We all have issues-

[eye_of_the_storm]

Actually I am deluding myself

 

I am seeking pleasure what else could freedom/ peace/ harmony etc be?

 

[Owledge]

Yeah, there's a weird equalizer even in Taoist belief that when you have pleasure, that will somehow automatically manifest displeasure.

Well, I think it's more the case that when you have pleasure, that gives you the power to handle displeasure more easily. As said in the Gospel of Thomas: 'Those who have much are given more, those who have little even lose that.'

There's the step where you emotionally disconnect yourself from unpleasant experiences. You let them happen and that's it. How does that require you to do the same with pleasant experiences? I think it's skillful to condition yourself towards emphasizing the pleasant and toning down the unpleasant. Maybe the problem Taoism sees is simply the failure at doing so, but then that's the challenge.

[johndoe2012]

Apparently the Sufis have the discipline of "Tazkiyya" to purify the shadow sides of the ego.

 

http://www.mysticsaint.info/2010/05/blemishes-impurities-shadows-of-self.html

 

I also find prostration to work pretty well in managing the ugly parts from taking control.

[goldisheavy]

both the attachments to wealth and sex are the problem..

 

why else would Man strive for wealth if not to get more sex?..

 

Both are aspects of Hell but the fundamental cause is always Lust..

 

tulku, you are utterly clueless. You're obsessed about sex. It's obvious that's your personal problem. Beyond getting a relatively small amount of money, you don't need money to get sex (unless perhaps you are so undesirable that you have to pay huge sums to women to have sex with you and they refuse to stay afterward). Of course women want some financial stability, and there is an occasional gold digger, but beyond that women make judgments about men that are much more complex than just evaluating the net worth.

 

Find a girlfriend and live with her for 10 years. You'll see what's what. Your ideas about sex are naive and utterly disconnected from reality.

 

People want money mainly for two reasons: they want insurance against homelessness, disease and early death. Beyond that, money translates into power. And people want power. People enjoy seeing their intent have wide repercussions. They enjoy this creative power. And if you want to play by the rules of the materialistic world, money is the chief way of acquiring amplification for the power of intent.

 

I suggest you try to investigate issues for yourself. It sounds to me like you haven't given any issues any thought. You keep repeating some trash you read somewhere, over and over. There is no evidence of your own thinking behind anything you say.

 

Just go for a walk in your neighborhood and make a mental note of how many couples are of modest means. Then count the wives of billionaires. This simple exercise should contradict your way of thinking about sex and money in a pretty big way.

Edited April 19, 2012 by goldisheavy

[Aaron]

Yeah, there's a weird equalizer even in Taoist belief that when you have pleasure, that will somehow automatically manifest displeasure.

Well, I think it's more the case that when you have pleasure, that gives you the power to handle displeasure more easily. As said in the Gospel of Thomas: 'Those who have much are given more, those who have little even lose that.'

There's the step where you emotionally disconnect yourself from unpleasant experiences. You let them happen and that's it. How does that require you to do the same with pleasant experiences? I think it's skillful to condition yourself towards emphasizing the pleasant and toning down the unpleasant. Maybe the problem Taoism sees is simply the failure at doing so, but then that's the challenge.

 

Some clarifications here, In Taoism, at least if one pays attention to the Tao Te Ching, in order for pleasure to exist, there must be pain. That doesn't mean that as soon as someone feels pleasure, someone else in the universe experienced pain. It's really talking about our view of reality and how we objectify things. A thing is simply a thing, an action an action, it's our decision to place a value on it that makes it valuable or worthless. So ice cream is yummy, but when we decide that ice cream is yummy then we're also presenting the opportunity for it to be yucky in someone else's opinion as well. Now before I go any further I should also point out that there is nothing wrong with judging ice cream as yummy or yucky, rather the problem comes from placing value on it. Ice cream can be tasty, but it should be no more valuable to you than milk or rice. I'm sure that might confuse some people, but it's essentially what Lao Tzu was saying in the Tao Te Ching.

 

Aaron

Edited April 22, 2012 by Twinner

[Stosh]

Im thinking the drawback of pleasures are, that they continue to draw us away from a satisfied stance after the scent has faded or the cake is gone, not that we can't enjoy them at the moment... the trick would then be to let go of this draw and return to a basic satisfied stance.

 

Enlightenment appears to be, (based on the signposts pointing to it, such as meditative focus)a recognition of the 'blank slate' nature we are born with (and probably bounce in and out of regularly- but do not recognize as such). I see no reason to expect that 'enlightenment' would be transformative, yet it might hold the potential to be so.

 

I expect the offer it holds is presented in the perspective --that our conceptions are drawn with chalk.

(on the blank slate)

I also see no reason to think it inevitable that "enlightenment" would have to result in the experiencer ending up nicer kinder happier or more socially connected etc than they were beforehand.

 

I verbally poked several Taoists recently , and have seen them poked , and statistically they appeared as ego centered intolerant angry and self harrassed ( or not) as anyone else.

 

So I do not pursue the 'enlightenment' described, instead I look for the logic in the understanding of tao, and find the benefit of its wisdom rather reliable to the extent that I follow it.

 

And although it was your topic that has produced some heat in the responses given, I don't really see it in your argument. Tao is, if nothing else ,ironic.

[JustARandomPanda]

I verbally poked several Taoists recently , and have seen them poked , and statistically they appeared as ego centered intolerant angry and self harrassed ( or not) as anyone else.

 

Yep. Same with me. I got all the poisons, fetters, etc.

[tyler zambori]

Im thinking the drawback of pleasures are, that they continue to draw us away from a satisfied stance after the scent has faded or the cake is gone, not that we can't enjoy them at the moment... the trick would then be to let go of this draw and return to a basic satisfied stance.

 

Enlightenment appears to be, (based on the signposts pointing to it, such as meditative focus)a recognition of the 'blank slate' nature we are born with (and probably bounce in and out of regularly- but do not recognize as such). I see no reason to expect that 'enlightenment' would be transformative, yet it might hold the potential to be so.

 

I expect the offer it holds is presented in the perspective --that our conceptions are drawn with chalk.

(on the blank slate)

I also see no reason to think it inevitable that "enlightenment" would have to result in the experiencer ending up nicer kinder happier or more socially connected etc than they were beforehand.

 

I verbally poked several Taoists recently , and have seen them poked , and statistically they appeared as ego centered intolerant angry and self harrassed ( or not) as anyone else.

 

 

Ok, but what are the more "developed" Taoists like? I mean people who have actually made a lot of progress

with the practices, not people who say they are Taoist because they like the ideas?

 

I'm guessing these would probably not be people who act like know-it-alls on a forum,

so it may be hard to find such examples?

[eye_of_the_storm]

Ok, but what are the more "developed" Taoists like? I mean people who have actually made a lot of progress

with the practices, not people who say they are Taoist because they like the ideas?

 

I'm guessing these would probably not be people who act like know-it-alls on a forum,

so it may be hard to find such examples?

 

They are dancing among the clouds ... yet to catch one myself.

 

This forum is a blessing + the people here... all on the same path, sharing their experiences / helping one another the best they know how even if misguided sometimes (: myself included

 

All simply trying to understand

[tyler zambori]

They are dancing among the clouds ... yet to catch one myself.

 

Then I will have to search to find such examples. Thanks though.

 

This forum is a blessing + the people here... all on the same path, sharing their experiences / helping one another the best they know how even if misguided sometimes (: myself included

 

All simply trying to understand

 

http://www.thetaobum...st-discussions/

 

post number 1.

[eye_of_the_storm]

Yeh, haha - hmm I am a new sprout here soo (positive + so far)... 14 years wow

 

Hope to be dancing in the clouds by then myself haha (:

Edited April 22, 2012 by White Wolf Running On Air

[eye_of_the_storm]

Yeh, haha - hmm I am a new sprout here soo (positive + so far)... 14 years wow

 

Hope to be dancing in the clouds by then myself haha (:

 

I am quite ambitious

[Aaron]

Im thinking the drawback of pleasures are, that they continue to draw us away from a satisfied stance after the scent has faded or the cake is gone, not that we can't enjoy them at the moment... the trick would then be to let go of this draw and return to a basic satisfied stance.

 

Enlightenment appears to be, (based on the signposts pointing to it, such as meditative focus)a recognition of the 'blank slate' nature we are born with (and probably bounce in and out of regularly- but do not recognize as such). I see no reason to expect that 'enlightenment' would be transformative, yet it might hold the potential to be so.

 

I expect the offer it holds is presented in the perspective --that our conceptions are drawn with chalk.

(on the blank slate)

I also see no reason to think it inevitable that "enlightenment" would have to result in the experiencer ending up nicer kinder happier or more socially connected etc than they were beforehand.

 

I verbally poked several Taoists recently , and have seen them poked , and statistically they appeared as ego centered intolerant angry and self harrassed ( or not) as anyone else.

 

So I do not pursue the 'enlightenment' described, instead I look for the logic in the understanding of tao, and find the benefit of its wisdom rather reliable to the extent that I follow it.

 

And although it was your topic that has produced some heat in the responses given, I don't really see it in your argument. Tao is, if nothing else ,ironic.

 

Who are you referring to? I'm thinking since you said "your topic" it's me, so If you're referring to me, then you've just stated everything I've already stated. In defense of Taoists, they aren't any different from members of any other religion (poke a Buddhist here and see what happens). I am not a Taoist by the way, but I've studied Taoism for a long long time and I'm confident that I have a practical understanding of Taoism.

 

Now getting back to your final comment, I would ask how you can't see it in my argument, when you've essentially repeated what I've said? Perhaps you need to look a little deeper, because the crux of my argument is that no amount of spiritual awakening, enlightenment, or awareness will free us of the dualistic existence we live in. It will always come down to the fact that we are human and always will be human and as a result have to deal with being human.

 

If you wanted to take it a step further I think the key is to accept our flaws and in accepting our flaws understand that what we perceive as flaws is merely because someone has told us that they are. If we can stop liking and disliking things about ourselves, then we are truly on the way to being at peace with who we are, then there is no need to even talk about issues anymore.

 

Aaron

[Stosh]

Who are you referring to? I'm thinking since you said "your topic" it's me, so If you're referring to me, then you've just stated everything I've already stated. In defense of Taoists, they aren't any different from members of any other religion (poke a Buddhist here and see what happens). I am not a Taoist by the way, but I've studied Taoism for a long long time and I'm confident that I have a practical understanding of Taoism.

 

Now getting back to your final comment, I would ask how you can't see it in my argument, when you've essentially repeated what I've said? Perhaps you need to look a little deeper, because the crux of my argument is that no amount of spiritual awakening, enlightenment, or awareness will free us of the dualistic existence we live in. It will always come down to the fact that we are human and always will be human and as a result have to deal with being human.

 

If you wanted to take it a step further I think the key is to accept our flaws and in accepting our flaws understand that what we perceive as flaws is merely because someone has told us that they are. If we can stop liking and disliking things about ourselves, then we are truly on the way to being at peace with who we are, then there is no need to even talk about issues anymore.

 

Aaron

 

 

I figured posts responding to a thread are understood to be addressing the thread starter without having to spell it out repeatedly, but I will make an effort ,going forward ,to be clearer. The point about the heat of your argument.. was that the original precept of the thread was clearly going to be taken as provocative by some, and you knew it, some responses seemed a bit ruffled as expected, but I did not consider the point to be particularly hostile.

I took it as indicative of someone feisty, thick skinned ,respecting of his own conclusions ,and probably difficult to deal with. ( not at all always bad traits)

In fact I find us in really rather close agreement so I expressed that. Which makes me curious , do you consider yourself a Buddhist, or some amalgam that doesnt really fit the recognizable religious "boxes".

The exception to that agreement really lies with that recurrent and annoying position that talking about the subjects is pointless. (I take it as the position of the weak minded, finding themselves outclassed taking the sour grapes approach)In Taoism its due to misunderstanding Lao And Zhuang who were scholars and linguists not ignorant hermits.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Stosh

[Jetsun]

I verbally poked several Taoists recently , and have seen them poked , and statistically they appeared as ego centered intolerant angry and self harrassed ( or not) as anyone else.

 

Doing a load of meditation and Qigong etc can just make you more unbalanced as an individual, Ken Wilber talks about this issue quite a lot how meditation isn't aimed to deal with your shadow psychological issues so to assume just because someone has spent years meditating and doing Qigong and calls themselves a Taoist or Buddhist it doesn't mean they have managed to bring any peace or balance to the more conflicted parts of their psyche, they may just be burying their issues deeper and deeper with their practice.

 

Also there is always the danger with this stuff that it just creates another layer of ego but this time a spiritual or religious ego, which in many ways is far more ugly and distorted than the one that was produced out of your childhood.

[Stosh]

Ok, but what are the more "developed" Taoists like? I mean people who have actually made a lot of progress

with the practices, not people who say they are Taoist because they like the ideas?

 

I'm guessing these would probably not be people who act like know-it-alls on a forum,

so it may be hard to find such examples?

 

I figure 'developed Taoists' are folks that live effectively-according to basic Taoist principles like naturalness ,spontenaity ,flexibility, open mindedness and in general an aspect of keeping their perspectives clear. None of these things are unique to Taoism though, so they might look like anyone else. As far as the liking of the ideas, it is part of any religion or philosophy and forms the groundwork of their common perception.It helps make sense of the real world , one's place in it, and points where one may find personal meaning. Lastly, the know it alls may truly-actually know it all! (from their own perspective of course.)I would suggest to search most for those who share the opinions that you have in greatest common and then judge the rest with a degree of openness.( but not complete suceptibility)

[Aaron]

I figured posts responding to a thread are understood to be addressing the thread starter without having to spell it out repeatedly, but I will make an effort ,going forward ,to be clearer. The point about the heat of your argument.. was that the original precept of the thread was clearly going to be taken as provocative by some, and you knew it, some responses seemed a bit ruffled as expected, but I did not consider the point to be particularly hostile.

I took it as indicative of someone feisty, thick skinned ,respecting of his own conclusions ,and probably difficult to deal with. ( not at all always bad traits)

In fact I find us in really rather close agreement so I expressed that. Which makes me curious , do you consider yourself a Buddhist, or some amalgam that doesnt really fit the recognizable religious "boxes".

The exception to that agreement really lies with that recurrent and annoying position that talking about the subjects is pointless. (I take it as the position of the weak minded, finding themselves outclassed taking the sour grapes approach)In Taoism its due to misunderstanding Lao And Zhuang who were scholars and linguists not ignorant hermits.

 

Perhaps I lack your intellect, but for me, it was rather obtuse. I intended the original post to be provocative, so that's fine. This isn't a new topic, so I will admit I had a general idea of what to expect, but to be completely honest, this thread was perhaps the most compassionate on the topic I've seen so far.

 

I am not religious at all. I eschew all religions. I have studied Taoism and agree with the philosophy, but I don't advocate religious Taoism at all. I would not consider myself an atheist either, more of an agnostic, in that I believe in a universal or quantum consciousness.

 

I don't remember saying 'talking about subjects is useless', but rather that there is some point where our egos propel us to continue a topic, when there's no need to do so. Also actions are much more useful than words because they demonstrate our sincerity. There are people that talk about meditation, compassion, and practice, and then there are people who practice those things. That's really the difference.

 

Be done with knowledge... that's the one thing I was encouraging people to remember.

 

Aaron

Edited April 23, 2012 by Twinner

[tyler zambori]

Doing a load of meditation and Qigong etc can just make you more unbalanced as an individual, Ken Wilber talks about this issue quite a lot how meditation isn't aimed to deal with your shadow psychological issues so to assume just because someone has spent years meditating and doing Qigong and calls themselves a Taoist or Buddhist it doesn't mean they have managed to bring any peace or balance to the more conflicted parts of their psyche, they may just be burying their issues deeper and deeper with their practice.

 

Also there is always the danger with this stuff that it just creates another layer of ego but this time a spiritual or religious ego, which in many ways is far more ugly and distorted than the one that was produced out of your childhood.

 

AS I understand it, Ken Wilbur is a transpersonal psychology writer. Transpersonal psychology

is influenced by Jung. Jung is crap - he just wanted to create his own therapy-religion, imo.

Nothing at all scientific about him.

 

I wonder if Taoism does better at dealing with "the dark side" than Buddhism or any kind of Hinduism,

because of its emphasis on balance and the middle way? I really do want to know this:

 

Taoism and Jung: Synchronicity and the Self

 

http://www.scribd.co...ty-and-the-Self

 

This was very interesting, but Jung is still crap.

[Stosh]

Be done with knowledge... that's the one thing I was encouraging people to remember.

 

Its just the connotation, the broadening of meaning which tends to happen around this sentiment I oppose.One Might as well just tell folks to give up understanding others and the world around them. I believe A similar sentiment led to the 'Programs' of Pol-pot .. that intellectualism was a problem and everyone would be better off digging in the mud for a living.

 

You strike me as well read ,Lao and Zhuang also are reputed to have been, It doesnt ring clear to me for any of ya'll to decry intellectualism. Admittedly one cant learn Karate from a manual alone, it has to be done also. But it doesnt mean that the manual is not of great potential help. But Yeah-sir , there is a time to walk the walk

 

Regarding ..continuing a thread beyond the point at which new stuff is is being said , sure, its probably not helping much. Time for fresh stuff.

[C T]

AS I understand it, Ken Wilbur is a transpersonal psychology writer. Transpersonal psychology

is influenced by Jung. Jung is crap - he just wanted to create his own therapy-religion, imo.

Nothing at all scientific about him.

 

I wonder if Taoism does better at dealing with "the dark side" than Buddhism or any kind of Hinduism,

because of its emphasis on balance and the middle way? I really do want to know this:

 

Taoism and Jung: Synchronicity and the Self

 

http://www.scribd.co...ty-and-the-Self

 

This was very interesting, but Jung is still crap.

Buddhism does very well dealing with the 'dark side'.

 

For every neurosis unearthed, there is a corresponding antidote to remedy it.

 

84,000 of them, apparently.

 

Its so fundamental that dances are enacted to depict the saints subduing all sorts of demons.

 

That's why in Tibetan Buddhism countless protector deities are to be found.

 

Each one serves a different purpose, but all are emanated from the one source.

 

Where?

 

It is to be found at the core of every being... the deepest wish to be free of sorrow and fears, suffering and alienation.

 

However, the prescribed antidotes do not require one to analyze past conditionings and patterns in order to re-set one's being.

 

What is required, however, is the full knowledge that what one does, from this moment on, determines what one will be tomorrow, a month from tomorrow, a year from tomorrow, 10 years from tomorrow, and so on.

 

So, for example, if one sincerely desires freedom from suffering, then one has to begin this moment to create the causes and conditions for this to happen. Analyzing past darknesses is not, i repeat, is not the same as creating the right present causes. Its another form of delaying one's happiness... another excuse not to believe that freedom is indeed one's birthright.

[Stosh]

AS I understand it, Ken Wilbur is a transpersonal psychology writer. Transpersonal psychology

is influenced by Jung. Jung is crap - he just wanted to create his own therapy-religion, imo.

Nothing at all scientific about him.

 

I wonder if Taoism does better at dealing with "the dark side" than Buddhism or any kind of Hinduism,

because of its emphasis on balance and the middle way? I really do want to know this:

 

Taoism and Jung: Synchronicity and the Self

 

http://www.scribd.co...ty-and-the-Self

 

This was very interesting, but Jung is still crap.

 

My personal take is that the message of tao is to live well, or better ,by being on the path, but it aint guaranteed to make you sweeter. Whether it would be helpful for "dark side issues" it would depend on what the internal conflicts were, and how effectively one ingested the fresh rationale. Since there is nothing to sin against except to oneself, it doesnt provide an infallible "compass" ,there is no clear objective morality to grasp onto. The general message is about freedom ,with the suggestion of alternate conceptry,.. being like water.

As a vehicle for curing really serious issues I doubt it is anchored sufficiently to drag a person away from their present path. A wise and well grounded teacher of tao ( or psychiatrist) might lend that anchorage though.

But that all is speculation on my part, and even I promote taking this post with a big grain of salt.

CT 's claim seems a rational one.

Stosh

[Aaron]

Be done with knowledge... that's the one thing I was encouraging people to remember.

 

Its just the connotation, the broadening of meaning which tends to happen around this sentiment I oppose.One Might as well just tell folks to give up understanding others and the world around them. I believe A similar sentiment led to the 'Programs' of Pol-pot .. that intellectualism was a problem and everyone would be better off digging in the mud for a living.

You strike me as well read ,Lao and Zhuang also are reputed to have been, It doesnt ring clear to me for any of ya'll to decry intellectualism. Admittedly one cant learn Karate from a manual alone, it has to be done also. But it doesnt mean that the manual is not of great potential help. But Yeah-sir , there is a time to walk the walk

 

Regarding ..continuing a thread beyond the point at which new stuff is is being said , sure, its probably not helping much. Time for fresh stuff.

 

I've seen a lot of people come on to the board with their own ideas about what Taoism is. If you want to lump Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu with Pol Pot, that's fine, but I think you have a very weak understanding of what Taoism is about. It's not a path for one thing, that's your Western dichotomy trying to grasp an alien principal. In Taoism there is no path, you are already there, you just need to open your eyes and see it.

 

The sage stays with the baggage cart, while everyone else walks about looking at the pretty sights, because he has everything he needs right there. Open your eyes, quit walking down the path and you'll see that.

 

Be done with knowledge. I hope you can grasp what that means before you waste too much time realizing it, if you even can realize it, most can't.

 

Aaron

[Birch]

Doing a load of meditation and Qigong etc can just make you more unbalanced as an individual, Ken Wilber talks about this issue quite a lot how meditation isn't aimed to deal with your shadow psychological issues so to assume just because someone has spent years meditating and doing Qigong and calls themselves a Taoist or Buddhist it doesn't mean they have managed to bring any peace or balance to the more conflicted parts of their psyche, they may just be burying their issues deeper and deeper with their practice.

 

Also there is always the danger with this stuff that it just creates another layer of ego but this time a spiritual or religious ego, which in many ways is far more ugly and distorted than the one that was produced out of your childhood.

 

There's some agreement from me on this one Jetsun. What I do think meditation does is bring things to light (or consciousness if you prefer). So previously I felt like shit but didn't know the cause and did all kinds of other shit to compensate for the shit I didn't know the cause of. Now I just feel like shit AND I know why.

 

However, I'm not going to beat anyone (including myself) up about it, as it tends to perpetuate shit.

 

I'm not sure about the creation of another layer of ego thing. My experience tells me that it's not a layer,it's the nature of the thing, or I just uncovered more, whatever.

 

The 'religious ego' is IMO/IME the one that will get this stuff on its own terms and play it. I was a "good" child, I'm perfectly capable of acting normal or enlightened if I have to:-)

[eye_of_the_storm]

Twinner: It's not a path for one thing, that's your Western dichotomy trying to grasp an alien principal. In Taoism there is no path, you are already there, you just need to open your eyes and see it.

 

 

Have you listened to Alan Watts?

[Aaron]

Twinner: It's not a path for one thing, that's your Western dichotomy trying to grasp an alien principal. In Taoism there is no path, you are already there, you just need to open your eyes and see it.

 

 

Have you listened to Alan Watts?

 

 

Not in a long, long, long time. Like 20 years to be exact. Except for "The Book", which I read a couple years ago. That book was quite profound.

 

No, regardless of what Watts might've said, there's no path, you are already here.

 

Aaron