This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

24
25

Isn't Taoism just Pantheism? (self.taoism)

Mr_Marx が 投稿

Please don't take this as trolling or something, I'm genuinely interested in learning what Taoism really entails, and I think the best way to learn is to ask.

I know there are legends about how Taoism was created, and instructions on how to better live your life, but are there any dogmas?

If not, isn't Taoism just viewing the universe as its own force, which basically makes it Pantheistic?

And Pantheism is, in my opinion, just calling the universe by a different name, which really makes it materialistic.

So in the end I'm wondering: If all that is left are advise on how to live your life, how is Taoism any different from a self-help book?

全 113 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Malaclemys 16ポイント17ポイント  (49子コメント)

You're basically asking what Taoism is, which is problematic, because I need to give you an idea of what "Tao" is before I can go ahead and I surely won't do it any better than Lao-Tzu did in "Tao Te Ching".

But ideally, there are differences between the two. Mainly that most Taoists I've met are not interested in the universe per se, or how it acts. The trend is that we are interested in the clockwork that supports the whole damn thing. In Taoism we call it the Tao. the Tao is somewhat of a fundamental force in the world, the nature of nature if you will, and it is absolutely indiscriminate towards everything. The forces of nature, if I can call them that, don't care if you are black, hispanic, caucassian, a tree, gaseous, liquid, a molecule here or there - they act the same everywhere and on everything.

Now, I could go on beating around the bush, trying my best to explain what the Tao is, but honestly, it might take me a while and won't be very productive, because the Tao is so many things! It is both everything and nothing, it is very complex and very simple, etc. etc...
My point was that Taoists tend to see the Tao in everything, but they don't consider the universe as some sort of supreme divinity, it is just a manifestation, as everything else is (including the mind), of the forces which we don't consider divine, because they are neither good nor bad, they are just forces.

Yes, we tend to see the beauty of it all and laugh at how silly and pretty everything is and we sometimes have some pretty difficult to grasp inside jokes, but the Tao Te Ching is pretty apathetic towards the size, origin and any inclinations of the universe, neither does it concern itself with morality or purpose of life. It just tries to teach you to "feel" and "flow" with the Tao, because working against the Tao is wasting your time, energy and nerves. My worldview, for instance, is that of an existential nihilist. It would be impossible, as I see it, for a pantheist to see things in this way, because there really is a reason, and end-all be-all, and a purpose in pantheism, but I may be wrong.

Also, sorry for the mess of a comment. I'm in a hurry and my mind is occupied with some other things.

Edit: One thing I failed to mention, but I think is important, is the idea of the self and the Tao, which is that there is no self, but the one created by the conscious brain, which only creates concepts. So the sense of self is only a concept and, going beyond said concept, we are not only one with the Tao, but we are the Tao, because there is no clear seperation, except a conceptual, illusionary one, between our body, mind and everything else which lies beyond them. It's hard to explain, because saying that we are one implies that there exists two or three, which it doesn't. There is just wholeness. That, I agree, is the same with Pantheism, but it is also the same in the Bible, the Torah, the Bardo Thodol and most other major religious movements.

The difference here is that we might consider that wholeness as something beautiful and fun to behold, but it is not too important. We are selfishly interested in how to have fun and we don't particularly care for anything except that. In our cosmology, there is no beginning, no end, no good, no bad, no movement even. Humanity and consciousness is just an incident of the Tao. It is pretty apathetic. Things just are as they are and that's the Way - The Tao. Struggling against it is bad, because it clouds your mind and makes bad decisions happen. We take our decisions to be the best according to the current Way, but to do that we need a mind that is clear so we can see the Way. So Taoism mostly occupies itself with psychology, lifestyle and fun and doesn't really care about how the world came to be, unless that's what you're into ;)

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (19子コメント)

Just as an answer to your edit, your view of the self is in total compliance with materialism. After all, even scientists can use phrases like "We are all born from stardust", or "We are a way for the universe to perceive itself".

[–]Malaclemys 1ポイント2ポイント  (18子コメント)

Yep, Taoism and science agree on almost everything, it's just that Taoism has further ideas about things, which science can't go about observing or testing (at least not yet).

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (17子コメント)

Well now it's getting interesting.

What ideas in Taoism goes beyond science then?

[–]tmewett 6ポイント7ポイント  (8子コメント)

Taoism is ok with incompletion and not-knowing. we accept that the universe cannot be understood and predicted fully. mainstream science has issues with some of this.

[–]Malaclemys 3ポイント4ポイント  (6子コメント)

Yes, it's true that I missed this. You're right.

A Taoist knows when to let go and doesn't bother with explaining everything, as an explanation is often biased and it's not the real thing. A map is not a territory. Sometimes you really can't know it all either, at least for now, and Taoism teaches us that this is okay.

Thing is, I tried to avoid making it sound too apathetic about everything. Taoism definitely is interested. We just know how to enjoy not caring too.

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Well, this to can be linked in with a scientific view.

Although most scientist will see the quest for knowledge as a noble one, they are usually all fine with the fact that we do not know everything. I've don't think I've ever seen an interview with a scientist that has been afraid to say "we just don't know" when asked about something we can not yet prove.

The difference might be that scientists will never try to fill the gaps in our knowledge with any kind of made up unsubstantiated explanation, but rather reserve judgement until we have some evidence to base a theory on.

[–]Malaclemys 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yes, but science perseveres, while Taoism often abides and minds its own and is completely, even joyfully content with not knowing until the right time to know shows up.

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

If you're joyfully content with not knowing, why pursue the answers?

Does this mean Taoist is just piggybacking on science, unwilling to contribute?

[–]Laozen 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not really, and I say this as a Taoist science major. Taoism in practice can be more of a point of view than an answer to questions science hasn't been able to get yet. Taoism isn't so much an answer to a scientific question as much as it's a way of recognizing patterns (for example, the taiji symbol as a concept of opposites defining one another, or Tao as, yes, a rather pantheistic concept of being and nonbeing).

It should be noted that religious forms of Taoism have their own gods and mythologies and forms of faith and supernatural belief, but Western Taoism has stripped Taoism of its cultural context for better and/or worse, but at its core, Taoism is not incompatible with science or knowledge. Being content with not knowing doesn't mean you can't know about something, but it is important to recognize that knowing one thing is not the same as knowing all things, and you cannot know all things or try and control all things any more than you can bite your own teeth, or get a fish to drink the ocean. Does that make sense?

It isn't saying you should literally stop studying anything, but rather, you ought to put that studying in context and not confuse something like scientific knowledge with an ultimate understanding of how everything works, because that's not only arrogant but silly; you're inside the universe, you can't fully understand it, and it's best to be at peace with that and to simply enjoy what you do know, instead of lording it over others.

Again, context is important; in Lao Tzu's time (or in the time that Lao Tzu was supposed to have lived), knowledge could be a dangerous commodity indeed, and certain scholarly groups basically used 'cleverness' (hidden/secret knowledge, social status based on how much you were supposed to know, etc) to some destructive and ultimately pointless ends. The anti-knowledge sections of certain Taoist writings must be understood to not be against intelligence in general, but the baggage that 'knowledge' had at the time. It's not saying don't study science, but it's saying don't try and be... how to put it? Don't get so caught up in your own mind that you forget what's real.

[–]chunklemcdunkle 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I just wanted to add to what laozen had to say about it being more of a point of view. Its a bit hard for me to describe but its sort of a balanced thing.

There's a yearning for a greater understanding, but also contentment not in being ignorant of things and piggybacking, but in seeing no need to break nature down in to calculus, so to speak. I really dont know what else to say right now but I would really love to hear any question you may have regarding what I said.

[–]tmewett 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

they say they don't know, but they want to with all their might.

there is nothing made up or unsubstantiated in Taoism. it is all drawn from observations of the world. the texts are full of analogies to nature. please explain further.

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think that's true. Science is well aware of what it does not know, and never tries to pretend otherwise.

[–]Hellkyte 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

I think one example of that is that Taoism accepts that any true ToE is ultimately unknowable, as it is too vast and complex (or too simple...) to maintain in a finite vessel. You can approach it, but you can never have True Knowledge of it in the Socratic sense. This isn't meant as a deterrent, mind you, but it is a big break from Newtonian Determinism (although QM sort of tossed that out anyways.)

I guess what I'm pointing at is that there is that as much as Taoism respects science, it is also an inherently anti-intellectual philosophy. All the "The Tao that is written is not the True Tao" stuff. Taoism values the analysis of detailed minutia, but also abstracted reasoning as well.

But...really you should listen to /u/Maleclemys, dude describes the indescribable quite well.

[–]tmewett 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

"too simple.." wow, that's something i've never considered! what a concept..

[–]Malaclemys 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I try, yet I find that I get lost in too many words. Thanks for the kind words, really!

Also, yes, we know the Tao is unknowable. You can kind of grasp what it is doing or where it is going now, but you can never have a theory that explains Tao in every moment, every place and everything. We just consider it "a force that acts on everything" and that's as far as we go in describing "the true Tao". It would be stupid to describe it because Taoism in its essence is against describing and conceptualizing things, even itself. It's a paradox in itself, truly.

Anecdotally, a friend was tripping on mushrooms and said that he feels really bad because he wants to know what's the meaning of it all. I told him to stop asking and he'll get an even better answer than what he's looking for and a minute later he proclaims "I GOT IT, THANKS!" amidst laughter.

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

It kind of reminds me of what Augustin said about the holy trinity:

We are talking about God; so why be surprised if you cannot grasp it? I mean, if you can grasp it, it isn't God. Let us rather make a devout confession about ignorance, instead of a brash profession of knowledge.

[–]Malaclemys 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly!

[–]Malaclemys 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

In cosmology, the ToE, which we call Tao. In other ways, consciousness, its different states, finding solutions to paradoxes, why the Tao is as it is, the reason behind life itself, and many other things. The only reason science can't (yet) go into some or most of these is that they are scientifically immeasurable, illogical, or we just don't have enough research and understanding. Tao Te Ching doesn't go much into these ideas either, but it definitely sparks your interest and gives you some directions. It mostly teaches you to appreciate ugly and beautiful, good and bad things indifferently, which science tends to do too IMO.

I'll answer more later, I'll be gone for 15 minutes.

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm not sure what you are claiming science can not go into. As far as I know, there is a lot of research going on about consciousness, and the workings of the brain in general.

Any examples of paradoxes science can't dive into?

[–]Malaclemys 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The origin of everything. There is always something before. How did the universe come to? How did the Big Bang appear? What was there before the Big Bang?

What is nothing? The act of naming it makes it exist, even if only as a concept. Is it the opposite of something? That too means there is nothing, but how can it be nothing if it is? Basically, nothing is something?! Then it is not nothing.

Division of things, too. We tend to say - this is my body, this is a piece of grass, this is the sky. How do we say something exists? A fist exists until you open it, where does it go then (that's just word play on my part, to show how fallible language can be when it looks at fist as a noun)? Most importantly, if we realize that there are no real borders between things, as in the blade of grass doesn't really realize it is different from the air it is breathing and the ground it lives on, then this implies wholeness. What is this wholeness? As I said, if it is one, this means that there is two or three. If it is unity, it implies there is separation.

Of course, you can find logical conclusions to some of those, but they don't really answer anything except the conceptual part. You can't really grasp the whole thing.

[–]Mr_Marx[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (28子コメント)

Thank you for your answer. I really appreciate you taking your time to come up with an answer to what must seem like a pretty dumb non-insightful question.

In my experience though, it is often those kind of questions that get to the core of things quickest.

the Tao is somewhat of a fundamental force in the world, the nature of nature if you will, and it is absolutely indiscriminate towards everything. The forces of nature, if I can call them that, don't care if you are black, hispanic, caucassian, a tree, gaseous, liquid, a molecule here or there - they act the same everywhere and on everything.

Here you just basically talking about the laws of physics, aren't you? Or is there yet another undefined force that's in play in Taoism?

I don't really see the difference in believing Tao is in everything, and that the universe is in itself divine, as pantheists does. Then Tao is just another word for divine, or divine another word for Tao.

I don't think generally that pantheists think there's any higher reason behind the universe. Some might, but there isn't really any personal God with a plan or anything. God just is the universe, so God is in all and everything.

The point is that I have a real problem seeing what really distinguishes Taoism from Pantheism, except for different terminology.

[–]Malaclemys 2ポイント3ポイント  (15子コメント)

Then Tao is just another word for divine, or divine another word for Tao.

Pretty much. It's just that we associate "divine" with "supreme good", but there's no good with the Tao.

I don't think generally that pantheists think there's any higher reason behind the universe.

Not particularly a plan or a reason, but most pantheists I've seen believe the world to be good, or something to aspire to. Their cosmology defines the world as "god" and we believe that the world is only a product of "god", which leads me to your most important question.

Yes, by Tao I basically mean the laws of physics, but more in a ToE sort of way, as we believe that a magnetic field and a current basically are two manifestations of one thing and so is every force. In the end, they are all products of the Tao, which works through them and we have the universe because of them. Thing is, we don't see Tao as a creator before time, it's just our Theory of Everything and it is still here, moving things with it's endless tools (e.g. electromagnetism), sub-tools (electricity, magnetism), sub-sub-tools (lightning), etc.

What's more important is that a Taoist concerns himself more with fun than cosmology, as it is distracting to constantly try and understand how things work, especially since there are too many things to actively grasp. We're only trying to be okay with the Tao by understanding it inactively (that's the whole book in itself) so the Tao can be okay with us.

Otherwise, you've probably found out by now, that in their roots - all metaphysical ideas are the same. What's different with us is that we're just trying to keep it real and simple, because that's what the Tao is. There's no practical approach to Taoism, because that would depend heavily on the social influences and whatnot. Still, we're sort of a community. It is quite meta for a philosophy/religion. Like a build-your-own-adventure book, where the ending is the same anyway, you're just trying to find the shortest path because you're lazy and you want to have more freedom to have more fun. Yes, fun is what it's all about.

By the way, sorry again for the rambling. It is something I enjoy talking about, because it brings back nice memories anyway. Questions are always welcome. I'm always open to questions and discussions on philosophy, spirituality and music.

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (12子コメント)

Yes, by Tao I basically mean the laws of physics, but more in a ToE sort of way.

Then Taoism is, as I suspected, really just a brand of materialism. Physicists after all also believe that all forces was once just one force when the universe was the size of a pinhead. They have unified all forces already, except for gravity. Gravity is unified through String Theory, but they don't have any way of proving that yet.

But the way I see it, from your answers, Taoism is just a way of bringing a bit of spirituality into a materialistic worldview.

What's more important is that a Taoist concerns himself more with fun than cosmology. What if one thinks cosmology is fun? ;)

Otherwise, you've probably found out by now, that in their roots - all metaphysical ideas are the same.

I'm not sure I fully agree with that one. After all, having a all-seeing, all-knowing God looking over your shoulder your whole life just waiting for a reason to send you to a burning pit of sulfur for eternity does seem like another ballgame all together.

Based on these answers I have to conclude that you could just as well called yourselves materialists instead of Taoists. That is as long as that whole "having fun, not concerning one self with how things work" thingy isn't a prerequisite.

[–]Malaclemys 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

And yet, if you read the Bible as is, old and new testament, you can see that heaven and hell are metaphors for the state of mind, where heaven is what happens when you find god in yourself and hell is what happens when you work against him. The Tao is all-seeing too, it's just that it isn't dumbed down as an anthropomorphic sentient being which judges people according to some concrete morality. It is everywhere, just like God in the Bible, it is omnipotent, as it is everything and nothing and if you do things the right way - you'll feel good (have fun). The Orthodox church, we've mentioned in a different post here, describes God by saying what he isn't, because you really can't say what he is. It's the same with Tao.

What I'm saying is that, basically, it's the same, but the Tao Te Ching avoids interpreting and using metaphors, which is really hard when we're talking about spiritual things like states of mind and concepts of self.

In no way have I described Tao Te Ching to you, I've just given you some aspects of it which are of interest. Taoists are materialists (at least those I know), but Taoism is a way of life, not a view on cosmology. Yep, we could go without all those spiritual things and concepts, but keep in mind that they do serve a practical purpose, which is close to impossible to explain with words (e.g. finding the solution to a paradox, finding your place outside of the ego and also being completely okay with yourself as you are, the last of which can be done without spirituality and meditative things, but it is much harder). Maybe one day we will have the proper words, definitions and ideas to explain everything in a non-spiritual way, but for now Taoism does a good job in my case.

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

And yet, if you read the Bible as is, old and new testament, you can see that heaven and hell are metaphors for the state of mind

I think most Christians, Muslims and quite a few jews who would desagree with it being any kind of metaphore, but I do see your point, and it's an interesting one.

Yep, we could go without all those spiritual things and concepts, but keep in mind that they do serve a practical purpose, which is close to impossible to explain with words

This is interesting. What kind of practical purposes can be indescribable with words? Spiritual purposes usually are, but if they are practical it should be possible to describe them.

Maybe one day we will have the proper words, definitions and ideas to explain everything in a non-spiritual way, but for now Taoism does a good job in my case.

I actually see little need for spirituality. There is so much we can explain based on what we know about the natural world, even down to why we feel, think and act as we do. Of course there is also the realization that we can never know everything, but that's ok.

[–]Malaclemys 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Hm... It is, for example, pretty hard to explain what it feels like to have your ear pierced to someone who hasn't felt that. That's where words fail - uncommon experience.

For example, moving with the Tao is hard or impossible to explain to someone who doesn't know how it feels to have a flow of unadulterated information from your senses to your consciousness. To become one with the Tao, you have to be inactively aware of everything you can see, hear, smell, touch, taste. Active awareness is very focused on a certain thing. Have you ever been so focused on something that you missed something else that was very obvious? That's active awareness - like a spotlight. Inactive awareness is like a nice ambient light, where you are paying attention to everything by paying actively no attention to anything. I think this was explained with wei wu wei. Only in such a state is it possible to see everything clearly as it is, with no relation to its past or your concept of it, which gives you a great amount of options in which way to take. In that example, the right way would be Tao, as Tao makes itself evident only when you're not looking for it.

Practically, you have no guidelines or anything except for the advice to not do anything. Not doing is harder than it seems though and it needs some practice. Tao Te Ching spends a lot of time trying to describe when the Tao manifests and there is a reason for that - it's too simple and too hard at the same time.

To be honest, there really is little to no need for spirituality, but that does not mean it is useless. Even in the form of Christianity, a lot of people fight their problems with substance abuse and addiction by putting their faith in something other than themselves, which is very important to do. That doesn't mean you have to believe in anything spiritual, really, it's just a lot easier to do so.

About spirituality in Taoism - well, is it really spiritual? You decide. It's more metaphysics than religion or spirituality IMO. We don't do magic, we don't pray to god, we don't have set rituals, neither do we really actively believe in anything other than that a way shows itself always, but you have to have your eyes open and not focused on anything to see it.

The need for it, to me, is that I see people throughout history who have sensed, understood, thought and lived the same things as me, enjoyed them and found ways to find them again, so I'm following some of their advice and it helps. Yes, I have logically and scientifically described the states of consciousness I've been in, but that only reduced them to concepts and the concepts did nothing but just stand their and be judged by science minded people who never understood the thing behind the concept.

You can understand, by reading articles in reputable scientific journals on meditation and whatnot, that there is a way to turn of some "filters" in your brain and most are very happy with the result and it has been a big and positive influence on their life. You can't, however, achieve that state of mind by reading the article or any scientific guideline. The only thing science can do here for you is to tell you to meditate and possibly take mushrooms.

Yes, if you have a very eloquent teacher, maybe he can help out a bit, but even eloquent men like Alan Watts found koans and the Bardo Thodol to be much more useful and even crucial for reaching satori than all of the lectures he could write on Buddhism and I found that too, with time. The fine arts, when done not only for the aesthetics, are also the same kind of spirituality. Trying to explain the unexplainable with metaphors, riddles, paradoxes and whatnot, only because you don't have the words. In a sense, even aesthetics can not be explained and quantified, even though we do have a definition for that word.

I am positive that, one day, we won't need Taoism, as we'd understand the brain more and more, but until then - I find use for it. Until we can study and quantize consciousness fully, I'm going to stick to Taoist views.

Now, this is just a small aspect of what Taoism has in store for those who are interested. Reaching satori, understanding Cyreans and generally being in complete and utter joyful awe with everything is only the easiest way to find the Tao. From then on you have much more you can do.

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Thank you for that very insightful answer. I appreciate it very much. I hope you don't mind me sharing some of my viewpoints on parts of your answer.

I actually think I have experienced this feeling of oneness that you're describing. When I was younger I used to lie on my back in the snow at night, looking up into the clear sky, letting the impression of the sight of the stars just wash over me.

And one time while I was laying like that, a strong and sudden feeling of understanding would wash inn over me. Everything would click into place, and I could clearly see how everything was connected, what it all ment. It was breathtaking, and the closest to a religious experience I've ever had.

Of course I had not really learned anything about the universe by gazing up on the stars like that. No knowledge had been gained, and the feeling of understanding was gone as soon as the moment passed.

It was probably very similar to the feeling any religious person has when they feel saved, have an epiphany or feel divine intervention somehow.

I will in no way degrade the importance of experience things for oneself. But I do claim that you gain little real insight from experience alone.

You can't give anybody the experience of piercing their ears by telling them about it, but neither can you learn how to pierce someones ears just by feeling how it feels to get a needle through your earlobe. You do not learn anything about what pain is, just by feeling pain. To do that you have to read a book, or do your own research (which is a bit of a waste without first finding out what others has learned about it before).

a lot of people fight their problems with substance abuse and addiction by putting their faith in something other than themselves, which is very important to do.

I don't really get why that is important to do. Actually one of the weaknesses with the 12 step program, which is based on Christianity, is that it is so easy to revert to substance abuse when your faith is shattered, and it easily is when it is not science-based.

I am positive that, one day, we won't need Taoism, as we'd understand the brain more and more

I think we already understand the brain well enough to not really need spirituality. I don't think we need a full and complete understanding to see the outline of the human condition. That we are basically inhabitants of the African savanna trying to make sense of the changing world around us.

In light of that almost everything about us makes sense in a way you can only achieve through knowledge.

But that's just my initial response to what you were saying. I still learned a lot about the taoistic worldview from your answer, or at least your interpretation of it.

[–]Malaclemys 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think we already understand the brain well enough to not really need spirituality

In reality, we know very little about the finer aspects of how the brain works. We know some parts of it are in control of some things, other parts of others, but we don't really understand what does what, under what circumstance, why, nor do we understand the nature of consciousness or where it starts. How are thoughts formed?
What I'm saying is, we have very basic understanding of the brain and we don't really know why some things happen and how they happen.

We know that the sense of oneness in meditation is associated with a decrease in activity in the prefrontal cortex (this is oversimplifying here), which is important for processing information and complex cognition. How does that part of the brain do what it does? Why does it feel good to have lowered activity there?
No answers yet, except those which are spiritual, metaphorical and abstract and may or may not work.

In the same way, meditation has been around for a long time and had been thought as a form of eastern hocus-pocus by the scientific community, but recently psychologists have been very interested in mindfulness.

You do not learn anything about what pain is, just by feeling pain

I do agree that you can't teach someone to pierce earlobes by showing them how it feels, but you really can only know pain by feeling it. Otherwise you only know what causes the sensation. Pain is the feeling, signals from the nociceptors are only a cause.

In the case of piercing the earlobes - you can't really describe that feeling, but you can tell your friend to get his ears pierced and then you'll both know it even if you can't explain it. Taoism, in this sense is the act of piercing your ears (never thought I'd get to say that) and probably learning how to do it.

Actually one of the weaknesses with the 12 step program

IMO it is one of the strenghts. It is based on the evangelistic beliefs on Dr. Bob (or something, I don't remember), but doesn't really force you into christianity, especially if the local group is intelligent. You can surrender yourself to the Tao, the ToE or The Force (Star Wars) if you wish. It is the act of believing - that things are the way they are because God (substitute with Tao, Buddha, Universal Laws) made them like that and he can't be wrong because he is perfect - that helps (but the other eleven steps are equally as important).
You are free to be atheistic about it though. As long as you are able to suspend your own judgement of things as good are bad and just mind your own. Thing is, believing that everything and every moment is perfect, because the God (or whatever) made it like that is much easier than believing it because electromagnicity did it.
I do agree though that religion should be kept at bay when dealing with trauma. A different approach might work, just as long as you find the right substitute.

[–]loveopenly 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Physics only values what is. Tao also values what is not, and everything in between. Therefore it's not appropriate to call it materialism.

[–]berf -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

Except that tao being basically the laws of physics in a ToE way is completely wrongheaded. Tao is way, taos are ways. All ways. Not just ways of quarks and Higgs bosons and whatevers. It encompasses all of science from quantum field theory (or whatever you imagine is "fundamental physics") up through sociology, economics, and political science, and everything in between, and lots more stuff that science hasn't gotten to yet (and may never).

For example, there are more and less taoistic ways for scientists (or anyone else) to be influential. That's a long way from ToE.

[–]Malaclemys 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

I think you've just described the Tao as a ToE. The way elementary particles and fundamental forces behave decides basically everything else, including thoughts, matter, evolution - everything. ToE tries to unify all the fragmented theories to see the thing that does all - for us this is the Tao.

I may be wrong, I really didn't want to sound like someone who understands Taoism well. I'm no authority on the subject, but I don't really think there's even a way to understand a Tao, because by the time you've turned it into a concept, you've dumbed it down a bit too much and it has already changed.

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

This post might actually been closest to answering what I was asking.

I guess that whole evasive nature of the definition is as good a trait for taoism as any other.

Though it's not alone in taking this approach to the fundamental questions we humans tend to ask our self, and it has a bit of "God of the gaps" ring to it.

[–]Malaclemys 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

In cosmology - yes, but there is much more to Taoism than cosmology.

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Is there really anything besides cosmology?

[–]Malaclemys 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fun!

To me, Taoism is about enjoying life, including things like pain, because pain is only a symptom of life. It is, in a sense, hedonistic, but it mostly teaches people to enjoy living in the world as is and not look at everything through the prism of a good-bad dichotomy. Everything is perfect! Even if you change it - it will still be perfect. That's because good, bad, pleasure, pain, anger, sorrow, happiness exist only inside of our minds. From the perspective of the whole universe - it doesn't really matter what happens. The universe doesn't really want anything. What we can do is enjoy it in the way a child enjoys stuff.

Actually, Taoism is very childish. Watts teaches that children understand Taoism very well. Thing is, that a Taoist is like a child who knows the social rules and can play the game of life very well if he so chooses, even better than most people, because he doesn't take it so seriously, so he is not prone to depression, anxiety, stress and whatnot. I, for instance, know that the worst which can happen to me is death. Everything else is completely acceptable. So what if I starve for a few days (it has happened)? What if I sleep on the floor? Just some physical uncomfort which I can endure and forget without letting it leave any scars. I still have life and enjoy everything, even the discomfort (not all the time though, that would be silly). What if I sleep on a king's bed? It's all the same to me. I might enjoy the sensation of silk and the freedom to move around, but not more than I enjoy the feeling of blades of grass tickling my bare feet or the smell of freshly cut wood and the sound it makes when I tap on it. I enjoy the sensation of cold on my body because it reminds me that my body is there which is a joyous idea in itself. It also gives me very pleasant shivers. I also, as you can see, enjoy the fact I can talk.

etc. etc.

[–]berf 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

So actually you are saying tao is not just another word for divine, especially not most western notions of divine. IMHO, that's right.

[–]Malaclemys 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Words have different definitions depending on the person. Divine can mean the same thing as "According to the Tao" and it does in everyday life to me.

[–]xadin 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Here you just basically talking about the laws of physics, aren't you? Or is there yet another undefined force that's in play in Taoism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Physics

[–]berf 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

The Tao of Physics is so 1970's. The physics is all wrong, wasn't even majority view when the book was published. And it doesn't have anything to do with tao.

[–]xadin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Indeed, just pointing out that comparing Taoism to physics is not uncommon.

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That seems to fit with what Malaclemys was saying, and made me conclude that it is just a way of maintaining some sort of spirituality in a materialistic worldview.

[–]Redfo 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

The Dao isn't just the laws of physics because they don't yet explain everything. If they ever do come up with a single equation that explains everything that maybe that is closer to what Dao is.

Also what distinguishes Daoism from pantheism, I think most importantly is the practices and history behind it. Correct me if I am wrong, but pantheists don't have temples, their philosophy hasn't been influential on any culture as Daoism has on China, and they don't have established practices like meditation or Taijiquan, they haven't historically aimed for immortality as Daoists have.

[–]Malaclemys 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

It's true that Taoism has some culture behind it (Pantheism does too in some cultures), but to be honest, most of us have taken our own individualistic approach. I've yet to meet a Taoist who respects the I-Ching as a divination system, for instance. I may be wrong, as I've never been outside of Europe.

[–]Redfo 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Sure, but weather or not we accept those things, they made Daoism what it is today. I think ultimately this may be a question of rectangle and square. Daoism may fall under Pantheism, but they aren't the same because Daoism is specific, while pantheism to me is nothing more than a general idea which could mean many things.

I don't know, does pantheism have specific practices or philosophies that all branches accept? Does it have traditions, lineages, teachers, masters? I am ignorant.

[–]Malaclemys 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

It's not unified. We Taoists can always fall back on Laozi, since he is fundamental. That's actually the only thing I accept to be part of basic Taoism, as everything else in my view serves only to lead you on someone else's path, which may not be appropriate to you.

Pantheism is just a culturally unassociated belief that the world is "god" or, well you get it. Thing is that a lot of religions and beliefs fall inside the frames of pantheism (such as Hinduism and some native American beliefs) and Taoism, depending on interpretation, can too.

[–]Redfo 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Agreed, and agreed. That's why I think the premise of OPs post is kinda silly. "Isn't Taoism just Pantheism". No it isn't just pantheism, and it certainly is different from a "self help book". Even if it takes a pantheistic view and has wisdom by which one can live their life.

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well now we're getting somewhere. If you could say anything about how Taoism differs from any other pantheistic religion, and what makes it different from a self-help book, that would be very helpful.

From what I can gather so far, almost any pantheistic worldview can be said to be taoistic, as long as you use taoistic terminology to explain it.

[–]Redfo 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well you're looking to get into real murky water here, with words like 'taoistic'. To proceed I think we need to clarify to what exactly are we referring when we say 'Taoism'? For a lot of western Taoists it means the work of Laozi, and not much beyond that. For me, I am also a westerner, and don't claim to be a Taoist really, but I am more involved in the greater Chinese cultural context where Taoism blurs into a lot of different things. I have traveled to China, seen some temples, studied some of the language. I practice Taijiquan, for physical conditioning and because it challenges me to reach states of ever deeper relaxation and focus. There aren't a lot of self-help books that translate into an system that is simultaneously a deadly martial art and rigorous meditative training.

I don't know what kind of answer you're looking for, and I know little about other pantheistic religions. But using Taoist terms to explain other systems of thought doesn't make them the same, even if they seem quite similar.

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not really looking for any specific answer, just to learn more about Taoism.

A friend of mine talks about it from time to time, but all his answers about what it really is is so evasive, and I'm beginning to understand why ;)

[–]Vidyaraja 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

No. Daoism is more panentheistic or a panentheistic monism. Pantheism equates the cosmos with "God" or more impersonal notions of the Absolute, such as the Dao. Pantheism fails to take into account that which transcends space-time or what we normally understand as "the world." As Ananda Coomaraswamy once said,

To say, for example, that “I am a pantheist” is merely to confess that “I am not a metaphysician,” just as to say that “two and two make five” would be to confess “I am not a mathematician.”

The Dao does encompass the entire world, as pantheism holds, but it also is prior to the world and timelessly extends beyond it, i.e. is transcendent, hence it is not pantheism, nor is any authentic model of Truth (Vedanta, Neoplatonism, various Buddhistic systems, Christian metaphysics, Sufism, etc.)

[–][deleted] 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

depends on how pantheism defines "god"

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Pretty much as "everything".

[–]berf 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

First, tao is not god, which makes taoism not any kind of theism, certainly not any kind of western notion of theism.

Second, tao may be the way you live your life (among other things), but taoism is not advice on how to live your life. It isn't advice about anything.

[–]tmewett 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

yes. Taoism is drawn from both observations and the unobservable. It, of course, features some advice, but under the name Te.

[–]angelabaca 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Most theism I've studied has a text that is a rule book for how to be "good."

Tao is a logic system to develop your own rules.

IMO.

For me it just happens to translate to a "pan theism" as I was raised catholic and therefore have a need to ritualize my tao in some way, so I borrow from traditions I admire and exercise them in my own way.

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm probably just misinterpreting you, but the way you described it here, it could just as easily been an 80's self-help book.

I appreciate your answer though. For many religion is just like a self-help book anyway.

[–]thomas533 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not like a self-help book. Those books give you a bunch of do's and don'ts to follow. Taoism teaches you to stop trying to do or don't. There is no prescription that will make you happy, so in a way it is the antithesis of a self-help book.

[–]angelabaca 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

LOL I've never read an 80s self-help book so I'll take your word for it.

[–]are_you_trolling 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

Assuming you're speaking of philosophical Taoism, then yes (and no). Pantheism is a definition for a certain outlook, just like monotheism. Just like there are many monotheist religions, there are many pantheistic religions/philosophies, such as druidism, some shamanic groups, some Native American cosmologies, some Hindu sects, etc.

Pantheism is defined as the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, imbued with divine intelligence. This intelligence is not a personal or anthropomorphic god.

The Tao is described in the TTC as a mysterious and numinous essence that is within everything and moves everything. That energy is divine. Thus philosophical Taoism is pantheistic in outlook (though Taoists don't care about the label).

Keep in mind the Venn diagram: philosophical Taoism is pantheistic, but pantheism is not necessarily Taoist because it's an umbrella term. Therefore philosophical Taoism is not just pantheism as pantheism is broader in scope.

If you're speaking of non-philosophical Taoism, then the answer depends on the practices and beliefs of the particular group.

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Thank you! You very much addressed what I was asking, without really answering it ;)

I guess what I'm actually is trying to resolve is what makes Taoism Taoism. It seems so deliberately vague that you can call yourself a Taoist with almost any pantheistic belife-system, just as long as you are using Taoist terminology.

[–]Redfo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well I can tell you that a good Taoist would not be so concerned with labels, and would probably just chuckle when presented with this dilemma.

Actually, thanks to this thread, I have realized that pantheist is probably the most fitting label for my own beliefs. I am a pantheist, and I read Taoist self help books occasionally, I think they are very well written. But my daily spiritual practice is from a Buddhist self help book. And I take guidance from all manner of different sources with too many labels to mention, many with no labels at all.

[–]are_you_trolling 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Hmm, I would say that there's a lot of overlap between pantheist belief systems, they just focus on different things. For example, both druidism and Taoism talk about studying the ways of Nature and learning from them. Druidism also talks about learning from myth, which is not really highlighted in Taoism. Taoism talks about moving from an empty mind, which is not really highlighted in Druidism, other than a starting point for meditation where you end up filling the mind with information gathered from X.

And yes, the big Taoist concepts, such as yin-yang, uncarved block, etc., can be found expressed in non-Taoist terminology in Jediism and druidism. But you can do that with most religions because ultimately they're just vehicles to explain the Mystery and provide guidance on how to live a loving life.

In the end, I wouldn't get so hung up on what is covered by the Taoism label. It is tempting to mentally try to understand how to distinguish X from Y, or locate the edges of Z. I find it more constructive to figure out how to apply those concepts into one's own life.

Edit: found a dropped word

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Very helpful answer.

I actually got a clearer picture of Taoism from this thread, although I do have a lot more to learn.

I can't really agree to the whole "don't conceptualize it" thing. To me there is no better meditation than to learn new things, nothing is more blissfull than having to bend my mind in new ways in order to understand new concepts.

Therefore I've really enjoyed discussing with you guys, thank you!

[–]are_you_trolling 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're welcome. I think you'll find that there are some concepts that may be difficult to understand intellectually, but then they'll make sense. The more difficult part (but more fulfilling) will be implementing that in your life.

For example, the yin/yang, which basically says that things are not black or white, good or bad; they are black & white, good and bad. It helps you to see beyond the duality and recognize that reality will include everything. You understand how science and religion can coexist, how the sacred and the profane can be exist in the same place. That we are all One and separate at the same time.

For example, you may have issues with the seeming paradox that everything is good and bad. Some people react and say "well what about the Holocaust?" Intellectually you can argue that the Holocaust had some good: it forced us to see how bad people could be and to be on the lookout for it happening again.

But it is very important to go beyond the mental realm. There is a lot of personal growth once you deal with such issues on an emotional basis. For example, don't try to pretend the Holocaust is anything but sad or anger-causing; non-attachment does not mean to disconnect from the emotions in the moment. However because you understand with your heart that there is some good even in this dark place, you'll be able to grieve and then make sure that you do what the moment/the Flow/the Tao calls for next.

Good luck on your journey. And keep asking those great questions :)

[–]robot_one 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I guess what I'm actually is trying to resolve is what makes Taoism Taoism. It seems so deliberately vague that you can call yourself a Taoist with almost any pantheistic belife-system, just as long as you are using Taoist terminology.

You can call yourself whatever you want. I won't try to stop you. I consider myself a Taoist because I practice Taoist qigong and meditation.

Other people consider themselves Taoists because of their mentality toward life.

I feel the philosophy and religion are distinct enough to warrant their own label. At the same time, the definition is pretty loose and no one is going to complain if you define it differently than them.

[–]SpitSalute 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think there are some pantheistic views within Taoism, but Taoism as a whole is much more than that.

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Any specifics that makes it stand out from other pantheistic religions?

[–]SpitSalute 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The Daodejing has a lot of practical wisdom for how human behavior should parallel the Tao of nature. Pantheism has no set of morals and has no concrete stance on how humans should behave; it's just the belief that nature and divinity are one in the same and nothing more. That's the simple answer to what makes them different. Yet if you interpret the words of almost any religion in a certain way, they could all be considered Pantheistic or at at least Panentheistic.

[–]Laozen 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

That depends on who you ask. If you ask me as a pantheist whether Taoism is just pantheism, I'll tell you no. I am both a pantheist and a Taoist; I believe the Tao is at once the source of all things and in all things, though it isn't exactly a thing in and of itself, it's a metaphor for... how to put it? The pattern things take. It's existence and nonexistence in one.

Pantheism is my position on the question of whether there is or is not a god, which I think is ultimately a nonsensical question. Taoism is the philosophy that best explains my positions on certain issues that do not always have to do with Tao itself, such as polar concepts being relative (good and bad defining one another, etc), moderation being the key to a whole and well-lived life, and living in the present being preferable (at least to me) than being too past or future oriented.

Metaphysically yes, my form of (Western) Taoism is pantheistic, but I see pantheism as a facet of my Taoism, not the other way around. If you want to view the TTC or Zhuangzi's writings as a 'self-help book,' then you can, but that's reductionist in the same way that saying that the Bible is a Jewish self-help book, or that sutras are instruction manuals. You can call them those flippantly but even if there's some kernel of truth to those metaphors, you're glossing over huge amounts of context.

EDIT: From where do you get the idea that pantheism is necessarily materialistic? That again seems to be reductionist and a bit dismissive. I'm not trying to accuse you of trying to paint pantheism/Taoism in a bad light, but the language you're using implies that you're trying to pinpoint what Taoism is by placing it in relation to philosophies that again lack the proper context for an accurate comparison to be made. I'm not saying pantheism isn't materialistic, but I don't think calling it materialist means all that much when trying to define Taoism.

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah you are probably right that it is reductionist and simplistic to call Taoism materialistic, but it was to kind of twist peoples arms in here, trying to get them to define Taoism a bit better than all the elusive and sometimes dismissive answers I've gotten about it before (not in here though).

And I think it has worked. I have gotten some good answers, yours including. Although I don't think I'll be signing up any time soon, at least I've learned that I need to learn more (which was the reason for me to come here in the first place).

Maybe I'll try a new thread in a couple of days when I've had some time to ponder the topic a little. I usually hang around /r/atheism, but I really enjoyed discussing with you guys.

[–]Truthier 0ポイント1ポイント  (15子コメント)

Western people make up 'isms' as categories to lump stuff in, sometimes they are formal systems (like Roman Christianity is usually the basis of Christianity) but in the case of Taoism it's not the case.

There is the main work which is Lao Tzu/Lao Zi's "Tao Teh Ching"/"Dao De Jing".

this is called philosophical taoism

there is also Chuang Tzu/Zhuangzi which is considered part of this

there were religions that came later that are also considered 'taoism' but are necessarily part of LaoZi's philosophy.

so. depends on who you ask.

What is Taoism, in the first place? This is the right question which you are asking.

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

I actually knew Taoism was divided into philosophy and religion, although I've also heard claims that there aren't any practical differences from confession to the religion and following the philosophy.

So I guess the question is: Is there anything you HAVE to believe, or do in order to call yourself a Taoist?

[–]Truthier 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

Is there anything you HAVE to believe, or do in order to call yourself a Taoist?

Depends on what you consider a Taoist to be. :) it's a completely arbitrary label. There are no formal systems of Taoism with formal belief systems.

In fact, I will contend that a belief would be antithetical to the Way(Tao).

So, I don't call myself a Taoist and I don't call Lao Tzu a taoist either

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

Then how do you use Taoism? If it's just an arbitrary label, doesn't that make it kind of pointless?

[–]Truthier 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

I usually don't. Its main use is to say "That which is in some way associated with Lao Tzu's writings or the concepts therein". So anything vaguely related.

[–]letharin 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Why not say 'Laozi-ism' or daodejing-based or something like that instead of daoism since you seem to want to extract out that specific part of daoism and use only that?

You're basically butchering the term daoism, for no appareant reason.

[–]Truthier 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

You're basically butchering the term daoism, for no appareant reason.

Well, correct me then. What is the correct meaning?

Why not say 'Laozi-ism' or daodejing-based or something like that instead of daoism since you seem to want to extract out that specific part of daoism and use only that?

Because thats what people call it, why not call Christianity "Jesusism"?

Which part am I extracting? I never said Taoist religious cults are "not Taoist". But it's not correct to say they comprise or even reflect Taoism as a whole, Laozi and Zhuangzi do however.

[–]letharin 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Because thats what people call it, why not call Christianity "Jesusism"?

But that which people call Daoism is clearly more than just Laozi and Zhuangzi, and Christianity is more than just believing in jesus. You however seem so focused on and perhaps even limited to Laozi.

Which part am I extracting? I never said Taoist religious cults are "not Taoist". But it's not correct to say they comprise or even reflect Taoism as a whole, Laozi and Zhuangzi do however.

I would't say that Laozi and Zhuangzi reflects the whole of that which Daoism is used to describe today. There are lot's of rituals, practices and traditions in Daoism that is not described in either of the works for instance.

[–]Truthier 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

And those are completely separate from Laozi's philosophy, unless you can show otherwise. It doesn't mean they are wrong, it doesn't mean they are right, it just means they are different customs and traditions and "Taoism" the label does not necessarily refer to any of the traditions of those sects.

Can you give an example of rituals, practices, and traditions which ZhuangZi or LaoZi spoke of? "The Way that can be spoken is not the eternal Way"

[–]letharin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Which are different from Laozi's philosophy, the daoist sects? Sure no daoist sect is pure in a sense, but we don't even know what sort of practices they had during the hundred school of thoughts era, we can't tell what is original and not. We can tell what is in Laozi sure, but even Laozi has changed overtime, and we do have some very old version we can look, but that doesn't tell us very much about their practices, they sat in stillness sure we know that, but how? They never really describe it in detail.

Well sitting in stillnes is described, but why should i do that, i was saying that rituals and practices are practiced that are not described in these works are practiced by daoists, and that is considered part of daoism thought they are not described in any of the ancient works.

[–]robot_one 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

There are no strict definitions, so everyone is a Taoist. Some of us are practicing Taoists who are more involved with the philosophy or religion. Taoists seem to be pretty adverse to labeling themselves as such though.

[–]letharin 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Would you say that the han dynasty historians did not do the same thing ("make up 'isms' as categories to lump stuff in' (with the excption of the actuall postfix that is since it doesn't exist in chinese)) when they categorized schools of though in the hundred school of thought era?

[–]Truthier 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Sure. The distinction between Tao philosophy （道家）and Tao religion （道教）is made in Chinese though. In English we lump them all together under "Taoism"

[–]letharin 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well mostly because western academia don't agree with this distinction, where do you draw the line? Which sects should be defined as Daojia and which should be defined as Daojiao, there is no clear distinction, as they share manu rituals and traditions. Sure some could be said to include more chinese folk religion and others less, but as a whole Daoist sects tend to have a common core yet some practices which is not found in other sects. Furthermore we don't know how Daoism was practiced early in it's history either, we don't knwo what the celestial masters included in their practice, or other later sects who are also considered daoists.

If you want your sect to be consdiered purer than others in regards to daoism, then ofcourse others will be religious, but from an objective viewpoint the lines tend to blur, they're all more or less religious in some sense.

[–]Truthier 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

This may sound a bit dismissive, but what authority does Western academia have over Chinese philosophy? The language barrier is massive. This very discussion is a good example of why.

Which sects should be defined as Daojia and which should be defined as Daojiao, there is no clear distinction,

Any sect is a "jiao" (教), I would think. The word Jiao means teachings but it also means religion. （zongjiao 宗教 - zong means sect, as in Chan zong 禪宗 which is the name for the Zen school in Chinese）

[–]letharin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I can agree that any daojiao would be a sect, but not that any sect would be jiao, those that propagate for the distinction on daojia and daojiao are often also part of a sect, though a sect that by their definitions would be daojia, but from the outside they are both sects with a common core and a difference in practices.

[–]sevenstaves 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Usually with theism, it means an external deity. With Pantheism, it sort of redefines the definition of theism to mean an all encompassing divinity.

Based off the second definition, I'd say Taoism fits in there.

[–]tmewett 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

all these words; all these comparisons. we can't explain taoism to you! it is "the finger pointing at the moon." stop looking so hard at the finger and instead follow it's point! :)

[–]letharin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Daoism is a much larger subject than just cosmology, in fact the cosmology can be considered heavily influenced by yin yan school of thought which might be considered seperate from daoism but that is not realy a good distinction since daoism encompasses this cosmology aswell as many other ideas.

As for dogmas, well daoism tends to avoid dogmas as one of it's dogma could be considered the oppposition of dogmas.

Why would a lack of dogmas mean that daoism is just viewing universe as it's own force?

Making pantheism equal to materialism is a mistake of gross oversimplification, sure there are similiarities, but the very definition of pantheims is a methaphysical belief which by it's very nature contradicts materialism.

So as to the difference between daoism and a self-help book. Well a self-help book is inherently about helping yourself becom a better person. Of course this can be compared to any ethical work but does that make a self-help book work on ethics? Also a self-help book is an object or entity while Taoism is a school of thought, you're comparing apples and oranges.

Daoism is something different from a self-help book just as any religon or ethical ideology is different from a self-help book, even a standpoint normative ethics could be regarded different from a self-help book, though one could say that a self-help book is essentialy a book on normative ethics.

[–]kzle420 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Seems like you've been enlightened on some aspects of Taoism here. Has your opinion changed?

[–]Esuma 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

In heaven, the creator oversees all of creation without looking. besides it, sits buddha with his legs crossed.

the creator: your toe is broken.

buddha: yeah.

[–]godlameroso -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

Once you understand Heidegger you understand Tao.

[–][deleted] 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Which part of Heidegger?

[–]godlameroso 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Being, and the nothing.

[–][deleted] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Sure, being and nothingness are concepts common to a lot of writers. I wondered if there was anything particular to Heidegger that relates to Taoism -- I'm interested in both, but have never made a connection.

[–]godlameroso 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Won't know until you start reading, it's actually not that bad if you're familiar with the Tao at all. Maurice Merlau Ponty and pretty much all the phenomenologists seem to be inspired by Tao. Also the contemporary writer Robert Anton Wilson, who is actually really fun to read.

[–][deleted] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Very cool, I didn't know all that.

[–]letharin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I dare to say that daoism is very different from phenomenology and in extension existentialism, sure there are some parts which might have been inspired by taoism or atleas strike a resemblance, but on the whole they are very different.

[–][deleted] -1ポイント0ポイント  (13子コメント)

No, Taoism is atheistic.

[–]robot_one 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism#Pantheon

[–]autowikibot 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Section 11. Pantheon of article Taoism:

Taoist beliefs include teachings based on various sources. Therefore, different branches of Taoism often have differing beliefs, especially concerning deities and the proper composition of the pantheon. Nevertheless, there are certain core beliefs that nearly all the sects share. Traditional conceptions of Tao should not be confused with the Western concepts of theism, however. Being one with the Tao does not necessarily indicate a union with an eternal spirit in, for example, the Hindu sense.

Interesting: Taoism in Korea | Taoism in Japan | Taoism in Singapore | Chinese Taoist Association

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

[–][deleted] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Traditional conceptions of Tao should not be confused with the Western concepts of theism, however.

I mean...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism#Pantheon

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

Ok, no deity. I kind of already knew that. But is there anything a taoist have to belive in order to call himself a taoist?

[–][deleted] 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

Although I'm not a Taoist myself, in my opinion, you've gotten a lot of really bad answers here, so I want to clear some things up:

  1. The first, first thing you have to know is that, as it exists in the West, Taoism is plagued by disinformation. As a body of knowledge, Taoism continues to be victimized by colonialism. This is important because the translations that are by far most widely circulated are derived from the original translations of Portuguese Christian missionaries, who translated the terms "Tao" (and sometimes "primordial Void"), astonishingly!, as "God." There is no God-concept in Taoism (or Confucianism or Buddhism); it was superimposed by missionaries. The universe wasn't created by, or the body of a "who", it simply is. So, when you look up a version of the Tao Te Ching, with the word "God" peppered through the pages, or get into a conversation with a person about the intersect between Taoism and Christianity, you're getting bad information based on a history of oppression. Taoist knowledge must be historicized.

  2. The Tao is unknowable. That's it. That's the crucial bit that runs the belief system. It's immeasurable, un-senseable, ineffable, etc. There are endless variations on this theme of what the Tao is not in the Tao Te Ching. If anyone tells you, "The Tao is really just _____." you should stop listening. The Tao is not "God", the Tao is not "the ToE", nor "the laws of physics", nor a force with flows through everything, nor an all-pervasive intelligence that makes things act. The Tao, the way things really are, cannot be spoken of or known. Why this concept is deployed at all is addressed at the end of the post, and should be explored further in (dialectical) readings of primary texts. It's slippery but useful.

  3. Maybe most importantly, Taoism is a folk-religion. This hardly gets mentioned, but there are some practical and eccentric beliefs (some medicinal) associated with Taoism, which work sometimes as metaphysical moral arguments for conservative beliefs. One example is that male masturbation is discouraged, because it wastes life-energy, chi. Conversely, cunnilingus is a source of vitality. Also, there's a fair amount of what could be called "cosmological sexism" in the discourse on fullness and emptiness, as it relates to masculinity and femininity.

Alright. So, for non-religious people, an educated reading of the Tao works to give voice to otherwise confusing or unspeakable mystical experiences or altered states. For me, there's a strong connection with "flow experiences", and there's a lot of wisdom in the text to build character, without the kitsch of "self help" books: the Tao is everywhere even in the piss and shit.

From the Tao Te Ching, Ch. 2 (Tao) on marxists.org

Therefore the Master acts without doing anything and teaches without saying anything. Things arise and she lets them come; things disappear and she lets them go. She has but doesn't possess, acts but doesn't expect. When her work is done, she forgets it. That is why it lasts forever.

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

Some of the first information I found about Taoism was that most western translations were really bad. That's why I came here to try to get a better sense of it. I of course understand that these answers pretty much is how each person views Taoism, but I guess that's a good a point to start as any.

That said, your post is really informative. I think you're the first posters that's even touched upon what might be considered dogmas of the religious part of Taoism.

Although from what I can gather, most people here treat it more like a philosophy than a religion.

Other than that, it's interesting to see how much the description of Tao (or the description of what it is not) resembles the thoughts of early christian theologians, before the western viewpoints took over. Karen Armstrongs book "A History of God" covers that pretty neatly.

Maybe the most dogmatic about Taoism is that you should not try to define Tao.

[–]AtLeast3 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

I will agree that most translations/interpretations aren't really that helpful. The main roadblock for us contemporary peoples is understanding what the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang-tzu are offering is our definition of a philosophy. Philosophy is usually defined as systems of belief. This isn't what Taoism is though...

It is not a system of belief. It has no beliefs, axioms, concepts or anything like that. To put it simply, the use of the retina is its ability to let light in. Apply that to the mind. Let experience in by being empty (of concepts, beliefs etc).

What do you think of this?

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Well, after having read what people have answered here, as well as reading quite a few articles around the net about Taoism, I think it is meant to be evasive in its nature, but that also leaves it so open for interpretation that people seems to be able to make it pretty much about anything.

Although there seems to be some consensus over the ability to learn from within. As one article expressed it:

The knowledge gained from direct experience is complete, self-evident, and fulfilling. The knowledge gained from external sources is incomplete, fragmented, requires evidence for its validity, and is not satisfying.

While I can certainly see the value of meditation and contemplation, in my view they are pretty pointless exercises without any external input to work with.

No new knowledge could ever come from within, other than drawing conclusions based on what you've learned from external input. Even the ability to think concrete thoughts is impossible without first learning a language.

"Emptying" or "opening" your mind is nothing more than a way to invoke a feeling. That could certainly have it's own value when it comes to stress relief and enjoyment, but it does not make you learn anything about the world around you, or even about yourself. The only way you learn something about your self is how you react and feel in meeting with the real world and other people.

And the whole "flow with the Tao" thing also seems pointless if Tao is only based on your own feelings of what Tao really is. So much of what we know about the world is counter-intuitive. Water, for instance, is supposed to be the cleanest, healthiest thing you can digest. Still you can die from water poisoning just by drinking to much water. Who knew?

If you gonna live in harmony with the nature (I'm not saying all Taoists will), it only makes sense to learn about nature first. And for that you have to open a book.

I guess that's my biggest problem with Taoism, based on what I've learned so far. But at then again, a lot of people who call them self Taoists will probably agree with what I'm saying while at the same time disagreeing that it in any ways goes against Taoism.

[–]AtLeast3 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I see. Well, good luck! :)

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Thanks :)

I ment no disrespect though. Just my initial thoughts on what I've learned so far.

[–]AtLeast3 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

No offense good sir, none at all. I personally enjoy reflective writing quite a lot.

So in your words, what's the big takeaway from comparing Taoism to Pantheism?

[–][deleted] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The only way you learn something about your self is how you react and feel in meeting with the real world and other people.

Hi again. I don't think that that's true. A person can realize something new, putting old things together. In a different way, dream interpretation can be a learning experience. No new stimuli there either. On a personal note, you might be losing something important reasoning away meditation practices like that. If you have a practicing friend who is willing to sit with you, you might have an insightful experience. In general, these ideas don't translate well into everyday language or lend themselves to reason: flow experiences and other abnormal perceptual experiences are in part defined by their break with preconceived notions. What you believe you believe matters very little after a change of mind.

[–]Mr_Marx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

A person can realize something new, putting old things together.

Well, isn't that just drawing conclusions on what you previously learned from external input? Or did those "old things" also come from internal insights? And what were those insights then based on? As you trace it back like that, you can not bypass external input. As I said, you can't even have concrete thoughts without learning a language first.

On a personal note, you might be losing something important reasoning away meditation practices like that.

That sounds a bit like the equivalent to what authorities in other religions might tell you: "You should not think to much about it, just believe".

As I said, I can completely understand that meditation helps some persons, as a stress relief, or a way to deal with their problems or anxieties. But believing you can gain any new knowledge that way is nonsensical. Where would that knowledge stem from?

You can get new insights about what you already know though, but that's not the same as gaining new knowledge.

What you believe you believe matters very little after a change of mind.

Can you believe something other than what you think you believe? Wouldn't that be what you believe anyways? You could of course change your beliefs, but then you would not still believe what you used to believe.