wandelaar

That's an interesting consideration! One would have to be a nobody to be able to accept absolutely anything that happens without getting upset now and then. So negativity (within measure) is the price to pay for having strong views and a certain constancy of character. Edited: prize -> price

@ rideforever Probably forcing oneself not to be negative will only make matters worse. I don't think the world is as bad as you now feel, but there's definitely a huge amount of stupidity around. And to be honest there's also stupidity inside myself, that - as far as I recognize it - I don't like either. So I can feel your anger. But I don't know of any easy solution, and it would be great when some Bum could offer one!

https://books.google.nl/books?id=Ljwk1YbL_zEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false Maybe this is an interesting book?

Stopped following this topic, and walked away...

Endlessly participating in deranged political discussions and enjoying every bit of it has nothing to do with Taoism as understood by Lao tzu and Chuang tzu. The old sages would have walked away. Chuang tzu did like discussing with his friend Hui tzu as they booth could appreciate each others wit, but when the latter died Chuang tzu had no one left to discuss with, he didn't mix with the those who were unable and/or unwilling to have a sensible and civilized discussion. The Tao flows to disliked low places means that those who follow Tao rather keep a low profile and avoid power play, intimidation, luxury, arrogance, and bragging. In this Trump is the antithesis of a Taoist ruler. So idolizing the guy proves that one didn't get the (whole) message. But that's OK as there is more to Taoism than Lao tzu and Chuang tzu only. But one should at the very least have the decency to acknowledge the way of the two founding fathers as a form of spirituality. Anything less is trolling.

The following from Wikipedia suggests that overcoming strong emotions was essential to his becoming an immortal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lü_Dongbin#Ten_trials_of_Lü_Dongbin Anyway - a possible explanation for the stories in Taoism and Zen that aim at transcending anger particularly for warriors and fighting cocks is that such is essential for those who are involved in fighting as an occupation. It would burn them up to get angry on a regular basis and it would greatly diminish their ability to efficiently execute the more advanced fighting techniques. I have decided to not delve into religious Taoism as I have already too much to study by just concentrating on Lao tzu and Chuang tzu only.

@ LiT Don't see how those stories prove your point. It rather looks like Lu Dongbin had to transcend anger (and other strong emotions) to become an immortal.

Those are diamonds! But rarely to be found in political debates, that's the worst place to look for truth.

@ LiT A wise post! But then what do you think about the stories in Taoism and Zen that aim at transcending anger particularly for warriors and fighting cocks.

Anger doesn't only work for good men but also for misguides ones and for bad ones. It propels all kinds of people. So that doesn't solve the issue. Besides: there are many stories in Taoism and Zen that aim at transcending anger in order to better achieve one's goal.

This is the level of ego-boosting and pseudo-argumentation one has to deal with when participating in the Trump topics. One's position will be misrepresented beyond recognition by the opposing parties to better score one or two points in the debating contest. Arguments that are unwelcome to your opponents will simply be ignored. And when the temperature rises the attacks will become more and more personal... Participating in such discussions is like eating junk food to test one's ability to survive in unhealthy circumstances. There certainly are ways of cultivation where one systematically pushes the boundary of what one can stand without loosing one's cool. But that is not the way described by Lao tzu and Chuang tzu. Of course one doesn't have to follow the ancient way of Lao tzu and Chuang tzu, but on a Taoist forum one should at least respect it as a way of cultivation.

Why do you think anger in itself is not bad?

Anger is only useful as a biological emergency measure, but as LiT rightly remarks it takes a big toll later on. Anger is unhealthy for your body and it destroys the possibility of objective reasoning and your piece of mind. The ancient Stoics had a lot to say about anger management.

@ windwalker There is nothing strange in avoiding situations that (as of yet) one cannot properly deal with. That's only common sense, and Lao tzu had a lot of advise in the same direction. So was Lao tzu not Taoist or even spiritual? I try to follow Lao tzu (and Chuang tzu who also advised against endless and useless debates), and I regard it as rather silly to be told on a Taoist forum like ours that such a course of action (or rather non-action) isn't real spirituality.

I am not very sensitive to processes in my own body, but some feelings kind of surprise me. I wonder whether they are related to chi flows in the traditional Chinese view of life. In this topic I like to explore whether I can make sense of the concept of chi in my own body on the basis of my body feelings. One peculiar feeling is the following. When I have a headache and close my eyes it is like if inside my physical body there is another more subtle body that is in a chaotic state and as if indistinct thought-like things are wildly bouncing around mainly within my head. Can this be expressed (or maybe even understood) in terms of chi?

Is there an English book on Chinese Taoist Cognitive Psychotherapy? Looks very interesting!

One's perspective may make a difference in what one reckons to be the problem.

No longer following this topic.

@ Kar3n When I think about spirituality I come to some ideas of what it amounts to. According to that individual "barometer" I myself and others will then be more or less advanced spiritually. When I have any information that would lead me to an improvement of my barometer, than I would rapidly improve it. So naturally I consider my own barometer as the best possible with the information I currently have. No fallacy is involved here. It's just a matter of taking oneself seriously. You are also measuring the spirituality of others according to your own barometer, and your barometer reckons being judgemental as (very) detrimental to one's spirituality. But how do you know that those things don't go together? You don't! You cannot look inside my head, and you don't understand my stance. In my opinion everybody as a conscious living human being simply has to be (more or less) judgemental. The only difference is that some people acknowledge the fact, and others don't.

Here is the example of me being shamelessly judgemental that started the ball rolling:

As I personally see no problem in being judgemental (in regard to serious life issues but not in trivial matters), I take the criticism as also referring to me. And that's OK because than I can possibly learn from it. But I don't recognise myself in what is said here about people who are being judgemental. It's all rather beside the point.

I quit. I don't see what all the well meant criticism has to do with me. That could be because (1) I am blind to my own errors, or it could be that (2) my position is grossly misunderstood. As I have read no convincing arguments or examples for (1), I guess it has to be (2). And because the misunderstandings only further accumulate with each new post, I don't think it useful to continue.

No - the judgement is the combined result of the perspective of the judger and the qualities of the judged. But you are right, we have to know the perspective of the judger to be able to correctly interpret the judgement. But the qualities of the judged do play their part. Why would everyone have one if they stink? Simple - because we can't live without opinions. They are necessary for us to make choices in our life's. Postmodernism has turned "being judgemental" into a taboo. And in this way postmodernism has become something of a Thought Police without realising that thereby it has become much more judgemental than the simple souls it judges. But it is true - being judgemental can be taken too far. As the Old Man used to say: know when to stop.

Why? I don't have a sense of moral and ethical superiority, but I do claim the right to think and judge by myself. And I don't even think it possible to factually determine who is right or wrong as regards moral questions. Further I try to live up to my own opinions (it are nothing more: just opinions) as regards a possible (Taoist inspired) way to live. What's wrong about that? One can ignore the paradox, but the postmodern taboo on being judgemental is just as judgemental as honestly recognising that one is judgemental.

The problem is that being judgemental is seen as a problem. So I started this topic to find out what others see as wrong in being judgemental... By the way I see moralising as expressing one's opinions on all kinds of trivial matters that aren't worth the trouble.