nestentrie

The object of desire here may not exist, but there is still the process of desire itself. Why are you pressing so strongly for it to not exist? The baseball batter swings and misses. If he didn't hit the ball does that make his swing not exist? The lover who pines for who they would have as their lover, but gets rejected when they proposition them. Does this make the would be lover not exist? Does it make love not exist? I could go on... You mention a need of control as the root of this issue, citing desire as the mere mask of it. You have it that the mask is only there because the objects of control don't exist; that we 'have not obtained such outcome(s). Seems that both terms are failing in their functions. So why place such emphasis on control? I suppose here i'm not really putting forward an argument, just asking for clarification. It just seems to me that you're inducting another illusion other than 'i want what i don't have'; you're saying 'i have but i don't want'.

Nice thread.

I've come across the same thing many times in meditation of having a sensation on one side of the body that feels off. In my experience I don't think it's as straightforward as just 'activating the left'. Being a bit half arsed here I will say that there is a bit of science done on hemispherical specialisation in the brain and general leftedness and rightedness of the body. My understanding about this is that there is always some autonomy for each side so simply trying to 'activate the left' will have no impact on the right. You won't be able to easily just 'balance it out'. I think what you need to do is trace from 'the root to the tip' of this sensation and work within it's bounds. Work within it's bounds to naturalise it. You mentioned warmth. My experience is that if warmth is present in one specific location it's not a good thing. Warmth should be equal across the whole body. And as always in meditation, be mindful of the breath. Breath won't 'fill the space' or 'balance the left and right' but as each cycle of in and out breathing concludes you will begin again the business of sensing this thing you have on going on, and with each new 'take' on it that breathing you've done it will allow the mind to move the energy (or naturalise it, as i said). But I suppose the best advice I can think of overall is to be still. If this sensation you have really is uncomfortable there's nothing like stillness to let it dissipate.

Werribee Mansion? Cool. I nearly volunteered to prune their roses this year. (I got another job)

I live where I be. In Werribee.

Humility is certainly admirable. To know one's space, to be able to inhabit it blamelessly and subsist in energies that are your own exclusively. I would agree that it's a lofty state. Myself though, I don't really identify with it. It's not what makes me tick. The Original Post seems to want to ask though, more than humility, what is a life event that has shifted your perspective for the better? I've had a few of those. One as recent as yesterday. (At least, I had an ongoing issue that was yesterday punctuated.) When I began meditating around 4 years ago my practice was slapdash: concerted for an hour one day, kind of indulgent and wayward the next. I had been reading Buddhism and really admired that whole kind of seeking for enlightenment kick that it had going on. What I particularly found useful from it were the Four Great Efforts. That by exertion one could remove demerit from one's life. I was especially good at it and found myself going into that mode easily and comfortably. However, at times, I would find oblivion in it. Always at the ready to seek out incongruities, moments of lust and greed, to see if i was angry or not: the seeking would deflate me. With what Taoism talks about though I'm offered an out. One constant in Taoism (something i've learnt recently from reading TTBs) is wuwei: action without action. 37The Tao in its regular course does nothing (for the sake of doing it), and so there is nothing which it does not do. If princes and kings were able to maintain it, all things would of themselves be transformed by them. If this transformation became to me an object of desire, I would express the desire by the nameless simplicity. Simplicity without a name Is free from all external aim. With no desire, at rest and still, All things go right as of their will. J.Legge In me seeking out my shortcomings I was complicit in those shortcomings. By seeking to do only that which limited me, I was limiting myself (and getting only fatigue and worry for my efforts). In pursuing Toaism a little more and not resting on the fragments of Buddhism I had learned I have come across a little text called 'Secret of the Golden Flower'. In it is the following: The terms stopping and seeing basically cannot be separated. They mean concentration and insight. Hereafter, whenever thoughts arise, you don't need to sit still as before, but you should investigate this thought: where is it? Where does it come from? Where does it disappear? Push this inquiry on and on over and over until you realize it cannot be grasped' then you will see where the thought arises. You don't need to seek out the point of arising any more. HavIng looked for my mind, I realize it cannot be grasped.' 'I have pacified your mind for you.' My meditation is a little different nowadays. My meditation these days is all about resting on and tuning the breath. Not something that was foreign to me when I began, but I believe in it's efficacy more than hunting down demons. So for me what's my answer to the OP? Temperance. To know the limits of wisdom and behave within it's boundary. To accept that, OK, for a time I can be taken by my faults, and with due honesty deal with them and come out on top, but that there's more to believe in than just self satisfaction. That might be something close to humility. So I offer it as votive.

I have the same thing in and around my right shoulder blade. I believe it comes from excessive pride. I've had a few releases of the bad qi (as it seems to be called. i'm pretty new to all the terminology) and i can see what you mean about dizziness. While i didn't feel dizzy, the potential to become so was evident to me. What brought on the release for you? EDIT: Was it a time of high stress? Or were your thoughts free at the time?

I started reading this book some months back but put it down. It's not lunacy, but it's actually not either completely cogent (as in convincing). Irrespective of it's truth of conceit, (that in the convolution presented god is actually speaking to us) it does present some quite valid things. Valid is not necessarily groundbreaking though, and I wasn't always impressed with the way it lead forward in its progression from one idea to the next (often it didn't seem compelling to say 'but wait'). All in all though I may pick the book back up. It wasn't terrible. I may even listen to it in the link you've sent rather than read it. The narrator sounds fun to listen to. Edit: so thanks for the link

What is the sound of Enter and Delete clapping?

I'm not quite sure this is the right piece of advice, but i always found this useful: The words focus on the center are most sublime. The center is omnipresent; the whole universe is within it. This indicates the mechanism of Creation; you focus on this to enter the gate, that is all. To focus means to focus on this as a hint, not to become rigidly fixated. The meaning of the word focus has life to it; it is very subtle. The terms stopping and seeing basically cannot be separated. They mean concentration and insight. Hereafter , whenever thoughts arise, you don't need to sit still as before, but you should investigate this thought: where is it? Where does it come from? Where does it disappear? Push this inquiry on and on over and over until you realize it cannot be grasped' then you, will see where the thought arises. You don't need to seek out the point of arising any more. HavIng looked for my mind, I realize it cannot be grasped.' 'I have pacified your mind for you.' It's from 'Secret of the Golden Flower'.

You're right. I'm only 20 posts in and already skirting an argument. Not what I intended. Sorry I stepped on your thread and offended you. I do generally like what you have to say, btw.

If that sounds nice, then ok, deci belle.

Since this is a Taoist forum, I can probably get away with putting in a cent of opinion from myself, and the other two from Chuang Tzu (3 cents! we're rich!). Extreme selfishness comes in 4 forms, which the Chuang Tzu describes as being the four evils a person is subject to. They are; to be fond of conducting great affairs, changing and altering what is of long-standing, to obtain for one's self the reputation of meritorious service (Ambition); to claim all wisdom and intrude into affairs, encroaching on the work of others, and representing it as one's own (Greediness); to see his errors without changing them, and to go on more resolutely in his own way when remonstrated with (Obstinacy); when another agrees with himself, to approve of him, and, however good he may be, when he disagrees, to disapprove of him (Boastful conceit). In the case of ambition the person is paying no regard to what others have established, their own concern for reciprocation comes first. This is selfishness in its poor form. In the case of greediness the person wants what's theirs (or what they think they can claim as theirs) without any concern for what belongs to others. This is selfishness in its poor form. In the case of obstinacy the person is fixed in what they think is true, paying no mind to the interests and wishes of others. That another could reciprocate is of no concern. This is again selfishness in its poor form. In the case of boastful conceit the person is bent on satisfying their own desires only, not only is reciprocation out of play for them, reciprocation amongst others is too. This is poor form. This is selfishness. ----------------- 24He who stands on his tiptoes does not stand firm; he who stretches his legs does not walk (easily). (So), he who displays himself does not shine; he who asserts his own views is not distinguished; he who vaunts himself does not find his merit acknowledged; he who is self- conceited has no superiority allowed to him. Such conditions, viewed from the standpoint of the Tao, are like remnants of food, or a tumour on the body, which all dislike. Hence those who pursue (the course) of the Tao do not adopt and allow them. ------------------ Yet there is a way out. The ambitious person is not un-entitled to reciprocation. It may be that the changes they seek are rights to wrongs, that what was long standing was long standing injustice. Reciprocation is the communal judgement, the communal view or opinion, on what is fair. Anyone and everyone is entitled to that. The greedy person is not un-entitled to what is theirs. Perhaps that piece of wisdom, that idea, that pleasure or perspective is what is rightly owing to them. It isn't unfair or selfish if they stand by good rights over these things, that they are in fact to be held blameless for owning their own piece of something. The obstinate person is not un-entitled to private space. It may be that there is a drive for personal freedom that precludes the involvement of others in personal affairs, that community can overstep the natural and just boundaries of a person. We're from time to time entitled to personal space. The conceited boaster is not un-entitled to his perspective. Everyone has the right to have their own view.

It seems to me that the bum was just asking: why no metaphor? why no mundane examples? I'm not sure he was asking for further elucidation of the concepts. Without handles anything can seem abstract after a lot of verbiage. You did however use a metaphor in your second post deci, with the reference to developing a romantic relationship.

I can agree with that. And i suppose as it can never really be more than a retroactive label we'll never know if Yan Hui was displaying courage or not as it never gets to the point where he is with the ruler dispensing his advice. He had an admirable attitude to going though I think. I think describing lusty type love would be veering too far off the chapter discussion :/ I could probably do it, but I want some kind of closure with the Chuang Tzu we're discussing!

I was a little unsure as to whether I agreed with this or not at first, but then some other things struck me. What is Faith? What is Hope? What is Intergriy? What is Love? All suggestive labels rather than fixed states or behaviours with definite subjects. A world of make believe. It's why I questioned Marblehead about his contribution. His definition of courage seemed almost prudential, with courage being able to pick and choose where it's applied. Is it something more basic like endurance? If you have to challenge or stay still it's being able to endure the situation that's important. Courage I suppose can still define that, but I dunno, what would either of you say to that? (Marblehead and stosh)

Would that be called 'endurance'? And what is typical behavior for someone who lacks endurance, or fails in its test?

Makes one wonder: "what are we supposed to do with our subjective nature?" I suppose just reflect the truth of it? Non action seems pretty attractive in this way of looking at things...

I may have some thoughts on this chapter soon. In the meantime, nice post deci belle.

Sorry. I was a bit hasty with that last response. I didn't address anything you had said to me stosh. Let me meet you halfway... (my question still stands! ) You're asking me to assess the temperament of the two sages, not just the ruler. I was always coming at this with the idea to solve the problem of the bombastic ruler... I agree that Yan is the one being cautious. Confucius seems made up about what is practical and reasonable. Confucius isn't exactly being put on the spot where the root of obstinacy is exposed, but he's definitely set in his opinions. What interests me though is Yan being humble? Is he being humble when he sets out his plan in full? Or is there some mix and match going on? He's on the one hand talking of taking a humble stance, but his scheme for expounding things to the ruler seem based on wisdom... Are humility and wisdom really of the same tack? The same process? Confucius seems to think it's admixture. Again, I don't like to say that I have the problem solved, but my theory goes to this. In my reckoning I know why he calls it admixture, so I'm still interested in what you think of courage and how it pertains to sincerity .Yes. What I suppose I was trying to explain was a process, not a state. Humility is fixed, as much as it is a nature that has form and movement, it cannot go beyond it's own bounds. Prudence is another thing that just happens to work synchronously with humility. Too true about boxes and words!

Thanks, MarbleHead. Nice to know we're not wasting anybody's time. Myself, I'm enjoying the back and forth. Chuang Tzu is awesome. Where Lao Tzu is terse and concise, leaving the inner reflections almost to the reader alone, Chuang Tzu has so many handles and knobbly bits to grab onto. And stosh is definitely not letting anyone say "non-action. nuff said" and having everyone move on! Which brings me closer to the substance of my post. For some section of this exchange I've been back foot front, finding one fulcrum point in what stosh is saying then proceeding forward with my own ideas. Now I'd like stosh to give some ideas. He did very well in the thread before I came in so let's hear some more. To get at those ideas i'll pose a question: if courage is a virtue, what are it's features? And are its features more aptly applied to this situation than plain humility? Some quick thoughts of my own are that it does indeed take courage to meet this ruler? Like I intimated some posts back, if I were the sage here I'd be willing to try sincerity. Is it courageous to be sincere? And what bearing would it have on the unfolding of things? ... Getting yoda-esque on me is acceptable

You may have actually just caught me up on something. I suppose you're right to question why I would talk of obstinancy when really what's under scrutiny in the chapter is conceited self faith (the ruler only believes in the rightness of his own views). You mentioned in an earlier post that this chapter had many subtleties and I think we have just found some of it because in the chapter Confucius makes a passing remark about obstinancy that doesn't hold the emphasis all the way through and goes back to talk more or less about the temperance of the ruler. Confucius himself isn't entirely sure of what ails the ruler. So it again comes back to the sage having to know more about the issues than the ruler and having the higher moral stance. In this I can't really offer any more than the pupil offers. Again you're right to bring this up, and yes, humility can be a kind of obstinancy (or at least passively lead to it). However I'd like to take this opportunity to perhaps enlighten this concept a little. I've taken on board (from Chuang Tzu's "The Old Fisherman) the 8 defects of character and 4 evils a person is subject to as weighty topics to think over and digest. Without trying to self promote I'm actually developing a theory of 4 modes/expressions of self with it. Perhaps in another thread I'll one day type it up, but for here I'd like to just expound more on what i think humility is. Humility is not just being accepting of one's own limitations and faults. It's actually being aware aware of one's own abilities in a proactive sense (humility can be active). Adjacent to humility is prudence. The humble person, is yes, aware of their limitations, but also aware of how to implement their actual ability. Knowing what is right to say when is not only an act of prudence it is the act of a truly humble person because what is right or wrong to say is directly proportionate with what one is able to say and do (what is their state of knowledge and virtue). The most extenuated form of humility is mercy. Prudence following humility sets up what can and cannot be said, based on the question of "Should I? Or shouldn't I?" and is the ground foundation of mercy. Prudence following humility sets up "Should I treat this person this way? Are they deserving?". Mercy is the highest sense of right and wrong, both internally (what one does for oneself) and externally (what one tolerates and accepts in others). This is what is really at stake in this chapter. Confucius is concerned that Yen Hui will be subject to the ruler's temper (and temperament) where every move he makes is quashed and subverted. Internally, Yen Hui's own mercies are put under strain and stress. But I think this has been talked about enough. I've chopped and changed with my successive posts, but I do believe this is Confucius' real concern (not just warning).

Yeah, a made up mind is an impenetrable mind. There is little for the sage to do with such people. And you're right: there is difficulty trying to tell an obstinate person to be trusting and merciful. Also, telling them to be distrusting and violent has in it the core of wrong-doing, so you can't tell them that either. As to the risk in it that you're talking about, I think something can be done if one examines what the root of obstinancy is. Informally referencing another Chuang Tzu chapter ("The Old Fisherman") it's stated that behaviour symptomatic of obstinancy is "to see his errors with changing them, and go on more resolutely in his own way when remonstrated with". I ask of this: what is it about "one's own way"? Possessively, we cling to what we think we know, refusing all outside interference. So where is the Humility in this? That's what I as a sage would be careful to find out. If we know where the seeds of humility are in our obstinate ruler, we can put our sincere efforts into harmonising with them. Agree with the knowledge he asserts or puts forward that is well founded, cling to it with the mind that reciprocity can bear out a good relation, ignore the knowledge that is faulty and/or immoral. In fact I'd say that the Sage should be trying to not just wait for this to happen, but to draw it out. This is of course shaky ground as far as flattery goes, but I think it's worth a shot. That is the what and why of it, however like Confucius warns, the exact method is problematic. So again, I agree with you that in the end the ruler is the one who has to make final judgement with the choices before him. You cannot put it to him, trying to flatter here and tease out there: one must adhere to sincerity on whole, and in strong spirit, not partially and with bias. So in the end I don't know. Myself, I would try on sincerity and see where it would lead. I'd take on that danger.

Yes I suppose I was taking liberties by referencing another text. I really just wanted the part that referenced having few desires, but the rest seemed also to apply so I kept going. Agreed. There are always choices to be made. I especially agree that there is no hard rule of "ALWAYS" (or NEVER).

Reasonable assertions. I think what's worth considering is does one look forward with the attitude to keep oneself in step with incoming changes? Or does one seek to make the changes themselves? Temperate attitude, or ambitious attitude? I think in the case of the chapter being discussed Confucius was not warning against temperance but ambition on the part of his pupil. To go to another place with one's own sensibilities and inclinations expecting the change of various others to conform to himself. I think Lao Tzu has a word here: 22 The partial becomes complete; the crooked, straight; the empty, full; the worn out, new. He whose (desires) are few gets them; he whose (desires) are many goes astray. Therefore the sage holds in his embrace the one thing (of humility), and manifests it to all the world. He is free from self- display, and therefore he shines; from self-assertion, and therefore he is distinguished; from self-boasting, and therefore his merit is acknowledged; from self-complacency, and therefore he acquires superiority. It is because he is thus free from striving that therefore no one in the world is able to strive with him. That saying of the ancients that 'the partial becomes complete' was not vainly spoken:--all real completion is comprehended under it. I call this verse to underline the comments regarding desire. It's especially important what the pupil wants out of the exchange. If one can believe that because the pupil is a sage then he would be free of the things mentioned later in the verse he wouldn't be displaying himself to the ruler; he wouldn't be asserting himself; he wouldn't be boasting; but how strong is the pressure to be complacent? I think Confucius is warning against this. Complacency would put even a sage under terrible pressure to bend and sway with these things in his imperative to stand up to the ruler. And this is without mentioning the very things Confucius explicitly spells out in the chapter.