NotVoid

I still say it is not complicated. You wouldn't want people to steal from you, so you shouldn't steal from others. There are other ways to help the poor rather than stealing. Sure we can still encounter moral dilemmas in life, but if we follow the guideline of treating others as we would want others to treat us, it is pretty likely in my opinion that you are on the path to opening your heart and lessening the control of the ego. The ego is a jealous ruler however and will try to present all sorts of rationalizations and arguments of why this approach is flawed and won't work, and why it is all pointless and that sort of thing, but once a person starts to open their heart more it becomes easier to see through this sort of clutter. Complicated relates to the ego and its modes of perception and processing, and simple relates to the heart.

I think there is a very simple way to determine what is good and what is ethical and what is virtuous. If we treat other people exactly in the way that we would like to be treated ourself by others, then we are probably on the right track. We can only do this if we become less selfious, and put more effort into becoming more understanding and more caring. This goes hand in hand with reducing the control and influence of the ego. This approach can be viewed as 'opening the heart'. In my opinion this is at the 'heart' of all true self cultivation approaches, and without this we can't ever even open the door, let alone enter.

I had an odd experience once many years ago that wasn't related to meditation, but it left me wondering what the heck happened. I was working as a deckhand on a tugboat at that time, and we were out rearranging some barges with our tug boat. I was standing on a barge, very near the edge of a barge (probably much too near the edge given the circumstances, but I was inexperienced at that time) with a line in hand waiting for the barge to get manipulated into position by the tug boat, when unexpectedly the tug boat bumped the barge I was standing on hard. I felt I lost my balance and that I was falling forward towards the edge of the barge. My eyes must have closed briefly as everything went black for an instant and then the next thing I was aware of I was looking around and standing safely several feet back from the edge of the barge and I was fine. If I had fallen in the water at that time it would have been quite dangerous as the edge of the barge was just a short distance away from other barges, and the barge I was on was in motion towards the other barges. It might well have been that nothing unusual happened right then at all, but I was surprised that one moment I felt that I was falling off balance towards the edge of the barge and the next moment I was standing fine several feet away from the edge of the barge. I remember I looked back at the wheelhouse to see what the captain's reaction was as he was looking straight out over the barge I was standing on, but the captain showed no sign on his face that he thought anything unusual had just happened. I had to assume that nothing unusual did happen and that it was just a perceptual glitch that took place, but I found the experience unusual enough that I still have not forgotten that incident after many years. It was like there was a momentary break in my perception of the flow of events, but looking back at what happened my mind says it must have been just a perceptual glitch and rationally that is the most obvious explanation, but for some reason that tiny little experience had enough impact on me to never forget the experience after many years now. Just one of those little oddities that happen sometimes I guess that can make us take pause and question our normal view of things a bit. Maybe it is a pretty insignificant experience, but for some reason the experience stuck in my memory and may have had some influence on my overall perception of things over the subsequent years.

It seems I have to get a better monitor. Now that you have described what was happening, I can make more sense out of what I am seeing in the video clip. Thanks for the clarification.

Hi Leandro, never mind about the video, it is working for me now. From what I can make out in the video, Dr. Jiang made the paper turn to what looks like a liquid form and the liquid paper is kind of standing up in columns and wiggling where he is projecting his qi. It is kind of blurry though on my monitor. Is that pretty much what happened, or am I not seeing that correctly?

Hi Leandro. Although the video link appears to be correct, the video itself is not currently playing. It might just be a temporary problem, but can you maybe have a look?

Ok, well I personally don't think Komjathy was doing that, and I certainly am not. People expressing their point of view from their own understanding and personal experience is of course not at all deciding that "they and only they know the one and only truth/Tao", but just people expressing their own point of view. Anyone who has differing views is welcome to express their point of view here so I don't see any problem at all. People attacking Komjathy because he is a professor or PhD doesn't make much sense at all. He is actually a practicing and ordained daoist from what I understand. If anyone has problems with something specific he said, they can express their own point of view on the matter, but dismissive comments based on him being a professor or PhD and that sort of thing, or speculation and insults adds nothing useful to the conversation that I can see.

Hi Shanlung. To be honest I can't really understand what your point is or what you are finding a problem with. Whether Komjathy is a professor or PhD or not seems to have little to do with the matter. What matters to me is whether what he wrote makes sense or not and has some truth to it or not. I personally think what he wrote is at least fairly accurate. I gave a lot of reasons why I think this is so, but I get the feeling you did not really read what I wrote and just seem to maybe have a large chip on your shoulder about professors or PhD's. I also don't understand your statement about why not read works of someone who wrote about Taoist masters he encountered, as I have read some of Blofeld's books (a long time ago), but I also have my own personal experience with some taoist 'masters' and taoist traditions. I write as much if not more from own personal experience as from anything I have read. Shanlung, you seem to be somewhat out of sorts. Hope things get better for you if things haven't been going so good for you, and that you also find a suitable place to retire to, if you haven't already.

I see nothing much wrong with what Louis Komjathy wrote. Based on my own limited knowledge and experience with daosim (taoism), what Komjathy wrote seems accurate enough to me. Daoism is a word used in English to describe what are for the most part various native views, beliefs, practices, and traditions, which are organzed to varying degrees, and which have been and are practiced in China and surrounding countries and which also have varying degrees of commonality amongst them. The degree of commonality amongst these various practices and traditions can vary quite a bit from what I have encountered. In my opinion, and I think this is basically what Komjathy was pointing out, is that daoism has not ever been an intellectual pursuit, nor is it whatever a person wants to imagine it to be. It does have a fairly traceable history and development, although sometimes a less than clear history, especially as we look further and further into the past, In my own view, maybe about 90% or so of what is discussed in 'daoist' discussions in the West has little much to do with actual daoist practices and traditions and views that have arisen and existed in China or surrounding areas. Daosim really has little at all to do with intellectual concepts and whatever else we would like to imagine to mix in the pot with that, but at the same time what is called daoism involves some widely varying traditions and views, with definite mixtures and influences from other external traditions having evolved over time as well, so I think there is no really easy or clear cut definitive way to define what daoism is. That doesn't mean that daoism can be whatever a person wants to imagine it is however. It may actually be easier to describe what daoism is not. Looked at from this approach, there really is no such thing as 'philosophical daoism'. Daoist traditions certainly may contain various philosophical concepts to aid in practical every day living and that sort of thing, but the core of what is called daoism has little to do with philosophy in my opinion. If you look at the actual known history of daosim, I am pretty sure you will be hard pressed to find actual practicing 'daoists' who mainly sat around philosophising. Sure, you can probably find daoist 'scholars' here and there thoughout history who may have taken a more intellectual approach to it and who may have written some texts, but such people would not really be 'practicing daoists' in my view. Although texts by Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi were certainly influential in the development of daosim, in my view daosim can't at all be understood by an intellectual analysis of a few daoist texts such as these, While one could certainly argue that such texts present some philosophical ideas on how to live better or how to approach life, I personally think the core concepts that are actually being discussed in such texts are actually anti-philosophy. That might seem nonsensical at first consideration, but I think that this is essentially what is there. On the surface there is some guidance for living a better life and improving oneself, but at the same time beneath the surface at a much deeper level is the core which I will describe as 'anti-philosophy' and 'anti-action' for lack of better words. If you think of those terms from the intellectual or literal point of view however, you will probably get off track. The words 'anti-philosophy' and 'anti-action' that I am using is just a way to point at something that is otherwise very difficult to describe if not impossible to describe. It is not literally anti-philosophy and anti-action, but the core of what is written seems to me to point towards something that is outside philosophy and outside intellectual grasp, and outside 'normal action' or outside 'endeavour'. Although such texts have a strong influence in daoism, still much of actual daoist traditions and practices seem to include many other views and maybe even diverge from these views in many ways. I think Westerners believe that focusing on the writings of people such as Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi is getting back to a more 'pure core' of what daosim should be or was, and there may be some real value to that approach, but in my view too often Westerners seem to view such texts strictly as a philosophy or from mainly an intellectual point of view, and in so doing I think the main core of what is being alluded to is missed, and one only gets a very shallow surface view. I think there is much that is not said outright in such texts, although if one looks at such texts from the point of view that there may be much more pointed to or hinted at in such texts than what one can ever get from intellectual analysis and understanding, I think we can at least start to get some sense of what else may possibly be pointed to in those texts. If we also realize that many daoist traditions were transmitted in person and orally from teacher to student, and that many of the key practices may never have been written down or may have only been alluded to in cryptic writings, then it would seem a stretch to assume that what is written in texts like the dao de jing or zhuang zi covers all important daoist views and practices and approaches in detail. To me, the opposite seems much more likely to be true given what we know about daoist traditions. To summarize, I personally agree for the most part with what Komjathy wrote about common Western views about daoism.

Hi Marblehead. Your views that certain practices are not necessary or that philosophy or ordinary conceptual perception and reasoning alone can lead one to true understanding beyond dualistic perception and cognition leaves me less than convinced. I dare say some assumptions may be involved there. All the best.

Nice. A simple but effective practice. I think people should be prepared to give this a try for at least 100 days or so if they really want to give this a fair trial. Regular daily practice makes a big difference as well however. Not everyone can start to see results quickly, so patient and persistent practice and giving things lots of time is always a good approach.

Hi Marblehead. In my view, beliefs are beliefs, assumptions are assumptions. I see no need to make distinctions between the exact 'color', 'shape', and 'appearance' of such things. Beliefs remain beliefs and assumptions remain assumptions. What even the most rational of people take for granted with much confidence may well have belief and assumptions of one sort or another behind it if really looked into. It is easy to spot and point out beliefs and assumptions in others, but not as easy at all to notice the same sort of things in our self. This is no small obstacle in my view, and I have explained why I think this is. As I have also pointed out, it is my view that maintaining a set of core beliefs is very important for everyone for maintaining a stable world view and for functioning well in this world. It makes not much difference at all in my view what the actual world view is as long as a person is able to live well. By the way, I am not sure what you are referring to when you said "The belief in mythology and religion is not necessary to understand the workings of Tao and the Ten Thousand Things." I didn't say anything at all like that. Maybe you are referring to something else however. What I have said is practicing taoists have religious and spiritual practices, and various practices for assisting with life in this world as well. There are also some self cultivation practices practiced by some in taoism which appear to be geared more towards providing a means to understanding deeper questions such as the concepts of self and existence and 'tao'. All fall under the banner of taoism however, and any given practicing taoist may actually be involved in some combination of all these sorts of practices in varying degrees. I think it is worth considering the possibility that the depth of things can sometimes be much deeper than what we can ever observe from external analysis alone. What we think we know may not be so certain after all. If one carefully focuses on and studies only rocks, why would they expect to see and find anything but rocks and sub-components of rocks when they study them? All the best.

Hi Rene. I wouldn't be surprised at all if different practicing taoists would reply to a question like that in different ways, based on each person's own understanding of what is really being asked, and based on their own personal understanding and their particular views of taoism. Whether any taoists would actually term or view things that way, i.e. 'going against tao' I really don't know. From my perspective, since the tao te ching seems to indicate that 'tao' cannot be understood by the ordinary or analytical mind (just my own interpretation here), then it would not make sense to say that one is going with or against 'tao', since we can't know if we are going with or against something which we are not even able to conceptualize or understand, at least not through ordinary means. We can however observe and make better efforts to understand and align ourselves with the natural laws and ways and tendancies of things in this world and possibly also in spiritual realms as well, if one allows such things might exist. To return things back more to the topic at hand, since in the tao te ching (and also apparently in buddhist teachings as well) there is the idea that true understanding can not ever come through ordinary rational thinking and analytical processes of the mind, which philosophy relies upon, then from my limited understanding of taoism and buddhism it would seem that these traditions do not view philosophy as being capable of leading one to true understandings of self and existence and the like. Not saying I either agree or disagree, since I really don't know one way or the other and this is just my personal interpretations, but just mentioning it. There may well be other points of view that I am not aware of in regards to this.

Realistically, I don't know that there are any actual practicing taoists that would really much or ever use a term like 'seeking tao' to describe what they do. Much of actual taoism involves providing religious/spiritual services for everyday ordinary people along with practices/services for helping in this world as well, such as creating talimans and using geomancy and health maintenance and improvement and that sort of thing. Taoists who practice various types of cultivation practices, which includes many taoist priests/lay followers in religious taoists sects as well, practice for reasons that might more accurately be described as spiritual gymnastics training or spiritual cultivation, with one possible goal being able to move to higher spiritual realms or to better spiritual conditions, and also maybe to gain some special spiritual abilities and attributes that go along with this. Terms like 'converting the void into tao' or similar from some practices seem to really just be terms of convenience to describe something that is supposed to be indescribable and beyond the conceptualization of the ordinary mind. I think most practicing taoists would not argue against the idea that all things are of 'tao', since that is really one of the key concepts of the tao te ching. Trying to understand better what 'tao' actually is might also be part of some of the taoist cultivation practices, but much of actual practicing taoism is probably more concerned with spirituality and spiritual cultivation and becoming more attuned with natural ways and processes to assist living better in this world as well, based on my understanding and experience anyway.

Hi Nikolai1. I think you have made some good observations. I would not want to try to make a comparison of 'paths', as it seems to me one would have to be highly accomplished at two given 'paths' and fully understand all the intracacies and possible variations, and fully understand all the potential 'benefits' or 'shortcomings', etc., in order to be able to even potentially make some valid comparisons between the two. I am more inclined to look at it all as a wide (infinite?) array of possible approaches, any of which may have pluses and minuses in regards to assisting us to get from 'here' to 'there', so to speak. It would certainly seem that all people seem to be different in various ways, and what is suitable for one person at any given point in time may not be so suitable for another, although these inclinations or suitability may or may not change over time as well. I would say that beliefs in general lie at the root of what you have been discussing, and while some beliefs are quite pliable and not held on to so rigidly, other beliefs can be much more strongly or deeply held and much less open to consideration and change. These more deeply held beliefs, (which incidentally, I don't think apply to just views about reality itself, as people can hold very strong beliefs about say politcs, or even something as mundane and seemingly inconsequential as sports), are protected in various ways, and when these deeper held or 'core' beliefs are challenged in any way it can elicit a wide variation in responses and reactions, including responses like attempts to just simply ignore the 'offending' information by changing the subject or by just otherwise completely ignoring the information, ridiculing another person or the ideas/information and/or viewing them or their ideas with disdain or even hatred, employing logical fallacies or flimsy or even absurd rationalizations to try to justify disqualifying or ignoring the offending information, etc., etc. Emotional reactions often do accompany such responses to 'offending' views or behaviour or information, etc. as well. Most often these types of responses are elicited at an unconscious (or maybe 'subconscious' depending on one's preference of terms) level. The person reacting this way may not be aware to much extent that they are reacting this way, and may not see their reaction as unreasonable in any way at all, as such reactions typically include various forms of rationalization to make the person feel justifed in reacting that way. These sort of rationalizations and other responses can quickly approach the absurd or the extreme if a person continues to be pressed to give real consideration to the 'offending' information or experience, or whatever it is that is causing a conflict with some deeply held or core beliefs which they hold. It seems at least possible if not likely that there are various ways a person can start to become more aware of these processes that help us to hold and protect our beliefs. Whether it be through philosophical or other forms of analysis, self observation, meditation or other 'cultivation' techniques, or just by being brought face to face with a realization that one or more of our deeply held beliefs just can't likely be true, as a result of circumstances and events that we encounter in the course of living our life. Now it also seems at least possible if not probable to me that many people at least need a fairly stable set of 'core' beliefs in order to hold a fairly steady and stable 'world view'. If one considers it, I think it is our core and other beliefs which very much molds our world view and our views and perceptions of everything within this world. To say it another way, beliefs are like filters which filter down the enormous amount of information that is constantly bombarding our senses in a way that we can more readily and more easily relate to and interact with in a meaningful and practical way. Without this filter system in place, or if this filter system becomes imbalanced in one way or another, I am inclined to think that many people would either become very emotionally and/or mentally unstable or otherwise have difficulties in coping in various ways. I think it is for this reason that we have these various 'unconscious' belief protection responses built in that take over when our core or deeper held beliefs become challenged or threatened. This built in belief protection 'security system' really serves a very important function then. As I mentioned, there may be both pluses and minuses and also limitations to any given 'cultivation' approach, and we may be able to observe any given approach to some extent without having to practice that approach in depth to make at least some observations about a given approach, although I think we should be careful about trying to make definite generalizations or assumptions when only viewing from an 'outside' position. I am inclined to think that various approaches may well have potential pluses and minuses and limitations, but this may also well depend on various factors and variables. As an example relating to your comments and to my comments about the importance of holding certain core beliefs in order to maintain a more stable 'world view', I can say that I have known or heard of those who involve themself in philosophy quite heavily, in which some at least can become somewhat depressive and/or start to act oddly in some ways. In some cases it may be minor or not such an impediment, but in other cases it can be more severe from my own limited observations anyway. There can be many considerations and variables here however. It might not be too much of a stretch however to say that it seems at least possible that not everyone is suited to a given approach, and what is suitable for a person might well change over time. Again, I think you have brought up some interesting observations, and I think it is likely that people of all different approaches and views may well come to some or all of the same sort of observations at one point or another, despite their different approaches. One might even want to consider that life itself with all its many challenges and variations is a wide open form of cultivation or path in itself. Maybe life itself is a form of meditation. What do we really know for certain? All the best...

I did a bit more searching on Yan Xin, and Yan Xin was listed as attending yearly Yan Xin Qigong conferences in the USA and possibly elsewhere from 1997 to 2000, but after that I could find no further mention of Yan Xin publicly teaching or attending qigong conferences. I believe that the time period of around the years 1999 to 2000 corresponds with the time period that the Chinese government began to crack down on large qigong groups in China, so it might very well be that Yan Xin had to stop the public qigong events around this time for safety reasons for him and his many followers in China, as pythagoreanfulllotus mentioned.

Thanks Zanshin. I missed that. So it seems he is still involved with scientific research of qigong, but the public teaching of qigong has maybe been stopped or is kept very low key now. Maybe this did have something to do with the Chinese government's crack down on large qigong groups like Falun Gong.

Thanks for all the replies. pythagoreanfulllotus: I don't know that being named a national treasure alone would mean the Chinese government controls his movements. It seems to me other 'national treasures' have been free to travel to other countries and that sort of thing. From what I can gather from your reply, it sounds like you also do not know for certain where Yan Xin has been in the last decade or so however. Ant: I previously posted a link to the International Yan Xin Qigong Association website which has a brief biography of Yan Xin: http://yanxinqigong.net/aboutdryan/index.htm Zanshin: I didn't read through the entire scientific study document which you posted the link to, but it seems that the study mentions Yan Xin qigong external qi emission was used in cooperation with the Yan Xin Foundation, but I didn't see where it was mentioned that it was Yan Xin himself who participated in the study. If Yan Xin is not mentioned specifically, it seems possible that it may have been one or more of Yan Xin's students who participated in the study. It seems then that Yan Xin's whereabouts in the last decade or so is not known for certain? In any case he does not seem to have been continuing his public appearances, as there seems to be no recent information about him in the last decade or so, at least not that I was able to find in English. It was mentioned that Yan Xin attended a conference in NYC in 1997, but that was the last mention of him that I came across. Thanks again for the replies. Was just curious if Yan Xin was still teaching publicly somewhere, but perhaps he has been laying low for the last number of years for one reason or another.

Hi Jainarayan. I would recommend that you take all advice and comments etc. that you receive on the internet or even from books or others with a grain of salt. IMO, there is often a lot of outright nonsense and bad or questionable advice getting thrown about. IMO, books can be good to at least get an overview of a topic, but books can vary widely in quality and accuracy of course, and books cannot cover all variations of conditions from person to person. There are external/hard style martial arts and practices and internal/soft style martial arts and practices. Although there can be a lot of variation and even a lot of overlap between those two classifications, in general the way these two divisions of martial arts approach training can be quite different. Although both divisions of martial arts obstensibly use qi to improve health and strength and increase martial arts performance, the internal martial arts schools will ususally train quite differently. In true internal martial arts, emaphasis is typically on completely relaxing and avoiding tension and stress in practice and training to allow free and unobstructed flow of the qi through the meridians throughout the body as much as possible. It is said that one needs to train this way in order to build up one's qi to a high enough level to be used as the main source of power in martial arts or healing, etc. In external martial arts, although they also often train with qigong, they will often use a lot of tension and stressing in their qigong training, and their main emphasis is to strengthen the muscles and tissues and bones of the body with qi to increase their martial arts ability and power. In practice there is a lot of overlap in training methods between the two different classifications, and it is more like a continuum in the the range of practicing methods and approach, with some martial arts containing both hard and soft training methods, or with some martial arts being softer or more internal than others. Even in the same martial art, such as bagua or tai chi, some teachers will emphasize complete relaxation at all times while other teachers will add more external training methods to the practice. The point being that you are going to encounter a lot of variation in training methods and advice depending on what the source is. I think however that practicing zhan zhuang as Lam Kam Chuen teaches it should be fairly safe to practice as long as you keep the practice completely relaxed and natural as you can. Another thing to be aware of is many qigong teachers may not teach people with mental conditions, as students may not practice as directed or such student's conditions may even worsen through qigong practice. At any rate you should be able to email or phone the teacher and ask their advice about you practicing their system given your situation and see what they recommend. In any case I think for a person in such a situation it would be wise to consult the teacher, and if the teacher is not sure then you may want to consider matters very cautiously. All the best.

but this is haiku an ink blot in a mirror writing on the wall

Dead skin cell rave scene? No, just a sign of the times my heart still holds hope

Hi Gerard. I believe that there is at least some truth to what you are saying. Although we tend to think of ourselves as much more enlightened than people from earlier times, much of our most revered spiritual and self culitvation related writings and teachings derive from periods more than 2000 years ago and much earlier. Some of those ancient writings make references to even earlier times where people were supposed to generally be even much more enlightened overall. Despite this apparent downgrade in the last few thousands years at least, we can still do whatever we can manage to cultivate ourselves if we so desire. If sitting meditation is not proving constructive for example, then do standing and/or moving practices, or whatever. We can do what seems to have value and what seems to bring some purpose and meaning in the current circumstances. This then may well mean adapting with the times to some extent as you suggest, although it may not need be too drastic or radical. My suggestion would be to practice what seems to work for you now. What is the difference between stillness and movement in the grand scheme of things? I don't know the answer to that question but it may help to consider the question anyway.

You mentioned the Dead Sea Scrolls. The following links might be of interest as well: The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English [Paperback] http://www.amazon.com/The-Dead-Sea-Scrolls-Bible/dp/0060600640 (Has English translations of the portion of the Dead Sea Scrolls that relate directly to the old testament books). Books on the entire Dead Sea Scrolls collection: http://www.gnosis.org/library/dss/dss_bookstore.htm Some general info on the Dead Sea Scrolls: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

I don't have a lot of experience with it, but I practiced the level 1 movements for a few months. I had stopped practicing it because I got busy and I didn't have a lot of time for practicing it along with my other practices. I have recently started practicing this again however as, surprisingly, I found it to be an effective form of qigong. It is a very simple practice to learn with only simple arm movements which can be done standing or sitting, so this practice can also be done by seniors and people who are confined to wheelchairs or who otherwise can't stand long and that sort of thing. I was surprised to find that although the level 1 form of this qigong just has simple repetitive arm movements and doesn't require any special breathing or concentration or visualization, it really does seem to help open up meridians and to stimulate qi flow. For anyone who has practiced other forms of qigong and did not get much results, I would recommend giving fragrant qigong a try. I have started practicing it again as it does appear to be helpful at opening meridians and stimulating qi circulation. I would suggest to anyone who is looking for a good healing form of qigong to give this a try for a few months. If it works as well for others as it works for me, then I think you will not be disappointed. It is possible however that a form of qigong which works well for one person may not have the same effects for some other people. All the best.

A few more thoughts on this. When I look over even just a few different translations of the tao te ching, I can see quite a bit of variation in interpretations in just those few translations. It would really seem that the tao te ching is not something that is so easily fully understandable with any degree of real certainty. I do see some passages that do seem to give at least some hints of how these 'sages' are able to achieve the states that they achieve, but when comparing one translation to the next there is also a fair bit of variation even in those few passages I was looking at, and so it seems this aspect also can be viewed in different ways. I find it interesting that Lao Tzu seems to be referring to sages from ancient times and how they guided the people in those earlier times, apparently indicating these were not at all new ideas which Lao Tzu expressed. I do not see anything that stands out to me in the tao te ching that necessarily precludes anything like religious or spiritual practices or magic or divining or immortality, or various other practices that have become associated with 'taoism' over the years. The tao te ching does seem to point out that there is the mysterious tao as source, and its natural unfolding or expression from which all things and phenomena arise. Nothing written seems to be said about whether this 'outer' expression of tao contains a 'spiritual' aspect or not, or whether there are spiritual realms or not, etc. Kajenx, maybe the answer to your question is that some taoists or taoist practices focus more on aligning with or understanding 'tao' as the mysterious source, and other taoists or taoist practices focus more on aligning with and understanding tao in its natural outward expression, and making practical use of that. I know that may well still be inadequate or off the mark, but that is as best as I can suggest based on my own very limited understanding. All the best.