What is Taoism

[SirPalomides]

The general philosophical outlook of Daoism, as argued in Zhuangzi and Laozi, is argued mainly on the basis of observation and common experience, often using very homely examples or metaphors from life. Intuition of course is key too. So that is certainly verifiable. When it comes to the stranger claims about magic, alchemy, etc that would have to be verified by more special direct experience, so until then there is an element of faith and also perceived results eg  “that talisman seems to be doing its job because I’m feeling a lot better this week.”

Edited April 4, 2020 by SirPalomides

[GSmaster]

5 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

Verification is a process of determining what is true.

 

4 minutes ago, Starjumper said:

existence of gods is verifiable

 

I have met Gods myself and I have experienced Dao, and other things, like demons, portals, sentient races, so there it is for verification. I don't support ideas of blind faith and believing in the books.

But you have to see yourself and to see yourself you might need to spend a decade or even a hundreds of years into proper practice.

There is no point in asking anyone what truth is, as whatever they say it is not gonna be a truth for you.

You cannot verify words. You can only reflect or compare with your own experience.

[gatito]

7 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

I am not sure why it would be considered a strange position to want to be able to verify if something is true or not.

 

That's not the "strange position".

 

The "strange position" is that you stated that:

 

Quote

"The primary reason [you] don't prescribe[sic] to any of the theistic religions is because there is no way whatsoever to verify if their claims about their gods are true."

 

However, your assertion/belief doesn't actually exclude the possibility that others may have access to a verification method (or methods).

 

[GSmaster]

@dmattwads

Having third Eye open I can see things that normal humans never can imagine, like a tentacle larvae crawling over an energy egg shaped field which is human.

 

Can you verify this by any science out there? Don't think so. It is just not accessible to the majority of human population on this planet.

[Maddie]

7 minutes ago, gatito said:

 

 

 

However, your assertion/belief doesn't actually exclude the possibility that others may have access to a verification method (or methods).

 

 

Actually that's exactly what I was wanting to know when I asked a question about verification ☺️

[gatito]

9 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

 

Actually that's exactly what I was wanting to know when I asked a question about verification ☺️

 

So, you're asking if there is a method (are methods) to verify for yourself directly the Truth about God/Tao/Brahman/etc.?

 

If so, the answer is that many methods exist.

 

[Maddie]

6 minutes ago, gatito said:

 

So, you're asking if there is a method (are methods) to verify for yourself directly the Truth about God/Tao/Brahman/etc.?

 

If so, the answer is that many methods exist.

 

 

Yes, my question is how does one verify the Tao for themselves?

[gatito]

Just now, dmattwads said:

 

Yes, my question is how does one verify the Tao for themselves?

 

You will need to locate one (and thankfully, only one) of the hundreds of effective methods and practice it for a period of 6-24 months (diligently).

 

[gatito]

... on average.

 

[gatito]

Furthermore, bear in mind that spontaneous awakenings are far from unusual.

 

[ReturnDragon]

6 hours ago, dmattwads said:

So if Tao is the source of everything and does all things and is all things, how is Tao not God? 

According to the Tao Te Jing, Chapters One and Four, Tao is existed before the heavenly god, not God. How can we verify the existence of Tao? Well, Lao Tze is the creator of Tao. Thus we must trace his thoughts, objectively, through the TTJ. TTJ has all the answers that you want. btw I am an atheist also and believe in the principles of Tao but not religiously. 

Lao Tze created Tao but didn't know what to call it. Therefore, he called it "Tao" arbitrarily. 
The idea of Tao was originated from the Yijing(易經) based on the yin-hang concept. The way of nature is evolved by the yin-yang concept. The way of nature is Tao. However, this is only one definition of Tao. There are alot more definitions for Tao in the TTJ as described by Lao Tze.
 

Edited April 4, 2020 by ReturnDragon

[Maddie]

Since the primary school at the time that Lao Tzu was debating about Tao was the Confucians  maybe it would be helpful to contrast what both the Taoists and Confucians said about the topic? Maybe even what the Mohists said? And later Buddhist.

Edited April 4, 2020 by dmattwads
Addition

[ReturnDragon]

1 hour ago, dmattwads said:

Since the primary school at the time that Lao Tzu was debating about Tao was the Confucians  maybe it would be helpful to contrast what both the Taoists and Confucians said about the topic? Maybe even what the Mohists said? And later Buddhist.

In the ordinary Chinese language, The character 道(tao) has one of the definitions means "principle". Thus there are two different sets of principles between Lao Tze and Confucius. 

Lao Tze: 
Tao is the principle of nature.

Confucius:
Tao is the principle of morality.

People are not familiar with the language will be obfuscated with the two tao's .  

Edited April 4, 2020 by ReturnDragon

[SirPalomides]

The Confucians’ usual equivalent for what Daoists call Dao is heaven or heaven-and-earth. Their Dao is more a pattern for virtuous conduct for personal life and government. It is there in the field of ethics that there is the most disagreement between Daoists and Confucians, though some have asserted that the paths are fundamentally compatible.

[Maddie]

Useful replies! 😊

 

What about how Taoism compares to Buddhism?

[gatito]

19 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

Useful replies! 😊

 

What about how Taoism compares to Buddhism?

 

 

Taoists tend to be less argumentative.

 

[Maddie]

14 minutes ago, gatito said:

 

Taoists tend to be less argumentative.

 

 

You think of Buddhists as argumentative? Why is that?

[SirPalomides]

Huge question with centuries of debate about it, probably more than a few threads about it, but to start with it would be useful to look at Buddhist concepts like non-self, impermanence, and sunyata and see if and how Daoist teachings fit with them. 
 

The Buddhist cosmology is very different though there have been blends to some extent. The Buddhist idea of the six realms of rebirth/ samsara seems to have been adopted in some form by most Daoists, though I don’t think many Daoists accept the Buddhist view of the animal realm as one of inherent ignorance and suffering. Over the centuries Buddhists and Daoists have been borrowing from each other- I was looking at a book recently about how they were shamelessly copying each other’s texts with minor alterations.

 

Generally Buddhists have a very clear doctrinal framework that has been systematically expounded in many ways over the millennia. Buddhist developed a scholasticism that I suspect Thomas Aquinas would have thought was too anal retentive. I don’t think Daoists have any texts comparable to the abidharma and lam rim texts that Buddhists produced. 
 

Something I noticed is that aesthetically Buddhists seem to like symmetry; Daoists like asymmetry with balance. The Daoist paradise usually looks like a majestic mountain range with uneven, craggy cliffs and gnarled trees; in the Buddhist Pure Land everything is just perfect, made of jewels- the trees are all symmetrical and the same height, the ground is perfectly flat, there are no seasons, everyone looks the same, etc. How much this actually reflects a fundamental difference is up for debate. It is popular to see that Buddhism and Daoism are basically one. Some Buddhists disagree and say Daoism is a “divine vehicle”- it’s good for becoming a godlike being but only Buddhism offers real liberation. Not all Buddhists have this attitude but one commonly encounters in from influential teachers like Yin Shun, Xing Yun, etc.

 

There could be a whole thread about this and there are probably several already.

Edited April 4, 2020 by SirPalomides

[SirPalomides]

6 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

 

You think of Buddhists as argumentative? Why is that?

In Tibet they have monks engaging in ritualized debate over ideas no one has held for 2000 years. Buddhists love debate, with themselves, with non-Buddhists, with dead people. They’re very doctrinally rigorous. Those stories about Chan masters ripping up scriptures? Definitely not the norm, even within Chan. Right view is a big deal for them. The Buddha Dharma is a fine tuned instrument and tweaking one thing the wrong way can set you down a path of delusion. This culture of doctrinal rigor and debate has produced some amazing philosophical insights and also some really frustrating episodes of sectarianism.

[gatito]

17 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

 

You think of Buddhists as argumentative? Why is that?

 

Now, that's really funny!!! 

 

Start here:

That was a pinned topic in the Buddhist Forum here until the incumbent (Pseudo)Buddhists successfully lobbied the previous (incompetent) admin to get it unpinned.

 

 

Edited April 4, 2020 by gatito

[Maddie]

10 minutes ago, gatito said:

 

Now, that's really funny!!! 

 

Start here:

That was a pinned topic in the Buddhist Forum here until the incumbent( Pseudo)Buddhists successfully lobbied the previous (incompetent) admin to get it unpinned.

 

 

 

Ok I guess I see your point, but I think the reason I was surprised is because as a Buddhist one of the things that appeals to me the most about it is the compassion, kindness, and peacefulness. But perhaps that's just what I tend to emphasize.

Edited April 4, 2020 by dmattwads
Spelling

[SirPalomides]

Those are all important for Buddhists but compassion is inseparable from wisdom and wisdom means seeing things as they really are. 
 

And of course like other religions Buddhists have not always lived up to their highest ideals and Buddhist history has seen its share of persecutions and wars.

[gatito]

Just now, dmattwads said:

 

Ok I guess I see your point, but I think there reason I was surprised is because as a Buddhist one of the things that appeals to me the most about it is the compassion, kindness, and peacefulness. But perhaps that's just what I tend to emphasize.

 

Perhaps you've misunderstood the reality of the feudal, abusive, misogynistic, child-snatching residue of some of the Buddha's ostensible legacy?

 

I was extremely surprised myself but luckily the membership here certainly educated me well.

 

For example (in addition to the above):

 

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

 

https://dharmawheel.net/

 

 

 

 

[ReturnDragon]

1 hour ago, dmattwads said:

What about how Taoism compares to Buddhism?

I believe most people, here at TDB, talked about Buddhism was referring to Tibet Buddhism. They are more complicated than the Chinese Buddhism. 

[Maddie]

1 hour ago, SirPalomides said:

The Buddha Dharma is a fine tuned instrument and tweaking one thing the wrong way can set you down a path of delusion.

 

I do know what you mean though about the emphasis on Right view versus delusion. The sutras are very much about that.