Stosh

Actually Zero, the things you are saying don't sound very far off from this admittedly stubborn philosophical Taoist , What makes you so sure you arent one of us ? Stosh

Doing nothing sounds like a big mistake to me Stosh

You may have exceeded me there Mh , Are you referring to rubbing ones neighbor for warmth? It works for my cat and me, very pleasantly Stosh Thinking a bit further on that, its really a very neat connection you made there Hmmm

Ahhh theres the rub! Stosh

'neti neti' seems to be indecisive by intent,and is probably self destructive. (if wikip has it clear.) Unappealing to me , it doesnt seem to have anything at all to do with Occams razor either. but to each his own. PS Judaism doesnt consider Jesus to have been the incarnate son of God that I ever heard.If you consider Christianity to be a branch of Judaism , you should note that the relationship between God and his people is radically different, its just not the same beliefs.Early Christians believed Jesus died on the cross , whilst God never did die.The triumvirate view of the holy trinity came later by committee conclusion. The definition of most 'holy people' by many actual scholars goes to the Hindus ( I forget the parameters of their decision but If I remember correctly its because they have a stong belief in the holiness or innate virtue of humanity whilst the abrahamic religions holiness is to be achieved by the grace of god alone.(therefore its considered low religion). Where is Vmarco? this isnt my cup of tea. Stosh PS it says this at the heading of this forum Taoist DiscussionDiscussion focused specifically on Taoist teachings, particularly those found in available texts of the Taoist canon and as expressed through Taoist cultivation practices such as Tai Chi, Qigong, Neigong, and Zuowang.

"Stupidity and selfishness are the only evil." Nisargadatta Maharaj Im willing to take exception to that, quote one problem with the statement is that it is self fulfilling ( excuses behavior in a biased manner.) One can do things either intentionally , or unintentionally (by accident or without thinking) All the the accidents could be chalked up to stupidity (but its not true otherwise getting injured in a minefield is the fault of the person in it) All the 'without thinking' behaviors some people may excuse ,,but I dont , youre still responsible (since you could have stopped and thought things out but neglected to.) Of the intentional things a person can do stuff for themselves, they can either have negative consequences for others which are intended, or they can have negative effects that are not desired but cannot be avoided. To say that one is selfish presupposes that it is wrong to do things for themselves if it adversely affects others.. thing is , just about everything one does for themselves adversely affects others. One eats the food , takes the job ,displaces the home etc and the adversely affected calls it evil whereas the the self advantaging considers it innocent. Finally and most simply ,stupidity selfishness , good and evil are abstracts of the human mind , they dont exist outside of it. That which actually happens is what happens , judgements such as these are ultimately illusions. Maharaj is teaching illusions , and thats fine to me , but others may call it evil which is done neither out of selfishness nor out of stupidity. Stosh

Ning ,,you queried.. "we DO believe in things that bring us comfort. is what brings us comfort necessarely true?" I would agree, clearly not always. But it can be a really constant guide of behavior as Zerostao said "you find your own and trust your inner voice or your guts over what anyone else said or says." and as Rene recently said but I paraphrase out of laziness'She prefers her sense of peace rather than to chase craziness' Then there are some who just prefer to rewrite the laws of time space nature and rationality in order to avoid accepting the state of things ,,in an 'inverted' attempt to find their peace. I congratulate you with putting your finger right on ! one of those unified positions from which we radiate to our personal views. Not enough folks are looking to find the places where we all-most can agree easily. Stosh

Zerostao, I dont know if you mean me ,ning, or anybody when you said "i think that if you use wu wei and ziran to navigate the circumstances-then you may be(at least) part taoist" But Ill take it as endorsement that I am not completely crazy. The Chinese language thing is beginning to wear on me though the doubts regarding proper interpretation of the lingo makes the various views that the Bums have ,much harder to get a grasp of ( because nobody seems to be on the same pages). If there was more talk about what was 'virtuous behavior',what was 'natural behavior' and ,from where does virtue originate,,, than what the nuances of the chinese verbiage were, the lessons of Chuang-tzu and Lao-tzu would actually be making into the threads. A similar parallel to deciding whether a person is a 'validated taoist' versus a person who 'walks the way' of a Taoist. Stosh

I figure you are to be allowed to pick your definition,, and decide if you fit it,, and then decide whether fitting the definition has value. Personally I see plenty in folks some of whom have accreditation-validation of one type or another but they dont walk any walk of humility or sincerity dont strive to change neurotic divisive behavior or reduce ego protective behaviors. Each of which I must add , I consider to be demonstrating just one more alternate way of living. You live your own dao based on the circumstances presented, as does everybody else, why do you need the arbitrary line describing with a label who is or is not "valid" as a Taoist? you can instead consider the virtues that each has ,or does not have,,and work with onesself accordingly. Stosh

Being one with the tao is called being dead Its out of your control Youll get there anyway Life and sentience are properties of the universe its an illusion you have that you are an individual that can live. Live well and return to the dust from which you came having played your part well. Just my opinion though. Stosh

Sounds a little kinky , roll with it Stosh

Just FYI Et , 1) folks often take offense to being mischaracterized , whether its about lying ,behaviors ( like freudian slips) ,sexual orientation ,etc 2) some folks have a more direct approach and can find too much delicacy an insult. Being pretended to is also insulting. We like to call it 'blowing smoke up someones ass'. Im sure youve come across these factoids , so my purpose is just to bring them to the fore. Have a nice weekend though. Stosh

Yeah its interesting , and occasionally annoying, (as I am sure I am) I guess its only natural for folks to draw parallels between things they already know and stuff they are learning, I do it too.It can speed up the process but can create its own set of misunderstandings ( which are super difficult to remove once formed)The ancients helped that process along by speaking figuratively, which I find fun and inspiring, but so many grasp onto the terms as being..what they aint ..I work alongside some christians , and I was talking about Tao, and they immediately jump to the idea that its a God like the one they have ,,,and they just will not let go of it!Then they have the saying that "there are no atheists in a foxhole" which is faintly insulting, but they aint crazy being reminded about Jesus reportedly calling out from the cross "Why hast thou forsaken me!"..Accepting that folks believe things which I just cant fathom as reasonable at all ,,,is part of the lesson of acceptance I guess.Warm regards back at ya.Stosh

:0

Yep thats what I meant , I thought it obvious but sorry If It looked like accusation.Just my opinion but , lying requires intent to decieve , Tao has no intent. Mimicry is based on ones expectations not on what is in front of ones face.Tao cannot steal because that would require possession which is just an abstract.Tao cannot kill because there is no 'living' that is distinct from non living ,again that state is an abstract human concept. The monk is wrong in my opinion, you-or I (the one experiencing) and the Tao have very little in common.Just opinion there..Stosh

Lie

There was a cardinal nest outside the door .. I watched a squirrel clamber over to it pull a baby chick out ,climb higher up the tree ,and then he started eating it. The next morning , the parent cardinals were feeding the remaining chick, I see the squirrel heading back to their nest. What does virtue suggest to do? Stosh

Yes I do believe I agree wholeheartedly with that Et.Stosh

Well he rendered the term he was looking at into itself- so- being and described it as the process of a thing fulfilling that which it would be virtue of its characteristics. Im under the impression that the dual idea of nature vs man-stuff has its own phraseology.it is not unsimilar to natural , , but what the heck would be unnatural (that a thing could be?) if you are not using a man-done vs other-done dichotomy? Zi ren , CAN render a similar relationship of benevolence and non-interference between two things as does a pattern of wu wei. I think he is just seeing it that -a thing has its own virtue first Ex a cat has the virtue of a cat ,and lives its cats life ,and does cat things ,including killing mice A medicine has a medicine virtue, it cures what the medicine cures, and one can say that "this is a virtuous medicine" because it cures the illness and a person has a virtue of a person, living a persons life ,and doing a persons things. And a person respecting the Ziran of other things, is respecting the same situation of himself if the positions were reversed, so one avoids messing with other Ziran. On the other hand if one has virtue by acting wu wei , it is relative to other things first The cat is not virtuous unless it avoids eating mice , the medicine is virtuous by not interfering with an illness and a person has to defy himself in order to make way for everyone else. More simply put, that virtue arises from either the nature of the thing living its dao,, and... not interfering or being harmless ,is secondary to that. ....Or... that virtue arises from being harmless and not interfering first and a thing has no virtue in being true to its "nature". If one combines the inherent virtue of a thing being true to itself and behaves with proper restraint.. You get a leader who does his job but doesnt micromanage You get a medicine that cures the illness but doesnt make one grow extra arms you get a cat that kills mice but leaves your children alone In most of what I read it is Ziran that is being glossed over , and assumed to be recognized as being virtuous, all the glory being bestowed on restraint.. which makes no sense in the real world because you cant live a 'virtuous' life of doing nothing! Stosh

Wang , in describing the term zi ran , calls it 'itself-so-being'which could be said as a thing or person fulfilling its naturewhich, is the standpoint of all of us first and foremost.Without that idea or a similar one, you are left with the 'doing nothing' credoYou NEED that ziran concept.Nurture or fix it but dont dismiss it.Stosh

According to Wang it appears that ziran is an iverse behavior pattern to wu wei and therefore the subject of Tzujan or Zi ran is still helping to define wu wei. ( If I get it right Zi ran is 'You being you' and wu wei is restraint so another can be 'them being them') Oops , took too long getting facts straight, nevermind. Stosh

A flock of strange birds ? outside ?Ive been seeing barn swallows migrating all weekend ,///Stosh

Folks often give away clues as to whether they believe what they are saying or whether they dont It shows up in handwriting and facial muscles as well as posture and speech. Some folks are good at reading for truth and other folks arent. It takes practice and verification to get good at it. It is the verification part that we dont have ordinarily, and thats why few folks get very good at it. Some tics like micro exp<b></b>ressions can be extremely noticable once you are clued in to them. I know a guy who leans over to one side maybe 25 degrees or so and scratches his forearm when his is BSing. Its a very interesting subject but be careful you do not become jaded towards everyone. There are things folks just prefer to keep to themselves, sometimes they are just simplifying a story , and sometimes they are unsure about some facet they included,, there are many reasons to fudge the truth, sometimes its best to just try to get a sense of whether a person has your best interest at heart overall , and leave the truth stuff to courts. Sometimes suppressed hostility can even show up in misspelling peoples names! Stosh

Et Making a verbal error is not "Thus lying" Decieving with intent is lying. It is attempt to escape the social fate of a truth. The bad part ,is the deception part, not the noises themselves. And some do 'hold to that' , because they see intentional deception as worse than making a mistake. (because intentional acts are by definition not mistakes, and mistakes are unintentional by definition ,it is only rational to make a distinction about it) And not responding, in order to avoid admission to being wrong,, is also an attempt to escape the social fate of a truth , and so it is a deception, and it can be just as non-virtuous as the active lie. It is just sneakier, Giving the habit a chinese name like wo wei doesnt change it into virtue either,( when the intent is not to benefit the one being avoided but rather to preserve the 'ego' of the person who clammed up.) But this subject really would make for a different thread on whether the TTC makes a stand on honesty as a virtue or whether it dodges the issue altogether. I really dont know what it says about it. Stosh

Mh I thought you and Et were making a seriously erroneous assumption in posts 82 83 84 and I was caught up in the accusation. I dont care much for the indirectness ,seemingly suggested by TTC. It has a serious downside, you never get down to the truth. But there is also a lot of flack one has to accept when sticking to the truth rather than resorting to convenient lies. Ive been sticking to the truth , putting up with the defensiveness it tends to generate, and so getting classified as a habitual liar for telling it, is more than vexing. Et Yes, that part wasnt referring to you. Anyway just go back to the thread subject. The rest doesnt matter anyway Stosh