What is a Daoist?

[Michael Sternbach]

On 22.6.2018 at 5:08 PM, Lost in Translation said:

I accept that example. Just be aware that "philosophical" Taoism might be complete nonsense to a Taoist who is seeking immortality, and vice versa.

 

There is a similar distinction made by some scholars who wrote on the history of Hermeticism (which I already described as an 'Occidental' equivalent of Daoism) and wished to separate "lofty" philosophical Hermeticism from "superstitious" magical Hermeticism (including Alchemy and Astrology). When in fact, the former is using the symbolism of the latter all the time, and the latter is taking the former for granted as its underpinning natural philosophy.

 

It is highly doubtful that the ancient proponents of Hermeticism would have thought of such a distinction as meaningful. For to them, all those fields were holistically interwoven. And the same most likely applies to the Daoists of ancient times as well.

 

Talking about our modern time, while I can accept that different people have different preferences in their pursuit of Daoism, I always feel that any division they make of the aforesaid kind is telling more about themselves than about the Dao.

[Marblehead]

24 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

Talking about our modern time, while I can accept that different people have different preferences in their pursuit of Daoism, I always feel that any division they make of the aforesaid kind is telling more about themselves than about the Dao.

Well, I stand fairly accused of that but it is my nature to do so.

 

[wandelaar]

The idea seems to be that either you accept all of Taoism as it was in it's earliest stages, or else you are not a Taoist at all. I don't see how that position could be defended...

Edited June 24, 2018 by wandelaar

[Marblehead]

Reality has changed since the earliest writings of the various forms of Taoism.  And it is my opinion that the "various forms" are simply placing more importance on certain aspects than on others.

 

It is my opinion that if we follow the ways of our true nature we are pretty close to the Way of Tao.

 

True, this could be considered untrue in some instances but I would challenge if those who vary from the Way of Tao are actually following their true nature and not a bunch of BS that had been implanted in their brain.

 

[Lost in Translation]

5 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

On 6/22/2018 at 8:08 AM, Lost in Translation said:

I accept that example. Just be aware that "philosophical" Taoism might be complete nonsense to a Taoist who is seeking immortality, and vice versa.

 

There is a similar distinction made by some scholars who wrote on the history of Hermeticism (which I already described as an 'Occidental' equivalent of Daoism) and wished to separate "lofty" philosophical Hermeticism from "superstitious" magical Hermeticism (including Alchemy and Astrology). When in fact, the former is using the symbolism of the latter all the time, and the latter is taking the former for granted as its underpinning natural philosophy.

 

Is it correct to say that in ancient times the people who "invented" Daoism had no notion of "intellectual" or "philosophical" or "experiential" Daoism. To them it was all one and the same. It is only in the process of bringing the East to the West that western scholars broke the knowledge piece-meal and, in effect, create this mess that we now experience?

[wandelaar]

Just discovered there is also a part 3.

 

 

Wonderful! Philosophical Taoism at its best.

[Marblehead]

I must say that I have enjoyed those videos very much.  My understandings are very much aligned with his.  And I'm impressed that he stated that Dao is not a thing, that it is a process; a series of processes; the way of all things.

 

 

[wandelaar]

Chad Hansen is very rational in his approach to Taoism. That's what I like about him. Rational thought is perfectly capable of exploring its own boundaries, and when you do that and recognize those boundaries, there is no problem in using rational thought where it does apply. Of course there are other sinologists who criticize him for ignoring the mystical aspects of Taoism, but as I look at those video's I see a man who practices meditation, who appreciates the unity and beauty of nature, who knows about Taoist tactics and who is enlightened in his own way. I don't see why somebody like him should not be called a (philosophical) Taoist.

Edited June 24, 2018 by wandelaar

[Limahong]

2 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

Is it correct to say that in ancient times the people who "invented" Daoism had no notion of "intellectual" or "philosophical" or "experiential" Daoism. To them it was all one and the same. It is only in the process of bringing the East to the West that western scholars broke the knowledge piece-meal and, in effect, create this mess that we now experience?

 

Hi Lost in Translation,

 

Eastern Taoism,

Western fake-ism?

 

How about plagiarism? 

 

 

- LimA

Edited June 24, 2018 by Limahong
Enhance ...

[Marblehead]

I doubt calling plagiarism would be fair.  Manipulation?  Possible.

 

[Limahong]

6 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Manipulation?

 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2018 by Limahong
Enhance ...

[Limahong]

17 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

I doubt calling plagiarism would be fair.  Manipulation?  Possible.

 

Hi Dada-da,

 

 

TDB => Taoist manipulation buster? 

 

TDB => TMB?

 

- LimA

 

[Marblehead]

I'm not even sure it is fair to call it manipulation.  The work was done by people who already had established their own standards.

 

[Limahong]

2 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

I'm not even sure it is fair to call it manipulation.  The work was done by people who already had established their own standards.

 

Hi Dada-da,

 

Then...

 

 

 

Good night.

 

- LimA

[Rara]

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

Chad Hansen is very rational in his approach to Taoism. That's what I like about him. Rational thought is perfectly capable of exploring its own boundaries, and when you do that and recognize those boundaries, there is no problem in using rational thought where it does apply. Of course there are other sinologists who criticize him for ignoring the mystical aspects of Taoism, but as I look at those video's I see a man who practices meditation, who appreciates the unity and beauty of nature, who knows about Taoist tactics and who is enlightened in his own way. I don't see why somebody like him should not be called a (philosophical) Taoist.

 

I always have seen the Tao Te Ching as a rational text over anything else.

[Lost in Translation]

1 hour ago, Limahong said:

Eastern Taoism,

Western fake-ism?

 

How about plagiarism? 

 

No, it's not plagiarism. The western scholars who traveled to the Orient, learned Chinese, and translated these ancient texts made no attempt to pass them off as their own. They were quite open in acknowledging the original source material.

[Limahong]

2 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

it's not plagiarism.

 

Hi Lost in Translation,

 

Plagiarism has no place in true scholarship. Kudos to such scholarship in Taoism.

 

But...

 

- LimA

[Michael Sternbach]

18 hours ago, wandelaar said:

The idea seems to be that either you accept all of Taoism as it was in it's earliest stages, or else you are not a Taoist at all. I don't see how that position could be defended...

 

From my view, it's more a question of whether you desire the whole cake or are content with just a piece of it.

[Michael Sternbach]

13 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

Is it correct to say that in ancient times the people who "invented" Daoism had no notion of "intellectual" or "philosophical" or "experiential" Daoism.

 

Sure enough.

 

13 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

To them it was all one and the same. It is only in the process of bringing the East to the West that western scholars broke the knowledge piece-meal and, in effect, create this mess that we now experience?

 

That seems like a fair assessment to me.

[wandelaar]

42 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

From my view, it's more a question of whether you desire the whole cake or are content with just a piece of it.

 

It is correct that philosophical Taoism disapproves of part of the cake as being not to its own liking. And as the whole cake contains some rather strange bits and pieces I personally don't like to eat it all. I am not a believer, and I am not taking anything on faith. For me there is no reason to think the original Taoists were absolutely right on all points. So I don't feel the need to eat the whole cake without first inspecting the ingredients of the doubtful parts. But how one acts in this matter is for each of us to decide, there is a place for all forms of Taoism. 

 

Also in Buddhism we see later developments that concentrate on certain aspects of the original form to develop into something new. Such as Zen or Tibetan Buddhism. But it would be a silly debate on words to disqualify Zen and Tibetan Buddhism for not being real Buddhism because of not being true to the original form of Buddhism. Things change and develop, and so do religions and philosophies.

Edited June 25, 2018 by wandelaar

[Michael Sternbach]

8 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

It is correct that philosophical Taoism disapproves of part of the cake as being not to its own liking. And as the whole cake contains some rather strange bits and pieces I personally don't like to eat it all. I am not a believer, and I am not taking anything on faith. For me there is no reason to think the original Taoists were absolutely right on all points. So I don't feel the need to eat the whole cake without first inspecting the ingredients of the doubtful parts. But how one acts in this matter is for each of us to decide, there is a place for all forms of Taoism. 

 

Also in Buddhism we see later developments that concentrate on certain aspects of the original form to develop into something new. Such as Zen or Tibetan Buddhism. But it would be a silly debate on words to disqualify Zen and Tibetan Buddhism for not being real Buddhism because of not being true to the original form of Buddhism. Things change and develop, and so do religions and philosophies.

 

I never said that 'purely' philosophical Daoism should be disqualified. And I agree with you on making sure that whatever you would accept as part of your philosophy holds up to scrutiny.

 

However, at some stage you may have to look beyond your current framework and into aspects that you rejected previously in order to expand your understanding.

 

And while I agree that  metaphysical systems are subject to evolutionary progress too, every so often, things of value have been neglected or dumped already at an early stage, and the original system was watered down in order to make it more accessible to 'the ordinary Joe'.

[wandelaar]

26 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

However, at some stage you may have to look beyond your current framework and into aspects that you rejected previously in order to expand your understanding.

 

I do so in some measure, for instance as regards the I Ching. But there are limits to the available time and energy one has to explore things that on the basis of ones current understanding seem highly unlikely to be of value. Not saying that using the I Ching is without value, just saying that I consider it unlikely that some paranormal process is involved. Nevertheless I am investing some time and energy in researching the thing, with the great help of Lost in Translation. One can take on some side project from time to time. But one cannot research everything! Can you? And as Taoism is a world in itself, that surely applies to Taoism.

[Lost in Translation]

5 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

However, at some stage you may have to look beyond your current framework and into aspects that you rejected previously in order to expand your understanding.

 

4 hours ago, wandelaar said:

One can take on some side project from time to time. But one cannot research everything!

 

At the risk of going in circles, the above exchange encapsulates very well my experience of Taoism.

 

We each have our natural propensities. Those aspects of Taoism that align with these propensities will naturally interest us. Those that don't, will not. So of course we're talking about personalities! Unlike Catholicism, there is no explicit and restrictive Taoist cannon. There is no single lineage. There is no authoritative Pope. Hence the debate.

 

But I think such debate is valuable. It not only helps us understand where others are coming from but also forces us to more clearly articulate our own positions. 

[Michael Sternbach]

4 hours ago, wandelaar said:

 

I do so in some measure, for instance as regards the I Ching. But there are limits to the available time and energy one has to explore things that on the basis of ones current understanding seem highly unlikely to be of value. Not saying that using the I Ching is without value, just saying that I consider it unlikely that some paranormal process is involved. Nevertheless I am investing some time and energy in researching the thing, with the great help of Lost in Translation. One can take on some side project from time to time. But one cannot research everything! Can you? And as Taoism is a world in itself, that surely applies to Taoism.

 

That's true. And I applaud you and Lost in Translation for having the openness to conduct that Yijing experiment in the other thread.

 

There is only so much we can do from day to day. Fortunately, Daoism allows, nay, encourages us to take one step at a time...

[Michael Sternbach]

1 hour ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

 

At the risk of going in circles, the above exchange encapsulates very well my experience of Taoism.

 

We each have our natural propensities. Those aspects of Taoism that align with these propensities will naturally interest us. Those that don't, will not. So of course we're talking about personalities! Unlike Catholicism, there is no explicit and restrictive Taoist cannon. There is no single lineage. There is no authoritative Pope. Hence the debate.

 

But I think such debate is valuable. It not only helps us understand where others are coming from but also forces us to more clearly articulate our own positions. 

 

I am an astrologer. I constantly observe how any individual's philosophy reflects their natal chart, which represents the structure of their personality, but also their potential.

 

It is the process of bringing to fruition this initial blue-print of what we can be, of letting that seed flourish, that Jung called individuation.

 

This is the goal of any spiritual way. It is a way to ourselves, which we each need to go in our very own way, after all.

 

And that's why Lao Tzu said that The Way cannot be shown (once and for all).