Dao Bums reflecting on the world

[Apech]

Here we are in the middle of one of the most challenging turbulent years  (yeah I know its not the middle technically) but we have a lot that's going on that is ... well perhaps unsettling is the best word.  We are all cultivators/practitioners of various kinds and hues - and perhaps one mark of good practice or realisation might be how well we can balance ourselves, maintain harmony with change - while not being other worldly or detached from 'reality'.  The outer world is fascinating ... sometimes it starts out that way - then draws us in to turbulence - draws us off centre.

 

We recently had a thread 'emotions are the path' and I wonder, bearing that in mind where we strike the balance between being in the world but not worldly?  Or is this a faulty concept in itself anyway?  Do we see the world as a kind of testing ground - or is it just illusion anyway?  

 

I think different philosophies and systems give perspectives on this - and I guess my own approach is almost unconsciously drawn from various places - I tend to see things happening for a purpose to teach me something - although quite often I'm not totally clear what the lesson is.  So I'm interested in how other people tackle this tight rope walk we have to do between inner and outer.  Anything you have to say on this subject will be greatly appreciated.

Edited October 29, 2020 by Apech

[Gerard]

This:

 

1. If you do not like the state of your world, it is you yourselves that must change.  Change only comes from within.

 

2. The responsibility for your life and your world is indeed yours. It has not been forced upon you by some outside agency.
 

3. You form your own dreams and you form your own physical reality.

 

4. The world is what you are. It is the physical materialisation of the inner selves which you have formed.

 

I strongly believe that this was the foremost teaching of the Buddha that lived in this human Earth plane 2,500 years ago was that indeed. More than nirvana (La La land) and the rest of the moralistic and dogmatic thought Buddhism is known for.

 

The mind is the basis for everything.
Everything is created by my mind, and is ruled by my mind.

 

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Dhammapada/Chapter_1
 

MIND CREATES REALITY

 

The rest is irrelevant and secondary.

 

Well the Yin & Yang is also importante but it's the "middle layer" one must take care of carefully to avoid imbalance. 

[Apech]

Thank you guys for liking my OP - but I was hoping for some replies and ideas.

 

@Gerard

 

I guess I agree in an absolute sense - but how helpful is it to think like this in a turbulent world going to hell in a handbucket?  Not sure.

[dwai]

I turn to the Bhagavad Gita for guidance in difficult times (especially). It is important to understand what Dharma is, and then live a life in accordance with the Dharma. Dharma is not religion -- it is the correct way of living. Dharma encompasses the correct view (ethics, spirituality) as a collective, but also the correct way to live as an individual. This individual dharma is called "svadharma" (or Self-dharma) and it varies from person to person. Part of our self-dharma is to live the truth in our own way, in our professional and personal life.

 

Does that mean a passive acceptance of all that's happening around us? Maybe not. Even if it means going to war to uphold the dharma, then so be it. And by war, I don't mean between two nations, or on any specific group, but to organize and do things on a war-footing.

 

• There is a climate crisis -- what are we doing to make sure that the right people are being elected into our governments to ensure that they actually do something meaningful to address it? What are we doing about it ourselves?
• There is an ever-increasing chasm between the haves and have-nots, with the latter growing dramatically across the globe. What are we doing about that? 
• There is an ever-increasing level of self-delusion and self-hypnosis via media and technology, so much so that the problems of the world are not even acknowledged by many (take the trumpanzees for instance). What are we doing about that?

 

To be in the world but not of it, doesn't mean that we should bury our heads in the proverbial sands, but rather to actually recognize what is going wrong and then selflessly work towards fixing things the best we can. Who can be in the world but not be of it? Only those who have developed Self-knowledge. 

 

Spoiler

https://medium.com/@ParentCircle/10-everyday-life-lessons-from-the-bhagavad-gita-181e9f7b657c

 

 

Edited October 30, 2020 by dwai

[Sketch]

I'm trying not to get too involved with the conversations on here on topics that are easily found on the rest of social media - no judgement, and obviously I see it and notice it and shake my head before searching the archives for breathing stuff. 

 

I do see an opportunity here to show off and call attention to the ideas in the chapter from Lao Tzu I posted in my own translation today.

 

Derek Lin sees it like this;

 

The sages are not dogmatic. They seek to know other perspectives in order to refine their own.

Having the virtue of goodness means being good to everyone, whether good or bad. It means your conduct is not conditional or dependent on external factors. Similarly, the virtue of belief or trust means when you have faith in people, you believe in them whether or not they have the same faith in themselves.

Real sages get involved while false sages hide from the world. They know people look to them as examples, like children looking to parents, so they are especially careful to set the best example they can.

 

From my perspective, 

Talk is easy; archery takes practice. 

I set the world to rights better with a steady hand and eye

than I do with a reason for everything.

 

Edited October 30, 2020 by Sketch

[Taomeow]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

Thank you guys for liking my OP - but I was hoping for some replies and ideas.

 

 

OK then...  you asked for it.  

 

17 hours ago, Apech said:

 

We recently had a thread 'emotions are the path' and I wonder, bearing that in mind where we strike the balance between being in the world but not worldly?  Or is this a faulty concept in itself anyway?  Do we see the world as a kind of testing ground - or is it just illusion anyway?  

 

 

Being in the world but not worldly -- how about a quote from, of all people, Lenin: "It is impossible to live in society and be free from society."  He would know. 

 

People who overestimate their power in this respect are either being defensive or have been extraordinarily fortunate to not have experienced the real state of the world personally -- which doesn't guarantee they never will.  I say, stay alert to the world even if it causes you to avoid it.  Being not worldly is still a reaction to the world, to the state of it one can't accept or share without twisting one's soul in the worldly way -- and consequently preferring to reduce it. 

 

The real way to be is in harmony with the world.  If such harmony is impossible due to the nature of the world, it doesn't matter how we choose to react, we are still in the reactive mode.  So I say stay in the reactive mode that works for you right here, right now, and change your reactions as the world changes.  You control 33% of your destiny (the taoist fortune teller in me interjects), use them wisely and avoid pretending that you control more, or less.  You control a lot less of the destiny of the world -- 33% divided by 33% X 7.8,000,000,000 -- unless you're one of its gods or demons, creators or destroyers.  Which I don't think any of the present parties is.  Personally, I would only want to destroy the last fraction of a second of its existence on the cosmic scale, but I don't have the power even for that.  And it will self-destruct anyway.  So, what's left to do is just that -- control the 33% of your destiny you can, while you can.

 

Do we see the world as a kind of testing ground -- I don't know.  Gods and demons do.  I don't care for the opinions of those who fool themselves and others that they know without being either.  I do suspect it's the demons' testing ground, not ours, nor gods'.  But "suspect" and "know" are not the same, so there's a bit of hope there that my suspicions are merely based on incomplete information.

 

Is it just illusion anyway -- the illusion is that it's possible to separate the two.  It's like those packaged foods with "all-natural ingredients" which are not encountered in nature in the shape and form they are encountered in those packages.  It's like pandemics, which are impossible in the real natural world and are happening in the only world we know as real and natural which is neither this nor not this, neither that nor not that.  We've been in a pandemic for at least ten thousand years, maybe more.  The pandemic of civilization is real.  To perceive it as such is to get a glimpse of reality that is absolutely illusory and yet the only reality we have access to.  To perceive some "higher" or "inner" or "ultimate" reality that ignores the reality of the illusion calling all the shots is an illusion.  The pandemic of civilization is our ultimate reality for all purposes, and there's no getting anywhere else until/unless we get well.    

Edited October 30, 2020 by Taomeow

[Apech]

Well!  I almost feel like I opened Pandoras box here - and I am almost baffled by my own question.  Thank you everyone for answers so far - lots of amazing ideas already.

 

@dwai

 

Sure yes, it is our responsibility to cultivate Te, or svadharma or bhavana - whatever you like to call it (ma'at even?) through ethics, knowledge, action and so forth.  I think the question is where does that virtue lead you in terms of the world?  I looked up the etymology of 'world' and it seems to mean 'human - age' ... the era of mankind - which is not what I expected at all.  You mention climate change - what influence do we have as an individual apart from our 7 millionth contribution?  And in any case in terms of TM's gods and demons how do we know that the earth (as a great soul) does not want to warm and grow greener (which I am told is a side effect of increased CO2) ????  Maybe even the earth wishes to end the 'world'

 

To a certain extent I am with Gerard in that we project reality and so we may all be silently willing both climate change and income inequality into being - if so what is our secret intent?

 

@Sketch

 

I wish I understood your point.

 

@Taomeow

 

"Being not worldly is still a reaction to the world" - good one

 

"So I say stay in the reactive mode that works for you right here, right now, and change your reactions as the world changes."

 

Would you say this implies working on your ability to respond to change?  Becoming more flexible, open and somehow 'quicker' in the old sense of that word?

 

"I do suspect it's the demons' testing ground, not ours"

 

Can you elaborate a little more?  What about co-creation - don't we participate in whatever is happening continuously?  Are we participating in the work of demons?  A worrying thought.

 

"The pandemic of civilization is real.  To perceive it as such is to get a glimpse of reality that is absolutely illusory and yet the only reality we have access to.  To perceive some "higher" or "inner" or "ultimate" reality that ignores the reality of the illusion calling all the shots is an illusion.  The pandemic of civilization is our ultimate reality for all purposes, and there's no getting anywhere else until/unless we get well."

 

Pondering this - there's a lot in there - maybe more later.  Maybe you can expand?

 

    

[Sketch]

For all intents, just assume I was agreeing with Gerard.

 

Or look at this; if civilization gets what's coming to it,

people will still survive.

 

 

[doc benway]

18 hours ago, Apech said:

Here we are in the middle of one of the most challenging turbulent years  (yeah I know its not the middle technically) but we have a lot that's going on that is ... well perhaps unsettling is the best word.  We are all cultivators/practitioners of various kinds and hues - and perhaps one mark of good practice or realisation might be how well we can balance ourselves, maintain harmony with change - while not being other worldly or detached from 'reality'.  The outer world is fascinating ... sometimes it starts out that way - then draws us in to turbulence - draws us off centre.

 

We recently had a thread 'emotions are the path' and I wonder, bearing that in mind where we strike the balance between being in the world but not worldly?  Or is this a faulty concept in itself anyway?  Do we see the world as a kind of testing ground - or is it just illusion anyway?  

 

I think different philosophies and systems give perspectives on this - and I guess my own approach is almost unconsciously drawn from various places - I tend to see things happening for a purpose to teach me something - although quite often I'm not totally clear what the lesson is.  So I'm interested in how other people tackle this tight rope walk we have to do between inner and outer.  Anything you have to say on this subject will be greatly appreciated.

 

My approach is practical - to open always to what is in each moment.

That opening is a connection to the flow of being, a wordless question, naked experience without separation from what is.

I practice returning to this open flow as often as I remember.

It is a total resting of "me" into what is going on completely.

 

To the extent any separation is there, there is a me that is affected and disturbed.

To the extent there is less or no separation, what is happening is perfect - wholeness, dzogchen

 

Yes, all is illusion and it is also all we will ever have, other than changes in perspective and experience.

How much more real can that get?

Nothing other to engage with and play and work with than that. 

So for sure, all of it is my testing ground.

The view is the path, is the result.

 

 

18 hours ago, Apech said:

Or is this a faulty concept in itself anyway?

 

In this view, all concept is faulty. 

Concept is that separation, it is an integral part of illusion.

When there is openness, this means no separation between inner and outer.

Our channels and chakras are that connection, the conduit between inner and outer.

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

Sure yes, it is our responsibility to cultivate Te, or svadharma or bhavana - whatever you like to call it (ma'at even?) through ethics, knowledge, action and so forth.  I think the question is where does that virtue lead you in terms of the world?  I looked up the etymology of 'world' and it seems to mean 'human - age' ... the era of mankind - which is not what I expected at all.  You mention climate change - what influence do we have as an individual apart from our 7 millionth contribution? 
 

we do have the option of being role models, supporting causes which do positive contributions. Doesn’t necessarily mean we have to all become activists..only whatever we can do (“nothing” is a cop out).

 

Take this guy for instance — https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/12/26/572421590/hed-take-his-own-life-before-killing-a-tree-meet-india-s-forest-man

 

i know for a fact that there are many more like him all over the world. We don’t have to do so much, but even to support such people would be a great start. 

Quote

And in any case in terms of TM's gods and demons how do we know that the earth (as a great soul) does not want to warm and grow greener (which I am told is a side effect of increased CO2) ????  Maybe even the earth wishes to end the 'world'

Or we have karmically created this situation. 

Quote

To a certain extent I am with Gerard in that we project reality and so we may all be silently willing both climate change and income inequality into being - if so what is our secret intent?

I don’t think that is quite as simplistic as that. Yes we do project reality, but these body-mind units which seem to experience this reality are not the “we” that does the projecting. So long as we are identified with these body-mind units, that logic doesn’t work. If we are not identified, then we don’t need  any answers because there won’t be any questions.  
 

 

Edited October 30, 2020 by dwai

[Michael Sternbach]

Apech, I agree with your view of physical experience essentially being about about learning lessons. Simply because every so often that is the view that makes the most sense and that is the most helpful.

 

However, sometimes the lesson seems to be not to f***ing care about lessons and just enjoy living!

 

[Nungali]

20 hours ago, Apech said:

Here we are in the middle of one of the most challenging turbulent years  (yeah I know its not the middle technically) but we have a lot that's going on that is ... well perhaps unsettling is the best word.  We are all cultivators/practitioners of various kinds and hues - and perhaps one mark of good practice or realisation might be how well we can balance ourselves, maintain harmony with change - while not being other worldly or detached from 'reality'.  The outer world is fascinating ... sometimes it starts out that way - then draws us in to turbulence - draws us off centre.

 

We recently had a thread 'emotions are the path' and I wonder, bearing that in mind where we strike the balance between being in the world but not worldly? 

 

I do it by attitude and interpretation . I think its wholly to do with ones 'frame of mind'    and what things 'of the world' we are involved with or attached to .   Its all 'of the world '   ..... greedy money grabbing, contemplation , laziness and helping old people out of bed  in the morning  and washing and dressing them .  Its up to us to stick to our own values . 

 

Everything is harder when its raining ordinance  and ammunition  outside .  So one has to choose  ones area of operation  - and that might be a day to day thing  or ones whole incarnation .

 

 

 

Quote

 

Or is this a faulty concept in itself anyway?

 

I suppose then, I think its faulty . You are always in the world ... cant escape it .    Even after death you will be 'in the world ' .

 

 

I think one misunderstanding ( In my view its a misunderstanding ) about being apart from the world is rooted in types of denialist gnosticism ; earth is a dirty sinful place and not our home ... our home is in heaven and we need to get back there , etc .

 

One just has to choose which parts of the world to attach to and which parts to avoid .  Some times we have no choice though.

 

 

Quote

 

  Do we see the world as a kind of testing ground - or is it just illusion anyway?  

 

yes   

 

A developing ground , at least . To what end ?

 

Well , that's the 'big mystery' isn't it .

 

Quote

 

I think different philosophies and systems give perspectives on this - and I guess my own approach is almost unconsciously drawn from various places - I tend to see things happening for a purpose to teach me something - although quite often I'm not totally clear what the lesson is.  So I'm interested in how other people tackle this tight rope walk we have to do between inner and outer.  Anything you have to say on this subject will be greatly appreciated.

 

I am not sure what you mean  'between inner and outer' . For me the tightrope walk is about between living how I want to live and what other  forces are trying to drive me in a way others want me to live .   I suggest some preliminaries are making the tightrope very wide thick and stable ... and stringing it up in a good place .

 

But so much of this relies on incarnatory   good fortune .   If I was born elsewhere under a different situation I probably would not be saying the above .

Edited October 30, 2020 by Nungali

[Nintendao]

Emotion begets empathy. To heal the world, one smile at a time. A fool's endeavor?

 

Every second is a gift. "Sure, easy for you to say when you're not the one suffering." Ironically though it's often the ones that have been beaten the hardest by life's cruelties, that eventually grow to truly embody this perspective.

 

You can see these kind of people occasionally. They don't just hold the door open for the person behind them, they stand aside and insist that the other person go first! Even if it's someone you'd disagree with, perhaps they will still "pay it forward" in some small way, and encouragement will keep growing. The complex solutions to real challenges facing the world, can better be devised and implemented by folks who are simply encouraged.

[welkin]

22 hours ago, Apech said:

Here we are in the middle of one of the most challenging turbulent years  (yeah I know its not the middle technically) but we have a lot that's going on that is ... well perhaps unsettling is the best word.  We are all cultivators/practitioners of various kinds and hues - and perhaps one mark of good practice or realisation might be how well we can balance ourselves, maintain harmony with change - while not being other worldly or detached from 'reality'.  The outer world is fascinating ... sometimes it starts out that way - then draws us in to turbulence - draws us off centre.

 

We recently had a thread 'emotions are the path' and I wonder, bearing that in mind where we strike the balance between being in the world but not worldly?  Or is this a faulty concept in itself anyway?  Do we see the world as a kind of testing ground - or is it just illusion anyway?  

 

I think different philosophies and systems give perspectives on this - and I guess my own approach is almost unconsciously drawn from various places - I tend to see things happening for a purpose to teach me something - although quite often I'm not totally clear what the lesson is.  So I'm interested in how other people tackle this tight rope walk we have to do between inner and outer.  Anything you have to say on this subject will be greatly appreciated.

 

I wonder if maintaining harmony is the the purpose. Throughout my life I've seen those who try and maintain harmony at all cost and while I do see people who maybe avoid dis-ease or maintain a more balanced life, I also see denial or reality and many times ignorance. At the same time in my own experience and witnessing others, the resistance to what goes on in the physical and not accepting of others and maybe one's self does cause disease, discomfort, instability. And yet, in my experience it provides the opportunity to see more. To see the dynamics that exist between people, ideas, emotions, actions, the world. And so i feel like it's not only a delicate balance between maintaining ones harmony while not ignoring reality, but also what sacrifice in this physical life experience one is willing to make. To see enough, in order to not only create change in oneself but also make a difference in this 'world.'

 

As everyone already knows, the journey is unique and different for each individual. Yet, the opportunity i believe is the same for those who have opportunity. Each start out with a different level of center. Due to your purpose of coming here, due to your genetics, biology, bloodline, etc. And so your 'center' is different. Some people more grounded with the ability to get more things done here. Others with a weaker center, with all kinds of issues as a result, usually with the ability to see past the veil. And so it's almost like a formula. A formula that angels, demons, souls use to come into this reality with different purposes.

It's like an anchor at the center. Those who start with a very heavy anchor have difficulty to reach out and find what more there is. Those with weaker anchors may continually moved away from center, and so they struggle much more to find the center, yet have higher capability to see more away from it. Ultimately though, I think it's about finding that center, anchoring heavy, and then constantly going out, coming back, out, back. And the battle will continually be not straying too far for too long and not the center for too long.

 

 

How do we know what is worldly or not worldly? Do we describe the world based on the physical reality that we exist in or the matrix physical world that we are continually born into based on the systems that who know who placed? How do we know it is a testing ground aside from all the written texts of ancient and present. Would we know it is a testing ground if we had read nothing? Do we know what the test actually is?

 

Are the things that provide us solutions that we learn in order to avoid pain, discomfort, dis-ease and provide 'peace', 'love', 'harmony', 'oneness', true? Are those things real? Or are they just the formulaic result of the man/alien/spirit matrix we are born into? The one that runs based off of people not the actual physical world itself. They may be completely reversed, but only result in those answers based of the possibly fictitious formula created.

 

Part of the journey is the willing to be wrong so many times that you don't leave any stone unturned. But most aren't willing to do that. It causes too much physical, spiritual, emotional, and mental pain. Many times most of it coming from other people. And so we encage ourselves not by the 'world' but by the people. The people are the world we live in. Maybe we don't know what the illusion really is. 

 

[Apech]

21 minutes ago, welkin said:

......

 

How do we know what is worldly or not worldly? Do we describe the world based on the physical reality that we exist in or the matrix physical world that we are continually born into based on the systems that who know who placed? How do we know it is a testing ground aside from all the written texts of ancient and present. Would we know it is a testing ground if we had read nothing? Do we know what the test actually is?

 

Are the things that provide us solutions that we learn in order to avoid pain, discomfort, dis-ease and provide 'peace', 'love', 'harmony', 'oneness', true? Are those things real? Or are they just the formulaic result of the man/alien/spirit matrix we are born into? The one that runs based off of people not the actual physical world itself. They may be completely reversed, but only result in those answers based of the possibly fictitious formula created.

 

Part of the journey is the willing to be wrong so many times that you don't leave any stone unturned. But most aren't willing to do that. It causes too much physical, spiritual, emotional, and mental pain. Many times most of it coming from other people. And so we encage ourselves not by the 'world' but by the people. The people are the world we live in. Maybe we don't know what the illusion really is. 

 

 

I would say that 'worldly' means anything that derives from objective reality being real in and of itself.  Or from that view, even if it is not the case ultimately.  However if it is true that the world is a testing ground - then obviously it must be connected to us - and thus not independently objectively real in and of itself.  This suggests that both ourselves as the agent of experience and the objective world derive from a common source (e.g. spirit, Dao, consciousness etc.)

 

Actually the very idea that there is something called 'spiritual' and something called 'worldly' is a (post)-Judeo-Christian idea.  Jesus said render unto Caesar that which Caesar's and to God that which is God's - suggesting that money and so on belong to the secular (Roman) state while your spiritual aspirations and so on belong to God.  What people forget is that Caesar (especially at that time) was a god himself - or at least a divine being of some kind.  There isn't a worldly world and a spiritual world which are separate - this would be a straight dualism - there is only spirit.  In pre-civilised  cultures this division doesn't exist.  But that doesn't mean that we don't experience it that way.  In fact most of us have our daily lives, work, relationships, shopping - whatever - and our special times for practice, meditation or whatever we do.  We make a division as if it is real.  It's very hard not to think like this because of the way that the path is introduced to us.  As something special and separate.  

 

Having said all that, I think experientially there is a 'people-world' - in fact as I said above the derivation of the word 'world' seems to mean exactly this.  

 

I like what you said about being encaged by people, and being willing to be wrong.  Making mistakes does oddly seem to be a key to all this.  And being willing to be vulnerable - not so covered up that you will never make or admit to mistakes or error.  Mistakes and error are worldly I suspect.

 

Just my thoughts.  

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, Nintendao said:

Emotion begets empathy. To heal the world, one smile at a time. A fool's endeavor?

 

Every second is a gift. "Sure, easy for you to say when you're not the one suffering." Ironically though it's often the ones that have been beaten the hardest by life's cruelties, that eventually grow to truly embody this perspective.

 

You can see these kind of people occasionally. They don't just hold the door open for the person behind them, they stand aside and insist that the other person go first! Even if it's someone you'd disagree with, perhaps they will still "pay it forward" in some small way, and encouragement will keep growing. The complex solutions to real challenges facing the world, can better be devised and implemented by folks who are simply encouraged.

 

That reminded me of two things;

1 was my experience two days ago; I have had trouble with unreliable tilers for my bath house , its been going on for months , "I will be there end of next week " , so I arrange my week - no show , no call, nothing. I call, no answer , I text, no response . Eventually a couple weeks later I manage to get an answer on the phone   and ask what happened  , answer  " I will be there next Wednesday "  (no explanation  or apology about the previous , mind you ) . One guy did that 3 times ! , others just a point blank refusal - too busy, or a moan or a whinge  . One guy came out and said I could not do it the way I wanted , it has to be done ......   I said  " But I thought it could also be done this way ?"  he thinks and goes 'Well .... yes, you can do it that way '       - what, do I know more than a professional ?    Then he said " Look, I would probably let you down on this job and not finish it .... I am not well ... I got hay fever  .....  etc blah blah  (including a rant complaining about women  )  "  Wtf ?   Okay goodbye then.

 

So I rang 'Thai Tiler'   < thinks >   surely he will be different .  They where lovely and 'happy to do it " - thats what i want ; enthusiasm and happiness to do their work !   " ..... in January ."          everyone is busy .

 

Anyway after the above I rang them back and said I  had had it was pissed off and I want to go with them, put me on the end of the que and I wait till January and she goes : " What's wrong ? "  so I told her  what  had happened .

" Oh no , not good .  I am sorry , I ring my husband  . "

" Oh ... you dont have to  ...."

" NO !  I ring husband " and hang up   ???

 

next husband rings me " My wife told me , we didnt know , that is bad . Are you home? I come around after work . "

 

Not only did he come around after work, with no charge he encouraged and advised me , told me what I did was fine ' Very good job  .... keep going " gave me a few hints,  I gotta move one window in 5 ml , that's it !   Really nice  happy  concerned  (as he calls himself  )  ' Thailer ' .  I will do what I can and he will fit times in to come and do a bit or give advise .    And at the end  ..... get this  ,  he

 

" I am sorry . "

 

" Why are you sorry . "

 

"For the other tilers  ... very rude . "

 

he actually apologised for the other tilers to me  !    

 

2 .   .... er   (later )   battery just went red  ....

 

Edited October 31, 2020 by Nungali

[doc benway]

14 hours ago, Apech said:

Actually the very idea that there is something called 'spiritual' and something called 'worldly' is a (post)-Judeo-Christian idea.  Jesus said render unto Caesar that which Caesar's and to God that which is God's - suggesting that money and so on belong to the secular (Roman) state while your spiritual aspirations and so on belong to God.  What people forget is that Caesar (especially at that time) was a god himself - or at least a divine being of some kind.  There isn't a worldly world and a spiritual world which are separate - this would be a straight dualism - there is only spirit.  In pre-civilised  cultures this division doesn't exist.  But that doesn't mean that we don't experience it that way.  In fact most of us have our daily lives, work, relationships, shopping - whatever - and our special times for practice, meditation or whatever we do.  We make a division as if it is real.  It's very hard not to think like this because of the way that the path is introduced to us.  As something special and separate.  

 

I think there are other ways to look at this separation or non-separation. 

 

For example, “Jesus said render unto Caesar that which Caesar's and to God that which is God's” does not necessarily mean the two are separate but may be a simple instruction to cultivate discriminatory wisdom in our dealings with the relative and absolute. This does not necessarily mean the two are distinct or exclusive.

 

I also would suggest there was a very similar attempt to distinguish between “worldly” (eg. samsaric) and “spiritual” in Buddhism, in Daoism, Hinduism and others far preceding the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Concepts and practices like renunciation, retreat, monasticism, wandering traditions, etc... all point to this discrimination between worldly and spiritual without necessarily positing exclusive realms (although they tend to do that as well).

 

 

[Taomeow]

22 hours ago, Apech said:

 

@Taomeow

 

"Being not worldly is still a reaction to the world" - good one

 

"So I say stay in the reactive mode that works for you right here, right now, and change your reactions as the world changes."

 

Would you say this implies working on your ability to respond to change?  Becoming more flexible, open and somehow 'quicker' in the old sense of that word?

 

"I do suspect it's the demons' testing ground, not ours"

 

Can you elaborate a little more?  What about co-creation - don't we participate in whatever is happening continuously?  Are we participating in the work of demons?  A worrying thought.  

 

"Would you say this implies working on your ability to respond to change?  Becoming more flexible, open and somehow 'quicker' in the old sense of that word?" -- 

 

As a taijiquanista, I'd say more sung --  more "flexible steel needle wrapped in soft cotton."  Yes, responsive and able to adjust to the changes quickly, but also "quick" only when the rapidly changing situation warrants a fast response -- yet also doggedly "slow" or unmoving, unmovable, if the world (or the situation or the opponent) are doggedly fundamentally the same despite superficial changes.  (Mike Tyson with a cold is still Mike Tyson.  A cannibal with a craving for a cookie is still a cannibal.)  You have to "dig deeper" -- for the root -- and not beyond, not so deep that it becomes meaningless, the root of the tree is deep but you don't want to dig for it to the core of the earth, to some "we're all one anyway" molten lava underneath it all.  (Yes, you must become one with the opponent in push-hands but it's a fleeting state, you don't go eat and shit together when all is said and done...  you come together as one, but you must also fall apart as two in the real world.  You don't overcome "other" with loving yourself.  And asserting that every "other" is an aspect of yourself, ergo of the ultimate oneness, ergo perfect, is very narcissistic IMO, and not very practical in my experience.) 

 

So, one also needs to resist the temptation to knee-jerk-react to every superficial change which may be a decoy, a distraction, a maneuver to redirect your awareness from where the root is really positioned.  I believe all of those skills are transferable to most situations, but a high level skill is always a work in progress.  So...  competence, openness to learning, and humility, knowing what to do, knowing when you don't know, being able to tell the difference.  And not falling for any omnipotence traps of belief (either in one's own omniscience, invincibility, or the special powers conferred by a special brand of faith), which are usually just that -- traps. 

 

"I do suspect it's the demons' testing ground, not ours" (TM) 

 

"Can you elaborate a little more?  What about co-creation - don't we participate in whatever is happening continuously?  Are we participating in the work of demons?  A worrying thought."

 

Yes.  They wouldn't be able to subjugate us without our cooperation.  They would only be able to exterminate us -- which is not what serves their purpose.  Their purpose is to exterminate our resistance, plus of course as many of us as they deem either of no utility to them or more trouble than our worth -- but not all of us.  Were we united as one -- with us, not with them -- they wouldn't have a chance in hell.  But we seldom put up that kind of fight, among other things because we have been trained to identify with them.  That deceitful "we."  As in, "We went to war in Iraq."  Fuck no I didn't.  (Or did I?  Did my tax money go to war in Iraq?  If you dig deeper, you start seeing the incalculable ways "us" becomes part of "them" on the demonic playground.  A make-believe play unity, where the price of playing is cancellation of everything but this game.)  

 
That's one reason we seldom realize that we must resist.  If it's open assault, we sometimes resist.  If it's tiptoeing erosion of all things human, however, which is the demonic way, we turn into those proverbial slow-boiling frogs who just sit there in the pot till they're boiled alive because the fuel to the demonic fires underneath is being added at a pace that doesn't allow us to realize where we are and what's going on in time to jump out.  And by the time we notice, there's no strength left to jump out.  So, yes, it's a co-creation, a collaboration between us and them.  

 

 

Edited October 31, 2020 by Taomeow

[Taomeow]

On 10/30/2020 at 10:05 AM, Apech said:

 

"The pandemic of civilization is real.  To perceive it as such is to get a glimpse of reality that is absolutely illusory and yet the only reality we have access to.  To perceive some "higher" or "inner" or "ultimate" reality that ignores the reality of the illusion calling all the shots is an illusion.  The pandemic of civilization is our ultimate reality for all purposes, and there's no getting anywhere else until/unless we get well." (TM)  

 

Pondering this - there's a lot in there - maybe more later.  Maybe you can expand?

 

    

 

 

Long story...  I believe in civilization we are dealing with an ages-long parasitic illness, very contagious, very difficult to overcome because it induces hallucinations in everybody who contracted it.  It is a psychotic state -- a very real and easily diagnosable departure from the normal state, except the afflicted are not equipped to diagnose it in themselves or others because this state is the only one they've ever known, so they mistake it for the ordinary, regular state of reality.  If they don't like it, if it doesn't work out all that well for them, they blame the "illusory" nature of reality instead of the psychotic state they themselves are in.  If they like it, if it seems to be working well for them, they will do everything to perpetuate and expand it.  

 

Psychosis is as real as normalcy -- real doesn't equal healthy, normal, or a guaranteed (or "karmically deserved" if you behave) reboot to some default setting.  The person (or the world) engulfed in illness-induced hallucinations is not absent from any actual reality, but even if he understands that he's hallucinating, this is not going to cure him, anymore than understanding that a parasite causes an illness cures the illness or rids one of parasites.  So we keep tweaking with hallucinations, by hallucinating the best solutions for the hallucinated problems -- including the purported problem of "duality" or "separation" or what have you.  No such problem in reality, it's a feature, not a bug.  The bug is the bug.  The parasitic infestation.  

 

(Illustrations: The first image depicts an Etruscan "Tree-Headed Demon," 5th century BCE.

The second is the image I grew up with -- it was everywhere.)   

 

 

[welkin]

22 hours ago, Apech said:

 

I like what you said about being encaged by people, and being willing to be wrong.  Making mistakes does oddly seem to be a key to all this.  And being willing to be vulnerable - not so covered up that you will never make or admit to mistakes or error.  Mistakes and error are worldly I suspect. 

 

 

Mistakes don't exist. Leaving no stone unturned means, being willing to be wrong in the eyes of others. It means facing the ridicule that others would put on you for thinking different, appearing a certain way, being affected negatively by your thoughts or decisions. Many times not as a result of actually being wrong or making a mistake, but being wrong because of the system that the very people hold up. Even what i just mentioned brings up an idea in your mind of what it means to be different, make mistakes, etc. , but has entirely different meanings. If you can only define them by what you were taught it means by everything in this world, then you don't know the meaning.

 

Is a mistake really a mistake or wrong, if the ultimate goal is to find the truth? In this matrix, you can only find truth by making the mistakes and being wrong, because it draws out the truth and the falsehoods out of the people who up the matrix. You don't find the truth in everything that is natural. The truth there is as obvious and clear as can be. The truth doesn't exist, it just is. You find the truth by finding the falsehoods in people, by being subject to the ridicule, ignorant opinions, by actually doing the 'right' thing only to be wrong because of unnaturalness. By being the sacrificial lamb. But it is impossible for 99.999999% of people to find out the truth.

 

What is nice about the truth is that it can never be found with the mind. No matter how much we discuss every possible concept in history. You will never find it. Better yet, you don't need it. The texts and history is what covers your eyes from the truth. You don't think 'they' know that? And unfortunately, it takes a lifetime of this type of experience to see past the veil. A life time of purposeful suffering to find truth, not incessant suffering.

 

A man or a people who are willing to go through hell to free their people. That is true love. Until then, we know nothing of love. We know nothing of truth.

 

Who knows, maybe we are living in the greatest time in history. Only time will tell.

[Apech]

@Taomeow

 

Just to say the word quick originally meant alive and not just fast.  Hence quicksilver for mercury, quickbeam the rowan or mountain ash tree (flexible wood) and so on.  Also a link between quick and witch, wicca and so on - in fact the rowan tree is also sometimes called a wtich and there's the word switch for a stick to shoo cattle.  And forgive me for quoting wiki:

 

Quote

The use of the word quick in this context is an archaic one, specifically meaning living or alive, therefore this idiom refers to 'the living and the dead.' The meaning of “quick” in this way is still retained in various common phrases, such as the "quick" of the fingernails,^[4] and in the idiom quickening, as the moment in pregnancy when fetal movements are first felt^[5].) Another common phrase, "cut to the quick", literally means cut through the dead, unfeeling layers of the skin to the living, sensitive tissues below.^[6] Quicksilver, an old name for the liquid metal mercury, refers to the way droplets of mercury run around and quiver as if alive. It is derived from the Proto-Germanic *kwikwaz, which in turn was from a variant of the Proto-Indo-European form *g^wih₃wos – "lively, alive", from the root *g^weih₃ – "(to) live" (from which also comes the Latin vivere and later the Italian and Spanish viva, and whose root is retained in the English words revive and survive).^[7]

 

I feel this is a good word 'quickening' for the effect of being in the world - in the sense of learning to dance with its energy without going under ... i.e. becoming dead.

 

I am still assimilating the demon thing - particularly the quite chilling three headed one Marx/Engels/Lenin!

 

A Buddhist lama (tantric ) once told me that the way we see the world ordinarily is as a result of seeing through parasitic entities in our subtle body.  They become attached and distort our view - hence delusion/illusion.   Also I am reminded of the strong connection between civilisation and disease.  Even our current Covid has the effect of isolating people from each other - social distancing - limiting behaviour - is very un-natural indeed.

[Taomeow]

4 hours ago, Apech said:

@Taomeow

 

Just to say the word quick originally meant alive and not just fast.  Hence quicksilver for mercury, quickbeam the rowan or mountain ash tree (flexible wood) and so on.  Also a link between quick and witch, wicca and so on - in fact the rowan tree is also sometimes called a wtich and there's the word switch for a stick to shoo cattle.  And forgive me for quoting wiki:

 

 

I feel this is a good word 'quickening' for the effect of being in the world - in the sense of learning to dance with its energy without going under ... i.e. becoming dead.

 

I am still assimilating the demon thing - particularly the quite chilling three headed one Marx/Engels/Lenin!

 

A Buddhist lama (tantric ) once told me that the way we see the world ordinarily is as a result of seeing through parasitic entities in our subtle body.  They become attached and distort our view - hence delusion/illusion.   Also I am reminded of the strong connection between civilisation and disease.  Even our current Covid has the effect of isolating people from each other - social distancing - limiting behaviour - is very un-natural indeed.

 

Ah, yes, thank you.  A good word indeed, also somewhat revealing, like all things language if one looks closely enough. 

The first thought that occurs to me is that, from the taoist perspective, the archaic meaning of "quick" reflects the patriarchal civilization's habit of equating yang with alive and yin with dead.  ("Ladies don't move.")  This is a world skewed toward yang excess, among other things, so it mostly sees things that make it tick, animate it, as alive, and things that are invisibly foundational for its very existence as dead. 

 

But things interact with other things to reveal their nature, nothing is "alive" or "dead" by itself.  Scientists have long argued about viruses regarding their status as either "alive" or "dead," I don't think there's consensus.  Viruses are so explicitly dead-alive-flipping depending on the environment that they are worthy of a "philosophical" analysis.  Which, when undertaken, leads me to believe that it's neither the inertness of yin nor the activity of yang that make things alive -- it's the ability to engage both or either by choice, the choice being intertwined with circumstances, with the environment.  The environment that suggests one or the other, the inert state or the active state, solicits a response from whatever interacts with it, and it is this response, whenever forthcoming, that animates both, the "thing" or "person" and the environment. 

 

The ability to give that response is aliveness.  I see some intimate connections between this ability and free will.  Aliveness is closely tied with personal choice.  The less of that one has, the less alive one gets.

 

Which is why epidemics of loss of personal choice take away so much aliveness from the world.  

Edited November 1, 2020 by Taomeow

[dwai]

This popped up Today and is mighty relevant to this topic imho 

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Bindi]

7 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Ah, yes, thank you.  A good word indeed, also somewhat revealing, like all things language if one looks closely enough. 

The first thought that occurs to me is that, from the taoist perspective, the archaic meaning of "quick" reflects the patriarchal civilization's habit of equating yang with alive and yin with dead.  ("Ladies don't move.")  This is a world skewed toward yang excess, among other things, so it mostly sees things that make it tick, animate it, as alive, and things that are invisibly foundational for its very existence as dead. 

Yes agreed, the patriarchal comprehension of yin and yang reflects the patriarchal mindset, not the subtle reality. Alive and dead, strong and weak, in Masonic lore good and bad. Ultimately they’re only shortchanging themselves and anyone willing to go along with their concepts without examining them. 

 

Quote

 

But things interact with other things to reveal their nature, nothing is "alive" or "dead" by itself.  Scientists have long argued about viruses regarding their status as either "alive" or "dead," I don't think there's consensus.  Viruses are so explicitly dead-alive-flipping depending on the environment that they are worthy of a "philosophical" analysis.  Which, when undertaken, leads me to believe that it's neither the inertness of yin nor the activity of yang that make things alive

 

yin/inert yang/active is another patriarchal assignation as far as I’m concerned. If this is what Daoists believe, then IMO Daoism has not been spared the patriarchal brush. 

 

Quote

 

-- it's the ability to engage both or either by choice, the choice being intertwined with circumstances, with the environment.  The environment that suggests one or the other, the inert state or the active state, solicits a response from whatever interacts with it, and it is this response, whenever forthcoming, that animates both, the "thing" or "person" and the environment. 

 

The ability to give that response is aliveness.  I see some intimate connections between this ability and free will.  Aliveness is closely tied with personal choice.  The less of that one has, the less alive one gets.

 

Which is why epidemics of loss of personal choice take away so much aliveness from the world.  

 

[Apech]

2 minutes ago, Bindi said:

Yes agreed, the patriarchal comprehension of yin and yang reflects the patriarchal mindset, not the subtle reality. Alive and dead, strong and weak, in Masonic lore good and bad. Ultimately they’re only shortchanging themselves and anyone willing to go along with their concepts without examining them. 

 

 

yin/inert yang/active is another patriarchal assignation as far as I’m concerned. If this is what Daoists believe, then IMO Daoism has not been spared the patriarchal brush. 

 

 

 

 

Would you like to define yin/yang which is non-patriarchal?  

 

Also on the word 'quick' it is essentially the same word as witch - so hardly patriarchal - or am I missing something?