NationStates Jolt Archive

We seem to be having an overload of posts about non-Abrahamic religions and/or philosophies. So I'm going to add one more.

Taoism. How many of you have read Lao Tzu? How many of you have read the Tao of Pooh?

Insofar as I'm able to understand Taoism, it's the one religion/philosophy that I can accept without choking on it. This is probably because it's inclusive, not exclusive. It can be perceived of as passive because it seems to espouse inactivity. I'm still working on the first chapter - every time I read it, it changes. http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/taote.htm

lazy Taoist. Confucius is coming to kick you ass.

Read Lao Tzu at college. Interesting, but nothing I hadn't heard from Greek and Roman philosophers.

I haven't read Tao text that isn't on pamphlets/comparative, but my great-grandfather was a Taoist priest who practiced many rituals.

I read the Tao of Pooh, and like any good westerner/Californian, I picked and choosed, re-interpreted and mis-read into something that fits an already existing tendencies and inclinations and then called it a philosophy and an honest interpretation of a centuries old school of thought and not just a half assed rationalization for my own self-absorption.

How many of you have read the Tao of Pooh?

I grew up around diverse Asian groupings. Recently, I read The Tao of Pooh, not much struck me as to new or different, then I gave it to a Christian relative who was having some "issues." I would hope they got the "vinegar tasters parable."

I think the problem with westerners reading into eastern religions today is we tend to try and make the religion read like however we are living our life is right and everyone else is wrong.

Lao Tzu on Barack Obama and government intervention:

"A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes the ruler of the state."
"Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone."

I think the problem with westerners reading into eastern religions today is we tend to try and make the religion read like however we are living our life is right and everyone else is wrong.

An even greater "threat" is the fortune cookie syndrome. They would read a passage without context, and apply it IRL.

Lao Tzu on Barack Obama and government intervention:

"A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes the ruler of the state."
"Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone."

Ah, you're going to be one of those...

An even greater "threat" is the fortune cookie syndrome. They would read a passage without context, and apply it IRL.

That's why you read a passage. Think about it, meditate, read it again and repeat the process. It's not something you can swallow whole and in one sitting.

My favorite passage from the Tao Te Ching. It resonates with me as I'm a person who would rather read about a place than travel there.

"A small country has fewer people.
Though there are machines that can work ten to a hundred times faster
than man, they are not needed.
The people take death seriously and do not travel far.
Though they have boats and carriages, no on uses them.
Though they have armor and weapons, no one displays them.
Men return to the knotting of rope in place of writing.
Their food is plain and good, their clothes fine but simple,
their homes secure;
They are happy in their ways.
Though they live within sight of their neighbors,
And crowing cocks and barking dogs are heard across the way,
Yet they leave each other in peace while they grow old and die."

An even greater "threat" is the fortune cookie syndrome. They would read a passage without context, and apply it IRL.

people do that with western religions just look at the evangelicals.

people do that with western religions just look at the evangelicals.

... that's a good point, although the smug New Age cafe-go'er is far more slappable than the fanatic who was brainwashed into his belief.

... that's a good point, although the smug New Age cafe-go'er is far more slappable than the fanatic who was brainwashed into his belief.

sometimes i wonder if a license should be required to preach a religion. just so oyu have a base understanding of the historical concepts.

I awoke from a dream,
dreaming I was a butterfly.
Or was I a butterfly
dreaming I was a man?

A man walked past a skull,
decaying in the earth,
and declared,
"What a sad thing."

The skull replied back,
"How do you know it is so horrible to be dead?"

The Way that can be named is not the Eternal Way.

------

Although, being Qin, I should be declaring some Legalist Doctrine, like that of Shang Yang or Li Si:

"Law and Order are the only way to keep men under control."

people do that with western religions just look at the evangelicals.

All of the "Reformation" and Protestantism should be considered taking a longass passage (the Bible) out of context.

All of the "Reformation" and Protestantism should be considered taking a longass passage (the Bible) out of context.

Well I find the base problem issue with protestantism and the catholic orthodox split to be language.

Orthodox Greek base.
Catholic Latin base.
Protestant Germanic based.
(all in general of course)

The first generation, when the movement was being lead by educated former catholic priest was decent. However with the distrust of hierarchy it became hard to get that sort of education to the next generations of preacher.

sometimes i wonder if a license should be required to preach a religion. just so oyu have a base understanding of the historical concepts.

Violation of the separation of the church and state. Who regulates the licensing? Who decides which religion will get to preach which interpretation of religion? Who decides that Biblical history is not compatible with "historical concepts"?

Well I find the base problem issue with protestantism and the catholic orthodox split to be language.

Orthodox Greek base.
Catholic Latin base.
Protestant Germanic based.
(all in general of course)

The first generation, when the movement was being lead by educated former catholic priest was decent. However with the distrust of hierarchy it became hard to get that sort of education to the next generations of preacher.

I'm sure there were many problems. Martin Luther's a horrible influence though. He could've been one of the greatest saints in the Catholic Church had he not gone batshit with his "Sola Scriptura" theorem. With Sola Scriptura he made the concept of taking things out of context look legitimate.

...

Martin Luther caused Napoleon and Hitler.

I have read both the Tao of Poo and the works of Lao Tzu.
I recommend Alan Watts "the book" and the "Art of Contemplation". Chang Tsung is my favorite of the Taoist authors. Hummmm.......Taoism.... I find it to be lot more like good science, it just explains things that you see everyday but do not bother to marvel at its workings...than you read some great explanation on physics and go....oh is that why my coffee cools when I blow on it, how can I apply that some where else......
I dunno, hard to explain....it feels honest, like wild nature.

How many of you have read the Tao of Pooh?

I lol'd :p

*Is Incredibly Immature*

The Tao is one of those things that you read and it just sounds sooo good and deep, and then you actually try to apply it and realize that it doesn't quite seem to work that way.

I agree thought that it becomes much more interesting when you study its place in Chinese history and the where and why it was formulated.

We seem to be having an overload of posts about non-Abrahamic religions and/or philosophies. So I'm going to add one more.

Taoism. How many of you have read Lao Tzu? How many of you have read the Tao of Pooh?

Insofar as I'm able to understand Taoism, it's the one religion/philosophy that I can accept without choking on it. This is probably because it's inclusive, not exclusive. It can be perceived of as passive because it seems to espouse inactivity. I'm still working on the first chapter - every time I read it, it changes. http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/taote.htmI've read both of those books, as well as the Te of Piglet. To be honest I thought Hoff's attitude towards other religions in his books was both ignorant and out of place in things that are supposed to explain Taoism. Regardless, they were fun reads. Lao-tzu is one of my favorite philosophical authors in a large part because he is very concerned with language, as am I. I tend to favor "ordinary language" philosophy, and what Lao-tzu says can be made to fit in easily with this school.

Violation of the separation of the church and state. Who regulates the licensing? Who decides which religion will get to preach which interpretation of religion? Who decides that Biblical history is not compatible with "historical concepts"?

I would say me of course.

I consider myself a Daoist by philosophy, though I espouse no religion. But I find myself far more attracted to Zhuang-zi than to Lao-zi, and not at all to Kongfu-zi (Confucious), whom I felt never really understood the other two.

I consider myself a Daoist by philosophy, though I espouse no religion. But I find myself far more attracted to Zhuang-zi than to Lao-zi, and not at all to Kongfu-zi (Confucious), whom I felt never really understood the other two.

Kungfu-tzu, as I read him, was a very traditional Chinese. Inflexible, even rigid, in his views of hierarchy, worship of ancestors, the place of women, good, evil and so on. Lao Tzu was the complete antithesis of what he believed, though Lao Tzu would probably have said that wasn't so, that the Tao was merely the other side of Confucianism. I've not yet read Zhuang tzu, but that's just one more thing for me to do.

Martin Luther caused Napoleon and Hitler.
Calvin caused Star Wars

The main argument against Laozi and the Dao de Jing is that to follow it is to ignore it.

It essentially asserts a doctrine of nihilisim, or believing nothing espoused by man.

Therefore, it refutes its supposed Ox riding, retiring author at the gate whom I would
nevertheless like to think was a historical figure of great wisdom.

The Zhuangzi is nevertheless much more coherent.

Zhang Daoling, Zhang Jiao, and the rest of the Taoist uprisings belong more to the popular incorporation of Taoism into Chinese folk religion with a combination of
revolutionary rhetoric against the corrupt, eunuch-controlled government of Eastern Han. Zhang Lu of Hanzhong actually established a very cooperative
community with the "Five Pecks" (of grain) movement, which was unfortunately crushed by the military might of Cao Cao.

The main argument against Laozi and the Dao de Jing is that to follow it is to ignore it.

It essentially asserts a doctrine of nihilisim, or believing nothing espoused by man.


That's not necessarily true. Dao de jing simply espouses attuning the individual to the universal, and it's not out of the question that, for example, the Confucian mandate of heaven theory is the universal point of view. This goes a long ways toward explaining why many taoist mystics (including Zhuge liang) were actively involved in commanding armies and managing governments during the three kingdoms period.

The main argument against Laozi and the Dao de Jing is that to follow it is to ignore it.A point of similarity to a modern philosopher, Wittgenstein, who essentially said the same thing: if you knew the way the world works, you could never say it.

6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make
themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.


6.53 The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say
nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science--i.e.
something that has nothing to do with philosophy--and then, whenever
someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him
that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions.
Although it would not be satisfying to the other person--he would not have
the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy--this method would be the
only strictly correct one.


6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me
finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them,
on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he
has climbed up on it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he
will see the world aright.


7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.


I'd say that there's a substantial similarity between Wittgenstein's "mystical" and Lao-tzu's Dao.

Still, does it mean that the Tao te Ching or the Tractatus are useless because they, by their nature, could never be used to understand the Tao or the "mystical"? I'd suggest that they are useful in that they provide a way to go on - they don't tell you what is, but rather they show you how to continue the process of learning.

Still, does it mean that the Tao te Ching or the Tractatus are useless because they, by their nature, could never be used to understand the Tao or the "mystical"?
Something perhaps capture better in Eastern philosophy, while Western analytic philosophy, particularly classic logic, will view them as self-defeating.

A point of similarity to a modern philosopher, Wittgenstein, who essentially said the same thing: if you knew the way the world works, you could never say it.

6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make
themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.


6.53 The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say
nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science--i.e.
something that has nothing to do with philosophy--and then, whenever
someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him
that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions.
Although it would not be satisfying to the other person--he would not have
the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy--this method would be the
only strictly correct one.


6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me
finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them,
on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he
has climbed up on it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he
will see the world aright.


7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.


I'd say that there's a substantial similarity between Wittgenstein's "mystical" and Lao-tzu's Dao.

Still, does it mean that the Tao te Ching or the Tractatus are useless because they, by their nature, could never be used to understand the Tao or the "mystical"? I'd suggest that they are useful in that they provide a way to go on - they don't tell you what is, but rather they show you how to continue the process of learning.
It goes without saying Tao te ching is not "Easy enlightenment, just add water"

An analogy is that a book like Tao te ching (or even any other body of knowledge) is a window to the truth. The window provided by the particular book might be different sized for different people, but it will help you look at the truth. But obviously the window might not be big enough to encompass the entire field of view of the truth, though for some people it may very well be big enough to see everything. The analogy for enlightenment is to be able to climb out of that window and finally behold the entire truth.

The main argument against Laozi and the Dao de Jing is that to follow it is to ignore it.

It essentially asserts a doctrine of nihilisim, or believing nothing espoused by man.

Therefore, it refutes its supposed Ox riding, retiring author at the gate whom I would
nevertheless like to think was a historical figure of great wisdom.

The Zhuangzi is nevertheless much more coherent.

Zhang Daoling, Zhang Jiao, and the rest of the Taoist uprisings belong more to the popular incorporation of Taoism into Chinese folk religion with a combination of
revolutionary rhetoric against the corrupt, eunuch-controlled government of Eastern Han. Zhang Lu of Hanzhong actually established a very cooperative
community with the "Five Pecks" (of grain) movement, which was unfortunately crushed by the military might of Cao Cao.

No, what it says is that if you try to follow it, you lose it, that's very different from saying that, in order to follow it, you must ignore it. The Tao and the follower of the Tao are compared to water which goes where it will without trying or needing to go there - essentially, you go where you go, you're not ignoring where you're going but neither are you paying much attention to it, you are, however, enjoing the trip even though the Tao, and not the journey, is your intention.

No, what it says is that if you try to follow it, you lose it, that's very different from saying that, in order to follow it, you must ignore it.

I don't think we can say unequivocally that ignoring Tao won't lead to Tao.

We seem to be having an overload of posts about non-Abrahamic religions and/or philosophies. So I'm going to add one more.

Taoism. How many of you have read Lao Tzu? How many of you have read the Tao of Pooh?

Insofar as I'm able to understand Taoism, it's the one religion/philosophy that I can accept without choking on it. This is probably because it's inclusive, not exclusive. It can be perceived of as passive because it seems to espouse inactivity. I'm still working on the first chapter - every time I read it, it changes. http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/taote.htm
you only find it ....swallowable....because you dont know enough about it.

real taoists believe in some bullshit that is as hard to accept as any other religion. unless you find spending centuries working on immortality and flying a worthwhile way to spend your time. they have a belief in the ability to develop mystical powers that defy rational thought.

anyway. i love the bare bones of taoism. ive read the tao te ching and chuangtzu. when you get to chuangtzu you start somewhere in the middle where it suddenly become readable and cool....where that "was i the man dreaming i was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming i was a man" part is.

I prefer Chao to Tao :tongue:

<snip>

Still, does it mean that the Tao te Ching or the Tractatus are useless because they, by their nature, could never be used to understand the Tao or the "mystical"? I'd suggest that they are useful in that they provide a way to go on - they don't tell you what is, but rather they show you how to continue the process of learning.
Both strike me as being similar to the "direct experience" concept of mystical insight/enlightenment that is very prominent in the Tantric traditions. In the Buddhism thread I mentioned that, of all the Buddhist traditions, I am most influenced by Zen, which itself is rather an amalgamation of Tantric and Toaist practice. Direct experience that bypasses analysis and expression to connect experience directly to awareness is very much a part of that, and that is what I think of when I read things like Wittgenstein's comments. I don't think the point is not to try to experience. I think the point is not to try to hold and define and dictate the experience, to follow it, not direct it.

you only find it ....swallowable....because you dont know enough about it.

real taoists believe in some bullshit that is as hard to accept as any other religion. unless you find spending centuries working on immortality and flying a worthwhile way to spend your time. they have a belief in the ability to develop mystical powers that defy rational thought.

anyway. i love the bare bones of taoism. ive read the tao te ching and chuangtzu. when you get to chuangtzu you start somewhere in the middle where it suddenly become readable and cool....where that "was i the man dreaming i was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming i was a man" part is.
I feel the need to point out that it annoys me when people say things like how the more magical practices of Taoism are bullshit that would make the belief system hard to swallow. That kind of thing strikes me as almost a kind of logical fallacy because it betrays both a lack of understanding of the mystical aspects of a belief system and a prejudice against them.

Obviously, some Toaists do think it is worthwhile to spend their time thinking about immortality and flying, but I would suggest to you that you don't really understand WHY it is considered worthwhile or by whom.

I don't understand why some people can't just say something like, "I dont buy into their mystical practices because I don't see any sense to them, but these other parts are interesting." I don't understand why it is necessary to denigrate someone else's practices like that. Especially since I don't really see how it hurts anyone.