Aaron

Very well, thank you. And you? How's school treating you?

What do you want it to mean? Aaron

what you've done is provided me with sources that are still debatable. Tummo is nothing more than bio-feedback meditation. we already knew that you could alter the temperature of the body as well as increase healing through use of the mind. This is the main reason why we have studied the placebo affect. my hypothesis is that the practice of qigong is a form of self hypnosis. in other words you are given a paradigm in which to believe that something will occur, and because the practitioner believes that it will happen, it happens. Just as someone who takes a sugar pill believes it will heal them and they are healed. Aaron

Umm... If I have to explain it then there's really no point. Aaron

Why because I don't buy the hype? Aaron

although a very interesting opening post, I don't see how this is actually any defense for scientifically proving that qi exists. If you want to change the definition of qi, to something more acceptable, fine, but at the same time don't attack other people just because they have a difference of opinion. The title of this thread alone seems to harbor its intent. Here I was expecting a discussion on new age bunny rabbits, but instead it's an attack on people who doubt the veracity of a practice. Aaron

Umm... I think I said, science says that. Find me the studies where they've proven it exists. I've already had a long and heated debate about this. My view, if you believe in it, that's fine, there's nothing wrong with, in fact it's no more crazy than believing in Jesus or Buddha. In the end it all comes down to what works for you. The less you judge others, the less you'll be judged yourself. Aaron

Actually your bunny friend is right on the mark. There's a reason people can sense chi, yet it can't be detected by science. To you it exists, but to most people chi and qi is imaginary. Does it exist? For you it does and perhaps that's enough. After all, must I believe what other people believe? Aaron

When I was younger I had chronic bronchitis, which put a big damper on my meditation, until I started to breathe through the mouth. In my experience there really is no downside to breathing through the mouth, other than it feels unnatural. I'm sure someone will come up with a reason why it is. I also would recommend talking to a doctor about your allergies, perhaps they can find out what you're allergic to. Aaron

I understand what you're saying, but I think you've fallen into the Buddhist trap of viewing the world as an attachment that you must be rid of. This isn't the case, at least not in Taoism or most rational religions, in fact it's the opposite. In Taoism we are not taught to be rid of the world, but to diminish our desires and to understand the difference between needs and wants. If you are finding that you are not satisfied with what the world has to offer, I might suggest you need to reevaluate exactly what you need and want you want, and whether you might be confusing the two. If something is making you unhappy, more often than not it's caused by desiring something you don't need. If we can learn to diminish our desires, then we can begin to diminish a lot of the pain and suffering in our lives. If we can cease to place value on things, then we will never be unhappy if we lose something. This isn't the same as ridding ourselves of material attachments, simply because we can't do this. So long as we live we'll need food, water, and air, all material attachments (clothes aren't a bad idea either). The problem is that, more often than not, we are tricked into believing that having a full belly and a safe place to sleep isn't enough, that we're missing something. We are told that the cure is pursuing God, Buddha,Tao, Allah,Money, Sex, and the list goes on, and we believe that somehow this is going to remove our dissatisfaction, when in fact it's the root cause of it. Lao Tzu said "be done with knowledge" and that a good ruler "keeps his people ignorant" because he understood that the root cause of dissatisfaction is caused by our insatiable need for a solution to something that can't be solved. A child is happy, in fact very happy, even if they have no idea that God, Buddha, Allah, Sex, Money, or any of this other crap exists, why? Because a child understands the differences between needs and wants. Do they want things? Of course, but they are also more than happy to have a stick in place of a toy gun, or a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in place of sirloin steak. They are not interested in material things, so much as they are in experiencing life to its fullest. When they are allowed to do this without influence, they tend to be very happy and satisfied with life. If you really want to find some degree of satisfaction in your life, then be happy with what you have, don't let yourself get sucked into the rat race, competing with the Joneses crap. Don't feel bad because your neighbor has a 2012 BMW and you have a 1987 VW Rabbit that's missing it's fender. Be happy you have a car that gets you from point a to b and I gaurantee you wont need Buddha's teachings, Jesus's teachings, or any kind of religious nonsense to help you feel satisfied with life. All extraneous teachings are unnecessary, as Lao Tzu said, look within, not without, for that is where peace lies. Be compassionate, frugal, and don't compete with others and peace will find it's own way into your life, without the need of meditation, salvation, or a weekend retreat teaching you how to channel energy into your crotch. It's really that simple, but too many people want life to be complicated, so they don't even bother giving it a try. My personal advice- stop reading so many books, meditate less and help others more, be satisfied with what you have, and a lot of this suffering you're feeling will evaporate, it will be like the sun burning away the fog. Aaron

I've been thinking a lot about this lately, who the target audience for Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching was, and apparently my difference of opinion has caused a bit of a stir. I expected some people to disagree, so I wanted to point out why I feel the way I do and support my argument by presenting evidence from the Tao Te Ching. My argument is, if you missed it, that the Tao Te Ching was intended to be a book for rulers on how to govern their people humanely. If one reads the Tao Te Ching they will find that the majority of the references have to deal with rulers and sages and how they behave and should behave. You find numerous references to how to keep the people happy and content. The one that comes to mind is the passage that says the root cause of dissent is knowledge, so the best way to keep people in a state of contentment is to prevent them from learning. You also find numerous references to the structure of society, in which Lao Tzu states that an ideal society is not one based on morality, social status, or ceremony, but one that arises from natural action, or Te. People tend to forget that this passage (Chapter 38) follows a passage directed at rulers (Chapter 37), but it makes sense, since the only practical way someone could identify and solve these issues was if the person who instituted these changes had the kind of power to do so. Again, this doesn't mean that we can't apply the lessons found in the Tao Te Ching to our own lives and practices, but at the same time we shouldn't be so hard headed to ignore the facts before us. I could continue to list numerous references regarding this, but I really don't have the time. Instead I want to take the time to address why so many people have an issue with this opinion. Most people like to think that the Tao Te Ching was written for them, it makes it personal and approachable. The notion that Lao Tzu might have believed that these kinds of changes needed to made at the top is disturbing, because it means that he may not have believed that just any man could make a difference. I believe that Lao Tzu was a pragmatist. He understood the realities of the world better than most of us do. He was an administrator in the government, saw how the government worked, and eventually became so disillusioned that he left. If we are to believe the myths about Lao Tzu, then the story about his departure should ring especially true. When he was leaving, he was stopped by a border guard who refused to let him leave until he had recorded his teachings for posterity. What most people fail to recognize is that Lao Tzu spent the time he had, not writing a discourse on how to raise an army, manage your financial accounts, or become wealthy, but that true peace arises from a government allowing it's people to live a simple and content life, that the more the government intrudes on the people's lives, the more disharmony arises. He taught that victory in war should not be celebrated, but mourned, because everyone, enemy and friend alike, have value. He taught that one should not measure their life by their achievements, but rather by the sacrifices they were willing to make for others. He taught that the compassionate ruler was the only ruler worthy of ruling. Sadly, most of these lessons fell on deaf ears. Most rulers lacked the humility and understanding to put these lessons into practice, but fortunately for us, some people understood that the wisdom he shared was not just useful for the ruler of a country, but for everyone who could understand them. Did Lao Tzu intend his teachings for the common man? Most academics would disagree, but does that mean they lack value, simply because they weren't intended for you and me? Not at all, in fact Lao Tzu's teachings are a testament to the wisdom he held, how managing one's life was not that different from managing a country. They both required frugality, compassion, and remembering never to strive to be first in the world. In a nutshell Lao Tzu's teachings are this, be content with what you have, be kind to those you meet, and don't compete with others, because the value you hold as a person, does not arise from being the best at something, but rather from being a kind, compassionate, and understanding person. Aaron

done and done. Aaron

Okay, let me connect the dots for you. Chuang Tzu lived in the 4th century bce. He mentioned Lao Tzu and other philosophers. Chuang Tzu had a fondness for Lao Tzu though, what we can gather from these dialogues is that Lao Tzu was more than likely real. The point you're missing is that I really don't care whether you believe he existed or not, my argument is still relevant and valid. If you want to continue the argument about his existence, then start your own thread. Aaron

oh so I concede because you say so? Could you please say I'm a millionaire? Oh, wait, I think just because you say something, doesn't make it so. And really, fail? What are we in middle school? Really, if you don't believe me the onus is on you. Anyone who's read the text knows Lao Tzu is mentioned numerous times. Get over yourself, you're not being that clever. Aaron

Ahem... Chuang Tzu only wrote one text to the best of my knowledge, so can we just say, the Chuang Tzu? Aaron

I'd suggest finding a different copy and reading it again. Aaron

Oh I think there are plenty of people with delusions around here, no reason to tell anyone to let go of them, until we've let go of our own. Aaron

I look forward to your response. If you can provide evidence to support your argument, that's even better. I'm always ready to change my mind. Aaron

Actually there are accounts of Lao Tzu written prior to 100 BC, but it's nice that you've read the Wikipedia page and become an expert. Chaung Tzu mentioned Lao Tzu and he lived in the 4th century BC, unless of course, you don't believe Chuang Tzu was real either. Regardless, if Lao Tzu was real or wasn't, the intention of the Tao Te Ching, whether written by one author or many, is still consistent and, in my opinion, the same, to teach the ruler how to lead his country. Of course you're welcome to your detraction, but it's really nit picking and not necessary when it comes to examining the Tao Te Ching in relation to the politics of its day. Aaron

Hah... I see what I missed now. Sorry about that. First, I hang out with Buddhists. I talk with them frequently enough. They're good people, but I wouldn't say they are special or necessarily any nicer or kinder than the Christians I hang out with. I think most of them practice for the same reasons Christians do, so that when they die they can go to a better place, and thus I find that most are doing what they do, not necessarily because they've become highly evolved spiritually, but rather because they are following the instructions of their religion. In regards to lightening practice, show me some proof and I'll believe it. My point is that a lot of what we believe to be true can't be proven, hence we should always take it with a grain of salt. A lot of the miracle stuff is added (imo) later on by followers who want people to believe that their messiah/guru wasn't just a simple man, but a super man worthy of following. The LOL thing might've been taken the wrong way. I thought you were doing it sarcastically, when you may have been replying to the youtube video itself. Either way, if I offended you I do apologize. Aaron

Could we, instead of taking potshots at people, try to stay on topic? Or is that too much to ask? Aaron

Not getting crappy about how you love pitbulls, just telling you what I see is happening. Also I've responded to everything you said and when I said I didn't want to quibble it was because I didn't see the point in nitpicking your other comments, when they really were a matter of your own opinion. They weren't that big of a deal that I felt it was necessary to respond to them, it wasn't meant to be an insult, I just don't have all the time in the world to spend on Tao Bums anymore, so I try to make the most of the time I have by responding to those things I think deserve a real response. If I didn't think you had said something of value to respond to I wouldn't have responded as I did. So I would agree, we shouldn't take things personally, nor jump to conclusions. Aaron

Yeah he got me... but before you laugh too loud, keep this in mind... Yep... are you still laughing or are you wondering how virtuous it is to respond to an argument by bringing up another argument from months back. Sort of like having no real evidence to support your statement, so rather than support it, just try to destroy the credibility of the person speaking. Oh well... life goes on. I'm sure this is some form of right speech I missed. Aaron

Almost as cute as this one... and this one... Wow... you're right, they're really sweet. I'm going to recommend everyone who's elderly or who has small children to run out and get one, I mean that one dog is sleeping with a kitten so they have to be sweet animals. (Oh should we mention the incident where the neighbor's pitbull got a hold of one that wandered in its leash range and tore it to shreds?) I like how you're trying to disprove my argument because I recognize the dangers these dogs possess, even though there is plenty of evidence to support the dangers they pose. If I remember correctly wasn't someone on this thread recently bitten by a pitbull and had to give up the dog? Aaron

Okay, let me be more to the point. The sages that Lao Tzu was talking about were the Sage Kings of old, the Yellow Emperor, etc. not men who were sagely. Anyone who reads the Tao Te Ching and fails to see that it was directed as a book teaching rulers how to lead their country by living in harmony with others is missing the point. Are there lessons we can learn from the Tao Te Ching? Certainly, but that doesn't mean that the intended message was for you or me. Lao Tzu worked in the government, understood the government, and had ideas about how to change the government. He knew that you and I could never accomplish the kinds of changes that needed to take place, but that the rulers of the land could if they followed his simple lesson. If you think otherwise, fine, but find the passages that talk about the common man making those changes compared to the number of passages talking about the ruler making those changes and I think you'll see the point. Aaron