from Verse Eighty-ThreeThe laws and measures of ancient rulers were dissimilar, not because they purposely contradicted one another, but because the tasks of their times were different. Therefore they did not take established laws for rules, but took for their rules the reasons why laws were laws, progressively changing along with the development of civilization.~ Wen-tzu: Understanding the Mysteries ~
No belief system in and of itself is left or right, conservative or liberal, right or wrong. It simply is. Where these socio-political labels come to the fore is when either we apply the belief system to the world or we discuss the concepts of each against the concepts of other belief systems. Each system then can be viewed upon the continuum of ideas.From this particular vantage point, philosophical Taoism is radical left.
Conservatism, which owes much to orthodox Christian thought, posits that people are inherently evil, the commoners need to be ruled and controlled, and private property is an inherent basis of the human experience.
Liberals, on the other hand, view people as inherently good and should participate in their own governance. They too hold that private property is important, but also feel that community rights exist as well.
Taoists view the concepts of right and wrong as purely human constructs and that each of us, in our natural state, is neither. While we understand the need for government in some form, the prime focus is on cultivating the inward away from a focus on the external. Compared to conservatism and liberalism, such ideas are off the charts or radical.
In my view, phrased in western socio-political terminology, Taoism is a mixture of socialist, libertarian and anarchic ideals -- all three are considered radical formulations in today's world. This probably explains why Taoism has not been embraced in the US and other industrialized nations. It runs so counter to the established ideas of this day.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Taoism is one of the religious traditions I know less about, and assuredly you know more about it than I do, so I can't really dispute your characterisation of Taoism as radical left with any kind of solidity. HOwever, conservatism is not purely an orthodox Christian viewpoint. Islam and Hinduism in their orthodox forms are also quite conservative--see, for example, the caste system in Hinduism. As for Buddhism, I think that the sacred Buddhist state of Tibet, before the Chinese invasion, would be characterised as conservative by most people.
ReplyDeleteIf Taoism is leftist, I don't think this reflects some sort of inherent correctness of leftism. I think rather that it reflects that Taoism developed in a different social climate than did the other religious traditions, especially the very young ones (Christianity and Islam). Taoism, as the oldest of the major revealed traditions, developed at a time when evil was not as far developed as it was at the time of the Upanishads, Jesus, or Mohammed. In such a state, leftism might work--but not otherwise. I found this statement on another blog worthwhile:
"in order for anarchy to work, one must be a responsible sovereign individual, possessing the ability to rule thyself, rather than be ruled by others."
http://adventurescout.blogspot.com/2009/08/circle-anarchy-symbol.html
Anarchy can work, but only in certain circumstances.
And by "evil" (which should be used carefully since it's such a loaded term) I mean departing from the principle, or essence of reality--which all manifestation is subject to. I don't mean it in a moral sense.
ReplyDeleteHmmm...
ReplyDeleteI googled "Taoism as leftist" and the first hit I came up with was "The Rambling Taoist" --this very post.
I wondered if one could be a right-wing Taoist...
A couple of citations down, I found that Mantak Chia (not my favorite of contemporary Tao practitioners) says the following:
"Traditionally, the right-wing or conservative Taoists in China tended to isolate themselves in the mountains, where they struggled to attain spiritual clarity and balance (that is, connection with the universal Tao) primarily by using moving and seated meditation teachniques. The right-wingers attempted to achieve wisdom and peach (sic, I think he means peace) through a highly regulated, moderate, and often celibate lifestyle that was fairly quiet. In this way, they gradually disengaged from the distractions of worldly life. They often lived in small, secluded mountain communities, either alone or in groups of three to five. Lone hermits or small groups sometimes resided inside a cave or mountain hermitage, perhaps not emerging for fifty years. Less often, they banded togeher in monasteries, which were not nearly as big as the hugely populated monasteries one can find in the history of Buddhism and Christainity.
In stark contrast, the wandering left-wing Taoists were known for being outrageous in their lifestyles and sexual behavior. There was nothing a leftist Taoist would not do. Taoists of the left frequently scorned or ignored social conventions and expectations outright. But while they often repudiated many specific aspects and values of society, they (and this is an important point) adhered to awareness in all they did, avoided casing harm, and attempted to balance all they came in contact with."
No wonder you call youself the "Rambling" Taoist. (Although I suspect you live more like the hermits.)
But I also note, in yet another reference, that the leftist policies of Mao were disastrous to the religious Taoist (right wing) communities.
My only point here is that being a Taoist does not make you left wing...how you express your Taoism may put you on either side.
In the end, as I said earlier, there is no right or left.
Words, words, words.
I think the difference here is between religion and philosophy. I would agree that religious Taoism is conservative. (By and large, religion itself is conservative.) The very idea of hiding away in the mountains and not engaging the world would make Lao Tzu's and Chuang Tzu's heads explode.
ReplyDeleteThe philosophic arm -- the one that engages the world and the one this blog deals with -- is the part I view as naturally leftist.
The one to whom nothing is sacred is the one who is deserving of the most sympathy.
ReplyDeleteWhile bearing in mind that the one to whom nothing is sacred is the enemy of all.
Even himself.
i somewhat disagree with your definitions of conservative and liberal, and also disagree that "liberal" equates to "leftist" and "conservative" equates to "rightist". left vs. right is ever-changing as the years go by... the definition of republican and democrat have also shifted definition as this country has grown older.
ReplyDeleteconservative, by rough definition, is "resistant to change, (non-tao) avoiding excess, (tao) conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class (whatever that means.)" liberal, by rough definition, is "a political philosophy of progress and reform (questionably tao) and the protection of civil liberties. (tao)"
while tao is for liberties, it does not necessarily share the conviction of progress. i have yet to read a taoist passage the even implies that people are inherently good- in fact i have yet to hear the tao speak much of "goodness" at all! while humans are certainly capable of "good" they are also equally capable of "bad" (whatever those terms mean) and i think saying that "people are inherently good" would be projecting your own ideas on to the tao.
simply, i think that the tao is neither left nor right, but centered. :)
Tao Te Ching Verse 29 is the antithesis of all leftism. Compare with Marx's 11 thesis on Feuerbach.
ReplyDeleteCrow--excellent comment.
Crow,
ReplyDeleteAgreed. In my book, everything is sacred.
Iktomi,
I would definitely disagree that conservatism today is equated with "avoiding excess". The GOP is the party of the mega-wealthy, the very definition of excess.
Cloudberry,
I suppose it depends on how one interprets Verse 29. Far from being the antithesis of leftist emphasis, I think it serves as a buttress for that point of view.
Interpreting something carries the responsibility to look at the whole thing and weigh it in context.
ReplyDeleteNoticing one word and fleshing it out into an interpretation is no interpretation at all.
But I see a lot of that.
Verse 29 is one of my favorites, and one of only two verses that gave me trouble for a long time.
"Do you think the world is perfect?"
What? Was Lao Tzu out of his mind???
No he wasn't. He was right.
The world is completely perfect.
It's human parasites often are not.
But then again: I am told by TRT himself that Lao Tzu didn't even exist, and probably didn't write the tao te ching.
How very perplexing...
Crow--I'm not sure if you were referring to me, but I don't think I was basing an interpretation on one word.
ReplyDeleteRT--I liked your interpretation of Verse 29. However, I didn't really see that it was leftist. It was environmentalist, true, but as Garrett Hardin points out environmentalism is fundamentally conservative. I think if you look at movements generally considered to be leftist in the modern sense--starting with the Jacobins down to the Bolsheviks--they tend to be people who try to *change* the world to make it fit how they think it *should* be: they think all people *should* be equal, they think all people *should* have the same access to property, they think ethnic/sex differences *shouldn't* matter, etc., and they mandate these shoulds into law, resulting either in doublethink or in purges of the incorrectly-thinking.
When I say conservative, incidentally, I don't mean the US Republican Party. I can't think of a genuine conservative movement that has existed in a long time.
Cloudberry: I was assuredly not referring to you.
ReplyDeleteExcellent treatise on the usual modus operandi of leftist governments.
It seems often like creating DOS batchfiles: IF*** / THEN***
If only... Then surely...
But reality is nowhere in sight.
There is a conservative party still extant: in the UK. The British National Party.
Successive governments and the media have painted them as nazi facist swine for years and years.
Strangely, their popularity is at an all time high, lately.
That may be due to the UK becoming unrecognizable as the UK.
Life in the UK unhinged me somewhat. Now, away from all that, the tao calms and reassures me.
Difficult to walk the middle path when the very law of the land rams you into the far left corner.
Crow,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "the tao calms and reassures me." I find this to be an odd statement because you seem like a very angry person. I think it would be difficult to be filled with a lot of angst and simultaneously to be calm.
Calmness (or centeredness) comes from not taking sides, yet you seem to favor a particular side in almost every discussion.
I've never described myself as being a calm person. I tend to be very passionate about many issues and, I believe, my passion comes through loud and clear in my writings.
We have nothing like the BNP in the United States, unfortunately. Closest thing is Pat Buchanan, and he didn't create an enduring political party of any sort.
ReplyDeleteTaking sides becomes necessary with the decay of society. The true spiritual warrior is one who can achieve calmness and centredness whilst trying to restore the sacred order. I think Mishima in particular achieved this.
Indeed: I favour sanity over insanity.
ReplyDeleteBut having explored the extreme right, I find it has as little to recommend it as the extreme left.
Extremism of any sort is a pathology. A mental aberration.
We have an epidemic on our hands.
Angry? Me? You bet.
My capacity for anything is limitless.
When anger is appropriate, thats just exactly what I manifest.
When it is not, the Buddha and I have a lot in common.
Honesty is the quality that makes this so.
And moments come and go:
It turns out I have an allergy to wheat.
A symptom of this is a proneness to anger and irritation.
And an excruciatingly sharp mind from being unable to absorb any food, no matter how much I eat.
Mystics starve themselves.
I don't eat wheat now: expect, over time, the crow to become just another "normal" character.