fragrant herbs

Thank you so much for moving my post and for emailing me about it.

Thank you deci belle. I have tried to understand Taoism before, and it isn't easy, and so I have given up in the past. I ordered two of the most popular books and am waiting for them. I fear that they will be clear as much. But maybe that is okay because seeds sprout in mud.

Here I simplified your OP, and I will isolate parts of the 46 to try make a clearer connection. I see it, but maybe language is too obtuse?

 

 

 

To use the implied metaphor, it's like a tree growing into the boundless sky; branches and leaves spreading toward the loving energy of the sun.

Thank you. I understood the tree growing into the boundless sky towards the energy of the sun.

i wish i understood the i ching. i looked up hexagram 46 but didn't understand it. thanks for the post.

No. I think you are asking for just enough.

 

Of course, all that does not come easily in the 'real world'. We have to work for it.

Thanks.

which are the best translations of these three for understanding and beauty in writing:

Tao Te Ching

Chuang Tzu

Lieh Tzu

Thank you.

what is Hun Yuan Yi Qi Zhang? is this qu gong? That is the only practice that I can actually see doing if this is what you are talking about. Seems easier than Tai Chi, which I have done in the past.

I tend to think that Marblehead and some others are correct since I have been through much of Lao Tzu's writtings to see what is taught. What he says that I understand, make sense, and it is not filled with talks of spirits, exercises, diet, etc.

Did Lao Tzu teach these:

Meditation

Tai Chi

Qi Gong

About spirits

Hygiene

religion

rituals

diet

if not how did they come into his teachings?

Dr. Margaret Singer was a therapist that lived in Berkeley and many of her cases were people that had devefloped emotional problems due to meditation. She dealt with these types of cases for 50 years and wrote a book on cults, and then some chapters on meditation. It was her belief that meditating was beneficial and not harmful unless you had joined a cult. But I have listened to people who were not in cults and had problems, but then you have to define what a cult is. Also, many that develop problems have also been on long retreats.

As far as her finding that meditation causes people to be untruthful, I could not find that in her book just now, but I may have read it elsewhere. Still I don't believe that meditation would cause people to be dishonest, that seems like a farce when I think about it.

Maybe I should not say this, so with a start like that, I won't.

Has anyone read the book, Pagan Christs by John Mackinnon? It is interesting that throughout history, even before Jesus Christ "died for our sins" there were many other Christs that died for our sins long before he even arrived on the scene. They were sacrificed as well. So how original was that? http://www.amazon.com/Pagan-Christs-Compar...7229&sr=8-1

Okay. Give this one a shot.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Te-Ching-Skyligh...s/dp/1594732043

 

I have it but have not read it yet. I will say that there was an honest effort made toward an accurate translation and presenting a non-biased explanation.

 

Peace & Love!

Thanks, it really looks good and the reviews are great. I will order it.

Thank you, whish is the easiest to understand? While I would not wish to pay $65 for the book it would be good to have a book instead of trying to read one online.

I also have The Tao of Physics, but only because I used to clean frijof capra's house when i was in college. Should try to read it. I also have The Gentle Path of Spriitual Progress by Ni, Hua Ching, and while many of the things that he writes about are good, I was offended by his comments about homosexuality because I believe it to be genetic and feel that all humans should have equal rights, even in religion. And so I can imagine what a homosexual would feel upon reading this, because if I am offended they would be more so. There were some other things that I can't accept, such as spirits, but that doesn't mean that they are not real. Was this always a part of Taoism? Was alchemy always a part of Taoism? Meditation? Religion?

Vaj said:

@FH - You said that in your opinion all the striving leads to nothing. Within the limit of my own interpretation of this statement, i would say that to cultivate a good heart and to train the mind are necessarily fundamental to the serious Buddhist practitioner, which are very noble aspirations indeed, and definitely cannot be termed as *nothing*. It is very easy to see that such qualities would lead to much happiness and harmony, which i am sure you would agree we cannot have enough of. Unless we can tame this monkey mind of ours, the aim of *just being* can be quite a struggle, not impossible of course, but a challenge nonetheless.

Striving for enlightenment is what I was talking about. Cultivating a good heart is well worth while. Feeding the poor, helping people or animals in any way is also well worth doing, more so than meditation. Meditation has harmed many people who have practiced it, but in Buddhism and Hinduism and other groups, people tend to think that it is a cure all, a peaceful method to enlightenment, when in fact people can become depressed, anxious, psychotic, etc. I suppose you can tame your monkey mind without meditation to a great degree, but that depends upon what you mean by monkey mind. I would say that positive thinking goes a long way to taming the mind, causing it to suffer less or even cure some forms of depression. So meditation, no matter what style it is, doesn't always lead to happiness. I know of Dr. Andrew Newberg's work on brain scan and have all of his books and highly recommend them, but not all that practice meditation have the same results as what he finds. One man's heaven can be another's hell. More work on that by Dr. Newberg would be interesting. He did study the affect of negative thinking, listening to negative news and people had a very negative affect on brain waves.

Every teaching seems to have a different view on what enlightenment is. When I listened to the Buddhist explanation it didn't seem so great, neither was the Hindu. Even when you google, "what is enlightenment?" you get many different views. No one really knows. Some say it is the end of suffering, but I have never met anyone on earth that has not suffered and doesn't continue to do so. I have met some monks that seemed rather detached, and due to this they didn't seem to experience the same emotions as the laymembers and didn't react much to the suffering of others. I have had people write me and say that they now have "depersonalization" as a result of meditation and have no idea how to cure it. Neither do I. One said that she talked with a Buddhist monk, and he told her that he had depersonalization too but felt quite comfortable with it. Is this what they mean by enlightenment? Here is a website talking about meditation and depersonalization: http://minet.org/Documents/research.1990.castillo

As for me I don't wish to meditate anymore because I don't wish to chance having problems. I think a simple path of cultivating a good heart and learning to have compassion for all and helping others is a better way for me. As well as positive thinking. But I believe that some Buddhist teachings are good when it comes to teaching "loving kindness" and the precepts. Other than that it is very hard to convince me that certain other teachings are the truth or that certain practices are wonderful when it comes to any religious teaching. Every religion has something good to offer though.

I don't really believe in enlightenment or striving for this "illusive dream," as I wish to call it. Whenever I have met a so-called master that was claimed to be enlightened, I learned that I didn't wnat to be like them. Most that I met were greedy, into having affairs with their disciples, and into fame. And I used to think that meditation would cause a person to become more moral and therefore not wish to harm others. It doesn't.

Instead, I think "just being" is what is important. All this striving leads to nothing as far as I can tell. And when I read what enlightenment is supposed to be, by Hindus and Buddhists alike, it sounded so boring. Friedrich Nietzsche said it best when he said that he would rather choose eternally conscious suffering than nonexistence. And enlightenment seems like eternal nonexistence or just being blissed out.

Hi again,

I have a book on Taoism that I have had for years by Lao Tzu, but I do not understand it. Is there a way to know what he is saying?

I believe that I am more into just "being" instead of religious dogma--of being told what to believe. I notice here that no one believes the same. How refreshing. Other views are discussed.

I found throughout my research that meditation can harm the mind, but for me it was always peaceful, and one day my mind expanded while in meditation, and I was enveloped in Love. It changed my life to a degree. So for this reason I believe in a Consciousness of Love, but beyond that I do not know. Some call it God, but if so, I have never had this God answer prayer. I do not see any interaction with mankind. When people die their mind expands and they have this same type of experience. But beyond that and what I said above, I no longer connect with religion in the same way as I did in the past.

Karma and original sin are both suspect, in my view. I really don't think our actions have any consequences beyond this lifetime; I would be surprised if they did. Even if there is such a thing as rebirth, I don't believe our actions influence the result of future rebirths. And I don't think the simple act of pouring water over someone's head (Catholicism) can remove his original human depravity, because none exists to begin with. Life is meant to be lived to the fullest, without fear of being punished in some future life or lives.

 

All these concepts of "sin" and "karma" and "morality" are purely human constructs. That is not to say, however, that some actions are not objectively harmful to others, because they are. But to posit some future punishment for "karma" or "sin" is ridiculous. Both karma and sin operate from a child's sense of morality; I must do such and such, because if I don't, I will get punished. And if I am a good boy I will get such and such as a reward.

 

I've always questioned notions like "heaven" and "hell" because there is no such thing as an absolutely "heavenly" or "hellish" experience. Everything is relative. My existence on earth is heavenly to a Sudanese refugee, but it might be hellish to a Wall Street fat cat.

 

 

 

 

 

I really like your post. Especially the "Wall Street fat cat" comment. And here literally "poor" me in a big comparison thought that I was in heaven. It is all relevent, isn't it? I think of heaven and hell as conditions on this earth. I can't know about the afterlife.

I have read a lot of past life regressions and have had them done on me, even one future one. Does this mean that karma exists? Reincarnation? Maybe. But then recently I found that Dr. Helen Wambeck did some future life progressions, and people were able to come up with them, but you know what? Their future lifes didn't come out as real if the time lines are correct. Our world is not like they discribed, so they began to sound like fantasies. I don't know what to think now even past life regression. but what would we learn if our so called bad karma went on into the next life? We wouldn't know about it to learn anything, would we? What about being reborn into an animal life? We wouldn't learn from that either, would we? Unless we have a teacher in the inbetween life that tells us our "sins" or goes over our life, but then when we are reborn we no longer remember it for it to be a lesson to us.

Karma theory is very different. There is no specific qualification of whether karma is good or bad...it simply is Karma (or action). When one does action using one's free will, he/she will have performed karma/kriya and therefore will have to face the consequences of this action.

 

The theory of Karma exists because there is no concept of "original sin" in the Eastern traditions. No one is born a "sinner" and no one can "save" anyone else. It is the individual's responsibility to watch out for one's own salvation or moksha (that being breaking the cycle of re-incarnation).

Maybe I misunderstand, but karma and original sin seems like the same to me. Original sin means to me that one is "born into sin," and with karma, your past life causing you to be "born into sin." You will always carry some baggage with you until you become enlightened and are therefore no longer affected by karma or original sin. The Hindu gurus, to me, were set up to save others just as Christ was. They took on your bad karma or sins. In reality, as far as I can tell, they only took on disciples to worship them, but still the idea was the same, again. Great book on this savior idea is Pagan Christs that can be read online for free or purchases. It is by JOhn Mackinnon. www.forgottenbooks.org

Also I don't think any human, no matter how they have lived their life and how bad they have been, deserves to suffer and endure sick, disgusting, unspeakably horrible acts conjured from the human imagination in a "hell realm" for any period of time. The human imagination can be a truly scary thing.

The last sentence was truly funny, but so true. And I have to agree with you on the first part too.

Well, I must reaffirm the fact that I do not accept the concepts of 'original sin', or 'karma', or 'life is suffering'.

 

That said, I will try to remain silent through the rest of this thread.

 

Peace & Love!

This has been something hard for me to accept also, so what I decided to do with karma is to say that I don't know and don't really care. I have not really cared for the saying, "That is bad karma," as it is no different to me than a Christian saying, "You are going to hell." When I was in Buddism I decided to not concern myself with karma. You just lead a life that is kind towards others and help people and animals when you can. Why? Because you don't wish to harm others; not because you fear hell or a bad afterlife. Do I believe in an afterlife. Yes, but I don't know what it is like. Other than that, life takes care of itself. And life is suffering also bothered me. I believe that you have to accept the good with the bad. Of course I don't live in a country where I am starving nor am in physical pain all the time, so I can say that at this point in my life. I guess it boils down to "what is, is, and I don't know what is and don't really believe that any one can really know."

I remember when I was into Buddhism, and maybe I lacked understanding, but it felt like we were to rid ourselves of desires and emotions. It felt like the world was to be seen as nothing but suffering. All the sudden I realized that I wanted to enjoy what there is in the world by enjoying nature, friends, a movie, a book, etc. Simple things yes, and along with that accept that there are some bad things in life. Of course when bad things happen I am sure I will wish that I was detached to it all. To me MayDay, being in the moment is to taste the sweets you mentioned, enjoying music, etc. certainly not yawning. Ha. That seems like part of the reason why we are here if we are here for any reason. I also decided that I didn't wish to become enlightened. What Hinduism and Buddhism felt like to me was that you didn't even yawn.

Thanks Marblehead,

I have a blog on dangers of meditation, and a Taoist came on and told me to read a certain Taoist book. It is by Hua-Ching Ni. There are many things that I can really agree with in it, and was not like I was used to hearing, which made that pleasing to me, but some things bother me, but I thought maybe I would just check it out further.

Just want to check out taoism to see if it is of my liking.