Apech

OK I would say that its possible to use the word 'understanding' to mean 'standing under' ... getting to what 'stands under' all things. Its not intellectual knowledge but an insight into what underlies all that we perceive and experience. There are small and big understandings ... like when we finally click about what's going on in a situation - that's a small one - we've seen through appearances to what lies beneath. And a sense of spirit or energy or consciousness in a given moment - well that might be a big understanding. I agree its not yours or mine ... except in that we allow it for ourselves at that given moment ... so maybe you might understand and I might not (because I haven't allowed it) so then it would be yours in a sense. I think the 'desire' thing is about intent. We can intend back to mystery or into form/existence. Desire is not a bad thing per se. In fact it is life enhancing ... albeit in a dangerous way.

Easy .

I find I can't use my vacuum cleaner without attachments ... am I doomed????

In Advaita vedanta (non-dualist hindu) the Atman is the Self which is not different to Brahman which is the Absolute. So Atman does not = ego from this school of thinking. Buddhists do not allow a higher self or such and so refute the Atman=Brahman. Of course 'ego' is just Greek for 'self' ... so some people would say Ego (higher self) = Atman = Brahman. But when we say ego we usually mean the ordinary self based on an accumulation of experiences, thoughts, feeling and so on - which cause us all a load of problems. Taoism does have different souls (hung, po) and so on which are parts of being. From my studies on Ancient Egypt I know that they also had different 'souls' or parts of personality (ka, ba, akh, shade and so on) ... so both ways of thinking saw the individual as being made up of different aspects or possibly entities interacting. The two systems are in someways surprisingly similar given their geographical distance. But neither (as far as I know) used the idea of an ego in the way we do. This led me to think that it is possible to analyse the relation between me as an individual being and the absolute (Tao) without using the term ego. When I did this I found I was being more honest about myself, my weaknesses and stupidity etc. but also more positive in someways about my better qualities. Just a thought ... and an interesting exercise I think ..

You should be able to after posting in here, the Lobby, try again it should work.

I think most of the 'conspiracy' is just blinkered thinking. For instance there was a famous Egyptologist called Sethe who interpreted all Egyptian religion as being about political disputes between tribal factions e.g. the Osirians versus the Ra worshipers and so on. Really (IMO) what he was reading were texts on what we would call inner alchemy ... but Sethe had no idea about this and could not be expected to know I suppose. So he wrote many books on his theories and people assumed he knew what he was talking about ... but no-one agrees with him now because the linguistic studies and more research have shown that he was getting it wrong. Another example is Mr. Budge (who everyone reads) saw a kind of power struggle between Osiris and Ra. But now we understand that more or less the same relationship between these two gods existed throughout Egyptian history ... that they exist in a kind of dynamic tension in which they regenerate and support each other ... this was how the Egyptians understood reality as being composed of these forces interacting. There was no historical power struggle. When they find something which really blows apart their understanding they do like to hide it until they feel comfortable with explaining it though. Scientists have formed a particular general view about human history ... they are confident that they are right about how we developed. But I think we can say without a shadow of a doubt that they are wrong ... simply because every theory is displaced sooner or later by a new one.

It was swallowed by a fish! Don't know how big that fish was ... maybe not enormous but nothing to be ashamed of ...

It is interesting that Osiris worship seems to have sprung fully formed out of nowhere ... the Egyptologists have tried to link him to other gods such as Khenti-Amentiu who he later assimilated but this is feeble really given the importance of Osiris throughout dynastic Egypt (form Dyn, 5 onwards). Osiris is a major figure in the Pyramid Texts (end of 5th Dyn and 6th Dyn) ... so major in fact that he must have had a cult before that but there is no record been found. In the myth of Osiris he is killed by his brother Set and his body cut up into pieces. The pieces were scattered all over Egypt and so there are a number of cult centres associated with different parts of him ... e.g. Djedu (his spine), Abydos (his head) and so on. Isis and Nephthys aided by Thoth collected these pieces and reassembled his body ... the only bit they couldn't find was his penis (!) which they replaced with a magic one so that Isis could conceive Horus. P.S. Budge is a useful resource for most people because he is freely available the copyright having expired on his works ... but he is unreliable and obviously > 100 years out of date in terms of modern research (much of which is very good and not all conspiracy).

According to Egyptologists no mention of Osiris before 5th Dynasty ... so maybe hidden or came from somewhere else at that date ... Traditionally Osiris' tomb was thought to be in the desert near Abydos where there was an annual festival which included a procession out into the Western desert to find this tomb.

Sure Stig has a point. Things are FU to a degree and probably always have been. the anthropological theory is well known ... but I have to say it is illustrative at best. Women have been suppressed for a long time in some societies that is also true. The causes of this I think are not exactly as referenced though. I think the core is power relations not gender relations. For instance the word 'man' actually originally meant someone who managed ... usually land. So in the Domesday Book the 'man' the person who managed the land was sometimes female. I think the new age ... if we are in one is one of equality and the answer is not to elevate the woman into a goddess (or the male into a god) but to say we are all individuals whether stressed female or male. Can I also ask all those quoting lists of goddesses names - why are you so selective! Why Isis particularly ... why not Nephthys, Hathor, Wadjet, Neith, Serqet .... ditto for other cultures. ... by the way as this looks like the beginning of another GenderWarz ... I hope we are not heading back to .... THE PIT :lol:

I call that a form of understanding.

Oh I believe it.

This is the point. Either elevating the feminine or elevating the masculine is to deny or forget perhaps that they are just two sides of a coin ... two aspects of energy if you like. We can value both of course ... in the world and in ourselves (since no-one is completely yin or yang) ... but to somehow idolize the female is a mistake. I don't agree that women are superior because they can have sex more than 3 times in a row or whatever ... that is a ridiculous argument ... and I don't agree that women are more creative but that maybe creativity for a man and for a woman is a different process. True creativity involves male and female or course. In GENERAL* I am with Scotty a lot of the way on this one. *

You could try seeing yourself as others see you :lol:

Decibelle, I agree with a lot of what you say but I still think that in order to become one with the Tao you first need to understand it. I am not saying understanding and the state of being one with it are the same but I am saying understanding or wisdom if you like is part of it. What I was trying to get at - and failing I think - is that the term 'ego' is being used as a sort of bogey man or perhaps scapegoat ... so lets try to express this whole thing without resorting to using this term. I think its interesting. Try it maybe you will too. A.

My bold. Where does Taoism say this? It does say this: The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth. The named is the mother of the ten thousand things. Ever desireless, one can see the mystery. Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations. These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness. Darkness within darkness. The gate to all mystery. Does it say ... desire arises form ego clinging and is bad? What does it mean then? (I know what I think - I wonder what you think )

There is a rather over used version of history which has an ancient universal matriarchy overthrown by a patriarchy (some time in the middle late bronze age I think) and then sees the feminine as being downgraded by the patriarchs through their 'fear' of the power of women (or some such). Obviously this doesn't explain things like the Catholic church's focus on Our Lady or the fact that there have always been (admittedly by exception) powerful woman leaders in history. In Egyptian society which according to this model should have been soon after the rise of the patriarchs women had high status, legal powers and could own land and so on ... although most kings were men there is Hatshepsut and Cleopatra (although she was Greek of course) ... the royal line passed through the woman and not the men. So i see no evidence for the supposed overthrow of a matriarchy there at all. In fact they integrated goddess worship completely successfully whereby some versions of creation were by the goddess and not the god e.g. the cult of Neith. I would suggest that Bible studies tend to give a distorted view of human history since it was written by people for whom the women had specific roles (and still do in orthodox communities). I suspect the whole theory of matriarchy/patriarchy comes from Bible and Greek studies and the reality is much more complex and interesting.

Sunlight doesn't look light or dark ... but when it interacts with things it lights and heats them ... I'm not sure why you are saying it is 'part of' Dark Space ... its a vibratory energy in space surely. The sky appears blue because of refracted sunlight which is heavy in the blue part of spectrum. You could ask really is there any such thing as the sky as it is just an optical effect. But we look up and see the edge of the earth atmosphere and call it sky ... we don't have to say what it is every time we say sky. Interestingly here in Portugal they say 'ceu' for both sky and heaven ... they don't distinguish the way we do in English (or A. Egyptian for that matter 'pt' = sky, 'Nwt' = sky goddess). A banana is green, goes yellow, then dark brown ... when its ripe depends on when you like to eat it I guess.

I didn't read this as grumpy I read it as true.

Why did you put this in articles and not discussion? Anyway its up to you no problem if you prefer it here. I think the point is this. We all talk around certain subjects and issues with reference to 'the ego'. In doing this we are influenced by Buddhism and modern psychology who both use this term. However in Taoism, as far as I know - and I stand to be corrected - there is no equivalent term. I can't think of anything in TTC or ZZ which suggests that the 'problem' is that you have an ego. Why is this? It cannot be that what we are all talking about is a non-issue because the problems are real ones. So the point must be that there are other ways of understanding what we experience and what is really important to us, than by talking about the ego and attendant issues and problems. Maybe, rather than say, I cling to my ego therefore I am stupid and confused, its ok to just say, I am stupid and confused. We are not sages and we have a lot to learn (and unlearn). There is the way to be in accordance with the Tao and there is the way we habitually are. The two are not the same? Why? Do we have to say ... oh its because I have an ego! Or can we just say I need to understand how this Tao is, by looking at the way nature is, then I will be different. Do you see what I mean?

I thought it was a beginning. I see mostly Brazilian novellas `soaps' - so maybe they are as bad as this.

I've tried and (so far) failed ... there's a bit in my personal practice ... my posture has improved though ... google Becoming the Lotus by Anton Temple (Martin Faulks).

Hi and welcome. Suggest you post your question in General Discussion you'll get plenty of answers from which you can pick what sounds right to you. A.

OK I'm going to see your Bollywood and raise you a Funana ...

Bollywood! That caught me by surprise. None of those dancing gilrs are wearing cowboy hats!!