I have heard this sort of thing before. The best I can say is that if this is the case, it seems strange refer to such a state of affairs as a 'philosophy'. I don't mean in anyway to de-legitimize the Tao, in fact, it seems to me it would be a great deal more legitimate if it wasn't classed in such a way that it seems intended to compete with rationalism, or western religion, or so on and so forth. If Taoism isn't something that can be said, but is rather something that must be felt, then it seems to me that it's not a series of claims or arguments- since claims can be said. So in what sense would you consider Taoism philosophy, or do you even, for that matter?
Ucci,
I think part of your confusion with Daoism is that it is largely presented as a corrective, rather than a concrete philosophy. Since Chinese life was very much dominated by ritual, it became a worthwhile persuit to try and ‘buck the rider’. Over-ritualization of life leads to one acting without understanding of the rituals and their importance.
This is very different from the West, where while ritual and social norms were common, they lacked the authority they did in the East. This kinda feeds into the idea of shame vs. guilt cultures. So, if you look at it, the Daodejing was just an attempt to justify the seperation of man from culture and a veneration of nature. The Zhuangzi takes this a great deal further and advocates a naturalistic ethic and by signifying civilization as a corrupting force.
Also, I would argue that virtue is readily translated into chinese as de. The Confucian concept of de is very similar to the aristole’s idea of arate (sp?).
Hardly. Of course this really depends on one’s point of view. For myself I would say that I am the one who a gift has been bestowed upon. The opportunity to witness this unity in action. That is the true gift here.
Perhaps, but it did happen. The taxi driver didn’t seem perplexed at all, he didn’t ask me for more money for ‘wasting’ his time, for spending more petrol, driving out of his way, no, he carried her in his arms to the doctor and then again to the hospital and waited patiently for us to be certain that everything was alright. No, this was my gift and my opportunity to act.
Na, surely they can survive the sometimes very powerful need for ‘approval’. No, they do not need to sell anything at all.
Well done, you pointed out the shortcoming in my explanation. I didn’t quantify properly or at all.
In order for me to be able to give a verbally cognitive representation of Tao to you, there is a prerequisite of you understanding the structure of the language and the people, to benefit from the philosophy. I would say this is an applicable requisite to any “historical” philosophy.
I already know the next point of contention: Taoism is not intended to be a “religious medium” and never was. Anyone who has read Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu would understand this fact. As usual, it is the unenlightened who encumber the way for the seekers with rites, rituals, and doctrine for their own benefit of control. I also know this is true from experience with a Taoist monk who found out the hard way that Tao is not a religious tradition, it is a philosophical lifestyle. The abbit of his monastery actually forced him to leave because he didn’t understand the concept that the “worship” rituals were for discipline only, until he understood the proper living method. It was even stated to him that the pantheon and it’s rituals were simply exercises in discipline, and wasting time worshipping idols meant he really did not grasp the “absolute Tao”.
At the higher level, there is a cognitive understanding whereby your mind has opened to a point where, philosophically, you can remove duality from all life and understand the universe, from the universe’s perspective. Thus you will live in concord with the universe, which transcends how humanity lives now. This is said to be “wu wei”, non-action, but that is by definition only as I have no experience of that level.
Actually it happens everyday. In our everyday ordinary mundane reality. If only we could see.
Let me be very clear here. Our conversation is a mutual sharing of ideas. If anyone needs to be taken by the hand, it is me, I am stretching out my hand and waiting for my teacher. That is the most that I can hope for. But I will choose my teacher, not because of their many great words, but rather because of their constant great actions.
Faith. We need the foundation of faith, without faith we are lost.
My theory is not that the person has a hard time switching gears but rather has a hard time applying his knowledge. If he applied his knowledge, his language would be universal. And of course I would understand his language, it would be made of the same stuff that I am made of.
My theory is that eastern thinking encompasses western thinking in anything metaphysical. Kant in my eastern mentality is as if some charloton who tried to perferm a Plato-Newton mix in Latin. His transcendental aethetics dangles on this leaf tip like a dew that’s ready to drop as soon as the leaves move. This is why western metaphysics pathetic, for its merely a by product of its brilliant physics. This is idolness in profit abuse. Eastern metaphysics is truely untouchably transcendental. There is something in Laozi’s head that was ten times smaller in Plato’s. Now, it doesn’t matter how hard Plato tries to transcend his knowledge on physics into metaphysics, doesn’t matter how many dividends and definitions that he managed to drop out as a result, with the two word probably as a result of a mind flash, Ying and Yang, Laozi sat on Plato high and strong.
Well, that’s it in a nutshell. I guess in order to compare it to philosophy or religion, I would have to ask “And why would I want to put myself in a state like that?” Does Taoism rely on an authority or dictum to say that we ought to reach for this state? Is there a promise that we will be more content or more happy if we do achieve this state? Or do Taoists say that working towards this state is the way to get at the truth of things, much like critical analysis does for a Westerner?
Now this is serious. Cocktails are a difficult sacrifice. I must post something unique and provocative so as to describe the possibility of objective realities behind all what you describe as bunk.
Does a greater objective reality exist behind all the imagination that we agree exists? Does the very fact that there is so much imagination permeating these experiences indicate the possibility of something objective that it is taking the place of?
I believe this to be the case which is why any systems I read of that do not begin with man’s nothingness, I know can only contain partial truths. But since I’m a seeker of pearls in manure, I find it advantageous to be aware of them.
Suppose there is something real behind all these deep concepts, would you say it is possible that we can become open to them at different times in our life? The very fact that we may not be open now doesn’t effect the possibility of tomorrow. I know in my life, I became ready at a specific time. Only then could it really come together for me.
Thinking about this in the past I equated it to someone trying to explain to me when I was five what was so attractive about the behind of that blond older girl who was an obvious pain in the ass but for some reason, the older boys were sniffing right after it. What sort of explanation, what could someone say that would allow me to understand with the totality of myself what the fuss was about. Then gradually one day I would mature into that famous “Aha” experience and I would then understand what was worth chasing after and how a pain in the ass was mysteriously transformed into a beautiful delight. The bottom line is that I became ready to understand.
Perhaps the inner calling is similar but instead of the physical sexual attraction, it is a psychological attraction to something we are evolving towards but finding it difficult to find the way to what can best be described as “home.”
I think I am guilty of conveying the idea that I am looking (as a spokesman for western-thinking) for something more than what I am really looking for.
I am thinking that there are two separate issues involved here. There is experience and there is explanation. And just to be clear, I am not suggesting that we can impart experience to somebody. I can’t begin to explain to somebody what it’s like to ride a roller-coaster if that person has never done so. But the question that gets asked is not, “Give to me the experience of riding in a roller-coaster with words, please.†The question that gets asked is, “Give me some idea of what you mean when you say that you have ridden in a roller-coaster.â€
Sure, happy to. It’s this ride with a series of carts that rolls on a track at an amusement park and the track goes way up high and then slopes sharply downward and the carts go really fast and the wind whips through your hair and it’s exciting and fun. You ought to try it. Look, there’s a roller coaster right over there, if you’re so inclined.
The west is not asking for a ride on a roller-coaster. The west is asking about roller-coasters.
It seems important on forums such as this that we all can make ourselves clear when we speak of the worldviews we come from. Our individual worldviews color our conversations here and cannot be separated from the words we write. And so if I am in a conversation with somebody and seeking understanding, it seems imperative that I have some grasp of the worldview that sits behind the words I am reading. If I ask for help in this regard from the person I am speaking to, I would hope, if that person sincerely wants to communicate with me in a forum such as this, that he or she can help me.
Am I asking for something that is impossible? Are the western thinkers simply out of luck in trying to grasp some kind of understanding of the worldview that sits behind the words they are being asked to read?
Why would you want to align yourself with the Dao? Beats the heck outta me. But, since they feel that society is corrupted and the best way to maintain virtue is to be close to nature (both as in one’s original self and the natural world. You see how Zen arose because of the fusion of Daoism/Buddhism). The authority they base it on?
Well, let’s suppose you are born a cripple. Life pretty much sucks for you, right? You can’t really farm that well, you always get made fun of, ect. However, one day a messenger from the lord comes and demands that all able-bodied youths go off an fight a war over some meaningless offence. Now being crippled doesn’t suck at all, now being crippled is awesome. If one could become morally crippled in the same way that the individual in that story was physically crippled, think about what a powerful advantage they would have.
Or what if you are riding in a carraige with a friend. You are stone-cold sober and civilized, while your friend is acting without culture and is very, very drunk. Now, when the carraige falls over, you get nervous and stiff up while your friend is too drunk to notice. You put out your hands to save yourself . . . and end up breaking your arm. Your friend, on the otherhand, hits the ground and rolls without any serious damage beyond a few scraps he is too drunk to notice anyway. There are two things we can learn from this story 1) less is more. You tried to prevent your fall, while your friend accepted it/did nothing. 2) The natural state is better. You were hurt, while your friend was not.
Also, remember that the idea of laisse-faire economics came about around the time that Daoist texts were translated into western languages. This isn’t an accident. The Daoist concept of actionless-action (wu-wei) is very similar. Indeed, if you want a western parallel, look there. That is the Dao of economics. We (the ruling class, which all the 100 schools were teaching to) do nothing, yet a great deal happens.
You know Jerry, if someone actually asked me to describe Tao to them and although my knowledge far outweighs my understanding I might actually give it a shot, maybe not to describe Tao itself because it seems it is ever elusive, but to elude to it, but since no-one is asking and those that are asking do not seem to be coming from an open “I really want to know” space, they have already made their minds up you see, I reckon I’ll just mind my own business and get back to the business of practicing. I’ve been doing this for lifetimes Jerry and sincerely I think I’m only beginning to understand. I feel like my perception is beginning to open. Which in my experience is also a bit of a dangerous statement to make, it seems every time I begin to understand, life knocks me with another challenge and I feel like I’m right at the beginning again.
You ask why I perservere? I say because it is my very being to do so. If not seek truth then what else should I do? I have no real choice here. Again and again, I come to the same question. What is this Tao? And I find myself seeking out those who know. Sometimes I read and I understand, other times I look into the eyes of a stranger and I learn, or into the eyes of a child and I learn. Often I simply sit and watch nature in the woods near my house and I see something, and it’s not really anything I can describe, it’s more like a silence between the words in my mind and everything falls together. Like watching the ocean, everything comes together. Ask me to describe what I have witnessed, and I find myself saying oh…give me a context and I will try to explain. There is a principle that I have observed that runs through everything in this world. This principle is called Tao. But whatever the case, whatever the method I learn from, when I read the Sutras, I find proof of my experience.
And I think this is all a western-thinker could ask.
And of course my thread assumes a patient, open-minded listener, with sincere questions, trying to understand the worldview of somebody. Naturally this is not often the case and I understand the reluctance to engage with somebody who you sense is already decided about things. But sometimes the sincerity is there, even if not obvious. The answers are often between the lines, but sometimes too, I think, are the questions that are being asked. And the sincerity might be found there as well.
As for your “giving it a shot†I think you do just fine, Angel.
Here is an explanation you have provided that would help a westerner I think…
Indeed I have said it well, but what have I actually said? You see Jerry, whatever I have said there, is indeed written between the lines and the reason that you are able to perceive what I’m actually saying is because you yourself are an ocean watcher. Our hearts connect. It really is as simple as that.
But even if our hearts didn’t connect, you have at least described something of how you experience the world…something of your worldview. Now, were you to put forth some argument or other in a forum such as this, and the person you were engaged with knew something of this, something of your worldview, that person would have, I think, an easier time communicating with you. An understanding might be reached and two people would talk to each other instead of past each other. This talking past each other is something I see a lot of around here, and most especially between eastern and western viewpoints.
Having said all of this, I fully understand that the blame goes both directions. Maybe in a much larger sense this thread is about communicating…
Ah, excellent questions sir, and perfectly understandable.
You are of your own mind, so if the “state” we are speaking of doesn’t appeal to you, or you don’t care to comprehend it, then you don’t do it. Taoism comes in levels of thought and lifestyle.
Taoism states that too much involvement in the affairs of the world leads to misery. I, in my own opinion and experience, cannot think of one situation where that has been falsified.
Tao is not an authority. Tao is the primordial force, it manifested the myriad creation, but does not lord over or hold dominion over creation.
Critical analyses leads to truth? Tao leads to truth? I won’t answer these, even if I came close I would be wrong.
If your mind is open, and you walk in the world in concord, seeing duality as nothingness of perception, essentially removing bias, wouldn’t you gain clearer understanding? Isn’t this what we all seek? What need is there for an authority if understanding is your being?