nac

(Peace with oneself is not all that matters though. Both sides, or rather, all sides of this issue are important.)

Thanks!

You're probably right, it's nearly 5 AM and I'm suffering from an extreme lack of sleep at the moment. I've been ignoring my De recently. PS. Yeah, if you are "the world", then "helping yourself" is helping everyone. It needs to be rephrased to fit the careful and exact definitions used in Buddhism, but I understand what he was getting at.

Yeah sorry, that's why I was making an edit. The sentiment of helping others for the sake of easing one's own discomfort is not always compatible with what is actually beneficial for other beings. Eg. some monks release great hordes of freed animals into environments which are unsuited to them. "Self-serving" is present in real compassion as the intention to truly help all beings, including oneself.

Great! Does that mean Taoism is not incompatible with western humanism as the article claims?

This is known as "idiot compassion" in Buddhism: Helping others for the sole purpose of making oneself feel better in some way. PS. Please note that this sentiment is not always compatible with what is actually beneficial for other beings.

I'm a Buddhist myself, but I believe Taoist sages gave instructions to modify the ego by understanding the ways of the Tao and by conforming to natural processes. When we exert our will against the world, we disrupt it's harmony. Placing the ego in harmony with the natural universe eliminates the problem. In other words, now that you're informed about the danger and it's workings, maybe you also possess the means to avoid it if you remain aware of it?

Haven't you heard of honoring your teachers through your actions? Will your teachers be proud of you flaming like this?

The first person one directs loving-kindness at is oneself, before radiating it out to all beings. The concrete self is illusory, but Buddhists try to attain realization and wisdom, not obliterate oneself. The only things we obliterate are delusion, ignorance, craving, irrational clinging and suffering. (for the benefit of all sentient beings, including oneself)

"Enlightenment" is an English word stemming from Christian spirituality. Now if we used terms from eastern languages like wu-wei (non-action), moksha/mukti (freedom), nirvana (blowing out or liberation: not identical to enlightenment in most Buddhist schools), bodhi (awakening: Buddhist enlightenment) which have more specific meanings, we can narrow down the usage enough to have a meaningful discussion. Like the Tao, the enlightened mind can be observed by anyone. Even so, I don't think any person can attain everlasting Bodhi without making an effort to retain it every time.

How do you define "enlightened"? Freedom from dissatisfaction? Attainment of infinite wisdom? There are no enlightened people IMO. There never have been and never will be. Wisdom exists, but everlasting enlightenment cannot be the defining characteristic of any single "self". (except in some idealistic sense)

Tang, naturally, since it produced the highest quality of life the Chinese people have ever experienced in recorded history. Neo-Confucianism hadn't been created yet. Over-refinement hadn't given rise to the unethical practice foot-binding. All religions were equally respected and there were no serious persecutions. (at least none that I know of before Wuzong of Tang)

I come back a month later, and what do I see? You guys are still at it. Unbelievable! PS. You can't establish the superiority of either Buddha or Nietzsche through dialog. It mostly comes down to one's current personality and preferences IMO.

Yes, delusions can certainly be harmful. Don't presume you're free from them just because the things you do are same as the ones that everyone you know say they enjoy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum I try not to. You should try it sometime. Who taught you meditation? According to you, anyone who doesn't watch TV is in denial, eh? First you define "person in his or her right mind" as someone who doesn't like meditating, then you state we're out of our minds because we do! That's like saying I dislike alcohol, so I'll decide to call anyone who likes beer "crazy". Other than milk, how many of your tastes were really "yours" to begin with and not acquired at some point? Perhaps it's you who is too bound by the conventions of your community?

In that case, I'm sorry I couldn't present my case properly. I disagree, but I won't fault you if that's what you knowingly want to do. Personally, I would advise sincere spiritual seekers to look closely at all experiences with a non-judgmental, yet utterly unflinching eye. Examine pleasure, pathos, suffering, etc equally, giving preference to neither, denying neither, without any personal attachment or aversion. Hence try and discover the true nature of them all through scientific scrutiny. That's Zen. Anything less may be more natural, but then, self-delusion is also "natural" in the sense that it's quite common. PS. I found a great Tagore quote in English. (signature) A lot of his writings are like this actually, but I have a hard time finding good translations. Eg. One song goes something like: "Save me from my troubles!" This is not my prayer. May I be fearless in difficult times. ...

Bliss too has a kernel of suffering buried deep within it's heart. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence intuitively realizes that all mundane sensations of "bliss" arising in the present must eventually come to an end. This causes a peculiarly beautiful sense of sadness and spiritual longing called Mono no Aware: In truth, the glass is neither half-full nor half-empty. It's true condition can only be grasped intuitively, but not through simple-mindedness. It may be difficult to express in words, but the realization itself is always available to every sentient being in existence. As for not worrying about things by simply not knowing about them, are you serious? Do you honestly derive comfort from knowing that there's a whole bunch of important things which we do not know, and that even a lot of stuff we think we understand is always flat out wrong? That although perfect knowledge is an impossible ideal, if we did know these things, we could have utilized the knowledge to aid suffering beings? I'm sorry I was unable to provide a detailed response today. Oh well, if both of us had agreed on everything, that would've meant one of us was being intellectually dishonest!

I've read it, but I can't name all 72 feats. Wikipedia's External Links section lists several online resources including a complete e-book in English, if that helps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey_to_th...#External_links His most common "feat" that I remember is taking hairs from his body and transforming them into copies of himself. He also (allegedly) changed himself into bugs and birds, leaped onto a cloud that transported him great distances, and boasted incessantly about having 72 transformations!

Sure, sadness is also washed away like everything else. May the Buddhas save them. Okay. Ignorance is suffering for me though. On a side-note: Emptiness doesn't come before or after anything else as far as Buddhism is concerned.

I disagree with him there.

I wonder if a healthy human being has ever felt glad when someone close to them passed away. Maybe it's possible to feel happy because their suffering has come to an end, but outright joy because they're now one with the Source? Dunno. Yeah, this is one of the core teachings of Buddhism. I doubt anyone will say that never moving on, just obsessing over it for the rest of your life is the best way to deal with it. Okay, but remember, all scientific evidence indicates that a heat death is the most likely outcome for this universe.

Will do! Isn't it possible to truly let go without feeling joy at their passing? Isn't wabi-sabi enough? I don't think that's possible anymore. This is no longer a subject of philosophical speculation. This universe will almost certainly undergo a heat death. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe For more info, try Stephen Hawking's The Theory of Everything. I would've thought the influence of Buddhism would make Taoism even less dualistic, not more.

The average modern citizen is schizophrenic? Still, any "world-view" is ultimately subjective and illusory in the usual sense IMO. Jung said that certain mental illnesses are merely an extreme form of habits that are already present in the healthy mind.

I hope not. That blank page was an expression of the same spirit, even if the manifestation was different. I'm not opposed to this. If I'm not mistaken, this would be a question of relative truth in Buddhist philosophy. Woah, really? I've got to read Chuang Tzu again. Taoist philosophy is a spring-like sine wave, while Buddhism is more asymptotic. It's been nearly a decade since my father passed away, but for some reason I can't summon much enthusiasm to celebrate his reunion with the Source. Probably just my personality. Maybe energy is not eternally lost, but it's forms and manifestations are? I disagree with the assertion that energy is not lost, however. What about entropy? Energy is always being lost. Eventually there won't be enough to keep the universe moving. Great! I was under the impression that Taoism (at least the religious variety) believes in good and evil. I'm glad to see that you don't. _/\_ I'd like to rephrase this as: All things are undergoing constant change, Just So!

Marblehead: I'll be completely honest with you. I don't like Neitzsche or Camus (or Heinlein) much, sorry. The reason I chose Buddhism is because IMO, it's the philosophy which makes the least celebration out of involuntary suffering. That's the one thing I can't stand.