This has got to be one of the most perennially beguiling, elliptical

>>9674958
Congratulations!
You are now ready for the I Ching

Just stick with Plato if you want mysticism. Asian "philosophy" is purposely cryptic nonsense for retards. And anyone refuting this point just claims that you can't understand it without months of meditation.

>>9674958
Heidegger was highly influenced by Taoist thought.
>>9674979
>t. nationalist brainlet

>This has got to be one of the most perennially beguiling, elliptical things ever written
The Zhuangzi is harder, it's one of the hardest texts even for mainland Chinese scholars.

>extremely practical, almost Machiavellian political advice
Daoists are indeed pragmatists, even though they don't write like them.

>It sort of reminds me of Heidegger
>Heidegger himself had contact with a number of leading Japanese intellectuals, including members of the Kyoto School, notably Hajime Tanabe and Kuki Shūzō. It has also been claimed that a number of elements within Heidegger's thought bear a close parallel to Eastern philosophical ideas, particularly Zen Buddhism and Taoism. Reinhard May records Chang Chung-Yuan saying that "Heidegger is the only Western Philosopher who not only intellectually understands but has intuitively grasped Taoist thought." May sees great influence of Taoism and Japanese scholars in Heidegger's work, although this influence is not acknowledged by the author. He asserts: "The investigation concludes that Heidegger’s work was significantly influenced by East Asian sources. It can be shown, moreover, that in particular instances Heidegger even appropriated wholesale and almost verbatim major ideas from the German translations of Daoist and Zen Buddhist classics. This clandestine textual appropriation of non-Western spirituality, the extent of which has gone undiscovered for so long, seems quite unparalleled, with far-reaching implications for our future interpretation of Heidegger’s work."

>>9674979
Have you read the Tao? It's like continental philosophy with all the needless bullshit cut out.

>>9674958
The Dao De Jing never comprised a school of thought on it's own, but was applied and read in different contexts according to the sect in question -- Daoism isn't a unified religion, but a useless umbrella term that tries to whitewash the finer nuances for Western sensibilities. That the Dao De Jing is the Daoist version of the Bible is mostly due to James Legge.

Daoism started out as a soteriological religious movement during the Han dynasty, even though the term 'Dao' had been used for centuries by the Ru. Much of the Dao De Jing is drawing from the Neiye, a chapter in the Confucian book Guanzi -- the Yijing is likewise from the Confucian tradition.

The various Daoist scriptures tends to be overly cryptical with ridiculous metaphors as >>9674979 said. Unless you're interested in religious ritual or the Medeival tradition of Neidan, there isn't much practical value to be found.

I personally find the Neoconfucianism of Zhou Dunyi, Zhu Xi and Wang Yangming to be the best thing Asian philosophy has to offer -- a fairly straightforward, no bullshit sensical approach to mysticism that retains the elements of classical Chinese cosmology.

Platonism is still better, though.

>>9675090
>Yijing is likewise from the Confucian tradition
It was incorporated into the Confucian tradition. It predates Confucius.
>Unless you're interested in religious ritual or the Medeival tradition of Neidan, there isn't much practical value to be found.
In reading commentaries, and even in its outlining of wu wei without commentary, it is an incredibly practical book even in translation. Its "cryptic" style is not all that complex to grasp imo, and provides greater insight and value with additional readings.
>Neoconfucianism
>no bullshit
Uh, I prefer classical Confucianism for that one, anon.

>>9675112
>>9675112
>It was incorporated into the Confucian tradition. It predates Confucius.

Indeed. It seems to have originated as a divination manual for ritual sacrifice, but it was systematized as a cosmological treatise by the Confucians. That was my intended meaning.

>In reading commentaries, and even in its outlining of wu wei without commentary, it is an incredibly practical book even in translation. Its "cryptic" style is not all that complex to grasp imo, and provides greater insight and value with additional readings.

I am glad that you have found value in the DDJ. At the end of the day, that's what matters. I suppose I was too quick to dismiss it's practical value based on my personal inclinations. I don't find it rigorious enough to stand on it's own and it's ambigiouty makes it quite fluid - meaning it is easily prone to intertwine with the ideological biases of the reader, losing it's intended autonomity - and far too docile in it's practicality for my melancholic temper.

>Uh, I prefer classical Confucianism for that one, anon.

'Mysticism' and 'no bullshit' are somewhat contrary terms. When I look at the scriptures of Chan Buddhism and the cryptic poetry of Neidan, I do feel that in comparison to these, Neoconfucianism comes across as 'no bullshit', even though I don't agree with some of their tenets.

The thing that struck me most about Neoconfucianism was it's reactionary nature to both Buddhism and Daoism, with a criticism on the fleeting experiences of their meditative practices. It was something I've experienced myself, so it reasonated greatly.

Zhu Xi said:

>It’s like the followers of Lu Jiuyuan. When you see them for the first time, they’re always talking about their enlightenment, but then when you look at how they act they’re all sixes and sevens. It seems that what is called profound enlightenment means that there was some insight at the time and a feeling of purity and a passing excitement, but after a while it gradually diminishes. How could one depend on this?

And Luo Qinshun:

>Now he hopes to cultivate a beginning from within quietude. How does he hope to understand the beginnings of goodness if he is always meditating and never has any intercourse with affairs and things? After hiding away for a while, he may have some sudden insight, but it is nothing more than the light and shadows of an empty spirit.

Both from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23729988.2015.1006840

File: 9789048129263.jpg (67KB, 153x230px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 153x230px

>>9675090
>Daoism started out as a soteriological religious movement during the Han dynasty
It started as current of political philosophy.
>the term 'Dao' had been used for centuries by the Ru
The Chinese people, not just the Ru.
>Much of the Dao De Jing is drawing from the Neiye
The Neiye is dated 325 BCE while bamboo and silk fragments of the Daodejing have been found in 1973 and 1993 from the fourth century BCE, only the "early" theory of the Daodejing can explain this.
> the Yijing is likewise from the Confucian tradition.
The Yijing is a proto-Confucian and proto-Daoist text from the Western Zhou period.
>a chapter in the Confucian book Guanzi
Confucians didn't claim the Guanzi as one of their own, they say it's a Legalist text.

Where are you getting this stuff from?

>>9675271
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

>>9675275
>Where are you getting this stuff from?

>It started as current of political philosophy.

Feng Youlan in his "History of Chinese Philosophy" makes it a point to stress that the term "Daoist School" did not excist prior to the Han dynasty.
Daoism began with the formalization of the Celestial Masters. See "Early Daoist Scriptures" by Stephen Bokenkamp and "The Scripture on Great Peace" by Barbara Heindrischke.

>The Chinese people, not just the Ru.

While I don't doubt that it was utilized by the "Chinese people", it is too arbitrary a term to be useful -- even Ru is problematic, due to the scant material we have about them. My point was that 'Dao' is an ancient term predating the composition of the DDJ and closely associated with the Confucian tradition before the formalization of Daoism.

>The Neiye is dated 325 BCE while bamboo and silk fragments of the Daodejing have been found in 1973 and 1993 from the fourth century BCE, only the "early" theory of the Daodejing can explain this.

Harold Roth has made a detailed analysis of the Neyie and it's predecessary relation to the Dao De Jing in his seminal work "Original Tao: Inward Training and the Foundations of Taoist Mysticism."

>The Yijing is a proto-Confucian and proto-Daoist text from the Western Zhou period.

I understand. See my second reply >>9675271 in regards to it's philosophical formalization by the Confucians.

>Confucians didn't claim the Guanzi as one of their own, they say it's a Legalist text.

In my studies, I've found strong similarities between the Neiye and Mencius, so I tend to associate the "Inner Chapters" with Confucianism. That doesn't make my statement correct. I agree, the Guanzi is certainly not a Confucian text per se, but I wouldn't consider it strickly Legalist either. It's similar to the Huainanzi in it's scope of sources, making it hard to pin down to a single school of thought.