Unlearner

Recently, one of my buddies has discovered the joys of drugs, it would seem. Specifically, he has starting experimenting with something called DMT/Ayahuasca. He continuously pesters me to try it, saying how "mind-opening" it is, how it has given him new perspectives, etc etc, all your typical drug-user claims. It's actually becoming quite annoying, but he's very persistent about it. It has actually gotten me to thinking, though, about what a typical Taoist/Buddhist perspective on using such mind-altering substances would be, as I don't really know if there is one specifically. Personally, I'm rather anti-substance use to begin with, though I also feel that one shouldn't have to use substances to open your mind (rather, I'd think it could ultimately result with negative effects on this level). In any case, I was just curious if anyone else had any input on this topic, I just want to see if there is a general consensus for or against it, if there is one at all.

I'm a huge fan of tea, all different kinds from all around the world. Naturally, I have my preferences, but in general a nice cup of tea is very helpful for calming me down and helping me focus. So, I felt like starting a thread for anyone else who might be an appreciator of tea, to share what different kinds of tea you enjoy, where to find different kinds, and anything else related to tea. I'll start simply by sharing some of my favorite teas: I'm particularly fond of white teas, they tend to have a very light, subtle flavor, and I feel that it's better when not steeped for very long. Along with this, I'm also a fan of green teas, but I think second on my list would be rooibos (red) tea, definitely a different flavor from any other tea I've tried, definitely worth trying if you haven't had it.

Very well said. There are many people that don't really understand exactly what "science" is, or even what it actually says. Science is, like you said, nothing more than a methodology of learning trends and developing theories about how our nature seems to work. One cannot confuse nature itself with a simple method of study, as this leads to many misconceptions about what scientific principles actually say about nature and the universe. What bothers me even more is the misunderstanding with what mathematics actually is. I'll ask someone if they understand what mathematics is, and I'd be more willing than not to bet that the first thing out of their mouth is, "Well, math is a science that..." No, this is incorrect, math is not the purest science; it's not even a science at all. Mathematics is a language, based in principles of logic. If you want to argue where logical principles come from, read some literature on epistemology. Math does nothing more than give us a means to explain and model physical (and non-physical) systems in a way that we can understand. It doesn't really have any connection to nature at all. "But math seems to predict nature so well," you might say. This is true, within reason, but here's the thing: math can model things that don't fit our universe as well. It's a blank slate for us to work with, and we make it useful by adding rules to it and seeing if those rules tend to line up with the tendencies of nature. Without rules, math is formless and infinite, but this is not useful in any way. 2 + 2 = 4 has no more meaning than the meaning which we assign it. Even the concept of 2 is more complex than most people would realize. That is why I've become so interested in epistemology, the study of knowledge, what we can "know" and how we come to "know" it. But I seem to be going off on a tangent now, so I'll stop here.

Then what of the situation where we require manipulating nature simply to support the number of people that are alive on Earth? Local farming is all well and good, but it seems the only way we can sustain the human race is by turning food production into an industry. Even if it's not this way now (which I believe it is well beyond already), it more than likely will be in the future. So is this not even moreso going against nature?

I never said control was abuse of power, I said control is that which is subject to being abused. I did not intend to imply that there should be a negative connotation associated with control; rather, I wholeheartedly agree with your reply, so I do not see a contradiction.

Some more thoughts after sitting on this: I feel that there is a significant difference between "power" and "control". Power comes from within. Nature has physical power, while people have individual personal power. Using technology, studying and manipulating the physical properties of the universe to harness the power of nature is not power; this is control of natural power. This can be useful, but it is also an illusion, because the power does not come from the individual. This control can come close to being absolute, since nature does not have its own agenda other than to follow the Dao; but it does not necessarily reach absolute control, since no one can have a perfect understanding of nature. How close or far would depend on the individual's understanding of nature. Likewise, when an individual leads a group, this is not power, but control of the power of individuals. This control is not absolute, and is subject to the individuals under the leader. Study and learning typically consists of improving control. Then, cultvation consists of building and making more efficient the usage of internal energy, thereby improving personal power. Building personal power does not lead to improving control. Rather, I would say that zerostao's assertion that we could liken power to De as being more accurate, though I've come to appreciate Master Liao's (via dwai) description of De rather than simply calling it "virtue". So, as from above: Control is abused, not power. "Superior power" is power. "Inferior power" is control. ... maybe.

I feel that this is a great excerpt to take note of (as well I applaud your presentation of these numerous translations), as this alone speaks volums on many differences between the ways of society and Dao, the natural way. I have not read all of your commentary, yet, but what I have read so far is very interesting.

This is very interesting, as you almost always hear of De and virtue being practically synonomous (note that in most translations Dao is kept as Dao, while De is almost universally translated as virtue). A very good observation, if I may say so myself. Indeed, Lao Tzu even says that whatever goes against the Dao will soon cease to be. Perhaps much of what we as humans consider to be "power" is a lot to do with the views of society. A man or woman of great station is still a man or woman, they are simply elevated to that station because their society has allowed it, and such a station is simply a title and position that has been assigned to them. Can such use and abuse of "power" even be called such? Only because society allows it.

On a calm, sunny day, most people are happy; this is simply nature taking its course. During a terrible storm, many are unhappy, yet this is also nature taking its course. So, the people are pleased when nature goes with them, but they are upset when it goes against them, even though it serves neither end; it is neutral, and does not strive to any end. Would this same idea apply to power? I shall sit on what a good definition for power might be.

I just started thinking about this question this morning, and I'm kind of curious to see how other people feel about it. What do you think, in you personal experience is the single greatest quality or charactericstic that a person can have or exhibit? Among many other qualities, I would have to say kindness. A person who, in a given situation, has to decide on a course of action, I believe that a kind action would generally be of the more prudent choices. However, I haven't had a significant amount of time to meditate on this, so I may come up with a new answer later. What do you think?

I like the last part, but I think we should be wary of using terms like "wisdom" loosely. Lao Zi certainly was, as he never associated wisdom as a quality of a sage. Then again, that may simply be from people who misuse the term in the first place....

Is not honesty the fool's trait? The clever one is the one who learned to lie for their own gain. Cleverness may be a useful tool to many, but not necessarily to the Daoist (Dao De Jing, Ch. 19). Hmm... perhaps a better question would be to address also the collection of qualities necessary to support the highest quality. As well, as rainbowvein mentioned, I too would be curious on your take of the Three Treasures.

Perhaps you're right. I sort of had the Buddhist idea of "non-permanent identity" in mind, but it's all a jumble of thoughts in my head, so trying to explain something esoteric from a perspective personal understanding is a bit like trying to explain to someone the best way to swim in a pool full spaghetti, as learned from some personal experience and second-hand expertise.

An image I like to use in this regard if I find my ego building is to imagine the mind as a slate, upon which the personalities and characteristics of that person are written, and to simply return to being a blank slate. Kind of a blend of ideas, but I think part of this image comes from the idea of anatman, where keeping the blank slate you see that behind all ego we are all essentially the same entity. Close the thinking mind, close the judging mind, open the seeing mind, open the understanding mind. Look at a person externally and you see what distinguishes them as an individual. Look at them internally and you see that you are fundamentally the same. Like that? or am I off the mark? Anyway, just a thought.

Are we speaking of the BIble or are we speaking of religions? The text may have veiled meaning, I agree, I do not discount many of the teachings of religions. I'm speaking of the concept of theism expressly, in that we are regarding the existence of a creator god(s) which exists superior to mortal beings.

Let me clarify, I was speaking expressly on theistic religions. I would not call Daoism a theistic religion. ... or is there something else to which you were referring?

In an ideal sense, but even the wire through which its transmitted has resistance. It's important to not confuse the mathematical/physical model we use to understand with the real thing. The Dao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Dao. "You must be your own lamps, be your own refuges. Take refuge in nothing outside yourselves. Hold firm to the truth as a lamp and a refuge, and do not look for refuge to anything besides yourselves." -The final words of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha ^ Meditating on this today. I find this message resonates very well with me. When I look to other religions, they all speak of dependence on something else. Something which controls the very fate of their afterlife, which seems rather arbitrary when you consider how many religions claim having the correct path which will win favor with their god(s). This is why I rejected theism as a religious practice (as a concept, that's a different argument).

Fair enough. I suppose I just don't have as much experience with seeing in other systems as I do in theistic religions. Though I wonder if most Christians would be open-minded enough to accept a person who follows the teachings of Jesus without believing that he was God. Some might, but most don't. Rather, I feel like most people feel like that belief is the most important part, instead of how they actually live their lives. Perhaps it is also like this with many people in Daoism and Buddhism as well, and I simply haven't met enough of them to discover this. And this is the part where someone tells me and I cover my ears and go "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Without having read through all 11 pages of this conversation (though I did read some and found many quite insightful), I'll share my experience as well. First, I have the heart of a scientist, through and through. That said, I'm not a die-hard "Science is God, Science is everything, All hail science!" kind of guy, I just find it to be an interesting method to exploring the universe. And truthfully, that is what I love most is progressing my understanding. However... I suppose I'll start by saying I was raised Catholic, but I was always quite interested in studying the sciences. Ironically enough, having attended private Catholic school for 13 years, in my final year of high school I took a class called Social Justice and World Religions. Still one of the best classes I've ever taken, with a great teacher, too. I had heard about Buddhism before (though not much), but it was definitely my first exposure to Daoism. TTC and the Dhammapada weren't even required reading, but upon hearing my teacher read the first chapter of TTC, I was quite enthralled by such a completely different way of looking at philosophy. I found copies of the previously mentioned texts and read them through. I wasn't immediately converted or anything, but I was certainly interested. College came, and I slowly lost interest in keeping up with Catholicism. Too many contradictions. Too much bureaucracy. But overall I just couldn't stay behind the concept of God anymore. It didn't seem right. I will say that I do appreciate many of the values I learned from my years as a devout Catholic, but that was all. Eventually I didn't even call myself theistic, let alone Christian. Fast forward a few years, I decide to leave college (like an idiot) and join the military (like an idiot). Funnily enough, during my three months at basic, the only personal items we were allowed were up to two books, and they had to be religious. Well, I certainly wasn't taking a Bible (I'd read it enough times anyway), so I toted along with me my copy of TTC (I don't know where my copy of the Dhammapada went). While I had lost much of the interest I had of philosophy in college, reading through the TTC I realized how much of it I already agreed with. Not even having to stretch, I could read a chapter and relate to it almost entirely, as if I had thought that way the entire time. I probably read through it 3 or 4 times during basic, so when I got out and was free to expand my philosophical library, I knew I had to learn more. I read more and more about Daoism, and while I didn't really click with some of the traditional Daoist rituals and such, I really enjoyed studying the philosophical aspects of it (yup, yet another philosophical Daoist). I particularly enjoyed The Tao of Physics, because it reinforced a lot of those gut feelings I had about my scientific nature matching up with the insights of the TTC. I call this my period of "unlearning" (hence the name), as I really had to deconstruct a lot of what I thought I understood. I'll skip the rest, most of it's just more study and insights I've had. At the moment, I'm kind of on the fence with Daoism and Buddhism. I will say though that what intrigues me the most about the philosophy of both of these (excluding some details, so there's no need to nitpick) is that much of these systems can be built from nothing. Christianity and other religions rely so heavily on their texts that, if you take away those texts, there's hardly anything you can build from. Daoism, on the other hand, builds directly from nature and reality itself. There are so many (what I will call) undeniable aspects to Daoist philosophy simply due to its simplicity. Buddhism is similar. I see these as two aspects of a whole, where one focuses on the relationship between me and nature (or Dao), while the other focuses on the relationship between me and my 'self' (if I can even call it that). I still consider myself a man of science, and I will more than likely continue pursuing that route in my career. However, there is still that which lies beyond/beneath what we can learn from science, and I feel that continuing my philosophical studies of Daoism and Buddhism may one day lead me to where I'm trying to go. Call it a gut feeling. I may feel a bit nihilistic at times, but I think I've ultimately rejected that in favor of the Dao and the Buddha nature. I think much of what I am interested in can be considered epistemological, finding the roots of our knowledge and wisdom, or even how we gain knowledge, or what knowledge even is, or if we can even really "know" something at all. To be honest, the limits of knowledge I encountered through my study of epistemology almost made me lose my interest in science entirely. There are still times when I flip-flop between science, Daoism, Buddhism, and other philosophies. Ultimately, though I will likely continue my paradoxical process of learning and unlearning until I might one day find something I'm content with. Like a rock. And then I will sit on it and probably meditate.

Greetings to all, It has been a matter of time since I have written here, as I have managed to keep busy with both work and school in tandem. However, I've decided to share something I have been pondering over to see if anyone else could provide insight into this... dilemma? I truly do enjoy studying and contemplating Daoism and Buddhism, but I still have a problem with identifying myself as either a Daoist or Buddhist. Perhaps the reason for this is because I do not entirely seek (or maybe understand would be better here) the same end goals. Particularly, I would like to speak in regards to Daoism. The concept of the Dao has provided great insight what I might perceive as the true nature of things, and I respect the idea of following (becoming one with?) the Dao. However, there seems to be a common theme in Daoism of immortality, how a Daoist may try to attain immortality by harmonizing with the Dao. Somehow, to me this just seems... disagreeable to me. I just can't bring myself to desire or wish to seek making myself immortal. On the one hand, by living in accordance with the Dao, one should be able to prolong one's life, but on the other hand, attempting to attain immortality just seems.... unnatural. And that which is unnatural does not follow in accordance with the Dao. That which is living will perish, in accordance with the natural way of things, so trying to become immortal seems counterintuitive to the Dao. Am I making a mistake in my thoughts here? or is it simply that my goals do not align with the goals of a Daoist?

I've been studying ethics for the past two months, and we've started talking about loyalty. I'm not entirely sure how exactly I feel about it at the moment, but I've also been reading about it from several different perspectives. I just kind of wanted to throw it out there as a general question to see what people here (being of a slightly different mindset than the people I interact with otherwise) think about it: what's your opinion on loyalty? Are there different kinds of loyalty? When is it good and when is it bad?

Uh oh, MH partially agreed with you, you must be going the wrong direction ;D

This is a very good observation. I definitely agree that humility and loyalty are not mutually inclusive. I value and practice humility as a way of diminishing the ego, but that's a personal thing for me; showing humility to another for me does not imply my loyalty to them. Also, there certainly does seem to be a significant difference between loyalty to an individual or group as opposed to loyalty to an ideal. Still, both can have their good and bad sides, such as loyalty to a person whom you trust has good values (sageness/wisdom, perhaps?) or loyalty to a good ideal, versus loyalty to a person/group which may seem to work well in practice but, ultimately, has bad fundamental ideals, or even misguided loyalty to a bad ideal (perhaps through negative personal experience?). Still, in the end, doesn't this all eventually boil down to loyalty to ideals/values, since loyalty to a person would initially be warranted by some sort of perception that they are loyal to the same values you are loyal to? Then again, this could also give birth to blind loyalty, such as, "I like this person's values, so I will be absolutely loyal to them," but then that person doesn't follow those values I saw in them as closely as I originally thought. This blind loyalty is something we certainly need to be cautious of. Also, CT's observation about loyalty to memories is a great observation.

You might find Josiah Royce's work on loyalty interesting. He's one of the philosophers we've read, he wrote a famous piece called Philosophy of Loyalty in the early 20th century. He takes a similar stance in defending loyalty as being good, and that by being "loyal to loyalty" we can spread loyalty among all people so that everyone will be loyal to each other. Also, rather than identifying loyalty as one virtue among many, he says that all good virtues are merely special forms of loyalty to loyalty. Still haven't decided on my opinion about it, but it's a different point of view on the subject, you might find it interesting as I did. Edit: https://archive.org/details/philosophyloyal00roycuoft If you're interested in reading about it. The above ideas are specifically from Chapter 3

Every martial art I've ever practiced that had a philosophy behind it, no matter what the style, has always taught a certain principle: combat is always a last resort, and you should only engage in a physical fight if you absolutely have to. If you can talk your way out of it, then talk. If you can run away, then run. Heck, if you can give them money and get them to leave, then do that. But if they pose a continuous threat to you or others, then you should use the skills you have developed to defend yourself. Beyond that, it begins to vary somewhat, but some of the more "tranquil" martial arts, such as aikido, focus on limiting the physical harm done to your opponent. This should be done in relation to what your skill level might be, or whatever you can handle I suppose. Still, superiority in fighting skill is not something to lord over an opponent; rather, one should undertake the responsibility of being able to use that skill in a way that can benefit others and oneself. If you can defeat an opponent without killing them, don't kill them. If you can defeat opponent without breaking a bone, don't break any bones. If you can defeat an opponent without landing a single blow, then don't throw any blows. Respect for all life is important in many traditions, and that includes oneself.