dawei

I don't recall if you've dealt with the absence of a first cause/move[r]... The infinite regression starts how, in your model?

But that is what you did... "However, I don't think his argument was sound (meaning that the conclusion is not true), since it wasn't based on true premises." It doesn't matter that you gave your idea of how his idea is not true... it is in the end, simply A vs B scenarios, both of which are current thoughts on this topic. I think you were moving in the right direction but veered off about the creator creating the creation which in turn changes the creator... this is somehow a more 'true premise' ? I am simply saying I don't think so... it is simply your argument B.

His premise is no more true or false then the scenario you are claiming. They are both just your own scenario. His has cause/effect to everything/anything; There cannot be something uncaused AND which can cause. Yours has a un-caused causer; You changed his scenario, which is fine, but it is no longer his scenario he supports. I assume you raise your idea because of the problem of needing a first mover/causer? Or maybe not, but that is the one weakness, IMO, of the former scenario. The latter scenario has its issues too. The way I see the first issue is not to assume the need for a first mover/cause but rather the chain is linked to itself; it runs circular and moves under it's own energy and causes. I tend to not like to think of it in terms of infinite regression of causes but that is HIS scenario and not circular variation.

So says the first person to respond in the thread and attempt to do a superficial character by character translation "走火入魔: Run over the fire and enter the devil. "

Are you reading the OP? The topic is in relation to Yang's classifications. Thus, it would behoove one to read what he has said and others have said concerning similar classifications.

Your overlooking the obvious point of the classification by people like Yang, who was referenced as the source for the classifications: Religious was a classification because it was Religious folks engaged in the practice... whether Taoist or Buddhist... They gave the focus to the inner and alchemy methods.

I think the simplest understanding is Qigong Deviation (氣功偏差). Qi has taken a wrong path/turn and psychosis occurs. The most literal translation probably needs to state that something exits and something enters, as that is what is implied. For example, one has lost their mental facility (Spirit) and acquired a psychosis (Demon). Here fire (火) may refer to the spirit as is its meaning in reference to breathing in relation to firing the cauldrons (energy fields). http://books.google.ca/books?id=Q5-Gk8jBCUUC&lpg=PP1&dq=Breathing%20spaces%3A%20qigong%2C%20psychiatry%2C%20and%20healing%20in%20China.%20Columbia%20University%20Press&pg=PA77#v=onepage&q=Breathing%20spaces%3A%20qigong%2C%20psychiatry%2C%20and%20healing%20in%20China.%20Columbia%20University%20Press&f=false

I have seen the breakdown as: Medical, Confucian, Daoist, Buddhist, and Martial. In any case, religious Qigong has more emphasis on longevity and enlightenment, or in a word, Spirit (Shen), so Spiritual Qigong may be better. This contrasts with the other categories which are more focused on the physical aspects. Their difference may also be seen loosely as the difference between the focus on inner and outer practices and their goals/results. The inner uses the basic idea of Jing-Qi-Shen (as they all do) but their focus is on the unifying transmutation to achieve spiritual results.

I found this: http://community.invisionpower.com/files/file/5482-easy-topic-moderation/ But it turns out it only copies the thread title and first post... funny how elusive the all powerful 'copy' is in forum software.

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32839-letr-rip-chi-dragon/?p=502669

The Pit is protected.... via log in... how is that public?

IMO, it is not personal... it is a matter of destiny or not. If you want to choose to eat chocolate or not; play the lotto or not; eat and drink as you want... enjoy your personal pursuits and ambitions... even if meditation it is simply a personal ambition, if not a destiny.

Yes... I agree that was the original idea... and as was pointed out, the so-called 'pure' (original) version would be pitted So the PC naming of Pit and Public is quite elegant I have asked this at another forum where I help and it seems forum software really does not consider the idea of 'copy' to be... let's say advantageous yet. I can understand that as linearity is desired in regards to use and storage. I can see where it might be handy and frankly as a function it ought to be basic. Let the users (ie: admins) decide to use it or not. I think that the simple idea that 'split and pit' has earned its namesake

That makes sense as forum software is not so much about redundancy. if something is split it means it does not belong and thus... keeping it all together goes against the premise.

I agree, if what your saying is that a 'creation' does not equate with a creator; thus there is not a 'need' or there is no necessity of one. While it may be valid to say one cannot debunk a creator nor no-creator scenarios, the issue of necessity is how I tend to look at the issue. To have a creator is to need to prove the necessity of one. To not need a creator is a simpler/base scenario and until necessity is established, then no creator is established.

I generally agree with what you are saying but maybe just different on the points above which seem to imply that language / letters are required to understand Dao... or for Daoism to exist. I understand we are using words and that requires language and so if we want to define a word it should be done in the context of language but Dao is outside of language and for me, it can be discovered outside of language.

This if from the other thread: So knowing vulnerability is to see the potential... or maybe as you say "gathering of potential". I was equating this as the intangible but had intellectualized that it was not realized and thus remained intangible... but it seems that in fact this intangible IS the realization, as "one is not transforming potential into energy" but simply seeing it is all that is needed?

I have never understood why this is so overlooked. Nicely said. And definitely this one too! Du Daojian (1237–1318) stated, “Laozi that the Han people discussed was Laozi of the Han dynasty; Laozi that the Jin people discussed was Laozi of the Jin dynasty; and Laozi that the Tang and Song people discussed was Laozi of the Tang and Song dynasties.” Laozi is a syncretic text which was interpreted according to the times and the reader. The first definition of a Daoist per Sima Qian was they were syncretic... yet to this day people still fight against this as sacrilegious. Some of your points each deserve an individual thread of it's own.

As a courtesy to members, you ought to ask them if they will agree that you spam their posts to another board which they have never posted on. I for one would not agree to you moving my posts at TTB to another forum like you have done.

The part which won't sink in (ie: into my brain to connect the dots)... I probably need to do something like clinical work so I can 'feel' the issue and bypass my brain

A really good question has misleading information in it... if you simply follow the exactness of the question then you are a dog on a leash. I am trying to teach my step-daughter this as she navigates accounting questions which provide too much information and will lead you down a rabbit hole if you chase the wrong part. But you are mentioned by 'name'... I just gave you that reference in ZZ... you just don't recognize your true 'name'

Or maybe the sentence is: We have the potential or it is never actualized... Potential is intangible and if it forever remains that way then it is simply... intangible.. deci, please correct US

My feeling is that he included that to confirm what the ancients already knew... I will say that it is a associated to the yellow court and MDT section more than the LDT. So there was an ancient awareness of the energy in that area and it was of significance, but whether the ancients had put a name to the adrenals or not will require another more versed in ancient texts. I know that my Medical Qigong master harps on the adrenals and it has not sunk in yet... maybe I need to just let him tap my system a bit to show me Do they show up concurrently? Good question.. My speculation would be that we grow from the center outward, so the kidneys grew a bud and fully developed once the adrenals formed.

I was thinking of the Zhuangzi line that "I am born with the 10,000 things"... You are speaking of the primordial arising... yourself. I am surprised to find that people want to put a rubber stamp on the start of so-called "daoism" and yet neglect the most fundamental idea that mere existence is the ink. But if we use historical records alone, then we have to go back to Fu Xi as the first experiencer: “In the old times of King Fuxi’s regime, he observed sky and the stars when he looks upwards, and researched the earth when he looks downwards, and watched the birds and beasts to see how they live in their environment. He took examples from nearby and far away, and then made 8 Yin Yang signs to simulate the rules of universe.”

You had me at Bodhidharma And I get it now... does that count for being dedicated to now But I see a kind of playfulness in this; two sides of a coin, if you will. One is operating naturally so as to not let the mind impede action. Yet one is mindful of the implications of the action, although whether really consciously or subconsciously could be debated. In either case, the 'vulnerability' aspect is there.