Otis

Yeah, I don't believe that the individual's path is to shed societal conditioning, only to be replaced by adding Taoisty conditioning. The path is already inside, so the practice of the path doesn't need any tradition, and that practice dies by rules. For me, dance is #1. It is a perfect opportunity to move, totally authentically, without any attempt at living in the 3rd person (seeing myself from the outside). It is my best opportunity to step aside, and see activity unfolding without any interference from "me" or my ideas of how I'm supposed to move. From dance arises an authentic Tai Chi, an authentic Yoga, an authentic Qi Gung, etc. Each is just a reflection of where my system is at that moment in time, of what progress I have made before, and of what limitations I still have. Since each is true to where I'm at, they never lead me into injury (even though they have led me into break-dancing in my 30s/40s), and always lead toward further liberation. Along the way to surrendering "right" and "wrong", God forbid we fall into the trap that there's only one right way to surrender.

I'm just finishing up Fung Yu-Lan's interpretation of the Chuang-Tzu, and he gives info in his first appendix that pertains to this question: I suppose that Lao Tzu (and all the other quoted sages), like Confucius, serves as just another literary device for Chuang-Tzu.

I think that's a good conclusion. Neither materialism nor nihilism seem very useful to me (and I'm an atheist). I think it makes a great deal of sense to radically reduce our amount of magical thinking. For me, it only makes sense to hold on to the minimal amount of non-empirical "squishy" beliefs. It is true that science cannot tell us everything about human existence, by any means. But I prefer starting from a scientific viewpoint, and venturing as little as possible into beliefs that I cannot support. I am not interested in fooling myself, so why should I take on beliefs that I cannot defend? I have had, many times in my life, the "experience of God". But there is no way that I can see, to distinguish an actual God from that "experience of God". What makes God real, in that situation, other than my belief? Otherwise, it is all just esoteric ineffable sensation. My argument is never to say "there is no meaning" or "there is no God". It is always to say: "we cannot ultimately know, so let us stop trying to be omniscient, and instead learn to embrace mystery." Let science do its thing, and not try so hard to fill in the gaps, not be too determined to be the ones "in the know". That doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue answers, just not right answers. Every answer is just part of a chain, not an isolated causal agent, sitting in a vacuum. It's dependent origination, from the questioning point of view. Answers only illuminate a new viewpoint, not the right viewpoint. Science (parallel to the refinement of the self) never has an endpoint, never a final point of view. It is forever ahead, in the unknown.

+1

Sorry, Aaron, I don't see it. No cult will ever preach "let go of all beliefs". They will only preach "let go of all beliefs but ours". The distinction is huge. It is precisely because the writer is so absolute, that I hear it as truth. If I choose surrender, I don't get to hang on to some prized privileged beliefs, because I'm extra attached to them. I've got to be willing to cut it to the bone, or I will always be clinging to some particular point of view, always clinging to being right.

Another awesome share, Ulises! I never understand how anyone can allow others to form their beliefs for them. That seems like surrendering one of the most intimate responsibilities we have.

Oh yes, and if you're wondering how to distinguish between an authentic practice and a bunch of hoo-ha, I recommend Occam's razor as the best gauge. If a system sounds unnecessarily esoteric, baroque and supernatural, it's probably because it is. Simplicity is the enemy of the ego, but it is the sure friend of someone seeking liberation.

Hi Buck. You've gotten lots of good responses on this thread. One thing I think is worth pointing out: every religion has its credo, but every follower actually follows their own way, anyway. In other words, we all do our own parsing, our own interpreting, our own choice in the matter, whether the religion says we should, or not. (For example, some Xtians see their religion as a reason to love gays, and others, as a reason to hate them). Taoism is (to my knowledge) the only philosophy that actually recognizes that we are all following our own path anyway, and sees that as a path of liberation. Of course your path is different than mine. We have different things to surrender. If I were phobic of spiders, then dealing with that fear has to be part of my path. If you are already at peace with that fear, then you have no need to surrender it. And so on. Our paths reflect our genetics, our conditioning, our beliefs, and our habits. No two people have the exact same qualities, so no two will have the same process of unfolding and awakening.

Great, Marblehead and Ralis! And I think this reflects on Kate and Manitou's conversation. If I use my human ideas of "virtue" and how to arrive at virtue (i.e. willpower), will they get me to the "Taoistic virtue"? Not only does the Universe not run on human rules, I don't think that humans do either. The ego method is sculpt, carve, plan, manufacture, fix, but the human body and brain do not grow in these ways. They grow from having experience. So IMO, the way to "Taoistic virtue" is to be calm and aware, and offer your brain and body opportunities to experience living.

Isn't all "truth" a delusion? Isn't the path out of delusion, through letting go of the "need to know"?

Dajorok, It sounds like you might have some shame about masculinity. You see the abuses of some men, and perhaps indict yourself, for being of the same gender? All of the abuses of masculinity arise not from Yang, but from lack of awareness. Yang is merely a positive, forward-leaning characteristic, not an inherently destructive one. It is the inability to be aware of the consequences of my actions, or of the sensitivities of those around me, that cause me to break things. So if we cultivate that Yin awareness/caring, then we don't have to lessen or stifle our Yang in any way. Be as great in both qualities, as possible. And if you're interested in increasing the expression of Yang in your life, the one big piece of advice that I'd give is: learn to love using your body. Fall in love with physical expression (dance is my way in). The more that you wake your body up, the more powerful your Yang will be.

This brings up a good point. One reason why the TTC emphasizes Yin so much is because Yang was already dominant in the world (and is today). Lao Tzu had to teach what was missing, in order to find balance. But balance is definitely the major theme.

I don't get it, Aaron. In a cult, they advocate "believe like us", not "don't get attached to beliefs." I think the OP is clearly about the latter.

Fantastic posts, everyone!

Wow! This is really great! Taking it to the next level!

Excellent, Michael! Good for those you interact with, but even better for yourself!

Awesome, Manitou!

Excellent share, Ulises! I have met fundamentalist Buddhists, even though that sounds like a contradiction in terms. "Emptiness", as I see it, primarily means "not knowing", so being attached to the truth of teachings subverts the very teaching that is being given. Likewise for Buddha's Noble 8-fold path. I don't see it as rules, but as suggested practices. Practice speaking impeccably, practice generous relating, practice virtue at work, etc., and all these practices will help surrender my ego strength. However, if I act like the 8-fold path is a list of rules like the 10 Commandments, then I put my ego in charge, to try to do what I've been told. Top-down (rule-based) thinking always increases internal separation, because it makes one part of my brain (the part that is insisting on following the rules) above all the other parts. Unity comes from accepting all of the human-ness within me, not from trying to pick and choose which parts of me my ego wants to express.

I want to make it clear that I have not said that no psychological function is higher than another. I have just said that I have seen no evidence to support any one function's supremacy. I don't understand the "singing soprano" bit at all. What's that all about?

I haven't disagreed with you, Dwai, because I have no idea what's on your mind. Or what you believe that I believe. You've only said you disagree with me. This goes for all of you: if you think that I'm missing something, then please tell me what it is. How kind is it, to say you disagree with someone, and then not being willing to say why? How can I learn from you, if you won't point out what you think I'm not getting?

Great observations, InfinityTruth. One of my unhelpful habits that I've recently woke up to: starting my response with some form of the word "no". That "no" immediately tells them that I'm not respecting the way they think, even if I think "I'm just being efficient, by getting to the point." Truth is, I realized that I had the habit of starting communications with some sort of contraction or negation, even in some situations in which I agreed with the other person. It was a reflective action, that didn't even seem connected to a goal. Thankfully, I've been paying attention to that for a couple years, with good results. And it gets easier. But I recognize that the habit is still alive in me, if mostly unexpressed.

I don't get it. What kind of thinking am I doing? What is it that you think I do not understand?

I'm happy to engage in a conversation with you about this, Hundun. Yesterday, I had activities all day, and didn't have time to give proper attention to my reply, until the evening. I honestly did not see, in your post, a response to what I had written, but rather a riff on my use of a couple of words, like "arbitrary", and assumptions about how I came to my reasoning. Because I didn't hear you address the argument itself, I thought I must have not been clear, so I re-stated it as succinctly as possible. If you have trouble with what I'm saying, then I'll be happy to clarify. If you think I'm missing something, then I'll be happy to read your response. I'm going off to work now, but I'll check in the evening, and if I have time, I'll be happy to engage with whatever critique you have for me.

I have no problem with what you're saying here, Manitou. I just frame the metaphors a little differently. I also "channel" thoughts or inspirations, although I'm not sure that I'm ready to call their source THE Source. I just don't want to label things as "ultimate" or "final" or "true" because I may always learn something different tomorrow. How do I distinguish "true" inspiration from mundane inspiration? I'd rather not put those things in mental categories, because then my description shapes my experience. Beliefs end up ossifying my viewpoint, and deciding my path.