

 

the elixir made, next thing I know

I'm back up in the tree

 

Blooming leaves made of my (your) own neuro-sea.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Zedd]

Folks,

It really sucks working 24 hours of the 36 hours between writings! You guys have discussed and closed a really interesting thread and I didn't even get to put my 2.4 cents in!

 

Marblehead's response was mine almost verbatim. Then I see other responses pointing out the details of subsequent schools of thought with a distinct religious intent. And if someone wants to develop a religious system based on Taoism, more power to them. At least it is based on a rational paradigm.Hey, there is nothing wrong with that, I am LDS and find Taoist philosophy a tremendous help. I simply do not believe the teachings of Taoism argue for a supreme divine being approach to what I see is an ontological argument for religion.

 

And Kant?! I remember reading The Critique of Pure Reason and thinking what a load of crap. Still, it remains one of the most influential books ever written. If you were able to get away with not reading it, good for you.

 

Finally, I believe Stigweard to be correct if I am inferring correctly that Taoism did not develop in an areligious environment. Certainly the principles were developed over a long time, I suspect the strongest influence being the shaman roots.