How does Taoist immortality work?

[goldisheavy]

I am curious about the vision of Taoist immortality. First a small amount of background info on where I stand with Taoism: I prefer information that's been made available in translation of Lao Tzu (Laozi), Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi) and Lieh Tzu (Liezi). Upon reading all 3 authors in translation (in English), and in some cases reading 2 or more competing translations, I come out in complete agreement with the 3 big dudes of Taoism. I agree with them. I think they raise interesting questions and tell interesting stories. And I think one can extract a lot of very valuable and practical advice for both day to day life and for esoteric practice.

 

However! And this is a big however, not only is there no mention of immortality in the 3 key Taoist texts, but what's even worse for the seekers of immortality, they appear to advocate embracing the change! All 3 talk about the seasons, and how there is a season for everything. How things take their turns. Chuang Tzu specifically talks about death and asks something to the effect of, "Is death really as bad as we think? Why not embrace it?" This seems completely opposite of the attitude of the immortality seekers (More Pie Guy, and other serious neigong practitioners, can you hear me? ). So I don't think real Taoism has anything to do with immortality. At the same time, I admit I find all the stories of immortals to be interesting and I don't dismiss them out of hand either, but this brings me to my questions.

 

So how does the whole thing work? First, do neigong practitioners really strive for immortality? It seems like many do, but I don't want to assume this. In particular, do any neigong practitioners on this forum want to become immortals?

 

When I look at this world, I think the worst part is not so much that the life is limited in duration or that we are vulnerable, but that things are bureaucratic and that fearful and insecure people take actions that are too extreme for the situation or are not strong enough for the situation (judgment errors), and all these judgment errors accumulate and create a lot of unnecessary suffering.

 

Does anyone consider that if you could live forever on this planet, life would be boring? Are you planning to be am immortal on this planet or will you fly away? Does anyone think that having a lot of personal history is as much a disadvantage as it is an advantage? On the plus side, you remember a lot of lessons, let's say, but on the minus side, as an immortal you carry a lot of historical baggage that prevents you from seeing in new ways. Try to imagine someone with a 1,000,000 year history. Is that helpful?

 

As a way of a small example, when I dream, on most occasions I do not remember who I am in the waking world (unless I am lucid, in which case I cam remember everything about the body being in bed, about who I am in the waking world, and so on). For the most part, not remembering who I am outside the context of a dream is not necessarily a hindrance or something bad. I've not really been inconvenienced by it. There are some things I do want to remember, but they tend to be more of a principle than remembering all the actual life events. So for example, I want to remember in all of my dreams that I am not controlled by my dreams. But I don't necessarily care to remember that in my waking life, 4 hours before I went to sleep, I drank a glass of water. That seems silly and useless. I think most life events are useless to remember. When I die, I don't necessarily want to remember all of this life, but I do want to remember some "takeaway points" if you will. Some useful transcendent principles. I actually would like to forget all the other fluff. But as an immortal, it seems like you'd have a very long (infinite?) personal history with lots of useless junk in it.

 

I also wonder about this: where do troubles come from? For example, why do people form insane bureaucracies? Is it because I am a mortal? So if I become an immortal, suppose I go to the Jade Palace, the land of the immortals. How can I be sure it won't be a yet another crappy bureaucracy? Why does everyone seem to be assuming that every other world out there, especially the ones immortals depart to, are really nice places to be, and so nice in fact, that one would wish to stay there forever in an eternal body? I think it's kind of funny, but imagine you arrive at the Jade Palace where everyone is an immortal, and so, first of all, you're no longer special. You're not an immortal among mortals. Now you are an average Joe in this new world. They tell you to take a number. You see a big line and start waiting. Eventually you reach a little window and they hand you out a little ID card and so on.

 

If these immortals live as a society, surely they'll have conflicting interests. And if that's the case, surely they'll have bureaucracies or worse to manage all the conflicts. On the other hand, maybe immortals are not really social. Maybe immortals are like lone cats that wonder through the universe(s) alone? But then I have to ask this: if you accept a departure from society in your psyche, surely you can be very resplendently happy right here and right now without going anywhere? Social conflicts only have meaning if you really care about society, are interested in it, want to be a social participant and so forth.

 

Then, let's say you are not bothered by any social concerns. Let's say the thing that bothers you is your bodily frailty. Now, suppose you practice neigong to refine your body, or give birth to a new body. This represent a change from one body to another, through effort. If you can accomplish a change in body through effort, doesn't it make sense that you'll need to continue to expend further effort to maintain this body in good shape, and that as soon as you stop expending effort, the body will collapse and die? In other words, if the body is not already and inherently immortal, and if it is your effort that made it immortal, what makes you think the body won't require further effort to stay immortal? This also means constantly worrying about the onset of mortality. So even if you're an immortal, you will still have constant worry and concern that if you're not vigilant, you can revert to mortal condition at any time. Isn't this kind of life as much hassle as being a mortal in the first place? What if you learn to accept bodily modifications, including any and all disease, pain, and so on, and learn to transcend it internally without requiring that your body itself be made immortal? How does that option sound?

 

Another thing is belief in substance. Do you, neigong practitioners, believe in substance? In other words, do you believe you are transmuting and dealing with subtle substances in the body when you practice neigong? In my opinion, if you believe that all phenomena are backed by some universal objectively existent substance, the best way to manipulate and study such substance is with the scientific method. On the other hand, let's say you reject the idea of an ultimate universal objective substance. This would mean you believe all phenomena are manifestations of the primordial objectless awareness, like a blind man seeing rainbows and like a deaf man hearing music, etc., just visions without any substance or objects behind them. This means you can learn to control and to orchestrate these visions, but then, why bother with such substance-tied ideas as energy and energy meridians? You have so much freedom if you believe everything is just mind. So why not use that freedom? Why make up a vision of energy channels that mimic the body's shape? What is the point of that? I can understand if you believe those channels are inherently there because that's how the universal objective substance is arranged, you have to follow what's been given to you at birth. But if you don't believe there's anything objective that's been "given" to you, and if you realize your own body is just a vision, why make another vision on top of it? Why create a vision of energy meridians on top of this already visionary body? Why not, for example, simply dissolve the body, or depart from it? Why tinker with it?

 

So it seems, if you set out to tinker with the body, you must really believe in substance, but if you really believe in substance, then science is the much better way to study and to manipulate substance. But if you don't believe in substance, practices like MCO make very little sense.

 

Is it because MCO is traditional and thus, safe? Is there safety in tradition? Safety in numbers? So if you made up your own practice, you'd feel you are crazy, right? But if you follow what thousands of others have followed, you feel much safer, more sane, right? But if you are that attached to society and social conventions, then how do you expect to live a happy life as an immortal? Please refer to immortal bureaucracy above.

 

Please understand that I am not a doubting Thomas. I believe almost anything is possible. I believe you can go through walls if you want, and leave your footprints in the rock. None of this requires one to be an immortal or to practice MCO. I just think that the idea immortality and the idea that energy practice leads to immortality is... how shall I say it... not consistent with itself. It hides a lot of contradictions and it betrays a lot of hidden weakness. So for example, immortal should be fearless, but how can you develop fearlessness by attaching yourself to an old tradition for safety sake? Big contradiction there.

 

I don't want to inhibit anyone. I am not trying to convince anyone to be like me. I like the different things that people do and like I said, I do believe a lot of strange things are possible. I hope someone can respond to some of the questions I raise for my own enjoyment and elucidation, and hopefully it will be fun for other people as well.

Edited June 2, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Sloppy Zhang]

Most of my Daoist knowledge comes from B.K. Frantzis.

 

He talks a lot about "water" traditions and "fire" traditions, and "fire" "neo-taoist" traditions. I think the goal of immortality (physical immortality, anyway) came mostly from the fire/neo-taoist traditions. A lot of energy work that involves building up, solidifying, things like that.

 

But at the same time he talks about stuff the concept of the soul, and that how each person is an amalgamation of other souls, and normally after death the soul breaks up and goes wherever it needs to go. But through intense spiritual training or other powerful experiences, your soul can solidify into a full soul, and stick together in subsequent incarnations. So perhaps the idea of physical immortality is just a natural extension of that?

 

I've also heard immortality means just being completely within your nature, with no conflicts, just being you.

 

Or maybe being immortal is being one with the constant change. You never die because you are always changing to fit the situation.

 

I don't really know.

 

But I do think immortality is possible.

[C T]

Scintillating post, Gold! Valid questions indeed.

 

From what i can see in TTB, most who claim to be followers of Tao dont do 'mind'... in fact, there a few hardcore ones out here who actually feel quite intimidated by posts put up by Lucky7, Xabir, yourself and a few others who throw up valuable thoughts and insights into how the mind impacts the physical as well as psychical dimensions, which is rather surprising, really. My knowledge on the Tao, as well as 'mind', is pretty limited, but i do know a few seasoned Taoist and Buddhist practitioners, and can say these individuals are all in uniformed agreement as to the vitality in knowing the 'mind' deeply. From where i stand, the Taoism very much proliferated here on this forum evolves around 'living well', whereas its my view that Buddhism sort of offer a more complete path, in that it emphasizes not only living well, but learning how to die well too. I remember one Buddhist teacher saying that if one desires to live well, then the best way to do that is to first learn to die well - i find that view quite valid. For example, we hear here of many who place much attention on the importance of breath (don't get me wrong, i believe breath is very vital) and Chi, but Buddhism actually offers invaluable insights (the Bardo of dying and death, for example) on how to deal with those moments when one realizes that one has only 3 or 4 breaths left in this over-valued thing labelled 'life'. In summary, i would say that those who incorporate both traditions into their path have much to gain.

 

Thanks again for offering up your thoughts. Some see them as pretty controversial, but i think controversial is good. It often challenges boundaries and restrictive self-views, so keep it up!

[goldisheavy]

Most of my Daoist knowledge comes from B.K. Frantzis.

 

He talks a lot about "water" traditions and "fire" traditions, and "fire" "neo-taoist" traditions. I think the goal of immortality (physical immortality, anyway) came mostly from the fire/neo-taoist traditions. A lot of energy work that involves building up, solidifying, things like that.

 

But at the same time he talks about stuff the concept of the soul, and that how each person is an amalgamation of other souls, and normally after death the soul breaks up and goes wherever it needs to go. But through intense spiritual training or other powerful experiences, your soul can solidify into a full soul, and stick together in subsequent incarnations. So perhaps the idea of physical immortality is just a natural extension of that?

 

The way I understand the word "soul" it means to me the same as primordial awareness. Because that's how I understand it, I don't think souls are strictly separate to begin with. For example, your soul is not strictly separate from my soul. I would say I am an aspect of your being, from your POV. From my POV, you are an aspect of my being. Neither I nor you exist objectively. I am a vision and "my" soul is what sees that vision. Since the soul is not limited by the kinds of visions it can see, it is not quite correct to say "my soul." Ultimately I am a soul, but when I say that, I am not speaking as goldisheavy or as some limited personality fragment. If I am speaking as an individual, I can't say "my soul."

 

Let me try to illustrate that by referring to a cartoon. Suppose there is a cartoon where a Mickey Mouse makes a guest appearance. In that cartoon Mickey Mouse is just one of the characters, appearing temporarily. Mickey Mouse can say "this is my cartoon" and while it's not 100% wrong, it's not entirely correct either. Cartoon is something much wider than just Mickey Mouse. Cartoon can be just fine with Bugs Bunny as its main character, or it can even be blank, just as fine. So when Bugs Bunny appears, if Bugs says, "This is my cartoon" that's not entirely right. So I am like that Mickey Mouse that temporarily appears. My soul is like that cartoon, but with an exception: normally we objectify cartoons. So normally we think there is just one cartoon, or just a limited, and finite number of definite cartoons. So in this sense, my soul is more like all possible cartoon-space rather than any cartoon. And in this sense, my soul cannot split or assemble, it has no fragments and it cannot be united with anything either. It cannot be counted, because counting only applies to the objects that appear in cartoons and no more.

 

Because that's how I choose to interpret "soul", if B.K. Frantzis said similar things to me about the soul, none of those things would make any sense to me.

 

I've also heard immortality means just being completely within your nature, with no conflicts, just being you.

 

This seems very much like what Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu and Lieh Tzu talk about. How does energy practice help a person to be more at ease within one's own skin and environment? Doesn't it introduce an extra variable -- subtle energy that flows along the meridians -- that you now need to be cognizant of, and to control? Doesn't it make things more complicated than they already are?

 

Or maybe being immortal is being one with the constant change. You never die because you are always changing to fit the situation.

 

Ok that means immortals can't have a stable identity, correct? If that's the case, maybe you are already immortal?

 

When we believe we are mortal, what are we saying? As far as I understand, we are talking about either a body or identity. So either the body dies, and that's what mortality is. Or maybe it's not just the body, but the whole identity dies too, and that's what mortality is.

 

If immortality doesn't imply some experiential aspect remains constant in the middle of all the change, maybe we are already immortal? And what would that aspect be? Would it be your memories? Would it be a constant recognition of some principle? So for example, let's say a being gets reborn over and over, and in each rebirth, all the memories are wiped, but there is a constant recognition of the empty nature of phenomena -- would you call a mindstream that manifests a series of such beings, "an immortal?"

 

So is all this a case of "Let's just practice it, and see what happens?" without much thought given to how it could possibly be and what it would be like?

 

I don't really know.

 

But I do think immortality is possible.

 

I don't really know either and I agree with you that immortality is possible. Thank you for replying.

Edited June 2, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Sloppy Zhang]

Because that's how I choose to interpret "soul", if B.K. Frantzis said similar things to me about the soul, none of those things would make any sense to me.

 

He doesn't go too much in depth on a lot of the topics he brings up- mostly gives overviews in his books, and I've never met him in person, so maybe he would say something different, however, another thing he mentions is the different energy bodies that we all possess.

 

Now while we all possess these energy bodies, not all of us have succeeded in feeling them/working with them. Each energy body, along with being more subtle and having a higher vibration, is also larger. The qi body extends slightly beyond the physical body. The last energy body is the connection with the Tao.

 

So if you think of those little Venn diagrams, but keep adding circles and keep making them bigger. Each one gets bigger and bigger, overlapping with others, until you get to the largest one and we're all pretty much the same.

 

So I would say yes, from my understanding, you are correct, we aren't separate to begin with

[goldisheavy]

Scintillating post, Gold! Valid questions indeed.

 

Thanks CowTao, it's a pleasure to hear from you.

 

From what i can see in TTB, most who claim to be followers of Tao dont do 'mind'... in fact, there a few hardcore ones out here who actually feel quite intimidated by posts put up by Lucky7, Xabir, yourself and a few others who throw up valuable thoughts and insights into how the mind impacts the physical as well as psychical dimensions, which is rather surprising, really.

 

I hope I don't intimidate anyone. I don't want to impose on this forum any more than only what's necessary to say what I think. Of course I have my views, but I don't dream of one day making everyone share my views. I won't lie -- I would like to have at least a few like-minded people to talk with though.

 

So, when people say they don't "do" "mind", what is the meaning? Is it an admission that we have substance to contend with, and thus, why waste time with the mind? Kind of like, we have these bricks to move, stop thinking about it, and let's load up the truck? It's a valid way of thinking if you believe that mind is just a side-show, just a distortion upon a perfectly objective and independently existent world. I don't believe the world exists objectively or independently, and that's why for me the mind is not just a side-show, or a distortion, but is the key player in the game, the Lord who sits in the place of power.

 

If people believe that substance is objectively and independently existent, and behaves according to studiable laws, then of course the mind just seems like a detour. In that sense, the best the mind can do is to reflect the state of the substance accurately.

 

But, as I said before, if someone chooses to believe in substance, why not go with science? Science has achieved much more impressive matter conversions than any yogi I've ever heard of that was not presented as a myth.

 

My knowledge on the Tao, as well as 'mind', is pretty limited, but i do know a few seasoned Taoist and Buddhist practitioners, and can say these individuals are all in uniformed agreement as to the vitality in knowing the 'mind' deeply. From where i stand, the Taoism very much proliferated here on this forum evolves around 'living well', whereas its my view that Buddhism sort of offer a more complete path, in that it emphasizes not only living well, but learning how to die well too. I remember one Buddhist teacher saying that if one desires to live well, then the best way to do that is to first learn to die well - i find that view quite valid. For example, we hear here of many who place much attention on the importance of breath (don't get me wrong, i believe breath is very vital) and Chi, but Buddhism actually offers invaluable insights (the Bardo of dying and death, for example) on how to deal with those moments when one realizes that one has only 3 or 4 breaths left in this over-valued thing labeled 'life'. In summary, i would say that those who incorporate both traditions into their path have much to gain.

 

I share your views for the most part. I do think Chuang Tzu talks about dying well, but not as directly and as vividly as the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

 

And this brings me to an interesting point that's been very useful to me. I always try to understand what Bardo is like. At first I thought it was dreamy, but then I realized, since the psychic basis of this world dissolve, the vividness of Bardo becomes unparalleled, meaning Bardo appears as crispy, as viscerally as this here awaking experiencing that we experience right now, even as we read and type on this forum. Then I thought, in Bardo, I will be potentially challenged by various beings who will look imposing and quite real, and who will tell me everything about me, about their own selves and who will then try to impose on me in some way. But then I thought, this is exactly what's going on now in this world now! So, let's say, if I am quite scared and intimidated by the visions in this world, such as cops, or let's say muggers or gang members, then what hope do I have in Bardo, which will appear as viscerally and as authentically as this appearance? It seems to me that the only way I can be certain not to fall for any suggested meanings of Bardo visions, is if I am completely fearless right now and completely cognizant of the suggestive power of all the visions that appear right now.

 

In other words: Bardo is not later. This life is Bardo. If I wait to recognize something later on, or if I wait for my opportunity of fearlessness until after I die, I am trapped in this Bardo that appears now.

 

When I reflect like this, it helps me a great deal and it's really affecting how I relate with the world and other people and myself. It's a slow process, but with every time I reflect like this, there is a tiny change that seems to be accumulating.

 

Thanks again for offering up your thoughts. Some see them as pretty controversial, but i think controversial is good. It often challenges boundaries and restrictive self-views, so keep it up!

 

No problem. I think reading everyone's replies is helping me learn.

Edited June 2, 2010 by goldisheavy

[johndoe2012]

Alan Watts in his "Tao: the watercourse way" also believes that both Chuang Tzu and Lao Tzu were of the mind school and not energy/immortal school. I'm not sure whether the mind school like Completely Real Taoism (I think) or the Hsien School (Immortality) came first.

 

CowTao: I think Taoism is a (almost) complete path if you read a bit more than Tao Te Ching. It seems that the sages were naturally at ease with the thought of death both to yourself and relatives. It is a just a transformation (returning to the void) and not an end so there is nothing to worry about.

The only thing I have found missing in Taoism is the lack of focus on compassion.

 

Regarding the mind versus energetic practices I have recently begun to wonder if it all is in the mind and whether energetic practices are absolutely necessary - maybe these are just different path to the same goal and for some people energetic practices are better in that you "get out of your head" and get better "rooted".

[Sloppy Zhang]

I hope I don't intimidate anyone. I don't want to impose on this forum any more than only what's necessary to say what I think. Of course I have my views, but I don't dream of one day making everyone share my views. I won't lie -- I would like to have at least a few like-minded people to talk with though.

 

I find all of your posts to be very interesting, and the insights you give on the matter shine light from a completely different angle, providing a more whole picture. I don't know why so many people have taken your posts so negatively in the past. And, frankly, I'm surprised this discussion hasn't come up sooner (maybe it has and I just haven't been paying enough attention!) because frankly, I had the same questions as you after I read the three that you are referencing.

[C T]

I always try to understand what Bardo is like. At first I thought it was dreamy, but then I realized, since the psychic basis of this world dissolve, the vividness of Bardo becomes unparalleled, meaning Bardo appears as crispy, as viscerally as this here awaking experiencing that we experience right now, even as we read and type on this forum. Then I thought, in Bardo, I will be potentially challenged by various beings who will look imposing and quite real, and who will tell me everything about me, about their own selves and who will then try to impose on me in some way. But then I thought, this is exactly what's going on now in this world now! So, let's say, if I am quite scared and intimidated by the visions in this world, such as cops, or let's say muggers or gang members, then what hope do I have in Bardo, which will appear as viscerally and as authentically as this appearance? It seems to me that the only way I can be certain not to fall for any suggested meanings of Bardo visions, is if I am completely fearless right now and completely cognizant of the suggestive power of all the visions that appear right now.

 

In other words: Bardo is not later. This life is Bardo. If I wait to recognize something later on, or if I wait for my opportunity of fearlessness until after I die, I am trapped in this Bardo that appears now.

 

When I reflect like this, it helps me a great deal and it's really affecting how I relate with the world and other people and myself. It's a slow process, but with every time I reflect like this, there is a tiny change that seems to be accumulating.

 

This is how i hope i have understood the processes and exactitude of the Bardos as well. Each moment is impactful, an opportunity for real transformation. Each step we take is a bardo. When mindfulness here in this life becomes prevalently habitual, what else do we need to bring to the bardo at near-death and after life? Then is but an extension of now...

 

Cheers!

[Starjumper]

I am curious about the vision of Taoist immortality.

 

Learn what the various levels of immortal actually mean in Taoism and it will answer your question. The word immortal is not to be taken literally in a Western sense, and yes, they are mentioned in the TTC.

[Jing Attiig]

Awareness,

Immortal - undying - unborn.

 

Stilling the mind,

Perceiving no body, no thought, no thing, non-perceiving.

 

The Tao - no life, no death.

The Tao - Beyond life, beyond death.

What is immortal, that does not die and is not born ?

What is not immortal, that watches the process of 'death' ?

When All is Tao.

 

Wondering how many different Tao's are there for there to be so many different 'schools of Taoism'. All being the Tao. Stilling the mind, leaving schools behind, leaving traditions behind, leaving everything behind, but one cannot leave the Tao behind.

 

Would one cultivate the mortal to become immortal - in mind - when one is already Tao BEYOND mortality AND immortality ? a guestly cultivation - interesting

 

www.taowushin.com

Edited June 2, 2010 by Jing Attiig

[C T]

Awareness,

Immortal - undying - unborn.

 

Stilling the mind,

Perceiving no body, no thought, no thing, non-perceiving.

 

The Tao - no life, no death.

The Tao - Beyond life, beyond death.

What is immortal, that does not die and is not born ?

What is not immortal, that watches the process of 'death' ?

When All is Tao.

 

Wondering how many different Tao's are there for there to be so many different 'schools of Taoism'. All being the Tao. Stilling the mind, leaving schools behind, leaving traditions behind, leaving everything behind, but one cannot leave the Tao behind.

 

Would one cultivate the mortal to become immortal - in mind - when one is already Tao BEYOND mortality AND immortality ? a guestly cultivation - interesting

 

www.taowushin.com

Very interesting! Nice picture of the vehicle - would be even nicer to see some 'nuts and bolts' that hold it together?

 

Thanks sifu.

[Procurator]

they are mentioned in the TTC.

all the 3 texts are chock full of references to them.

 

its always fascinating to see a fairly literate person reading a text and literally refusing to see what is spelled clearly there in black and white.

 

destiny in action.

Edited June 2, 2010 by TianShi

[Marblehead]

 

So how does the whole thing work?

 

It doesn't work Gold. We are all going to die.

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

Awareness,

Immortal - undying - unborn.

 

Stilling the mind,

Perceiving no body, no thought, no thing, non-perceiving.

 

The Tao - no life, no death.

The Tao - Beyond life, beyond death.

What is immortal, that does not die and is not born ?

What is not immortal, that watches the process of 'death' ?

When All is Tao.

 

Wondering how many different Tao's are there for there to be so many different 'schools of Taoism'. All being the Tao. Stilling the mind, leaving schools behind, leaving traditions behind, leaving everything behind, but one cannot leave the Tao behind.

 

Would one cultivate the mortal to become immortal - in mind - when one is already Tao BEYOND mortality AND immortality ? a guestly cultivation - interesting

 

www.taowushin.com

 

I like this a lot! This method has no nuts and no bolts, but it's not for the lazy.

 

Leaving things behind is difficult for me. If I can leave my body behind, I can't leave my parents behind. If I can leave my parents behind, I can't leave humanity behind. If I can leave humanity behind, I can't leave sanity behind. So it's not so easy, at least not for me.

 

"Would one cultivate the mortal to become immortal" -- indeed.

Edited June 2, 2010 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

It doesn't work Gold. We are all going to die.

 

Peace & Love!

Good one Marblehead!

 

I would say this: the one who appears in your dreams, is it you or someone else? If it's someone else, then you'll die. If it's you, then you won't die.

 

Another way: who was called Marblehead 10 years ago? Was it you or someone else? If it was you, then you won't die. If it was someone else, you will die.

 

But the reverse is also true. For example, if the person called "Marblehead" 10 years ago was you, then you will die, but if it wasn't you, then you'll live forever.

[Marblehead]

Marblehead, yes we are all going to die. Our physical bodies will go kaput after some time. (75? 100? 150? 250 years?) But, what about our soul and its development? Its refinement?

 

Ah! You are asking questions of the realm of the unknown. I have no answers regarding this realm because I haven't been there yet, if there even is such a place.

 

But I know this much. If we live according to the Way we will be exactly where we are supposed to be at any given point of time in this cycle of the universe.

 

Peace & Love!

[Aetherous]

Philosophical-Taoism versus Practical-Taoism.

 

All that needs to be said.

 

[Starjumper]

all the 3 texts are chock full of references to them.

 

its always fascinating to see a fairly literate person reading a text and literally refusing to see what is spelled clearly there in black and white.

 

destiny in action.

 

It's also fascinating to see a forum on Taoist practices dominated by a Muslim who hates teachers, one whose transmit button is stuck on and can't receive. More destiny. ... and so goes the world.

[Marblehead]

Good one Marblehead!

 

I would say this: the one who appears in your dreams, is it you or someone else? If it's someone else, then you'll die. If it's you, then you won't die.

 

Another way: who was called Marblehead 10 years ago? Was it you or someone else? If it was you, then you won't die. If it was someone else, you will die.

 

But the reverse is also true. For example, if the person called "Marblehead" 10 years ago was you, then you will die, but if it wasn't you, then you'll live forever.

 

Wow! Now you've got me where I don't know whether I am coming or going.

 

I really doubt that anyone called themself Marblehead before I started calling myself that when I joined this forum.

 

Ah! My dreams. I rarely have dreams vivid enough to remember them but when I do I think I am pretty much myself in the dreams. Mostly memories of my life long past but still in my subconscious to bug me now and then.

 

Do you think we should become Buddhists so we can do this trip all over again?

 

Peace & Love!

[thelerner]

Its an interesting topic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems there's an 'Orthodox' train of thought that says physical immortality is real. Others say no, but have levels of spiritual immortality, some having to do w/ creating an inner spiritual embryo.

 

Again correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Michael Winn is in the latter school, believing that proper training & cultivation allows you control of your spirit souls when you die, instead of having them scattered.

 

IMO Immortals are so few and legendary that I doubt there corporeal existence. But on a spiritual plane, who knows, they may well be around, staring at our computers and laughing.

 

I don't think intellect can answer the question, only long practice and cultivation.

 

 

Michael

 

Michael

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[C T]

It's also fascinating to see a forum on Taoist practices dominated by a Muslim who hates teachers, one whose transmit button is stuck on and can't receive. More destiny. ... and so goes the world.

Haha its even more fascinating to see a forum on Taoist practices dominated by quick-draw McGraw smart mouths who do not know how to transmit in the first place! Sorry but your views do not reflect accuracy and certainly not lacking in classic finger-pointing insinuations. Hope you are not thinking that you are a serious Tao cultivator, are you? Gold Muslim? You gotta be kidding...

 

Destiny indeed!

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99