Approval seeking and Wu wei

[Marblehead]

I'm agnostic personally, but I'm trying to figure out why a Christian and a Muslim came to a Wu wei thread in a Taoist Discussion forum to argue about a Hebrew god... It almost sounds like the setup for a joke.

 

Two guys walk into a bar... I would have thought the second guy would have ducked.

Funny. You caused some belly laughs.

[winniepooh_ank]

Dear Et-thoughts,

 

 

Your sentences still do not make any sense at all, your words resemble a jelly fish, one tries to hold it, but slips away.

Edited October 12, 2012 by winniepooh_ank

[Marblehead]

I could not understand Sir.

Keep on trying, my friend. ET is sometime difficult to understand.

 

I will say that you and your comments are welcome on the board but we do try to stay on topic. I realize that you are trying to compare the Taoist concept of "wu wei" with your beliefs. No problem, the Christians and the Buddhist members here do the same.

 

But understand that there are those of us who will call you out if you intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent Taoism and its various schools of beliefs.

 

And, of course, we Taoists do not have a Hebrew God. Taoisn is of Chinese roots.

[winniepooh_ank]

Keep on trying, my friend. ET is sometime difficult to understand.

 

I will say that you and your comments are welcome on the board but we do try to stay on topic. I realize that you are trying to compare the Taoist concept of "wu wei" with your beliefs. No problem, the Christians and the Buddhist members here do the same.

 

But understand that there are those of us who will call you out if you intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent Taoism and its various schools of beliefs.

 

And, of course, we Taoists do not have a Hebrew God. Taoisn is of Chinese roots.

 

Dear Sir,

 

Between 1992-2007, but more specifically between 2004-2007, I spent a great amount of time and money on Taoism, I even actually have attended two seminars of Mr. David Verdesi in 2006 & 2007 respectively.

 

During all these years, I have seen many forms of Taoism but I have not seen a common, accepted definition of Taoism. And of course, I am well aware of Chinese origins of Taoism, in fact I have not written anything against it.

 

I do not like the term "Hebrew" God. If you want to refer God as in all three Abrahamic religions, may I suggest to use the term as "God" only?

Edited October 12, 2012 by winniepooh_ank

[Marblehead]

Dear Sir,

 

Between 1992-2007, but more specifically between 2004-2007, I spent a great amount of time and money on Taoism, I even actually have attended two seminars of Mr. David Verdesi in 2006 & 2007 respectively.

 

During all these years, I have seen many forms of Taoism but I have not seen a common, accepted definition of Taoism. And of course, I am well aware of Chinese origins of Taoism, in fact I have not written anything against it.

 

I do not like the term "Hebrew" God. If you want to refer God as in all three Abrahamic religions, may I suggest to use the term as "God" only?

I am pretty sure I will not be using the phrase "Hebrew God" any time in the future and I used it only because it had been previously used. We Atheists don't normally talk about gods of any form.

 

What the different schools of Taoism have in common is that they all have their roots in Chinese culture and Shamanism. Prior to Lao Tzu it was not called Taoism even though the word "Tao" had been coined a long time prior.

 

Indeed, you have not written anything against it. This is good. We do try hard to be tolerant of others' belief systems here.

 

Anyhow, nice to hear that you have some grounded knowledge in Taoism, whichever school you studied under.

 

A definition of Taoism? I have none. There are many on the internet. I like the word Nature or Natural. Of course, my most preferred is "Tzujan".

[winniepooh_ank]

I could use the term tetragrammaton if you are offended by the use of the term Hebrew.

 

 

I also don't mind the term god, but "God" presumes an acceptance of the Abrahamic beliefs. They were all borrowed from a polytheistic Sumerian source anyway and made monotheistic to suit the culture of the time making the whole matter a bit moot. The stories are much older than the religions themselves. Nevertheless, none of this is in any way related to the topic at hand.

 

 

 

There is no difference between the terms "YHWH" and "Hebrew God" as they imply Judaism. And yes, I am offended because I believe God is every human's God not just Hebrews'

 

I strongly disagree that the term God is borrowed from Sumerian sources (3000 B.C. or even 4000-4500 B.C.). The prophet Noah and the flood for instance, is much older. I have to agree that this is not related with the topic.

Edited October 12, 2012 by winniepooh_ank

[Marblehead]

And now, since my comedy seems to be more popular than my rational arguments today, here's one just for Sinfest:

 

A horse walks into a bar. The bartender says "Why the long face"?

Shouldn't that be "A pony walks into ..."?

[Marblehead]

Anyway, I suggest, once again, that approval seeking is counter to the state of wu wei.

[winniepooh_ank]

I am pretty sure I will not be using the phrase "Hebrew God" any time in the future and I used it only because it had been previously used. We Atheists don't normally talk about gods of any form.

 

What the different schools of Taoism have in common is that they all have their roots in Chinese culture and Shamanism. Prior to Lao Tzu it was not called Taoism even though the word "Tao" had been coined a long time prior.

 

Indeed, you have not written anything against it. This is good. We do try hard to be tolerant of others' belief systems here.

 

Anyhow, nice to hear that you have some grounded knowledge in Taoism, whichever school you studied under.

 

A definition of Taoism? I have none. There are many on the internet. I like the word Nature or Natural. Of course, my most preferred is "Tzujan".

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

I certainly agree that Taoism has Shamanic origins. But as Shamanism is often misunderstood in the West, please allow me to explain a few words about it.

 

Shamanism is not a religion. Shaman is mainly the leader, sometimes military commander and warrior , but mostly the healer of the tribe. I am Turkish and the ancient religion of Turks (many thousand years ago in Central Asia and today's China) were a monotheistic, Kok Tengri (Holy God) religion. Ancient Turks also practiced shamanism mainly for healing and attracting the divine energies (nur) of God from higher realms. (The same God in Abrahamic religions)

Edited October 12, 2012 by winniepooh_ank

[winniepooh_ank]

Anyway, I suggest, once again, that approval seeking is counter to the state of wu wei.

 

When you say "state of Wu-Wei" which meaning do you refer to? If you are referring to meanings such as "non-action" or even "effortless action", I agree with you.

 

If you are referring to meaning "action which does not create karma" I have to disagree

[winniepooh_ank]

If you understand that karma is a result of unfulfilled desire then it would be hard to argue that seeking approval would not also be counter to the principle of Wu wei under any of the definitions you listed. If you desire approval then you are in a state of unfulfilled desire until the need for approval has been met or attachment to it has been released.

 

 

I am sorry, but mainly actions create karma instead of unfulfilled desires. I do not understand how an unfulfilled desire will create karma?

 

For instance, for a married man,

 

Case 1: You have a desire to have sex with a beautiful lady who is not your spouse. (I gave the example to be much more easy for Taoists to understand) but you do not have sex because it will be adultery and a sin.

 

Case 2: You have a desire to have sex with the same beautiful lady who is not your spouse, and you fulfilled your desire and have sex with her although you are aware that it is adultery and a sin.

 

Which case causes karma?

 

My answer: Case no 2 will create much much more karma than Case no 1

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[Stosh]

From wikipedia

 

Proselytizing (//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Loudspeaker.svg/11px-Loudspeaker.svg.png /ˈprɒsɨlɨtaɪzɨŋ/) is the act of attempting to convert people to another religion or opinion. The word proselytize is derived ultimately from the Greek language prefix προσ- (toward) and the verb ἔρχομαι (to come) in the form of προσήλυτος (a new comer).^[1] Historically in the Koine Greek Septuagint and New Testament, the word proselyte denoted a gentile who was considering conversion to Judaism. Though the word proselytism originally referred to Early Christianity (and earlier Gentiles), it now refers to any religions' or religious individuals' attempts to convert people to their beliefs or even any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not.

 

 

Thats in response to an earlier rhetorical question , but

It doesnt mean that the contributions of non taoists are verboten.

Yet it still seems an appropriate response when someone says they have no real interest in Taoism or gaining from it ... in that situation the information is really only intended to go one way,

from the person who claims his humility to the person who has it.

 

Stosh

Edited October 12, 2012 by Stosh

[winniepooh_ank]

From wikipedia

 

Proselytizing (//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Loudspeaker.svg/11px-Loudspeaker.svg.png /ˈprɒsɨlɨtaɪzɨŋ/) is the act of attempting to convert people to another religion or opinion. The word proselytize is derived ultimately from the Greek language prefix προσ- (toward) and the verb ἔρχομαι (to come) in the form of προσήλυτος (a new comer).^[1] Historically in the Koine Greek Septuagint and New Testament, the word proselyte denoted a gentile who was considering conversion to Judaism. Though the word proselytism originally referred to Early Christianity (and earlier Gentiles), it now refers to any religions' or religious individuals' attempts to convert people to their beliefs or even any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not.

 

 

Thats in response to an earlier rhetorical question , but

It doesnt mean that the contributions of non taoists are verboten.

Yet it still seems an appropriate response when someone says they have no real interest in Taoism or gaining from it ... in that situation the information is really only intended to go one way,

from the person who claims his humility to the person who has it.

 

Stosh

 

 

We are discussing karma and do you really believe that any body could be persuaded to change his/her religion after reading this forum. Or have you seen me trying to convert any body from his/her religion or belief system to my religion/belief system?

Do not make me laugh.

 

Besides, in Holy Quran, Sura 109, Ayet 6 : You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.

 

Nobody, even prophet Muhammed does not have the authority to force anything. One just can tell his belief. It is up to every body to choose their religion.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[Marblehead]

When you say "state of Wu-Wei" which meaning do you refer to? If you are referring to meanings such as "non-action" or even "effortless action", I agree with you.

 

If you are referring to meaning "action which does not create karma" I have to disagree

Well, I don't hold to the concept of Karma so that one is out.

 

Yes, "non-action" is a condition within sthe state of wu wei as is "effortless action". I would also add "action without alterior intent". (Like pulling a child out of the way of an on-coming vehicle. Only intent being to save the child.)

 

Edit:

 

Hehehe. It was only a couple days ago someone suggested that it was Marblehead's karma to not believe in karma. That didn't help but it caused me a bit of laughter so it was good.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Marblehead

[winniepooh_ank]

If man recognizes the desire as a temptation that seeks to cause a separation from spouse who they love with all their being... there may be no karma associated to the situation... regardless of the action being 'adultery and a sin' or 'permitted by the law' out of love to their spouse a man will abstain from such action...

 

Finally I am understanding your English? Thanks God!

 

If he does not commit adultery, then we are in Case 1. Will Karma be created in Case 1? or under which conditions will there be karma for this case? This is definitely a function of what is happening in his heart. Even if he does not commit the sin, there will be a point of rust in his heart. This rust is smaller than the rust of Case 2 definitely, but still there will be a rust.

 

"Rust in the heart" is a term used in Holy Quran. Sure No 83, Sure Name:Al-Mutaffifin (The Defrauders) Ayet No:14 "Nay, but their hearts are corroded by all [the evil] that they were wont to do!" (that which they were earning has covered their hearts with rust": implying that their; persistence in wrongdoing has gradually deprived them of all consciousness of moral responsibility and, hence, of the ability to visualize the fact of God's ultimate judgment.)

 

If you continue doing evil things, these points of rust cover all the heart. This is a very sad situation for a human being.

Edited October 13, 2012 by winniepooh_ank

[winniepooh_ank]

Both cases create karma. It is silly to talk about sin in the same context as talking about karma. They are not from related systems and you are putting morality into something that has nothing to do with morality. Taoism has no hang ups about sex as far as I am aware.

 

One is drawn into the cycles of karma until they learn the lessons attached to their desires and become free of them. In a localized sense (for those who take a more materialist conception of the world) this can apply to the events of an individual's present incarnation. In a globalized sense (for those who believe in reincarnation) this can apply to one's series of incarnations on their path to spiritual enlightenment.

 

One's karma is as big/much as it takes them to reach a place of no attachment. For a particularly stubborn individual a particular karma may take ten times longer to resolve than for a more flexible or insightful individual. When you have no attachment you are no longer drawn into the cycles and that karma is complete. How do you justify saying that one generates (much much) more karma than another when the impact varies by individual?

 

Sir,

 

I hope there is an insult policy of this forum. Please watch your mouth and do not call any body as "silly" I am defending that karma and sin are inter related. You disagree? Fine! But you do not have the right to say an insult. If you are a civilized man of course.

 

Taoist schools have a great variety of applications about sex. In some sects or schools, sex is strictly prohibited as it will ruin the certain practices of that particular school. Some schools defend a way of cultivation together with your partner. So there is no one approach to sex in Taoism. But it is not a taboo as in Western culture if this is what you meant by "Taoism has no hang ups about sex."

 

The cases which had been mentioned is for the same married man. So changes from individual to individual is not a variable in this example. I repeat: The same person! Is it clear now?

 

You are stating the common definiton of karma when you say: "One is drawn into the cycles of karma until they learn the lessons attached to their desires and become free of them." I certainly disagree with this definition. For many years, I believed the same sentence and even tried to find ways to clear my karma that I inherited from my past lives. I am smiling now at these concepts. Nonsense. Have you cleared any of your karma? Or have you seen anybody who has cleared his/her karma either from his/her present life and/or past lives? Have you? Forget to clear your karma, could you state, just state one of your karma either from this life or from your past lives? Can anybody know one of his/her karma? Just an example?

 

If karma is a result of unfulfilled desires, as everybody including you claim in this forum, then, for instance, Mother Teresa could have generated more karma than Adolf Hitler, in case Mother Teresa has more unfulfilled desires than Adolf Hitler. Teoretically, this may happen? Does it make sense?

Edited October 13, 2012 by winniepooh_ank

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[winniepooh_ank]

'winniepooh_ank'

 

The silly belittling comment someone else made in a post, could reflect a desperate invitation on their part to put aside the point without dew consideration. Consider that 'the insult you perceived' may have been something else. Was it an insult?

 

Lets focus on the topic of karma and what you said. Yes I have cleared some of my karma :-), well actually it was more like I just accepted and consented to it than me doing it but indeed some if not all of my karma was cleared ... of course right after that I gotten more karma... ignorance, hate, fear rather than understanding love peace each constitute a kind of karma... addictions predispositions tendencies as well as habits be examples of karma.. even such things as temper selfishness generosity could be examples of karma... Heck hygiene or lack of it, creates karma... until one learns to clean oneself one is exposed to all sort of pathogens spiritual-mental-physical-emotional-energetic... and to push this topic towards the thread focus... I wonder if we do what we do seeking something in return? maybe one does what one does because its the natural thing to to...

 

Dear Et-thoughts,

 

Yes, indeed it was an insult.

 

You made some comments but I think they have nothing to do with karma.

 

By the way, could you please let us know, what nationality are you? I got curious.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[winniepooh_ank]

Well for what it is worth I saw it differently and see it differently. My intention here is to get you to see that you can see 'the insult' as 'a desperate act to put aside the point without dew consideration'... and depending on what you consider what you do changes. This is a bit related to the notion of " I think they have nothing to do with karma" vs " The statements have nothing to do with karma"..

 

When I first got exposed to 'karma' it created quite a conflict within my belief system, that was until I considered the whole thing in a different context. Rather than look at it as past lives, and reincarnation I focused on this life... that 'the egoist' would be drawn into the egoist ways throughout their life until they learned the lesson. The same for the 'tempered- ones' 'shy-ones' 'suspicious-ones' and other 'lessons'. The sooner one learns to share and not be taken advantage of the better :-) The sooner one learns to deal with certain emotions the better... Some can learn it right now... some take many many experiences and even then they refuse to learn... forever choosing to live within their ignorance and suffering rather than embracing true knowledge and appreciating it all. Hope this helps you and other to perceive how the comments I made do relate to karma...

 

I think that knowing nationalities can distract from focusing on the issues, though some can focus on the issues regardless of who they talk to... most of the time I find that its a bit counterproductive. In fact in a way thats quite related to the topic of this thread Approval seeking... does the messenger alter the message? Do we believe more some messengers than others? do we believe welcome only certain messages and certain messengers?

 

Dear Et-thoughts,

 

I undestand the impact that notion of karma has brought to your belief system.

 

I would like to look at the topic from an different angle. Could you tell me what the purpose having many incarnations in this world? Let me give my view.

 

The reason for many reincarnations is spiritual evolution. You may think this world as a school. But then next question: What is the curriculum of this school, called "world"?

 

Our world and us are created by the energies of God's 99 Beautiful Names. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Islam)

 

The curriculum of all the reincarnations is to get the energies of God's names into our soul. For instance, Al-Adl,(The Utterly Just) A person has to learn the meaning of being just, justice. If you do not live respecting the notion of justice, if you kill somebody in one of your lives, you can go to jail to learn the concept of justice. He can learn this lesson from the hard way. Or he can be a good guy, he does not kill, he does not steal, etc. and learn the lesson of justice and being just. Meanwhile, if he kills somebody, he can or cannot be killed in one of his future life, depending on his evolution not only in this world but also in his afterlife as evolution also continues after the death.

[winniepooh_ank]

I have to call into question your comprehension of what I said. If you will kindly take the time to read more carefully you will notice that I indicated that talking about two completely unrelated ideas as though they were linked was a silly action. I made no reference to you in any way, so I am not clear on how you would take this as a form of personal insult. If you honestly take personal offense to what I have said I strongly suggest you use the report function for my post and allow a moderator to review the content.

 

Your comprehension of unfulfilled desires also appears to be lacking in this case. Please allow me to use your example of Hitler and Mother Teresa to illustrate the fundamental mechanism at work here:

 

Hitler wanted a world in which an entire race of people, who he held responsible for countless ills of society, was wiped out. If this cannot be taken as a desire to change the face of the world he was in I do not know what could. He was so attached to the ideal that he held that he was willing to oppress countless people and cause the deaths of countless more. This is unfulfilled desire in its purest form. He was not governed by any rational force in his pursuit, only pure attachment. This attachment not only generated horrible karma for him, but for many other as well.

 

Mother Teresa impacted the world in a positive way through what could only be described as selfless acts of charity. Unless you intend to argue that she secretly coveted vast material wealth as she was helping so many people your argument does not stand at all. This is a relatively pure form of non attachment and compassion.

 

I hope that these explanations are able to help illustrate this matter more clearly for you. I also hope that you make an ernest attempt to understand this rather than trying to indicate some form of personal attack where obviously none exists.

 

You have made a personal insult and you are not brave enough either to defend it or to accept it and apologize. Thus, this incident is not worth reporting.

 

No one has the ability to see the hearts of Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa, Thus your explanations mean nothing. I have nothing to understand from the views of a person like you

Edited October 13, 2012 by winniepooh_ank