Taoism - the libertarian religion

[doodle]

Im not sure whether Taoism would be classified as a religion or a philosophy, but nevertheless it's tenets seem somewhat related to the philosophy of libertarianism...at least as they approach the topic of authority. I think libertarianism fails however in recognizing the interconnectedness of reality, instead setting up a wrongheaded worldview that we are independent rather than interdependent entities. Here is an 8 minute talk by the brilliant Alan Watts about the Tao. Does anyone else see a vague parallel?

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=re ... eMgEls_slw

[doodle]

I particularly like Alan Watts explanation of money here

*"Do you remember the Great Depression? One day everything was going all right. Everybody was pretty wealthy and had plenty to eat. The next day everybody was in poverty. What had happened? Had the fields disappeared; had the dairy vanished into thin air; had the fish of the sea ceased to exist; had human beings lost their energy; their skills and their brains?
No, but on the morning after the Depression a man came to work building a house and the foreman said to him "Sorry chum you can't work today, there ain't no inches." He said "What do you mean there ain't no inches?" "Yeah" he said, "Yeah, we got lumber, we got metal, we even got tape measures." The foreman said "The trouble with you is you don't understand business. There are no inches. We have been using too many of them and there's not enough to go around."
Because what happened in the Great Depression was a slump in money. Human beings are so unbelievably stupid, that they confused money with wealth. They don't realize that money is a measure of wealth, in exactly the same way that meters are a measure of length. They think it is something that is valuable in and of itself. And as a result of that get into unbelievable trouble.

[Benko]

Taoism is a way not a religion and libertarianism is a political philosophy.

Lao Tsu's Tao Te Ching is a good place to read about Taoism.  Here is a good reference:

http://thewayofseeing.com/article_tao.html

I would think it likely Alan Watts info says more about Alan Watts than Taoism.

[doodle]

I've been reading the Tao Te Ching. It isn't the sort of book that you can handle alone....it requires a teacher liason, especially when working with the translated text and the baggage of another culture.

Alan Watts does a great job making these eastern philosophies and texts intelligible to a western audience.

[Benko]

Alan Watts does a great job making these eastern philosophies and texts intelligible to a western audience.

The link I listed was A. written by a spiritual teacher (which is what the Tao Te Ching is about) and B by someone who has compared different translations.
"I have a whole shelf filled with translations and adaptations of the Tao Te Ching "

"There are many popular and modern renditions of the Tao Te Ching, a good number of which reflect more the people who were doing the translation rather than Lao Tzu. It seems everyone wants to get into spinning Lao Tzu to fit his or her ideas about what the spiritual path is about. The translation that I would recommend as a starting point is Jonathan Star's Tao Te Ching; The Definitive Edition"

[doodle]

Benko,

I appreciate the link and will look for that particular translation, but what makes that spiritual teacher more trustworthy than the one who I posted? Are you familiar with Alan Watts? Do his motives obscure the text or ellucidate it? Of course he has a particular viewpoint, but don't we all? If I could understand the text alone, I wouldn't need the interpretive services of a teacher. 

[dualstow]

I've known about the Tao for many decades now and I'm very much into that philosophy (not religion). It's one of the reasons I lived in Taiwan.
Libertarianism is somewhat newer to me and I'm trying not to judge. Forgive me when I say this, and I'm not talking about Craig or anyone on this forum for that matter, but the libertarians whom I'm familiar with, including ALL of the ones I've met in person, talk like they have all the answers. That immediately makes me suspicious and puts me at a distance from them.

[KevinW]

My understanding is that Taoism has existed in both philosophical and religious forms over the course of its multi-millenia-long history. It has existed for a very long time and been observed by very many people, so very many variations have arisen and it's impossible summarize Taoist practice in any one way.

I do think the Taoist and libertarian philosophies are compatible on many points. They both involve a certain respect and and wonder for the world as it exists left to its own devices, which translates into a general stance of humility, nonaggression, and pragmatic acceptance. Adam Smith's conception of the ideal market bears a certain resemblance to the Tao. Although the market is limited to the sphere of human action and economically-relevant natural resources, whereas the Tao encompasses all of reality. I think the Taoists are more correct on this point; everything is interrelated. E.g. the welfare of bee hives didn't matter economically until all of a sudden it did.

I don't think they're 100% compatible, though. The Taoist texts I've read seem more anarchist than minarchist. And I'm not sure Lao Tzu would sign off on the Libertarian Party position on gun rights, to pick but one example.

Personally, I find a lot of Taoist thought appealing and useful, but I don't see myself as a Taoist. I have an ambitious streak and am driven to build things and solve problems I see before me. That seems fundamentally at odds with the wu wei ideal.

[Benko]

The Taoist texts I've read seem more anarchist than minarchist.

I suspect that Lao Tsu would not agree with that point of view.  Taoism is spirituality i.e. pointing out things about reality and how things work.  I could see that people who would be attracted to Taoism might also be attracted to libertarianism, but that ain't the same thing.

[l82start]

i think i would equate Taoism with a "finding freedom in an un-free world" approach slightly more than libertarianism.
but the two don't seem incompatible, if moving in harmony with the universe is the goal, and choosing your form of government is a part of your life in the universe then choosing one based on there being less likelihood of coercion used against you seems in keeping with the philosophy,  

[BearBones]

Enjoyed both the short video, Doodle, and the reference, Benko. Thanks.

[Tortoise]

Personally, I find a lot of Taoist thought appealing and useful, but I don't see myself as a Taoist. I have an ambitious streak and am driven to build things and solve problems I see before me. That seems fundamentally at odds with the wu wei ideal.

As long as building things and solving problems you see before you feels natural to you, I don't see how that's inconsistent with wu wei. My understanding of wu wei is that, roughly speaking, it's "going with the flow." Doing what comes naturally to you. Not fighting your unique inner nature.

I believe MT used the term "flow" a while back to describe that sweet spot where you're challenged and productive--not bored or overwhelmed. When I read that, it immediately reminded me of the Tao and wu wei.

[doodle]

My understanding of wu Wei is like the old Bruce Lee saying of "be like water". A flowing stream encounters many obstacles in its path but it's nature allows it to flow around them. Similarly, as life presents us with different situations we should strive to conform to them in a similar manner to the way that water conforms to the shape of the vessel that it is poured into. Water doesn't rigidly adhere to a particular shape and attempt to force the glass to conform, but rather flows smoothly to fill every crevice.

Wu Wei seems not so much to advocate inaction, but rather to define the proper manner to execute and approach action.

[doodle]

The problem that I think that arises when one starts to describe concepts such as Wu Wei or other similarly lofty philosophical or metaphysical concepts is that language begins to break down. Certain concepts can be felt on a deep level, but are very difficult to put into words. After all, the true nature of the universe doesn't have to conform to the rigid grammatical structures of our language or its limited breadth of vocabulary. One also runs into the issue of how to explain certain concepts when there are few reference points in the listeners life to attach to. I guess it would be a bit like trying to describe how a glass of fresh water tastes to a hypothetical alien creature completely unfamiliar with liquid fluids.

[KevinW]

I suspect that Lao Tsu would not agree with that point of view.  Taoism is spirituality i.e. pointing out things about reality and how things work.  I could see that people who would be attracted to Taoism might also be attracted to libertarianism, but that ain't the same thing.

Well, much is said about preferring spontaneous order over rules and regulations. And there are a few places the Tao Te Ching seems to advocate taking noninterference of government to some kind of logical extreme. E.g. chapter 58 (this is from the Project Gutenberg translation which IMO is mediocre, but is unequivocally OK to reproduce):

...In the kingdom the multiplication of prohibitive enactments increases the poverty of the people; the more implements to add to their profit that the people have, the greater disorder is there in the state and clan; the more acts of crafty dexterity that men possess, the more do strange contrivances appear; the more display there is of legislation, the more thieves and robbers there are.

Therefore a sage has said, 'I will do nothing (of purpose), and the people will be transformed of themselves; I will be fond of keeping still, and the people will of themselves become correct. I will take no trouble about it, and the people will of themselves become rich; I will manifest no ambition, and the people will of themselves attain to the primitive simplicity.'

...

As long as building things and solving problems you see before you feels natural to you, I don't see how that's inconsistent with wu wei. My understanding of wu wei is that, roughly speaking, it's "going with the flow." Doing what comes naturally to you. Not fighting your unique inner nature.

My understanding of wu Wei is like the old Bruce Lee saying of "be like water". A flowing stream encounters many obstacles in its path but it's nature allows it to flow around them. Similarly, as life presents us with different situations we should strive to conform to them in a similar manner to the way that water conforms to the shape of the vessel that it is poured into. Water doesn't rigidly adhere to a particular shape and attempt to force the glass to conform, but rather flows smoothly to fill every crevice.

Wu Wei seems not so much to advocate inaction, but rather to define the proper manner to execute and approach action.

Maybe I'll give an example to make this more concrete. Last year I decided I wanted to grow tomatoes in my backyard patio/yard area. But there was a yucca bush in the way. I cut the yucca down to a stump but it grew back. I kept cutting it down and it kept growing. I was determined to see my vision of tomatoes realized. Now I'm having the fence replaced and I went out of my way to persuade the workers to use their excavation equipment to pull out the bush. Problem solved.

From a Taoist perspective, shouldn't I have just let the yard be what it was? Or maybe grown tomatoes around the bush? Or leave the workers to their own devices and let the chips fall where they may? Weren't the acts of deciding that the yard was "wrong" and needed to be rearranged, chopping the tree, and interfering with the work, all vanity and ego and imposing my will on the Tao?

[MachineGhost]

The Taoist perspective would not have helped the Jews nor the Dalai Lama nor many other non-violent protestors against tyrrany or occupation.

Was it a Taoist philosophy for the colonists to take up arms against King George?

[Tortoise]

From a Taoist perspective, shouldn't I have just let the yard be what it was? Or maybe grown tomatoes around the bush? Or leave the workers to their own devices and let the chips fall where they may? Weren't the acts of deciding that the yard was "wrong" and needed to be rearranged, chopping the tree, and interfering with the work, all vanity and ego and imposing my will on the Tao?

In your example, I'd say the fact that you were eventually successful and felt a sense of satisfaction is entirely compatible with the Tao. By contrast, if you had tried relentlessly to get rid of that yucca to no avail, I'd probably say the way of the Tao would be to redirect your energy into a more achievable project.

Admittedly it's not black-or-white, but when I think of the Tao I'm often reminded of the Serenity Prayer:

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference."

In other words, don't waste your time on things you have little to no chance of affecting. And when you can change something (and feel a strong desire to), have at it!

[l82start]

wouldn't the Taoist way be to dig up the yucca without frustration anger or inner conflict? the question is not doing or not doing but "the way of doing", your viewing it as a struggle is the absence of the tao, not the tree growing back "that is the nature of yucca".. to dig twice or more is the way of yucca removal  (been there my self BTW)

he who knows the tao of yucca removal knows the pleasure of digging often and deep
 

[Benko]

There is A LOT OF MISUNDERSTANDING GOING ON.

"working in harmony with the universe" is one way of describing it.  From the (OUT OF PRINT) Hoff translation:

"When a master gardener shapes a tree, it seems to change without assistance; no obvious cuts can be seen.
When a master carpenter joins wood, two pieces become one; no gaps are visible.
A good speaker does not make one think of oratory;
A good writer does not draw attention to his words.

This is NOT doing "what comes naturally."  or doing things that feel natural.  Charles Manson and the anti wall street protestors did "what came naturally."  We are all programmed by our parents and society from when we are little, so working in harmony with nature takes a lot of work/effort to get to the point where we can do it (look at examples above and think about what a master gardener or carpenter had to go through to be able to do what they do). It is possible to undo all our brainwashing, and enlightened beings certainly are behaving in harmony with nature, but getting there from here ain't easy.

"The way is so simple that complicated minds [we all have complicated minds] cannot see it...
If it were only a passing style, many would immediately try it"

Hoff's translation is still findable (it sometimes goes for over $100) and there are a number of used copies on Amazon for $25 and up.  It captures the essence of the the Tao which is what it is all about.  NB it is not a literal translation (which the why the sole amazon review is negative) but the person writing the comment to his review "gets it".

From Hoff's intro:

"To Lao Tze (spelling variation) responsible action and moral living depended more upon inner development and individual conscience than upon conformity to group patterns of the moment"

In a country full of enlightened beings, most state rules would be unneeded, but as we live in a world with more and more people like the anti-wall street crowd (to say nothing of more and more people like e.g. Colombine)...

[MediumTex]

The single text that I have learned the most about Taoism from has been Wen Tzu.  I found that the insights in this book of teachings were articulated more fully and spoke to me more than the Tao Te Ching did.