dawei

Agreed... so I guess you don't agree with the presented idea of Wu Wei is defined in relation to destruction of nature? In fact, I looked up Wu Wei in several chapters and NEVER find a single reference to nature... instead I find again and again it is in relation to the ten thousand or people: Ch. / Assigned to / In relation to: 2 / Sage / Ten Thousand things 3 / Sage / People 37 / Dao / Ten Thousand things 43 / LZ / People 48 / Individual / World 57 / Sage / People 64 / Sage / Ten Thousand things This is a very important consideration, IMO. And very troublesome if looked into very deeply. I do agree that this is beneficial view as it avoids the problem of 'intention' and seems to focus on interference more... but on some level, it feels to put too much importance on the idea of knowing the outcome, but in context he says this is really only done after the fact to validate if something was Wu Wei or not.

You said: "he was more concern with the abusive action rather than the enhanced action." and "Adversely, LaoTze likes to place his emphasis on the negative sense in every aspect." I simply said that CH. 2 and 64 do not support the idea (a 'negative sense in every aspect'). your comment is categorical without exception. I pointed out at least two exceptions. So there is something faulty in the explanation.

Again... you leave man out of the definition of Wu Wei. You only apply it in secret code. I don't see any reason that Wu Wei is not directly explained in relation to nature and man. Ergo, let the "ten thousand things take its course"... nature and man. Unless "Nature" includes man in your definition. If nature is separated from man in regards to Wu Wei, where in the DDJ do you find that? added: Ch. 2 and 64 emphasis the 'ten thousand things' in relation to the Sage and Wu Wei. That is why I said nature and man, or the ten thousand things are a better way to express it... which makes going against 'nature' wrong unless it includes man.

Again, ch. 2 and 64 don't appear to support that; they show the positive side.

I don't get the hierarchy? Can you explain but also a chapter example or two would be helpful. I know that some suggest DDJ 25. Added '25'. Forget to type that.

but the simple solution for you would be to say: Take no abusive action to interfere with Nature or man. IMO, It should be understood in the sense that it is a direct understanding of the ten thousand things (Ch. 2 and 64 for example). The DDJ can show how it is found in nature as an example or guide but that does not imply the concept was developed ONLY to mean man does not interfere with nature. His action in regards to everything should be that way. I don't see why nature is separated out in meaning. How it gets applied may have some hidden code or metaphorical meaning.

I always liked how Prof. Qingjie James Wang explained Wu Wei in relation to Zi Ran, it is consist with what you are saying: Lao Zi's concept of fu indicates that the key to understanding wu wei consists neither in "doing something" nor "doing nothing," neither in "doing with intention/desire" nor "doing without intention/desire." Rather, the point is how to do things so as to fit or support the "it-self-so-ing" of the thing.[42] In some situations I ought not to do anything because that is the best way to support (fu) "it-self-so-ing" of things. But in some other situations I may need to do something because that is the best way. [43] Therefore, wu wei as either one of above mentioned senses is only a means toward zi ran (it-self-so-ing) while zi ran should be the end of wu wei. That is to say, zi ran might call for "having-no-activity," but "having-no-activity" is neither necessary nor sufficient for leading to zi ran (it-self-so-ing). The basis for us to judge an action as wu wei or not is to see whether it is to support/help (fu) a thing's zi ran (it-self-so-ing). . . . It is rather a question how "I" can behave in such a way that the other's "it-self-so-ing" will have a maximum room of growing and realization.

This does not deal or explain it in relation to man, since I believe you hold that man is separate from nature. In your understanding, do you just plug in 'man' for 'nature' to understanding in relation to man?

Maybe to the uninitiated? This reminds me of why I have never saw myself as pursuing Taoist ideas or Taoism. Someone wants to tell you their brand and expect to hold you to it. John Chang is internationally known as an energy master. When he was asked if he was a Daoist, he emphatically said "NO". Yet the author of the first book on him subtitled the book concerning him as a "Taoist Immortal". It is this kind of bias about Taoism, that because one person feels they know something, they require everyone else to hold to it or to some title. If one is holding to rules and titles, they are caught in the grips of the evolving 'ism' itself. They have lost sight of following Dao. If the extend of what you know about sex is what you say above, I think this explains enough. It is not that sex and desire should fade away... [but I feel you don't really care to listen what we have to say here anyways... so I'll drop it.]

Your point is: "In taoism, one should ignore one's sexuality, not with an intention to enhance it." Where is your supporting proof that this is to be ignored in Taoism? And on what basis is the judgement that a qigong master cannot mention this? It seems your trying to completely define what anyone can do in Taoism based on the books your reading. That's like saying one can only rely on the bible for every understanding of God; Or the only the DDJ to understand Dao... I think the problem is that your self-taught off books and JJ is someone who has been involved in and exposed to an incredibly wide net of ENERGY related fields for 40 years on an international basis to include martial arts, acupuncture, energy work, healing, medical qigong with emphasis on oncology, magic, etc. He is beyond 'Taoism'. Some get stuck in it and have lots of rules they expect everyone to follow... even masters.

Fallacy of CompositionAre you trolling? I pointed out what your argument is doing wrongly, based your comment. It is called Fallacy of Composition. You are taking one piece and deeming it incorrect, and then applying 'incorrect' (or fake) to the whole. Since you disagree with something he presents you disagree with everything about his being a Qigong master. That is not trolling, that is clarifying where your argument is wrong. I just didn't think I would have to explain every last idea to you. The link was sufficient to understand my point.

I agree. We pick our nose but not sure there is a great reason to ponder it... there would be too many things to suggest which have arisen in only man. So how does one prioritize which are to be focused on? Or just drop the idea to 'prioritize'...

Fallacy of Composition

Some people are not accessed on the physical level... your so stuck with chains to it, you don't realize your a prisoner to it. Your back to showing you have no awareness beyond the physical. You can't extend your thought or intention beyond. I don't know Sinfest from anyone else here... but when I extend my intention towards understanding... then I feel I know something I didn't know before (on the physical realm).

Particularly because sexuality is not a part of the natural world... That you judge him not a 'real qigong master' without any experience with him or his materials but based on reading alone... and yes, your lack of possessing any awareness beyond the senses tells me enough about you. I gave you the one name which is without question and you proved your utter ignorance... and trolling... Game over.

Here is truly the problem... 1. You rashly stated the commment "I don't think there is a real qigong master opened to public so far" 2. Yet say you need time to determine if Jerry Johnson is a real qigong master If you had any level of Shengong awareness, you would not need time... you need time because you are a Qigong wannabee. You do not possess the inner sense to know even this as truth or not. Study your books... keep studying... keep questioning and being the skeptic. Enjoy this kind of life as you want.

I gave you Jerry Johnson's links twice... and all you can say is: "I don't think there is a real qigong master opened to public so far" THAT IS YOUR JUDGEMENT BASED ON WHAT??? What proof have you ever provided here for your opinion and guess? I judge you based on your communication, information, exchange of ideas, proof, evidence, and determinations... or, lack there of. I have not even shared any info about the Qigong master I study under here... which is without words or website links... It is actually higher IMO... but I thought I would start with sharing an INTERNATIONALLY recognized master and you brush it aside as not real. So why would I talk in any deeper details... ???

I've only reported twice.. here and ChiDragon... interesting correlation and relationship, uh... ???

This is further evidence of your trolling way. You simply want to jest, twist and mock the information people try to share with you. Then you throw it back in their face as if they did not try to discuss the issue? I held out that you were above this...

I have provided you links to his bio and books... TWICE... I have reported you to mods as a troll. I'll let them deal with you.

So Jerry Johnson is: 1. Not real 2. Not a Qigong master 3. Not open to the public? Your a delusional troll. Time to call BS on trolling.

No. His Website: Website His Bio: Bio His five volume Medical Qigong books which are used in his 4 year oncology program taught by various instructors around the US: Medical Qigong Books

In recent days, there are several chinese masters mentioned here, right? You were asked about those caught in the traps of fake masters... and your reply is that we named them recently? So you mean everyone we named is a fake master? On what basis and proof did you supply? In case you cannot figure out where to find one name, I'll give you Jerry Johnson. A few here are aware of his program. Exactly how did you prove he is a fake master? Waited on bated Qi breath

Believe wrong things is not the same as needing to show fake qigong masters. If someone "that guy is a master" and you wanted to disprove it, then it makes more sense. If they believe something you don't agree with then strike up the conversation in THAT thread; talk about the issue. But talk usually means you want to understand something more their side and offer your side as well. You put what? A video with a title of it being fake? it is a meaningless gesture. Nobody has claimed any interested in the person or his claims. So there is nothing to prove. Only your are showing your interest in this. Again, when you see something in a thread you disagree with, bring up your points and proof. Ok, fair enough... but ultimately your making claims you refuse to support with any proof. This is quite consistent with your position on many issues you post about. They then seem to be nothing but opinions... and there is a saying about them... Maybe the problem is that in China you see lots of fakes and see many people believing those demonstrations or claims. I assume you mean the lay people... This is not china and most here are lay people to energy work; many here are deeply involved and once that involved you can know if your with a fake or not. Most will not care nor make any judgement about another 'master' or demonstration too quickly because we value direct experience or direct study from someone to be able to make any claim as to their ability. We do rely on others experiences working with certain people. We still cannot make any personal claim about the person, one can only share what others have said. In other words, we tend to not try 'to blow smoke up someone's ass' and tell them it's for their own good.

I'm a movie lover... and remakes are disappointing most of the time. Even when they have excellent original movies, hollywood has a way of ruining them in a remake. I think a fair number of movies crossover on genre; they are hard to classify to just one.