(A couple excerpts from the Tao De Ching)

People:

The sage does not distinguish between himself and the world;
The needs of other people are as his own.

He is good to those who are good;
He is also good to those who are not good,
Thereby he is good.
He trusts those who are trustworthy;
He also trusts those who are not trustworthy,
Thereby he is trustworthy.

The sage lives in harmony with the world,
And his mind is the world's mind.
So he nurtures the world of others
As a mother does her children.

**(Seems to be somewhat at odds with our curtural conditioning)


Ambition:

Those who wish to change the world
According with their desire
Cannot succeed.

The world is shaped by the Way;
It cannot be shaped by the self.
Trying to change it, you damage it;
Trying to possess it, you lose it.

So some will lead, while others follow.
Some will be warm, others cold.
Some will be strong, others weak.
Some will get where they are going
While others fall by the side of the road.

So the sage will be neither wasteful nor violent.


**Again, this also seems to be somewhat at odds with the cultural conditioning. For the road most travelled in our culture seems to be the road of trying to get the world to conform to personal desires, whether it be a persons individual beliefs about God, business, nature, spirituality, or whatever.

------------------------------------------------

Hi Howard,

Does this mean you haven't thrown out all your books on Eastern philosophy?
(Just kidding) and the point you made in reference to the above question was deeply embraced by myself. Thanks for the re-minder in that other topic thread.

quote:

Nations and people are largely the stories they feed themselves. If they tell themselves stories that are lies, they will suffer the future consquences of those lies. If they tell themselves stories that face their own truths, they will free their histories for future flowerings

Ben Okri

quote:

Unquestioned beliefs are the real authorities of a culture. Therefore, if an individual can express what is undeniably real to him without invoking any authority beyond his own experience, he is transcending the belief system of his culture.

Robert Combs

Both quotes are from Derrick Jensen-END GAMEThe Problem of Civilizationvolume I

Is it possible IYO for our culture to to move in the direction you have pointed towards in the "excerpts from the Tao De Ching"?
IMHO it speaks not of eliminating "duality" but awareness of opposites and an understanding of the cyclic nature of phenomena. Am I distracting at what your topic is here? Or have I misinterpreted your intent? If so bring me back of track.

I attended a synagogue a few weeks ago, something I had not done in many years. As to be expected, a young woman queried me about my personality. At some point I had to make the statement that "I'm not sure I know the difference between good and evil". I may as well have confessed to being a serial killer, she visibly recoiled in horror at that statement. The interview ended immediately.

LOL. Perhaps you should be a rabbi! Or an ordained minister! This would be refreshing news in any religion!

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

I probably stand a better chance of being a rabbi than I do a politician, since Americans expect their politicians to talk to God.

quote:

"I'm not sure I know the difference between good and evil". I may as well have confessed to being a serial killer, she visibly recoiled in horror at that statement. The interview ended immediately.

I love it Gnarli! Imagine that, you commented on the double bind. I think the unspoken rule of the culture is that is not allowed.Call me paranoid, but, I cant help thinking society as we know it seems to be a tacit conspiracy to keep this hushed up for fear that the contest will cease. If these opposites are not kept fiercely separate and antagonistic, what motivation will there be for the creative struggle between them?

If we dont feel at war with nature will there be any motivation for technological progress? Imagine how the Christian conscience would react to the idea that behind the scenes, God and the Devil were closest friends but they took opposite sides in order to stage a great cosmic game.

Wow, I did it again.
Sorry Howard! just went back to 'Forums' and noticed the topic you started here is concerned with

quote:

People & Ambition (Tao De Ching)

Once again, my apologies.

quote:

Originally posted by bamboo:
God and the Devil were closest friends

Even the nomenclature is delectable... errr... dialectical. Good vs. d'Evil.

quote:

Both quotes are from Derrick Jensen-END GAMEThe Problem of Civilizationvolume I

Is it possible IYO for our culture to to move in the direction you have pointed towards in the "excerpts from the Tao De Ching"?
IMHO it speaks not of eliminating "duality" but awareness of opposites and an understanding of the cyclic nature of phenomena. Am I distracting at what your topic is here? Or have I misinterpreted your intent? If so bring me back of track.

**Hello Bamboo - Yes I think it's possible to move towards a Tao approach to life.

I don't have any particular expectations with regard to where this topic goes. My intent was to simply call attention to the situation. Where it goes after that, who knows?

It's interesting that you used quotes from Derrick Jensen. I also still have a number of his books, including Part II of End Game. I think Jensen is a rather insightful person, but my observation is that his suggested response/approach, with it's emphasis on violence, is an approach which reflects more closely the current paradigm of a 'dominator model' more than it reflects a Tao approach. Jensen clearly has an 'Us versus Them' view.

Since Riane Eisler was brought up again here recently by Lawrence, I decided to take another look at her classic book, The Chalice and the Blade. Eisler makes some great points in the book...in my opinion.

She's suggesting we need to move away from a 'dominator model' toward a 'partnership model'. I happen to agree, and that seems to suggest that the 'Us versus Them' approach, which isn't working for humans and other living systems, is what we need to move away from.

Here's a related quote from her excellent book:

"Much of the ideological confusion, as well as the one-step-forward, two-steps-back cultural movement of modern times can be traced back to the failure of those working for progress to perceive the logical impossibility of creating a just equal society as long as a dominator-dominated model of human relations remains in place.

Approaches which have an Us versus Them nature to them seem to be failing to "perceive the logical impossibility" of such an approach bringing about anything except 'more of the same' divisiveness.

Regards - Howard

quote:

Jensen is a rather insightful person, but my observation is that his suggested response/approach, with it's emphasis on violence, is an approach which reflects more closely the current paradigm of a 'dominator model' more than it reflects a Tao approach. Jensen clearly has an 'Us versus Them' view.

I read him a bit differently. He reminds me of book I read decades ago which was also a state- of the art summary of civil/human evolution. Critical Path by R. Buckminster Fuller "the planets friendly genius". I see Jensen as moving beyond the violence/pacifism choices and simply stating his observations of the outcome of a 'dominator' culture.

quote:

“‘It shows that climate change is happening now, [with] devastating consequences here in Britain, and it shows that reducing the pollution causing changes to the earth’s climate should now be the global number one political priority.’”

Remind me again, what are we waiting for?

* * *

In other news of the day, the U.S. stock market rose slightly in heavy trading.

* * *

I understand why some may become nervous when they read "Remind me again, what are we waiting for?" His chapters on 'revolution' as being nothing more the the changing of who controls the means of production and the continued funneling of wealth to the few removes revolution and violence from the solution.
I see him pointing more towards "readiness for resposibility".

quote:

The extraordinary writer and activist Aric McBay interviewed the equally extraordinary writer and activist Lierre Keith about why so many of us do not resist, and what it will take for us to achieve a critical mass of resistance.
He said, " One of my favourite quotes is something Dietrich Boenhoeffer wrote while in prison in Germany during WWII, as he awaited execution for resisting the Nazis:'We have spent too much time in thinking, supposing that if we weigh in advance the possibilities of any action, it will happen automatically. We have learnt, rather too late, that action comes, not from thought, but from readiness for responsibility. For you thought and action will enter on a new relationship; your thinking will be confined to your responsibilities in action." Radicals often like to construct imaginary models of their hypothetical utopias and sketch out the improvments they want to see in the future. But as we know, if industrial civilization doesn't come down soon-very soon-there is no future for us. (And I'm still suprised at how determinedly oblivious even radicals can be to this simple fact. They just don't want to hear it.) What does it take to move people beyond mere strategizing and philosophy? How do people acquire a real 'readiness for responsibility'?" Lierre responded,"I think the biggest reason otherwise radical people don't want to face the necessity of ending industrial civilization is privilage. We are the ones reaping the benifits. We have sold out the rest of life on earth for convenience, creature comforts, and cheap consumer goods, and it's appalling....I think the readiness to act is born from two sources: rage and love.

endgame vol II, p.883

You got my attention by mentioning Howards reference to 'The Chalice and the Blade'. I like any pieces that add to the puzzle.

Li Po Yang. Imagine that, born in 604bc. You know he was renamed Lao Tsu or 'Old Son'. They say he was 'already old at birth'.

The first paragraph of the Tao Teh Ching says it all: My understanding is that it says the eternal Tao is inexpressible and since it has neither form nor shape, it cannot be called by name. if a name is arbitrarily given to the eternal tao, it will be a false one for the eternal Tao is indescribable. this is the substance of immaterial tao

Though this eternal Tao is immaterial, heaven and earth, that's the material universe, arise from it by transformation, with the creation of all phenomena with different names.this is the function of immaterial Tao

Substance and function.

I find it amazing, he was a contemporary of the Buddha and they never met. Good old Lao Tsu was determined to revive the ancient traditions of emperor Huang Ti. Huang Ti lived around 2550bc. It never ceases to blow me away to have access to wisdom that ancient. It's regretful that even today a number of Buddhist practioners consider Taoism somewhat heretical. I've always accepted the influence, balance and harmony of both practices. I've been fortunate to have crossed paths with a Zen sect that embraces many of the Taoist teachings and masters.

This is getting kinda long and I know that turns some off, I will say this. In some indirect subtle way I see Jensen pointing towards the Taoist view.

quote:

The Source Message of the Mystic School

When you are calm and stable, careful of attention, the celestial design is always clear, open awareness is unobscured; then you have autonomy in action and can deal with whatever arises.

The Absolute
The I CHING says, "tranquil and unperturbed, yet sensitive and effective. Body and mind unstirring, subsequently there is yet an endless real potential".

from the BOOK OF BALANCE AND HARMONY

quote:

Originally posted by bamboo:
I read him a bit differently. He reminds me of book I read decades ago which was also a state- of the art summary of civil/human evolution. Critical Path by R. Buckminster Fuller "the planets friendly genius". I see Jensen as moving beyond the violence/pacifism choices and simply stating his observations of the outcome of a 'dominator' culture.

**If I had my copy of End Game with me I'm sure I could find some much better examples, but here's a few of Jensen's views available on line from End Game:

"It has always seemed clear to me that violent and nonviolent approaches to social change are complimentary."

"It is not an exaggeration to say that many of the dogmatic pacifists I've encountered have been fundamentalists, perceiving violence as a form of blasphemy..."

"The master's house will never be dismantled using only one tool, whether that tool is discource, hammers, or high explosives."

"I have many other problems with the pacifist use of the idea that force is soley the dominion of those in power. It's certainly true that the master uses the tool of violence, but that doesn't mean he owns it."

"Well, I disagree. Violence does not belong exclusively to those at the top of the heirarchy, no matter how much abusers and their allies try to convince us."

**I read this as having an 'Us versus Them' character, and as an embracing of the use of violence.

One of the problems, from my perspective, in Jensen's argument is the 'All/Nothing' nature of the view being put forth regarding the use of violence. A view which seems to be basically this: If you are against a violent approach, then you must be a dogmatic pacifist. Well, I suggest that there are other possibilities. Namely, that one can recognize that certain circumstances may require one to use violence to defend or protect, but at the same time also recognize that a 'dominator approach' will simply perpetuate the dysfunctional system.

Here's Jensen attacking the Ghandi approach:

"Ghandi gives us some absolutism, as well as absolution for our inability to stop oppressors, when he says, 'Mankind has to get out of violence only through non-violence'. Hatred can be overcome only by love.' Ghandi again, with more magical thinking, 'When I dispair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have always been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall--Think of it, ALWAYS.' Violence only begets violence. Ghandi again, 'We must be the change we wish to see.' If you use violence against exploiters, you become like they are."

Jensen: "Let's take these one by one. Love leads to pacifism, and any use of violence implies a failure to love. If we love we cannot ever consider violence, even to protect those we love."

**This is an example of the 'All/Nothing' position he appears to be taking. He's attacking Ghandi for having an "absolutist" approach when he puts it as "ALWAYS". But that's "his interpretation" of it. Just as each person who says they believe in "God", is referring to their own interpretation of God. Or the mental construction in their own head that they have about something.

(cont.): "Well, we dealt with this several hundred pages ago, and I'm not sure mother grizzly bears would agree that love implies pacifism, nor mother moose, nor many other mother's I've known."

**Jensen frequently 'frames' a good argument, but it's based on the 'All/Nothing' interpretation he's apparently made that questioning a violent approach equates to the exclusion of protecting one's loved one's as well. This is similar to Karl Rove-type arguments that Bush uses like: Either you're for Free Trade or you're a 'Protectionist'. The premise is false, the reality isn't an either/or. People suggesting a 'Partnership Approach' aren't suggesting (to my understanding) that one can't protect one's loved one's against violence and harm.

quote:

The first paragraph of the Tao Teh Ching says it all: My understanding is that it says the eternal Tao is inexpressible and since it has neither form nor shape, it cannot be called by name. if a name is arbitrarily given to the eternal tao, it will be a false one for the eternal Tao is indescribable.

**Well, here's the first paragraph from the online translation I was using for this thread:

The Way that can be experienced is not true;
The world that can be constructed is not true.
The Way manifests all that happens and may happen;
The world represents all that exists and may exist."

**My understanding is that this "Way manifests" in shapes and form. The problem for us humans is that our senses can only give us 'sensual glimses' of this 'manifestation'.

What we 'experience' is not "true" because all we can 'know' of this Whole is just a very limited abstraction or sense experience.

Steven Harrison: "We live in a conceptual world in our head in which all worlds are created. But the world of actuality is not in the head. It's not conceptual. Although it can use the conceptual."

The "construction" mentioned in the Tao above is this "conceptual world" Harrison is referring to.

This, to my understanding, is why people like Wittgenstein said things like: "Whatever you say it is, it isn't."

And the failure to see this actuality clearly, to my understanding, is at the root of the many horrific things man does to man and other living species. Humans seem to commonly believe that their mental constructions are "true", which then means this believed "truth" must then be defended and fought to the death over.

This is why we have cultural beliefs like: "Stand up for what you believe." But these beliefs are limited mental abstractions, and as the Tao suggests: are "not true."

The Tao isn't suggesting there is no manifest world. It's suggesting that these 'conceptual worlds' we make are "not true." Because they are merely abstract mental concoctions.

Or atleast, that's my understanding of what's being pointed to.

Regards - Howard

This message has been edited. Last edited by: HowardW,

quote:

This is why we have cultural beliefs like: "Stand up for what you believe." But these beliefs are limited mental abstractions, and as the Tao suggests: are "not true."

I would suggest that behind these "cultural beliefs" is fear. Fear of getting to know and experience fear. Fear of accepting a tenent of Tao, that all phenomena are in some stage of transformation. That groundlessness is the true state of our existence. To avoid this reality of groundlessness many tend to create and cling to these beliefs you mention. We are taught to engage in intoxicants, distractions, beliefs or what ever it takes to make fear go away. At times we get cornered, we run out of options, everything falls apart, these are the times when fear introduces us to teachings or lessons we've never heard or read. The lesson that is most overlooked at these times is that we had to just stay, feel groundless, but a solution or action presented itself. These times completely undo old ways of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and thinking.

I'm not saying this is the only cause of our 'conceptual worlds', but perhaps one of them.
This is why following the Tao includes the practice of meditation.

quote:

I would suggest that behind these "cultural beliefs" is fear. Fear of getting to know and experience fear. Fear of accepting a tenent of Tao, that all phenomena are in some stage of transformation.

**As a bit of unsolicited personal info, I was first exposed to exploratory dialogue at a weekend dialogue at the Krishnamurti Foundation in Ojai, California in 1986. I remember the year clearly as I drove up to Ojai in April of that year to see if J. Krishnamurti was there, only to be informed that he had just died in February. I only mention this because I continued to drive up to Ojai often for the weekly dialogues the Foundation held for the next several years. At one of the bi-annual weekend dialogues one of the topics for the weekend event was Fear. Fear was also a very common topic of exploration at these Krishnamurti dialogues.

After looking and exploring this aspect of human life many times it resulted in a change in how I use the word fear. Alot of people seem to think of fear as what helps them respond to danger. But my observation of this is that 'fear' is usually associated with the self-image/ego. I think it's awareness & understanding that helps us respond well to danger, not fear.

The example I often use to explain my understanding of fear is the situation of stepping off the curb of a busy intersection to cross the street and immediately noticing that a bus is just about to hit you. My suggestion is that 'awareness' in conjuction with 'knowing what the danger of a fast-moving bus is' is what would lead most any adult human to immediately jump back out of the path of the bus. After stepping back to safety, then 'thought' comes in and says: "Wow, 'I' could have been killed." When 'thought of me maybe being killed' comes in, that's when 'fear' enters the picture. As long as one's existence is centered around a self-image, then there's likely to be some degree of fear present regarding the imagined safety of this self-image/ego. So fear to my understanding goes hand in hand with beliving one is the self-image. Fear seems to definitely be a big piece of the picture in much of human behavior, but alot of conditioning isn't questioned due to fear, but rather simply because it seems non-sensical to us to question something which most everyone (including us) considers to be self-evident truth. There may be some degree of fear involved in that, but in many cases it's simply the beliefs which basically suggest it's a waste of time to bother questioning a 'self-evident truth'.
This is one of the main reasons I feel it's valuable to be more aware of what thought is doing, as thought often works on auto-pilot and leads us to do things which are not in our best interest. Thoughts like: "There's always been wars, and there always will be wars." This type of belief often leads to some dysfunctional responses if we aren't really aware of what it's doing and how it's affecting our behavior...it seems to me.

quote:

That groundlessness is the true state of our existence.

**What do you mean by "the groundlessness?"

quote:

To avoid this reality of groundlessness many tend to create and cling to these beliefs you mention.

**What I'm referring to mostly is the apparent fact that what we humans know of reality comes mostly in the form of images made in the brain. Whatever is occuring "outside" of the human organism is picked-up by the senses, and then an image is made of that sense experience. The image isn't the actual reality it's supposed to be reflecting, but it's a limitation we humans seem to be stuck with. However, it seems to work pretty well as we aren't always running into walls or walking off cliffs.

quote:

We are taught to engage in intoxicants, distractions, beliefs or what ever it takes to make fear go away. At times we get cornered, we run out of options, everything falls apart, these are the times when fear introduces us to teachings or lessons we've never heard or read. The lesson that is most overlooked at these times is that we had to just stay, feel groundless, but a solution or action presented itself. These times completely undo old ways of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and thinking.

**I agree with you about the potential benefits of staying with a particular life situation rather than trying to get away from it. But I'd be reluctant to use the phrase "completely undo". The main reason I frequently raise the issue of 'being aware of what thought is doing' is because many of the assumptions in thought seem to avoid closer scrutiny in such non-movement situations. My experience tells me that the "I" is rarely questioned in such situations. The 'I' is commonly taken as a 'given', and the resulting questions are often: What can 'I' do, what can 'I' learn, how can 'I' be safer, etc., etc. So my observation is that not moving away doesn't often completely undo our normal approach, because the actions continue to center around a self-image or ego. So to my understanding what usually happens is just a minor adjustment in most cases with the core belief still running most of the show. Given that reservation, I still think it's the best way to better understand some aspect of life.

quote:

I'm not saying this is the only cause of our 'conceptual worlds', but perhaps one of them.

**My suggestion is that humans are basically stuck with this conceptual limitation, as that's how the human organism seems to work. And this seems to work fine until we confuse these abstractions in our heads for the actuality rather than the maps they are. When we become convinced in our thought that 'we already know the truth', that's when all the conflict, violence, and killing starts.

quote:

This is why following the Tao includes the practice of meditation.

**I suppose I'd agree with that, but what I call meditation is probably not what most people think of when they hear that word. My view of it is basically the same as described -here

Thanks!

Howard

That's terrific Howard;
Great truths

Thanks!

quote:

**What do you mean by "the groundlessness?"

There seems to be a commonly held "belief" that at some point in time we can finally get it all togather, we seek some lasting security.

Trying to get lasting security teaches us a lot. If we never try it we never notice that it can not be done.

Groundlessness means that we can't get any ground under our feet. The landscape of life is continuously shifting.

J. Krishnamurti's lectures on meditation are close to the Zen methods of meditation I practice. And I agree, that the word meditation include's many concepts.

quote:

The rejection of all spiritual and psychological authority, including his own, is a fundamental theme of Krishnamurti's.

http://www.kfa.org/biography.php

This is a key tenent taught by Buddhist and Zen teachers I've practiced with.

Howard, I like your analogy about "fear and the approaching bus". My own was made many, many years ago. One day, experiencing "fear", I immediately asked, "where is the pointed gun?" Of course, there was none.

Fear is an involuntary response to a life-threatening event. Unfortunately, we human beings react to symbols we create within our own minds in the same manner as we do to an actual physical threat. A recognition of this disipates "fear" immediately when a physically life-threatening event isn't actually present.

Emotions can be triggered by external stimuli that have nothing to do with a "just cause" for an emotion.

Bamboo: Security can be self-delusion. If one feels "insecure", this has to be dealt with internally. Nothing outside of oneself can handle an internal problem.

If money is the means attempted to deal with insecurity...one million won't quite do it. Neither will two. Ultimately, one is driven to a billion. That won't do it either. It's an internal concept to be dealt with. It doesn't have an external solution.

I think perhaps a large motivation in the drive for wealth often has at its base self-generated concepts of "insecurity" vs. "security".

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

quote:

Originally posted by HowardW:
(A couple excerpts from the Tao De Ching)

People:

The sage does not distinguish between himself and the world;
The needs of other people are as his own.

He is good to those who are good;
He is also good to those who are not good,
Thereby he is good.
He trusts those who are trustworthy;
He also trusts those who are not trustworthy,
Thereby he is trustworthy.

The sage lives in harmony with the world,
And his mind is the world's mind.
So he nurtures the world of others
As a mother does her children.

**(Seems to be somewhat at odds with our curtural conditioning)


Ambition:

Those who wish to change the world
According with their desire
Cannot succeed.

The world is shaped by the Way;
It cannot be shaped by the self.
Trying to change it, you damage it;
Trying to possess it, you lose it.

So some will lead, while others follow.
Some will be warm, others cold.
Some will be strong, others weak.
Some will get where they are going
While others fall by the side of the road.

So the sage will be neither wasteful nor violent.


**Again, this also seems to be somewhat at odds with the cultural conditioning. For the road most travelled in our culture seems to be the road of trying to get the world to conform to personal desires, whether it be a persons individual beliefs about God, business, nature, spirituality, or whatever.

------------------------------------------------

That is SO lovely Howard,

Are you familiar with Anthony De Mello?


"An art writer was given a lecture at the monestary.

"Art is found in a museum." he said,
"but beauty is found everywhere, in the air, on the ground, all over the place, free for the taking -
with no name attached to it."

"Exactly like Spirituality," said the Master the
following day when he was alone with his disciples. "Its symbols are found in museum
called a temple, but its substance is everywhere,
free for the taking, unrecognized, with no name
attached to it."

Anthony DeMello