Let'r rip Chi Dragon!

[deci belle]

Chi Dragon said:

 

 

I believe from a religious point of view, selflessness is above all and vulnerability is not an issue. The truth must reveal itself without fear.

 

 

[deci belle]

Selflessness is already true. It is not even a matter of religion, so let's dispense with that perspective and assume the perspective of the revealed.

 

Your nature is selfless, and your function, should you discover it, is nothing less than selfless adaption to ordinary circumstances.

 

 

Unless one is absolutely vulnerable,

there is no entry into the inconceivable~

as even if one has penetrated the light oneself,

unless one can act on that knowledge

it is as if one had no knowledge.

[ChiDragon]

Yes, selfless may not be a matter of religion. Thus it may be considered to be a matter of personal cultivation.

Edited December 6, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Protector]

Thread is over

[soaring crane]

Thread is over

 

Seems to still be active....?

[dawei]

IMO, it is not personal... it is a matter of destiny or not.

 

If you want to choose to eat chocolate or not; play the lotto or not; eat and drink as you want... enjoy your personal pursuits and ambitions... even if meditation it is simply a personal ambition, if not a destiny.

[deci belle]

Oh!! it does still work. I'd just PM'd Chi to see if he could re-start this thread under another guise to circumvent Protector's issues. Perhaps Protector might want to start a thread about this issue in the mod section?

 

So ya, personal cultivation would certainly be relevant in terms of looking at aspects of one's selfless nature.

 

I'm not sure yet where this might go, but since selflessness is the underlying characteristic of the nature of perception, one doesn't cultivate selflessness, per se— but would necessarily mitigate the effects of habitual usage of consciousness by such cultivation techniques, sure.

 

It might then be possible to arrive at freer associations made possible by the uncovering of hidden capacities of awareness as layers of habitual consciousness lose their tyrannical grip over other, intuitive, avenues of cognitive awareness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ed note: italicize part of 1st paragraph

Edited December 7, 2013 by deci belle

[Marblehead]

Thinking that one is selfless is contrary to the nature of the human animal. It is contrary to one's own true self. And those who have so far posted in this thread are horrible examples of selflessness. (Yes, I am a horrible example too but then I have never claimed to be selfless or have had any desire to be so.)

[ChiDragon]

"Selflessness" doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. Unfortunately, so far, no one knows what the philosophy behind "selflessness" is from a point of view of a Taoist or a Buddhist.

[Marblehead]

"Selflessness" doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. Unfortunately, so far, no one knows what the philosophy behind "selflessness" is from a point of view of a Taoist or a Buddhist.

The Buddhist concept has been screwed up by all the new-agers.

 

Selfless isn't spoken about much in Taoism but if you want to give it a shot I will listen. (But I likely will comment afterwards.)

[ChiDragon]

The term "selflessness" is only a humble expression for a modest individual. It means that the individual was being impartial without bias, prejudice, nor self centered but put others in the front and oneself behind. Isn't that good to be cultivated for being a nice person, so to speak. To a Taoist, that is the cultivation of Xing(性) for the mind.

[Marblehead]

Sure. I think that humility would be good enough in the 'real world'. And sometimes in 'real life' we do need take the lead. But this too can be done with humility as well.

[ChiDragon]

Sure. I think that humility would be good enough in the 'real world'. And sometimes in 'real life' we do need take the lead. But this too can be done with humility as well.

 

To a Taoist is a one way street, but to MH is a two way street.

[Marblehead]

 

To a Taoist is a one way street, but to MH is a two way street.

Absolutely. If you are not flexible you will be easily broken.

[ChiDragon]

Absolutely. If you are not flexible you will be easily broken.

Okay! Have you seen a broken Taoist?

[Marblehead]

Okay! Have you seen a broken Taoist?

I have seen broken pretenders.

[ChiDragon]

I have seen broken pretenders.

Who is asking you about the pretenders....???

[Marblehead]

Who is asking you about the pretenders....???

Well, I couldn't answer your other question directly so I had to imagine another question and answer that one.

[Stosh]

Selfishness does or can serve all the nice and pleasant needs of self-less-ness without the forced faked hypocrisy, Even BETTER,, if a person is good at heart to begin with.. becasue such a person can consider the state of others as their own but doesnt have to make the choices blindly assuming since one understands onesself better than someone else, and, can reserve their generosity to those which deserve it.

EX. my posting of this, it is promoting my views , which is the selfish part

but it could be beneficial to someone else, as I see it , if they wanted to understand it,, which I know no one probably will.

If I was really being selfless about my post , then I would be having to write something I wouldnt really want to present ,( otherwise it would be the same as my selfish post) which would be a kind of BS on my part , and most likely my platitudes would be more welcome, since such are not as scary.

[ChiDragon]

Stosh....

Your presentation on "selfish" was used in a positive way which a scholar would have done. Thus people have no objection about that. However, people will not be tolerated if it was used in a negative sense.

Selflessness is like someone had done something negative to a Taoist; and the Taoist will not see or hear what has been taken place as long as it's not a matter of life or death. Another words, if a Taoist was being insulted, the selfless Taoist would think nothing of it is because verbal attack means nothing but only just words. Insults are only mental teasing. A Taoist can tolerate any mental abuse due to the high cultivated level of Xing Kung(mind discipline).

[Brian]

Ah, the stuff we learned in kindergarten -- sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me...

[ChiDragon]

The most trivial is the hardest for someone to see. Do you know how difficult for some people to be held back on some verbal abuse?

[Stosh]

Stosh....

 

Your presentation on "selfish" was used in a positive way which a scholar would have done. Thus people have no objection about that. However, people will not be tolerated if it was used in a negative sense.

 

Selflessness is like someone had done something negative to a Taoist; and the Taoist will not see or hear what has been taken place as long as it's not a matter of life or death. Another words, if a Taoist was being insulted, the selfless Taoist would think nothing of it is because verbal attack means nothing but only just words. Insults are only mental teasing. A Taoist can tolerate any mental abuse due to the high cultivated level of Xing Kung(mind discipline).

Fair enough. yes. very very similar 'negative sense' though, IMO, is a subjective thing and therefore equates to what people like or dont ( including me) . So if I try to not give myself any headaches, Ill end up doing what goes down smoother anyway ,, again ,same as "selfless" as I see it , just moderated, sincere, and no debts incurred.

[nestentrie]

Since this is a Taoist forum, I can probably get away with putting in a cent of opinion from myself, and the other two from Chuang Tzu (3 cents! we're rich!).

 

Extreme selfishness comes in 4 forms, which the Chuang Tzu describes as being the four evils a person is subject to. They are; to be fond of conducting great affairs, changing and altering what is of long-standing, to obtain for one's self the reputation of meritorious service (Ambition); to claim all wisdom and intrude into affairs, encroaching on the work of others, and representing it as one's own (Greediness); to see his errors without changing them, and to go on more resolutely in his own way when remonstrated with (Obstinacy); when another agrees with himself, to approve of him, and, however good he may be, when he disagrees, to disapprove of him (Boastful conceit).

 

In the case of ambition the person is paying no regard to what others have established, their own concern for reciprocation comes first. This is selfishness in its poor form.

 

In the case of greediness the person wants what's theirs (or what they think they can claim as theirs) without any concern for what belongs to others. This is selfishness in its poor form.

 

In the case of obstinacy the person is fixed in what they think is true, paying no mind to the interests and wishes of others. That another could reciprocate is of no concern. This is again selfishness in its poor form.

 

In the case of boastful conceit the person is bent on satisfying their own desires only, not only is reciprocation out of play for them, reciprocation amongst others is too. This is poor form. This is selfishness.

 

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

24

He who stands on his tiptoes does not stand firm; he who stretches
his legs does not walk (easily). (So), he who displays himself does
not shine; he who asserts his own views is not distinguished; he who
vaunts himself does not find his merit acknowledged; he who is self-
conceited has no superiority allowed to him. Such conditions, viewed
from the standpoint of the Tao, are like remnants of food, or a tumour
on the body, which all dislike. Hence those who pursue (the course)
of the Tao do not adopt and allow them.

 

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

 

Yet there is a way out.

 

The ambitious person is not un-entitled to reciprocation. It may be that the changes they seek are rights to wrongs, that what was long standing was long standing injustice. Reciprocation is the communal judgement, the communal view or opinion, on what is fair. Anyone and everyone is entitled to that.

 

The greedy person is not un-entitled to what is theirs. Perhaps that piece of wisdom, that idea, that pleasure or perspective is what is rightly owing to them. It isn't unfair or selfish if they stand by good rights over these things, that they are in fact to be held blameless for owning their own piece of something.

 

The obstinate person is not un-entitled to private space. It may be that there is a drive for personal freedom that precludes the involvement of others in personal affairs, that community can overstep the natural and just boundaries of a person. We're from time to time entitled to personal space.

 

The conceited boaster is not un-entitled to his perspective. Everyone has the right to have their own view.