dawei

That is not the message you have given others... saying 'we are discussing the issue'... mod's tend to take a 'present and future' approach. Hopefully your not taking my tongue-in-cheek too seriously... Maybe your too much a 'mod' position to see this? Of course... I spoke of the 'present'... your speaking of the future... I somehow think you forget what it means to be a member trying to make some lightness of the issues. I feel you hiding behind some commonsense here... justify as you want. Actions speak louder than words. Non-action speaks even louder. But I did not call mods on the Stig stuff so much as I called Stig on it. He recanted; all is well... so not sure why you felt the need to get so serious when it was taken all fun between me and Stig... did you see this at all? I think the mods have lost a sense of humor in the recent issues...

Ok mods... in the spirit of "break any rule but quickly remove that post so you can not be banned"... Stig is still here it kick it up And yes Sunya... now we can have a good night sleep

Maybe your right... I misunderstood the concept of "studying" the DDJ... I honestly did not realize it was a new-age'ish feel-good about it's application to our life, regardless of it's intended meaning. I thought we were studying the textual meaning. My bad. I'll leave you guys to share it's significance in your life.

When you take it as hostile then I know I am somewhat right... Where is there any emotionalism in my writing or excessive exclamations? I stated my justification as the oldest manuscripts have those lines... That is FACT. Where are your facts? Your opinion is that the ending does not speak to the Three Treasures... chapters generally have three parts: 1. Opening 2. Remarks 3. Closing You think if the closing does not make sense then it is an add-on? Your welcome to that opinion, of course... I worry that you don't see the danger in it seeing your repeated confession of not knowing chinese and inability to research the original writings. Before you accuse someone of jumping, see how high your jumping your own opinions which have no textual support. If you have textual support, then offer it; this is a "study"... or so I thought. And your not really reading carefully enough... I said the "STUDY" has reached a new low... operative word is (or was) "study".... it has turned into a game of opinions and self-promoting translations; people claiming they are translating directly to english but whom have some of the most awkward grammar seen on this site... that is our "study" at this stage. Compare the opening chapters discussion to now... Do you see now as "lower or higher"? My opinion is that it is much lower. JMO.

Stig, you have a vision and many ideas... keep truck'in... But, PMs are 'private'; operative word here is 'private'... and Mal said to NOT post PMs for discusion... So I have to call BS on this. In the name of commonsense alone. Mods would have every right to pull the post and warn you. Anything less provides yet another precedent

Because you don't like Hendricks or anothers' translation... we need to drop the lines as add-ons? Again, the two earliest manuscripts agree, word for word... there are changes in the later manuscripts. It seems as we reach the end, this study has reached a new low... sorry to say...

Exactly why I cannot wholeheartedly agree with the proposed alternate ideas presented of 'self-moderation'; lynch-mob rule is not forum rule. Until mods or Sean proposes an open discussion on it, I cannot advocate too much change right now. But I am willing to listen to ideas and comment because I have been on both sides, but I have no problem with the very FACT that the owner/mods dictate how the forum is run. I will say that I have spoke out about the precedents set by decisions and indecision but I hope that is not taken as a sign of my dissatisfaction of the forum; I simply observe problems that it produces and may produce in the future. And I understand what Stig is in principle presenting; an alternate approach. But it may not be what owner/mods want. I think that since they have let such discussions go on then it can go on.

The problem is that the MWD-B has the opening lines complete; The MWD-A has them corrupted at points. ALL the manuscripts have the ending. We cannot just re-invent LZ according to our western conceits. The pedantic focus on the "Three Treasures" is by far the worse culprit to this chapter's misunderstanding. Maybe that is a function of wanting to see cultivation and philosophical implications to it's understanding instead of seeing the entire chapter. Happy very selective reading...

Of course... we just delete any sections we don't agree with as relevant... re-invent Laozi in our own image... Glad to at least see the confessional aspect.

This reads like the Xiang'er manuscript commentary of DDJ5: "Heaven and Earth model themselves on the Way. They are humane to those who do good, and inhumane to those who do bad." Heaven decides who to help?

MB argued opposites but you pushed it aside... now you argue opposites... As I said before...Rope-a-dope at its best...

I think I understand your point but I disagree; this is about implementation not cultivation. The former is action, the latter is trying to get to the point of action. I can appreciate the idea you want to present here (ie: cultivation) but I think this is a chapter of actions in motion. I will add that this chapter is absent from the Guodian; the earliest work. The Mawangdui-A is missing big chunks but the -B may fill that in. It is interesting to note that none of these three has Dao in the opening lines as neither does FuYi have Dao. Only when we get to the Heshang Gong version is Dao inserted and Wang Bi simply follows him. Now, it could be argued that Dao is what the author is talking about (ie: Hendricks says "I'm Great"; later versions add in Dao to imply "My Tao is Great"... so choose to just ignore the opening lines as if they never existed. Maybe that is the easy way out to just delete lines. The problem is basing a concept of 'cultivating dao' when one removes the only lines which contain the added character of dao... It's not about cultivation; it's about action. JMO.

It's quality over quantity... 'whose is bigger' is so western conceit

It is not stand-alone; it is very clear it is a group of three sayings based on the THREE. 3. 一 曰 慈. 4. 二 曰 儉. 5. 三 曰 不 敢 為 天 下 先。 9. 今 舍 慈 且 勇, 10.[ ] 舍 儉且 廣, 11.[ ] 舍 後 且 先, And 'cultivation' is the wrong english word to choose. Frugality or thrift or economy seem more appropriate. And the last two appear paired in general opposites so that seems enough internal evidence.

thanks for the differentiation. I did not pay enough attention both times to really try and place it exactly; but I can say it was a 24x7 stream of current which ran in a fairly periodic rate. So not a split second sensation but non-stop for about a month.

Actually I was responding to the exchange between Sunya and Stig; and mostly for Stig's benefit since he is talking so much about his idea.

I had something similar happen in my Perineum... twice. It stayed around for a month or so and then stopped each time. It was like a current running down there. I had no idea about what it could be at the time and when I shared the experience here someone mentioned Kundalini as a potential cause. I then read around and found information on 'temporary Kundalini' which seemed to describe what I had. I am just starting [again] some MCO in reverse breathing so want to see if I get my past reaction or not since I am not actually sure what triggered it twice before. Does that direction of the MCO feel natural and have you tried it in the reverse direction (clarifying I do mean direction and not just reverse breath like I am doing)?

I seriously don't think you can compare a death threat to being imprisoned (which was tied to a tongue-in-cheek comment). However personally insulting the latter, there is a very small bit of humor in it. I don't think most find humor in death threats. That's my observation.

I personally found the point quite obvious; the round of recent actions (dare we also say non-action) sets a bad precedent for a rules-based approach. If you have rules and do not act on them in a timely manner you end up with a lose of confidence. Also, that someone can issue a 'death' post and simply edit it and remain without any suspension is beyond common sense (for a rules-based approach); particularly when another is suspended as 'provocative' alone. That is a very dangerous precedent. I now see so many bad precedents that it makes it appear as if there are almost no rules. In light of an inability to enforce rules, I might actually tend to think more about Stig's idea. The valid side of Stig's idea is that the community is not just responsible but they get involved more since it is like they share in the success of the board. The main concerns, IMO are: 1. Lynch-mobbing against some members; 2. Trolls which just refuse to go away since there is not rule to ban them. 3. Controlling the flamming in the sense that it has to get moved out of the general area and then let them go somewhere select to continue it; if two people actually want to continue it in another place, they deserve each other. 4. But what if they refuse to stop the flamming in the general area. The general areas are for the general members and one bad apple can spoil the pie. So it can be a delicate balance of allowing someone the freedom to be an A-hole but you spoil the forum experience for several dozen who have to endure this; and some may be turned away due to such people. 5. I've seen examples of this kind of 'freedom' in posting and it can almost shut down a forum due to one or two who refuse to be there in the expressed idea of what a discussion forum represents. The 'Way' allows that there is diversity in every species and some are naturally A-holes; I am not trying to change their nature but I have seen it almost ruin boards. ok, Stig... I tossed you a bone of considerations

You should look at a 'gloss' translation, or what this guy calls a Matrix Translation starting in Section B (once you open the PDF in this zip file). Laozi.zip from Hermetica

I should say that self-moderation is possible; it can just get really ugly. Instead of yelling "You suck moderators!" , you get "You suck [insert name]!" and worse. That may become a very negative distraction and experience for some. Maybe if flamming occurred it got moved to a 'BBQ pit' of sorts and if it continues, it's only in there and not the general area.

I have rarely disagreed with you except with this moderation issue but you respectful answer and further share your thoughts; which i appreciate since I don't know the history and in fact it continues to share your 'vision' with those following the thread. So disagreement is not just combative but sometimes searching for POWs (Power of Words) I really like your visionary approach for a better forum and a specific method instead of just tossing chum to sharks; Although I don't agree yet in principle I kind of support the energy of your vision. I think it is idealistic and I am a dead solid realist; but somewhere in the middle is usually life tasting of both bowls.

While I can't agree with many things said in the thread, this is worth looking at; it is down right raw and real and how many people feel. One person may say you are being obnoxious and belligerent, yet you may say it is simply a fact (of observation). Honestly, I think this is true in more cases than not; meaning, what we think is an obnoxious statement is to THAT person a fact (observation). Where the distortion lies is an interesting issue to consider, IMO, and where moderation finds itself entangled. Although I think Sunya crossed too many lines already and should not of ever been to the point of stating this idea... I am nonetheless happy to agree with its point Scotty has also crossed too many lines (and too many logins) to say more, but there is a kernel of truth in a few words shared.

IMO, this is both a difficult and important issue. FLG in terms of Qigong is under-appreciated; there is basic approach which raises easily to a Shengong level; thus which raises it above the average methods. This simplicity is appealing and powerful; It is also the cult attraction. I *personal* do not think they had political inclinations in their agenda but anything which grows in tremendous assembly is shut down by the chinese government; it was shut down for it's ability to assembly people. They staged a protest in Beijing which showed the central government it's power... Ironic that the central government espoused it's teachings year prior for health reasons. But, we have to remember one very serious thing: This was a teaching in china for the chinese, who are easily lead to believe some things without regard to investigation. My wife said she was curious as to why so many chinese were caught up in the movement and read the founders books and their is where she found the answer... happy reading from a chinese perspective... personal or government.

I will quickly agree here... since if this is acceptable language then it becomes everyday language. You cannot later suspend based on such attacks. If you truly have to 'think' it, then your wrong... sorry to see Tianshi mention another prejudice. It seems to add up to some degree to me. I think it just calls for some introspection as to what the moderations are here for.