dust

Welcome. 6 weeks of discussion on TTB and 90% of people can do this: Disclaimer: as far as I know this is not true.

This seems so obvious, and yet at the same time it is kind of hard for a human being to comprehend; that something could have "no beginning". Saying "it has no beginning" is to say "it never began" which is to say "it doesn't exist" -- but this is our language tricking us. Nothing more. This is why I suggest that the question "What came first?" is meaningless, and yields meaningless answers. This doesn't necessarily mean that "the Big Bang" doesn't happen, though, at 'the beginning' of each cycle...right?

Hi Buddhist Don't worry, I don't think anyone else knows what Tao is either That's why we're here talking about it

It does, but The highest good is like light Light gives life to the ten thousand things and does not strive It shines in places men reject and so is like the Tao Replacing 'water' with 'light' I see little to argue with.. In chapter 78, a couple more things would have to be changed, but the essence would be the same: all life depends on light, all life can be destroyed by light. Light is even less solid (to us) than water, but like water is soft and pervasive most of the time, and just as powerful. Well, I won't labour the point further. You see what I'm trying to say, I assume, even if you don't agree..

Depends who you ask the writers of the Taiyishengshui would disagree, I think But I wasn't really referring to cosmology.. I set no store by any cosmology, Taoist or other... I'm fairly sure that "What came first?" is a meaningless question, and returns meaningless answers. I was just talking about the taijitu as a good abstract representation of general Taoist thought. There is no element that 'should' be venerated above any other as being 'more like Tao'. Chapter 8 of Laozi tells us that water is close to the Tao in certain aspects of its behaviour. It doesn't say "worship water". To suggest that water 'wins' over all, or that the Sun 'wins' over all, is missing the point.

To me, though, once we start dividing it into 'the 5 Elements' or any other system of classification, it stops representing everything. As an abstract, it can be light and dark / fire and water / dry and wet / hot and cold / expanded and contracted / big and small / tall and short / stick and hole / good and bad / ... etc ... but it is both all and none of these 'things'.

I've had an affinity for the taijitu / yinyang symbol since I was a child... wasn't it chosen as a Taoist symbol precisely because it represents everything?

thetaobums + [Ctrl + Enter] = www.thetaobums.com I've been using these shortcuts for .com .org .net many years and am often surprised to hear that few people know of them These days, as this site is the only one I visit beginning with T, I just need type 't' into Firefox and it knows.. Google can still find out where you've been though.

super llama

Thanks Well, sure, it's all largely unbeknownst to most... but it's not like nobody has the capability to know, is it? http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html The Independent is a major UK newspaper. They told people, and I'm sure many others have talked about it... but it's not interesting news. Nobody's died, nobody's been raped (literally anyway), nobody's been abducted, nobody's scored a last-minute goal against Real Madrid... so nobody gives a shit.

Well that's an odd thing to do

Could be he was considering writing a book on animal sounds..

Well... no...

Certainly most people who go into working for pharmaceutical companies are just trying to do a job and make money -- and we assume that much of the time they have chosen this area in the hope that their work might help people. I agree that there must often be a sincere intent to "do good science and to produce good medicine". Not to take this too off-topic, but.. if I were to criticize Big Pharma, it would be [a] criticizing it at the same level as people criticize any multinational corporation and the "evils" that go with them -- including, as you say, the political and economic issues criticizing the long-term negative effects of championing pharmaceuticals as the answer to life's problems I think that is something everyone needs to take a certain amount of responsibility for. We can and should blame large corporations for many things, but if people just used common sense, eating well and not sitting around all day, they'd rarely have the need for drugs.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html No. Notable bits: Thought this was worthy of its own topic, yessir.

Simple answer: every person is different. To answer any of the questions above, you'd have to look at the individual's background (both familial and cultural), their genetics, and a number of other factors (e.g. some would suggest astrological factors, perhaps..). Spiritual profiles might offer some insight, I suppose, but it is my opinion that the stuff on that page above is utter nonsense.

^ i honestly don't understand the point of that post

Teachers will generally be biased towards the idea of teachers being a necessity, no? I have been both student and teacher of Chinese, and can attest that for most people, it is experience and practice, rather than tutelage, that is the key. Not sure about other things (qigong etc) though.

I kinda wish I wasn't getting involved but sometimes just can't help myself. We could get caught up in semantics all day. Someone going out to search for necessary info might decide that the best way to learn is to enroll on a university course. If this person gets teachers, it is still up to him to decide whether or not to listen to them. etc etc. I see a difference between learning something by accident through experimentation learning something by accident, by accident learning something by accident from an endeavour forced upon one learning something from a book one intended to read learning something from a book one stumbled across in a coffee shop learning something from a book one was forced to read learning something from a person one admires learning something from a person one met at random in a bar learning something from a teacher etc etc Different ways of learning will yield different results for different people in different circumstances over different periods of time. In any case, it's up to the student to absorb a lesson and be able to apply it in the future. So.. I don't see much value in debating the semantics of "self-taught" vs "taught" vs whatever... edit: My point being, I suppose, that it's up to the individual whether or not she wants a teacher.. I know that I learn some things much better alone, with a book or my own experience as my teacher, and some things much better from a person pushing me towards information/possibilities I didn't know existed and would never have pushed far enough to see on my own

Your translation definitely gives a more solid conclusion than the traditional interpretations, if we can accept your first premise: that he's talking about enjoying seeing the fish, rather than seeing the fish enjoy themselves. I would say, based just on the Chinese, that I can't accept that premise.. 是魚樂也 Just seeing this, would you ever assume that there was an implied 看 or 视 (or whatever)? 安知魚之樂 Or again, just seeing this, would you assume that he was talking about "looking at fish"? 鱼之乐 fish's happiness

Yeah... for now...

I said I can't imagine a world where everyone is nice to each other... and I can't. That doesn't mean it can't be better than it is now! I can imagine a slightly "better" world. Genetics/robotics etc are not "my ideas".. I find these ideas repulsive, in fact. Just using them to illustrate a point! In a genetically modified future, we could very easily alter ourselves to just be "nice" and docile. Not my idea of life. But it's going to happen in some way or other, isn't it? There are people who want it to.

Queenie Charlie new D'Angelo

Oh..we can be nicer. And I won't say that it's impossible that we could all be nice to each other at some point (genetics/robots/a distantly evolved descendant). But at this point, I cannot believe it is possible. No. I am realistic, not cynical. I didn't say that it couldn't be better. It's not cynical to not believe that the world is going to morph into a fluffy paradise within the next few decades/centuries. But I am also constantly "improving" myself (I believe). Being as honest, courageous, and flexible as possible (which isn't always a lot..but better than I used to be). The only way we could ever get to a better point is if everyone adhered to a simple path of self-reflection. Recognizing the oneness. True honesty, courage, and flexibility... which a large majority of people don't have the capacity for, in my opinion.