Is it possible to be an atheist and a Taoist at the same time?

[LuisDantas]

It must be terrible to meet this intellect some people speak of. I feel blessed not to have had such an experience.

 

[Orbit]

Agreed. Although I never got the distinction between phylosophical and religious Taoism. How can they be told apart?

Taoism as a religion has rituals, deities, practices, and temples. Tao as a philosophy just involves reading the Tao Te Ching, which does not mention any religious practice.

 

[DreadFish]

IMO, the Tao Te Ching and "Philosophical Taoism" is a matter of intuitive, experiential knowledge. The words are just pointers, thus the disclaimer at the beginning: "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao". It's not an objective experience we're talking about here; it's inexplicable. Anything that can be experienced as an object is time-bound/impermanent.

 

[InChrist]

Nah! There is no anthropomorphic specialist keeper of the balance and of the order; there is only the balance and the order. We are not separate from it, contrary to what the mind tells us.

Are you sure?

 

[Straw Dog]

I fail to see how that can be possible. Skepticism is of the intellect; the Tao is non-intellectual. Whenever the attempt is made to intellectualize upon the nature of things, we only end up in paradox, and that is because the mind is forever trying to encapsulate nature into concepts. Nature is not a frozen reality, but a flowing action. Paradox is the result when science, religion, and philosophy attempt to pin nature down, and fail.

Yes, it reveals the limitations of language and the intellect. We fail as soon as we claim what the Tao is in words. The Tao Te Ching raises more questions than it answers. The result of Laozi's analysis of apparently effective and constant action-guiding human distinctions is that there really are none.

The skeptical interpretation is probably indistinguishable from the mystical interpretation when we get down to it, though. Saying "There is no ultimate criterion of rightness" and saying "There is an ultimate criterion of rightness that cannot be spoken of" are probably the same thing for all practical purposes. This doesn't reveal a divine, intuitive knowledge so much as the greatest wisdom is in knowing your not-knowing and knowing when to stop.

 

[Willamena]

Thoughts?

It's possible to tap your head and rub your belly at the same time. I imagine it's kind of like that.

 

[Straw Dog]

You don't understand the Tao, the Tao is all there is, its pure Consciousness, there is nothing but the Tao, its beyond philosophy which is of the mind.

Yes, I am very ignorant. Do you understand the Tao?

 

[godnotgod]

Are you sure?

Well, where do you see such a keeper, an agent, of balance and order?

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, it reveals the limitations of language and the intellect. We fail as soon as we claim what the Tao is in words. The Tao Te Ching raises more questions than it answers. The result of Laozi's analysis of apparently effective and constant action-guiding human distinctions is that there really are none.

The skeptical interpretation is probably indistinguishable from the mystical interpretation when we get down to it, though. Saying "There is no ultimate criterion of rightness" and saying "There is an ultimate criterion of rightness that cannot be spoken of" are probably the same thing for all practical purposes. This doesn't reveal a divine, intuitive knowledge so much as the greatest wisdom is in knowing your not-knowing and knowing when to stop.

Hmmmm...perhaps I misunderstand your use of the word 'skeptical'. Are you using it in a special sense?

The comparison you provide is inconsistent, I believe. The first has to do with moral right and wrong, and is other-directed; the second has to do with the Tao itself, which is non-dual, amoral, and which is inner-directed.

Here is the difference:

from: Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 38

When a truly kind man does something, he leaves nothing undone.
When a just man does something, he leaves a great deal to be done.
When a moralist does something and no one responds,
He rolls up his sleeves in an attempt to enforce order

Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is kindness.
When kindness is lost, there is justice.
When justice is lost, there is ritual.
Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.
Knowledge of the future is only a flowery trapping of the Tao.
It is the beginning of folly.

Therefore the truly great man dwells on what is real
and not what is on the surface,
On the fruit and not the flower,
Therefore accepts the one and reject the other.


If you are suggesting that there is no spiritual element in Tao, I would refer you to the discussion of the Valley Spirit and the Tao 'nourishing all things' in the work itself. The 'Mother of all Things' suggests such a conscious, intelligence.

But again, the mystical is quite different from the skeptical, assuming you are using the word in the conventional sense, the former having to do with seeing into the nature of Reality; the latter having to do with the discriminating mind. One is pure consciousness, which precedes mind; the other, mind and its trappings, which creates a dualistic subject/object scenario, where none originally exists.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, I am very ignorant. Do you understand the Tao?

Maybe you don't understand IT, because IT understands you.

 

[godnotgod]

It must be terrible to meet this intellect some people speak of. I feel blessed not to have had such an experience.

You're using it now.

 

[Straw Dog]

If you are suggesting that there is no spiritual element in Tao, I would refer you to the discussion of the Valley Spirit and the Tao 'nourishing all things' in the work itself. The 'Mother of all Things' suggests such a conscious, intelligence.

But again, the mystical is quite different from the skeptical, assuming you are using the word in the conventional sense, the former having to do with seeing into the nature of Reality; the latter having to do with the discriminating mind. One is pure consciousness, which precedes mind; the other, mind and its trappings, which creates a dualistic subject/object scenario, where none originally exists.

Were you using the discriminating mind in order to explain these differences?

How is it not a 'righteousness' to claim correct knowledge of the nature of Reality?

Right now, you are saying that I am wrong and you are right. It is a moral distinction.

 

[Straw Dog]

Maybe you don't understand IT, because IT understands you.

Same thing.

The more we talk about it, the more confused we become. Let us just be here-now doing this and that.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

Does philosophical Taoism deal with 'chi', or is that religious Taoism? I thought 'chi' was the essence or energy of the Tao, in a sense?

 

[godnotgod]

Were you using the discriminating mind in order to explain these differences?

No. I am using consciousness, which just sees what the nature of both are, while using the tools of the discriminating mind. You know, we all must still live in the world of conditioned mind, but we needn't be driven by it. The man who follows Tao is Way-driven, while the man who does not is karma-driven.

How is it not a 'righteousness' to claim correct knowledge of the nature of Reality?

Because those who see things as they are would never lay claim to its knowledge. They don't see it as righteous, or not-righteous.

Right now, you are saying that I am wrong and you are right. It is a moral distinction.

No, that is what YOU are saying, and has nothing to do with moral good or evil. It is you who made the distinction between skeptical and mystical Taoism in the first place, when, in fact, there is only the Tao itself. All I have asked for is an explanation for your distinction.

 

[godnotgod]

Same thing.

The more we talk about it, the more confused we become. Let us just be here-now doing this and that.

No confusion here.

There is no one here, doing any such thing. That is the illusion you have bought into.

It is not 'the same thing': your limited, thinking mind cannot 'understand' the Infinite; it is the Infinite, the Tao, that contains you, and which is beyond the conceptual mind.

 

[Straw Dog]

No confusion here.

There is no one here, doing any such thing. That is the illusion you have bought into.

It is not 'the same thing': your limited, thinking mind cannot 'understand' the Infinite; it is the Infinite, the Tao, that contains you, and which is beyond the conceptual mind.

Thanks for sharing this understanding. I forget sometimes.

 

[LuisDantas]

You're using it now.

No, I mean that terrible thing some people call intellect. You know, that one that conspurcates things instead of allowing them to become sacred.

 

[godnotgod]

No, I mean that terrible thing some people call intellect. You know, that one that conspurcates things instead of allowing them to become sacred.

Oh, yes, of course, the reductionist Black and White Legalism in a dead universe.

 

[DreadFish]

Does philosophical Taoism deal with 'chi', or is that religious Taoism? I thought 'chi' was the essence or energy of the Tao, in a sense?

I haven't noticed it dealt with specifically in the Tao Te Ching or the Chuang Tzu.

Something to note, "Taoism" didn't develop as an organized philosophy for a while and it's still not too organized. I think there's evidence that the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu were developed completely independently of each other. They're both representative of the Chinese naturalist's type of thought.

IMO, when it comes to Chinese things, there are a lot of general cultural ideas and things that get mixed into everything.