What I am talking about is alchemical daoism, not philosophical or religious daoism.
Bob, the “rules” I stated are only historical fact. You’re right in a sense that “there is nothing that is not dao”, but this is the same type of Western attitude that lets people read a book or two (or practice taiji) and claim that they are a daoist. If you want to do that that is fine, but my only point is that back in the day in China you wouldn’t do that. In terms of internal alchemy daoism, you had to be initiated into a particular daoist tradition.
Is someone a priest because they read and enjoy the Bible?
taijiquan_student
Greetings..
Perhaps we differ in our perspectives.. Do you suppose that Lao Tzu was an “Alchemical Taoist”?.. Again, we discect and subdivide until the meaning is lost.. Mostly, Alchemical Taoists were occultists that borrowed Taoism’s liberal views and widespread practice to add some level of validity to their pursuits.. Is it your assertion that one should avoid the Taoist label unless one is involved in Alchemical pursuits, or unless one has been initiated by some heirarchy of contrived Taoist noblemen..? We are what we are, if our philosophical beliefs are closely aligned with Taoist philosophical beliefs it doesn’t matter what label we choose, our lives tell the tale..
but my only point is that back in the day in China you wouldn’t do that. In terms of internal alchemy daoism, you had to be initiated into a particular daoist tradition.
There is no evidence that the greatest Taoist sages, or even the 8 immortals were engaged in any sort of organized Taoist system.. they saw the folly in that perspective..
Is someone a priest because they read and enjoy the Bible?
Is the message meant to be interpreted by intellectuals and stylized for mass consumption?.. i suggest not, both the Bible and the Tao Te Ching were meant to be personal communications for the individual.. i don’t need to hear what someone else believes about the issues.. i need to hear them for myself and form my own opinions.. Priests, legislators, religions, governments.. intermediaries acting on our behalf.. under the assumption we are not capable to do so ourselves.. and, as long as we relinquish or freedom of choice to them, they are correct..
oops, i’ll get off my soap-box now.. Be well..
Well, some of your last paragraph opens a whole new can of worms, which we probably shouldn’t get into. Also, I basically agree with what you say. All I’ll say is that you may not agree with the fundamental idea of a priest, but that has nothing to do with someone reading the bible and claiming to be one. Same thing with reading laozi and the Yi Jing and claiming to be a daoist. Do you have a daoist name? That’s a good way to see if someone is really a daoist. In ancient China, daoists would have a separate daoist name that was given to them, having to do with their lineage.
I think that laozi would fall under the category of “philosophical daoism”. He didn’t live at a temple or practice a specific daoist alchemy method (that we know of, of course). I’m not arguing the validity of having these divisions, just stating that these are sections that daoism has commonly been divided into. There is a huge difference between internal alchemy and religious daoist practices, but often they were mixed together in the temples (Huashan, for ex.). Some traditions remain purely alchemical, and then you have the daoist sages who seemed to just wander around the mountains and the country relishing in the dao. I don’t think we really know what their deal was. What was their practice? I find it hard to believe that they got to their high level purely by wandering, so they must have had some sort of practice. Where did they get it from? Maybe at one time they practiced in a temple and then later in life they left the community to wander. Who knows?
I am not arguing for many subdivions, or for being “initiated by some heirarchy of contrived Taoist noblemen”. However, there was more hierarchy in the old daoist world than we might like to think. I think also, that taichibob is coming more from the perspective of (to once again use the subdivisions) philosophical daoism, and I’m more talking about internal alchemical daoism, so maybe we aren’t quite on the same page topic-wise.