Jiao Men / Sect Boxing / Chinese Muslim Boxing

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Justaguy,

From my point of view you do not seem to be argumentative. Your comments appear to be well thought out as well as thought provoking. On this section of the BB we generally have mature discussions even when we disagree. At times we do have heated debates and on rare occasions it can get seemingly childish. However, for the most part we try to keep it open and friendly even when we disagree. From what I have read you will fit in well here.

Your comments have been very thought provoking for me and motivated me to write down some of those thoughts. These comments are just random thoughts I have had inspired by your own comments and are not necessarily a response you or beiquan, although please feel free to respond if you feel they are worthy of comment.
_____

It seems to me that when a scholar discusses his field of study, or writes a treatise, he must define his basic terms. By necessity and the standards of scholarship this could restrict his flexibility and thereby his comprehensive understanding of a topic. While I am not claiming beiquan is doing this, scholars may unknowingly limit their understanding and acceptance of definitions or views that occur outside of their basic definition or the definitions of colleagues whose authority they accept.

While beiquan has not defined what he considers Taoism to be for us, it is likely many would not agree with his definition. However, for the purposes of his doctoral thesis he must provide a clear definition for the benefit of his readers.

I consider myself a student of Tao; I have a philosophical interest in the principles of Tao. I have studied Tao, its principles and its manifestations for over 30 years. I seek to bring myself into accord with the principles of Tao. In my younger days I relied somewhat on what are considered Taoist texts for direction and guidance, however I no longer do so. Not that I no longer read Taoist texts, but I do not allow the texts to confine or define my experiences for me. I rely on direct experience which is a truer guide than the words of others. While I consider life from a somewhat Taoist perspective to label myself a Taoist would tend limit my experience and understanding. This is because definitions are inherently confining and by accepting a strict definition we bind ourselves to that limit and this will tend to interfere with our overall progress. I choose to attempt to avoid the limits of strict definition because I would perhaps feel the need to confine my experience and expressions by the limits of that accepted definition.

Therefore, I consider myself a student of Tao and not a Taoist.

Neither do I consider Chinese authorities the final word on Tao and its manifestations. Tao is a universal concept that has been studied and written about primarily in China, but the concepts are not unique to China. Truth belongs to all people if it is indeed truth. If the principles of Tao are Truth then they are true for all people at all times. Just as water makes everyone equally wet and the sun shines on all equally the truths of Tao are available to understand and experience by all people at all times equally. There is no need to consider Tao a strictly Chinese concept even if the considered primary texts and studies are of Chinese origin.

In my opinion it is inappropriate for anyone to say to another, “That is NOT Taoist.” We may say “THAT” does not “APPEAR” to be Taoist according to my understanding of the principles of Tao, but to impose the limits of our definition on another may actually demonstrate our own limited understanding rather than a lack of understanding of the one we presume to criticize.

Some time in the last year or so we had a discussion on this BB wherein a man who considered himself a true Taoist participated in a discussion with some of us. He wanted a Taoist to be HIS definition and because some of us did not accept his definition he felt we were being oppressive of his view. All that many of us were attempting to communicate to him was that his definition was his and while we respected it as his definition we found it limiting and presumptuous to dictate to others how Taoism should be defined.

There may be a gross separation between various definitions, but who is to say anyone is the final arbiter of any definition. If we accept the truth of what the Tao Te Ching teaches concerning Tao: “The Tao that can be defined is not the True or Complete Tao”, then who has the right to impose their own definition of what constitutes a Taoist onto others?