Modern people have no strength, courage, conviction, higher virtue, honor, real identity, purpose/meaning, heritage etc. They have nothing they would fight for - or more importantly build towards.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (69)
sorted by:
So nothing from the tao te ching? Oy vey
“Taoist sexual books” = nothing to do with taoism, unless you think that Dan Brown novels about Jesus’ offspring are “christian sexual books”
You’re referencing shit written literally over 1,000 years after the founding of taoism. That’s retarded.
That’s like saying tranny Baptist pastors in 2023 invalidates the New Testament.
Hey man, I’ve likewise enjoyed much of what I’ve seen you post, if my comments have come accros as rude, it’s only because, idk, it “hurts” to see someone who can otherwise come to rational and interesting conclusions coming to such a faulty one in this case.
I know exactly what you’re talking about in terms of the rank selfishness we can observe in some aspects of modern chinese culture, but I think it actually comes from a source which is in opposition to taoism, namely confucianism (made worse by the depravation endured under communism). Here are a few paragraphs which I think should help explain what I mean:
https://www.britannica.com/story/what-is-the-difference-between-daoism-and-confucianism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozi
Honestly, I see where you’re coming from, I just think you’ve set your targets on the wrong thing.
Please, give the tao te ching a glance when you’ve got a minute. I guarantee, the last thing you’ll find is justification for selfishness:
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Tao_Te_Ching
Since there is no defined canon of Taoism, it's not the case that later commentaries do not undermine or alter the meaning of the original work.
Taoism, as an experiential philosophy, actively rejects the unquestioned validity of any “commentary” or later work. Thus, unlike with papal edicts, the “official story” can’t change, because there is no official story. That’s the point.
Besides, to which Unassailable Christian Canon do you refer? The Catholic (including the diadeche)? The Mormon? The Ethiopian?
The Ethiopians got it right, according to the Dead Sea Scrolls.
"Lao Tzu I don't mean no disrespect, but you need to fill your bowl with some shit that makes some sense."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N_RO-jL-90
I am not referring specifically to any religion, only that certain religions, or denominations, have defined canon. Because Taoism doesn't, any later commentary can have as almost much authoritative weight as the original. Or depending on how someone is introduced to the practice of Taoism, great experiential influence.
(And the Dead Sea Scrolls, maybe you don't know this, confirmed the translations from the Septuagint and thus Jerome's Latin Vulgate, but that's another story.)
Maybe you don’t know, but the DSS contain the book of Enoch, which is only included in the Ethiopian Orthodox Canon.
I guess they were right and everyone else was wrong huh? That’s how canons work right? Lmfao
Wrong.
Taoism = Tao Te Ching
A single book.
If I said “taoism is about monkeys with unicorn horns”, that doesn’t mean anything and only a fucking retard would say “well I guess the lack of a canon and official body makes THAT TRUE”