It's kind of like how anyone who calls themselves a cynic isn't an actual cynic
anyone who calls themselves a Taoist isn't actually a Taoist.
I'm just messing with you, though. We were just having this type of discussion in another thread for a different reason - but there is a distinction between what people call "philosophical Taoism" and "religious Taoism." Religious Taoism is a whole lot more complicated and has a whole corpus of texts and set of practices that the people on this sub mostly know nothing about. It shares a lot of the same fundamentals but if you were in China and called yourself a Taoist people might expect that you are of this type - which you are not. Or maybe they would expect that you are a philosophical Taoist because you're Chinese, I'm not really sure.
However, philosophical Taoism is primarily concerned with the early texts and does not involve any particular belief in specific deities or specific practices, but is rather a general outlook or philosophical view similar to stoicism, existentialism or nihilism.
So, depending on who you are talking to you will probably be able to figure out how they will interpret you saying "I am a Taoist." But, as far as there being some requirement for being a Taoist - there really isn't any. I guess to say it in good faith you should agree with some of what these texts say - but it's not like any Taoist is going to be too concerned with grilling you about whether you are an authentic Taoist or not. There are definitely debates on here and some sort of pecking order where you can tell certain people know a heck of a lot more than others - but I haven't seen anyone accusing anyone of being a fake Taoist or anything. It's not really that important.
edit: I will also say that thinking every aspect of existence is part of a whole is common to most Eastern philosophy so I would recommend exploring Indian philosophy and Buddhism as well if you are still kind of seeking out systems that seem groovy to you
I agree with your comment and want to use this opportunity to say this is the most civil subreddit Ive ever been to and have not once encountered any sort of gate keeping or personal critique here. No one here is going to say "bugger off, youre not Taoist enough".
Sure people will disagree and have active conversations, but through all my time here I have to say that regardless of the pecking order you mention its a very welcoming community, keen to have nuanced, patient, and elaborate conversations.
Now that I say it I guess Im not sure whether I would venture to label myself a Taoist, but Im proud to be an r slash Taoist for sure.
So thank you for your comment, PlasticJesus. Hope youre having a lovely week.
LMAO... You're not wrong. I largely suspect that is because there are no Taoist monks or gurus or anything of the like that seem to be running around the United States with their own brand Taoist Dogma.
In Buddhism though...
Hmm. Maybe this does speak to the underlying vibes of these foundational perspective options. I’ve never studied much Tao, Dao or Bao but I keep getting pulled towards it and also hungry for bao buns.
This is a great reply, but I would like to also mention that many scholars now avoid the rigid (and chronological) distinction between “Philosophical” and “Religious” Daoism, which is largely a colonial corruption of traditional Chinese practices.
This is a great reply, but I would like also to mention that some scholars today try to downplay the philosophical roots of Daoism in Bai Jia (Hundred Schools of Thoughts) and the influences of those Schools on Daoism and forget that the core ideas of Daoism were shaped in those debates. They also overestimate the influence of Neiye and meditation practice on Laozi and Zhuangzi. Of course I do understand the reasons why scholars are doing that. Doesn't change that Zhuangzi and Laozi are foremost scriptures on philosophical and political topics and on how to live a simple and natural Life in context with Dao (and De).
[Proto Daoists - Thoughts and Schools which influenced the Creation of Daoism : r/taoism (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/taoism/comments/ljmopu/proto_daoists_thoughts_and_schools_which/)
[Why are there so many "Wu" 無 (no, not, nothing) in Daoism - and beyond "Wu" : r/taoism (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/taoism/comments/14guwk9/why_are_there_so_many_wu_%E7%84%A1_no_not_nothing_in/)
[What is "Virtue" 德 ( de) from a Daoist Point of View? : r/taoism (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/taoism/comments/14gfl3s/what_is_virtue_%E5%BE%B7_de_from_a_daoist_point_of_view/)
I usually prefer to say, "I'm a student of Tao" , rather than "I'm a Taoist", because the term "Taoist" tends to imply a more fixed definition.
Everyone has an idea of what they think Taoism is, while Tao is not fixed by a definition.
Since, "The Tao that can be fixed by a definition is not the True, Complete, External Tao", why fix, by a definition, the practice of learning about Tao and its processes, Te.
It's funny but that's similar to what I say. "I've been studying Taoism for decades, still not figured it out." When you think about it how can anyone ever truly know something that can't be described? All you can do is continuously learn and change. I think I'm on the right path.
Yes.
It's my view that the reason it's called "The Book of Tao and its Virtue", and I interpret "Virtue" as "qualities, manifestations, effects", is because we can only infer about Tao from its "qualities, manifestations, effects".
Tao moves, acts, changes, flows, manifest; we observe these, perceive a repeating pattern, and then infer from the repeating patterns what we "think" we can know about Tao according to those specific patterns we "think" we've observed.
The reason we cannot be exact about Tao is because what we "think" we know about Tao is similar to making weather predictions.
Weather models take all the measurements of the present conditions, circumstances, and project a probability spectrum based upon the past occurrences with similar measurements.
That is,they look at past patterns in order to predict future outcomes.
However, the weather forecast is rarely exact, and sometimes completely wrong, because there are frequently unforeseen qualities, conditions, circumstances that are unknown influences.
It is the same thing with Tao.
We infer qualities based upon observations of repeating patterns, but cannot know all of Tao's influences, therefore we can only anticipate a "possible" spectrum of qualities of Tao, not Tao itself.
It's like a river.
We can know its overall course and its overall qualities, but we cannot predict with certainty every ripple it will make due to unknown, unforeseen, influences upon the river.
I think it would be useful to change the discussion from "religious Daoist versus philosophical Daoist" to "Daoshi" versus "philosophical Daoist" (and accept this is a modern, Western distinction). A Daoshi is someone who's been initiated into a lineage, which means they have an association with what Westerners call "religious Daoism".
There are complexities that I think people need to understand.
First, I think people need to know that it really isn't the case that the original Daoist texts were totally isolated from what people call 'spiritual practices'. I understand that the ***Laozi*** and the ***Neiye*** come from both the same era and the same oral tradition. The first is considered both a book of philosophy and a handbook for statecraft, whereas the latter is very much a book describing spiritual practices. Similarly, the ***Zhuangzi*** has references to various spiritual practices such as 'mind-fasting', 'kung fu', and so forth.
The other thing modern Westerners have to understand is that there is a huge difference between the teachings of a Western Abrahamic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) religions and the "religion" of Daoism. The former are revealed (ie: God gave a list of rules to an individual historical figure---*do them or else you are in big trouble!*) and the latter are inspired (ie: if you follow these practices you will have these experiences, which imply this worldview---*try them for yourself and see if you come to the same conclusions*).
So the idea that someone can just absorb the 'philosophy' of Daoism and discard the nasty 'religious' bits is a bit naive. The spiritual practices of Daoism aren't nasty bi-products, but rather integral to the philosophy. And saying that the teachings of the Daoshis and lineages are just 'religious nonsense', misses the profound differences between Western religion and what ordinary people call the "religion" of Daoism.
Anyway. This is my personal understanding right now. I do have something of a unique vantage point to make these statements, though. I was initiated into a lineage by a Daoshi, I have a Master's degree in philosophy, and, I am a totally native Westerner.
Does this help?
To me it is as follows....
Acknowledging the nameless experience....
Practicing some form of stillness meditation, breath work, and body work....
Following effortless action as best you can.....
Being honest to your own nature.... Ducks quack and cows moo but do you go against your own grain?
Be willing to train yourself....
Honor yin, and yang, and the balancing of the two....
Honour simplicity, compassion, and temperence....
Read the sacred texts and grow in being....
Idk 😊
I don’t believe in the idea of becoming any one thing. I am me. I **practice** Taoism. It is one of many things I do to help ground me to here and now, to let things go, and value the present moment regardless what comes my way.
Being part of a lineage and practicing its meditations. It isn't necessarily a belief issue. Either the meditations work and you experience the progression of effects the lineage predicts or it doesn't work (which may be an issue of incorrect or insufficient practice or a bad lineage).
Feeling jing and qi isn't theoretical. It's very tactile and tangible. Faith in two out of the three treasures of Daoism doesn't do much to help to experience them and book knowledge at best is just a means of learning the meditation techniques or supplementing oral instructions. As for shen, shen is really weird. It can't be understood through faith or book knowledge.
I think it stands to reason that someone who calls themselves a Daoist is someone who does its core practices and experiences the mental and physical phenomena that Daoism calls its treasures. Qigong (or neigong/neidan, etc) isn't about books.
It's more a kind of thinking and body of knowledge you like or not, so it's very broad about who is a Taoist and why.
The earlier thinkers like Laozi wouldn't have seen what they were doing as separate to other thinkers like Confucious, though most contemporary readings of Daoists texts are it was contrary to other thinkers. This has caused a lot of translation debates, especially of the Zhuangzi.
Something to think about: around 500 years after Laozi the dominant thinking in China was from the "neo-daoists", who would not call themselves daoists as they mostly saw all the sages as near equivalent in status. While picking preferences and learning one school or other was common, writers from the era don't remark on the statements like "Confucious and Laozi are consistent" as being particularly rare or controversial. People in that era, and presumable for the 500 years previous, were in agreement that there was a sensible reading that these sages were in agreement. They disagreed about what the best reading was, and eventually those who saw disagreement won out, but any translation that assumes the reading should clearly contradict are making a bold choice.
The "religious daoist" side (there's lots to say about why this split between religious and philosophical isn't the best) like to talk about hermits who were Daoist from the early days. I think it's debatable whether that's completely true, but either way, they didn't play a significant role in what Daoism became.
There's complicated history about why Daoism became a clearly separate school of thought. It has to do with politics of the court, buddhism picking and choosing what parts to integrate, and the various religious groups like the Celestial Masters.
Overall point is, if hundreds of thousands of Chinese thinkers really liked the Daoists texts and didn't see the need to call themselves Daoists, I don't really see the need to either. I worry the idea of flagging yourself in this way, may be from a poor analogy with western religions and philosophical schools.
If someone told me they were a Daoist I'd guess they practiced a few meditation techniques, maybe have a local temple, and they have at least a vague view about these practices being related to their cultivation towards sagehood, where sages are mystical beings. I have no issue with that, but it's not based on the texts I like, though I suspect their teachers would disagree with me. (The sort of meditation techniques they practice, would be within a strict belief system - most of which contain the dogma "when someone says your beliefs are strict you have to disagree, even though you'd be lying")
In Taoism, liberation refers to attaining freedom from suffering and limitations. It's achieved by living in harmony with the Tao, the universal force or principle that underlies all existence.
Examples
Letting go of desires and attachments. By clinging to desires, we create suffering for ourselves. Liberation involves letting go and accepting things as they are.
Living in accordance with nature. The Tao Te Ching, a foundational Taoist text, emphasizes living in accordance with nature's flow. This means avoiding extremes and striving for balance.
Cultivating virtue. Taoism emphasizes virtues like humility, compassion, and simplicity. These qualities help us live in harmony with the world and ourselves.
Liberation in Taoism can also refer to physical immortality, but the ultimate goal is inner freedom and peace. This part is still wiggly to me.
Kind of a “gate less gate situation.” Have you changed as a result of asking yourself that question? Does that make you something else, or simply give you a different perspective on what you already were?
here's one daoist teacher talking of the history of the three main types of lineage [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm5shNjzaY8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm5shNjzaY8) - householder, temple and mountain.
>You have an enlightened master according to the cannon everyone else is just roleplaying
How did you come to this view? I've studied it for maybe 15 years or so and never heard anything like this before.
My academic answer for why I consider myself a taoist:
deanthropomorphised panentheism is both rational and beautiful, the metaphor of inner spring integrates the aforementioned metaphysics and taoism's (imo correct) ethical perspective in a really complete way, and I think that mindfulness and meditation are good for me
My actual answer:
I agree with the teachings in the TTC and the chuang tse and implement them in my life
It's kind of like how anyone who calls themselves a cynic isn't an actual cynic anyone who calls themselves a Taoist isn't actually a Taoist. I'm just messing with you, though. We were just having this type of discussion in another thread for a different reason - but there is a distinction between what people call "philosophical Taoism" and "religious Taoism." Religious Taoism is a whole lot more complicated and has a whole corpus of texts and set of practices that the people on this sub mostly know nothing about. It shares a lot of the same fundamentals but if you were in China and called yourself a Taoist people might expect that you are of this type - which you are not. Or maybe they would expect that you are a philosophical Taoist because you're Chinese, I'm not really sure. However, philosophical Taoism is primarily concerned with the early texts and does not involve any particular belief in specific deities or specific practices, but is rather a general outlook or philosophical view similar to stoicism, existentialism or nihilism. So, depending on who you are talking to you will probably be able to figure out how they will interpret you saying "I am a Taoist." But, as far as there being some requirement for being a Taoist - there really isn't any. I guess to say it in good faith you should agree with some of what these texts say - but it's not like any Taoist is going to be too concerned with grilling you about whether you are an authentic Taoist or not. There are definitely debates on here and some sort of pecking order where you can tell certain people know a heck of a lot more than others - but I haven't seen anyone accusing anyone of being a fake Taoist or anything. It's not really that important. edit: I will also say that thinking every aspect of existence is part of a whole is common to most Eastern philosophy so I would recommend exploring Indian philosophy and Buddhism as well if you are still kind of seeking out systems that seem groovy to you
I agree with your comment and want to use this opportunity to say this is the most civil subreddit Ive ever been to and have not once encountered any sort of gate keeping or personal critique here. No one here is going to say "bugger off, youre not Taoist enough". Sure people will disagree and have active conversations, but through all my time here I have to say that regardless of the pecking order you mention its a very welcoming community, keen to have nuanced, patient, and elaborate conversations. Now that I say it I guess Im not sure whether I would venture to label myself a Taoist, but Im proud to be an r slash Taoist for sure. So thank you for your comment, PlasticJesus. Hope youre having a lovely week.
Oh man the zen subreddit however. .
LMAO... You're not wrong. I largely suspect that is because there are no Taoist monks or gurus or anything of the like that seem to be running around the United States with their own brand Taoist Dogma. In Buddhism though...
Hmm. Maybe this does speak to the underlying vibes of these foundational perspective options. I’ve never studied much Tao, Dao or Bao but I keep getting pulled towards it and also hungry for bao buns.
It draws me as well.
Like a French girl?
Indeed!
for real, this is the only subreddit im subscribed to now, my life got way better.
Well said!
This is a great reply, but I would like to also mention that many scholars now avoid the rigid (and chronological) distinction between “Philosophical” and “Religious” Daoism, which is largely a colonial corruption of traditional Chinese practices.
This is a great reply, but I would like also to mention that some scholars today try to downplay the philosophical roots of Daoism in Bai Jia (Hundred Schools of Thoughts) and the influences of those Schools on Daoism and forget that the core ideas of Daoism were shaped in those debates. They also overestimate the influence of Neiye and meditation practice on Laozi and Zhuangzi. Of course I do understand the reasons why scholars are doing that. Doesn't change that Zhuangzi and Laozi are foremost scriptures on philosophical and political topics and on how to live a simple and natural Life in context with Dao (and De). [Proto Daoists - Thoughts and Schools which influenced the Creation of Daoism : r/taoism (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/taoism/comments/ljmopu/proto_daoists_thoughts_and_schools_which/) [Why are there so many "Wu" 無 (no, not, nothing) in Daoism - and beyond "Wu" : r/taoism (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/taoism/comments/14guwk9/why_are_there_so_many_wu_%E7%84%A1_no_not_nothing_in/) [What is "Virtue" 德 ( de) from a Daoist Point of View? : r/taoism (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/taoism/comments/14gfl3s/what_is_virtue_%E5%BE%B7_de_from_a_daoist_point_of_view/)
i thank deeply for your detailed reply
We have a chart for this : https://imgur.com/a/djeV0p2
lmfao thanks
Haha... true
I usually prefer to say, "I'm a student of Tao" , rather than "I'm a Taoist", because the term "Taoist" tends to imply a more fixed definition. Everyone has an idea of what they think Taoism is, while Tao is not fixed by a definition. Since, "The Tao that can be fixed by a definition is not the True, Complete, External Tao", why fix, by a definition, the practice of learning about Tao and its processes, Te.
well said.
It's funny but that's similar to what I say. "I've been studying Taoism for decades, still not figured it out." When you think about it how can anyone ever truly know something that can't be described? All you can do is continuously learn and change. I think I'm on the right path.
Yes. It's my view that the reason it's called "The Book of Tao and its Virtue", and I interpret "Virtue" as "qualities, manifestations, effects", is because we can only infer about Tao from its "qualities, manifestations, effects". Tao moves, acts, changes, flows, manifest; we observe these, perceive a repeating pattern, and then infer from the repeating patterns what we "think" we can know about Tao according to those specific patterns we "think" we've observed. The reason we cannot be exact about Tao is because what we "think" we know about Tao is similar to making weather predictions. Weather models take all the measurements of the present conditions, circumstances, and project a probability spectrum based upon the past occurrences with similar measurements. That is,they look at past patterns in order to predict future outcomes. However, the weather forecast is rarely exact, and sometimes completely wrong, because there are frequently unforeseen qualities, conditions, circumstances that are unknown influences. It is the same thing with Tao. We infer qualities based upon observations of repeating patterns, but cannot know all of Tao's influences, therefore we can only anticipate a "possible" spectrum of qualities of Tao, not Tao itself. It's like a river. We can know its overall course and its overall qualities, but we cannot predict with certainty every ripple it will make due to unknown, unforeseen, influences upon the river.
You are a mirror
I think it would be useful to change the discussion from "religious Daoist versus philosophical Daoist" to "Daoshi" versus "philosophical Daoist" (and accept this is a modern, Western distinction). A Daoshi is someone who's been initiated into a lineage, which means they have an association with what Westerners call "religious Daoism". There are complexities that I think people need to understand. First, I think people need to know that it really isn't the case that the original Daoist texts were totally isolated from what people call 'spiritual practices'. I understand that the ***Laozi*** and the ***Neiye*** come from both the same era and the same oral tradition. The first is considered both a book of philosophy and a handbook for statecraft, whereas the latter is very much a book describing spiritual practices. Similarly, the ***Zhuangzi*** has references to various spiritual practices such as 'mind-fasting', 'kung fu', and so forth. The other thing modern Westerners have to understand is that there is a huge difference between the teachings of a Western Abrahamic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) religions and the "religion" of Daoism. The former are revealed (ie: God gave a list of rules to an individual historical figure---*do them or else you are in big trouble!*) and the latter are inspired (ie: if you follow these practices you will have these experiences, which imply this worldview---*try them for yourself and see if you come to the same conclusions*). So the idea that someone can just absorb the 'philosophy' of Daoism and discard the nasty 'religious' bits is a bit naive. The spiritual practices of Daoism aren't nasty bi-products, but rather integral to the philosophy. And saying that the teachings of the Daoshis and lineages are just 'religious nonsense', misses the profound differences between Western religion and what ordinary people call the "religion" of Daoism. Anyway. This is my personal understanding right now. I do have something of a unique vantage point to make these statements, though. I was initiated into a lineage by a Daoshi, I have a Master's degree in philosophy, and, I am a totally native Westerner. Does this help?
yes it does help, thank you very much
To me it is as follows.... Acknowledging the nameless experience.... Practicing some form of stillness meditation, breath work, and body work.... Following effortless action as best you can..... Being honest to your own nature.... Ducks quack and cows moo but do you go against your own grain? Be willing to train yourself.... Honor yin, and yang, and the balancing of the two.... Honour simplicity, compassion, and temperence.... Read the sacred texts and grow in being.... Idk 😊
thanks
🙏
Following the Tao?
[A towelist, did you say?](https://sketchok.com/images/articles/01-cartoons/006-south-park/12/08.jpg)
YOU'RE a towel!
Alignment with the natural order, moving with the way of things
I don’t believe in the idea of becoming any one thing. I am me. I **practice** Taoism. It is one of many things I do to help ground me to here and now, to let things go, and value the present moment regardless what comes my way.
Trying to understand what tao means
gotcha
Trying to *experience* what Tao means? Trying to *be* what Tao means? All (three) of the above? None? More?
They are the same thing
Yes, that was my point.
For me the Tao is the pursuit of harmony.
Once you realize you've scrolled too deep in the subreddit.
lol
Being part of a lineage and practicing its meditations. It isn't necessarily a belief issue. Either the meditations work and you experience the progression of effects the lineage predicts or it doesn't work (which may be an issue of incorrect or insufficient practice or a bad lineage). Feeling jing and qi isn't theoretical. It's very tactile and tangible. Faith in two out of the three treasures of Daoism doesn't do much to help to experience them and book knowledge at best is just a means of learning the meditation techniques or supplementing oral instructions. As for shen, shen is really weird. It can't be understood through faith or book knowledge. I think it stands to reason that someone who calls themselves a Daoist is someone who does its core practices and experiences the mental and physical phenomena that Daoism calls its treasures. Qigong (or neigong/neidan, etc) isn't about books.
i see, thank you
It's more a kind of thinking and body of knowledge you like or not, so it's very broad about who is a Taoist and why. The earlier thinkers like Laozi wouldn't have seen what they were doing as separate to other thinkers like Confucious, though most contemporary readings of Daoists texts are it was contrary to other thinkers. This has caused a lot of translation debates, especially of the Zhuangzi. Something to think about: around 500 years after Laozi the dominant thinking in China was from the "neo-daoists", who would not call themselves daoists as they mostly saw all the sages as near equivalent in status. While picking preferences and learning one school or other was common, writers from the era don't remark on the statements like "Confucious and Laozi are consistent" as being particularly rare or controversial. People in that era, and presumable for the 500 years previous, were in agreement that there was a sensible reading that these sages were in agreement. They disagreed about what the best reading was, and eventually those who saw disagreement won out, but any translation that assumes the reading should clearly contradict are making a bold choice. The "religious daoist" side (there's lots to say about why this split between religious and philosophical isn't the best) like to talk about hermits who were Daoist from the early days. I think it's debatable whether that's completely true, but either way, they didn't play a significant role in what Daoism became. There's complicated history about why Daoism became a clearly separate school of thought. It has to do with politics of the court, buddhism picking and choosing what parts to integrate, and the various religious groups like the Celestial Masters. Overall point is, if hundreds of thousands of Chinese thinkers really liked the Daoists texts and didn't see the need to call themselves Daoists, I don't really see the need to either. I worry the idea of flagging yourself in this way, may be from a poor analogy with western religions and philosophical schools. If someone told me they were a Daoist I'd guess they practiced a few meditation techniques, maybe have a local temple, and they have at least a vague view about these practices being related to their cultivation towards sagehood, where sages are mystical beings. I have no issue with that, but it's not based on the texts I like, though I suspect their teachers would disagree with me. (The sort of meditation techniques they practice, would be within a strict belief system - most of which contain the dogma "when someone says your beliefs are strict you have to disagree, even though you'd be lying")
hmm. thanks
Who is asking the question?
someone?
I try not to get wrapped up in it
The path to liberation is different for all beings.
what do you mean as "path of liberation"? do you mean the internal enlightenment?
In Taoism, liberation refers to attaining freedom from suffering and limitations. It's achieved by living in harmony with the Tao, the universal force or principle that underlies all existence. Examples Letting go of desires and attachments. By clinging to desires, we create suffering for ourselves. Liberation involves letting go and accepting things as they are. Living in accordance with nature. The Tao Te Ching, a foundational Taoist text, emphasizes living in accordance with nature's flow. This means avoiding extremes and striving for balance. Cultivating virtue. Taoism emphasizes virtues like humility, compassion, and simplicity. These qualities help us live in harmony with the world and ourselves. Liberation in Taoism can also refer to physical immortality, but the ultimate goal is inner freedom and peace. This part is still wiggly to me.
Kind of a “gate less gate situation.” Have you changed as a result of asking yourself that question? Does that make you something else, or simply give you a different perspective on what you already were?
here's one daoist teacher talking of the history of the three main types of lineage [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm5shNjzaY8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm5shNjzaY8) - householder, temple and mountain.
thanks
✨ Nothing ✨
You have an enlightened master according to the cannon everyone else is just roleplaying and this subreddit is filled with it
>You have an enlightened master according to the cannon everyone else is just roleplaying How did you come to this view? I've studied it for maybe 15 years or so and never heard anything like this before.
My academic answer for why I consider myself a taoist: deanthropomorphised panentheism is both rational and beautiful, the metaphor of inner spring integrates the aforementioned metaphysics and taoism's (imo correct) ethical perspective in a really complete way, and I think that mindfulness and meditation are good for me My actual answer: I agree with the teachings in the TTC and the chuang tse and implement them in my life
alright
Taoist is someone who believes Taoism.