Taoism and Karma

[Kali Yuga]

Fair criticism. I shall use a bigger hammer. (That is, present my rationale.)

 

The opening post of this thread was a question (paraphrase): Is Karma a Taoist concept?

 

The simple answer is "No."

 

But the thread has gone into a deeper discussion of Taoism and the concept of Karma.

 

Let's be honest. There are various disciplines of religion and philosophy. There are many who frown on any misrepresentation of their religion or philosophy.

 

Just think if someone said, "Christians believe in reincarnation." You would see an absolute, total, and immediate denial of this statement.

 

The Taoism of the Hippie era was a farse. They used the philosophy to justify being lazy, using drugs and having sex orgies.

 

The new age Taoism is a mixture of many different belief systems and it is just dishonest to present something under false pretense.

 

The fact that I want to keep Philosophical Taoism as pure and true to the teachings of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu should, I think, be a feather in my hat and not a point of criticism.

 

I cannot and will not allow my belief system to b misrepresented on this forum. If we are talking about Philosophical Taoism then that is what we should be talking about. If we are talking about Christianity then that is what we should be talking about.

 

If we are talking about life in general then there are no limits. If we are talking about spirituality in general then there are no limits. But if someone tries to invoke a God into Philosophical Taoism I will, as I have always done, remind everyone that there are no Gods in Philosophical Taoism.

 

I have never told anyone that "my way" is the best way for anyone except myself. It is up to each individual to find the "best" way for them. If they wish to combine Christianity with Buddhism, Taoism, and Zoroasterianism and live according to whatever aspects of that collection they selected it is my opinion that they have every right to do so.

 

But to say that Philosophical Taoism teaches the concept of Karma would be an outright lie and I will call "Bullshit" on any such statement.

 

So if you feel I have taken it upon myself as the defender of Taoist philosophy that is fine because that is what I am doing and that is what I will continue to do.

 

The Buddhists were given a sub-forum here so that they could discuss Buddhist concepts without the interference of my (and others) interferring with the discussion. I have made only one post in that sub-forum and that was more of just a joke than anything else.

 

I think it would be wrong for anyone to misrepresent Buddhism and tere are Buddhist members here who will call out anyone who attempts to do so. I think that this is the right thing to do.

 

So even though I understand what you are saying and I agree that we all should work together, regardless of life philosophy or religion, for a better and more peaceful world, I think we should still call a horse a horse and not pretend that a horse is a camel. The horse and the camel have different qualities even though they have similar qualities as well. Same goes for philosophies and religions.

 

In closing, if a concept cannot be found in the writings of Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu then it is my opinion that it is not a Philosophical Taoism concept. If anyone presents contrary information I will call it out and perhaps ask for references to justify the statements.

 

But beside all that, you go ahead and hold to your belief system as it appears it is useful to you. However, some of what you say is useless to me and I am sure some of what I say is useless to you.

 

However, we oftentimes agree with what the other has said. This is good.

Finally someone on this thread gets what I mean.

 

This is what I've been trying to say earlier. and what I was trying to dig at was whether traditional taoism be it philosophical or religious had anything of the sort. I felt that people love to cherry pick things from all over but dont actually bother to examine the inconsistencies in the cultural and philosophical concepts that they try to mix. Which is why I wanted to know if there really was anything from an old Taoist point of view that actually mentioned things of this sort head-on. People talk about karm-this-karma-that, throwing the word around like it was some kind of jelly spread. But the word itself is sanskrit. Which was part of the Hindu culture later absorbed by Buddhism. I wanted to know, "what is the validity in all these people claiming to be taoists talking about karma and so-and-so when they refuse to even acknowledge that the word they use (karma) has strictly one cultural stream from whence it came?".

 

It's like people don't even know how words that they choose to use influence the way that they perceive the world. It's like having Hindu's going around talking people about wu-wei. "Of course it's completely natural for a hindu person to use the words wu-wei in their everyday occurences!". Well, not.

 

Of course, one may argue that these things are present in both culture, as "karma-yoga" and "wu-wei" are similar in meaning. However, it is a completely moot point to assume that this is the case for all words which pertain to one culture's viewpoint that they will have an equal equivalent in all other cultures and hence is something universal.

 

The problem that is present however, is, what is this word? What is the exact taoist terminology for karma? Are we just assuming that the concept exists when it may not for them? Where is it found in the writings? How can we be sure? Sure you can be some crack-hippy throwing the word "karma" around like it was candy and saying "it's all the same, duuude." - but it does not prove that this concept is something present or relevant. Hence which is why I am curious to find evidence that it did (or did not) exist.

 

Most of the things here have been own people's eclectic opinions on how life should be handled etc, which I don't very much mind. A few of us though have been brave enough to take a proper stab at it and answer the question properly. Chidragon says "NAY"! 5ET says "YEA! to be an immortal it's said you have to be reborn until you're chosen etc!" (claiming knowledge of his sect etc) (which I am also waiting for a reply from for more info), and Marblehead says "NAY!" and says that it's not in the TTC, and that ZZ only toyed with it.

[steve]

Just a few comments directed toward this discussion about the sanctity of "philosophical Daoism."

 

The problem is that "philosophical Daoism" does not exist. It is an articial construct taken out of a deep and rich context. Daoism has multiple components - religious, philosophical, cultural, spiritual, etc... There is an enormous canon of Daoist philosophical writings that have yet to be translated into English. Even more importantly, an understanding and practice of different aspects of Daoism certainly helps one to put the writings of Laozi, Zhuangzi, and Liezi in perspective. In my own experience, I can say that there are aspects of Daoist philosophical writings that I interpret and understand in an entirely different way as a consequence of my own developing practice of Daoist alchemy.

 

As manitou pointed out, for a philosophy or a spirituality to be credible, applicable, and useful, it must be alive. It must be more focused on questions and less focused on answers. It is not the endgame but rather a tool that we can apply. So if something isn't explicitly stated in the Laozi or Zhuangzi, it does not necessarily mean that it doesn't exist in Daoism. It means that is up to us to apply our knowledge of Daoist principles to see how it helps us understand how to integrate (or not) these other concepts.

 

It is not enough to understand and follow the teachings, we have to become what the sages were. Only then can we see what they saw and be as they were. Then and only then are the teachings alive and vital. Otherwise they are as dead as the their authors. We need to connect to the teahcings with more than our intellect. I think that's what manitou is getting at.

[Marblehead]

Hmm yeah I need to get back into my Tai Chi but as said I'm rather lazy and it's tricky to get motivated when you looking after an elderly mother as I am.

 

Ever consider that your mother might enjoy watching you practice Tai Chi if she still has the capability of sight?

 

BTW Nice post.

[Marblehead]

christians certainly do believe in reincarnation. Except according to church doctrine they believe in only 2 options, heaven or hell. Just wanted to point out that its still reincarnation.

 

hahaah i can't stop thinking of bagwan shree rajneesh and his rolls royce collection teeheehee

 

not that he was a daoist or anything. Just that i can't stop thinking about him now

 

Hehehe. Okay, you win. Christians believe in reincarnation. Yeah, right. Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

And my preference would be that only the writings of Lao Tzu get to use the overarching label "Taoism" exclusively! But... such is not to be.

 

So, for me, Laoist it is.

 

And maybe for you Lao-Zhuangist it is.

 

If you want references, google 'lao-zhuang daoism'. There's a whole bunch of folks just like you.

 

warm regards

 

Yeah, yeah yeah. I've heard it all before. Hehehe.

 

(Thanks for piping in. Helps keep me on my toes.)

[Patrick Brown]

my metaphysical legs don't seem to fit within the structured box that we're trying to preserve.

 

 

Tis better to be legless, than follow da carrot all your life!

 

There is an enormous canon of Daoist philosophical writings that have yet to be translated into English. Even more importantly, an understanding and practice of different aspects of Daoism certainly helps one to put the writings of Laozi, Zhuangzi, and Liezi in perspective. In my own experience, I can say that there are aspects of Daoist philosophical writings that I interpret and understand in an entirely different way as a consequence of my own developing practice of Daoist alchemy.

 

Oh no! You see all that complexity is NOT what it's about. Yes Tibetan Buddhism has/had the same cancer i.e. Tons of shit that unenlightened monks write/wrote because they were bored and full of self importance.

 

It's simple but people are such ego driven arseholes! Alchemy my arse!

[Marblehead]

I'm not so sure about that, the inner aspect of Taoism is alchemy which is a very complicated and confusing area of study. I'm not sure just reading Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu is enough to really significantly change your life, it hasn't been for me anyway, which is why so many hundreds of supposed Taoist techniques and practises have emerged to try to transform people, yet it is also unclear to me how many of these techniques if any of them are genuine methods of Taoist alchemy, even Tai Chi may not be Taoist in origin.

 

Valid point. And that is why I suggest that we each find what works best for us.

 

My Atheistic-Nietzschian-Lao-Chuangist philosophy probably wouldn't work for too many people.

[Patrick Brown]

My Atheistic-Nietzschian-Lao-Chuangist philosophy probably wouldn't work for too many people.

 

LOL Yes I could do that but I like to travel lite so I'm dammed if I can remember much of the stuff I learned in my twenties. I always remember Plato's cave though! *shivers*

 

Maybe I'm a Plataoist?

 

 

[Marblehead]

... because I tend to be a bit of a loose cannon about all this stuff.

 

Hi Miss Loose Cannon,

 

(You know I had to do that don't you? Hehehe.)

 

I won't contend with you further on this. I said what I needed to say.

 

Yes, from your perspective, you are right. I can even look at it from your perspective and agree that you are right.

 

I don't need to be right. I am just stating my understanding and opinions.

 

I think it is a beautiful thing when I see cultures paying respect for the ancients and history of their culture. That is one of the reasons I enjoy listening to Cajun and Tejano music as well as traditional music from many parts of the world.

 

As I recently stated, I am an Atheistic-Nietzschian-Lao-Chuangist. My roots are Taoist therefore I generally just call myself a Taoist. Cosmopolitan is a really nice label as well.

 

But I assure you that I will continue doing what I feel I should do and I suppose that you should do the same. Meanwhile, whenever I see you in a Taoist Philosophy discussion I will try to be gentle with you. Hehehe.

[steve]

 

The problem that is present however, is, what is this word? What is the exact taoist terminology for karma? Are we just assuming that the concept exists when it may not for them? Where is it found in the writings? How can we be sure? Sure you can be some crack-hippy throwing the word "karma" around like it was candy and saying "it's all the same, duuude." - but it does not prove that this concept is something present or relevant. Hence which is why I am curious to find evidence that it did (or did not) exist.

 

Most of the things here have been own people's eclectic opinions on how life should be handled etc, which I don't very much mind. A few of us though have been brave enough to take a proper stab at it and answer the question properly. Chidragon says "NAY"! 5ET says "YEA! to be an immortal it's said you have to be reborn until you're chosen etc!" (claiming knowledge of his sect etc) (which I am also waiting for a reply from for more info), and Marblehead says "NAY!" and says that it's not in the TTC, and that ZZ only toyed with it.

 

You make an excellent point and ask good questions. One of the main reasons I didn't offer a specific answer is that I'm not enough of an authority on Daoism to point out specific language that is the Daoist equivalent of karma. I will say this much. Karma is one of the more misrepresented and misunderstood concepts in Eastern thought. As you know it simply means action, more or less. It is an acknowledgement that there are consequences associated with all action. It is a reminder that we are not separate and isolated entities but that all is interconnected and interdependent.

 

In my own understanding of Daoism, this concept (if not the very word) is absolutely contained within the Lao-Zhuang-Liezi universe. We are not isolated entities, we act and interact, our choices lead to certain consequences and so on. To me this seems to be implicit. In fact, there is nothing more prominent in Daoist thought and philosophy than Wu Wei and De, both of which are completely concerned with how we act and consequences assocated with our actions. So I personally feel that Daoism addresses karma quite thoroughly, though in a different manner perhaps than Hinduism and Buddhism.

[steve]

 

Oh no! You see all that complexity is NOT what it's about. Yes Tibetan Buddhism has/had the same cancer i.e. Tons of shit that unenlightened monks write/wrote because they were bored and full of self importance.

I agree with you there

[Marblehead]

Hi Steve,

 

Just a few comments directed toward this discussion about the sanctity of "philosophical Daoism."

 

I have no problem with what you said except for this:

 

The problem is that "philosophical Daoism" does not exist.

 

I disagree, of course.

 

If you take out all the voodoo all you have left is Philosophical Taoism. Hehehe.

[Patrick Brown]

I will say this much. Karma is one of the more misrepresented and misunderstood concepts in Eastern thought.

 

I think you might be wrong there as I'm pretty sure Jainism, born of Hinduism and strongly related to Buddhism, sees karma as a finer graduation of matter that we build into ourselves as well as attract. Actions, as we know can often be misread but what you are physically, emotionally and mentally is what you are and is you karma.

[Marblehead]

I always remember Plato's cave though! *shivers*

 

Maybe I'm a Plataoist?

 

Yeah, the cave was a boring place. I spent some time there too. The olny other thing I remember about Plato is Atlantis Because Immortal keeps reminding me.

[Patrick Brown]

The olny other thing I remember about Plato is Atlantis Because Immortal keeps reminding me.

 

PMSL

[rene]

You make an excellent point and ask good questions. One of the main reasons I didn't offer a specific answer is that I'm not enough of an authority on Daoism to point out specific language that is the Daoist equivalent of karma. I will say this much. Karma is one of the more misrepresented and misunderstood concepts in Eastern thought. As you know it simply means action, more or less. It is an acknowledgement that there are consequences associated with all action. It is a reminder that we are not separate and isolated entities but that all is interconnected and interdependent.

 

In my own understanding of Daoism, this concept (if not the very word) is absolutely contained within the Lao-Zhuang-Liezi universe. We are not isolated entities, we act and interact, our choices lead to certain consequences and so on. To me this seems to be implicit. In fact, there is nothing more prominent in Daoist thought and philosophy than Wu Wei and De, both of which are completely concerned with how we act and consequences assocated with our actions. So I personally feel that Daoism addresses karma quite thoroughly, though in a different manner perhaps than Hinduism and Buddhism.

 

It might be helpful to recall that every worded-path is but the fingers pointing to the moon. What use is there to force a Buddhist glove on Laozi's hand? Or a Christian mitten onto a Hindu's hand?

 

It's natural that we would recognize reflections of the way of Dao in others' traditions, concepts and words as this moon is common to all. But that does not mean my finger is identical to yours or that my glove needs to fit your hand.

 

For me, Laozi's unadorned and unencumbered words reflect Dao in the simplest and most natural manner. For me, even Zhuangzi complicates unnecessarily. Because the TaoTeChing is like a foundational seed, other traditions have reached back to pull LZ into their concepts saying "See? my ________ is right there in Laozi's words!!" when it is actually the moon they are sensing, not LZ's gnarled joints.

[steve]

I think you might be wrong there as I'm pretty sure Jainism, born of Hinduism and strongly related to Buddhism, sees karma as a finer graduation of matter that we build into ourselves as well as attract. Actions, as we know can often be misread but what you are physically, emotionally and mentally is what you are and is you karma.

You are right - I may well be wrong, I often am.

 

But do you mean to imply that we don't misread the physical, emotional, and mental?

And what are our actions if not a reflection of those very things?

Actions reflect our choices.

Ultimately, our choices influence who and what we are and influence our offspring and those around us. There's no escaping that. That is karma. There are all kinds of interesting images used to reflect that, some more subtle and some quite extravagant. I prefer the unadorned.

 

Nevertheless, I think the concept of actions and consequences and how that shapes our lives is reflected in the writings of philosophical Daoism. It's just subtle and understated. In fact, I think it's so obvious, it is assumed and not explicitly emphasized.

[steve]

It might be helpful to recall that every worded-path is but the fingers pointing to the moon. What use is there to force a Buddhist glove on Laozi's hand? Or a Christian mitten onto a Hindu's hand?

 

It's natural that we would recognize reflections of the way of Dao in others' traditions, concepts and words as this moon is common to all. But that does not mean my finger is identical to yours or that my glove needs to fit your hand.

 

For me, Laozi's unadorned and unencumbered words reflect Dao in the simplest and most natural manner. For me, even Zhuangzi complicates unnecessarily. Because the TaoTeChing is like a foundational seed, other traditions have reached back to pull LZ into their concepts saying "See? my ________ is right there in Laozi's words!!" when it is actually the moon they are sensing, not LZ's gnarled joints.

I agree 100%.

 

The fact that our actions are associated with consequences and that this all shapes our lives and those of everyone around us (and those who came before and will come after) is a part of that moon, IMO. It's a part of the human condition. I don't care what words and images are used to describe it either. I'm not speaking as a Daoist - I'm not that. I'm not an -ist. I'm just speaking of my own interpretation of a variety of traditions and experience with some Daoist meditation methods. I'm a mongrel too.

 

PS I like your analogies, especially this: "Once the moon is found, all pointing fingers are easily understood; the common aspect easily seen in each path."

[Patrick Brown]

Dao in the simplest and most natural manner. For me, even Zhuangzi complicates unnecessarily.

 

I think I agree but am not that familiar with with the inner chapters but I do think sometimes that which is left unsaid might be the real key! My insights into Tibetan Buddhism, and derived from, are more abstract than conceptual and I see this also in Lao Tze proses.

 

You are right - I may well be wrong, I often am.

 

But do you mean to imply that we don't misread the physical, emotional, and mental?

And what are our actions if not a reflection of those very things?

Actions reflect our choices.

Ultimately, our choices influence who and what we are and influence our offspring and those around us. There's no escaping that. That is karma. There are all kinds of interesting images used to reflect that, some more subtle and some quite extravagant. I prefer the unadorned.

 

Nevertheless, I think the concept of actions and consequences and how that shapes our lives is reflected in the writings of philosophical Daoism. It's just subtle and understated. In fact, I think it's so obvious, it is assumed and not explicitly emphasized.

steve: I'm tired and drunk but will try and get back to you on this with some degree of coherence. I think we might both be right but we need to see what we are really doing before there's any conclusion.

[manitou]

Going back to the concept of karma, the mongrel part of my spiritual upbringing is that IT IS ALL HAPPENING HERE NOW. Perhaps this is why I don't see reincarnation at odds with Taoism. The concept of yin / yang is perhaps another face of reincarnation. Once again, though, you have to take time out of the equation to see it.

[dawei]

People talk about karm-this-karma-that, throwing the word around like it was some kind of jelly spread.

I think that is what happened with the juxtaposed word in the title, 'Taoism' too... people have different thoughts on even what that means.

 

Steve pointed out the very issue I would of addressed, and I agree with:

 

 

Just a few comments directed toward this discussion about the sanctity of "philosophical Daoism."

 

The problem is that "philosophical Daoism" does not exist. It is an articial construct taken out of a deep and rich context. Daoism has multiple components - religious, philosophical, cultural, spiritual, etc...

 

So while some focus on why people are using the term karma wrong I would say we're using the word Taoist wrong [as well then]. But Steve has said all the points I would raise; and Manitou just states above my point about Yin and Yang.

[Patrick Brown]

You are right - I may well be wrong, I often am.

 

But do you mean to imply that we don't misread the physical, emotional, and mental?

And what are our actions if not a reflection of those very things?

Actions reflect our choices.

Ultimately, our choices influence who and what we are and influence our offspring and those around us. There's no escaping that. That is karma. There are all kinds of interesting images used to reflect that, some more subtle and some quite extravagant. I prefer the unadorned.

 

 

OK, morning here, second cup of coffee so I'll give this a shot.

 

Karma tends to be overly conceptualised and this, to my mind, only muddies the waters which again might be why Taoism leaves the concept out (that's philosophical Taoism).

 

So the Jain view is that karma is a form of finer and finer graduations of matter which Theosophy happened to take onboard. Now as we're trying to keep this simple, so as not to muddies the waters, we must consider the idea of washing our garments / vehicles / bodies. So say we have physical, emotional and mental bodies, we'll leave the causal body out for now, it makes sense that the process of cleaning must start at the bottom i.e. Physical body / level.

 

Now we're all aware how physical addictions effect our moods i.e emotions. So by cleaning our physical body we will gain greater control over our emotions and this tempering of emotional activity in turn allows for greater clarity of thinking. Once we begin to realise that actions which stem from desire are causing us to suffer these desires, our karma, will fall away.

 

So what happens at the mental level? Well this is where we bring the causal body in to play. Our mind is constantly drawing distinctions between this and that and judging something as being good or bad, right or wrong. As we begin to dissolve our erroneous view of "apparent reality" we relinquish mental concepts and move towards a more abstract view of reality. Now I'll stop here as words are no longer valid.

 

Now this is where Taoism comes in, at least for me, as it reminds us that action should come from a spontaneous natural response rather than from any conceptualised predispositions. Or put another way we are predisposed to error because the physical, emotional and mental aspects of our being are muddied and in a state of confusion. Instead of seeing something as right or wrong we should simply flow without mind and judgement.

 

So to sum up we must clean ourselves, cleanse our vision and rediscover our true nature as spontaneous beings without judgments. There is no good or bad karma as this view is simply a trap. There is only karma and the less karma you have the smoother you flow until you reach the ocean and become the flow.

 

 

Nevertheless, I think the concept of actions and consequences and how that shapes our lives is reflected in the writings of philosophical Daoism. It's just subtle and understated. In fact, I think it's so obvious, it is assumed and not explicitly emphasized.

 

I don't think Taoism is referring to karma it's just pointing out our error and how we should act to release ourselves from this error. Taoism shows us how we polarise and then shows us the flow, that's all. Indeed it is all!

[Patrick Brown]

Perhaps someone can explain this to me?

 

The Ruler of the Southern Ocean was Shu, the Ruler of the Northern Ocean was Hu, and the Ruler of the Centre was Chaos. Shu and Hu were continually meeting in the land of Chaos, who treated them very well. They consulted together how they might repay his kindness, and said, 'Men all have seven orifices for the purpose of seeing, hearing, eating, and breathing, while this (poor) Ruler alone has not one. Let us try and make them for him.' Accordingly they dug one orifice in him every day; and at the end of seven days Chaos died.

Source: http://ctext.org/zhu.../inner-chapters

[Marblehead]

Perhaps someone can explain this to me?

 

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

 

Also, "It's okay to be different."

[XieJia]

Perhaps someone can explain this to me?

 

 

Minding the seven orifices,

One will revive 'Chaos' the ruler of the center kingdom.

 

As for Shu and Hu, just pay attention to the middle kingdom;

one might catch their envoys and witness their meetings.

Edited October 26, 2011 by XieJia