Talk:Taoism/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

new edits

Tan is still insisting on going against consensus by changing "emptiness" to nothingness"; he's also changing good English to poor, and clear terms to anachronistic unclear ones (all actions, incidentally, that were typical of Mr Tan...). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητη&sigmaf;) 11:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I dropped a nice note on ETTAN, only to visit here and see all the folderal kicked up above... just like the oh sooooo typical behaviors we've seen as characteristic of Mr Tan, apparently here made by an unrelated ETTAN. Well, I used to believe in the tooth fairy too.
This struck me as quite TANISH: "As I told u b4, the using of emptiness in taoist text is a mis-interpretation of the past. Try google taoism nothingness and u can get loads of my supporter. These are just a few of them: "...

) mis-interpretation of the past (Mr Tan was big on misinterpretation or deliberate misconstrual by some mysterious Machiavellian plots by hundreds of unrelated yet conspiratorial acedemics duplicating one anothers works by government edict... etc.
) The overreliance on googling as if that proves anything
) especially the mis-references to the root word 'support' where he can't quite seem to find the right word, especially when he gets excited.
) The tendancy to duck direct questions and request for proofs of acceptable nature.

In any event, after seeing the explosion of verbosity above, immbedded in a poor presentation... I figure I wasted my time writing to ETTAN a while back — like I wasted much of June on Mr Tan.
And to SamSpade, my post was to a persons talk page, not an article talk page. How it got moved here can be investigated, so check the history if you have the time. I just think it fair to warn people that if this is the same Tan we have so many verbose talk pages and edit war experience with (as mediators, not participants, per se), people deserve to know he's looking for the arguement — has said so directly to me on my talk — and has not the least interest in consensus unless it agrees with his POV based on my observations. Fra nkB 05:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the debate is rotten from the beginning, i suppose. ETTAN is talking about the word "wu", that is a "grammatical particle" (i.e. with no meaning, Chinese say "empty words") and the "emptiness" in Taoism and Tao Te Ching articles refers to a Taoist idea, the very one of the power of the pot, the wheel hub, the door, all those things being useful because they have empty parts. The valley/vagina is the same : concavity. One scholar i like said this applies very well to Chinese paitings that are full of emptiness (whites) and have energy that flows through the whites to give life to the "blacks". Here "nothingness" is very far, as it is from Tao Te Ching. Nothingness is more related to Buddhism, I'd fancy, but I don't know a bit on this different topic. gbog 09:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It's ofte, if not usually, translated as "emptiness" in Buddhism too. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητη&sigmaf;) 11:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Misleading the World about Taoism

A good job well done in misleading the world about taoism. However, just how right the first sentence of Tao Te Ching, these won't change a bit the working of "taoism" in real world. Actually, partially due to my bad experience in wikipedia (e.g. repressing freshies of some), I couldn't care less anymore.

Somehow, I've managed to demonstrate how a minor disagreement (eg the nothingness and emptiness debate) with one grudge-taking boy and his comrades can drag a major progress in the planning.

Time is gold. I won't be participating in this article for a period of time.

Play with yourselves, experts.

Bye.

--ETTan 16:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"Time is gold".... a kind of anti-Taoist idea imho —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.157.31 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 27 March 2006

Relation to Other Practices

I agree “Shabda” has a literal translation as “sound.” However, I was referring to an esoteric relationship between the terms. I’ll rework the sentence. My citation and examples are below.

RDF 21:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Singh, K. (1999). Naam or Word. Blaine, WA: Ruhani Satsang Books. ISBN 0942735943

Lao Tze speaks of It: The Tao that can be expressed is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be defined is not the unchanging Name.15 (p. 134)

It is a Sound Principle (Shabd) emanating from the Great Silence (Ashabd). In Chinese scriptures, it is known as Tao. Lao Tze, in the fourth century B. C., used the word Tao meaning "Road" or "Way" to denote the Hidden Principle of the Universe. (p. 137)

This Sound Principle is Jnana or the real knowledge of the Rishis of old, the Cult of Eternal Life of Zoroaster, Logos of the Greeks, Tao of the Chinese, Budhi or enlightenment of Gautama and Sphota or Sound-essence of the philosophers. (p. 143)

I don't yet see the relationship. Tao, being the way of the universe, is related to many things. I'm not sure why we would single out Shabd. Wikipedia: Sources, provides guidance on use of sources in articles. Does Singh specifically say that Shabd and Tao are one and the same? If so we should quote him. But as I said, I am not convinced that the connection between Tao and Shabd belongs here. Perhaps other authors/editors of this article could comment. Sunray 22:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, on page 142 above, Singh is stating "The Sound Principle [Shabda] is ... [the] Tao of the Chinese. The proposed text is a statement of fact about the usage of a term by a group. This article, like any other in Wikipedia, needs to provide an opportunity for objectively presenting a broader context of how it relates to other ideas. I believe I've clearly presented the existence of a relationship between Tao and Shabda. Consequently, the statement belongs here. I'm perfectly happy to leave it to Sunray or anyone else to create an objective section into which statements like this can be placed. RDF 04:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I Ching never Mentioned Nothingness

Originally, I Ching / Yi4jing (易經) was a structuristic fortune-telling content for Royal family. Laozi / Daode jing / Tao Te Ching has clear criticisms of this kinda fortelling (Chapter 38). Fu2xi (伏羲) , The Emperor Zouwen2 (周文王) and many others had use its interpretations and profundity to consolidate their powers. The major distinction between I Ching / Yi4jing and Taoist texts is that it never mentioned the notion of nothingness which is a primary theme of Taoism / Daoism. In the Spring-Autumn period, Confucius / Kong2zi3 compiled the Ten Wings (十翼). Later, with other authors' efforts, we have the Confucian-flavoured Yi4zuan4 (易傳) as it is nowaday. As regarding the idea of Wu2ji2 (無極--endless nothingness), we have to wait until Zhoudunyu2(周敦頤) introducing the idea into neo-confucianism or Li3xue2(理學) of Song Dynasty in his book called Tai4ji2tu2suo (太極圖說). However, the cosmology of the neo-confucianism is a romantic one, whereas the cosmology of taoism is non-romantic and romanticism in taoist social life should not go beyond natural/sustainable pragmatism and wholistic health. The issues of yingyang dialectics are relevant only to haveness, De / Te that are secondary (only a few sentences in Laozi and Zhuangzi mentioned it) compare to nothingness of Tao / Dao and other propositions. The improper association of I Ching and Taoism is a common mistake made by those who are keen on seeking a unified ontology for the so-called "chinese philosophy".

--ETTan 04:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone has claimed that the I Ching was a "Taoist" text. Certainly that claim is not made in the article. The I Ching preceeded the Tao Te Ching, but was also added to after Laozi's time. However, it is clear that the I Ching influenced, and was influenced by, both Taoism and Confucianism. It is true that the I Ching does not mention nothingness, but many Taoist symbols and influences are evident in its text. To regard the I Ching as simply a form of divination would be to undervalue its import. Sunray 15:48, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Chinese classics and supplementations after Qin Dynasty were eclectic rather than puristic. The word "Originally" was used in the very beginning of my propositions above. Whoever had read the current version of I Ching would not dare to oversimplify its signifance.

--ETTan 11:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Repressive slanders gone disregarded

They are the one who issisted on reverting my changes unreasonably. I've warned them many times b4 I issued complaints, but those slanders still here.

"# You started editing on the day that Mr Tan (talk • contribs) stopped (and he started the day that Chan Han Xiang (talk • contribs) stopped).

Your attitude to other editors is the same — the same poor attitude to consensus and collaboration, the same insistence on making reverts against consensus, the same (pointless) tactic of pretending that, if people don't reply to the latest reptition of the same point, then they agree with you, etc.

Tan is still insisting on going against consensus by changing "emptiness" to nothingness"; he's also changing good English to poor, and clear terms to anachronistic unclear ones (all actions, incidentally, that were typical of Mr Tan...). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)"

"Admin User: Mel Etitis, whom I see you are already acquainted with has posted the suspicion (on my talk) that User:Mr Tan MAY BE User:ETTan, whom you are 'debating' on Chinese Culture and Philosophy in at least a couple of articles. If so, you might want to take a long look at for what you may be up against by reading archieved talks (archieve4 will be enough) on Talk:Tsushima Island and RfC on Mr Tans problems with other editors. In sum, reasoned, logical arguements aren't going to budge him, you'll also need allies. I'm going inactive for a while, so if you get into further revert situations with this suspected socket puppet, get a hold of Mel. I re-reverted the emptiness/nothingness change he last made in 'Taoism' (???), but you will want to keep an eye on your watch list. Best Wishes! FrankB 04:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)"

--ETTan 06:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Why are you suddenly resurrecting comments made over a month ago? And what do you think that "repressive" means? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητη&sigmaf;) 10:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

ETTan: I think that Mel has indicated that he is standing by his words. If you dispute what he has said, there are mechanisms in Wikipedia policy to deal with that (see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). Sunray 15:52, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'd done most of the steps but those libels are still there.

--ETTan 17:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

If you have followed the steps and the ArbCom directs their removal, the comments will be removed. In the meantime, you have the right to refute them. Sunray 20:10, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

In what sense is it libel to express the suspicion that one account is being used by the same person as another account? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητη&sigmaf;) 20:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Taoism is not metaphysics

The style of expressions and reasonings in taoist classics has not much like those of western metaphysics. Furthermore, the very basic presumption of metaphiscs is that full description of ontology is possible in words. Whereas, taoism has rejected this possibility.

--ETTan 17:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Your claim about Taoism is controversial.
Your claim about Western metaphysics is false. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητη&sigmaf;) 20:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

My claims regarding taoism are facts based on years of original text reading. And, please don't make any assertions without proof.

--ETTan 08:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

ETTan's comments are typical Western-centered POV. Metaphysics aren't just text descriptions; what ETTan pointed out was only the form they were expressed in the Western culture. One should never judge another culture with standards in your own culture. -- G.S.K.Lee 22:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Really, did metaphysics exist in pre-historic era when language didn't exist? This is just an academy discussion. Academy world shan't be eroded by faith crisis in culture,superstition (faith without reasoning) or orientalism. Unfortunately, some people just love to bring out emotional issues. Yes, I love Elton John! I love Lionel Richie! Any problem?

--ETTan 08:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Taoist philosophy or religion?

Can anyone please explain to me what the Taoist philosophy has in common with the Taoist religion? If not, then why are people confusing the two and placing them on the same page?

Stan, Oct 12, 2005

There has been extensive discussion of this matter (see "Sorting out the mess" above and the archives (link also above). The simplist explanation I can muster is this: This is an encyclopedia. Most people who come to this article will just enter "Taoism", whether they are interested in the philosophy or the religion. They can then find out more about the debate by reading Taoism: A philosophy or a religion? and more about Taoist religious practice by reading the article on Taoist doctrine. Sunray 06:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Daoshi or 'Daoist Priests', also known as Tianshi,are generally required to memorize the Daodejing as part of their training. The Daodejing is the central text of the Taoist Religion. Daoshi are also generally required to keep certian precepts which are derived directly from the Daodejing. (Stephen Bokenkamp, Early Daoist Scriptures; UC Press 1997)

Taoism and Confucianism

I actually meant to use "me" instead of "one person" to indicate selfishness. Please try to understand the meaning behind words before using mechanical substitution.

Thanks.

I try never to make mechanical substitutions and I always try to understand the meaning behind words. If you look at the top of this page you will note that this article is a "former featured article candidate." One of the reasons why it failed was that it used the (unencyclopedic) personal pronoun form (I/me) instead of the impersonal form (one).

Most of your changes are an improvement. However, you did change one of the uses back to the first person singular. Would you be able to fix this as you have with the others?

BTW if you are doing some serious editing, there are distinct advantages to having a user name (it can be anonymous or not as you please). In fact, there can be greater anonymity with a user name as your IP address will not be displayed. It is an advantage in discussions on the talk pages as you can sign by typing four tildes, thus: ~~~~. The wiki automatically adds your user name and the date of your entry. Sunray 05:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Characterising Confucianism vis a vis Taoism

Mel Etitis has removed a passage from the article and replaced it with the following hidden edit note:

"<nowiki><!--</nowiki>This seems to misrepresent Confucian beliefs (to a startling degree):

Many Taoist writers do not share the Confucian belief in hierarchical social structures, courtly music, and ceremonies as a way to build a better world.<nowiki>--></nowiki>"

I tend to agree with him that the statement is problematic and am not sure it meets NPOV standards. However, it does seem to be technically correct, which is why I had attempted to begin to edit, rather than remove, it. Confucian ethics do tend to foster hierarchical social structures and social forms such as courtly music and ceremonies. Nevertheless, it seems to have a somewhat critical tone and is, of course, a convenient shorthand. This tone, no doubt, reflects how many Taoists regard Confucian ethics. The problem with taking the sentence out (and not replacing it) is that without it, the section is no longer a discussion about Taoism and Confucianism (since it is virtually the only statement about the latter in the paragraph).

The questions I think we need to consider are the following:

Do we need a section on Taoism and Confucianism?
If we agree that such a section would be useful, how could we characterise the differences between these two, great systems of thought in a paragraph or two?
How should we proceed with this?

As is often the case with NPOV issues, it might be helpful to have a quote from a reputable scholarly source as an anchor for this discussion. Sunray 19:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

1) Do we need a section on Taoism and Confucianism?

I think that this section is very useful because if you read Chuang Tze, you will find that most of his work is a criticism of Confucius and his doctrines. In many ways, Taoism defines itself as not being Confucianism! It is unimaginable to me to talk about Taoism without any regard to Confucionism. It is like talking about white without any regard to black.

2) If we agree that such a section would be useful, how could we characterise the differences between these two, great systems of thought in a paragraph or two?

Why just devote a paragraph or two? Comparisons between the two are at the heart of Taoism!

--PiKeeper 02:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You commented out "Many Taoist writers do not share the Confucian belief in hierarchical social structures, courtly music, and ceremonies as a way to build a better world." Please read "The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu", translated by Burton Watson, and tell me that as a Taoist writer Chuang Tzu shares this Confucian belief. If you don't have time for the whole book, please read chapter twenty-nine entitled "Robber Chih" and tell me if you have any doubt remaining about what I wrote. I am not arguing whether Taoists misunderstood Confucius or not in the manner that you've described. All I'm arguing is that this is a Taoist interpretation of Confucian beliefs, it is an important part of Taoist thought, and as such it should stay.

--PiKeeper 02:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, why do you think that Taoist writers misrepresent Confucian beliefs rather than simply opposing them?

--PiKeeper 02:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"All I'm arguing is that this is a Taoist interpretation of Confucian beliefs, it is an important part of Taoist thought, and as such it should stay." I've no problem with that; what the article said, however, was not that this is how certain writers interpreted Confucianism — it presented this as an accurate account of Confucianism, and said that Taoist writers disagreed with it. The biggest problem with it is: "as a way to build a better world", of course, though it also over-generalises (even if Confucius could be said to have held something of the sort (if less naive), that's not true of all Confucians. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the history of this section, you will find that Taoist view has been missrepresented earlier, in the same sentence. The fragment of the sentence was this: "many Taoist writers do not share the Confucian belief in civilization as a way to build a better world." I simply expanded on the "civilization" part to explain what it is that they really protested. Nobody seemed to complain about that one. Why would Taoists be against civilization? I simply corrected what they were against. As far as naivite of Confucians - that is the lightest remark that Zuangzi could have written. I believe that hypocrites and kisser ups would be the way he would characterise them! Furthermore, many Chinese looking at their country's history and seeing the effect that Confucianism had on it would not disagree with that characterization. My personal opinion, is that Confucianism serves only the masters. Everyone else has to figure out how to fit into that obedience pyramid. --PiKeeper 00:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The changes made by 192.250.34.161 to this section are an improvement, IMO. S/he changed the offending sentence to read: Taoist writers, such as Zhuangzi, argue that Confucian belief in hierarchical social structures, courtly music, and ceremonies is not a way to reform or improve the world. Sunray 20:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The deleted parts are all archived--see "history." Anything in particular that you miss?

I don't see any harm in putting the two strains together. Christopher Schipper (The Taoist Body, which I highly recommend) thinks that Laozi can ONLY be understood through the Taoist religion.

A basic problem is that "Taoism" is not just one thing. You can't say "Taoism says..." without projecting your own beliefs. There is no such thing as "Taoism", that can say things--there are only Taoist people, scriptures, and so on. If you believe Laozi is normative, for instance, how did you decide that? (Is there a Taoist church somewhere that promotes the idea?) And how to decide what Laozi means? (Even "philosophical Taoism" did not agree on that.)

Another basic problem is, Taoism comes out of a particular cultural context, which outsider's often just don't get. (Including me!) Someone who reads Laozi and Zhuangzi and then goes to a Taoist temple, will be absolutely unprepared for what he is likely to find there. Even our academic commentarial traditions are different, though converging I think.

I'm going to post something on Taorestore.org inviting them to come edit. They've got some pretty knowledgeable people there. Dawud 13:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Taoism is too wide a subject for a lone page

Part of the problem is the scope of the term and the incredible amount of time elapsed between the Daodejing and, say, some Ming dynasty taoist school, to say nothing of the totally different contexts in which the mandarin equivalents of "taoism" or "taoist" have been used.

As you know, a Chinese who prays "taoist gods" and practices "taoist rites" under the lead of a taoist priest will still never call himself a taoist - at least to a fellow Chinese- unless he is actively studying to become a priest himself. There is just no word for a mere "taoist believer" in traditional chinese religious context (maybe it's different in some overseas communities or in communist China). Taoism in traditional China is in a position vaguely similar to kabbalism in Judaism or suffism in Islam, it's an aggregation of specialized groups, not a separate religious denomination.

The diversity of Daoism goes far beyond a split between a philosophic and a religious form. Daoism as one religion developing one concept (the dao of the Daodejing) imagined by one guy (Laozi) is actually only one interpretation of the term, certainly the most prestigious and the most advertised, but not the only one, and not even the primordial meaning. Don't get fooled by the Laozi claim, contrarily to Buddhism or abrahamic religions, Daoism did not evolved from a single group of believers united in a single doctrine. Actually, I find the Tao of Poo and the Tao of physics very much in sync with an usage of the word which has existed in China since the very beginning : the Tao as a path proposed by a master, which can actually be any path, and does not need at all to conform with anyone's ideology, not even Laozi's. Claiming a master gives the school respectability, but the content of the teachings are your choice.

So despite the connection and common elements between all those Daoisms and Daoists, can we really discuss this all in one article? The presentation of Daoism warrants a whole section, like Buddhism, a lone page is not enough.Miuki 10:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree--Taoism, or most spiritual traditions probably warrant an entire section. I just wanted to respond though, to something in your second paragraph:

the Tao as a path proposed by a master, which can actually be any path, and does not need at all to conform with anyone's ideology, not even Laozi's. Claiming a master gives the school respectability, but the content of the teachings are your choice.

I guess I've always interpreted Chuang-tzu and Lao-tzu (Laozi) as meaning that the Tao is beyond the content of any teaching. No one path can "contain" the truth, because the truth is limitless. It's not just choosing your beliefs, but realizing that "belief" itself must be examined. Does this make sense?--Pariah 19:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Dawud's New Edits

Hi everybody, This is Dawud from Taiwan. I've been making some radical changes to this site in hopes of bringing it up to par, academically speaking. It will take awhile, though. Hope nobody gets upset, but the fact of the matter is that the entry as it stands is replete with misunderstandings. Peace out, --Dawud

Thank you for your efforts and Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers to Wikipedia. Please consider a few things: 1) Describe edits in the Edit Summary box above the Save Page button. 2) Consolidate or group edits to reduce the number of edits. 3) When you make massive deletions like you have, please give a more detailed accounting of your reasoning than you have above. 4) You might like to register a user ID for continuity and identity and tools like being able to place "watches" on articles. Hu 14:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll second that. Also, please acquaint yourself with our neutral point of view policy. Some of your additions were mildly opinionated, and while we may report opinions (if verifiable), we shouldn't give opinions as fact in the article. --Fire Star 17:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

One problem with the new version is that places the role of Taoism as religious before its other roles — something which is at least debatable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, Mel. Wasn't there a move at some point to have two separate articles, one for philosophy and one for religion? (See Taoist_doctrine.) Currently, it doesn't look like the difference is really distinct enough between the two articles. I'm not an expert on this sort of thing, but it seems to me that in order to really clean things up we could go one of two ways: clean up both articles, turning one into a primarily religious one and one into a primarily philosophical one AND set up a disambiguation page on Taoism to direct people to one article or the other (the article on the philosophy would need to be renamed, in this case), or merge the two articles into Taoism but make the internal distinction between the two types clearer. I'd rather go the way of separate articles (that way there'd be less bickering over which form comes first or the weight/emphasis associated with philosophy over religion or vice-versa), but I think there'd be some protest to the disambiguation page that would be necessary to really make it work. -- Ajnewbold 18:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, for better or worse, "Taoism" is a name which is commonly used of a certain cluster of religious movements. If you don't think it should apply to the Chinese folk religion, then will you deny it to the Quanzhen or Celestial Masters? Or to Zhang Daoling? I would say that Laozi and Zhuangzi are already "split"--they have their own entries, each of them. Without them, there's not a whole lot to philosophical Taoism, I suspect. (Or am I neglecting art?)

The problem with splitting the page is that it would almost certainly involve a good deal of overlap. Why not aim for an historically accurate account of the development of Taoism, with its philosophical and religious forms explained on the same page? I confess to having little time for the religification of Taoism (any more than for Confucianism and other rational attempts to solve genuine problems), and that's probably true in reverse for those interested in the religious side, but I don't see that that should be an obstacle to the peaceful co-editing of the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I just had a quick overview on the new massive edits by Dawud. I hope he will discuss issues here.

At first, the article is by now much more focused on religion than before. Most of the added material seems ok to me but sometime a little vague. (i.e. which are those countries counting Chinese traditional religion as Taoïsm ? I guess its mainland China, so state it as a fact. And it's true afaik.)

China and Taiwan use that name. Singapore doesn't, as I recall.--Dawud

As the article expands, we will have to split it in parts. So keeping this in mind while editing helps to prepare this. I suppose the natural way to split is Religion/Philosophy.

But there are other spliting possibilities. In my mind, the Religion/Philosophy is not that proper. Where to write things on aesthetics, way of life, even metaphysics ? All would belong to Philosophy, imo, because a "versed in Taoism" painter from Song dynasty reading excerpts of the Zhuangzi every morning would not recognise himself in what covers Taoist religion. I see more of an Elite/Popular division. But I don't know how to phrase it.

I'm not familiar with art history. Would adding a third category help somewhere? If the problem is length, you could just add a separate page for some of the art stuff, like with fengshui and chigong etc.--Dawud

And, as we had a kind of Taoism/"Taoist practices" split, this could be enough.

About the deleted parts, I'd like to see when archived somewhere if we don't have them back.

They are archived. Click on "history". --Dawud

I know but the usage here is to cut/paste chunks of removed text in Talk pages, I've been said. It's more convenient. gbog 17:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I wasn't aware of that. --Dawud

and... what is "T K" ???

"To come." Used in the days before word processing. --Dawud

gbog 01:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Aya ! We have now many section subdivided into Religious/Philosophic parts. This would fit for an article titled something like "Philosophical and religious taoism comparison", but not for "Taoism". gbog 17:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It gives an impression of a dichotomy that doesn't really exist in a lot of Daoists' minds. --Tydaj 12:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a bit "old hat"--the current generation of Taoist researchers tends to subsume "philosophy" under "religion." However, I do think there is a substantial school of thought which is interested in Laozi / Zhuangzi, but not all this other stuff, and wouldn't want it to get lost amidst all the religious detail.--Dawud

Hey, Dawud, would you agree if me or someone else (you?) take back most of the deleted material and move most of your additions to Taoist religion ? Your edits are really useful, because we didn't have enough info about taoist religion before. But the result now is that we have a completly new article that is overbalanced on the other side ! I remember I had tried to imagine a skeleton for the main Taoism article, (see [1]) and imo that was the way to avoid the annoying Religious/Philosophical split within so many section. gbog 13:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I've just read the article after having been away for several days. The changes made by Dawud are extensive and I am concerned that he would just wade in and make such major edits without adequately discussing them in advance. The article now resembles an essay on Daoism rather than an encyclopedia article. The lead is extremely vague and one is left scratching one's head. I am in favor of reverting the changes and discussing any futher major changes here before proceeding. Sunray 08:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I am also in favour of reverting to a pre-undergrad essay version of the article and then discussing any new framework, especially since the large numbers of edits he is making don't have any edit summaries (hence burying deletions someone else may want to keep in a flurry of small edits) are stylistically inconsistent (Sung instead of Song dynasty) and seem to want to ignore some important developments of Taoist thought. Does anyone else agree? --Fire Star 15:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok for taking back previous version if Dawud's work is moved to some kind of Taoist religion

Okay, I think I'm basically finished with the changes. (There's another article, "Western interpretations of Taoism", which I'm still working on.) So see if it reads any better. The major change from yesterday is that I finally got around to fixing the "history" section, which is now very long but I think necessary.

Sorry for not "discussing in advance," but I just don't see how that could have been a practical option, given it's complexity.

My categories are functional--history, beliefs, etc.--not ideological. If some part seems inadequate, which I'm sure they are, it ought to be fairly easy to correct. Gbog, I feel your schema gives too much stress to Laozi and Zhuangzi (which have their own entries, after all) over the rest of Taoism.

Let's see. Some of you say that Taoist philosophy and religion are separate, and ought to be put in two separate entries. (I disagree with that--they're too interrelated for most of history.) Somebody else thought that I've artificially divided them by having subheadings labelled "philsophy" and "religion." Maybe, but it seemed a practical way of giving extra prominence to Laozi and Zhuangzi.

The article before, frankly, gave too much prominence to hippie philosophy and not enough to Sinology. I still haven't gotten around to contacting taorestore.org , but I intend to do that soon. It would be nice to have more input from knowledgeable people. (How many of us here study Chinese language, history, etc?) Dawud 06:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I must say, I think the article looks MUCH better now than it did before. In regards to the whole Religion vs. Philosophy thing, since Taoism IS a religious belief in China (where, of course, Taoism is also strongest), should it not be considered a religion first, with an overview of the philosophical (oftentimes Western) side coming after? There is a strong lack of Taoism-as-a-religion, and Dawud has amply filled that out. I personally would strongly oppose a reversion, and I think that Dawud needs to be commended for his research and improvements. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 06:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Cabhan. Let me ask everybody a question. When you think of "Taoism," what sources do you get your information from? And how did you pick those sources?

In my case I would say Kristopher Schipper's The Taoist Body and Isabelle Robinet's Taoism: Growth of a Religion are my favorite introductory sources. Schipper studies the Daozang, and did fieldwork in Tainan (south Taiwan) which led to his being ordained as a Taoshi (Taoist Master). Robinet mainly studies the various Maoshan texts, and the phenomenon of internal alchemy. Their views are subtly different, but their scholarship is widely respected as representing the best Taoist research of our generation.

And you folks...? Dawud 11:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

My main source for information on Taoism is the Tao Te Ching (and maybe Chaung Tzu's writings). I'm wary of other sources, especially modern ones, where people write about Taoism in ways that so vastly differ from the topics addressed in the Tao Te Ching. While I might read and enjoy other books about Taoism from time to time, I don't find other people's writings nearly as useful as my own simple interpretation of the text of the Tao Te Ching. --Ajnewbold 19:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

When I think "Taoism", I just most of the time refer to one side of Chinese way to see the world as it is, and how one should place oneself. I have studied Chinese, and Chinese history, philosophy as well. My main field of interest being Confucianism, I don't know much about details of Taoist religion (that's why I think your additions are needed somewhere), but as you certainly know, one cannot separate Confucianism and Taoism, as they are complementary parts of general Chinese way. Therefore I had to check some insightful books with interesting parts about Taoism, like those of Marcel Granet. I also read some translations of Daodejing (Duyvendack, Waley, Jullien, Liou Khia-way) and Zhuangzi (Watson). You are right that most westerners focus strongly on Daodejing and Zhuangzi, but what would you say to a Chinese interested in Christianism reading more the New Testament than, say, Augustin ? Tao is certainly a somewhat ridiculous buzzword for now, but that doesn't make all the previous works on philosophical taoism irrelevant ! gbog 22:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I do understand why people like Laozi / Zhuangzi better. They're way more interesting than most other Taoist literature, and can be appreciated to some extent outside their original cultural or religious environment.

Funny gbog should mention Christianity. I just got through doing a major edit on that (yeah, I like religion) and I keep thinking about what that entry would look like, if we applied the same principles there as here. Gbog would probably organize it like this: A. Old Testament. B. New Testament. C. Religious Christianity. D. Christian art.

Of course, a person could read the Bible backwards and forewards, and still have no idea what to expect when he got to church, which is why the Bible has its own entries.

Meanwhile my scheme would give us something like: "Christianity is either

(a) the Western folk religion (e.g. Footprints in the Sand, Touched by an Angel);

(b) Organized churches (like Mormonism or Voodoo); and/or

(c) the original teachings of Jesus.

Well, if Catholics, Mormons, etc. can manage to share an article on Christianity, I don't see why different interpretations of Taoism shouldn't manage to coexist.Dawud 05:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

PS. Here's an article on the scope of the name "Taoism" you may enjoy.

I am not really sure on how to understand your post. Is it a kind of soft irony ? Please note that some people here want to revert your edits, and would have good reasons for that, you know ? I was just trying to save some of your work... gbog 14:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is meant to be humorous, but I am also trying to make a serious point. Taoism is a major world religion. The word "Taoism" does not mean whatever we want it to mean, and it would be good for us to stop and question whether what we think we know about it, might be wrong. I include myself in this. The solution, I propose, is to ground what we say in academic sources, both of texts and of anthropology (i.e. what people actually do). That's why I'm asking everybody where your knowledge of Taoism is coming from.

You can't just read Laozi and Zhuangzi and say that what you got out of it "is" Taoism, any more than you could do the same for the New Testament and Christianity. While non-religious commentaries on Laozi and Zhuangzi are regularly produced, I do not think these rise to the level of a "tradition" in themselves (rather more of a recurring tendency among outsiders) any more than we can distinguish a "philosophical Christianity" separate from religious Christianity. If the issue is the interpretation of the Laozi or Zhuangzi texts themselves, then that should go on those entries. --Dawud

"You can't just read Laozi and Zhuangzi and say that what you got out of it "is" Taoism" .. uh, why not? Taosim is many different things to many different people, and I don't think anyone can really tell anyone else what's "right" and what's "wrong". I'm not sure about the more religious form of Taoism, but what I've learned from Laozi and Zhaungzi is that there is no "right" and "wrong". My personal opinion is that the majority of what's been written about Taoism since Laozi or Zhuangzi has done nothing more than muddle a message that was already rather clear from the start. I also think it's fair to say that without Laozi and Zhuangzi, none of the "academic sources" you mentioned would exist today. --Ajnewbold 13:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Quite so. We aren't here to evaluate any ancient or modern commentaries or treatments, we should simply report them, if they are notable. To give an example (having studied the relevant documents for 30 years or so), my personal take (to illustrate Ajnewbold's point) is that there certainly is an ultimate right and wrong, but it isn't what we can think (or be told) is right and wrong. In our current state of insincere artifice we aren't capable of accurately stating it. Only in the state of the uncarved block can we actually perceive it, and even then it would take a mastery on a par with Laozi to accurately report it. Anything else is only so much useless opinion. That is a personal position (one also held by my taijiquan teachers), and I wouldn't put it in the article unless I found a verifiable source from a notable commentator or scholar who happens to state the same thing. --Fire Star 17:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we should agree that We aren't here to evaluate any ancient or modern commentaries or treatments, we should simply report them, if they are notable. Therefore, this article should say more about "philosophical taoism". gbog 15:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ajnewbold, Fire Star, the purpose of a "Taoism" entry is not to say what you or I think that Taoism really means, but to fairly and comprehensively describe this (I repeat) MAJOR WORLD RELIGION which exists independently of us. A personal reading of two of its foundational texts does not qualify.

Agreed. Who said it wasn't? You asked what source we turn to for information on Taoism, and I answered. Then you said that I "can't just read Laozi and Zhuangzi and say that what you got out of it is Taoism". I never said that the article should be on one person's view of Taoism alone, and I appreciate that you're helping to make it more informative, even if we don't agree on the content. --Ajnewbold 13:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There does exist some debate within academic circles about what to include within the name "Taoism." However, the major fissure has nothing to do with religion vs. philosophy, but rather with the folk religion vs. elite Taoism. Everybody nowadays seems to agree that at least the Celestial Masters, Quanzhen, Lingbao and Shangching movements are Taoist, even if some scholars choose not to cover them in their particular studies.

So tell me, based on your reading: Which parts of Taoist (so-called) history and sacred lore will you accept as actually Taoist? Would your desired entry include the Huainanzi? Ge Hong / Baopuzi? The Daozang? The various sects mentioned above? Would you include the yin and yang / five element theory (which is not in either the Laozi or Zhuangzi)? The Yijing? And most importantly, why? ("Because I like this, and not that" is not a good reason, I'm sorry to say.)

I've already answered this, and you've already disagreed with my answer. Why go through it again? :-) --Ajnewbold 13:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I know you said Laozi and Zhuangzi, but I thought you meant that as a personal thing, not as defining the scope of "Taoism" for purposes of this entry. Anyway, it sounds like you don't actually object to any of the later Taoist phases, only to the proportion. That's an easier problem to solve, I think. The problem is deciding what belongs here rather than, say, in the "Laozi" or "Zhuangzi" articles. --Dawud

Heh, communication can be a real pain, can't it? Funny thing is, I did mean what I said as a personal thing, and I thought that you thought that I thought that I was saying it as though it were a recommendation for the article itself. To further confuse things, I do object personally to the later Taoist phases, but don't have any problem personally with the proportion of material in the article ("philosophical" vs. "religious"). I think that other people do have a problem with this proportion, however, but my personal view is that there simply isn't anything that can be done as long as we have one Taoism article. This is because, quite simply, if there is more to say about one particular Taoist notion, then that section will naturally be larger. If anyone out there thinks that the article could use more information in one area or another, they can of course freely add it (this is a wiki, after all). --Ajnewbold 17:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

For example, Schipper says that "Taoism" is "the religion of the people", and places elite Taoism in the context of popular, folk Taoism. Robinet says that Taoism is whatever is in the Daozang.

If you say that "Taoism" includes only the Laozi and Zhuangzi texts, then how will you decide what they mean, given important disagreements among their interpreters? (Or will these too form part of your article? But that would expand "Taoism" beyond those two texts.) And wouldn't the "Taoism" then, at best, duplicate the information contained in the "Daodejing" and "Zhuangzi" entries?

As long as we have an article entitled "Taoism", it should cover all aspects of Taoism. As it stands now, the article seems to be a bit top-heavy on the religious side of things, but if there's simply more to say about that subject than other aspects, that's probably how it will have to stay until someone can add additional content. I think anyone looking for a Taoism article with equal attention given to "religious" and "philosophical" elements will only be disappointed. --Ajnewbold 13:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, what do you think needs to be added? Would we need to change the format any?

The University of Hawaii at Manoa publishes a regular stream of "Taoist" philosophy, focusing on Lao/Zhuang. Maybe that would be a good angle to approach it from...? --Dawud

I wouldn't worry about it. What we all call "Taoism" means so many different things to so many different people that there cannot exist one single way to present information on the subject that doesn't bother somebody. One word, one Wikipedia article, but an infinite number of interpretations, feelings, and beliefs -- this is what causes such lengthy Talk pages. :-) I think what's important is that as many different interpretations as possible appear in the article, so that someone who doesn't know anything about Taoism can see a variety of views. --Ajnewbold 17:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not asking this just as a rhetorical thing, but as a practical matter too. Look, suppose we turn the "Taoism" page into a general description, with links to separate entries for "Chinese folk religion" (could move the god-list there), "Taoist religion" and "Taoist philosophy." Does that mean the main entry would keep the preamble, plus maybe the history section (if that's common to everybody)? What about symbols? etc. Dawud 11:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggested the very same thing a while back but it was pointed out that doing this would result in a large amount of duplication of information across articles. I've since dropped the idea and no longer see it as practical. --Ajnewbold 13:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it could be done, but doubt that it would be desirable. At least, it would mean finding some way to demarcate and define "Taoist philosophy" in a way that is distinct from the kinds of "philosophy" the religious people did, and that doesn't reduce "Taoist philosophy" to a kind of blurred-together interpretation of the two texts that have their own entries.--Dawud

Just a note--I've moved the god-list to "Chinese folk religion" after realizing that the folk and elite versions of religious Taoism conceive of the pantheon differently. Hope this helps the "balance" issue. Dawud 10:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm all in favor of designing a new front page called "Taoism" that serves basically just as a disambiguation page, with links to:

Religious Taoism
Philosophical Taoism
Chinese folk religion
Western uses of Taoism

I think they really are separate enough to demand their own articles... as long as the connections between each of these is well emphasized in the appropriate articles. Jiawen 10:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to add a (late) note of strong support for Dawud's great edits - this reorganisation was just what the article needed to do justice to the historical complexity of Taoist ideas and practice. It was something like this that I had in mind when I was complaining about the state of the article a few months back, but didn't have the time available then and even if I did couldn't have done a better job. Now that the structure of the article is so much improved I look forward to contributing to specific areas - particularly in the section on history. Trampolineboy 15:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Whats neccessary

Does "Chinese sexual handbooks" really belong in the article... [unsigned entry by Gbog]

No. It should be more specific to Taoism. Sunray 00:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. That is more a phenomenon of Western New Agey types, IME. --Fire Star 01:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

New portal on religion

Brisvegas and I have been creating portals for various significant religions, with your religion being one of the portals. The portals still need work, but most of the groundwork has been done. We need to find people who would like to take responsibility for their faith's portal. Brisvega looks after the Christianity portal, and I look after the Islam portal. You can find your religion's portal by looking at the Religion & Spirituality section on the portal template at Template:Portals. I've been notified that your faith's portal can possibly be deleted if no one looks after the portal. --JuanMuslim ^1m 17:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)