Talk:Taoism/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Women as theological figures

I have created the above page - contributions from those more informed about Taoism than I welcome.

Jackiespeel 16:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the Taoist Eight Immortals, Ho Hsien-ku, is a woman. Additionally, Sun Bu'er was a famous female Taoist master in the 12th Century. Her work "Secret Book on the Inner Elixir (as Transmitted by the Immortal Sun Bu'er)" discussed some of the particularities of female Inner Elixir cultivation. Taoist nuns usually have equal status with Taoist monks.

Multiplestars March,2007

There is also Wei Hua Cun, the matriarch of the Shangqing Order -- the Shangqing Order traces its lineage to Yuanshi Tianzun, a deity. The lineage passed on for seven generations of deities, and Wei was the first human in the lineage. Although the Shangqing lineage might be surrounded by legends and myths, Wei was most likely an actual person whose teaching was the foundation of the Shangqing Order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.94.187 (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Daoism

I see that this article was recently redirected to "Daoism." While I'm all for accurate transliteration, I think it is arguable that this word has been used in English with the "Taoism" spelling for such a long time that one might consider it the preferred English spelling. Certainly "Taoism" with a "T" seems to be the more common spelling. I would set up the redirect the other way: from "Daoism" to "Taoism." Also, this makes it harder to find the lengthy article history and talk archive. My two cents. Crypticfirefly 03:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and reverted that edit for two reasons: cut-and-paste moves are bad, and a move as likely controversial as this should be discussed. If the proponent of the move still wants to do that, please advertise the proposal on requested moves. Jonathunder 03:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur. As of today, Taoism is by far the more common spelling. --lk (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. "Daoism" is the pinyin romanization of the word, and the correct pronunciation is not with a hard 't'. For the same reason that the Wikipedia article on "qi" is not spelt "chi", we should redirect to Daoism. zaiken 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, about the argument of qi vs chi, there's a couple issues with that example:
  1. The spelling chi is actually a misspelling of the Wade-Giles Romanization of 氣/气, which should nominally be written ch'i, with an apostrophe.
  2. The actual page of qi is preferred over chi because of the sheer number of other pages called Chi; the Greek letter, for instance.
As to the confusing nature of the Tao spelling, again you can argue for Wade-Giles; without the apostrophe, it's supposed to be pronounced the same as Dao in Pinyin. No Romanization system is perfect. I say go with what most people searching the English-language Wikipedia seem to prefer, or what most of the sources use. A short article or small section in this article saying that "Daoism" and "Taoism" are one and the same, and why, would be much more beneficial, and then include a hatnote at the top of the article summarizing as such? My $0.02... Mendaliv (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I checked out the requested moves page, but according to that page's description this is not an appropriate discussion for the page. If we can reach a consensus here, we can proceed accordingly. zaiken 21:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
My $0.02 would be to go with Daoism, with a note at the top like Mendaliv suggested to explain that it is the same as "Taoism". Pinyin is the most common Romanization system, and the pronunciation is more instinctual for English speakers. Furthermore, since the adoption of pinyin, "Daoism" has been becoming more and more commonly used. Shimawa zen (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm strongly in favour of a switch to Daoism.Zeus1234 (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I too favor the switch to 'dao' and 'Daoism.' English usage has changed easily enough to refer to Beijing rather than Peiking (and consistently misprounce it) and in most other ways respects the "official" romanization used by over a billion of the native speakers of that language. Although no romanization is perfect, Pinyin is decisively better than Wade-Giles and, in the long run, I would predict (especially with computer input systems and the significant agreement in all of "Greater China" on Pinyin, that 'dao' and 'daoism' will eventually displace 'Taoism'. This clinging to the English romanization here reinforces the general impression that specialists must get of this article being a mishmash of "conventional wisdom" in English language speakers about Daoism rather than the consensus of serious scholars.
I would like to agree with the author above. Although I think we can agree that taoism has been much more common historically, I think that daoism is increasingly common in current use, and I believe that it will continue to gain strength to eventually supplant the old spelling (much like Beijing, or Mao Zedong). I will be the first to admit that I have no proof to substantiate these claims. Nevertheless, I am a strong supporter of pinyin, as I think most Chinese learners will be, and would very much like to see the page moved.213.100.32.24 (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I also agree that it's time to propose changing "Taoism" to "Daoism" on Requested Moves. However, this involves interpreting two conflicting WP rules: the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles) convention is to "use pinyin not Wade-Giles" versus the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is to "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Here's an example of editorial discussion about moving "Lao Tzu" to "Laozi". Keahapana (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Posted for delisting on Good Article Review

I've posted to WP:GA/R requesting that Taoism be delisted as a good article. You may seem my post and my reasoning at Wikipedia:Good_article_review#Taoism. I wished to notify those who monitor this article out of courtesy. Vassyana 15:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I second the motion. This is a seriously biased article and is being dominated by a censorious "priesthood" that reverses and removes dissenting views on the theory that "we have to state the majority view" as if someone knew what that was (or as if it made any sense as a norm of study). If I wanted conventional wisdom, I wouldn't turn to an encyclopedia. I have in 40 years of study, never seen evidence of the alleged unanimity about the meaning or interpretation of Daoism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadHansen (talk • contribs) 17:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge from Taoist doctrine

The Taoism article incorporates now a far better description of the Taoist doctrine than "Taoist doctrine", in other words, it is a clean-cut content fork, which must be eliminated. Actually, the article was split off Taoism in mid-2005, with good intentions, but was forgotten and neglected since then, and instead "Taoism" "restored" this part in itself, and to a much better shape. `'mikka 00:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the "Taoist doctrine" is completely unreferenced, IMO there is nothing much to merge:

My first emotion was to nominate it for deletion altogether, but then I thought that probably experts may find something salvageable after all. `'mikka 00:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As a semi-expert on Taoism, and having edited the Taoism article extensively, I would completely delete the Taoist Doctrine article. There is nothing there that isn't said in the Taoism article, and what is there is completely unreferenced. Even the places of worship section is not worth salvaging into its own article, as it would only be a few lines longZeus1234 01:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As a full expert, I find this suggestion outrageous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadHansen (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems that there is a consensus that the Taoism doctrine article should disappear, since almost all of its content is presently contained in the Taoism article. Since the merge tag has been up for at least three weeks, I think we should eliminate Taoist doctrine, create a redirect from it to this article and remove the merge tag. I will do that. Sunray 01:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
good, thank you. --Ludwigs2 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Souyuan?!?!?

This article looks quite different from what I have seen a few months back and with questionable information, particularly the part about Souyuan. I am a Taoist and I have never heard of that… there isn’t even a creditable reference to it… as far as I know Taoism didn’t really have an establish Eschatology… Bio-capsule (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That speaks more of the Taoist that you are than the Souyuan in Taoism, happy to discuss further. ACHKC (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Revised Intro

I am trying to give Taoism is more holistic intro that does not centre scholars' views on Daojiao or Daojia, which does not give any reader a better view of what it is, other than an ongoing debate. ACHKC (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The article should center on scholarly views of Taoism. Popular, traditionalist and minority views should also be described, but only as they are reported in reputable sources. Vassyana (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi ACHKC, I see that you've been editing articles related to Daoism, but frequently without providing reliable published references. Are you aware of these basic WP policies on content?
Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
There is also WP:TRUTH. We aren't a how to guide to give people a glimpse of any editor's experience of "real" Taoism. The scholarly attestation is an absolutely necessary component to our articles, without it, there is no way to successfully challenge the removal of material that isn't reliably, verifiably sourced. I've studied with amazing Taoists and Buddhists from and in China for years, the stuff I could write would fill page after page, but none of it is suitable for Wikipedia. I still occasionally find (and remove) such content I put in years ago when I was a new and enthusiastic editor. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It isn’t just editing Taoism related article… he have created several articles without creditable reference and citation, usually from the same links. I admit my knowledge in Taoism is limited but after reading some of them, the most he can claim is that those are the beliefs of a subset within the religious Taoism category. Questionable article include Xuanxuan Shangren and Five Supremes, can someone more knowledgeable verify them? I am new to Wikipedia so I am not familiar with the process… :) Bio-capsule (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation vs "also called"

I've just reverted an edit that changed: "Taoism (pronounced Daoism)" to: "Taoism (also called Daoism)". I believe the original reading is preferable. To my knowledge, this IS a matter of correct pronunciation, not merely an alternative label. Obviously, the transliteration can produce a variety of spellings from Chinese to English, but regardless of how it is spelled, the pronunciation is fairly uniform and is the point of the original rendition. If anyone disagrees with this, I'm interested in your perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaelith 2112 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, my initial contention was that it's simply a matter of different transliterations, and that "Taoism" would uniformly be pronounced with a /t/, and "Daoism" would uniformly be pronounced with a /d/. Nonetheless, dictionary.com and m-w.com do support the idea that "Taoism" can be pronounced with either a /d/ or a /t/. So the article should make it clear that there are two alternate pronunciations, and that there are two alternate spellings (something which the earlier version doesn't make clear), and that they don't necessarily overlap. I'll make a compromise edit and see what you think. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Revised intro

May I invite your comments on the following revised intro:

Taoism (often written as Daoism) is a school of thought called Daojia, or Daomen meaning the family or door of Tao, based principally on the teachings of Tao Te Ching by Laozi. Daojiao was a term historically used by scholars to differentiate Taoism as an organized religion or in comparison with other religious schools. Fundamental to the cosmogony and the teleology of Taoism, the underpinning concepts behind the creation of beings and the finality of all creation, posit Tao loosely as the order of the universe. Intellectually Tao is also the primordial state of non-being before the universe, as in Wuji. Tao, for the lack of a simpler definition, is an abstraction of the ultimate truth and the intrinsic finality to all humanity.
From Tao a very elaborate cosmology from the personified Xuanxuan Shangren to the Three Pure Ones and the Five Supremes, who counsel the machination of a heaven made up by a pantheon of earthly deities. From the Jade Emperor who rule the three realms, hell or Diyu is the netherworld in the eschatology of Taoism in which the wrongdoers are incarcerated until absolution. The realm of the living is part purgatory as liudu lunhui and part testing ground where the undecided, unpurified or those with lesser karma live or ‘serve’ out their terms of incarnations in six-incarnate types before a state of absolution. The collective absolution for humanity is called Souyuan a process similar to the Judgment Day.
Various interpretations of the central text Tao Te Ching give rise to different understandings of what Taoism is about indeed about what it advocates. Generally the interpreted views include propriety and ethics like the Three Jewels of the Tao: compassion, moderation, and humility and on wu wei (non-action), spontaneity, transformation and emptiness/omnipotence. Other view like the search for immortality by way of Xiuzhen and Xiushen as the tool to better the deeds and fate of the adherents, and to attain transcendence of humanity has been much less documented, and usually with strong bias. This view has been well documented in many other Taoist texts but without formal or scholastic recognition.
An integral part within Taoism is the definition of folk-religion or folk beliefs where adherents adopted the Taoist value-system and the deity-overlord beliefs without attributing or recognizing the philosophy of the Tao Te Ching and other Taoist texts, commonly interpreted scholastically as only forms of ancester worship or superstitious cultural activities. This along with the division of Taoism into elite practitioners or the philosophical aspect, is a taxonomy template generally applicable to comparative study of organized religion. Taoists do not historically view Daojia and the teachings of Laozi as a religion. Daojia, Daomen or Taoism to the Taoists was, and has been a way of life and a way to understand the world. ACHKC (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
We can all agree that the lead needs improvement, but I'm afraid I can't find any in these suggested edits. Many are irrelevant topics (e.g., teleology, eschatology, and intrinsic finality) or articles that you've started (Wuji, Xuanxuan Shangren, Diyu, Souyuan, Xiuzhen, and Xiushen), none of which the present Taoism article mentions. Please read Wikipedia:Lead section and try again. Keahapana (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you know someone is selling this article on Amazon?

An earlier version is available for £6.99 of $9.99 from Amazon. You can see the text of the book here [1]. Also see the new Wikipedia article Filiquarian Publishing LLC--Doug Weller (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

if you can post the diff that the book is taken from, I'll send a note to Amazon. they are really touchy about plagiarism (deep-pocket companies don't like leaving themselves open to lawsuits) and so they'll deal with it as appropriate. not a huge concern for me, really, as I'm happy to give the info away for free. plus, you gotta admit it's a great book title.  :-) --Ludwigs2 17:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
It isn't copyvio against Wikipedia, but if as I understand they haven't given any form of credit to Wikipedia editors then editors can complain. Look at the discussion I raised here:[2]. I don't know what the diff is, I guess I could find it (note there at least 25 books nicked from Wikipedia). Doug Weller (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thats interesing. It may well be a copy violation if they haven't included a reference to the original document alongside the changes they may have made to create the book. Also they seem to make no clear reference to the fact that it is derived from a wikipedia article which seems a little unethical. I think under the GNU Free Documentation License you have to make clear who the authors are, and the derivative work must also be licensed under the GFDL (at least thats my reading of the Wikipedia article anyway :D). Just goes to show though, people will do anything to make money won't they. DomUK (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Ooops! Missed that link to the article on the publishers. They DO make their works available under the GFDL, and they do seem to make it clear where the source was; so sounds like there is no copy violation. Still; what they're doing is a bit pointless. And its a very expensive way to read an out-of-date version of a wikipedia article! DomUK (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
How do they make it clear where the source was? That's the bit I haven't been able to check. Where they don't make it clear is on Amazon (and the poor sap that buys it is paying quite a bit just for the pages with the licence). Doug Weller (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

On Tao of Pooh / Tao in the West

I'd disagree about the portrayal of Tao of Pooh ; unlike "Zen of Motorcycle Maintenance" the book really is centers on Taoism as a possible practice or outlook for Westernizers, not just as a metaphor for Tao-ist like thinking... Kirkjerk (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and extend the agreement to the citation of Fritjof Capra's book. Although the latter may deserve criticism (as aknowledged in The Tao of Physics article, which itself needs work), to say that "these uses of [the word] Tao are more as a token of exoticism or esotericness (sic) ... than referring to Taoism itself" is an unfair and uninformed representation of either Capra's book or Hoff's. While I wholeheartedly agree that light and opportunistic use of words like Tao and Zen in Western contexts are worthy of concern and discussion, neither of these books is without sincere and informed thought on Tao or Taoism. /Ninly (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I'm going so far as to remove the entire section from the article. It's unreferenced and seems like "original research" (i.e. someone's opinion). Here's the copy, in case we can do anything with it:

The west has recently embraced aspects of Taoism: the name and concept of Tao, the names and concepts of yin and yang, appreciation for Laozi, Zhuangzi, and other aspects of Chinese tradition, such as qigong. However, Western appropriations differ in subtle (or not so subtle) ways from their Asian sources. For example, the word Tao is used in numerous book titles which are connected to Chinese culture only tangentially. Examples include Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics, or Benjamin Hoff's The Tao of Pooh. These uses of Tao are more as a token of exoticism or esotericness (similar to "The Zen of...") rather than referring to Taoism itself.

Again, I fully support inclusion of a discussion Taoism in the West (well beyond criticism of simple use of the word Tao in book titles) and even critique of Western token usages and misapprehensions, but this approach doesn't seem very useful, and certainly isn't encyclopedic. /Ninly (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just want to add my support for your efforts, Ninly. I've been concerned about that paragraph for a while now. It seemed unduly critical of sincere attempts to understand and interpret Taoist philosophy; as well as unreferenced. I support it's removal.--Pariah (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I support the removal of unreferenced commentary as well. Too much like original research. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both for your corroboration! /Ninly (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The language of the formless

Some Taoists have described death as a transition from form to formlessness; but have any Taoists described insight into the language of the formless? The speech of wind and waters, birds and insects, so much more beautiful than all the noises humanity is able to produce; the writing of the rain and windblown ivy; even the radio symphonies of the rings of Saturn. Neither random nor simply predictable - million dollar movies cannot draw an ocean a child would believe. In the thousand loud noises of nature we perceive perfect peaceful silence and unbounded creative intellect, but how to understand them? Wnt (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


Zhengyi

Zhengyi (as when refering to "the Zhengyi Order") should be 正一, not 正義. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MengTzu622 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taoism/Archive_6&oldid=286810720"