dust

I also think we're overlooking other ways out of the situation -- rather than reacting to the violence of the pushing, perhaps we could find a way to react to the child himself? Figure out why he's pushing? How to prevent it?

Can a 3-year old learn this? Honest question. Personally, I am of the firm belief that a child is the truest version of a person. If a child (especially one so young) is passive and non-aggressive, they should be taught how to utilize that first, before being forced into learning how to hit people (which is what the OP seems to want) Sure, I get that. I have wondered what I might be like now if I'd continued with judo as a young child, or taiji as a teen. Perhaps I'd be more confident as an adult. Who knows. The fact is, I gave up....

An odd question. Why bring "ego" into it? Is eating egotistical? Breathing? Asking this very question? My preferred question would be "is self-defence useful?" or "do we need self-defence?" To which I would answer, it depends on what one means by self-defence.

Michael, you misunderstand me, I think. I wasn't suggesting that it is. Martial arts are about a lot more than fighting, I realize that. I was suggesting that the OP wanting his 3 year old son to learn how to fight and instill a "killer instinct" is not necessarily the best way of handling the situation. The OP also said "i guess physical force is the only way out" -- his kid's been pushed over 4 times, and has had assistance from the teacher in handling the situation, but now the "only" recourse is violence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct#Individual_cases http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featblunders/ Science is perfect, I now realize that. Not at risk of manipulation by the selfish, and no chance of mistakes being made. Of course. All hail science.

I wonder why someone who doesn't believe in avoiding conflict or "letting things go how they go" would be on a Taoist forum? And why much of the advice here is to learn how to fight back? Apart from my belief that violence is not useful and will not make the situation better, I also don't believe that one should try to force another person to be other than how they are. People learn, change, etc, yes. But it's something that happens over many years. We cannot, and should not, force someone to change. Perhaps just be thankful that your son is not a violent little bully!

When the wrong question is asked, the wrong answer must be given

This is what my sister tells me (she's an acupuncture student) It seems that everything going on in my body is related to liver qi stagnation! Yes, the yawning also. Well I'm glad these symptoms are normal and possibly even beneficial!

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=supernatural&searchmode=none Interesting definition. I would say that the "supernatural" as defined above is not possible. Nothing can be outside of nature, and nothing can affect nature (i.e. stuff that exists) except nature itself (or, in other words, nothing can be outside of Dao, and nothing can affect Dao except Dao itself). I would then agree that something "supernatural" as defined above is indeed something impossible. I would also agree that there are unexplained phenomena, but that they must be within this "chain of natural cause and effect". Herein also lies the difference, I think, between the 2 types of spirituality we've been talking about: that which is concerned with things entirely within the chain of natural cause and effect, and that which is not. It is the stuff that is not within this chain that I am not concerned with, as it doesn't exist. But the difficulty often lies in distinguishing what is and is not actually happening. I will stop talking about "supernatural" now. Except the TV show. The Winchesters are awesome.

Well.. sitting (upright either in a chair or in half-lotus), slowing breath, looking forwards, and counting each breath on the mala. Trying to focus on the breaths. I keep eyes open (not constantly of course -- blinking as usual) as I've found closing them actually distracts me more. After a few breaths (it's gradual, but maybe after 10 or so) I notice water coming up in my eyes as if I were crying. It increases to the point that I have to blink it out and then wipe it away a good few times before the end of the "session". It is (as far as I'm aware) entirely unemotional. I'm not actually crying, as I would with sadness or laughter (my eyes do also water when I laugh heavily).

Really interesting paper. I'll be reading it at intervals. So far the central idea seems to be that there is no one "correct" version of the character throughout history, either in terms of writing or pronunciation or meaning. It would be nice if more people were to realize this about certain characters when discussing ancient texts!

No expert here, so I will definitely be taking this all into account. What I've been doing recently is using a mala to count breaths (usually around half the beads, ~54) and breathing as slowly and deeply as possible, then seeing how long it has taken, and calculating breaths per minute from that. (It means I'm not fixating on holding a breath for longer than I should be, but am progressively slowing with each session. I'm now comfortable at ~one breath every 45 seconds.) At risk of taking this off on a tangent, why do my eyes water when I slow my breathing like this?

I think perhaps some people use the word supernatural to refer to things which are not possible -- out of the area of natural (possible) occurrence -- and some use it to refer to things which are simply unexplained. Many things happen which we don't (yet) have an explanation for, and which (as I'm sure Protector would like to make clear) science might one day find an answer for. Until they are explained, they might be considered "supernatural" by some.\ Perhaps we could use the terms "impossible phenomena" and "unexplained (but existing) phenomena" For example, Me taking off and flying right now would be impossible. Also supernatural. Me jumping out of the window screaming "Hail penguins!" would be possible, but unexplained. And possibly construed as supernatural (some people would say I was possessed, some that I was on drugs, some that the devil had taken me, some that I'd just had enough...) It has occurred to me, again, recently, that most arguments people have are about definitions, not actual meaning or intent.

To me, this seemed like you were offended or annoyed by what I'd said. It sounded negative. Since then, everything I've said has been an honest attempt to clear up my meaning and show that I wasn't misinterpreting anything. I never wanted to offend, and it honestly seemed like you had taken umbridge to what I'd said. Now I know to just ignore you.

I was too (just now) As far as the modern character, the connection should have been clear to me from the beginning -- 辶 is 辵 -- or 彳with the added 止...! There are some characters which I learnt right near the beginning of the learning process (before I could string a sentence together in Chinese), when radicals didn't mean all that much to me, or when I hadn't learnt to use them fully to infer meaning.. and they always just meant what I was told they meant. 德 is one of those, I guess. Just "virtue". I've never picked it apart. You know what I mean? Picking it apart... "walk with a straight heart" / "walk straight with a (full?) heart" And in the case of the Chu script, just "straight-hearted"..?

My ego is constantly flapping Someone who claims that God probably doesn't exist, and is classified atheist, is not necessarily using any idea other than "I don't believe in something I have no evidence for". Fair enough. I have absolutely no problem with that. I think I believe that God doesn't exist, though there's a little part of me that isn't 100% However, there are those Atheists or antitheists who are so bent on the utilization of science and technology and so convinced that science will be the thing to make all humans joyful that we can call them indoctrinated. They have no basis for this belief whatsoever, but have been taught it by celebrity scientists and wealthy business owners over the last few decades. They've been taught that science is the one and only answer. We can see that belief in Protector. It worries me a little.

OK, man, I officially give up. As far as my own place in this conversation, you're not responding to anything that I'm actually saying to you. You persist in identifying this thing (spirituality) as something that nearly all of us have told you it's not. You're going against your own supposed dedication to reason by being entirely unreasonable -- that is, not using reason to argue, but instead ill-informed preconceived notions about the world outside of a laboratory, continuing to claim that we all believe in faeries and deities and magic. We do not. I do not. Please, go and troll somewhere else.

Nice. Yes, the nature of the self. Where were you earlier? I could've used this in the other thread!

I've always wondered about this. If someone thinks they can fly, why not just...fly..? I can't think of a single animal or machine that needs to get to a great height before it can beat its wings or turn engines on...

It's not that we're creating something that doesn't exist. There are people who call themselves atheists who vehemently disbelieve the existence of anything they can't "see" and are fundamentally dedicated to the eradication of religion, theism, etc. We are calling them Atheists because they don't simply lack belief in God and call it a day -- they make youtube videos about how much they hate religion and how much better atheism is than anything else. Those people exist. I wouldn't say that this Atheism is a religion by traditional standards, but it's pretty close in its approach much of the time. I cannot respect a person who believes that I am going to hell for not believing in God and does nothing about it. It is their responsibility to try and convince me. And mine to shut them down... but not permanently. People like this will always exist. You're proof of that.

Well...my spirituality (so-called) is the wonder of the real world. Science is part of it, no doubt. I think science can be great. But many people, including scientists, don't feel that wonder. They go through life like software. I'd say that they lack a spiritual side. From the very beginning here, I would like to point out, I have agreed with you, to an extent, that religion (and spirituality, to the extent that it can be defined as religious or theistic) is unnecessary, and that the world might be a better place without it (though probably not, because people are largely not very nice either way). I just don't think you can define spirituality in purely religious or theistic or magical terms. It can be as simple as finding beauty in the taste of a (stale?) sandwich. Perhaps I should find another name for my spirituality, and avoid further arguments like this. But for now I'll continue to call it spirituality, because my current mental health is as good as it is right now partially because of what I've learnt from Daoism and Buddhism.

But not having thought of it or been exposed to it, one cannot reject it. My tea cup doesn't believe in anything, as far as I know. I wouldn't call it an atheist. An atheist by definition believes that there is no God. By calling oneself atheist, one is asserting a positive disbelief, which itself is a belief. Otherwise, one would do better to call oneself agnostic or freethinker, or any number of other terms...

Atheism is the "rejection of belief in the existence of deities" A baby is born not believing in anything; it is not born rejecting any beliefs Babies could, I think, then be thought of as freethinkers. Or just babies. The arrogance of atheists is learned just as our rejection of belief in gods. Yes, "our" rejection -- I'm an atheist, I suppose. I am not, however, an Atheist. Bill Maher kindly illustrates what it is to be an Atheist in that video. In short, I see an Atheist as someone who hates everything that is not a rejection of belief in gods. The vitriol and sanctimoniousness of some Atheists is astounding.

Very "like"

Aha. It seems that de has lost the left-hand 彳radical in Chu script..? Is it just me or does the one in chapter 55 look a lot like an apple?