Up To Date ?

[CloudHands]

Hi all, I'd like to propose a self-criticism game with our dear but old daoism. Don't you think parts of what is considered as daoism are proved wrong ? More importantly what did the 2000+ years that happened since the early books have schooled us ?

 

I'll start with waidan (external alchemy). As -to my knowledge- nobody never became immortal in the physical world (except Duncan McLeod and co, but they ain't daoists) and that branch of daoist alchemy seems extinct to me.

 

I may take some time to bring up some pieces of healthy doubt to us all. That'd be my pleasure to try.

 

The unhidden goal is to deconstruct daoism and separate Dao from ism, as any ism have been proved wrong in history. I mean wrong as an entire, monolithic truth as they (dogma) are supposed to be. I would find very curious (not to say dubious) that it isn't the same about daoism.

Edited June 7, 2015 by CloudHands

[Daeluin]

The isms point the way to the unfathomable origin of the undifferentiated whole.

To attach to the isms is to separate from unity.

 

Grabbing tools we forge a path through the darkness.

Beating back the darkness we distinguish self from other.

Beating back the darkness we forge pockets

in which we create our own darkness,

but one that comes when called.

 

Some tools identify the separation.

Using isms we reforge connection to the unchanging

Refining, transforming, until there is only effortless naturalness within the whole.

 

Many are the transformations,

Many are the departings,

Many are the returns.

 

What is close may be covered, until appearing far.

What is far may be uncovered, until appearing close.

What is uncovered may be tempting, but is covering it up again the right course?

Slippery and uncertain, hold fast to the root.

[CloudHands]

Your post is beautiful Daeluin.

 

Practice is growing,

Where is the trunk ?

Where is the root ?

Holding is useless.

A windy day,

A branch fell away.

[CloudHands]

Ok some of you made me understand that what I can criticize is what people/institutions do with foundations of the way of dao. This is of little interest, I admit.

[Geof Nanto]

Hi all, I'd like to propose a self-criticism game with our dear but old daoism. Don't you think parts of what is considered as daoism are proved wrong ? More importantly what did the 2000+ years that happened since the early books have schooled us ?

 

I'll start with waidan (external alchemy). As -to my knowledge- nobody never became immortal in the physical world (except Duncan McLeod and co, but they ain't daoists) and that branch of daoist alchemy seems extinct to me.

 

I may take some time to bring up some pieces of healthy doubt to us all. That'd be my pleasure to try.

 

The unhidden goal is to deconstruct daoism and separate Dao from ism, as any ism have been proved wrong in history. I mean wrong as an entire, monolithic truth as they (dogma) are supposed to be. I would find very curious (not to say dubious) that it isn't the same about daoism.

 

There's a saying that the vast majority of people come to religion looking for certainty, and only a few come seeking truth. One could make a similar statement about ideologies and 'isms' in general. Hence religions tend towards dogma and stagnation. A critical evaluation such as you suggest is valid for those who seek truth.

 

"People who believe and don't think always forget that they continually expose themselves to their own worst enemy: doubt. Wherever belief reigns, doubt lurks in the background. But thinking people welcome doubt: it serves them as a valuable stepping-stone to better knowledge. People who can believe should be a little more tolerant with those of their fellows who are only capable of thinking. Belief has already conquered the summit which thinking tries to win by toilsome climbing. The believer ought not to project his habitual enemy, doubt, upon the thinker, thereby suspecting him of destructive designs...let the believer rejoice that others, too, seek to climb the mountain on whose peak he sits."  C.G. Jung

[CloudHands]

There's a saying that the vast majority of people come to religion looking for certainty, and only a few come seeking truth. One could make a similar statement about ideologies and 'isms' in general. Hence religions tend towards dogma and stagnation. A critical evaluation such as you suggest is valid for those who seek truth.

 

 

"What is enlightenment? -by Kant- is mostly what can be interpreted such as "Someone’s intelligence can be measured by the quantity of uncertainties that he can bear"

Seems to be a good read...

[Geof Nanto]

Of all the teachings I've encountered, Daoism resonates most strongly with me. However, to my mind, one area that history reveals classical Daoist thought to be wrong is in relation to the acquisition of conscious knowledge by us humans. I've explored this theme at length by way of allegory here...

 

http://thedaobums.com/topic/38123-animalwise-a-parable-for-wayfarers/?p=619804