Daoists and Shamans/Mediums

[YMWong]

Oh, OK, I have Michael Saso's books, I'll try to look it up there, since we may finally have found an authority acceptable for both of us.

 

Here is what M. Saso has to say on the subject:

 

" [...] Another concept that must be understood before entering into the subject of healing is the definition of a Taoist. The term Taoist, daoshi, pronounced "daoshr" in Chinese, means a man or woman who has been ordained or set aside and specially trained to perform a specific role in society. Anyone can learn about Taoist healing, but only those who have been trained and initiated in the Taoist tradition are truly "Taoists".

In order to be a recognized Taoist, one must fulfill three requirements: one must find and be accepted and trained by a licensed Taoism master (man and woman are considered equal in the Taoist tradition); one must learn to meditate on the writings of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu, and promise to obey the rules and learn to play the music, sing the songs, and dance the steps of Taoist ritual; one must receive a Taoist "register" (lu) or list of spirits to be envisioned, talisman to summon them, and mantra to command them, that is, empty them from the heart and mind before meditating on the Tao. [...]

 

[...] Having defined what a Taoist is from within the Taoist tradition, we must now try to identify what is and what is not Taoist from the many practices found throughout China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and elsewhere in Asia. There are certain kinds of healing rites that are not really Taoist, though their pratictioners may claim to be. [...]

 

[...] A momentous difference lies in the fact that Blackhat Taoists actually "empty out" all the spirits from the temple and their own body, while Redhead summons the spirits into the temple for a feast. [...]

[...] In addition to the fact that the Readhat do not empty themselves of spirits during prayer but rather fill the mind and the temple with benign spirits' presence, there is another important difference: the people do not call Redhat priests Taoists or Daoshi but rather fashi or sigong, that is, ritual masters rather than Taoist masters.

This notion of filling rather than emptying indicates that the Redhat practices may once have derived from the medium or shaman traditions, not the Taoists. The medium is a trance expert who when possessed by a spirit can talk in tongues and sometimes heal. A shaman is a ritual expert who when in a trance can travel to another spiritual realm to look into the wellbeing of the deceased, heal the living, and bring the prayers of the villagers to the heavenly spirits. Both the medium and the shaman are unconscious of their acts when in trance. The Redhat priests act as interpreters for the medium and sometimes become medium themselves. [...]

[...] It is interesting to note that medium, shaman, and priests all practice healing. The medium, the shaman, and the popular fashi Redhat heal by visualization, while the Taoist daoshi heals by kenosis, by emptying the mind and heart of all spirits and their images. [...]

[...] From the above discussion it can be seem that at least two kinds of healers, and therefore two different philosophies of well-being (among many others), can be found in Asia. The first kind, which we are describing here, can be called the apophatic or kenotic tradition, which in simple language means emptying the mind of concept and image. The second is the kataphatic or "imaging" tradition, which heals by filling the mind with thoughts of good spirits and well-being.

The kataphatic tradition, using medium possession or shaman trance to heal, can be very dramatic and even traumatic. [...]"

 

Best

 

YM

[sheng zhen]

Interesting and clairifying, YMWong!

 

But I read somewhere that historians traced the shamanistic orgin back over Sibiria to China and therefore say Shamanism originates from Taoism. What do you thing of that?

[YMWong]

But I read somewhere that historians traced the shamanistic orgin back over Sibiria to China and therefore say Shamanism originates from Taoism. What do you thing of that?

 

I don't really understand the question, sorry.

Who are the historian we are talking about, reference ?

 

TIA

 

YM

[sheng zhen]

I don't really understand the question, sorry.

Who are the historian we are talking about, reference ?

 

TIA

 

YM

oh...I have no reference

 

Its just something Ive read somewhere sometime... I only wanted to hear if you had any ideas about it.

[YMWong]

oh...I have no reference

 

Its just something Ive read somewhere sometime... I only wanted to hear if you had any ideas about it.

 

I see, but I don't really follow the reasoning so I wanted to put the idea in its perspective.

 

Sorry !

 

YM

[.broken.]

Both the medium and the shaman are unconscious of their acts when in trance.

 

This statement does not correspond with what I have read on shamanism. Shamans are very conscious of what they do when fighting the demons that manifest as illness or poor harvest. There are many different levels of shaman, as there are of any other tradition of spiritual practice. All point toward emptiness - the difference is the emphasis of practice.

 

But I read somewhere that historians traced the shamanistic orgin back over Sibiria to China and therefore say Shamanism originates from Taoism. What do you thing of that?

 

Isolated islands all over the world have forms of Shamanism, be it in the Phillipines, Indonesia, the United Kingdom, Greenland, Australia, New Zealand... Ritual stone circles and other formations have been dated back further than anyone has been able to date Daoism. What is more likely is that Daoism is just another type of Shamanism... the only thing making it different being the fact it was put into writing long before the other traditions were - thank to the Chinese and their intellectual evoltuions.

 

I remember reading that a particular dance the Native Americans used in ritual was also found in Australia. Does this mean one influenced the others? Not necessarily... Guiding spirits that taught such things may've taught both civilisations. The Astral Plane is a great medium for travelling huge distances and spreading teachings. Perhaps the similarities that is found across all Shamanistic practices is more an indication of universal consciousness, as opposed to indicating they all stem from one geographical location. They all stem from one place, however, and that is the Dao, the One, Shakti, the Infinite, God, or whatever you decide to call it.

 

I would argue that all ancient civilisations and cultures required someone to heal the sick and to explain the inexplicable. Shamans are needed in every society. In ours some appear as scientists (my main point of reference here being Einstein).

 

Yours,

James

[宁]

Thanks YMW

 

so, if all of us should give up their beliefs and opinions, and only follow mainstream scholars and history, then there's going to be too fiew taoists left, if any, I'm afraid. Is this what you are trying to point out?

Also, do you think Taoism is a trademark of China only?

 

In fact I agree with both sides here:

- indeed Shamanism could be considered the root of Taoism

- but it's only it's root, not the Fruit

 

I've been thinking - I have no refference here, and also not my business, maybe even babbling nonsense, but what if what we are really discussing is different vision on the same subject. Let me make some example:

- GENERALLY men seem to be more attracted to a more rigurous and scholar-type vision of Taoism - my case also (although I see fit to explore it's other "parts" too, e.g. Shamanism and Shamanic practice)

- GENERALLY women seem to be more attracted to feel-type, not-too-much-rationalised view of Taoism, less rigurous, leaving room for self-expression.

 

Throuout the years, Taoism has been presented as opposing to Confucianism, and Buddhism - more scholastic type teachings. Taoist adepts are presented as the freelancers of God, doing whatever whenever, guided not by moral and social law, but by their own inner law.

 

So... here you come and mess us all up - I hope you can take a joke.

 

And besides, we have been speaking of refferences, I'm sure that's a pretty Chinese thing, I know it is, so, if you don't mind me asking, what are your refferences YMW?

Why should we belive you?

 

With sincerity

 

L1

[YMWong]

Thanks YMW

 

so, if all of us should give up their beliefs and opinions, and only follow mainstream scholars and history, then there's going to be too fiew taoists left, if any, I'm afraid. Is this what you are trying to point out?

Also, do you think Taoism is a trademark of China only?

 

Hello Little,

 

I was quoting M. Saso who is not only an excellent scholar but an ordained Daoist and has been studying and practicing the subject for almost 50 years.

Daoism is not EXCLUSIVE to China and the chinese of course.

 

The title "Daoist", however, is a western term so I am sure people mean different things by that same word.

But if you consider "Daoist" as the translation of Daoshi then what I am pointing to is what is referred to here in its birthplace.

 

If people are after the *Daoism of western imagination* there is no problem of course and I am sure a lot of people would get plenty of good stuff from that. But than they should call it another name, or at least leave alone Maoshan, Kunlun or all the places where the ideas I am talking about are deeply rooted.

 

After all there is more Pizza Hut in the world than original Pizza from Naples.

But Pizza Hut never claims its Pizza is the Original Napolitan recipe and - rightly and proudly - call it the America Pizza instead.

Then simply stop talking about *Maoshan Daoism* and start discussing about *American Daoism*.

I have no objection to that.

 

- GENERALLY men seem to be more attracted to a more rigurous and scholar-type vision of Taoism - my case also (although I see fit to explore it's other "parts" too, e.g. Shamanism and Shamanic practice)

- GENERALLY women seem to be more attracted to feel-type, not-too-much-rationalised view of Taoism, less rigurous, leaving room for self-expression.

 

This might be true, especially in modern society, but what people tend to do, feel or think do not change what things are.

 

Throuout the years, Taoism has been presented as opposing to Confucianism, and Buddhism - more scholastic type teachings. Taoist adepts are presented as the freelancers of God, doing whatever whenever, guided not by moral and social law, but by their own inner law.

 

So... here you come and mess us all up - I hope you can take a joke.

 

If I couldn't take jokes I wouldn't be on this Board <= and can you take one ?

 

Kidding aside, usually what people in the west (and nowadays also here) tend to assume about some great Daoists of the old times is very much filtered by chinese novels, popular narrative and romances.

So you have Maoshan sourceres spending all their day chasing jumping ghosts in late Qing dynasty outfit or Tang dynasty errand Daoists always drunk passing the day singing poems in the moonlight.

 

What people don't understand is that to become "free" you must first of all learn full, total and absolute controll. Think about all great artists even in the west, think about Pablo Picasso and try to look at the process of 'freedom' of these great artists: first you learn strict controll, the technique, the style, you paint with the actual rigor of a photographic camera !

Only when you have obtained full controll can you trascend it and reach real freedom.

 

And besides, we have been speaking of refferences, I'm sure that's a pretty Chinese thing, I know it is, so, if you don't mind me asking, what are your refferences YMW?

Why should we belive you?

 

With sincerity

 

L1

 

You should not believe me as you should not believe a stranger from the web

But many different opinions should concur to create your understanding, some may make more sense some less and tomorrow your views may change also because of that.

 

Nice talking to you,

 

Best

 

YM

[宁]

Hello Little,

 

Only when you have obtained full controll can you trascend it and reach real freedom.

You should not believe me as you should not believe a stranger from the web

But many different opinions should concur to create your understanding, some may make more sense some less and tomorrow your views may change also because of that.

 

Nice talking to you,

 

Best

 

YM

 

 

Nice talking to you too,

 

 

Thanks for the info. It does make sense.

The last thing that would complete it, would be to tell us what you do. I was hoping for that, and maybe the girls too, if I'm not misreading their last posts.

Seems you are not into that for now, are you?

 

 

Also, it's great to read something from Saso's books here. By all means do that anytime you think it's appropriate.

 

 

Good luck

 

L1

[Jakara]

YM,

 

I like your post very much.

 

A daoist priest once told me that the daoshi as you said were fully ordained "priests", who were part of a congregation and had a specific role to fill within a community, such as funeral rites for example. Nobody who wasn't ordained would call themselves daoshi (or daoist).

 

The invention of a person who follows the daoist scriptures or follows the general practices of a daoist, but who is not ordained, is a relatively new idea. The priest in question refered to these people as lay-daoists. Much like a lay-buddhist is not ordained as a monk, but still follows the beliefs and practices the best they can given the situation they are in.

 

I like this term, as it separates those who are fully ordained daoist priests from those who follow daoism as best they can, but doesn't diminish or take away any meaning from the daily practices of those that follow daoism in this fashion.

 

What are your thoughts?

[YMWong]

Nice talking to you too,

Thanks for the info. It does make sense.

The last thing that would complete it, would be to tell us what you do. I was hoping for that, and maybe the girls too, if I'm not misreading their last posts.

Seems you are not into that for now, are you?

Also, it's great to read something from Saso's books here. By all means do that anytime you think it's appropriate.

Good luck

 

L1

 

It very much depends on what you mean by "into that".

If you mean being a professional and making a living as a Daoist of course I am not. I actually run a quite succesfull business which gives me enough money and time to cultivate my personal interests.

And it has been so for the last 30 years or so, if that answers your question.

 

Thanks again

 

YM

 

 

YM,

 

I like your post very much.

 

A daoist priest once told me that the daoshi as you said were fully ordained "priests", who were part of a congregation and had a specific role to fill within a community, such as funeral rites for example. Nobody who wasn't ordained would call themselves daoshi (or daoist).

 

The invention of a person who follows the daoist scriptures or follows the general practices of a daoist, but who is not ordained, is a relatively new idea. The priest in question refered to these people as lay-daoists. Much like a lay-buddhist is not ordained as a monk, but still follows the beliefs and practices the best they can given the situation they are in.

 

I like this term, as it separates those who are fully ordained daoist priests from those who follow daoism as best they can, but doesn't diminish or take away any meaning from the daily practices of those that follow daoism in this fashion.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Yes, Jakara, some people tend to address lay pratictioners as such.

Those are so-called 'jushi' is chinese, but 'jushi' in China usually belong and have been officially accepted into a specific lineage.

 

The idea of people following daoist or daoistic practices at best they can without being ordained and not being officially part of a specific sect/line is not new at all. As a matter of fact there is PLENTY of evidence that this has been the case throughout chinese history !

 

What's new (and western) is the idea that this makes one a "Daoshi".

 

Calling things for what they are do not take away anything nor diminish their value, it is the opposite in fact !

 

Best

 

YM

[Jakara]

Thanks for the correction, yes I should have been more clear. What I meant, and should have written was more like:

 

"The invention of a person who follows the daoist scriptures or follows the general practices of a daoist, but who is not ordained, whilst calling themselves a "daoist" is a relatively new idea. The priest in question refered to these people as lay-daoists. Much like a lay-buddhist is not ordained as a monk, but still follows the beliefs and practices the best they can given the situation they are in, still calls himself a "buddhist"."

 

I guess its a missunderstanding between what is tradiationally refered to as a "Daoist". In chinese Daoism, Daoist means a Daoshi, one who is ordained as a priest. Whereas in the west the term "Daoist" is generally taken to mean one who follows the principles of daoism - but this should really be referred to as a "lay-daoist".

Its understandable, because in the west the dominant religion is Christianity, where one does not need to be ordained as a priest to be called a Chrisitan.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Jakara

[Apech]

In the west people 'take refuge' to become a Buddhist, but I believe that this is because of our obsession with becoming something. Similarly in Tibetan Buddhism there is the whole system of lineage teachers and also authority and empowerment surrounding particular practices and texts. This serves to protect the authenticity and consistency of the tradition.

 

However, it cannot preclude, although many would think that it should, someone auto-didactically practicing the Buddha's teaching a reaching enlightenment. In other wards I don't believe that it is possible to possess the teachings in the sense that they are somehow licensed to certain people or schools or traditions.

 

The same must be true presumably of Daoism, in that although there may well exist in China and elsewhere schools which consider them selves to be the authentic version who will give their permission to certain people to practice and transmit their teachings. Which is where the definitions of who or what a Daoist is come from.

 

The problem I believe is not that there are freelancers and inspired people outside of any system who might also call them selves Daoists but that sometimes people make claims about the origin of their thoughts and teaching which are not, shall we say, entirely accurate. Why would anyone do this except for reasons of marketing their particular approach and to impress likely followers as to their power and mysterious origins, so as to increase the number of followers and therefore fee income. I cannot think of another reason.

[Jakara]

In the west people 'take refuge' to become a Buddhist, but I believe that this is because of our obsession with becoming something. Similarly in Tibetan Buddhism there is the whole system of lineage teachers and also authority and empowerment surrounding particular practices and texts. This serves to protect the authenticity and consistency of the tradition.

 

However, it cannot preclude, although many would think that it should, someone auto-didactically practicing the Buddha's teaching a reaching enlightenment. In other wards I don't believe that it is possible to possess the teachings in the sense that they are somehow licensed to certain people or schools or traditions.

 

The same must be true presumably of Daoism, in that although there may well exist in China and elsewhere schools which consider them selves to be the authentic version who will give their permission to certain people to practice and transmit their teachings. Which is where the definitions of who or what a Daoist is come from.

 

The problem I believe is not that there are freelancers and inspired people outside of any system who might also call them selves Daoists but that sometimes people make claims about the origin of their thoughts and teaching which are not, shall we say, entirely accurate. Why would anyone do this except for reasons of marketing their particular approach and to impress likely followers as to their power and mysterious origins, so as to increase the number of followers and therefore fee income. I cannot think of another reason.

 

Excellent point. The teachings of buddha were meant for all, not just an elite class of people. But for more complex systems like those employed in tibetan buddhism, one must preserve authenticity. Its a shame there are so many charlatans eager to cash in on the name (or lineage) dropping of masters.

[Taomeow]

I'm perplexed. The discussion about what belongs to "taoism" that we were having in the other thread which this is supposed to be the continuation of is not the same as the discussion of who is called a "taoist." We were talking about whether taoism is shamanic in its origins and whether there's sects in existence today that still retain their shamanic patterns, both in form and in substance. How this inquiry is answered by what Saso thinks about who can or can't be called a taoist is way over the top of my head.

 

Saso got some credit points from me when I was reading his White Tiger, Blue Dragon for presenting genuine taoist rituals as they actually happen, describing the arrangements of taoist altars, and emphasizing the yin-yang/Wuxing underpinnings of every thing taoist, the primal importance of this system in all endeavors he had witnessed. This part was excellent, since he was talking about what taoists "do," presenting empirical observations. However, as soon as he moved on, not to what taoists do but to what he, Saso, "thinks" about it, he shot himself in the foot so many times and so brutally, I can't even begin telling you how many things are wrong with the picture he paints once he starts painting not from real life but from his head.

 

For starters, saying that a taoist is an ordained priest, period, leaves out in the cold quite a few fathers and mothers of taoism, including Laozi, who was a government official rather than an ordained priest, Zhuangzi, who was never a priest or ordained, Lady Wei the founder of Maoshan Pai, Sun Bu-er the Immortal Female, who was a married woman raising her family till she was 57 and then a student of a recluse in the mountains and never ordained as a taoist priest, many famous female taoists in general, who were more often than not married women practicing either in secret or with the husband's blessing, and all the taoist recluses and hermits of both genders initiated either naturally or supernaturally by lone teachers live, dead, or immortal, and occasionally "born with it." Peng Zu, who the legend has it was the first man to attain longevity and immortality the taoist way, may have originated the idea of "cultivation" as the taoist way. He was never ordained, declined an offer of a high post in the government, and was similar in this respect to many other noteworthy taoists who chose to live among people or as reclusive hermits but refused to enter officialdom in any capacity. Perhaps instead of splitting hairs about who is or isn't a "taoist," one should ask who is or isn't a "man of tao," a "woman of tao" -- that's the way taoist classics talk about these things, a "taoist" by Saso's definition is not necessarily a "man of tao" of a "woman of tao," and likewise, a man or a woman of tao has seldom been a "taoist" by that definition.

 

There's more that's wrong with his picture, YM, way more. Saso doesn't seems to believe that sex is real, he thinks only masturbation takes place... oops, I mean, he doesn't seem to believe that taoists invoke spirits, he thinks they only visualize them. With all due respect, he can visualize all he likes, but he won't conceive of what taoism actually does with spirits and deities this way anymore than masturbation will conceive a child.

 

As for shamanism, he is not merely clueless, he simply goes ahead and makes things up when talking about it! A peculiar case of fragmentation of consciousness, where yin-yang, Wuxing-derived practices are acknowledged by him as the central practices of taoism -- not the "root" but the ever-current essence of taoism -- and yet maintains shamanism has nothing to do with it? Beg your pardon, Fu Xi was a shaman-king, and Hetu and Luoshu were shamanic transmissions, and all sects of taoism -- not "some" but "all" -- acknowledge these as the primary truths of taoism. Where did the baby go when our respected scholars were busy throwing away the bathwater?..

[YMWong]

Taomeow,

 

you are of course entitled to your opinions.

 

For starters, saying that a taoist is an ordained priest, period, leaves out in the cold quite a few fathers and mothers of taoism, including Laozi, who was a government official rather than an ordained priest, Zhuangzi, who was never a priest or ordained, Lady Wei the founder of Maoshan Pai, Sun Bu-er the Immortal Female, who was a married woman raising her family till she was 57 and then a student of a recluse in the mountains and never ordained as a taoist priest, many famous female taoists in general [...]

 

Laozi, Zhuangzi, Pengzu ... all predate Daoism.

They are considered the forefathers just like we all certainly had ancestors to pre-history but they did not carry our family names as those did not exist yet. Our forefathers were the first to start eating cooked food and use fire for making their meal but Pizza was invented (so they say) in Naples long, long after that.

Saso here is simply making a case about the term "daoshi" and what that entails in chinese history.

 

Moreover, Madame Wei and Sun Bu'er were BOTH ordained as 'daoshi'. I don't know where you get the impression they were not.

 

There's more that's wrong with his picture, YM, way more. Saso doesn't seems to believe that sex is real, he thinks only masturbation takes place... oops, I mean, he doesn't seem to believe that taoists invoke spirits, he thinks they only visualize them. With all due respect, he can visualize all he likes, but he won't conceive of what taoism actually does with spirits and deities this way anymore than masturbation will conceive a child.

 

Spirits, as everything else, are only a projection of our minds.

Yet, the Daoist interact with them *as if they were real* ....

 

Take care Taomeow

 

YM

Edited September 19, 2008 by YMWong

[.broken.]

Here's what Tom Cowan has to say about shamanism in his book entitled, "Fire in the Head, Shamanism and the Celtic Spirit."

 

The word shaman comes from the Tungus tribes of Siberia and refers specifically to a man or woman with a special type of spiritual power. Shamans were visionary, ecstatic healers, or what today we may call "spiritual consultants," who worked in a trance state. [...]

 

Shamanism is fundamentally a way of viewing reality, and a method of technique for functioning within that view of reality. The shaman perceives the universe in ways different from other men and women, and has personal experiences in the universe that seem to trascend those of other people. The core elements of shamanism found in most cultures with a solid shamanic tradition are: (1) Shamans can voluntarily enter a unique visionary state of consciousness during which (2) they experience a journey into nonordinary realms of existence where (3) they acquire knowledge and power for their own use or for others in their communities. These three features comprise what many shamanic practictioners today call core shamansim.

 

From my further studies I have come to realise that there is little to distinguish shamanism from any of the religious and spiritual schools that are in existence today. Broadly speaking, shamans train the body, mind and spirit in order to further themselves and help their communities. They loved poetry, art, war, healing... They also have to go through various initiations and, in some cultures, rigorous studies (for example, druids had at least 20 years of training under an elder) before deemed to be ready... much like the daoshi perspective above. The only thing that seems to seperate them is a perceived civility on the part of current religious and spiritual schools.

 

Though I have a theory that the dawn of written teachings had an impact, I cannot see where the distinction between shamanism and current schools starts and ends. Anyone care to give me their opinion on the matter?

 

Yours humbly,

James

 

[edit for spelling error]

Edited September 20, 2008 by .broken.

[YMWong]

In Cheng there was a shaman of the gods named Chi Hsien. He could tell whether men would live or die, survive or perish, be fortunate or unfortunate, live a long time or die young, as though he were a god himself. When the people of Cheng saw him, they dropped everything and ran out of his way. Lieh Tzu went to see him and was completely intoxicated. Returning, he said to Hu Tzu, "I used to think, Master, that your Way was perfect. But now I see something even higher!"

 

Hu Tzu said, "I have already showed you all the outward forms, but I haven't yet showed you the substance -- and do you really think you have mastered this Way of mine? There may be a flock of hens but, if there's no rooster, how can they lay fertile eggs? You take what you know of the Way and wave it in the face of the world, expecting to be believed! This is the reason that men can see right through you. Try bringing your shaman along next time and I will show him who I am."

 

The next day Lieh Tzu brought the shaman to see Hu Tzu. When they had left the room, the shaman said, "I'm so sorry your master is dying! There's no life left in him -- he won't last the week. I saw something very strange -- something like wet ashes!" Lieh Tzu went back into the room, weeping and drenching the collar of his robe with tears, and reported this to Hu Tzu.

 

Hu Tzu said, "Just now I appeared to him with the Pattern of Earth -- still and silent, nothing moving, nothing standing up. He probably saw in me the Working of Virtue Closed-Off. Try bringing him around again." So the next say the two came to see Hu Tzu again, and when they had left the room, the shaman said to Lieh Tzu, "It certainly was lucky your master met me! He's going to get better -- he has all the signs of life! I could see the stirring of what had been closed-off!"

 

Lieh Tzu went in and reported this to Hu Tzu. Hu Tzu said, "Just now I appeared to him as Heaven and Earth -- no name or substance to it, but still the workings, coming up from the heels. He probably saw in me the Workings of the Good One. Try bringing him again." The next day the two came to see Hu Tzu again, and when they had left the room, the shaman said to Lieh Tzu, "Your master is never the same! I have no way to physiognomize him! If he will try to steady himself, then I will come and examine him again."

 

Lieh Tzu went in and reported this to Hu Tzu. Hu Tzu said, "Just now I appeared to him as the Great Vastness Where Nothing Wins Out. He probably saw in me the Workings of the Balanced Breaths. Where the swirling waves gather there is an abyss; where the still waters gather there is an abyss; where the running waters gather there is an abyss. The abyss has nine names and I have shown him three. Try bringing him again."

 

The next day the two came to see Hu Tzu again, but before the shaman had even come to a halt before Hu Tzu, his wits left him and he fled. "Run after him!" said Hu Tzu, but though Lieh Tzu ran after him, he could not catch up. Returning, he reported to Hu Tzu, "He's vanished! He's disappeared! I couldn't catch up with him." And Hu Tzu said, "Just now I appeared to him as Not Yet Emerged from My Source. I came at him empty, wriggling and turning, not knowing anything about 'who' or 'what,' now dipping and bending, now flowing in waves -- that's why he ran away."

 

After this, Lieh Tzu concluded that he had never really begun to learn anything. He went home for three years and did not go out. He replaced his wife at the stove, fed the pigs as though he were feeding people, and showed no preferences in the things he did. He got rid of the carving and polishing and returned to plainness, letting his body stand alone like a clod. In the midst of entanglement he remained sealed, and in this oneness he ended his life.

 

Chuang Tzu

Burton Watson

[Procurator]

 

 

Though I have a theory that the dawn of written teachings had an impact, I cannot see where the distinction between shamanism and current schools starts and ends. Anyone care to give me their opinion on the matter?

 

Yours humbly,

James

 

the distinctions are radical and many. to start with - there are no "current' schools - schools are either traditional or bogus.

 

as to traditional schools vs. shamanism - you need to answer two questions first. what societies they served respectively? what force (s) did they use?

[宁]

Hey welcome back Procurator!

You put out some sensitive questions, I'm afraid none of us has the available data to respond.

The credentials thing - I think this is one thing we have to explain better, it would help us understand more about the Chinese mindset.

What credentials and information does usually a daoist esoteric school make available?

 

L1

[Procurator]

Hey welcome back Procurator!

 

What credentials and information does usually a daoist esoteric school make available?

 

L1

same to you. in a true esoteric one there are no credentials- only proofs.)

[宁]

Okay, so what proofs would be necessary? Any example would suffice.

[Procurator]

Okay, so what proofs would be necessary? Any example would suffice.

rejuvenation.

[rain]

rejuvenation.

 

 

very precise and very interesting.

and the personal obstacles..even if genetic, are just

preliminary.........or a sign of

inadequate cultivation?

[Procurator]

and the personal obstacles..even if genetic, are just

preliminary.........or a sign of

inadequate cultivation?

could be both but most of the time obstacles mean that there is no destiny.