Aaron

Hello TianShi, I think the link has to do with the idea that nature is not sentimental, as the bellows work/move things come forth, but not for sentimental reasons. After making sure we udnerstand that there is no sentimentality involved, we are reminded that we cannot describe these bellows, so any description is useless, so rather than cling to the "false" description of the bellows, cling to what you can understand. Aaron

To chime in, I actually did some research on the "straw dogs" comment and it's interesting that Wang Bi actually interpreted it as "straw and dogs". D. C. Lau states that, "straw dogs were treated with the greatest deference before they were used as an offering, only to be discarded and trampled upon as soon as they had served their purpose." In this way they were used much like paper tigers. I'm not sure I believe that this is referring to sacrifices, so much as the worth of the invididual. Perhaps another reminder to the rulers that people should not be treated sentimentally, but rather be seen for their purpose and use? Anyways, that's the sum of my knowledge on this topic. Have fun guys. Aaron

Hello people, This is one of those chapters that confused me for a long time. There's this question we ask, perhaps one of our first really difficult moral questions, "why do bad things happen to good people?" Well the first two lines answer this questions, because nature treats all things like straw dogs. It is not benevolant or cruel, it just is. Good things don't always happen because people do good things, nor do bad things always happen when one does bad things. Some people like to think of this as Heaven-and-Earth and that this actually refers to the animals, but that's not what it's saying, if it was, it would seem like it would refer to the 10,000 things, but it doesn't, it clearly says "all things". With that in mind, the second line states that the Sage treats people like straw dogs as well and I think a lot of people misinterpret this to assume that they were not kind or compassionate, when that's not what it's saying, it's saying that they are not sentimental. They are not allowing their emotional attachment to influence how they interact with other people. The strange thing about this chapter is the juxtaposition of nature being essentially unsentimental and then there also being a description of the unfathomable void from which all things sprung forth. It reminds us once again that this void is unexhaustable, but also says that it moves, it is not still or stagnant, but in motion and it is because it moves that things come forth. In my mind I remember the physicists who tell us that the universe is constantly expanding, i.e. moving. I think these previous lines are important because they lay down a framework of how the Daoists of the third century AD believed that people should see the Tao and the Sage. I think the most important thing to see is that the Tao Teh Ching is not telling us to emulate the Sages, but rather explaining how they were. I also believe that the last two lines remind us that no amount of words can fathom the unnameable and that if we do want to understand it, then we should start with those things we can grasp. To be honest I've never put much thought into this chapter, because it seemed to be common sense. I would like to hear what others think. This really is an important chapter to understand in my opinion, if only because without understanding what is being said here, some of the later concepts to appear may not be fully grasped. Aaron

Hello themaninthesuit, I think you're absolutely right. Excellent point. Aaron

Hello Ryan, I think for me, this conversation ties into the "Celibate for eight weeks" thread in that it is talking about something that is completely natural and presenting it in an ugly light, not because there is a logical reason for it, but because it is generally agreed to be true. I always recommend to people, especially budding Taoists, that if you hear someone tell you something is right or wrong and most people agree, then it's time to examine it for yourself, without preconceived notions, to be sure that it's true, or you can continue to blindly accept everything people tell you as truth and not have to worry about anything shaking up the pretty pink cloud that you're living in. Aaron

Hello Marblehead, I think you're missing my point. Happiness is a description we use to describe an emotional state. These are very much a product of our cultural upbringing. There are emotional states that appear in specific cultures, that don't appear in others, "Schadenfrued" is one example. My point is that "happiness" is defined differently by different people. So happiness to you might be "peace" and "contentment", but to someone else it may be something entirely different. I can't say that you could not sustain an emotional state indefinitely, but your description of an "internal" state seems to be absent of validation, in other words the only way one could prove it works is to experience it themselves. I personally do not believe in the subconscious and conscious, there is only me. The Ego is an illusion, an excuse to push off responsibility for what I am actually doing in my life. The Tao Teh Ching never mentions Ego, only what is within. If I know myself, then I know me, and I also know the world. Aaron

One thing that this discussion brings to mind is our idea of self. I've been reading Alan Watts and one thing he discusses is the idea that we view ourselves oftentimes in the third person. His example is how we refer to our bodies, as if somehow our body was separate from us. We say, "I speak, I walk, I think, and (even) I breathe." But we do not say, "I shape my bones, I grow my nails, and I circulate my blood." Watts' point was that we see ourselves as something that exists within the body, but that we aren't the body, rather the body is a possession, when in fact we are not only the body, but everything else that is connected to the body. I have no issue with the spiritual world, I have experienced it and I know it exists. My point is that we are simply I. My blood is me, my thoughts are me, the conditioning that is present is me, because it is a part of me. That voice inside my head isn't someone else, it is me repeating what I've been told. My spirit is me and yes it exists, but it exists, not in a separate world, one that can only be seen when one has become enlightened, it exists in the here and now, as much a part of the physical world as my toe nails, hair, and fingers are. As for the future and the past, the future exists already and the past still exists. I have a very specific understanding of the nature of rebirth and my belief is that when we die, we are not necessarily born in the future, but we can also be born in the past. The spirit world, the world that we go to when our physical being is gone, does not exist within the realm of time and space, it isn't beholding to those laws. Anyways, I'm sure this all sounds crazy, but it's my own belief. Aaron

Hello dmattswad, That's the problem I find, people are applying absolutes to sex. It isn't good or bad, it simply is. Just because someone tells you it's one thing doesn't make it so. My point is that, if you simply listen and never question, then you are blindly following something. There is a degree of faith required in any spiritual practice, but before one follows a spiritual practice they should first question that practice. We are taught by our parents, teachers, and religious authorities what is right and wrong. Often times we never question this, even if we might abandon the religious practices of our youth, simply because we assume that what we've been taught is right. If we examine the true nature of the lessons we've learned oftentimes what we see is a motivation for those lessons that transcend mere morality and delve more into an issue of social conformity. Conformity that is motivated by a desire to influence how people behave. If you can influence the most basic instincts that exist within man, make them question the nature of these instincts, and control how they use these instincts, then you can control how they behave within society. Simply accepting something because it feel "wrong" isn't enough, one must look at it and see it for what it is. If we remember Chapter Two of the Tao Teh Ching, then we should also remember that applying an absolute label to something doesn't necessarily make it true. If all the world sees an aspect of sex as wrong then that in itself is wrong. There are certain things we are encouraged to question. I think this is one of them. Aaron

Hello Surfingbudda, I think it goes even deeper than that. Many people cultivate Chi without really understanding that Chi isn't Tao. Essence comes from Tao, just as the 10,000 things do, but you wont be able to come to the Tao simply through exercise. Aaron

A childhood memory... I used to play on the rocks in this picture. Definitely a favorite spot.

I get the feeling that I've seen this before. Seems familiar. Aaron edit- I don't see any fireplaces, so I'm thinking the Carolinas or Georgia perhaps?

For 37 years I was never overweight, then I quit smoking and gained nearly 50 pounds in six months. It took a year to get the weight off. When I was overweight I was miserable. I couldn't tie my shoes or see my willy when I went to the bathroom, misery. I don't think being overweight is natural, but maybe it is. I can't say. I can only say I feel one hundred thousand percent better having lost the weight. As for my diet and exercise regime, I walked three miles a day and reduced my portions to reasonable amounts. I still eat the foods I like, just not as much of it. Aaron edit- I haven't exercised in over six months and I haven't gained a pound. The trick is to eat only what you need and on occassion eat something special. I do plan on exercising, just making the point that it's not really the best way to lose weight or keep weight off.

This question is why I don't think people should have a method. Aaron

I've been thinking about this alot lately, what part forgiveness plays in my life and what part it should play. Since I like to think of myself as someone who tries to follow the Tao, I thought I might take a look at what the Tao Teh Ching says about this topic to see if I can undestand it more clearly. I would like to share this examination with you, so that if you have any insight, you might share it for the benefit of everyone else. First off, there was a time when I thought Justice should prevale, that somehow, allowing the guilty to walk was not a part of the Tao. In that light it was quite a shock to me when I was rereading the Tao Teh Ching a few years back and ran across this passage at the end of Chapter 62 (tr. Wu), "Why did the ancients prize the Tao? Is it not because by virtue of it he who seeks finds, And the guilty are forgiven? That is why it is such a treasure to the world." Before reading these lines, I can't honestly say I didn't believe that forgiveness wasn't implied, but the fact that having read the Tao Teh Ching for fifteen years, I had passed over something that seems directly relevant to the forgiving others caused me to pause, why did I pass over something that seemed so relevant, or at least seemed directly relevant, but at the same time was a bit vague. Are the guilty forgiven by those who have found the Tao? Are the guilty forgiven by the Tao? Who are the guilty forgiven by? Puzzling questions indeed. After a bit of pondering I examined the sentence more clerely and I realize that what they're actually talking about is the first statement, that the guilty are forgiven by those who have found the Tao. Now this makes more sense when one examines other comments made regarding the idea of forgiveness, or more directly, mercy. The Tao Teh Ching directly mentions mercy in only one place, Chapter 67. In that chapter it refers to it as the first jewel. Although it doesn't go into much discussion about mercy, we can look at the modern day definition and gather some understanding about the exact meaning of the word. Meriam-Webster defines mercy as the following: 1 a : compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power; also : lenient or compassionate treatment <begged for mercy> b : imprisonment rather than death imposed as penalty for first-degree murder 2 a : a blessing that is an act of divine favor or compassion b : a fortunate circumstance <it was a mercy they found her before she froze> 3: compassionate treatment of those in distress <works of mercy among the poor> The interesting definitions that seem relevant to the topic at hand are those that refer to showing compassion to those who are suffering or have done wrong. In that light, mercy is showing forgiveness to those who deserve it and don't. So if we know the Tao, one would assume that we would forgive others for the wrongs they've done. Perhaps the most confusing part of all of this is that it never implicitly explains the purpose of forgiveness, there is never any exact reason, rather it's just assumed if one knows the Tao, they will be merciful. However, as I said at the beginning, most people who read the Tao Teh Ching, even if they skip those two chapters, still tend to believe that the Tao Teh Ching advocates forgiving others. I think part of the reason why I passed over it for so long was that I didn't want to have to forgive those people who had hurt me in my past, it was easier to just keep on blaming them, or at least it seemed so. When I realized what the Tao Teh Ching had to say about this concept, a single thought came to my mind, if I know the Tao, then why am I not showing mercy or forgiving others? Why am I clinging to old bitterness and not allowing wounds to mend? One thing the Tao talks about, perhaps indirectly is acceptance, that within every bad action there is some good, just as within every good action there is some bad. No one is a good man or bad man, rather we are all men, with the same frailities and capacity for good or bad. If someone does something wrong and we can see that we are just as capable of doing something wrong, then how can we honestly not forgive that person for doing that? On an even deeper level, one can look at the nature or man, those things that drive us to do what we do, those parts we are supposed to get to know as Taoists and realize we're not as good as we think we are, and even moreso, that there are people that are probably justified in not forgiving us, but that's the catch. The Tao isn't about justice or justification, but rather the natural way and perhaps Lao Tzu was more aware of the idea of mercy in nature than we are. Regardless, when one practices forgiveness, there is a burden that seems to be lifted from them, a freedom from that weight that holds on to them. After all, if we are to diminish all desires, shouldn't the desire for revenge, or anger directed at another person be diminished as well? Well I'm not sure what else there is to say. If you disagree please feel free to mention it. I look forward to hearing other people's insights. Aaron

Actually I think you described serenity. In regards to happiness, no it can't be maintained forever. Like suffering, it is transient in nature. The best you can do is enjoy the times when you are happy. Also there's nothing that says you can't be happy, diminishing emotions isn't obliterating them, but rather being emotionally frugal, not allowing them to cloud your judgement. Aaron

Hello Non, I'm not sure what you're talking about now. I'm not talking about sex addictions, I'm talking about a normal man masturbating, no addiction added to the mix. You seem to be taking a very small minority of men and adding their condition as a general condition for all men. Nothing you cited changed my mind, simply because they're all religious organizations that derive some degree of benefit from controling their members sexuality. If you control one of the most basic functions of being human, then you control the human. I came upon this conclusion, that sex is simply a physical act, that it is not inherently good, nor bad, after dropping preconcieved moral conclusions others had placed on it and examining it objectively. After I figured that out I had to ask myself, then why would they see this as bad? After much thought I realized it was a way of controling people. Control their base desires, you control them, easy as pie. Anyways, I'm making a point, just because everyone has told you something is wrong, doesn't make it wrong. "Must I fear what others fear? What abysmal nonsense is this?" And also, sex is only linked to violence because violent men have linked it. Sex is about passion. Some people feel violence, drugs, sports, and numerous other things are about passion also, this doesn't mean that they're linked, just that these activities inspire similar emotional responses. Aaron edit- On the logic comment... Tao has nothing to do with logic. If you think you're going to become aware of the Tao by doing away with emotion, then you're in for a surprise.

Perhaps for a detailed explanation of how Remote Viewing works, you should watch "The Men Who Stare at Goats". Very indepth examination into the scientific nature of the practice. Aaron

Double post... lag monster hit. Sorry.

accidently posted multiple times Aaron

I'm glad you're enjoying learning about Taoism. Chapter 41 of the Tao Teh Ching says... "WHEN a wise scholar hears the Tao, He practises it diligently. When a mediocre scholar hears the Tao, He wavers between belief and unbelief. When a worthless scholar hears the Tao, He laughs boisterously at it. But if such a one does not laugh at it, The Tao would not be the Tao!" (tr. Wu) I hope you enjoy your readings. A good site for resources about the Tao Teh Ching and Taoism is Terebess Asia Online. You should check them out. Lots of resources and different translations of the Tao Teh Ching on that page. Also the FAQ topic on this post, is less of a FAQ and more of link for resources, so you could check that out too. We're also discussing the chapters of the Tao Teh Ching in order in the Tao Teh Ching subforum. If you want to learn a bit more or have any questions, that might be good resource too. Aaron

Alan Watts has several books on Taoism that you might enjoy. "Tao: The Watercourse Way" is an excellent book and one most people read early on. My personal recommendation, buy John C. H. Wu's translation of the Tao Teh Ching and go at it... Other than that, stay away from Wayne Dyer or any of the other "Using Tao to be Happy/Wealthy/Sexy/Interesting" type of books, they rarely are about Tao and more often about pop-psychology. Aaron edit- I would be remiss if I didn't recommend that you check out the Tao Teh Ching Subforum. We're examining the Tao Teh Ching chapter by chapter right now. We're on Chapter Four, so it's easy to catch up. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

Hello Non, I see masturbation as a normal expression of sexuality. I think that there is a degree in which it can be over done and harmful, but for most people, it is perfectly normal. I have serious doubts that masturbation, even if it's once a day, could diminish enough energy to cause harm. Semen replenishes, so am I to assume the energy that's expelled takes longer to replenish than the semen, or that by hoarding that energy you can use it for some other "more noble" purpose. That's my problem with this idea, that somehow having sex for any reason other than giving birth is wrong. Once you say that you're applying the same moral value to it that Christianity and nearly every other religion does, and it doesn't belong. Sex is a natural act, whether it's masturbation or done with a partner. There's nothing wrong with it and to say "it's a waste unless it's used for... making a child" seems strange to me. Some of the most enjoyable times I've had in my life was making love to my wife, not because we were trying to have a baby, but because it was a chance to share something intimate and personal, participate in an act that brought us together, not just physically, but spiritually. Perhaps the problem is the perception of sex. If one has never had an intimate experience with someone else, an experience that is deeply personal, not just physical, and helps to deepen that bond between two people, then it is easy to see that act as a simple release of energy, but to me, even the act of masturbation is more than the simple release of energy. Masturbation is one of the activities that helps a person to develop psychologically for sex. There's a reason most men start to masturbate in their teens, and it isn't simply because it's enjoyable. Masturbation influences our sexual identity. It helps to define who were are. Fantasies are more than simply a waste of time, they help us to become who we are as sexual beings. None of this is a waste of time, but rather an intricate part of our psychological development. My problem is that people seem to view sex as something dirty and sacred at the same time, when it's neither, it's a physical act. It can be deeply spiritual, but so can eating a wafer at church. The spirituality has less to do with the act and more to do with the fact that you're experiencing it with someone you love. I could go on and on, but I wont bother. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I just wish that the world would come out of the middle ages and let people be and do what they want, rather than try and label things according to some archaic moral process, using sin or "qi" as excuses to control the masses. Aaron

Hello folks, What interests me about this chapter, is the degrees of difference in the description of the emptiness. One calls it a bowl, another a vessel, another a well, and another simply empty. There seems to be a need to apply some physical descriptor to it by most, something that we can relate it to, when I think the truth is we can't relate it to anything, it is simply a void. The idea of space comes into mind, that without space nothing could exist as an individual object, there would be nothing to seperate us from anything else, we'd simply be one gigantic mass. The idea that this emptiness can be used, that you can draw from it and it is never full should inspire awe, but I think most see this, and rather than be awed, they simply let the idea pass. What comes to my mind is a spring that bubbles from the ground, you don't know where the water is coming from, but so long as you're thirsty it can quench your thirst and it well never run dry. If you show a child a simple trick, one where you spill water from a glass and then before their eyes it is filled again, they stop and "ooh" and "aah"... Wow! How does that happen? This shouldn't happen, but it is, what a great trick! We should see it the same way, but we have been so inundated with stories of miracles, walking on water, elephants helping to give birth to Buddhas, that we forget the true majesty of this idea. And the things it does! It untangles knots, it dulls knives, it brings things to harmony, even the world becomes whole because of it. Yet it isn't a God, it doesn't attempt to control anything, it just gives what it has without any request or requirement of devotion. It was here before all things were created, later we'll learn that it was there from the beginning and that it will be there at the end. Of all the chapters, this one is perhaps the most amazing to me, because it describes something so grand and subtle that it defies imagination. The fact that this description barely gives it justice makes it even more amazing. This is one chapter, where differences of translation seem to not matter so much, because regardless of the correctness of words, nothing can accurately define the unfathomable nature of the Tao. The best we can do is look at it with awe and accept it as something beyond definition. Aaron

I don't do Qigong or Tai Chi (I am checking out a class tomorrow for Tai Chi though), but I do find that walking is great exercise and also really helps me to get in touch with the world. I recommend no i-pod, just try to quiet your mind and enjoy the world around you. The more "nature" there is, the better. Aaron