Pietro

I can answer from the point of view of what was taught to us. But will be looking forward to hear Mak answer. Mostly to hear what would be similar, and what would be different. The taoist way of no sexual misconduct, as was teached to us (but we were told that this was quite universal) was: 1) no male to male sex (especially no anal sex among males) 2) no human to animals (no exceptions for squirrels) 3) no human to dead people 4) no adult with kids. Nothing was said about people marriage and fidelity and virginity (among adults). In all those cases the process of the questions that I presented in the other thread was going to be used among with a few other general guidelines (nothing that would create karma to you or society or [there was something else here, I'll need to ask]) Pornography was not considered under this section as it was not considered sex, but representation of sex. As you would not write under a "no killing" law, a book that forbids or limits violent books. I find very interesting that in Mak's Taoist group there seem to be a rule about no jelousy. Because we were given a long explanation about why and how to dissolve jelousy. But no rules. Maybe not to offend the western way of life. All in all I am very curious to read Mak answer to this question.

*bows* and this is indeed the taoist way, as I have learned it from my master and teachers.

Mal has very wise words. Among Taoist texts you might want to read the IChing. Don't throw it (i.e. the coins, not the book , I mean, also don't throw the book, and never throw the book at someone, especially the big hardcover version, it would be a shame, as it could get ruined). Just read it, as if it was a novel, from cover to cover. BtW, You asked an interesting question: I feel you are asking this from your heart, so instead to give you a direct answer (for what would be worth), let me share with you the taoist process with which you can find your own answer. Let me rephrase this, in a Taoist way, as I learned from my teacher. Dear gRay, is drinking underage wrong? (yes/no) why? And now please do answer the why question; I don't care much about the yes/no answer, but I do care for your explenation about it. But here is one basic rule: You are not allowed to use or invoke any external authority in your answer. That is, you cannot say any: "because x, y and z said ...", nor "because it is written in r, s, and t". The answer must come from within youself, and it will come from within yourself if you struggle with the question long enough, and you do not let any external authority answer for you. Once you have answered the first question, you will still need to answer a few more questions: Is drinking underage, in moderation, wrong? why? (same process) And when does "being underage" ends? why? When does it starts? And how much is "in moderation"? why? And what constitutes "drinking"? How many degrees of alcohol in the liquid? And if you drink the day of your birthday, is that still wrong? What if you start drinking before the midnight, but gulp after the midnight. Is that still wrong? What if you don't drink the liquid, but get in in other ways. Would it be wrong to get it through your nose, for example. Or directly in vein? Or up your ass? Are some of those ok, and others not ok? When would they be ok, and when would they not be ok? Why? I know all those questions might sound funny, but the process that I am pointing to is very serious. Now, the answer is personal, that is, what is the answer for you wil not necessarily be the answer for me. I too go through a similar process. But most human beings, when they go through this process they end up with very similar ethics. Never exactly the same, but fundamentally similar. So get those questions, struggle with them, answer them, but don't let yourself sit on anyone else answer. This is the Taoist way, with which you develop your internal sense of what is proper & cool and what is not & uncool, as it was presented and explained to me by my teacher. And if you think that the questions I am suggesting you to answer are too strange... that's just because you have not heard the ones I had to struggle with! P.S. if you decide that the best way to get alcohol is not through your mouth, and they find you... do not mention my name nor this website, ok! EDITED FOR GRAMMAR

Very funny. WHat percentage does ebay get out of a transaction? Because if both transactions have been made by the same person he would still have to pay ebay its percentage of 10'000.

You read this message?

Hi Kate, thanks. Do you think you could pick the book out of a line? Because there are quite some books titled "Enough". Also included one that is only available for 100$, used! especially shoes, eh Pietro

Interesting! I don't know enough to say if it is true or not, but it surely fits correctly with my limited experience. Yes, this is why it keeps on being passed from school to school. After I heard it from Bruce I have a vague memonry of stumbling on it somwhere else, too. The height of stupidity; haha, very nice. Can I quote him: ? I wonder what father Paul would have said.

Hi Kate, welcome to our little discussion. Have you actually read the book? Because you cite it, and indeed what you say is probably inside it. I am right now going through the 6 hours of the audiobook, and I am quite amazed. Saying that people define their happiness because they compare does not give justice to the level of analysis that this guy presents. People who compare themselves respect the past, respect the future, respect what they lose, respect to what they gain, and mostly respect to the surrounding, and so on. The book really present his case very well indeed, and there are many clarifications on how, and why things are this way. And why those comparisons are made rapidly, inevitably, and mostly unconsciously. And how we make them even when we have been told that we should avoid doing them. For me I realised why I keep on buying books that I will never read; I start by comparing the book with the money: I rather have this book then this money. Then once I have the book I compare spending my time reading the book, or reading the other books. And the result is that my suitcase is always much heavier in coming back. You are spot on in saying that some cultures are better off, when they do not expect everything to be perfect. I think the western world is known for this, but I also remember someone (I am sorry, I don't remember who) who presenting some data over happiness explained that a.) above a certain threashold money does not count. b.) what seem to have a big effect is what is the philosophy of life of the people. And because of b.) they now had a problem. You see they were actually supposed to go back to the government to say how to increase the happiness of the people, but how are they going to go back and say: -mister prime minister, to make people happy you need to make advertisments and explain them that "shit happens". Not the kind of policy that would get you re elected. Thanks for explaining what keeping up with the Jones really meant. I seriously thought the Jones was an index, like inflation.

Many people in contemporary new age take the phrase, I am already an enlightened, I just need to realise it, in a too litteral sense. So once they understand the words, they assume the understand the meaning. And they say, now I am an enlightened. Last time I was at a workshop with Bruce, he made the following example. He told us that the example is not his, but a common one from India. If you take sesame seeds, you know that inside there is oil. And you could say that once you have some seeds in your hand you also have the oil. But it takes a lot of effort to go from the seed to the oil.

Addendum: oh, oh. It seems that our guest is indeed authenthic: http://www.taoismcanada.com/eaboutpai.html Available from: http://www.taoismcanada.com/ and http://www.chiinnature.com/ and they also have a nice map to the temple: http://www.taoismcanada.com/econtact.html Well, if they don't excommunicate me before I might pay them a visit when I pass through Toronto at the end of the month. Oh, and look they also make nice "Become a Taoist" services: http://www.taoismcanada.com/eintao.html I bet this might end up becoming quite popular around here. Message to Mak Tin Si, I am really sorry, we have so many wannabe taoist masters around here, those days that is really hard to distinguish the genuine ones. Pietro

As I said, I was not understanding, so yes I tried to understand filling in the gaps. Thanks for claryfying. You seem to be really concerned to lose control. But some people seem to just be concerned to make the ends meet. And if the choise is between being in a capitalist country with a weak middle class or in a socialist country with a stronger middle class, would you rather be in the former? Because all the statistics seem to suggest that in countries with a bit more control (not a lot, something like Canada or Sweden) people are generally more happy. Now in those countries there was no slide from a social reformed state (I cannot call them socialist countries, sorry) to a communist country. But you seem very concerned that this is what would actually happen. Why? Especially why, if this is not what has happened in other countries? Couldn't you just do like the Swedish? And remember that China, Cuba, Russia did not reach their government through a continuous series of reforms, but through a revolution. A revolution that did not start from a socialist situation but from a situation of great social imbalances. So I think strengthening the middle class, strengthening the government, will actually make the system more strong against the risk of a revolution. Wouldn't you agree?

I have the sensation that the only person that knows what is talking about here is Adam Mizner, and everybody else should just shut ... ... up, and in case ask for clarifications. And here are the clarifications I would like to ask. Does accessing the wuji dimension, mean to access spontaneity? If not, what does it mean? Can you pleas clarify? When you speak about samadhi you speak about the ability to remain with the object of your concentration with no gaps of the mind? ( Thus a different, but more correct from the point of view of the tradition, usage from what has been recently done by a practitioner in another thread: my back is hurting but I sit in samadhi for 1 hour) I have other questions, but those would suffice. And please if you do not know, DO NOT GUESS. Spiritual work is no guess work. Thanks, Pietro

Thanks, I stand corrected. Pietro

No, you did well. You remained with the issue, and did not back away, until we could find the common ground. That's what is relevant, IMO. Take care, and welcome to Tao Bums. Pietro

Hi Little1, I am very interested in this: Do you think you could expand on this? In what way you have seen it growing? What do you mean by, some people still have a sufficient grip on the real world. I like what you say, but I don't fully understand. Probably because I was not born behind the red curtain. So if you could give some examples I would be very grateful. Thanks, Pietro

I agree that the ipod is irrelevant respect to happiness. And the data agrees with us. You go and ask people who have enough money to eat, if they are happy, and they will tell you that they are happy (as much, or at least comparable, as people with ipod). So having or not having an ipod is irrelevant. But then you make a jump. You have done it before, and you are repeating it here. And I am always just nailing you on this jump. On this one detail: are people who have less than enough (to eat, to shelter, the real poor), more happy, less happy, or happy the same. And you claim that they are more happy. (because their life is simpler) Sorry, with what authority do you say so? Because when we ask them to rate their life, they say that they are NOT happy. This is the same question as before. How can you say that those people are more happy when everytime people went there and asked them, by and large they said that their life sucked? You are making a nice reasoning, but the data are against you. They say that they are unhappy, not me. For me, I wish you were right. But there is 1 billion people over there telling me that they really need more. Not would like, but need. Or maybe you are speaking about people who do have enough, but not much (or any) superfluous. SO not the poor poor, but just the poor, but enough. Then yes, those people tend to rate about the same. In fact it seem that at that level what really changes their feeling is their philosophy of life. Which I think is really interesting.

Thank you; you see, I really put a lot of effort in trying to convey the message, with example, data, and so on. I think it is a very important discussion, because both positions (mine and yours) are well estabilished in society, but I never saw them speaking to each other. So I was really curious of how the interaction would play out. And then to receive an ironic line, was quite a loss. Looking forward to your answer, Pietro

Hello, I am trying to understand your point, and I am obviously failing. You have been asked how do you define a communist state and you mention a nation wide ID system, and the draft (that is, compulsory military service, right?). This is not communism, many countries have a nation wide ID system. Italy has it from ages. When you are 16 you need to have your ID card. So what? It does not seem to make the situation much better or much worse. Nor do I see how it would make it more 'communism'. Then you say that a draft will be a sign of communism. Sorry, no again. Because although you do have countries that call themselves communists (China, Russia pre Gorbachev) which had draft, they by no means are the only ones. Maybe all communists countriests have compulsory military service (maybe, meaning, I don't know), but there are surely plenty of non communists one that have it also. Look at Italy up to 10 years ago, look at Israel. Dictatorships often have draft. In short also draft is by no mean a tell tale of when a state is communist. But now the question arises, what does it mean to be communist. Now I have a political dictionary (not here, but I looked up those words before leaving), and it describes socialism as: to each according to their abilities; and communism as: to each according to their needs. I would say this is the historical definition. Maybe now the meaning have shifted, after all in recent years we had plenty of example of countries which defined themselves as communists and for sure were not following this definition. But still draft and ID seem not a good way to tell. So I would repropose the question that was asked to you: how do you define a communist state, and how do you define a socialist state? Would you define sweden as a a socialist state, for example? Would the situation be really that bad if it started to resemble sweedish one? Thanks, Pietro

It surely does. Could you please still answer the questions. Thanks, Pietro

Many people say that some people in India are happy with little. As I said we need to differentiate between having little but enough (food, clothing, basic education, etc), and having just not having enough. The huge crowd that lives with less than 1 dollar a day will feel the need for money in a different way than the crowd that lacks their second SUV. You might think that at all those indices are using only external indicators, but they are not. They are often using subjective indicators like asking people how much are they happy. You say those people you saw are the happiest in the world. Now I need to ask you: a.) did those people had enough to leave or where below that threashold limit b.) in the society where you saw those people, was happiness widespread through all the people in the same conditions, or you just had one wise happy fellow (maybe still very poor, but somehow happy), with all the others not so happy. Because you might be right, but that one wise happy fellow might not be statistically relevant. c.) if you were to ask them "how happy are them" would they say that they are happy or not? Because in the statistics there seem to be a correlation between wealth and declared happiness when you are below a certain threashold. Above that, this is not the case anymore. So for poor people, money does indeed mean something. For rich ones, not anymore. If you think about it this is how it is with all basic needs. Once the need is unfulfilled you will not be very happy. If you cannot breath you are not going to be happy. If you cannot eat, likewise. If you are lonely, same story. But once you have some friends, once you some food, once you are able to breath... then to have more is not that important. Now this is what the statistics of going to those places, and asking to people there how they feel about their life, tells us. Now you might disagree with them about how much are they happy. But is this telling us something about them... or about you?

Years ago I had a similar situation, but just for one night. AT the time I was doing Chia method, so I used belly massage, chasing the winds, to get rid of it. It was long time ago, so I wouldn't be able to describe better what I did, but you might want to give a try with a chi nei chang practitioner. Especially one that knows how to work with the winds of the body (it's not explained in the first course of CNT, either the second or the third). I hope this helps. Also later on I found a description of the various types of chi, and I recognised this among them. So it is a well known state. So I would also try some good TCM practitioners. Sorry, I cannot be more precise, hopefully someone else on the board migth help you better. Pietro P.S: I just reread your message. My experience was of a biting chi all over the body. You mention that is caused by pressure in the neck and head. Check that you are not compressing the veins in the front of the neck. They are sometimes compressed, leading to a sense of pressure in the ehad, as the blood is not allowed back in the heart. I don't know how this would give biting ants on the rest of the body (circulatory problems?), but I would also give a look at that.

What many studies seem to conclude about the level of happiness, respect to the level of wealth, is that there are two measures. If you do not have enough to eat, to shelter yourself, in whort below a certain level, money does indeed make a difference. But above that level, it seem to be totally irrelevant. There are many people around who are trying to do what you are doing (finding the most happy people), so you might want to look atthe work of those people. We use to measure a nation with the GDP (amount of transactions inside a country) and the Gini Indicator (how much is the wealth spread equally). Now there is an incredible number of other indicators that take account the level of declared happiness, number of people who suicide, length of life, respect for the environment. GPI (Geniune Progress Indicator) is one but there are many other happiness index. I think the one you probably shouldlook at is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index But also at the links at the bottom of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life http://www.le.ac.uk/users/aw57/world/the%2...0well-being.bmp (image stolen from: http://www.le.ac.uk/users/aw57/world/sample.html )

Yes. I remember reading a woman from a concentration camp saying: once you have an internal life, it does not matter which side of the bars are you standing. Also there is a prison in the US where prisoners who have life sentences, the one that will never ever come out, maybe have even more than one life sentence, are sent. They become zombies there, too.

Happy to expand your data, then. The water tradition of Taoism, as taught by Bruce Frantzis is heavily not using visualization, and is heavily pro world. Regarding the mind I am not sure what you mean, so I can't tell. And yes, most of us feel. I am genuinly surprised Buddy was not able to feel, but I think he was able to feel, he would just reinterpret the feeling as body sensations and ignore any of the once that were from outside his body. It's hard to imagine how he could open and close the plates of his skull if not. But yes there are also people who never feel chi. artform: What you mean by yin chi and yang chi? You know yin and yang are relative terms. So there are many types of chi which have many different sensations, some are more yin of others. Or you are speaking about the absolute pure yin and pure yang that runs in the thrusting channels? Because for those, I assume, you need to get the transmission.

Thanks to all who have commented. Especially to those that hae commented and also saw the movie. It was mentioned that some people had difficulties in getting the video. Please consider that the video is also available in mp4 format. The link is on the webpage of the video. Also from the same author there is a book (stumbling on happiness), and an audiobook (same title). For those with a relaxed ethics regarding copyright, the audiobook is available from gigapedia. From when I saw the video the first time, I have thought a lot about it. I personally do not agree that saying that only 1% of the events matter brings in a relativistic point of view. Nor that Taoism brings in a relativistic point of view. This is not what was transmitted to me, nor what I got from this video. In this I am with ddilulo. Most of what happens to us does not matter because, although it happen to us, it does not happens to the depth of our consciousness. I would say two things would surely matter. Enligtenment would matter. And a state of continuous stress (of any kind) that would seriously hinder enlightenment (like death ?). Let us get some examples and try to ground ourself on them. As I said I have thought a lot about it, and often I would compare experiences (mine or others) against the measure of "does this really matter?". Here is, for example, the story (true or fictitious) of a man who went to jail for a crime he did not commit. He was eventually freed from jail, and had to rebuild himself a life after a past in jail, with an history of being repetively raped in jail. I don't know if the story is true or not. But let's us assume that it is. So, does the fact of going to jail matter? Is it part of the 1% or of the 99%. Well, according to the video we saw it should be part of the 99% (after all wasn't one of those happy happy people someone who passed most of his life in jail?). But what if you are raped in jail? What if you are consistently raped, tortured and humiliated. Some people use this for their spiritual practice (not the rape, but the shock that comes with it). Leaving aside the incredible strength and braveness of those people, there is also a technical element. You need to know how to do it, to be able to use shock for spiritual purpose. One person out of 1000 might do it. 9 might know how to do it, and not be strong enough to do it. But the remaining 990 will not even know how to do it. There are multiple stories of kids who got bullied or worse, and suddenly overnight transformed themselves from happy kids, into silent depressed kids. Often in those cases it was not just a single act. They got bullied (or raped) over and over. The video says: 99% of the times, what has happened 3 months ago does not matter. But what about what keeps on happening. Again. Take someone who had a bad experience. I don't know, take a trauma, any trauma. His (or her) life can be miserable not because of the trauma, but because of the fact that he or she might keep on replaying the tape of the event in his or her head. As a man who went to jail and was their beaten repetively by the guards, once said: -the wounds will heal, but the animal they have awaken in me wants blood. Wants their blood, and that will take longer to calm down. (I paraphrase it from memory). But the same man, if he knew how to, could have calmed the beast, and then also the beating and the humiliation would have become unimportant. So it seem that although it is not subjective what is important, it is also not totally independent on the person. Some people can take more, just because they are able to dissolve, and let go of more. And then wonder about crimes. Think about theft, for example. I bet each of us have stolen something in his career of juvenil delinquent. Eventually we learn that it is not ok. We are not ok when we do it. So imagine, you steal something (or do something else which is clearly against your internal ethics), and then you feel your soul rotting from the inside. Does this matter? Is this part of the 99% or of the 1%. I suppose remaining alive is important. Eating is important. What you eat is less important. Sleeping is important. When you sleep is less important. If knowing how to practice is important, still how you learned it, where did you got the money to learn it, all this is less important. So now I want to leave you with a game. A phrase that I will start, and then each of us can continue, as he sees fit. the phrase is either: "if 99% of what happens to me is not important then ..." or: "if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will ..." or finally: "if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will not ...". I give my solution, but I will appreciate if other people would write theirs too. if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will stop complaining about what happens to me. if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will focus on what is really important if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will have more fun if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will concentrate in understanding what is important from what is not if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I can stop worrying about what I did to other people. Now is your turn, how would your life change if you approach it from this point of view: if 99% of what happens to me is not important then if 99% of what happens to me is not important then if 99% of what happens to me is not important then if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will not if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will not if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will not