stan herman

67. Many will say my thoughts are too unpredictable to capture, too innocent for this subtle world, too inconstant for these analytic times. In fact, it is their unpredictability, innocence and inconstancy that animate my thoughts. To the extent my thoughts are predictable, subtle and constant, to that extent have they become arid thoughts. If my thoughts can not be well defined, what then do I mean to say? What then do I value? One thing is kindness that arises without duty and extends without intention. A second is freedom from that clinging hold to status and extravagance that holds so many captive. The third and most important thing I value is recognizing the limitless extent of Tao. And fourth I value patience. (Manitou, I don't know where the name, "Tao Master" on my posts came from, I didn't choose it. Do you have any idea?)

Thanks for the good words manitou. Yours were the second set I received today. Very rare for me. Times I've gone weeks without any . I am a great respecter of the 12 steps. They seem to me both inspired and practical--my favorite combination. My theory in brief btw, is that people are most often drawn to the numinous by personal crisis ( mine was the mid-life one). And most are attracted strongly by the yin (nurturing-supportive) aspects which seem to offer a gentler framework of 'life' than they have previously experienced. (This in no way ignores the difficult self-appraisal and ego-confrontation the 12 steps require.) My impression is that undivided devotion to the yin framework can be a snare--one that denies, even outlaws the actualities of the yang--whose challenges are half the nature of what we call mundane reality. If I recall correctly, there are two Hindu yogic approaches that bear here. One is the way of love (Bhakti(?)) and another is the way of reality/truth (Raja(?)). I seem to be naturally inclined toward the latter. So indeed I agree with you, " It seems to take a very different path in each of us, this self awareness thing." Below I'm sending an other version 67.

Hmm, if I understand, your response puts me in mind of the middle path of Buddhism. I don't recall the mention of "love" in the Tao, though it's been a while since I read a version all the way through. Can you point me to a verse? (Not that I think a specific mention is required for you to feel as you do) One thing I note that perplexes me some is that in the discussions of Tao, as well as 'enlightenment', there seem to be a number of people who equate love, gentleness, moderation, modesty etc. with realization. As though their opposites were aberrations and evidence of defective thinking. I have a 'theory' about that, but I'd like to hear your reaction.

I'd be interested to learn what you think those qualities are AND what they are NOT.

Here's something that works for me: Don't try to reform! Just NOTICE what is happening with you--things like your pattern and sequence of thoughts and feelings when you get into being irritated, also your physical reactions--breath, muscle tension, things like that. DO NOT try to change anything. Before long you'll see the patterns pretty clearly. With repetition you'll get better and better at noticing. Soon you will notice changes in your reactions. Some people relate this to 'burning karmic seeds'.

Otis, you said, "I'll try. I'm still learning to love the people that I like, not to mention those who I allow to irritate me." If you can love unconditionally all the 'others' of your world, and you are personally inclined to do so, good. I'm not naturally so inclined. So what I've found useful is to try to understand the way each plays his or her game, with a minimum of judging. Then, you can shape the way you play yours in a way that suits you and the other. There are some practical methods for doing this.

In response, what's primary for me is to recognize that I'm in a game (life on earth). And so, until I'm transferred I need to play. Basics in this game are self, others, and situations. Whether these elements are 'real' or not, there they are, so I deal with them. I realize there are a great variety of ways the game can be played, I try to notice as many of them as I can. Over time an increasing number of connections seem to appear between 'the game' and the numinous, the field within which the game is played,

Another interpretation: 36. Power is most secure when not displayed Large egos are vulnerable to slight Aggression is vulnerable to counter-attack High status is vulnerable to failure. Still, power is the flour of change Egos provide its yeast Aggression gives the heat for baking and Status turns the oven on. And so the Tao makes bread.

Psheww, what strikes me is that in our purportedly Christian nation, there's been nothing but celebration, not a single voice have I heard saying, "It is regrettable we had to target a man for assassination, but it was necessary." I guess the Old Testament's "eye-for-an-eye" beats out Jesus' "turn the other cheek"--no contest. I think there's a serious learning here if we notice it.

All interesting stuff. All credible. Yet each different from the others. Question: From where do these differences arise? Of course, the quick and easy answer would be from the differences of each individual's previous history and genes. But is there another answer too?

A neat idea I've found is having access to suspending both belief and disbelief from time to time. I started doing that in a limited way and after a while I find it's a generally useful perspective, especially in evaluating daily issues both at the personal and world affairs levels. Of course some will ask, how can one judge moral issues if one does not hold firm to one's beliefs?

The question of whether there is a'Self' and if so its nature is an intriguing one. The Buddhist Abhidhamma, reputedly the 'highest' teachings of the Buddha , says there is no self other than a flowing stream of karma--the arising and disappearing of an impersonal process. Other traditions see the true-self as soul, or ego, or as the containing vessel of individual mind-brain consciousness. I suppose I've entertained most of these views at one time or another. Recently it occurred to me, that it may not be an either-or question. In other words, the self can be any, all or none of the above, depending on how the particular perceiver constructs it. At least that's the way it looks to me now.

Two things catch my attention: 1 "Is it really thought that gets in our way of experiencing reality, or is it just "taking thought too seriously"? Aren't thoughts useful, at times?" 2 "It is very difficult to be without thought." Re #1 In my view, thought can indeed get in the way--especially intelligent, well-reasoned thought. It is so captivating, satisfying and communicable to others. Re #2 Yes, very very difficult. Just try the experiment of not thinking for only one minute by the clock! And yet, the ability to not-think is an essential one in accessing the numinous. Ah now back to thinking. Thinking is not different from reality, and for me it can be a fun and gratifying part--(as long as I don't take it too seriously)

To you all, good to read this stuff.

Yes, that pretty well says it for me as well. I would add: Since there are other fine communications (e.g. The Diamond Sutra, the stories of Don Juan, Seth) I think its good to spread your attention around enable perhaps new stimuli. Also, it seems to me, there may be other vehicles that are useful in accessing experience other than thought. All of what I've said is probably well known to most of you, but I'm still learning about you.

'What are Other People' The Buddhist Abhidhamma tells us there is no self. What we call self is merely a temporary stream of thought ... Well, that may be, but here I am, and here I must be--me, until it is decreed otherwise. So, what to do? How to handle this curious condition, for if there is no self how can there be others? It's a game that's being played and I'm both pawn and player--and maker of other players. Some say I picked this game to play before I was born

Interesting observation. Whether the history books ever give credit to a leader's non-action is questionable. If what happens in the Middle East turns out to be less of a movement toward democracy and more a new arising of the 2,500 year conflict between East and West, Bush the younger may get credit for far-sightedness. The balance and harmony of Tao, in my view are not static or stable, but always in motion and always interpenetrating--and sometimes violent.

Yes, the written Tao (like some Buddhist sutras) provides useful signposts. However, both are also crucially limited, for they are thoughts and words. A startling Buddhist epigram says, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him". Perhaps there ought to be a Taoist one that says, "After reading the Tao, burn it."

Hmmm, seems to me there's at least one more side (e.g. mine) which says the issue is not closed. It's quite conceivable that the process of evolution is one of God's tools. Recall, God works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform. With respect to "words", indeed a tool of man (see below), but again are man's tools exempt from God's purpose? Or is the whole thing--the big system--all one?

Yeah it's so funny--God keeps playing this game, and laughs and laughs. Attached is a picture (dbl clk) I thought you might enjoy (if I can manage to get it here.) Btw. is it ok to include pix in messages? How is it done?

For the equestrian set: "Events are in the saddle and they ride mankind" -- Emerson "People are the horses the genes ride"--(?)

You say "most of the time". What are the exceptions like? Btw, seems to me if you prefer a fate of doom, fight for it, even if you have to be a "good guy". s

It brought a smile to my face and breath to my lungs, the array of responses. Yes, let us not stifle the disagreeable--ain't it part of the Tao?

'tis true, and often leader, planner (and sage), find the outcome does not serve their intentions. Hopefully, the sage at least, can shrug and smile. I like and resonate with your previous observation about 'words' as the source of 'degradation' (while they are at the same time the source of the world--and keep us busy).