Mark Saltveit

The Dao Bums
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    255

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mark Saltveit

  4. Posted

    >>Yours is a great blog site. How come it does not have a discussion forum to draw in the bugs?

     

    Thank you very much. I'm not sure if the village idiot is me, or Steve though.

    The blog is pretty new. I may create forums (fora?) at some point, but for now I figure people can discuss posts in the comments below each one. That seems to work pretty well on most sites (except for the idiot spammers who post fake comments to show ads. Luckily, akismet does a good job of weeding these out.)

  6. Posted

    Steve Bokenkamp, a professor of Chinese and Religious Studies at Arizona State, just posted a detailed analysis of one line of chapter 10 on my blog, Taoish.org, which you might find interesting. One point he makes is that modern translators interpret the DDJ in very similar ways, which Chinese writers from, say, the Han period present much more widely varied meanings.

    http://www.realchange.org/taoish/mirror-mirrormirror/

  7. Posted · Edited by Mark Saltveit

    Hi, I have a new blog that various Bums might find interesting. I don't see a place to discuss websites though (as opposed to books.) Does anyone have a pointer?

     

    It's called 'Taoish -- a place for irreverent spirituality'. http://www.taoish.org The latest post is an analysis by Prof. Steve Bokenkamp (Arizona State) of the difficulties in translating the Daodejing, using a single line of chapter 10 as an illustration.

    http://www.realchange.org/taoish/mirror-mirrormirror/

     

    Thanks!

     

    Mark

  8. Posted

    Funny! You guys are dirty (don't get me started). That's amazing that you just made one up, you should post it on The Palindromist in the forums there.

     

    I have another somewhat spiritual one, it's kind of my motto.

     

    "Wary, alpine zen; I play raw!"

     

    I'm also a standup comedian; here's a YouTube clip where I incorporate that and some others onstage. Not easy to do in a club full of drunks expecting dick jokes, let me tell you.

     

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/11/11022011-palindromes.html

     

    Mark

    • Like 1

  10. Posted

    Anyone still interested in this topic? I'm starting to actually draft my article on the conflict between scholars such as Komjathy and popularizers such as Ursula Le Guin. Saw this quote here:

     

    "It is no surprise for instance that Ursula Le Guin is not a Taoist scholar and these are easy targets."

     

    Hmmm, that's where you have to be a bit careful. Le Guin is not a Daoist scholar, but she is a Harvard graduate who grew up surrounded by the founding fathers of anthropology -- notably her own father, Alfred Kroeger. Not to mention that she co-wrote her Daodejing with J.P. Seaton, who is a scholar of classical Chinese and a translator of classical Chinese poetry.

     

    Komjathy is an associate professor, and a Quanzhen initiate, but those disciplines may limit his understanding as well as expand it. As another Daoist scholar said to me recently, it's not that complicated to translate the words of the Daodejing. It's understanding what they mean, even in the original language, that is difficult.

     

    It's not like it was a clear-cut, 5 step manual for living when it was first written.

  16. Posted

     

    Tom T: What can I say? Yes, that song is done in Jimmie Rodgers' style. A far as I know I have everything that Jimmie ever recorded (even his work with the Carter Family).

     

     

    Yes! I particularly like Merle Haggard's take on Jimmie Rodgers:

     

    Mule Skinner Blues

     

    No Hard Time Blues

     

    TB Blues

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg6bSnR3hdM&feature=related

     

    J Rodgers Medley w Johnny Cash - very loose

     

    Also, not Jimmie Rodgers but great (and imitated by the Grateful Dead)

    Workin Man Blues

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSn9pXJjRi0&feature=related

  17. Posted

    Mao was a committed Marxist, and as a rule they oppose all religion (opiate of the masses, remember?) He certainly didn't get wu wei. One story is that he was annoyed by bugs at one point and organized millions of Chinese to rip up all the grass around Beijing, at one point. The person who told me this said that decades later, there is still a noted lack of ground cover.

    • Like 1

  20. Posted

    Thus it is quite accurate to say that Lao-Zhuang philosophy predated the organized religion of Daoism. But Lao-Zhuang philosophy was only one part of the complete world view of Dao-centric Chinese culture at the time. Right along side you had active and alive traditions whose ontology found their way into texts like:

     

    * Huainanzi 淮南子 -- contains details of jing 精, qi 氣, shen 神, and the cosmology of Tian-di-ren 天地人.

    * Baopuzi 抱朴子 -- contains Ge Hong's own researches into the art of transcendence and immortality, topics like alchemy (jindan 金丹, pills), health preserving (yangsheng 養生), meditation and breathing techniques (xingqi 行氣), exorcism, sexual practices (fangzhongshu 房中術), herbalism (fuyao 服藥) and talismanic charms (shenfu 神符)

     

    Significantly predating Laozi and Zhuangzi by over a millennium is the Huangdi Neijing 黃帝內經, the contents of which covers Yin/Yang theory and the Wuxing (five elements) and the extensive early methodology of traditional Chinese medicine. ... I believe that you can only get an integral perspective of this overall Dao-centric world view by studying and engaging the full spectrum ... or at least a greater bandwidth than Lao-Zhuang philosophy.

     

     

    I respect that opinion, but hope that you might respect those who disagree. If you are studying Chinese culture and history per se, then yes absolutely you need to know about all of that stuff. But Lao-Zhuang philosophy clearly seems to be the most universal and least culturally-specific element of what later became Daojia.

     

    There are millions in China who find value in Aristotle, Christianity and American entrepreneurship. We don't insist that they must understand classical Greek conceptions of mentor/boy relationships, Italian espresso or America's gun fixation to fully appreciate these. There are hundreds of millions of Chinese Buddhists who know very little if anything about India's culture.

     

    I don't know of any other context where we require someone interested in another culture's philosophy (or part of that philosophy) to absorb the entire cultural context of that original culture before they can adopt the philosophy. If a philosophy is universally applicable -- and you seem to agree that Daoism is -- why can't it be appreciated in isolation, or adapted to other cultures? If Laozi and Zhuangzi didn't see fit to mention Yin/Yang or Chinese medicine, why should we think it's necessary for modern Westerners to understand these concepts in order to appreciate their work?

    • Like 1

  21. Posted

    the word "daoist" (in english) is a NEW WORD and different people give it different meaning.

    As a new word/concept everyone is entitled to call him/herself as such.

     

    If, however, one takes the word "Daoist" as the english translation of the chinese word "daoshi" (or similar terms) THEN it is correct to say it cannot be utilized for someone who has not received oral transmission and has been accepted by a lineage master in a specific (chinese) daoist tradition.

     

    Interesting, thanks. Where would one run across the word "daoshi" or find it translated? Does it appear in the DDJ or Zhuang Zi?

  22. Posted

    This is a very interesting discussion thanks (though I think you might be mixing my quotes up with the other Mark a bit).

     

    Right here on TaoBums there has been numerous occasions of people implicitly claiming that Taoism was first a philosophy that then became a religion and that somehow the philosophy is more "pure".

     

    Well, intolerance is never cool. One of the real improvements in the study of Daoism has been a correction against the wholesale dismissal of Daoist sects by some 20th century scholars. No one should dismiss them, but neither I think should anyone dismiss the ability of those outside these sects to live in Dao, and that is a current issue.

     

    I think it's well documented (including by Komjathy) that the philosophy long predated the current religious groups and lineages, by many centuries. Whether the philosophy predated any religious Daoism or not, or separated from religious practice early on, I don't think anyone really knows. Do you know of any solid evidence that the philosophy did not predate the religion?

     

    LOL the Tantric devotee in my example only had an issue when the our sex practitioner tried to claim that what they were doing was Tantric sex. My Tantric devotee cares little for how other people have sex.

     

    Then I'm not sure who the Tantric devotee, Susan, or George represent in your analogy. Komjathy, Kirkland et. al. have explicity said that people who do not follow a Daoist lineage are not real Daoists (though Komjathy goes back and forth a bit). They have called it a variant, Western New Age religion but not Daoism.

     

    No one would blink an eye if Komjathy said "these are not true Quanzhen Daoists" (the group he is initiated into); that is the analogy to the Tantrist in the analogy. But he says they are not Daoist at all.

     

    LOL the Tantric devotee in my example only had an issue when the our sex practitioner tried to claim that what they were doing was Tantric sex. My Tantric devotee cares little for how other people have sex.

     

    Who in real life is analogous to your sex practitioner claiming they are Tantric? What Western popular author, for example, claims to be a Quanzhen (or, you pick the flavor) Daoist? The public controversy involves certain professors attacking well known authors (Hoff, Dyer, Le Guin, Steven Mitchell, Thomas Merton) for being frauds and not real Daoists, claiming they have no right to write their books on Daoism. I don't know of any of these authors who claim any lineage or specific sect knowledge. Quite the opposite. Le Guin and Merton are quite humble in their books about the limits of their knowledge. (Can't speak to the others)

     

    what I personally am advocating with Daoist practice ... don't just be a theoretic Daoist by only cultivating your mind with Daoist philosophy (which by the way is incredibly beneficial), discover the full spectrum of the Daoist worldview by also cultivating the physical (i.e. with yangshen) and the spiritual (i.e. with neidan).

     

    I think we agree. But what is the acceptable range of practice? Must it be a Chinese practice, or are non-Chinese Daoists free to find activities in their own cultures in which to cultivate Dao?

     

    But yes within Daoist orthodoxy there are your exclusionists who will say that even this is not good enough and you must become a part of a Daoist lineage to really experience Dao and have the right to call yourself a Daoist. To reemphasize, I personally don't fully agree with this, however I do respect their point of view and will subsequently not formally call myself a Daoist nor will I claim the authority to teach Daoism.

     

    Why give the orthodox that power, if you don't agree? Are people less inclined to give them that power wrong to call themselves Daoists? Why?

  23. Posted · Edited by Mark Saltveit

    The analogy that I was making was that the person just reading the book on sex is like the person who only focuses on "philosophical Daoism" and claiming that this is what Daoism "truly" is all about.

     

    But where do you see anyone saying that? Not since 1950, that I know of.

     

    In your example the sex philosopher actually made the bridge to combine both the philosophy of sex with the actual practice of sex ... and no doubt they found out that the practice was oohhh so much more enjoyable then just reading the philosophy :lol:

     

    Yes, exactly. But the practice was one they developed themselves, based on their own instincts and that one book. The tantric devotee says that this experience and practice is invalid, not real sex.

     

    Now if our sex philosopher come practitioner then tried to claim that the sex they were having was actually "true" Tantric sex (especially if they were trying to sell DVD's on "Tantric Sex"), then I believe that your Tantric adherent who had the proper training would have quite acceptable grounds to say something to the contrary.

     

    Here's where I think your analogy goes off the rails, and mine is, I humbly submit, more apt. The book learning guy doesn't say anything about tantric -- he just claims it's true sex, based on the book the Art of Sex and his experience. Tantric guy is saying that tantric sex is the only real sex, and non-tantric practitioners are "frauds" when they claim they have experienced sex. They're still virgins, in his view.

     

    I didn't say anything about teaching or writing, but let's take it that extra step. Our book learning guy, overcome (so to speak) by his new experiences, can't believe so few people in his foreign land have heard of "The Art of Sex" (which is quite old and an odd duck, to be sure), so he decides to write a new book about his experience, his understanding of the Art of Sex, and the new original practice he developed.

     

    What's the problem? Tantric guy may think his way is better, and he certainly has a right to complain if book learning guy writes "The Modern Guide to Tantric Sex" or claims he understands tantra (is that even a word?). But does he own all rights to the word "sex," or an exclusive claim to the understanding of it? Especially since tantra wasn't developed until 500 years after "The Art of Sex" was written.

     

    In my opinion, "The Modern Guide to Sex" should be judged as an original book, and by the hard-to-describe but definitely real nature of The Sex. But tantric guy's claim is that book learning guy categorically has no right to use the word Sex, even in conversation, without joining and mastering his particular tantric school of Sex. And that any book he writes is invalid, regardless of the actual contents of the book, because of the author's lack of formal training.

  25. Posted

    :D

     

    If someone read and enjoyed the book "The Art of Sex" but never actually had sex themselves then I would say that they are not experiencing sex as it's intended. Does that make me a sex elitist? Does me pointing out that this one book about sex is not really the whole experience of sex earn me the "air of superiority"?

     

     

    Allow me to reframe your analogy. Someone reads and enjoys the book "The Art of Sex" and decides, "Hey, I should try this myself! (Perhaps even with a helper.)"

     

    So they do, and find that their experience resonates with everything in the book, and they're quite happy. But X, who is part of a tantric sect that also reads that book among many others, and was taught by a lineage holder priest, says "that's not real sex."

     

    Is X elitist? Does X have a right to say that's not real sex? Or should they just say "That's not TANTRIC sex, according to my tradition" without taking it upon themselves to judge others?