beancurdturtle

Yet issa what?

I saw the World Naked Bike Ride by chance in San Francisco last weekend. It was quite funny actually. There was a group of about 100 people, mostly on bikes. There was one fellow on roller skates wearing a top hat. There are so many prudes in the U.S. - but in San Francisco everyone was pointing, laughing, and smiling as far as I could tell. We need more cities like San Francisco. A friend, her daughter, and I went to SFMOMA - San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. We walked down the street for lunch. On the way back to SFMOMA I was taking a photo of an old church with a new building behind it. That's when we saw the cyclists and the skater (I blurred the part that might offend some people). Here's a pic of my friend's daughter in the museum. I liked the stripes on her shirt matching the stripes on the pavement outside. Sorry about the quality, I was just using a camera in a Treo phone. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/10/...Nude-Bikers.php

My opinion, for what it's worth. Buddhism is focused on suffering. The objective is to create and live within a physical and spiritual framework aimed at the avoidance of suffering. The Noble Truths and 8-Fold Path are aimed at this objective - and if someone actualizes them they will be a contented and wonderful person indeed. Original (Philosophical) Daoism is about knowing that everything is defined by and made manifest by it's complimentary opposite. So suffering cannot exist without ecstasy. The objective is to be accepting of both suffering and ecstasy (of all the opposites) and live in a way that achieves a balance between the opposites. By actualizing Daoist philosophy a kind of frictionless existence is born wherein the Daoist achieves benevolence, contentment, and harmony. By my reckoning, an effort to avoid suffering will create friction with balance and doesn't integrate very well with a goal of attaining harmony through non-action. However, the kind of person that both paths aims to produce is very much the same. So from a forest vs. tree perspective there is a great deal of compatibility. But that's only my opinion. And it's flavored by my Philosophical Daoist perspective.

Thanks for the advice. Please don't misunderstand me. I never intend to cause offense. If anyone feels offended, it's at least 50% due to poor communication on my part. I'm just commenting, opining, and questioning. As far as I'm concerned; my comments and opinions start losing relevance as soon as they leave my head, and my questions have validity only to the extent they are answered. It's cool to believe that superpowers are a must. I just asked why. Asking questions is a pretty good way to learn, and I believe your assertion that there is much to learn here. It's also cool if an answer is not provided. I'm not trying to convince anyone of what they should, or should not believe. I'm not attempting to be contrary. I have not disagreed with anyone. I have accepted peoples thoughts, then offered my opinions and some questions. It's important to note that I am aware that my opinions and beliefs could very well be full of crap. I hope it's not wrong to express an opinion that differs with others. I also hope that others will express their opinions that differ with mine when I post something. We learn from our differences and our differences of opinion. I hope everyone understands. If I disagree, I do not intend to be disagreeable. If you offer an opinion I will read and accept it - and I may offer an opinion in response. My opinion on many things is different from others, and it may be rubbish. So I will share my thoughts, and ask some questions. Hopefully that's Ok - is it?

Right you are my friend. The difficult part is the un-learning that needs to be done to get to the place you are talking about.

I watched some of Chris Angel's "Mind Freak" show on my brother's television last night. Many people are astounded and don't believe what he does. To me it's humorous, because what he does is disconnected from what we perceive. Here's another quote attributed to Lieh Tzu: Should I take this literally? Actually it sounds very much like a Salvia experience, which happens to be very real at the time it is occurring. I scanned the five passages, I missed the "Opening the Dragon's Gate." So this "Opening the Dragon's Gate" would be about how to actually open a Dragon's gate? Or should I not take the title literally? If the title is metaphorical, at what threshold do I start taking things literally when I read the text? I am a Philosophical Daoist. I accept Vital Daoism for balanced health. But I will admit that I think Religious Taoism and Daoist Mysticism are largely irrelevant to attaining harmony with nature and the Dao. However, if the belief in mysticism brings someone peace and better harmony with nature, have at it. I just don't personally see the necessity, or the relevance to philosophical Daoism. By the way, my "conditioned mind" enjoyed your writing. Enjoyed it enough so that I didn't choke on your thoughts, or spit anything back at you. I read some at length and scanned others - then provided my take on it. The fact that my take is not in alignment with your take is obvious, but I'm not offended by it. Now I'm even more curious what your answer would be to the brief questions I posed. No metaphor, or rhetoric - just simple, literal questions: Why would person so in-tune with vital energy that they could use it to levitate a human body do so? A bit wasteful don't you think? Peace,

0

'sup ma brutha? welcome

So profound! When I can understand that, I'd bet I will be able to levitate.

ZhaungZi would also be the first person to tell you that words are silly, empty, meaningless things - and words are also very powerful things. For example, some people may take metaphorical writing literally - and actually think that an integral being would be interested in making a physical object levitate. Why would person so in-tune with vital energy that they could use it to levitate a human body do so? A bit wasteful don't you think? ZhaungZi was a punster and a joker. And Chinese is a language that is hugely contextually based. The probability that phrases such as this are metaphor or allegory is very high. Don't mean to be a buzz-kill, that's just my take on it.

Or the greenish, flickering, murky glow of an aged fluorescent tube in a reeking meth lab. Is it less than a shadow?

Yes. When you are looking at it - especially to a blind man. Like every one of the 10,000 myriad things, and all of our interpreted perceptions - it's just another abstraction from the Tao. But it's also the best place to have a siesta in the blazing noon-time sun in Cabo San Lucas. Then it's something to everyone - including the blind man. Context is "reality."

Are you sure? I thought who's on first.

Welcome! You know Ali G?

Nice! Similar answer to mine - but with resources. Very nice.

Bingo! "Learning" is mostly gaining understanding of someone else's interpretation of things manifested. What you gain is your own definition of a definition. One more degree of separation from just being and accepting.

Yes. I've found the most effective way to focus - is to focus. But first I recommend you decide what you will focus on.

Wow! Nice to find this message board. In my experience it's not often I run into other Philosophical Taoists (受理古老道教). I know that a first post that is all about my thoughts on the first chapter of the Dao de Jing may seem a little narcissistic, but it's actually quite the opposite. I'm just basically heaving myself into the deep end here. I assume there are people with more and people with less study, understanding, and actualization of the Tao here then me. So I'll let my thoughts sink or swim as they may. Just a note; the English translations I usually use are Peter Merel's interpolations. Having read probably more than 15 English translations over the years, Merel seems to me to have the best grasp on a neutral point of view that is very approachable to westerners. My thoughts: The first time I read the Dao de Jing I was very mystified(想法是多云的). This did not happen because the basic ideas of Philosophical Daoism(古老道教) are difficult. It happened because the ideas are foreign to the way Western minds are taught. We Westerners are taught to examine(验) everything, categorize(类别) everything, find a purpose(目的) for everything. This is almost the opposite of the basis for Daoism. Understanding Daoist philosophy requires a complete shift of thought(移流派) to knowing that everything(万物) has no relevance(相关性) - no relevance, unless you conceptualize(想像) it in relation(联系) to something else. And individual things become more concrete(实) when conceptualized in relation to their opposites(对面). So, in the first chapter, Laozi jumps right out with the fundamental concept of the Dao, or "the way." The Dao is the only thing that is real. Everything else - from simple thoughts to the blood in your veins - is manifested from the Dao. Even in the simple effort to understand what the Dao is - and what everything else is - by using language and concepts to define the Dao or the myriad things, we are separating them from what they really are. When we stop categorizing, rationalizing, defining, and finding a purpose for everything. When we simply experience and accept life as we flow through it. Then we will become familiar with peace and have more harmony in life. Then we can know better what the Dao is, still be unable to explain it and also understand why it can't be explained. Does that make sense?

Well of course. That's the essence of my concluding paragraph. Many people look too literally/critically at the individual words or lines in the verses - they'll miss the spirit of the communication. Zhuangzi might find a good deal of humor in focusing on just one word within one context. So, in everything in life - including the reading of the Tao, and especially when reading my writing - it's best to stop categorizing, rationalizing, defining, and finding a purpose (or meaning). Just live it. Please consider: "To experience without abstraction is to sense the world" is also in the same verse according to Merel's interpolation. This may seem to be in contradiction with the line you chose to quote. It's not. The context of the word "experience" changes within the verse (not unusual for words in Ancient Chinese writing). You've chosen to use the word "experience" as the kingpin for your analysis. But "experience" - especially in this discussion - is a wiggly word. An easy example; the meaning of "experience" changes depending on whether you are actualizing the Tao, or considering the Tao from a philosopher's viewpoint. I can have it both ways. I don't "want to pick one" meaning for the word "experience" - that would be contrary to the spirit of my writing. The way that is lived is true. You betcha! Have you read Zhuangzi? And be well amused while doing so.

Good advice. Our bodies adapt to the environment - including diet. A "cold turkey" change for any substance we are psychologically and physiologically accustomed to will create stress. Cold turkey changes are possible with a strong mind - and if you don't mind some physiological discomfort. Gradual changes will be less disruptive. Depends on temperament and tolerance. My style when I see a change I want to make is to "just do it." It's my first recommendation because change can be accomplished quickly that way. But I realize that it doesn't work for everyone. Others prefer to change a little each day and reach their objective gradually. If you achieve your goals through a change process, define your objective clearly and set standards or milestones so you can validate your progress, that makes it easier. When you meet your milestones it builds confidence and you will approach the goal faster. Simple stuff from Chapter 64 of the Dao de Jing - start smart and finish strong. Good luck,

I'm sitting here laughing. Not at you - at me. I'm not trying the be confrontational, contrary, sarcastic, or anything like that. It's just my head doesn't wrap around what you wrote in a way that makes any sense for me. Having had enough experience with my head, I'd assume the disconnect is happening in there somewhere, rather than in your post. Or maybe you just recorded an organic thought with no purpose. That's cool too - I've been known to do that once or twice myself. Sorry to hijack your thread with my confusion.

The very act of writing is using symbols and words - which are all abstractions. But it's the most efficient way for us to communicate here. I mean - assuming everyone writes with clarity. Zhuang-zi writes about this dichotomy with great humor. I read your post literally, and I assumed you were writing to be understood. I didn't understand, so I said so. I guess you intend some subtle meaning that I missed. Similarly, when you said "I guess you are not 47" I assumed you were talking about my age, and not some other unspoken thing. So I told you my actual age. Maybe you had no purpose in your original post - no thought or meaning you were trying to communicate. In that case I'm just engaging in mental masturbation - it's probably best not to watch. Haha!

I am not. I am 46. Did I get it wrong in my profile? I am guessing you are saying you read these books, and each of them at the the most opportune time for you to read them. Sorry if I've missed your meaning.