Origin and return

[3bob]

MH, Actually Taoism and many Chinese related practices have all sorts of gods or god type beings woven into its fabric and throughout its very, very old history! So imo you do disservice to that aspect of Taoism with a dogmatic anti-reaction to such terms and or the Beings that you clearly indicate in having no experience with. (while who knows how many thousands of other Taoist people for thousands of years have had such experiences 1st hand) Thus per same one is really out of luck if one wants to limit this to an only anti-religious materialist Taoist sub-forum as you imply as being your personal preference.

[steve]

Taoism is an Atheistic philosophy so there are no gods.

 

Not at all an accurate statement.

 

Daoism, as it is practiced in the East, is replete with a complex pantheon of gods to which Daoists regularly pray, make offerings, and perform a variety of religious rituals. Laozi is considered a god in Daoism and is referred to as Taishang Laojun, one of the Three Pure Ones - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Pure_Ones. Even Daoist martial and healing arts are full of references to the gods. People in the West (and East) often choose to ignore that aspect of Daoism to suit their personal preferences but that does not make it go away.

[Marblehead]

Not at all an accurate statement.

 

Daoism, as it is practiced in the East, is replete with a complex pantheon of gods to which Daoists regularly pray, make offerings, and perform a variety of religious rituals. Laozi is considered a god in Daoism and is referred to as Taishang Laojun, one of the Three Pure Ones - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Pure_Ones. Even Daoist martial and healing arts are full of references to the gods. People in the West (and East) often choose to ignore that aspect of Daoism to suit their personal preferences but that does not make it go away.

I won't argue with what you said but please note that I did say "philosophy". This is as opposed to Shamanic and Religious Taoism.

[Marblehead]

MH, Actually Taoism and many Chinese related practices have all sorts of gods or god type beings woven into its fabric and throughout its very, very old history! So imo you do disservice to that aspect of Taoism with a dogmatic anti-reaction to such terms and or the Beings that you clearly indicate in having no experience with. (while who knows how many thousands of other Taoist people for thousands of years have had such experiences 1st hand) Thus per same one is really out of luck if one wants to limit this to an only anti-religious materialist Taoist sub-forum as you imply as being your personal preference.

Well, I saw the topic going way into outer field and felt that the discussion would confuse new-comers to Taoism.

 

I have never said that Religious and Alchemic Taoists do not have gods and spirits in their belief system. But I have said that I do not accept those beliefs.

 

The discussion is about the Taoist concept of "origin and return". The gods of Buddhism, Christianity and even Taoism have nothing to do with this.

 

And I see no disservice in my pointing out that there are many differences between Philosophical and Religious Taoism. It is simply a statement of fact. And the differences between Philosophical Taoism, which is an Atheistic belief system, and Christianity in America are even far greater.

 

I am sure Vmarco would talk with anyone regarding American Christianity in an appropriate thread.

 

And I will point out that Religious Taoism, in the most part, is a sub-species of Buddhism. Alchemic Taoism is closer to Philosophical Taoism than is Religious Taoism.

 

Anyhow, back to topic: we come into life and move daily toward death. Unused potential prior to life and unused potential upon death. One complete cycle.

[Marblehead]

Not at all an accurate statement.

 

Daoism, as it is practiced in the East, is replete with a complex pantheon of gods to which Daoists regularly pray, make offerings, and perform a variety of religious rituals. Laozi is considered a god in Daoism and is referred to as Taishang Laojun, one of the Three Pure Ones - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Pure_Ones. Even Daoist martial and healing arts are full of references to the gods. People in the West (and East) often choose to ignore that aspect of Daoism to suit their personal preferences but that does not make it go away.

So I will restate the statement: Philosophical Taoism is an Atheistic belief system so there are no gods.

 

Those who need gods will always find a way to create them.

[3bob]

MH,

 

Anyone that has been here awhile knows of your personal preference for an atheist/materialistic take on Taoism - but that in no way represents all of Taoism including what you are calling "philosophical" Taoism since the religious/shamanistic/alchemic forms of Taoism also include aspects that are not divorced from philosophy that is related to the teachings. So even if one prefers an atheist take on Taoism that is their business but when one attempts to define other aspects of Taoism that they may have no experience with then imo one should be at least agnostic-like about it since that is the obvious and self-stated condition of their present experience and knowledge.

 

also, leaving out Taoist related teachings like the one below would also "confuse" newcomers:

 

"Yuan-shih T'ien-tsun -- The First Principal
Although Yu-huang is the High God, there are other abstract deities above him. He rules; they simply exist and instruct. First and foremost is Yuan-shih T'ien-tsun - the First Principal. He has no beginning and no end. He existed "before the void and the silence, before primordial chaos." He is self-existing, changeless, limitless, invisible, contains all virtues, is present in all places and is the source of all truth."

 

Note: in the context above such is not created by a human being as you more or less sarcastically put it earlier.

 

Btw, imo and via historical texts and artifacts Buddhism (per and as founded by the historic Buddha) is a very young newcomer on the scene compared to Taoism. As for possible mix-ups or misunderstandings between Christianity and Taoism I can see your points.

 

Later, Bob

[dawei]

So I will restate the statement: Philosophical Taoism is an Atheistic belief system so there are no gods.

 

Those who need gods will always find a way to create them.

 

I want to be careful in my statement, but it is hard to do so:

 

There is no such thing as " Philosophical Taoism".

 

This is a construct for the mind to justify one's understanding of their existence.

 

You are free to eat the bread but not eat the crust... how can you then talk about the bread?

[Marblehead]

I want to be careful in my statement, but it is hard to do so:

 

There is no such thing as " Philosophical Taoism".

 

This is a construct for the mind to justify one's understanding of their existence.

 

You are free to eat the bread but not eat the crust... how can you then talk about the bread?

Yes, you were careful with your words. Too careful perhaps.

 

However, I will disagree and repeat what I said. Philosophical Taoism is an Atheistic belief system.

 

I use the term "Philosophical Taoism" because a number of translators of the TTC have stated such. I have accepted their opinion. Therefore I reject yours.

 

I didn't need Taoism to understand my existence. I had already existed for about 40 years before I read my first translation of the TTC.

 

I can talk about that part of the bread that I did eat. No, I can't talk about that part I didn't eat and neither do I talk about Religious Taoism. In fact, when I first started a serious reading of Taoist texts I did read a little about Religious Taoism and pretty much said to myself "This is just as bad as Christianity." and put the books back on the shelf.

[dawei]

I can talk about that part of the bread that I did eat. No, I can't talk about that part I didn't eat and neither do I talk about Religious Taoism. In fact, when I first started a serious reading of Taoist texts I did read a little about Religious Taoism and pretty much said to myself "This is just as bad as Christianity." and put the books back on the shelf.

 

You tasted modern dough... and didn't like it... the ancient dough is not easily found or tasted... but that is a part of destiny, IMO.

 

I would just accept that the world is always much bigger than we envision.

[dust]

It all depends on what one chooses to believe. So it's not worth arguing, really. But I'm argumentative, so...

 

I'm curious to know what encouragement or suggestions to

worship, prayer, obedience, belief in deities, desire for immortality, ability to become immortal, etc

people can find in the Laozi or Zhuangzi

 

I'm aware that the Taoist canon is far larger than these 2 texts, but these 2 texts form the basis for what I would also call philosophical Taoism, and they are my only real concern..

[Marblehead]

You tasted modern dough... and didn't like it... the ancient dough is not easily found or tasted... but that is a part of destiny, IMO.

 

I would just accept that the world is always much bigger than we envision.

Fair enough.

 

However, whenever gods are invoked into a philosophical discussion it really turns me off, irritates me, and in my opinion is presenting faulty information.

 

I do try to not speak negatively about religions because I do understand that they are an important part of many people's life. But I simply cannot accept acts of some god as an explanation of some event. And this is true for any aspect of life that I might be in conversation concerning.

[Marblehead]

Would Lao Tzu would have wanted to be regarded as a God? I think only if everyone could see themselves as a god. Then everyone would be equal. And Lao Tzu would not be special. Just his simple self.

And even much more so Chuang Tzu.

[Michael Sternbach]

I think it depends on your understanding of God. If your God is a being external to you, then you are not talking about the Dao. However, there is a non-dualist understanding at the heart of every religion, which only the mystics will grasp. The Bible saying that we should have no image of God, is that really different from Lao Tzu telling us that the Dao that can be defined is not the real Dao? I do think that the Dao conception shares with Deus attributes like being infinite, timeless, yet bringing forth the manifest world for which it is an organizing principle and force.

[Marblehead]

I think it depends on your understanding of God. If your God is a being external to you, then you are not talking about the Dao. However, there is a non-dualist understanding at the heart of every religion, which only the mystics will grasp. The Bible saying that we should have no image of God, is that really different from Lao Tzu telling us that the Dao that can be defined is not the real Dao? I do think that the Dao conception shares with Deus attributes like being infinite, timeless, yet bringing forth the manifest world for which it is an organizing principle and force.

Valid observation.

 

I was raised Christian so that is the imprint in my mind regarding God. I could not accept the mystical teachings and therefore had to deny the entire belief system. But I still hold as valid the moral teachings within the Bible, and there are many good teachings.

 

Yes, I have heard your argument many times before but the path I followed took me to Atheism and therefore I must deny all concepts of devil, spirits and gods. (And ghosts too.) (Okay, and aliens too.)

[Michael Sternbach]

Even science begins to join in with the mystical conclusions that I referred to in my previous post, at least in the view of some of its representatives. For example, according to Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, all the matter in the Universe will (after an unspeakable number of years, a one followed by a hundred zeroes or so) turn into light. In such a Universe, metric space and time cease to exist; what you have is a state of infinity, which is yet nil. It is a singularity and the basis of another Big Bang.

 

The Dao or Wu Chi brings forth the ten-thousand things. The kabbalistic En Soph Aur or Infinite Light manifests itself in the Tree of Life. The Hindu Universe goes into Pralaya or primeval chaos after an ineffable years in order to be born anew. It is fascinating for me to see, how the seemingly divergent perspectives of the mystics of the ages are hinting at and contributing to an understanding of ultimate reality.

 

[Marblehead]

Yep. There are many good scientists who are into religion and mysticism and these beliefs influence how they present "their" theories. I don't listen to them too much. If you present something that cannot be proven then in my opinion you have not presented anything.

 

Yes, I hold to the understanding of Singularity, the Big Bang, reversions, and cycles. Science has good logic supporting the theory of the Big Bang. Just recently I have heard a couple scientists make good attempts at defining Singularity. Reversions and cycles can never be proven. (There will be no one around to observe them except for maybe a few "way out" Buddhists but one should not believe most things they say.)

[Michael Sternbach]

Talking about going back to one's roots, I don't agree that this idea is limited to some special technique of Daoist Alchemy. Rather, the latter is a particular method to access a principle of universal validity. Once again, you will encounter the same principle in metaphysical systems as (seemingly) divergent as Zen Buddhism, Christian Gnosis and Tarot. On one level, it indeed refers to connecting back to our state of existence as children which surely lives on as our "inner child". Even Freudian psychoanalysis may reflect this. On another level, it is clear that few of us would like to literally and permanently regress to such a state. What we hope to achieve is a way of life that is analogous to a child's, but at the same time encompasses all the knowledge and experience which are the hard earned fruits of our decades of existence. So as we metaphorically go back to the origin, we do so on a higher winding of the spiral.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Michael Sternbach

[Marblehead]

No disagreement with that whatever.

 

A "normal" person's life is limited in how far they can go with this though because they have many responsibilities to others. After retirement though, yes, possibilities abound.

 

And I agree that Taoism isn't the only belief system (I sure don't like using that term but it is the best one to use) that teaches its followers to return to the innocence of the child. For me though, after reading Chuang Tzu I didn't need any additional support or rationale for making the effort.

[Michael Sternbach]

Yep. There are many good scientists who are into religion and mysticism and these beliefs influence how they present "their" theories. I don't listen to them too much. If you present something that cannot be proven then in my opinion you have not presented anything.

Funnily, Penrose is not into religion or metaphysics (or he is not conscious of it). When I spontaneously uttered my metaphysical ideas on a cosmology congress on which Roger explained his theory, I was given "permission" for making such associations by one of his colleagues but at the same time got reminded that what I'm talking about is outside the scope of science. Naturally, I beg to differ - in accordance with my own understanding of science.

 

, I hold to the understanding of Singularity, the Big Bang, reversions, and cycles. Science has good logic supporting the theory of the Big Bang. Just recently I have heard a couple scientists make good attempts at defining Singularity. Reversions and cycles can never be proven. (There will be no one around to observe them except for maybe a few "way out" Buddhists but one should not believe most things they say.)

Little can be proven rigorously, especially when it comes to ultimate questions. This is true for natural science as well as for metaphysics or philosophy. But hey, we do need some kind of belief system.

[Marblehead]

Naturally, I beg to differ - in accordance with my own understanding of science.

Well, I can understand that. But then we must follow the rules within reason or we will never again be allow to speak at those types of events.

 

Little can be proven rigorously, especially when it comes to ultimate questions. This is true for natural science as well as for metaphysics or philosophy. But hey, we do need some kind of belief system.

True. In most cases it is our "best guess". If we find no contradictions we relabel our "best guess" to "fact".

 

The important thing, IMO, are contradictions.

[dust]

Immortality is simply extreme normalness. Extreme as in: normal all the time. Does Lao Tzu speak about normality? Surely. LT speaks his philosophy of a natural spiritual life. And how one can achieve it.

 

I don't really understand what you mean by "extreme normalness". What do you mean by normality?

 

Yes, there are different understandings of immortality... it's my understanding that some people believe their physical/spiritual form might live forever.. it's also my understanding that LZ and ZZ (for all his talk of men who could suck the wind and drink the dew and ride flying dragons -- allegory, not reality) did not believe in this kind of spiritual/physical immortality, but the endless existence that one becomes aware of being a part of when one is enlightened (essentially)....

[3bob]

Obviously:

Atheism and Theism are beliefs with no provable proofs per a universally accepted standard for either one, thus and imo to be REASONABLE, LOGICAL and simply honest about either belief one would have to admit through common sense recognition that one is an agnostic like position; - that is until one has 1st hand proof regarding same for themselves, which btw they can still not force upon or prove to anyone else using the tools of logic, reason and a related universally accepted standard since such does not exist. To say otherwise would amount to some variation or form of illogic and unreasonableness that could become dogmatic to fanatical in either case.

[steve]

Funny. I have no idea where you found (Eye Of God) in Taoism. Taoism is an Atheistic philosophy so there are no gods.

 

And even the word "Eye" personifies Tao and this cannot be done within Taoist philosophy. The very first line of the TTC states this very clearly: As for the Tao, the Tao that can be spoken of is not the constant Tao.

 

 

I won't argue with what you said but please note that I did say "philosophy". This is as opposed to Shamanic and Religious Taoism.

 

My issue was that you claimed Taoism to be an Atheistic philosophy, which it is not.

Taoism is far more than a philosophy. Certain individuals choose to extract philosophical concepts form Taoism, often out of context, and I think it's important to recognize that is what is happening. There is also no such thing as Shamanic Taoism or Religious Taoism. There is Taoism and there are individuals and groups who define what that is for them based on their personal, cultural, philosophical, and religious biases. I think that is a valuable distinction to make.

 

Would Lao Tzu would have wanted to be regarded as a God? I think only if everyone could see themselves as a god. Then everyone would be equal. And Lao Tzu would not be special. Just his simple self.

 

 

And even much more so Chuang Tzu.

 

If either one of them was half the sage they seem to have been, they knew quite clearly that they are God, looking out through their human eyes in their personal, individual, and transient organic encapsulation, so it wasn't an issue. The problem is, not enough folks have that recognition. That is the source of our struggles.

 

In terms of our relationship with the Great Mystery, the Great Mother, God, Mystery, Dao, Non-duality, Brahman, Buddhamind... whatever, what counts is not how we conceptualize or label it, but that we work towards recognizing, revealing, and integrating it into our lives in ways which lead to balance, harmony, peace, love, and happiness. Yes, I acknowledge that all paths are different, methods, are different, fruition and goals are different, but all of that is our creation.

 

What is beyond that which we create? That is what we are and integration with that is the goal of cultivation.

[steve]

The important thing, IMO, are contradictions.

I've quoted John O'Donohue before and it seems relevant here -

 

"And if you want a point of departure for this new journey of soul, don't choose an intention, don't choose a prayer, don't choose a therapy, and don't choose a spiritual method. Look inwards and discover a point of contradiction within yourself. Stay faithful to the aura and presence of the contradiction. Hold it gently in your embrace and ask it what it wants to teach you."

 

PS - he was a Celtic, Christian poet and mystic, and I love listening to him speak - his brogue is simply lovely

[Marblehead]

 

PS - he was a Celtic, Christian poet and mystic, and I love listening to him speak - his brogue is simply lovely

Nice. I accept wisdom regardless of the source.