aridus

Another person who thinks they are doing it all by themselves?

Ever consider the wishes of the rock to remain separate from oneself?

If you put a bunch of rocks in a bag, are they separate, or are they together?

Edit: and no, I've never considered that, for even being able to think of a rock connects me to that rock. Nothing is by itself since everything interacts. Even if I don't interfere with the rock that is still an interaction - leaving the rock in place to provide shelter for a slug for example would be a different course than picking it up but it always leads to a dependent interaction with something else.

There is only conceptual splitting.

Our conscious mind wants to divide everything into discrete parts when everything is made of the same stuff one way or another.

Why do we pick up a rock and say 'this is one rock'? Is a rock not simply a bundle of matter? Is a planet not simply a very large bundle of matter? Is the universe not simply a whole lot of matter?

What difference does it make if we conceptually subdivide everything into smaller and more specified components? This is what I see - The One is All and the many are the subdivisions of the one. Is the rock not a part of the planet? Is the planet not a part of the solar system? Is the solar system not a part of the galaxy?

Being able to individuate something does not make that thing separate.

Non existence is necessarily part of existence as well.

The not existing wood in between the teeth of a wooden comb lets you comb hair.

The not existing flesh and bone between your fingers allows you to move them independently.

You can move to places where obstacles don't exist. You can breathe because obstruction to your airway does not exist.

Thirty spokes join in one hub

In its emptiness, there is the function of a vehicle

Mix clay to create a container

In its emptiness, there is the function of a container

Cut open doors and windows to create a room

In its emptiness, there is the function of a room

Therefore, that which exists is used to create benefit

That which is empty is used to create functionality

What about before the paper, printing and words were invented....??? Did you read Chapter 1 of the Tao Te Ching...???

It appears that you have misunderstood my analogy.

I am speaking of stratified concepts, not when or how anything was made.

I say all existence has always existed.

I interpret Tao in this context as 'everything' - i.e. all the substance and interactions which there are.

To me it is like saying that there was a publication, and the publication is a newspaper, and the newspaper has pages, and the pages have words, and the words have letters - yet the publication is all one existence.

Hmm. Interesting.

What is morality? Who am I to tell the universe how it should work?

Aren't we all part of everything? Who am I, to tell you that you should have more lofty manners than a lion, for example?

I feel an energy that is like an infinite number of happy bees buzzing around an infinite number of lovely flowers on an infinite number of revolving planets orbiting an infinite number of life giving suns spinning around in an infinite number of galaxies floating around in an infinite number of universes...

And then there is the outside of that.

Since I have not been here in months, have not seen the topic in question, don't know what is going on, and do not care, I am obviously the most qualified judge on this matter.

And my judgment is:

I judge that I will continue to drink my tea, pretend I was never here, and let you figure it out.

Through a break in the clouds, flip flop

Strange letter arrived

Small pretty envelope

Address in true red and pressed flower

Inside was a blank letter, space, line break, that's about it

Words, not any written but I can understand the content

It was written to come "here"

When I noticed I got to "here", invisible man was waiting

The voice I couldn't hear told me to look for "that"

So I started to look for "that"

Without wavering, without a reason I'll continue on looking

Maybe tomorrow "that" will be found

I searched a lot of places. It wasn't in a valley of buildings.

I dug a sand pool but it wasn't there

It wasn't there beyond the wall

I'm still looking for "that" now

Today again I will look for "that"

Through a break in the clouds, flip flop

Flip flop

They all have being and not being.

They all have empty parts. They all have lines or strokes around the empty parts.

The accordance of the way the empty is empty and the way a stroke is not empty, both working in harmony, is how we distinguish them.

"Thirty spokes share the wheel's hub;

It is the center hole that makes it useful.

Shape clay into a vessel;

It is the space within that makes it useful.

Cut doors and windows for a room;

It is the holes which make it useful.

Therefore profit comes from what is there;

Usefulness from what is not there."

Good question on who'd be considered a modern sage. I don't think John Stewart fits, but I'll name him anyway.

 

I agree with the frying fish statement. In a dozen organizations I've seen a new person come in, try to shake things up. Inevitably there good intentions create havoc and animosity. Too much, too fast. Change may be needed, but its best when it seems to come organically and not forced, thus the great leader is the one who seems to do nothing, but some how things get done.

Yeah. I think one problem is that we elect from people who 'throw their hat in the ring'. You'd think that we should already intuit that anyone who is motivated to step up already had some ideas and agendas in store, and therefore 'doing nothing' is probably the furthest thing from what they have in mind already.

We are rigged to put meddlers in office from the very start, which is why it keeps happening.

I am curious-- does anyone have some examples of modern day sages? On a news show, I once heard Karl Rove referred to as a sage, which is a laugh.

 

But do you guys see any active sages-- in the Daoist sense-- running around the world today, or even in the circles of power? Seems like everyone is chasing Confucian success; are the true sages hiding in seclusion?

 

Also, how do you guys feel about the Lao-tzu saying a country's leadership shouldn't be turned over too often-- like frying a fish, it falls apart. Doesn't this clash with our western democratic idealism?

I don't see it as saying that leadership shouldn't be "turned over". I see it as "excessive meddling creates problems." Or knowing when to just leave things alone. And yes, it does clash heavily.

Who would kill, if they are ignorant of enemies?

Who would steal, if they are ignorant of material value?

Who would hate, if everyone was cherished?

Who would need governance, if not for the interests of meddlesome people?

Yes! That does seem to be the case. Stroke victims do sometimes report that their personalities change dramatically, after the stroke.

 

But, yes, I agree with you, there are no specific neurons that we can point at and say: this is me. Rather, we have a beautifully functioning brain, and from that arises (among other things) the sense of "me". It is from the mass of activity of all the different brain parts that consciousness arises. (Not mechanical at all like your CD analogy, because it will never play back the same way twice; even the activity of remembering changes the memory).

 

What I think is intriguing is not just "what parts are me", but rather why is it that I pretend that some parts (usually the parts I don't like, like dark emotions and stray thoughts) are not me. And why do I have a hierarchy of mental functions (the ones I trust vs. the ones I'm afraid of), as if some were more "me" than others?

 

That's the illusion, as I see it: thinking that this "sense of me" actually describes who I am, when "the sense of me" is only a small part of what makes up my brain (and body) functioning.

Yeah totally. I just avoided the self referential nature for simplicity.

I used to ask people this: "Can you use a broken tool to repair itself?" and they go "whut?" so I kind of gave up on the self referential bit.

Thanks. Glad you like it.

Your self is a virtual collection of things which are in motion.

Is your self brain cells? I'm not so sure. Which cells are yourself? What happens when you lose some, or they change, are you a different 'self' then?

I look at it kind of like this. Think about a song that is recorded on a compact disc. It is etched so that a laser can read it as it spins, and tell the machine what sounds to make - but without the motion, the spinning and the laser, without the machine, there is no song, its just a plastic disc. It hasn't changed at all, there's just no 'song' on the disc in the first place, it is only instructions for a machine to recreate the song in real time as the disc spins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAfHbWFezF8

As far as I know, it's the english name for a major sect that practices internal alchemy. It's just the name, even though I'm sure it was chosen for a reason, I don't think it's opposed to "incomplete reality" per se.

Don't know much about it other than that, since I'm not very sectarian.

I would call it a Divine Presence; Power seems to give too much to the idea of volition. We are only limited by our awareness and connection. If we only think in physical terms (right, wrong, take, get, etc), I think we miss the boat on this.

Good way of putting it. I used the word power in the sense of something like energy or electricity, not an exertion of control.

Just yet another place where connotation drastically changes the message.

Here's this

And now this

If you can take them seriously, you're doing ok.

If you don't take it too seriously and find that the lack of seriousness doesn't detract, you're doing even better.

If you just plain enjoy it for what it is, that is pretty good too.

Note that this isn't meant to be taken that seriously.

LOL completely unexpected when I clicked on the thread.

Insight. Insight of your abilities, potentials, and practices. Repetition will follow insight, if insight tells that it is necessary. Repetition without insight is a trap that many fall into, if you repeat the wrong things, you only become proficient at developing bad habits that hold you back.

I stopped when he said "suffering deepens you". I find this to be a dangerous concept. I don't believe suffering 'does' anything, people unlock things within themselves and it diminishes. What is unlocked is not always 'positive'. What is unlocked can at times come from being jaded and callous and there are plenty of jaded, callous people in the world to attest to this.

How about this one?

Dogfish dog fish, fish dog dogfish dogfish dog. Fish fish dogfish, dogfish fish fish fish fish, dogfish fish dogfish.