Does Daoists lean where the money is

[Toni]

as far as i know ALL social institutions are after money and power. That is why I tend to be very sceptic towards big organized groups

Edited November 19, 2020 by Toni

[RiverSnake]

Yes. Money is lovely. 

[silent thunder]

Money has no intrinsic value.

Money equals options in society.

 

In nature, it's useless, other than as the paper or metal coins it is.

Can't eat or drink money, can't live in money.

 

But in society... it's the option to move within society in myriad ways.

Have a shit roommate?  Have a savings account and a job?  You have the option to move.

 

Car took a shit?  Have a job?  You have the option to repair/replace your car, buy a bike, rent an uber...

 

Money is the idea of value in modern society.  It equals options of motion and acquisition in society.

 

In the desert, in the deep forest?   it's paper and metal.

[Rara]

On 20/11/2020 at 5:53 AM, RiverSnake said:

Yes. Money is lovely. 

 

Wanna open a temple and see how much we can raise in a year? I have a five year plan. Also, we can have all sorts of stock options. Holla

Edited November 23, 2020 by Rara

[Mig]

On 11/20/2020 at 4:48 AM, silent thunder said:

Money has no intrinsic value.

Money equals options in society.

Very true it doesn't have value though everything in society needs value to sell it and to buy it you need money, whatever you need even if you make it your own. So at the end it does have a value.

On 11/20/2020 at 4:48 AM, silent thunder said:

 

In nature, it's useless, other than as the paper or metal coins it is.

Can't eat or drink money, can't live in money.

 

But in society... it's the option to move within society in myriad ways.

Have a shit roommate?  Have a savings account and a job?  You have the option to move.

 

There are always secondary effects for each of your options so in order to drink you need money and to live in society you need money, so what are you going to do?

 

On 11/20/2020 at 4:48 AM, silent thunder said:

 

Car took a shit?  Have a job?  You have the option to repair/replace your car, buy a bike, rent an uber...

 

Money is the idea of value in modern society.  It equals options of motion and acquisition in society.

 

In the desert, in the deep forest?   it's paper and metal.

 

Whether is Daoist or Buddhist or most of the religions, I tend to see there are always where the money is, just like culture, they lean more where the well offs can pay and pay good money. I have never seen none of those religious movements or religions in impoverished areas or build temples, churches or congregations in the hood, only those who start little and then becomes megachurches. There is something wrong in the picture imho

 

[Cleansox]

20 minutes ago, Mig said:

 

I have never seen none of those religious movements or religions in impoverished areas or build temples, churches or congregations in the hood, on

If you were a rich lay member of a religious group, would you give of your money so there could be a temple built among the poor, or in your vincinity so you can go there to worship, and have your peers going there knowing you supported it? 

If you were a cleric, would you prefer a rich patron so your life would be more secure, or poor patrons and a life which is insecure and less comfortable?

I would prefer comfort. 

[Master Logray]

6 hours ago, Mig said:

Whether is Daoist or Buddhist or most of the religions, I tend to see there are always where the money is, just like culture, they lean more where the well offs can pay and pay good money. I have never seen none of those religious movements or religions in impoverished areas or build temples, churches or congregations in the hood, only those who start little and then becomes megachurches.

 

For Taoist, most temples start from little.  They could be everywhere and anywhere.  Some of them grow and most perished.  It is different from other religions as there is no Taoist Church, which undertakes where and when to build a temple and to coordinate the locations.  Most temples are independent from one another.  Impoverished areas do get temples, a lot of them too.  Temples could be small or even sometimes unmanned and close to each other.

 

The reason for the proliferation of temples/shrines is that Taoist religion is primarily about interacting with divinity.  It may have be lost for other religions, but not Taoism.  Then how to know if a particular temple has the patron of divinity?  Whatever you asked for is granted, then it is considered a efficacious temple.  People will flock there.    A rich person might want to build a temple somewhere, but if this temple cannot provide this "service", it would be an empty one. 

 

Taoism is polytheism, which explains the proliferation and competition between temples. 

 

If you want to know if Taoist leans on money, they do, a lot.  But location of temple has nothing to do with it.  In most cases, it is the good temples that attracts the money and people.

[silent thunder]

12 hours ago, Mig said:

So at the end it does have a value.

Certainly money has value.  But only within the limits of the human framework of civilization of which it is a symptom, not the causitive action.  Do you find money inherently negative? 

 

In and of itself?  tzujan?  it's literally a paper tiger.  what use is a quarter to a man alone in the desert?  or a hawk?  or a stream?

 

Its equal to its inherent value in my internal world which is zilch. 

 

Money has no bearing on the quality or worth of my internal reality.

I lived yeeears of my life hand to mouth, often hungry and broke... this did not affect my bliss, nor the quality of my internal life one iota.  What I choose to allow myself to ruminate on and think is where the real value is found in life, or better yet, without thinking... in the pure beingness...

 

Money has no bearing on the state of my internal world which is not predicated, nor ever was dictated by how much human valued paper i possess.

 

12 hours ago, Mig said:

to live in society you need money, so what are you going to do?

I play the game and use money.

 

I re mind my self of the sphere of its influence within the context of human civilization and i hold in mind the category and extent of its value and usefulness as it accords with my path.

 

I play the game but do not become the game. 

Most of all, I do not obsess, nor worship. 

 

The Sage is in the world, but not of it.

I'm no sage, but i cultivate some aspects of them as one tends a garden...

 

i cultivate a relationship with money that is beneficial, but not obsessive.

I use it within its own context to the benefit of my family and the aspects of society i support.

^{As such I'm extremely prejudiced in where and how I spend it... many companies I will not and have never spent a dime at...  many other individuals and organizations i've shared a significant percentage of my paper money with...}

 

How one relates to money (or any aspect of life) seems crucial to me...

For my own benefit, I re mind my self that I bring more harm, challenge and strife to myself when I unduly worship, or demonize it, any aspect of life, be it semen, sex, booze, food, news, films, books, quotes from chinese classics, poetry, political opinions, conversations in forums... or any other aspect of life.  To each its own and in its own sphere.

 

Relating to money is a dance.  If one is in civilization it will have an influence on one's life.

One will dance with it according to one's nature and one's path.

 

 

[Mig]

14 hours ago, Master Logray said:

 

For Taoist, most temples start from little.  They could be everywhere and anywhere.  Some of them grow and most perished.  It is different from other religions as there is no Taoist Church, which undertakes where and when to build a temple and to coordinate the locations.  Most temples are independent from one another.  Impoverished areas do get temples, a lot of them too.  Temples could be small or even sometimes unmanned and close to each other.

 

The reason for the proliferation of temples/shrines is that Taoist religion is primarily about interacting with divinity.  It may have be lost for other religions, but not Taoism.  Then how to know if a particular temple has the patron of divinity?  Whatever you asked for is granted, then it is considered a efficacious temple.  People will flock there.    A rich person might want to build a temple somewhere, but if this temple cannot provide this "service", it would be an empty one. 

 

Taoism is polytheism, which explains the proliferation and competition between temples. 

 

If you want to know if Taoist leans on money, they do, a lot.  But location of temple has nothing to do with it.  In most cases, it is the good temples that attracts the money and people.

Just found this prior 1949

The organisation of urban temples was profoundly shaken by the extremely aggressive religious policies carried out by the
succession of regimes following the end of the empire. (5) And yet, the essential elements of this organisation were still
to be seen in 1949. In every major city there were one or two big Daoist temples, which we call “central temples,”
managed by the local Daoist elites who maintained close links with local government officials and the economic and
cultural elites. The temples of the City God (Chenghuang miao) or of the Eastern Peak (Dongyue miao) often played
the role of central temple. (6) The Daoist elites who controlled these temples belonged to one of the two major clerical
orders, the Quanzhen and the Zhengyi. Although these two orders are organised in different ways, their liturgy is to
a large extent similar. Moreover, a very large number of smaller temples, generally belonging to neighbourhood associations, guilds, or other institutions of the kind, employed Daoists, either permanently or to come and officiate during festivals. (7) While the temples were all autonomous, hierarchical systems linked them together. The organisation of major festivals at city level (such
as the major processions of the City God, which took place three times a year) were most often in the hands of the
Daoists of the central temples, who brought together all the small temples; representatives of the latter regularly visited the
central temple and took part in its processions. The reorganisation of the temples and of Daoism after 1949 put an end to
this organisation, replacing it with a bureaucratic management that functioned according to a completely logic.

RE: Temples and Daoists inUrban China Since 1980
Goossaert Vincent and Ling Fang

 

that functioned according to a completely different logic.

[Master Logray]

9 hours ago, Mig said:

Just found this prior 1949

The organisation of urban temples was profoundly shaken by the extremely aggressive religious policies carried out by the
succession of regimes following the end of the empire. (5) And yet, the essential elements of this organisation were still
to be seen in 1949. In every major city there were one or two big Daoist temples, which we call “central temples,”
managed by the local Daoist elites who maintained close links with local government officials and the economic and
cultural elites. The temples of the City God (Chenghuang miao) or of the Eastern Peak (Dongyue miao) often played
the role of central temple. (6) The Daoist elites who controlled these temples belonged to one of the two major clerical
orders, the Quanzhen and the Zhengyi. Although these two orders are organised in different ways, their liturgy is to
a large extent similar. Moreover, a very large number of smaller temples, generally belonging to neighbourhood associations, guilds, or other institutions of the kind, employed Daoists, either permanently or to come and officiate during festivals. (7) While the temples were all autonomous, hierarchical systems linked them together. The organisation of major festivals at city level (such
as the major processions of the City God, which took place three times a year) were most often in the hands of the
Daoists of the central temples, who brought together all the small temples; representatives of the latter regularly visited the
central temple and took part in its processions. The reorganisation of the temples and of Daoism after 1949 put an end to
this organisation, replacing it with a bureaucratic management that functioned according to a completely logic.

RE: Temples and Daoists inUrban China Since 1980
Goossaert Vincent and Ling Fang

 

that functioned according to a completely different logic.

 

It is still more or less the case in Chinese communities except China itself.  Perhaps a feature of an decentralized religion.  Buddhist temples are a bit different.  They often house monks i.e. monasteries plus temple functions.  Having a bigger size, there are more considerations in the location. 

[Daeluin]

On 10/3/2020 at 2:23 PM, Mig said:

I have posted some questions about Daoists in general regarding inequality, their precepts, etc. to understand how it is perceived or understood by fellow Daoists or well educated individuals in this forum. One thing, I keep noticing is that Daoism as well as other religious groups, they tend to lean where the money is. I don't see their temples or congregations in low income areas or impoverished neighborhoods. It seems in the past Daoists where in full battle against buddhists for the sake of power. Am I wrong or can you give examples of the contrary?

The dao is the flow of the way in front of each of us into a merging with the coherence between all things.

It is a somewhat individual path.

When we gather in groups and discuss the dogma of isms, we are required to finance stasis within the flow.

 

It is no different from chinese medicine. If we want to hold onto a memory instead of letting it go, we often finance it with our energy and bury it somewhere within us.

The buildings and shelters and towns and cities of humans are all types of stasis blocking flow.

 

Meanwhile the tissues and organs are all merged within the flow.

There is nothing inherently wrong with groups.

 

Look at schools of fish or flocks of birds.

 

They can change on a dime.

 

Because they are empty. Empty, together.

Humans together get lost in their minds.

This tends to require financing of some kind.

Thinking and talking a lot requires shelter and food.

 

Things that would be naturally acquired by following a flow through nature.

 

But we aren't flowing so we need to finance the acquisition of those things, and need to finance their stasis too, so we can have them when we need them.

 

I used to have friends with free time to play in the woods.

 

Then they got families and need to finance their needs.

 

It is just the natural way of gathering outside of natural flow.