TTC 49: the sage has borderline personality disorder?

[Everything]

[Vajrahridaya]

It's dated. It's also a metaphor that needs unpacking for current times I would say?

 

Other than that, I'd leave it to Stigweard or Marblehead to do so.

 

I would say what he trusts in those that are untrustworthy is the Tao nature in them, thus he acts accordingly, without hinderance. One who trusts the core of all being, is not fooled by it's surface.

[doc benway]

[Harmonious Emptiness]

The sage does not distinguish between himself and the world;

The needs of other people are as his own.

(this is understandable as Buddhist unity and compassion)

 

He is good to those who are good;

He is also good to those who are not good,

Thereby he is good.

 

(again, unconditional compassion)

 

He trusts those who are trustworthy;

He also trusts those who are not trustworthy,

Thereby he is trustworthy.

 

I've read this translated as having faith in the faithful as well as the unfaithful and by doing so he gains in good faith. Basically, always working towards the positive outcome, similar to how Jesus had faith in the worst sinners which allowed him to bring them into "the fold," seeing the good in everyone.

 

..edit... also relevant to this I think is that trust in the untrustworthy can make them more trustworthy. The thing with the sage, too, is that he doesn't really discriminate since his central integrity does not change, like the trigram of water -- solid yang line surrounded by two flexible yin lines = the center does not change though the outer is flexible. Next time you have to walk past a group of intimidation-addicts, hold "no-thought, no-mind" you'll probably find that they barely notice you. I think this is illustrative of the verse.)

 

The sage lives in harmony with the world,

And his mind is the world's mind.

So he nurtures the worlds of others

As a mother does her children.

 

(the sage does not put himself above others and so he nurtures others as he would his own children, or himself. He does not see himself as above anyone so he sympathizes and empathizes with them. Reading other verses will show that the sage would not succumb to extremes of sorrow, joy, or any other emotion, partially because extreme emotions deplete the spirit, cloud the mind, etc...)

Edited July 10, 2011 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Everything]

[Everything]

The sage does not distinguish between himself and the world;

The needs of other people are as his own.

(this is understandable as Buddhist unity and compassion)

 

He is good to those who are good;

He is also good to those who are not good,

Thereby he is good.

 

(again, unconditional compassion)

 

He trusts those who are trustworthy;

He also trusts those who are not trustworthy,

Thereby he is trustworthy.

 

I've read this translated as having faith in the faithful as well as the unfaithful and by doing so he gains in good faith. Basically, always working towards the positive outcome, similar to how Jesus had faith in the worst sinners which allowed him to bring them into "the fold," seeing the good in everyone.

 

..edit... also relevant to this I think is that trust in the untrustworthy can make them more trustworthy. The thing with the sage, too, is that he doesn't really discriminate since his central integrity does not change, like the trigram of water -- solid yang line surrounded by two flexible yin lines = the center does not change though the outer is flexible. Next time you have to walk past a group of intimidation-addicts, hold "no-thought, no-mind" you'll probably find that they barely notice you. I think this is illustrative of the verse.)

 

The sage lives in harmony with the world,

And his mind is the world's mind.

So he nurtures the worlds of others

As a mother does her children.

 

(the sage does not put himself above others and so he nurtures others as he would his own children, or himself. He does not see himself as above anyone so he sympathizes and empathizes with them. Reading other verses will show that the sage would not succumb to extremes of sorry, joy, or any other emotion, partially because extreme emotions deplete the spirit, cloud the mind, etc...)

I think the translation is just lame... His mind is the world's mind can be interpreted in two ways. He has no mind and accepts all ideas from other people or he has the main mind and forms realities for other people. Either a baby or masculine macho. I don't get that.

 

Also, how can you not share emotions yet give loving compassion? And Is uncondotional compassion not equal to an infatuation?

 

I would agree if it said to see trusworthyness in the untrustworthy but i do not agree to trust those who are not worthy of your trust. That would be foolish. Lastly, even if you do see trustworthyness in someone who is considered to be untrustworthy by most, it would not translate in you being trustworthy aswell suddenly. No... That would only make you more idealistic.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Everything

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I think the translation is just lame... His mind is the world's mind can be interpreted in two ways. He has no mind and accepts all ideas from other people or he has the main mind and forms realities for other people. Either a baby or masculine macho. I don't get that.

 

Also, how can you not share emotions yet give loving compassion? And Is uncondotional compassion not equal to an infatuation?

 

Like I said, the sage does not see himself as either above or below people -- he does not see himself as above people -- this does not mean that he sees himself below them either. Because he is on the same level as them, he can sympathize and empathize.

 

He does share emotions, he just doesn't get carried away by them. He feels emotions of joy and sadness, but they are wisely moderated.

 

Unconditional compassion has, again, to do with not thinking we are above other people. Infatuation is clinging and involves un-moderated emotions. As an example, this forum is moderated, but that doesn't mean I can't say holy fuckin stupid shit. There is a ceiling, and things are kept within reasonable boundaries, liberally or conservatively...

[Otis]

One way to look at this, is as a prescription for surrendering the ego.

 

The act of judging whether someone is good or bad, keeps me in ego realm. The act of trying to figure out if I can trust others, locks me there, as well.

 

If the ego can be let go of, then the "I" disappears, but the organism continues to participate in life. From the perspective of what had been the "I", there is just sensation, but no meaning, no story, no judgment.

 

Somehow, those things are not necessary. The ego, it seems, is not required to keep the organism living its life. "I" have been spinning my wheels, trying to make my life better for "me", when it turns out, I am just an emergence, an arising, that appears to myself as a self. But I'm not a self; I am a cluster of habits. I have the illusion that "I" am something more than the body, but in truth, I am just a phenomenon in the brain, and perhaps not even a necessary one.

 

Does the greater organism (the Buddha) trust others? Does it judge? I don't know, because I am not it. But IME, when I get out of its way, then it is wiser, smarter, more flexible, capable, powerful than I ever have been. I trust that it will make the right decisions about other people, and so I am able to surrender my need for judgment, and for parsing others' trustworthiness.

 

Only if I am willing to do that, can I then surrender ego, around others. As long as I (the ego) tries to keep control by choosing whom to trust and whom to love, then I leave myself locked in my trap of self-hood.

[Vajrahridaya]

One way to look at this, is as a prescription for surrendering the ego.

 

The act of judging whether someone is good or bad, keeps me in ego realm. The act of trying to figure out if I can trust others, locks me there, as well.

 

If the ego can be let go of, then the "I" disappears, but the organism continues to participate in life. From the perspective of what had been the "I", there is just sensation, but no meaning, no story, no judgment.

 

Somehow, those things are not necessary. The ego, it seems, is not required to keep the organism living its life. "I" have been spinning my wheels, trying to make my life better for "me", when it turns out, I am just an emergence, an arising, that appears to myself as a self. But I'm not a self; I am a cluster of habits. I have the illusion that "I" am something more than the body, but in truth, I am just a phenomenon in the brain, and perhaps not even a necessary one.

 

Does the greater organism (the Buddha) trust others? Does it judge? I don't know, because I am not it. But IME, when I get out of its way, then it is wiser, smarter, more flexible, capable, powerful than I ever have been. I trust that it will make the right decisions about other people, and so I am able to surrender my need for judgment, and for parsing others' trustworthiness.

 

Only if I am willing to do that, can I then surrender ego, around others. As long as I (the ego) tries to keep control by choosing whom to trust and whom to love, then I leave myself locked in my trap of self-hood.

Wow... This can be unpacked for days. Not to boost your ego or anything.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

 

I would agree if it said to see trusworthyness in the untrustworthy but i do not agree to trust those who are not worthy of your trust. That would be foolish. Lastly, even if you do see trustworthyness in someone who is considered to be untrustworthy by most, it would not translate in you being trustworthy aswell suddenly. No... That would only make you more idealistic.

 

The translation I have actually says that the sage gains in faith by having faith in the unfaithful. The point is to gain more faith, since faith is necessary to accomplish things that Taoist sages, and other sages, are capable of which totally defy common logic. On the mundane level, this keeps people from being paranoid and pretentious when interacting with people, especially when diplomacy is necessary as is the case for traveling doctors -- a common vocation for Taoist sages.

[doc benway]

[doc benway]

One way to look at this, is as a prescription for surrendering the ego.

 

The act of judging whether someone is good or bad, keeps me in ego realm. The act of trying to figure out if I can trust others, locks me there, as well.

 

If the ego can be let go of, then the "I" disappears, but the organism continues to participate in life. From the perspective of what had been the "I", there is just sensation, but no meaning, no story, no judgment.

 

Somehow, those things are not necessary. The ego, it seems, is not required to keep the organism living its life. "I" have been spinning my wheels, trying to make my life better for "me", when it turns out, I am just an emergence, an arising, that appears to myself as a self. But I'm not a self; I am a cluster of habits. I have the illusion that "I" am something more than the body, but in truth, I am just a phenomenon in the brain, and perhaps not even a necessary one.

 

Does the greater organism (the Buddha) trust others? Does it judge? I don't know, because I am not it. But IME, when I get out of its way, then it is wiser, smarter, more flexible, capable, powerful than I ever have been. I trust that it will make the right decisions about other people, and so I am able to surrender my need for judgment, and for parsing others' trustworthiness.

 

Only if I am willing to do that, can I then surrender ego, around others. As long as I (the ego) tries to keep control by choosing whom to trust and whom to love, then I leave myself locked in my trap of self-hood.

Great post, although I think that you are, in fact, it.

You are the sum total of what "it" is doing right where "you" exist.

And like you said, "it" is there but also obscured by how our antenna is tuned.

"It" is screened out. "It" experiences the world through those patterns and habits you describe.

And as you let that go,little by little, "it" is more fully expressed and can do no wrong.

 

@Everything -

I don't think this is a bad translation at all.

However, like I posted in the topic on Tai Ji Quan and Yin-Yang, this is an experiential thing that can not be learned or expressed in words. When you actually feel that you are the whole thing, all of it, you will understand the chapter.

I don't mean that at all in an arrogant or demeaning way although I know it can come across that way.

I'm sorry if it does.

 

The Dao De Jing is like this.

You need to sit with it, soak it in, don't believe or dis-believe it.

Just let it be there, come back to it from time to time and chew on it.

Recognize that there is some level of truth in it, otherwise it would not have stood the test of time like it has.

Allow that it might take time to speak to you and be patient.

That's how I approach this stuff anyway.

The classics can be dense and challenging, and they often speak in archaic terms.

 

I've found that other, more contemporary perspectives have helped me to understand the classics (Lao Zi, Zhuang Zi, Lieh Zi, Buddhist sutras, Christian scripture).

These other perspectives have come from people like Jiddu Krishnamurti, Anthony Demello, Ramana Maharshi, Osho, and Alan Watts. Of these, Anthony Demello has helped me the most to see the perspective that is being alluded to in this chapter.

 

Good luck, don't get frustrated, and don't give up.

Just let it go for a while.

There are plenty of other things to ponder if this one's hanging you up right now.

Just my $.02.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

 

 

@Everything -

I don't think this is a bad translation at all.

However, like I posted in the topic on Tai Ji Quan and Yin-Yang, this is an experiential thing that can not be learned or expressed in words. When you actually feel that you are the whole thing, all of it, you will understand the chapter.

I don't mean that at all in an arrogant or demeaning way although I know it can come across that way.

I'm sorry if it does.

 

The Dao De Jing is like this.

You need to sit with it, soak it in, don't believe or dis-believe it.

Just let it be there, come back to it from time to time and chew on it.

Recognize that there is some level of truth in it, otherwise it would not have stood the test of time like it has.

Allow that it might take time to speak to you and be patient.

That's how I approach this stuff anyway.

The classics can be dense and challenging, and they often speak in archaic terms.

 

 

to quote myself from a similar recent topic (confusion with translation of the TTC, started by lienshan)

 

"The thing with a lot of wisdom teachings is that they will be intentionally vague because you have to see the answer for yourself. If you understand it literally then you can get confused, but if they can lead you to find the answer on your own then you will have a much better understanding and you'll actually be learning something. The vagueness is to deter people who aren't looking to experience it for themself, while allowing others to experience their own meaning rather than being a copy-cat. To do this, you may have to abandon learned notions of wisdom and your expertise of language, which will confuse the understanding in these situations"

[Vajrahridaya]

to quote myself from a similar recent topic (confusion with translation of the TTC, started by lienshan)

 

"The thing with a lot of wisdom teachings is that they will be intentionally vague because you have to see the answer for yourself. If you understand it literally then you can get confused, but if they can lead you to find the answer on your own then you will have a much better understanding and you'll actually be learning something. The vagueness is to deter people who aren't looking to experience it for themself, while allowing others to experience their own meaning rather than being a copy-cat. To do this, you may have to abandon learned notions of wisdom and your expertise of language, which will confuse the understanding in these situations"

 

I've also had this thought. There is a personal process of rewiring that happens when something vague is contemplated to a level of personally integrated realization. It's just nice when one is aware of other masters that have gone before you that have clarified to whatever degree for expression that helps you clarify it to yourself at the same time in a new and unique way as well.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[dawei]

He (Sage) lives but expects nothing in return.

[Informer]

Like you can't be totally positive or good if you are being negative or bad, (even being negative to negativity is not being totally positive)

 

So you have to look beyond good people and bad people, and just see people, and treat them all the same, with love and kindness.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Informer

[devoid]

Hi Everything,

 

I don't see anything resembling a personality disorder.

 

To me, this says that the sage doesn't do prejudice, but simply (continues) to act through example, as a role model (even if others don't).

 

I can think many great human rights struggling leaders who fit this category: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. immediately spring to mind.

[Otis]

Great post, although I think that you are, in fact, it.

You are the sum total of what "it" is doing right where "you" exist.

And like you said, "it" is there but also obscured by how our antenna is tuned.

"It" is screened out. "It" experiences the world through those patterns and habits you describe.

And as you let that go,little by little, "it" is more fully expressed and can do no wrong.

Yeah, the pronouns are pretty tricky. Yes, I am "it", and not something different. But I, the self-reflective one, cannot see the mind of the Buddha. I hear it sometimes; it whispers in my ear. And I see its effects, moving through my body, when I get out of the way and let "it" dance and play.

 

But I do not own my intuition or my emotions or my body. I am not the one in control of my thoughts. I am a co-creator only. And my history (prior to doubting the "self" illusion) was of trying to control the whole organism, and the life. But I was never very good at it; and that's still true. I am absolutely not a master of life.

 

I get glimpses, however, of a master within me (or rather, that I am within). But I am still trying to learn to humble/empty myself, so that master can stretch and grow, and live its life, without "me" always trying to be in the driver seat.

[Marblehead]

I will withold comment until the chapter has been presented in the format that has been used for all the other chapters.

[Everything]

to quote myself from a similar recent topic (confusion with translation of the TTC, started by lienshan)

 

"The thing with a lot of wisdom teachings is that they will be intentionally vague because you have to see the answer for yourself. If you understand it literally then you can get confused, but if they can lead you to find the answer on your own then you will have a much better understanding and you'll actually be learning something. The vagueness is to deter people who aren't looking to experience it for themself, while allowing others to experience their own meaning rather than being a copy-cat. To do this, you may have to abandon learned notions of wisdom and your expertise of language, which will confuse the understanding in these situations"

I believe that people are wise when they've had a variety of behaviours and experienced them all. This then formed there core wise believes that allows them to act wisely in certain situations where theu gained wisdom. Because wisdom is also relative to the context.

 

The reason people are vague ia because they can't find the core believes that makes them wise to share in the first place. They only see its surface. I believe that core believes are not vague at all, an Tao te Ching is not vague because these all represent core believes to me. Core believes that have been abstracted and simplified from numorous experiences. Core believes anf ideas that are perfectly worded and communicated very densely. So that we understand diffrent things from at diffrent times. Getting closer to its ultimate meaning is only dependant on efficiency with your energy in the time you live.

 

So Yeah I have to see this truth for my self. I can only see this truth if go deep, detailed and unfiltered. To explore all the diffrent meanings possible and extract the definition that brings most wisdom into my life.

 

 

 

Alot of responds btw. Very deep and interesting, I'm still not certain about some things however. I'll try and reply as much as I can.

[Everything]

One way to look at this, is as a prescription for surrendering the ego.

 

The act of...

 

 

... of self-hood.

So if someone asks me, what food do you like, I respond with I don't know, right? No ego, no identity, no self, no boundaries = borderline disorder? So I know what you mean with becoming boundless and seeing the whole world as me because there is no boundary between me and the world. But this is how an drug addict sees the world. How can it be a good thing not to seperate your self from drugs? Its just an example, drugs is bad m'kay...

Edited July 10, 2011 by Everything

[Everything]

I will withold comment until the chapter has been presented in the format that has been used for all the other chapters.

What do you mean in the format and where can I find the other chapter. I just copy pasted this from chinapage.com/gnl

I thought it woulden't be much diffrent from usual translations. There is also a chinese version on that page I think. Is that what you mean?

[Everything]

It's dated. It's also a metaphor that needs unpacking for current times I would say?

 

Other than that, I'd leave it to Stigweard or Marblehead to do so.

 

I would say what he trusts in those that are untrustworthy is the Tao nature in them, thus he acts accordingly, without hinderance. One who trusts the core of all being, is not fooled by it's surface.

So to become open and sensitive does keep us connected in a deeper way, towards the core. But this sounds more like empathy... Not egoless or having no boundaries and accepting other peoples realities ^^

 

You just taste there realities and come back to your world. However, the translation suggests that your mind become that of other peoples and it doesn't mention anything about a return to own mind. That is not empathy...

[Everything]

Like I said, the sage does not see himself as either above or below people -- he does not see himself as above people -- this does not mean that he sees himself below them either. Because he is on the same level as them, he can sympathize and empathize.

 

He does share emotions, he just doesn't get carried away by them. He feels emotions of joy and sadness, but they are wisely moderated.

 

Unconditional compassion has, again, to do with not thinking we are above other people. Infatuation is clinging and involves un-moderated emotions. As an example, this forum is moderated, but that doesn't mean I can't say holy fuckin stupid shit. There is a ceiling, and things are kept within reasonable boundaries, liberally or conservatively...

Well, how do you moderate emotions? Thats a thing thats very vague to me aswell. It seems like the sage lives boundless, constantly living at the level of other people constantly in empathy mode and then also supresses his emotions on top of that super over-sensitivity? How does one moderate emotions without supressing them?

Edited July 10, 2011 by Everything

[Everything]

The translation I have actually says that the sage gains in faith by having faith in the unfaithful. The point is to gain more faith, since faith is necessary to accomplish things that Taoist sages, and other sages, are capable of which totally defy common logic. On the mundane level, this keeps people from being paranoid and pretentious when interacting with people, especially when diplomacy is necessary as is the case for traveling doctors -- a common vocation for Taoist sages.

Well that does make sense. Perhaps you speak of courage. Diving into the unknown and returning with faith in one self for having faced the untrustworthy, death or end, wether one failed or not. Doing the good thing in even the most fearful situations. So the unfaithfull or untrust worthy is not necessary a person but can be a situation?