Are preferences natural and thus in accordance with Tao?

[rene]

Well, I agreed with him but you are coming at this from a different level than I came from. I see you still have one foot in wu and one foot in yo. Hehehe.

LOL still. Born this way and not a freekin thing I can do about it.

[Aaron]

You might be bringing that in on your own, Aaron. I dont see those things being suggested by anyone in this thread. For that matter, those beginning level rationals/arguments are usually what you find over in the TH. Check the sign above the door, maybe you thought you were over there.

 

 

Hello Rene,

 

If you can't see it in what Sean stated or what Stigweard has said, then I don't know how to make it any clearer. I think sometimes we choose to see what we want to see. If you would like me to point out the specific comments, I can, but I think if you look closer you'll be able to see it too.

 

Also I would suggest not disparaging other forums, much of what you say about them, they say about you. It's best just to let each community exist on its own the way that they feel they should.

 

Aaron

Edited December 15, 2010 by Twinner

[Otis]

So what is your perspective on this, are human preferences natural and thus in accordance with Tao? If so is it kosha to treat people preferentially?

"When hungry, eat; when tired, sleep". In other words, our "natural" preferences are there to serve us, for our own protection. We are drawn towards fats and sugars precisely because they are good for us (great sources of energy). We hate the smells of rotting meat and our own feces, because they are poisons to us. Etc.

 

The admonition against preference, IMO, is saying not to add or subtract anything from our "authentic" (i.e. "natural") preferences. But that raises the same question that has been brought up earlier in the thread: how do we discern between "authentic preference" and "ego preference"?

 

In my own practice of unwinding preference, I believe very firmly in the maxim: "begin from where you are". In other words, I accept all of my preferences, as they are right now, including my tendencies toward excess. This may sound like hedonism, but I don't see how I can avoid going through this step first. If I am to learn to follow the path, then I need to learn to trust my own desire to lead me on the path. After all, desire (broadly speaking, which can include compassion) is the only thing which leads me; obligation, shame, duty, morality, etc. only chase me. Desire is my engine and my steering wheel.

 

Even as I choose to accept my preferences/desires as they are right now, I also choose to be skeptical about them all. I do not know "better than" my desires, but I can recognize when a desire serves merely to trigger some pleasure, or to cover up some discomfort or restlessness. As I "grow wise to" the habits of desire that are there just to avoid pain or extend pleasure (chasing the dragon), then IME, those habits begin to weaken their grasp on my behavior.

 

The other important part of my practice is to slow down the process of rewarding my desires. Allow myself to stay longer in the discomfort, restlessness or pain. When I choose to pay attention to pain, rather than cover it up with pleasure, I find that pain is also there to serve me, and that avoiding it is much more harmful than experiencing it. Paying attention to discomfort also wakes up the pleasure within the pain, in the forms of "the delicious stretch" or "the adventure". The more that I find my joy arising from the full spectrum of experience, the less addicted I am to the pursuit of pleasure.

[Stigweard]

[Marblehead]

Oh My Goodness! Otis got us back on topic! Good job!!!

[Stigweard]

"When hungry, eat; when tired, sleep". In other words, our "natural" preferences are there to serve us, for our own protection. We are drawn towards fats and sugars precisely because they are good for us (great sources of energy). We hate the smells of rotting meat and our own feces, because they are poisons to us. Etc.

 

The admonition against preference, IMO, is saying not to add or subtract anything from our "authentic" (i.e. "natural") preferences. But that raises the same question that has been brought up earlier in the thread: how do we discern between "authentic preference" and "ego preference"?

 

In my own practice of unwinding preference, I believe very firmly in the maxim: "begin from where you are". In other words, I accept all of my preferences, as they are right now, including my tendencies toward excess. This may sound like hedonism, but I don't see how I can avoid going through this step first. If I am to learn to follow the path, then I need to learn to trust my own desire to lead me on the path. After all, desire (broadly speaking, which can include compassion) is the only thing which leads me; obligation, shame, duty, morality, etc. only chase me. Desire is my engine and my steering wheel.

 

Even as I choose to accept my preferences/desires as they are right now, I also choose to be skeptical about them all. I do not know "better than" my desires, but I can recognize when a desire serves merely to trigger some pleasure, or to cover up some discomfort or restlessness. As I "grow wise to" the habits of desire that are there just to avoid pain or extend pleasure (chasing the dragon), then IME, those habits begin to weaken their grasp on my behavior.

 

The other important part of my practice is to slow down the process of rewarding my desires. Allow myself to stay longer in the discomfort, restlessness or pain. When I choose to pay attention to pain, rather than cover it up with pleasure, I find that pain is also there to serve me, and that avoiding it is much more harmful than experiencing it. Paying attention to discomfort also wakes up the pleasure within the pain, in the forms of "the delicious stretch" or "the adventure". The more that I find my joy arising from the full spectrum of experience, the less addicted I am to the pursuit of pleasure.

 

I appreciate you sharing your practice.

 

When working on our artificiality we can sometimes try to "harness the horse", in terms of placing artificial controls on our artificial tendencies. This I believe just creates more internal stress and serves no benefit at all.

 

Laozi promotes a manner of liberality and allowance whilst giving a foundation to inspire appropriate response.

 

What I get out of your practice is that you are not controlling but instead increasing mindfulness to your desires and preferences and letting natural wisdom or inspiration be your guide. Would this be correct?

[Aaron]

Hello Stigweard,

 

As a more focused response to this question, preferences are natural (in my opinion) because thinking is natural and in order to actually make a decision it requires us to prefer one thing over another. Now if thinking isn't natural, then of course preferences aren't natural either, because preference infers some kind of attachment, either on an emotional or logical level.

 

My real question is what you wanted to learn from posing this question? I mean that sincerely, oftentimes understanding the intention broadens one's vision in regards to the topic.

 

Aaron

[rene]

If you can't see it in what Sean stated or what Stigweard has said, then I don't know how to make it any clearer. I think sometimes we choose to see what we want to see. If you would like me to point out the specific comments, I can, but I think if you look closer you'll be able to see it too.

 

Yes, please do point out the specific comments where Sean or Stigweard introduce the idea that people use the concept of "its all Tao" as justification for ones' choices.

 

The first time that thought was introduced was by you in your posts #17 & #19. Now, Sean did go back (sometime after your post #22) and edit his post #20 to address these same ideas that you'd brought into the discussion earlier.

 

Thanks!

 

Also I would suggest not disparaging other forums, much of what you say about them, they say about you. It's best just to let each community exist on its own the way that they feel they should.

 

Apparantly you feel the comments were disparaging? It's no secret that the TeaHouse is designed for entry-level folks; the justification theme you introduced into this thread is a common tool used by Derek and others to begin discussions on these things. What could be wrong with that? Everyone is at their own place on the path, Aaron, but I can see where it would be more useful for me to remember that.

 

If you took offense at my attempt at humor (checking the sign over the door) then I am sorry, none was intended.

 

warm regards

 

edit:typo

Edited December 15, 2010 by rene

[sean]

In my own practice of unwinding preference, I believe very firmly in the maxim: "begin from where you are". In other words, I accept all of my preferences, as they are right now, including my tendencies toward excess. This may sound like hedonism, but I don't see how I can avoid going through this step first. If I am to learn to follow the path, then I need to learn to trust my own desire to lead me on the path. After all, desire (broadly speaking, which can include compassion) is the only thing which leads me; obligation, shame, duty, morality, etc. only chase me. Desire is my engine and my steering wheel.

fantastic post, otis.

 

i think the (understandable) concern with this "its all ok, just start by accepting what is" view is that these concepts can be latched on to and used to justify immorality.

 

imo though, the deeper problem is not that a "wrong" idea of how to behave is believed and should be replaced with a better one.

 

i think the root imbalance in so-called immoral behavior is mostly environmental and has stunningly little to do with our consciously articulated conceptual viewpoints.

 

the "i" that thinks it is making rational decisions and controlling our behavior is often severely deluded about it's actual power to control anything whatsoever. in fact this could be the most primitive fear of "i", just how absurdly little control it has to stop us from carrying out a destiny, the characteristics of which are already rather frightenly in full motion regardless of our conceptual preferences.

 

the sense of "i" is just one tiny stream in an extremely wide, complex parallel processor, co-arising along with all the variables of an internal environment (brain, cns, body, senses, etc) and an external environment (sights, sound, air quality, feng shui, etc) and ultimately extending outward into the entire manifest universe.

 

imo, immoral behavior is much much more a product of the health of this environment than the conceptual stories a co-arising self tells itself about why it is doing something. the sense of self doesn't even really know why it's doing anything anyway, it just tells stories often after the fact.

 

the idea that the primary causal factor in some human act of atrocity could be that this person's conscious mind latched on to a concept like "its all ok, preferences are natural" and used it to rationalize something has very little basis in reality imo.

 

it reminds me of this richard dawkins documentary where he is asking this priest why is it necessary to believe in god. the priest says, well without a belief in god and the guidelines of morality people would just rape and kill each other with abandon. dawkins responded, but i have no desire to rape and kill people! do you? is your belief that a god forbids these acts really the only reason you don't do these things?

 

the very compulsion to engage in attachment to justification for extreme behavior preceded the attachment and the behavior. the entire mess co-arose in an already pre-existing toxic environment. with or without the conceptual justifications, in a toxic environment imbalance manifests.

 

for me, i think it's from this understanding that a more driven sense of engaged unconditional love emerges. i am not separate from this world and there are innumerable beings suffering and more or less trapped in viscious cycles of imbalanced behavior inside toxic environements they have very little hope of pulling themselves out of on their own.

 

this is also the deeper meaning of "cultivation" to me. literally rearrange the structures of our environment as if we were gardening ourselves. i can't force a plant to grow, but i can create the proper conditions for a "happy accident". the most important conditions are nonconceptual: environmental, nutritious soil, sunlight, water, etc.

 

anyway, just another perspective. this is all so so conceptual, haha, i don't even see how it even matters very much. i would say eating healthy nutrition food and meditating daily has hundreds of times more impact on a persons behavior than whether they agree with me on any of this.

 

additionally, to argue directly against my own point briefly, if you are familiar with spiral dynamics, i actually think it may be possible that for humans developmentally operating below orange vmeme, they just may need and benefit from a set of decent commandments!

 

If we are aware that the basis of our preferences are contrived and artificial (i.e. based on fixated concepts), how do we return to the wholesome natural state where our preferences are beneficial?

imho by regularly resting in clarity beyond concepts and being receptive to allowing nonconceptual clarity to penetrate and potentially alter one's entire environment and sense of self.

 

So, how do we best help people relate to each other in a way that is not distorted by artificial preference?

 

If, for example, we suddenly find ourselves amongst a group of people who are loaded with their contrived preferential views, what can we do to stimulate or inspire them to relax these fixations so that the mingling of human hearts becomes more mutually beneficial and wholesome?

imho same answer as above, as this strengthens our own internal resonance with what is natural, which in turn near-automatically creates the space in our movements to set a beneficial example for others and resolve conflicts creatively as they arise.

 

great post stig.

 

sean

[rene]

If we are aware that the basis of our preferences are contrived and artificial (i.e. based on fixated concepts), how do we return to the wholesome natural state where our preferences are beneficial?

imho by regularly resting in clarity beyond concepts and being receptive to allowing nonconceptual clarity to penetrate and potentially alter one's entire environment and sense of self.

 

Sans a blended perspective, clarity beyond concepts would preclude preferences viewed as either beneficial or not. Within the blended perspective, wouldn't the question be moot as the natural state was never left?

 

 

So, how do we best help people relate to each other in a way that is not distorted by artificial preference?

 

If, for example, we suddenly find ourselves amongst a group of people who are loaded with their contrived preferential views, what can we do to stimulate or inspire them to relax these fixations so that the mingling of human hearts becomes more mutually beneficial and wholesome?

imho same answer as above, as this strengthens our own internal resonance with what is natural, which in turn near-automatically creates the space in our movements to set a beneficial example for others and resolve conflicts creatively as they arise.

 

To me, this isn't about whether choices are contrived or beneficial, or whether 'preferences are natural and thus in accordance with Tao', but rather the entrenched mindset that one has to choose between either 1) having a preference (of any type), or 2) resting in a place of non-conceptual clarity. Sean, you touched on this a bit earlier with your earlier description of ' folds on itself. pops. folds on itself. pops ' My take is the popping and folding occur at the same time... like is pointed to in TTC Ch1: These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness. Darkness within darkness. The gate to all mystery.

 

From the same source, yes, and my sense is also at the same time: unboundaried.

 

Fun stuff to try and write about, and perpetual IMO applied.

 

warm regards

[Aaron]

Hello Rene,

 

Check out 1, 3, and 9... if you can't see it leaning in that direction by then, then there's nothing else for me to say and I probably wont say anything else, because it's how I feel and what I saw, if you don't see it, so be it. I'm merely expressing my view which differs from yours, eh and oh.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Also did Derek explain that was what he was doing or did you somehow see a pattern that led to that? Honestly I don't see that happening over there, that's why I was wondering.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Twinner

[rene]

Hello Rene,

 

Check out 1, 3, and 9... if you can't see it leaning in that direction by then, then there's nothing else for me to say and I probably wont say anything else, because it's how I feel and what I saw, if you don't see it, so be it. I'm merely expressing my view which differs from yours, eh and oh.

 

Aaron

 

Aaron - of course you are right!

 

Here's your prize!

 

Enjoy.

[Aaron]

Aaron - of course you are right!

 

Here's your prize!

 

Enjoy.

 

We're both right... that's the joy of forum life.

 

Aaron

[rene]

edit- Also did Derek explain that was what he was doing or did you somehow see a pattern that led to that? Honestly I don't see that happening over there, that's why I was wondering.

 

Derek explained that was what he was doing, yes. We used to have great discussions around this when the TeaHouse first opened: my suggestion was to not take such a long way around the barn; his position was folks couldn't follow that fast. His place, his way. Of course, that was then. It's a much different place there now.

[Aaron]

Derek explained that was what he was doing, yes. We used to have great discussions around this when the TeaHouse first opened: my suggestion was to not take such a long way around the barn; his position was folks couldn't follow that fast. His place, his way. Of course, that was then. It's a much different place there now.

 

Thanks for the input Rene. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

 

Aaron

Edited December 16, 2010 by Twinner

[strawdog65]

this looks familiar somehow.

 

there is a sense in which i feel even indulging the impulse to take seriously an endeavor to differentiate between what is an is not in accordance with tao ends up stirring more occlusions to recognition of TAO then simply letting that whole trip settle untouched.

 

simply move spontaneously and course-correct. or better, see this as what is happening regardless, even if i want it to be otherwise.

 

spontaneous movement occurs. course-correction occurs. on and on.

 

regardless of any personal preferences i might strive for, such as to be without preference, it appears my body will always have preferences. a healthy hand moves involuntarily away from a fire. should it be another way?

 

still there is tao that encompasses both preference and not-preference and without preference.

 

is it really ALL ok?

 

i can't imagine anything greater and more humble than Tao, which is precisely what is always already happening, even when i think i can't see it.

 

the felt-sense that my personal suffering must clearly mean something is wrong spins a story that Tao has left the building. it sure feels like that. but is that story true?

 

i don't know.

 

"be one with failure, for the Way fails too".

 

sean

 

 

 

Sean,

 

Awesome.

 

When the tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear or see it, does it really fall?

Tao to me is all, everything at once, not determined until happening right at that moment.

Regardless of there being an observer or not, there somewhere a tree is falling, and it

matters not if we take part. Tao moves on.

All possible outcomes are on the table, all are accepted, all are sufficient for Tao to flow.

 

When we stand back from it and say... Ahh there is Tao. We just lost it all over again!

 

Take that trip, be fully aware of the moments, fluidity will follow.

 

 

Peace

[Otis]

What I get out of your practice is that you are not controlling but instead increasing mindfulness to your desires and preferences and letting natural wisdom or inspiration be your guide. Would this be correct?

Yes, that's a good way of putting it.

 

I'm trying to be less and less the author of my life, because I have witnessed that when "I" get out of the way, that something a lot more powerful can emerge, and the path that it seems to be choosing for me is a lot more interesting and joyful than the one I was choosing for myself.

 

Or another way of putting it: my body is my full self; it is all of me. But the "I" which thinks of itself as a self, is just one small function or structure (or emergence) in one organ (the brain) of my body. When "I" am present, but not controlling, then I find that my body moves on its own, chooses on its own, at a level of processing that "I" could never keep up with. So "I" recognize that "I" am only evolved for certain functions of consciousness (e.g. awareness), and that if I stick to those functions, then my greater self (body) has the opportunity to start over and create a new life for itself, with my support, but without my interference.

[Otis]

i think the (understandable) concern with this "its all ok, just start by accepting what is" view is that these concepts can be latched on to and used to justify immorality.

True. I guess that seems futile to me, though. After all, I'm not talking a prescriptive for all, just part of my own path.

 

If I truly am interested in cultivation, than any attempt to justify or self-deceive is purely counter-productive. Who am I fooling, after all?

[Aaron]

Yes, that's a good way of putting it.

 

I'm trying to be less and less the author of my life, because I have witnessed that when "I" get out of the way, that something a lot more powerful can emerge, and the path that it seems to be choosing for me is a lot more interesting and joyful than the one I was choosing for myself.

 

Or another way of putting it: my body is my full self; it is all of me. But the "I" which thinks of itself as a self, is just one small function or structure (or emergence) in one organ (the brain) of my body. When "I" am present, but not controlling, then I find that my body moves on its own, chooses on its own, at a level of processing that "I" could never keep up with. So "I" recognize that "I" am only evolved for certain functions of consciousness (e.g. awareness), and that if I stick to those functions, then my greater self (body) has the opportunity to start over and create a new life for itself, with my support, but without my interference.

 

I would add that you are "I". Your body is you, the fingernails, the toenails, the hair follicles, and even the scabs on your skin. When your body does something, you do it. You are growing your hair for instance. The only thing that convinces you that you are a passenger and your body is a structure, is your perception of it as such. With that in mind, when you begin to realize that there is no separation there, then you can begin to act on an innate level, and allow the natural course of actions to occur, then it becomes a much deeper experience. I've never heard it quite described as you've described it. I truly hope this continues to work for you.

 

Aaron

[Otis]

I would add that you are "I". Your body is you, the fingernails, the toenails, the hair follicles, and even the scabs on your skin. When your body does something, you do it. You are growing your hair for instance. The only thing that convinces you that you are a passenger and your body is a structure, is your perception of it as such. With that in mind, when you begin to realize that there is no separation there, then you can begin to act on an innate level, and allow the natural course of actions to occur, then it becomes a much deeper experience. I've never heard it quite described as you've described it. I truly hope this continues to work for you.

Aaron

Thanks, Aaron, for the good wishes.

 

Yeah, the pronoun part of this discussion always gives me trouble, because the English language isn't built to handle the distinctions within my self.

 

"My body" is a misnomer, because the body does not belong to me. Rather, I belong to it. "I" am just a function within the body. I am not a passenger, just a function.

[Marblehead]

Yes, that's a good way of putting it.

 

I'm trying to be less and less the author of my life, because I have witnessed that when "I" get out of the way, that something a lot more powerful can emerge, and the path that it seems to be choosing for me is a lot more interesting and joyful than the one I was choosing for myself.

 

Or another way of putting it: my body is my full self; it is all of me. But the "I" which thinks of itself as a self, is just one small function or structure (or emergence) in one organ (the brain) of my body. When "I" am present, but not controlling, then I find that my body moves on its own, chooses on its own, at a level of processing that "I" could never keep up with. So "I" recognize that "I" am only evolved for certain functions of consciousness (e.g. awareness), and that if I stick to those functions, then my greater self (body) has the opportunity to start over and create a new life for itself, with my support, but without my interference.

 

I liked this post well enough to repeat it.

 

Thanks Otis.

[Marblehead]

I would add that you are "I". Your body is you, the fingernails, the toenails, the hair follicles, and even the scabs on your skin. When your body does something, you do it. You are growing your hair for instance. The only thing that convinces you that you are a passenger and your body is a structure, is your perception of it as such. With that in mind, when you begin to realize that there is no separation there, then you can begin to act on an innate level, and allow the natural course of actions to occur, then it becomes a much deeper experience. I've never heard it quite described as you've described it. I truly hope this continues to work for you.

 

Aaron

 

That is the ultimate destination, I think. With the most important words being "... allow the natural course of actions to occur ..."

 

Once we can spontaniously respond (or not) to conditions and remain at peace with our Self we have attained that state of not having to make choice because the 'right thing to do' will be obvious.

[Marblehead]

 

"My body" is a misnomer, because the body does not belong to me. Rather, I belong to it. "I" am just a function within the body. I am not a passenger, just a function.

 

Another important concept, I think.

[Everything]

I may not be necessarily saying this is my perspective, but some people believe that impartiality is impossible and inhuman. For example, we will always prefer to eat food over poison, will always prefer to save our own drowning daughter vs. our sworn enemy who raped our wife, will always prefer to protect people who have personally contributed to us vs. unknown strangers who are acting crudely and hurting the feelings of our friends.

 

In terms of Tao it could be said that, yes, there is Tao that is beyond perspective and preference (so in a sense impartial in a conceptual sense) but this same Tao is not separate and is expressing Itself AS every perspective, as preference, as the complete dynamic range of human feelings and behavior.

 

So the perspective is to recognize what is natural and what is human. Not far away and metaphysical. To find comfort with the human experience that is inevitably infused with preference while also resonating with the clarity of Tao that has none, without making an enemy of either.

 

So what is your perspective on this, are human preferences natural and thus in accordance with Tao? If so is it kosha to treat people preferentially?

 

Awesome, thanks for this post. Just what I was looking for.

 

I thought these ancients looked beyond words, to see the diffrent meanings of each symbol within each word that is being used.

"Without desire we must be found," is a way of saying: to have a higher commitment. The paradox here is that a person without desire will get his "desires" met more often then a person with desires. Everyone has desires, it depends on what the symbol of "desire" means to you.

 

The child who grabs the ball to place it in the goal with his hands while everyone looks confused, desireful and succesful in the shorterm, but looses in the longterm. He will end up loosing without understanding the paradoxical nature behind his actions in the future. Call it karma, if you will.

 

There was this great story of a samurai, which I don't recall perfectly well. The plot goes something like this: The students master is murdered, and on his death the student tells the master he will see to it that justice is served. The student, patiently and disciplined, travels countries to find the murderer. He then meets the murderer, approaches and unseath his sword. The murderer spits on his face, the student seathed his sword and walk away....

 

Why did he walk away? Because in that instant he would have killed him out of his anger, and not out of the commitment to a higher thing. This is how disciplined and desireless the Samurai were. In the end, how does not killing the murderer, which seems preferable to the eye, serve us well? It serves us well in forming positive and enhancing habbits with our negative emotions of anger and fear. These samurai never acted agressively with their anger, but assertive instead. The fearful samurai were there to warn for dangers and they aswell did not act impulsively on their fears but couragiously instead, choosing the right path even in the most fearful circumstances. This ensured a strong force to who "NATURALLY" acted assertive and couragious.

 

When you tell an immature person to act maturely he will find that it requires extreem efforts to change his behaviour, based on knowledge alone. The Taoist spent their lives decreasing knowledge, becoming natural at everything. If you tell an immature person to see beyond his desires, this small practice will move him towards a more mature self, more naturally. Don't take the words too litteraly, everyone has desires ultimately, yes. The ancients saw beyond them, to serve not only them selves or others, but to serve the greater benefit of the whole. EVERYONE and EVERYTHING.

[taijilee]

Beautiful thread! Much Love to all of you!

 

Here's my take. Preferences come and go. You(the True You) is constant. These preferences arise and subside like the rest of the illusion. Chap 55 of the Tao Te Ching mentions that everything that grows strong then gets old(everything that changes)is contrary to the Tao. These are just images that we interpret as reality. Preferences are part of the illusion, because there is no individual you that can prefer. You are the space in which preferences seem to occur. And yet, preferences aren't actually there, for Tao has no preferences and all there is, is Tao. To the "outside world" it will seem like you had a preference for such and such, and some of these "preferences" will seem to be compassionate, while others may not seem compassionate at all, however, it will just be you getting out of the way of You.