Aaron

Hi Melanie, If you're looking for someone to tell you it's alright that you ate fish, don't. No one needs to give you permission to eat what you choose to eat. Vegetarianism is a choice, not an obligation. If your heart tells you no, then don't do it, but if your heart tells you yes, then do. I think you are weighing the benefits vs. the harm and making a decision in each situation and that's all we can really do. Hypothetical: The king tells the vegetarian that unless he eats a hamburger the whole town will be put to death. Does he adhere to his principles and save the cow, or eat the cow and save the town? It's a bit out there, but you get my drift. Nothing is ever black and white, there are always shades of grey. Aaron

I didn't read all of your post, it was a bit too far out there for me to finish. I think you are confusing the concept still although I think Chapter 3 might be one of the chapters many people might use to argue that Lao Tzu was speaking of Wu Wei, but in fact he was talking about knowledge and how it is the cause of conflict amongst the people. (In other words more advice for the ruler, rather than advice intended for the common man). Aaron edit- I wont be continuing the debate on the existence of Wu Wei here out of respect for others. I have yet to see anything that would convince me that Lao Tzu did talk about Wu Wei, but that is a discussion we can have in the General Discussion section, or at the very least we can concede he never talked about it and we just extrapolate from what he said. Anyways, I digress again. If you want to discuss this with me, go to the Wu Wei, Real or Myth thread in General Discussion.

The majority of Eastern Taoists do believe in the concept of immortality, but not that everyone can attain it. The immortals are people who have attained immortality, in other words they either haven't died or have been able to reincarnate with a memory of their past lives, in other words their ego and personal identity persists. I personally believe that it is possible to attain immortality, just as I believe it is possible that you can train a pig to play mozart. In other words it isn't very likely that it occurs, rather it is another creation of religion to assuage the fear of death and encourage people to practice Taoism. Aaron

Umm... I never said Lao Tzu was an academic. Read more carefully, I said that I didn't want someone's opinion without having evidence to support it, preferably by someone who is recognized as an expert (in other words understands the subject) rather than your neighbor John Doe or a friend you do yoga with. Aaron

Hmm... so 9 out of 10 of the young men in the USA are addicted apparently (according to most statistics). This is horrible! So for the last several thousands of years the majority of the people have been addi... oh wait, that's just silly. So we're going to call a natural compulsion an addiction without addressing the very basic function of this compulsion, or why it's evolved within us? This is the problem with religion, it doesn't address the facts, but rather twists them. The compulsion to masturbate or procreate is there in order to compel us to propagate. To call this an addiction is to grossly define it without actually understanding it. This is like saying eating is an addiction because we get hungry. Aaron

If it didn't really matter, by definition, yes it would be. Aaron

So are you saying we want someone who can't speak English to translate it? Wu was recognized worldwide as a translator and his translation is still considered among the best available. Others may come along and cause a stir, but his has stood the test of time. I think the problem is that he didn't translate it the way you want it to be translated. Aaron edit- Wu was also considered to be an expert on classical chinese as well. Some of his translations include "The Four Seasons of T`ang Poetry", "Zhongguo Zhe Hsuëh", "Beyond East and West", and "Fountain of Justice: A Study in Natural Law". Also he was the principal author of the Nationalist Constitution adopted in 1946 by the Tiawanese government. Perhaps you could share with us some of the texts you've translated and published, so we could verify your own capacity as an expert translator?

Ahh... what an easy way to get out of proving something, just say that the person who asks you to prove it doesn't know what he's talking about. You still haven't given any evidence regarding Wu Wei being mentioned in the Tao Te Ching. If you can prove it do so by providing text from the Tao Te Ching, preferably by a translator who has been recognized by the academic community. Aaron

Well you is not just you, but everyone. This isn't a theory either. Theory means it can't be proven factually and everything I said has. Aaron

I'm thinking that if we read the translations of people like John C. H. Wu and Gia Fu-Feng, we can assume that, since they were native born Chinese and knew the language, as well as spoke English fluently, that they'd pick up on these nuances, but apparently having multiple degrees, being internationally recognized as a translator (in the case of Wu), isn't enough, what we really need to find is those people who translate the Tao Teh Ching as we want it to be translated, so we can prove what we want to prove, rather than just accept that maybe the idea of Wu Wei is all just metaphysical hocus pocus (almost like the philosopher's stone). Aaron

So I'm guessing no one can actually find any evidence relating Wu Wei to Lao Tzu? I'm sure it will be much more interesting to avoid the topic by creating a new thread, but I think it's important to address why we can't actually prove it's from the Tao Teh Ching or Chuang Tzu and then whether or not it's actually a real phenomena to begin with. Aaron

I think the first problem we have is with this notion of addiction. The desire to masturbate is not an addiction, although it can become one, but in that case it only is considered an addiction if it interferes with your quality of life. If the desire alone was considered to be an addiction, then we'd have to consider eating sweets, watching television, playing sports, or practicing martial arts an addiction as well, since all of these things cause chemical responses in the brain that bring us pleasure. The difference is that we've been taught to view sex differently, that somehow it's this filthy act, unless we do it exactly as we've been told to. So for the religious majority any form of sex outside of marriage is considered vile and sinful. The key to understanding who we are is linked intricately to our sexuality. It's one of the reasons many spiritual "gurus" seem to lack a connection to most people, because in their attempt to find themselves, they've denied a part of them that helps them to connect to others on a more intimate level, but even more so, helps them connect to who they are. Every day you deny yourself the pleasure of masturbation or sex because you believe it's making you more powerful, all it's really doing is distancing yourself from others more. The reason you believe woman find you more attractive after a period of abstinence has nothing to do with your sexual energy, it has to do with your subconscious desire for them to find you more attractive, that desire to procreate that never leaves. If you want to see the success of celibacy go to any monastery of any religion and examine the actual reality of celibacy. Most of these places are filled with sex, gay sex to be exact, because despite what they tell you in the pulpit, there is no absolute release of sexual desire, aside from castration. So long as you have the parts that create the chemicals that allow you to procreate you have that desire, no matter how much you try to deny it. This is the problem I have with religion, because they know it and they use it against their flock like a weapon to keep them coming back, to fill them with guilt, doubt, and self loathing. If this bullshit was pushed on middle aged men, that would be fine, but they start pushing this crap on kids, molding their self image into something they can manipulate. We tell our sons that if they touch themselves they're sinning. We have the media promoting sex and then the next telling them that to give in means they've done something wrong. If you think this is something new, it isn't, it's been going on for thousands of years. My goal is to educate people regarding sex so all these so called truths can be thrust out in the light. Truth one, people who masturbate regularly have substantial lower incidence of prostate cancer. Truth two, people who masturbate on a regular basis have less incidence of depression and anxiety. And that's just the first two, but what researchers are finding is that masturbation seems to be, not only healthy, but something we're intended to do. There's a reason we start learning to do it almost as soon as we learn to walk. So my question is this, how can something that comes so natural to us actually be as sinful and harmful as people seem to think it is? Would our bodies compel us to do something that is so harmful to us? No, it wouldn't. This is all a carefully constructed lie. Think of the people that push these ideas on others and what they're getting out of it, not just the fact they can control others, but even deeper they can justify their own misguided notions of right and wrong. Nothing is good or evil unless we deem it so. It's time we open our eyes and see the deeper picture, let go of all the things we've been taught and embrace who we are. This doesn't mean that we should all begin masturbating ten times daily, but rather that we examine it honestly, without all the moral and religious dogma that we've accumulated. Drop those things and look at it as it is, then I think you'll see the truth as I have. But this is the absolute truth, I don't want you to believe what I believe, I just want you to be free of the lies you've been duped into believing. If after giving them all up you come back and say it isn't for me, then that's fine, but at least it's you making the decision and not someone else making it for you, which is what happens when you let what other people have told you about sex define it for you. Aaron

This is what I'm talking about. Why should there be shame and regret? Why is it habitual instead of natural? Doesn't it seem nice that religion has come up with the antidote to this filthy practice doing no harm to anyone? It's the longest running scam in the history of man, yet we fall for it even today. Anyways, welcome back Scotty. I hope you had a good vacation from Taobums. Aaron

Steve you're a great guy. I hope you'll still hang around and offer us your pearls of wisdom. Aaron

Hello Leon, I'm sorry that this is causing you so much distress in your life. The sad fact is that in today's society we are still holding on to the old mentalities regarding sex that have plagued us for thousands of years. Even with the backing of science we can't let go of this notion that sex is intrinsically bad for us, even though there is no real proof that it is. There is no proof it is diminishes us spiritually, physically, or emotionally, in fact science seems to be proving the latter, yet because we are raised to repress sexuality, to view any act of sex outside the confines of marriage as being sinful, we have raised an entire new generation to suffer from our own failings and unwillingness to change. You are a product of that and as someone from the generation before you, I apologize for this. I've tried my best to educate people regarding this, but there are those who seem hellbent on perpetuating the myth, pain, and suffering for the good of cultivation, God, and Buddha. I really wish all this madness would stop, that a young person didn't need to question his own worth as a person because of a natural desire he or she has, a desire that arises, not from sin or lack of discipline, but from generations upon generations of evolution. This desire tells you that you are young and in the prime of your life, that it is time to procreate and have children and raise those children. It is a desire that is not wrong or bad, but rather one that leads us all towards whatever destination the human race is heading. Without it we would not have the human race. If you are truly having a problem with masturbation, if it's effecting your work, your ability to care for yourself, feed yourself, or causing physical harm, then yes you should probably get help, but if it's just a desire to feel the pleasure of sex, then what's the harm in that? Are your thoughts violating another person? Is the act of pleasuring yourself causing harm to someone else? Does giving in to that desire make you less of a man than the 98% of the population that spends time masturbating? My question is how does something that nearly everyone does end up being the one thing that prevents us from achieving spiritual perfection, especially if it's so hard to stop doing? It seems very lucky for those in the religious business, because without it, it might be much harder to keep people coming back. Without this one dark little blotch that only they can appease and absolve you from, they would probably have a hard time finding other things to keep people in check. Sex is human. Sex is humane. Sex is wonderful and good and if anything was given to us as a gift, it was. It is the source of life and love and EVERYTHING. Without it we would not even be here today to debate this. Don't allow years of indoctrination convince you that you are somehow inadequate or incapable of being good and pure, simply because you have a desire that nature and the universe has given you as a gift! For all the cultivators preying on the young people coming to these sites, selling them your books and feeding them your bullshit, if there's a hell, I'm sure it holds a special place for you. Aaron

I appreciate your response Dao rain Tao. I think you're interpretation is much in line with what I was saying regarding wu wei being an action that is spontaneous and born of intuition, rather than logic. In your description one could say the intuitive act frees one from Karmic debt, because it is not an act of selfishness or even self so much, rather it is an act of harmonious interaction, being at one with the world. Of course this is why I say it isn't really something that one can attach to the Tao Te Ching or Chuang Tzu, simply because neither actually talk in detail or advocate this kind of thing. At most it was extrapolated from what Lao Tzu said in the Tao Teh Ching. Aaron

This brings to mind Chapter 65 from the Tao Teh Ching (Wu trans.)... IN the old days, those who were well versed in the practice of the Tao did not try to enlighten the people, but rather to keep them in the state of simplicity. For, why are the people hard to govern? Because they are too clever! Therefore, he who governs his state with cleverness is its malefactor; but he who governs his state without resorting to cleverness is its benefactor. To know these principles is to possess a rule and a measure. To keep the rule and the measure constantly in your mind is what we call Mystical Virtue. Deep and far-reaching is Mystical Virtue! It leads all things to return, till they come back to Great Harmony! Aaron

It's impossible for any of us to define this as wu wei or not, because we are not the arbiters of reality and destiny. We don't know the intimate reasons why these people chose to help the bear cubs, nor do we know if it was an action needed or not needed, it's all speculation. I think what we can garner from observing this video was that these people intended to help the cubs, which is what they felt needed to be done. Bully for them, much more than most people would do. I hope the cubs didn't poop on that ladder. Aaron

I don't think your interpretation is correct either. In case you missed it (I did add it as an edit later), here is my understanding of Wu Wei as it is interpreted by the Taoist practitioners in the East... Aaron

No worries. It was a worthwhile hijack and perhaps we should start a new thread where we can talk about this. It's definitely a topic worth exploring. Aaron

Alright, I'll bite, so what is the actual definition of wu wei? Aaron

Actually I don't think you've answered my question, but you have given a very thorough defense of your own interpretation of Wu Wei. I'm not arguing with your reasoning, nor will I debate your semantics, however I don't believe what you're talking about is Wu Wei. After all "do what needs to be done" is not "action without effort" or even "action without action". So in my mind you haven't really proven that Lao Tzu advocated Wu Wei, but rather that he advocated frugality in one's actions, which is really a no brainer. Aaron

I added what is the general interpretation in the original post... Also could you elaborate on where you came up with your description? I've heard a bunch of people explain it in the same way, but I can't track down the original source. I found the phrase "Do what needs to be done" in a translation by Feng and English, could that have been where you got the idea?

Just to clarify before this gets too far off topic, I'm actually not asking for an interpretation so much as actual evidence that Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu advocated Wu Wei in the Tao Te Ching. I'm not sure if the majority of practicing religious and philosophical Taoists would consider this Wu Wei, but rather a westernization of the idea. So again, not so much just an interpretation, but actual passages that refer to Wu Wei directly and advocate it. Thanks for your post though, it's a very nice post. I'm wondering where you came up with this interpretation? Could you cite your sources? I'd be interested in reading more on this take of Taoist action. Aaron