Form of meditation of Lao tse and Chuang tse

[Marblehead]

2 hours ago, Stosh said:

Harmony , is it an eye for an eye?

Sometimes that will be required, yes.  Yang vs Yang so that both can seek Yin once their energy is depleted.

 

2 hours ago, Stosh said:

 

Is meditation inspired yin balancing yang , when I dominate a conversation , others must submit? 

Sometimes that will be required, yes.  But then, if you try too hard to dominate someone will likely tell you to sit down and shut up.

 

We each have our opinions and understandings.  Better to show why you feel why you are right as opposed to showing the other why they are wrong.  Let them decide if they were right or wrong.  And then, at some point when an agreement cannot be had it would be best to just agree that we disagree and let the concept go.

 

[Marblehead]

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

I don't understand how harmony might solve the problem.

I have never put this concept in words that express my feelings/understandings regarding this.

 

In fighting, when the other is too strong we don't try to match their strength but we use their strength to neutralize their strength.

 

In a discussion, when the other is being dominate (Marbleheaded) we can use logic and reason to challenge what they are saying or we can offer them a counter argument that will lead to their questioning their initial argument.

 

And other times we must just state that we have said all we can say to the particular argument and stop talking about it.

 

Harmonizing is the act of adding Yin (softness) to the hard Yang or adding Yang to Yin conditions that have not yet been resolved.

 

[wandelaar]

30 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

In a discussion, when the other is being dominate (Marbleheaded) we can use logic and reason to challenge what they are saying or we can offer them a counter argument that will lead to their questioning their initial argument.

 

And other times we must just state that we have said all we can say to the particular argument and stop talking about it.

 

I did both. First I used arguments and evidence, and when that didn't help I eventually quit debating with Stosh. I even put him on my ignore list so as to block the possibility of getting involuntarily sucked into further useless debates.

 

Quote

Harmonizing is the act of adding Yin (softness) to the hard Yang or adding Yang to Yin conditions that have not yet been resolved.

 

That might be useful when an unwanted discussion cannot be avoided...

Edited July 24, 2018 by wandelaar

[Stosh]

26 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Sometimes that will be required, yes.  Yang vs Yang so that both can seek Yin once their energy is depleted.

 

Sometimes that will be required, yes.  But then, if you try too hard to dominate someone will likely tell you to sit down and shut up.

 

We each have our opinions and understandings.  Better to show why you feel why you are right as opposed to showing the other why they are wrong.  Let them decide if they were right or wrong.  And then, at some point when an agreement cannot be had it would be best to just agree that we disagree and let the concept go.

 

Revenge is sweet they say, and sweeter still when you can justify your own aggression , by suggesting that you are just helping someone else find a path to recuperation.  Kind of like the inquisition , where they would torture people with the intent of  'showing them to the light of the savior'.

 

Those who told me to sit down and shut up are just trying to dominate the argument themselves , but with themselves at the top of the heap. They have no moral standing to push me into line as they see fit, and they are quite likely to hear me tell em to 'Make me'. 

 

I feel I am right because I am right. That should just be taken as a 'given' , a problem only exists in that they are wrong , and leaving it to them to flip sides ,over to being right, is already not going to happen , since they are going to stubbornly stick to the wrong view. 

Why not just force the opinion down their throat ? I have seen this work , especially when an element of fear is involved. Walking away with the disagreement standing , is just asking for trouble down the line. 

 

 

 

 

[rene]

3 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

I did both. First I used arguments and evidence, and when that didn't help I eventually quit debating with Stosh.

 

If someone doesn't accept your interpretation of the evidence - what you hold as a "given" that others do not - that is the time to agree to disagree, as no argument you may present would have any affect.

 

 

3 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

...I even put him on my ignore list so as to block the possibility of getting involuntarily sucked into further useless debates.

 

That might be useful when a discussion cannot be avoided...

 

People only have the power over you that you give them. How could you be "involuntarily sucked into further useless debates"? If you cannot avoid a discussion...that says something outside of yourself is controlling you. If you enjoy lively debates there is nothing wrong with that! But own that you do - rather than saying your choices are someone else's fault.

[rene]

3 minutes ago, Stosh said:

...

Walking away with the disagreement standing , is just asking for trouble down the line. 

 

 

Only if it matters to you. Or if trouble is what you like to play with.

[Stosh]

2 minutes ago, rene said:

 

Only if it matters to you. Or if trouble is what you like to play with.

Sometimes..;) 

[Stosh]

16 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

quit debating with Stosh. I even put him on my ignore list so as to block the possibility of getting involuntarily sucked into further useless debates.

 

 

 

I didn't have to put you on an ignore list , I can control myself 

[wandelaar]

12 minutes ago, rene said:

People only have the power over you that you give them. How could you be "involuntarily sucked into further useless debates"? If you cannot avoid a discussion...that says something outside of yourself is controlling you. If you enjoy lively debates there is nothing wrong with that! But own that you do - rather than saying your choices are someone else's fault.

 

That's a simplification. I enjoy lively discussions as long as it's fair play, that is: when fallacies are avoided and the participants are willing to change their opinion when good arguments are provided to do so. But I don't like discussions where good arguments are ignored, and fallacies are fabricated to defend positions that are ill founded. I consider that as foul play and as fooling oneself and possibly others. And that is where I feel an urge to intervene, to put things right as it were and to warn the reader that they are being fooled. You could call that a weakness, and I could call it concern about decent argumentation? Maybe it's both. My simplest solution is putting those Bums on my ignore list that - in my experience - most frequently use fallacies and other unfair manners of discussion. As long as I don't see it, it doesn't bother me. Not very heroic I admit, but it works.

[rene]

22 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

That's a simplification. I enjoy lively discussions as long as it's fair play, that is: when fallacies are avoided and the participants are willing to change their opinion when good arguments are provided to do so. But I don't like discussions where good arguments are ignored, and fallacies are fabricated to defend positions that are ill founded. I consider that as foul play and as fooling oneself and possibly others. And that is where I feel an urge to intervene, to put things right as it were and to warn the reader that they are being fooled. You could call that a weakness, and I could call it concern about decent argumentation? Maybe it's both. My simplest solution is putting those Bums on my ignore list that - in my experience - most frequently use fallacies and other unfair manners of discussion. As long as I don't see it, it doesn't bother me. Not very heroic I admit, but it works.

 

Thanks for the open and honest answer! 

 

Speaking only for myself: When someone does not agree with my ideas, I do not consider it 'foul play' - rather that they see things differently. Sometimes I'll ask them what they base their idea on, to learn where they are coming from, and if it is valid from their perspective I leave them to it. I feel no compulsion to intervene; who am I to know what is best for someone else? Perhaps by holding on to their idea will in time further their growth..on their path. Who am I to know what someone else's path should be? LOL

 

Our perspectives are very different, wandelaar, which would be natural. Thanks for sharing words with me, and please feel free to put me on ignore anytime you'd like.

Edited July 24, 2018 by rene

[wandelaar]

@ rene

 

I don't see a problem in somebody disagreeing with my perspective, but only in the use of false forms of argumentation (also called: fallacies). A discussion with someone who agrees with me would be rather pointless, we would have nothing to discuss. Therefore I actually prefer a discussion with somebody who disagrees with me. And the best thing that could happen is for that someone to prove me wrong, because than I would actually have learned something. 

 

For fallacies see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by wandelaar

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

Not very heroic I admit, but it works.

AHAAA! not very heroic , In your own words no less ! No its not, and the problem with it, is that You personally deem it not heroic ,and therefore cannot deem yourself heroic, when you simply do this thing because it 'worked'.

Its not that I think its weenie, its that You think its weenie. 

 

Somewhere down the line , someone told you it was fine , they were weakened and wanted you to be weakened with them rather than be the heroic you , you would and could be. 

 

You're a bright and motivated person , do not take the weenie road ,, not because I want you to be exposed, but because you want to know yourself as being stronger than it takes to simply be pragmatic. 

Great! 

[rene]

Spoken like a true Viking!

[rideforever]

4 hours ago, wandelaar said:

I don't understand how harmony might solve the problem.

 

Human beings and this world is a catastrophic mess, let's face it. 
The more you listen to the crazy planet destroying monkeys the less you know.   
So do we give up then ?
... what did the great seekers do in this situation ?
Just copy what they did in their journey and I don't see it going wrong.
If you commit fully to any school/ teacher you like and give it 3 solid months, by the end of that period you will know if it has an exit for you, if not try another one, and another one and another one.   

On this world the only thing you can trust is your own experience of things, and within a year or 2 you will have found the path ... if you wish to.
2 years is going to seem like nothing in 20 years.
As you get older you will see that there are people who after 50 years of being "on the path" are still going precisely nowhere.
At the end, you will be very happy to have pushed each tradition to its limit and tested it, and have found the one out of a dozen that is real.

[Marblehead]

3 hours ago, Stosh said:

Revenge is sweet they say, and sweeter still when you can justify your own aggression , by suggesting that you are just helping someone else find a path to recuperation.  Kind of like the inquisition , where they would torture people with the intent of  'showing them to the light of the savior'.

I have pretty much given up on revenge.  It keeps going back and forth and nothing good gets accomplished.  But sure, treat others as they treat you?  Yes, I mostly follow that philosophy.

 

3 hours ago, Stosh said:

 

Those who told me to sit down and shut up are just trying to dominate the argument themselves , but with themselves at the top of the heap. They have no moral standing to push me into line as they see fit, and they are quite likely to hear me tell em to 'Make me'. 

Good that I don't know why the discussion got so heated - I don't have to take sides.  But yes, if others can't logically define where and how you are wrong then your argument still stands.

 

3 hours ago, Stosh said:

 

I feel I am right because I am right. That should just be taken as a 'given' , a problem only exists in that they are wrong , and leaving it to them to flip sides ,over to being right, is already not going to happen , since they are going to stubbornly stick to the wrong view. 

Yep.  If both sides refuse to budge in their position then there likely won't be a resolution.

 

3 hours ago, Stosh said:

Why not just force the opinion down their throat ? I have seen this work , especially when an element of fear is involved. Walking away with the disagreement standing , is just asking for trouble down the line. 

 

No, forcing is not acceptable.

 

But then, down the line conditions will likely have changed and the changes may allow for at least a partial agreement.

 

[Marblehead]

42 minutes ago, rideforever said:

Human beings and this world is a catastrophic mess, let's face it. 

My world is just fine.

 

If you live in one of the West Coast states in America I could easily accept your perspective.

 

[Stosh]

2 hours ago, rideforever said:

 

Human beings and this world is a catastrophic mess, let's face it. 
The more you listen to the crazy planet destroying monkeys the less you know.   
So do we give up then ?
... what did the great seekers do in this situation ?
Just copy what they did in their journey and I don't see it going wrong.
If you commit fully to any school/ teacher you like and give it 3 solid months, by the end of that period you will know if it has an exit for you, if not try another one, and another one and another one.   

On this world the only thing you can trust is your own experience of things, and within a year or 2 you will have found the path ... if you wish to.
2 years is going to seem like nothing in 20 years.
As you get older you will see that there are people who after 50 years of being "on the path" are still going precisely nowhere.
At the end, you will be very happy to have pushed each tradition to its limit and tested it, and have found the one out of a dozen that is real.

Hamlet

Why, then, ’tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

 

Thinking that the world is not good , is an entirely trained idea, you watch the news , people complain things go south and eventually you deem this to be not-good.  Daoism tries to show that there is not a certainty that one must come to such a negative conclusion. For instance , if you want to find retreat in some sangha , .. they exist. If you search for a deserted island you may find it. If you come to terms  with people or constrain your contact to those who act as an echo chamber , that exists too.

If you in fact, do not come into a balance , a harmony between your circumstance and attitudes , well, then you have to admit that either things are just how you want em , or you can't change enough to fit the inevitable constraints you face. 

But by all means such a negative conclusion is not going to help you get into good graces with circumstances, at best its a consolation prize , you get to bitch over things , look world-weary and world-wise , I suppose. 

Edited July 24, 2018 by Stosh

[rideforever]

21 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Why, then, ’tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

 

When we are spaced out we start talking less meaningfully, when we feel ourselves and are present our meaning becomes clear.
There are those who talk for hours and say nothing.
Others speak little but say much,
the energy of reality is conveyed through their words.

All of which leads to a different conclusion that Shakespeare's.

[Stosh]

19 minutes ago, rideforever said:

 

When we are spaced out we start talking less meaningfully, when we feel ourselves and are present our meaning becomes clear.
There are those who talk for hours and say nothing.
Others speak little but say much,
the energy of reality is conveyed through their words.

All of which leads to a different conclusion that Shakespeare's.

I figure it can work that way , but its also true that if a person takes a long time to explain something , then it might be a delicate matter which needs the extensive effort.  On the other hand , brevity can indicate one doesn't give a crap whether you get the point or not. 

This is why I think its important to keep a thing going back and forth, so that the many steps are understood to be on the same pages. 

I have no idea what energy of reality is. But Shakespeare sometimes waxes wordy , and sometimes speaks in brevity , he was working within poetic constraints and carrying double meanings through his word choices,  I figure you already know that, ( as well as the quote and what it implies relative to saying the world sucks) . I considered Milton as well , but figured the Danish connection fit better. 

( ps, its the opinion of Hamlet expressed , and it doesn't necessarily mean that WS felt as Hamlet the character did -- this comes into play regarding Chuang speaking for Confucius - its not Chuangs own opinion necessarily nor that of Confucius , necessarily.. its just how Chuang presents his point.  )

Edited July 24, 2018 by Stosh

[rideforever]

Did you have a particular piece by Milton in mind ?

[Stosh]

The mind is a place in itself, and can make a heaven of hell, or a hell of heaven...

But let me not pretend I am a reader much of Milton. I lost patience and just like some excerpts.

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by Stosh

[dawei]

Livia Kohn wrote Sitting in Oblivion which is a translation of the text by that name.    Although Zhuangzi first coined the word, it was a later work.    Give this a look:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Sitting-Oblivion-Heart-Daoist-Meditation/dp/1931483167

 

[Marblehead]

7 hours ago, dawei said:

Sitting in Oblivion

That was Chuang Tzu sitting at the river bank.

 

And the river bank is where he would drag his tail in the mud.

 

[OldDog]

On 5/19/2018 at 2:22 PM, Daemon said:

... (and I'm unaware of any reason that science cannot, or should not, be used to evaluate wisdom traditions and practices).

 

Was reading thru this thread because I was interested in topic suggested by the title. I am about to return to meditative practice and thought there might be some fresh insights here. 

 

Then I ran across @Daemon comment quoted above. Sort of stopped me in my tracks because I do not particularly think that the scientific method is a good approach for evaluation of wisdom traditions and practices. Not that it can't be done but that it probably not an approach that will yield useful results.

 

Science's approach to any problem/phenomena is to deal with it through the material. The approach seeks to identify physical/material events that can measured. Then it will constrain the system in which the events appear in various ways so that the behaviour can be observed under different conditions. All with the purpose of being able to demonstrate through the methods used that the results can be reproduced. If the results can not be reproduced, the phenomena being examined is discounted and the scientific community will turn its attention toward what can be measured. Any further reference to the problem or phenomena is met with skepticism and deemed not worthy of scientific investigation. Now, not all scientists behave in this manner. Scientists investigating in the realm of quantum mechanics, for example, have learned that because they are not able to reach a conclusion through scientific means just simply means that they have not yet figured out how to do it and place the phenomena in a box labled "Needing Further Evaluation".

 

I submit that wisdom traditions and practices deal with phenomena and events that are highly subjective, variable and do not present themselves consistently, at least to methods of observation preferred in science. Reproducibility is elusive. Research into wisdom traditions and practices is most often done on an individual and personal basis and typically finds its meaning in that realm. 

 

So, we should be cautious when someone approaches armed with the scientific method ... particulary those not mature in their discipline. There are science dogmatists out there just as there are religious dogmatists that are not accepting of other approaches. In listening to mature scientists talk, you will find the same reserved quiet demeanor that you find in the Dalai Llama, zen monks, daoist sages. 

 

Now, none of this contradicts @Daemon statement that there is no reason that science cannot be used ... but whether it should be used might give us pause.

 

Sorry for the late respose to this thread. But as I read through it I had what felt like a moment of clarity that was worth sharing.  

 

 

Edited August 12, 2018 by OldDog
Typos ... fat fingers.

[Purple Clouds]

On 5/18/2018 at 7:56 PM, CityHermit! said:

Doesn't Zhuangzi mention Zuowang? Seems like some earlier mentioned quotes might relate to that? I don't recall other passages offhand but maybe I should look. I love that text, I should read it again in the near future.

 

It was my impression that some passages in the Laozi describe elements of the same thing, such as references to stillness and darkness, etc.

 

What's described in the ZZ is not the same thing as the zuowang practice that later developed in Daoism as a result of the adaptation of śamatha and vipaśyanā from Buddhists. Daoists have historically reinterpreted the major Daoist scriptures in light of new practices that developed.