Taoism

[deeplight]

(29)

That is a very beautiful piece of text.

Which of his writings was that from?

 

[118118]

The point is that this is the way it's presented

Explicitly - are you just showing respect? If not I would have thought its content is more important . Though I'm fairly sure you can follow some Buddhist philosophy and not be religous, just like you can follow some Christian philosphy and not be a Christian. Though you would not be a Buddhist. Parasite.

In the context of the verse, 'the best leader' is IMHO not a leader

Your being too transcendent man. I suppose in that tiny quote theres nithing which says that he is a leader (other than calling himsel a leader). Bt having said that there is nothing that says that he is not I can still be quiet and authoritarian (e.g. not allow alternative forms of power).

 

[Fruitloop]

Explicitly - are you just showing respect? If not I would have thought its content is more important . Though I'm fairly sure you can follow some Buddhist philosophy and not be religous, just like you can follow some Christian philosphy and not be a Christian. Though you would not be a Buddhist. Parasite

Christianity doesn't have philosophy it has theology, you muppet, and it explicitly concerns itself with the supernatural, the sacred and the divine - putting it well within the usual definition of a religion. To what extent a person can be religious is another question entirely, and tbh one in which I have little interest. (From a buddhist perspective to view religious belief as some kind of accoutrement that is added to a self-identity is simply to fall deeper into error, in any case).

The essence of buddhism (as opposed to its formalised excrescenses) which is to say the four noble truths and the eight-fold path seems to me to be concerned neither with the sacred, the supernatural nor the divine, which to my mind distinguishes it from Judaeo-Chiristian 'religions' etc. The point is purely linguistic in any case, and not worth any further thread derailment from me.

 

[Brainaddict]

fall deeper into error

I haven't heard a phrase like that since last I read about the Spanish Inquistion

I don't think that belief in the supernatural necessarily defines religion, but in any case a belief that your 'soul' or some other non-physical part of you exists after death and, for instance, could return to earth in another body, falls firmly within the realms of the supernatural as far as I'm concerned.

Though all this is *mostly* a linguistic point it is not entirely a linguistic point, since by claiming Buddhism is not a religion you are trying to shake of the negative associations people have with institutionalised religions. I don't think it's fair or right that Buddhism be allowed to shake off these negative connotations, since like every other major religion it has temples, statues, rote prayers, priests and of course offering boxes, and fulfils a culturally/socially restrictive function in the countries where it has many adherents.

If it looks like shit and smells like shit and I find it next to a tree in the pavement I'm not going to be in a hurry to spread it on top of my chocolate cake.

Also, see my tagline for a trenchant critique of Buddhist philosophy

 

[Fruitloop]

I haven't heard a phrase like that since last I read about the Spanish Inquistion

Bizarre and non-contendible. Read what about the Spanish Inquisition?

I don't think that belief in the supernatural necessarily defines religion, but in any case a belief that your 'soul' or some other non-physical part of you exists after death and, for instance, could return to earth in another body, falls firmly within the realms of the supernatural as far as I'm concerned.

I don't personally think that re-incarnation is essential to Buddhism. The buddha believed it because he was a product of his time and wasn't to know any better, but then he was probably wrong about a lot of things - medicine, physics, pre-history etc.

Though all this is *mostly* a linguistic point it is not entirely a linguistic point, since by claiming Buddhism is not a religion you are trying to shake of the negative associations people have with institutionalised religions. I don't think it's fair or right that Buddhism be allowed to shake off these negative connotations, since like every other major religion it has temples, statues, rote prayers, priests and of course offering boxes, and fulfils a culturally/socially restrictive function in the countries where it has many adherents.

I think that to have a meaningful definition you need to identify some common element of the discourse that makes things religious, otherwise what distinguishes it from weight-watchers or alcoholics anonymous?

I have no interest in dissociating buddhism from its institutional form, any more that I would do for Christianity - despite the fact that in both cases the actions of the social institution are frequently completely at odds with the core teachings. However, it's still my opinion that these core teachings of Christianity etc constitue an essentially religious doctrine in a way that buddhism doesn't.

 

[In Bloom]

In the context of the verse, 'the best leader' is IMHO not a leader, I think its a subtle criticism.

(17)


The Tao seems to me to be a call for a more compassionate, harminous society free from ideology, its pretty scathing on wars, consumer excess etc. The 'some are meant to lead' reminds me of a quote by Bakunin about how even amoungsts the free, some still take orders and others give them....

(29)

Maybe this is me, but you appear to be reading things into the text that just aren't there. In 17 it is the leaders work behind the scenes that has accomplished the work, the leader has merely hidden this fact from the people. 29 strikes me as a classical "natural order" argument which is inherently reactionary:

Some are meant to lead,
and others are meant to follow;
Some must always strain,
and others have an easy time;
Some are naturally big and strong,
and others will always be small;
Some will be protected and nurtured,
and others will meet with destruction.

The Master accepts things as they are*,
and out of compassion avoids extravagance,
excess and the extremes.
*My emphasis

IOW, don't try to change the world, don't try to change anything, just accept it. Deeply conservative and hardly anything new or interesting, IMO.

 

[Fruitloop]

I'm absolutely hating that translation of verse 29. Whilst I think the Wilhelm is still the best translation I don't have it to hand, but this one is definitely better.

Whoever takes the empire and wishes to do anything to it I see will have no respite.
The empire is a sacred vessel and nothing should be done to it.
Whoever does anything to it will ruin it;
whoever lays hold of it will lose it.

Hence some things lead and some follow;
Some breathe gently and some breathe hard;
Some are strong and some are weak;
Some destroy and some are destroyed.

Therefore the sage avoids excess, extravagance, and arrogance.

 

[In Bloom]

So if you don't agree the text, you just find another translation and then "interpret" it until you agree with it?

Nope, no religion here, none at all

 

[Fruitloop]

Really you need a parallel text edition, some basic understanding of what each character represents and what the various intertextual allusions are pointing to. The Dao De Jing suffers particularly from 'tree-hugging hippy shit' translations which completely distort the original meaning into some kind of glorification of quietist California liberalism, which can't possibly have been what was intended.

Wilhlem is a good start if you want to get an idea of what the book actually said - his German translation is much preferable to the English re-translations, but even these are mostly better than some of the more recent dilutions.

One of the difficult things to get your head round with the Dao De Jing is that it's much more fact-oriented than value-oriented than you would expect from a similar book in the western tradition (another aspect that differentiates it from religions ), and a translation that disregards this is completely worthless IMO.

 

[october_lost]

IOW, don't try to change the world, don't try to change anything, just accept it. Deeply conservative and hardly anything new or interesting, IMO.

Since its only an interpretation of someone elses work then of course my understandings can be questioned, but I the Tao isnt conservative, its completely opposed to confuscianism, instead it argues for harmony, in the sense of community and relationships with others. Its very similar to Kroptokin, only it relies on philosphy rather than zoology

 

[In Bloom]

Since its only an interpretation of someone elses work then of course my understandings can be questioned, but I the Tao isnt conservative, its completely opposed to confuscianism, instead it argues for harmony, in the sense of community and relationships with others. Its very similar to Kroptokin, only it relies on philosphy rather than zoology

It may have been radical or new in the context it was written, but from what I've seen it's hardly anything worth getting excited about in the modern West.

I'm sure you know more about it than me, but I'm always very suspicious of Eastern philosophy, myself, especially the irritating, semi-religious, hippy interpretations used by some.

 

[Fruitloop]

What is radical or new these days?

 

[Brainaddict]

It may have been radical or new in the context it was written, but from what I've seen it's hardly anything worth getting excited about in the modern West.

I'm sure you know more about it than me, but I'm always very suspicious of Eastern philosophy, myself, especially the irritating, semi-religious, hippy interpretations used by some.

Glad I'm not the only one

 

[In Bloom]

What is radical or new these days?

Godspeed, You Black Emporor

 

[Brainaddict]

I like the way you think In Bloom

 

[october_lost]

Just because its old and eastern doesnt mean its crap. Even good ideas can be fetished and turned into dogmas, and this is no exception.

Which from the following are conservative?
From Wiki


Here are listed some other topics related to the Tao Te Ching:

Force begets force.
One whose needs are simple will find them fulfilled.
(Material) wealth does not enrich the spirit.
Self-absorption and self-importance are vain and self-destructive.
Victory in war is not glorious and not to be celebrated, but stems from devastation, and is to be mourned.
The harder one tries, the more resistance one will create for oneself.
The more one acts in harmony with the universe (the Mother of the ten thousand things), the more one will achieve, with less effort.
The truly wise make little of their own wisdom for the more they know, the more they realize how little they know.
When we lose the fundamentals, we supplant them with increasingly inferior values which we pretend are the true values.
Glorification of wealth, power and beauty beget crime, envy and shame.
The qualities of flexibility and suppleness are often superior to rigidity and strength.
Everything is in its own time and place.
The contrast of opposition — i.e. the differences between male and female, light and dark, strong and weak, etc. — helps us understand and appreciate the universe.
Humility is the highest virtue.
Knowing oneself is a virtue.
Envy is our calamity; overindulgence is our plight.

 

[118118]

Christianity doesn't have philosophy it has theology

What do you mean, they call their philsosophy theology, or they have no philosophy. Just because Christ did not teach any non-moral philosophy (I assume so) does not mean that there have never been any Christian philosophers - I assume that there has been

and it explicitly concerns itself with the supernatural, the sacred and the divine

Unlike Buddhism of course .

The essence of buddhism (as opposed to its formalised excrescenses) which is to say the four noble truths and the eight-fold path

And they teach that then that you can take or leave the rest of Buddhism, and still call it "Buddhism" and not "bits of Biddhist philosophy"?

you muppet

I don't think that was really called for. Guess can't really insult you for being thick, but I can call yoiu a desperate little fucker.
And a fucking prick that shouldn't bully stupid people like myslef.

 

[Buds and Spawn]

Anyone interested in Taoism and Anarchism should read chapter 4 of Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible. He looks at Taoism and Buddhism as forerunners to Anarchism.

The links between Taoism and Anarchism have always been attractive to me. Both philosophies / approaches to living are framed around being true to your own true nature and Nature itself. Both are also widely and willfully misunderstood.

Which makes Taoism to me a fairly radical anti-authoritarian and ecological social philosophy.

Of course, there are several variants of Taoism, and it eventually succumbed to becoming systematised as a religion. Pursuing Taoism can also lead to an individual disengaging from society and social change. I really don't like the Buddhist outlook that you change the world by changing yourself. It's too exclusive. You've got to be the change you want, but you've also got to make it happen.

 

[october_lost]

Thanks for that Buds, Marshalls book is pretty hard to get hold of, but I will hunt it down. And your spot opn about Buddhism, to individualistic for my liking.

 

[Buds and Spawn]

There's also a pamphlet / slim book called something like the Scarlet Q which has a fair bit on Anarchism and Taoism. Freedom Books in Whitechapel is probably your best bet for that one...

On individualism - I don't think this is necessary mutually exclusive of a more social approach - it's just a greater challenge (hence the miserable failure of 'communist' experiments where peeps aren't allowed to be individuals, and the miserable failure of Taoists and Buddhists in changing the world while hiding out on sacred mountains). It's easy to associate individualism with a negative nihilism, and the oxymoronic anarcho-capitalism (e.g. Thatcher's 'no such thing as society') - but that's a very limited way of looking at things....

 

[Gmart]

I would like to add my voice of admiration to Taoism. Some of my favourite quotes are (from the Stephen Mitchell translation)

Because he [the Master] has nothing to prove
people can trust his words.

and

Hope and fear are both phantoms
that arise from thinking of the self.

and

The moral man does something,
and when no one responds
he rolls up his sleeves and uses force

and

If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy

I will accept that in a world of limited resources it relates less sometimes. After all it comes from a time of isolationism, however i think it still relates to the world remarkably for a bookwritten 2600 years ago. And on a personal note gives me a breath of fresh air whenever i need it.