Being Honest with Myself

[konchog uma]

I'm glad you retracted that allegation. It was unfounded. Sloppy Zhang was simply advocating the traditional role of the warrior ethos, the practice of cultivating oneself in order to protect the weaker members of society from those who use force and cruelty to take what they want. Twinner's pacifist idealism has noble origins as well but he's stretched the balance between resolve and yielding beyond practicality. If everyone who fought and died for gay rights had behaved according to Twinner's logic, the carnage would've been even greater than it is and he'd be much worse off. Taoism is about empowerment and warriorship. Jettisoning this tradition from the equation is like advocating vegetarianism on a meat-eater's forum.

 

i hear you. And i'm glad i retracted it too, that was a silly thing to say.

 

its hard to know what to do with violent impulses, so i think the best think people can do is master themselves. The question of pacifism vs force is kind of a yin yang duality so i guess both are appropriate at different times. Its not an easy situation to see the answer to, i don't think there is a nice simple answer. So everyone just has to act according to their own nature.

 

I was more defending Twinner's right to act according to his own nature than i was taking his side. Darkness and violence are part of the human experience for better or worse. I think its best in the end to accept things as they are, like our animal nature, than to dwell in idealism.

[konchog uma]

im sorry for saying you sound like a big jerk too sloppy zhang

 

dang

 

my moon square mars ended yesterday, hopefully i can pull my head out of my ass now and have some human feelings

 

big appologies good sir

[Aaron]

I'm glad you retracted that allegation. It was unfounded. Sloppy Zhang was simply advocating the traditional role of the warrior ethos, the practice of cultivating oneself in order to protect the weaker members of society from those who use force and cruelty to take what they want. Twinner's pacifist idealism has noble origins as well but he's stretched the balance between resolve and yielding beyond practicality. If everyone who fought and died for gay rights had behaved according to Twinner's logic, the carnage would've been even greater than it is and he'd be much worse off. Taoism is about empowerment and warriorship. Jettisoning this tradition from the equation is like advocating vegetarianism on a meat-eater's forum.

 

Normally I don't reply to your comments Blasto, but in this case, since you brought up the "gay" thing, I felt I needed to explain why the gay movement is destined to heartbreak.

 

First I can't name one person that's died for Gay rights in the last 20 years, at least not one I can remember. Have people been killed by bigots? Yeah. Have they committed suicide because of bullying? Yeah. Have they marched against a horde of riot police and been gunned down for their display of rebellion? Not so much.

 

In fact the Gay movement has been relatively peaceful, trying to make people aware of issues. If you listen to all the major leaders of the gay movement, they all say the same thing, we need to educate and encourage tolerance of others (not just gays). It is only by educating others that we'll ever really see change in this country.

 

Now as far as the gay marriage thing goes, I think you'll see it repealed in the next few years at the supreme court level. The problem is that we are a minute minority, the smallest, and least protected, so it's easy to target us for these kinds of things. Now do I want that to happen? Of course not, but I can see that we took advantage of a certain climate and that now that climate is changing. My only hope is that it doesn't cause more harm to us in the future.

 

In regards to gay youth, whom I worry a considerable amount about, I encourage them to stay in the closet until they're eighteen and able to take care of themselves on their own. The rights of the parent outweigh the rights of the gay child after all, so if they do come out there's no telling what might happen to them.

 

All in all gays, especially those in red states, have very few rights. We are an unprotected minority. In Florida for instance, I can be fired because I'm gay (but not because of my race or religion). I can't marry. I can be excluded from certain groups, up until recently I couldn't adopt (note: from those I know who're are going through the process, it's not gay friendly in the least) and the list goes on. Maybe it's become more tolerant, but time will tell for how long. With the rise of islam and christian fundamentalism, I think we're placing a target on our backs and it's just a matter of time before someone chooses to aim at that target.

 

It would've been better to just appreciate what we had and let things change as they should've (in my opinion.) Anyways I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

 

 

Aaron

 

edit- You are a superb manipulator by the way. You know just how to draw people into conversations. That'll come in handy as a new parent.

 

As far as idealism, Sloppy's way is much more ideal and simple. Someone pisses you off, go smack them, my way is far less than ideal, which is why not many people approve and you also hear so many people come out and argue against it. The fact is those people that tend to argue against it, understand on some level that I'm right, but they've been taught that change is impossible without force, so they can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea of peaceful change.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Twinner

[Encephalon]

Normally I don't reply to your comments Blasto, but in this case, since you brought up the "gay" thing, I felt I needed to explain why the gay movement is destined to heartbreak.

 

First I can't name one person that's died for Gay rights in the last 20 years, at least not one I can remember. Have people been killed by bigots? Yeah. Have they committed suicide because of bullying? Yeah. Have they marched against a horde of riot police and been gunned down for their display of rebellion? Not so much.

 

In fact the Gay movement has been relatively peaceful, trying to make people aware of issues. If you listen to all the major leaders of the gay movement, they all say the same thing, we need to educate and encourage tolerance of others (not just gays). It is only by educating others that we'll ever really see change in this country.

 

Now as far as the gay marriage thing goes, I think you'll see it repealed in the next few years at the supreme court level. The problem is that we are a minute minority, the smallest, and least protected, so it's easy to target us for these kinds of things. Now do I want that to happen? Of course not, but I can see that we took advantage of a certain climate and that now that climate is changing. My only hope is that it doesn't cause more harm to us in the future.

 

In regards to gay youth, whom I worry a considerable amount about, I encourage them to stay in the closet until they're eighteen and able to take care of themselves on their own. The rights of the parent outweigh the rights of the gay child after all, so if they do come out there's no telling what might happen to them.

 

All in all gays, especially those in red states, have very few rights. We are an unprotected minority. In Florida for instance, I can be fired because I'm gay (but not because of my race or religion). I can't marry. I can be excluded from certain groups, up until recently I couldn't adopt (note: from those I know who're are going through the process, it's not gay friendly in the least) and the list goes on. Maybe it's become more tolerant, but time will tell for how long. With the rise of islam and christian fundamentalism, I think we're placing a target on our backs and it's just a matter of time before someone chooses to aim at that target.

 

It would've been better to just appreciate what we had and let things change as they should've (in my opinion.) Anyways I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

 

 

Aaron

 

edit- You are a superb manipulator by the way. You know just how to draw people into conversations. That'll come in handy as a new parent.

 

Can't really argue with your assessment. I would argue that 20 years is too short of an historical update. As someone who was born and raised in the SF Bay area, with gay relatives in my own family, I'm aware as much as a straight person can be of the strife. Matthew Shephard, although not an activist, wasn't murdered all that long ago for the crime of being himself.

 

I don't really care what you say or think about me. I think it's important to challenge your regular practice of warping the hell out of Asian studies which you often do in the service of attacking the thoughtful ideas of others, including many senior members of this forum who have demonstrable expertise in ancient texts as well as personal practice, neither of which you possess nor seem willing to even consider pursuing. Rather, you prefer to argue from the point of your own narrow subjective experience, as if that were the sole criteria for constructing your arguments. If you can't handle the heat, then give your infantilism a rest and consider being more accountable for your content.

[Aaron]

Can't really argue with your assessment. I would argue that 20 years is too short of an historical update. As someone who was born and raised in the SF Bay area, with gay relatives in my own family, I'm aware as much as a straight person can be of the strife. Matthew Shephard, although not an activist, wasn't murdered all that long ago for the crime of being himself.

 

I don't really care what you say or think about me. I think it's important to challenge your regular practice of warping the hell out of Asian studies which you often do in the service of attacking the thoughtful ideas of others, including many senior members of this forum who have demonstrable expertise in ancient texts as well as personal practice, neither of which you possess nor seem willing to even consider pursuing. Rather, you prefer to argue from the point of your own narrow subjective experience, as if that were the sole criteria for constructing your arguments. If you can't handle the heat, then give your infantilism a rest and consider being more accountable for your content.

 

Blasto really? You of all people are claiming I warp ideas and attack others? I think the only reason you haven't been banned from this forum for insults and personal attacks is because you're so buddy buddy with the mods. In my estimation you should've been long gone a year ago. You are the only member of this entire forum I have ever put on ignore. I've never put Vmarco, Vaj, Jack, or anyone else on ignore, no matter how much we argue, but you are a completely different story. I've sensed something from your comments that made it clear to me the first time we spoke that you weren't a healthy person for me to deal with. I stepped out this once because you're making generalized comments about something you know nothing about, that I take personally. I would wager you knew I would and that's the reason you made the comment. As I said you're a master manipulator, hence the reason you chose to talk about something no one has mentioned in this thread to date. I'm returning to ignoring you, as I've mentioned numerous times, you are not worth the trouble of talking to.

 

Aaron

[Encephalon]

Blasto really? You of all people are claiming I warp ideas and attack others? I think the only reason you haven't been banned from this forum for insults and personal attacks is because you're so buddy buddy with the mods. In my estimation you should've been long gone a year ago. You are the only member of this entire forum I have ever put on ignore. I've never put Vmarco, Vaj, Jack, or anyone else on ignore, no matter how much we argue, but you are a completely different story. I've sensed something from your comments that made it clear to me the first time we spoke that you weren't a healthy person for me to deal with. I stepped out this once because you're making generalized comments about something you know nothing about, that I take personally. I would wager you knew I would and that's the reason you made the comment. As I said you're a master manipulator, hence the reason you chose to talk about something no one has mentioned in this thread to date. I'm returning to ignoring you, as I've mentioned numerous times, you are not worth the trouble of talking to.

 

Aaron

 

More psycho-babble, but beneath it all, you're just angry because you're ill-equipped to respond when I challenge your BS.

[manitou]

I just entered the 8th precept on Mabel Collins' 'Light on the Path' book written around 1900, up in the Vedanta section. This precept addresses this specific reference to power we're talking about in this thread. The words couldn't be better said, I don't think....

 

8. Yet stand alone and isolated, because nothing that is embodied, nothing that is conscious of separation, nothing that is out of the eternal can aid you. Learn from sensation, and observe it; because only so can you commence the science of self-knowledge, and plant your foot on the first step of the ladder. Grow as the flower grows, unconsciously, but eagerly anxious to open its soul to the air. So must you press forward to open your soul to the eternal. But it must be the eternal that draws forth your strength and beauty, not desire of growth. For in the one case, you develop in the luxuriance of purity; in the other, you harden by the forcible passion for personal stature.

[manitou]

double post

Edited October 27, 2011 by manitou

[Sloppy Zhang]

As far as idealism, Sloppy's way is much more ideal and simple. Someone pisses you off, go smack them, my way is far less than ideal, which is why not many people approve and you also hear so many people come out and argue against it.

 

You'd really love for that to be my position, wouldn't you? But that's NEVER been my position.

 

One should do what needs to be done in the situation in order to resolve it.

 

There are times when we must talk. And there are times when we must fight.

 

I don't know what kind of life you have led, but surely you have encountered people who you cannot talk with. People who will take and take and take.

 

No, not just assholes in the park who don't realize how much space they are taking up, who don't realize they are shouting profanities when kids might be around.

 

I'm talking about people who take sadistic pleasure in having power over people, and using that power to hurt others.

 

There might be some assholes in a park, and you avoid them and go elsewhere in the park to have a picnic with your family. Okay. That's great.

 

What about the people who actually walk through the park actively looking for people to harass? No amount of packing up and leaving resolves issues with those people. Because they won't stop. Give them what they want, and they want more, and find pleasure in taking it from you in the most painful ways.

 

For these people, you must confront them. Sometimes you must confront them physically.

 

For all things there is a season. I'd say that a sage would know when to talk, when to fight, when to flee, and when to advance. Of course, to do these things effectively, one must know HOW to do them. One must practice the art of fighting so that, if the time comes to fight, you can do what you need to do.

 

NEVER have I said one should go around looking for fights. Or to just fight people who disagree with you. That has been your mis-characterization of my position ever since we wondered whether the sages were martial artists.

 

Sometimes you can't talk. Sometimes talking is pointless.

 

I've asked you through all of these discussions what your practical suggestions are for people who can't be talked to, and who will not fundamentally accept another person's right to exist unmolested. And you skirt around the issue and try to make it seem like I'm just out to bop people over the head with my big stick.

 

the most powerful weapon you have is your voice

 

The most powerful weapon is the one most suited to the job.

 

Weapons are only effective insofar as they can affect your opponent. If you meet an opponent who is unaffected by words, you must do something else. If all you have are you words.... then against that opponent, you have nothing.

 

 

Just please remember to make this distinction:

 

I am not suggesting that we fight. I am merely suggesting that we don't "not fight" as a unilateral proposition.

 

I am suggesting we do the right thing at the right time. Sometimes that may be fighting. So we should prepare and learn to fight. We may never even have to fight. Sometimes that may be talking. So we should prepare and learn to talk. Though sometimes you may never have a situation in which you can talk your way out of it.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Sloppy Zhang]

because they fear others being able to harm them.

 

You always jump to this point. "You're just afraid of XYZ". As if it is some sort of bad thing.

 

Fear (like pretty much anything, from a cultivation sense, IMO) is a jumping off point, one to be viewed without judgment of good/bad.

 

What is fear?

 

Fear lets us consider multiple options. It makes us aware of our shortcomings. It encourages us to look for blindspots.

 

Of course, and unhealthy, unbalanced fear leads to paranoia, and the same unfounded delusions that any other out of control emotion can lead you to.

 

But in and of itself, as long as it is well grounded, fear is not inherently a bad thing.

 

if you live a peaceful life, the chances that someone will decide to harm you is very slim. Might it happen? Maybe

 

Exactly. So why not prepare? Match your preparation for the threat. Okay, so you view it as slim. What is your home security like? Do you lock your doors/windows? What parts of town do you visit? Do you travel alone? Do you communicate to people where you are going? Do you carry anything with you that can be used as a weapon? What kinds of clothing do you wear? Are you physically fit to fight or flee? Are you aware when you are walking? Do you exhibit "victim" behaviors, or do things that can draw violent predators to you? If confronted, have you trained to the point where you can handle yourself? Have you gone through the mental training necessary to get through a confrontation?

 

Keep in mind that many of these basic premises of self defense can be learned in minutes and trained into a routine in your daily life. So it's not like you'll have to climb up a mountain and learn ninjutsu for 15 years to become a super assassin.

 

But don't kid yourself into thinking that you can just forget about it. Because the chance, even if slim, is still there. And chance favors the prepared mind.

 

but the chances, even today in our modern Western screwed up life, are so slim that they don't warrant the necessity to learn martial arts.

 

You do realize that having a screwed up societal life actually makes it MORE likely that you're going to get into a physical confrontation with someone?

 

If someone picks a fight with you, the wisest course of action is to back down, don't let your ego get in the way and force you to "man up",

 

Right. This is something martial arts will teach you. At least, martial arts that are geared towards life and death, practical self defense.

 

The people who I know of who are most "gung ho" to "man up" and fight are the people who have never been in fights before. Fighting sucks. Even if you win the fight, you have to worry about retaliation, word spreading about you being a fighter, tales getting spun, people coming up to you to test you out, your name and associations getting pased around. People don't quite realize how dangerous it is. And the people who DO know, and who thank their lucky stars every day that nothing bad has happened to them, avoid fighting at all costs.

 

I don't know if you've ever seen this, but two tough looking dudes come into a place, they look at each other, size each other up, nod, and move on. They don't want trouble. They don't want to start shit. They just go about their business.

 

So perhaps you should adjust your view of martial arts.

 

if the other person still is bent on fighting, then run.

 

Again, you are assuming the capability for such an action. There may be mitigating factors.

 

Are you with someone else? Can THEY run? If I'm walking down the street with my girlfriend, I might know I can handle myself, but what about her? I know what I can do if I trip and fall trying to escape, but what about her? What if I'm with a small child? What if I'm with an older person? What if I'm in unfamiliar territory? What if I'm in familiar territory?

 

All of these things MUST be taken into consideration if you plan to practically implement your philosophy. And if you are not trained, or unaware of these things, you are very likely to overlook something that can be your blind spot.

 

Do yourself a favor and learn how to do it right. If you never have to use it, you'll still have it.

 

Better to have and not need, than need and not have. Or is that just materialistic hording philosophy extended to self defense knowledge? Hmm.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[zanshin]

Sorry, I know it's all really serious, but I was chuckling all day with mental image of what it would be like to get ready to leave it behind and let bad guys take over the house. It's like a military operation just to get everyone ready to go to the park. Someone wouldn't be able to find a shoe, someone would have to go to the bathroom. The kids would desperately need to bring the things kids feel like they can't live with out. I couldn't leave the grumpy cat and the hyper dog behind. But, once they were organized I'd probably have to putter around some more. Hopefully, the bad guys would feed the birds and take care of the plants right. I'd have to leave everything out for that and write out some instructions. I'd probably have to go the market to make sure there was plenty of food in the house for bad guys too, after all I feed everyone else...

[Encephalon]

Sorry, I know it's all really serious, but I was chuckling all day with mental image of what it would be like to get ready to leave it behind and let bad guys take over the house. It's like a military operation just to get everyone ready to go to the park. Someone wouldn't be able to find a shoe, someone would have to go to the bathroom. The kids would desperately need to bring the things kids feel like they can't live with out. I couldn't leave the grumpy cat and the hyper dog behind. But, once they were organized I'd probably have to putter around some more. Hopefully, the bad guys would feed the birds and take care of the plants right. I'd have to leave everything out for that and write out some instructions. I'd probably have to go the market to make sure there was plenty of food in the house for bad guys too, after all I feed everyone else...

 

Yep, it can get awfully comical pretty fast! I don't buy the whole Biddhisattva-Wannabe story. I think some people can become so victimized that passivity becomes a conditioned response, which they rationalize as enlightened conduct.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Yep, it can get awfully comical pretty fast! I don't buy the whole Biddhisattva-Wannabe story. I think some people can become so victimized that passivity becomes a conditioned response, which they rationalize as enlightened conduct.

 

Yes!

 

Way more succinctly put than the way I was roundaboutly hinting at earlier.

 

I for one don't consider rationalizations to be all that enlightened.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Is it so important to have control over all the energy involved in such manifestations? My personal way around that is to alter my intent - on the rare occasion when I ask something of the Universe, or try to use manifestation, I always add something to the effect of "may it harm none" or "for the benefit of all" to the end of my intent/request. This way instead of having to worry about or micromanage each energetic transaction, I can let the Universe take care of the details.d

 

Depends I guess.

 

Some people say that it's your subconscious which interacts with the energies, and that your subconscious is pretty literal/simple/base in terms of its processing. So let's just say that I don't really trust my subconscious to be looking out for others

 

I would feel more comfortable micromanaging the energies so that I'd be comfortable knowing that nothing too bad is happening as a result of my negligence. But that's just me.

[Aaron]

More psycho-babble, but beneath it all, you're just angry because you're ill-equipped to respond when I challenge your BS.

 

 

Blasto, keep in mind that I posted that I was sexually abused as a child and you know this full well and you've actually commented on it before. What was your motivation when you resorted to making comments such as this following quote regarding me?

 

Yep, it can get awfully comical pretty fast! I don't buy the whole Biddhisattva-Wannabe story. I think some people can become so victimized that passivity becomes a conditioned response, which they rationalize as enlightened conduct.

 

Perhaps you should examine whether or not you are angry and ill-equipped as well. Just because, in the end I disagree with you, doesn't mean that's the reason you piss me off so much. To be honest, completely honest, you remind me a lot of a person who's caused me a lot of pain in the past, and I guess I have been pushing my feelings about him onto you. I'll try and stop doing that. In the meantime I hope you can refrain from making comments like this without understanding how hurtful they actually are.

 

Aaron

Edited October 28, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

Hello Sloppy,

 

Let me break it down simply. My philosophy is this, if you struggle, then someone else struggles. If you fight, then someone else fights. Do everything in your power to avoid harming others. If you can run, then run. If you need to give up what you own in order to avoid harming others or yourself, then do so. If you ultimately cannot get away, then do not just simply stand there and allow yourself to be killed, raped, maimed, etc. defend yourself as you need to, remembering to be as compassionate in that defense as possible. Yes sometimes compassion isn't about running away, sometimes you see a killer and you know that unless you stop him, they will keep on killing, so if the most compassionate action is to kill them so they cannot cause further suffering, then do so. But under no circumstance should you teach your child that fighting is alright, you teach them that if one must fight, then it should be the absolute last resort. Does that make it clearer? I advocate teaching pacifism, but not masochism. I'm advocating peace by bringing up the root cause of fighting, which is fighting itself. If one does not fight, then they cannot lose a battle. So in every instance the primary goal should be to avoid fighting, unless there is absolutely no way around it.

 

I cannot believe the extent I've been attacked on this thread because I advocate peace. Peace should be on all of our hearts. If we devoted half as much time to cultivating peace in our lives and others, as we do cultivating Power, then the world would be a much more peaceful place.

 

Aaron

Edited October 28, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

Sorry, I know it's all really serious, but I was chuckling all day with mental image of what it would be like to get ready to leave it behind and let bad guys take over the house. It's like a military operation just to get everyone ready to go to the park. Someone wouldn't be able to find a shoe, someone would have to go to the bathroom. The kids would desperately need to bring the things kids feel like they can't live with out. I couldn't leave the grumpy cat and the hyper dog behind. But, once they were organized I'd probably have to putter around some more. Hopefully, the bad guys would feed the birds and take care of the plants right. I'd have to leave everything out for that and write out some instructions. I'd probably have to go the market to make sure there was plenty of food in the house for bad guys too, after all I feed everyone else...

 

I'm glad it brought a chuckle to you. I'm sure it does sound funny. I guess my question is this, which is more valuable your tv, dog, plant, and house or a human life. If someone came up to you and said, I'm going to take your house and the only thing you can do to stop me is kill me, would you kill him or give up the house? That's really the question I'm posing. What is more valuable? Even if you own that house, is it really worth more than a human life? My argument is that somewhere along the lines we stopped seeing what was actually valuable and started seeing other people as objects, rather than people. We like to think of these things we have as being special, but let me tell you they're not. I could give everything up today if I had to, simply because I know that in the end no one can take away peace and contentment from me, unless I choose to let them.

 

With that said, I despise bullies. They make my blood boil, especially the sneaky manipulative ones. It turns my stomach, but at the same time, if push comes to shove, I'll walk away in the end, rather than allow things to escalate to a physical confrontation. So you can speak your mind, express yourself and try to evoke change, but actual fighting should be the last thing on your mind.

 

I know this was a subtle jab at my philosophy, that your intent was to make it sound silly, but in the end what you're describing is a man at peace with the world. A man who realizes that the only things he needs to be happy are his family and himself. If you do end up needing to leave, I recommend letting the birds out of the cages and remembering that the cat and dog can take care of themselves if it comes down to it.

 

Aaron

Edited October 28, 2011 by Twinner

[Cat Pillar]

I just entered the 8th precept on Mabel Collins' 'Light on the Path' book written around 1900, up in the Vedanta section. This precept addresses this specific reference to power we're talking about in this thread. The words couldn't be better said, I don't think....

 

8. Yet stand alone and isolated, because nothing that is embodied, nothing that is conscious of separation, nothing that is out of the eternal can aid you. Learn from sensation, and observe it; because only so can you commence the science of self-knowledge, and plant your foot on the first step of the ladder. Grow as the flower grows, unconsciously, but eagerly anxious to open its soul to the air. So must you press forward to open your soul to the eternal. But it must be the eternal that draws forth your strength and beauty, not desire of growth. For in the one case, you develop in the luxuriance of purity; in the other, you harden by the forcible passion for personal stature.

 

Poetic. I'm still not sure how I feel about advice like this, or perhaps more accurately I don't fully understand the nuances. I don't feel that personal stature is my primary motivating force, but I don't think I could rid myself of the desire for growth and still maintain a spiritual practice.

 

-----------------------------------------

 

Depends I guess.

 

Some people say that it's your subconscious which interacts with the energies, and that your subconscious is pretty literal/simple/base in terms of its processing. So let's just say that I don't really trust my subconscious to be looking out for others

 

I would feel more comfortable micromanaging the energies so that I'd be comfortable knowing that nothing too bad is happening as a result of my negligence. But that's just me.

 

Fair enough; certainly a reasonable position. I can definitely understand the mistrust of the subconscious.

[Cat Pillar]

If we devoted half as much time to cultivating peace in our lives and others, as we do cultivating Power, then the world would be a much more peaceful place.

 

Aaron

 

I've been avoiding the side interchange on this thread, but wanted to comment on this. I do not believe cultivation of power leads directly to conflict, as power is neutral and has many applications - healing is probably one of the best examples for positive use of power.

[Sloppy Zhang]

If you ultimately cannot get away, then do not just simply stand there and allow yourself to be killed, raped, maimed, etc. defend yourself as you need to, remembering to be as compassionate in that defense as possible. Yes sometimes compassion isn't about running away, sometimes you see a killer and you know that unless you stop him, they will keep on killing, so if the most compassionate action is to kill them so they cannot cause further suffering, then do so.

 

Right. And in order to be able to do so, one must recognize that one may need to fight (such as in the situations you have outlined), and they must practice to do that.

 

Now in the case of some spiritual/internal arts, like certain style of Tai Chi, Bagua, Aikido, etc, the spiritual component can work in tandem with the self defense component. So you can have a practice for cultivation, while at the same time being practical with regards to self defense.

 

But under no circumstance should you teach your child that fighting is alright, you teach them that if one must fight, then it should be the absolute last resort. Does that make it clearer?

 

You realize that you have errors in your own argument's internal logic, right?

 

You say:

1) These are the situations in which one must fight (as in, to fight in these situations will be okay, even to kill)

2) Teach the next generation that fighting is not alright

 

You're stuck in this labeling scheme of "fighting is bad", "yielding is good", "do good and avoid bad".

 

I don't think the sage would do that. The sage would go where the moment needed to go. That may be turn right or turn left. Order pepsi or coke. Say "hello" or keep walking. Wear red or blue or green or nothing. Punch, kick, run, grapple, spit, roar, growl, cry, laugh, shrug, etc etc etc etc.

 

The sage, being acquainted with all of life and knowing that life can take any number of unpredictable turns, would thus be familiar with all modes of living.

 

If one does not fight, then they cannot lose a battle. So in every instance the primary goal should be to avoid fighting, unless there is absolutely no way around it.

 

There's a saying "it takes two to tango". Meaning, "it takes two to fight".

 

In some sense that's correct. If only one person is fighting, and the other is doing nothing, then you can have several possible things going on: beatdown, massacre, slaughter, murder, torture, humiliation, etc etc etc.

 

Stripping the desire to fight from one half of the equation does nothing to the second half of the equation.

 

That's why there is a HUGE difference between a sparring partner and a genuine determined attacker. Your compliant partner (no matter how full contact the practice) doesn't necessarily fundamentally want to harm you (maybe there are some that do, or maybe it's just MMA hype). A determined attacker will, and when they see red (if they are not a pro at killing- and they are out there), no amount of talking or bearing of your soul will do any good for them.

 

I cannot believe the extent I've been attacked on this thread because I advocate peace.

 

You haven't been attacked. People have merely provided a critical look at your responses.

 

Part of being a sage (I would think) is proper perception (also good in self defense, btw). What is a real attack and what is not? Who is just a loud mouth talker, and who wants to cave your head in?

 

Likewise, on forums and in discussion, who is attacking you, and who is being critical? Who fundamentally doesn't like you, and who is just not laying down as you say something they disagree with? Who is deriding you, and who is seeking your critical response?

 

Peace should be on all of our hearts. If we devoted half as much time to cultivating peace in our lives and others, as we do cultivating Power, then the world would be a much more peaceful place.

 

What are you smoking?

 

One of the (many) problems as I see it is lack of trust. I'm sure that if I let my guard down, others will take advantage of my. Why? I'm thinking it. And if I'm thinking it, I know someone else is thinking it. And while I can trust myself to not do anything, I can't extend such trust to others.

 

So I defend myself. I live how I want to live, but I know that there may come a time when the flow of the Tao may take me in an ugly direction.

 

The perfect sage might get away scott-free. But your average bum? Gonna have to buckle down and realize the reality of the situation: there are people out there who don't play nice. When they push you, are you going to have the ability (read: ABILITY, no comment as to its use or lack thereof) to push back? And do you understand the implications of all of those options?

Edited October 28, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Aaron]

Right. And in order to be able to do so, one must recognize that one may need to fight (such as in the situations you have outlined), and they must practice to do that.

 

Now in the case of some spiritual/internal arts, like certain style of Tai Chi, Bagua, Aikido, etc, the spiritual component can work in tandem with the self defense component. So you can have a practice for cultivation, while at the same time being practical with regards to self defense.

 

 

 

You realize that you have errors in your own argument's internal logic, right?

 

You say:

1) These are the situations in which one must fight (as in, to fight in these situations will be okay, even to kill)

2) Teach the next generation that fighting is not alright

 

You're stuck in this labeling scheme of "fighting is bad", "yielding is good", "do good and avoid bad".

 

I don't think the sage would do that. The sage would go where the moment needed to go. That may be turn right or turn left. Order pepsi or coke. Say "hello" or keep walking. Wear red or blue or green or nothing. Punch, kick, run, grapple, spit, roar, growl, cry, laugh, shrug, etc etc etc etc.

 

The sage, being acquainted with all of life and knowing that life can take any number of unpredictable turns, would thus be familiar with all modes of living.

 

 

 

There's a saying "it takes two to tango". Meaning, "it takes two to fight".

 

In some sense that's correct. If only one person is fighting, and the other is doing nothing, then you can have several possible things going on: beatdown, massacre, slaughter, murder, torture, humiliation, etc etc etc.

 

Stripping the desire to fight from one half of the equation does nothing to the second half of the equation.

 

That's why there is a HUGE difference between a sparring partner and a genuine determined attacker. Your compliant partner (no matter how full contact the practice) doesn't necessarily fundamentally want to harm you (maybe there are some that do, or maybe it's just MMA hype). A determined attacker will, and when they see red (if they are not a pro at killing- and they are out there), no amount of talking or bearing of your soul will do any good for them.

 

 

 

You haven't been attacked. People have merely provided a critical look at your responses.

 

Part of being a sage (I would think) is proper perception (also good in self defense, btw). What is a real attack and what is not? Who is just a loud mouth talker, and who wants to cave your head in?

 

Likewise, on forums and in discussion, who is attacking you, and who is being critical? Who fundamentally doesn't like you, and who is just not laying down as you say something they disagree with? Who is deriding you, and who is seeking your critical response?

 

 

 

What are you smoking?

 

One of the (many) problems as I see it is lack of trust. I'm sure that if I let my guard down, others will take advantage of my. Why? I'm thinking it. And if I'm thinking it, I know someone else is thinking it. And while I can trust myself to not do anything, I can't extend such trust to others.

 

So I defend myself. I live how I want to live, but I know that there may come a time when the flow of the Tao may take me in an ugly direction.

 

The perfect sage might get away scott-free. But your average bum? Gonna have to buckle down and realize the reality of the situation: there are people out there who don't play nice. When they push you, are you going to have the ability (read: ABILITY, no comment as to its use or lack thereof) to push back? And do you understand the implications of all of those options?

 

 

Sloppy,

 

Lets agree that we'll probably never agree. Fighting is always bad, but sometimes it's the lesser of two evils. There is no way we'll ever agree on this topic, so I think it would be best to just shake hands and walk our separate ways, because we're expending way too much energy right now.

 

Aaron

[Sloppy Zhang]

because we're expending way too much energy right now.

 

I don't know about you, but I'm not

[Aaron]

I don't know about you, but I'm not

 

Well there's a time when you just can't go any deeper than you have and I think we've reached that point. It seems pointless to continue when I don't think anything we say will really change our point of view. So I will wave the white flag here and move on to the next big thing.

 

Aaron

[Sloppy Zhang]

Well there's a time when you just can't go any deeper than you have and I think we've reached that point.

 

Oh we can go much, much further.

 

For instance:

 

Where is the origination of your judgment which says fighting is always bad and never okay, but just the lesser of two evils?

[Protector]