wandelaar

This is muddled reasoning. Without an ego we wouldn't be anybody, or rather an empty body, or in any case not an ordinary human being. We wouldn't have preferences, character traits, etc. It's hard to see how such a "person" could develop an interest in politics let alone take a stand on issues. So in a trivial sense it is true that a hypothetical person without an ego would not be upset by Trump or at least not as long as Trump wouldn't directly attack the person. Maybe in the later case some basic instincts might kick in... Now does that prove that my ego is the cause of me getting upset by Trump. No - because there are plenty of people with an ego who like Trump and don't get upset about him at all. Thus the ego should rather be considered as a necessary psychological condition for having any evaluative reaction to Trump at all, not as the sole cause of me getting upset about him. The reasons why I get upset about Trump and the reasons why others don't and rather like him are the crucial thing here. Blaming my ego is besides the point. Anyway the concept of an ego-less person is most likely an illusion.

Yes - I think it is dangerous to leave that part out.

That's true. Forcing people to change will often backfire. It's a subtle business.

The Buddha is wrong. I don't care when people disagree with me or with Joe Schmo in Kalamazoo as long as this is done with sensible arguments and on the basis of facts. The crucial thing here is not me but the form of argumentation that's used. It also irritates me when other people are attacked on the basis of false arguments. A good example is politics in the US, I don't live there but it greatly irritates me how Trump is fooling millions of people by continual lying, name-calling, etc. Trump doesn't know me and he haven't attacked me. Then how could I have gotten upset about that if it was all because of my ego?

That's correct. Too much is self-defeating. But what the quote by stirling proposes is much more radical and consists of rooting out any and all (social) preferences, which corresponds to no longer giving a fuck about anything. Which is not the way any society can function. The "enlightened" people following such a path would basically drop out and let others run the show, the town, the country, or whatever. If the Buddha himself had been of that persuasion than he wouldn't have founded Buddhism at all. Why should he have bothered if it no longer mattered to him anyhow?

Such a form of Buddhism would be a terrible thing from the social point of view. It would the spiritual version of not giving a fuck about anything.

Don't know where that comes from. Facts in themselves are neither pleasant nor unpleasant. However training myself to "don't give a fuck" about it (supposing such a thing is even possible) doesn't look like an attractive way out to me. Also I don't see anything wrong with caring about facts and correct argumentation. I cannot prove those things to be valuable in any absolute sense. But I don't consider the fact that it is me caring about it as in any way disqualifying. Who else inside my mind could be caring about it if some caring is to be done. In daily life we are not concerned with absolute truths but with relative truths. And when people no longer care about getting the relative truths right than that can (and eventually will) have dire consequences. See for instance the developments in the US where Trump with his big con game is threatening the democratic system itself.

@liminal_luke It seldom happens that posters on the internet admit that they are wrong on something. I have exactly the same experience as you describe. But if I'm proven wrong I will admit it because I don't even want to win a debate when I'm wrong. Winning a debate in itself is a rather shallow pleasure. Much more important to me is improved understanding. If that comes about by me being proven wrong so much the better.

Probably from the conviction that facts and correct argumentation matter.

I wonder if only the ego is to blame when discussions go off the rails. I have a strong suspicion that my irritation at perceived fallacies and debating tricks will never subside whatever the state of my ego.

The Dao Bums is a great place for learning to respectfully disagree. Which isn't at all easy. I don't think even the Buddha thought that his opinions were as good as anybody else's. For why else would he have gone on to preach his doctrine if he didn't think of it as somehow superior to what people were already thinking? The hard thing is staying respectful when (you think that) somebody else is provably wrong and doesn't even change his/her opinion when (in your eyes) he/she is shown to be wrong. Arguments seldom change opinions. And it's equally hard for others to stay respectful when being declared to be wrong with reasons supplied. We don't like to be seen as idiots, not even regarding some particular subject. It's here that realizing the unsubstantiality of the self might help a tiny little bit...

@Infolad1 I also have a life besides reading and posting on The Dao Bums so the effect of your lengthy posts for me has now rapidly turned into pure overkill. Nevertheless I plan to study more about Michael Levin's work and ideas. Thank you very much for mentioning this guy as I didn't know him and I think his work is highly relevant. Has he also written a book about all that? As for the rest it's within the realm of what I consider spectacular but not necessarily paranormal, or else insufficiently investigated to rule out fraud or self-deception. But I will not here bother to enter into another cycle of futile argumentation. As to the described breathing exercises as a way to experience some siddhis myself I'm not prepared to risk my health for that.

Watched some of the video's linked to by @Infolad1 Very interesting stuff. And much more useful that continually repeating arguments that have already been made here numerous times before and have been ignored just as often. The good thing about infolad1's video's is that they seem to be scientifically legit. At least I haven't seen anything suspect yet...

And your reaction exactly proves my point! If you had a critical faculty and employed it than you would have considered the point made that feeling chi doesn't prove the existence of chi. But you simply ignore it. That's why I don't consider you a credibly source of information.

It's very easy to imagine oneself as having a clue about things when you apparently just don't care whether or not your feelings reflect something real. But I'm not going to rehash all the argument for careful and critical research here. This has already been done many times before by myself and others. People without a critical faculty won't listen anyhow.

No - it isn't. Feeling the chi doesn't prove it's existence. But this discussion is moving in circles so I will not repeat the arguments.

@Infolad1 Nice! I already agree that the "I" is an illusion. The word "I" simply points at the current speaker, and the concept "I" in its different instances appears in and refers to those parts of the world process (whatever that is) that currently happen to reflect on themselves. The I is not a thing but a temporary process. Like a flame or a tornado. Buddhism has some good arguments for the nonexistence of the I, and in the West the philosopher David Hume thought much the same. Also science is catching up with those ideas. I'm already convinced of that, but no siddhis yet. Also I'm not interested in siddhis to do something with them. I would be happy with micro-siddhis that are completely worthless beyond the fact that they prove their existence. I see them (that is the proof of their existence) as a way to move beyond the materialistic world view that sees our consciousness as dependent on our brain and body.

About taking the shot: It's not that simple. The shot to be taken takes many years of training with uncertain results. In the same time one could have done something else with useful and/or interesting (almost) guarantied positive results by taking up a more regular study or training. Besides the spiritual market place has hundreds or maybe thousands of options for those who are afraid of missing out on this or that exotic experience. So are we to try them all? Clearly not - it wouldn't even be possible to do so. So you have to make choices anyhow, and any possible choice implies taking the risk of missing out on something. Long story short: whatever you choose to do, you will always be missing out on something. Even if you eventually acquire some siddhi you will have missed the opportunity to do a more regular study or training in the time now spend on acquiring your siddhi. Another option (especially fitted for older folks) is instead of running around trying the achieve this or that to slow down and start appreciating what you already have and can do. And unless you're in dire poverty or bad health that's quite a lot.

@liminal_luke Well - at least you are honest about it.

@Maddie It's a hopeless battle. Every time has it's own specific forms of madness, and in our current day it's postmodern relativism. The revolt of ignorance. The assault on truth. The death of expertise. It all revolves around the wish of people to take back control and to regain a sense of self worth. Seeing themselves as nobodies, which in fact most of us (including myself) are, doesn't seem very appealing. Science and technology have evolved far and wide beyond common comprehension and people feel themselves left out of the equation. There's almost no subject or there are others who know far more about it and/or are more capable than themselves. Then along comes this warmed-up version of ancient skepticism with its claim that everybody is entitled to his/her own truth, and that science is just another belief system. Small wonder that many jump at the opportunity to put themselves on a pedestal as now seems possible with academic backing by the postmodern "philosophers" to make a long nose towards science and the experts. Yes - accepting that we are just straw dogs is hard, but it's necessary if we want to see reality as objectively as humanly possible. Only few want to make the effort or like what they see. Many are happy with the kind of make-belief that "resonates" with them, and don't care to investigate if it's likely to be true or not. I have little hope that this will ever change.

@Infolad1 Indeed if one would develop a siddhi oneself then one could move beyond opinion towards experience. One would still have to watch out for self deception, logical fallacies, statistical errors etc. But over time for someone able to do it himself the thing would become as certain as humanly possible. But most of us are not prepared or willing to go this (long and uncertain) road. And so for most of us deciding by personal experience is not an option. That is unless some new scientifically backed ways are found to make the personal experience of siddhis available to (almost) everyone. Do you also have info about that?

@ Taoist Texts You may as well spare you the trouble. The game is over. Apart from an occasional link to an interesting text or an incidental wisecrack you have nothing interesting to add to the forum. All the rest consists of fallacies and trolling. You're on my ignore list now.

I prefer to be seen as insincere if that's what it takes to arrive at some credible inter-subjective knowledge. There's too much relativist postmodern blabbering going on these days. This nonsense will also pass some day but for now we're still in the midst of it. Here's some antidote: https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

Thank you very much! My medical understanding is still limited and so this information is very welcome. I looked at one of the video's just now and will look at the others later on when I have the time to do so. If the other video's are as good as the first one than this is the preferred way to go to determine what is and what isn't likely to be true about Chi Masters.

The series mentioned by Zhongyongdaoist is highly relevant for the older scientists, magicians, astrologists, etc. Specifically about Newton's alchemy see: https://www.google.nl/books/edition/The_Foundations_of_Newton_s_Alchemy/wwc4AAAAIAAJ?gbpv=1