nestentrie

I need another beer. BRB

Does not mindfulness, in the first order, suggest memory?

I would be interested in that. EDIT: Also, i'm in the chat now if there would be any partakers.

I think you're answering your own questions. But I will say (re your sig) that astrology is in many ways a forced structure... EDIT I don't know what career path you should follow. Maybe what's expedient?

Practice virtue. Keep the 3 Treasures. As to virtue, my suggestion would be to guard against these 4 things in particular. They come from The Chuang Tzu (The Old Fisherman) and can be associated with the 4 Cardinal Virtues of Catholicism. To take the management of affairs which do not concern him is called monopolising. To bring forward a subject which no one regards is called loquacity. To praise a man deceitfully, or in the same way fix on him the character of being bad, is called depravity. Without reference to their being good or bad, to agree with men with double face, in order to steal a knowledge of what they wish, is called being dangerous. To relate them to the 4 Cardinal Virtues they are: Justice Prudence Strength/Fortitude Temperance With these 4 there is development, avoidance, subduing, and maintenance of merit and demerit.

Pretty well said. As much as I have bolded what I particularly like about your post there are other things to comment on too. I agree that there is no real coming or going for someone who doesn't have unrealistic expectations, but could I propose the following with a question? Is it the resting in achievement that you would guide someone away from? I suppose I'm quibbling for a point, but couldn't it be good that all things spring up and show themselves? Couldn't it be good that your grey rock is a grey rock? You follow with saying that there is contentment underlying everything, so my small proposal would be that there can be hope in everything too. As I see it, hoping for a good outcome could be fine as long as it isn't an unrealistic expectation, as long as it owes to hoping that things go through their natural process, and as long as there is no clinging to the result. I'd call it good faith and hope that you might consider verse 38 here (or even 23, risking a little obtuseness). Apart from that concern, I dig your post.

I've learned that there are universals across the internet, that surface level things (like this forum being about taoism, not cars or television shows) can change, but that the human element remains the same. There are eager people here; people willing to enquire off a complete stranger as to the nature of a deep question they have; and people willing to share what they themselves know. I haven't been in many of these exchanges yet personally, but i've witnessed many of them. By this I've learned more about the tao te ching than I ever would have in 6 months of googling; I've learned more about qigong and niegong than I was ever inclined to; and I've learned quite a bit about the history and makeup of taoism itself. All by having the shared experiences of an internet community. However, like any place on the internet, the nature of the beast is that there is less face to face, and more reliance on the written word. For every 3 posts that are thoughtfully constructed and diligently executed there are 5 that are mere thought bubbles. For every instance of someone carefully reading another's post and responding respectfully there are at least a half more that are careless and sometimes insensitive (I know because i've been guilty of it). Misunderstandings and bickering is just as common here as anywhere else on the internet. (If only we could discard our artful contrivances...) Yet here there is at least the commitment to be respectful. It's something i'm always mindful of and so I suppose I could say that TTB taught me that (or at least reminds me of it). But this is in itself surface level commentary. Such as this place is it's taught me that one can never really expect the generic. With every person in some way seeking for something there is always a further question inspired. With everyone in some way sharing there is always novelty ahead. The sometimes complexity of the forum topic ensures this. So I suppose TTB has taught me to always keep an open mind.

8pm Australian time and i will be heading in (if anyone would like to join me).

Thanks for the tips. I will try to find the chat thread.

Mumbo Jumbo, it's always about the mumbo jumbo.

To the OP, I would ask; 10 Can you govern your animal soul, hold to the One and never depart from it? Can you throttle your breath, down to the softness of breath in a child? Can you purify your mystic vision and wash it until it is spotless? Can you love all your people, rule over the land without being known? Can you be like a female, and passively open and shut heaven's gates? Can you keep clear in your mind the four quarters of earth and not interfere? This would be requisite for me even considering them a master...

To the OP, grace.

I don't often like the expression 'you need to get out more', but here, I think you at least need to be a little bit less impetuous. I mean, this is a message forum, not facebook IM with your friends. My bad if i'm exaggerating the inanity here.

I would tell my student; 81Sincere words are not fine; fine words are not sincere. Those who are skilled (in the Tao) do not dispute (about it); the disputatious are not skilled in it. Those who know (the Tao) are not extensively learned; the extensively learned do not know it. The sage does not accumulate (for himself). The more that he expends for others, the more does he possess of his own; the more that he gives to others, the more does he have himself. With all the sharpness of the Way of Heaven, it injures not; with all the doing in the way of the sage he does not strive. and follow it with; 23Abstaining from speech marks him who is obeying the spontaneity of his nature. A violent wind does not last for a whole morning; a sudden rain does not last for the whole day. To whom is it that these (two) things are owing? To Heaven and Earth. If Heaven and Earth cannot make such (spasmodic) actings last long, how much less can man! Therefore when one is making the Tao his business, those who are also pursuing it, agree with him in it, and those who are making the manifestation of its course their object agree with him in that; while even those who are failing in both these things agree with him where they fail. Hence, those with whom he agrees as to the Tao have the happiness of attaining to it; those with whom he agrees as to its manifestation have the happiness of attaining to it; and those with whom he agrees in their failure have also the happiness of attaining (to the Tao). (But) when there is not faith sufficient (on his part), a want of faith (in him) ensues (on the part of the others).

An article I came across that I thought I'd share... http://nautil.us/issue/10/mergers--acquisitions/trying-not-to-try

Fair enough. Sounds good to me.

Me, I just have to wonder what judgement is. It's an old trope but let me see if i can get away with pulling up a dictionary definition... Here's what google says: judgement ˈdʒʌdʒm(ə)nt/ noun noun: judgment 1. the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions. "an error of judgement" synonyms: discernment, acumen, shrewdness, astuteness, common sense, good sense, sense, perception, perspicacity, percipience, penetration, acuity, discrimination, wisdom, wit, native wit, judiciousness, prudence, sagacity, understanding, intelligence, awareness, canniness, sharpness, sharp-wittedness, cleverness, powers of reasoning, reason, logic; More informal nous, savvy, know-how, horse sense, gumption, grey matter; informal common;informal smarts;rare sapience, arguteness "the incident showed the extent to which his temper could affect his judgement" in my opinion, to my mind, in my view, to my way of thinking, I believe, I think, as I see it, if you ask me, personally, in my book, for my money, in my estimation "in my judgement, such things should be forbidden" an opinion or conclusion. plural noun: judgements; plural noun: judgments "they make subjective judgements about children's skills" a decision of a law court or judge. "county court judgements against individuals in debt" synonyms: verdict, decision, adjudication, ruling, pronouncement, decree, finding, conclusion, determination; More sentence "a county-court judgement" 2. a misfortune or calamity viewed as a divine punishment. "the events of last week are a judgement on us for our sinful ways" synonyms: punishment, retribution, penalty; So here we have two definitions. One seems to be of an intellectual, concrete type, while the other seems concerned with morality. Which are we interested in following? Maybe both are worth looking into. Some synonyms given for the first definition are: discernment, common sense, and understanding. Taking up discernment; if I were to determine (and judge) that President Obama is African American would you agree with me? Now, there are some that wouldn't agree. There are some that regard the controversy and uncertainty of President Obama's Hawaiian birth grounds to question his legitimacy as a US citizen, therefore calling into question the American part of the African American designation. This would be, at face value, the discerning part of judgement. Yet is this really the common sense approach? By Law, a President must be of US birth to be installed, so it would follow that he is at least American. Afterall, how could a nation and government of a nation go through such lengthy processes without knowing such a basic fact? How could they be so careless? How could they install (as some would have it), a Kenyan President? Putting aside issues of trust and recalcitrance it's safe we can assume that at least most concerned thought he was American. So this leaves understanding doesn't it? (If we are to take my three choices as boons). What can we understand about the facts in relation to the claim I've made? We can understand that there is a lot of hastiness involved in controversy. Have I though, in my choice of the third example softened the criteria and veered a little? Perhaps I have, so let me address something else first. Judgement is perception. Judgement is appraisal. Judgement is saying a thing is one thing and not another. It is a process of coming to know. It isn't impetuousness, and it isn't acquiescence. Wanting a thing to be one thing and not another is not the process of judgement. Things are as they are, it's just our body of awareness coming into contact with them that brings knowingness and finality. So I guess from here we have to ask what we want of judgement. And to our example, what do we want from President Obama's racial and national status and identity? Is it that we want things that aren't yet a part of ourselves and our experiences to be so? A few good things that we can align ourselves with and enjoy, knowing in fullness that they are indeed good things? Do we want President Obama to be African American, like he says? The OP suggests, we don't like being judged, but we love to judge things for ourselves. So what is it? It would be easy from here to take a boastful attitude. 'I judge to be good what I have chosen'. 'I judge President Obama to be African American, like he says he is, and I need no further evidence to account for the veracity of the claim.' It would be nice to have that certainty. But it probably wouldn't be prudent. So let's leave the first definition alone and address the second definition (but not leave alone our understanding just put it to the side for a moment). The synonyms for the second definition are; punishment, penalty, and retribution. These are the moral aspects of our judgement. In coming to know something we know further whether it is good or bad; worthy of our praise or condemnation. We shouldn't at this point have to endure a bad thing. If we've determined a thing to be bad, then our judgement not only says it's so, but lets it be so. We only find it easy to be sincere in our judgement. So if the US government lied, and Obama lied, we'd be sure as shit knowing that it's a bad thing. It's not something we'd tolerate. (----) I don't know. I was typing up this post some hours ago and had most of it down. I had, compared to what is here, an extended set of arguments to do with boasting. Further than I linked it with sincerity and mercy. My computer crashed and i'd only been able to save some of the post. Coming in at the second definition second time around I just couldn't recall the details i'd put down. I'd remembered the course but none of the nuance. Quite frankly it put me off my game and left me at complete odds with how to complete the Obama example. But I'm tired now and i can't quite be fucked. Let me just finish with some statements. (----) Judgements are sincere, not fickle. Judgements are coming to knowing. The primary concern of judgement is to refuse our own quicknesses and oversimplifications; to be fair in how we appraise something. Some pretty basic sentiments, to be sure. But maybe someone else can chime in with further thoughts on the sincerity of a judgement, and how it would play to mercy. See, we like to judge because we like to be involved with people and things. Exclusion is not a primary motivation. We like to know the standard by which we like something. Much like the Obama example, we'd like to know that he's American, because he's the President of the US, and not a Kenyan. Truthfulness is just matter of course.

Yes, I think too that a distinction should be made between instinct and intuition. One is protective (fight or flight, perhaps), and the other is nurturing (or more 'thoughtful). I did like the article too, but I think I'll always be a beginner with Wu Wei. it's something you can never seem to pin down and say 'yeah, i was wu wei there, i achieved it': it defies description. However I do suppose that one can rest in it (and maybe that's the point). :/ I couldn't find the button.

Damn. I spelt the tag wrong. Oops.

Same.

Honesty is having two pieces of string of unequal length and reporting that you two pieces of string of unequal length. There isn't much more to say about it. That's why people often find honesty unappealing and sometimes even unsatisfactory (you can't draw blood from a stone). There is more however to a situation that requires honesty than honesty itself. Situations that require honesty rely on a person's facility. Facility to entertain another and their wishes. Facility to entertain what another will or won't do. Receptivity. In good faith we determine what is acceptable. In good faith we follow the momentum of the situation and further determine what we can do to maintain that momentum. We co-operate. If one of our pieces of string is useful, we report on that usefulness. If it isn't, we go along in good faith that maybe the other piece has unforeseen opportunity, or that our first piece could be modified to suit the situation. If all has failed while attempting these things, then like Marblehead said, we give an 'i don't know' (which is still satisfying the condition of honesty). So while honesty in itself is a blunt instrument, there are skills that complement and augment it, making the whole process something dignified. It's something we can believe in.

That pyramid/structure has sand at it's base.

Chegg, I suppose it's on the strength of your conviction that these things must rest. Citing the TTC verse again, do you want the truth you offer to be loved, treated with healthy respect, or ignored? Having it ignored is easy, and the easiest way to ensure it's ignored is to not bring it up in the first place. I'm not sure you're in this camp though as you seem to want to have the things you know shared around. To have it treated with respect: that's harder (and i think your whole area of concern). I think the main issue here is not so much honesty as good faith. Would you have it that people easily and pliantly agree with you, accept your suggestion and agree with your conclusions without further consideration? Or would you have it that they come into it with respect of their own, having all the implications weighing heavier on them? The former, on the part of your initiate, isn't good faith; it's opportunism. They're taking the slack like a free lunch thinking gifts will shower upon them. You have to question their wisdom. So it again comes to the strength of your conviction. How much do you love the truth you want to share and is that love compromising your objectivity? Can you extend that love to a healthy respect? Can you, with economy allow others to be liberal with the truth you love? That's good faith on your part. So I think my closing thought would be, ignore those who would ignore you and your truth. Engage with good faith those who engage you (with good faith).

17 In the highest antiquity, (the people) did not know that there were (their rulers). In the next age they loved them and praised them. In the next they feared them; in the next they despised them. Thus it was that when faith (in the Tao) was deficient (in the rulers) a want of faith in them ensued (in the people). How irresolute did those (earliest rulers) appear, showing (by their reticence) the importance which they set upon their words! Their work was done and their undertakings were successful, while the people all said, 'We are as we are, of ourselves!' Depends what 'age' you want to be in I suppose, and what kind of economy with the truth you want to maintain. Questions of honesty invariably involve danger of some kind; physical danger, danger of losing face and/or reputation, and the more general disappointments that can arise by having two different lengths of string. So which are we trying to economise and make provision for? I won't spit out a list trying to cover every base the OP might be worried about but I will try to address one thing that has me concerned by reading over the entire thread; trying to account for all the possible mishaps another may encounter while exercising skill veers dangerously close to condescension. Condescension is self-sycophancy, the grounds for complacency. I'll stop here. I don't want to be the preachy hypocrite! So I'll just reiterate: 'How irresolute did those (earliest rulers appear, showing by their reticence) the importance which they set upon their words!'

Sorry. I missed that part.