Meow Meow

[Marblehead]

Ok what came first, the positive or the negative? if you know the answer, please explain.

 

Chi came first. Positive and negative are components (polarities) of Chi therefore they both arose simultaneously.

 

Peace & Love!

[That Guy]

Chi came first. Positive and negative are components (polarities) of Chi therefore they both arose simultaneously.

 

Peace & Love!

Thats what i thought too, so what i was getting to is, why must the origin of all impulses be a positive one if neither polarity pre exists the other?

 

I think things just happen (chi), and then we make it a positive or negative happening in our mind. So the origin of an impulse is not positive or negative, it is actually "chi".

[Taomeow]

Thats what i thought too, so what i was getting to is, why must the origin of all impulses be a positive one if neither polarity pre exists the other?

 

I think things just happen (chi), and then we make it a positive or negative happening in our mind. So the origin of an impulse is not positive or negative, it is actually "chi".

 

Positive and negative didn't mean "good and evil" to the original discoverers of the polarity. They meant concave and convex, the outer and the inner, the dark and the light, the heavy and the light, creative and receptive, masculine and feminine, and so on. To equate negative with "bad" was an evil move on the part of the usurpers of our consciousness and all current power structures they control. Linguistically defeating the feminine, negative, by equating it with "bad" was aimed at defeating its power everywhere it manifests. Positive acted as evil when grabbing more than its fair share of power and upsetting the balance.

 

What the woman in the video did was positive -- yang, action -- and evil.

 

Evil arises when either the positive or the negative act when they shouldn't or fail to act when they should. E.g., war, active use of power in a manner in which it should not be used = positive evil action. Failure to help when having the power to = negative evil action. The father who smacks the child = postitive evil action. The mother who doesn't nourish the child = negative evil action.

[Marblehead]

Nice post Taomeow.

 

Peace & Love!

[That Guy]

Positive and negative didn't mean "good and evil" to the original discoverers of the polarity. They meant concave and convex, the outer and the inner, the dark and the light, the heavy and the light, creative and receptive, masculine and feminine, and so on. To equate negative with "bad" was an evil move on the part of the usurpers of our consciousness and all current power structures they control. Linguistically defeating the feminine, negative, by equating it with "bad" was aimed at defeating its power everywhere it manifests. Positive acted as evil when grabbing more than its fair share of power and upsetting the balance.

 

What the woman in the video did was positive -- yang, action -- and evil.

 

Evil arises when either the positive or the negative act when they shouldn't or fail to act when they should. E.g., war, active use of power in a manner in which it should not be used = positive evil action. Failure to help when having the power to = negative evil action. The father who smacks the child = postitive evil action. The mother who doesn't nourish the child = negative evil action.

Yeah I get you, but I am more interested in the intent more than anything. Like "the positive or the negative act when they shouldn't or fail to act when they should" because they want to see some suffering or don't like to see others content.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

So, the interesting thing about this whole story is not the cat, but what was going on for the woman. Obviously, she is fully EVIL, and she should probably burn in hell, after various taobums have first stuffed her EVIL ass into a trashcan for 15 hours with smelly sardine cans and poopy diapers. Behold! the face of evil! Is stoning legal in the UK? Let's get her!!!

Edited August 25, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Aetherous]

Well technically she's not fully evil. She is just going to be at "round 3" within the ninth circle of Hell.

 

* Round 3 is named Ptolomaea, probably after Ptolemy, son of Abubus, who invited Simon Maccabaeus and his sons to a banquet and then killed them.[54] Traitors to their guests are punished here, lying supine in the ice, which covers them, except for their faces. They are punished more severely than the previous traitors, since the relationship to guests is an entirely voluntary one.[55] Fra Alberigo, who had armed soldiers kill his brother at a banquet, explains that sometimes a soul falls here before Atropos cuts the thread of life. Their bodies on Earth are immediately possessed by a demon, so what seems to be a walking man has reached the stage of being incapable of repentance (Canto XXXIII).

 

Wikipedia

 

Her face will be out of the ice, so she will still be able to talk to the reporters. She might get promoted to the left hand of Satan, though, due to severely agitating her neighbors in the ninth circle.

[Mal]

Let's get her!!!

 

There is already plenty of that intent out there. I sent her some love in a practice yesterday. She probably needs it right now.

 

I keep recalling one of Buddhas companions who was captured and made to poke out his own eye. Yet he became good friends with those who made him do it. Or something like that, I read Osamu Tezuka Buddha a while ago now

 

(But I would still gain personal amusement seeing her thrown in a bin, so much work is still required)

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

I was using irony to make a point.

 

The most interesting part of this whole thing, though is this: what was going on with that being that she would do that, in that instant?

Has she always wanted to do something like that?

 

Was it just a momentary, irrational impulse that she indulged?

 

Or has she thought about doing such a thing? Maybe for a long time?

 

Does she do this all the time?

 

Did she have second thoughts after she did it? Did she feel good? Did she feel bad?

 

Was it a pleasurable thing for her to do?

 

Has she done stuff like this before?

 

Did a cat bite her when she was a baby, or something similar?

 

Does she have a conscience? Did she feel justified in doing this?

 

Is she a sociopath, without regard to the feelings or well being of other beings?

 

Do sociopaths deserve the same compassion as others, even after callously hurting other beings?

 

Maybe she "never would do something like this. I don't know what came over me". What did "come over her"?

 

Is there some part of you, somewhere inside, that somehow, irrationally wishes to do this kind of thing too? Even just for a flash of impulse, which is always repressed?? (even though you would never actually do it?)

 

Is her shadow somewhere inside us all, even as an impulse only, that we instantly repress?

 

Can I even ask these questions without even making you uncomfortable, a bit?

 

I remember, when I was very young, about 4 or 5 probably, holding the hand of a little baby, and feeling how soft and squishy and plump it was, and I recall the almost overwhelming urge to squeeze it as hard as I could, knowing full well it would hurt the baby, yet really wanting to do it. This happened several times, I never did it, but something within me wanted to. And then I 'outgrew it'. Or my conscience became good at stuffing down that part of me.

 

Being able to acknowledge the evil that dwells within us is critical to spiritual enlightenment. We are not just beings of light.

I submit to you all that there is a part of us, even if you are an animal lover and save kitties for your life's work, that wanted to do exactly as that lady in the video did? Somewhere that flash of an impulse exists, or existed, before we learned to let the light shine over the darkness?

 

I acknowledge this is within me, even as I do work that involves love, immense compassion, and attending to suffering almost every day, that far surpasses what most people do? Perhaps that makes me especially good at what I do?

 

Why is it that ordinary, caring people are capable of cruelty? Sometimes like the guards in concentration camp, or even the Abu Ghraib guards, there is that part of us that could ignite if not immediately eliminated, that could somehow be capable of cruelty?

 

There is a famous psychology experiment where ordinary people were told they were giving shocks to subjects (who were actors pretending to be shocked), and most of them continued to increase the intensity of the suffering because they wee told to?

 

What do you make of what I've just said?

Edited August 26, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Taomeow]

I was using irony to make a point.

 

The most interesting part of this whole thing, though is this: what was going on with that being that she would do that, in that instant?

Has she always wanted to do something like that?

 

Was it just a momentary, irrational impulse that she indulged?

 

Or has she thought about doing such a thing? Maybe for a long time?

 

Does she do this all the time?

 

Did she have second thoughts after she did it? Did she feel good? Did she feel bad?

 

Was it a pleasurable thing for her to do?

 

Has she done stuff like this before?

 

Did a cat bite her when she was a baby, or something similar?

 

Does she have a conscience? Did she feel justified in doing this?

 

Is she a sociopath, without regard to the feelings or well being of other beings?

 

Do sociopaths deserve the same compassion as others, even after callously hurting other beings?

 

Maybe she "never would do something like this. I don't know what came over me". What did "come over her"?

 

Is there some part of you, somewhere inside, that somehow, irrationally wishes to do this kind of thing too? Even just for a flash of impulse, which is always repressed?? (even though you would never actually do it?)

 

Is her shadow somewhere inside us all, even as an impulse only, that we instantly repress?

 

Can I even ask these questions without even making you uncomfortable, a bit?

 

I remember, when I was very young, about 4 or 5 probably, holding the hand of a little baby, and feeling how soft and squishy and plump it was, and I recall the almost overwhelming urge to squeeze it as hard as I could, knowing full well it would hurt the baby, yet really wanting to do it. This happened several times, I never did it, but something within me wanted to. And then I 'outgrew it'. Or my conscience became good at stuffing down that part of me.

 

Being able to acknowledge the evil that dwells within us is critical to spiritual enlightenment. We are not just beings of light.

I submit to you all that there is a part of us, even if you are an animal lover and save kitties for your life's work, that wanted to do exactly as that lady in the video did? Somewhere that flash of an impulse exists, or existed, before we learned to let the light shine over the darkness?

 

I acknowledge this is within me, even as I do work that involves love, immense compassion, and attending to suffering almost every day, that far surpasses what most people do? Perhaps that makes me especially good at what I do?

 

Why is it that ordinary, caring people are capable of cruelty? Sometimes like the guards in concentration camp, or even the Abu Ghraib guards, there is that part of us that could ignite if not immediately eliminated, that could somehow be capable of cruelty?

 

There is a famous psychology experiment where ordinary people were told they were giving shocks to subjects (who were actors pretending to be shocked), and most of them continued to increase the intensity of the suffering because they wee told to?

 

What do you make of what I've just said?

 

She did to the cat what she never dared do to mom and dad, teacher and preacher, doctor and boss, prime minister and tax collector, girls prettier than her and boys who wouldn't take her out on a date, friends who didn't care and foes whom she didn't have the courage to confront. This is a very typical scenario.

 

Evil is taking one's frustrations out on someone who is not their source. Evil is the victim identifying with the perpetrator. Evil is doing unto others something other than what they do unto you. (Mal, this includes your example -- by not putting out the eye of each of the perpetrators and becoming good friends with them instead, the protagonist of your story sent them and everybody a clear message: "extreme cruelty is OK." I would put his other eye out for this. )

 

The dynamics of a torture victim being successfully taught to sincerely love the torturer are very accurately depicted in Orwell's 1984. All you have to do is break the body, the mind, and the spirit... what's left is pure obedience. Some ideal.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

My point is we all have that inside of us, even you. This is too much for many people to acknowledge, but enlightenment cannot occur without shining light under every rock.

[Taomeow]

My point is we all have that inside of us, even you. This is too much for many people to acknowledge, but enlightenment cannot occur without shining light under every rock.

 

Yes, absolutely...

and cultivation is about knowing thyself--

and once you know, you don't turn the other cheek -- you just don't slap the cheek of the innocent party. If you know thyself, you know who really did you wrong, and never harm anyone or anything else. Not a single cat, dog, man, woman or child. That's cultivation, as opposed to decisions "in the head" to be good when what is good and what is not so good within your own heart is a big unknown.

[nac]

A causal chain, free from any sentient purpose led up to this result. No doubt some satisfaction-phenomena arose within her mind, leading her to believe she was making herself happy in some way, just as her desensitized consciousness slipped once more into the demon realm. Being born of ill motivation or unawareness, (schizophrenia?) this is a tragedy for both oppressor and victim, but it's also an opportunity to practice basic decency for the person who rescued the cat.

 

These are, ultimately, the facts. It would be unskillful to feel indignant or self-righteous unless doing so improves matters in some way. OTOH, repressing such feelings would also be counterproductive. The middle path is spiritual practice.

Edited August 26, 2010 by nac

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

She did to the cat what she never dared do to mom and dad, teacher and preacher, doctor and boss, prime minister and tax collector, girls prettier than her and boys who wouldn't take her out on a date, friends who didn't care and foes whom she didn't have the courage to confront. This is a very typical scenario.

 

Evil is taking one's frustrations out on someone who is not their source. Evil is the victim identifying with the perpetrator. Evil is doing unto others something other than what they do unto you. (Mal, this includes your example -- by not putting out the eye of each of the perpetrators and becoming good friends with them instead, the protagonist of your story sent them and everybody a clear message: "extreme cruelty is OK." I would put his other eye out for this. )

 

The dynamics of a torture victim being successfully taught to sincerely love the torturer are very accurately depicted in Orwell's 1984. All you have to do is break the body, the mind, and the spirit... what's left is pure obedience. Some ideal.

I'm willing to wager that the chicken you had for dinner tonight suffered far more than the cat in the rubbish bin. I can propose the evil of the food production system we don't even notice, more than I can the Tabby that the lady tossed inside. Far, far greater suffering on factory farms, yet we don't even speak of it.

[Mal]

[Taomeow]

I'm willing to wager that the chicken you had for dinner tonight suffered far more than the cat in the rubbish bin. I can propose the evil of the food production system we don't even notice, more than I can the Tabby that the lady tossed inside. Far, far greater suffering on factory farms, yet we don't even speak of it.

 

I never buy factory farmed meat.

 

(I hope this is not an offshot of the vegetarian discussion or I'm going to finally lose it and roll out the big guns and unleash the real information about factory farming on the guilty and innocent alike, proving without a shadow of a doubt that wheat, corn and soy are the real murder. Everybody run for cover. If I get serious about it... I don't think even one vegetarian will ever touch his plate of misrepresented carbs without feeling like a serial killer/genocide perpetrator ever again. I'm not kidding.)

 

OK... where was I. Oh, battles against evil I do or don't engage in, what went first, the chicken or the cat. Alright.

 

I seldom pick up battles that will accomplish nothing aside from getting me killed. Being a realist and a pragmatist, not a despair-over-everything-24/7 type, I fight against evil on my own scale. I have saved lives, but I can't save every life and I don't think this disqualifies me, or anybody for that matter, from having a right to feel compassion, indignation, or any other human feelings on a case by case basis.

 

Far more serious work is done by many here I'm sure -- and most definitely by me -- that what might show up in the posts.

 

In any event, casual cruelty is not made OK by the existence of institutionalized cruelty.

[Pero]

And thinking and analyzing about how things started is interesting and educational, but you know what? I care about how things end much more, thats more important since we can change that.

 

If you don't understand how things started you won't be able to end them.

 

And to me, this old lady is out of balance, and would make my utopia unbalanced, so i cast her out to be unbalanced elsewhere. that ok?

 

Sure. But you know, that woman, perhaps that cat made her utopia unbalanced so she put it in a dumpster.

[That Guy]

If you don't understand how things started you won't be able to end them.

 

 

 

Sure. But you know, that woman, perhaps that cat made her utopia unbalanced so she put it in a dumpster.

If that first point just no. There are many things that one can end without knowing how they started. Heres one for you, LIFE, even if a creature doesnt know where life came from or how it started, it can end it.

 

And another no because the cat did nothing, so it couldn't throw anything out of balance.

[freeform]

That Guy, I'm not so much interested in the philosophy side of things unless they relate to direct experience - not experience of reading about yin yang theories in books...

 

We agree on certain things - and you're rightly finding counter-examples to my belief that 'all actions arise from a positive impulse'...

 

When I follow the chain of impulses back to its origins - I find less and less limited, 'defiled' motivations that arise out of a kind of primordial emptiness/fullness. The higher up the chain I go, the more morally 'positive' the motivations seem to most people...

 

What the woman did on the surface seems cruel. She did what she did because of the post-heavenly experiences she's had... these are the defilements the specks of grime and dust that obscure the light of the original impulse... The original impulse is not good or bad or anything like that - it just is - and it's pure - un-contrived, un-defiled... just like a new-born - a new-born baby isn't good or bad - but most people tend to love em... just as most people tend to love un-contrived, pure, effortless action. This is what I meant by 'positive impulse'.

 

How do you deal with cruelty as an observer?... do you just allow yourself to react automatically? - bearing in mind that your automatic reaction will be coming from your own post-heavenly defilements... or do you take it deeper, uncover your own 'pure impulse' and act from there?

[Pero]

If that first point just no. There are many things that one can end without knowing how they started. Heres one for you, LIFE, even if a creature doesnt know where life came from or how it started, it can end it.

 

Heh I thought you'd say that, I was speaking too general I guess. My point was that you can't end such actions without knowing the cause of them. You'd just remove the fruits while leaving the seeds.

 

 

And another no because the cat did nothing, so it couldn't throw anything out of balance.

 

Well how do you know that? It did nothing to your utopia and so you wouldn't throw it in the bin. But you can't know what happened in that woman's mind. Perhaps cats are a disturbance in her utopia. Perhaps throwing cats in the trash are part of her utopia.

[That Guy]

How do you deal with cruelty as an observer?... do you just allow yourself to react automatically? - bearing in mind that your automatic reaction will be coming from your own post-heavenly defilements... or do you take it deeper, uncover your own 'pure impulse' and act from there?

React automatically? Well every action causes a reaction, so no matter what I choose to do or not I have reacted.

My post heavenly defilements would make this a better place when it comes to cruelty, whatever their source, so I will keep them.

Everyone acts on impulse, if you dont then well you've just acted on your impulse not to act on impulse. Its too messy and unpractical to do these mental gymnastics, so I just get on with my life and do what what I can within my sphere of influence to make the world a better place.

 

 

@Pero

Of course you can, theres no universal law about this. I dont like analogies because they can be twisted to fit your point of view just to make a point. I like to treat problems on a individual basis, no generalizing no analogies.

"Everything is perfect, but nothing is perfect for everything" - That Guy August 27th 2010

This includes analogies.

 

If your utopia includes suffering of other beings without need it is not a utopia. Closest you can say about that is that having cats outside of bins makes her suffer, but even then her level of suffering is insignificant compared to the cats.

[freeform]

React automatically? Well every action causes a reaction, so no matter what I choose to do or not I have reacted.

My post heavenly defilements would make this a better place when it comes to cruelty, whatever their source, so I will keep them.

Everyone acts on impulse, if you dont then well you've just acted on your impulse not to act on impulse. Its too messy and unpractical to do these mental gymnastics, so I just get on with my life and do what what I can within my sphere of influence to make the world a better place.

 

Haha. You're sweet. And very clever too.

 

It's definitely less painful to go into thoughts than it is to delve deeply into yourself.

 

Maybe some day you'll have an opportunity to stop your 'mental gymnastics' for just long enough to have a true, spontaneous, impulse born from somewhere much bigger than your personal self.

[That Guy]

Thanks freeform, you're a pretty cool cat too. Most of TTBs are, thats why I lurk and stick around even though I am not really a taoist or buddhist or hindu etc.

 

And I do stop mental gymnastics, if I didn't I might go insane , but seriously, I guess I am just waiting for something to show me (and I don't mean this in a bad way) that spiritualism itself isn't some form of mental gymnastics. Mind you mental gymnastics can have good results, hence the benefit of spiritual practices.

 

So yeah, if any gods, deities, immortals, buddhas, saints, etc are willing to pay me a visit, you know where I am so please come show me something, in the physical realm though please (no dream visits).

[joeblast]

 

[Maddie]

 

 

 

ha ha ha ha ha snort ha ha ha ha :-D