Are Taoist self-centered, egotistical people ?

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

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...

 

A clarification on " Wu Wei"

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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).

 

@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:

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)

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.

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:

True.

conclusion

Absolutely no.

 

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.