wandelaar

You must have a success rate of 100%. That's hard to beat!

There's a tendency to think that being able to achieve something by means of hypnosis somehow disproves the reality of the phenomena in question. I used to think that way myself. But this isn't the only way to see it. Hypnosis can have real physiological consequences, so it isn't simply make-believe. Maybe the very same real processes lie at the basis of what is called hypnosis by some and internal Qi phenomena by others.

A name is not that important, because it will automatically get a meaning for your readers as a result of what you post. Deciding unavoidable dilemma's in which there is no sensible choice to make by rolling dice isn't a bad way to do it. Sometimes you will just have to do something with no way to know what is right. But those cases are very rare.

The sage is supposed to follow Tao in the sense of living and (non-)acting like the Tao. But how does the Tao itself live and (non)act? I can understand some of the qualities ascribed to the Tao such as being hidden, not partial, eternal, dynamic. But now how about soft and flexible. Does not the Tao manifest as a stone or fire just as well as like water? Are not both the bending grass en the firm tree both manifestations of Tao? It looks like the Taoist choice for the soft way is just that, a choice. Or am I missing something?

Oh - I'm getting into information overload mode now. I have made a favorite of your thread but I don't know when I will have the time to actually read it...

By Marcus Aurelius you mean? Also very interesting are Epicurus and Epictetus. Or The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics by Martha C. Nussbaum.

Compassion is a healthy thing, so the supposed dilemma between caring for oneself and caring for others is false. But you have to avoid the extremes. People who choose to care only for themselves may become rich and powerful but they seldom live happy lives. On the other hand caring only for others is self destructive.

@Maddie It's even worse with the theologians. In my opinion there is a large kernel of truth within the mystical experience and that will usually shine through whatever the specific religion of the mystic. But Christian theology and dogma is simply a mess.

And rightly so! The ideas of the ancient Greeks and Romans were much more advanced than the illogical ramblings of the Christians.

I haven't reached that stage (yet?). I still dislike unnecessary wars, dictators, debilitating diseases, political and religious stupidity, logical fallacies, etc. But it's becoming increasingly clear to me from a historical perspective that there's no hope of salvation, hence the (reluctant) acceptance. Humanity generally is probably too smart by half, and thus will likely achieve it's own undoing.

It's probably more natural to start as a "fighter" for whatever cause when you are still young and ambitious, and then gradually evolve into a more "saint-like" figure when you get old. The fighter will gradually go into retirement, and the saint will gradually become more prominent. There's no need to force the issue.

It comes with age, having less energy, slowing down, accepting things as they are, ...

No, I'm not an administrator. Funny you thought so.

I see pro's and con's and they exactly balance out. I will let others decide for whom it does matter.

It's seldom knowledge (or lack thereof) that persuades people to choose a certain religion but more often upbringing and/or feeling. I have had numerous discussions with true believers and it's always the same: they believe because to them it feels right, not because they know it's right. I also work as a volunteer in the books department a thrift shop and there are almost no customers who are interested in the critical evaluation of religions, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and the like but always a whole lot of customers who are uncritically engaged in and want to buy books about religions, new age, and pseudo-scientific subjects. Add to that the current vogue of postmodern relativism and the current political disregard for truth and for expert knowledge and you see the hopelessness of the rationalist attempts to inject some reason into our post-truth era. Besides not all forms of Christianity are equally bad, seeing Jesus as an inspiring figure doesn't automatically make one into an idiot. And there are also some other christian figures who are worthy of respect. It's mainly the fundamentalist believers who are the problem, because they often (but not always) want to force their own intolerant norms, rules and idea's on others.

Correct. See: https://www.taoistic.com/taothemes/tao-moderation.htm In other words: survival by avoiding extremes as much as possible.

Whenever I feel bad about something I deliberately count my blessings: - No war in my country. - No natural disasters in my country. - I'm not suffering from debilitating diseases or psychological problems. - I don't have financial troubles. - I don't have relational troubles. - I have a roof above my head and clothes to wear. - I have enough to eat. - I have many interesting books and records. Etc, etc. Realizing all this is often enough to feel gratitude notwithstanding the minor hassles of life.

Sanity Check is trying to blame atheists for all kinds of things he/she/it doesn't like. One of those things is this: After some hesitation I decided to give my opinion on the subject to show what an atheist (I'm not speaking for all atheists on the planet) might think about it. Discussions with true believers are generally useless so I don't expect Sanity Check to alter his/her/its silly claims, but some other readers might be interested in what I had to say.

Thank you. That solves the issue. The difference between philosophical and religious Taoism thus is also known in the Chinese language itself from quite early on. The fact that lots of Taoists don't (want to) see or recognize such a difference doesn't make the difference any less relevant. It's often easier for outsiders to see the basic structure of doctrines and practices than for those who grew up with them. So there is no reason to disqualify the distinction on the basis of it being applied mainly from a western perspective. And besides as we have seen the more discerning Chinese minds were able to see the same distinction themselves as shown by the existence from early on within the Chinese language of terms corresponding to "philosophical Taoism" and "religious Taoism". Admittedly Taoism as currently practiced in Asia has become a mixture of "philosophical Taoism" and "religious Taoism" and even parts of Buddhism, Confucianism, folk religion, etc. But again that doesn't force us to blind ourselves to the different component parts present in current day Asian Taoism. In particular it's perfectly legitimate for western Taoists who prefer philosophical Taoism to ignore the rest of current day Taoism in their own practice. The works of Lao tzu, Chuang tzu and Lieh tzu are full of practical wisdom and interesting philosophical and mystical idea's and nothing in them points at the necessity of engaging in the later forms of religious Taoism to reap the benefits. There is no Asian copyright on Taoism, Buddhism or Hinduism, just as there is no Western copyright on Christianity, Greek and Roman philosophy, etc. We can all use or ignore the world's wisdom as we see fit, and we do so at our own advantage or peril.

Yes - thank you. It would be interesting to see what ChiDragon knows about the terms Tao Chia and Tao Chiao.

As I said before Sanity Check is not interested in what atheists actually think or promote but only in bashing them on the basis of his own unfounded preconceptions. I don't know of any "official" atheist position on women's sports but here's what I think. Women's sports and men's sports are separated because of the different build of a men's and a woman's body. This separation is reasonable and legitimate from the perspective of equal opportunities. A person with a man's body calling himself a women to be able to participate in a women's tournament would thus be foul play. For physical sports what is relevant is the body (and it's capabilities) of the participant and not the whether the person feels him- of herself a man or a woman or whatever. Now according to this reasoning there would be no possibility for persons with a body that is neither fully male nor fully female, or with a body that doesn't corresponds to what the person feels him- or herself to be to participate in sports tournaments, and this admittedly is a problem. I don't know a simple solution to that. Maybe introduce a third category for sports-persons who don't fit in with the already existing man's or women's category?

Yes, I think that the early form of Taoism was too abstract and too brutally honest about the way the world works (like "Tao is not benevolent" and we are all "just straw dogs"). That's alright for philosophers, cynics and the like, but common folks want simple guide lines and solutions (whether they are real or imaginary). If something hinders or frighten them then they want their religion to supply them with a ritual, prayer or something that promises some help so they can do something about it (whether it actually helps or not). They want their religion to alleviate the stresses of existence in as simple a way as possible. So to sell Taoism to the masses it had to be changed into a more common form of religion.

@ChiDragon Taoism started as a mystical/philosophical thing as we can read in the TTC, Chuang tzu and Lieh tzu. There is a huge difference between those early forms of Taoism and the superstitious, ceremonial and liturgical forms of Taoism the came later on. This difference isn't a Western invention at all. There are also Chinese terms for the two aspects of Taoism: https://www.taoistic.com/taoistphilosophy.htm But I don't know when those terms were first used. Maybe you know how old those terms are? Anyway whether there were appropriate Chinese terms for it from early on or not, the difference is there. Those who now want to blind our eyes to this distinction do so out of a wish to eradicate everything that even remotely reminds them of our colonialist, imperialist, etc. past. And they see those remnants everywhere, and in particular where they aren't. Political correctness gone berserk.

See: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/original-tao/9780231115643

I see TT is up to his old tricks again. Quoting out of context, and spinning words and phrases. But I just don't care whether the doctrine was called atheism at the time or not or whether those holding such a doctrine called themselves atheists at the time or not. That's all quite irrelevant. What I do care about is when such doctrines were present or not. For those who are interested see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism