Remember the story of the young girl and the two monks? How do you let go of irritants? I would not say real anger, just something that really bugs you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember the story of the young girl and the two monks? How do you let go of irritants? I would not say real anger, just something that really bugs you.
I let myself stomp around and cuss! At first, that is... but then laugh at my own idiocy and forget the whole thing. For some reason I get irritated very, very easily. Luckily, I'm able now to recover more easily than I could before I began practicing.
Things that used to make me really angry tend to make me sad now.
For me, it seems the big or important things do not really get to me. It is the little things that persist. I wonder if it is that the important things boil under the surface and then the not-so-important things are the straws on a camel's back.
Humor definitely helps. I think I need to seek humor in the irritant.
Thanks for your response.
Thanks for your response.
Anytime at all! As long as you realize you're getting the views of a guy who's self-admittedly not very good at his practice... rather, these are simply the views of a guy who thinks about this stuff and is willing to discuss it.
I was poking around on a Taoist website where someone posted the three questions a true Taoist must answer. One was who is your Master and one was what sect do you belong to. I do not remember the third.
Someone responded asking for the lineage of the poster's Master and sect suggesting that the first 'Master' did not have one, and therefore invalidated all who followed him.
I do not expect you to have all the answers. I am just shopping around. Sly grin
Does Buddhism take a stance on 'my suffering' vs. 'that guy's suffering'? Is there any priority established by who is suffering?
Does Buddhism take a stance on 'my suffering' vs. 'that guy's suffering'? Is there any priority established by who is suffering?
'Me' as being different from 'that guy' is an artificial construct, an illusion. You're suffering because you're still stuck on 'you' vs. 'him.' He's still suffering because he's stuck on 'him' vs. 'you.'
Does Buddhism take a stance on 'my suffering' vs. 'that guy's suffering'? Is there any priority established by who is suffering?'Me' as being different from 'that guy' is an artificial construct, an illusion. You're suffering because you're still stuck on 'you' vs. 'him.' He's still suffering because he's stuck on 'him' vs. 'you.'
So if you help the suffering of another you are also helping your own suffering. Because the distinction of self is in and of itself a fallacy?
So…how am I Osama bin Laden?
So…how am I Osama bin Laden?
you shoot him and save a lot of suffering????
So…how am I Osama bin Laden?
How are you not? By your perception.
And you accuse me of over-simplifying things. :)
I am not sure Osama is still in a position to cause much suffering. Do not get me wrong, I would put a bullet between his eyes if given the chance. I still carry a lot of anger against him, but that is my issue.
Taoism seems to share this idea that we are all one and the same. I can see how we are all connected, but a literal 'we are all one' I find a little harder to wrap my head around.
So…how am I Osama bin Laden?How are you not? By your perception.
I did not order people to fly planes into a building in a vain attempt to terrorize people into accepting my religious beliefs.
I did not order people to fly planes into a building in a vain attempt to terrorize people into accepting my religious beliefs.
From a pragmatic standpoint, bin Laden is guilty as hell, and you're not. From a philosophical standpoint, the two of you are engaged in a zero-sum game, the only solution to which is to break the ongoing cycle of violence.
After all, bin Laden would point out that you pay taxes that allow the U.S. to pursue goals that are deletorious to the lives of people that he is claiming to be fighting on behalf of.
If I stop paying taxes, he does not end his Jihad though. I just do not see how we are one. Connected? Yes. One? No.
Connected? Yes. One? No.
If you accept connected, you're already halfway there. The rest will come in time.
Connected? Yes. One? No.If you accept connected, you're already halfway there. The rest will come in time.
You do realize you sound like the Christians now…right? :)
Smells like cosmic law in here.
Sorry about that.
You do realize you sound like the Christians now…right? :)
Yeah, only I'm fine if you reject it, or find some other path. I'm not interested in saving your soul or whatever. I'll answer questions if asked, and otherwise leave you to your own conclusions. Also, I think I've been clear that any answers I give are coming from me only; I'm not claiming to speak for some omnipotent sky god, or any god(s) at all, for that matter.
That was not meant as an attack. Just in case it rubbed you the wrong way.
That was not meant as an attack. Just in case it rubbed you the wrong way.
Not at all -- overall, I seem to catch your "tone" in written posts better than I do most peoples'.
I do want to be clear that I don't want to come across like I'm preaching at you -- rather, all I can do is answer direct questions in as honest a fashion as I can, with the clear understanding that my views on the answers need not be shared by others. I can't talk for where you are going, or where I am, for that matter -- all I can do is let you know where I've been, in case any of those places seem like they're worth checking out, or like you want to avoid them.
This is a spin-off from the "Civil Religious Discussion" thread, which is essentially a "compare and contrast Christianity and other views" thread. This thread can be used for other traditions; Buddhists, Hindus, Neo-Pagans, Atheists, and people of any other denomination, or none, are all equally welcome!
The Ching di Tao and Annalects of Confusius both talk about animal's being in concert with the natural, right order of things.
While neither of these is a Buddhist canonical view, it does point to the answer "yes."
In service,
Rich
Go to The Original Dr. Games Site.
While neither of these is a Buddhist canonical view, it does point to the answer "yes."
In the Buddhist view, it's a trick question. The answer is unequivocally "yes." It's also a resounding "no." And it's "not applicable."
The question itself contains one or two assumptions that should be questioned before being committed to by stating a response.
I am not sure I understand the question.
Allow me a straw man, animals do not build cities. Is building cities, therefore, 'wrong'?
When I first started researching Taoism, I really had a hard time with Wei Wu Wei. I think I still do. How is 'doing nothing' a 'good' philosophy. But now, I think it is not so much 'doing nothing', but being in 'harmony'.
I think you can build cities in harmony with the world around you.
Did I just answer my own question?
…
42!
Allow me a straw man, animals do not build cities. Is building cities, therefore, 'wrong'?
Are you asking me? I know next to nothing about Taoism -- what animals do or don't do isn't a Buddhist measure of anything in particular I can think of.
More directed at DrGames.
Wu wei isn't inertia, it is effortless action.
Doing nothing can be good, though, if it is what is required of the situation.
Doing the right thing without deliberating and without force is wu wei.
At least according to what I've read, which is a self-defeating thing in taoism ain't it?
As for building cities and the like, Zhuangzi and Laozi place great emphasis on making things being good — it is expecting praise or reward for what you have made that is un-sagely.
Nature and animals are sometimes used as model beings in taoism because they don't struggle with artificial life concerns like humans do. They don't aspire to fame or wealth. Do good, and both fame and wealth might come your way, but chasing them means you will never attain them.
I would agree that sometimes inaction is 'good' and sometimes inaction is 'bad'. As I have mentioned elsewhere (I do not remember where now), someone implied that Wei Wu Wei was Awareness, Capacity and Timing. Knowing when to do something, being capable of doing what is needed and knowing exactly when to do it. That kind of clicked for me.
I do not think reading is self-defeating in Taoism (assuming that is what you meant). I think too much reading is considered self-defeating. Taoism, at least my perspective on it thus far, is all about the moderation. Too much of anything is a bad thing.
I wonder if one can be 'too much' on the path.
I would agree that sometimes inaction is 'good' and sometimes inaction is 'bad'. As I have mentioned elsewhere (I do not remember where now), someone implied that Wei Wu Wei was Awareness, Capacity and Timing. Knowing when to do something, being capable of doing what is needed and knowing exactly when to do it. That kind of clicked for me.
I do not think reading is self-defeating in Taoism (assuming that is what you meant). I think too much reading is considered self-defeating. Taoism, at least my perspective on it thus far, is all about the moderation. Too much of anything is a bad thing.
I wonder if one can be 'too much' on the path.
I added some edits in the previous post, sorry.
Yeah, I suppose what I meant about self defeating is that debating the way on an internet forum, or even thinking that I know more and know enough to teach some version of it... that's not tao. It sounds like you learned your own appreciation of it, which is as valid as mine if not more so. So who am I to step in and read the last post and then respond?
Yeah, I suppose what I meant about self defeating is that debating the way on an internet forum, or even thinking that I know more and know enough to teach some version of it... that's not tao.
My understand is that you are correct. I also believe I am kind of stuck there. I am trying to understand it before I decide I want to practice it. What I keep hearing is that you just have to practice it before you can understand it.
I am just not sure I buy into that. It sounds too much like the middle school redirect, "If you don't know, I'm not gonna tell you."
It sounds like you learned your own appreciation of it, which is as valid as mine if not more so. So who am I to step in and read the last post and then respond?
Would you stop editing when I am trying to respond! :)
I have not seen it explicitly spelled out, but I do get the distinct feeling that everyone's path is unique. That would also mean that reading or even seeking advice eventually becomes pointless. No one else can tell you your path. And that much, I can agree with. We all have different experiences and will be faced with different challenges.
I welcome your responses. I would like someone to bounce my thoughts on Taoism off, but have not found a place or individual I feel I can really dig into it with.
I am just not sure I buy into that. It sounds too much like the middle school redirect, "If you don't know, I'm not gonna tell you."
That's really a good definition of "mysticism", in a way.
It helps to realize that for many people, the Laozi and the Zhuangzi are not religious texts. Taoism has gone all sorts of crazy places in the last 2500 years, with zany gods and bleeding into provincial Chinese religions. Laozi and Zhuangzi are very meaningful to me, but I am not a religious daoist, because I am not a religious person.
You say you are trying to understand it before you practice it. I would change that up a bit — there's not harm in practicing it before you understand it. The central metaphor of the whole system of thought is a road or a path. You can't reach the destination and then take the road.
The acknowledgment that language is imperfect and can't transmit the truth of the world around us is very important, and unavoidable. That's why it's the first line of the Laozi. For me, it's the most intoxicating part: "If you think you can learn the way the world works by reading this book, think again. Now, I'm gonna try and describe something, and you need to read the book of reality — look around, and see if you see something like what I am saying."
No more post editing! Arg!
I don't think it's "If you don't know I'm not going to tell you."
It's more like "If you don't know, I can't tell you. This is something where words are an imperfect sign that can get you in the right direction, but you still need to find it for yourself."
Language is a human invention and it can't capture the way, for the same reason you can't swallow your own head. :)
The central metaphor of the whole system of thought is a road or a path. You can't reach the destination and then take the road.
... but nobody is asking you to take anything on faith, or to believe what they are telling you. So there is very little harm in giving it a try. Certainly less harm than experimenting with more organized faiths.
I welcome your responses. I would like someone to bounce my thoughts on Taoism off, but have not found a place or individual I feel I can really dig into it with.
Writing an essay as I am for a class on this topic, this falls under the category of "constructive procrastination." So I thank you for your thoughts as well. (And there we've subverted the pointlessness of conversing! Huzzah!)
That's really a good definition of "mysticism", in a way.
And I really have a problem with mysticism. The first time I read about Taoism in Wikipedia, it talked about gods and Chinese folk religion. Bored now. Moving on. The entry on Wikipedia has been changed and I have since seen there are many different flavors of 'Taoism'. Kind of like Christianity.
It helps to realize that for many people, the Laozi and the Zhuangzi are not religious texts.
Yeah. I am kind of getting that. I do not consider myself religious either. I might say spiritual, but by that I mean introspective. I am not convinced there is a spirit. And I have already given my position on mysticism.
What brings me back to Taoism is that I see practical applications. There have been several times in my life where I have just 'gone with the flow' and things went smoothly and seemed to work out well. So Zhuangzi's Waterfall really struck a cord with me. It is like I kind of understand Wei Wu Wei, but just not quite.
You can't reach the destination and then take the road.
But I would like to see the map first. :) I get that the road is not the map. I am just not sure what it is I am even suppose to be practicing. Compassion, humility and moderation? O.k. Cool. Got it. Is that it?
I try to apply it to my life. I feel very strongly about same-sex marriage. It seems uncompassionate to treat homosexuals differently. But what do I do? Do I practice non-action? That does not seem very productive. Should I try to be moderate in my approach? Concede concessions and agree with some kind of 3/5ths proposal? That just seems absurd.
I do not mean to make this another thread about same-sex marriage. Just offering it as an example of how I am trying to apply my understanding of Taoism.
The acknowledgment that language is imperfect and can't transmit the truth of the world around us is very important, and unavoidable.
And I get that. I like the example of the five blind men and the elephant. Still, I end up feeling rather adrift. No one can tell me what it is, I am just suppose to practice this thing no one can tell me is. Not terribly helpful. :)
"If you think you can learn the way the world works by reading this book, think again. Now, I'm gonna try and describe something, and you need to read the book of reality — look around, and see if you see something like what I am saying."
And that is kind of where I am. Some things click with me, so I latch on to those.
"constructive procrastination."
If it gets those creative juices going, right?
Shouldn't the question be does Budda have a dog like nature?
Shouldn't the question be does Budda have a dog like nature?
He certainly likes to have his belly rubbed.
While I totally sympathize with the reflexive reaction against mysticism, I don't think it is worth discounting altogether. Okay, "mysticism" is a tainted term. Let's discuss the real thing I was talking about when I used the term "mysticism." (and this paragraph went meta)
If you've ever had the indiscretion to try hallucinogenic drugs, there may have been a moment where you lost your sense of "self". Language does not describe these experiences well — in fact, at all. We are pinned by language into a mindset that we are. And we are! In some sense. But also, it is just your brain creating a neat category for you so that you can manage your &$#@ vs all the other &$#@. Certain chemicals are a "shortcut" to turn that function off (but they are unreliable and I don't recommend this).
But let's say, for some strange reason, you're curious about the world beyond the need for a neat category that says "world stops here, self begins." My professor calls it "thinking from the standpoint of non-attachment." From a purely secular and scientific point of view, you ought to be able to train the processing power of your brain onto concepts that make no use of "sense of self", which is a practical survival mechanism. But your sense of self, and linguistic distinctions, have no bearing on reality beyond making it possible for you to process!
Yes, I am going up my own *$# and coming out the other end.
I would like to say "the objective of tao is to see the world without the lens of the self" but that's not true, because it is just words. What I can say, in words, is that my own life has taught me that when you move beyond a sense of self, words are no good. And I am positive that there are things worth knowing in that place. Really important things, worth pursuing. But, without words, how do I bring it back to my self? How then could I possible share it with someone else? You can't.
That is the "mystical" experience. Charlatans have destroyed any practical use of the word.
To me, mysticism is just things we do no understand yet. Before we knew the sun was a giant mass of burning gas, we had no words to describe it.
I can easily imagine a world without self. The universe was here before me and will continue to be here long after I am gone. I can easily imagine a world that I am simply one small part of…like an electron flying around bumping into other electrons making up some mass that is completely unaware of my existence.
How can I cultivate the Tao (or Dao if you prefer) if no one can tell me what it is? For that matter (and for the pleasure of turning Zhuangzi against you) how do you know that I am not already? You are not a fish.
How can I cultivate the Tao (or Dao if you prefer) if no one can tell me what it is? For that matter (and for the pleasure of turning Zhuangzi against you) how do you know that I am not already? You are not a fish.
So, anything I say is pretty much something you have a handle on already it seems. Or at least you think you do, which might as well be the same thing.
If there is something worth knowing on a cosmic level, why should it be able to be explained? Nature doesn't speak English, and we do not speak Nature. But even two human beings are able to communicate without language. Sure, they point, and they gesticulate, but it is the presence of a shared truth that facilitates the transmission of knowledge, not the hands, and not the words.
How can you cultivate it without being told what it is? We all learn things before possessing language to be instructed. Nature speaks with pointing and gesticulation, showing and never explaining. Without a truth beyond the words, the gesticulations are meaningless.
So, anything I say is pretty much something you have a handle on already it seems. Or at least you think you do, which might as well be the same thing.
I am assuming you are being good naturedly sarcastic here. To which I say, "Well played." Humility fails me.
If there is something worth knowing on a cosmic level, why should it be able to be explained?
Fair enough. I am perfectly fine with, "I don't know."
Sure, they point, and they gesticulate, but it is the presence of a shared truth that facilitates the transmission of knowledge, not the hands, and not the words.
Another excellent point. I think I am starting to grasp a part of it.
Perhaps it is not so much that I want a blue print of what it is and how to get there…I am not sure where to even begin.
Perhaps it is not so much that I want a blue print of what it is and how to get there…I am not sure where to even begin. Is compassion, humility and moderation the beginning?
An honest person has to say at each step: "I don't know."
Confucius would say yes. Laozi (who is probably a figment, right) would say that once you're with the tao, you could only act with compassion and humility in all things.
Upthread, you posed a question about being "one" with Osama Bin Laden (I think that was you anyway). You think Osama Bin Laden is a bad man with wrong-headed ideas (me too). Have you never been bad? Have you never had wrong-headed ideas? Must you like someone to be one with them, and do you really like yourself absolutely?
"Oneness" is like "mysticism" a valid term driven into the ground by philistines and self-absorbed people bandying it about.
So compassion then Dao, or Dao then compassion? Is Confucius right or is Laozi right? I think we have no choice but to concede there is no absolute here. Just two thinkers talking about something that can't be perfectly related, and Dao is a concept that was around before Laozi and before Confucius.
It can be a beginning. Certainly, having compassion is closer to Dao. But the causality of it is suspect. Most especially if you try to have compassion to attain Dao. Then the Dao will trick you and run away, like a total bastard.
Lots of question marks in that post.
The central metaphor of the whole system of thought is a road or a path. You can't reach the destination and then take the road.... but nobody is asking you to take anything on faith, or to believe what they are telling you. So there is very little harm in giving it a try. Certainly less harm than experimenting with more organized faiths.
I am curious, why would that be harmful, in your opinion?
I am curious, why would that be harmful, in your opinion?
Many organized faiths require a tithe or at least a process of spiritual commitment that even as a non-religious person I take seriously. I know that if I want to be a Catholic or a Scientologist, my duties to the organization as well as the faith will quickly extend to my bank account. If those faiths are "true", then this is a completely understandable mode of operation. It's just not for me, YMMV.
I've been confirmed as a Catholic, but this was done at an age where I now feel I was totally ignorant of the words I had rehearsed and repeated. It is supposed to be a moment of resolution for the individual, but the age of the participant and the state of the ritual make it anything but voluntary. Therefor, I still feel "harmed" by that process, even though I feel it has no power over me.
I am curious, why would that be harmful, in your opinion?Many organized faiths require a tithe or at least a process of spiritual commitment that even as a non-religious person I take seriously. I know that if I want to be a Catholic or a Scientologist, my duties to the organization as well as the faith will quickly extend to my bank account. If those faiths are "true", then this is a completely understandable mode of operation. It's just not for me, YMMV.
I've been confirmed as a Catholic, but this was done at an age where I now feel I was totally ignorant of the words I had rehearsed and repeated. It is supposed to be a moment of resolution for the individual, but the age of the participant and the state of the ritual make it anything but voluntary. Therefor, I still feel "harmed" by that process, even though I feel it has no power over me.
It was voluntary for me, so much so that I choose not to go through with it.
I rarely pay any funds, rather if needed give of my time or skills.
I guess I can see what you mean, I just can not understand the thought of it being harmful.
It was voluntary for me, so much so that I choose not to go through with it.
I rarely pay any funds, rather if needed give of my time or skills.
I guess I can see what you mean, I just can not understand the thought of it being harmful.
Well, we were already pretty deep into Subjectiveland, this doesn't change things much.
For what it's worth, there's not really anything in Taoism that countermands catholic teaching. Practicing it as I do, it's not even really a religion, and there's plenty of common ground to be found. Catholicism does ask a little more of people, though.