Aaron

Okay, Much of what you're talking about is a hybridization of Buddhist thought and Taoist thought, similar to what's taught in the Hua Hu Ching. There's nothing wrong with that, but to be entirely clear, most people don't believe that the Hua Hu Ching is actually written by Lao Tzu or the authors of the Tao Te Ching, hence what you're presenting here is a form of hybridized Taoism. The fact that you start your post with a quote from Buddha is very telling in regards to where your notions arise from. For instance, color is never talked about in the context that you're talking about it now, in fact the only mention of colors I can recall is from chapter 12 of the Tao Te Ching where it states "The five colours blind the eye." Ego-mind and Tao-mind is never mentioned either, rather there are numerous passages that encourage clarifying one's mind, but it's not the same as what's being taught in Buddhism, or what you're talking about here. The clarification of the mind that's talked about in the Tao Te Ching is the stilling of the mind, cessation of thought so that one can come closer to the source, the bellows, the spirit of the fountain, the process of tao that exists within each of us. I get the feeling that you've been taught these things through a lineage or school that adheres to these beliefs. They may even be a "Taoist" school, but keep in mind that there are many schools that claim to be "Taoist" that have little to do with what Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu were teaching. I encourage you to continue practicing as you are, if you find benefit in what you're doing, but in doing so remember that just because someone claims to be "Taoist" doesn't necessarily mean they are Taoist. Again this is Buddhism that you're talking about. It seems that the notion that Buddhism and Taoism are the same is contagious, maybe because too many people believe Zen and Tao are the same. Now on your behalf, I will admit that in China many people would consider this to be Taoist thought, since they are more open to mixing the traditions together to find a harmonious path, but for the sake of clarity I think it's important to clarify which idea comes from which tradition so that the newcomer isn't confused or misled into believing something that may have no actual context to the actual philosophy. Aaron

Nokolai1, You seem to miss the point I'm making. The first is that you're not teaching Taoism here, but a hybrid form of Buddhism/Vedanta. If what you're teaching is actually Taoism, then please cite your sources and I will be the first to say, "Wow this is Taoism!" I've been reading the Tao Te Ching for over 20 years, meditating for nearly all of that time and I can not see any similarity in what you're talking about and what the Tao Te Ching says. If you had read the Tao Te Ching you would know that everything I've said comes directly from that text, without adulteration. There are many practices attributed to Taoism that have nothing to do with the Tao Te Ching or Chuang Tzu. Simply saying that something is Taoism doesn't make it so. I'm not here to argue with you or shut you up, just to clarify exactly what Taoism is and how your ideas are not Taoism. You explain your ideas coherently, but what you're talking about isn't new or even revealing, it's been addressed before on this site, its just never been called Tao (or Taoism). I think the issue you have is that, as I said, you're defining something according to how you've had it defined to you. If you had posted this under the title "My Philosophical Beliefs" or even "The Importance of Philosophy" I wouldn't be here right now, I'd have skipped to some other thread. I don't post often, so when I do, I do it because I see the need to post. The need in this incident is to ensure that someone who might not understand what Taoism is, doesn't confuse it with what you're teaching. As for absolute truths, there is no such thing. Taoism teaches us this. There are ideas and notions, but the truth is relative. So perhaps the only absolute "truth" is that there isn't an absolute "truth". Again, the Tao Te Ching is very clear on this notion. If you are going to continue to claim that what you're teaching is Taoism, then please feel free to cite your sources. I can concede that your ideas have a limited similarity to the teachings of Hua Hu Ching, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the Tao Te Ching. Aaron

Just that it's sort of like Shroedinger's Cat, everyone is going to come up with an answer, but nothing can be proven. By all means keep the conversation alive, I'm just throwing my two cents in. I tried for years to conceptualize it and always came away without a clue and I believe the reason is simply that it's well beyond anything I can understand. If I remember correctly one of my first conversations with David over coffee was about this very topic and he told me the same thing, being stubborn I still tried to find the answer. It wasn't until years later that I finally realized the futility of putting it into words. I honestly believe it's something that we can never fathom and that the tao that's talked about in the Tao Te Ching is the tao that can be talked about, which, if you finally come up with an answer, is the tao you're talking about now. Aaron

Look into the mirror and see the face you wore before you were born, then you'll have your answer. Aaron

You guys do realize that simply by talking about Tao you're not talking about Tao. That's the paradox here, it's not something that can ever be understood on a conceptual or intellectual level, hence the reason why it's addressed in the first chapter of the Tao Te Ching, to warn us against trying, even though as human beings it's oftentimes our first impulse. Aaron

Hi Steve, I appreciate what you've said so far. It's good to have you back. Aaron

Nikolai1, Your thoughts are all fine, but I want to point out that what you're talking about here has nothing to do with Taoism, at least not the thoughts of Lao Tzu or even Chuang Tzu, rather you have a conglomerate of ideas that mishmash various Eastern traditions and attempts to merge them all under the banner of Taoism. I see a lot of people doing that on this forum and that's fine, if it works for you, but in my opinion much of what you said is false and has no basis on actual Taoist philosophy. I'll try to be brief in my reply, but keep in mind I have the tendency to be verbose. First you say, "Philosophical Taoism is all about removing the mental clutter from our minds." That's not true, actually philosophical Taoism is about learning to live in harmony with ones surroundings, nothing more, nothing less. It is in developing this harmony that one attains peace of mind, but that doesn't necessarily mean one doesn't have thoughts or ideas, mental clutter as you put it, but rather that one develops a way of living that is beneficial to their fellows, rather than harmful. Second you make the following statements, "First, that a concept of reality is not the same as reality. Second, that this insight affords us emotional tranquility and third, that the gaining of this insight spiritualises our consciousness and makes us less earth bound than we had been." Lao Tzu teaches that one can never really conceptualize reality, in other words the Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao. Yes we may come to a better understanding of our place within the vastness of reality, but no one can ever truly understand Tao, it is unfathomable and unreachable, we can only understand the way tao works within us and around us, but never Tao. (Note tao and Tao are different things, as someone who understand Taoism I'll take it on faith you recognize the differences between the two.) Also your notion that insight affords us emotional tranquility and somehow makes us less "earth bound" is contrary to what Lao Tzu was teaching as well, in fact this understanding makes us more grounded in the reality that surrounds us, because we understand that reality on an innate and intuitive level. I also have issues with your statement that you will "discuss some of these big questions and hopefully help, if not to show the truth, but to show that what we once thought is not the truth." My problem is that the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu both warn against the truth, because the truth is an absolute and the first thing one learns is that absolutism fills your cup to the brim, once you know the "truth" you can learn nothing more, because you've already learned everything you need to. In essence we are supposed to understand that the truth is relative, in other words how great is the difference between "eh" and "oh"? Must I believe what others believe? I find it very indicative of your own capacity for understanding that you make the claim that "The Qi Gong master is a master of feeling, a master of feeling directly and deeply the power of the eternal." My issue is that you are obviously not a Qi Gong master and your claim here is purely subjective. I'm assuming that most of what your stating in your assertions is conjecture as well, since it clearly shows a lack of understanding of the basic principles of philosophical Tao. First there is no such thing as philosophical Tao since the Tao can not be understood and trying to understand it is impractical and impossible to realize. Second, Taoism is steeped in superstitions and religion, whether others accept it or not, we as readers choose to delineate the "truth" from the "false", but clearly Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu were both theists who had a clear knowledge of traditional Chinese religious beliefs of their times. In fact the notion of the sage itself speaks not of the normal every day man, but the mythological sage kings, sage kings that have never been proven to actually exist, at least not in the context in which Lao Tzu presents them. As far as the straw dog is concerned, you made no mention of it, but I wanted to clarify exactly what the passage meant so that you aren't confused by the rhetoric going on in this thread, it actually means that the sage treats all things equally, in this way he'll help free the fox from a trap just as he would the boy from the well. So in closing, I would suggest that you study the Tao Te Ching a bit more and that, before you begin to present your own ideas as Taoism, or even the truth, you at least understand the very basic teachings of Taoism. The Tao Te Ching is a very short book. It takes the average man (or woman) less than two hours to read. I would suggest you read it several times, if not hundreds and as you read it keep in mind that knowledge for the sake of knowledge is worthless, thus philosophy is the antithesis of what Lao Tzu was advocating, rather it was a move away from philosophy and strict dogma and more towards inner and outward harmony. Aaron edit- For some reason when I was revising for grammar and spelling this part was deleted, so I added it to the main text. It happened to be the part about the straw dog.

Hello Bluemonk91, Tao can be a little confusing, for one, there is the Tao that we cannot talk about (with the big T) and then there is the tao we can talk about (with the little t). If you start there you can alleviate the confusion a bit, because the first, the Tao, is unnameable, unfathomable, un-describable, and essentially unknowable in the physical sense. The little t is the tao most people are talking about when they talk about tao and that is essentially the way, or as Chi-Dragon was alluding to, nature. In essence when you think of it it's really the only one you can think about, because, as I mentioned, the first one isn't something that can be put into words, Is tao compassion? Absolutely not, in fact it's the absence of compassion or cruelty, it's the natural way of things. Just as a lion isn't cruel when it kills the fawn, nature isn't cruel when something occurs to cause you harm, it's just nature. The branch breaking as you walk across it, sending you into the chasm below, isn't nature conspiring against you, but rather the force of nature at work. I hope that helps to clarify that part of it. As for people seeming to take satisfaction in the suffering of others, it's nothing as incredulous as sex addiction, the effects of masturbation, or "war-mind", but rather it's something people learn subtly as children, which is, when other people aren't doing well, that means there's a good chance we are, so the joy isn't necessarily in the suffering of others at all, but rather in the underlying belief that it indicates our own success. Think of it in terms of "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson. People aren't necessarily happy because someone else got the lottery ticket, but rather that it means they didn't. Now there are those who are sadomasochists, but they make up a very small percentage of the population, less than half a percent in fact, so using them as evidence for any kind of example seems a bit irresponsible. Now for the big revelation, the Tao Te Ching does encourage us to practice compassion, in fact there are so many passages that talk about it, I really couldn't mention them all here. What I can tell you is that Lao Tzu said that if we put others first, then we put ourselves first and that the sage feeds the hungry, gives alms to the poor, and sacrifices his own well being for the sake of others, it's what makes him a sage. The naysayers that will come after me will tell you this isn't so, but I encourage them to do so, because I can prove it is so. Now if you want to see the proof, all you have to do is read the Tao Te Ching. It takes the average man less than two hours, so there really isn't much stopping you. I'd recommend John C. H. Wu, but you can read any reliable translation. Good luck to you and I hope this helped to explain it in a way that's a bit easier to understand. Aaron edit- People consistently misinterpret the "straw dogs" passage to indicate that the sage doesn't have compassion for others, but that's not what it means at all, it just means he has no attachments to others, he treats everything, people and nature, equally, so he is just as apt to help the fox trapped in the snare as he is the boy trapped in the well.

A topic of interest lately, (at least for me and a few others on the board) has been the debate as to whether or not the Tao that is being talked about in the Tao Te Ching is the same throughout, or whether they are different. I will start with my position, which is simply that Chapter 1 clearly states that the Tao that can be talked about isn't the Eternal Tao, hence the Tao being discussed elsewhere is not the Eternal Tao, but rather the Tao that can be described. Have at it... I might recommend citing passages to prove your points, since this thread is talking about it in the context of the Tao Te Ching. That doesn't mean that you can't comment on other texts, just that this is a literary discussion, rather than a free-form philosophical discussion. Aaron

There's a rumor around that there's a site you can go to and connect with other people on the internet called Facebook. I've been there and I have to say connect is a stretch of the word. For a few days it sucked me in, all the cute pictures of animals, fun little quips, mass posting of religious propaganda (Jesus loves me apparently and I need to like this or I'll go to hell). Anyways, I'm on facebook, so I was wondering if anyone else was. Apparently the number of friends you have on facebook will effect your well being, so keep that in mind. Aaron

Good for you. More people should start doing this. Too many "masters" who fail to master themselves. Aaron

Oh that was completely serious. I thought it was an important fact to mention, simply because so many people seem to think that facebook friends are nothing more than an accumulation of numbers, when really it's like money, the more you have the more you are worth as a person. I'm surprised more people don't know this. Aaron

I will not lie, I like the cat pictures now... the good ones. It's really an art of its own. Maybe they need to start having cat photography classes, or possibly someone needs to write a book. Aaron

Watch this for more info.... and if an 11 year old can understand all of this, then why can't we?

I don't believe a vegetarian diet is any healthier than a low carb diet involving mostly meat. In fact, if done right both can be extremely healthy alternatives to the high fat, high carb diet most Westerners live on these days. Personally I'm an agnostic, so when it comes to all this "cleanse the soul of evil meat" propaganda, I let it go in one ear out the other. If someone is really interested in eating a diet that is healthy, then the first thing they need to get rid of is genetically modified vegetables. If you're a vegetarian eating that crap, you might as well be injecting cancer directly into your body. (BTW nearly everything you're buying in your supermarkets, even Trader Joes, is GMO. If you want to get rid of it, start buying from local farms that are growing organic.) Aaron

Karma isn't real. Don't concern yourself with that. Concern yourself with whether or not it's a realistic way to make money. I know people with gambling problems. It's not pretty or funny, so be careful. If you can't set limits to how much you gamble, then don't gamble. If you gamble more money than you can afford to, then don't gamble. If there is a God, I doubt this is something he\she\it is concerned with. My great concern is that you've allowed yourself to be suckered into all this Karma nonsense. The next time someone talks about Karma to you, ask them to show it to you. They can explain the idea, but they can't show it to you. When you encounter something like that, it's best to be skeptical. Aaron

Anyone know why the moderation logs are down? I was wondering if some people who haven't been posting lately were banned, but I can't see because the log isn't showing up.

The drop in testosterone probably has less to do with chemicals and more to do with a change in attitude. We have become a less "macho" society and as a result we don't produce as much testosterone. Also these drops aren't found in children or adolescents, but in adult males, which leads me to believe that it's a natural occurrence. I get a kick out these kinds of posts though, because I think they expose a sort of latent and acceptable misogyny that is prevalent in society. As a gay man I feel every bit as much a man without the need to bash women or demean them in order to do so. I would also recommend that you not judge a book by it's cover, I've known more than one transgender male that was an avid martial artist. In the end your masculinity isn't defined by society, but by your own self image. I've yet to meet a boy who thinks he's not a boy because of these kinds of posts. Apparently somewhere along the way we stop realizing that we're men because we have penises, and start to believe that a man is defined some other way. That seems to be something the individual needs to deal with, rather than blame women for it. Aaron

I think this is a good place to put this...

Don't be so certain. From what I understand the US Government has war game exercises where they command the people in charge of launching the nuclear missiles to target a city in the USA. They don't do that because they want to test loyalty, but to make sure if they give the command it will be carried out. I think it's naïveté to believe that the federal government wouldn't do whatever it needs to, to survive. Aaron

I think America will remain a superpower so long as it has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. That's what keeps people in line in the end, not the threat of invasion, but annihilation. Not supporting this or saying it's a good thing, just making a point. Aaron

The government is becoming more invasive every day it seems. Most of it is in collusion with the big corporations we depend on for our day to day needs. The fact is terrorism is just an excuse they're using to institute laws that violate the rights of the constitution. I say if they're going to piss on the constitution, well just burn it, that would be a great deal more respectful. It's just a matter of time, in my opinion, before we end up living in a world that will make Ray Bradbury and Orson Wells visions of the future look cozy and warm. I strongly suggest that those people that deviate from the norm (which is a large number of us on this forum) keep an ear to the ground. When it finally happens, we're all going to want to be somewhere else. Am I paranoid? Well then give me some proof that I'm wrong. Aaron

That's fine, but if you don't have anything to contribute or if you feel the topic is a waste of time, no one is asking you to participate, you can choose to listen. Now we can commence the circle jerk. Aaron

Everyone knows this is going on, but we're all so complacent that we don't do anything about it. If any of this crap had happened before the age of George Bush, there would've been hell to pay, but we were inundated with the same message "we are doing this to fight terrorism" that we stopped questioning what was going on and just closed our eyes, believing everything would work out in the end. Well guess what, it's not alright. I created a thread awhile ago asking if the West was descending into fascism, a few people managed to derail it and get it thrown in the pit. Well I think that's a travesty, especially when this thread, one that supports fascism has been going strong. My point is this... we're already a fascist state, we just don't know it yet. The government can do anything they want to you and all they have to say is that you're a terrorist. They can monitor you without a warrant, lock you away for the rest of your life, and never have to answer to anyone for it, just so long as they call you a terrorist, If that's not a fascist state, I don't know what is. Aaron

The sources are spurious and the accusations baseless. I encourage the moderators to move this to the pit.