nac

So, is fukinsei a purely Japanese aesthetic ideal or does it have a Taoist (or Chinese) counterpart? http://aenui.com/design/zen-aesthetic-principle-fukinsei/ http://bonsaibeautiful.com/nature_of_garde...e/fukinsei.html

Aikidoists told me ki is all about balance and timing. http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam/energy/energymed.htm PS. Posting these isn't against the forum rules, is it?

Watch out for bogus studies. But don't listen to me, compare the quality of research yourself. 11:33: I've taken the time to reread your posts and I mostly agree with your stance, except for one technicality which is still confusing me: What does rationality mean to you? Surely as a Taoist, you realize that a system of thought can be logical, rational, internally consistent and even seemingly reasonable, yet nonetheless fundamentally flawed, misguided and ineffective. As a matter of fact, it's the person who falls for the rhetoric of such systems that we often call "not mad, but misguided". Take Marxism for example. It has a rigorously fleshed out philosophy behind it, justifying it's beliefs and practices. In my humble opinion, only direct evidence (ie. exhaustive study & reproducible experimentation) can give the final confirmation regarding the effectiveness of a science or philosophy. Unlike many, I don't pretend that this opinion comes from pure reason, whatever that means. I openly acknowledge that it's ultimately based upon intuition. Hence I disagree with Randi's methods, which look like bullying to me although I have no reason to doubt his sincerity. I disagree with your beliefs too, but everyone is of course entitled to form their own opinion. Just try to avoid creating a blind spot for yourself. That's very dangerous as it leads to self-reinforcing confirmation bias. This was an off-topic rant, wasn't it?

Sagely advice. Take care! PS. You may have missed a few more replies I've edited into the last post.

Mine neither! I'm sorry if I gave offence. I'm not talking about herbs. I know many of them are useful. I was talking about heart and liver disease, cancer, etc. Some cancer can be operated out of the system, but there's no evidence of any alternative medical tradition being able to cure any form of cancer. Anyway, that's beside the point. I'm sorry for bickering. I'll read your posts again when I'm less sleepy. So they're interdependent in your opinion? Yup, creating electromagnetic fields with your bare hands. That's how all this got started, believe it or not! Fair enough.

I like Taoist philosophy and I'm interested in Taoism. I don't think Taoism and TCM are that strongly coupled. Fine, I'm just pointing out there's no evidence whatsoever of superhuman powers. That's it. Maybe it's a secret we don't know about yet.

I never said it was. There have been several independent studies of Homeopathy, TCM, Ayurveda, Reiki, faith healing, etc. Each and every major alternative medical tradition has been scientifically tested, and none of them have statistically confirmatory results. What does that tell you? Those are the only ones which have shown measurable non-placebo effects so far.

There have been many studies on alternative medicine. None of them have provided confirmatory evidence for anything more than a placebo effect. (for serious ailments i mean)

Statistics, please. Every study ever done suggests otherwise. There's always an equal percentage of "miraculous cures" on either side. I've even seen testimonials of people who turned to spirituality because of such a cure: http://www.koyasanbetsuin.org/koyasan_asahi.htm Personally, I still think it's BS. Of course, I always keep listening to both sides of the argument with an open mind.

Evil science, eh? Okay. Nope. All I wanted was a single act of selflessness, but I guess that was too much to ask for huh? Okay, okay. I get it. I wasn't referring to the small band of disciples you see encircling Randi's foundation though. Thanks for the response. _/\_

There was none. I thought there would be since the original script was written by Bruce Lee, but all it had was 'Kung Fu'-style play acting. Pretty long-winded too. Meh. Still, I liked it overall. PS. This is the same guy to wrote the so-called script for Manos: Hands of Fate, isn't it? (One of the much-hyped worst movies of all time, I think. ) PPS. I knew it! His wiki article says he was apparently Bruce Lee's (martial arts) student. rofl I hereby recommend this movie to one and all!

Swine Flu Prevention FU? Awesome! Keep it up, guys.

Are you really a Buddhist? Which tradition do you belong to?

Third party labs. Randi never gets directly involved in the process. (or claims not to) In fact, Randi has compiled an exhaustive list of excuses given by mystics for not taking the challenge or when they were unable to reproduce their claims in lab conditions. I think this is the one: http://www.skepticreport.com/skepticism/topjref.htm If these masters can do what they claim, they should at least try to win this prize since a large body of skeptics are being held back from self-cultivation by this seemingly open challenge. Afterwards, they can surely donate the money to charity and fade back into obscurity if they wished. If the challenge is really a facade (although what motive would that serve, I wonder?) then they could get some proof and show it to the world through the net. Why not? It could be more about helping the progress of science and humanity which is being repressed by the likes of Randi. If Randi's theories are incorrect, wouldn't it be best for everyone concerned to expose him? The Randi Foundation has commanded a great deal of trust and respect since his exposure of faith healers such as Peter Popoff. For instance, this stuff is one of the biggest reasons I don't call myself a Taoist or any other kind of mystic. If anybody at all successfully claimed this prize or exposed Randi's insincerity in a credible way, my doubts on the matter would be resolved.

You get a million dollars if it's "supernatural" according to Randi's definition, and it is.

This would fall into Randi's definition of "supernatural" and be a valid claim for the prize.

It's tough to achieve that without falling into apathy.

BS. You can win a million dollars if you can do that. http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

Taoist monks are vegetarian?

You're right of course, I still don't understand how you managed to reach these conclusions. PS. Then again, you people have denied that the Vedanta are later schools of philosophy based on Vedic teachings rather than the philosophy of the Vedas themselves, so... I don't really know what to say, sorry. Still, each to his own I suppose.

Vajrahridaya: Surely you don't presume to speak for all of them? Many of the zen people especially, are fans of Taoism. I have Theravadin inclinations myself. Don't forget one of the fundamental teachings of Buddhism: Buddhism is not for everyone. (even HHDL says so) "Conversion" to Buddhism must be a personal journey without any external pressure. Let's not forget the lessons taught by Osel too quickly. One thing I like better about Taoism is that the belief system is minimalistic, streamlined and elegant. You don't have to pick and choose from a hundred different semi-compatible philosophical sub-schools like in Buddhism. Overall, I prefer Buddhism so far, but that is my personal choice. I have seen this discussion several times on E-Sangha and I don't see the point in it anymore.

Not true. The louder voices are the easiest to hear. I heard the Sakya Trizin said that Taoism has everything Tibetan Buddhism has, except TB has a slightly stronger emphasis on compassion for suffering beings. His followers (like Namdrol) disagree.

I disagree with the whole concept of religious debate. I think as long as we keep an open mind, we're all going to arrive at the truth or the closest approximation we can find, whatever it may be. So an open mind is the only religious ideal I seek to promote. I also disagree with the typical Tibetan Buddhist stance on E-Sangha. I've been active there since 08/2007, so I have a general idea of how they're going to react. I remember Namdrol saying Taoism may have developed from the fragmentary teachings of an ancient Buddha (Lao Tzu) and he keeps comparing it to Samkhya philosophy. Maybe they're mad at how Taoists have historically suggested that Buddhism is a "barbarian misunderstanding" of Taoism and they're trying to even the score.

Is an intellectual comparison of Taoism and Buddhism really necessary when the goal of either side is to transcend and encapsulate intellectualism? These venerable traditions haven't fought in a thousand years, (since the 3rd Wu disaster if I'm not mistaken) but complemented each other's growth.