Origin and return

[dust]

Obviously:

Atheism and Theism are beliefs with no provable proofs per a universally accepted standard for either one, thus and imo to be REASONABLE, LOGICAL and simply honest about either belief one would have to admit through common sense recognition that one is an agnostic like position; - that is until one has 1st hand proof regarding same for themselves, which btw they can still not force upon or prove to anyone else using the tools of logic, reason and a related universally accepted standard since such does not exist. To say otherwise would amount to some variation or form of illogic and unreasonableness that could become dogmatic to fanatical in either case.

 

Regardless of whether or not there are gods, or we believe in them...I was pretty sure the direction this thread took was that of you guys telling MH that Taoism necessarily includes gods. It doesn't.

 

 

My issue was that you claimed Taoism to be an Atheistic philosophy, which it is not.

 

There can be more than one thing named Taoism. The one that I know is entirely irreligious.

 

The Taoism that is an atheistic philosophy is an atheistic philosophy.

 

The fruit that is a red banana is a red banana.

 

You might not have seen it / experienced it, you might not like how it tastes, but it exists.

 

The Taoism that I study / follow is atheistic.

 

 

Taoism is far more than a philosophy. Certain individuals choose to extract philosophical concepts form Taoism, often out of context

 

I beg for an example..

 

 

and I think it's important to recognize that is what is happening. There is also no such thing as Shamanic Taoism or Religious Taoism. There is Taoism and there are individuals and groups who define what that is for them based on their personal, cultural, philosophical, and religious biases. I think that is a valuable distinction to make.

 

There is religious Taoism. Ask a religious Taoist. There is shamanistic Taoism -- ask Flowing Hands... to say that it's all based on personal preference/belief is, it seems to me, unnecessary. Everything we do is based on personal preference or belief. And some choose a philosophical Taoism, and some a religious one, and everyone is on a wide spectrum of belief, guided, for the most part, initially by the Laozi and Zhuangzi. Which do not advocate religion.

Edited December 1, 2014 by dustybeijing

[Marblehead]

Substitute "divine nature" for "god"?

I will NOT!!!

[Marblehead]

Marblehead, if you only knew how you look from my eyes.

Hehehe. I'd rather not know.

 

But I still like butterflies and the valley spirit.

[dust]

God

(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

god

(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

divine

of, from, or like God or a god.

immortal

living forever; never dying or decaying.

 

 

Why do we have to talk about divine or godly anything?

 

Why do we have to call ourselves gods?

 

Why do we have to change the definition of "immortal" if not to make ourselves feel better about the fact that we're not?

 

These questions are not directly related to Tao. But they are directly related to my perspective and my personal understanding of Tao. If it bugs some of you that we deny that the major Taoist texts advocate any position regarding gods and divinity and immortality, and that we go so far as to say that our personal view of Taoism in fact has no room for gods at all, can you not see that it might bug us when you claim that Taoism is necessarily a grand divine mystical system involving magic and immortals and deities?

Edited December 1, 2014 by dustybeijing

[3bob]

a stronger example of buggy or being bugged is the major stretch of using the framework of the T.T.C. as if it had anything to do with core Atheist beliefs such as those related to death. The T.T.C. has many chapters pointing directly to deathlessness of the Sage, etc.. while the Atheism I hear being thumped about and with various implications onto peoples heads is their professed "god" of death.

[steve]

There can be more than one thing named Taoism. The one that I know is entirely irreligious.

I don't really agree with you here.

 

You (and I) are certainly free to define Taoism in terms of what aspects of it we resonate with, choose to quote and inform our life and actions, but in my view the word Taoism encompasses the entirety. There are many different schools within Daoism but even these incorporate elements far beyond the purely secular and philosophical. We may just have to agree to disagree here. I feel that using a very general term, like Daoism, Buddhism, Judaism, human being, water, refers to a general definition. As you get more and more specific in your definition, that is a personal choice and hence, we create something unique.

 

 

The Taoism that is an atheistic philosophy is an atheistic philosophy.

 

The fruit that is a red banana is a red banana.

 

You might not have seen it / experienced it, you might not like how it tastes, but it exists.

I actually do like how the atheistic aspect of Daoism allows those who have no interest in religious ritual to use the philosophical elements to inform their lives and choices. I have no objection to it. But I think it's important to distinguish that limited definition from the more general one. And I don't mean to make a judgement here, one is not better than the other, simply different. My own view and practice of Daoism incorporates philosophical, practical (cultivation), martial, and shamanic elements but little in the way of any religious belief, interest, or ritual practices. That is mine - no one else's. Yes, it is Daoism and no, it does not define Daoism for anyone other than me.

 

 

The Taoism that I study / follow is atheistic.

I respect and support your choice.

At the same time, in choosing to emphasize certain aspects and ignore others, you are creating something unique to your choices. It does not encompass all that Daoism implies.

 

 

I beg for an example..

I think this thread is full of them.

Give me a little time to think of something more obvious, perhaps.

 

 

There is religious Taoism. Ask a religious Taoist. There is shamanistic Taoism -- ask Flowing Hands...

The Daoists I know who practice the religious rituals and shamanic rituals (I actually do practice the latter to some degree) do not consider what they are doing as "religious" or "shamanic" as a separate or distinct entity, it is simply a part of the their Daoist view and practice, which incorporates the philosophical and cultivation aspects as well, to whatever degree they choose as individuals.

 

to say that it's all based on personal preference/belief is, it seems to me, unnecessary. Everything we do is based on personal preference or belief.

Maybe so but, at least for me, it is very valuable to be aware of the degree to which my choices create my reality.

I can learn and grow when I am aware of that.

 

And some choose a philosophical Taoism, and some a religious one, and everyone is on a wide spectrum of belief, guided, for the most part, initially by the Laozi and Zhuangzi. Which do not advocate religion.

In fact, my exposure to Daoism had nothing to do with Laozi or Zhuangzi.

I exposed through the practice of Chinese martial arts and Daoist cultivation and shamanism.

In fact, my teacher discouraged reading and studying and emphasized practice above all else.

Being the Westerner that I am, I have done some reading anyway but the philosophical parts, the reading, the theory, mean little to me beyond what has grown out of the direct experience of my practices.

Again, this is my unique "brand" of Daoism - not right, wrong, better, worse, or comprehensive.

Just mine...

[steve]

Why do we have to talk about divine or godly anything?

We don't but we may choose to based on our culture, conditioning, and personal experiences.

 

Why do we have to call ourselves gods?

We don't although based on our personal experiences we may choose to.

 

Why do we have to change the definition of "immortal" if not to make ourselves feel better about the fact that we're not?

We don't, that said - what definition are you working with?

 

There are experiences that living beings may have which lead them to use words like divine and immortal, unborn and undying, because no other words capture the experience that one is trying to communicate.

Those who've not had such an experience may not be able to relate.

 

 

These questions are not directly related to Tao. But they are directly related to my perspective and my personal understanding of Tao. If it bugs some of you that we deny that the major Taoist texts advocate any position regarding gods and divinity and immortality,

It doesn't bug me at all, that is your privilege and your own personal interpretation... mine may or may not differ

 

 

and that we go so far as to say that our personal view of Taoism in fact has no room for gods at all,

Again, your privilege - that is your personal view and I respect it, but it is limited, just as mine is.

 

 

can you not see that it might bug us when you claim that Taoism is necessarily a grand divine mystical system involving magic and immortals and deities?

Whether or not it bugs you it is an accurate observation that the umbrella of Daoism includes gods, immortals, magic, science, meditation, qigong, neigong, military arts, philosophy, shamanism, sexual practices, exorcism, divination, and more.

That's simply a dispassionate, unbiased observation of Daoism as it has been practiced in China for centuries...

 

Not all Daoists practice every aspect of Daoism - meditation, taijiquan, divination, sexual alchemy, qigong, neigong, ba shi, exorcism, religious ceremonies, or the study of Dao De Jing or Zhuangzi.

My teacher from Taiwan had no interest whatsoever in the philosophy - none.

He even discouraged us from reading about it as he felt it was a complete waste of time - any time 'wasted' in reading was better spent in practice.

He taught us that everything we needed to know about philosophy would come naturally from our practice and would be much more valuable and true because it arose out of experience rather than someone else's words.

I'm not saying he's correct - it's just his way, probably learned from his teachers.

 

I think that the cultural richness and wide variety of practices and views enhances, rather than detracts.

It shows us the enormous beauty and diversity of human thought and activity.

No need to be judgmental about it, IMO.

[dust]

Appreciate your response. We've gotten somewhere. Not sure where, but not nowhere.

 

I apologize for my tone, too. Feel like a got a bit more 'passionate' than was necessary.

 

And I agree that there is an umbrella under which comes every aspect that can be seen as Taoist.

 

However, I don't think that something that can be so broadly defined can actually be defined usefully, and then... what's the point in having a name for it?

 

If Taoism, as a whole, incorporates each and every person's precise and very differing versions, and if (for the sake of argument) they range from pure philosophy to pure magic, then the only definition of Taoism we can give is "the beliefs of people who claim Taoism". Which is pretty circular, isn't it?

 

On the other hand, if we make an attempt to delineate the major modes of belief within this broad range, people can much more easily understand where others are coming from.

 

What are the beliefs? Where do they come from? Why?

 

At the beginning of this little debate, MH claimed that Taoism is an atheistic philosophy. He should have said, perhaps, that his Taoism as discovered in the Laozi and Zhuangzi is an atheistic philosophy. Equally, though, he should have been allowed to claim that there is an atheistic Taoism distinct from the other stuff. In my opinion, he should be allowed to claim that there is a very distinct thing that is concerned with 'earthly' advice and the rejection of such concerns as immortality and morality and ritual.

 

To me, as someone who's always found religion bizarre and has begun to find Western philosophy fairly unimpressive, the brilliant ideas in the Laozi and Zhuangzi mean they deserve to be recognized as a couple of the most important philosophical texts in human history -- because that is what they are. Now, when someone says that their version of Taoism has very little to do with these texts -- that, in fact, it's better not to have read them -- how do I know that this 'Taoism' is even remotely similar to the 'Taoism' that I enjoy?

 

But yes.. perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree!

 

 

I actually do like how the atheistic aspect of Daoism allows those who have no interest in religious ritual to use the philosophical elements to inform their lives and choices. I have no objection to it. But I think it's important to distinguish that limited definition from the more general one. And I don't mean to make a judgement here, one is not better than the other, simply different. My own view and practice of Daoism incorporates philosophical, practical (cultivation), martial, and shamanic elements but little in the way of any religious belief, interest, or ritual practices. That is mine - no one else's. Yes, it is Daoism and no, it does not define Daoism for anyone other than me.

 

No judgement from me, either. It might sound like I'm judging very harshly... I have no problem with anyone's beliefs (assuming they don't cause harm)

[nestentrie]

My take on the original question is that the return is the full maturation of the organism. I don't have it on any authority, but it's been how i've been thinking about it.

 

In wu xing, water is given a name/title/description of 'drilling'. And in chapter 8 we have this:

 

 

8

The highest excellence is like (that of) water. The excellence
of water appears in its benefiting all things, and in its occupying,
without striving (to the contrary), the low place which all men
dislike. Hence (its way) is near to (that of) the Tao.

[...]

James Legge

 

 

 

It's my take that water is always trying (or doing by not trying) to reach the lowest place. From birth to about 30 there's a constant process of water descending, and the organism 'drilling' down to reach the water. Roots need to drink and our body's (mammilian bodies) have roots just like plants. I don't know what those roots are, but we feed and replenish in a similar way.

 

 

 

16

[...]

All things alike go through their processes of activity, and (then) we see them
return (to their original state). When things (in the vegetable
world) have displayed their luxuriant growth, we see each of them
return to its root. This returning to their root is what we call the
state of stillness; and that stillness may be called a reporting that
they have fulfilled their appointed end.

The report of that fulfilment is the regular, unchanging rule. To
know that unchanging rule is to be intelligent; not to know it leads
to wild movements and evil issues.

[...]

James Legge

 

 

Fulfilling the appointed end is it to have roots that reach to the pits (or lowest points) of the body. Fulfilling the appointed end is having roots that feed from the water in the most complete way possible (as up to this point the body is still growing both to the pinnacles and the pits).

 

So, in this way the return is rest. It's the orgranism/person in the position where they don't have to struggle and exert themselves to root themselves.

 

From Chuang Tzu Lieh Tzu:

 

 

BOOK 1 Cosmogony

 

Between his birth and his latter end, man passes through four chief stages-infancy, adolescence, old age and death. In infancy, the vital force is concentrated, the will is undivided, and the general harmony of the system is perfect. External objects produce no injurious impression, and to the moral nature nothing can be added. In adolescence, the animal passions are wildly exuberant, the heart is filled with rising desires and preoccupations. The man is open to attack by the objects of sense, and thus his moral nature becomes enfeebled. In old age, his desires and preoccupations have lost their keenness, and the bodily frame seeks for repose. External objects no longer hold the first place in his regard. In this state, though not attaining to the perfection of infancy, he is already different from what he was in adolescence. In death, he comes to his rest, and returns to the Absolute.

 

 

The appointed end is the fully mature organsim entering the beginning of old age.

 

EDIT: Fixed misattribution of quoted text.

Edited December 3, 2014 by nestentrie

[manitou]

Substitute "divine nature" for "god"?

I think an interesting way of looking at it is to think of it as "the Tendency"

[steve]

Appreciate your response. We've gotten somewhere. Not sure where, but not nowhere.

 

I apologize for my tone, too. Feel like a got a bit more 'passionate' than was necessary.

 

And I agree that there is an umbrella under which comes every aspect that can be seen as Taoist.

 

However, I don't think that something that can be so broadly defined can actually be defined usefully, and then... what's the point in having a name for it?

 

If Taoism, as a whole, incorporates each and every person's precise and very differing versions, and if (for the sake of argument) they range from pure philosophy to pure magic, then the only definition of Taoism we can give is "the beliefs of people who claim Taoism". Which is pretty circular, isn't it?

 

On the other hand, if we make an attempt to delineate the major modes of belief within this broad range, people can much more easily understand where others are coming from.

 

What are the beliefs? Where do they come from? Why?

 

At the beginning of this little debate, MH claimed that Taoism is an atheistic philosophy. He should have said, perhaps, that his Taoism as discovered in the Laozi and Zhuangzi is an atheistic philosophy. Equally, though, he should have been allowed to claim that there is an atheistic Taoism distinct from the other stuff. In my opinion, he should be allowed to claim that there is a very distinct thing that is concerned with 'earthly' advice and the rejection of such concerns as immortality and morality and ritual.

 

To me, as someone who's always found religion bizarre and has begun to find Western philosophy fairly unimpressive, the brilliant ideas in the Laozi and Zhuangzi mean they deserve to be recognized as a couple of the most important philosophical texts in human history -- because that is what they are. Now, when someone says that their version of Taoism has very little to do with these texts -- that, in fact, it's better not to have read them -- how do I know that this 'Taoism' is even remotely similar to the 'Taoism' that I enjoy?

 

But yes.. perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree!

 

 

 

No judgement from me, either. It might sound like I'm judging very harshly... I have no problem with anyone's beliefs (assuming they don't cause harm)

 

All very good points - can't say that I disagree with any of them.

Nice to share our unique perspectives with an open mind.

Now, feel like talking about Buddhism?

JK

 

Edit -

PS I wanted to address this:

"Now, when someone says that their version of Taoism has very little to do with these texts -- that, in fact, it's better not to have read them -- how do I know that this 'Taoism' is even remotely similar to the 'Taoism' that I enjoy?"

I can assure you that it is. Before practicing meditation, I'd given the classics a try. The more accessible extracts of the Zhuangzi made sense and struck a bit of a chord which is one thing that drew me towards Daoist practice. On the other hand, the unabridged Zhuangzi and the Laozi were too dry, abstruse, and boring and I couldn't stick with them. After years of practice, I had direct, experiential insight into the non-conceptual foundation - and the conceptual description was much more accessible. Although I must admit, Zhuangzi remains challenging. So yes, I think the experiential path is a most excellent approach and I'm convinced that this was the path of the sages.

Edited December 2, 2014 by steve

[dust]

Perhaps I need someone to teach me the practical stuff. I meditate, when the feeling strikes, and practice qigong, but it's quite likely I'm missing something.

 

I don't know which translation of ZZ you read (assuming not the Chinese) but Burton Watson's translation is quite accessible. It's fast becoming my favourite book.

 

 

 

From Chuang Tzu:

 

BOOK 1 Cosmogony

 

Between his birth and his latter end, man passes through four chief stages-infancy, adolescence, old age and death. In infancy, the vital force is concentrated, the will is undivided, and the general harmony of the system is perfect. External objects produce no injurious impression, and to the moral nature nothing can be added. In adolescence, the animal passions are wildly exuberant, the heart is filled with rising desires and preoccupations. The man is open to attack by the objects of sense, and thus his moral nature becomes enfeebled. In old age, his desires and preoccupations have lost their keenness, and the bodily frame seeks for repose. External objects no longer hold the first place in his regard. In this state, though not attaining to the perfection of infancy, he is already different from what he was in adolescence. In death, he comes to his rest, and returns to the Absolute.

 

The appointed end is the fully mature organsim entering the beginning of old age.

 

 

This quote is from Lieh Tzu / Liezi, no?

 

I feel like there should be a stage between adolescence and old age...

[Marblehead]

... their professed "god" of death.

Why must there be a "god" of death? Death is a very natural thing. All living things will one day experience it. Nothing unusual. What would be unusual would be for some living thing to never experience death. Personally, I know of none nor have I ever seen any proof of any ever having happened.

 

And no, Tao cannot be considered because it is not a "thing" even though a fair argument could be made that it is living.

[Marblehead]

 

I feel like there should be a stage between adolescence and old age...

Well, there is, actually. It's called living in a mature state.

[dust]

Yes that is what I was getting at

[steve]

Interesting that human is perfect only when completely and utterly helpless.

From the perspective of the absolute... does that ever change during our life and death?

[Marblehead]

Interesting that human is perfect only when completely and utterly helpless.

From the perspective of the absolute... does that ever change during our life and death?

And that is why we need the teachings of Taoism. Hehehe.

 

Return but yet take your acquired wisdom with you. (Those who did not acquire any wisdom should not go back.)

[Marblehead]

Let's consider Line 1:

 

Henricks presents it thusly: 1. Eliminate sageliness, throw away knowledge,

 

I am assuming that in the above translation "wisdom" replaced "sageliness".

 

Sageliness is knowing how to manipulate people

 

Knowledge is knowing how to use people to benefit yourself.

 

Wisdom is knowing how to avoid these two types of people.

 

However, I doubt it is possible to gain wisdom until after one has analyzed their own knowledge in order to know what to throw away and what to keep.

[Ish]

"If we could abolish knowledge and wisdom"

 

 

I think it does indeed depend upon your definition of the words used...

for me wisdom is a positive attribute, which is honestly only truly gained by going to the depth of ones own personal development.

If you can understand yourself and the world without any clouding of your vision, then this is a great wisdom i think.

[Marblehead]

Responding to Marblehead:

 

With what does one analyze ones self, or "own knowledge," as you put it?

 

If Lao Tzu advises us (via author's translation) to "throw away knowledge," what is that ... something else that we can use to grow our wisdom?

Excellent question but I'm not sure I can adequately answer it but will try.

 

I will start out with a paraphrased quote from Chuang Tzu: When the concept is grasped one can discard the words.

 

Therefore: When wisdom is gained one can discard knowledge.

 

When we are young we are taught many, many lies. Sure, some truths too. These lies we call knowledge. We need test what others have taught us. Test it to see if it holds true to us, true to our life, true to how we interact with others.

 

After we have tested all this knowledge, holding to what proves to be valid, and discarding what is faulty or just simply not true what we have left is called wisdom. Basically knowledge that has been tested and proven to be valid.

 

Then we live our life based on the wisdom we have gained.

[Marblehead]

Aha! Now we can inquire about how to manifest this wisdom.

 

How does one "go to the depth of one's own personal development" so that we can "understand [ourselves] and the world without any clouding of [our] vision"?

Hehehe. I like the question but it's not mine so I will leave it alone.

[dust]

Let us look to Chapter 19 of the TTC: Simplify

 

This chapter uses the word 'min' 民 "citizens / the people" instead of the word 'ren' 人 "men/women / people"

 

This means that the author is not talking about "people" as in humans, but "the people", as in one's subjects. It is advice for a ruler on how to manage the people. Keep them full and stupid and they will be happy and easy to rule.

 

It's good advice, for ruler or citizen, but it's not originally intended as a "go back to the root" chapter.

 

This is the kind of thing I mean when I say that the Laozi is a largely philosophical text dressed up by later commentators and translators as a purely mystical/spiritual one.

[dust]

Yes

[johndoe2012]

Return: returning to being absorbed in activity in every moment without self-doubt / self-monitoring.

 

Doing the right thing all the time since mind is destroyed.

 

Having an open heart by destroying all traces of suppression which hinders one's destiny.

[nestentrie]

This quote is from Lieh Tzu / Liezi, no?

 

I feel like there should be a stage between adolescence and old age...

 

Yes, it is. I realised my mistake later, but to my shame didn't get back to the post before you (someone) noticed! My bad. Heh.