"true" Daoism, teacher or lineage - is it true?

[daoseeker]

with no offense to any of the respected Dao seekers here, I want to share some facts about the truth of "true" Daoism, true teachers and lineages and issues related to it.

 

so many people claim to have found a true teacher, or that their teacher is the true inheritor of this or that system - or even of the Daoism in general....

 

Just pointing out some facts here, trying to not sound too sophisticated, because that's not what I regard neccesasary...

 

1. "Daoism" is no kind of religion in the sense of having a revelation, founder, bible, dogma or faith as a preposition to be a Daoist. It's more an organically grown way of life cultivation with factes of an organized religion, on the basis of a fundamental philosophy.

Nobody can ever be the inheritor of the "true" Daoism.

 

2. There are hundreds of lineages (menpai), traditions, affiliations, lay or monastic groups, study groups, secret societies and so on, from history up to nowadays generations.

 

3. Whoever claims to have found the true XXXX is already away from truth.

If a master or teacher can teach the truth, then he might be a true teacher...

 

4. A lineage is just a lineage, a tradition, a chain of ongoing transmissions within a certain system of teachings.

There is no wrong or right lineage, no true or false lineage - if in any case a lineage is really existing and not just a bluff or an empty name.

 

5. Nowadays the "orthodox" Daoism is organized in the shape of a religion mainly under the Quanzhen or Zhengyi sect. Quanzhen being monastic, they are monks and leave their homes (chujia). Zhengyi being a lay movement, where you become a priest (daoshi) and perform rituals for the people, apply some kind of "magic" (exorzism, talismans, sorcery etc.). So far for the surface...

 

BUT

6. The Quanzhen Dao also has had lay movements, study groups and secret societies from the beginning of this lineage. The "Seven Perfected" (Qizhen) disciples of the founder Wang Zhe set up own lineages, monasteries and lay groups all alike. From them we have several kinds of sub-sects of Quanzhen ("Complete Truth" sect), e.g. Longmenpai (Dragon Gate sect), Jinshanpai (Gold Mountain sect) etc.

All kinds of lay study groups and lineages are still existing or founded anew elsewhere. So, there is a big tradition of these lay disciples and students of Neidan within the society. That has always been the case.

And Wang Liping is nothing else than a lineage holder and inheritor of the Longmenpai, without being a monastic Quanzhen Longmenpai monk. He is just trained in a tradition which has a true lineage connection, but no affiliation with any monastic lineage. He is a true inheritor of Lungmenpai, but not THE inheritor. for that reason he is not known among the monastic Daoists in the big Daoist centres, nor has he any connection to the Chinese Daoist Association, which is mainly controlling the organized institution like the monasteries and registered monks.

 

7. The Chinese people always tend to systematize things or put it in a simple, easily memorizable way. Therefore many concepts of Daoist schools or sects or lineages also have such kind of simplifications, e.g. Northern and Southern School, Inner and Outer school, this or that mountain school, Fire or Water tradition...

 

To give a useful brainteaser on that matter:

a lay daoist disciple, originally initiated in the Zhengyi sect of Daoism, is studying Neidan with a Longmen Master on Wudangshan ... ... ... what is he? Zhengyidao, Longmenpai, Wudangpai, Daoist priest or Monk or what???

(he is just a disciple looking for the truth and a good master at a good place to practice....)

 

What Michael Winn does or Mantak Chia or Internal Martial Arts teachers, mostly comes from original orthodox sources, maybe within a lineage or without, maybe from one single master in a certain tradition, but most likely in a mix of different master's traditions, lineages or training systems... all of this has it's legitimation. ONLY one should never claim to have the true thing or claim to come from an orthodox lineage when that connection is only made up for promotion or justification.

 

E.g. Healing Tao, to me it's a new lineage, because it has connections to true lineages, it is a mix of different approaches and practises in one new system. Meanwhile I would call it the "Healing Tao lineage".

 

Bruce Kumar Frantzis (who I highly respect and admire for his lifelong dedication to internal martial arts and his life with Liu Hongjie in Beijing) once told me in a weekend Neigong course that the Longmenpai monks would not be the inheritors of true Daoism and that they follow the "Fire" tradition of practice....

(Sorry Bruce, ... but that's rubbish.) I wouldn't dare to discuss it with him in front of other students and let him loose face. But even in literature or scholarly works one can not find anything like "Fire" as opposed to "water" traditions. Maybe it's just something his master told him to point out a different approach or technique.

Bruce is also claiming everywhere that his master Liu (undoubtly an official inheritor of Bagua, Xingyi and Wu style Taijiquan) was head of a Daoist sect, without naming this sect or giving anymore details.

What is it worth then?

 

Many teachers I believe are falling into the trap of giving legitimations in a wrong way, aware or unaware, making up a story which leads students to say "he was the disciple of the last true XXXX" or "he got transmission from the head of XXXX".

 

You have a lineage - name it! Everybody can follow up or check it if he wants

You made up your own system - name it! Everybody can check and test it

You mix it all up - why not if it works and you don't claim to be orthodox in a way

 

Enough for now. Hope some fellows join in or gain some insights or have some points to discuss!

 

wide and open like the sky

[Procurator]

 

 

1. "Daoism" is no kind of religion in the sense of having a revelation, founder, bible, dogma or faith as a preposition to be a Daoist.

this is nonsense, who do you think Lao-zi was?

[thelerner]

I like the essay. I thought Lao-zi (Lao tsu right) the 'old man' is widely considered semi mythological and that his writings, which simply and deeply lay out the basis of much Taoist philosophy are an evolved collection.

 

 

Michael

[Aetherous]

Thanks for posting this, Daoseeker.

[Taiji Bum]

Great essay, daoseeker.

[daoseeker]

this is nonsense, who do you think Lao-zi was?

 

no offense, but Laozi - if he ever existed as a real person - never founded any religion nor did he have any disciples, nor did he think about, wrote or let anybody do something organized in terms of "Daoism", which is as a system, or even as the word itself appear hundreds of years afterwards only...

 

Laozi's Daodejing is the key source and the most profound and worthy foundation of the daoist way of life, the key to re-condition yourself towards a Daoist's life.

But he is one among many writers, glorified by early western scholars as a founder of a religion, due to the lack of comparable facets of Christian religion - nothing more BUT nothing less

 

I should read the DAODEJING every day - thanks for reminding me

 

I like the essay. I thought Lao-zi (Lao tsu right) the 'old man' is widely considered semi mythological and that his writings, which simply and deeply lay out the basis of much Taoist philosophy are an evolved collection.

Michael

 

Thanks, Michael.

 

The collection seems to be the case, like it is the case of many primary sources or Chinese religious literature in general. But you are right: it is laying out the foundation of any daoist practice or theory.

Many daoist monks I talked to in China always pointed out that studying the Daodejing is the essence of practice and deepening your understanding of the world. Even more, reading the commentaries of e.g. Heshanggong, will lead you to the most useful insights.

 

He who knows the Eternal Law is tolerant;

Being tolerant, he is impartial;

Being impartial, he is kingly;

Being kingly, he is in accord with Nature;

Being in accord with Nature, he is in accord with Tao;

Being in accord with Tao, he is eternal,

And his whole life is preserved from harm. Daodejing 16

[Procurator]

no offense, but Laozi - if he ever existed as a real person - never founded any religion nor did he have any disciples,

absolutely no offense. what you are saying is just a pack of demonstrable nonsense, nothing to be offended at..have you ever heard about the Guard of the Western Pass? he was his disciple.

 

Have you ever heard about his journey to the West - it is when he founded a little religion called buddhism.

Edited September 27, 2008 by Procurator

[ToL]

Thank you Daoseeker, I found your post very interesting, where can I learn more about orthodox daoism?

[Taomeow]

Very nice, Daoseeker.

 

One point though that might redeem BKF in your eyes to an extent:

 

"fire" and "water" is a legitimate description of the main internal route for the gong to take via a corresponding set of practices, not a name of a "school" or anything like that, just a pointer to the direction inner space-time events are encouraged to take. The terms are used in their Wuxing sense. A fire practice is an upward flow, a water practice, a downward flow. You "raise" things with a fire practice -- both spiritually ("toward a higher goal, a higher entity, higher accomplishments," etc.), qi-wise (directing it upward), time-wise (moving "forward" rather than "back,") shape-wise (pyramid arrangements with the "crowning" events expected at the top), and in terms of values cultivated (heaven, yang-slanted). With a water practice, you "drop" things - spiritually ("back to the 'lower' developmental origins, 'lower' expectations,' 'lowering' yourself into the world rather than 'elevating' yourself above it, etc.), qi-wise (directing it downward), time-wise (moving "back" rather than "forward," "returning"), shape-wise (non-hierarchical arrangements without any "crowning" events expected at the top, an egalitarian flow of events with no distinct "more significant" or "less significant" ones discerned), and in terms of values cultivated (earth, yin-slanted).

 

I don't know what BKF means when he makes the distinction, but I've heard it made by other teachers in the sense I've presented above, and in my own experience, they are distinctly different practices. I don't think I'd be able to "prove it with scientific references" but it is my impression that "water" practices are closer to taoism's origins while "fire" ones are the ones that have been influenced most heavily by other modalities (hinduism, buddhism). Am I making sense to you?

[daoseeker]

absolutely no offense. what you are saying is just a pack of demonstrable nonsense, nothing to be offended at..have you ever heard about the Guard of the Western Pass? he was his disciple.

 

Have you ever heard about his journey to the West - it is when he founded a little religion called buddhism.

 

 

ha ha ... I like that. If we live long enough Winnie-the-Pooh will be called a patriarch of Daoism also...

 

(the story of Yinxi the Gatekeeper is also a quite impressive pack of traditional Chinese nonsense...)

 

Thank you Daoseeker, I found your post very interesting, where can I learn more about orthodox daoism?

 

I figured it's neccessary to study scholar's books on that topic (e.g. "The Daoists of Beijing") to get a clear picture of the background, then you can judge what somebody says. Even Chinese Quanzhen monks might be astonished when they realize how foolish they are when it comes to history of orthodox Daoism...

 

But it only helps to judge claims of authenticity.. doesn't help you practice the right way....!!!

 

Very nice, Daoseeker.

 

One point though that might redeem BKF in your eyes to an extent:

 

"fire" and "water" is a legitimate description of the main internal route for the gong to take via a corresponding set of practices, not a name of a "school" or anything like that, just a pointer to the direction inner space-time events are encouraged to take. The terms are used in their Wuxing sense. A fire practice is an upward flow, a water practice, a downward flow. You "raise" things with a fire practice -- both spiritually ("toward a higher goal, a higher entity, higher accomplishments," etc.), qi-wise (directing it upward), time-wise (moving "forward" rather than "back,") shape-wise (pyramid arrangements with the "crowning" events expected at the top), and in terms of values cultivated (heaven, yang-slanted). With a water practice, you "drop" things - spiritually ("back to the 'lower' developmental origins, 'lower' expectations,' 'lowering' yourself into the world rather than 'elevating' yourself above it, etc.), qi-wise (directing it downward), time-wise (moving "back" rather than "forward," "returning"), shape-wise (non-hierarchical arrangements without any "crowning" events expected at the top, an egalitarian flow of events with no distinct "more significant" or "less significant" ones discerned), and in terms of values cultivated (earth, yin-slanted).

 

I don't know what BKF means when he makes the distinction, but I've heard it made by other teachers in the sense I've presented above, and in my own experience, they are distinctly different practices. I don't think I'd be able to "prove it with scientific references" but it is my impression that "water" practices are closer to taoism's origins while "fire" ones are the ones that have been influenced most heavily by other modalities (hinduism, buddhism). Am I making sense to you?

 

 

hahhh, thanks so much, Taomeow. That's fresh air for my understanding!!

That totally makes sense!

 

But do the monastic Longmenpai Daoist emphasize the fire aspect in their Neidan practice? I don't think so. Maybe I should try to get a comment from Michael Winn about it, since he is also practicing with Longmenpai monks on Huashan.

 

warm gratitude

[Procurator]

ha ha ... Winnie-the-Pooh will be called a patriarch of Daoism also...

 

of traditional Chinese nonsense...

 

 

Chinese Quanzhen monks might be astonished when they realize how foolish they are ....

 

finally you have found the right forum. you fit right in.

[steve]

Nice post Daoseeker.

Concise yet comprehensive.

My shi-ye is a practicing Daoist. When I first started practicing cultivation under his guidance, I asked him to recommend a translation of Dao De Jing for me to study. He said he couldn't recommend one and that he'd never read it, and that I didn't need to read, just practice... After a few years of practice, he's changed his tune a bit and admits that there is value to reading and studying Dao De Jing and other resources (which he has) but the practice is much more important in his opinion, particularly in the beginning.

[daoseeker]

but the practice is much more important in his opinion, particularly in the beginning.

 

pretty interesting. I guess a good master/guide is giving the right advice at the right time. That's all. Nor neither is the "right" thing for everybody.

In Zen Practice I also realized that there is a time for a book - one day it's indeed enlightening, the other day it's another pound of rubbish for your mind - but there is always the time for practice.

I deeply trust the word "When the student is ready, the master will come" - and I also take that for the truth when it comes to books "about" the truth or practice. In Zen you just practice until you are so rooted in your dantian, and your moment-to-moment awareness is so fluent... by a certain "click" suddenly it all opens up and you are getting a transparent part of that flowing universe - be it by the "click" of a book's text line, the sound of the toilet flush or whatever.....