Sign in to follow this  
silent thunder

Master speaks on the Tao: Life is not sacred

Recommended Posts

As tongue in cheek as this may appear...

 

I honestly think this is a great layout of a valid modern perspective of the straw dog aspect of the Tao.

 

Edited by silent thunder
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think George pretty much had his shit together and he made a lot of money telling his truths.

 

But the sanctity of life didn't help him either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take is that George is missing the entire meaning of the saying for the sarcastic and comedic hell of it. What is sacred is the life force and spirit within all forms, thus the forms are not sacred per-se since it is really the purity of life force and or spirit force and being-ness that powers forms which is sacred. Thus to not see or have any understanding or feeling for that within form and then to further disrespect or try to do malicious violence against the life-force and spirit being-ness that is powering oneself and anyone or anything else is to go against that which is really sacred.

Edited by 3bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved the guys humor , and he is making sound points at the same time.

More than just the idea of 'sanctity-of life' has no basis other than communal whim.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point he's making that I think gets to the heart of the straw dog principle is that the Tao is neutral and our innate sense of self gives us the false idea that some life is sacred and others are not, which I find to be patently ridiculous and untenable.

 

Human life is not treated any differently in the Tao than advanced melanoma.

Nor are stones given favor over flowers.

 

Tao treats all as straw dogs.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awful man.

And people paid to listen to him!

Only in America eh?

 

:)

But your people paid to watch Margaret.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We did indeed.

And a guy called Tony Hancock and he was truly dire.

Thing is with 'stand up' it's all very safe.

Get people laughing at and about 'serious' issues and those issues are somehow tamed.

It's cool to be flippant.

Edited by GrandmasterP
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flippant has generally a negative connotation , should he have gravely said that there is no sanctity of life?

At least with comedy it gives the audience a chance to preserve the sense that they arent being contested directly.

Its gentler.

If the audience laughs , they some truth in the point, they may not , in the end, take his extreme position , but at least its an exposure which renders things approachable rather than alien-taboo.

Humour sits at the delicate balancing point between what a person deems proper-true , and that which they deem improper-true.

Push that balance too far in one direction, and it flops.. you dont feel his point is funny ,, and so Id guess you deem it too far from what you deem proper-true,, or it pushes a button which you dont want pressed.

I watched a Monty Python skit last night , it was about a joke so funny that everyone who heard it , keeled over. Certainly this isnt a true existant thing , because that balance point lies at different places for different folks, and so , it is forever subjective.

 

Either that- or you brits just dont have any sense of humor :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humour is a funny thing isn't it?

I wonder how well Mr Carlin or Lenny Bruce ( for two examples) went over with middle or mainstream Americans?

Pre- Python here we had the Cambridge Footlights Review and that humour only really worked with people who had been to university.

Us working class oiks were laughing at 'Carry On' movies and Benny Hill.

The 'posh' stuff we simply did not 'get' as being funny.

Edited by GrandmasterP
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think humor is a great indicator of where the work lies.

Wherever I am not permitted to laugh, it's bound to be that there is something to work on there.

 

The humor to me reinforces the point he's making, since it 'demystifies' the topic, or 'brings it down' to the base, common level, much like water settling in its lowest point.

 

The laughter in an of itself, to me, is proof to the non-sacred nature, for we are not permitted to laugh at the sacred are we?

Aside from the Jesters, Fools and Heyokah, etc. The presence of this one in nearly all cultures, reminding us that these dogmas and clingons we support and prop up with 'strong belief' is naught but a straw dog.

 

Albeit, maybe a really nice straw dog that we enjoy very much for a time.

 

I really appreciate how he advances the hinge though, that there is life that is sacred and life that is not.

Which gets me to my point about what is the definition of sacred.

 

What does it mean to be sacred? Does it exist in anything/way other than in a thought?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does it mean to be sacred? Does it exist in anything/way other than in a thought?

That's a tough one. I'm not even going to attempt a response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"what does it mean to be sacred"

 

That's an easy one, (although far easier said than done) and there are many examples given or implied

in about every chapter of the TTC, for example:

 

49.
"THE Sage has no interests of his own,
But takes the interests of the people as his own.
He is kind to the kind;
He is also kind to the unkind:
For Virtue is kind.
He is faithful to the faithful;
He is also faithful to the unfaithful:
For Virtue is faithful..."

Edited by 3bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the full historical, ceremonial and mystical context of this term "straw dogs" but if one thinks of straw dogs as being sacrificed as in forms being sacrificed for transformation / transmutation purposes then the connotation sounds a lot different than what could be taken as an indifference in treatment.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"what does it mean to be sacred"

 

That's an easy one, (although far easier said than done) and there are many examples given or implied

in about every chapter of the TTC, for example:

 

49.

"THE Sage has no interests of his own,

But takes the interests of the people as his own.

He is kind to the kind;

He is also kind to the unkind:

For Virtue is kind.

He is faithful to the faithful;

He is also faithful to the unfaithful:

For Virtue is faithful..."

Right on, so the essence of sacred would be the Sage's Virtue, which stems from his equal faithfulness to all.

I can hang with that.

 

but, purely devil's advocate here in the interest of chewing bones: This pops up...

 

Say a tumor is on a patient's liver... the liver cells are sacred and the tumor is...

 

How would a Sage view this? Is it just a matter of balance of Yin and Yang?

 

I don't have much of a sacred view of viruses, or leeches, etc... Yet my son... family... friends...

Somewhere in here is an inroad to be able to extend my compassion, but it's muddy, muddy water.

Maybe it's not meant to be understood logically, but experienced...

but I really enjoy chewing bones so...

back to the tumor...

Restore balance to the system and remove the conditions that allow the tumor to thrive?

If so, then is balance considered sacred?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the full historical, ceremonial and mystical context of this term "straw dogs" but if one thinks of straw dogs as being sacrificed as in forms being sacrificed for transformation / transmutation purposes then the connotation sounds a lot different than what could be taken as an indifference in treatment.

The way I read about Straw Dogs and how I'm using the term applies to literal dogs made of straw, loosely tied together in a rough dog shape, carried around and set out for the day of a festival, then at the end of the festival they are all just discarded into the streets and revert back to normal straw to be tromped, shat and walked on with no thought whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take:

The straw dogs are sacrificed (so to speak) after serving a purpose for a limited time, likewise and on another scale to "return" to the Tao would also take the sacrifice of ones personal straw dogs... (as a great Sage has done)

 

so straw in either case was only of forms that come and go for that which is hidden in plain sight and walked over yet it was never born and will never die and all seek it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So:

 

Sacred essence

lies in the letting go

of form

 

in innate voluntary sacrifice to the process of returning to

 

the source

which we never left... ?

 

that works for me for now anyway, that is ridiculously beautiful and participatory and acknowledges awareness without clinging...

going to sleep on that one... thanks!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.

To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So:

 

Sacred essence

lies in the letting go

of form

 

in innate voluntary sacrifice to the process of returning to

 

the source

which we never left... ?

 

that works for me for now anyway, that is ridiculously beautiful and participatory and acknowledges awareness without clinging...

going to sleep on that one... thanks!

 

Likewise Silent Thunder, and I'm getting up to that one :):excl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

I said straw man completely by mistake. I was intending to write straw dog and just wasn't paying attention. Sorry for any confusion there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Straw dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.

 

(no reason for me to post this just felt like it).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this