Stosh

1 hour ago, C T said:

What gave you the impression that i even support the idea of being nice? There are lots of unhappy people who try to be nice everyday without much conviction, who pay lip service and forced by economic circumstances to be 'nice'. Being nice can promote victimhood. Dont be nice - practice being kind instead, without expectations and not under economic spells. 

No thanks. I see value in sincerity. I hold it high esteem. I can risk the kick in the pants often enough. And reserve falsity for those who earn it. If My actions are false to myself then it is not me being manifested, and if I am going to sustain against the trials which are presented , then at least I got to be manifested. If you have to go though a pretense , a sham , insincere deceit , in order to be kindly , then the truth is that you are not warmly disposed . Truly the world will not know the difference if you make it convincing, the wish to see each other in both favorable and unfavorable lights is strong. 

11 minutes ago, C T said:

Some people will protect themselves no matter what - distrust is a deep-seated emotion. Not all the time, but it can be that sometimes maintaining a neutral demeanour is the highest form of 'nice'. Inside remain neutral, outwardly practice kindness. Thats my advice to myself. 

If you ask me I think youre wasting your nice behavior if you dont enjoy it. 

Yes some people do distrust a lot. But that is still the same paradigm , they fear , so they consider the behavior untenable,  because it doesnt feel safe. 

They expect a kick in the nuts.

12 minutes ago, C T said:

 

Im not sure...I dont think just believing in the tenability of it is sufficient to make people nicer. 

What makes people nicer? IMo putting in the effort to cultivate the methods. Training the mind on the Paramitas. That makes people nicer. 

Why do you think people want to see others being nice ? Then they feel its safe for them to be as well, and what happens when they see roughness? they try to protect themselves.  Try being nice and gentle with someone and see if they dont tend to reciprocate. That would only happen if there is a motivation to be nicer then they usually act.  

Then they will bump up against their preconcieved notions of how far they can go before being a sucker or doormat or whatever ,which is taught by the slings and arrows of prior experience. They deem going so far as that ,as untenable.

11 hours ago, C T said:

On not go past the goofiness and mushiness. As wisdom develops, the generosity takes on a broader scope, selflessness is uncovered, leading to actions that are free from karmic rebounds (which is suggested to be the Buddhist equivalent of wei wu wei) since there is no attachment to a self that experiences the emotional entanglements often associated with the often misunderstood notions of what constitutes 'compassion' in its broader sense. 

The thing I was suggesting was that people would be nicer if they believed that it was a tenable thing to do.Thinking That they would not get a swift kick for being honest or explaining or just because they werent actually significant to others. 

Someone starts a thread with a question , and then never acknowledges the replies and so forth. 

When the reception is seen as insignificant ,as in a game , then the downside dwindles to nothing. But if you put big emphasis and attention on the conversation a snub becomes a big deal.

Its an ironic blessing to be all wrapped up in yourself , because you will tend take the reactions of others 

lightly, casually, smoothly. 

How mushy generous compassionate loving and selfless would one be, if it always worked out .? I imagine we would be as goofy as puppies. 

3 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Monkeys don't have much compassion.

 

No they dont, the difference  is that humans can equate others with self ..sometimes. 

17 minutes ago, C T said:

Why must it be a game when there is a choice to do these things authentically, with the sort of engagement that enables you to partake of all seemingly mundane activities with total involvement, leaving no gaps nor venturing forth with hesitance?

 

Bypassing sense inputs implies immediacy - it means the  end of separation - no contraction, nil anxiety, and conflict-free between you and that which commands your attention in the moment, whatever that may be, even if that is something as basic as becoming one with your breath. To be able to function on such a level surely does not mean open eyes and see nothing , listen and hear nothing , sniff and smell nothing, or abide and think nothing - if anything, it is the exact opposite of what you have been taught to believe. 

You brought up the ' no fluttering of the sense doors ' that's not necessarily being completely open to sensory input , it can be seen as being entirely the opposite,

and in the context of meditation to get to enlightenment , sensory input and idea generation are put on a shelf. 

Why must it be a game when there is a choice to do these things authentically, with the sort of engagement that enables you to partake of all seemingly mundane activities with total involvement, leaving no gaps nor venturing forth with hesitance?

Because the whole point was to demonstrate the unreality at the heart of individual identity , so looking at the world afterward , you know you don't last forever as this meatbag  , nor can you die, nor does one need to be stuck in bad reflexive habits , nor is there alone-ness nor does one need to vilify , nor must one never-forgive and so forth.

This is why truth sets ye free, no magic needed , no presumptive conclusion that compassion must be  an inevitable progression.

I'm sure you see that most bums want to be even kinder gentler mushier than we are already , its just that exaggeration of this appears untenable. 

You say why 'must' it be game , but its really , that as a game , silly fears or mechanisms may finally be dropped,

 there's no reason why one cannot still be totally invested in their life, its just that the rules have become.. fungible. 

16 minutes ago, C T said:

'Indulge in compassion' - you have framed it nicely. Indulgence implies selectiveness, as with your apple analogy, but what do you think will be the likelier outcomes when one dismantles this selective processing? Are you thinking that there is no means by which the senses can be transcended? I assure you its not that difficult to simply rest in pervasive awareness without the least fluttering of any of the sense doors. 

Oh no , I am certain the 'senses' can be obviated , just as you say , but they Will intrude again , unless you go into a coma.

It has been said that one can reasonably consider the retina , as an extension of the brain ,

with this in mind it should be clear that a direct feed into the processing areas of the brain could be hard to ignore.

To maintain the body one must play the game of hunting up chow, and all the rest ,

this forces us to deal with the rest of the universe from the point of view of an individual , at some point.

Though certainly you can open eyes and see nothing , listen and hear nothing , sniff and smell nothing, or abide and think nothing.

Being forced by the physical need presents a problem of reconciling the world as a physical place with things in it ,minds with ideas in it ,

VS the lack of basis for considering these things as having external solidity.  

You may rest , but you Will get up again. 

The Rinpoche would have made a good Daoist. 

40 minutes ago, C T said:

From the Mahayana perspective, its not that the self is false, but the notion of an independently existing entity (as the self) that is truly false. When this is realised, it is said that compassion will arise spontaneously from having uncovered the clear sightedness of dependent origination. At around the same time that this clarity begins to reveal its unbounded essence, the aspiring bodhisattva will actually begin to gradually discard arrogant notions of self-independence, and this in turn will arouse compassionate views that will eventually lead the aspirant to consider others (the bodhisattvas are first taught conceptually to regard all beings as having been their parents at one time or another) as even more important than the self-ideating self, if that makes any sense. 

It makes sense , yes, as a belief , and I am comfortable that you have the better grasp of that tradition than I do. But any person can indulge in compassion , there's no need to experience this enlightenment to do that, and subsequent to introducing this new perspective one is Still compelled to maintain themselves within the corporeal world ,

,,yes one may see life as more as a game or play , and yes they may take things with a grain of salt , and yes they may feel more freedom to pursue what is in their heart and yes they may extend the concern for self to others , but the impact of the senses , the conclusions drawn within the context of this living story ,still exert much of the weight they did before. Show me an apple and I will still see it as red , despite knowing this red color is a mental fabrication , and despite knowing the world is an interwoven field , and I will still judge whether it looks like one of the Rome apples I don't like , or Fuji , which I do,,, my taste buds will still convey apple, and not steak , to my mind. 

While the enlightenment experience may shed light on the foundations of human mind , , I am thinking that it is the job of an  enlightenment education ,might be said to shed light on the foundations of reality itself. Nor does understanding the false nature of self , guarantee that one will be compassionate , in fact , considering the world not to be 'real' can suggest that there is no need to consider others as having worth at all. One must go yet another step and re-see the mountains from the other side , whether that's recognized or not by the experiencer.  (Sensing gravity does not unravel it's equation, and the equation, does not predict its distribution. . though they are related but who should care ? if this is not brought back to improving the world as it is experienced , illusions and all ) 

9 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Yes, good questions.  I am still open for changing my mind about this concept.

 

Presently, it is my understanding that it requires some kind of biological life in order to be conscious.  Plants are actually conscious in a certain way.

 

Self-conscious is more restricted.  Humans and a few other mammals can be defined as being self-conscious animals.  The mirror is of good use here.  When an animal looks into a mirror does it see itself or does it see another animal?

 

And then, if there is conscious life then it must be an attribute of Tao.  However, as Tao is not a thing, I doubt I could agree with a suggestion that Tao is self-conscious.

 

I never really agreed with the mirror proof of animals not thinking they exist. 

My cat quickly gathers that a shadow is of her own making,

when she bats an object

she doesn't appear to think it moved on its own,

but if it did move on its own , she would jump. ( up , or at it) 

If she is against me on the couch , and I reach out and touch her before getting up, she is aware that I am aware of her, and stays in place. 

But if I go to get up without touching her , she looks to not get bumped or squashed , and hops out of the way. 

There's plenty of other things she does ,which to me seem , must indicate that she is aware that she exists , that she has effect, and that I am also aware of her. 

A person came over to me with their dog , I wasn't paying attention , when she mentioned the dog, I looked down and saw the dog ,( truly a Huge Giant headed pit bull.)

but the dog was just wanting acknowledgement , and  so was making the ' Hi pet me I am nice -face' , so I petted it ,

satisfied , the dog looked for the next thing to do. The dog wanted to relate , it didn't think I was inanimate.  

While there are mental leaps that some animals make , and others do not, such as , a dog will follow a pointing finger to find a snack , whereas the cat just manages to look both blank and confused. And I suspect understanding the effect of a mirror , when the data being presented is just So! much like another creature,  overwhelms what they innately understand. 

I think they have minds , and emotions ,but just cant do some of our tricks. 

8 minutes ago, allinone said:

 

ok i am off but i think it is fine,

i think it is brain what colors, does those things. Mind is what body isn't but is dependable still on body, like recalling the path to person x home, we reflect momentarily at least once to the forehead region and even eyes usually point that direction of brain, can be verified by watching person who thinks meanwhile when explaining a route or what happened in the past, recreating a past footage of a scene.

A mind what doesn't depend on creating or forming manually a picture from a real life event anymore is after we get a feeling: the feeling originally is gotten through a dream and then in waking reality can recall that feeling. So that feeling doesn't rise from a world where body is in, but now it will be seen as a sensation from a belly instead.

 

Its also how it is annoying when a person starts explain a scenery, while i already got a feeling i know i know i say to him, and just get to the point already, skip the politics and manners.

 

The feeling gotten so hard because its what we avoid, because its the thing we keep in closet hidden and we get a feeling what rises when the closet is discovered and opened, that feeling of nakedness.

If to do it faster we need participate in circumstances what support that opening towards being having less and less things in closet, but its actually a certain feeling what we can't face yet, but when we get the feeling through a dream then we can because we see it is not real world it is in body and ours.

Yep, that's how it appears to me , as well.  

I read most of the analects, but finally I admitted to myself I was forcing myself to read really boring stuff. I think there is an important difference with daoism, that being the belief that men at heart are good , and that their essential nature will be asserted as such ,when the disturbances are alleviated. 

I think the Confucian view runs more along the lines that mens views on goodness are ..a blank slate, and unguided , behavior will be unpredictable. 

So I believe thqt Confucius feels that the thing to do is set an artficial standard so that man will be able to be good.

Both feel that men have propensities which may be relied upon. 

.... dont ask for me to back that up, I dont remember what data I used to get there.

1 hour ago, allinone said:

 

you need body to have information from a world what is not mind. So if you encounter wall, then it is not mind, so it makes that mind powers like telekinesis doesn't work on inanimate objects---that would mean in order to move stone, it should grow feet and it will walk. Not sure thoughts could make the stone levitate, but never say never.

 

there is some other science. First of if i enter my own room it is a world different than a room where other people are in, despite for sure rooms made of bricks and paint, wallpaper etc point that there is one world earth.

-----

ok i am wrong, water shape can be changed with thoughts? thoughts are body too then. So not wrong.

You possibly misunderstand me, I agree , that the physical world is outside the direct control of mind. 

but I claim that there is content in the mind which is not the direct result of the physical world. 

Colors do not exist. Wavelength exists. Color is an extrapolation from the data we get from the eye, The distinctions of color are an weighted averaged data presentation. related to the optic sensors behavior in response to real light, but wavelength is a continuum without distinctions like red or blue. 

Somehow a mind can direct our muscles to move. The energy is always there but it is subject to the mind , I conclude that mind can affect some aspect of matter, but not that mind has mechanical force. 

To be a troll is intending to be troublesome, otherwise one is just prompting interplay. 

Data from a body is constrained by that which exists , you would encounter a wall and not be allowed to go forward.. but the body without mind is inert to arriving at conclusions, so the body cannot actually confirm or deny.

You can have ideas sentiments for which there is no bodily confirmation.

The mind can sometimes constrain itself. So that one acts within the limits imposed by the mind. 

So I would say No, if you were proposing that the body was required for the mind to move. And No again that the mind creates the actual reality which constrains our physical possibilities. 

Awwwww  

On 10/21/2017 at 8:00 AM, allinone said:

I can read some writings. Then feel my nerves and desire to say something something SOMETHING conservative.

Not able to articulate, to know what exactly causing it, so i keep want attacking persons who seem going somewhere.

Now i am better at acknowledging those phenomena. This also is after the fact post, but i struggled, now i did got a release by noticing i have issue. I should watch nerves and urges not other persons.

 

More free will: Less being on borderline, more stay in center.

Going somewhere accurate ,  or inaccurate? pleasant or unpleasant ? scary or confirming? 

The object, not existing without background ,, has no shape we can describe, 

it is  without a model. 

The mind concludes shape. Shape is conjecture.Though the object has some bounds. 

Anyone might trip over a chair in a dark room , the reality of the chair intrudes upon the model we might have , that the room is empty because we see nothing in it. 

This model of what exists , is an object of mind

 So there is the object itself , independent of our mind,

and a model ,which is an object of mind regarding that which is real,

( which may be inaccurate, because it is not the real thing, its just a model.)

If a persons model appears to be accurate regarding the prediction of future events , future findings , then we say they know what they are talking about. 

If the model , does not appear to be accurate at predicting future events in a way which fits the general understanding of physics , then we say that it is a faulty model. 

We expect that the ball will be round, that if turned there will be another view of it , and so even when we cannot see the other side , our model suggests it still exists.

That you feel insecure , that your model will be vindicated ( as in not being sure of the green flower) is accurate.

The flower may be white.

But all take the chance at being wrong,  coming to conclusions, and making models. 

Perhaps, as according to your OP, that after Acceptance , there is another step,Rejection. We may reject the story coming to an end, and so its not impetuousness which resets the cycle, but rather its a concession , that we want to live and do and be and create ,, to,,, write a story. 

Its the path which we want , not so much its conclusion. 

The end of pursuit in Buddhism is a completion , heaven, the lack of more to need to be doing , or reliving. 

The world moves  beneath our feet  , if all circumstances were identical there would be and end to change, an end to newness

, the past would stretch out behind as well as forward , and there would be nothing to do .

  So we rebirth meaning cause connection time need beauty and all the rest of it. 

One may find some rest , in the condiment of unity , but there is a story to write.  

IMO Chi,  is an 'economic model'  which assists in making decisions regarding how to allot ones intent and resources ( which are finite moment to moment)  to find balance. 

Spam

2 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Yeah, there is a difference between a Superior Man and a Sage.  I can't take this any further as I would only be presenting my biased opinions.

 

 

Oh ! Sure! solicit biased opinions , then decline to do likewise . Now I see  

On 10/21/2017 at 11:44 AM, Will said:

This is a very interesting, provocative question I've been pondering intensely over the last few days. Is it really desirable to become enlightened?

Obviously , there are those who desire it , so , yes. But , What this means to you personally , and whether this is an improvement , is up to you. 

 

By enlightenment, I don't mean becoming a true sage or anything like that, but merely coming to realize basic Taoist "truths" (about how most dualities and desires are simply meaningless human inventions). 

Consider the Taoist truths as resolutions of personal foibles , and you would construe them to be advantageous undoubtedly. Wouldn't anyone be better off with their issues resolved ?.

Now, many people are very content with their lives when they are not enlightened. Perhaps they work for a charity or have ambitions to become a social activist. They believe that what they are doing is the right thing, and matters a lot.

I don't know the happiness levels of everyone else to be honest, but there are a lot of issues that go unresolved. Even activism and charity have a down side , they still ride the roller-coaster. 

 

Contrast that with me, who's currently "enlightened" in the sense previously described, and is feeling like nothing has meaning. This does not make me feel very content. Of course, Zhuangzi felt very content, but it took a lot of practice and dedication for him to reach that point. Whereas for those who aren't enlightened, I get the sense that many of them are pretty content without having to put in that kind of dedication.

When nothing has intrinsic meaning, any meaning that things have, is that which we impart , nihilism is a dangerous ..one step shy ..of the goal.

 

In other words, isn't enlightenment the harder road to contentedness? Might I be better off trying to "forget" Taoism and postmodern philosophy and make myself like a "normal" person? Because what is really the benefit of all this uncertainty and nihilism? 

No, because nihilism , the bummed out unfulfilled need for externally presented meaning,, is not the end game, and normalcy is  not very often found as the road to being happy or at peace. Its a nicer,, but still a,,  roller coaster one might return to. 

 

I suppose another question that ties in with this is, "Is happiness the only thing I should want?" I know I've discussed this here before, with no clear answer coming out of it. But, basically, if happiness is the only thing one can really strive for, what benefit have I gained by adding uncertainty and meaninglessness to my life? By contrast, if there is some "higher purpose" than my personal happiness, then perhaps the uncertainly associated with Taoism is okay.

Taoism doesn't deem happiness to be a thing one needs to want as to take the throne of meaning. Meaning being undefined externally speaking leaves you still free to pick what it is that you want to have meaning... being personally happy is just one choice, another is being of service to community , fostering children ,or the planet, or justice ,or a profession , or stillness,, etc.....   Consider thoroughly what happiness is , and it may elude , and you may find it not being all that important,, dunno , You're at the center of the universe, the measure of all things 

 

I'm not actually considering leaving Taoism; it's just that questions like this really bother me. 

 Don't be bothered , life's too short. 

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

Challenge my brain, will you?   Hehehe.  It's still early in the morning and I haven't yet finished my second cup of coffee.

 

 

But anyhow,  let's see ...

 

How about the comparison between a Sage and a Superior Man as noted by the Border Warden?

 

The Superior Man would be the Confucian and the Sage would be the Taoist.

 

The Superior Man would view things from only his perspective but the Sage would view things from all perspectives.

 

When reading it , I thought the two terms were swapped. Do you agree that the warden is hoping for the blessings of whom he calls a 'Sage',

but is really expecting that the Sage will be he whom would be more accurately called the ' Superior man'  type guy.

Whereas Yao, is the actual sage of Cz , and so, is refuted by the warden as "just being ' a Superior ,,but regular guy ? 

So this is a 'comedy of errors' the names are flipped by the Warden as are his opinions.?

Have your coffee ..  

.. or vice versa, where it is the border warden who Is the sage , its hard to tell who made the long 'speech' 

But perhaps it doesnt matter. ( like a palindrome)