Stosh

No Taoists in New York ? anyway , you are surrounded by millions striving and peace may be a needle in the haystack

And that which ever lives ,will always have lived

That which follows becomes first , the first becomes last Translation ,, I am really doing a great job , taking care of myself , and I dont really need any assistance. I feel happy most of the time and Im enjoying my life. I feel Ive got things pretty well figured out and so I am going to try to help others who arent doing so hot.

The way we look at time is a functional abstraction which describes our experience both collectively and individually. What the heck it is.. whether it be a function of physics, spacial-energetic relativism , etc blah blah blah doesnt matter. So we can call it time so we eat lunch at around noon. Not knowing what it IS, doesnt imply it has no validity..it just implies we dont know from whence it arises... call that Tao if you want, the stage in which we operate.

Yes in part , I do think the entire reason for self deprivation is to think one has some kind of moral superiority, whether the thing to eschew is meat or pork or 'fish without scales' or dancing or dice or drink or sex .... the arguments of many vegetarians point to that very thing! The Op itself connects nobility with diet , I didnt invent that., and so-the thread was not "why is meat bad for my health?" Some folks claim that it isnt healthy to eat meat , and thats why they dont.. but dietary habits of the last century have shown clearly that the dietary ill health revolves around carbohydrate and quantity. Are really considering that I eat meat to defy folks who dont ?? C'mon thats a bit skewed. My cat , I dont know if a mixture based on say, spirulina , might keep her fed. That isnt the point , the thing is -that she does what comes naturally to her , she isnt all confused about whether she is noble or not. If Chi dragon is on the money about wu wei being central to Taoism , and that wu wei is acting natural , then doing unnatural things like depriving yourself of things you like , so as to be noble , makes no sense. ( the example of my cat is to demonstrate natural behavior expressed , not to say that humans have the metabolism of cats -- Im not debating the importance of naturalness , and I am indeed making the assumption that it is more normative to be accord with his view than its inverse) The rightness or wrongness of killing 'sentient beings' is also based on a morality paradigm. ( if a chicken even really qualifies as sentient ) and its consistent with buddhism as far as Ive heard. The health argument is not based on morality , and I dont take issue with it ,until the pragmatism is betrayed , in favor of pride and morality. 'What you mean by passions', answered Chuang Tzu, 'is not what I mean. By a man without passions I mean one who does not permit good and evil to disturb his internal economy, but rather falls in with whatever happens, as a matter of course, and does not add to the sum of his mortality.' Joined toes and extra fingers are an addition to nature, though, functionally speaking, superfluous. Wens and tumours are an addition to the bodily form, though, as far as nature is concerned, superfluous. And similarly, to include charity and duty to one's neighbor among the functions of man's organism, is not true Tao. For just as joined toes are but useless lumps of flesh, and extra fingers but useless excrescences, so are any artifical additions to our internal economy but harmful adjuncts to real charity and duty to one's neighbour, and are moreover prejudicial to the right use of intelligence."

Unpleasant as it is.. A wet bed is as good a reason to get up , as the smell of bacon frying.

A dichotomy has been set up Nobility versus pleasures Sacrifice yourself for nobility by self deprivation if you want. My cat wouldnt do such an unnatural thing.

There are no 'ultimate' anythings ! unless one introduces an arbitrary bias. If one chooses to, one can say tao is fundamental, one can say it is ultimate, one can say its ubiquitously integral, or omnipotent or indescribable.. but know it is a bias ,that as a human you can have and so -describe it so. That which is IS . So thats my ultimate Tao That which is -is. ( whatever that is)

One doesnt always need a new seed to find new potential for instance potatoes can be grown from an 'eye' off of a potato you were about to cook. Tomatoes and peppers will grow readily from the seeds in a slice - as long as you accept that the results may not be exactly like the source plant. etc etc You have been consuming your source material all along. BUT Seeds are a dime a dozen. Sacrifice five bucks and order some, the thing isnt to 'happen by' the perfect answer , there arent any ! you have to nurture the things - pay attention to them and do what it takes regardless ! of whether you plant a seed, or grow from prepared starts.

In your dreams buddy

I have no desire to be one with the eternal Tao, Ill die soon enough and find out one way or another. I try to ally with it , but its not my friend. I aim for a middle way , to cherry-pick, And although there are some who choose sides I figure the human condition to have one foot in the spiritual reality ,,and the other in the material.

Im thinking that a Taoist workout is to overcome the hard with the soft , so I try to be as willing to drop my weapons a bit faster than pick them up. ( its not an easy workout at ALL for me.) . Find something somewhere, that is really screwed up ,and hone your skills to your heart content. I hope I can't supply anything like that.

It may be just that ,, , the question sits -on what is the true nature of men , what just cause means , and whether there are ,objectively better or worse states to be in. Going by Chi Dragons definition of what wei wu wei is ,, 'rejecting divisiveness'- may or may not- fit under that heading. My own reading is a bit different and I feel objectivity, and taking a harmonious stance is strongly advocated ( but those attitudes may not be the "natural" one for humans to have - certainly it is normative to subdivide into groups of arbitrary similarities ) I wonder if there was an inarguable term in classical Chinese for the attitude we call 'objectivity'. It is certainly difficult to outline precisely what that term means, or whether it exists. As for rejecting civilization , Im not sure that it is what is meant by the works. The United States might , as it already is, might fit some folks ideas of anarchy , or harmony , or 'natural' . I dont think a man must act bestial to be true to his nature - for it is as inherent within men -to create society , to look to the divine etc as it is to learn language or stand upright.

Are you saying you literally are a chimpanzee? Thats very humble , I think Mr. Diamond would agree - though I personally do not, and note some clear differences between the two groups. ( though I confess , yes, to some bias at the heart of it , since bias is inherent in making distinctions of group, but anyhow ,since making distinctions between chimpanzees and apples is a functional bias- Ill keep it , whereas making distinctions about races and cultures is divisive - so Ill reject that one.)

I see no art to war here, in accord with the Tsun Tsu , one gathers allies rather than create enemies. One operates for some measurable gain , records a win or loss and gathers strength One occupies the high ground, not taken, not the low amd most importantly one operates from an objective standpoint not a highly biased one What is more evident here is in line with a "Pickets charge" ! or goofing around. Long let it live! as such.

I read a book recently which dicusses the similarities between chimpanzees and men , its the authors conclusion that humans really should be in the same grouping as chimps and bonobos -speaking gentically A human males genome is more similar to that of a male chimpanzee than it is to a human female! So maybe I am selling short on chimpanzee capabilities. Considering how irrational some folks are,, it might be a trade-off of skill sets they should consider.

Us people should be careful , we might get sued for copyright infringement if we use a roundhouse

the consequences.

So now the chinese ( and chenping specifically by extension ) invented and own metaphor !

sol·ip·sism (s l p-s z m, s l p-). n. Philosophy. 1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified Using this definition I figure it could be acceptible to some buddhists some taoists and some western philosophers.

All I see is a person mauled by a bear , all they reported ,was that they had no idea why, and neither do I. Sure stereotyping is a common thing done! But it doesnt leave one as open to what one might really encounter , it is presupposition , it is not being a clear mirror to events. The lady could more wisely have evaluated the bears as big dangerous animals , just by looking at them, rather than prejudge that they were tame. You and I have learned many things some of them are just plain wrong Which those are is hard to say but only you or I have a right to decide which things go and what should stay. It certainly possible for folks to live out a happy life being wrong about various things. Some things just do not have a right vs wrong value to them, one chooses. As I already said.. One can still do the generalizing , the lumping and stereotyping ,, but what one should understand is they dont have an iron clad perch of perspective to do so.

I never came across the factoid about the enter twice , but no ,you cant teach a chimp to do that- because they cant read. Even so, I find the colored fonts makes it easier for the eye to follow the sequence , thats my subjective opinion. "Granted the power and rights they deserve" , the Chinese "would be like americans" ?. Yes- in that regard- in other regards, they are already similar in many ways -as I see it. And you think with your western upbringing you can grasp the Tao Te Ching as easily as him? If I said I did- then I would be making assumptions about stuff I dont know just as he was being instructed not to. Are you blind to the teaching you just put before ME ? I find that quite ironic.

Asolutely right , one of the great messages to learn from the classics is that these divisions , which have folks all riled up are illusory , they have no solid foundation , they are simply abstractions. It is possible to draw imaginary lines around groupings of people , and claim that they have commonality ( which they may to a degree) but making the extrapolation that all such people are one way or another is just false , and makes it difficult to get along , to see the similarities that one another may have and to appreciate both the differences and the likeness. The tendency to back up only enough to admit that MAYBE a FEW of the people that come from some corner of the world MAY not adhere to stereotype is still clinging to the notion that one really KNOWS something about pretty much everybody from that place--- you dont , you never met them ,you never will meet all of them , and even if you did,, you will never really know what another persons heart contains. One can still do the generalizing , the lumping and stereotyping ,, but what one should understand is they dont have an iron clad perch of perspective to do so. To the extent that one doesnt know the individuals they refer to - they are WRONG to judge.

Since everyone here is saying so much about western ideas, versus eastern ideas , it would probably be fitting to list a few of these , so the point can be evaluated.

As an american of european descent , I see no reason why the understanding of the principles is not amenable to anyone who can accept them . I also see a lot of tolerance in general on here, to various points of view about the Tao, and Taoism as a practice. There is however , if one such as myself , has a view that someone -who is chinese- doesnt agree with , some say that I dont get it because I either have a western mind or that I dont speak one of the chinese languages. I dont consider this a fair accusation 1) because not everyone speaks the Chinese of Lao tzu, few do with any authority. The meanings of terms shift with tiny adjustments of the characters and context . 2) because I have no problem reading the english a chinese speaking person used to relate the translation. 3) between folks who speak chinese languages , there is plenty of variation -so there is not a uniformity of understanding which arises from the knowlege of the language itself 4) Of the folks who think their understanding superior due to nationality or language , plenty are happy wiith the non logical determination of meaning attributed to various writings , in essence they are fine with the fact that they have no idea what they are talking about. I do not attribute much of these attitudes to bigotry ,some points can be soundly made against me regarding this topic. But I do think there is a degree of possiveness ,and a degree of impression that one has a first row ticket based on race or language or culture OR that one has an exclusive ticket to paradise based on some clan affilliation. I consider these only minor flaws of character , certainly not exclusive to taoists. The christianity bashing that crops up from time to time is again due to weakness of character, and is uglier to me than the accusation that I am confused or too predisposed to the cultural norms I grew up with,,,because I know plenty of fine people who are christian . SSSSSO to finalize all that I dont see much of exclusionary situation based on upbringing etc , I see just a bunch of normal imperfect folk trying to get along with their lives as best they can ,and sharing the conclusions they arrive at. Stosh