nestentrie

Yeah it had to be April didn't it?

I don't mean to play the troll, but skydog would probably like this post. I don't see him around much these days.

Hmm. Perhaps it would sound terrifying for one who might have to go through it. What I'd like to emphasise is the peace that comes after. To the question of maturity I'm not really sure. It just seemed that for me there was a physical process that I went through, and that any lethargy, disinterest or general dullness lifted, as if i'd been given a drug to clear a headache. (Also, as if I was going through an enlightening process). I don't hold that I did becomes enlightened: I hold that the buddha was talking of this process when he talked of enlightenment, that enlightenment, however glorious is not merely, but all the same just a part of growing... Buddha said: "I consider the positions of kings and rulers as that of dust motes. I observe treasures of gold and gems as so many bricks and pebbles. I look upon the finest silken robes as tattered rags. I see myriad worlds of the universe as small seeds of fruit, and the greatest lake in India as a drop of oil on my foot. I perceive the teachings of the world to be the illusion of magicians. I discern the highest conception of emancipation as a golden brocade in a dream, and view the holy path of the illuminated ones as flowers appearing in one's eyes. I see meditation as a pillar of a mountain, Nirvana as a nightmare of daytime. I look upon the judgment of right and wrong as the serpentine dance of a dragon, and the rise and fall of beliefs as but traces left by the four seasons."

May I ask how: old are you? This fog you speak of happened with me also. From as far back as about 24 years old the feeling ever so gradually layered on top of me until hitting a peak at 29. In the beginning it was on and off. Over a few weeks or a month I'd be depressed and had all the same feelings of indifference you describe. However I'd often get a few months reprieve and feel almost normal. At times I could tell myself it was just situational. I had at 24 come out of a dysfunctional relationship and failed in university studies a year or two prior to that. It was just me getting over a hump. But at 25 and 26 it got heavier, and lasted for longer each time (with shorter and shorter times of reprieve). I tried again to tell myself it was situational. I never held jobs and I was lonely. Yet there was always hope I told myself. I was just waiting for something. 27 and 28 were really no different. I think I'd just like to tell myself they were worse years because of what happened at 29 (and that I'd spent another couple of years with it not changing). When I reached 29 I came to acceptance. I realised I'd never have the fancy job I'd wanted since youth (or at least that I'd never just snap my fingers and have a degree and fine job applications quickly lined up). I realised that most people I knew were dissapointed in me. I also knew that there was nothing I could really do about it. Better put, I realised that no amount of wishing could change it. The job would come when I found the motivation to do the underlying work and if people were to respect me, sure I could feel confident with that, but I neither needed that respect to feel confident or even particularly wanted to jump through hoops to get it. The fog had kind of morphed itself into calm. Shortly after I turned 30 there was a transformation. A euchatrastrophe. I don't really feel inclined to talk much about it (the point in sharing this was to let you know you're not alone in the mental fog you have). But basically that calm I had was challenged. I had mental disturbance and outbursts of anger. Deep anger (but punctuated anger). What happened with that anger and that mindset was what I'd basically describe as a spiritual death. It was a pronlonged and varied experience with many mental and phsyical symptoms. I can pinpoint to the 'death' to one afternoon that I layed on the couch having visions, but really it has been a 3 year affair. I'm still dying now at 33. What happened with the experience was that the fog didn't dissipate, but dramatically lift (it rose to higher energetic levels). I could talk longer about this lift than I could about the lethargy and depression of the dark years... To try and give a meaning to all this I would quote the following: Between his birth and his latter end, man passes through four chief stages-infancy, adolescence, old age and death. In infancy, the vital force is concentrated, the will is undivided, and the general harmony of the system is perfect. External objects produce no injurious impression, and to the moral nature nothing can be added. In adolescence, the animal passions are wildly exuberant, the heart is filled with rising desires and preoccupations. The man is open to attack by the objects of sense, and thus his moral nature becomes enfeebled. In old age, his desires and preoccupations have lost their keenness, and the bodily frame seeks for repose. External objects no longer hold the first place in his regard. In this state, though not attaining to the perfection of infancy, he is already different from what he was in adolescence. In death, he comes to his rest, and returns to the Absolute. I am now already different from what I was in adolescence. I already seek for repose. However unlike what it was for me in my 20s, now I can actually achieve it. Where lethargy would dull me, repose now energises me. Not wildly, exuberantly, or really anything like the passion of a teenager or 20 something, but calmly, deeply and meaningfully. I guess I'm slightly more sentimental now. However not wishing for anything. I could probably talk more, but then it'd just be me boasting. If you are a young person, then I hope what I've said can be an encouraging story. If you're not, well maybe it's of some use anyway. EDIT: er, i said i was 33 and it that it was a 3 year affair. oops. i'm 32 (33 in 6 months)... So only 2 and half years so far (they feel both short and long)

Yeah, interestesting Harmonious Emptiness. I won't try to dismiss what you've said with the simple "i don't speak chinese", but I don't so it's hard for me to comment. I have seen discussions on translating the ancient chinese before though, so my appreciation for your efforts is not something I'd waive over. Must be difficult, and even more difficult to feel confident in what one is learning from it all.

I don't read or speak Chinese so I could never really render this Chapter the way I'd like to (and be taken seriously). So what follows is just an exercise in wishful thinking (that I probably still will be hung for...) This is how I would have it: 38 Possessing the highest degree of Te, the Virtuous do not seek to show the attributes of Tao, and so therefore possess them in fullest measure. Those who possess in a lower degree those attributes seek how not to lose them, and therefore they do not possess them in fullest measure. Those who posses in the highest degree those attributes do nothing with a purpose, and have no need to do anything. Those who possess them in a lower degree aree always doing, and have need to be so doing. When the Tao is lost, Mercy is lost, and when Mercy is lost the Benevolence that should be finds no course. When the Tao is lost, Facility is lost, and when Facility is lost the Righteousness that would be finds no course. When the Tao is lost, Sincerity is lost, and when Sincerity is lost the Propriety that nornally does succeed finds no course. Thus it is that when the Tao is lost, its attributes appear; when its attributes are lost, Benevolence appears; when Benevolence is lost, Righteousness appears; and when Righteousness is lost, the Proprieties appear. Now Benevolence, Righteousness, and Propriety are the attenuated forms of leal-heartedness and good faith, and are also the of the cocomitants of disorder; swift apprehension is only a flower of the Tao, and is the beginning of stupidity. Thus it is that the Virtuous abide by what is Honest and eschew what could only seem like Wisdom; they dwell with the fruit and not with the flower. It is thus that they put away the one and make choice of the other.

Thanks for the discussion on this, ChiDragon and Harmonious Emptiness. I have a lot of reading and learning to do. I've begun reading the Analects and now it seems there's another text(s) to look at (The Four Canons of the Yellow Emperor). Though, it so far seems that I may have to buy this latter one.

...Wrong thread... (sorry)

Because sharp/fine isn't the same as smooth. Because light isn't the same as soft. With every fast, sharp movement there is a corresponding deficit. You could be aiming for hard, all the while only achieving coarse. With every light movement you perform you could feel as if you're evading the requirements of diligence... that you could be above the insult of deep and heavy. It is not so. To achieve hard (and achieve the focus), one must recognise blunt conditions. One must recognise that both soft and smooth facilitate it. Bluntness is the active force where hardness is the reciporicator. (soft and smooth are the neuter) If you're talking Yin, coarseness is still out of operation. ....This is just how to achieve hard. There are many other examples where slowness produces the desired effect. EDIT: Just to add... Fine and smooth form a complement. As does light and soft. Altogether they from a quadruplicity. In wu xing this is fire. (Air if you're a westener.) Bluntness is wood, and wood creates favourable conditions for fire/air. It is wood that is abrupt (further evidenced by the liver's parter: the gall bladder (which is loose)). 4 The Tao is (like) the emptiness of a vessel; and in our employment of it we must be on our guard against all fulness. How deep and unfathomable it is, as if it were the Honoured Ancestor of all things! We should blunt our sharp points, and unravel the complications of things; we should attemper our brightness, and bring ourselves into agreement with the obscurity of others. How pure and still the Tao is, as if it would ever so continue! I do not know whose son it is. It might appear to have been before God.

I'm 32. I grew up (at least, until I was a teen) saying 'grouse'.

I think this is being 'The One': 49 The sage has no invariable mind of his own; he makes the mind of the people his mind. To those who are good (to me), I am good; and to those who are not good (to me), I am also good;--and thus (all) get to be good. To those who are sincere (with me), I am sincere; and to those who are not sincere (with me), I am also sincere;--and thus (all) get to be sincere. The sage has in the world an appearance of indecision, and keeps his mind in a state of indifference to all. The people all keep their eyes and ears directed to him, and he deals with them all as his children.

If you're accepting of them, yet still want something deeper (i.e to love them) then I think you're talking about believing in them. Believing in them is believing in them for who they are, believing that where they spend their energies leads to fruit, and enjoying that fruit together with them when they feel confident in themselves (or even just relaxed about themselves). Believing in anything else besides is not grounds for accepting them. It's a back and forth that can't be tampered with. Tampering either with your attitude towards those things or tampering with the person themselves is neither belief nor acceptance. There's of course more than acceptance and belief turning the wheels of any relationship, but if it were me I'd want to be clear about those differences. I'd want to know that I have the proper perspective before I do anything.

The very ideas you think are all an infinite regress leading back to the Tao. Not with 10,000 lao tzu's could you do this.

It's relief.

Nice post. Enjoyed reading it. That clock sounds interesting.

You flatter me. So I must remind myself: 9 It is better to leave a vessel unfilled, than to attempt to carry it when it is full. If you keep feeling a point that has been sharpened, the point cannot long preserve its sharpness. But here I am just showing off I guess.

Knowing kung-fu of course.

Yes, I can now see that now, ChiDragon. Thank you both for this. It's a very useful page and has cleared up (some) confusion. I've read over the entire page and it seems clear that I really should be looking into Confucianism.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Don%27t_feed_the_Troll

It can't cure the common cold. But can it PREVENT it?

I used to have a mantra: 'I want an implement and a dexterity with the thing...' Is your implement the edit button, skydog? P.S: Don't watch Star Trek II. It stinks.

Yeah I was already getting the impression that there wasn't just one fixed list. This thread has pushed that point further. I will admit that so far in my studies I have steered clear of Confucius, and that possibly I've been a little ignorant in that regard. However I feel I can say that I don't go out of my way to reject good advice and helpful pointers. Confucius has been calling me for a while now, with my interest in that system steadily growing. Perhaps it's just what I've been looking for and perhaps now is the time to pursue it. Thanks for the tip. I will get googling as soon as I can.

I believe in reincanation. I believe firmly that I know of my last two incarnations. But with the third there is historical discrepancy: recorded facts don't match with the chronology (my 3rd past life overlaps with my second according to the records). So I guess this leaves me somewhere in the realm of unacceptability. I'm not really inclined to argue with the recorded facts either. My need for vindication is not that strong. So what I do take from it? As the OP asks: what do I think of the afterlife? I think we go from hardiness (and heaviness) to almost pure shallow. Earth and Water are separated with Metal freed up. Our mind is splayed out and covers vast expanse of not only space but time, and we see through soul undindered: where mind is free to view and consider. It would seem with this viewing and this considering that we could view a million of our past lives (and maybe a million into the future). So Hell? It's possible. Heaven? It is what it is. When is it is the question that persists though (and where?). Death is the everywhen and the everywhere: the Dreamtime and Tao. Though I don't precisely know why, we nevertheless can't keep it. Keeping involves Whatness, as well as the Whereness and When-ness. Tao is Tao. Tao isn't me or a million mes. It isn't twoness. So the What demands a separate Where, something When is all to eager to accomodate. But control? Dunno really. I know that I've had varied personality across lives, but it feels gripping to admit and proclaim that I've always had the same character. At least, the same propensity. Control is as good as our clinging. Life is desire and I don't think afterlife really means the absence of life. ... WHEN the pine tosses its cones To the song of its waterfall tones, Who speeds to the woodland walks? To birds and trees who talks? Cæsar of his leafy Rome, There the poet is at home. He goes to the river-side,— Not hook nor line hath he; He stands in the meadows wide,— Nor gun nor scythe to see. Sure some god his eye enchants: What he knows nobody wants. In the wood he travels glad, Without better fortune had, Melancholy without bad. Knowledge this man prizes best Seems fantastic to the rest: Pondering shadows, colors, clouds, Grass-buds and caterpillar-shrouds, Boughs on which the wild bees settle, Tints that spot the violet’s petal, Why Nature loves the number five, And why the star-form she repeats: Lover of all things alive, Wonderer at all he meets, Wonderer chiefly at himself, Who can tell him what he is? Or how meet in human elf Coming and past eternities?

Yes, that does help. Thanks. I suppose somewhere in my memory I've confused things. Is there a specific text that enshrines this? I will try to google with these refined terms, but my google skills are woeful so any pointers would be welcome. This is true. IMHO, to understand verse 38 is to understand this. It's not so much that i'm looking for rules and stipulations or some hard line to follow: I'm looking for where simplicity opens 'rules' up and offers clarity. I'm just looking for suggestions. It follows on from work I've been conducting for myself. For some time now i've been reflecting on the Chuang Tzu Chapter 'The Old Fisherman'. In it there are mentioned 8 personal 'defects' a person can be inflicted with and 4 so called 'great evils'. One must gaurd against the defects so as to let no course for the great evils to enter one's character/behaviour. I've been trying to see if there are corresponding virtues and if they are as comprehensive as the defects seem to be in summing up a person and their attitudes toward activity and ethics. My system is a little hodgepodge so far, but I've come a long way. What I think I have is a system that accounts for the acquisition of knowledge (or how knowledge frames an ethical viewpoint), the forwarding of belief (again in terms of an ethical viewpoint), and how people accept and agree with things. At their most basic they are the maxims of "I do or I don't", "I can or I can't", "I will or I won't", and "I should or I shouldn't" (all respective to knowledge, belief, acceptance, and agreement). There are further words and terms in the system, but what opened my eye was the coming across the notions of Benevolence, Righteousness, WIsdom, and Propriety. They fit in line with my thinking perfectly. It seemed as if these terms were just there waiting for me. So to re-estabalish the OP, I'd like to find something I can read to aid my thinking and work.

I'm not sure I had looked at that exact thread, but I have browsed through various threads in the chapter studies done on the forum. It wasn't quite my question however. I'm interested to know if there is any canonical text that offers up anything on these particular virtues different to what the Tao Te Ching does. Thanks for reminding me of the chapter studies though. I haven't yet made my way through them all. Perhaps it's a good time to revist them.