JustARandomPanda

Read a most fascinating essay today I thought I'd share. I'm unfamiliar with the discipline known as Systems Thinking although I've since decided maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to get this book as an introduction. This guy's article is basically saying that anyone who has had training in thinking in Systems realizes there is no such thing as "sustainable growth" - the buzzword of Greenies who are trying to get the general public to swallow medicine they don't want. Which come to think of it reminds me of how pet owners often have to fight their pets to get them to swallow medicine they need to get well. He says the first Systems Thinking manual ever produced was the Tao te Ching. Unfortunately the level of understanding by the general public of this way of thinking is not what it needs to be if we're to repair our planet and ourselves. I've pasted his essay below but you can read it at the original site here.

And just to lob my 2 cent grenade into this discussion (because sometimes TaoBums seems so steeped in pie-in-the-sky theoretical debates) I wanted to point people to this essay (actually an excerpt of a book). May I introduce you all to: Shop Class as Soul Craft Surely this article is "Taoist" enough for debating in this forum if I ever heard of one.

I know peeps reading this will be more interested in the Qi Gong side of things with regards to ATP but I just couldn't help but plug a book I feel deserves way more reknown than it currently has. I'm talking about Roger J. William's Biochemical Individuality. He also had a wonderful followup called The Wonderful World within You.

Thank you so much MPG for posting these! I own Ingram's book (the physical book) Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha and have found it to be a big help with my own meditation practice. Here's a link to his website. I use his instructions in my daily meditation to attain stilling thoughts. Haven't reached that phase yet (thoughts quieting down completely) but I have noticed that thoughts do seem to get a bit quieter when I focus on my breath. I do Anapana while concentrating on the in/out breath at my nose. Ingram has his own forum. I posted to it one time and had several replies - one of which was from Ingram himself. I think whether one agrees or disagrees with him it certainly if nothing else will give food for thought on various meditation practices.

I've been reading off and on: 1. Working Toward Enlightenment by Master Nan Huai-Chin 2. Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry into the Value of Work by Matthew Crawford I'm also wanting to read: 3. The Stoic Philosophy of Seneca: Essays and Letters

...

So I've finally been reading An Anthology of I Ching and to my surprise it is almost entirely about Wuxing to divine one's situation, personality and fortunes in life. It mentions the Heavenly Branches and the Celestial Stems, Chinese Astrology, assorted methods of divination via tossing coins, separating stalks, numerology, etc. The thing this anthology seems to stress over and over is that the changes, this fluxing of the 5 elements follows a predictable and discernable pattern. Now...what got me was the chapter on astrologies. Specifically as it relates to one's personality or persona. It struck me that if this energy or mind or dependently originated relative self goes through these patterns in each lifetime then "I" will have manifested every single one of the personalities, weaknesses, strengths, fortunes, misfortunes, etc mentioned in this book that is dominated and influence by that particular configuration of these 5 elements at the time of my birth. In practical terms what this means is that the personality I manifested in a prior lifetime(s) would be different from the one I am now. I test as an INFP in this lifetime. Was I an ESTJ in a prior one? According to the Wuxing of the 5 elements I sure was. Endless times since time out of mind. In a universe which has no beginning and no end I have fluxed through every single personality or persona configuration that could possibly come about via these 5 elements. That means at some point I've been much like any one of you personality-wise. Change even one thing about the 5 element configuration and the whole "me" that I am would be completely different. Or at the very least *express* itself differently. If even all of this is subject to flux how then can I be judgemental toward any one of you or to anyone who pisses me off and I don't like? Technically speaking - according to the I Ching - I've actually *been* just like that someone I don't like at some point in time of the fluxing of the universe. Where then is free will in all of this? What is truly me? Is it fair to say that Mind or DO-relative-self is really me? How can it be if all this is is just the orderly wuxing of the 5 elements? The more I delve into this idea the more I'm forced to conclude that a vast part of what I consider me isn't really me at all and never was. In fact...maybe *none* of it is me. Is this beginning to get an inkling of the Buddhist idea of No-Self? Nonetheless I'm stuck with this "I" sense. Like there's some Master-Me in the driver's seat directing the whole show and thus is responsible for my life, my reactions and my decisions good or bad. But I am a part of this universe and thus the orderly wuxing of the five too. I'm confronted with the disturbing notion that anything that fluxes like that can't really be a me at all. If there's no permanent me and it's an orderly progression where does free will come into all of this? I am rather baffled about this. What does Taoist or Shamanic teachings - especially when it comes to the I Ching - have to say about all of this? Just as a disclaimer: I am still very much a baby when it comes to the ability to still my thoughts. I'm still stuck at the very beginning stage of simply trying to hold rock solid focused for more than 1 or 2 seconds on my breath so I have zero meditative accomplishments. I make no claims to having any deep prajna wisdom, meditative insights or internal alchemical attainments. All the preceding was just from assorted logical analysis and admittedly probably not very thorough or deep analysis at that.

Am I getting this right Taomeow? You actually MET your "higher self" the way two people meet and greet on a street corner?

Having a separate forum might be a good idea but I'm not sure it would stop the off-topic posts in the main forum without a new rule added to the Posting FAQs or whatnot that excessive topic-diverging would be modded. Mainly - would the small group that participates in the constant Buddhist threads actually abide by refraining from posting anything about Buddhism except in the area designated for such (personal practice forum as Trunk suggested for example)? Because in actual practice that's what we're talking about. A specific group of individuals, not an anonymous mass or occasional posters. My guess is that those guys would get really pissed at being told to only post their Buddhist discussions to such an area. Are we prepared to have the uproar it would bring from them? The owner of the board did after all admit the Tao Bums is not run as a democracy. It's a dictatorship. A benevolent one but a dictatorship nonetheless. Now of course anyone who gets ticked off always has the option of just leaving and I suppose some might. Speaking only for myself I actually like the idea of a separate Buddhist board. Not because I want to shove those threads away but because I like the idea of a separate forum where it is a free-for-all/anything-goes discussion about all kinds of Buddhist topics. I would be very interested in such a forum - much more so than having to wade through disparate personal practice forums. One other alternative would be to put the individuals who continually deviate the topic on your ignore list. The thread got diverged anyway so it's not like you would be missing discussions on the topic that was begun. That would keep the modding at TaoBums more light and put responsibility back on the person who actually reads the thread for what they're actually reading. I don't know the answer to this. It's only a handful of individuals who continually send topics into Buddha philosphy anyway and this thread is asking for more modding of them. Are we prepared to do that?

Ganying sounds suspiciously to me like the Hermetic principle of "As Above, So Below" or maybe "As Within, so Without". Of course I don't know squat about Ganying and only read the first chapter of the Hermetica. I have the Hermetica but I would like a book on Ganying (and Wuxing too) that doesn't cost $55 or more on Amazon like the previous links provided do. Also it kind of reminds me somewhat of David Bohm's Implicate Order which was admittedly very difficult for me to understand. Honestly I'm still not sure I really got what his whole Implicate Order was all about. But it did kind of sound like a modern, updated version of the Hermetic principle. As to the subject of Thoughts here's some of what Bohm had to say:

Hmm.... Wikipedia says Physicalism is a version of Materialism. Are you still going on record as not being a Physicalist Marble?

This sounds interesting. I may have to go to the park and try that out.

Hmm...learn something new everyday. I did not realize contemplation is just sitting in calm abiding (with..I presume...no thoughts arising or at least seldom enough you can adequately pay attention to the few that do). Ok. In that case I guess I've never achieved true contemplation. Damn it's so hard to get. Let me clarify. I am suspicious of analysis and reason held out as the primary royal road to Enlightenment. Mainly because if those methods worked I should already be a Buddha. And I'm definitely not despite worshipping at the shrine of logic and reason for years. I got a library of books on logic - both formal and informal. Fat lot of good it's done me when it comes to direct experience. Edit: If you want to see someone who has logical anaylis set to Overdrive check out the Amazon reviews of Bruce Bain. All Logic (including a familiarity with many forms of less-well-known Hindu and Buddhist Yoga and Tantras) but little else. He delights in using Reason to rip to shreds other people's book reviews. Well that and he also uses ridicule. But whatever.

THIS! I am finding it sooooo damn difficult to do this. And I don't even know why I find it so hard. It just is. Do you know how hard it is to go for a single day with zero judgements or contemplation whatsoever? Even just as an exercise to see what might be different from one's usual preferred tool or method of operation? I actually made a New Year's Resolution to go 3 months without having any contemplation analysis whatsoever. I didn't last five minutes. I have become highly suspicious of contemplation held forth as the path to Enlightenment. I get that for some people contemplation and logical analysis are the royal road to getting there but for me that isn't the right path at all. For me it is about getting that direct experience - no more using contemplation or reason or analysis as the tool please. My mind is already drowning in those as it is. It's exhausting. Who ever knew it would be such a hard battle to battle one's self? Ugh.

Would this be a terrible thing for you personally I4L if this were somehow discovered to be true? Really I'd like to hear GiH's response though. I get that he thinks all dogmas are bad. What I'd like to know is what he thinks specifically is bad about Physicalism. Marblehead (IIRC) once stated he is a Physicalist but I don't perceive him to be wrong-headed by having that belief.

Bad in what way? What precisely makes Physicalism a terrible dogma?

I haven't finished reading this thread yet but I wanted to state my own beliefs here. This statement by More got me thinking about them. I'm sure other people will disagree with me but I'm just stating what I personally think about the issue. I don't believe it is futile to practice toward Enlightenment ever. Yes, even if the mindstream that is the ultimate me gets reborn in an unenlightened state the next time around. I am inclined to thinking that no work, no effort toward a goal is ever lost. Once it's done it's there for good. Gurdjieff mentioned this as well. One chapter in his book Meetings with Remarkable Men discusses this very thing. How no work, no effort is ever lost. And his teaching this same thing is mentioned in Oupensky's book In Search of the Miraculous. I supsect this is part of the reason why the Buddha included Right Livelihood in his Noble 8 Fold Path. It is a specific application that no effort is ever lost. The Universe (which I view as a hologram) always remembers. And the seeds of that effort will someday sprout. This persona that the unenlightened me views as "me" won't be around to reap the rewards but the mindstream - the "real" me someday will. Practicing I believe generates a force or compulsion to do yet more practicing that will carry through to other lifetimes. Now the next round of lives one might not be fortunate enough to be born in a place to learn about doing the practices neccessary to bring Enlightenment about. But someday such opportunities and the desire to respond in kind will come around again. Effort toward Enlightenment - if that is what you want - will never go to waste.

LMFAO!!!!

Hilarious. To the OP you just made my day.

Just saw a bit of the Clyman stuff. Well..if Non actually tries it that will be a miracle in itself. Here's hoping he goes for it. *crosses fingers* Edit: I deleted it because I realized it was pointless to post.

Odd. I do not recall in any of my studying and searching that the Buddha or Lao Tzu felt shame for beings who had less cultivation accomplishments than themselves. In fact the only responses I ever seem to clearly recall is that they had either A) compassion or B ) equanimity.

Who is "she"? Can you give at least the first name of this She who fucked you over constantly?

Glad you can see that. After all, which gender fills our prison population more? Which gender is the one that traditionally goes warring? For me if I'm going strictly on outward evidence alone it appears men are the experts bar none at transforming evil thoughts into evil deeds. How does your TCM master account for this evidence from life chi-wise?

Non, That hasn't been my experience at all. One guy I know has zero problems asking women for money which he then never pays back. He still owes me and many other women (I found out later) plenty of money. When I quit paying his way for everything everywhere our "friendship" was over too. And that's only one example of a man looking out for numero uno. I can list plenty of others from personal experience too. I suspect for every example you could cite in your own life I could match it with one from mine coming from the opposite direction. No...I take that back. You're still young. You aren't as old, used up and bitter as I've been (at least not yet). I bet I've got decades of examples of men being "naturally" selfish. I think the more technically accurate way to state it is that people will use us if we let them. Men and women - both sexes will do so. My guess is that men don't use you because you don't allow them to. You don't want anything from them bad enough the way you do from women. If you did I assure you you'd be singing a different tune. Go listen to gay men griping about other gay men using them. Not a female in sight and still the complaints of being used and abused roll in. I can even supply you with a forum if you doubt me. It happens because it's a people trait, not a gender one. Life can potentially be shitty all around for both sexes. No one gender has a lock-grip on being shit-upon more badly than the other. The whole argument guys like to hold up of women going after "alphas" despite being treated like shit partly rests upon acknowledging that women do in fact get shit-upon quite regularly by "naturally selfish" men too. I would submit one doesn't even need to be an alpha to treat a woman poorly if she lets him. The danger comes when you want something so badly from the other person you're willing to trade your soul away for it. But the soul always knows and the backlash is drowning in an ocean of bitterness. This is the reality I woke up to. Life can suck for both genders. No one sex has it better by default at getting something from their opposite than the other. That's one reason why sweeping generalizations are acknowledged to be a poor logic and argumentation device in debates. Even one example to the contrary destroys your proposition. How much moreso when life supplies thousands of them? I understand though where you are coming from. Emotion is speaking, not logic. If logic were making these claims it would also be amenable to factual evidence to the contrary. The fact that this has not happened should clue you in that emotion is what's driving it and emotion-beliefs are typically impervious to correction by facts or logic. Hence the reason Sloppy Zang's and everyone else's advice to you falls on deaf ears. That's why I asked what keeps propelling you to post obsessively about this same topic? Whom is it you are trying to persuade? And if you do persuade what will you gain from it? A woman's loving touch? You and those gay men of the forum I mentioned have far more in common than you might believe.

Wow, From all the Beta-Male talk in this thread I'm getting flashbacks. For a while there I thought I was lurking Thundersplace.org again. Non, Just wanted to let you know you're not alone in your pain. Believe it or not there are female equivalents to you. You know...the lonely chic who seldom has had the luxury of having men approach her or express interest in her. And they're just as bitter. Except the griping is all coming from the opposite direction. And often about the hidden prejudices men tend to hold about women. Here's just a few I've seen on assorted forums over the years: "It's all about looks - if you're carrying more than a few extra pounds - forget it." "Even older guys prefer younger women than me." [note: I saw this behavior in my own father. Though he himself was in his 60s he refused to date any woman who was 40 or over. I was only a few years away from turning 40 myself. It was *VERY* disheartening to see up close and personal how prejudiced men can be about aging in women.] Those are just a select few I've seen. And sometimes felt myself. It's not good. It leads to Man-Hating (the flip-side to the Woman-Hating you've been doing in this thread). The belief that men are the sex that really have it sweet in life though most don't realize it. I should know. I used to have it bad. As bad as you do now. Approximately 95% of the CEOs and executives of corporations are men. Approximately 95% of the assets owned in the world are owned by men. The vast majority of politicians and world leaders are men. So-called beta males - though they do not have the extreme wealth or influence of the top 1% - nevertheless also have a share in the respect that comes with the birthright of being born a man. When a man fucks around he is seldom chastised and sometimes lauded. But If a woman does she is scorned or worse in some countries, killed. Because a man can always - if necessity makes it so - increase his income and assets but a woman's worth to men declines with every birthday calendar she attains. I saw one man make this exact argument to a woman who was only 24. He pointed out that men almost universally (unless they really F* up) increase in worth and value to the female population - "both hotties and notties" - all the moreso since women outnumber men as the age brackets begin to increase. Even if his wealth did not increase, just stayed the same, his value increases as the competition from other men gets slimmer as the years roll by. She, he pointed out, would only ever have her highest worth to men at the age she was right then - at 24 with her youth and beauty. From here on out he said, she was going to decline in value and that decline picks up rapidly once she hit 35 and would really take a nosedive at 40. His meanwhile would increase and could continue to do so so long as he was willing to put in the work and effort. The thinning number of available men as he grew older only tipped the scales to available-men's advantage vis-a-vis available-women that much more. And he pointed out men typically don't give a rat's ass about a woman's wealth, they want her looks (they don't restrict their porn-viewing to women with hefty bank accounts for example). But women generally do value a man's wealth whether they were a hottie or a nottie. Gotta admit I was feeling pretty damn angry at all men when I saw that little exchange. Ok. Actually it *still* pisses me off royally when I think about it. Now...whether one actually agrees there is truth or not to what that man told that 24 year old is up for debate. I happen to think there is at least some truth to what he said but life has enough wiggle room that there will always be exceptions. I spent my 40th birthday lying alone in my bed, staring at the ceiling, wondering if I would ever be able to find any man anywhere in the world to want and love me with the deck so stacked against me. I had visions of seeing myself cremated and being so unloved, unnoticed and unmourned my ashes were put in a trashcan and carried out to a dumpster and that consisted of my "memorial service". It certainly did not help that I have direct memories of watching my own father bitch about and actually reject women who were 40 as being "too old" who had come on to him . And he is not an "alpha male" by any stretch of the imagination. If my father - who is a beta-male - felt that way about women over 40, what hope was there for me? BTW - In all these decades not once have I ever found a man who wanted to marry me though it was not for lack on my part. And so I felt much as you do. Just coming at it from the opposite direction. There are times I still think that way. Thankfully most of the time I don't. It may yet be true that I will die alone and unloved. The jury is still out. But I do know this. Sitting around and thinking dark thoughts about it was making my life miserable and the sole person it was hurting was me. I am not trying to say what you are feeling is wrong. What we feel is what we feel. It just is what it is. But I will admit I am curious. You have a history of posting of your loneliness to Taobums (and I'm guessing other forums as well). What do you think you are accomplishing by doing so? Are you trying to reach out to other men? Are you trying to reach out to women? What is it that posting about the same subject yet again is going to do for you? The same people keep answering you and their advice goes in one ear and out the other. I know how that goes. I've been down that road too. We don't like hearing advice from people who've not walked in our own down-and-out-shoes. *starts humming the tune to Everlast's e*