vsaluki

I didn't say that I didn't want health care. I said that I wanted it to be my choice. Not the choice of the government. Hard to believe, since anyone can walk into many emergency rooms and get health care. Covered or not. I never said that I hated society. What I hate is the concept of sacrificing individualism and individual freedom for the so called benefit of society. That was essentially the communist experiment. And it led to a society of miserable individuals. The reason is that people are not ants or bees and their social interactions are not hive interactions. And I find that the people that advertise the most loudly for social sacrifice are the people who want to determine what those sacrifices will be. The more equal pigs. That was the point made by the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov. Check it out. I maintain that they were. But that is a long debate best left for another time.

I've always wondered what it means when someone says "people have the right to ...." Is there a big book of human rights that was created by a divine being? Since anyone can make such a satement about practically anything, is there a way of emperically verifying that the statement is true? Or are rights simply the domain of some people that consider themselves to be elevated enough to create them through declaration? I tend to get suspicious when someone says that person A has some right and that they have the right to force person B to supply the means for giving person A that right. If you don't like health care companies, then let's leave health care to contracts between individuals and their doctors. And let's keep prices down by making health care very competitive. Send more people to medical school and have doctors advertise their prices at the front door. If you think that our pharmaceutical industry is making a weak creative contribution, then why are they producing 70% of the worlds new drugs? And why are the socialized medicine countries producing so pitifully few? I would rather have the pharmaceutical companies pick my pocket than have the government pick my pocket. At least I feel like I'm getting something I want from the picking. And you feel that government is the new and superior technology. LOL. Maybe that's because it's full of hot air. Yes, and the government is now much more sophisticated about how they control public opinion. What is your point? They are only becoming conjoined in that government is taking much more control of previously private institutions. True. It's also called socialism. Most people think that the concepts are opposites. But if you look at the definitions, they intertwine very nicely. I like to call it socialism-fascism. Handful? Oh, oh, there's that scary boogie man hiding under the bed again. No, I don't think that. I also don't think that unions or law firms should make unlimited campaign contributions. I prefer that campaign contributions be the domain of individuals. I knew that it wouldn't be long before I was exposed to the true meaning of tolerance.

Now you are changing the subject from manufacturing consent to manufacturing consent is okay if it suits your agenda. What misinformation would that be? Please be specific. For example, give me a commercial that was funded my a healthcare company that disemenates misinformation. The government is only selling a public option because they know that they cannot sell socialized medicine outright. But there is no doubt that is where they want to go. When have you ever seen government programs shrink. The trajectory is always bigger and more control. But they are forcing you to get heath care if you want it or not. I believe that it is my choice if I want to play Russian Roulette with my health. And I don't hold the government responsible if I loose the bet. As I said before, my values are radical individualism and freedom. I don't believe that humans can be fullfilled operating as members of a hive. It's one of the things that appeals to me about Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. I see them as radical individualists as well. If it's not an issue, then the people providing it have no motivation to do it well. So you see no problem with it getting even more huge. Tell me, do you think there is such a thing as government being too big. If so, where is that point. Do you think that professional politicians will ever think that government is too big? Do you think that there is such a thing as being too socialist. And if so, where is that point. No, I'm scared of it because I'm not an Ant or a Bee and I don't want to be a member of a hive. Yes, I see corporations trying to sell their products. I don't see them selling politics much. It doesn't bother me in the least. I can and do ignore them. I don't have that option with the government. There propagada turns into mandated programs that are then forced upon me. Interestingly, I recently had an instructor from the UK that was teaching a group of us about their software design product (Kennedy Carter). You should have heard him rail against their national healthcare system. He claimed that the only people that were stuck with it were people that couldn't afford private health care. And I've heard a slew of complaints against the Canadian health care system. Of course all of socialized medicine takes advantage of the fact that the US produces 70% of the new drugs. They are happy to use the products of those greedy drug companies as long as their work is paid for by the American consumer instead of them.

Hmm. I don't so much see propaganda by corporate powers as I do propaganda by government that is designed to manufacture consent. For example, the recent adds that have been run by the government to sell us socialized health care sound like they are pushing the best thing since sliced bread. The promises are borderline absurd and the problems are completely ignored. The demonization of the health care industry by the government because they, god forbid, want to earn a profit, is another case of government propaganda gone extreme. So, no, I don't agree with Alex Carey or Noam Chomsky. At least not in total. I do however agree with you in part. It seems like government is continuously manufacturing emergencies with end of the world scenarios. And then it uses those manufactured emergencies to increase it's power and control of the individual. You can already see the fallout from healthcare. The claim is that government pays for your healthcare, and so government has a right to regulate your lifestyle in a way that will minimize healthcare costs. Fattening food taxes are already being talked about. I'm sure that there is much more in the pipeline. So yes, the manufacturing of consent is something that the government constantly does to expand both it's size and control over our lives. And it seems that they are successful, because the propagada that they diseminate eventually convinces the voters. As far as corporate power goes, yes it exists. But it's scope and threat are way overblown and used as a boogie man to scare people by those like Chomsky. Half of America makes a very good living working for corporations and the government is happy to soak up hundreds of billions in taxes from the coorporations that it abuses. In fact, without the taxes from corporations and corporate employees the government wouldn't come close to having the money for all of the lavish spending programs in which it engages. It seems to me that Chomsky loves to talk about the manufacturing of consent were it goes against his agenda. But he ignores the much more prevalent manufacturing of consent where is suits his agenda. I mean, where has propaganda ever been more heavily exploited than in the countries that tried Communism? In any case, trusting people to select those that will govern them may have it's problems, but I have yet to see a solution that is better, or one that even comes close to being as good.

8 actually. But the beauty of democracy is that you can elect someone else once you become dissatisfied. You can choose a different party with a completely different political philosophy. Obviously that is not the case in China. You didn't see any signs stating "Run by a totalitarian political regime" from your minibus. So you figured it wasn't the case.

Okay, so basically you don't believe that people are competent to elect who should lead them. That's good to know.

So what happens if you become dissatisfied with the choices of the Communist party and you want to elect someone else?

Prince, think about it for a minute. Some of the heroes of the Hebrew bible were men that attacked cities of non Jews, and after winning the battle they put to death every Man, Woman, Child, and animal in the city. This happened many times with several of the biblical heroes. Now go back and read the sermon on the mount. Can you really imagine that the Jesus that gave that sermon would approve of the kind of raw, bloodthirsty barbarity that is contained in the old testament. I certainly can't. Do you know that the final decision to include the old testament in the Bible was not made until about 400 AD. There is a split starting to happen due to the barbarity of the old testament. For example, the President of Ukrain, after being elected, refused to take the oath of office on the entire Bible and only took it on the new testament. Good luck becoming a minister. I hope that you take the softer route that seems to be available in the Christian tradition. Try St. John of the Cross and Meister Ekhart. I consider Bernadette Roberts to be an enlightened Christian, and she is still alive. Her books are available too. Maybe you can be the guy that makes Christian mysticism main stream.

I'm curious about why you choose to use this lable. I can see three possible reasons. A. You believe that it somehow informs that discussion and tells us something about the character of the participants that we would not otherwise know. B. You want to use it to intimidate people into silence. C. You feel a certain affinity with other people who use the term and so you use it without thinking about how sensible it is. Let's go with A for the moment and see where it takes us. To have a phobia means to have an irrational fear of some sort. So to be an Islamophobe would be to have an irrational fear of the religion of Islam. And by implication it would mean that the person having the fear is somehow backwards and ignorant. It would also mean that the person making the accusation has an intimate knowledge of the emotional reactions of the person that they are accusing. I'm not sure how they acquired such knowledge. Maybe you can tell me. I can assure you that I have no fear at all of Islam. My emotional reaction to the religion is one of revulsion. Oddly enough, this was not my first reaction, since my first introduction came through Rumi. Later, as a result of things that were happening in Chechnya, I did a much more complete review of the religion. I could hardly believe how bad this religion was at it's very core. So, let's move on from the phobia part to the rationality part. I would content that revulsion is in fact the rational reaction to this religion. And I can assure you that I am 100% capable of defending the position that revulsion is the right reaction. I have given some of the reasons for why Islam is revulsive to me in my posts above. And believe me, those posts are only scratching the surface. Now, you can take a Tao point of view and question that revulsion is the correct response to anything. But all that aside, most of us are revulsed by certain things. Let me ask you, what are your feelings about slavery in the old American South. I'm going to guess that you have a certain amount of revulsion to it. And I think that you would be justified in having it. Does that mean that we could call you a slaveryphobe, or that we could consider you as being backward or ignorant for your reaction? I don't think that you would agree to that. Then let me ask you, do you know that the prophet Mohammed was a slave trader and that he owned 28 slaves? Now does that give you a feeling of revulsion towards the prophet Mohammed? Or perhaps you live by a code that says that you must pander to minorities. Therefore you must rationalize away any travesties that were committed by Mohammed while at the same time allowing yourself to feel revulsion to the actions of the slave owners of the American South. So tell me, did you use the term Islamophobia for reasons A, B, or C. And if you used it for reason A, exactly how did you feel that it would shed light on our discussion? Of course I may have missed the reason - so enlighten me. This is certainly true. Religions seldom resemble the intent of their founder. And most religions have devolved to being either worthless or even harmful. But you need to remember two things. First, the travesties of other religions do not excuse the travesties of Islam. Second, one should not throw out the baby with the bathwater by painting all religions in the same light. As for me, I'm more interested in the teachings and the intention of the founder than in the corruption of the religion that followed. And I can absolutely assure you that there is no similarity between people like Buddha, Lao Tze, and Jesus on the one hand and Mohammed on the other. In the case of Islam, Mohammed built a completely corrupt religion from day one. The man was every bit as bad as the worst Muslim terrorists. He murdered, he lied, he stole, he raped, he waged war, he was a bigot, he approved attacks on innocents, had sex with a nine year old girl, owned slaves, was a slave trader, etc. etc. And he made no spiritual contribution at all. Yes, Muslims always make this claim. And it is a completely false claim. But it's a big subject, so I will deal with it in another post.

LOL. I don't think so. Communism was a complete economic failure in China. It was only the infusion of capitalism that caused China's economic boom. If you want to see how Communism works, go to North Korea. And while the injection of Capitalism brought about the economic boom in China, the retention of the communist party means that personal freedom is still severly limited and political freedom is non existent. Do we really need to detour down this road? The only thing that strikes me a relevant here is that both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu were radical individualists. I believe that they would find government to be overly intrusive in virtually every country on the face of the earth today.

I've been interested in religion and spirituality for most of my life. I gave up Christianity when I was 15 and subsequently spent several years arguing with my friends about it's merits. Later in life I discovered that there were a few lessons of value in the Bible, but I saw no exposition or practice of these in the church. Wanting to know what was "out there", I read the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. I suppose that these are the heart of what we could call the pantheistic religions. So it was a valuable experience. My first view of Islam came from reading Rumi. Later, wanting to understand the actions of the insurgents in Chechnya I decided to read the Quran and some of the Ahadith. I wanted to know if the jihadis were acting in accordance with their core religion or if they were choosing to suit their agendas. My introduction to Buddhism came through the Tibetan Book of the Dead. My introduction to Zen came through Roshi Philip Kapleau. But it didn't have a great appeal for me. Tao was a bit of a revelation for me. On reading the Tao Te Ching, I found that the book was less of a religion and more of a philosophy of life with spiritual undertones. And it was a philosophy whose views already aligned very closely with my own. Furthermore, the character of Chuang Tzu struck me as an excellent embodiment of the philosophy and as an individual that I could personally relate to. I'm also a fan of Alan Watts, and I have read most of his work. That doesn't mean that I agree with him on all points, but he is never short of subjects that make you think. I've more or less concluded that the major religions have a common spiritual core that is pantheistic in nature but that is often misunderstood by the majority of people practicing that religion. Islam is perhaps an exception to this since it has no spiritual core as it was originated. The Sufi's attempted to give it one after the fact, but this effort has largely failed and a spiritual Islam is essentially restricted to the Sufi branch. My feelings about Tao is that it's ideas are radical. Not only for the time from which it came, but also for today. Lao Tsu was a reluctant teacher and his lessons are wide open to interpretation. But, I think if one wishes to construct a consistent picture of all of his lessons, as well as those of Chuang Tzu, then a tight set of ideas will emerge as their guiding priciples.

Buddhism was already 500 years old in the time of Jesus. Buddhists were already wandering about the middle east during his lifetime. In fact, the middle east was a virtual melting pot of spiritual ideas of every type at the time. If you read the sermon on the mount, the parallels with Buddhist ideas are easy to see. In fact, if you read his parables and metaphors from a Buddhist perspective, everything fits very nicely. The fact that Jesus had not absorbed the mystical/pantheistic language of India indicates that he learned his material in the ME from people, probably Buddhists, that were trying to teach using the spiritual language of the area. What is surprising to me is the existence of the story of the fall in Genesis. While the old testament is largely a tribal history and a spiritual load of crap, there are some mystical jewels, such as the story of the fall, within it. Of course Genesis preceeds both Buddhism and Jesus. Without going into an explanation of the metaphor for the moment, I can only think that the mystics who placed the Upanishads within the Vedas may be the same people that are the source of that story. It's a bit of a parallel. The Vedas are a big load of dogma, ritual and superstition. And yet they contain the Upanishads. The Upanishads even speak critically of the material in the Vedas from time to time. In any case, the old Testament is thought to have about five different authors. Apparently some of them had encountered and absorbed - from somewhere - some of the mystical teachings that went into the Upanishads. http://www.thezensite.com/non_Zen/Was_Jesus_Buddhist.html

I think that the context of verse [9.13] that I gave above shows clearly that it is fear, not respect, that is meant. I also believe that the old testament promoted the fear of god. Look at the calamities that he sent down on various people. Islam is, in many ways, a derivative of Judaism. And it shares may of the same flaws. I think if you put Al Araby, Al Hallaj, St. John of the Cross and Meister Ekhart in the same room together they would agree on almost everything. In fact, they would likely agree with Lao Tze and Buddha as well. I don't know much about the Cabbalists, so I really can't say anything there.

I'm inclined to think that Lao Tzu was an open hand. No esoteric teachings. No hidden messages. No ulterior motives. The problem that he has is that so many people want religion to be a kind of club. They want to have a sense of belonging to an inner circle of people that share a special truth that is only available or understood by them. They want to have a set of specific instructions and practices that makes them better or that allows them to achieve some spiritual goal. All religions have evolved to that, regardless of what the religions founder intended. Lao Tse doesn't offer any of those things. You cannot build a religion around the writings of Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu because their teachings go directly to the individual. And even then they tell you the truth, which is that they really cannot tell you much. "The Tao that can be spoken of in not the true Tao". In my mind, a "Tao priest" is a contradiction in terms. It suggests that someone knows "the path". But the "the path" is like the path of a bird flying through the air. It is different each time that a different bird flys. And once the bird has passed, the path is gone. It cannot be seen and followed by other birds. In the same way, "the path" for each individual is unique to that individual. For this reason, it cannot be pointed to and identified by a religion. "The path" is also different in another way. Most paths are designed to connect two endpoints. They have a purpose. To get you from point A to point B. The Tao path has no such purpose. "The path" is it's own purpose. One of the most important elements of the teaching of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu is to not miss the fullness, beauty and significance of "the path" because you are concentrating on what you think are the endpoints.

You mean like Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman? The relationship of a Muslim to god must be one of fear. This is clearly stated in the Quran. [3.175] It is only the Shaitan that causes you to fear from his friends, but do not fear them, and fear Me if you are believers. [7.56] And do not make mischief in the earth after its reformation, and call on Him fearing and hoping; surely the mercy of Allah is nigh to those who do good (to others). [8.2] Those only are believers whose hearts become full of fear when Allah is mentioned, and when His communications are recited to them they increase them in faith, and in their Lord do they trust. [9.13] What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Apostle, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers. [9.18] Only he shall visit the mosques of Allah who believes in Allah and the latter day, and keeps up prayer and pays the poor-rate and fears none but Allah; so (as for) these, it may be that they are of the followers of the right course. [9.109] Is he, therefore, better who lays his foundation on fear of Allah and (His) good pleasure, or he who lays his foundation on the edge of a cracking hollowed bank, so it broke down with him into the fire of hell; and Allah does not guide the unjust people. [16.50] They fear their Lord above them and do what they are commanded. [20.3] Nay, it is a reminder to him who fears: The fear relationship is clearly not one that the Sufis would support. Nor would the mystics of any other religion support that kind of relationship. Additionally, the fear relationship is completely inconsistent with a pantheistic god. When everything is divine, there is no fear of god. When self and god are one, there is no fear of god. Do you ever hear Buddha or Lao Tse say that god must be feared.

I don't recall any references to meditation in the Tao Te Ching. I don't remember Loa Tzu ever mentioning that he meditated. And I'm certain that I didn't see any methods for meditation in the Tao Te Ching. Did I miss something? The next question that interests me is, what is the ratio of meditators to those that have become enlightened? There are certainly many many meditators. But there seems to be only a handful of enlightened. Is meditation a condition, but not a sufficient condition for enlightenment? U.G. Krishnamurti would argue that it is not at all necessary for enlightenment. I would acknowledge that meditation can be a tool for quieting the mind. As such, it can be a healing influence for all kinds of psychological issues. But is there a necessary linkage between meditation and enlightenment? Then there is the catch 22 issue regarding the seeking of results. If one engages in meditation, one is usually seeking a result or a reward. The desire for results and rewards is a product of the ego. So by seeking whatever result or reward comes from meditation, is one feeding the monster that one is supposedly trying to destroy?

Thanks. I just ordered it.

I would say with a nice nap and a walk in the park.

Yes, I have to agree that meditation is pretty broadly defined. Now if they would only include naps, then I could be a real guru. LOL. On the other hand, I personally have something fairly specific in mind when I talk about enlightenment. We talk about the concept of nonduality. In my mind, someone is enlightened when they actually experience reality as a unity. One in which there is no differentiation between self and other. It's not simply understanding and accepting the idea - it's actually experiencing the world that way. Along with that experience comes the feeling that the entire world is divine and perfect as it is. Also, the concept of compassion is not an option or an ideal, such as, "you should be compassionate to others". The boundaries of self includes others, and so compassion is integral to the reality experience, not as a choice, but rather as a natural state of being. Of course the question of God also comes into play in enlightenment. I think here one feels within oneself the sourse of all creation. Reality is not a static existence outside oneself, but rather a continous process of new creation from within oneself. And when I use the words "within onself" I'm speaking in a metaphoric sense, not a bounded physical sense. I have a difficult time pointing to people and saying, in my opinion, they are enlightened. I would say that Al Hallaj, Al Araby, Jesus, Lao Tse, Chaung Tzu, Bernadette Roberts, Buddha, a few of the Hindu mystics, etc are or were probably enlightened. I'm sure that there are some that never try to teach or advertise their enlightenment even indirectly. But I still believe that the number is very small. I'm just pulling a number out of my backside, but I'd say there are a thousand meditators for every enlightened person. Again, that is not to disparage meditation. I'm just saying that I don't believe that one must lead to the other. The other thing that strikes me is the inability of the enlightened to pass the experience on to their followers. I don't see where all the people that I mentioned above had much success in passing on their experience of the world to the direct followers that were with them in their own lifetime. For example, I wouldn't call a single apostle of Jesus' enlightened. And the church that supposedly derived from him is largely clueless as to what he was about. The odd thing is that the middle ages produced a few people - clerics like St John of the Cross and Meister Ekhardt that may have been enlightened. It's almost as though the enlightened pop up like mushrooms in a forest, in all cultures, ages and civilizations, rather than being the products of some teaching or meditational lineage.

I was unaware of that one. Can you tell me what title I can find that under please? I have one called "The Book of Chuang Tzu" from Penguin. Maybe you could help me locate that in one of his stories. My translation is by Hua-Ching Ni. He translates that section of sutra 8 as: I suppose that you could interpret "attunes his mind to become profound" as meditation. Sutra 12 says:

Could you be a little more specific please. As I read the Quran and the Hadith, Wahhabism follows the teaching fairly closely. The prophet mohammed led 17 major military expeditions. If you count all of his expeditions, there were more than 50. He spent very little time in a state of peace with anyone. Mohammed was no Buddha or Jesus. This claim can be made about anyone that uses the Ahadith for any purpose. The important thing is that, true or untrue, valid or invalid, they form a substantial part of the Sharia and the Muslim religion as it is practiced. I don't see much in the way of continuing development. Especially in the most objectionable areas. Can you give me a reference about no marks? The problem that you have with the death sentence for apostacy is that you place it's meaning into the context of a military struggle rather than a spiritual struggle. Of course that is also the context that Mohammed placed it into. For him, the expansion of his religion was a military struggle. You also have another problem. And this applies to much of the Quran. You have a book of laws and regulations that is claimed to apply for all time, but when it doesn't fit, it's followers claim that it results only from the conditions of the time. Most of Mohammed's wars were offensive in nature. And the apostacy law applied to changing religion to Judaism and Christianity, not just polythesism. I think that you are just not looking. http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/02/...y-from-isl.html http://www.compassdirect.org/?aspxerrorpath=/en/display.php I'm not sure where you get that idea. At the time of Mohammed's death he left nothing behind that even roughly approximated sufism. The Quran as given by Mohammed is completely devoid of spirituality. Sufism was later invented as an apparent attempt to tack some spirituality on to the religion. Originally many of the founders of Sufism, like Al Hallaj, were beheaded, or declared Apostates, like Al Araby. Some people, like Rumi were very politically astute about how they preached their sufism, and so avoided major problems. First of all, there are no exoteric spiritual teachings in Islam, outside of Sufism. And Sufi panthesim shares much in common with Hindusim, Buddhism and Tao. For example, show me where you find statements like these from Al Araby in main stream Islam. The existence of all created things is His existence. Thou dost not see, in this world or the next, anything beside God. [TB] Thou art not what is beside God. Thou art thine own end and thine own object in thy search after thy Lord. [TB]" Then, of course, there is the Al Hallaj statement, "I am the truth". Where do you find that in mainstream Islam? I'm going to have to differ with you on that as well. Here is what Mohammed had to say about it in the Quran. Quran: [5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. [5.82] Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly. [9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! [4.160] Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah's way. [5.18] And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah and His beloved ones. Say: Why does He then chastise you for your faults? And let's remember some of these: Quran: [9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. [8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and *** religion should be only for Allah;*** but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do. And these: Quran: [9:5] But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. [9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). [4.74] Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward. [4:95] Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath God promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,- [8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. [8.57] Therefore if you overtake them in fighting, then scatter by (making an example of) them those who are in their rear, that they may be mindful. [9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement. [47.4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish. [48.16] Say to those of the dwellers of the desert who were left behind: You shall soon be invited (to fight) against a people possessing mighty prowess; you will fight against them until they submit; then if you obey, Allah will grant you a good reward; and if you turn back as you turned back before, He will punish you with a painful punishment. And perhaps you are refering to things like this when you speak of exoteric teachings: Quran: [22:19-22] But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them, boiling fluid will be poured down their heads. Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron. Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning. [4.56] (As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise. [4.57] And (as for) those who believe and do good deeds, We will make them enter gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them for ever; they shall have therein virgins, and We shall make them enter a dense shade. Please don't tell me how I am taking these out of context unless you are willing and able to demonstrate how their context changes their meaning.

Findley, are you beyond duality and beyond good and evil? Are these things that you can learn from Taoist wisdom?