Peaceful Disagreement

[strawdog65]

Hello Everyone!

 

 

I wanted to ask you all what you think about Peaceful disagreement.

 

 

I do realize there is much to gain by the exchanging of information by people with

differing views, this is a given. It is how the clashing of viewpoints has a way of reducing

us to our most base qualities, that I do not understand the necessity of.

 

When the participants staunchly disagree and take it upon themselves to use TTB as

platform from which to deride others and spread their animosity of anyone who

thinks differently of themselves, what use is the initial exchanging of thoughts at that point?

 

Is the knowing action of causing strife and disharmony,

compatible with the way of the Sage?

 

I understand that Tao accepts all into it's impartial body.

 

I understand that there is no sense in judgment of others

or things they do, because it is still all Tao.

 

But I do take issue with what we do and do knowingly.

 

If we do something that knowingly is damaging to others, and do so because of an attachment to self,

which is vanity, is this Way of living in the world compatable with the "suggestions" that are the basis of Taoism?

I say suggestions because as has been pointed out here at TTB's, rather than rules,

Taoism is more like a bunch of principles "suggested" for us to follow if we possibly are able.

 

Does acting in a Way that is in disregard for all but your own self, agree

with the principles of Taoism or and I am missing the point of Taoism completely?

 

If you were given a week to live, would you feel differently?

 

Would you think it was time well spent, being contentious and devisive?

 

Or would you see that time as best spent enjoying every moment?

Enjoying everything in those moments, and feeling connected to everything in your life?

 

Is the concept of having time for contention and divisiveness in your life,

the only reason contention and divisiveness exists in your life?

 

What I am saying is, because we have so much time to live, is the time we

have treated like it's less important because of the increased length of it?

Does this somehow make being contentious ok, because there is the perception

that there is plenty of time to later reconcile any differences or felt animosity?

 

I believe this is often why we act so stubbornly

when in conflict and disharmony with others.

 

Which is why I say, we do not understand how important every moment

of our lives is, when we believe wrongly that there is plenty time to be

spent being in disharmony with others.

 

We do not feel the importance of our every moment,

and in fact we take them for granted.

 

If we did, why would we waste those opportunities and not

see them as windows into better understanding?

Windows where we can view ideas outside of our own.

Windows that can bring new awareness.

 

It is always exciting to hear a different view.

It is only our own attachment to being percieved to be right or

wrong that disallow us from being open to this new perspective.

 

I was drawn to Taoism because it brought peace and calm into my own life.

I personally do not see the point to creating suffering and disharmony with

others, purely for the sake of vanity.

Disagreement does not equate to being destructive.

You can disagree and still respect and even like the other person.

 

Compassion is possible within the realm of disagreement.

It only means to be respectful and considerate when met with an alternate view.

As humans, with our unusually large brains and capacity for feeling what others

feel through our innate empathy, we can choose how we act and respond.

And with this ability to chose, we can choose to act in a way that embraces

harmony, and allows the exchange of differing views without animosity.

 

All views have merit to their originators.

With respect and compassion towards each originator, disagreement can be

accomplished without resorting to acts that are purposefully hurtful and damaging.

Shouldn't we be consciously aware of how our actions affect others in our lives?

By placing ourselves as last, are we not resisting the urge to contend, and therefore

placing ourselves more firmly on the path of Tao?

 

 

 

Just my thoughts on why peaceful disagreement is beneficial.

 

Peace!

[SFJane]

You are missing some context. Disagreement is about who is right and who is wrong. Taken to the max, it means violence. Violence solves pretty much everything. If no one is around you can't ever be told you are wrong, and that's good for the ego. The main thing is to remember that whenever you attack someone in a discussion your invisible cool meter goes up. You get +1 pwnage whenever you tell someone "Wrong!" The more pwnage points you get, the wiser you are and the more people have to listen to you.

[strawdog65]

You are missing some context. Disagreement is about who is right and who is wrong. Taken to the max, it means violence. Violence solves pretty much everything. If no one is around you can't ever be told you are wrong, and that's good for the ego. The main thing is to remember that whenever you attack someone in a discussion your invisible cool meter goes up. You get +1 pwnage whenever you tell someone "Wrong!" The more pwnage points you get, the wiser you are and the more people have to listen to you.

 

 

Hi Jane!

 

I humbly concede to being uncool, and undeniably wrong.

I do believe my pwnage(whatever that means? ) is most

definitely in the negative digits.

 

Peace!

[Marblehead]

Well, just for the record, I enjoy others disagreeing with me. It helps me to clarify my understandings. And who knows what someone might convince me that I should view something from a different view.

 

However, I so much prefer respectful disagreement. I really don't enjoy getting emotionally involved on my computer for any reason.

[SFJane]

Hi Jane!

 

I humbly concede to being uncool, and undeniably wrong.

I do believe my pwnage(whatever that means? ) is most

definitely in the negative digits.

 

Peace!

 

It's all good Strawdog.

 

I think people argue because they like it. When I pwn someone, I like to turn to the stands and shout, "Are you not entertained!"

[strawdog65]

Well, just for the record, I enjoy others disagreeing with me. It helps me to clarify my understandings. And who knows what someone might convince me that I should view something from a different view.

 

However, I so much prefer respectful disagreement. I really don't enjoy getting emotionally involved on my computer for any reason.

 

 

Hi Marbles!

 

I am still pondering ... is disagreement that is intent on

causing disharmony, compatible with trying to adhere to the

suggestions put forward in TTC?

 

Can we be blatantly disagreeable, stuck within our own vanity,

show no regard for our actions, and still be said to walk the path?

 

I'm counting on you Marblehead to give me a very straight forward answer.

 

You've never let me down.

 

Peace!

[strawdog65]

It's all good Strawdog.

 

I think people argue because they like it. When I pwn someone, I like to turn to the stands and shout, "Are you not entertained!"

 

 

Ahhh.....

 

You have a true Gladiator spirit.

 

 

Peace!

[goldisheavy]

It's a difficult question. Let's assume we have a perfect Sage who cares nothing about his own self. So a personal insult against the Sage doesn't move the Sage at all. How does such Sage feel about others though? Does the Sage care about others?

 

Suppose the Sage is sitting on the couch downstairs at friend's house, waiting, while the friend is upstairs getting ready to go out. At that moment the burglar breaks into the house downstairs and let's assume the Sage can see this and is able to take neutralizing action. Now when you neutralize a violent person, sometimes the violent person gets hurt from one's own attempt. So if this happens, can you really blame the Sage?

 

Now, if the Sage were a total pacifist, what would be the result?

 

Second, what kind of state of mind is required for absolute and total pacifism? I posit that the state of mind for absolute and total pacifism must be apathy and cowardice.

 

So, in my opinion, even a Sage who is very well disposed and who cares little about oneself, will sometimes get stuck in situations where the Sage can be perceived to be confrontational or violent.

 

Let's take an example with Buddha and Angulimala. According to legend Angulimala killed 999 people and was about to kill his own mother. Buddha decided to take matters into his own hands. He appeared before Angulimala and thus became Angulimala's new target. Buddha made it so that no matter how hard Angulimala tried, he couldn't catch up. What is this? It's psychic violence. On the mundane level there was no violence. But at the psychic level Buddha has denied or negatively interfered with Angulimala's intent. Getting one's own intent to go over that of someone else is the very meaning of violence. Of course Buddha's intervention didn't harm Angulimala, but it did harm his intention to kill. And later on Buddha accepted Angulimala into the community of monks, so there were no hard feelings.

 

Now if Buddha lacked psychic power but wanted to still help, what would have happened? The situation wouldn't have turned out so gracefully then. There would have been a fight to the death, perhaps injuries, perhaps either Buddha or Angulimala would've actually died. Perhaps an innocent bystander would've gotten caught up in the fight and also died. So it's only an overabundance of psychic power than prevented that from happening and not lack of violence. If anything, at the root level Buddha was even more violent than someone swinging a sword, but it's not easy to recognize that. Buddha blocked someone at heart level instead of blocking at the level of the body. In a way that's actually even more violent. People who interfere with the body do not directly interfere with the heart, and still leave some wiggle room for the heart.

 

Let's think about what happens when people argue on forums. They are interfering with each other's intentions in a way that's more visible than Buddha's interference in the story of Angulimala, but also in a way that's much less powerful than what Buddha did. The end result in Angulimala's story was that Angulimala was unhurt. The end result of the vast majority of forum arguing is the same -- no one is hurt. Of course Buddha forgave Angulimala, or perhaps Buddha didn't even have to forgive because he never ceased from accepting Angulimala as is, but neither did Buddha apologize.

 

In fact Buddha argued many times. There were times when he made people mad by arguing. Now all of us can sit here and say, "But they brought it upon themselves." Sure we can say that, but we are ignorant and biased. We weren't present when the Buddha was arguing. And we likely sympathize with the Buddha to begin with. But try to put yourself into the shoes of some of those folks who were on the receiving end of Buddha's attitude. Because while Buddha was polite, he'd never bend, and that unbending attitude can be interpreted as an attitude of an asshole.

 

If you were arguing with someone who wouldn't bend on any points and who expected you to do all the bending, how would you feel? Now you know what some of those folks must have felt like when arguing with Buddha.

 

So how do you expect people on forums to behave and feel?

 

In a way, we're doing very well. We use less power less effectively and no one gets hurt. The only place where some of us could do better is that some of us here like to hold grudges. If we could let go of the grudges not too long after the argument is over, we'd all be within a spitting distance of Buddha's own behavior!

 

Cheers!

Edited December 22, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Samuel]

Hi Jane!

 

I humbly concede to being uncool, and undeniably wrong.

I do believe my pwnage(whatever that means? ) is most

definitely in the negative digits.

 

Peace!

 

 

I think my pwnage points are so negative i'm acutally self pwning.

 

Well, just for the record, I enjoy others disagreeing with me. It helps me to clarify my understandings. And who knows what someone might convince me that I should view something from a different view.

 

However, I so much prefer respectful disagreement. I really don't enjoy getting emotionally involved on my computer for any reason.

 

 

I agree, someone testing your ideas is great, especially if it can make you look at in a new light, perhaps to even say "Wait a sec, perhaps it'd be better a different way..."

 

Hi Marbles!

 

I am still pondering ... is disagreement that is intent on

causing disharmony, compatible with trying to adhere to the

suggestions put forward in TTC?

 

Can we be blatantly disagreeable, stuck within our own vanity,

show no regard for our actions, and still be said to walk the path?

 

 

I remembered something about this in the TTC so I had a scout through my copy, (Derek Lin translation). I think these bits are relevant.

 

31 (part of it, not all)

 

The military is a tool of misfortune,

Not the tool of honourable gentlemen,

When using it out of necessity,

Calm detachment should be above all,

Victorious but without glory,

Those who glorify,

Are delighting in the killing,

Those who delight in killing,

Cannot achieve their ambitions upon the world.

 

68 (perhaps more relevant)

 

The great generals are not warlike

The great warriors do not get angry

Those who are good at defeating enemies do not engage them

Those who are good at managing people lower themselves

It is called the virtue of non-contention

It is called the power of managing people

It is called being harmonious with Heaven

The ultimate principle of the ancients

 

Since I don't have control of an army (don't know about you though, ), I'd apply these two passages to personal life. The first suggests that people who like butting heads and seeing their "opponent" shamed/belittled/whatever are "delighting in the killing". The second, I'd say, points out that those who can win arguments, don't have arguments, but prefer not to contend. Over all I'd say the message of the TTC on this is "you can disagree, but there's no need to be destructive about it, just agree to disagree, practice 'calm detachment'".

 

What do you think?

 

On another note, thanks for bringing it up, you remind me that in my life I am too quick to say "you're wrong! ner ner ner ;P". It can be something I practise, meditate on this week.

 

Much love folks, sorry 'bout the long post. XD

[strawdog65]

It's a difficult question. Let's assume we have a perfect Sage who cares nothing about his own self. So a personal insult against the Sage doesn't move the Sage at all. How does such Sage feel about others though? Does the Sage care about others?

 

Suppose the Sage is sitting on the couch downstairs at friend's house, waiting, while the friend is upstairs getting ready to go out. At that moment the burglar breaks into the house downstairs and let's assume the Sage can see this and is able to take neutralizing action. Now when you neutralize a violent person, sometimes the violent person gets hurt from one's own attempt. So if this happens, can you really blame the Sage?

 

Now, if the Sage were a total pacifist, what would be the result?

 

Second, what kind of state of mind is required for absolute and total pacifism? I posit that the state of mind for absolute and total pacifism must be apathy and cowardice.

 

So, in my opinion, even a Sage who is very well disposed and who cares little about oneself, will sometimes get stuck in situations where the Sage can be perceived to be confrontational or violent.

 

Let's take an example with Buddha and Angulimala. According to legend Angulimala killed 999 people and was about to kill his own mother. Buddha decided to take matters into his own hands. He appeared before Angulimala and thus became Angulimala's new target. Buddha made it so that no matter how hard Angulimala tried, he couldn't catch up. What is this? It's psychic violence. On the mundane level there was no violence. But at the psychic level Buddha has denied or negatively interfered with Angulimala's intent. Getting one's own intent to go over that of someone else is the very meaning of violence. Of course Buddha's intervention didn't harm Angulimala, but it did harm his intention to kill. And later on Buddha accepted Angulimala into the community of monks, so there were no hard feelings.

 

Now if Buddha lacked psychic power but wanted to still help, what would have happened? The situation wouldn't have turned out so gracefully then. There would have been a fight to the death, perhaps injuries, perhaps either Buddha or Angulimala would've actually died. Perhaps an innocent bystander would've gotten caught up in the fight and also died. So it's only an overabundance of psychic power than prevented that from happening and not lack of violence. If anything, at the root level Buddha was even more violent than someone swinging a sword, but it's not easy to recognize that. Buddha blocked someone at heart level instead of blocking at the level of the body. In a way that's actually even more violent. People who interfere with the body do not directly interfere with the heart, and still leave some wiggle room for the heart.

 

Let's think about what happens when people argue on forums. They are interfering with each other's intentions in a way that's more visible than Buddha's interference in the story of Angulimala, but also in a way that's much less powerful than what Buddha did. The end result in Angulimala's story was that Angulimala was unhurt. The end result of the vast majority of forum arguing is the same -- no one is hurt. Of course Buddha forgave Angulimala, or perhaps Buddha didn't even have to forgive because he never ceased from accepting Angulimala as is, but neither did Buddha apologize.

 

In fact Buddha argued many times. There were times when he made people mad by arguing. Now all of us can sit here and say, "But they brought it upon themselves." Sure we can say that, but we are ignorant and biased. We weren't present when the Buddha was arguing. And we likely sympathize with the Buddha to begin with. But try to put yourself into the shoes of some of those folks who were on the receiving end of Buddha's attitude. Because while Buddha was polite, he'd never bend, and that unbending attitude can be interpreted as an attitude of an asshole.

 

If you were arguing with someone who wouldn't bend on any points and who expected you to do all the bending, how would you feel? Now you know what some of those folks must have felt like when arguing with Buddha.

 

So how do you expect people on forums to behave and feel?

 

In a way, we're doing very well. We use less power less effectively and no one gets hurt. The only place where some of us could do better is that some of us here like to hold grudges. If we could let go of the grudges not too long after the argument is over, we'd all be within a spitting distance of Buddha's own behavior!

 

Cheers!

 

 

Hi GIH!

 

Well said, and a great story to boot.

 

I am interested in how one resolves this within themselves, when they are the

source of disharmony by way of their own vanity. The Buddha could be said to be

a very vain person based on the idea of never bending to others ideas.

 

In the framework of Taoism, how does this stance relate and influence ones everyday

life? Shouldn't we aspire to be more than our base urges in this life? Especially when

understanding that there is no societal true "right" and "wrong"? And that everything

we experience and think is partial to our limited understanding, so what to do?

 

I am trying to implement the philosophy of Taoism into my everyday life, so it helps

to understand that he questions I raised are not meant to be rhetorical, I do sincerely

want some input in how to apply the principles in this here and now.

 

 

Thanks for the reply Gold! Peace!

[Marblehead]

I am still pondering ... is disagreement that is intent on

causing disharmony, compatible with trying to adhere to the

suggestions put forward in TTC?

 

No, I would think that this is not the proper Way. Disagreement is fine. Oftentimes we have misunderstandings and these disagreements may help us to gain a better understanding of whatever. I think that your words "intent on causing disharmony" would be straying from the path of trying to help others.

 

Can we be blatantly disagreeable, stuck within our own vanity,

show no regard for our actions, and still be said to walk the path?

 

It would be a very crocked and bumpy path if this were a typical course of action for an individual. I am a believer in the concept that we each must take full responsibility for our own actions. If we intentionally cause others problems and someone happens to retaliate then we have no one to blame but ourself. I think that a person would rarely find inner peace were they to practice such activities regularly.

 

I'm counting on you Marblehead to give me a very straight forward answer. You've never let me down.

Peace!

 

So basically, I think to intentionally disagree with another just to see how much we can irritate the other is not a path of virtue. I would agree that most likely the person is just trying to pump up their own ego and this is counter productive for that individual because we are supposed to be lessening our ego not pumping it up.

 

These are my generalized opinions and they are not to be considered as directed toward any member of this forum.

[Marblehead]

Over all I'd say the message of the TTC on this is "you can disagree, but there's no need to be destructive about it, just agree to disagree, practice 'calm detachment'".

 

What do you think?

 

 

Hi Samuel,

 

Agree. There is nothing 'wrong' with disagreeing when your understanding is different from another's. But the reason for disagreeing should be, I think, to stimulate a better understanding by all involved in the disagreement.

[strawdog65]

I think my pwnage points are so negative i'm acutally self pwning.

 

 

 

 

I agree, someone testing your ideas is great, especially if it can make you look at in a new light, perhaps to even say "Wait a sec, perhaps it'd be better a different way..."

 

 

 

I remembered something about this in the TTC so I had a scout through my copy, (Derek Lin translation). I think these bits are relevant.

 

31 (part of it, not all)

 

The military is a tool of misfortune,

Not the tool of honourable gentlemen,

When using it out of necessity,

Calm detachment should be above all,

Victorious but without glory,

Those who glorify,

Are delighting in the killing,

Those who delight in killing,

Cannot achieve their ambitions upon the world.

 

68 (perhaps more relevant)

 

The great generals are not warlike

The great warriors do not get angry

Those who are good at defeating enemies do not engage them

Those who are good at managing people lower themselves

It is called the virtue of non-contention

It is called the power of managing people

It is called being harmonious with Heaven

The ultimate principle of the ancients

 

Since I don't have control of an army (don't know about you though, ), I'd apply these two passages to personal life. The first suggests that people who like butting heads and seeing their "opponent" shamed/belittled/whatever are "delighting in the killing". The second, I'd say, points out that those who can win arguments, don't have arguments, but prefer not to contend. Over all I'd say the message of the TTC on this is "you can disagree, but there's no need to be destructive about it, just agree to disagree, practice 'calm detachment'".

 

What do you think?

 

On another note, thanks for bringing it up, you remind me that in my life I am too quick to say "you're wrong! ner ner ner ;P". It can be something I practise, meditate on this week.

 

Much love folks, sorry 'bout the long post. XD

 

 

Hi Samuel!

 

My view of TTC is not quite settled, I do have opinions which I think I make pretty

clear. The way of violence and disharmony is racked with ruin. I have experienced from my

own past, that discussions are great they encourage learning and open mindedness, while arguments

are rarely worth the effort and the damage done is often destructive and unwarranted.

 

I want to be very clear.... I love a great discussion. But I have had more than my fair share of drag out

arguments as well. The arguments are not remembered fondly. The mind opening discussions are.

 

People may say what's the difference? Argument/ discussion it's all semantics and used the same in todays

language. Do not be mistaken, there is a big difference. An argument is when there is a loss of self control,

and anger takes control. A discussion can become heated but anger is not allowed to gain control, ever.

 

 

How about some Input on how you all are using the principles of Taoism in your everyday lives?

And in regards to being a divisive person, is argument, anger the way of the sage?

 

 

Peace!

Edited December 22, 2010 by strawdog65

[Marblehead]

I am interested in how one resolves this within themselves, when they are the

source of disharmony by way of their own vanity.

 

I feel I should say something to this. Whenever we laern something new, and especially when it negates an understanding we previously held, there will be disharmony experienced by the learner. This is not a bad thing - it is very normal.

 

As to one who intentionally causes disharmony, I feel thay should be called to task on what they have done. Yes, ego and vanity are at play here and as I said, pumping our ego is counter-productive in the long run and vanity is just wrong, IMO.

[goldisheavy]

Hi GIH!

 

Well said, and a great story to boot.

 

I am interested in how one resolves this within themselves, when they are the

source of disharmony by way of their own vanity. The Buddha could be said to be

a very vain person based on the idea of never bending to others ideas.

 

That's how I see Buddha too. I like Buddha but I don't see him as perfect. I don't see any being as perfect. We're all human.

 

I think we can and should try to be a little better than before, but at the same time, I doubt we can reach the extreme of perfection.

 

Our vanity has reasons. It doesn't arise just because we decided to be dicks. We are vane due to our beliefs about ourselves, about reality, about the world, about others, and perhaps even about our beliefs (yes, beliefs about beliefs, or meta-beliefs). Some of these beliefs are deep and have huge habit energy behind them. Changing them is not easy and isn't done in one or two days. In a way, we're all already doing what you're asking. We're all already trying to reduce our vanity by being on the paths that we're on. We just can't do it fast enough for some people's liking.

 

In the framework of Taoism, how does this stance relate and influence ones everyday

life? Shouldn't we aspire to be more than our base urges in this life? Especially when

understanding that there is no societal true "right" and "wrong"? And that everything

we experience and think is partial to our limited understanding, so what to do?

 

I think there is no perfect answer to this. I think the Taoist answer would be to seek moderation of desires. Moderation of desires can't arise on its own because desires depend on beliefs. So first, beliefs have to be questioned and re-examined (that's what Zhuangzi teaches), and once beliefs change, desires will change too. So moderation is not something that's practiced by exercising brute psychic force over one's emotions. It's a combination of gentle inner force and working with one's beliefs. But even if you follow all this to the letter, you'll still not be perfect. It's worth it though.

 

We tend to believe that we are tiny creatures who are struggling to survive against all odds in a cruel universe. This leads to fear and insecurity. This means we perceive the need to defend what's ours and to protect our body and social status (this means protecting our ego). Why? Because in our way of life social status often directly translates into the ability to maintain one's body! This is why people are obsessed about trying to present their egos in the positive way, because they fear retaliation. At the same time, when people perceive their sense of self was attacked, they will defend it vigorously due to the beliefs that's in the first sentence of this paragraph.

 

So there are two competing desires: 1. you must present a smooth appearance to get accepted by others, and 2. you must fight to protect yourself where "yourself" is not just your body, but also all your ideas about you, which is to say your identity. It's only natural that 1 and 2 don't mix well together because every time you defend yourself, you lose smoothness points. But if you don't defend at all, then there is fear and dread of annihilation nipping on your arse.

 

The solution to this is a little counter-intuitive, but it makes sense if you think about it. If the cause of our problems is our belief that we are puny little stragglers who are destined to vanish, just reverse that. We are vast, limitless, powerful beings who are destined to live forever! And presto, we now have a lot less need to defend ourselves. So in a way having small ego is very counterproductive as you can see.

 

But even if you feel completely secure in yourself, that only solves half the problem. People are not only attached to their own selves but often people have a vision of the perfect world. When this vision gets violated, people get upset. So even if you feel secure, if you have a vision of a perfect world, you'll still get upset and you'll still try to defend that vision. Even though you might not worry about injury to your identity, you may still worry about injury to the world's identity, or to your world vision. But the concern number 1, the desire to appear smooth and acceptable to others will be gone if you feel personally secure, because you won't fear your own demise anymore. See what I mean? So you'll have less inner conflict, but you can really butt heads with other people sometimes when you perceive they are trying to injure your world vision.

 

The only solution to this second problem is total apathy. I don't support total apathy. I think it's better to care about one's vision of the world even if it brings a certain degree of suffering with it. It's much better than nihilism and apathy, allowing the world to do whatever it pleases and then clapping your hands when people do well and also equally clapping your hands and eating popcorn when the world goes into the toilet.

 

The only thing I can say is that it's a good idea to care about one's vision of the world lightly and non-obsessively. So one avoids the extremes of apathy and obsession.

 

That's how I look at it.

Edited December 22, 2010 by goldisheavy

[strawdog65]

No, I would think that this is not the proper Way. Disagreement is fine. Oftentimes we have misunderstandings and these disagreements may help us to gain a better understanding of whatever. I think that your words "intent on causing disharmony" would be straying from the path of trying to help others.

 

 

 

It would be a very crocked and bumpy path if this were a typical course of action for an individual. I am a believer in the concept that we each must take full responsibility for our own actions. If we intentionally cause others problems and someone happens to retaliate then we have no one to blame but ourself. I think that a person would rarely find inner peace were they to practice such activities regularly.

 

 

 

So basically, I think to intentionally disagree with another just to see how much we can irritate the other is not a path of virtue. I would agree that most likely the person is just trying to pump up their own ego and this is counter productive for that individual because we are supposed to be lessening our ego not pumping it up.

 

These are my generalized opinions and they are not to be considered as directed toward any member of this forum.

 

 

 

Mh,

 

Thanks for your thorough reply.

It is very confusing when I am confronted by a philosophy that I agree with

and then see the actions of people who profess to be philosophically aligned with

Taoism act in ways that leaves me scratching my actual head. Is this a belief that is

about walking the walk or are we all just here to listen to our mute voices appearing

on the page in front of us? I am confronted with dealing with my own temptations to

telling people where they can go... everyday! But I know that it is(in most cases) not

of any use to my benefit and understanding. If it were then I could just go back to being

an asshole to everyone and resume hating the world for being a steaming pile of shit.

And then what use would Taoism be to me?

 

It has changed me. It has made a difference. And it's because I see the intrinsic nature

of everything having meaning and value that I have changed. I would feel like a complete fake

if I said one thing on this forum, and then went out into the world and did not give a shit

about nothing and no one but myself. We all matter, we all have value, and I believe we

are all capable of becoming better, kinder, and more compassionate people.

 

Peace!

[strawdog65]

That's how I see Buddha too. I like Buddha but I don't see him as perfect. I don't see any being as perfect. We're all human.

 

I think we can and should try to be a little better than before, but at the same time, I doubt we can reach the extreme of perfection.

 

Our vanity has reasons. It doesn't arise just because we decided to be dicks. We are vane due to our beliefs about ourselves, about reality, about the world, about others, and perhaps even about our beliefs (yes, beliefs about beliefs, or meta-beliefs). Some of these beliefs are deep and have huge habit energy behind them. Changing them is not easy and isn't done in one or two days. In a way, we're all already doing what you're asking. We're all already trying to reduce our vanity by being on the paths that we're on. We just can't do it fast enough for some people's liking.

 

 

 

I think there is no perfect answer to this. I think the Taoist answer would be to seek moderation of desires. Moderation of desires can't arise on its own because desires depend on beliefs. So first, beliefs have to be questioned and re-examined (that's what Zhuangzi teaches), and once beliefs change, desires will change too. So moderation is not something that's practiced by exercising brute psychic force over one's emotions. It's a combination of gentle inner force and working with one's beliefs. But even if you follow all this to the letter, you'll still not be perfect. It's worth it though.

 

We tend to believe that we are tiny creatures who are struggling to survive against all odds in a cruel universe. This leads to fear and insecurity. This means we perceive the need to defend what's ours and to protect our body and social status (this means protecting our ego). Why? Because in our way of life social status often directly translates into the ability to maintain one's body! This is why people are obsessed about trying to present their egos in the positive way, because they fear retaliation. At the same time, when people perceive their sense of self was attacked, they will defend it vigorously due to the beliefs that's in the first sentence of this paragraph.

 

So there are two competing desires: 1. you must present a smooth appearance to get accepted by others, and 2. you must fight to protect yourself where "yourself" is not just your body, but also all your ideas about you, which is to say your identity. It's only natural that 1 and 2 don't mix well together because every time you defend yourself, you lose smoothness points. But if you don't defend at all, then there is fear and dread of annihilation nipping on your arse.

 

The solution to this is a little counter-intuitive, but it makes sense if you think about it. If the cause of our problems is our belief that we are puny little stragglers who are destined to vanish, just reverse that. We are vast, limitless, powerful beings who are destined to live forever! And presto, we now have a lot less need to defend ourselves. So in a way having small ego is very counterproductive as you can see.

 

But even if you feel completely secure in yourself, that only solves half the problem. People are not only attached to their own selves but often people have a vision of the perfect world. When this vision gets violated, people get upset. So even if you feel secure, if you have a vision of a perfect world, you'll still get upset and you'll still try to defend that vision. Even though you might not worry about injury to your identity, you may still worry about injury to the world's identity, or to your world vision. But the concern number 1, the desire to appear smooth and acceptable to others will be gone if you feel personally secure, because you won't fear your own demise anymore. See what I mean? So you'll have less inner conflict, but you can really butt heads with other people sometimes when you perceive they are trying to injure your world vision.

 

The only solution to this second problem is total apathy. I don't support total apathy. I think it's better to care about one's vision of the world even if it brings a certain degree of suffering with it. It's much better than nihilism and apathy, allowing the world to do whatever it pleases and then clapping your hands when people do well and also equally clapping your hands and eating popcorn when the world goes into the toilet.

 

The only thing I can say is that it's a good idea to care about one's vision of the world lightly and non-obsessively. So one avoids the extremes of apathy and obsession.

 

That's how I look at it.

 

 

Thanks for the reply GIH.

 

I was wondering how do you apply the principles of Taoism in your everyday life.

I was wanting to take this out of the philosophical talk realm and take it to the

nitty gritty down to earth realm.

 

How do you apply Taoist principles in your everyday realtime existence?

 

I like all this discussion, and appreciate all the interesting observations being

made, but want something a bit more simple to sink my teeth into.

 

Like ways of dealing with difficult people from the Taoist view.

 

Like how to deal with not being satisfied by ones present situation in life.

 

Or, How to maintain an attitude that is productive and gives your own life

meaning when you have a shitty job to do.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Peace!

[goldisheavy]

Thanks for the reply GIH.

 

I was wondering how do you apply the principles of Taoism in your everyday life.

I was wanting to take this out of the philosophical talk realm and take it to the

nitty gritty down to earth realm.

 

How do you apply Taoist principles in your everyday realtime existence?

 

There is no way to apply any of these principles in the way you're thinking. Everything proceeds from the deep inner mind down through the body and outward into the world. Once there is a process that's ongoing at the deepest level, you can't change it by force at the level of the body.

 

The only thing you can do is meditate to calm yourself if you aren't naturally calm. If you're already naturally calm, meditating to get calm will make you more disturbed, because it will be pretentious. Once you have a reasonable degree of calm, you reflect on everything we've talked about for 5-10 minutes, or even just for 1 minute. This reflection is not a mechanical process. It's a creative and sometimes unpredictable process. You may get new insights, new angles to investigate, and so on. You may get some insight which surprise you and which even contradict previous information or beliefs. Over the course of many years, like say 10 years, some of your very deeply held beliefs will begin to budge. Once they budge, the process of manifestation which proceeds from the innermost level down through the body and out into the world will start to reflect that change.

 

So it isn't something you do per se. It's not like say setting a bone, or applying stitches to the wound. It's not something like exercise. It's none of those things. Essentially it's a process that involves changing and softening up your beliefs about many things such as yourself, the world, your relationship to the world, and so on. This change occurs most readily in contemplation. If you just refrain from thinking, your beliefs will not melt of their own accord, imo. Why not? Because all things, including beliefs, have habit energy. They have inertia. And they tend to remain the same unless otherwise.

 

In our world everyone has itchy hands and feet. People want to get busy all the time. What do I do? What do I do? Well... nothing much.

 

Meditate, contemplate, investigate and participate as usual.

 

I like all this discussion, and appreciate all the interesting observations being

made, but want something a bit more simple to sink my teeth into.

 

You're confusing substantial with the superficial. Currently what you think is substantial is actually superficial. What is actually significant you take as superficial. That has to do with your beliefs about the mind and its role in life.

 

Like ways of dealing with difficult people from the Taoist view.

 

People are never difficult. What's difficult are certain specific actions or expressed beliefs. On the forum you don't have to deal with actions. On the forum the only difficulty is dealing with expressed beliefs. One thing you can try is asking yourself, "Why does this belief, when expressed, bother me?" And take it from there. It may turn out that you don't have a leg to stand on. Or it may turn out that you're bothered for a valid reason. Once you investigate the issue, you'll know what to do on a case by case basis.

 

It's completely wrong to lump all the expressions and behaviors you don't like into one single category of "difficult people." This means you don't plan to investigate the import and impact of actions and expressions on one by one basis, as you should be doing. It means you plan to shut off the source, such as for example, telling the person to shut up, or removing yourself from conversation.

 

People are very complicated and broad. People are like universes. Or you can say people are like oceans. So there is no such thing as a bad or difficult person just like there is no such thing as a difficult ocean. Instead there are difficult events. For example, tsunami is difficult. It's one singular event. Learn to deal with such events either by preparing for them or by accepting them for what they are. But just because an ocean occasionally spits out a tsunami doesn't mean the ocean is bad in and of itself. The same is true with people. A person can do things you don't like, but the person is much too vast and much too mysterious to say the entirety of the person is bad or difficult.

 

So examine the difficulties on case by case basis. Why is hearing this or that difficult? Check it out. Follow it up. And don't think you'll figure it out in one day. Many people are at it for decades and they still haven't figured it out.

 

Like how to deal with not being satisfied by ones present situation in life.

 

That's a very complex question. You can start by following up your feelings. So let's say you spend 30 seconds to calm down, then bring to the foreground of your consciousness a feeling of dissatisfaction as you know it. As you recall how it feels to be dissatisfied with your life, specific events will float up in front of you mind's eye. You might say, "OK that event was unsatisfactory. And that one. And that... oh my, there are many such events, so no wonder I am dissatisfied." Then you follow up, "OK, event A feels unsatisfactory. Why?" "OK, someone told me I was an ass." "Should people never tell me I am an ass?" "Should I be able to accept being told such things?" "Where does the meaning of the words come from?" "An ass has hurtful meaning, but where is this meaning stored?" "Ah, the meaning is stored in my mind." "Why do I think ass has a hurtful meaning?" And so on. It will eventually become obvious what's going on.

 

Eventually, after examining enough unpleasant events on a case by case basis, you might start to discern broad patterns and underlying reasons that are common to all of them. Once you can see what in the abstract sense makes you unsatisfied, you no longer need to investigate events on a case by case basis. At that point, you can pursue your investigation into the common root cause that underlies all the little unsatisfactions.

 

While various people can give you hints, no one can make you realize anything. When you realize something it will be all you.

 

Or, How to maintain an attitude that is productive and gives your own life

meaning when you have a shitty job to do.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Peace!

 

One way to do it is to consider an idea that your life is more than your job. You work to live and not live to work. If you find your work shitty, you can try to change it and make it less shitty. For example, you can make a lot of jobs less shitty by trying to become more excellent at your craft. Alternatively you can accept that the work is temporarily unpleasant, but consider that you have important mission in life. I'm not telling you what it is, but you can know this mission for yourself. If you don't know it, you can make it your mission to discover your mission. Then, if you can find a purpose, life can be much easier to tolerate and you'll always have the light at the end of the tunnel to look forward to.

 

If you live thinking that it's all hopeless and everything will just vanish anyway, that's a very oppressive and burdensome mental environment to live in.

Edited December 23, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Aaron]

Hello folks,

 

I've been gone all day, so I'm jumping in on the tail end of this conversation. First thing, in regards to peaceful disagreement I think Chapter 81 of the Tao Teh Ching talks about this directly when it says that,

 

"Good men are not argumentative,

The argumentative are not good."

 

If one looks at the various translations they all follow the same idea, that one who should not argue. There's this general idea that circulates that Taoism is about integrity and honesty, that one should act according to their own nature, and if by doing so one offends another, than so be it, but in my opinion that's contrary to what the Tao Teh Ching teaches.

 

No, the Tao Teh Ching is not a moral text, but it is a text that discusses the relative value of humanity, virtue, and ethics. Lao Tzu understood that human society was constructed of rules and that in order to work harmoniously with others, one needed to understand those rules. He also understood that society would always have an ethical value system, good vs. bad, wrong vs. right, etc. What is often inferred by those who have a distaste for morality, is that the Tao Teh Ching advocates a society without ethics and morality, but I have my doubts regarding this, rather I think it urges people to look past the duality that is present and instead see the truth that lays in the whole, it also reminds us that we should still recognize those ethical values and act in a way that is still harmonious with society.

 

That's what people tend to forget, the Tao Teh Ching was written during a time of war, and what it was intended to do was set down a course of action (or non-action) that, if followed by the rulers, would foster peace and harmony in the lands. People tend to look at much of what the Tao Teh Ching says and infer that it is meant for the common man, but in reality, it isn't. When you look at the order of the original chapters in the Guodian texts, one can see a pattern that appears, where the chapters are directing rulers on how they should act, not the common man. It's explaining what the Sages (or Sage-Kings) did and encouraging the rulers to emulate those Sages. The beauty of the text is that these suggestions for rulers can also be applied to our own lives.

 

I know that much of this was an aside from the main topic, but it is important to address if we're going to honestly approach the idea of "Peaceful Disagreement", because the main reason that many people tend to believe that there isn't a need for peaceful disagreement, stems from the idea that we are not required (or recommended) to behave in an ethical or moral fashion.

 

The idea goes that Te is the highest form of action and manifests from Tao, so if one is practicing in accord with the Tao, then Te will manifest as a result. Te is not a process of morality, ethics, or virtue, but rather the innate action that is manifest from Tao, so if one is a "Taoist" and practicing "Tao" then obviously they needn't worry about such trivial things as common courtesy or civility, however the reality is that if one is practicing Te they are civil and courteous, because it is the natural response to discourse. Compassion, moderation, and humility are all products of Te. When one is honestly practicing (or cultivating) Tao, then they should be manifesting these particular aspects of Te in their lives. If they are manifesting these aspects of Te, then they will invariably tend to be "good" men, in the sense that they will not be doing anything that causes disharmony to those around them.

 

With that said, very few people can or do act in accordance with Tao all the time, what happens instead is that people tend to hit sporadic moments when they are in harmony with Tao. In order to become fully aware and practice Tao in every aspect of ones life, then one needs to be able to understand the nature of duality (the paradox state of existence) and also how duality is merely the surface of a greater Way, the Tao. Beyond good and bad, there is just It.

 

When I mentioned in another thread that compassion stems from an understanding of our connection with everything in existence, that we are not "I" but actually "It", I was also stating that at that moment of realization we also develop an innate empathy for all things, because we understand that an action we take towards someone else, is an action we take towards ourself. By putting someone else before me, I am putting myself first, because that person is me.

 

If I am having a discussion with someone else and I am rude or impolite, then I am being rude and impolite to myself as well. On a more understandable and rational level, if I understand the true nature of my connection to the world, then I also have the empathy that's needed to view others suffering and the desire to diminish or extinguish that suffering, so I am less likely to argue with them.

 

If I understand the true nature of this connection I have with everything in existence, then I also understand that I am no better than anyone else, nor any worse, so I should also behave with a degree of humility when I do interact with others.

 

Now the other thing to remember is that this understanding isn't the entirety of everything one needs to be aware of to understand Tao, in fact merely by explaining this concept, tells you that this is not the unnameable Tao we're talking about, but something that comes from Tao. This is something that is developed on the way to understanding and becoming aware of the mystery of mysteries.

 

Anyways, this is long, so rather than continue what would be a protracted essay, I will rather say that the Tao Teh Ching, in my opinion, advocates peaceful disagreement, and there is no valid reason, in my opinion, for one who is attempting to cultivate or practice in accord with Tao, to behave in any other way, if they truly wish to become aware of Tao.

 

Aaron

Edited December 23, 2010 by Twinner

[Otis]

I've only been here at TTB, for a short time, but I have to say that the discussion here is far more civil than what I'm used to, on the (now defunct) Myspace boards. So kudos to you all, for that.

 

That said, I learned to enjoy being under attack, on certain boards. I wasn't engaged to win those conversations, but the rough-and-tumble of them forced me to be as clear, non-defensive, responsible and honest, in my replies. So some level of tension may be useful for helping keep us honest.

[johndoe2012]

The only solution to this second problem is total apathy. I don't support total apathy. I think it's better to care about one's vision of the world even if it brings a certain degree of suffering with it. It's much better than nihilism and apathy, allowing the world to do whatever it pleases and then clapping your hands when people do well and also equally clapping your hands and eating popcorn when the world goes into the toilet.

 

The only thing I can say is that it's a good idea to care about one's vision of the world lightly and non-obsessively. So one avoids the extremes of apathy and obsession.

 

GIH, your posts in this thread are awesome,

 

Regarding the quote I have snipped, would you consider the Buddha to have been total apathetic? I guess he couldn't be as he chose to spread his teachings which I interpret as not being apathetic.

Viewing Buddha's enlightenment and thus end of suffering as an outsider, it seems that for an enlightened individual there is still a will to change things, and care about the world still exists.

[Marblehead]

It is very confusing when I am confronted by a philosophy that I agree with

and then see the actions of people who profess to be philosophically aligned with

Taoism act in ways that leaves me scratching my actual head.

 

Yeah. I think that this whole issue that you are speaking to is a result of the individual (the one who intentionally disagrees for the purpose of causing disharmony) finding a philosophy that they are drawn to but still do not know how to properly apply to their own life.

 

These people are seeking a better way but are still attached to their former self so I think it is best to not judge them too harshly.

[Aaron]

Yeah. I think that this whole issue that you are speaking to is a result of the individual (the one who intentionally disagrees for the purpose of causing disharmony) finding a philosophy that they are drawn to but still do not know how to properly apply to their own life.

 

These people are seeking a better way but are still attached to their former self so I think it is best to not judge them too harshly.

 

Sadly, I think most people aren't really interested in the Tao so much, as finding a philosophy that helps them to justify their behavior. They see Taoism on the surface and say, "this is for me. I never have to be moral again! Yay!" Not realizing that Taoism isn't about acting the way you want or being upright, but rather understanding the way the universe works.

 

Aaron

[manitou]

What a nice discussion - thanks Dog, for posting this.

 

The Sage has three treasures. The reason he has three treasures is because he has lived by the principles of the TTC, has practiced the motions of the three treasures, and is finally seeing the results. Before he came into possession of the three treasures he was probably a contentious jerk. But no longer.

 

One of the treasures is Love.

One of the treasures is Never Too Much.

One of the treasures is Never Be The First.

 

The one we're talking about here is Never Be the First. This goes directly to contention. We want to be the most correct, the ones with the answers. This is built inside of us. It is built inside of the Sage. But through Practice and allowing others to be the 'first', he is forever removed of the anxiety to be the first. It's better if they never see you coming anyway.

 

How do we remove or file down our need to be the First with the answers, if we desire to do this? We have to go into personality and remove the rough edges; it works very well to do it in consciousness. We can opt instead to let Life be the battering ram, and that would work as well. It would just take a couple lifetimes for all the defects to be washed away by the grand stream. But doing it in willingness in this lifetime is certainly a shortcut. Never Be the First. It has a nice ring to it, once the ego has stopped hollering.

[manitou]

Oh, I forgot something.

 

Never be the First works wonderfully when you're driving in traffic. You'll be smiling all the way home.