Are Taoist self-centered, egotistical people ?

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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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...

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

- HJ

 

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

 

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."

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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*

 

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.

 

Effortless Action: Wu-Wei As Conceptual Metaphor and Spiritual Ideal in Early China

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...103-7063927-7039029?v=glance&s=books&n=507846