Taoism reading list

[Anonymous No.17237462]

Living in East Asia and would like to learn more about Taoism. I've read Daodejing and Zhuangzi, but I don't know what else is worth reading, or in what order

I have a decent amount of experience with Western esotericism so I'd be interested in any literature on internal alchemy and other more esoteric practices

[Anonymous No.17238390]

Anyone?

[Urantia guy No.17238729]

>>17237462
I Ching
Taichi classics
Secret of the Golden Flower
Thomas Cleary translated a bunch of esoteric Taoist texts, particularly 'Vitality, Energy, Spirit' and his translation of the (Taoist) I ching I recommend

[Anonymous No.17238775]

>>17238729
Shit, have the Cleary translation of Golden Flower back home, should have grabbed it over Christmas.

I'll try some of his other translations, thanks fren

[Anonymous No.17239183]

Would Laozi have approved of the later developments of Taoism? It seems to me that a lot of pre-existing folk practices hitched their wagon on his words in much the same way the Logos of Heraclitus's fragments wound up as a core component of a messianic Jewish cult hundreds of years after his death.

[Anonymous No.17240541]

Are Cleary's translations up to scratch? I'm considering buying his four-volumes of translated taoist texts, but i've heard different things about the quality of the translation.

[Anonymous No.17240590]

>>17239183
Without the religious ediface there is no way for the common man to realise the tao.

[Anonymous No.17240604]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qSJgMtwpz8

[Anonymous No.17240622]

>>17237462
I honestly have done some reading on Taoism and still don't understand it.

[Anonymous No.17240634]

>>17238729
What is I Ching, is it related to Tao te Ching? The latter is the only book I'm aware of on this topic

[Anonymous No.17240649]

>>17239183
I think Laozi's opinions of "later Taoism" would be far higher than Heraclitus' opinions of "later Logosism". Much of the "oriental mumbo-jumbo" that Westerners look down upon was either present in Laozi's day or is ultimately inconsequential. Trying to put a rationalist veneer on an ancient Chinese mystic is silly.

Having said that, when a Westerner uses "Taoism", they're referring to a lot of things that aren't really related. So, while Laozi might have been okay with the spirit of drinking mercury, he might also have thought praying to Buddhist Bodhisattvas (who are clearly just Chinese Gods) would be silly. I would argue that there's just Chinese Folk Religion, and an intellectual, philosophical strain that bubbles up from that. This becomes a hydra, with each head being something different (the "Way Finding" of Laozi, Ge Yong's struggling with One vs Many, alchemy, medicine, feng shui, etc) but all heads going back to the same body (the fundamental core of how the Chinese conceptualize the world and their place in it). "Taoism" as Westerners see it is an attempt at creating an Oriental equivalent to Abrahamic religion, wherein a central text acts as the propositional well from which a broader religious structure flows. There is no well, and there is no structure, with Taoism, however. Even the Daozang, which is closer to the Pali Canon than the Bible or Quran, is a later innovation done out of ease rather than necessity. The "Folk Practices" of Taoism are just the common folk ways of China, as opposed to the more refined folk ways of China.

Compare this with Heraclitus, who would be aghast at Abrahamics using "Logos" to refer to some Semitic guy who is also his own father, who demands babies be burnt as an offering to him, and is not made of fire. Heraclitus thought Homer deserved to be beaten with sticks for saying that Zeus could cheat on his wife, I'd imagine he'd have similar outrage at Paul for insinuating that the highest divinity could impregnate virgins.

[Anonymous No.17240664]

>>17240649
Confucianism is quite literally the Asian, or at least Chinese, equivalent of Abrahamism. Taoism itself is ONLY the esoteric cream-at-the-top, so to speak.

[Anonymous No.17240713]

>>17240622
Then you understand it for to understand Taoism is to not understand it

[Anonymous No.17240866]

>>17240664
>Confucianism is quite literally the Asian, or at least Chinese, equivalent of Abrahamism.
Confucianism reminds me most of the Puritans.
>emphasis on education as part of a proper upbringing
Puritans were crazy devoted to educating their children in literacy so that they could read the Bible
>required text readings to memorize/quote and be able to apply to life?
The Odes and the Bible
>morals instilled into population to keep them self-regulating through shame
Seems to line up to me

[Anonymous No.17240948]

>>17240664
>>17240866
I would disagree. Confucianism doesn't posit a central orthodoxy, or a rational textual hermeneutics. There's certainly some similarities, namely the focus on literacy for moral cultivation, but Confucianism never develops an idea of heresy (divergence from orthodoxy). Within like, three intellectual generations of Confucius you get people like Xunzi outright saying "Confucius was wrong". Could the same be said about followers of Muhammad, or Jesus? Confucians follow in Confucius footsteps, but they are under no requirement to treat his words as gospel. Literally.

Of course, intense pressure has codified much of Confucius such that he might as well be gospel, but the point still stands.

[Anonymous No.17241866]

Hijacking thread. Books on Buddhism? I want to understand literary buddhism references.

[Anonymous No.17241931]

>>17241866
My good anon, instead of going off topic you could have gone on the /lit/ wikia page for /lit/ charts. Here you go though.

[Anonymous No.17241940]

>>17241931
And I also saw this recently.

[Anonymous No.17241972]

>>17241931
didn't know they had it there, all i remember is national lit. thanks