Taoist Meditations [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

Sacoche

10-16-2005, 09:45 PM

Little man - lol

Hmm, I would consider a little man is who makes up sh@t in order for people to think they have something that they do not.
Be it your Shifu or your Shifus teacher or so on. Someone is a liar and a fraud, and I feel for you and everyone else that has fallen for this.
For one thing it is know that LaoTzu was not a practitioner of martial arts - lol, he was a scholar and some believe a practitioner of local ritual. Most of all, Taoists believe he was actually Taishang Laojun, which his only student was the founder of Taoism himself.
What in the hell does Damo have to do with LaoTzu, because they were both Chinese - lol
That is to say I know a great martial art that was handed down from Jesus, well it was actually Peter's brothers, cousins, next door neighbors friends kung fu, but they have heard of Jesus so lets give good ol Jesus props due to he is the one better known and I absolutely cannot think of any other names as of right now.
If you feel offended,you shouldnt be unless you are the one making this junk up. Every time I turn around I see some guy claiming some false lineage putting the word Tao or Taoism with it, makes me sick to say the least.
As for meditation. You being from such a great lineage, why in the world would you have to ask about meditation. Matter of fact from your posts it seems that you are quite miss-informed, and you can thank me for the little help that I did give you in a previous post so you dont continue to hurt yourself.
If I were you I would not take my post personally. It may seem that I may be attacking you but i am not, just opening your eyes and trying to save you a bit of time. I personally have been in the same boat as you and I wish someone was a blunt as I am to scoot me along.

As for the styles I practice: Pure Yang, Dark Red Palm and Yang Tai Chi Chuan.

Good day to you -

Sach wrote this

To say the least I was quite shocked to see that page and the bull it spewed. I showed my teacher and he almost fell down from laughing, not at your site, just from the fact of the claim. Shamefull!!!

Then replies to this:

I am not a Taoist but have studied Taoist martial arts, the philosophy and religion for many years and I will tell you right now that Lao-Tzu IS very real to Taoists and lay people alike.

lol

Why dont you wanna even CONSIDER the fact that MAYBE this system dates back to a couple of Lao Tzus senior disciples?

Why cant a system date back to Lao Tzu, some trace there to Da mo so whats up with that?

You trying to say that my Sifu put together Wun Yuen Yut Hei Jurng?

Wow, you are incredable, you sorry little man......good on you and good luck to you. What style do you practise by the way?

I didnt come here to announce my lineage of wun yuen but to talk about meditation. I am not trying to make believers from anyone just dont assume you know what i do cause abviously you dont!!

goodbye
Lao Tzu :p

Willow Palm

10-17-2005, 02:29 AM

I don't want to bang on anyone wether their lienage is valid or not. I would be interested if anyone is in the know on taoist fire breathing? I've heared it's described much like the golden light meditation out of Ding-Ming Dao's book, "Scholar Warrior."
Any heard of it? Good, bad?

Willow Palm

10-17-2005, 02:30 AM

Sacoche

10-17-2005, 05:21 PM

Very good if properly practiced and guided.

Fiercest Tiger - After re-reading my posts I would like to offer you a sincere apology for making you think that I was attacking you, that is not the case.

fiercest tiger

10-17-2005, 06:05 PM

I dont understand why you cant understand or think that 2 students of Lao Tzu couldnt design a healing system using Lao Tzu's natuarl Tao philosphy? You saying Lao Tzu didnt meditate or do any internal work? Wun Yuen is formost a healing art as well can be used for fighting, so If Lao Tzu was a master of Tao then i guarentee that he was a master in Internal works of the body and chi!

As talking bad of my sifu and sigung is not called for especially when you havent even seen or spoken to someone in person of this system. The system has a old 7 character poem that is very daoist in not just internal alchemy but alot of how the universe began and the start of life. Similar to the Dao De Ching in some ways!

Anyway im not after people to believe me but maybe you should be alittle more open to views and respect other peoples arts somewhat.

What system do you learn or teach you never answered me?

FT

Scott R. Brown

10-17-2005, 07:22 PM

What in the hell does Damo have to do with LaoTzu, because they were both Chinese

I hate to nit-pick, but Damo was from India!

Sacoche

10-17-2005, 07:26 PM

I hate to nit-pick, but Damo was from India!

LOL - your right, I just go carried away - LOL:o

Maybe better put - They are both fore fathers of Chinese traditions.

Scott R. Brown

10-17-2005, 07:30 PM

I thought as much since it is basically common knowledge.

I do share your healthly skepticim!

Sacoche

10-17-2005, 08:01 PM

Fiercest Tiger,

I answered in a previous post.

My main styles are Pure Yang, Dark Red Palm, and Yang Tai Chi Chuan. I am not a teacher, I would be horrible :D
In the past I have studied Xinyi, Xingyi, Bagua, Red Hair, Lu Long Hsing Pai and various Taoist Kungfu. All of these styles I never took the time to learn correctly, the teachers were there and I decided to take advantage of it - good times indeed.
I learned Dark Red Palm and Pure Yang from the late Joe Lai Shifu and various WuTang masters he set me up with. As for Yang style, various teachers like Terry W. Shifu(Lie Feng Taoren) to Yang Zhenduo Shifu.

Sorry but it is very hard for me to believe your stuff is legit - to be blunt. If it has a poem that is great, but I could make you a great lineage poem in about two seconds flat.
What sect did your style come from? This is usually known if there happens to be a poem. If I remember right your site said no one knows where exactly the style derived from, but yet you have a poem that is a derivative of a particular sect - doesnt add up to me.
As for your teachers, hmm, I apologize, I understand how you can become defensive over them, but man it kills me when people need to throw Tao, Taoist and Taoism into the mix just to get recognition of some sort.

Personally I am not a Taoist, so dont feel that you are being persecuted here. I grew up in China and my family was a part of a local "Cult" popular Chinese religion temple. When we moved here I like many others learn about Christianity and other beliefs. I consider myself nothing and have full respect for all beliefs if they are real;)

Blacktiger

10-17-2005, 10:35 PM

I had a look at that website a while ago it talks of "six unions".

Just sounds like 6 harmonies to me. But no listing on forms or lineage :confused:

fiercest tiger

10-17-2005, 10:38 PM

Hello,

I cant read chinese but im getting it translated, anyway like i have said im not out to make believers just like your dark red palm etc i have never heard of it so i cant say it real and i have never seen your poems?!:P

http://www.waterboxing.com/history6.html This is my sifu here, he just was given the Seal or Chop for the wun yuen system as the next inheritor of the art.

Anyway what ever floats your boat dude! Wutang martial arts is also made up and not as oure as what you think so we can play this silly game all day. What matters is we all should be able to question a art and system but at least try and have an open mind. Ill ask my sifu if he can ask sigung in hongkong if there is a sect. I dont know if Lao Tzu had a sect as he was a natural type of Taoist philospher OR does he belong to any particular sect.

I heard there is a Primordial Chao's Black Turtle sect or something maybe it belongs to a primordial sect?

I hope to get an answer for you to clear up the stuff i dont know!

Garry:eek:

fiercest tiger

10-17-2005, 10:42 PM

Hi BlackTiger

Alot of internal arts use 6 Unisions to explain the connection of body, mind, chi, void etc doesnt mean its a LHBF thing or anything. YKM also use the Luk Hup too!

Anyway hows life in Melobourne and training?

FT:)

TAO YIN

10-22-2005, 12:36 AM

Sacoche,

Hello. I just have a few questions, I hope that you do not mind. I try to keep things as objective as possible, I hope you will do the same.

Daojiao Fenghuo :) Huxi....Zhe shi shenme? Please, tell me its principles and which sect you learned it from. You speak as if you know, let's compare notes. For example, what is the first thing that you learn to do in coordination with the breath in? It's the defining principle of the style. You know what I speak of, correct? I assume that you know what I am speaking of, so, my question is simple. Why do it this way if there is basically no way to transform it so that it returns in the opposite direction?

First, you attack FT's lineage and tell him that he is wrong, then you give him an apology, then you attack his lineage again, albeit in a more decent manner...That is, very taoist, to say the least, so I will not fault you for it. Also, you grew up in the most circularly logical speaking country in the world, but your words here are straight and to the point. Since I am into straight and to the point, I will also not fault you for this. Like I said, Objective...Please.

Ruguo ni xiang shuo, "Tamen zuo de fangfa bu dui." Please, please tell us what is correct.

Hao bu hao?

Not everyone here is a 250, and not everyone here is a standing flower either. So, save computer face and tell me the objective answer because you have been called on it.

fiercest tiger

10-22-2005, 07:48 PM

Tao,

When people dont know they automatically dismiss it as truth or reality.

Opened mind is better then a closed mine or egotistical mind.

FT:)

TaiChiBob

10-28-2005, 11:21 AM

Greetings..

It's ALL Tao, brothers and sisters.. the only variable is our awareness of it.. if your focus is on "sects and lineage" i suggest your awareness is less than favorable.. the writings attributed to Lao Tzu are timeless, not encumbered by sectarian squabbling and a reasonable guide to living in accord with the Tao.. IMHO, anyone or sect or style claiming exclusive rights to "Taoism" has serious awareness issues.. if you are bothered by the claims of others, clean your own house..

We are ALL wayward Taoists.. wayward according to the degree we deviate from the natural flow of things..

My experience leads me to conclude that a good meditation in Taoist perspectives would be empty, no visualizations, no contrived purposes.. simply calming the mind to accept the current experience in its unprejudiced unfolding.. at its best, the current experience is not followed by a response/reaction.. those conditions are not separate from the experience.. otherwise, the response/reaction is constantly interfering with the next experience as it unfolds.. i am awed by the few times when i can attain that state of being fully in the moment.. it's intoxicating.. no wonder the immortals were thought to be possessed.. there is great liberation when we free ourselves from artificial concepts..

Be well...

fiercest tiger

11-02-2005, 04:40 PM

We dont claim to be a sect ro any of that, you d!cks read as bad as i do, i said last time for the dummies, That 2 senior disciples of Lao Tzu created this system. How f@cking hard is that to understand?

I am the TAO...lol you guys need to take a long sh!t and smell it sometime...lol You all like to judge when you dont know sh!t...

:mad:

TaiChiBob

11-03-2005, 05:48 AM

Greetings..

I am the TAO...lol you guys need to take a long sh!t and smell it sometime...lol You all like to judge when you dont know sh!t... Considering the irony and contradiction in that statement as evidence of the author's experience of Tao speaks for itself..

Exactly how does a dialogue regarding "Taoist meditations" end up as an emotional debate over lineages, styles and teachers? Trying to convince someone that your particular experience of Tao has more validity than that of another is laughable, at best.. The way we perceive others is simply a reflection of the energy we project.. the sensory input we receive from others is prejudiced by our own evaluation of the input, we paint the input in our favorite colors.. if we see conflict, it is because we prefer conflict.. if we see the experiences of others claiming Tao as unworthy, it is because we are concerned that our own experiences are unworthy..

Those that i have met that best exemplify my understanding of Tao, have no issues with the experiences of others.. their understanding is evident in the lives they live, in the elegant simplicity of accepting the universe as it is, not as they would manipulate it to be.. and, that includes manipulating others to accept their point of view..

Be well..

fiercest tiger

11-03-2005, 07:23 PM

Exactly thats why you are here too! lol

Maybe you might wanna practise what you preech, rather then bag what i say and make things up to look like you know what is right and what is not.

This goes for the most of you, remember to wipe your asses too!

FT

TaiChiBob

11-04-2005, 05:29 AM

Greetings..

Maybe you might wanna practise what you preech, rather then bag what i say and make things up to look like you know what is right and what is not. To be clear, i have no idea what is "right" or wrong.. but, i can evaluate the possible consequences of my actions and choose the most beneficial for the most people.. i'll leave the judgements of "right/wrong" to those concerned with such matters.. and, i don't consider my postings to be "preeching" (preaching), i am simply offering my personal point of view for whatever value others may find in it.. as i said in my previous post, if someone sees it as "preeching", it is likely because that is their own nature..

Be well..

Scott R. Brown

11-04-2005, 05:49 AM

Hi, fiercest tiger,

If your practice is worthwhile for you, then that is good! Just because others don’t agree with your school or question its history and validity does not detract from the value it has in your life; unless you depend upon the consensus of others to validate it for you. Keep that in mind the validity of your school is found in how you benefit from it not from the agreement you receive from others!

Years ago I came across a Chinese proverb that read: “A thousand monks, a thousand religions!” Not everyone experiences the same events or interprets the same teachings identically. We all bring our own perspective to our experiences. Yours experiences are valid to you and many of us appreciate you sharing them. On these boards, all of our comments are subject to critical review and comment. However, not all comments are intended to slight; some are for the purpose of edification, gaining information and understanding.

If we approach uncomfortable questions and circumstances with hostility then we are likely to receive hostility in return. This is not necessarily unproductive, but hostility tends to escalate when left unchecked by discipline. If our purpose is to create hostility then we get what we want. If our purpose it is to learn, share and benefit from our interactions, then disciplined actions will accomplish that goal much more effectively.

I will now humbly go wipe my A$$! ;)

fiercest tiger

11-04-2005, 08:21 AM

LMAO

:eek:

TAO YIN

11-04-2005, 10:18 AM

Bob,

You said: "Those that i have met that best exemplify my understanding of Tao, have no issues with the experiences of others.. their understanding is evident in the lives they live, in the elegant simplicity of accepting the universe as it is, not as they would manipulate it to be.. and, that includes manipulating others to accept their point of view.."

Just a nit-pick here. I won't nit-pick your other words or post because it would take too long...Now, with "those that you have met who best exemplify..." With their doing so they have manipulated others. You know that right?

TaiChiBob

11-04-2005, 12:03 PM

Greetings..

TAO YIN: As i see it.. Manipulate implies intent to change.. those that i have met that best exemplify Tao, as i understand it, were unconcerned with the beliefs of others.. your suggection of their manipulation seems more like an intent to "emulate" by an observer, rather than the observer being manipulated..

Be well..

TAO YIN

11-04-2005, 12:38 PM

Bob,

I understand what you typed. However, as I see it, those who best exemplified, no matter who they are, were manipulated into thinking their thoughts. They were manipulated by their parents, by their relatives, by their friends, by their enemies, by their society, and by their world as they knew it. Once they thought for themselves, they manipulated their minds into thinking they were thinking for themselves. They manipulated their thoughts to make them think they were thinking their own thoughts. They manipulated themself into thinking they were individuals free from ways other than TAO, which was an idea they used to help them express "their" idea, even if they were only expressing it to themselves. They manipulated you into thinking they were "non-manipulative," whether they intended to or not. Unless a person lives in a cave, he manipulates others somewhat whether he intends to or not. Unless a person is dead, he manipulates himself with the ways of the world that he perceives.:D

fiercest tiger

11-05-2005, 06:16 AM

Bobby,

Where and who did you study Taiji from?

Scott R. Brown

11-05-2005, 07:49 AM

Hi TAO YIN,

Your view is very interesting. It seems to be primarily focused on determinism and avoids the concept of free will. If we focus only on Yang principles our interpretation of phenomena will be colored by that perspective. Life is a balance between Yin and Yang, therefore a one-sided view only provides us with half the picture.

While it is true our worldviews are influenced by our parents, significant others and environment, our individual personalities also influence the conclusions we will arrive at concerning reality. We are not at the sole mercy of our environment. Our experiences are interpreted according to what we bring to events. It is true that what we bring to events has been provided to us in the form of conditioning; however we may choose whether we wish to accept that conditioning or modify it according to our own natures. We may evaluate our conditioning and experiences and modify the conclusions we come to in light of our own personality attributes.

Whereas you seem to consider life a series of manipulations I prefer to view it as a series of influences or, dynamic interactions. There is a perpetual dynamic interaction between me and world, I affect the world and it affects me. Everything influences or affects everything else, but that is not the same thing as everything “determining” or “manipulating” everything else. In any circumstance there are always choices to be made that affect the consequent events. The choices I make are determined by many factors, not just my previous experiences and knowledge. Emotions, intuitions and how I chose to interpret events also affect how I react. It is the spontaneous confluence of these qualities the affect how I will respond to any event and thus influence the various consequent events.

I experience events and have interactions with others, but how they influence me is determined by how I choose to interpret these circumstances. The more responsibility I take for my attitudes and reactions the more freedom is expressed when choosing my own responses. The more I see myself as a victim of circumstances beyond my control the less freedom I experience. There is some security emotionally in viewing the world as mechanized phenomena, we do not have to take responsibility for our own actions and their consequences, but this view is born out of fear and pessimism. It takes courage to take responsibility for our attitudes and actions, because then we are responsible for the consequences of our own actions. If I am responsible for the consequences of my own actions I must modify myself rather than the world in order to experience the consequences I find favorable.

TaiChiBob

11-05-2005, 09:07 AM

Greetings..

TAO YIN: We are what we have chosen to be.. and, the beauty of it is that we are free to choose again and again.. I see no manipulations in my life, some poor choices at times.. we are each masters of our own destinies, too many fear the responsibility and let someone else take command (but, even that is a self-determined fate).. By your posted words i sense your use of manipulation to be akin to my own sense of "inspiration", influence, self-awareness, etc.. My own definition of manipulation, relative to this thread, includes a distinct intent to change something from what it was to what is desired AND the willingness to use unfair or deceptive means to achieve the desired goal. So, perhaps we differ in our use or intended meaning of the word "manipulate"..

Previously, i used the phrase "their understanding is evident in the lives they live, in the elegant simplicity of accepting the universe as it is, not as they would manipulate it to be.. and, that includes manipulating others to accept their point of view.." The people to which i refer,would respond politely if questioned about their philosophical points of view.. but, they would never ask of someone regarding the same.. theirs is not an "Intent" to convert, they hardly ever use negative terminology and even less likely to comment on someone else's belief systems.. I'm just speculating, but.. it sounds like you feel that you've been manipulated, or.. maybe you are proficient at manipulating others.. in either case it is through your set of experiences that you assign the concept of manipulation to the experiences of others, regardless of their interpretation of "their" experience.. It is unreasonable to assign your value of manipulation to the experiences of others and expect agreement.. for them it may be a simple choice..

Be well..

TAO YIN

11-06-2005, 12:00 AM

Scott,

Hello. How do you know that is my true view, if my view truly opposes what I previously wrote, or if I have a viewpoint? Because I used words that you can read in order to try to understand my thoughts? Okay, I’m just playing but you see what I mean? The way you wrote your words, you still break it down as yin or yang, good or bad. From what you wrote I realize you understand this, but I will go ahead and say… If you only focus on the ability to choose by way of free will throughout life’s experiences, then you are not focusing on the ability to manipulate the experience so as to soothe your basic desires.

Aside from our basic human needs of water, food, and shelter; we are either doing one of the two or sitting in the middle. With regards to what I wrote and what you wrote, even if you choose to modify an event so that it conforms to however it is you want to think or feel, you are still manipulating that event so that it plays on your personality’s desires. You are choosing, perhaps through concepts of right or wrong, yin or yang, and then telling yourself that is you and that is who you are. The little voices inside our head tell us we are doing something through choice when all we are doing is a simple human action.

Everyone answers to someone or something. Even if you are constantly sitting in the middle, making choices one day with regards to free will and right and wrong, and making choices the next day with regards to manipulating the event so that it soothes your desires, you are still answering to the concept of sitting in the middle. Taking responsibility for something is answering to someone, even if you’re answering yourself. You are following a role that someone or something has told you, or perhaps you told yourself, is either right or wrong. And after saying all of this, this might not be how I truly feel.

Bob,

Hi. You know what is funny, is the way that we use words in context to try to say something. Objective versus Subjective with English…what a riot! Why did you think of your choices as either good or bad? You are alive, and thinking what you are thinking now. Without those choices on that road, do you think you would be where and who you are now? I understand what you are saying with how you are using the word “manipulate” in relation to this thread. I don’t see manipulate as a “bad” word. Who decides what is unfair and what is unfair? Who decides what is deceptive and what is it truly? Let’s conduct a few simple field tests.

Do you pick that 20 dollar bill up and pocket it, turn it in, or walk past it? With the 20 dollar test, what is fair and what is unfair? With the 20 dollar test, what is deceptive and not deceptive? You are at a bar. This guy just came into the bar and called you out after stealing your wife. You tried to leave it be, but he still called you out, and has done so time and time again. He wants to go outside and “settle it like men.” Do you walk out with him and fight? Do you crack his head open as he walks out the door before you do? Or do you just say no, sit there, and keep drinking? What is fair? What isn’t? What is deceptive? What isn’t? Even if you decide to follow the Tao clouds in the middle and turn the other cheek, are you being fair to yourself? And in your doing so, aren’t you answering to someone that “chose” to tell you that is the correct thing to do? I have been manipulated and have manipulated. In those cases, I chose, even if on an unconscious level through my experiences, to choose to be manipulated. I also chose to manipulate.

Tis only words we give good or bad connotations to… Free will, experience, manipulate, desire, inspiration, blind, and the like.

fiercest tiger

11-06-2005, 01:29 AM

Bobby,

I think you need to re-read what you posted and learn to be more humble and respect others and then yourself.

Maybe your hippie look and wanna be Taoist isnt working for you, should cut that hair....I had a vision of you with a hippy look and long greyish hair! hahahha

Anyway "I AM THE TAO"

Scott R. Brown

11-06-2005, 05:35 AM

Hi TAO YIN,

I understand you may be playing, but I will comment regardless, because I enjoy doing so.

I can only comment on what you are writing, not on what is in your mind. There is no way for me to know what your TRUE views are as you have no way to know mine. All we may do is draw conclusions based upon our interpretation of what the other person is writing. Sometimes the conclusions we come to are accurate sometimes they are flawed. When I state, “Your view is very interesting. It seems to be primarily focused…” I am drawing conclusions based on my interpretation of what you have written. My interpretation is colored by my own worldview and your ability to accurately communicate your thoughts. I try to carefully express my conclusions using qualifiers such as the word “seems” to indicate that it is my present assessment based upon my interpretation of the information presented. It qualifies the following comments as current impressions and not definite conclusions. My comments are responses to my interpretation of what you write, I do not presume to know your motivations or what you “TRULY” believe. I merely draw inferences and respond!

Your statement that I have broken your comments down into “good and bad” by illustrating them in terms of Yin and Yang is not accurate. Your assumption is reasonable based upon the common understanding most people have of the principles of Yin-Yang. However, I do not subscribe to the common interpretation of Yin-Yang. I have written extensively on this subject on this BB in the past. Please feel free to do a search of my writings on the subject and comment as you feel inclined. It would not be appropriate to reprise it here.

However, to clarify my view concerning manipulation and influence, they are at times merely different labels of the same action and at other times not related at all. It is not necessarily the action (behavior), but the intent that determines which one is presently being employed.

For example: if I discipline my child by providing negative consequences for inappropriate actions it can be fairly said I am attempting to manipulate him. My purpose is to motivate him to choose to behave according to “specific” standards. The negative consequences I provide in this situation are both an influence and a manipulation. The two terms carry basically the same meaning here. Manipulation and influence in this circumstance may be defined as: actions performed with the intent of effecting a “specific” outcome. If my child does not perform the behaviors I intended, (the “specific” outcome) then my manipulation was ineffective and manipulation has not occurred.

When I inform my child that if he doesn’t study for his test he will likely get a poor grade and if I enumerate other expected ramifications of such actions, and then allow him make his own decision, my actions are merely an influence, not manipulation. This is due to the fact I am not intending a “specific” result to be effected. I am not attempting to get my child to choose an action I deem “best”. I am providing information and advice intended to allow the child ‘free will” to choose the consequences he is willing to experience. Under these circumstances it is important to note that the consequences are not determined by me, but are the culturally determined consequences arrived at by noting their cause and effect relationship to the actions performed (i.e. not studying = poor grades). My child will choose his actions and then experience the results of those actions. In this situation no one “made” him choose his actions. His decision may be influenced by possible consequences, but he has chosen which consequences he is willing to accept. He will decide for himself based upon the consequences he chooses to experience and will accept the benefits or deficits by understanding that he has a reasonable expectation they will occur. This is taking responsibility for ones actions. In this second example there is no manipulation taking place, merely choices presented contrasted with their expected outcome. The outcome cannot be said to be manipulating the choice because the child is free to make his own choice and accept what maybe considered negative consequences.

Something similar to this second scenario actually occurred with my 15 year old son in the past two weeks. He made a choice (without input from anyone else) knowing there would be negative consequences and accepted the negative consequences from that choice. He took responsibility for his choice. Fear of negative consequences did not manipulate him into making the choice he made, nor did a desire for positive consequences influence his decision. He weighed the benefits and the deficits he could expect and deemed the negative consequences worth enduring. He made a choice based upon his own standards that were at variance with those he was taught. He chose to be at variance to my manipulations which were intended to inspire him to receive good grades. My standards in this case neither influenced him, nor manipulated him.

I agree we all answer to some standard. But the questions are: Are we compelled against our will to accept the standards? Are we free to change our standards? Once we accept the standards, do the standards compel our behavior?

As children it can be fairly said that we are manipulated into learning proper conduct. That is we are taught with a “specific” result intended and with positive and negative consequences provided as motivation. This is the way children are raised. However, once we develop into adults we have the opportunity to accept or discard the standards we were compelled to accept as children. We may evaluate the codes we were conditioned to accept and modify them as we so choose. Once we have determined what our basic standards will be we then tend to conform our actions to those standards. But it is not those standards that manipulate us. We choose to accept those standards and we choose to conform our behaviors to those standards. We are also free to change our standards at any time. It is not the standards that compel our behavior, we choose our standards and we choose to conform to them.

Now it is also true that the standards we choose are influenced by the world system. I may accept the world is flat because that was how I was taught. Under these conditions my worldview has been manipulated by the prevailing views of the time in which I was raised. They had a “specific” goal and it was accomplished. They intended that I accept the world is flat, and I do. This is fairly termed manipulation! However, I am not compelled to accept this view. Many did not accept the flat world hypothesis. I may be influenced to accept the flat world view due to the prevailing social and cultural norms, but there is no actual compulsion. I may suffer some undesirable consequences if I speak too loudly in opposition to the prevailing view, but even if I outwardly accept the flat world view there is no compulsion for me to actually accept it privately. The authorities in this situation may attempt to manipulate me (that is, effect a “specific” result through social pressure), but since I do not accept the world is flat I experience their attempt to manipulate as merely an influence, not a compulsion. If the Manipulator’s desired (“specific”) result does not occur then there is no manipulation talking place, only the attempt to manipulate.

At any rate I “am” influenced by the prevailing world view even if I do not conform to it.

So we may conclude:

Manipulation is actions performed with the intent to effect a “specific” result. If the "specific"result occurs as a consequence of the action performed and the action performed was intended to create the “specific” result then manipulation has occurred. If an action is perform with the intent to effect a “specific” result and the result does not take place, then manipulation has not occurred. If an action designed to effect a "specific" result creates an undesired outcome as a consequence of that action, the action was an influence and not a manipulation. Manipulation is not present unless the intended (“specific”) outcome occurs as a result of the performed action.

Scott R. Brown

11-06-2005, 05:36 AM

Anyway "I AM THE TAO"

Who isn't?

TaiChiBob

11-06-2005, 08:42 AM

Greetings..

FT: Regular length hair, blonde/gray, 5'9", 153 lbs, 55 years in this body... I'm not a "wanna be Taoist ".. i refer to Taoism only because it most closely approximates my understanding of things.. i have no need to adhere to contrived ritualistic standards, neither does Tao.. It's a little confusing to see you caution some one else about humility, but.. i will take it under advisement..

FT: You asked of my training, so rather than type over again, check out this site: http://www.wudang.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?t=21

We are each aspects of Tao, and therefore Tao itself.. but, it is in our awareness of it that we best exemplify the Nature of Tao.. others know our awareness of Tao by our deeds, deeds are the signature of the soul..

Be well..

fiercest tiger

11-08-2005, 03:46 AM

Bob,

Okay so u have been training Taiji since 1994 and you like to push hands. Ive been Training Internal kung fu longer so who cares.

You come on and say my system isnt what it is in regards to history which isnt Daoist way telling me about the art i study which you have no Friggin idea of what so ever.

Do you have any clips of your taiji for me to view? Interested Chan piu taught as taiji?

FT

TaiChiBob

11-08-2005, 05:32 AM

Greetings..

FT: Read more carefully, i started Taiji training in 1989.. QiGong prior to that..

You come on and say my system isnt what it is in regards to history which isnt Daoist way telling me about the art i study which you have no Friggin idea of what so ever. I think you may be reading way too much into our dialogue, i have no idea of your system and wouldn't comment on such.. i may have commented on how you present your Taoist training on this forum .. the system you use may be the best, but.. even the best systems can't account for every student's idiosyncrasies..

As for clips, whatever possesses you to think that i would have any need or desire to share with you or anyone else that demonstrates such negative perspectives? Apparently, you read the history in the link, i've been judged by my peers and by recognized masters.. i simply have no further need for validation, i don't compete anymore.. my students do well and that is my primary concern, to pass this art on to others..

FT: You talk trash to others.. show some respect and you might get some respect.. otherwise, what goes around comes around.. a simple Taoist principle..

Be well..

fiercest tiger

11-08-2005, 06:24 PM

Your a D!CKHEAD, honestly you throw words around and never are you using the meaning around them. I dont want respect thats what im not here for but i like to share info, what you think of me i wouldnt give a toss but since its a forum and we are discussing i will view my point across and so far all you have done is bag myself and my system as well my sifu, INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY!

Where do you teach, what city?

I will be visiting the states next year so i would come and play your push hands indeedy! If talking is how you earn respect i will come to your school and earn respect from showing and feeling you my systems hands, is that ok? This is not a challenge but if you think you can throw this thread back into my face i have no more to say but to show you personally how my system works? Other then that if you dont want this i wont push it any further but please dont think you are higher then anyone else cause you done some demos and one a friggin place in pushhands. lol

ive fought and won, demo'd and won, heal people, im also high in my system and my peers respect me again who cares. You are a **** bob!!!!

FT

Scott R. Brown

11-08-2005, 08:54 PM

Hi FT,

You must recall that this whole issue came about when Sacoche started to question the lineage of the art you practice. Your devotion to your instructor is to be admired, but in truth the claims you make concerning its history are pretty fantastic, un-provable and frankly improbable. You accept them because you accept the authority of your instructor. Most of us do not, so we feel free to question it. Truth will withstand hard questioning, but so will blind faith. While Truth will stand on its own due to its inherent nature, blind faith will just ignore what it doesn’t want to face.

To be fair we don’t know your instructor, but the claims of your art’s history ARE open to question. The questionable history does not necessarily detract from your art’s effectiveness and neither does it necessarily call into question your instructor’s character. He may be just passing on what he was taught by his instructor, but if he did make it up then his character IS open to question. No one said liars can't fight, but character matters to most of us and we would rather not learn and train with a disingenuous instructor. I know first hand about disingenuous instructors and I am sure many others who participate here do as well. Many people consider it a favor to shed light on seemingly incredible claims. They perceive their actions as edifying and do not intend insult. Not everyone intends their comments to be a personal slight!

Your reason for starting this thread was well founded. You wanted to share and learn about your recent meditation practices. On these threads you must recognize there are always those ready to tease, rib, and ridicule; this is the way of an open forum. Sometimes these comments require a response, others times ignoring them is more productive.

Far be it for me to speak for Bob. He is well equipped to speak for himself. However, I do not perceive he is intending to insult you. I have had many conversations on this BB with Bob and most of them we disagreed at least in some part. I have never found Bob to behave unfairly or unjustly. His tendency is to behave in as non-confrontational manner as possible. When he has resorted to a firmer tone I have found his manner to remain measured and controlled while making his point.

Your manner inclines towards belligerence and name calling. This type of conduct generally creates greater conflict. Unjustified belligerence is un-necessary, unproductive and uncharacteristic of a person well founded in Taoist principles. It is not your skills that are being called into question, it is your conduct!! Your insistence on answering criticism with “D!CKHEAD” and other pejoratives is what is reflecting your lack of understanding of Tao. We don’t care how high you rank in your art if your conduct falls short. I have been there too, so please do not consider this an insult. I received my 3rd degree blackbelt when I was 20 years old. I look back on myself over 25 years ago and I was very immature. Many here are not concerned with your skill level; anyone may improve their skills with practice. However it is mostly conduct that earns respect, not skill. I don’t know many people who prefer to train with a skilled jerk.

It is generally more productive to meet a Yang attitude with a Yin attitude. Certainly there are times when Yang requires greater Yang. Your use of greater Yang here has been unproductive. It may be that your manner of expressing your frustration requires some improvement or it may be that Yang is simply not appropriate for this circumstance. Demonstrate to us your understanding of Tao by reflecting some of its principles in your conduct.

fiercest tiger

11-08-2005, 09:15 PM

Scott,

I dont know any words, my vocab isnt that big like yours so i keep it simple and too the point. I dont hide within the words and then make out that im the one teasing and starting trouble. Even words as you say get taken wrong, you keep saying the history is not correct why is that? What do you know about wun yuen apart from the history on the webpage. Why cant the history be possible?

i think for myself and i will defend myself and my System and my Sifu when i have too, you all seem to know about my art so please go ahead and tell me what its about?

I can get many people to come on and say how a nice fella i am just as you are for Bob, doesnt mean anything to me. You wanna talk nice how about stop ridicueling and patranising (spelling) me for starters cause i do seem fire up very quickly when i have D!cks trying to tell me about my own system. Sometimes you dont need to talk yang or yin with people you need to show and then discuss what its like to encounter something thats is B.S and made up as you say.

Anyway f@ck it you all know it all, lol

How about YOU demonstate for me about the TAO? hmmm How about NO SCOTTY? :) LOL

You have got to be kidding, take a look at yourself and what you are saying to me and how you are saying it before asking me? :)

FT

Scott R. Brown

11-08-2005, 09:35 PM

Hi FT,

I do not KEEP saying the history was “not correct”. I said it sounds improbable, that means “most likely untrue”. It is un-provable whether it is as you say or not and by implication something that cannot be proven is not worth arguing about. You believe it others don’t, so what!!! You can't prove it is so and no one else can prove it is not so, but others can fairly say it is improbable. You don’t have to like it, but they have a right to say it. Calling people names does not prove your art has the history you say it does, it only shows your immaturity! It is not unfair to question fantastic claims even if it is uncomfortable to do so. Personally I don’t care about the history of your style. I am trying to explain to you why it has been called into question that is all.

I am not saying I know anything about your art and once again I don’t care. I am calling into question your CONDUCT. Feel free to defend your art. You have every right to do so even if I think it shows your immaturity. I am trying to NICLEY tell you that your belligerence is unproductive. That means it isn’t polite and doesn’t accomplish anything, but create more hostility.

Calling people names only shows your immaturity. If you would read a bit more carefully you would see that Bob never said anything about your art, but about your claim to know Tao. That is your CONDUCT!! And frankly that is what I am calling you to task for as well.

Pay better attention to what people are actually saying and take the chip off your shoulder, you might learn something and grow up a little in the process!

Sacoche

11-08-2005, 10:07 PM

Whoa,

Whao, this thread has taken off.

FT,
If you re-read my posts I never stated that you , your teacher, or your system had no skills. All that I said is that it is a fake lineage - which it is. I have seen these crazy claims before and it will not be the last. Matter of fact I just met with some people about a week ago and we discussed this thoroughly. I will be the first to admit that I was wrong about there was no kungfu lineage linked to Lao-Tzu. Matter of fact there is, it was passed through the Celestial masters from Zhang Daoling, which was taught to him by Lao Tzu, but this kung fu skill was not in the form of fists but in ritual by commanding the heavenly generals for the purpose of good and being able to resort to the correct Deities and Demons of orthadoxed Taoism.

Once again before I end my post, I would like to point out that I never did attack your skills and I would never unless I had reason to do so. But your lineage on the other hand as well as your demeanor is nothing to admire.

Cheers - lol

P.S. Sorry if this seems garbled, I am very tired and have jet lag.

fiercest tiger

11-08-2005, 10:18 PM

hahahah You upset about name calling? LOL **** off!!! hahahaha just kidding!

My conduct is all you are worried about, u dont even know me dude so forget about trying look like the humble man here. I speak like a hethen so what does that make me a bad person? Am i Immiture, maybe so and maybe not, but maybe when im around the same type it brings out the best in me? lol

I never said i know the Tao or the system, it was created by 2 senior students of Lao Tzu so the history says. If you wish to include me as a DAOIST PRIEST go ahead, i am a daoist but we all lose our path from time to time thats why you are still here and speaking to me. You are not DAOIST, by the way you right and think either you just think you are cause you dont swear!! lol Do you think Daoist dont swear or lose there path? What is a daoist to you does not mean a daoist to me?

As fro conduct, im not your student or friend so my conduct shouldt concern you!

FT

fiercest tiger

11-08-2005, 10:32 PM

hahahah wow, welcome back!

Its all good you believe what you will, i think its true and that is all that counts as well its deeper then all the internal arts ive seen when it comes to chi cultivation and its theories.

So you find out new info regarding Lao Tzu and kung fu so maybe somewhere somehow Wun Yuen was born?! LOL Goes to show you learn new things everyday when u have an open mind?

FT:eek:

Soykuil

11-08-2005, 11:22 PM

hahahahaha,
You all talk about the tao, yet you seem so intent on rubbishing us. FT is my sifu and i also study wan yern with him.

You call our sifu a fake, liar cheat etc and then don't understand why FT gets so defensive. hahaha.. Yin and Yang. you accuse we defend. quite simple

Can anyone of you prove that the system did not come from Lao tzu's students???
Have any of you seen the system to comment?

I assume some of you are 1000yrs old to make these accusations right?

Sacoche,
you wrote that you met people who say the kungfu was passed through the celestial masters. Are they liars too. i mean how do we know?

fiercest tiger

11-08-2005, 11:41 PM

Soy Kuil,

Nice to see you! Can you tell them that im a NICE guys ...lol please?

I am the TAO

Soykuil

11-09-2005, 12:02 AM

it's all love FT...all Love. you are a very timid cat.. They just haven't seen the nice side of you yet...hahaha

hey i wouldn't be with u for so many yrs if it weren't true..

fiercest tiger

11-09-2005, 12:05 AM

AHHHHH JESHHHHHHH Im blushing, i will destroy you tonight, cause i am not a Taoist. Prepare to die powers!!

I thought that was my nice side??

:p

Scott R. Brown

11-09-2005, 02:00 AM

Hi FT,

I am talking to you because I choose too. As long as it is something I want to do I will continue.

I am not taking you to task for swearing. I am not taking you to task for being angry. I am questioning your maturity when you repeatedly call others names simply because you don’t like what they say. This is childish behavior. It does not reflect positively on your claim to be a student of Tao. As a person concerned I chose to include myself in this heated discussion in hopes of helping clear some of the fog of misunderstanding. You choose to re-interpret everything as a slight and then insult and name call others. This is not productive and does not reflect well on you or your teacher.

You want to claim the others here are just like you and you think that justifies your behavior; however I have seen no one call you any names. You are the only one so far and when you do call others names no one has been reduced to your childish level. So at this time you are dreaming if you want to equate anyone’s conduct here with your conduct.

I am not trying to “look humble” I am trying to calm your increasingly abusive language.

You did say “I am the Tao” and this implied to some of us that you consider yourself a student of Tao. If this is not the case all you need do is clarify it.

Your incessant need to take everything as a personal slight is not necessary, nor is it necessary to contain ridicule and name calling in every post you make. If you are confident in the history of your school and you find value in it then good for you. Others are allowed to disagree with you, accept it! You won't be able to change their views with inappropriate behavior. It will only continue to make you look like you are childish.

First you say you do not know Tao, but then call yourself a Taoist so perhaps you are a bit confused as to how you wish to live your life. Your conduct is not becoming of a student of Tao. If you have fallen by the wayside then take this as an opportunity to re-find your path.

I have every right to comment on your conduct when it is displayed inappropriately on a public BB. I am merely reacting to the way you comment on everyone else’s behavior. At any rate please take my comments as encouragement to temper your tone and calm your hostility. It is in your own best interest.

fiercest tiger

11-09-2005, 03:44 AM

I am merly reacting to what you made me to, so we can play this all day long?

I am a Taoist but maybe you get the wrong idea of what a Taoist is also and how the Tao works? Why do you think there is YIN and YANG or is there YIN and Yang or did humans give it a name? :)

I said i am the Tao to take the **** out of you guys since you all think that and try and talk as if you know it, but can it be named? As for my Sifu looking bad because of me i dont think so, i am my own Man, as he is what i do should not reflect on him as what he does wont reflect on me cause i live by the TAO. Im not too concerned about what you have all said but i will argue the point cause thats what forums are for so i will state my point of view. If you knew me i would also curse as i speak cause thats how i speak peroid, does that make me a bad person cause i swear and curse even if they are just words or unless you get attatched to the emotion of that word you take offence to that? Isnt language a beautiful thing words can cause hatred, happiness, jealously, etc. I maybe am childish here to YOU and to others, but i am a happy person and i have friends and students that love me also. But there is a very serious me that i will defend myself if i feel i need to be it words, fist, or whatever.....since this discussion was of good intent that went bad cause most of you thougt that you know the history of WUN YUEN and you know my sigung and sifu, plus mind read and see that they invented the whole story i take my hat off to you for that skill.

From a decent thread got destroyed for the sake of people that think they know it all because they read some daoist books, or been told by there own sifu that this is the TRUTH so makes everyone elses oral and written tradition and philospies incorrect cause they truely dont know or understand.

Cause i dont agree with you accept it? hmmm and like wise dude!!! :)

ok Bye bye now!

FT

HupGerk

11-09-2005, 04:25 AM

Dao, dao, dao,

Ok Scott R. Brown, so please explain the proper conduct of a daoist, from your own point of view?

If Dao exists then we are all part of it, like it or not.

If Dao exists then rape, murder, war, death, cancer, AIDS, bad cooking and TV-commericals are also part of it, like it or not.

And swearing too.

FT is expressing himself truthfully, stating what is on his mind at the moment, this is being natural and living in the moment. Like it or not, but to me, he expresses a better understanding of the Dao than anyone else on this thread becaues he lives it for real, both the good and the bad...or the yin and the yang if that is how you prefer to express yourself.

HG

Scott R. Brown

11-09-2005, 04:37 AM

Hi FT,

I'll respond to your post when i have a bit more time.

Hi HupGerk,

Your post does not show much understanding. Some of what you say is true, some of it is flawed. I am not inclined to get into a p!ssing match with you at this time. One p!ssing match at a time is enough. But for now let me say that FT suggests that he is a Taoist. He also states that his MA style is from two students of Lao Tzu. Just where in the Tao Te Ching or any of the other purported teachings of Lao Tzu or other respected Taoist writers is this present behavior of FT taught, enouraged, professed or recommended?

fiercest tiger

11-09-2005, 04:50 AM

LOL So you know what type of person Lao tzu was as well, **** man you are pretty smart guy and out lived all the iold masters to pass on the teachings too...hmm not bad!

is it right to follow the words of Lao Tzu? Is that what Daoist suposed to do?

Its a great book and insight to what Lao tzu was thinking and on about also was he on some type of Magic Elixer for Immortality or was his findings purely based from walking around noticing?

Does the Dao Te ching relate to kung fu can it be that Dao is not found in a book?

FT:cool:

HupGerk

11-09-2005, 05:00 AM

Scott R. Brown,

My post shows about as much understanding as yours, I would say...

Now, where in the Dao De Ching is is stated that you are not allowed to swear in public? Is the choice of words "****ing match" also listed as forbidden somewhere in your copy, because I personally find that wording equally offensive?

For someone who claims to be true daoist, you are sure quick to claim your view as superior. A more civilized language doesn't change that fact.

Now, since you DIDN'T want a ****ing match...(why even mention that word if you really don't want it???), back to my original question at the top of my previous post.

In your own words, based on your own understanding or as passed on to you from your teachers (since I assume that you are in some lineage with daoist roots), what is the proper conduct of a daoist? If you can claim that some of us aren't living up to the standard, then what is the standard against which you are judging us?

HG

Scott R. Brown

11-09-2005, 05:15 AM

Hi FT,

You see what you want to see and not what others mean by their posts.

Take some responsibility for your self. No one “made” you the way you are. You have chosen to be the way you are and the consequences are yours to enjoy as well.

Perhaps it is you that has the wrong idea of what a Taoist is. At any rate what my implication has been is your behavior is not in accord with the principles of Tao, which is not the same thing as saying they are not Taoist.

Tao not being “named” is not the same thing as not being “known”. We come to know and understand Tao by looking for it, learning from it and applying the principles in our lives. Tao cannot be named because a fixed definition cannot encompass what Tao is, therefore any definition or name would limit it and fixate many travelers of the path on limited understanding.

There are clear patterns of behavior that demonstrate understanding. A student of Tao accommodates himself to Tao. He doesn’t behave any way he chooses and then justify it by calling it following Tao. It is not uncommon for novice travelers on the path to try to justify their inappropriate behaviors by stating they are merely following their natural inclinations or personal expression of Tao; it is more likely it is just an excuse to act inappropriately. They may fool themselves, but no one else is fooled. If you can point to any accepted teaching by Lao Tzu or any other Taoist writer that endorses hostile name calling then please share it with us all so that we may be edified by it. Please accompany an explanation of your understanding of the passage so that we may all benefit from your wisdom, since you seem to want to demonstrate to us that we know nothing of Tao.

I will repeat myself for your benefit and for HupGerk as well. I am not taking you to task for swearing or for getting angry, but for the childish manner in which you express yourself. Calling others names and accusing them of doing things they haven’t done is unproductive. You attack others for things they did not say, and twist what they do say. It shows little understanding, insight, maturity or understanding of the principles of Tao.

Like it or not there is a certain decorum of behavior that is expect in public discourse. We do this so that we may interact with each other in an expected manner that will ensure public harmony and ensure that future interactions will occur in a pleasant atmosphere. When discussing topics of mutual interest it may be expected that disagreements will arise. It is the way of Tao. We conduct ourselves with decorum even in disagreement because presumably we would like to continue to discuss topics of interest together in the future. When we alienate others by behaving in unnecessarily hostile and rude manners we only harm our self. Others will not be inclined to interact with us if we make such encounters unpleasant.

I am giving friendly advice that is continually misinterpreted and suffer repeated ridicule in return. No one need take my advice. I certainly wouldn’t take either yours or HupGerk’s. But I will continue as long as I feel inclined to do so.

Scott R. Brown

11-09-2005, 05:20 AM

Hi HupGerk,

Please do not confuse the courtesy of a reply with wanting to continue to engage you. I will get to you in time if i am so inclined. You attitude at this time does not incline me to want to take the time with you yet!

Please re-read what i have written more carefully. It is not the expression of anger or swear words i have criticized. But NAME CALLING!

fiercest tiger

11-09-2005, 05:25 AM

READ the book Taoist Master Chuang, he was a drunk, swore and cursed, and challenged people. But he was famous for his meditaion teaching and his ritual Thunder magic!

You must of looked up half of our answers about The Tao cannot be named blah blah. I think you are a christian and believe that I SHALL NOT SWEAR and mixed it into Taoist Philosphy cause not everything is Chocolate and Roses dude. You p!ss me off, i respond in the correct manner thats natural?! ;) lol

Lao TZU Rode backwards on the back of a donkey is that natural and correct way to do things in life? Is swearing part of talking?

FT:)

TaiChiBob

11-09-2005, 05:39 AM

Greetings..

Scott: humble thanks..

FT: As Scott mentioned, i have not commented on your style or lineage.. the only connection might be that if some style consistently produces students with the same characteristics as yours, it is not likely to be favored by other students of Tao.. swearing is not, of itself, offensive, it is the context where someone asserts they have some higher knowledge of Tao while at the same time showing an aggressive attitude.. I am easy to find, if you are inclined.. you are welcome to visit any of my classes, you are welcome to demonstrate your skills at whatever level you are comfortable with.. http://taichi.meetup.com/21/ This is our local site, all the info you need to find your way around the Central Florida Taiji community is here.. Please understand, i claim no higher skill or understanding of Tao than you, i simply find that the manner you express your experience of Tao inconsistent with my own understanding.. Taoism has a liberal, in fact limitless, constraint upon its advocates.. to incite conflict and do it with words or phrases that some people find offensive (yep, there are even kids that view this forum) is one flavor of Taoism i, personally, don't care for.. but, surely, everyone has the right offend.. it is simply a signature of their spirit.. swearing doesn't add anything to someone's communication, it usually diminishes any value the statement may have otherwise had.. Given the nature of written communication, the opportunity to actually craft a combination of words and phrases to express a thought.. to still rely on swearing and aggressive boorish phrases leaves others with a sense of the author's actual beliefs and the author's intentions.. and that would not express the highest potential of Tao..

Be well..

Scott R. Brown

11-09-2005, 05:45 AM

Hi FT,

I agree with you that the principles of Tao do not have to be learned from a book. I mention the Tao Te Ching and other writings on Tao because I presumed as a follower of a school founded on the teachings of Lao Tzu they would be considered appropriate to learn and apply to one’s life. If this presumption was incorrect then I wonder why found the school on Lao Tzu’s teachings?

You are confusing the transcendence of convention with not following any convention at all. To transcend convention means we understand that all rules are for a specific purpose. We understand they are merely superficial conventions and we are not bound by them. However, we all follow conventions because they are necessary to function in life and within groups. Proper behaviors are established for the benefit of the individuals who interact within a group. The harmony of the group is considered beneficial because without it anarchy would reign and that endangers the individual.

Established conventional behaviors bring structure and security to social interactions. Everyone within the group thus knows what behaviors are accepted and what are considered inappropriate. This provides emotional security and presumably physical security when disagreements occur.

Unconventional behavior is for the mature not the immature. Without established conventional behaviors the immature would kill each other off. Therefore, conventions of behavior were established for the benefit of all. It is true that conventional rules may be confining and limiting to growth. But having the ability to transcend convention must also be tempered by knowing when to conform to convention and when to transcend it.

You certainly have every right to behave unconventionally. However, I also have the right to comment on it.

HupGerk

11-09-2005, 06:06 AM

Hi Scott R. Brown,

Thank you for your kind advise regarding my attitude.

I also take no pleasure in the current state of this exchange, if you can even call it that but I will remain on this thread for a while longer, like it or not.

I can only speak for myself, but I do certainly not call myself a daoist simply as an excuse to behave anyway I see fit, although I can understand why that might be a convinient explanation for you.

Of course, disagreements are to be expected among all people. Your opinion of yourself comes across as being very clear and it is reflected in your view of what being a daoist is and is not. I do not agree with your stated opinion regarding daoist values but I can respect your beliefs and position in this matter. I also acknowledge the fact that I do not know you and that my view of who you are is based on a very limited interaction and that hence I could be wrong.

As for name calling, I agree it is inpolite and pointless but in calling someone else childish, do you not feel that you are doing the same but in different words?

Your post on conventions is good but it relates to human interaction regardless of faith. To me this looks like you are actually saying that FT (my Sifu as you probably know already) and myself are badly behaved human beings, and not just "bad" daoists, if there is such a thing?

To me being immature means alot of things, not just breaking or trancending convention at the improper moment and the same can be said for it's opposite.

And being mature includes many things unfortunately not always found in the conventions of society, such as not judging a book by it's cover and not passing judgement on an insufficient basis. We all value things differently, but I feel that doing the above is far worse than name calling in the heat of the moment because it reveals a persons true values and beliefs.

HG

TAO YIN

11-09-2005, 09:19 AM

We, the members of The Grand Ultimate Supreme Tao High Court, hereby declare practically every human being past and present, Guilty As Charged for acts unbecoming of a true Taoist sage. For these heinous acts, every living female virgin must bare a child born white-haired old and wise ready to die on The Grand Ultimate Supreme Tao High Court 8 Directional Cross.

Right? You know, seeing as how the True Sage manages his daily life without doing anything, and also conveys his ideas without the use of speech. Gosh Darnit, even Lao Tzu talked. Let me guess, now do we not take the Tao Te Ching literally or??? Is there like a book of revelations in the Tao Te Ching? That would be cool. BEHOLD, The Grand Ultimate Pure Invincible Dragon of The Ocean With White Eyebrows. His rider was Lao...and Tao followed he.

Scott R. Brown

11-09-2005, 12:10 PM

Hi HupGerk,

Thank you for your latest post. It was very informative and I appreciate the tone with which it was intended. I intend to respond to the questions of your previous posts, but before I do let me say that I feel you have misinterpreted my intentions. It was my original intention to provide a bit of guidance to FT. He insists that others are intentionally offending him and uses this to justify his inappropriate behavior. He has repeatedly mischaracterized what I have written and some others as well. One may fairly ask what gives me the right to insinuate my idea of guidance onto another. Well, if I am walking along and I see a blind man nearly walking off a cliff I feel it is my duty to intervene. He may not understand my intentions and be offended at the manner in which I treat him, but the intent of my actions are as a benefit and not to do harm. If the man insists on walking in the same direction then it is irresponsible of me to just let him go. He is not aware of his impending doom. You may feel I have been unduly harsh. That is a fair comment and as you might imagine I disagree and believe you have not read ALL my posts carefully enough. Having said all this it must be remembered that even good intentions may, at times go, awry.

In response to your previously posted questions:

For someone who claims to be true daoist, you are sure quick to claim your view as superior. A more civilized language doesn't change that fact.

I have not stated this and I have not implied it either. If you drew this conclusion it was because you assumed it. I am always happy to reply to questions so to be fair I would rather you had asked me if I consider myself a Taoist and what principles I adhere too. You have sort of done so in a rather indirect manner and that is why I am responding. The answer would be no! I consider myself a student of Tao, but NOT a Taoist. There is a difference and I am not merely mincing words. But that is a topic or another post.

Ok Scott R. Brown, so please explain the proper conduct of a daoist, from your own point of view?

If Dao exists then we are all part of it, like it or not.

If Dao exists then rape, murder, war, death, cancer, AIDS, bad cooking and TV-commericals are also part of it, like it or not.

And swearing too.

To repeat I was never critical of FT’s anger or his swearing, I even validated his right to his own feelings. I only criticized his name calling.

In your own words, based on your own understanding or as passed on to you from your teachers (since I assume that you are in some lineage with daoist roots), what is the proper conduct of a daoist? If you can claim that some of us aren't living up to the standard, then what is the standard against which you are judging us?

I did not say anyone was not living up to the proper conduct of a Taoist. I said FT’s behavior is not following the principles of Tao. He claimed to “be” the Tao. I did not. To be fair you should be asking him the same questions you are asking me. I feel it is fair to assume that is someone claims to be the Tao they should have a reasonable idea of what that means and appropriate conduct. He has not demonstrated this so I called him on it, that is all.

In general terms here is my view:

Many students of Tao approach questions of right and wrong from the common relativistic view. It is not unusual to find this view in novice students of Tao. There is no basis for it found in the principles Tao. It is the foundation of secular humanism however, and it is from this source that relativism has wormed its way into modern thinking. Relativism’s basic premise is the principle is that “all Truth is relative”. This premise is then used to justify all sorts of inappropriate behavior as you and FT seem to be doing. This premise is very easy to disprove and I will disprove it three ways.

The first is the easiest. If we make the statement that, “right and wrong are relative therefore no absolutes exist” we are making an absolute statement. Since this is an absolute statement, then absolutes actually do exist. Therefore, right and wrong are “not” always relative. We can then say that at least sometimes right and wrong are absolutes.

The second argument against relativism is based upon a “correct” understanding of Lao Tzu and the Tao Te Ching. One of the most common statements in support of relativism amongst students of Tao is that the statement in the Tao Te Ching that “The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.” This implies to some that, since Tao cannot be identified (named) it cannot be said what it is or isn’t. If we can't say what it is who is to judge what is “correct” Taoist behavior? Well the problem here is the statement is misunderstood. If the Tao cannot be named than why would Lao Tzu write an entire treatise on something that cannot be explained or identified. If Tao cannot be identified then Lao Tzu is violating his first principle by writing the Tao Te Ching. Lao Tzu as well as Chuang Tzu write extensively then about something that cannot be written about and therefore we have no cause to read anything written by them as they are writing about what they cannot know about. Since they do write about Tao we may presume Tao is knowable and understandable.

The correct interpretation is: It isn’t that Tao cannot be known, it is that it cannot be comprehensively communicated to another. Therefore, it is indicate by pointing to it and using negative statements such as “no that is not it”! It is a false presumption that Tao cannot be known. When Lao Tzu says, “He who says he knows, knows not; he who says he knows not, knows”, he means that there is no plumbing the depths of Tao. Tao cannot be “completely” known, but if it were unknowable we couldn’t even discuss it in the least bit.

Further the Tao Te Ching is filled with statements defining proper conduct. If there were no such thing as proper conduct within the principles of Tao, then Lao Tzu could not fairly state any proper conduct. Since he does, there are parameters of proper conduct found within the principles of Tao.

The third argument against relativism is the Yin-Yang argument. All things occur in contrast to something else. If we presume relativism to exist, then absolutism must also exist. If absolutism did not exist then we could not have relativism. They are mutually arising contrasting principles just as Yin exists in concert with Yang.

Scott R. Brown

11-09-2005, 12:17 PM

Ok so now we have seen three examples that demonstrate absolutes exist and thereby definite principles of conduct that may be attributed to a mature student of Tao. What this means is we may fairly identify “some” things as being always right and some things as always wrong. However, it isn’t as simple as just arbitrarily choosing one thing over another. First we must have some way to identify what is right and what is wrong.

All things occur within a context. Put another way, all things occur relative to other things. It is the context that determines when something is appropriate or not. When actions are measured within a context it demonstrates them to be “relative” to the context. However, we may say that within THAT context the actions are “absolutely right or wrong”. Determining the proper context for our actions then is what we must accomplish.

Actions are performed for reasons and all actions have consequences. It is the reason behind an action that will determine its appropriateness. It is an actions appropriateness or perceived appropriateness that will determine the consequences.

If I am walking along and accidentally step on a person’s foot. I apologize for the action and I am forgiven. It is generally recognized by others that these things occur at times. If a two year old child wanders into me and steps on my foot no apology is necessary because the child is not expected to understand their actions or have full control of their body. If I walk up to someone and intentionally stomp on their foot to put out a fire on their shoe, my intention is meant as a benefit and no apology is considered necessary. If I intentionally stomp on the other person’s foot with the intention to do harm, this action is wrong. My motivation was to hurt the person. There is no motivation that may be used to justify intentionally hurting another person who does not agree to the action. As in, “lets play stomp on each others foot to see who says OUCH first”. In this circumstance the action is agree upon by both parties, so no offense is considered. However, in behaviors such as these, eventually someone goes too far and one of the participants is likely to get upset. In this case it must be communicated to the other person that this is no fun any longer and the action must then be ceased or it becomes wrong! In each of these circumstances the action of stepping on another’s foot occurs with a specific context and this determines the rightness or wrongness of the action. But the context is not determined by the action. The action or “stepping on a foot” is exactly the same in each circumstance. It is determined by the intent. It is the intent then that determines the rightness or wrongness of an action. If intentional unjustified harm is intended then the action is inappropriate.

So in FT’s case the question has arisen, what gives me the right to identify his incessant name calling as inappropriate and immature? It is inappropriate and immature because his intent is to harm another person. It is meaningless whether the other person’s feelings were actually harmed or not. Attempted injury is not as bad as actual injury, but it is still an immature and inappropriate behavior. He is motivated by a perceived injury (insult) to his style of MA and by extension himself. His actions are immature and do not reflect the principles of Tao because they seek to return injury for a perceived injury received. Under this circumstance it reflects his insecurity.

Insecurity = immaturity! Insecurity is based upon an attachment to an ego-identity. It is this ego-identity that has been injured and feels the need to be defended. He feels the proper defense is to hurt those he perceives hurt him. His insecurity is so deep that he cannot even read the words of other poster’s in the spirit in which they are intended. He continually redefines the comments as insults even though it is repeatedly explained that they are not intended as such, so he lashes out by name calling. He has not asked anyone to explain their meaning with the intent to correctly understand. His insistence on redefining and mischaracterizing the actions of others is meant to defer his own responsibility for his hurt feelings. He has even accused me of causing his behavior by how I have treated him. These are not the attitudes and actions of a person in accord with Tao! He is responsible for his own feelings and no one can resolve them for him. The attempt to hurt another in return for a hurt received does not resolve the real issue. It creates greater conflict and hostility that in turn reinforces the foundation of the problem. This causes greater problems in the long run and resolves not a thing. I have not returned any of his hostility with insults or name calling. My identifying his behavior as immature is merely describing a characteristic. It is not different that saying his eyes are blue. If his eyes are blue, then the statement is statement of fact. It is fair to ask me how I arrived at the determination his actions are immature, and now I have done so.

FT is expressing himself truthfully, stating what is on his mind at the moment, this is being natural and living in the moment. Like it or not, but to me, he expresses a better understanding of the Dao than anyone else on this thread becaues he lives it for real, both the good and the bad...or the yin and the yang if that is how you prefer to express yourself.

The rationalization that FT is merely expressing his inner most feelings with unrestrained passion according to the principles of Tao is simply not true. Maturity guides a person to restrain their baser impulses to do intentional unjustified harm to another. Pretending it is a spontaneous natural expression of Tao is a flawed rationalization used to justify inappropriate behavior. A person with maturity would express his frustrations is a more productive, less offensive, and less damaging manner. The base intention to do unjustified harm to another is centered within the primitive centers of the brain, specifically the limbic system. This is commonly referred to as the reptilian brain as it is the source of all the basic primitive behaviors of man. That is food, sex and fight or flight instinct. In the case of FT we are considering the fight portion of the fight or flight instinct. All animals from reptiles up possess this primitive instinct. However, humans possess the cerebral cortex. This is the source of all our higher brain functions. This is where maturity and impulse control is located.

If we allow the fight center of our brain to control our behavior it will get us into dangerous and harmful situations. Now in the case of FT, I am willing to bet he does not walk into a biker bar and call the biggest meanest man there a D!CKEHAD even if he did hurt his feelings! He does not do this because his reasoning center informs him he will be soon leaving in an ambulance or body bag. The reason he feels free to behave with such inappropriate behavior on a BB is because he may do so with reasonable anonymity. This gives him the opportunity to behave in ways that are socially inappropriate in relative safety. He has no real fear of retaliation. He may therefore engage in behaviors he wouldn’t dare perform in public. It also is a very telling indication of his maturity level. It is how we behave when we cannot be identified and suffer negative consequences that clearly reflects the quality of our character.

TaiChiBob

11-09-2005, 02:13 PM

Greetings...

Are we STILL talking about TAOISM.. if it can be spoken, it is not what it is..

It might be a good time to bury this equine carcass..

Be well..

fiercest tiger

11-09-2005, 03:16 PM

Well Bob,

That last post is the best **** thing you have said in the whole thread...CONGRATZ!!!

Scott,

You simpley are a confused person regarding Daoism and you should not live by Lao Tzu's words. Also did you look up that book i said cause you asked find me a BOOK where a Daoist carries on with such language and blah blah! Remember you said that?? :)

Taoist Master Chuang, read it and see that the Taoist Master was not a balanced human as you are not even if you think you are by coming on here and trying to throw your beliefs and good people skills around. Sometimes a person of Tao in your case not a Taoist but a person of Tao lol shouldnt intervien as this can keep the conflict going, sometimes its better to keep quiet as a person of the Tao then medel in the arguements of others?! So why have you done this? Interviening if a person is going to jump off a cliff cause he is blind or maybe he has problems he is better off dead?

Taoist Master Chuang is the Book!!! Read it Master Lao Tzu, please!!!

Bob,

I will come to visit you, do you spar?

Scott,

I dont hang out i Bikers Bars, but i have worked in alot of Bars and on Doors and ive handled my own with talking and fist. If you guys was sitting down with me having a beer in a bar i would tell you both you are still d!ckheads what would you do? Sit there and try and say hey you shouldlnt swear that is childish, unfortunatley children dont swear thats how i was brought up, adults are allowed to swear so its ok with me that i can swear. Kids if they come on this forum should ask there parent because this is a open forum and not a under 18's kids forum. So there will be tempers and swearing, sexual context give, explicit meanings. Welcome to the TAO!!!

We cant stop it it goes against it, medeling can cause more flare ups then trying to help, try working on a door or in a bar you will see that in full effect.

I will try and tone down my swearing as i type as i think i dont type as a different person, what comes out is me. But dont tell me to stop my swearing you can ask that can you tone it down please and that is exceptable for me, but you have an attitude hidden behind those post cause i can feel it?

You keep posting you are adding to my fire! I think you and bob might have some good info to share regarding your taiji training but when you bring in Tao and other stuff that has nothing towards martial arts and say im not living a Taoist way because YOU think you are RIGHT then you are not speaking as u are of the Tao yourself. Bob is right, and you simple cant understand what he wrote on his last post.....you must learn from bob become his student and live a happier life?

PEACE AND HARMONY IN THE TAO

FT

Soykuil

11-09-2005, 05:16 PM

hahahhahahaha,
so now it is us verse them.

this pretty much explains that we are all the dao... yin verses yang and us verses them.

man, the first thing any of you did was put crap on FT and the system. now all you say is "oh we are only commenting on the behaviour". look at yours first, then coment on us.

Let me say, that we are a very close group.
Next are any of you daoist??

None of you want to listen to anything but your own egos and prove that you seem to know the dao.

Ok here is a question. you talk about the dao as if you all know it, you study internal, so where is the natural method in your form or meditation?

fiercest tiger

11-09-2005, 07:19 PM

Soy Kuil,

LOL They keep changing from telling i am not a Taoist or follow the Tao to giving me guidence cause i shouldnt swear, then my system is made up!? HAHAHAH I didnt stand a chance they now me too well i shouldnt have posted if i knew what i did and who i am and what i think?

Anyway this thread is gone to sh!t, thanks to Lao Tzu...lol its all his fault to have followers from his Dao Te Ching stirring up trouble here calling me a child and trying to force me to be like them...shame on them!! :)

lol
FT

Guys,

I think that basically no one will give in to each other, constant dishormony of yin and yang. I dont believe in yin yang, only the worldly people do though,...

I am the Tao!

FT:p

TAO YIN

11-09-2005, 08:23 PM

Scott,

Did you read my last post? If so, I hope you understood it. If you changed the word Tao to Christian, or some such, you would make much more sense here. If I was the dean of a seminary, I would definetely give you a legit certificate to preach. Other than that, all you are talking is drug store psychology.

Taoists who judge and preach...that is, uh, overwhelmingly amusing. You know what Lao Tzu would say to all of this if he floated up on his invincible dragon about right now? Assuming that he could understand what all of us are saying, follows the Tao Te Ching, and knew a proper English response, he would glance all of us over, reply "blah, blah, blah," spur his dragon and float away... and THEN he would be angry with himself for speaking, be sad with himself for being angry with himself for speaking, be sad because he spurred his horse, and then be angry with himself for being sad because he spurred his horse, and then...

It's like this. The perfect explanation, for all of this is the following phrase: "No. No! You are not doing what I thought I said I want you to do. You are doing what you thought I said I want you to do."

Sacoche,

Welcome back. Answer my question please.

fiercest tiger

11-09-2005, 08:42 PM

AMEN!!

Lao Tzu wouldnt bother, actually im wrong he would say #&$#%@^%$ hahahah like a true backward donkey riding man!

FT

Scott R. Brown

11-09-2005, 09:49 PM

Hi FT,

I am sorry you still miss the point. It isnt about swearing. You repeatedly redefine the issue no matter how often i try to explain it.

I will look up your reference when i have time. Thank you for providing it, but it did not answer the real issue. It is your intent that matters not your actions.

Hi Tao Yin,

Yes I did read your previous post. Did you wish me to comment on it?

Do you consider yourself a Taoist? If so, it is interesting that you question whether a Taoist should judge, but then do it your self. You may fairly disagree with my view, but your view is hypocritical, mine is not! Following the relativistic view, my view is just as valid as yours, so if you really believe in the relativistic view you are being hypocritical to judge mine. Aren’t you??? You may have been dean of a seminary in the past, but it does not seem to have worked to your advantage. I am happy to discuss any topic with you, but please try to avoid hypocrisy!

To be very CLEAR I am judging the “intent” behind actions, NOT the person! What has occurred here amongst some is name calling of others has been argued to be appropriate behavior, while my view is that it is childish, inappropriate, unproductive, etc. I gave a reasoned explanation on why I believe this. NO ONE else has given a reasoned explanation of why name calling is justified. My view is founded on reason and may therefore be demonstrated; so far everyone else’s is merely founded upon un-based opinion.

I am criticized for ASSUMING what Lao Tzu would do or say when that is not what I did. I didn’t say what he WOULD do!! I said what he DID do!! And it is there for everyone to read! Yet you and FT feel you know what he WOULD do. Your comments are speculation and unfounded in fact, mine is right there to be read and understood by anyone.

Actions and their intent fall within the realm of fair judgment. Lao Tzu does it, Chuang Tzu does, YOU do it, FT does it, HupGerk does it, Soy Kuil does it, apparently I am the only one forbidden this privilege!! Once again this is hypocrisy!

I will point out I never said I was a Taoist and secondly the allusion I am a Christian is merely an assumption as well.

fiercest tiger

11-09-2005, 10:16 PM

Scott hello again,

What is my Intention to start this crap you are spewing? Oh No, was that a bad word?

Listen to yourself dude, everything you say that we are saying is bad and wrong to do you are as well being a hypocrite by saying what you are saying! Do you understand that at all??

So far you are being the biggest Hypocrite on this whole thread cause you have all your Philospies muddled up with ettiquette, christianity and and no understanding of the Tao. You do realise we dont live in Harmony and things are out of balance? Your actions has made what this thread is, not what i have said..in name calling. No one else was worried about name calling untill you seem to shift to that after i was told my teacher and history has been made up and its B.S. So if you havent noticed my name caling isnt really anything but a name, not what the question at hand is about! You seem to be the only person worried about that, when its about my lineage , my sifu and now its my character.... You have lost the whole plot here and i think you should not get too deep into the TAO as you do not have a proper understanding of it.

Now its your turn to say Im a HYPOCRITE for saying what i said, but then you are still wrong.

Okey Dokey.... bye bye
FT

HupGerk

11-10-2005, 12:53 AM

Scott R. Brown,

Seriously,

Just let it go...

TaiChiBob,

Excellent post, short and to the point.

Sifu and older brothers,

Catch u on msn later, I will be in a meeting this morning but back after lunch.

HG

fiercest tiger

11-10-2005, 01:35 AM

Ok Hup Gerk, i just missed you i was having dinner myself!

DAO FU and noodles ...LOL

Scott R. Brown

11-10-2005, 02:37 AM

Hi FT,

Please don’t just call me a hypocrite. Tell me specifically what I have said that is hypocritical. I don’t like being a hypocrite so if you have found something “specific” that I have said that demonstrates my hypocrisy then please identify it specifically. Anyone can make unfounded comments. It does me no service to just tell me I am a hypocrite without identifying my “specific: error. How can I improve with merely baseless and senseless comments.

Hi HupGerk,

Let what go? I have as much right to post my opinions here as anyone else. You don’t have to agree and that is ok with me. I don’t expect or care if everyone or anyone accepts my view. But, I do have the right to state it. I answered questions that you asked; if you don’t like them that is ok too. You asked and I answered. If you don’t want the answers I give then I suggest you don’t ask next time.

I will continue to post as long as I am inclined to do so.

Many people formulate their opinions, but don’t really understand how or why they believe what they do. They accept what “sounds” good or what they are taught by an accepted authority. When they do this they really have no foundation for their beliefs. They cannot explain them, why they believe them or why they think they are correct views. This is called blind following. This type of person tends to not question the “Truth” of what they accept and are unable to reason clearly when they do try. Since they never examine their beliefs they are unable to actually defend them because they do not know WHY they are true. Therefore, their worldview is based upon opinion and not FACTS!! We may believe the world is flat if we so choose. But that doesn’t make it flat. We may argue all we want that it is flat, but it will always be round and it can be demonstrated to be round. No one here as been able to demonstrate their view to be valid. Empty criticism is just that, EMPTY!! I at least gave a reasoned argument for my view. I understand why I believe what I do because I have made the effort to think it through. All you can do is say let it go???? That is not a response! It is the response of someone who has no response.

I understand why I believe what I do so I am able to explain it and defend it. Since most here have not examined their own beliefs they can only make ineffective criticisms, ridicule and call others names.

fiercest tiger

11-10-2005, 03:55 AM

Scott,

You answer my question yourself dude, hahahha you are one weird guy!!! :)

God Bless
FT

HupGerk

11-10-2005, 04:06 AM

S. R. Brown,

You didn't understand my previous reply. I won't bother anymore with this, it is unproductive and a waste of my time and energy. Good luck to you and take care.

HG

fiercest tiger

11-10-2005, 04:08 AM

hahaha the funniest thread for a while long posts but nothing in them!

TAO YIN

11-10-2005, 04:10 AM

Hi Scott,

The reason I asked if you read my post is because I wanted to see if you could understand the subjective meaning of the sarcastic comments I wrote. Which is practically impossible here. Although my last two posts are sarcastic, they have an underlying meaning. People have much trouble reading here, and on other message boards. I try to be "fair" though, and give everyone the benefit of doubt.

You know, Lao Tzu said that the sage master manages his daily life without doing, and speaks his ideas without speaking. So what are you saying? I never said I know what Lao Tzu would do. I was being sarcastic. However, he might good and well do what I said. Yeah, you are right. If he heard this conversation, maybe he wouldn't respond at all. According to his book he wouldn't. But yet he wrote a book. He was responding to something that he felt. Listening to the sound of silence is beneficial. Wonderful. Next time I open a fortune cookie...

To answer your question, no I'm not a taoist. I am a human being who sees, hears, tastes, feels, smells, and so on. I believe that everything is nothing and nothing is everything. I believe that nothing is everything and everything is nothing. And all the while, I realize, in the end of it all, I don't know shiot. I see the smarts of the world and make ignorance out of it. I see the ignorance of the world and make it out as clever. All the while sitting in the middle, and realizing, what difference does it make? I think you have mistaken me for someone who gives a fark. However, I will give you my judgement of some of the things you have wrote, just for fun. Don't take offense, or do if you want to.

Your logic is sometimes as circular as a Chinaman's on crack.

TaiChiBob

11-10-2005, 05:24 AM

Greetings..

FT: Yes, we spar.. and the invitation to visit is open, sincere, and offered in hopes of building better friendships..

To all: I apologize for attempting to interject my perspectives in this dialogue.. one of my mentors has reminded me that "it is what it is", and any other values or judgements only distract from the simple truths..

A little piece of wisdom that i have found much comfort in: We are traveling to where we have always been, from ignorance to enlightenment.. the vehicle is awareness..

I watched my looney cat chase its tail again.. it even tries to sneak-up on its own tail.. it sometimes catches it and bites it.. then it howls in pain and bites it again for causing the pain.. an endless source of amusement.. i think Lao Tzu could appreciate the symbolism..

Be well..

Scott R. Brown

11-10-2005, 10:29 AM

Hi FT,

You will not do it because you cannot do it. It is ok if you are unable to do so, I don’t mind, but your criticism carries no information other then empty words. That makes them meaningless and not worth stating unless your sole purpose is to ridicule and insult. It seems that is all you are capable of doing. I would appreciate useful criticism though, because it will allow me to improve my character and discover the unrecognized flaws in my reasoning.

Hi TAO YIN,

Yes, I caught the underlying sarcasm of your comments and I got your point. I was unaffected by the slight and I don’t agree with your point, but I do appreciate the effort.

As might be evident I prefer the direct approach rather than poetic (metaphoric) allusions; although I do appreciate a good descriptive story! I have found that poetics are too frequently used as a pretentious attempt to sound wise. From my view there is no reason to take a simple point and hide it behind flowery language in an attempt to make it appear more mysterious. Direct pointing is more efficient and effective even though it is not as fun or mysterious. I am not interested in sounding wise! My purpose is to know and understand Tao and bring myself into accord with it, not attempt to conform Tao to my preconceived notions.

As far as your allusion to what Lao Tzu would do:

“You know what Lao Tzu would say to all of this…”

I responded to what you wrote, not what you cryptically attempted to imply! You did state specifically how you consider Lao would respond even if your purpose was a fanciful metaphor! And I repeat: You are critical of my attempt to define appropriate behavior and yet presume to state your own definitions while pretending it is not the same thing so you do not have to face the hypocrisy of it. This is disingenuous!

“I never said I know what Lao Tzu would do. I was being sarcastic. However, he might good and well do what I said…”

Once again you may define, or if you prefer, speculate on what Lao would say or do. And once again, it is something you apparently have the privilege of doing, but I do not!

“If he heard this conversation, maybe he wouldn't respond at all. According to his book he wouldn't. But yet he wrote a book. He was responding to something that he felt.”

Once again you are speculating on what he MIGHT do. I did not speculate on what he MIGHT do. I mentioned what he DID do!

“All the while sitting in the middle, and realizing, what difference does it make?”

I agree! As Shakespeare said: “All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players.” I play my part with enthusiasm and gusto and also recognize it is utterly meaningless at the same time!!

“I think you have mistaken me for someone who gives a fark.”

No I haven’t. I am merely responding to your comments for the enjoyment of it, as you have stated yourself to be doing as well.

“Don't take offense, or do if you want to.”

No one offends me, but I may allow myself to be offended by others. When this occurs I take responsibility for my own emotions. I do not defer responsibility to others so that I don’t have to face my own imperfections, but I appreciate the permission to be offended!

“Your logic is sometimes as circular as a Chinaman's on crack.”

It is more likely you do not recognize circular reasoning than my reasoning is flawed. However, I invite you to please show me where my flaw is so I may learn and improve from your wisdom. Statements become empty and serve no useful purpose if they are not connected to their subject. Just where is the circle of my reasoning please? If you are just taking the opportunity to ridicule then that is your own issue you must work through. Try not to transfer it to me though, it will take longer to resolve.

“You know, Lao Tzu said that the sage master manages his daily life without doing, and speaks his ideas without speaking. So what are you saying?”

Once again: And yet Lao wrote a book on Tao, defining Tao, and the behavior of a man who lives in accord with Tao. (Chuang Tzu as well) Even the somewhat less well known books on the principles of Tao define behavior!

Your understanding of this excerpt of Lao is incomplete. It refers to uncontrived behavior.

You see, in the time of Lao there were three predominant philosophic outlooks, Confucianism, Legalism and the way of Tao. Confucianism and Legalism taught that outward behavior is the path of the superior man. In these philosophic systems outward displays of behavior were well defined. If one conformed to these outward behaviors he would be considered a superior man. This method might be referred to as “use the outward to change the inward”. The problem with this philosophic outlook is that one’s outward behavior does not always reflect their inward condition of being. One may appear outwardly to conform to the superficial behaviors, but inwardly, in their being or spirit, they are rotten to the core. This type of behavior is referred to as affectation or contrived behavior! Contrived men are selfish, greedy, hateful, covetous, etc. inside, but outwardly appear to be completely proper in all their demeanor and conduct. They know how to play the game. So under these systems of thought the superior man is defined by superficial appearance and not by the substance of his inner being!

Lao understood that true character, comes from within and is then reflected outwardly in one’s behaviors. Anyone may perform outward superficial actions to make themselves appear proper, superior or wise. Instead of focusing on superficial behaviors Lao considered internal character development to be the foundation of a superior man’s life. This view may be referred to as “use the inward to change the outward”. The man of Tao then does not attempt to make outward displays of his “wonderfulness” to others for the purpose of gaining status or respect. He quietly lives his life and allows his spirit to shine through, so to speak. When Lao says, “…he manages his daily life without doing…” that means without affectation or attempts to LOOK wise, clever, or superior. When Lao says, “…speaks his ideas without speaking…” he means reflects the Tao in his actions, or rather does what he says and not, says one thing outwardly, but is rotten to the core inwardly. This of course goes back to my point about intentions having more meaning than actions. Those who make comments stating not to judging within Tao should understand it refers to: “You cannot judge a book by its cover”, because the wise or superior man has different motivations for his conduct than other men. His outward actions (appearance) do not always conform to the conventional standards of behavior dictated by the society. As I said previously as well, the man in accord with Tao understands and may conform to the superficial social conventions, but is not ruled by them.

The problem we have with some who are young in the wisdom of Tao use this misunderstanding to justify behaviors. They have incomplete understanding. They sometimes act in a manner that Lao and Chuang were critical of concerning the Confucians and the Legalist. That is, they outwardly behave unconventionally thinking that unconventional behavior makes them in accord with Tao. But it is merely superficial affectation. It isn’t the outward appearances that make this so, it is ones inward state of being.

As a side note:

This is the same teaching as Bodhidharma’s. When the emperor asked Bodhidharma what merits he gained by giving many worldly goods and privileges to the Buddhists, Bodhidharma replied, not one merit is gained. This is because it is our inner state and not our outward affectations, contrivances or actions that contribute to our character or state of being. It is an inner transformation, not an outward affectation!

TAO YIN

11-10-2005, 10:54 AM

“You know, Lao Tzu said that the sage master manages his daily life without doing, and speaks his ideas without speaking. So what are you saying?”

Once again: And yet Lao wrote a book on Tao, defining Tao, and the behavior of a man who lives in accord with Tao. (Chuang Tzu as well) Even the somewhat less well known books on the principles of Tao define behavior!

Your understanding of this excerpt of Lao is incomplete. It refers to uncontrived behavior.

You see, in the time of Lao there were three predominant philosophic outlooks, Confucianism, Legalism and the way of Tao. Confucianism and Legalism taught that outward behavior is the path of the superior man. In these philosophic systems outward displays of behavior were well defined. If one conformed to these outward behaviors he would be considered a superior man. This method might be referred to as “use the outward to change the inward”. The problem with this philosophic outlook is that one’s outward behavior does not always reflect their inward condition of being. One may appear outwardly to conform to the superficial behaviors, but inwardly, in their being or spirit, they are rotten to the core. This type of behavior is referred to as affectation or contrived behavior! Contrived men are selfish, greedy, hateful, covetous, etc. inside, but outwardly appear to be completely proper in all their demeanor and conduct. They know how to play the game. So under these systems of thought the superior man is defined by superficial appearance and not by the substance of his inner being!

Lao understood that true character, comes from within and is then reflected outwardly in one’s behaviors. Anyone may perform outward superficial actions to make themselves appear proper, superior or wise. Instead of focusing on superficial behaviors Lao considered internal character development to be the foundation of a superior man’s life. This view may be referred to as “use the inward to change the outward”. The man of Tao then does not attempt to make outward displays of his “wonderfulness” to others for the purpose of gaining status or respect. He quietly lives his life and allows his spirit to shine through, so to speak. When Lao says, “…he manages his daily life without doing…” that means without affectation or attempts to LOOK wise, clever, or superior. When Lao says, “…speaks his ideas without speaking…” he means reflects the Tao in his actions, or rather does what he says and not, says one thing outwardly, but is rotten to the core inwardly. This of course goes back to my point about intentions having more meaning than actions. Those who make comments stating not to judging within Tao should understand it refers to: “You cannot judge a book by its cover”, because the wise or superior man has different motivations for his conduct than other men. His outward actions (appearance) do not always conform to the conventional standards of behavior dictated by the society. As I said previously as well, the man in accord with Tao understands and may conform to the superficial social conventions, but is not ruled by them.

The problem we have with some who are young in the wisdom of Tao use this misunderstanding to justify behaviors. They have incomplete understanding. They sometimes act in a manner that Lao and Chuang were critical of concerning the Confucians and the Legalist. That is, they outwardly behave unconventionally thinking that unconventional behavior makes them in accord with Tao. But it is merely superficial affectation. It isn’t the outward appearances that make this so, it is ones inward state of being.

As a side note:

This is the same teaching as Bodhidharma’s. When the emperor asked Bodhidharma what merits he gained by giving many worldly goods and privileges to the Buddhists, Bodhidharma replied, not one merit is gained. This is because it is our inner state and not our outward affectations, contrivances or actions that contribute to our character or state of being. It is an inner transformation, not an outward affectation!"

I knew, I knew. So we aren't taking the TAO literally now. Cool. I must go for now. I have to teach 200 Chinese kids tomorrow. After I help them understand how to understand others instead of themselves, hand in my 5,000 words, saddle up water the buffalo, and sip some tea while reading The Bible, anything Confucius, and Mencius for shiots and giggles, I'll come back here and help you with your logic. We can bring out quotes from every writer who ever lived under the sky, and we can also talk about the difference between being wise and being a wise arse. So, until then.

fiercest tiger

11-10-2005, 02:12 PM

Im starting to think Bob has the idea and you dont Scotty! Maybe you should fly to to Florida and be his disciple and learn from him and his Cat?

Tao Yin is absolutely correct, you havent understood anything he has written even with your long post you still havent put your point across because you dont understand the words that Lao Tzu has written if you care to follow those words!

Why do you think Lao Tzu wrote The True Dao cannot be spoken, But yet you keep speaking that you know and try to guide people especially me, since im not on the same path as you? Where does you path lead, you are a person on a computer that is typing words its like listening to a dvd or cd or a preecher of GOD that then goes out and has sex with little boys and girls. Monks in thailand and all other countries have been known to fall from there path and go off and rape and murder people. Why is that?

I think you are a christian trying to fit daoism into your martial arts and life but the bible wont allow you to cause you feel guilty deep down inside and hate yourself for it. Its ok the bible is just a book you can let go and give me a hug!! :) Is God, Tao are the same thing can you except that? Who knows you might be this very nice guy that doesnt swear but beats his wife and or hurts small animals, takes money from people, you may not be a good person behind your judging of people characters o this forum. You do not know me and judge cause i swear you are a fool to think i should take advice from you when all you have done is talk about the DAO THAT CANNOT BE NAMED and preech that i am on the wrong path.

you know what my secret is??? I sleep with a night light!!! lol

FT:)

Soykuil

11-10-2005, 05:10 PM

Scott,
fair judgment isn't accusing someones sifu of being a liar, is it?
My point is clearly that everyone automatically accuses our sifu of being a liar and when we defend you all tell us we are not behaving in a manner befitting students of the internal arts.

Yet in the dao you just are and do meaning you do not pass judgment on anything just accept it.

Scott R. Brown

11-10-2005, 10:55 PM

Hi TAO YIN & FT,

I’ll leave you two to your hypocrisy! It is very interesting to me that what you both are doing is justifying name calling with the intent to do harm in the name of Tao and saying it is merely a natural, free and open expression of Tao. While my “offensive” attitude is just me being an arse and is NOT a natural, free and open expression of Tao. You both make meaningless statements about my impressions of Tao without any supportive evidence for your view or actually demonstrating my views to be incorrect. While I am able to explain carefully and in detail why I believe what I do. I know why I believe what I do, you two apparently read a few books, misunderstood what you read and then attempt to outwardly conform your actions to what you think you understand, the “outward to change the inward” method I previously referred too! If this is actually an accurate assessment by me then it is “contrived” behavior and therefore insincere and out of accord with Tao.

I think I understand now that to be in accord with Tao I must, name call, ridicule and insult. I don’t have to use my brain at all. After all the brain and its reasoning capacities are not a function of Tao, but inappropriate, childish and immature behavior IS! Apparently to be in accord with Tao means to live entirely in Yin (mindlessness) and ignore Yang (reasoning). There is no need to find balance. To be in accord with Tao is too feel free to criticize others while never allowing criticism of oneself. When I have been criticized I respond with reasoned explanations, while you two behave like children. I try to inform, you try to insult. You are correct TAO YIN we are talking about different expressions of Tao. I prefer not to live within yours or FT’s expression.

Hi Soykuil,

Scott,
fair judgment isn't accusing someones sifu of being a liar, is it?
My point is clearly that everyone automatically accuses our sifu of being a liar and when we defend you all tell us we are not behaving in a manner befitting students of the internal arts.

Thank you for the first thoughtful and reasoned response of this discourse. Your points are well made, however they have missed my point a bit. I don’t think you recall or perhaps clearly understood my posts. It was Sacoche who ridiculed your art and Sifu, not I. I did not support his manner of expressing his disbelief using ridicule, but I did not speak out against it either. I did attempt to explain my impression of why he believes the way he does. I supported and validated FT’s right to be angry about it and his right to defend his style and Sifu, and I said so! I did not support him calling other people names. The person whom he called a name was NOT the same person who called his Sifu a liar.

If you think I called his Sifu a liar, then you have misunderstood my post. I tried to make clear I know nothing of his style or his Sifu. My comments were an “IF-THEN” statement. That means: IF his Sifu made up the lineage, THEN he would be a liar! Just the same, you may infer from my statement its opposite implication which is, “IF he didn’t make up the lineage, THEN he ISN’T a liar!” or “IF his lineage is true, THEN he ISN’T a liar!”

I did not say his Sifu made up his lineage or that he lied. I said there is no way of knowing one way or the other and therefore it is un-provable. You and his students accept your Sifu’s authority and you trust him, which is why you believe him. Others do not know him so they have a different perspective on his lineage. It is fair to criticize your Sifu and it is fair for you to defend him. I stated that, since the lineage is un-provable it is not worth arguing about! I did say it “seems” improbable and I tried to explain that is the reason some may look at it with skepticism. Please note that SEEMS IMPROBABLE is not the same thing as IS NOT TRUE! It just means some will find it hard to believe. If you saw an alien come down in a space ship surely when you tell others you saw an alien you would want them to believe you. Just because they don’t believe you doesn’t mean it didn’t occur. But since it is improbable it is likely many people would not believe you.

Yet in the dao you just are and do meaning you do not pass judgment on anything just accept it.

I must disagree with the view that the principles of Tao do not allow for judgment to occur. Herein lays the hypocrisy of most criticizing me. They do not seem to see that they are passing judgment on me for passing judgment on FT. They are not following their own principles and that is what makes them hypocrites. I am the one who says judgments are appropriate, therefore my view is NOT hypocritical. There is no way to live life without passing judgments. To attempt to live life without passing judgments is to live OUT of accord with Tao.

To live in accord with Tao we must find the balance between Yin and Yang. But this is not a middle still point it is an alternating balance that subtly moves from Yin to Yang and back. The easiest way to demonstrate this physically is to stand on one foot, then sense the movements in your ankle. You will feel a slight back and forth movement or side to side movement in your ankle. This is how you maintain your balance; the subtle shifting of weight from Yin to Yang. The same principle is illustrated when driving a car. We do not drive down the middle of the road we continually make subtle adjustments and the car slightly moves from left to right while remaining somewhat in the middle. This same principle applies to bicycle riding.

So judgments are not only appropriate but necessary. Anytime you make a choice you are making a judgment. And the decision that we should not make judgments is itself a judgment. And to repeat myself: to criticize me for making a judgment IS itself making a judgment.

You certainly have the right and privilege to judge me, as I do to judge you. But you must understand your intent and your purpose for doing so. This is what will determine if your judgment is fair and reasonable. I encourage you not live in the hypocrisy that some of the others here are clearly displaying. Transcend their narrow understanding of Tao, it will be to your own benefit.

Once again thank you for the first thoughtful and reasoned response to my posts. I appreciate the opportunity to make my points more clear.

TAO YIN

11-11-2005, 01:23 AM

Jesus aged fuucking Taoist Christ with **** on a shingle how in the world did all of us come to this conclusion.

Scott, Hi. How many more times are you going to say what you have already said and what everyone else has said. You realize what the argument is here don't you? Do you realize what everyone here has been saying, albeit in different ways, over and over again, including you? I'll put this in English I think you should be able to understand. It's "Okay you think the Tao is that, I think the Tao is this, you go your way, I'll go mine, all of it's TAO."

Let's continue. Let's pull an ancient text out of its cultural context as well as its language that doesn't work the same way as English, or no let's just keep going back and forth.

What was it you said about my first post? You judged it instead of read it, all the while, giving me your opinion while asking me what I meant. OR, I assumed that you judged by the choice of words that you used, you had no idea what I was talking about, and simply wanted to offer your viewpoint. Good. Wonderful.

But hey, I'll be straight up with you. If you want to talk about this and know my opinions of what you are saying, fine. Jeez, where to begin.

To be very CLEAR I am judging the “intent” behind actions, NOT the person! What has occurred here amongst some is name calling of others has been argued to be appropriate behavior, while my view is that it is childish, inappropriate, unproductive, etc. I gave a reasoned explanation on why I believe this. NO ONE else has given a reasoned explanation of why name calling is justified. My view is founded on reason and may therefore be demonstrated; so far everyone else’s is merely founded upon un-based opinion.

The intent behind action? The other person? What are you on about? Do you honestly believe that everyone who posted something negative, or positive towards you or others, had a conscious heart felt intent to do so? I don't know you from a hole in the ground, and aside from my posting this, I honestly don't give two shiots. And you can reply to this however you want. Fact is, I have a computer in my apartment, and I'm bored sometimes. I've developed a somewhat useless habit of posting on internet forums over the years. Don't shoot me dead for it. And as for the name calling? Wolf in sheeps clothing. I can say how are you menacingly, and fuuck you very much nicely, doesn't mean I feel one way or the other. It's childish, innapropriate, unproductive, and etcetra huh? Why? Do you have the copyright on what these words are? Maybe you believe name calling is childish, while I believe it is the funny truth. WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF ALL THIS SHIOT, Differing beliefs and opinions. No one gave a reasoned explanation of why name calling is justified. Great, so your OPINION on why it isn't justified is the absolute truth. I'll go one up and say all of this shiot is childish and posting on internet forums is childish. What production value have you gained from your posts? I don't know about you, but I'm not getting shiot from this other than killing time. Your view is based on your reason, which in the end of it all, is still your opinion. You are sitting here saying that your reasoning skills are better than others. And yeah, in my just telling you that I was judging you. I know. Now, please post something calling me a hypocrite too so we can go on and on calling each other hypocrites.

I am criticized for ASSUMING what Lao Tzu would do or say when that is not what I did. I didn’t say what he WOULD do!! I said what he DID do!! And it is there for everyone to read! Yet you and FT feel you know what he WOULD do. Your comments are speculation and unfounded in fact, mine is right there to be read and understood by anyone.

Actions and their intent fall within the realm of fair judgment. Lao Tzu does it, Chuang Tzu does, YOU do it, FT does it, HupGerk does it, Soy Kuil does it, apparently I am the only one forbidden this privilege!! Once again this is hypocrisy!

I don't speak for others, but I wasn't criticizing you for assuming this. If you read my posts that way, sorry, here's some milk for your troubles. What Lao Tzu did do? Now that's just great. As if you, me, anyone here, or anyone alive for that matter, has a fuucking clue in heaven, heell, or earth of what Lao Tzu did. Best I can tell he wrote a confusing fortune cookie book, handed it in, and got on his Buffalo and headed for Tibet. But even then, many of the people who have studied him extensively say he wasn't even a real person. And then you've got many of the others saying he was some old government archives keeper. And then you got people here saying he was simply a disciple of Confucius. But, let's take a look at that book, taken out of its context and language no less, and conclude what Lao Tzu DID. Shiot's Sake, for all I know he flogged himself silly while writing that book. I said IF, because according to that book, most of the things that I said, if you understood them, alluded to that book. No, I'm not going to give you specifics. If you want to check my footnotes, read someone's translation and see how it fits. Back to the point, with regards to what Lao Tzu would do, EVERYONE here, there, alive, and dead are all speculating. What you call your facts are not facts to me, and don't mean shiot to me. Unless Lao Tzu comes here and posts, all of us have one thumb up our arses and one in our mouths. Unless Lao Tzu comes here and posts, all of us are those chickens running around with our heads cut off. As for the rest, no one forbidded you for anything. We just gave you shiot for it, because you were trying to do it in a way which you tried to justify by basically saying, "NO! I know! I know!" If you don't like the **** get out of the sandbox. Actions and their intent falling in the realm of fair judgement. hahaha. What is fair judgement? Did you decide what it is and come up with the definition for it? Is that like 100 percent wrong by this group of people and 100 percent right by that group? Stating opinions and judging are different in my opinion. But I'm not so stupid that I don't realize, anything said by any person about a TOPIC is a judgement.

TAO YIN

11-11-2005, 01:27 AM

Many people formulate their opinions, but don’t really understand how or why they believe what they do. They accept what “sounds” good or what they are taught by an accepted authority. When they do this they really have no foundation for their beliefs. They cannot explain them, why they believe them or why they think they are correct views. This is called blind following. This type of person tends to not question the “Truth” of what they accept and are unable to reason clearly when they do try. Since they never examine their beliefs they are unable to actually defend them because they do not know WHY they are true. Therefore, their worldview is based upon opinion and not FACTS!! We may believe the world is flat if we so choose. But that doesn’t make it flat. We may argue all we want that it is flat, but it will always be round and it can be demonstrated to be round. No one here as been able to demonstrate their view to be valid. Empty criticism is just that, EMPTY!! I at least gave a reasoned argument for my view. I understand why I believe what I do because I have made the effort to think it through. All you can do is say let it go???? That is not a response! It is the response of someone who has no response.

I understand why I believe what I do so I am able to explain it and defend it. Since most here have not examined their own beliefs they can only make ineffective criticisms, ridicule and call others names.

WOW! Read my second post in this thread and UNDERSTAND it. Daamn, that last sentence really sticks out. Since more here have not examined their own beliefs? And you know this because? How on earth do you know what the heell people here believe and don't believe and if they examined it? You don't know any of us, what religions we speak about, what lives we live, or any of the such, YOU ASSUME. You give YOUR opinion. Many form their opinions but don't believe why or how they do so? Okay, true. AND many people form their opinions, believe how and why they do so, yet still, only have an opinion. Knowing 900 things about why you are who you are is no different than knowing nothing about why you are who you are. Hence, Tao. What, are you saying that only the "educated" (MY HOW I HATE THAT WORD!) are the only people in the world with TRUE opinions? Joe down the street doesn't really know why he thinks that way, but he does. Bob up the street knows exactly why he feels how he feels. They both feel, think, and do. ALL THE SAME. Blind following? hahahahaha. Who says who is blindly following and who isn't? Who JUDGES this? Are you the person who says that that person is blindly following and this person isn't? Is it simply that the blind is leading the blind all of the time. Is Lao Tzu a better man than my neighbor's son who is retarded? Sorry bud, but giving a reasoned argue for your view doesn't mean any more to me than you just telling me what you think. "It is what it is," sort of deal. You are no different than anyone else here, regardless if you speak good or bad, right or wrong. It's all the same to me. You are a human who can reason. Big fuucking deal, so can I. Heell, Lao Tzu didn't give a reason behind why he felt what he felt in that there old book. He said what he said, so the rest of us could sit and scratch our arses trying to figure out what the fuuck he meant.

Your understanding of this excerpt of Lao is incomplete. It refers to uncontrived behavior.

I took this out of context, but you should know where it came from. See? Who says that my understanding is incomplete? Just because Zhang Daoling became the all knowing celestial master of TAO and referred to this as uncontrived behavior, doesn't make it so. Regardless, do you know what the translation for uncontrived behavior is in Mandarin? I assure you, it doesn't carry near the same connotation in Chinese as it does it English. My understanding of this excerpt is no better or worse than your understanding of this excerpt.

Lao understood that true character, comes from within and is then reflected outwardly in one’s behaviors. Anyone may perform outward superficial actions to make themselves appear proper, superior or wise. Instead of focusing on superficial behaviors Lao considered internal character development to be the foundation of a superior man’s life. This view may be referred to as “use the inward to change the outward”. The man of Tao then does not attempt to make outward displays of his “wonderfulness” to others for the purpose of gaining status or respect. He quietly lives his life and allows his spirit to shine through, so to speak. When Lao says, “…he manages his daily life without doing…” that means without affectation or attempts to LOOK wise, clever, or superior. When Lao says, “…speaks his ideas without speaking…” he means reflects the Tao in his actions, or rather does what he says and not, says one thing outwardly, but is rotten to the core inwardly. This of course goes back to my point about intentions having more meaning than actions. Those who make comments stating not to judging within Tao should understand it refers to: “You cannot judge a book by its cover”, because the wise or superior man has different motivations for his conduct than other men. His outward actions (appearance) do not always conform to the conventional standards of behavior dictated by the society. As I said previously as well, the man in accord with Tao understands and may conform to the superficial social conventions, but is not ruled by them.

The problem we have with some who are young in the wisdom of Tao use this misunderstanding to justify behaviors. They have incomplete understanding. They sometimes act in a manner that Lao and Chuang were critical of concerning the Confucians and the Legalist. That is, they outwardly behave unconventionally thinking that unconventional behavior makes them in accord with Tao. But it is merely superficial affectation. It isn’t the outward appearances that make this so, it is ones inward state of being.

Great! Wonderful if Lao did that. If so, then he is judging and saying what true character is. If in fact he did so, I would quickly say to him, "fuuck of Lao, your character is not necessarily better than theirs." Other than that, I'm tired and I am about out of breath to type any more about this. The above is nothing more than drugstore psychology. Superficial is a silly word because every person who uses the word defines it for themself when they really don't know the underlying "motives" of the other person. As if you can judge if I am superficial or not. Actions can be as superficial as words can, so whatever it was you just said goes out the window.

TAO YIN

11-11-2005, 01:30 AM

I’ll leave you two to your hypocrisy! It is very interesting to me that what you both are doing is justifying name calling with the intent to do harm in the name of Tao and saying it is merely a natural, free and open expression of Tao. While my “offensive” attitude is just me being an arse and is NOT a natural, free and open expression of Tao. You both make meaningless statements about my impressions of Tao without any supportive evidence for your view or actually demonstrating my views to be incorrect. While I am able to explain carefully and in detail why I believe what I do. I know why I believe what I do, you two apparently read a few books, misunderstood what you read and then attempt to outwardly conform your actions to what you think you understand, the “outward to change the inward” method I previously referred too! If this is actually an accurate assessment by me then it is “contrived” behavior and therefore insincere and out of accord with Tao.

I think I understand now that to be in accord with Tao I must, name call, ridicule and insult. I don’t have to use my brain at all. After all the brain and its reasoning capacities are not a function of Tao, but inappropriate, childish and immature behavior IS! Apparently to be in accord with Tao means to live entirely in Yin (mindlessness) and ignore Yang (reasoning). There is no need to find balance. To be in accord with Tao is too feel free to criticize others while never allowing criticism of oneself. When I have been criticized I respond with reasoned explanations, while you two behave like children. I try to inform, you try to insult. You are correct TAO YIN we are talking about different expressions of Tao. I prefer not to live within yours or FT’s expression.

Who is name calling? What is name calling? Who defines it with relation to a way that has no name? I never called you any names other than Scott, dicckhead. Or did I just say nice man? What difference does it make? Do you truly give a rat's arse about my opinion of you? Do you think I really have an opinion of you? So we read a few books and didn't understand them. See? What, do you have the rights for book understanding? Are you the only person who can understand what you read? Do you think that because you know why you think how you think, and think that you can prove so by your words proves anything. For example, I have read all of your posts, and as intelligent as you appear to be, it seems that you don't have the faintest idea of what anyone else is saying. You name call in a polite way while others name call nastily. I would ten times rather someone say "fuuck you" to me than have someone bore me to death with why they think they are the only person on the planet who has a fuucking clue. Is this what you think? It seems so from your posts. Yeah, I'm judging again. If this is not what you believe, well...My intent to do harm huh? Who is it that I am intending to harm? You? SEE. That is what you perceived! I wasn't intending to harm you. I was simple making fun of some of the shiot that you have said. So, now we aren't using our brains as well? Excellent! I figured that this was all coming out of my arse mysteriously while I was sleeping. OH, let me guess, you just manipulated me into saying something else! Tosser! You nice person, you. Anyways, I just realized that I just wasted so much time typing. Try your best, to see past your own head, and understand what I have said. Each time we have another talk about this shiot. Each time we disagree, I'm going to treat you that much younger about it. Now, in conclusion, I have said. YOU DON'T KNOW AND I DON'T KNOW TOO!

fiercest tiger

11-11-2005, 02:38 AM

LMFAO That was the best **** piece of work ive read for a while my friend!!!

hahahahha wow, i might frame it, im laughing my a$$ off....hope to see u online oops you just popped up.

ft

Scott R. Brown

11-11-2005, 04:10 AM

Hi TAO YIN,

All I have done is ask you to respond with a bit of reason. Saying to someone they are wrong without telling how or why they are wrong doesn’t mean anything. You are right everyone has their own opinions, but not all opinions carry the same weight of truth. This is because some people don’t know why they believe the way they do. I refer back to my allusion to the flat earth. Just because some believes the world is flat doesn’t make it flat. While everyone has the right to believe the world is flat, it is a belief in a falsehood. Certainly anyone may believe in a falsehood if they choose as well. I see it as unproductive.

You are killing time, that is good!! So am I! Thanks for joining me!!:)

It is fair for you to criticize my views and it is fair for me to respond. If you don’t like the responses I give and don’t want to continue than I would recommend you stop. That is the way to avoid getting frustrated. No one is forcing you to participate.

No one said you have to recognize the hypocrisy of your attitude, but I will continue to point it out as long you feel the necessity to criticize me inaccurately and attempt to ridicule me instead of using reasoned responses. If you don’t like it then don’t read it. That is a good way to avoid getting frustrated. When I get tired of someone I just ignore them or stop reading the thread. I will do that here as well when I am tired of it.

I do not insist that you or anyone else agree with any of my views. I do not need agreement to validate what I know. Truth is not based on popular opinion. It exists separate from our opinions about it. A wise person will attempt to apprehend it and bring himself into accord with it, not redefine it to bring it into accord with his personal preconceived notions.

You may believe that name calling is funny truth and you are welcome to do so. It is still childish if its purpose is to hurt another person. If you believe that gratuitous hurting of others is an appropriate display of the principles of Tao, you may consider otherwise if someone hilariously ran you over with their car in an attempt to do you harm, or with humor shot your child in the head. Or maybe to you it is ok for YOU to do harm to others, but others should not do harm to you. I point out this is hypocrisy! This attitude and the attending behaviors demonstrate a lack of maturity, self-control and consideration for others.

You may also reinterpret the principles of Tao to justify any type of behavior you wish, but it is still hypocritical to say it is ok to call someone a name and that is funny truth, but reasoned argument is not an expression of the principles of Tao!

I agree postings on these BB may at times become childish. Using a reasoned argument to demonstrate it would prove it as an opinion of substance and not an unfounded judgment!

If you were not criticizing me for a specific opinion I stated then part of a reasonable discussion is the opportunity to clarify ones point. If I seem to have misunderstood your point then the onus is on you to clarify it. How am I to know I have misunderstood if you do not tell me and clarify your point? Misunderstandings are not entirely the responsibility of the reader. There is a dynamic interaction between speaker and listener. The listener hears according to his personality and the speaker speaks according to his. Through their mutual interaction they may arrive at an understanding of each others meaning.

I will take this opportunity to clear up some confusion. I was referring to the fact that Lao Tzu defined the behaviors of someone living in accord with Tao in the Tao Te Ching. This was intended to demonstrate that there are clearly definite behaviors that even Lao believed were appropriate and reflect a life lived according to the principles of Tao. So my reference is to the fact that Lao DID define appropriate behavior in some manner, as opposed to anyone else speculating on what he WOULD do.

I agree that some things will be lost in translations. That is why I always recommend reading numerous translations in order to receive a broader understanding. However, at the heart of living in accord with Tao is not reading a book and trying to live according to the book, but to perceive first hand the processes of Tao and through this first hand knowledge bring ourselves into accord with Tao. The book is to be used as a general guide. It is a finger pointing us to look in the right direction, but knowledge is not ours until we have experienced it first hand. Until then it is merely a belief we accept as true, but do not actually KNOW it is true. This is why in science classes the students are taught in labs. They gain first hand knowledge of the principles they are being taught. The process is a bit more unpredictable when it comes to the principles of Tao because our perceptions are colored by our preconceived notions. This may provide us with a misinterpretation since we are likely to perceive what we want to perceive.

I did not decide fair judgment. I know of no reasonable, educated, mature individual who approves of name calling for the purpose of doing harm during what is supposed to be a reasonable discussion. It is universal to all cultures and this is because it foments hostility and this may lead to violence. If it was permitted then it would be impossible to have a civil discussion about anything. This is seen as unproductive since the purpose of rules of conduct is to promote social harmony. Social harmony ensures productive interactions that will benefit all involved.

It was not my intention to imply you were stupid, only that you criticize without giving a foundation which makes the criticism meaningless and that you appear to be applying rules to me you do not adhere to yourself. I know you know the definition of such behavior so I will not belabor the point any longer.

Thank you for taking the time to write a more descriptive commentary of your thoughts and opinions!:)

fiercest tiger

11-11-2005, 04:25 AM

Scott,

you wrote: I was referring to the fact that Lao Tzu defined the behaviors of someone living in accord with Tao in the Tao Te Ching.

Does that make his opinion the TRUTH about what DAO is? What he felt and see's and feels maybe not the way i do is that wrong? What is and what isnt, whats right and whats wrong is in the ocean of your own mind.

You should learn from BOBS cat!

FT:rolleyes:

Scott R. Brown

11-11-2005, 05:08 AM

Hi TAO YIN again,

You may have forgotten that this whole discussion began when I intercede in the discussion between TaiChiBob and FT. I mentioned to FT that I believed his behavior of name calling was not in accord with the principles of Tao. Since he made the previous statement, “I am Tao!” I presumed that to mean he attempted to live his life according to the principles of Tao. In the following comments I was repeatedly told I have no place telling anyone what is or isn’t in accord with the principles of Tao.

My assertion then is that if a person states I may not state what is appropriate behavior or not appropriate behavior they are tacitly approving of FT’s behavior which was calling others names. But if they may judge my behavior then why am I not allowed to judge FT”s behavior? Some have stated or implied that to judge is not a principle within Tao. I replied that that opinion itself is a judgment. Therefore judgment is within the principles of Tao and I have the right to state that FT’s behavior is inappropriate, as others have the right to criticize me. I am merely asking that those who choose to criticize me follow the same principles they apply to me.

I apologize if my writing style is not to your liking. I was raise to write and speak in this manner and I don’t think I should be judged unfairly because I know how to express myself a little better than others. I have not criticized anyone for their writing style or lack of knowledge of big fancy words. I have only been critical of those stating an unfounded opinion. If you would not like to be ridiculed for your inability to express yourself then please do not criticize me for my ability to do so. To be clear I have not criticized your writing style but your lack of expressing foundation for your critical judgments of me. How can I respond to your criticism if I do not know how you arrived at your conclusion?

I am only concerned for your opinion of me in so far as it furthers the discussion. But if you mean do I care how you feel about me, then the answer is, not really.

Yes it does prove something that I may demonstrate through reasoned argument the things I know. This is the foundation of all Truth (understanding Tao). Tao must be demonstrable in some manner or we could never know anything about it. By demonstrating it we show it is not unfounded belief. As in the example of the person believing the earth is flat! Believing the earth is flat won't make it flat. It is spherical and there is no amount of belief that can change it. If a person wishes to live in accord with the principles of Tao he MUST accept the world is round because it IS round. The same principle applies to other characteristics of Tao. We may have opinions about it, but they are not true belief if they are not founded on true facts about the principles of Tao. If a person cannot demonstrate the principles in some manner then their opinions are not based upon Truth but upon speculation. Even if their speculation happens to be factually true they are still blind to the actual truth if they cannot demonstrate it. This is the difference between a blind follower and a knowing follower. A blind follower follows because he doesn’t know any better, while a knowing follower follows because he knows it is the correct direction.

If you feel I have name called in any way, shape or form then I sincerely apologize for this. It has never been my intention to behave in such a manner and if it has come across as I have, it was inadvertent. If you are referring to me stating your behavior is/was hypocritical then it should be understood as an expression of your behavior and not your being. In the process of writing my comments I may have expressed my thoughts carelessly or inaccurately and I appreciate the opportunity to take responsibility for my errors and clarify any misunderstanding. I express my deepest apology and regrets for any misunderstanding that may have occurred!

If it appears that I am of the opinion that I think I am the only authority worth listening to then I apologize for this as well. Perhaps my method is a bit too direct, but this is my personality so we both must live with the consequences it brings. You must take some of the responsibility for your own feelings on this, however. You may be projecting your own feelings of inadequacy onto me. It is not my intention to lord anything over anyone. I have been responding to what I believe to be unfair and unfounded criticisms. I don’t mind criticism. It provides feed back in order for me to learn and grow, but baseless criticism is meaningless, so I have asked for my critics to be specific. You have now done so twice and I actually have something to respond too. I appreciate that! Thank you very much!

I don’t mind if you judge as long as you provide me with the same courtesy!

Scott R. Brown

11-11-2005, 05:16 AM

Hi FT,

From the perspective of the GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS your behavior was meaningless. From the perspective of human relations within the context of healthy discussion they are inappropriate.

fiercest tiger

11-11-2005, 05:38 AM

AHHHHHHHH Thanks for such a small post, TAO YIN gets all the fun doesnt he...booo hooo!

You need to have an ENEMA, take a big long dump and let go of all those emotions. You seeing anyone for help?

FT;)

HupGerk

11-11-2005, 06:49 AM

Here we go 'round the mullberry bush, the mullberry bush, the mullberry bush...

I'm not going to go into the whole arguing mess again but I will offer some comments on various things I've read here lately, take them for what you feel they are worth.

First of all, the Earth is simply not "round" anymore than it is "flat". It is an oblate spheroid (and even that is a simplification). This is the surface created when an ellipse is rotated around it's minor axis, in other words a surface of revolution. Thank Sir Isac Newton for bringing this to our attention back in the 18'th century. If the Earth wasn't rotating then it might be round. If indeed we need to know the exact nature of the world (truth as someone called it) when studying the Dao, then let's be a bit more precise?

More importantly from the above...well, we must be concerned with movement and the changing state of energy, not the static state.

Which brings us to the second comment which regards to yum and yeung being mentioned here and there and the balancing of the body's energy, including the emotions.

Due to this constantly changing state of energy, why strive to be balanced with regards to yum and yeung? There is no such thing as balance in the universe, at least not in its current state! Maybe in a few billion years we might experience it...and that is a very uncertain "might". Yum and Yeung is just another human attempt to understand the world by breaking it down into smaller pieces. Works fine in a closed system such as the physical universe but does not apply to the Dao itself. For understanding yum and yeung though, I would really recommend anyone to take a course in thermodynamics, it will provide more than any old Chinese book on the subject.

As for the arguing about proper conduct and who said what to who and when and if this has anything to do with being a daoist or a student of the Dao...I believe it was this suggestion that started the current thread of arguments and not the matter of name calling itself? Proper conduct relates no more to the study of the Dao than any other subject created by human society.

HG

fiercest tiger

11-11-2005, 06:56 AM

Well said bro!

Game set match, oh no its a not game FT peoples emotions are running high!!

hahaha I AM THE DAO i though i told u guys this?

FT:eek:

TaiChiBob

11-11-2005, 07:33 AM

Greetings...

Are we what we think we are.. or, are we that which does the thinking?

Despite all the conflict, emotion, and disagreement.. it is all Tao, it is all perfection.. i once had a mentor that delighted in "the perfection of imperfection"..

Be well..

TAO YIN

11-11-2005, 09:16 AM

FUucK...:D

Scott R. Brown

11-11-2005, 09:33 AM

Hi HupGerk,

So change sphere to and oblate spheroid and the metaphor still stands. At any rate the difference between a three dimensional sphere and an oblate spheroid is minor compared to a two dimensional flat surface. Changing the sphere to an oblate spheroid is a minor detail and does not change the metaphor as described.

I agree with you about the alternating influence of Yin and Yang. Balance or not is a matter of perspective. Where you see a universe out of balance, I see one demonstrating remarkable balance. I am able to perceive your perspective by merely changing mine. My perspective is merely my personal choice. To me balance is not a still point in the middle, but more the rhythmic alternating between the contrasting principles. In case you skipped my post to Soykuil I described it in this manner:

To live in accord with Tao we must find the balance between Yin and Yang. But this is not a middle still point it is an alternating balance that subtly moves from Yin to Yang and back. The easiest way to demonstrate this physically is to stand on one foot, then sense the movements in your ankle. You will feel a slight back and forth movement or side to side movement in your ankle. This is how you maintain your balance; the subtle shifting of weight from Yin to Yang. The same principle is illustrated when driving a car. We do not drive down the middle of the road we continually make subtle adjustments and the car slightly moves from left to right while remaining somewhat in the middle. This same principle applies to bicycle riding.

Also I do not see it as striving to find balance. It is more the place you end up rather than the place you TRY to arrive at. Any difference from this found in anything I have written should be taken as a byproduct of attempting to communicate a complicated idea.

I like your idea concerning our attempts to breakdown a complicated process or ISNESS (Tao) into smaller pieces as an attempt to understand it. The idea of a thing is never actually the thing, but merely an indication or representation of it. Words break the idea down even more taking us further from the ISNESS! But this is what we have to communicate with so we are stuck with the limitations of the system.

I must disagree with your assertion that conduct has nothing to do with the study of Tao. If one is to study a principle (Tao) completely then it behooves him to study it in all its expressions or manifestations. Conduct is merely a product or process of Tao that serves its purpose within its proper context. My concern has been the view that many have that there are no standards of conduct that one should adhere too. This is not found to be true in daily experience. We are never allowed in social circumstances to ever behave in any manner we choose without suffering consequences. At some point we will be ostracized, ignored, or arrested. As I have previously mentioned one who is intent on living in accord with Tao knows that behavior codes are conventional forms and transient in nature. He may be above them so to speak or not affected by them, but that does not mean he ignores them. If he chooses to ignore them it is for a specific reason and not an attempt to do unjustified harm to another. I can respect your opinion however and I am willing to agree to disagree.

fiercest tiger

11-11-2005, 09:39 AM

I once was fishing and caught this fish off the rocks, as i was going to GAFF it it looked at me and i felt and saw its pain. I cut the line and let it go and never have fished again!

What do you call that?

FT:confused:

TAO YIN

11-11-2005, 11:58 AM

I think I said something a page or so back about everyone answering to something. Anyways, socail norms differ from country to country, sometimes very greatly. Having lived in 3, WOW, what a mind fuuck. Bottom line; Killing humans is bad, killing animals is accepted. On a side note, I saw a teacher here kick his student in the arse today. After I saw this, I walked over to the teacher and said, "Don't do that. How would you like it if I kicked you?" Long story short, I was "ostracized" because of what I said.

There is a turtle. Have you heard that about opera is doing where is the water closet. Great, where do you buy those to find at? Is that gasoline or no hey John. Gas is up.

fiercest tiger

11-11-2005, 10:42 PM

How hard is it to kill some person? I often think about this, i think if i had to i could before kiling any little animal.

FT

Scott R. Brown

11-12-2005, 04:44 AM

Hi FT,

It still comes down to context. I am sure you would have no problem killing a rabid squirrel, but wouldn’t kill a two year old child.

Hi, TAO YIN,

I am not trying to nit pick, I am sure this was implied within your statement, but killing of humans is wrong most of the time, but approved some of the time. Killing of animals is approved sometimes, but considered wrong sometimes as well. As with most things it depends upon the context.

It is clear that each culture has their standards of behavior. I know of none that accept unjustified name calling as a healthy or acceptable form of social discourse. If you know of any that is fine, but there are clearly very few.

You did the right thing if the teacher had no “justifiable” reason for his action. That is if the action was a form of derision or meant as an act of violence. Under these circumstances you may have been ostracized for your actions, but that does not make your actions improper.

It appears from your story that kicking a student is socially acceptable where you live. Socially acceptable should not be confused with correct behavior. That is unless in this culture there is a social convention that kicking a student is similar to patting one on the back or some other form of good intent. In this case it is merely a lack of knowledge of local customs. Within the context of that culture they may find it acceptable to kick a student, but I would wager that it is unlikely that you would do so yourself unless you find an acceptable reason for doing so, which would change the context of the action. This is because you adhere to a high set of standards that transcend the limited context of the society in which you are presently living.

Your behavior may not be understood by the others of that culture. This is what Lao says will happen to a man of Tao. Those bound by conventional truths cannot understand the man of Tao because they are trapped within the narrow perspective of their conventional standards.

While I have no idea what actually occurred and know nothing of the culture in which you are presently residing, I do understand human nature. It is possible that the teacher and/or his associates knew the behavior was inappropriate and ostracized you from embarrassment for having been caught engaging in inappropriate behavior, in other words, as a face saving device. If I do something wrong and you catch me, if I make you the bad guy I don’t have to face that I behaved inappropriately. This is a very common face saving device.

To me to be ostracized is a minor consequence when compared to ignoring an injustice, but that is just me. It appears from your description that you applied the principles of Tao and should be applauded for you actions. I would also point out: you did nothing different that I did by informing FT his actions were inappropriate and I of course have been soundly criticized for my actions as well.

Here is an interesting story that happened to me:

Many years ago I worked as a nurse in a prison. My office was on a specific tier for inmates with lower mental function. The lowered mental function was commonly due to drug abuse.

One of my duties was to pass medication to the inmates while they were locked within their cells for the night. I had a patient/inmate that was repeatedly disrespectful and would not follow the proper pill passing protocol. This cannot be tolerated as it was common for the inmates to attempt to hoard their medication in order to take larger dose in hopes of getting high. This is of course, dangerous!

I informed the officers of the inmate’s behavior and they proceeded to the cell to extract the inmate for counseling. The inmate resisted and ended up on the floor and received a non-approved physical attitude adjustment. He received a busted nose and was taken to the lockup unit for a week or so.

When he returned to my unit he was a new man! Mr. Brown this, Mr. Brown that, yes Mr. Brown! I was informed by the officers that some inmates will not give respect until physical dominance was demonstrated. To be clear I was an observer and not a participant in the demonstration of physical dominance.

I was at a loss for some time trying to find justice in the actions of the correctional officers. What appeared to be an inappropriate act of violence resulted in a more harmoniously behaved inmate and he held no resentment towards the officers either. Their actions worked however inappropriate they appeared. This sort of behavior did not fit with my personality so I never applied the same philosophy when I became a correctional officer. Their actions might have been more efficient, but I developed social skills to motivate the inmates that I supervised. I cannot say their actions didn’t work though.