The Sage not acting for reward

[GrandmasterP]

Is it just me but whenever one of those 'retention' threads gets going I want to post...

" Just get married. Problem solved."

 

Edited July 2, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[manitou]

Is it just me but whenever one of those 'retention' threads gets going I want to post...

" Just get married. Problem solved."

 

 

 

Yes, but getting married doesn't promote tantric sex, lol.

[manitou]

I am working on him to see the spiritual, but certainly not the religious!

 

 

Hope you're up for a challenge

[flowing hands]

 

 

Hope you're up for a challenge

I think compared to some challenges I have, a relatively small one!!!

[Marblehead]

Yeah, you won't find any religion in there but there is stuff that I rarely show to others. Don't get lost while you are inside.

[Daeluin]

I want to ask a question that has been grinding on me for some time.

 

Let me put to you this every day scenario.

 

A lives with B. A is a sage, goes about his way and acts out of goodness. He does a lot of work around the house, cooks meals for both and ensures that B is well looked after, regardless of the amount of time and effort he puts in. It is often tiring, but A looks past this and carries on day to day. He doesn't seek acknowledgement and praise for what he does, he just continues out of sheer kindness.

 

B is a busy person, but no more busy than A. B is not a sage but prioritises himself before the home environment. B still helps A out, but nowhere near as regularly and when he does clean the place, or cook a meal, he boasts and seeks praise and acknowledgement.

 

Regardless of A's efforts, A cannot help but feel frustrated by the fact that despite all his day-to-day work, it is B that wants to make themselves feel good. A begins to get sad because it is as if he doesn't do much!

 

--------

 

Now, A being a sage, well, if he IS a sage, should he be paying attention to B's ego? Should he be letting it affect him and speak up and put them back in their place? Or should he be calm, breathe and just let them carry on in this same way for the rest of their lives?

 

If I were an animal born into an oppressive family situation, I might naturally exercise freedom to survive on my own. In some species this is part of their nature.

 

On the other hand, if I were a tree born into an oppressive situation, I'd selflessly make the best of it. In an unhealthy forest I might find myself contending with a strangler fig, overly crowded circumstances without balance, etc. Without too much say in the matter I would bow before nature and allow time to sort things out.

 

Humanity is in between. Once we were few and could exercise great freedoms. When there are so very many of us, our freedom to explore self-serving ambitions is limited. Without frameworks of limitation we would destroy our environment. Think sanitation, food, shelter, violence. Think on the population of the United States (318m) compared to China (1.365b) or India (1.246b).

 

Often limitations are found in forms of violence and law. Limitations set by principle are more elegant. In Confucianism the classic of xiao (filial piety) teaches principles whereby one strictly stays in ones place in the web of life (to paraphrase; it seems biased towards the human web of life). One knows one's place and avoids chaos by staying in it. One also endeavors to correct imbalances within the web of life, and thus an effective system of maintaining balance and correcting imbalance is found. This is very similar to the life of a tree.

 

On the other hand we have Capitalism, where the main principle is ambition. Balance is achieved by ever changing laws and a specific shared value system. There is much oppression and the right answer is to find your own way to wholeness through the chaos and destruction. This tends to follow the law of the jungle animals: kill or be killed.

 

In terms of person A and person B, which system should one follow?

 

I think either is fine..... but!!!!

Boy do we land in circumstances we need to be in.

 

A sage cultivates superior te. Virtue that is not used of itself. Pure wholeness. It does not express of itself, but is manifested everywhere. Any intentional control over ones environment, inner or outer, is the use of inferior te. A sage is like a leaf on the wind. It does not move itself, but it's natural shape uniquely maneuvers it into the proper place. People talk of immortals in their minds. In enter the dragon gate Wang Liping has students all with similar dreams of his teaching them while they slept. But he denies any involvement, saying that is what happens at higher levels of cultivation. When we pass by a sage, we are changed in whatever way we are open to. It is not the sage who decides, it is us and our flow with the tao. In this way the sage retains the purity and emptiness that defines them as sage or immortal. Perhaps they are still working on becoming Celestial Immortals, and are still dissolving the emptiness of their past incarnations.

 

I have much experience in the shoes of a person A who is not a sage. My destiny lead me to seek the tao. I have limited connection with person B these days, and yet I understand person B to be the one primary challenge I must face equanimously to become and retain my wholeness.

 

May I find my wholeness without person B? Yes.

 

But is it likely I will survive the unwinding of my karmic past, and thus maintain my wholeness, without overcoming the challenges person B presents to me? Not very.

 

The answer depends on how you want to cultivate yourself. Regardless, life always puts us where we need to be.

 

My approach has been to work towards harmony, avoiding conflict, step by step. First know my center. Next understand when I lose my center. Understand when I react, etc. Often I feel like a cart with a broken axle, being demanded to move (hex 26 line 2). I don't need to move. I don't need to respond to questions when the answers aren't waited for. There is no reason to feel hurt when person B's unrealistic needs of me are not met. The longer I can maintain open and compassionate, the longer I can maintain my relationship with person B. Perhaps one day I will become so centered, empty and radiant that person B finds themselves unable to find a way in, or need for one.

 

But if I cast away my relationship with person B as a negative influence, perhaps they will attach to me in the afterlife. Depends on the relationship. Surely I have encountered similar patterns with others, but those lessons are much simpler to learn than this one. Every person will have that handful of triggers that must be faced in order to break through.

 

Hexagram 21 is about breaking through such situations. I wonder, would a Sage find violence in their path and decide to take a different route? That would be an act of inferior te. I think a Sage would move into the violence or conflagration of blockage through to the end and emerge from the other side transformed.

 

See Chuang Zu, story of the Butcher, who enters emptiness when the knife reaches the knot in muscle, and even then the knife emerges from the tangle effortlessly and not a bit duller. We tend to attach to a certain pace of life, and when we reach obstacles we want the solutions to match our current pace. But if we go inside and slow down, what appears to be a tangle is full of openings, the way appears, and we walk on down the path, never separating from our connection to the tao.

[manitou]

But is it likely I will survive the unwinding of my karmic past, and thus maintain my wholeness, without overcoming the challenges person B presents to me? Not very.

 

Amen about 21 times over on this statement.

 

This is the very thing that keeps us seeking out the same type of person, whether we want to or not. Even if the other person appears exactly 'opposite' to the last one you left, sooner or later the offending dynamic will appear.

 

An inside job, it is. The type of person we're attracted to is the other half of our inner entanglements. If we keep leaving and jumping from one to another to find the "right person", we're doing it wrong. At some point, we need to realize that it's not always Them.

 

It's Us. When we 'become the person' we want to be with, we will attract the right person to be with. Sticking it out with our entangled-other gives us a real opportunity to see ourselves and make the necessary modifications, if we become able to step out and look. I have personally taken this route for 30 years with the same fellow and although it was all forked up for some years, it's gotten Golden now.

 

Developing Te (virtue) is what is developed during this process. Or we can choose to jump around and play musical chairs. Either way is fine, but developing the Te of one's self by discovering one's own entanglements is what it's all about, IMO.

Edited July 3, 2014 by manitou

[Daeluin]

After I posted, I knew it was time to leave.

I walked home, exchanged greetings, checked the mail.

Then felt drawn to consult the yijing.

Didn't ask a question, just went straight up, in the moment.

 

47 - Lake over Water.

Besieged

Entrapped

Exhausted

 

On the top of the stack of books to my left was Hua-Ching Ni's The Book of Changes and the Unchanging Truth. Picked it up, read.... bam! Exactly about this conversation:

 

"Entrapment. This is the time to keep to oneself. A great person nourishes his personality to alter his future. No blame, though now his words are not trusted."

 

At first I thought it was tell me to keep my opinions to myself. I'm familiar with the concept of the lake being drained by the body of water below. But... the very character is of "a tree, surrounded by a very tight and confining environment". The yijing never ceases to amaze me.

 

I highly recommend reading the full description in this particular book. Here's an excerpt: "The normal tendency of people is to avoid difficulty. However, in times of being seized, the I Ching teaches stillness and quietude. During such times, the mind is usually unbalanced, actions are not centered, and words are not believed. It is crucial to calm oneself, to gather and center one's energy, and to face, accept and experience the difficulty. After one's eyes adjust to the darkness, they will be able to see again. Likewise, after one adjusts to a new situation, there may be an opportunity for reform, or a new solution to the problem may be found."

[Marblehead]

Developing Te (virtue) is what is developed during this process. Or we can choose to jump around and play musical chairs. Either way is fine, but developing the Te of one's self by discovering one's own entanglements is what it's all about, IMO.

That's good!

[Daeluin]

So.... shortly after my last post I heard a cracking or popping noise behind me.

 

Pop! -pause- Pop! -pause- Pop!

 

There, over my bed was a firefly caught in a spider web. The firefly was struggling, and the spider was there with it... I couldn't quite tell if the popping came from the spider biting the carapace, or if it was caused by the firefly's struggle. Either way the noise drew my attention, and I soberly reflected how much this scenario fits with our theme. This morning I awake and the struggling has stopped, the firefly is fully encased in a white cocoon.

 

So I think when we're in these situations we need to make sure we can develop and not be destroyed. Often I bet it's a pretty fine line, perhaps without any room for choices. Especially as children we may be broken by our home situations, but as long as we aren't killed and don't give up, we may still heal. Even when wrapped in chains by our enemies, waiting for the spider to want it's meal so to say, perhaps there is a way out. King Wen comes to mind. On the other hand there are many circumstances more likely to destroy us before we develop.

[GrandmasterP]

Time to get out the vacuum cleaner maybe?

Any spiders' webs in our house are immediately 'consigned' along with the hopeful blessing to " Become a Buddha".

 

Edited July 4, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Rara]

"The normal tendency of people is to avoid difficulty. However, in times of being seized, the I Ching teaches stillness and quietude. During such times, the mind is usually unbalanced, actions are not centered, and words are not believed. It is crucial to calm oneself, to gather and center one's energy, and to face, accept and experience the difficulty. After one's eyes adjust to the darkness, they will be able to see again. Likewise, after one adjusts to a new situation, there may be an opportunity for reform, or a new solution to the problem may be found."

Yes, now calmness is very important. But I cannot say this is the same as not taking any action. In martial arts, remaining calm when being attacked is vital for clarity of the situation and being able to strike acurately. Regardless, the reality of the situation is that the attacker is trying to harm you, so in return, your intent needs to be to give them a firm lesson back in return. Still calm. Still compassionate. But the fact of the matter is that you need to have the intent to win.

 

Now, the A and B scenario isn't a life or death situation, and I do think that A can do more to cultivate their own selves and handle things a lot better. But even being calm, A can still tell B exactly what is required to make their relationship work better...even if it does require some assertive yelling?

 

I've seen your DM. Will reply when I get a chance.

[manitou]

totally excellent posts, Daeluin. You seem to have an excellent grasp of merging our Higher Self with the mundane. And it's easy to see that you've done much work to diminish ego, as your viewpoint involves this sidestepping of ego.

 

The normal thing folks do, before finding their Higher Self, is to just run from the problem and hope it goes away, not realizing that they contain the dynamic within themselves that keeps creating the same problem in different forms. The Sage, as you say, would take the 'opportunity' to work this out throughout the situation. I'd handle it with 'not-doing', and tracking my own actions.

 

Rara - if both folks want to see the relationship improve, sure - some talking is wonderful. But if the one (say, person B is only interested in being the focus of A's attention, for example, and has the attitude of a selfish child most of the time - then no amount of yelling is going to change person B. Person A, by yelling, is only solidifying his own dynamic of buying into this type of codependent behavior. One choice Person A has is to either accept the fact that person B is not going to change (by person A's efforts - it must only be done at person B's efforts) and change himself to remain in the situation (which involves a lot of loss of ego, obviously). Person A as a Sage would see this as an opportunity for his own growth.

 

By 'not-doing' in this situation, this is what I have had to do for 30 years. Let Person B be Person B, and realize that I am there by my own choice. This is to take full responsibility for our lives - to realize the part we actually play in all this. It causes and enables a type of transcension where we realize that Person B actually has no responsibility in Person A's happiness. That's Person A's business and, and until Person A finds a way to make himself whole, he'll keep looking for wholeness in persons who have Person B's dynamic. the results will repeat over and over until the dynamic is seen for what it is; a replay of our inner bathtub ring of comfort (if we were abused, etc., this "feeling" is our comfort zone in some strange way.

 

If we choose the 'not doing' way, it is a constant inner discipline to transcend the negative dynamics. But 30 years later, it's finally come around to an equal and enjoyable relationship. But this is only because I've changed myself, and because I stopped hollering at Joe and expect him to be something other than he was, it freed Joe from the co-dependent dynamic as well. He followed suit and changed himself and got serious about doing the inner work. This was not at my behest. It has been a very long lesson for both of us. but extremely well worth it.

 

Some would say "This means you're a doormat to person B". We're only a doormat when we repeat the behavior over and over. It takes supreme suppression of ego to transcend this behavior by acceptance. Our ego takes a beating. But, sooner or later, this produces clarity.

Edited July 4, 2014 by manitou

[doc benway]

I want to ask a question that has been grinding on me for some time.

 

Let me put to you this every day scenario.

 

A lives with B. A is a sage, goes about his way and acts out of goodness. He does a lot of work around the house, cooks meals for both and ensures that B is well looked after, regardless of the amount of time and effort he puts in. It is often tiring, but A looks past this and carries on day to day. He doesn't seek acknowledgement and praise for what he does, he just continues out of sheer kindness.

 

B is a busy person, but no more busy than A. B is not a sage but prioritises himself before the home environment. B still helps A out, but nowhere near as regularly and when he does clean the place, or cook a meal, he boasts and seeks praise and acknowledgement.

 

Regardless of A's efforts, A cannot help but feel frustrated by the fact that despite all his day-to-day work, it is B that wants to make themselves feel good. A begins to get sad because it is as if he doesn't do much!

If A cannot help but feel frustrated by B's lack of enlightened behavior, then A, in fact, is certainly not a sage.

A is further along the path than B, but the sage is not bothered by the selfish behavior of others.

It is a very tough thing to achieve, but once attained it is quite liberating!

 

 

Now, A being a sage, well, if he IS a sage, should he be paying attention to B's ego? Should he be letting it affect him and speak up and put them back in their place? Or should he be calm, breathe and just let them carry on in this same way for the rest of their lives?

A should do the right thing for the sake of her own spiritual growth and for the pleasure of helping B to be happy.

If A is concerned about B's ego, she should remind herself that it is her own ego that she should attend to.

If B is fortunate enough to notice, he may begin to recognize A's enlightened qualities and look to stepping onto the path himself.

However, not all people are ready to walk this path at any given point in their lives and there is nothing we can do but follow our own path and help them in whatever way we can to achieve their own objectives, not ours.

 

Edit - don't have the time to read the thread right now, so if my post above is redundant, my apologies

Edited July 5, 2014 by steve

[Rara]

totally excellent posts, Daeluin. You seem to have an excellent grasp of merging our Higher Self with the mundane. And it's easy to see that you've done much work to diminish ego, as your viewpoint involves this sidestepping of ego.

 

The normal thing folks do, before finding their Higher Self, is to just run from the problem and hope it goes away, not realizing that they contain the dynamic within themselves that keeps creating the same problem in different forms. The Sage, as you say, would take the 'opportunity' to work this out throughout the situation. I'd handle it with 'not-doing', and tracking my own actions.

 

Rara - if both folks want to see the relationship improve, sure - some talking is wonderful. But if the one (say, person B is only interested in being the focus of A's attention, for example, and has the attitude of a selfish child most of the time - then no amount of yelling is going to change person B. Person A, by yelling, is only solidifying his own dynamic of buying into this type of codependent behavior. One choice Person A has is to either accept the fact that person B is not going to change (by person A's efforts - it must only be done at person B's efforts) and change himself to remain in the situation (which involves a lot of loss of ego, obviously). Person A as a Sage would see this as an opportunity for his own growth.

 

By 'not-doing' in this situation, this is what I have had to do for 30 years. Let Person B be Person B, and realize that I am there by my own choice. This is to take full responsibility for our lives - to realize the part we actually play in all this. It causes and enables a type of transcension where we realize that Person B actually has no responsibility in Person A's happiness. That's Person A's business and, and until Person A finds a way to make himself whole, he'll keep looking for wholeness in persons who have Person B's dynamic. the results will repeat over and over until the dynamic is seen for what it is; a replay of our inner bathtub ring of comfort (if we were abused, etc., this "feeling" is our comfort zone in some strange way.

 

If we choose the 'not doing' way, it is a constant inner discipline to transcend the negative dynamics. But 30 years later, it's finally come around to an equal and enjoyable relationship. But this is only because I've changed myself, and because I stopped hollering at Joe and expect him to be something other than he was, it freed Joe from the co-dependent dynamic as well. He followed suit and changed himself and got serious about doing the inner work. This was not at my behest. It has been a very long lesson for both of us. but extremely well worth it.

 

Some would say "This means you're a doormat to person B". We're only a doormat when we repeat the behavior over and over. It takes supreme suppression of ego to transcend this behavior by acceptance. Our ego takes a beating. But, sooner or later, this produces clarity.

I think there is a lot in what you say I'm not convinced that there is 100% no desire to change someone though.

 

When we enter relationships, or have kids, there always has to be an ounce of expectation...or wanting the best for them. We can let them be who they are a lot of the time. That is love and allows growth in my eyes, but an element of us nurturing and protecting means sometimes giving someone a stern lecture at least, if not yelling.

 

Even the choice of finding a partner/soul mate/spouse...however we want to look at it. We find that we always end up settling with someone that we are compatible with. We don't seek out people we don't have anything in common with.

 

My point being, we wouldn't go and deliberately go on a date with, say, someone that has been married three times before and just been released from jail for battering his third wife. With this info at hand, even if we got through the date, we wouldn't then end up going through a full on relationship and marriage, accepting them for who they are - if they hadn't changed at all. The natural condition for the most lenient of us would be to tell them that we could give the relationship a go, but "if you lay a finger on me, I'm walkin'".

 

An extreme situation, but you know what I mean.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Rara

[Rara]

 

A should do the right thing for the sake of her own spiritual growth and for the pleasure of helping B to be happy.

If A is concerned about B's ego, she should remind herself that it is her own ego that she should attend to.

If B is fortunate enough to notice, he may begin to recognize A's enlightened qualities and look to stepping onto the path himself.

However, not all people are ready to walk this path at any given point in their lives and there is nothing we can do but follow our own path and help them in whatever way we can to achieve their own objectives, not ours.

 

Yes, so there is some sort of lecture at least? I'm trying to define the relationship between acceptance and having some sort of desire to change someone.

 

Is it one, or the other, or a bit of both?

[Rara]

The question now seems to be...what is the nature of the sage? Seems to me that it is an evolution of mind...maturity at its finest.

[nestentrie]

Yes, so there is some sort of lecture at least? I'm trying to define the relationship between acceptance and having some sort of desire to change someone.

 

Is it one, or the other, or a bit of both?

 

If you're accepting of them, yet still want something deeper (i.e to love them) then I think you're talking about believing in them. Believing in them is believing in them for who they are, believing that where they spend their energies leads to fruit, and enjoying that fruit together with them when they feel confident in themselves (or even just relaxed about themselves).

 

Believing in anything else besides is not grounds for accepting them. It's a back and forth that can't be tampered with. Tampering either with your attitude towards those things or tampering with the person themselves is neither belief nor acceptance.

 

There's of course more than acceptance and belief turning the wheels of any relationship, but if it were me I'd want to be clear about those differences. I'd want to know that I have the proper perspective before I do anything.

[manitou]

 

My point being, we wouldn't go and deliberately go on a date with, say, someone that has been married three times before and just been released from jail for battering his third wife. With this info at hand, even if we got through the date, we wouldn't then end up going through a full on relationship and marriage, accepting them for who they are - if they hadn't changed at all. The natural condition for the most lenient of us would be to tell them that we could give the relationship a go, but "if you lay a finger on me, I'm walkin'".

 

 

 

 

Extraordinarily enough, this type of man would have been attractive to me at one time! My bathtub ring was so low, my self esteem was so bad - and I would cover all this up by nabbing fellows just as you described above and try to 'fix' them. Actually, when I met Joe - he had done a total of 19 years in jail, 12 of which were for a murder he apparently committed in a bar fight with a crowbar but doesn't remember.

 

I so wish(ed) that I could have said 'I'm Walkin!', and mean it. I said 'I'm Walkin' plenty of times, but I always managed to turn around and walk right back into the door. When the dynamics are That Entangled, it takes some heavy inner work to disentangle ourselves. The co-dependency is a might strong force, and we can mistake that force for Love all the time.

 

After years of inner work on the part of both Joe and myself, we've had pretty clear sailing the last couple years. I can actually say that we love each other now for the endearing friends we have become - not because of the codependency.

[Daeluin]

Yes, now calmness is very important. But I cannot say this is the same as not taking any action. In martial arts, remaining calm when being attacked is vital for clarity of the situation and being able to strike acurately. Regardless, the reality of the situation is that the attacker is trying to harm you, so in return, your intent needs to be to give them a firm lesson back in return. Still calm. Still compassionate. But the fact of the matter is that you need to have the intent to win.

 

Where I train, we are taught to yield to be whole.

 

In the Taoist I-Ching the predominant theme is wrapping firmness in flexibility. Flexibility meets the outside world and flows with it, firmness and purity on the inside, calm and still. When we yield, we are flexible and the outside world cannot disturb our inner peace; we are not hit by our enemies, and they do not damage our wholeness.

 

In terms of banking, this is like having two accounts, one for saving, one for flexibly ebbing and flowing with the daily costs of life. When the savings account is accessed frequently, it has a hard time filling up. When the flexible account is able to adequately deal with the ebb and flow of income vs costs, the savings account can peacefully expand.

 

I believe it was in Socrates, I read of how the student met his master, a man of few words. The master finally agreed to teach the student, and did so by attacking him when his back was turned or when he was sleeping; whenever his guard was down. The student became so frustrated by this that one night he attempted to attack the master in his sleep. When the student struck, the master merely rolled over in his sleep without waking. He dodged this way several times before the student gave up. Eventually the student learned the lesson.

 

Is it not the same in communication-fu? Rather than swapping blow for blow with the intent to win, why not slip past the blow flexibly and retain wholeness? Seems to me we only care about winning when we are afraid of losing. So why do we have to lose? Personally I'd rather not win, as that would mean the other loses.

 

After my first year in near daily taiji practice I started becoming very sensitive. I noticed how easy it was to hear insult in both the energetic expression and choice of words people used to communicated with me. (I also noticed this in my own word choices, to my dismay.)

 

My tendency was to react when I felt the stab of someone's insensitive energetic/verbal projection. I would try to explain how and why their way of communicating hurt me. But... over time I realized two things. First, I was the one who changed, becoming more aware of the same environment.

 

Second, I realized that people react to attacks with defenses. So.....

 

Now, the A and B scenario isn't a life or death situation, and I do think that A can do more to cultivate their own selves and handle things a lot better. But even being calm, A can still tell B exactly what is required to make their relationship work better...even if it does require some assertive yelling?

 

.... when you yell at someone, they're probably going to close off even more, and become less receptive to change. Perhaps the stronger they're yelled at, the more change will be forced upon them, but because the change is caused by force, it carries the memory of pain.

 

I'm not convinced that there is 100% no desire to change someone though.

 

Desire tends to come from ego. Without ego we may discern various imbalanced patterns a person follows, but it is our ego which pompously decides this person would be better served if they could change. What if that person is happy with their patterns? Then our desire to change them is actually a form of violence.

 

Ponder on the Vinegar Tasters.

 

When we enter relationships, or have kids, there always has to be an ounce of expectation...or wanting the best for them. We can let them be who they are a lot of the time. That is love and allows growth in my eyes, but an element of us nurturing and protecting means sometimes giving someone a stern lecture at least, if not yelling.

 

When people are not whole, they are attracted to those who match their incompleteness, so the two may form a quasi-whole. One's strengths balance out the other's weaknesses, one's expressions match the others desires.... at first these are the things we are attracted by, and over time we discover the incompatibilities and if things are able to settle into a mutually acceptable wholeness, the relationship lasts... or doesn't.

 

In such relationships, and families, we share our wholeness with each other, and actively struggle to enact changes to maintain the wholeness.

 

But if we can discover and maintain our own wholeness, as manitou has experienced, over time the other may come to grow into their own wholeness as well. And such a relationship may allow children to discover their own wholeness, and so on.

 

Yes, so there is some sort of lecture at least? I'm trying to define the relationship between acceptance and having some sort of desire to change someone.

 

Is it one, or the other, or a bit of both?

 

Any lecture is wasted energy if it falls on deaf ears. We really need to be aware of how receptive a person is. When a person is aware of some patterns that aren't serving them, and receptive, then there may be much we can share with them.

 

But in this case person B seems to have a full cup. They seem to be attached to their way of being, even if these patterns don't always result in happiness.

 

So, if an attack results in defensiveness, that tends to close things up even more. On the other hand, I've found that when I radiate trust to a person, sending love and intention to nourish them however they need it, and communicate with them in a way that is not patronizing or condescending, but full of acceptance for who they are right now, this is when they lower their defenses and open up.

 

When this happens I've noticed people have come to a place of comfort and trust they rarely allow. In this state they naturally want to talk about troubling patterns, and will even initiate this conversation.

 

The question now seems to be...what is the nature of the sage? Seems to me that it is an evolution of mind...maturity at its finest.

 

The sage uses the mind of tao. It is free of conditioning patterns, but is also most dynamic. It waxes and wanes with naturalness, flowing to remain in harmonious connection with the tao of the present environment.

[Rara]

@Daeluin

 

I'm not convinced. In a practical sense.

 

While being reactive does cause friction, like fighting fire with fire, being placid hardly works any better. I have found engagements in which I have remained calm and yeilding have resulted in the next person getting more annoyed because I don't appear to care.

 

There is another option...to smile and nod. Quite hard of you're not in agreement...

 

A: I enjoy looking at the flowers

B: I hate the flowers. Why do you have to interrupt me when I'm watching the TV! Shut up

A: Smiles and nods

 

The whole exchange and reason for the two to be sat together in the first place seems utterly pointless.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Rara

[Rara]

 

 

Extraordinarily enough, this type of man would have been attractive to me at one time! My bathtub ring was so low, my self esteem was so bad - and I would cover all this up by nabbing fellows just as you described above and try to 'fix' them. Actually, when I met Joe - he had done a total of 19 years in jail, 12 of which were for a murder he apparently committed in a bar fight with a crowbar but doesn't remember.

 

I so wish(ed) that I could have said 'I'm Walkin!', and mean it. I said 'I'm Walkin' plenty of times, but I always managed to turn around and walk right back into the door. When the dynamics are That Entangled, it takes some heavy inner work to disentangle ourselves. The co-dependency is a might strong force, and we can mistake that force for Love all the time.

 

After years of inner work on the part of both Joe and myself, we've had pretty clear sailing the last couple years. I can actually say that we love each other now for the endearing friends we have become - not because of the codependency.

Wow! What caused Joe to change...radically, if you don't mind me asking?

[Songtsan]

It would seem that by simply being a sage, one would effect change by ones mere presence, without ever having the thought to do or say anything. Thus one could simply be present, and let ones actions speak for themselves without holding worry or intent to change anything. By being true to ones word, in form and action, one would spread virtue without seeming to do anything on purpose.

[Marblehead]

A: I enjoy looking at the flowers

B: I hate the flowers. Why do you have to interrupt me when I'm watching the TV! Shut up

A: Smiles and nods

 

The whole exchange and reason for the two to be sat together in the first place seems utterly pointless.

Hehehe. Time for a divorce.

[Rara]

Hehehe. Time for a divorce.

Yes haha, perhaps!

 

But you see what I'm saying.

 

Now, what if you can't divorce? A is the 16 y/o daughter or B. B goes on to beat her regularly...especially if she doesn't do the dishes!

 

Will tolerance/cultivation make her a sage? Or will standing up for herself, telling pa where to go make her a sage?

 

Shouldn't she get some recognition for doing the dishes, rather than a punch?