et-thoughts Posted June 2, 2012 ... that gives each abundantly of what they want (while providing them all with just one answer, though with infinite possible solutions). Transcending the dualistic notions leads me to question the actual veracity of the Yin-Yang proposition. For a while I been moving from seeking to know what-is and what-is-not to what-be by knowing what-be. Maybe others here will be interested to jointly explore the proposition that one can know what be by just knowing what be, which includes what be possible, what be real, what be perfect and other distinctions. I have the hunch that those who cultivate opposition and dualism will seek to expose this invitation as a confrontation or abstain from accepting this invitation to dialogue rather than followthrough and expose the truth of the matter at hand. Its a bit of a intellectual-emotional-spiritual coax into enlightenment. Would be rather interesting to see what happens next... so lets see what happens and take it from there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted June 2, 2012 Yes, let's see what happens. Yin and Yang are merely the polarities (negative and positive) of Chi. Chi is merely energy. Energy takes uncountable forms based on its vibrational frequency. What be? I have said before, everything that is, is, always has been and always will be; it (things) simply takes different form over time. What be? I can define that only by my ability to comprehend what is. I rely on my five senses and my brain for this comprehension. I see a tree and state, "There is a tree." Do we need break it down further? Well, perhaps. How about, "There is an apple tree." (Obvious because it has apples hanging from its limbs.) What be? If you mean as in permanent, then I should say no thing is permanent. And I do not speak well of mystical things. Hehehe. And I have said before that I believe that it is possible to attain the condition of living beyond the concept of duality. I do attain that condition on occasion but then before long I am pulled back into reality and have to determine if the water is hot or cold. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted June 2, 2012 Just use a thermometer to know the water temperature and move away from the appreciative judgement calls of hot and cold... Sometimes when dealing with duality someone will put forth the notion of the map and the territory... to which I have added a third distinctive domain. So to me its : the map, the territory and the distinctions. This may come handy latter on. I hold that living with duality stems from what we been trained to conceive rather than some innate condition associated to living. In fact we can be trained to conceive using other notions. I like to use the example of up-down and upward. This last term 'upward' is defined as a base, and a direction of up. There is no need to define the term 'downward' in fact if we look at its definition we can see that its in essence the same one we have used for upward: a base, and a direction. The point I am driving at center on seeking a way to move from appreciative subjective biased dualistic calls towards distinctions that help us understand situations better. By permanent I mean something that will happen to be from one point into perpetuity. For example "this thought and feeling I have now". Once created it exists forever and ever. Sure in the next moment I may choose to create a different thought and feeling and that will add to what already exists forever and ever. The point that concerns me a bit is the twisted notion that seeks to make bad good and good bad rather than keeping it simple with the notion that good be good and bad be bad. This notion can take many forms: from there is no good and bad, its all relative, good and bad are the two sides of a coin... BTW the coin actually has three sides and there are good coins and fake ones. Some things that are now came to be just now, thus not everything that is has always been, though what is now will certainly always be even though it may actually cease to exist. I can define what be, regardless of my actual comprehension of it, though it would be better if we defined it on what be rather than some delusion of what be. How do we know its an apple tree rather than a pear tree? Where I live there is a saying that alludes to this notion not being quite so determinate and resulting in predicaments. I wonder if the notion of Yin and Yang results in predicaments that keep us distracted from the core of the matter. Perhaps the key resides in the distinctions we choose to use. Perhaps its now time to learn and or create better distinctions to use. what do you think? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted June 3, 2012 what do you think? Ha! Sometimes I think too much. Regardless of what and how much I think about it the wood still needs be chopped and the water still needs be carried. Back in the late 1960's in American fun was made of "Living in the material world." But it is there where I must live. In my private world little changes so I really don't need to view things as 'good' or 'bad' - things just are. I can't say I can view things that way when I go out into the world of other people. Sure, to be "beyond good and evil" would be great. But societies have set laws and prohibitions. When I am in the world of others I much comply with their laws and prohibitions else I get into trouble. Yin/Yang is perhaps the first of all dualities. But the distinctions do exist, do they not? For most of us there is a time to rest and there is a time to go forward. Wu Wei does not mean remaining static. It is more pointing at flowing with the flow. I think that singularity (All is One) is an unattainable, idealistic dream. Our brain, with good reason, works in a dualistic manner. If we try to negate all dualities we will have eternal inner conflict. (And we will likely cause great harm to outself.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
manitou Posted June 3, 2012 This is a hazy thread, et! Not sure I'm understanding what you're getting at. Picking up on the concept of distinctions, which you stated at the end of your last post - I think distinctions are something we've learned since childhood, and they've gotten more refined over the years. Distinctions within distinctions. The distinctions are the very tool we use for duality. My concept of what 'real life' is has changed over a period of time. I honestly don't think my real life is all these things happening around me any more. My real life is a warm and comfortable place that my awareness sits within my chest, usually. I see life as a bunch of props and tools that spirit (Whatever) uses to forge us into what it wants. By nailing down distinctions, I think we're shutting off options of the here and now. It's like by choosing one friend over another, we're solidifying our own separateness; nailing down our own distinctiveness. But that may not be the point of all this. The point may be more of a flow; to accept all things and every One as One And The Same - just as in a Dogzhen meditation where the eyes remain fuzzy and all visibility is seen as one interweave. I think the perfect singularity we seek is to see all beings as Ourselves - to love our brother as ourself - Perhaps the yin/yang arose after the concept of the One; within the yin/yang the 10,000 things manifested. The yin/yang, by its very nature, was the causative factor for the 10,000 things. I'm just guessing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted June 3, 2012 In some distinctions there is no account of one thing within the other. To my mind, Yin/Yang throws this back into play whereas with some forms of dualism this is not accounted for. At this point, I can't go further than suggesting that any 'non-dualism' is intended to throw light on one's tendency towards dualism. I don't think it means that the new non-dualism is actually the case but it might be a model that is closer to the case. Also, which are more useful when applied? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted June 3, 2012 This is a hazy thread ... Really? Hehehe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted June 3, 2012 Our brain, with good reason, works in a dualistic manner. If we try to negate all dualities we will have eternal inner conflict. (And we will likely cause great harm to outself.) Sure, to be "beyond good and evil" would be great. But societies have set laws and prohibitions. When I am in the world of others I much comply with their laws and prohibitions else I get into trouble. Thought to respond to two points you maid ... cut and copied them within what you said... In a humorous tone... its going to be impossible to negate all dualities with the particular distinction used... one would still keep the negation around... resolve all inner conflicts requires recognizing what be going on and choosing what will be going on next. Other singular integrations of situation are possible. What I have found works involved incorporating an additional point to the duality which creates a singular triad where all point become one and the same. For example there are three absolute meanings: 1 what was said 2 what was heard 3 what be shared. Then the three are one and the same true communication takes place. I wonder how one can be in the world of others and cause the set laws and prohibitions and behaviors there to change for the better without getting into trouble? In other words be a good catalysts rather than an accomplice or a bystander. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted June 3, 2012 manitou, Indeed its a hazy thread which hopefully will 'force' us to thread lightly :-) as we discover what surrounds us. Liked most of what you said about distinctions... would say distinctions are the very tool we use for singular purposes. By nailing down distinctions, I think we're choosing options among the possibilities... and if we choose the perfect singularity we are choosing friends without loosing friends... We can solidify our own separateness and unity at the same time! Recently, in the last year or so, I been wondering why should one be tolerant of the intolerant rather than just reflect back to them their intolerance without that making one be intolerant. Why "accept all things and every One as One And The Same" rather than recognize things and beings singularities and uniqueness? Why seek to see all beings as ourselves rather than seek to see each being and thing for what it be? let me share with you a metaphor with a singular point that is both unique and equal. Imagine a line from the smallest to the largest. Now pick two points in that line. Observe how below and above each point there be infinite more points, which makes the point be the same while still being uniquely different. Have to go so need to condense what I was going to say even more... Love our Brothers as love loves them... more latter on yin/yang Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted June 3, 2012 It this point, I can't go further than suggesting that any 'non-dualism' is intended to throw light on one's tendency towards dualism. I don't think it means that the new non-dualism is actually the case but it might be a model that is closer to the case. Also, which are more useful when applied? Note how the non-dualism notion still refers to the dualism notion... rather than referring to a singular distinct model referred at... It similar to how the restrictive way of zero-limits and infinite-limits talk about abundance in terms of limitless rather than infinite possibilities. The way to will the clouds away is to will a clear sky rather than will for the clouds to vanish... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Protector Posted June 3, 2012 When thinking about Yin Yang I imagine Yang Yin When thinking about Yin Yang and Yang Yin I imagine Yang Yin and Yin Yang When thinking about Yin Yang Yang Yin and Yang Yin Yin Yang I imagine Yang Yang Yin Yin And Yin Yin Yang Yang WHEN THINKING ABOUT... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted June 3, 2012 ... resolve all inner conflicts requires recognizing what be going on and choosing what will be going on next. Ah Ha! The most important aspect of this discussion. (resolving inner conflict) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted June 4, 2012 When thinking about Yin Yang point, I envision that circle with two half drops circling about ... The circle reminds me of a point so small that it has no size though in principle it still holds a circumference and the other parts... it also reminds me of a point that transcends into a line that transcends into a plane that transcends into a cube only to be baffled by the smoothness of a sphere which in a way is just a point... hope you get the point :-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted June 4, 2012 To have a point in the land of the pointless is pointless. But yes, you made your point, IMO. To define something as this, and only this, limits this thing in the observers eyes and mind. BTW, I do this often but I try to keep my defining to myself based on its usefulness to me. (I sometimes share my observations though. Hehehe.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted June 4, 2012 To have a point in the land of the pointless is pointless. But yes, you made your point, IMO. To define something as this, and only this, limits this thing in the observers eyes and mind. BTW, I do this often but I try to keep my defining to myself based on its usefulness to me. (I sometimes share my observations though. Hehehe.) Actually the point is that To have a point in the land of the pointless is ... ...To have a point in the land of the pointless! though it might be practically impossible for many there to understand the point :-) given the pointless language... still the language can grow, by definitions and distinctions, which can enable or disable understanding. Language and beliefs can be restrictive or encompassing and depending on which beliefs and language one chooses the experiences change. So the point here is to wisely choose the enabling encompassing distinctions and explore the point fully ;-) I have a question for you and others regarding changing what some choose to believe by getting them to consider something 'better'... I observed that often this leads to a rejection rather than a transformation. My question is what is one to do to facilitate the transformation... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted June 4, 2012 Actually the point is that ... What an optimist you are!!!!! I have a question for you and others regarding changing what some choose to believe by getting them to consider something 'better'... I observed that often this leads to a rejection rather than a transformation. My question is what is one to do to facilitate the transformation... Okay. First I will ask: Why try to change anyone? And: Better for who? That being beside the point ... It has been my experience that the first thing that needs be done is to encourage a two-way discussion of the subject at hand. I feel it is important to base my view on demonstrable reason and logic. If the person I am speaking with refuses to consider reason and logic but rather remain with dogma I find no reason to continue the discussion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gatito Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) I have a question for you and others regarding changing what some choose to believe by getting them to consider something 'better'... I observed that often this leads to a rejection rather than a transformation. My question is what is one to do to facilitate the transformation... Body and Mind Are One by a Zen Master He gives a very powerful mantra during this satsan, which addresses this exact issue. Edited June 4, 2012 by gatito Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted June 4, 2012 Okay. First I will ask: Why try to change anyone? And: Better for who? The reason I ask centers on discovering what I need to do to change what needs changing especially when the reasoning and logic used keeps beings from changing it rather than helping individuals make the change happen. Why seek the change? well to bring about a transformation for the betterment and enrichment of each and all. Say we be in a playground and a bully arrives. I would like to play nice, and would like others to play nice. So how do we get the bully not to be a bully without bulling them (and becoming a bully ourselves)? When we look at the situation the bullies are natural leaders that could induce everyone to play nice, if they choose to play nice games rather than bulling games. I see this situation taking place in other domains but for now will continue with this framing. The general question here encompasses a larger issue. It involves establishing ways to ensure the better ways 'infect and prosper' rather than the other way around. CONSIDER that we want others to change and embrace "a two-way discussion of the subject at hand" rather than accepting their unilateral stance which they just want to hold because of what they hold OR we what the unreasonable to be reasonable... Asking 'better for who' exposes a common notion that keeps some from realizing that what be better for them involves what be better for others. In a way I am also asking how do we get those who ignore the need to change and do not want to change to change to ensure that when I am one of those I change. Hope this helps to focus a bit more this thread and maybe discover a thing or two worth cultivating... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted June 4, 2012 Okay. First I will ask: Why try to change anyone? And: Better for who? The reason I ask centers on discovering what I need to do to change what needs changing especially when the reasoning and logic used keeps beings from changing it rather than helping individuals make the change happen. Why seek the change? well to bring about a transformation for the betterment and enrichment of each and all. Say we be in a playground and a bully arrives. I would like to play nice, and would like others to play nice. So how do we get the bully not to be a bully without bulling them (and becoming a bully ourselves)? When we look at the situation the bullies are natural leaders that could induce everyone to play nice, if they choose to play nice games rather than bulling games. I see this situation taking place in other domains but for now will continue with this framing. The general question here encompasses a larger issue. It involves establishing ways to ensure the better ways 'infect and prosper' rather than the other way around. CONSIDER that we want others to change and embrace "a two-way discussion of the subject at hand" rather than accepting their unilateral stance which they just want to hold because of what they hold OR we what the unreasonable to be reasonable... Asking 'better for who' exposes a common notion that keeps some from realizing that what be better for them involves what be better for others. In a way I am also asking how do we get those who ignore the need to change and do not want to change to change to ensure that when I am one of those I change. Hope this helps to focus a bit more this thread and maybe discover a thing or two worth cultivating... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gatito Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) The reason I ask centers on discovering what I need to do to change what needs changing especially when the reasoning and logic used keeps beings from changing it rather than helping individuals make the change happen. Why seek the change? well to bring about a transformation for the betterment and enrichment of each and all. Say we be in a playground and a bully arrives. I would like to play nice, and would like others to play nice. So how do we get the bully not to be a bully without bulling them (and becoming a bully ourselves)? When we look at the situation the bullies are natural leaders that could induce everyone to play nice, if they choose to play nice games rather than bulling games. I see this situation taking place in other domains but for now will continue with this framing. The general question here encompasses a larger issue. It involves establishing ways to ensure the better ways 'infect and prosper' rather than the other way around. CONSIDER that we want others to change and embrace "a two-way discussion of the subject at hand" rather than accepting their unilateral stance which they just want to hold because of what they hold OR we what the unreasonable to be reasonable... Asking 'better for who' exposes a common notion that keeps some from realizing that what be better for them involves what be better for others. In a way I am also asking how do we get those who ignore the need to change and do not want to change to change to ensure that when I am one of those I change. Hope this helps to focus a bit more this thread and maybe discover a thing or two worth cultivating... Sorry for butting in et-thoughts, we cross-posted. Edited June 4, 2012 by gatito Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted June 4, 2012 Sorry for butting in et-thoughts, we cross-posted. As far as I am concerned, 'Please butt in!' The more people engaged in the discussion the better it should be and the more helpful it will be for others. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) The reason I ask centers on discovering what I need to do to change what needs changing especially when the reasoning and logic used keeps beings from changing it rather than helping individuals make the change happen. Excellent example to work with. During my service in the Army I practiced "lead by example". Worked most of the time. But then there would occasionally be the person who did not want to play the game. That person needed to be bullied into doing what needed to be done. In the playground, the bully can be ignored. That is, the others must come to the support of the one who is being bullied so that the efforts of the bully are negligible. The bully must be denied power over the meek. If the bully changes and begins playing by the rules then that person should be admitted to the group as a common member. Again, leading by example, walking our talk, is the best way to influence others toward a change that would be in their best interest. But still, the other person must realize that they need to change before any attempt toward change will happen. Edited June 4, 2012 by Marblehead Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted June 4, 2012 Gatito, I saw the link you provided... and think that.... :-) Me being, depends on me being ... the thinking, feeling, experiencing of dialogues is like the breathing in and out. If someone ask you to stop reasoning thinking talking listening breading feeling always remember that there is a reason ... and it may reflect what THEY need to do rather than what YOU need to do... better to focus and direct the thinking talking listening breading feeling than to stop them altogether... The same goes for the thoughts, the feelings, the experiences, the words, the actions, the body, the mind, the spirit, the ego, better to focus and direct them than the opposite... Wonder what you meant by cross posting and the other stuff you said... you are always welcomed to contribute as far as I am concerned... there is always a reason for everything that happens... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted June 4, 2012 indeed! Ditto that... its for others and for us... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) The reason I ask centers on discovering what I need to do to change what needs changing especially when the reasoning and logic used keeps beings from changing it rather than helping individuals make the change happen. Why seek the change? well to bring about a transformation for the betterment and enrichment of each and all. Folks often operate using paradigms for their behavior Being dropped into a situation for which they have no paradigm opens them up to "leadership by example" because they want a workable paradigm Making a paradigm untenable or unpleasant can work too, as in bullying But folks also have multiple levels of paradigm some folks have a predisposition to copy authority some folks rebel toward it some folks respond to being able to confide or hear confidences other folks might open up so they can relate intimately there are lots of ways to approach "teaching" and each student is different the constant factor is adaptation of the message and the circumstance to the student. But understand ,that often folks hold on to their ideas and identities like grim death was upon them. (that includes teachers ) I know from my own limited teaching experiences that, when faced with blank expressions, I tend to fall into a cadence , like a carney , or baptist minister,, the ideas flow out from me as I hope to strike thate critical spot which opens the door,, and soon the class would become lost sleepy hypnotized yet unresponsive their brains close up and the time is wasted.. which is why I space my sentences in these posts such as I do (to avoid that overload) Stosh Edited June 4, 2012 by Stosh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
