Taoist81

By your definition Hawks, dingoes, and any other animal that feeds off rodents, fish, birds or insects cannot be carnivorous (keep in mind this is coming from a vegetarian). You would agree that bear are carnivores, right? Some bear, feed mainly on salmon. While we are at it though, there are individuals (for example in traditional Kali training) who do wrestle Water Buffalo. And bear-wrestling as well as crocidile wrestling have been known to occur. Not to mention that many predators hunt in packs as we used to. Humans have for at least the better part of our evolution been OMNIvores. Our intestinal tract falls in between the lengths of herbivores vs. carnivores, we possess canine teeth and incisors that are excellent for tearing flesh and molars which are great for grinding fiber (i.e. plants). We have eyes in the front of our heads like most predatory species (to focus in front of us on prey) instead of on the sides like most "prey species" (so they can see more around them to watch for predators). We also have an ingenious talent for using tools (the same way apes use tools to gather ants and other insects) to hunt other animals. Bottom line, it is likely (from an evolutionary standpoint) that our species would not have gotten to the point where we are now, without eating meat in the past. Does this mean we should/have to now? Not necessarily. We can survive quite pleasantly (thanks to our technological advances in food preparation : ) ) without meat, at least most people could. But we can also eat meat, of the non-deep-fried variety, and survive pretty much as well. The life expectancies between a healthy meat eater and a healthy vegetarian only favor the vegetarian by a few years, and we all know how exact "life expectancy" can be. Hmmm, no, we started eating meat long before we started "ranching" which implies agricultural advances. Aren't you forgetting all those cave paintings with our ancestors hunting down Mammoths (packs remember?)? We weren't raising them. While your ecological issues are not without merit, in the words of George Carlin "The Planet is FINE, the people are f&%ked." Uh, by the way, you do realize that "dairy cows" don't just magically produce milk, right? They, like all mammals, produce milk in response to having been pregnant . However in the case of a dairy farm, the calves are taken away and the cows are milked. The females are continuously bred to continuously produce more milk (they can continuously produce milk but they produce more through constant breeding) and what do you suppose happens to the calves? The males may become breeders or they are castrated and raised for slaughter. Many are locked away to be made into veal. If you are talking about a small local farm, then sure, it can be quite humane, too much milk can hurt the cow. But if you are speaking of 99% of the milk drunk in modern society then you can't call it humane. However, as far as spirituality goes, this has as much or as little to do with it as the individual in question feels and you step out on quite a limb by making such arrogant statements. A Sufi may point out that (since his/her spirituality is based on the Koran) as long as an animal is killed with a quick slit to the throat out of view of others that are to be slaughtered, it is pleasing to Allah and thus, uplifting spiritually. A Sikh, will point out that Ek Onkar has pointedly approved meat for consumption. A tantric may eat meat as a benefit to his/her spirituality simply to overcome the taboo. Spirituality, on the question of meat consumption as with many other things, is mostly a point of view (The Tao Te Ching acknowledges the "need" of having a chief executioner, something that many of us may not approve of). We are a multi-faceted species, and before we had "spirituality" we developed our ability to survive. That is what meat-eating is, not an essential spiritual dogma (as has been shown already there are many differing views even within traditions), but a leftover tribute to our ability, as the dominant species (for better or worse) of this planet, to survive.

Sorry, to nit-pick, but...while you are right about Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons are not lacto-vegitarian. The "Word of Wisdom" is the Mormon so-called health code and it currently only bans coffee, tea (even green tea for the extreme types) and alcohol. The actual text includes a clause about limiting the amount of meat you eat but ask anyone who is or once was a Mormon what kinds of food you find at a Mormon gathering and you will hear about loads of meat (the church owns a number of cattle ranches specifically for meat). Other "healthy" foods that are commonly brought to Mormon potlucks include, Jello (of multiple varieties), large quantities of fried foods and white rice. Mormons do not rank very high among religious groups for their health and Utah leads the country in Anti-depressant use. But, again, you are correct about the 7th day Adventists. As for the self-righteousness of vegitarians, speaking as a vegitarian, it is all too silly. Our species would likely not have evolved to the point that we are at now without having eaten meat. Some of us feel drawn to not kill to eat, some enjoy a steak, to each his/her own. Though, it is questionable that a soy farm is more destructive than a cattle farm. Where did this stat come from? True it is not as sustainable as some crops, but a cattle farm wipes out acres exponentially, while crops can be rotated in the same location. Not to say you are wrong, just where did you get your info?

Very true. It is that very thing which gets a diehard atheist riled up when you point out that their assertion that "there is no god" is just as much a belief as "there is a god". That statement gets people yelling rather quickly.

And people who want to believe in special powers automatically disregard the challenges to such claims. James Randi is not the only one out there who haas an offer like this up, so if there is such a distrust of Randi, let these so called psychics go to them (see the wiki article on the Randi challenge for similar offers). Not to mention that thus far all of the people who have attempted the challenge, have done so under the conditions that they agreed to and failed. Many people can pull off "special abilities" in public, in front of an audience, hell, even in front of a scientist (as many Randi bashers like to point out he is not a scientist, though he did fool some with a fake psychic plant that he trained), but thus far, none have been able to do so in reproducible controlled settings with sleight of hand artists watching for trickery. This is not to say there aren't unexplainable things out there, only that until they can be tested and proven (not just shown to aweinspired students for charge) they are just in the realm of faith.

Citations would be a good addition as would distinguishing between simple retention and misused alchemical techniques. Throughout the ages various groups have used coitus reservatus in just about every context imaginable. Further by stating that retention is "sexual arousal/activity without ejaculation" one runs into the contradiction that men with vasectomies have regular sex without the ability to ejaculate. Their bodies still produce sperm, but after some time it is simply broken down and disseminated via the circulatory system. The same thing happens when one practices retention without any practices whatsoever. The Oneida practiced retention, no alchemy and no reports of the problems you address. Various tantric sects (of the neo variety) practiced retention, no massive reports of problems. Many non-taoist-priest-type TCM doctors of the past recommended restricting how often you ejaculated but not how often you engaged in sexual activity, they didn't teach alchemy and in their extensive note keeping didn't report the problems that are addressed here. Now this does not include the "million dollar point" technique because someone could easily hurt themselves by applying too much pressure to the prostate or causing excessive retrograde ejaculations. However, one should always accept the possibility that one can be wrong, so, if you could provide citations of studies that show the dangers of retaining semen, then okay. Thus far however, there don't seem to be any. Physiologically and psychologically (assuming the individual in question does not already have extensive psychological problems) speaking there is no danger inherent in refraining from ejaculation.

Not exactly. Most independent Catholic Churches and the Church of Antioch link back to a "wandering bishop" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopi_vagantes) and thus have valid apostolic succession. They may or may not be recognized by the "Mother Church" but the members are nonetheless "Catholic". What that title means depends greatly on who you are talking to and it is not necessarily limited to following the nicene creed.

Friend, be advised: There are many here who are able to balance Logic as well as the more Left brained sides of the Tao. However, there are also a number who throw logic out the window and assume that superpowers are a must for spiritual practice. Even Uri Geller has been cited as "proof" of ESP-type powers on this site. Enjoy what you can here, and there is much to learn from, but one would be ill-advised to waste ones carpal tunnel trying to convince certain posters that they can't always believe what they hear or read or even see, without testing it in a controlled way. As for the topics at hand, did Muhammad really ascend to heaven also? How about Prometheus? Or the most high Flying Spaghetti Monster? Doth he not ascend to greater heights than all? Empty yourself of everything.

Not to nit-pick but the Nicene Creed isn't the end-all-be-all of it anymore. There are Independant Catholic Churches, the Church of Anitoch etc. that are recognized as having valid apostolic succession but hold beliefs influnenced by Theosophy. But these people are part of the "catholic church" and consider themselves Catholics. Some Christians also have a very different understanding of "Christ", so different that other Christians claim they are not Christian. Who is right? It is likely the answer is: they both are.

What ever happened to being a humanist?

Check out the first video for a freaky impression of scientologists. Defending their faith and practice by attacking those who disagree.... http://www.jimmyr.com/blog/Scientology_Cul...os_197_2006.php

What's worse is it is not limited to scientologists (though they do seem to be among the most viscous while remaining business oriented). Whether it is Mormonism, Eckankar, fundie Islam or some off-the-wall sect they all do it in some fashion. They don't worry about ruining people's lives to protect their faith. But of course, it is the dissenter who is wrong, not the teaching. Your mention of Tom Cruise brought to mind a memory of a 20/20 or some such interview where he insinuated that, as an OT8 or whatever, he is able to control reality. His evidence? he claims to not remember the last time he was sick.

First off, let it be known that none of this is meant as a disagreement with your sentiment. Likewise, agreed, there is no "someone else", those darned limitations of language : ). Whether it is teaching a man to fish or giving him a fish for the day, it is a "good" thing to help those other "selves" out there. At the same time, by saying that the "human condition" is the "tao destroyed" it is implied that if the tao weren't destroyed we would be in some type of utopia. In the deep jungle, where no man has ever had the opportunity to walk and "destroy the tao", since time immemorial, animals have stolen from and eaten each other. No, we are not falling into the old slippery argument that just because animals do it we should. But there is something to learn from there. Lao Tzu said to accept the "human condition", Chuang Tzu said that death and suffering were just as much a part of the beauty of life as the pleasures in life. Granted, to many this sounds as if it is meant to belittle the pain that others go through, while we all obviously have enough time or money to post on an online forum, that is not what is intended. You are right, that too often people toss out a "pre-recorded" quip ("jesus saves" etc) and gloss over whatever situation they are addressing. All this does is, as you put it, avoid calling a spade a spade, or avoid actually addressing a situation. Instead of seeking some "out there" meaning to it all, we would greatly benefit from understanding that this is the "human condition" it is the "tao of man", and the only way to follow it is to take off the rose-colored-looking-toward-the-future-when-everyone-can-have-a-wonderful life glasses and accept human nature as it is and operate within it. That is assuming of course that we as a species make it for much longer.

Why is providing for a child your ruler for judging how well things are going? Granted if one brings a child into this world one should provide those things, as it is your fault they are here. However, why would anyone have to provide for someone else in order to have the right to say all is well. Also, the "tao has been destroyed" seems like a stretch as a translation, but it may not sound the way you mean it. No amount of human activity can "destroy" the Tao even in the "human world". Whether we "take part in it" or not, the tao is ever-present in all we do.

Plain Girl says (paraphrased) "A robust man at 20 may ejaculate twice a day, but a weak man at 20 may only ejaculate once a day. A robust man at 30 may ejaculate once a day, a weak one once every 2 days. At 40 (robust) once every 3 days, weak every 4. At 50 (robust) every 5 days, weak every 10. At 60 (robust) every 10, weak every 20. At 70 once a month if healthy, if weak none at all." Dr. Lee Tung-hsuan (Tang dynasty) said " two or three times per 10 intercourses." Master Liu Ching (Han dynasty) said, "once every three days in spring,in summer and autumn twice a month and in winter none at all." Sun Ssu-mo (Tang dynasty) recommended twice a month or 24 times a year, but he practiced once in every 100 copulations.

Lao Tzu wrote, "In the pursuit of learning everyday something is added, in the pursuit of the Tao every day something is lost(/dropped etc). Less and less is done until nonaction is achieved. When nothing is done nothing is left undone." There are many ways to take this section. One way is to note the interconnectedness of the universe. In another part of the Tao Te Ching he states that "once the whole is divided the parts need names, there are already enough names". In the end all the ten thousand things are parts of the whole. To pursue the Tao is to see more and more how all things are encompassed within it. At least, that is one way to look at it.

Thank you for the exstensive response. A couple of additional questions if you don't mind. Do you see our modern understanding of the evolutionary history of this planet as in line with that degredation? Or do you only apply that idea to society and technology? Obviously most religions see the past as a trek away from the "Garden of Eden" type period and in most of them the great sages have died off leaving only a remnant of their teachings for us to scratch at. Of course, archaeology suggests more along the lines of a slow progression from fighting over food to working together to grow food, to today's continued working together to fight over and grow food (please take this statement as the ridiculously simplified analogy it is intended to be). In the past there were strong agressive tyrants who gained from convincing others to submit to them and today we have a different form of the same. In the past we also had those souls who wanted only to live and help others to do the same, and we also still have those today. As a species we likely wouldn't have survived without both (as your studies of the I Ching and the Tao itself have likely taught you). Change is constant, and one would be hard pressed to argue that today is inherently "better" than yesterday. But the opposite would be just as difficult to argue. Even the legends of Fu Xi...times were bad so he organized things, formulated teachings, or in your opinion he was given them by some type of higher power unavailable to the degraded masses. But the essentials are the same. The world was in a "bad place", same is true now we just have bigger toys to do "bad" with. Look at the histories of ancient China, or Rome, or Persia. Murder, rape, theft, extortion, tyranny coupled with agriculture, literature, music, love, spiritual movements for power or peace. It was and is all there. The Way manifests itself inspite of and because of those who don't know, see or seek it. It is the laughter of the foolish student who makes the Tao "what it is". So while a golden age is certainly a useful metaphor for the spirit and mind of the Sages (in any given period), do you really believe there was one? Or do you simply utilize the great power of Myth?

It actually seems we agree on quite a bit. Lao Tzu said "when the Tao is not in the world warhorses are bred outside the city" so certainly our society as a whole does not suggest a "oneness with the tao". Bottom line the majority of people, especially now, don't even try to follow the Tao. This may seem to contradict previous statements about human nature being "natural" but one can trust that you understand what is meant by this and that it is not an actual contradiction. Obviously we do disagree on elements of cultivation, though we both know that in the end none of us are without teachers. They come in all shapes and sizes (and species for that matter), we only seem to disagree on particular lineage necessities. That is fitting though, as in the various histories Taoists have been diverse in their beiliefs and practices, yet, like us, they have been able to live together and discuss the Way in peace and respect. Thank you for the opportunity to look at things from another point of view, and for the respectful conversation. edit-p.s. Taomeow, where do you believe the "orginal teachings" as taught by masters really originated? Do you see them as the result of an evolution, a gradual improvement through centuries of trial and error. Or do you believe that individuals like Lao Tzu or Buddha were just somehow special? Also, what is your opinion on the legends of things like Lao Tzu appearing to Zheng Dao-Ling (sp?) founder of the Celestial Masters Sect? With respect, Taoist81

Possibly the Talmud? I am not familiar with that collection of texts. The Torah is just the first 5 books of the Hebrew "Bible" commonly known as the Old Testament. They didn't have a stated "limit" there. The Talmud is mostly composed of the "technicalities" that the Rabbis pulled from the Law (like how far you could walk on the Sabbath without it being considered "work") so it certainly could be there. There are some claims about David and his "best friend" whom the Bible says he "loved beyond the love of women". There are also claims that the "man who lays with man as he would a woman must be stoned to death" was referring to "idolatrous" temple prostitution and had more to do with the worship of other gods than the actual intercourse of homosexuals. But most seem to agree that Jehovah was homophobic. Notably only Paul mentions Lesbians as being bad, not the old testament. So maybe like the stories of the Yellow Emperor, the wives and concubines of the Patriarchs simply hooked up with each other while he was with a particular one of them. who knows.

??? Where did you find that in the Bible? In the Old Testament many of the "patriarchs" had multiple wives and concubines. Jesus doesn't mention it except to say that in Heaven people won't "be married or given in marriage". And Paul simply stated that a Bishop (specifically) or in some translations a "pastor" should be the husband of one wife. There is nothing in the bible to suggest that one is "lost" after being with three people. As for Taoism, its view of marriage seems to be as varied as its views of everything else. Some sects value celibacy, some polyamory, and some monogamy. Just as some allow one to eat meat and others are against it. Personal experience has shown one can have very meaningful experiences with ones solitary partner, or with a friend, or with a stranger, or with ones partner and a friend (or more). It all depends on mindset, and what you make of a given experience. What can greatly benefit one person, can destroy another.

As said before, just like anthills, human nature has it's place in nature. So it is not only in the "wilderness" that we can discover and learn from her. That said, being there, or growing up there, can definitely speed up the feeling of awe that will cause one to say "okay, I'm listening". Though not everyone is easily inspired, that is why Lao Tzu and others decided to write their books. If we were all listening they wouldn't have needed to write anything. The times when humans find themselves in trouble is not when they aren't "living in the wilderness" but when we forget the fact that our lives are interdependant with the rest of the world. While strolls in the park are wonderful, life with nature (both in the "wilderness" and in the city) goes far beyond that. Again, let it be reiterated, that this is NOT to say that religions or lineages are worthless. As said above, they are here for a reason, people need them. But still, many people can and do listen to Nature and follow the Tao, with no teacher but the Tao itself. One simply has to listen. Please read these statements only with the same respect put forward to you by another poster above. Life is learning.

Who should one listen to? To re-phrase your question. Nature. People tend to think of anthills as natural but not human houses....strange if you think about it. As for your teachers' very apt analogy, birds have wings. How do birds learn to fly? Similarly to the way humans used to learn to swim...Their parents push them off the edge of the tree. They either learn to fly or they don't. Anyone who has been around captive birds knows they don't need to be "taught" how to fly, given the opportunity it is in their nature. Now, please don't take this the wrong way. Certainly, learning from a lineage is most likely a safer way to learn, after all when a parachutist jumps the first time s/he is strapped to someone who has done it before. Humans don't often try things on their own the first time. Learning from others mistakes is a useful quality. But, it seems that philosophies run into problems when they begin to assume that they are the only "right" ones (take Christianity or Islam as examples). The Tao is everywhere. No one person or group can teach it any better than any waterfall, river or ocean wave, if only we (the student) takes the moment to notice the teaching. [also, please do not take this as reflecting the specific arts your named. as with western traditions of magic and alchemy, and general martial arts and languages, for a specific tradition one would certainly have to learn from someone from that tradition. The difference is when we are speaking about something as universal and diverse as the Tao. As you certainly know the Tao is not wholly contained in the arts you mentioned. While any of them may have been based on the Tao, so has every sucessful species or culture, even if it has lost its way since then. If an individual wants to learn an art, let them find a teacher. If they wish to learn the Tao, let them open their eyes.]

Well put yourself. It seems that Lao Tzu and many other ancient Taoists were simply realizing what we, unfortunately, are just now getting, namely that our nature and our heritage are the teacher once a student is ready.

"traditionally"? That really depends on who you listen to. If one simply asks "where did Taoism come from" then you are left with only a few options. 1.)Taoism is a "received" religion, like Christianity or Islam. Meaning that some deities somewhere took pity on mankind and taught the Tao then it was passed down from master to student as described above. 2.) Taoism was "figured out" by one or more people in the past. Then they passed down what they had "discovered" to their students who, depending on how you look at it, improved upon or diluted the things their teacher had discovered/been taught. 3.) there are obviously combinations of the two that can be imagined. Bottom line is that the Taoism the people try to claim as "official" is nothing more than the line of Taoism that has been passed down in certain circles. In the legends of the Tao Te Ching Lao Tzu just left the book with a guard at a gate. No teaching, no lineage, just a book and a "figure it out by looking around". And while a master can certainly be of benefit in forcing one to see things in a new way, one can gain the same by looking around for oneself. Lao Tzu says "how do I know this? By looking." On the other hand you have the Yellow Emperor being taught by his doctors etc. But who taught them? Most of what people now accept as truth is simply the result of trial and error. It is the way of Nature (ex. evolution) and we (nor our religions/philosophies) are not exempt from that. As for the comments about people improvising because they basically aren't good enough (not liking discipline, not being accepted by a "good" teacher etc) to have someone to learn from. This is simply arrogant. It translates quite the same as most dogmatic religions claim: "People who don't do it my way are wrong/bad/evil/undisciplined/insert other derogatory statement". We are all constantly immersed in the Tao, it is not some distant goal, if we just look around and accept it. (Note: this in no way should be taken as a slight against learning from a teacher. When they are available they can certainly make things "easier".)

The angle of your erection is directly controlled by a ligament that naturally stretches over time. Unless it is affecting the strength of your erection (i.e. the hardness) you shouldn't worry about it. Various things can cause the ligament to strech earlier, but eventually all men will experience this to a degree. There are actually some sexual positions that cannot be performed unless this ligament is stretched a bit. If it is affecting the strength of your erection then the usual exercises for strengthening your PC muscles should do the trick, unless something else is wrong. If this is the case see a doctor and an acupuncturist.