Ryan T.

And unless those women and children were active participants in an ongoing conflict, not just happening to be in area where the conflict was occurring, he violated the "rules of war" or "rules of engagement" or whatever they called them at the time he was in the military. That is, if he followed those orders. Just because someone is in the military does not mean they do not get to have a moral compass. Now some may not agree with the calibration of that compass but it should still exist.

Considering the atrocities of the Nazis I'm sure they were and then probably fed to other Jews. When the colonists started importing slaves from Africa and elsewhere there was this idea that these "creatures" were savages and deserved no better. You strike me as having that same opinion of plant life. You summarily decide to draw a line in the sand and say this being(cows, buffalo, chickens) are more important and more advanced than this being(broccoli, lettuce, carrots). I believe them to all have a life-force that is valuable. Everything I eat is sacred! I don't disagree with you on the similarities between humans and the animals we eat. Just because plants are less similar structurally to humans does not make them any less sentient or valuable, no matter what the Buddha said!

But you just equated a meat processing plant/slaughterhouse with Nazi gas chambers/concentration camps. That smacks a little of moral superiority to me.

Sorry confused you with de_paradise. My apologies. I edited my post to reflect my points to you more accurately.

You may want to believe that comparing animals to plants is pathetic but only because you don't want to accept that you are also taking a life. I personally know and accept that every time I eat anything. Meat, plant/vegetable, fruit or grain. All of these are alive or have been or will be. Just because people either are unable to see these as life forms or unwilling to accept them as such just speaks to the myopic nature of people and how little of the whole picture we get to be aware of at any given time. All life is sacred. Too bad for you if you need to lie to yourself to get through your bowl of salad or veggie stir-fry. I do not disagree that most people would not be able to handle killing an animal for food, but I would say that that is a relatively new phenomena. Mostly since our move from rural dwellers to city dwellers. People seem to have a lot less fortitude for such things these days. And again, I do believe a vegetarian diet has a different energetic pattern than that of an omnivore diet. But every person has a different energetic pattern so every diet is not for every one. I have tried existing on a vegetarian diets, vegan and otherwise. They do not work for me in the long-term.

No such thing!

Sorry, that's how it read to me. Ultimately I think we fundamentally agree. Although I believe what you eat is just as important as what you don't eat. Just my experience.

I am sure the animals that are kept in perpetual-lactation would disagree with you on that fact. And I am interested in why, in these vegetarian conversations, no one brings up the life/consciousness of the plants and vegetables that are getting consumed? This idea that we summarily draw a line in the sand and say that this type of being is life and this one is not seems more than a little outdated to me. Even to say sentient beings is a little ignorant in my opinion. There will come a day when we will see animals and plants in a very similar way in regard to them being life forms. Now how these different life forms effect a person energetically is a whole other thing. Personally, I am not able to live a normal life without animal foods in my diet. My activities, metabolism, and geographic climate currently align against any vegetarian tendencies I might want to foster. But as a caveat, I am also not currently able to fully give myself to the type of spiritual cultivation that I truly desire. But soon!

If there were no armies at all in this world you would be more than just a slave to your emotional mind. And I don't know if you have been reading this forum for very long buy only about 20% of threads are "directly" related to Taoist discussion. But that is the thing about Taoist discussion...it really can include most anything. Except for maybe Naxis. But I really only see that as some type of emotional belt-lining on your part. Your ideas about Taoism seem very pollyanna.

As it has been for thousands of years. And Taoists were a part of it then and surely can(and probably should) be part of it now. And it isn't for any of us to say this isn't the correct path for this person.

For both the PT and the mental balancing I would start with the "Five Tibetans". There was a thread just recently on them. A great way to start getting some upper body and core strength. Plus, the flexibility increases that can come along will help you as well. Check YouTube or half.com for "Five Tibetans".

Taoists have been some of greatest military strategists in all of history. Some of the most effective, destructive, deadly martial arts were created by Taoists. I would rather have thinking, feeling, mindful people in the Armed Services. And like it or not your ability to have free, open discussions like this one are at least in some part based on various countries military forces defending their liberty at some point. Plus, she didn't ask for your opinion on her life choices.

While I tend to agree with this as I generally understand Taoism, I would think it matters more how the OP defines Taoism. If his ideas on Taoism link farming with an unnatural way of life, then yes, his job is in conflict with his beliefs. And reading between the lines he as much as said that this is a concern for him on some level, though my example is purely hypothetical. For his personal version of Taoism he may be at odds with his beliefs every waking moment of his life. So it's a little difficult to say that he isn't at odds with Taoism because he hasn't really defined his ideas on it for me/us to make a very informed opinion. Plus, the whole desire thing seems way more Buddhist than Taoist. At least how he put it, IMO.

I have practiced the "Rites/Tibetans" on and off for ten years. To sum up I would call it yoga kindergarten. Not that it they are bad at all, just very simple. Not a very deep practice and not a practice that can go very deep. I do pick them up from time to time. I especially like starting with a set of the "Tibetans" followed by a round of the Taiji "21" chi kung set and then wrapping up with a round of the Taiji long form. If a person was on the road for business or what not, and had limited time in the mornings, that combo would be the perfect 30-40 workout/start to the day!

Your offered stance for these particular devices seem to lean very much towards a "laissez faire" way of thinking. Very much a "let the market figure it out" type of stance, IMO. Your view that birth control, minimum wage, farm policy and environmental policy are some how apolitical somehow doesn't seem quite accurate. Very few topics could be more politically charged, except for maybe gun control or abortion. And I have no reason to doubt your sincerity about your self-examination. It does seem sincere. That does not however mean that you aren't trying to wrap some libertarian worldview up in Taoist clothing. It doesn't mean you are doing that either. That's just what I saw when I read your examples. And maybe I'm reading this thread totally incorrectly, which totally happens, but I don't know if I would agree that you and Blasto are necessarily in accord. He seems to be saying there was a time when government intervention was a good thing and did right in the world. But now government intervention has been "corporatized" and probably maintains and expands a corrupt system. Where you seem to be saying government intervention is not the Taoist way of doing things. That doesn't seem like agreement/accord. But again like most I can be caught in the shackles of my own narrative.

While I understand the gratification a person can get from such "thought experiments", I see it as crap. You made your choice about birth control what does it matter what others might do or not do. We have lived out of sync with nature since the advent of widespread agriculture. Many, if not most, choices stem from that step several millennia ago. Minimum wage? Really? Why would you think to try to apply "Taoist" philosophy to such a thing? The buying and selling of goods and services. People's labor as part of that commoditization? Taoism told me I should only pay you this because it is what the market will support. Taoists were always wary of agriculture. Especially the farming of grains. Organic farming vs. conventional. A person could go 'round and 'round with this. A safe, steady food supply keeps people making more babies so to say that we need a safe, steady food supply(read: conventional, chemically treated, GM, whatever) seems little to do with Taoism and more to do with with being smothered in the the dust of the world. Environmentalism vs. non-intrusion. Same thing as the others really. The phrase that comes to mind for this is putting lipstick on a pig. For every thought experiment you offered there is no "true" way of balance. The balance of the world was upset many thousands of years ago. To try to look for a "Taoist" perspective on this to me just seems like a way to rationalize one's own take on an imbalanced world.

That's funny. I recently read this as I have enjoyed some of his other works, especially "The Zen Works of Stonehouse". It occurred to me while I was reading it that he seems to have included a lot of superfluous geographic information that really was not germane to the the main themes. I could understand if it detailed(which it did in some cases) the isolation of some of these hermits. More often than not it was "then we took the path on the left 100 meters south of the bridge". Decent book but I really don't think I'll be going to visit these folks. Don't really need directions to their hut. One of his earlier works so I cut it some slack. As for the film, I thought it was just okay. Probably on par with the book. Not top drawer film making but there are definitely some pearls of wisdom here and there.

A couple things. Firstly, I never sign on-line petitions as a rule. Mainly due to the futility of such things. Secondly, the people's of the United States will never ween themselves off of petroleum products until the expense is too high. Whether that is environmental expense, like this most recent Gulf spill, or financial costs such as at the pump or in the grocery store. I just don't see a petition doing a thing to impact the general population's opinion on this topic.

Very much at the heart of AA is that people's actions/behaviors are not who they are. They are very much changeable. But the mind of the addict very much needs the concrete acceptance that they are this or that(ie alcoholic, addict, dependency-of-choice) in order to start the process of recovery. It is very much like the acceptance of the nature of suffering in the world that the Buddha espoused. So intellectually I get where you are coming from but for the addict it more often than not is a matter of life and death. So for them it is more than a "certain utility", it is absolutely a necessity in order to survive. Only later can the addict start to see and absorb those nuances.

AA is not a cult. Many things can be cultish if people give them that type of energy. I've seen taiji clubs/studios seem very cult-like depending on where you stood. I see young girls all walking around with Coach handbags, black Northface fleece jackets and UGG boots, they also seem to have fallen into some type of cult that includes that particular uniform. You need to understand that there are two AA.s, the fellowship of AA and the program of AA. The first is the meeting with the bad coffee, the smoke breaks and a lot of folks complaining about stuff. The second is where one member sits down and walks another struggling member through the the "Big Book" of AA. That book outlines how the first hundred men and women came to long-term sobriety. From what I have seen, folks that otherwise could not stop drinking were able to stop when they did the things outlined in that book and if they kept those ideas and principles alive in their lives after that they were able to maintain that sobriety. People talk about success rates all the time. But it really comes down to how you apply yourself to the program. If an alcoholic actively works "the steps" of AA in daily life they will stay sober. Period. That being said even Bill W., one of the founders of the organization/movement, stated that AA was just "spiritual kindergarten". For many suffering/struggling with addiction it is where they begin. The main problem I see when people try to understand what happens in AA is the fact that they look at alcoholism as a choice or some type of character defect. For true alcoholics it goes well beyond that, though it may have been that in the beginning. For the true alcoholic, admitting that they are an alcoholic means that they suffer from a chronic incurable illness. The only remission for that illness is a spiritual solution. AA provides that. Other things can provide that as well. AA has proven itself for millions of people for the better part of a century so I would say best not to judge things from the periphery!

I mean that you do not need to be strong to help someone. And just because you help someone doesn't mean that you will gain strength. But you can easily help someone through your strength and gain strength at the same time. Every situation is going to be dependent on the conditions. And ultimately your help could be harmful in the long term. But that is a whole other discussion.

Both and neither.

I do find them to be quite distinct. My experience is that spiritual experiences are the basis for people's religious beliefs. Not always but very often. I do not agree, as you write, that the basis for religion is a religious doctrine. For many it is but for many that is not the case. Has organized religion led to vast and numerous problems in the world? Absolutely. Are they all wrong? I do not believe so. Just basing my statements on what I see in the movie. It's not like you really know any better than me on that particular issue. Unless perhaps you are a close friend of Mr. Maher, that is. Show me one point in the film where Bill Maher shows any level of openness.

In the middle of my third viewing as I type. I do find the film quite amusing on many levels. Actually it's damn funny! I am definitely trying to be more analytical this viewing. As of yet, and nowhere in the film do I remember, Bill Maher really opening himself up to a spiritual experience which is the foundation that believe in religion. He says over and over that he doesn't know. But all he seems to do is try to dispute other's beliefs and find faults in them, which I grant you are many. I just don't feel he really shows any level of openness. He says he just doesn't know but that's not really what he believes. He knows what he believes, he just says he doesn't because he wouldn't have gotten nearly as far if he had just said what he really believes. He is an atheist and anyone who believes is an idiot.