I think taoism is a crock of you know what, based on going with the flow in the faith that the flow is inherently benevolent. Which I do not believe it to be.
Wounds! Also I think benevolent is not the right term there. The Way is neither Good nor Bad.
Indeed, The Way tends to retreat into vague poetic contradictions whenever an objection is raised.
It can apparently only exist in the space between and around thought.
Empty of meaning
It embraces all meaning
Useful to the vaguely mystical mind
In its formlessness
As a bowl is useful
Because of its emptiness
Shinto on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited May 2007
It does seem pretty resigned and fatalistic, which is actually a problem I have with a lot of Eastern mysticism.
It means "I didn't know what word to use" :P Basically the bits where it was clearly no longer about oneness/the way/whatever, and instead became "confucian concept #485".
I'm not trying to get a better word, necessarily. Basically, I don't know enough about confucian concepts to know what you mean. So, I was wondering if you had an example or two. And again, I am fine if you are just saying, read some confucianism and see the similarities.
Ah, ok. Well, the advice-for-leaders stuff is often very similar to the advice given in the Analects - not exactly a bad thing, not like its crap advice (although it is a bit machiavellian :P), just jarring next to the other stuff. And the gender stuff I mentioned before is heavily based around yin/yang concepts central to confucian outlooks - although as Yar just linked, there are no doubt translations that are rather less pejorative. Still, its hard to avoid that 'wimmin are all doot doot doot, men are all deet deet deet' stuff even when you're being nice about it. I'll have a read anyway.
I do agree largely with what Shinto said about not believing that there is some all powerful benevolent force. I liken this to "natural order," something I just can't bring myself to believe in.
Interestingly, I never saw a conflict between the letting-yourself-flow concepts and the fact that nature isn't benevolent at all. Seems like if you really do follow the way, death/bad stuff isn't something to be always fought (or not fought, hee).
The Cat on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Ah, ok. Well, the advice-for-leaders stuff is often very similar to the advice given in the Analects - not exactly a bad thing, not like its crap advice (although it is a bit machiavellian :P), just jarring next to the other stuff. And the gender stuff I mentioned before is heavily based around yin/yang concepts central to confucian outlooks - although as Yar just linked, there are no doubt translations that are rather less pejorative. Still, its hard to avoid that 'wimmin are all doot doot doot, men are all deet deet deet' stuff even when you're being nice about it. I'll have a read anyway.
Women are all scornful of the tao. Men are all embracing of The Way.
Ah, ok. Well, the advice-for-leaders stuff is often very similar to the advice given in the Analects - not exactly a bad thing, not like its crap advice (although it is a bit machiavellian :P), just jarring next to the other stuff. And the gender stuff I mentioned before is heavily based around yin/yang concepts central to confucian outlooks - although as Yar just linked, there are no doubt translations that are rather less pejorative. Still, its hard to avoid that 'wimmin are all doot doot doot, men are all deet deet deet' stuff even when you're being nice about it. I'll have a read anyway.
Women are all scornful of the tao. Men are all embracing of The Way.
And yet the valley spirit is humble and submissive, like a woman.
Ah, ok. Well, the advice-for-leaders stuff is often very similar to the advice given in the Analects - not exactly a bad thing, not like its crap advice (although it is a bit machiavellian :P), just jarring next to the other stuff. And the gender stuff I mentioned before is heavily based around yin/yang concepts central to confucian outlooks - although as Yar just linked, there are no doubt translations that are rather less pejorative. Still, its hard to avoid that 'wimmin are all doot doot doot, men are all deet deet deet' stuff even when you're being nice about it. I'll have a read anyway.
I can understand and appreciate that. Though, oddly, I generally don't have a problem with masculine and feminine "traits." The thing that bothers me about this is that too many people take it to be that a male is complete once they embrace all of the masculine traits (And the same about women). The way I've always taken it, is that a person is complete once they have embraced both the masculine and the feminine traits.
(looking back over this, it does seem the easiest way to get rid of that misconception would be to drop the labels masculine and feminine. So, I guess I do have a problem with them. :oops: )
Interestingly, I never saw a conflict between the letting-yourself-flow concepts and the fact that nature isn't benevolent at all. Seems like if you really do follow the way, death/bad stuff isn't something to be always fought (or not fought, hee).
The problem I have with that is what is to be done when the way of the world does need to be changed?
I'm going to agree with The Cat and Yar on this one.
Also, there's the insane... what is it... Tao mysticism? There's really two different Taoisms out there. One of them elevates Laozi to the level of a god or some shit, which is shit. The other, simpler Taoism is cooler by virtue of not being rabidly nutty.
I'm going to agree with The Cat and Yar on this one.
Also, there's the insane... what is it... Tao mysticism? There's really two different Taoisms out there. One of them elevates Laozi to the level of a god or some shit, which is shit. The other, simpler Taoism is cooler by virtue of not being rabidly nutty.
Dude rode away on a dragon. It's proof that he's a god!
It seems like a lot of Asian religions have their "pure" philosophical forms and their more popular mystical forms that basically co-opted little local tribal mysticisms.
Interestingly, I never saw a conflict between the letting-yourself-flow concepts and the fact that nature isn't benevolent at all. Seems like if you really do follow the way, death/bad stuff isn't something to be always fought (or not fought, hee).
The problem I have with that is what is to be done when the way of the world does need to be changed?
Wu Wei, and later Confucianism, were both stalwart defenders of the order of the world, whatsoever it was. The former originated in the warring period, and its unattributed publication is considered by some a clue that it was pushed out in part by one of the dynasties. A large part of the doctrine of "doing by not doing" relates to not provoking social change, but instead knowing your place and allowing things to play out around you; ditto Confucianism.
The way of the world need never be changed, and just the same for the way of the world you live in-- that was an idea at the heart of early Eastern thought. I'm not sure how things are different now, if they are; I only ever studied the Eastern philosophies in the context of their origins.
Out of curiousity, for those of you in the thread that are "into" Taoism:
Is there anything you can point to in your own life that Tao has improved? Improved confidence, less anxiety, lower blood pressure, more relaxed, anything that applies to your life in general?
Vrtra Theory on
Are you a Software Engineer living in Seattle? HBO is hiring, message me.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited May 2007
Even Buddhism, which more or less commands people to either change the world or make their peace with it, punts in favor of the latter in most every case.
Yeah, of Asian religions, I am least bothered by Taoism and Buddhism. The former because its platitudes are nifty, and the latter because of its tradition of meditation.
I'm going to agree with The Cat and Yar on this one.
Also, there's the insane... what is it... Tao mysticism? There's really two different Taoisms out there. One of them elevates Laozi to the level of a god or some shit, which is shit. The other, simpler Taoism is cooler by virtue of not being rabidly nutty.
One of the many places where taoism and chinese folk religion start getting muddy.
I read both the Dao and Chuang-ze and have multiple copies of Lao Tzu (including an interpretive/poetical version by Ursula LeGuin) but never became a Daoist. Yes, the Dao values the feminine, which is more than can be said of most religions, but like The Cat I thought the gender essentialism was irksome. I disliked the governmental and ruling verses as well as the rampant anti-intellectualism.
Wu Wei was interesting as a concept but for me was broken down into passive (not doing) and active (doing subtly) and both concepts are well cited in Lao Tzu. The first seems to be quietism or at least stoicism, while the second seemed only different from Machiavellian manipulation in that it is somehow "sincere".
The radical relativism in both books, but especially in Chuang-ze's allegory of the butterfly, was nice, as was the skeptical and questioning nature of Daoism to anthropocentric assumptions. What I enjoyed the most, though, was that the Dao lacked moral and human attributes and was non-judgemental, a force of nature rather than an omnipotent moral intelligence. My favourite passage is still: Heaven and Earth are not Humane
They treat the ten thousand things as straw dogs
The Sage is not Humane
He treats the ten thousand names as straw dogs
However like all mysticism most of the Dao was a logic trap, though a pretty, poetic, and at times quite funny one.
Interestingly, I never saw a conflict between the letting-yourself-flow concepts and the fact that nature isn't benevolent at all. Seems like if you really do follow the way, death/bad stuff isn't something to be always fought (or not fought, hee).
The problem I have with that is what is to be done when the way of the world does need to be changed?
Wu Wei, and later Confucianism, were both stalwart defenders of the order of the world, whatsoever it was. The former originated in the warring period, and its unattributed publication is considered by some a clue that it was pushed out in part by one of the dynasties. A large part of the doctrine of "doing by not doing" relates to not provoking social change, but instead knowing your place and allowing things to play out around you; ditto Confucianism.
The way of the world need never be changed, and just the same for the way of the world you live in-- that was an idea at the heart of early Eastern thought. I'm not sure how things are different now, if they are; I only ever studied the Eastern philosophies in the context of their origins.
So, in other words, I can never be a Taoist because I feel there could be (and have been) times when the way of the world should change?
It depends on what part of Tao you are following most closely, and either way it's not at all what you feel or perceive, but how and if you act on it. 'The Way' was, at its inception, a device that urged people to make peace with the fact they were powerless to affect change. If you were an adherent of 'The Way,' you would only make efforts to change the world when the natural ebb of your life brought you there without your having intended it.
But, like many elements of Tao that center on thoughtless action, there are so many logical pratfalls to even that, that 'The Way' is more realistically seen as a resignation to one's place as Confucianism would later say blatantly.
There have been Taoists historically who advocated and sometimes took symbolic action for change, but AFAIK it has not been a very pragmatic 'movement.'
When people ask about my religious beliefs (which is somewhat frequent, given that I work at a Catholic school) I usually say that I don't follow any religion but my personal ideas are based largely on Buddhism. That's largely because it's easier than saying Taoism and watching the blank look. I realize that they're not the same, but they are sorta two different flavors of the same ice cream.
[EDIT]Actually, I just though of an interesting question (because one of my students is wearing a Richard Seymour jersey)...can a Taoist like football? It's a sport about violence, aggression, power and control. It's essentially warfare. I love football, I can't wait for the Patriots season to begin...can I be a Taoist?
GoodOmens on
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Indeed, The Way tends to retreat into vague poetic contradictions whenever an objection is raised.
This is very much how I feel. I've always found a school of belief which celebrates paradox to be especially laughable. Sorry guys--if your beliefs are mutually contradictory then they can't all be right. It's like, definitional.
I guess my way would be: Earth and Heaven have a consistent set of propositional attitudes No predicate is both true and false The sage has a consistent set of propositional atttitudes His predicates are either true or false
It does seem pretty resigned and fatalistic, which is actually a problem I have with a lot of Eastern mysticism.
In my daily life I tend towards just going with the flow. I'll fight for something if I really want it, but for the most part, I just sort of take what comes - for example, I'd much rather sidestep conflict than confront somebody directly.
I read Taoism for a while, and it's definitely not what I need in a philosophy. I'm already pretty mellow, I don't need some old Chinese guy to tell me to be more mellow. It's like somebody with low blood pressure taking calcium channel blockers. I prefer Zen Buddhism as it leaves a lot more room for positive action.
This is very much how I feel. I've always found a school of belief which celebrates paradox to be especially laughable. Sorry guys--if your beliefs are mutually contradictory then they can't all be right. It's like, definitional.
Paradoxes in Eastern philosophy are not exactly the same as logical paradoxes in Western philosophy. A paradox in Taoism, Buddhism, or Zen is meant to get you to realize that your language and/or your senses are not completely accurate. There's a well-known Zen koan where the master puts his hand on a tree and says "This is not a tree." He's not saying [object] = [tree&!tree], he's basically saying the same thing that Magritte said when he wrote, "This is not a pipe." or, in other words, "Your mind associates the word 'tree' with the Platonic ideal of a 'tree' but no real tree is going to meet that Platonic ideal."
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I wouldn't term Taoism anti-intellectual. it's anti-logical. The difference is Tao doesn't encourage you to not think at all but rather to be intuitive rather than overly analytical. I don't think that's a way to 100% live your life but I think humans have a tendency to favor over-intellectualism more tham emotion.
nexuscrawler on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Paradoxes in Eastern philosophy are not exactly the same as logical paradoxes in Western philosophy.
Upon reading Chuang-Tzu I found that most of the paradoxes to either be empty, or, once decoded, inane. So, overall, I found them to either express something trite, or nothing at all. I had the overwhelming sense of the wizard being some ordinary dude hiding behind the curtain of flowery language. I know that the paradoxes aren't supposed to be literal (P ^ ~P) affairs, but regardless, I was not a fan.
I find that elaborate, obscure linguistic constructions never illuminate the point in any substantive discussion. This is why I'm a philosopher in the analytic tradition, rather than in the continental tradition, and even moreso why I don't buy into Eastern wisdom.
Paradoxes in Eastern philosophy are not exactly the same as logical paradoxes in Western philosophy.
Upon reading Chuang-Tzu I found that most of the paradoxes to either be empty, or, once decoded, inane. So, overally, I found them to either express something trite, or nothing at all. I had the overwhelming sense of the wizard being some ordinary dude hiding behind the curtain of flowery language. I know that the paradoxes aren't supposed to be literal (P ^ ~P) affairs, but regardless, I was not a fan.
I find that elaborate, obscure linguistic constructions never illuminate the point in any substantive discussion. This is why I'm a philosopher in the analytic tradition, rather than in the continental tradition, and even moreso why I don't buy into Eastern wisdom.
Do you believe in the idea of duality? Most of what I have studied of Eastern religions are only paradoxes in a Western interpretation. To them, it is duality.
Particle/Wave as a scientific example is fairly common to introduce the concept to westerners.
Paradoxes in Eastern philosophy are not exactly the same as logical paradoxes in Western philosophy.
Upon reading Chuang-Tzu I found that most of the paradoxes to either be empty, or, once decoded, inane. So, overally, I found them to either express something trite, or nothing at all. I had the overwhelming sense of the wizard being some ordinary dude hiding behind the curtain of flowery language. I know that the paradoxes aren't supposed to be literal (P ^ ~P) affairs, but regardless, I was not a fan.
I find that elaborate, obscure linguistic constructions never illuminate the point in any substantive discussion. This is why I'm a philosopher in the analytic tradition, rather than in the continental tradition, and even moreso why I don't buy into Eastern wisdom.
Do you believe in the idea of duality? Most of what I have studied of Eastern religions are only paradoxes in a Western interpretation. To them, it is duality.
Partical/Wave as a scientific example is fairly common to introduce the concept to westerners.
I can see where MrMister is coming from, though. Some texts (especially Taoist texts) seem to revel in obfuscation for obfuscation's sake, and come across sounding deeper than they are.
To use your example, a western text might say "Light behaves as both a particle and a wave, and has properties of both." A Taoist text might say:
"The Light that behaves as a particle is not a particle
The Light that behaves as a wave is not a wave
The Light that is split from a prism is sensed as a particle
The Light that is emitted from a slit is sensed as a wave
To see the light is to not see the one Light
This is the nature of the one Light."
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Sit somewhere comfortable
Close your eyes and relax your body (not to the point you fall over)
Try to clear your mind (this is the hard part)
Since clearing your mind is so hard, focus on your breathing, thinking "in" when you breathe in, and "out" when you breath out. (Breathe through your nose.)
Eventually you will really begin to relax and might be able to just breath with out thinking about it, but its ok if you have to keep thinking about it.
This technique worked for me as a beginner, its pretty cool to come out of meditating and see that 30-40 minutes have passed, when I thought I had only done it for 3-5. Not only that but it usually left me feeling very refreshed.
Sit somewhere comfortable
Close your eyes and relax your body (not to the point you fall over)
Try to clear your mind (this is the hard part)
Since clearing your mind is so hard, focus on your breathing, thinking "in" when you breathe in, and "out" when you breath out. (Breathe through your nose.)
Eventually you will really begin to relax and might be able to just breath with out thinking about it, but its ok if you have to keep thinking about it.
This technique worked for me as a beginner, its pretty cool to come out of meditating and see that 30-40 minutes have passed, when I thought I had only done it for 3-5. Not only that but it usually left me feeling very refreshed.
Complimentary and somewhat converse to this is another beginning technique. When you're doing some normal thing in your life you always do (taking a shower, eating lunch, etc.), clear your mind of other things you may be thinking about, or any daydreaming while you do it, and focus on what you're doing and your senses. How, where, why you're doing what you're doing. What things feel, smell, taste like. Your posture.
What works for a lot of people is to focus on one specific thing, like, say, a candle flame. Just clear your mind of all thoughts except thoughts of that one thing. Eventually you'll stop thinking of your focus as well.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I've been meditating with a matra so long it would be bizzare to do it any other way.
In terms of advice, I'd say that physical stillness is very important for mental stillness. When you sit down, get comfortable. Then think to yourself "I am a statue. I am made of stone." Don't move. Don't shift your weight or scratch itches. Don't move.
I've been meditating with a matra so long it would be bizzare to do it any other way.
In terms of advice, I'd say that physical stillness is very important for mental stillness. When you sit down, get comfortable. Then think to yourself "I am a statue. I am made of stone." Don't move. Don't shift your weight or scratch itches. Don't move.
When I was living in Santa Cruz I would frequent this spa that had a cold tub that they kept around 40-50 degrees F. It was meant for people to plunge into as a refresher after sitting in the hot tub, but I found that sitting in it was very, very conducive to meditation. Something about being up to your neck in really cold water makes it seem like time has slowed to a crawl.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I've been meditating with a matra so long it would be bizzare to do it any other way.
In terms of advice, I'd say that physical stillness is very important for mental stillness. When you sit down, get comfortable. Then think to yourself "I am a statue. I am made of stone." Don't move. Don't shift your weight or scratch itches. Don't move.
Oddly, I get the best mental stillness when biking or (way back when) jogging. Something about having to be in more of a reflexive state of mind helped me keep things clear.
For those of you that meditate, how valuable do you rank that in your life? What convinced you to start?
taeric on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I've been meditating with a matra so long it would be bizzare to do it any other way.
In terms of advice, I'd say that physical stillness is very important for mental stillness. When you sit down, get comfortable. Then think to yourself "I am a statue. I am made of stone." Don't move. Don't shift your weight or scratch itches. Don't move.
When I was living in Santa Cruz I would frequent this spa that had a cold tub that they kept around 40-50 degrees F. It was meant for people to plunge into as a refresher after sitting in the hot tub, but I found that sitting in it was very, very conducive to meditation. Something about being up to your neck in really cold water makes it seem like time has slowed to a crawl.
I've read a book about it.
But I sadly can't really relate to Taoism. I guess I'm lacking a certain mental basis, being too emotional and all.
Ferrus on
I would like to pause for a moment, to talk about my penis.
My penis is like a toddler. A toddler—who is a perfectly normal size for his age—on a long road trip to what he thinks is Disney World. My penis is excited because he hasn’t been to Disney World in a long, long time, but remembers a time when he used to go every day. So now the penis toddler is constantly fidgeting, whining “Are we there yet? Are we there yet? How about now? Now? How about... now?”
And Disney World is nowhere in sight.
I am also a student of the Tao. I had discarded it for a long time, in part because of the language used - on the surface it seems to contradict itself or hide in its own words.
One day in meditation for something else, I came to realize the 'budda-nature', and suddenly all of the words made sense to me. The descriptons and paradoxes I had thought existed wern't really at all, they are just simple statements of understanding. I laughed for a long time, because many of my Eastern studies all became clear at the same time. After that, understanding the basics was far less challenging, and I was able to advance into the more complex lessons.
That first step is a doozy though. It is hard to grasp how language and trained perception locks one into a way of looking at the world. Since the only tools to describe what happens take place in language and the observable, they can only really deliver the truth through undercurrent. Eventually you read and learn enough of this undercurrent that it creates the same undercurrent in your own thinking, and then when you apply your own thinking to it, you can see how that underthinking affects your own thoughts. Then you can reverse engineer the undercurrent existing outside of perception and thought.
This is why so many lessons appear to be nonsense or paradox, because they are designed to be easily reversed in this way to establish the real meaning and understanding of what is meant. This is the way when one must work without inherently defining the things they are realizing. In the Tao, to define the nature of a thing is to lose it. In knowing the Tao, you can see why this is true, but you cannot really explain how this is true, only bring someone else to the same undefined open-ended conclusions and way of thinking.
Bah, I am no master, only a student. I could say everything and I would still be saying nothing.
Sarcastro on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I read the Tao Te Ching forwards and then backwards (just to be weird like that) and it actually makes a lot of sense. I compared it to a few the of Christian based ideals and they match up rather well....I know poetry really well though so it made easier sense to me that it would to some others. Having read it a couple of times now, I go back every now and then and will reference it along with Bible passages when I've got something philosophically deep on my mind. I find that there are not as many paradoxes as one might think in the Tao Te Ching...but that boils down to perception of course. Half the time a verse in the Ching will make sense...other times they mean the exact opposite.
Nothing in the world
is as soft and yielding as water.
Yet for dissolving the hard and inflexible,
nothing can surpass it.
The soft overcomes the hard;
the gentle overcomes the rigid.
Everyone knows this is true,
but few can put it into practice.
Therefore the Master remains
serene in the midst of sorrow.
Evil cannot enter his heart.
Because he has given up helping,
he is people's greatest help.
True words seem paradoxical.
It practically writes itself. :P
Those without heart really can't see/read it as it was meant to be....same with the Bible. Both require equal dedication to understand in whole. Though, they both all have one central point whose summary is always hidden somewhere in the middle.
My teachings are easy to understand
and easy to put into practice.
Yet your intellect will never grasp them,
and if you try to practice them, you'll fail.
My teachings are older than the world.
How can you grasp their meaning?
Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Both, essentially, say the same thing. That the teachings and laws that count are written on the heart and that you should look inward to find them.
When they lose their sense of awe,
people turn to religion.
When they no longer trust themselves,
they begin to depend upon authority.
Therefore the Master steps back
so that people won't be confused.
He teaches without a teaching,
so that people will have nothing to learn.
Also: Meditating is best done in a state of groggyness where you can lock on to a particular sound in the room and just hear that...and nothing else. Listening to the sound of your own breath is a good one too...or even sitting/laying in a really quiet room and just listening to the ringing in your ears from hearing nothing but dead air . Close your eyes and shut out all you can..even images and things running through your mind's eye. It's almost/kinda/maybe like taking a nap without actually going to sleep. I do other meditations where I turn on music that captivates my auditory senses and I let my mind and thoughts flow with it, but thats just me...music provokes thought in me when I let it.
Edit: I think I broke teh BBCode....
EditSquared: Fixt
Posts
Indeed, The Way tends to retreat into vague poetic contradictions whenever an objection is raised.
It can apparently only exist in the space between and around thought.
Empty of meaning
It embraces all meaning
Useful to the vaguely mystical mind
In its formlessness
As a bowl is useful
Because of its emptiness
Ah, ok. Well, the advice-for-leaders stuff is often very similar to the advice given in the Analects - not exactly a bad thing, not like its crap advice (although it is a bit machiavellian :P), just jarring next to the other stuff. And the gender stuff I mentioned before is heavily based around yin/yang concepts central to confucian outlooks - although as Yar just linked, there are no doubt translations that are rather less pejorative. Still, its hard to avoid that 'wimmin are all doot doot doot, men are all deet deet deet' stuff even when you're being nice about it. I'll have a read anyway.
Interestingly, I never saw a conflict between the letting-yourself-flow concepts and the fact that nature isn't benevolent at all. Seems like if you really do follow the way, death/bad stuff isn't something to be always fought (or not fought, hee).
And yet the valley spirit is humble and submissive, like a woman.
I can understand and appreciate that. Though, oddly, I generally don't have a problem with masculine and feminine "traits." The thing that bothers me about this is that too many people take it to be that a male is complete once they embrace all of the masculine traits (And the same about women). The way I've always taken it, is that a person is complete once they have embraced both the masculine and the feminine traits.
(looking back over this, it does seem the easiest way to get rid of that misconception would be to drop the labels masculine and feminine. So, I guess I do have a problem with them. :oops: )
The problem I have with that is what is to be done when the way of the world does need to be changed?
Also, there's the insane... what is it... Tao mysticism? There's really two different Taoisms out there. One of them elevates Laozi to the level of a god or some shit, which is shit. The other, simpler Taoism is cooler by virtue of not being rabidly nutty.
It seems like a lot of Asian religions have their "pure" philosophical forms and their more popular mystical forms that basically co-opted little local tribal mysticisms.
The way of the world need never be changed, and just the same for the way of the world you live in-- that was an idea at the heart of early Eastern thought. I'm not sure how things are different now, if they are; I only ever studied the Eastern philosophies in the context of their origins.
Is there anything you can point to in your own life that Tao has improved? Improved confidence, less anxiety, lower blood pressure, more relaxed, anything that applies to your life in general?
One of the many places where taoism and chinese folk religion start getting muddy.
Wu Wei was interesting as a concept but for me was broken down into passive (not doing) and active (doing subtly) and both concepts are well cited in Lao Tzu. The first seems to be quietism or at least stoicism, while the second seemed only different from Machiavellian manipulation in that it is somehow "sincere".
The radical relativism in both books, but especially in Chuang-ze's allegory of the butterfly, was nice, as was the skeptical and questioning nature of Daoism to anthropocentric assumptions. What I enjoyed the most, though, was that the Dao lacked moral and human attributes and was non-judgemental, a force of nature rather than an omnipotent moral intelligence. My favourite passage is still:
Heaven and Earth are not Humane
They treat the ten thousand things as straw dogs
The Sage is not Humane
He treats the ten thousand names as straw dogs
However like all mysticism most of the Dao was a logic trap, though a pretty, poetic, and at times quite funny one.
So, in other words, I can never be a Taoist because I feel there could be (and have been) times when the way of the world should change?
But, like many elements of Tao that center on thoughtless action, there are so many logical pratfalls to even that, that 'The Way' is more realistically seen as a resignation to one's place as Confucianism would later say blatantly.
There have been Taoists historically who advocated and sometimes took symbolic action for change, but AFAIK it has not been a very pragmatic 'movement.'
[EDIT]Actually, I just though of an interesting question (because one of my students is wearing a Richard Seymour jersey)...can a Taoist like football? It's a sport about violence, aggression, power and control. It's essentially warfare. I love football, I can't wait for the Patriots season to begin...can I be a Taoist?
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
This is very much how I feel. I've always found a school of belief which celebrates paradox to be especially laughable. Sorry guys--if your beliefs are mutually contradictory then they can't all be right. It's like, definitional.
I guess my way would be:
Earth and Heaven have a consistent set of propositional attitudes
No predicate is both true and false
The sage has a consistent set of propositional atttitudes
His predicates are either true or false
In my daily life I tend towards just going with the flow. I'll fight for something if I really want it, but for the most part, I just sort of take what comes - for example, I'd much rather sidestep conflict than confront somebody directly.
I read Taoism for a while, and it's definitely not what I need in a philosophy. I'm already pretty mellow, I don't need some old Chinese guy to tell me to be more mellow. It's like somebody with low blood pressure taking calcium channel blockers. I prefer Zen Buddhism as it leaves a lot more room for positive action.
Paradoxes in Eastern philosophy are not exactly the same as logical paradoxes in Western philosophy. A paradox in Taoism, Buddhism, or Zen is meant to get you to realize that your language and/or your senses are not completely accurate. There's a well-known Zen koan where the master puts his hand on a tree and says "This is not a tree." He's not saying [object] = [tree&!tree], he's basically saying the same thing that Magritte said when he wrote, "This is not a pipe." or, in other words, "Your mind associates the word 'tree' with the Platonic ideal of a 'tree' but no real tree is going to meet that Platonic ideal."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Upon reading Chuang-Tzu I found that most of the paradoxes to either be empty, or, once decoded, inane. So, overall, I found them to either express something trite, or nothing at all. I had the overwhelming sense of the wizard being some ordinary dude hiding behind the curtain of flowery language. I know that the paradoxes aren't supposed to be literal (P ^ ~P) affairs, but regardless, I was not a fan.
I find that elaborate, obscure linguistic constructions never illuminate the point in any substantive discussion. This is why I'm a philosopher in the analytic tradition, rather than in the continental tradition, and even moreso why I don't buy into Eastern wisdom.
Do you believe in the idea of duality? Most of what I have studied of Eastern religions are only paradoxes in a Western interpretation. To them, it is duality.
Particle/Wave as a scientific example is fairly common to introduce the concept to westerners.
I can see where MrMister is coming from, though. Some texts (especially Taoist texts) seem to revel in obfuscation for obfuscation's sake, and come across sounding deeper than they are.
To use your example, a western text might say "Light behaves as both a particle and a wave, and has properties of both." A Taoist text might say:
"The Light that behaves as a particle is not a particle
The Light that behaves as a wave is not a wave
The Light that is split from a prism is sensed as a particle
The Light that is emitted from a slit is sensed as a wave
To see the light is to not see the one Light
This is the nature of the one Light."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
A meditiating technique for beginners:
Sit somewhere comfortable
Close your eyes and relax your body (not to the point you fall over)
Try to clear your mind (this is the hard part)
Since clearing your mind is so hard, focus on your breathing, thinking "in" when you breathe in, and "out" when you breath out. (Breathe through your nose.)
Eventually you will really begin to relax and might be able to just breath with out thinking about it, but its ok if you have to keep thinking about it.
This technique worked for me as a beginner, its pretty cool to come out of meditating and see that 30-40 minutes have passed, when I thought I had only done it for 3-5. Not only that but it usually left me feeling very refreshed.
Complimentary and somewhat converse to this is another beginning technique. When you're doing some normal thing in your life you always do (taking a shower, eating lunch, etc.), clear your mind of other things you may be thinking about, or any daydreaming while you do it, and focus on what you're doing and your senses. How, where, why you're doing what you're doing. What things feel, smell, taste like. Your posture.
Being more mindful.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
In terms of advice, I'd say that physical stillness is very important for mental stillness. When you sit down, get comfortable. Then think to yourself "I am a statue. I am made of stone." Don't move. Don't shift your weight or scratch itches. Don't move.
When I was living in Santa Cruz I would frequent this spa that had a cold tub that they kept around 40-50 degrees F. It was meant for people to plunge into as a refresher after sitting in the hot tub, but I found that sitting in it was very, very conducive to meditation. Something about being up to your neck in really cold water makes it seem like time has slowed to a crawl.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Oddly, I get the best mental stillness when biking or (way back when) jogging. Something about having to be in more of a reflexive state of mind helped me keep things clear.
For those of you that meditate, how valuable do you rank that in your life? What convinced you to start?
Dying of hypothermia would do that:P
Which of these would be a good place to begin?
But I sadly can't really relate to Taoism. I guess I'm lacking a certain mental basis, being too emotional and all.
And Disney World is nowhere in sight.
One day in meditation for something else, I came to realize the 'budda-nature', and suddenly all of the words made sense to me. The descriptons and paradoxes I had thought existed wern't really at all, they are just simple statements of understanding. I laughed for a long time, because many of my Eastern studies all became clear at the same time. After that, understanding the basics was far less challenging, and I was able to advance into the more complex lessons.
That first step is a doozy though. It is hard to grasp how language and trained perception locks one into a way of looking at the world. Since the only tools to describe what happens take place in language and the observable, they can only really deliver the truth through undercurrent. Eventually you read and learn enough of this undercurrent that it creates the same undercurrent in your own thinking, and then when you apply your own thinking to it, you can see how that underthinking affects your own thoughts. Then you can reverse engineer the undercurrent existing outside of perception and thought.
This is why so many lessons appear to be nonsense or paradox, because they are designed to be easily reversed in this way to establish the real meaning and understanding of what is meant. This is the way when one must work without inherently defining the things they are realizing. In the Tao, to define the nature of a thing is to lose it. In knowing the Tao, you can see why this is true, but you cannot really explain how this is true, only bring someone else to the same undefined open-ended conclusions and way of thinking.
Bah, I am no master, only a student. I could say everything and I would still be saying nothing.
You could also say nothing and spare us all the trouble.
Zing!
It practically writes itself. :P
Those without heart really can't see/read it as it was meant to be....same with the Bible. Both require equal dedication to understand in whole. Though, they both all have one central point whose summary is always hidden somewhere in the middle.
-and-
Both, essentially, say the same thing. That the teachings and laws that count are written on the heart and that you should look inward to find them.
And just for fun:
Also: Meditating is best done in a state of groggyness where you can lock on to a particular sound in the room and just hear that...and nothing else. Listening to the sound of your own breath is a good one too...or even sitting/laying in a really quiet room and just listening to the ringing in your ears from hearing nothing but dead air
Edit: I think I broke teh BBCode....
EditSquared: Fixt
Especially as interpreted through "Monkey" aka "Journey to the West," for that matter.
That said, I rather enjoy the Dao De Jing, and it's the only "religious" text I own (I had a bible once, but I think it ran away).
Shit like that makes me question the validity of philosophies. A bunch of statements, with no real basis on anything real.