ChiDragon

I could learn better and have more technical information from my electrical engineering books. Pocket books are for somebody else. Thanks anyway. Please do not ignore MH's posts.........

There is no difference or have not experienced the difference........???

What about it.....???

WOW.....You too bring out Dr. and PhD. to tell stories with fairy tales now. I see anyone who is in the unwanted view is "this person is trolling". Yes, I knew that.

LOL......... There is a difference between magnetic field and radio wave generated by protons,

Yes, I have heard of MRI. Perhaps we need to look into it a little bit more....!!! Bruce Lee did that. Lucky he was not killed by that but something else. Edited to change: 'I' to "we"

Electromagnets Electric current flowing through a single loop of wire does not generate a very powerful magnetic field. A coil of wire looped many times makes a stronger magnetic field. Placing an iron bar inside the coil of wire makes an electromagnet which is hundreds of times stronger than the coil alone. Read more: http://www.ehow.com/facts_7369988_relationship-between-electricity-magnetism.html#ixzz2eee0u7lX Yes, Qigong is enough to be employed to access internal power. Don't worry, breathing to generate Jing will not lower the body's capacity to fight off bacteria rather it will enhance your immune system to do the opposite. PS.... Please keep in mind that the human body does not behave like a piece of wire nor a coil. What I am saying is your body does not generate electricity nor magnetic field; even though we were told many times by others.

I think at the ancient time, the characters were not uniform nor standardized but they were only in the preliminary stage. Some of the scholars might not know all the existing characters when the codex was written or some of the characters might not have had been invented.

This 胃 in the classic text is equivalent to 謂. 胃: stomach 謂: said; said to be; to call I had been saying many times, sometimes, the TTC classic was mistakenly written with phonetics. They must be corrected in order to have a logical interpretation. This is more logical. 是謂復命: It was said to be returned to destiny. This is not logical at all. 是胃復命; It was stomach to be returned to destiny. Come on. Learn it right......!!! Don't learn it blindly.....!!!

That is part of their religion beliefs. Edited to add: BTW You have my indulgence of the last remark.

Yes, I agreed with you. The outcome is the same but the approach in thoughts are different. However, our minds are governed by our distinctive definitions. The philosophical "goal" of Taoism is natural; but the religious "goal" of Buddhism is abide by the canons. "The "goal" of Buddhism is to manifest your true nature - compassion arises from your true nature" The statement is valid for all other than Buddhism. However, it may or may not be the true nature for Buddhists because it is mandatory in Buddhism.

Are you mistakenly thought that 復(return) is 腹(stomach) ........????

To help someone with a difference of compassion between a Taoist and Buddhist. A Taoist helped someone is because it was a natural thing to do. A Buddhist helped someone is because it was a kind-hearted thing to do with sympathy.

Chapter 3 Rule with Wu Wei. 1. Dejectedly recruiting intelligentsia, 2. Discourage people from conflicts. 3. Not to value hard to obtained goods, 4. Prevent people from being thieves. 5. Not being seen desirable, 6. People won't become perturbed. 7. With sagacious ruling, 8. Emptied one's heart, 9. Solidified one's belly, 10. Weaken one's volition, 11. Strengthen one's bone, 12. Always keeping the people innocent without desire, 13. Thus presumptuous people cannot commit their acts. 14. Adapting the concept of Wu Wei, 15. Then, nothing that couldn't be handled.

Yes! I think ZZ, in the previous section, was using the hats showing that they have a purpose in one location but not the other. However, in this section, ZZ was using the defective big tree to show that it does not meet the purpose of a carpenter. In the other hand, the tree had met the purpose for being a good shade for someone to be relaxed underneath it.

Thank you for your advice. I will try not to insult my own intelligence by believing in something without researching and comprehension. "Lao Zi points to things that go beyond rational thought and ideas" is because the way it was written paradoxically in Classic. It was not the way it seems. BTW I would like to have some fine details explaining how meditation can be helpful in this matter. Thanks!

Please don't..........!!!!

What a coincidence, the ancient Chinese and Western ideas are the same. Somebody seems want to deny it.

.....and that is why we are mentally separated from Nature anyway.......!!! Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

I am glad that you ask. This subtlety was only a philosophical idea that I must accept, in order, to continue with the study of the TTC for it to make sense. Lao Tze's wisdom is one of a kind which is very difficult to be grasped. The TTC is a piece of stand alone document. It cannot be just interpreted by using some inductive reasoning intermingled with other external philosophical thoughts.

Go ahead insult someone as long it is me..........???

I am glad that you have mentioned the word "intentional". Nature has no intent but it just does it naturally. I grant you that "a man uses a match to start a small & well-controlled campfire but suddenly a storm blows in". In this scenario, the man has no intend to burn down the forest. The final act was done by Nature. However, lightning strikes a nearby dead tree and, rather than directly starting a forest fire that was only natural. If human was intended to light a fire to burn down a forest, then it wold be unnatural. The scenario you had brought up is a good example of a natural cause. Sorry, "it requires nature to be intentional" is not a valid statement because Nature does not think like human. You have not distinguish the difference between "intentional" and "unintentional". An intentional act is not Wu Wei or being unnatural. An unintentional act is considered to be Wu Wei or being natural.

Please read the rest of the content with an open mind. Read what it says before any hasty rejection.

Good question. I'll let Lao Tze answer this one. In the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tze was always using four entities in his illustrations. The four entities are, Human, Earth, Heaven and Tao. Human follows Earth, Earth follows Heaven, Heaven follows Tao, Tao follows its natural self. LaoTze had made human as the point of perspective of an observer for Nature. As far as Lzo Tze was concern, Earth and Heaven is the Universe. For that being said, Lao Tze had made human as a separated entity from Nature in order for him to explain his philosophy about Wu Wei. From the beginning to the end, human is always following Tao. The action of Tao is being natural to everything, thus human follows whatever is natural which is Nature. In regarding to your comment about "harm" There are two kinds of "harm". One is the natural disaster by Nature and the other is by human. The flood and forest fire by lightning are natural causes by Nature. If a human lights a match to cause a forest fire, then it is interfering with Nature because the fire was not called for by Nature. Natural causes cannot be prevented but human causes can. Any situation is out of control by human is considered to be natural and caused by Nature. By Lao Tze' philosophy, any action was disrupted the course of Nature with or without harm by human is considered to be interfering with Nature. However, if there was any harm done to Nature was considered to be not being "Wu Wei". In the contrary, if the interference with no harm done, then it was consider to be not violating the concept of "Wu Wei". Lions and other animals are part of Nature. They can kill us human beings because they couldn't careless. That is how Nature is, Nature couldn't careless However, human have a choice to kill them or not because human does care. If human killed an animal, it will cause harm to Nature due to the interference of wild life. When we make these philosophical analysis, we have to have to draw a line somewhere. If we made it too gross, then we are just going around circles and leads us nowhere.

In the previous section, ZZ used the hats to illustrate its usefulness/useless by location. However, in this section, he uses the big tree to indicate the usefulness/useless by purpose.