Erdrickgr

In chapter 35 of the Dao De Jing we find this passage: "She who follows the way of the Tao will draw the world to her steps. She can go without fear of being injured, because she has found peace and tranquility in her heart. Where there is music and good food, people will stop to enjoy it. But words spoken of the Tao seem to them boring and stale. When looked at, there is nothing for them to see. When listened for, there is nothing for them to hear. Yet if they put it to use, it would never be exhausted." That is from the McDonald translation, which I picked at random from an online site, but other translations seem to say essentially the same. However, in a text by Zhuangzi, titled "The Main Currents of Thought" (Lin Yutang, The Wisdom of Laotze, pp. 23-37), we find this: "The Ascetics, the followers of Mo Ti (or Motse). Some of the teachings of hte ancients lay in this: not to strive for posthumous fame, not to waste the things of the earth, not to be dazzled by laws and institutions, but to be severe with oneself and hold ready to help others in need. Mo Ti and CH'in Huali heard of these teachings and loved them. (They) tended to overdo it, regarding it as a great satisfaction. (Motse) wrote the essay 'Against Music,' and taught: 'Be thrifty. Do not sing in life, and do not morn in death."... He would not accept (the tradition of) the ancient kings, and wanted to destroy the ceremonies and music of the ancients, such as the Hsiench'ih (name of the sacrificial music)... Motse taught that one should not sing in life and should not mourn in death... However, what kind of a teaching is this, when one must not sing when he wants to sing, must not weep when he wants to weep, and must not enjoy music when he is feeling happy? It causes a man to live strenuously and die cheaply, and must be considered too severe." (p. 27) Do the two need to be reconciled, and if so, how should that happen? Are these passages just looking at things from different perspectives, with the first passage cautioning not to get caught up in sensual pleasures which are fleeting, while the second passage is saying that it's healthy and natural to do things like sing when you feel like singing (even if it is only a temporary happiness)?

Mine is just from Google--the only one I've posted so far anyway. It's an Orthodox monastery in Greece. Here's another random one from the net...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpavSXoAPC0

*Bump* Yep, I'm interested, anyway Also, regarding what was said earlier about pronouncing Taoist with a T, fwiw while I've never heard anyone pronounce it that way, I do have a book in front of me where they recommend that pronunciation... "Taoist - It is convenient to pronounce the first syllable as tow in towel (instead of dow), following the accepted anglicized pronunciation of the word." - (Ed. by Lin Yutang, The Wisdom of Laotse, p. v) They don't say to pronounce Tao with a T sound, but rather with a D sound.

I rarely read fiction, but being a fan of the Dragon Age: Origins game I did read the two prequel books (The Stolen Throne and The Calling) and enjoyed them. I read LOTR several times when I was younger, but haven't read it in probably 15 years.

Underoath - I'm Content With Losing

Corrosion of Conformity - Fuel

Speaking of the Tao, the Tao Te Ching says: Who is this Lord/God that the passage is speaking of? Is the writer just using a generic concept of God to make a point, or did they have a specific God in mind when they wrote this?

I don't know whether it works or not, but here are some red flags that I see upon a very brief glance at the webpage: - Claims to impart knowledge that others don't want you to know - Claims to be "UNBEATABLE in the streets" - Further claims that it is unbeatable regardless of age or fitness level - Makes outlandish claims, such as: "If you'd like to know how even someone who is slow, out-of-shape and has zero self defense experience can, in one hour or less, know more about surviving brutal street attacks than most black belt karate masters... then this letter will show you how." - Claims that the system does not require any practice and that everything can be learned in a few hours, and will thereafter be "'locked in' your mind, your neurology and even your muscle fibers forever"

Nice

Many claims of "healing" are fraudulant, so I wish the government would do more about it. Even "healers" like Peter Popoff, who have been publically debunked and exposed for the frauds that they are, are still around making money off people.

I've lived in the state of Pennsylvania in the US most of my life (except a brief time in Florida).

Based on what I've read, I would say that this is accurate. The Bible mentions lesbianism once (Rom. 1:26-27), while the majority of passages mention only men (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; 1 Cor. 6:9). Also, I remember reading in Eve Levin's scholarly work Sex and Society in the World of the Orthodox Slavs, 900-1700 that lesbianism was treated as a sin, but a much lighter sin, than male homosexuality (provided, of course, that the lesbianism didn't result in breaking of a virgin's hymen). As to women in Taoism, I am much too new to it to express any opinion myself, though I will say that I've read that women weren't always treated exactly as equals. I guess just read around and see what you find.

I think it is normally justified, though sometimes the police and security people go too far. I remember reading a story a year or two ago about a guy who got tasered while holding a baby. That one really threw me for a loop. How do you taser someone holding a freakin baby!? Obviously sometimes people do act without thinking, and it can have tragic results. At the same time, like Marblehead said, I'd rather have them pull out a taser on someone than a gun and end up killing even more people because they overreacted. I mean, if these guys are gonna overreact a certain percentage of the time, I'd rather have them do it with a weapon that usually isn't lethal. But certainly some of the people who are using these weapons do need to practice more self-control. EDIT--I found the story about the man holding the newborn.

"The one who knows does not speak; the one who speaks does not know. The wise man shuts his mouth and closes his gates." - Tao Te Ching, 56 So, would it be fair to say that the people participating at this forum don't know what they're talking about? But seriously, how do you reconcile statements like this with participating at a forum, or even trying to explain Taoism to someone you love? I'm guessing the only way is by not taking the statement in a literal, absolute sense. And then there are passages which do say to talk about the Tao: "Why should a man be thrown away for his evil? To conserve him was the Emperor appointed and the three ministers. Better than being in the presence of the Emperor and riding with four horses, is sitting and explaining this Dao." - Tao Te Ching, 62 Anyway, thoughts?

Ahh yes, I keep forgetting that it is not only Taoist belief/practices/history which are being described on this forum, thank you

I want to say something, but I'm not sure what. It's just a shame that the people most in need of healing would be turned away... Then again, as someone with bipolar disorder, maybe I'm just getting defensive

Er... ok. I wouldn't say that you "have nothing of value for anyone". Everyone has something to share, since everyone's experiences and learning is unique to them. You seem to have happened upon Gnostic Christianity. Why not explore that path and see where it leads, and stick around while you're exploring it? I flirted with gnostic Christianity myself, when I found that I could no longer be an Orthodox Christian. I was enticed by Carpocratian gnosticism in particular. I suppose I liked the hedonistic element to it the most, lol. Come to think of it, that hedonism is probably also what attracted me to Cyrenaicism as well (an ancient greek hedonistic/socratic school founded by Aristippus of Cyrene). I guess I've always bounced back and forth like a ping pong ball between the hedonistic and the puritanical. So why am I interested in Taoism? Maybe I know deep down that balance is what I need. Or maybe not. But either way I'm going to stick around and put my 2 cents in, even though it probably won't be welcomed on some threads!

An interesting post. I would agree that people will sometimes shrug spiritual happenings off without investigating. Maybe because of apathy, or fear, or for some other reason. I would consider myself a skeptic, and I think that any skeptic worth their salt would be a truth-seeker first and foremost, and would be able to say "lets explore, lets find the truth". Having said that, many spiritual experiences are considered supernatural, and thus are outside the purview of modern, naturalistic science. Sometimes science can demonstrate that something is true, and sometimes it can't. But a more prevalent problem, I think, is that many people who accept supernatural activity want to have their cake and eat it to. On the one hand, such people don't want science interfering with their spiritual beliefs, and will ignore scientific results for any number of reasons. For example, when a valid study demonstrates that praying for cancer patients doesn't work, people just make excuses for why they can ignore the study, like saying that God can't be tested that way. On the other hand, when science does seem to validate something spiritual, all of a sudden it's trumpeted from the rooftops. "Aha! Science validates my belief! What do you say to that you stinkin' non-believers?" It reminds me of this overview of some polls on religion and science. Most notable to me in the article was this statement: "When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll." People seem to want to hold to their beliefs, whatever they might be, whether they're a skeptic or a spiritualist. But, while I would agree with you that some skeptics will ignore the spiritual too easily, I think the larger problem is that many spiritual people will ignore science too easily. Or to put it another way, while some people aren't scientific enough to see the spiritual proof, many more people aren't spiritual enough to see the scientific proof.

With 18,151 members currently registered on this forum, it'd actually be rather impressive if only about a thousand never posted. For many forums that I've been on, it's only a small percentage of people that post, while the majority seem content to register and then either lurk or never come back. I suspect that the number is much higher than a thousand, though. Nothing wrong with that, just the nature of internet forums.

Well, I don't think there has ever been a time when entire socieites were enlightened, so I guess that is going to throw my whole answer off! I believe that we are at neither a high or low point in our spiritual development (or in the cycle, if you believe things are cyclical). On the one hand, there is a lot of apathy about things spiritual these days, especially in some areas of the western world. On the other hand, we've never before had so many tools or so much information at our disposal for pursuing enlightenment. I think man will continue developing technologically, and I only hope that spirituality will not be a casualty of that development.

I think one reason is that it makes people feel like they have a purpose, and that there is some meaning to their lives. For example, if we were specially created by God "in his image and after his likeness," then that says something significant about who we are and what the point of life is. On the other hand, some religious people dislike humanism, and it's been my experience that such people try to create a balance where humans are placed below God(s), angels, etc. Of course, such people might still have anthropocentric views, but that's a bit of a relative judgment: what seems anthropocentric to one person might seem like the correct or reality-based position by another person.