nac

I just wanted to say that this is sitting and forgetting - Taoist voidness meditation, not Buddhist vipassana, zazen or shikantaza mentioned by the OP. It's not even how emptiness is understood in Buddhism.

My answer: Hong Kong/Taiwanese cinema. Certifiably false. The later emperors, most of whom were Confucians or Neoconfucians, regularly denounced both Taoism and Buddhism as heretical teachings but allowed them to continue teaching since they supposedly promoted virtue. Among mystics and religious thinkers, Taoism was relatively more popular. Among the laity, Buddhism. Non-interference with human society may be important in Taoism, but the old Chinese imperial hierarchy is probably inspired by Taoism. The Temple of Heaven may be called an old Taoist temple. (traditional Chinese religion, actually, which was later absorbed into Taoist schools) Besides, a lot of Lao Tzu's teachings are political. It's more appropriate to say that Taoists weren't enthusiastic about having a priest-king or a mystic-king.

http://www.thetaobums.com/Journey-to-the-West-t11372.html

No, even these change as one ages. How can there be an ideal "you" independent of the diverse conditions that shaped your present self? It's true that certain patterns become enmeshed as you get older and less flexible, but that's when your body as a whole (along with all such patterns) begins to deteriorate. Even the subtle structures in the sea and atmosphere are changing as the face of the planet, and thus the inlets and outlets of fluids keep changing. They were born one day and they will die one day like everything else.

Do Taoists believe in the concept of wisdom? If so, how is it understood?

Depends on what you mean by "negative" IMO. Eg. If being oblivious to the suffering of others counts as positive, then I disagree. That can only lead to a Brave New World scenario. Or Thailand.

Thanks for the recommendation.

What does Taoism teach on the subject of self-mastery?

Thanks, all. Hopefully they wouldn't have agreed with Aristophanes' depiction of Socrates in Clouds.

Thanks. A more subjective question: Would you describe Taoism as conservative? And if you have the time, in what sense?

dissatisfaction Nice site. I really like the artwork on the author's homepage: http://www.dengmingdao.com/

full-lotus?

Note: Phenomena in Buddhist philosophy are perhaps best described as ever-changing Whiteheadian "potentia" rather than concrete existentia or Platonic essentia.

According to Buddhist idealism, it's these multitudinous layers or "masks" that, like an onion, constitute the entirety of the so-called relative self. Mental, then physical layers form all that exists, right down to the level of empty, undifferentiated "energy". Indians compared this situation to the trunk of a banana plant. Carefully pull down the concealing leaves, and there is no core to be revealed inside, only the overlapping, interlocking layers of leaves that, like integral calculus, give rise to the property called solidity. It's through the workings and effects of mundane phenomena that non-sentient objects as well as sentient beings function, both lacking a soul or insuperable "inner core" of any kind. Nowadays, even those layers we human beings are interdependent with for our continued happiness or survival can be drastically altered by means of surgical procedures, etc. Strictly speaking, Buddhism considers such "layers" to extend beyond the physical boundaries of an object into all external phenomena conditioning it's present state. Pull out a single card from this complex structure (eg. the condition that a wooden object has not been set fire to) and an entire wing of the castle collapses. (it's wholly or partly reduced to ashes, with corresponding ramifications) Neal Stephenson is funny, bitter, and yet brutally honest at the same time in In The Beginning… Was The Command Line: Seeing this clearly is of supreme importance in Buddhist practice.

Enjoyment? Yeah right, noticed how our tastes change to more and more mundane (pursuit of subtlety or boredom?) or fetish-oriented (addiction) forms of entertainment as we grow older? Even from the perspective of enjoyment, everyone will want to die at some stage IMO. As for myself, I intend to live until my continued existence causes severe harm to other beings. I don't want to live 1,000 years if it means the environment will be taxed beyond breaking point. This isn't a "fear-based argument", it's simple concern for the well-being of others, disconnected from reptilian-brain originated concerns for myself. Even if there is no afterlife or it involves eternity in hell? (don't worry, I think the pain will get boring soon enough without external interference ) Still, how do you know you'll get what you want after death? Have you died before? What if you find Anubis weighing your heart against his feather?

If we discover a way to live 10,000 years, we could set off for distant stars in gigantic starships. Colonies won't be necessary because we can see the destination for ourselves! Other than cost, preservation of sanity is the only major problem I can think of, but maybe an on-board biosphere will take care of that.

OP: You can give meaning to your life if you like, but I think it's important to remember that there's no ultimate purpose or inherent meaning involved. Don't forget that masks can be taken off.

How come? I don't feel kinship to things because they're composed of the same up and down quarks as me. Neither do I find matter composed of top, bottom, strange or charmed quarks fundamentally alien to myself because my body is made up of different particles.

Good enough for me. That's my advice to Taoists anyway. Buddhists try to identify their destructive urges and look for ways to have them subside of their own accord.

Three huge bombs just went off next to my house. The people are rioting and panicking. Three people were taken as witnesses from the building where I stay. True story. What would be the best Taoist thing to do? What would be the best Buddhist thing to do?

Who created the creator?

How cold. Do you really believe that's the only side of the coin?

Good for you then. I'm saying, just for the sake of argument, that inconsistent views can cause problems with the identification of our goals. Eg. after getting what we wanted, we find out it's not what we really wanted after all. I have no problem if this doesn't pertain to you. I'm not saying YOU should study science, philosophy, etc. I'm only trying to make a case for why I think it's a worthwhile endeavor in general. What makes you say that? There are only two branches of human knowledge where things can be proven or disproven: the abstract fields of logic and maths. Nothing outside these two fields can be proved with absolute certainty, because "proof" is a purely logical concept in the first place that doesn't sit well with the messy "real world". So why study, say, physics? There is no "right answer" yet in most areas of modern scientific study, and some places where "right answer" is the wrong way to think about it. Because we can make probabilistic predictions by studying chains of causality, thereby improving our understanding of the universe, our practical methods, etc. The same can apply to philosophy and consistency of world-views IMO. (maybe not to the extent of natural science) Do as you like. Have fun! As the saying goes, all a man needs in life is a good woman and a metaphysical wrangle. My advice: If it's in your genes, don't fight it!

Subjective or objective, "true" self or fake, the phenomena arising before us are results of cause and effect. Rather than pointing to a default "ultimate source", it's best to look for the true source of each. Just my personal opinion.