Reform Taoism

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

May the Tao be with you.

Good grief, how much worse can someone mangle Buddhism? It looks like he took the trappings of Buddhism, watered them down, and feminized it (he put hands on the ying/yang symbol for his religion). He might make a good guest on the Reasoning show though - he claims to have over a couple of hundred members of his congregation.
.

[Unidian]

Yeah, I looked at that for a while many years ago. The guy has been around a long time. While we each bring our own unique perspective to established traditions by necessity, I think this guy is going further than that. He wants to be a new religious leader, which is somewhat understandable in light of human nature, but it's also a clue that one should approach with caution.

That said, I've seen much worse things. There's probably little harm in what this guy is doing, although I'm guessing David and others might see it more critically. I do agree that he might be an ideal guest for "The Reasoning Show." I don't know how soon they will want to do another Taoism show, though.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Perhaps they could reason about why to start a new religion.

[Unidian]

BTW, Elizabeth, why are you talking about Buddhism? This is about Taoism. And as far as "feminizing" goes, Taoism has a strong feminist element originating with Lao-Tzu himself. Check out Chapters 6 and 28 of the Tao Te Ching, among others.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Will do. Meanwhile, isn't Taoism an offshoot of Buddhism? That's what I meant, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Heh - did you check out this guy's chart comparing religions? He lists his religion as uncommitted as to whether or not there is an afterlife. He doesn't even know what he's preaching.

Oh, and would you give me a good link to pantheism? I'm trying to rescue a friend from joining this guy's religion, and I think my friend 's beliefs are more in line with pantheism, but I don't know enough about it to give a really informed explanation.
.

[Unidian]

E:

Will do. Meanwhile, isn't Taoism an offshoot of Buddhism? That's what I meant, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah, you're wrong. Taoism developed independently in China, primarily during the "warring states" period and possibly as a reaction to the ongoing violence and social discord of that time. You may be thinking of Zen, which coalesced when traditional Indian Buddhism was brought to China (mythologically by Bodhidharma, the first patriarch) and interpreted in Taoist terms. As author Ray Grigg demonstrates in The Tao of Zen, Zen is basically Taoism with a Buddhist face.

Heh - did you check out this guy's chart comparing religions? He lists his religion as uncommitted as to whether or not there is an afterlife. He doesn't even know what he's preaching.

He's trying to hold the door open for personal ego-based immortality. It's typical human psychology. He apparently fails to understand the message of Chapter 16 of the Tao Te Ching:

Empty yourself of everything.
Let the mind become still.
Things in the world rise and fall while the Self watches their return.
They grow and flourish and then return to the source.
Returning to the source is stillness, which is the way of nature.
The way of nature does not change.
Knowing constancy is insight.
Not knowing constancy leads to disaster.
Knowing constancy, the mind is open.
With an open mind, you will be compassionate.
Being compassionate, you will act royally.
Being royal, you will attain the divine.
Being divine, you will be one with the Dao.
Being one with the Dao is eternal.
Although the body dies, the Dao will never end.

This isn't the kind of immortality the ego is interested in, though, because there's no central or fixed place for "me" in it. Most people would rather keep the "soul" option open.

Oh, and would you give me a good link to pantheism? I'm trying to rescue a friend from joining this guy's religion, and I think my friend 's beliefs are more in line with pantheism, but I don't know enough about it to give a really informed explanation.

Yep, either of these are good:

Universal Pantheist Society

World Pantheist Movement

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Cool. Thanks Nat.

[vicdan]

Being one with the Dao is eternal.
Although the body dies, the Dao will never end.

Interesting. I had never read anything on daoism, and just a couple of minor sources on buddhism. I did write this about a decade ago, though.

[Unidian]

Yep, same idea. Not bad writing, either. Much better than that other thing I made fun of at FP.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

It is good writing. The "never stepping into the same river twice" I've read somewhere before, and had found it to be a mind-expanding thought.

[Dan Rowden]

Plagiarism!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Unidian]

It is good writing. The "never stepping into the same river twice" I've read somewhere before, and had found it to be a mind-expanding thought.

Yeah, it's usually associated with Heraclitus, a 6th century BCE pre-Socratic Greek philosopher. Heraclitus was an amazing figure, far too neglected in modern times. I call him "the first dialectical monist." Check out the link, it's worth it.

[Katy]

It's also found in the movie Pocahontas... so far as where it's likely to be heard but not noticed so much.

[Unidian]

"Pocahontas" amazes me. It's possibly the most blatant mass-media advertisement for pantheism ever produced, but since they don't actually use the term, the fundies don't catch on. I get a kick out of the rare occasions when media brainwashing is used for an arguably good purpose. Thousand of kids will eventually dump fundie beliefs for something like pantheism thanks to the influence of that movie and other media productions like it.

[brokenhead]

I just checked out those Pantheist links.

Pantheism must be a real religion because they ask for donations. I think of that George Carlin routine: God is all-powerful, he can do anything... except He's not too good with money.

As soon as I hear the "nature is sacred" line, I feel like running. There are esoteric interpretations of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Each of these faiths have esoteric, mesoteric, and exoteric circles of adherents. I get the feeling that Panteism by nature lacks the inner circles of followers. Pantheism is what we would get if children started a religion. No Mohammed, no St. Augustine, no Maimonides.

[vicdan]

Yup, Heraclitus and Spinoza and Einstein were regular children, spiritually speaking...

What the bloody fuck is this desire to have someone else tell you the secrets, to have these authoritative, indubitable pronouncements handed down to you by the authoritative men in long robes (or with dead beavers on their faces)? The world is not like that. Deal with reality!

[Unidian]

I think it's a psychological deference to authority instilled during early childhood, where the parent hands down all survival necessities from on high and provides indisputable answers to all questions, providing a feeeling of perfect safety. Much religious activity stems from a desire for surrogate parent-figues and the security and certainty associated with them, in my view. In fact, I think quite a bit of the whole concept of appealing to authority links backs to this in some way.

Not to mention the other factors precluding independent approaches to reality, such as the fear of discovering information that undermines one's ego, sense of purpose, self-image, potential for immortality, etc. There's really a whole conspiracy of psychological factors that make it surprising to me that anybody manages to think for themselves in a relatively honest manner.

[Philosophaster]

Deference to authority is probably an evolved survival mechanism. A species could not survive too long if the young had little or no inclination to believe what their parents told them about how the world worked.

[Unidian]

Agreed. Also, certainty and security are associated with very desirable emotional states, because they indicate favorable conditions for the survival of the organism. Uncertainty and insecurity are generally associated with undesirable emotional states, because they indicate the imminent possibility of loss, death, or other harm. Due to our evolutionary survival programming, it is very difficult to associate positive emotional states with uncertainty and insecurity. This is the dilemma of the intellectually honest thinker who recognizes that existence is characterized by impermanence. We have to learn to overcome our natural psychological predispositions, at least to some extent.

Otherwise, we will keep running after certainty and security compulsively, in the form of one salvationist worldview or another.

[vicdan]

Due to our evolutionary survival programming, it is very difficult to associate positive emotional states with uncertainty and insecurity.

We need to decouple the sense of freedom from the feeling of control, that's the solution. Freedom is not in controlling the world, literally or conceptually, but in interacting with it, in the give-and-take, in the very process of life.

Normally, we don't feel safe unless we have a conceptual iron grip on the situation -- and so people don't feel safe unless they convince themselves that everything is under control, that the ebb and flow of life has been dammed and contained and channeled, that there is an isle of perfect certitude in the midst of it all.

Otherwise, we will keep running after certainty and security compulsively, in the form of one salvationist worldview or another.

Yeah, the lure of certainty is great. I just expected better from a community like this than to find people clinging on to the illusion of perfect certainty with the iron grip of mortal terror.

[Philosophaster]

But I can have perfect certainty in my own little world made up solely of terms defined to my liking!

[vicdan]

Yes, you can; and you can also have a perfectly solid boulder chained to your foot in the middle of the ocean. You can even try to stand on it.

After all, it is a solid rock in the midst of a turbulent ocean, after a fashion...

[Dan Rowden]

But I can have perfect certainty in my own little world made up solely of terms defined to my liking!

Give me an example of a single term not defined to "one's liking"...

[Philosophaster]

Any word in the dictionary will do. I didn't define any of those; I learned from other people how to use them so as to get my points across.

[Dan Rowden]

I don't think that addresses my point. In what sense are those terms not defined to "the liking" of those others?