Are Taoist self-centered, egotistical people ?

[soggycat]

Are Taoist self-centered, egotistical people ?

Comments please.


http://www.taorestore.org/oldsite/guestspeaker1.html

Q: Mike W
Brock, do you have any interesting stories of your adventures in china. Encounter any evil Taoists who cast spells on you for trying to help them etc. ?

A: Brock Silvers
I've met a fair number of Taoists in my day. I once met a Gao Gong (a high ritual specialist) who was a real {expletive deleted}. Mean, self-centered, egotistical, etc. But he was among the most powerful Taoists I've ever met. I once met another Complete Reality Monk who broke every rule known to his sect - he drank alcohol, consorted with women, had a wallet full of money, carried a beeper, etc. But I also saw him punch a brick and cause it to explode into small crumbs. He could stand against a wall on the toes of one foot and slide his other leg totally up the wall until he was 180 degrees straight. I've watched our Mao Shan Nuns perform "opening" ceremonies that made me shiver. The spirits they called into the temple were so strong that I could barely stand it. On the same mountain I once met two Monks: a dismissive Monk who didn't believe that any Westerner had a chance at being a serious Taoist, and a Monk whose meditations caused his eyes to look in diferent directions but who believed that faith in Lu Dong Bin was the only prerequisite for Taoist knowledge and elevation. The only point I would really stress here is that Taoism's clergy contains an astounding variety of practices and attitudes. We in the West often constrained by our own idealism into believing that Taoists should be this way or that. There are a small number of core elements that are common to almost all Taoists, but beyond that it's a large world.


Communist China destroyed a great deal of institutional Taoism during the earlier parts of this century. In 1949, after what had already been a difficult century, China had approximately five million Taoist clergymen. Within that group were the people who were expanding the boundaries of our Taoist knowledge. In 1959, a mere ten years later, the Taoist clergy in China had shrunk to about 50,000. That represents a reduction of 99%! During the ensuing period of the Cultural Revolution this number was again dramatically reduced. I have personally seen the ruins of our monasteries, and I have seen the temples now being used as warehouses and karaoke bars.

[honest_john]

To the uninitiated the Taoist concept of "non-doing" can often seem to be laziness or simple "not caring", in my experience anyway, I know this from trying to explain it to friends/loved ones when they ask me "what are you reading?"

Especially of course in contrast to concepts contained in Confucianist thought which often appear to be just the opposite?

I read a book where a Kung Fu master described Bruce Lee as a "Confucianist in Taoist Clothing" i.e. he often said "be like water, my friend" etc, yet took a very active role in shaping the world around him - which seemingly goes against conventional Taoist practices of "non-doing" and keeping things simple, not interfering, etc.

Plus, just because someone says they are/appears to be a proper "Taoist" it doesn’t mean they are above reproach I reckon, I know supposed practising Christians/Muslims in the UK who are mean spirited {expletive deleted} (to put it plainly) despite everything those religions and their philosophy's are supposed to represent.

In every discipline there are always the people who seem to do exactly the opposite there faith/philosophy demands/specifies.

Plus like the man says in your message not every practitioner may fit exactly into the Western idea/ideal of a proper Taoist...

More likely perhaps any "anti-Western" sentiments may come from the new age type's and their selective "ransacking" of ancient beliefs (i.e. look at my dream catcher for the kids bedroom....) You can understand people who spend thousands of years developing and nurturing a school of though just for some westerner to study it for 5 minutes and then jump on the bandwagon.

For example, I'm sure if I wrapped an Ikea bath towel around my head and ran around the streets shouting "look at me, I'm a Sikh!" proper Sikhs would no doubt feel offended (...and rightly so).

[LilBunnyRabbit]

To the uninitiated the Taoist concept of "non-doing" can often seem to be laziness or simple "not caring", in my experience anyway, I know this from trying to explain it to friends/loved ones when they ask me "what are you reading?"

Possibly because that is actually what it encourages?


I read a book where a Kung Fu master described Bruce Lee as a "Confucianist in Taoist Clothing" i.e. he often said "be like water, my friend" etc, yet took a very active role in shaping the world around him - which seemingly goes against conventional Taoist practices of "non-doing" and keeping things simple, not interfering, etc.

If you think water doesn't shape the world then you need to have a better look around you. Glacial valleys. Shore-lines. Cliffs. The sand on beaches. Rivers. All of them shaped by water.

[honest_john]

Your saying Taoism encourages 'laziness" and "not caring"?

As for the Water comment, of course thats true, but Bruce Lee often spoke of Taoism as his philosophy yet his actions defy this, thats what I meant and I think you knew that...

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Your saying Taoism encourages 'laziness" and "not caring"?

I'm saying that if it can be mistaken for it that easily, then from an external standpoint it may as well be true.

[nzric]

I've heard the "lazy/not caring" argument from a couple of people in this forum.

Basically, to do nothing is as un-taoist as would be trying to impose your will on the whole world. To try to withdraw is to pretend that your actions have no effect, when one of the fundamentals of taoist thought is any action, even the action of choosing laziness/non-action, has an effect.

Taoism (to me) is not non-doing - it is acting along the path of least resistance. Just like tai chi. By choosing your actions thoughtfully and wisely, you can create a great effect with only a small effort (1000 pounds with ten ounces, or something like that). It's like the karma idea - you tend to get from the universe what you put in, so if you try to struggle, you can expect struggle.

[honest_john]

Could'nt have put it better myself nzric, my thoughts exactly.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Taoism (to me) is not non-doing - it is acting along the path of least resistance.

Not trying to cause offence here, but people acting along the path of least resistance is what allowed Saddam to stay in power so long. Hell, its what allowed Hitler to gain and remain in power, and what cause America to stay out of the war for such a long time.

I'd have to say that the whole idea of acting along the path of least resistance is morally distasteful to me in these circumstances.

[honest_john]

What philosophy (acknowledged or your own of course) governs your life LilBunnyRabbit?

- HJ

[LilBunnyRabbit]

What philosophy (acknowledged or your own of course) governs your life LilBunnyRabbit?

Survive.
Be as objective as I possibly can be.
Do what I personally think is appropriate.
Do what makes me happy.

[hwardo]

With all due respect, bunny, I don't think that you really understand what is at the heart of taoism. The idea is not just "not-doing," it is wu wei, which means DOING without doing. This is a state of flow where you are actively in harmony with the tao.

In regards to wars fought (both just and unjust) it is not taoist we wei that keeps people from fighting, but the very important reluctance to go to war. The reluctance to send our children to kill or be killed.

Our pre-emptive strike on Iraq is quite different from World War II, and it is fairly disheartening for me to see people still citing it as the same situation. This is a different discussion, so I won't take it further here, but it would be just as well if we didn't start using our religions to justify warefare here, or vice versa.

Bringing it back around to the point, Lao tzu wrote:

"Tao abides in non-action,
Yet nothing is left undone.
If Kings and Lords observed this
The 10,000 things would develop naturally.
Without form, there is no desire
Without desire, there is tranquility.
And in this way, all things would be
at peace."

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Our pre-emptive strike on Iraq is quite different from World War II, and it is fairly disheartening for me to see people still citing it as the same situation. This is a different discussion, so I won't take it further here, but it would be just as well if we didn't start using our religions to justify warefare here, or vice versa.

Who said anything about the pre-emptive strike? Saddam was just the first example of a psychotic leader who shouldn't be in power who came to mind. A Taoist following the path of least resistance would have allowed him to stay in power, because otherwise it would involve active resistance against him. In fact the only reason the strike happened was because the people of Iraq followed the path of least resistance, rather than disposing of him themselves.

You can have all the harmony you want, but when it comes down to it the only person who's going to be helped by it, is you. If you are that willing to place yourself and your own tranquility over all around you, then quite simply, I pity you.

Now, I may be getting the wrong end of the stick here, but from what has been said so far I'd say that from an outsider's point of view, I'm actually not too far off. If there's some way that Taoists actually help someone without violating their philosophy of following the path of least resistance, I'd love to hear it.

[hwardo]

You don't understand taoism.

In China, there are two branches of Taoism. On one side, taoists operated in the highest levels of government, and China enjoyed a sort of golden age when they were a strong influence. My point here, is that taoists do not simply sit about doing nothing, they simply don't force their will upon nature. As a philosophy and a religion, taoism is not passive-- it simply isn't blindly active.

I am not interested in discussing this under the framework of the war in Iraq, because I disagree with you on that point for more reasons than just your jabs at taoism, and I think that it is not really staying with the topic. Feel free to PM if you really want, though I would just as well let it go.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

I'm not interested in discussing this under the framework of the war in Iraq, because I disagree with you on that point for more reasons than your jabs at taoism, and I think that it is not really staying with the topic. Feel free to PM if you really want, though I would just as well let it go.

The war in Iraq had nothing to do with it, I simply was trying to point out, that if Taoists do follow the path of least resistance (and so far no one's corrected me on this) then the old saying applies.

'For evil to triumph, it is enough that good men do nothing'

If the good men follow the path of least resistance, they will not fight against evil, and thus it will triumph.

[hwardo]

Why don't you search for the tao te ching online, and read it? I have to run off to work now, but I would love to debate this more once you can make informed statements about it.

I'm not being snarky-- it will help you not just be wrong.

[nzric]

'For evil to triumph, it is enough that good men do nothing'

But you're still going along the "laziness" idea of Taoism. The path of least resistance wouldn't be to not act, as I said before, it would be to create the greatest effect with the least effort.

For example, the Saddam issue - the best thing would have been not to sell him the WMD's in the first place, or act quickly when he used them in the Iran/Iraq war, instead of shaking hands and selling more weapons to the guy, like the US did. In the latest war, they could've just assasinated Saddam instead od invading the entire country.

[hwardo]

Exactly.

It shouldn't be forgotten that some of the most effective fighting systems have taoist roots, and they are based on the same philosophy. Think of taiji-- softness overcomes the hard.

Taoists advocate effortless action-- doing without straining. Not laziness.

[nzric]

One thing that Taoist thought emphasises is that everything we do has an influence. Non-action is just another choice and therefore it's a specific action. Not doing something isn't necessarily the path of least resistance.

Put it this way. If someone goes to punch you, you could decide to just stand there because of the options you have (running, blocking or fighting, etc), standing still and not moving your muscles takes the "least effort".

But that's flawed because if you look at the entire effect of the fight, not just the one punch, you'll see standing still takes a lot of 'effort' (in terms of rehabilitation and doctors visits if the guy breaks your nose). The path of least resistance would be to deflect the punch then end the fight (talking, running or taking the guy out) because then you will be able to forget about the whole thing ... least effort *overall*

[LilBunnyRabbit]

But you're still going along the "laziness" idea of Taoism. The path of least resistance wouldn't be to not act, as I said before, it would be to create the greatest effect with the least effort.

Ah, so in fact its not the path of least resistance, but the path of minimal resistance for maximum effect? That's somewhat a different concept, and one that I'd have no problems agreeing with.

[soggycat]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195138996/qid=1075870826//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i4_xgl14/103-7063927-7039029?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[little lion]

I have just read tao te ching, and found it very interesting, insightful, and inspirational. However I have been wondering how following taoist theory affects hard, intense training as a martial artist and as an athlete, for example is hard training following the path of least resistance? Is hard training doing without straining? Is training with the intention of getting stronger and faster or even becoming a better person not desire?

[hwardo]

Those are some good questions. Think of it this way-- the path to "effortless effort" requires intense dedication, and strong intent. That said, it isn't so much what you are doing, but rather how you are doing it.

Take martial arts training-- taoist martial arts are by no means weak, flaccid arts. True taiji is lethal, but it is a soft, "gentle" art.

Bagua practioners train in circle walking progressively faster and faster. Their rou shou becomes more and more like free sparring as they progress further in the art, yet they only progress as their body relaxes and becomes more sensitive.

Hsing I practioners have an extremely hard external way about them, but they still embody softness.

The idea is that you can only achieve your maximum potential when your body is in complete harmony with itself (and ultimately, everything else.) So training hard is not wrong, but training hard because your body is inefficient and not connected to itself is.

The Taoists had no bone with desiring health and longevity-- to them, negative desires were the ones that kept us from achieving that goal.

[soggycat]

Originally posted by little lion
I have just read tao te ching, and found it very interesting, insightful, and inspirational. However I have been wondering how following taoist theory affects hard, intense training as a martial artist and as an athlete, for example is hard training following the path of least resistance? Is hard training doing without straining? Is training with the intention of getting stronger and faster or even becoming a better person not desire?

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=122570#post122570

Strict adherence to any IMA ( Tai Chi, Bagua, Hsing Yi and Aikido) require one not to engagein any hard and harsh conditioning exercises. ie. weight lighting , muscular strength training, pain endurance.
In fact many purist say any weightlifting is Forbidden if you want to be good in IMA, as it makes the muscles hard, tense, stiff which retards swift movement and impedes the flow of Chi.
However, low intensity aerobic activity like swimming is OK.

Harsh conditioning like holding 2 pails of water with outstetch hands for an hour, punching a sand bag etc etc, that are prevalent in External Martial Arts ( Most Shaolin, Karate, Taekwondo, Kick Boxing etc)

Tao Te Ching advocates working with nature, using the least to achieve the most along the path of low / no resistance. ( Let 4 ounzes move a thousand pounds ......a famous TaiChi saying)
It means borrowing / following energy of your attacker not opposing.

Have a look at the long list of comparisons I posted elsewhere:
http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=122570#post122570

All Taoist Martial Arts are IMA (Internal Martial Arts), it's training and practices flow from the Tao Te Ching philosophy .
All Shaoilin MA flow from Buddhism ( and therefore unrelated to the Tao Te Ching) and are generally External Martial Arts and they advocate strength and pain conditioning and endurance.
External Martial Arts desert you when you get older.
But beware of Wushu IMA, they look internal, but train in a manner that looks more external.
Also some IMA teachers, especially in HsingI , seem to have ignored the above stated priciples of Wu Wei " No Struggle"
HINT: if you are asked to kick higher than stomach level , need stretches of warmups...that's not pure IMA anymore.

Hope this helps

[nzric]

There is no real Taoist belief system, as it's a flexible philosophy/attitude to life. I agree that iron body work and intense weight training etc are not Taoist, but taoist thought does emphasise all-round health.

The system of qigong tries to make the body work more efficiently - when you're unhealthy/unfit, you're not making the most of your body, which affects you attitude and behaviour. On the other hand, if you train too hard too fast, you're damaging your own body and stopping yourself from reaching your potential.

But you can't really pin down anything and say "That's following the Tao" and "That's not" because, by definition, the Tao is unknowable.

Look at elite athletes like David Beckham. His physical training probably took years of effort and straining but when you see him kick a goal it really embodies minimalism and precision. That's the root of Taoism - effortlessness arises from effort...

[soggycat]

http://www.csupomona.edu/~plin/ews430/taoism3.html

The concept of wu-wei or not doing is different from the notion of "doing nothing." The principle of wu-wei involves “ not doing anything” but to accept moving with the tide rather than going against it.

:)

[Maetel]

Possibly because that is actually what it encourages?


If you think water doesn't shape the world then you need to have a better look around you. Glacial valleys. Shore-lines. Cliffs. The sand on beaches. Rivers. All of them shaped by water.


wrong, water does not shape things around you, tao does. glacial valleys are caused by slowly moving solid mass of water, and what moves the water? it is gravity, one of the phenomenon of tao. same thing with sand beaches, what wears the sand down, it is friction, another aspect of tao. so technically the water is 'non-doing' but it moves according the principles of tao in effortless manner.

[Maetel]

Survive.
Be as objective as I possibly can be.
Do what I personally think is appropriate.
Do what makes me happy.


in short, there's nothing that distinguishes you from a wild dog.
Socrates (Plato) warned about people like you in The Republic, people like you that do what ever they wanted and what ever makes them happy, it is one of the reasons democracy will eventually turn into tyranny, because eventually one will rise as leader and rule however he wanted, which ironically make him a most submissive slave of his own desires.

[serious harm]

Here's an article I found on Taiji

http://www.taijigongfu.com/healthmartial.html

The first move in the Chen Taijiquan form is buddha's warrior attendant pounds the mortar.

SOmewhere on another forum I saw someone talking about how salmon have to swim upstream to spawn , even though it is not the easiest thing.

[Sandus]

Socrates (Plato) warned about people like you in The Republic, people like you that do what ever they wanted and what ever makes them happy

Socrates and Plato were two different people. Plato wrote The Republic. What you are describing is epicureanism, though that's not what Plato's writings are saying at all. What it does say is that all human beings are naturally self-serving. Therefore they are prone to doing things that will benefit themselves, often in neglect of others. Everybody is one of those "people like him" according to The Republic.

[Maetel]

yes Socrates and Plato are two different people and yes Plato wrote the republic, but he's using socrates as a figure to voice his ideas in the republic that's why i put down both their names. yeah i got what you're saying that essentially everyone is 'people like him' but there're always people like philosophers that are able see through this and decided not to follow this pattern and try to find ways to better themselvs, or budhists/taoist or what ever other religion can come to an understanding that all this greeds and desires are so petty and pointless and start their trainings to gradually loose these bad traits. it is possible to change one's values and behavior through proper philosophical educations, but i agree, the majority of people gets bogged down by selfinterest that they don't give a hoot about others' interests.

[nzric]

This topic was related to IMA but it's drifting into philosophy. Some of this would be much better discussed in the philosophy forum instead.

If you want to discuss these theories, can you link it to IMA so we stay on track.

[Infrazael]

Q: Mike W
Brock, do you have any interesting stories of your adventures in china. Encounter any evil Taoists who cast spells on you for trying to help them etc. ?

A: Brock Silvers
I've met a fair number of Taoists in my day. I once met a Gao Gong (a high ritual specialist) who was a real {expletive deleted}. Mean, self-centered, egotistical, etc. But he was among the most powerful Taoists I've ever met. I once met another Complete Reality Monk who broke every rule known to his sect - he drank alcohol, consorted with women, had a wallet full of money, carried a beeper, etc. But I also saw him punch a brick and cause it to explode into small crumbs. He could stand against a wall on the toes of one foot and slide his other leg totally up the wall until he was 180 degrees straight. I've watched our Mao Shan Nuns perform "opening" ceremonies that made me shiver. The spirits they called into the temple were so strong that I could barely stand it. On the same mountain I once met two Monks: a dismissive Monk who didn't believe that any Westerner had a chance at being a serious Taoist, and a Monk whose meditations caused his eyes to look in diferent directions but who believed that faith in Lu Dong Bin was the only prerequisite for Taoist knowledge and elevation. The only point I would really stress here is that Taoism's clergy contains an astounding variety of practices and attitudes. We in the West often constrained by our own idealism into believing that Taoists should be this way or that. There are a small number of core elements that are common to almost all Taoists, but beyond that it's a large world.


Communist China destroyed a great deal of institutional Taoism during the earlier parts of this century. In 1949, after what had already been a difficult century, China had approximately five million Taoist clergymen. Within that group were the people who were expanding the boundaries of our Taoist knowledge. In 1959, a mere ten years later, the Taoist clergy in China had shrunk to about 50,000. That represents a reduction of 99%! During the ensuing period of the Cultural Revolution this number was again dramatically reduced. I have personally seen the ruins of our monasteries, and I have seen the temples now being used as warehouses and karaoke bars.


HOLY S**T it seems that alot of these people mentioned are nothing more than powerful, evil occultists IMO.

I don't think a true, philosophical Taoist would follow any of the occult/alchemical stuff that is so associated with Taoism (or what alot of it has become).

[zenmonk]

@LilBunnyRabbit:

I noticed this thread is bit old... but so interesting that had to answer to littlebunny.

I don't consider myself taoist in religious meaning (if it has one) but I do accept the heart of their teaching. I actually found their teaching first (didn't know it was tao) - and after that noticed that my actions are like in tao.

Anyway:

the path of least resistance is what allowed Saddam to stay in power so long
Do you know what put him in power in the first place? United States gave Saddam weapons about ten years ago and supported him & put him into power. (more about this later in this thread)

Hell, its what allowed Hitler to gain and remain in power, and what cause America to stay out of the war for such a long time.
Again - hitler gain power because he & his companions thought:
"Survive.
Be as objective as I possibly can be.
Do what I personally think is appropriate.
Do what makes me happy."

I'm sorry if this sounds a bit harsh, but truth is that people try to 'take' their power, people try to 'take' their happiness, people try to 'take' everything. It's like "human doing" - whereas taoism is more like 'being' powerful, 'being' happy - like "human being".

non-action
The center of taoism. "Non-action" - if put in *words* - sounds westerners like "**** - they do nothing" or "they don't care anything at all". It is not that. It's actually the understanding that resistance makes you unhappy. Taoists (and zen people) care. They care deep from their hearts. When they lose their loved ones they don't resist their feelings - they are free to cry and mourn. And they do it from the heart. Not on based whether there are people around you or whether this makes you look like a wimp. When they encounter violence they don't passively just let it come. No, they see the situation, make their decision and then act 100%.

If two forces encounter then the one with more strength will win. Right? But if there is strength, it can be 'accepted' and then transformed into non-strength.

If this is hard to understand think of aikido. (I think it's a perfect physical example of 'taoism teachings' in action - I don't mean to say you need to believe in tao or taoism or anything if you are aikido-ka, but the theories are there). In aikido, your enemy strikes at you - you accept this. But by accepting that doesn't mean 'okkkay... now I'm getting punched in the face - let's accept that'. No. By accepting that means you accept 'somebody is trying to punch me - i need to act'. Then you blend into his attack and become 'same' with the power... and - important - *take control of his power* and throw him unharmed to the ground.

Same thing with arguments. You can shout infinitely to prove your point at work, home, schoold - anywhere. But is that winning? By proving your point the other lose... and you lose too. Maybe you win the argument, but lose your friend. But if you really want to win then you stop proving you are right (sometimes - even when you know you are right if you know that proving it could cost you your friend) you keep silent. That way both can win.

Ah, so in fact its not the path of least resistance, but the path of minimal resistance for maximum effect? That's somewhat a different concept, and one that I'd have no problems agreeing with
You are *almost* right there. And actually... that concept is pretty much how taoism could be described in 'western' way. Something is still missing there - but I think that's over 90% correct and good if that helps.


hesitation
If you think "okay... but how can taoism teachings can stop saddam."

I must again say that I'm not expert in this field (Iraq), but here are my answers.

1) As stated before - taoism did not put saddam in power. It was by people who thought of themselves - in short time period.
2) Second point: as you noticed, taoism didn't have to "do" anything to get saddam out of power - it happened without interfering... altough in my thinking it was "non-taoism" in Iraq because they did not act before war.
3) Third point: Gandhi has developed very many 'passive resistance' and lead India into independence. Read that story and see how it's possible to make nonviolent revolution. (That's taoism 'in action')


@Infrazael:
I don't think a true, philosophical Taoist would follow any of the occult/alchemical stuff that is so associated with Taoism (or what alot of it has become).
True.

conclusion
Are Taoist self-centered, egotistical people ?
Absolutely no.

[serious harm]

But just because Taiji is both hard and soft, does not mean relaxation and sung isn't vitally important. Sung must be developed to a high degree. The shoulders must be like Tofu. But fajin and power is important too.