Tao99

Its kinda unfair to question the use of "I" in a sentence because its an unavoidable grammatical part. And "I" really just refers to THAT which am I, and that could be a spirit-core or a flow of processes. Either way it can be used. And I think his point was a good one of what would you want to be there, at the beginning, middle, and end?

wow that's great congratulations. You could look at it as day one of your Life's Great Adventure, put all else out of your mind, throw yourself into it 100%, and get everything you can out of it. Calm for problem solving, happy about even the 'little victories' and don't forget to have some fun. Good luck. Reminds me of my great adventure to Maui Island when I was 20 and only had $600.00.

I think its mostly a technique to bring about effortless unclinging and unattachment to tempory coagulated ego-selves. Its for the person who says I just have to be hot, young, or be married, or on the football team, or have a b/g-friend, or have a nice car, or have kids, etc etc. or I won't be myself. It helps to crush and transcend these ego-coagulations. And then I think it also does lead you to wonder what else is there, underneath it all (processes/core) that I call me, in all these passing, temporary ego-coagulations.

there are differing definitions of ego/self in psychology, philosophy, etc. I like this one: I USED TO HAVE AN EGO I used to have an ego. I was a strapping, buff, college football player all the girls wanted. That's really who I thought I was; I am THAT. But these egos/selves/personalities are all impermanent. I thought that THAT was me, I am THAT. THAT is who I am in some real, essential, core way. But 20 years later I see that it was all a temporary ego-self, that wasn't really "me" in any real, core way. And that ego-self perception of "me" no longer exists. It wasn't really "me" anyway. It was a delusionary ego coagulation that I thought had ongoing core reality -- it was just a impermanent, temporary mock up of something I called my "self". Return to that moment when you were first born and had no "self", no personality (ego-selves), and no mental content - no thoughts, hopes, likes, dislikes, nothing. You were just an empty (no content) emptiness (no self). This is the natural mind condition, the ego-less, pure mind or Tranquility called Samadhi in Zen. Practicing Zen is manifesting the imperturbability of Samadhi in daily life. (* story for descriptive purposes only and not true*)

The natural emotion of the Heart is calmness and tranquility. Do not disturb it and Harmony will naturally develop. ~ Neiye (found on Stig's site www.taowizard.com) So perhaps in some ways tranquility is the natural base state and out of it the Harmony = harmonious Chi = bliss/euphoria naturally develops, and is then acted on. So perhaps both developed (in that order for some).

yep

All who are stupid are incapable of seeing the point and so should be excluded from the list. prior quote: "I am stupid." --------------------------- therefore -------------------------------------------------- conclusion: I should be excluded from the list. Unfortunately I can't argue with that logic

I am stupid. I don't get it. What is the moral of the story? Since you want to argue with me, make your simple point. You sure do like to argue with others.

The Tao practice was began to be formalized 4700 years ago. That's 2700 years of secret Tao cult formulation, and plenty of time to complete the Tao practice formulation 100%, without any Buddhadharma addition. It was all said and done by then for the Tao initiates of the secretive Tao cults. But China is a big place and that's a lot of time so there were many partial usage schools, phony usage schools, martial art partial knock off variations, combinational schools, popularizing schools that added some Buddhist trappings, etc., etc., That's to be expected. The public and folk manifestations were often much different then the secretive cult practice of the initiated. My ancient scriptures on this 4700 year old Tao practice have no Buddhadharma in them. And in fact it would be anathema to their Tao practice involving the Chinese 5 elements, the 7 reversion/9 restoration, dual cultivation, 3 treasures, gold pill, or the One in ancient times. All this is pure Chinese philosophy without any Buddhadharma in it. What the scholars talk about is just the public manifestations and deviations. They know nothing about the secretive cults Tao practice. And if they do and become initiated they keep their mouths shut as their school has taught them.

You should look in the proverbial mirror and see a face that knows nothing about Tao practice. My Tao practice has been handed down for 47 centuries, way before the Buddha. It needed no Buddhadharma and doesn't need any now. It is 100% complete in itself. And it's ultimate metaphysical outcome is completely different then in Buddhism. And we are able to say "to each there own," "you go your way and we will go our way" we force no unsolicited advice on anyone, and as long as we get along on this shared planet, nothing else is important. All else will naturally take care of itself. I don't want to be proselytized by you, so please do not respond with a "derogatory" comment about how my way isn't complete (therefore inferior by implication), or needs Buddhadharma in it etc. I'm not in the market. Thanks. It would be best if you just started your own thread: Why Buddhism is the Only Way - All others are incomplete, ergo inferior. On a public forum I'm sure you know if you critique other's ways, and advance yours as the only complete way, people will question you and critique what you propose. Did you really think everybody was just going to roll over and say ok I'm dropping my way based just on your words - thank you oh holy one! Personally, in my life I just offer Tao advice when solicited. Otherwise I just keep it to myself because who knows where they are in their life, and what they are ready for, or need.

Now you are just being odd. Here's what your apology said: "Oh, by the way, I apologize for dropping the Quantifier... I'm wrong, your right..." Now you are saying: "My apology was that you spent all that trivial time arguing about some silly aspect of my quote of you which was basically derogitory from the very beginning. Which was the whole point." Wow ... you are delusional. You don't even hear yourself. My assertion about some Buddhists was no more derogatory then your many criticisms about Hindu, Taoism, et al. There you go again - making up trivial rules that don't apply to you. At least you are consistent. If you can't stand the heat, you should stay out of the kitchen in the glass house on a public forum cooking up mud balls. Yes, Buddhism will be critiqued here along with Taoism and all the others., welcome to the club

Mr. Taoist delusion huh? How objective of you. Do you ever follow your own advice? Your a Buddhist. I wanted to make a point specifically about Buddhists. Sound familiar? Just like you making a point about Taoism, Hinduism, the rest of your list above. LOL what a joke. So its ok for you to make such points but its not ok for me to make such points? There you go again with your trivial "rules" that clearly are to apply to others and not to you. If I want to make a point about Buddhism I will. If I want tio make a point about dogs I will. I won't say Some animals are smelly, when my subject of discussion is dogs. That would be logically stupid. Using the genus of your subject set is not being "objective" Mr. Buddha Delusion. Its being more general and thus missing the specific point to be made. I knew you would have to be condescending no matter what I said LOL. Anyway ... keep cleaning your mirror. PS I'm glad you added this; it wasn't there when I quoted you. Shows some progress. Of course you still had to call be Mr Taoist Delusion and get your immature dig ad hom in. "Oh, by the way, I apologize for dropping the Quantifier... I'm wrong, your right..."

So you need a teacher in first order predicate logic. I could be your logic teacher but I don't think you will listen objectively, but simply implement your intention to always be right and never be wrong, no matter what I say. Can you agree that just because you read Buddhist Doctrine doesn't make you omniscient and never able to be wrong about anything? lesson 1. quantifiers - term designating the amount of members of the subject set (all/some/no) that are members of the predicate set. lesson 2. my sentence used the some quantifier: "Sometimes you Buddhists seem to see a boogey man around every corner ..." This allows for the possibility that sometimes Buddhists are not like this. (Some members of the set are not) lesson 3. your sentence dropped my quantifier, thus replacing it with a universal quantifier: "You Buddhists seem to see a boogey man around every corner ..." This does not allow for the possibility that sometimes Buddhists are not like this. It applies to all members of the set. So obviously these are two very different statements with two very different meanings. In fact my sentence was the more objective, non-generalizing, milder one. Saying that All Buddhists are like this is an over-generalization, and I would never say THAT. But that is what you put in my mouth when you changed my sentence by dropping my quantifier. And then you debased and cut me down for THAT. Conclusion So you changed my sentence in the same way as changing the sentence: Some dogs are smelly. to All dogs are smelly. and are saying they say the same thing. Your logic professor would give you an F, and so will I. Can you take it, and accept you are wrong? I doubt it. But maybe you will pleasantly surprise me, as i never give up hope

Just as I predicted - complete inability to admit that you CHANGED my words to suit your debasing intention. There's no point in talking to a person who is so lost as to do that.

My intent was to make a simple point of fact about some Buddhists like you I have seen: "Sometimes you Buddhists seem to see a boogey man around every corner, and make a boogey man out of every little thing. In the process you forget what does matter, what is the point, and get lost in trivia, delusional "rules", and unprovable metaphysics." The rest is all in your self-serving, deluded mind. Everything else - my 2nd post - was simply to point out how you purposely changed my words to suit your purpose to debase and cut down. This was an obviously cheap, pathetic trick to "win" a point and debase. But of course you won't be able to admit this obvious truth, as that would go against your entrenched self-identity.

There's nothing "wrong" with sarcasm (in Taoism). It's just another way in critical thinking to make a point, and critical thinking is good. And one doesn't need to be serious all the time - it's ok to joke around and have a laugh. Sometimes you Buddhists seem to see a boogey man around every corner, and make a boogey man out of every little thing. In the process you forget what does matter, what is the point, and get lost in trivia, delusional "rules", and unprovable metaphysics.

Be a genius. Be a know it all. Be unrelenting in proselytizing the poor inferior fools who will get nowhere and nothing "truly" valuable from their way.

'It's all downtown" george castanza (amazon.com that is)

Well I don't know if you are looking for critiques of your theory or not, but if you are:

I think that's an interesting idea. And particularly how the yang mystery would unfold. You may need to go knee deep into the Taoist Canon for that one

I got this particular usage/level directly from the Platform Sutra, and Japanese Zen in general. Maybe instead of nature I should have said natural mind condition (eg., at moment of birth = Essence of mind, pure or tranquil mind), empty of all personal content and personality ("self/ego"), a condition described as Samadhi.

LOL That was hilarious. Some guys got all the luck, if not all the way. It looks like the chicken egg thread was put to music LOL!

so you can doink on it for not being source/self/soul-less as has been 'completely proven' by Buddhism? (jk)