Wow, that's interesting. I didn't know he had made it on to Wikipedia.Unidian wrote:Sam, have you seen the Wikipedia article on Adya? In my opinion, it's a good article that presents his views in a persuasive light. I particularly like what the article describes as his position on the sanskaras, which is a view that makes a lot of sense to me.
I am not talking about casuality. Besides, saying everything is caused is just a way of saying we don't know why things happen but to appear knowledgeable while saying it.Dave Toast wrote:You can't go wrong saying anything happened for a reason because to do so is simply to say that this something was caused. We then go on to delineate those causes to some extent but it doesn't matter how accurate we are in doing so, the fact remains that everything happens for a reason, the actions of enlightened beings notwithstanding.
I am talking about motive in a personal sense, not an impersonal one. In the sense you describe, everything has motive by definition. Sure, you can define it that way but it doesn't tell you anything about why any particular action is performed.Motive just means whatever impels one to act, whether it be cognizant or not. Just as there is always a reason for whatever happens, so too there is always a motive for whatever act of a conscious agent. Motive describes a subset of reasons specifically applied to the acts of consciousness agents. That is to say that whatever act a conscious agent performs is caused, ergo there is a reason for it, ergo there is a motive for it.
Well, you can think what you want but desire isn't what I am talking about. Motive in this conversation is about an action done for the sake of something else. What I am saying is that not all action is taken with a goal in mind.You're talking about desires and needs Sam. ... Replace the word motive with desire in all of Sam's previous quotes above and you'll see what I mean. They also make a lot more sense that way.
Conflating the two makes the distinction I am drawing meaningless. You can do that but then you simply miss the point.Sam: Nature isn't a motive, it is a description.
DT: One's nature has to be a motive. It's probably the only motive you could accurately ascribe to any conscious act whatsoever. Be it one's ego, intelligence, emotion, insight, height, strength, fearlessness, pain threshold, hair colour, cardiovascular health, that dodgy knee, or even one's enlightened consciousness; it's all one's nature.
Whether you are caused to decide or not, decisions happen. That is different than saying there is always a motive behind every decision.Sam: Gravity has no motive, it just does what it does, that's all. Sure, you can say leaves want to fall to earth but that misses something important, namely that no one is deciding anything.
DT: Just as we can say that leaves want to fall to earth, so too we can say that consciousnesses want to decide things. This is of course on the understanding that we know we are speaking allegorically. Just as the leaf is actually caused to fall to earth by, amongst other things (read all things), gravity; so too the consciousness is actually caused to decide by, for non-controversial example, the circumstances.
There are no maybes about it for me. Not only am I conscious, but I'm capable of observing my own consciousness, and what I've described is simply the way that my consciousness works in my observation. I'm not, however, saying that it's the whole description - for all I know another part of the synthesis is the injection of divine inspiration at crucial moments; I'm also open to the idea that part of consciousness is some acausal process that might be termed "truly free will" even though I have very little inkling of how that process might be described.Laird: Human consciousness is a complex causal process by which sensory inputs, memory and presumably (semi-)random/(semi-)directed thoughts are synthesised to produce willful action. That's just the way that consciousness works, whether you're enlightened or not.
samadhi: Maybe, maybe not. The way consciousness works is just the way it works, no one knows why. No one knows why about gravity either, it just is.
Well sure, motivation is about ego, however I'm arguing that ego is both inevitable and inescapable (for conscious human beings, including the enlightened). Perhaps you would care to explain exactly what you mean by ego in this context. Personally I'm using a definition that pretty much corresponds to this one from dictionary.com:samadhi wrote:I am not arguing a lack of will, the power to act. I am arguing that motivation is about ego.
Well that's the million dollar question. The million dollar answer is: "because such people are not enlightened, they are obfuscatory, semi-mystical (in the irrational sense) frauds".samadhi: People who I've heard and read who are enlightened always say there is no reason for their action. Although it looks obvious from our standpoint why they do what they do, I think it's worth pondering why they would say such a thing.
Laird: My guess would be that they want to add a certain mystique to the concept of enlightenment - "Ooo, being enlightened is so magical that you don't even have a reason for acting anymore!"
samadhi: You are implying a motive, a need to be mysterious.
Laird: Yes, and more than simply implying it, I'm specifically asserting deliberate mystification in order to enhance the prestige and intrigue of enlightenment.
samadhi: Why would enlightenment care about prestige or intrigue?
That's wise, and neither do I. Mostly consciousness baffles the crap out of me. There are though, as I described earlier, definitely parts of the process of intelligent consciousness that I can observe and describe.Laird: I'm furthermore implying that people who make such statements are acting dishonestly in that they are misrepresenting the nature of human consciousness, and that I don't regard them as particularly enlightened in the sense of being able to cogently describe reality (or at least the reality of one's mind).
samadhi: My experience tells me something else. I don't assume I know all there is to know about consciousness and that I can always apprise another's motives.
Such appeals to authority mean very little to me. Whoever wrote the Tao was just another human being doing his/her best to be wise, as am I. His/her words have no additional weight than that, and in fact to me they have even less given that they're more descriptive/proscriptive than explanatory. If this dude thinks that we should behave in a certain way, or take a certain attitude, then let him/her speak in plain, well-reasoned language. This poetic indulgence is subject to varying interpretations. I've read a lot of the Tao Te Ching and whilst some of it made sense to me, some of it seemed plain contradictory and even unwise. As for my reaction to the words themselves:samadhi wrote:And besides, the Tao itself speaks about this quite plainly
That's all very well if you just want to live harmoniously as opposed to make an active difference in the world. Personally, I think that it's more enlightened to be interested in the active evolution of our society(ies) through conscious effort. But hey, maybe you think that it's more enlightened to simply "drift along in harmony with the Tao". I wonder what a putative God might have to say about that on a putative Judgement Day? "Well done lad, you really took up that chance to make a real difference to the world and you attacked it with all of your energy and spirit!" Somehow I'm not so sure.samadhi quoting the Tao wrote:The Master gives himself up
to whatever the moment brings.
He knows that he is going to die,
and he has nothing left to hold on to:
no illusions in his mind,
no resistances in his body.
He doesn't think about his actions;
they flow from the core of his being.
I have very little idea what you mean by this. We're discussing, in the English language, "motive": what am I supposed to do other than conceptualise it? And anyhow, my experience conforms to this conceptualisation, albeit that in the case of some of my physical actions I'm under an illusion, as Ataraxia has kindly pointed out. In what way does your experience differ?samadhi: Motive is always after the fact.
Laird: Nonsense. By definition motive precedes action.
samadhi: You are conceptualizing it. I am talking about experience.
Wow, then we've got a really different idea of enlightenment: to me the most enlightened person is the most self-aware (amongst other things)!samadhi: People act and then decide why they did what they did.
Laird: People act and then try to analyse their motivations, which motivations aren't always particularly conscious. Enlightenment is in my opinion about becoming more conscious of one's motivations and about more deliberately choosing them in the first place.
samadhi: That isn't enlightenment, it is simply self-awareness.
Yes, I do. As well as being the enlightened way to live one's life, it's also the responsible way to live one's life. I'll clarify though that by "knowing more" I mean relevant knowledge, in particular self-knowledge, and also (leading to) general knowledge of human behaviour, and I'll also clarify that having more control includes having the control to defer actions to others. I'm not, for example, saying that the enlightened person runs around trying to actively direct every single thing: s/he might act very, very subtly by for example dropping in a single loaded comment that has several layers of meaning to it and that causes those at whom it is directed to radically reevaluate their perspective/intentions, rather than to bludgeon everyone with explicit attempts to control the situation. Or "having more control" might consist of simply observing that other people have the situation well in hand and letting them get on with it - in other words having the self-control to "not try to fix what ain't broke".samadhi wrote:Please note, there is nothing wrong with becoming more aware of your motives. For an ego, that's a good thing, by all means, become more aware. But you still seem to have the idea that enlightenment is about knowing more and having more control.
Again, please don't quote that source to me as though it were some sort of authority. I don't recognise it as such, any more than I recognise the Bible as an authority. As for the quotation itself:samadhi wrote:Again, the Tao
This is fairly reasonable, because as the old saying goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely". As I suggested above, power can be wielded with subtlety, and we all have the capacity to be powerful in our everyday lives. I do think, however, that it is enlightened to (seek to) accumulate relevant power so that one can have a meaningful influence in the world, even though I wouldn't disqualify a person lacking in relevant power from enlightenment. I don't, for example, subscribe to the belief that it's unenlightened or unspiritual to accumulate wealth. It can be thoroughly enlightened to accumulate wealth and to then use that wealth for meritorious purposes. There'd have to be a balance between using the wealth to accumulate further wealth and using the wealth to aid the progress of the less developed parts of the world though.samadhi quoting the Tao wrote:The Master doesn't try to be powerful;
thus he is truly powerful.
The ordinary man keeps reaching for power;
thus he never has enough.
If I liked inane contradiction then this would be right up my alley. As it happens, I'm pretty unimpressed.samadhi quoting the Tao wrote:The Master does nothing,
yet he leaves nothing undone.
Yeah, and? This is a particularly trivial and useless observation. Not what I'd call high wisdom.samadhi quoting the Tao wrote:The ordinary man is always doing things,
yet many more are left to be done.
To subscribe to the belief that a man has "no will of his own" is to abrogate one's responsibility to/in this world, unless as I've already canvassed one somehow manages to instead channel the will of a higher source. To "dwell in reality" is to recognise that we can make the world a better place, and to be an active part of that process. To "let all illusions go" is to stop making excuses for getting active.samadhi quoting the Tao wrote:Therefore the Master concerns himself
with the depths and not the surface,
with the fruit and not the flower.
He has no will of his own.
He dwells in reality,
and lets all illusions go.
Yeah, I've seen David rabbit on about transcending duality too. It leaves me quite cold. I don't get much meaning out of it: to my mind it's semi-coherent babble masquerading as wisdom. You'll have to explain what you mean a lot more carefully if you want me to get any sense out of it. In particular I'm referring to your final sentence: the rest of it is relatively meaningful.samadhi wrote:Trying and not trying are both strategies. In that sense they are not different. Enlightenment is not about asserting one duality over the other. It is about seeing what isn't within duality.
Your point seemed to be though to "trust in your nature", which seems to me to ignore the possibilities for learning new things that aren't in one's original nature.Laird: I'm not so willing to trust in my innate abilities. I didn't sit down in front of a keyboard for the first time and begin to touch-type effortlessly.
samadhi: My point isn't not to do anything. I would say that whatever you do, do it whole-heartedly. After all, you can only truly be yourself with your whole heart, not half of one.
Apparently not. Perhaps you need to spell it out in more detail, because it seems contradictory/ineffable to me. You acknowledge that actions can be "rationalised" but on the other hand you assert that the enlightened person has no motive. What in the world is the basis of his/her behaviour then? "He/she is simply expressing his/her nature" just doesn't cut it for me, because as I've already explained, when you analyse it, "one's nature" is as much a source of motivation as anything else.samadhi wrote:I don't think you see what I am pointing to.
Eminently inane and even contradictory. I mean, really, how am I supposed to take this shit seriously? (pardon the French, but I've had a couple so I'll let it stand as it reflects my inebriated irritation with you quoting at me something that you obviously regard as an authority but that I see as being ridiculously nonsensical in many ways)samadhi quoting the Tao wrote:The Tao never does anything,
yet through it all things are done.
Hey, I like spontaneity. It's a great way to manifest and express the joy of life to other people. It definitely has its place. I just question whether it should be the sole mode of one's actions. For example, I wouldn't be too impressed if George Bush decided to "spontaneously" let the nukes go at some random nation. I think that responsible people consider serious actions seriously, rather than acting spontaneously.samadhi: Again, from the standpoint of an ego, all action is motivated. That's all the ego understands. All I am suggesting is, perhaps there is something else going on the ego is missing.
Laird: The only time that the ego is missing is when you're dead. And perhaps also when you're asleep, although not when dreaming. And yes, in those cases you most certainly are lacking in motives.
samadhi: The egoless state is not as dire or unconscious as you make it out to be. I'm sure there have been many times in your life when the "me" forgot that it was there. In such times, the spontaneity of your actions can be a delightful and telling aspect of the me’s absence.
Laird: I'm not sure that I've ever "forgotten" that I have an ego. Certainly, though, there have been times where I have been acting very spontaneously, and even times where I have been acting so spontaneously and responding so effortlessly that I'm not even sure how I can honestly say that it's even me acting. I put that down though to temporarily achieving the same sort of unconscious skill/ability in my everyday (interpersonal) behaviour as I have in my touch typing. I have, after all, been training in that all of my life...
samadhi: Okay. You have your own experience. You can describe it any way you want. From my standpoint, spontaneity is about letting go. You can't try to do that, nor can you learn it. As soon as you attach a motivation or reason to spontaneity, it is no longer spontaneous. Funny how that works, isn’t it?
Cheers mate.Laird: I'd also like to request something of you, and that is that rather than using "me" and "you" to prefix quotes, you use our names.
samadhi: Done.
Ah, but down that road lies the inevitable psychological erosion described in Orwell's Animal Farm:It can be thoroughly enlightened to accumulate wealth and to then use that wealth for meritorious purposes.
Probably not particularly well. To begin with, I'd probably drink and possibly drug myself half to death, and because I'd have the ability to pay my own way without worrying about the threat of homelessness, I'd have the freedom to do it anytime I pleased. Sure, I'd start off contributing healthy amounts to charity and such, but there's little doubt my subconscious cultural conditioning would kick in and I'd be unable to resist the temptation to show off a bit - as in "look, all you critics, I've made it." House and vehicle purchases would follow, and while I'd like to think they would be a little cabin and a reliable used car, I am not self-deceiving enough to deny that they might be a nice-looking brand new car and a house with some bells and whistles. That's how it starts, and it's all downhill from there, just like clockwork. If I avoided killing myself by getting loaded anytime I pleased with impunity, I'd most likely gradually start thinking more and more like a person with money - most fundamentally because I would BE a person with money.Does nobody in the whole wide world qualify for the integrity to accumulate and wield wealth wisely in your eyes, Nat? What about you? How would you fare if you were to inherit a healthy, profitable, highly-capitalised industrial empire?
Forget the average person, how about Mr Rogers?Unidian wrote:And, without false modesty, if a person as committed to principle as me might fare so poorly, how is the average person really going to do?
Hmm, it's funny that you suggest that I'm elevating the importance of this question: I'm merely following up on your impetus, which was to single a particular statement of mine out of a much, much bigger post. But in a way that's why it's important to me. If I'm not misremembering, I even had you in mind when I wrote it, knowing that you are participating in the thread and knowing that you have a contrary position. I simply wanted to present an opposing point of view: to challenge your opinion (and the general "spiritual" consensus) that wealth is always and intrinsically immoral.Unidian wrote:Why is the question so important, though?
Yes. You think that unemployed philosophising is the height of integrity; I think that people who wield power (including wealth) wisely are (at least) equally entitled to admiration.Unidian wrote:You seem set on obtaining some kind of "pass" for worldly achievement.
Heavens, Nat, I can barely get out of bed most mornings. I have a tendency to leave projects half-finished and move on to the next good idea. God only knows how I'd handle serious financial responsibility.Unidian wrote:Do you have any plans or aspirations in that direction?
I think it's the height of integrity for those drawn to it. That's an important distinction. Not everyone is drawn or suited to such things. There are all sorts of people in the world, and there ought to be a place at the table for all of them (meaning nobody goes homeless or hungry for being who they are).Yes. You think that unemployed philosophising is the height of integrity...
Certainly they are, if they actually do so. But I think it would be very difficult to make a case that a majority or even a substantial fraction of the wealthy really do.I think that people who wield power (including wealth) wisely are (at least) equally entitled to admiration.
Well it's one that you failed to adequately capture in your thread title (emphasis mine): "Unemployment: Best Indicator of Integrity". Granted, you revealed in that thread that you were partially out to incite reactions out of boredom. Still, you could have been a little more careful about how you worded it if you actually think that there are other viable means of exhibiting integrity, such as the wise exercise of power.Laird: Yes. You think that unemployed philosophising is the height of integrity...
Unidian: I think it's the height of integrity for those drawn to it. That's an important distinction.
Agreed. As I've told you in chat, I support a minimum income scheme. I'm not so committed to it that I'm not willing to change my opinion should someone present a strong enough argument in opposition, but it's been an idea that I've favoured for some time now.Unidian wrote:There are all sorts of people in the world, and there ought to be a place at the table for all of them (meaning nobody goes homeless or hungry for being who they are).
And in fact I'm reconsidering it quite carefully given a discussion that I had with a close (very, very intelligent) friend over the Chrissie break. He started by saying that it was unfair that some people would have to work whereas others got to live on easy street. I responded by saying that everyone would have the same choice available to them to live frugally on a minimum income. I had to concede though that the system would have to be constantly adjusting the minimum income to make it unappealing enough to the majority lest everyone abandon their work ethic. He responded by saying that therefore there were certain people (those whose "needs" were always greater than this ever-adjusting minimum) who would never have the real choice to live on the minimum wage: it would constantly be adjusted to "price them out" - they would be forced to work owing to their higher standard of living. It's quite a compelling argument, but my guess, Nat, is that you'll respond by saying that any one individual is always free to lower his/her living standards. Hmm, you have quite a compelling argument there too (and it's not even yours... :-P).Laird wrote:As I've told you in chat, I support a minimum income scheme. I'm not so committed to it that I'm not willing to change my opinion should someone present a strong enough argument in opposition, but it's been an idea that I've favoured for some time now.
You have to keep in mind the audience it was directed at. This is billed as a forum for people who are highly "advanced" in the spiritual path. As you yourself note, almost all spiritual traditions hold that attachments to money and worldly status are to be rejected. Would I have posted such a thread on a music discussion board, for example? Absolutely not. People are neither ready for it or interested in it, nor does it even apply to them in any real sense. But this place is supposed to be full of "philosophers." They are precisely the sort of people who should be open to that sort of material.Well it's one that you failed to adequately capture in your thread title (emphasis mine): "Unemployment: Best Indicator of Integrity".
And out of an intentional desire to provoke discussion.Granted, you revealed in that thread that you were partially out to incite reactions out of boredom.
Elsewhere, I would have been. But this place bills itself as a haven for "dangerous thinkers." I wanted to keep them honest in that regard and see just how "dangerous" they like their thinking to be.Still, you could have been a little more careful about how you worded it if you actually think that there are other viable means of exhibiting integrity, such as the wise exercise of power.
Well, if Victor's objections didn't do the trick, you're probably all set. His arguments against it are about as strong as any the opposition has.Agreed. As I've told you in chat, I support a minimum income scheme. I'm not so committed to it that I'm not willing to change my opinion should someone present a strong enough argument in opposition, but it's been an idea that I've favoured for some time now.
Actually, you didn't have to concede that, because it's entirely false. Studies have shown that people do not lose interest in work just because a gauranteed minimum income is available. The Canadian MINCOME study, for example, showed only a 2-3% reduction in total hours worked when a GMI was made available. But let's triple that figure to 6-9%, just for the sake of argument and to account for the idea that more people will take the GMI as it becomes more socially acceptable. That's still a very tolerable figure, wouldn't you say?I had to concede though that the system would have to be constantly adjusting the minimum income to make it unappealing enough to the majority lest everyone abandon their work ethic.
No, because quite frankly I think the underlying premise of his argument is essentially nonsense and is contradicted by both facts and common sense, as explained above. It's not an impressive argument by any means, and I'm kind of surprised that someone as sharp as yourself thought that it was. Take that as a compliment, please. :)He responded by saying that therefore there were certain people (those whose "needs" were always greater than this ever-adjusting minimum) who would never have the real choice to live on the minimum wage: it would constantly be adjusted to "price them out" - they would be forced to work owing to their higher standard of living. It's quite a compelling argument, but my guess, Nat, is that you'll respond by saying that any one individual is always free to lower his/her living standards.
Very much so, but you ignored the main point that I (well, really, my friend Michael) made: that some people would want to give up work and support themselves solely through the minimum income scheme but that they would be denied that choice due to the standard being set too low to satisfy them. There will always be people who fit into this category, no matter how high the minimum income gets, due to the need for it to be set low enough to dissuade most people from taking up this appealing option. And might I add that in my personal, anecdotal experiences, I find that when asked the question, "Would you work if you didn't have to?" people invariably respond: "No". I'm not saying that this is completely universal - there are no doubt many who gain so much satisfaction and value from work that they wouldn't give it up even given the choice of a life of luxury - but I am saying that in general it is true insofar as I have probed.Laird: I had to concede though that the system would have to be constantly adjusting the minimum income to make it unappealing enough to the majority lest everyone abandon their work ethic.
Unidian: Actually, you didn't have to concede that, because it's entirely false. Studies have shown that people do not lose interest in work just because a gauranteed minimum income is available. The Canadian MINCOME study, for example, showed only a 2-3% reduction in total hours worked when a GMI was made available. But let's triple that figure to 6-9%, just for the sake of argument and to account for the idea that more people will take the GMI as it becomes more socially acceptable. That's still a very tolerable figure, wouldn't you say?
Oh, well I will then if that's the way that you intended it. But I hope that you recognise that I don't recognise that the underlying premise of his argument is "essentially nonsense". I'm quite sure that it will be the case, no matter what level the GMI is set at, that there will always be some people who would just love to give up work but who can't because they know that the GMI will be inadequate to support their standard of living. And quite frankly the only counter that I can envisage to that is the argument that I presented and that you so readily dismissed as unnecessary: that those people are always free to lower their standard of living.[Q]uite frankly I think the underlying premise of his argument is essentially nonsense and is contradicted by both facts and common sense, as explained above. It's not an impressive argument by any means, and I'm kind of surprised that someone as sharp as yourself thought that it was. Take that as a compliment, please. :)
Okay. I just don't think saying consciousness is deterministic helps. That is just defining your conclusion.Laird: Human consciousness is a complex causal process by which sensory inputs, memory and presumably (semi-)random/(semi-)directed thoughts are synthesised to produce willful action. That's just the way that consciousness works, whether you're enlightened or not.
samadhi: Maybe, maybe not. The way consciousness works is just the way it works, no one knows why. No one knows why about gravity either, it just is.
Laird: There are no maybes about it for me. Not only am I conscious, but I'm capable of observing my own consciousness, and what I've described is simply the way that my consciousness works in my observation. I'm not, however, saying that it's the whole description - for all I know another part of the synthesis is the injection of divine inspiration at crucial moments; I'm also open to the idea that part of consciousness is some acausal process that might be termed "truly free will" even though I have very little inkling of how that process might be described.
Well, it's my understanding that enlightenment is from the ego, not by the ego.samadhi: I am not arguing a lack of will, the power to act. I am arguing that motivation is about ego.
Laird: Well sure, motivation is about ego, however I'm arguing that ego is both inevitable and inescapable (for conscious human beings, including the enlightened).
Ego as I am discussing it is the idea of self as a distinct entity, particularly a body/mind. Enlightenment doesn't get rid of the body/mind, they are quite useful as a persona, but they are no longer seen as self, as what I am. And please note, there is nothing bad or wrong with having an ego or believing one is an ego. Whatever you want to believe, if it works for you, that's great. It's only when what you believe isn't working, can you become interested in something else.Perhaps you would care to explain exactly what you mean by ego in this context. Personally I'm using a definition that pretty much corresponds to this one from dictionary.com:
the "I" or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.
Note in particular about this definition that it includes willing, and whereas you say that you're not arguing a lack of will, if we are to go by this definition then lack of ego is lack of will. So apparently you mean something different to both me and to common understanding when you talk of the ego.
Not everyone who teaches enlightenment is a fraud. You are appealing to cynicism. And the basis for your appeal is that what they say does not conform to your belief. The point isn't for you to believe what they are saying, it is about your own interest. If what they are saying appeals to you in some manner, then you can investigate on your own. If it comes across as nonsense, then you will ignore it in any case. Either way, you must find your own path, no matter what anyone says.samadhi: Why would enlightenment care about prestige or intrigue?
Laird: Well that's the million dollar question. The million dollar answer is: "because such people are not enlightened, they are obfuscatory, semi-mystical (in the irrational sense) frauds".
But when it comes to enlightenment, you must rely on others until you can speak from your own experience. It's not a bad thing to get a little guidance. It doesn't mean you just swallow everything whole. It's okay to ponder things without passing judgment immediately.Laird: I'm furthermore implying that people who make such statements are acting dishonestly in that they are misrepresenting the nature of human consciousness, and that I don't regard them as particularly enlightened in the sense of being able to cogently describe reality (or at least the reality of one's mind).
samadhi: My experience tells me something else. I don't assume I know all there is to know about consciousness and that I can always apprise another's motives.
Laird: That's wise, and neither do I. Mostly consciousness baffles the crap out of me. There are though, as I described earlier, definitely parts of the process of intelligent consciousness that I can observe and describe.
The Tao Te Ching uses poetry because the Tao is ungraspable. You cannot use math and science to discover it. If you are looking for something to grasp, go with science. But then, please be honest and say you are not interested in the Tao or enlightenment.samadhi: And besides, the Tao itself speaks about this quite plainly
Laird: Such appeals to authority mean very little to me. Whoever wrote the Tao was just another human being doing his/her best to be wise, as am I. His/her words have no additional weight than that, and in fact to me they have even less given that they're more descriptive/proscriptive than explanatory. If this dude thinks that we should behave in a certain way, or take a certain attitude, then let him/her speak in plain, well-reasoned language. This poetic indulgence is subject to varying interpretations. I've read a lot of the Tao Te Ching and whilst some of it made sense to me, some of it seemed plain contradictory and even unwise.
The point isn't whether it is better to be actively involved or not. There isn't one way to be in the world. And no true teacher of enlightenment says "drifting along in harmony with the Tao" is what it's about. The verse is about surrender. Maybe you have no interest in surrender. Maybe you're not there yet. That's fine but it doesn’t mean that surrender can be safely ignored when it comes to approaching the Tao. It just means you are not interested.As for my reaction to the words themselves:
samadhi quoting the Tao wrote:
The Master gives himself up
to whatever the moment brings.
He knows that he is going to die,
and he has nothing left to hold on to:
no illusions in his mind,
no resistances in his body.
He doesn't think about his actions;
they flow from the core of his being.
That's all very well if you just want to live harmoniously as opposed to make an active difference in the world. Personally, I think that it's more enlightened to be interested in the active evolution of our society(ies) through conscious effort. But hey, maybe you think that it's more enlightened to simply "drift along in harmony with the Tao". I wonder what a putative God might have to say about that on a putative Judgement Day? "Well done lad, you really took up that chance to make a real difference to the world and you attacked it with all of your energy and spirit!" Somehow I'm not so sure.
Your self-judgment is more of a hindrance than anything you actually do. If you want to help people, then help them; if you don't, then don't. What you do isn't as important as who is doing it. Passing judgment is the ego's way of being smart while not actually having to prove how smart it is. It conveniently divides itself into the one who knows and the one who doesn't care so it can enjoy its pronouncements while dismissing them at the same time. It's a setup for failure, which the ego of course enjoys because it reinforces the judgments. What would happen to the ego if you didn't judge yourself? I bet it would be very pissed with you. It hates to be ignored.Nevermind, Sam, that's not really directed at you, it's more of a harsh self-criticism. Here I sit, idly composing - largely for my own indulgence - semi-relevant posts to a semi-relevant corner of the internet, when on the other side of the world people suffer under brutal regimes, starve in poverty and generally suffer in ways that I can't even imagine. All I've managed so far is to sponsor a child through some charity, and even that wasn't a particularly conscious decision, I simply couldn't bear to say no to the woman who approached me on the street and asked me (quite assertively) to make a regular contribution - it just made too much sense.
Well, in my experience I don't look for motive in order to act. I act and then maybe later if things don't go well, try to figure out why I did what I did. The point is that motive is really about justification. Look at something huge, like the invasion of Iraq. If it had gone well, would anyone have cared what the motive was? Liberty! Freedom! Democracy! Yeah! But it didn't go well. So the search for motive which is just a means of justification.samadhi: Motive is always after the fact.
Laird: Nonsense. By definition motive precedes action.
samadhi: You are conceptualizing it. I am talking about experience.
Laird: I have very little idea what you mean by this. We're discussing, in the English language, "motive": what am I supposed to do other than conceptualise it? And anyhow, my experience conforms to this conceptualisation, albeit that in the case of some of my physical actions I'm under an illusion, as Ataraxia has kindly pointed out. In what way does your experience differ?
Enlightenment is not about awareness of the ego's motives, it is about awareness that the ego itself is just a thought. And like I said, becoming aware of one's motives isn't a bad thing. Just don't mistake it for enlightenment.samadhi: People act and then decide why they did what they did.
Laird: People act and then try to analyse their motivations, which motivations aren't always particularly conscious. Enlightenment is in my opinion about becoming more conscious of one's motivations and about more deliberately choosing them in the first place.
samadhi: That isn't enlightenment, it is simply self-awareness.
Laird: Wow, then we've got a really different idea of enlightenment: to me the most enlightened person is the most self-aware (amongst other things)!
This may be our core disagreement then.samadhi: Please note, there is nothing wrong with becoming more aware of your motives. For an ego, that's a good thing, by all means, become more aware. But you still seem to have the idea that enlightenment is about knowing more and having more control.
Laird: Yes, I do. As well as being the enlightened way to live one's life, it's also the responsible way to live one's life.
I certainly understand where you are coming from, but I don't think you have a clear idea on enlightenment teaching. Wisdom is certainly a big part of it, but it's not all of it. Without the surrender, wisdom becomes another accoutrement of the ego, knowledge to wield and display for its benefit.I'll clarify though that by "knowing more" I mean relevant knowledge, in particular self-knowledge, and also (leading to) general knowledge of human behaviour, and I'll also clarify that having more control includes having the control to defer actions to others. I'm not, for example, saying that the enlightened person runs around trying to actively direct every single thing: s/he might act very, very subtly by for example dropping in a single loaded comment that has several layers of meaning to it and that causes those at whom it is directed to radically reevaluate their perspective/intentions, rather than to bludgeon everyone with explicit attempts to control the situation. Or "having more control" might consist of simply observing that other people have the situation well in hand and letting them get on with it - in other words having the self-control to "not try to fix what ain't broke".
I'm fine if you don't want to look at what others have discovered. You have to discover it all for yourself anyway. But then you cannot discuss about what the teaching is or what enlightenment points to. All you can do is give me your belief about a motive for everything. Since the belief obviously applies in your life, it can't be wrong for you. But what about others? Mightn't they have a different experience?samadhi: Again the Tao ...
Laird: Again, please don't quote that source to me as though it were some sort of authority. I don't recognise it as such, any more than I recognise the Bible as an authority.
You are using the word enlightened in a watered-down sense. Bill Gates ain't enlightened. Sure, I admire how he is using his wealth. But what he is doing is not about enlightenment.As for the quotation itself:
samadhi quoting the Tao wrote:
The Master doesn't try to be powerful;
thus he is truly powerful.
The ordinary man keeps reaching for power;
thus he never has enough.
This is fairly reasonable, because as the old saying goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely". As I suggested above, power can be wielded with subtlety, and we all have the capacity to be powerful in our everyday lives. I do think, however, that it is enlightened to (seek to) accumulate relevant power so that one can have a meaningful influence in the world, even though I wouldn't disqualify a person lacking in relevant power from enlightenment. I don't, for example, subscribe to the belief that it's unenlightened or unspiritual to accumulate wealth. It can be thoroughly enlightened to accumulate wealth and to then use that wealth for meritorious purposes. There'd have to be a balance between using the wealth to accumulate further wealth and using the wealth to aid the progress of the less developed parts of the world though.
The Tao Te Ching teaches with paradox. Do you understand how something seemingly contradictory can be true at the same time? Do you understand why paradox can provide insight where a straightforward description cannot?samadhi quoting the Tao wrote:
The Master does nothing,
yet he leaves nothing undone.
Laird: If I liked inane contradiction then this would be right up my alley. As it happens, I'm pretty unimpressed.
You are taking it out of context. It is meant to be read with the previous passage as a contrast with what a master accomplishes versus an ordinary man.samadhi quoting the Tao wrote:
The ordinary man is always doing things,
yet many more are left to be done.
Laird: Yeah, and? This is a particularly trivial and useless observation. Not what I'd call high wisdom.
"No will of his own" points to surrender. Surrender isn't about gaining power from a higher source by giving up your own power. That is bargaining, not surrender. Dwelling in reality has nothing to do with "making the world a better place." That is simply a platitude. It has to do with knowing what you are. The same with letting go of illusion, the illusion of ego.samadhi quoting the Tao wrote:
Therefore the Master concerns himself
with the depths and not the surface,
with the fruit and not the flower.
He has no will of his own.
He dwells in reality,
and lets all illusions go.
Laird: To subscribe to the belief that a man has "no will of his own" is to abrogate one's responsibility to/in this world, unless as I've already canvassed one somehow manages to instead channel the will of a higher source. To "dwell in reality" is to recognise that we can make the world a better place, and to be an active part of that process. To "let all illusions go" is to stop making excuses for getting active.
David plays the wisdom card exclusively. He knows nothing about surrender. That's why there is so much ego in his words and his ego makes the words ring hollow. Parroting wisdom won't get you anywhere, it simply gives the ego another image to inhabit.samadhi: Trying and not trying are both strategies. In that sense they are not different. Enlightenment is not about asserting one duality over the other. It is about seeing what isn't within duality.
Laird: Yeah, I've seen David rabbit on about transcending duality too. It leaves me quite cold. I don't get much meaning out of it: to my mind it's semi-coherent babble masquerading as wisdom. You'll have to explain what you mean a lot more carefully if you want me to get any sense out of it. In particular I'm referring to your final sentence: the rest of it is relatively meaningful.
The whole thing is a paradox. Try or not try is all the ego understands. That's what its got, that's where you and me start. Is it where it ends? Have you ever hit a brick wall? Have you ever had that experience? You've tried as hard as you could but it just ain't working. At that point, it isn't that you can just turn around and say, "okay, now I'm just not going to do anything, maybe that will work." You simply give up, not only trying but not trying, as a strategy. Nothing works, period. Tell me what happened when you reached that point.But again: nevermind, Sam, I'm just taking out a little frustration (with David) on you. I can actually get some sense of what you're saying. In particular I like your first sentence. I'll comment on it though that either way requires conscious control - it's a conscious decision that one makes whether it's most appropriate to try or to not try. I certainly don't advocate adopting one or the other option universally.
They're both fine.And yes, I could edit my first paragraph to be a little less critical given my second paragraph but right now I'm feeling the need to let it all hang out. Sorry.
If it is your nature to learn, you will learn. My point was that enlightenment is not about learning something so well it becomes effortless. That is a skill. You can learn to do that. Nor is it about any innate ability. I am not saying kick back and let it come to you. Unless that's what you really believe. Whatever is working for you, do that. That is obviously where your heart will be.Laird: I'm not so willing to trust in my innate abilities. I didn't sit down in front of a keyboard for the first time and begin to touch-type effortlessly.
samadhi: My point isn't not to do anything. I would say that whatever you do, do it whole-heartedly. After all, you can only truly be yourself with your whole heart, not half of one.
Laird: Your point seemed to be though to "trust in your nature", which seems to me to ignore the possibilities for learning new things that aren't in one's original nature.
The ineffable nature of what we're discussing I'm sure comes as no surprise to you. If enlightenment could be taught like mathematics, people would be out there getting enlightened every day. Doesn't happen like that, does it? Yet some are still interested. From what you've said, it's hard to tell if enlightenment is really interesting to you. You may be looking for something more literal than anyone can actually offer.samadhi: I don’t think you see what I'm pointing to.
Laird: Apparently not. Perhaps you need to spell it out in more detail, because it seems contradictory/ineffable to me.
The source will always be a mystery, whatever enlightenment happens to appear. If you want to call the source a motive, I guess you can do that but my problem with it is that it muddies the water between how an ordinary individual decides and acts and someone who is enlightened. If you don't want to recognize a distinction, okay. I just think it is valuable to do so.You acknowledge that actions can be "rationalised" but on the other hand you assert that the enlightened person has no motive. What in the world is the basis of his/her behaviour then? "He/she is simply expressing his/her nature" just doesn't cut it for me, because as I've already explained, when you analyse it, "one's nature" is as much a source of motivation as anything else.
If you have no interest in the Tao, of course you will dismiss it. If you have an interest, you might ask yourself, what is really being conveyed by this paradox? What is he pointing to?samadhi quoting the Tao wrote:
The Tao never does anything,
yet through it all things are done.
Laird: Eminently inane and even contradictory. I mean, really, how am I supposed to take this shit seriously? (pardon the French, but I've had a couple so I'll let it stand as it reflects my inebriated irritation with you quoting at me something that you obviously regard as an authority but that I see as being ridiculously nonsensical in many ways)
The Tao doesn't say how you as a person should act, nor can it. In fact it plainly says, a foolish man laughs when he hears it. It is not understandable on that level. It is pointing to another level where most people do not care to venture. The question is, are you interested? You don't have to be. But I would assume since you've come this far, there must be something in it that has got your attention.OK, I'm going to really try because I don't like to think that another person is so wrong as for me to be totally unable to understand him/her. So: the best interpretation that I can get out of it is that the Tao is some sort of medium: some sort of "container" through which things occur - perhaps equivalent to causality itself. So in the same way that we can't say that "causality" does anything, we can't say that the Tao does anything, merely that it facilitates things being done. OK, I'm satisfied with that as an interpretation, but of what value is it to me? It's trivial and irrelevant. It certainly doesn't say anything about how I as a person should act.
When egos "try" spontaneity, problems arise. That's because the ego is using it as an agenda, not to think, not to care, not to be responsible. True spontaneity has no agenda, that's why you can trust it.samadhi: Okay. You have your own experience. You can describe it any way you want. From my standpoint, spontaneity is about letting go. You can't try to do that, nor can you learn it. As soon as you attach a motivation or reason to spontaneity, it is no longer spontaneous. Funny how that works, isn’t it?
Laird: Hey, I like spontaneity. It's a great way to manifest and express the joy of life to other people. It definitely has its place. I just question whether it should be the sole mode of one's actions. For example, I wouldn't be too impressed if George Bush decided to "spontaneously" let the nukes go at some random nation. I think that responsible people consider serious actions seriously, rather than acting spontaneously.
Hmm. I suppose I ignored that because I didn't realize it was intended to be a "point." To me, it isn't much of one. The idea of a guaranteed minimum income is to provide basic subsistence at a level that ensures the necessities of decent food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and a few personal "essentials" of the recipient's choosing. In other words, a fixed standard of living is implied in the nature of the proposal, and that standard is income just above the poverty line. I'm not sure it makes any sense to talk about people being "denied the opportunity" to live this way simply because they refuse to settle for such a lifestyle. I think I would almost have to side with Victor and the other opponents if it came to that - the idea here isn't to enable people to live at any standard they choose. The purpose is only to enable a basic subsistence lifestyle. Even I don't think people are entitled to live any way they please at taxpayer expense. In my view, if people want a better standard of living than gauranteed subsistence, they have the option to work.Very much so, but you ignored the main point that I (well, really, my friend Michael) made: that some people would want to give up work and support themselves solely through the minimum income scheme but that they would be denied that choice due to the standard being set too low to satisfy them.
Well, contrary to popular belief, my intent in supporting a guaranteed minimum income is not to "make everyone equal" or "make life fair." Neither of those things can be done at this stage in human evolution. I have nothing to offer those who are enslaved to work simply because they are unwilling to lower their standard of living, except to say "have fun at the office." It's impossible to offer everyone the opportunity to have whatever they please on a silver platter, and I actually agree with libertarians that it isn't government's function to do so. All we can reasonably do is gauarantee a basic minimum, and let people know that if they can't stand working for whatever reason, they have the option to quit without going hungry or homeless.And might I add that in my personal, anecdotal experiences, I find that when asked the question, "Would you work if you didn't have to?" people invariably respond: "No". I'm not saying that this is completely universal - there are no doubt many who gain so much satisfaction and value from work that they wouldn't give it up even given the choice of a life of luxury - but I am saying that in general it is true insofar as I have probed.
Well, as it concerns that issue, I'm going to have to go a little bit Republican on you (or your friend). Sorry, but that's just tough. We can't do everything for everyone. All we can do is what is fair, reasonable, moral, and compassionate. To go beyond that is not our duty. I do feel that the developed nations have a moral duty to protect every citizen from basic deprivations such as homelessness or hunger, regardless of employment or any other consideration. But we don't have a duty to fill their homes with big-screen TV's and put 2 SUV's in their driveways. If they want those things, they have the option to work.I'm quite sure that it will be the case, no matter what level the GMI is set at, that there will always be some people who would just love to give up work but who can't because they know that the GMI will be inadequate to support their standard of living.
Of course they are. But, more importantly, they also have the option to work. What's important is that with a GMI in place, these options would be truly theirs. Their choice either way would not be coerced by the threat of basic deprivations. It would be entirely determined by their values regarding materialism and so forth, and therefore it would be a truly free choice in the sense that it would be devoid of externally coercive influences.And quite frankly the only counter that I can envisage to that is the argument that I presented and that you so readily dismissed as unnecessary: that those people are always free to lower their standard of living.
Thank you, Nat. I appreciate your kind words.Unidian wrote:On another note, I've got to say, it seems to me that Sam has really stepped up his game since I last read him. I don't have a horse in that particular race, but I just wanted to give a nod in his direction for making a series of posts I consider pretty high-quality in terms of highlighting what is being pointed to in Taoism and other Eastern-influenced ideas.
Sorry Sam but that's just pure hand waving with a bit of ad hom thrown in. The idea is that you either tell we why what I say is wrong or you agree with it.DT: You can't go wrong saying anything happened for a reason because to do so is simply to say that this something was caused. We then go on to delineate those causes to some extent but it doesn't matter how accurate we are in doing so, the fact remains that everything happens for a reason, the actions of enlightened beings notwithstanding.
Sam: I am not talking about casuality. Besides, saying everything is caused is just a way of saying we don't know why things happen but to appear knowledgeable while saying it.
This is why motive is the wrong word and your point is muddied thereby. All it means is whatever moves a conscious agent.DT: Motive just means whatever impels one to act, whether it be cognizant or not. Just as there is always a reason for whatever happens, so too there is always a motive for whatever act of a conscious agent. Motive describes a subset of reasons specifically applied to the acts of consciousness agents. That is to say that whatever act a conscious agent performs is caused, ergo there is a reason for it, ergo there is a motive for it.
Sam: I am talking about motive in a personal sense, not an impersonal one. In the sense you describe, everything has motive by definition. Sure, you can define it that way but it doesn't tell you anything about why any particular action is performed.
And what is a goal if not a desire?DT: You're talking about desires and needs Sam. ... Replace the word motive with desire in all of Sam's previous quotes above and you'll see what I mean. They also make a lot more sense that way.
Sam: Well, you can think what you want but desire isn't what I am talking about. Motive in this conversation is about an action done for the sake of something else. What I am saying is that not all action is taken with a goal in mind.
Conflating the two in fact illustrates that the distinction you are drawing is meaningless. It's meaningless because you are using the wrong word and words convey meaning. There's definitely a point being missed here.Sam: Nature isn't a motive, it is a description.
DT: One's nature has to be a motive. It's probably the only motive you could accurately ascribe to any conscious act whatsoever. Be it one's ego, intelligence, emotion, insight, height, strength, fearlessness, pain threshold, hair colour, cardiovascular health, that dodgy knee, or even one's enlightened consciousness; it's all one's nature.
Sam: Conflating the two makes the distinction I am drawing meaningless. You can do that but then you simply miss the point.
Well yeah that's right but the point was that they are caused.Sam: Gravity has no motive, it just does what it does, that's all. Sure, you can say leaves want to fall to earth but that misses something important, namely that no one is deciding anything.
DT: Just as we can say that leaves want to fall to earth, so too we can say that consciousnesses want to decide things. This is of course on the understanding that we know we are speaking allegorically. Just as the leaf is actually caused to fall to earth by, amongst other things (read all things), gravity; so too the consciousness is actually caused to decide by, for non-controversial example, the circumstances.
Sam: Whether you are caused to decide or not, decisions happen.
Indeed. I wasn't here suggesting that the fact that consciousness is caused implies that there is a motive behind every decision, although it obviously does as motives are reasons for the acts of conscious agents and reasons are causes.Sam: That is different than saying there is always a motive behind every decision.
I'm talking about whoever you would consider enlightened.samadhi wrote:You are talking about QRS. Their motivation is quite obvious, no one would argue that.divine focus wrote:They say there's no reason because they don't want to explain themselves! They just felt like it. It's a very selfish motivation, but their sense of self is enlarged. The feminine that is put down on these boards allows them to be everything and everyone while they follow their masculine motivation and self-direction as individuals.
That's also a tricky semantic problem, because desire can be seen as motive. Egoic desire in Eastern thought is the perception of an absolute necessity for a certain action or event. Basic desire, on the other hand, is simply the "need" to do what you choose to do. There's a flexibility in this sort of desire, because what you choose at one point doesn't have to be held to forevermore. You are always choosing, and changes in cirmcumstances (internal or external) provide new sets of options.Dave Toast wrote:Your over all point about the absence of motive in those that transcend ego and merely act out their nature is actually about the absence of desire in those that do such. It's so obvious. Ego and desire, not ego and motive. Those that transcend ego are still moved to consciously act - have motive - whilst they are yet desireless.
I'm not saying that consciousness is necessarily deterministic though. Look up above at what I wrote and you'll see that I specifically commented that I'm 'open to the idea that part of consciousness is some acausal process that might be termed "truly free will"'. And truly free will is totally opposed to determinism.Laird: There are no maybes about it for me. Not only am I conscious, but I'm capable of observing my own consciousness, and what I've described is simply the way that my consciousness works in my observation. I'm not, however, saying that it's the whole description - for all I know another part of the synthesis is the injection of divine inspiration at crucial moments; I'm also open to the idea that part of consciousness is some acausal process that might be termed "truly free will" even though I have very little inkling of how that process might be described.
samadhi: Okay. I just don't think saying consciousness is deterministic helps. That is just defining your conclusion.
See, it's statements like this that make me so skeptical of the traditional Eastern brand of enlightenment. If enlightenment is not by the ego, then what's the point in chasing after it with the ego? You read the Tao Te Ching and listen to lectures by Adya and that's probably only the tip of the iceberg of the ways in which you seek enlightenment with your ego. It's utterly contradictory.samadhi: I am not arguing a lack of will, the power to act. I am arguing that motivation is about ego.
Laird: Well sure, motivation is about ego, however I'm arguing that ego is both inevitable and inescapable (for conscious human beings, including the enlightened).
samadhi: Well, it's my understanding that enlightenment is from the ego, not by the ego.
So to "discard (or to 'transcend') the ego" is simply to "realise" that certain things that one once considered to be oneself are in fact not oneself. I put it to you as I put it to QRS that all that you're describing is an intellectualisation: one simply chooses to not view certain things as part of one's identity anymore. Fine, and...?... Again, I'll ask: in what way does this meaningfully impact upon the way in which one lives one's life? As far as I'm concerned, such an intellectualisation has no practical consequences. Life goes on as a series of choices, whether you choose to view the agent making those choices as "me" or not. And I can't imagine the adoption of this intellectualisation as having any significant impact upon the way in which I make the choices in my life. As far as I'm concerned it's for the most part an irrelevancy. I'm not interested (except as an intellectual curiosity) in abstract ideas about who I "really" am, I'm interested in working out how to more effectively live my life.samadhi wrote:Ego as I am discussing it is the idea of self as a distinct entity, particularly a body/mind. Enlightenment doesn't get rid of the body/mind, they are quite useful as a persona, but they are no longer seen as self, as what I am.
So in what way does your interest in the idea that the mind/body are not really a part of the self "work" for you, practically speaking?samadhi wrote:And please note, there is nothing bad or wrong with having an ego or believing one is an ego. Whatever you want to believe, if it works for you, that's great. It's only when what you believe isn't working, can you become interested in something else.
Yes, that's exactly the basis of my appeal, however in contrast to what these "enlightened" people are teaching, my belief is reasonable: that all actions of conscious agents are motivated.samadhi: Why would enlightenment care about prestige or intrigue?
Laird: Well that's the million dollar question. The million dollar answer is: "because such people are not enlightened, they are obfuscatory, semi-mystical (in the irrational sense) frauds".
samadhi: Not everyone who teaches enlightenment is a fraud. You are appealing to cynicism. And the basis for your appeal is that what they say does not conform to your belief.
Well sure, but that's all a bit trite. I am finding my own path, and I'm trying to describe it to you. I'm by no means treading the path that I'd like to be treading particularly well, but at least I know where I'd like to be, as opposed to reaching after an illusion.samadhi wrote:The point isn't for you to believe what they are saying, it is about your own interest. If what they are saying appeals to you in some manner, then you can investigate on your own. If it comes across as nonsense, then you will ignore it in any case. Either way, you must find your own path, no matter what anyone says.
I first came into significant contact with the Eastern version of enlightenment in my final two years of high school back in 1993/4 through one of my subjects, "Studies in Religion". I'm certainly not passing "immediate" judgement. I gave the concept a good go. I "relied on others" to explain what enlightenment was. I found, though, that the explanations were for the most part too vague and contradictory to be taken seriously.samadhi wrote:[W]hen it comes to enlightenment, you must rely on others until you can speak from your own experience. It's not a bad thing to get a little guidance. It doesn't mean you just swallow everything whole. It's okay to ponder things without passing judgment immediately.
Yeah, see, this is the kind of wishy-washy thinking that I'm talking about. "The Tao is ungraspable". Then what exactly is the point of it? If there's no meaning to be grasped at, then why do you present it to me as if it's meaningful?samadhi wrote:The Tao Te Ching uses poetry because the Tao is ungraspable. You cannot use math and science to discover it. If you are looking for something to grasp, go with science.
I'm interested in the Tao to the extent that it's fascinating to me that so many people take so seriously something that by your own admission can't be grasped and hence is largely meaningless. Sure, it makes for great poetry, and those who've been following my contributions to this forum from the beginning will already know that I really dig paradox, but as for the paradoxical writings in this book being of any particular use to me in guiding my behaviour and understanding: they're just not. I'll qualify this paragraph by saying that it's been a while since I really looked seriously at the book and for all I know I'd find more use for it were I to take a thorough look again.samadhi wrote:But then, please be honest and say you are not interested in the Tao or enlightenment.
Sure, but there are more and less responsible ways to be in the world.samadhi wrote:The point isn't whether it is better to be actively involved or not. There isn't one way to be in the world.
I'm at the very least interested in working out exactly what you mean. Surrender to what?samadhi wrote:And no true teacher of enlightenment says "drifting along in harmony with the Tao" is what it's about. The verse is about surrender. Maybe you have no interest in surrender. Maybe you're not there yet. That's fine but it doesn’t mean that surrender can be safely ignored when it comes to approaching the Tao. It just means you are not interested.
Fair call mate. It was a bit of a (drunkenly) self-indulgent paragraph really. If I were truly enlightened then I wouldn't judge myself harshly anyway because I would always act rightfully.Laird: Nevermind, Sam, that's not really directed at you, it's more of a harsh self-criticism. Here I sit, idly composing - largely for my own indulgence - semi-relevant posts to a semi-relevant corner of the internet, when on the other side of the world people suffer under brutal regimes, starve in poverty and generally suffer in ways that I can't even imagine. All I've managed so far is to sponsor a child through some charity, and even that wasn't a particularly conscious decision, I simply couldn't bear to say no to the woman who approached me on the street and asked me (quite assertively) to make a regular contribution - it just made too much sense.
samadhi: Your self-judgment is more of a hindrance than anything you actually do. If you want to help people, then help them; if you don't, then don't.
You're doing something a little strange in this paragraph: you're talking about my ego as if it were distinct from "myself", whereas the ego by my (and the dictionary) definition is my self. Granted, you've clarified that by your definition, ego is the mind/body, but in this you deviate from the dictionary definition, which says nothing about mind and body but describes it simply as "the self of any person". In other words, me and my ego are one and the same, and to say that "it" would be pissed with "me" is to construct an artificial duality out of a singularity. But OK, I'll be fair to you and grant you your definition of ego as "a distinct entity, particularly a body/mind". You claim that the enlightened person no longer sees the body/mind as the self, but this leads to the obvious question: what does the enlightened person see as him or herself? I mean, s/he still uses the words "me" and "I". So exactly what does s/he mean by these words then?samadhi wrote:What you do isn't as important as who is doing it. Passing judgment is the ego's way of being smart while not actually having to prove how smart it is. It conveniently divides itself into the one who knows and the one who doesn't care so it can enjoy its pronouncements while dismissing them at the same time. It's a setup for failure, which the ego of course enjoys because it reinforces the judgments. What would happen to the ego if you didn't judge yourself? I bet it would be very pissed with you. It hates to be ignored.
It doesn't matter whether you look for it or not, it's there regardless.samadhi wrote:Well, in my experience I don't look for motive in order to act.
Right, and the fact that you do that indicates that you do believe that your actions are motivated.samadhi wrote:I act and then maybe later if things don't go well, try to figure out why I did what I did.
No, it's not. Justifications can mask real motives.samadhi wrote:The point is that motive is really about justification.
Is it relevant whether anyone cares? The motive exists whether anyone cares or not.samadhi wrote:Look at something huge, like the invasion of Iraq. If it had gone well, would anyone have cared what the motive was?
The motive is the true reason for the invasion. The justification is the way that the invaders try to avoid censure.samadhi wrote:Liberty! Freedom! Democracy! Yeah! But it didn't go well. So the search for motive which is just a means of justification.
I can't really say any more in response to this than what I've already said: that we simply differ here on what constitutes enlightenment. To me, a belief that "the ego itself is just a thought" is a pretty waffly one, is not a particularly helpful one, and is not part of my conception of enlightenment (which is admittedly different to the traditional one), whereas becoming aware of my motives greatly enhances the effectiveness of my behaviour, which is quite an enlightened thing to do. To me, that's the main reason to meditate: to "clear blockages" - in other words to reconfigure one's system of motivations so that it is an enlightened one.samadhi wrote:Enlightenment is not about awareness of the ego's motives, it is about awareness that the ego itself is just a thought. And like I said, becoming aware of one's motives isn't a bad thing. Just don't mistake it for enlightenment.
To be honest with you, I had to think a little carefully about that quote before I saw how it related to our conversation. Yes, it can be interpreted as being about surrendering control of one's life. "Losing" one's life might not be - as I initially interpreted it - about death, but rather about loss of personal control. As for what I think about it, it doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. How exactly does one "lose" one's life in the sense of giving up control? As I've been arguing, one can't avoid being motivated. In this sense, one can't give up control. All that one can do is to try to choose (as far as is possible - some motivations are pretty ingrained) one's motivations wisely. I think that a Christian would interpret it as giving control over to God - in other words, praying for guidance, reading the Bible and attempting to follow in Jesus' footsteps: turning the other cheek, loving God and one's neighbour, etc. Somehow I don't think that you're a Christian though and I would guess that you have no particular belief in God either.samadhi wrote:samadhi: Please note, there is nothing wrong with becoming more aware of your motives. For an ego, that's a good thing, by all means, become more aware. But you still seem to have the idea that enlightenment is about knowing more and having more control.
Laird: Yes, I do. As well as being the enlightened way to live one's life, it's also the responsible way to live one's life.
This may be our core disagreement then.
What do you think about this quote from the New Testament:
He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. (Mat. 10:39)
It's a very basic teaching, you don't get there by getting, you get there by losing.
I certainly don't claim to be an expert on enlightenment teaching, but I get the general idea: as I've written enough in this post, it makes little enough sense to me that I've constructed my own slightly alternative version of enlightenment. The ego is unavoidable. One can certainly become less selfish, but one cannot live without a self (ego) altogether.samadhi wrote:I certainly understand where you are coming from, but I don't think you have a clear idea on enlightenment teaching. Wisdom is certainly a big part of it, but it's not all of it. Without the surrender, wisdom becomes another accoutrement of the ego, knowledge to wield and display for its benefit.
You haven't been able to explain to me how that would be possible, beyond saying that they might act according to their nature, which as I've already argued is to admit that they are motivated.samadhi wrote:I'm fine if you don't want to look at what others have discovered. You have to discover it all for yourself anyway. But then you cannot discuss about what the teaching is or what enlightenment points to. All you can do is give me your belief about a motive for everything. Since the belief obviously applies in your life, it can't be wrong for you. But what about others? Mightn't they have a different experience?
I prefer: "alternative sense".samadhi wrote:You are using the word enlightened in a watered-down sense.
Well we agree there. The guy's company has engaged in some pretty immoral behaviour, and enlightened people don't behave immorally.samadhi wrote:Bill Gates ain't enlightened.
Yes, I love and use paradox myself. I have a collection of self-created insights and affirmations on my website, many of which are paradoxes. I just don't happen to find this particular "paradox" very meaningful. Let's take the second part of the sentence first: "yet he leaves nothing undone" - the implication is that he is acting in some way: note in particular the word "leaves" which suggests some sort of activity that he is returning from; but then looking at the first half of the sentence we see that he is said to do "nothing". So by the second half of the sentence, he is acting in some way, and by the first half of the sentence he is not acting. This isn't a paradox, it's a straightforward contradiction. It isn't "seemingly" contradictory, it is contradictory. There is no sense in it.samadhi quoting the Tao wrote:
The Master does nothing,
yet he leaves nothing undone.
Laird: If I liked inane contradiction then this would be right up my alley. As it happens, I'm pretty unimpressed.
samadhi: The Tao Te Ching teaches with paradox. Do you understand how something seemingly contradictory can be true at the same time? Do you understand why paradox can provide insight where a straightforward description cannot?
OK, fair call. It has its place after all.samadhi quoting the Tao wrote:
The ordinary man is always doing things,
yet many more are left to be done.
Laird: Yeah, and? This is a particularly trivial and useless observation. Not what I'd call high wisdom.
samadhi: You are taking it out of context. It is meant to be read with the previous passage as a contrast with what a master accomplishes versus an ordinary man.
It's surrender rather than bargaining because one doesn't "gain power" in the sense of personally benefiting, one rather acts as a proxy for the benefit of the higher power. In the end, of course, one does benefit, because the higher power is benevolent and has one's interests at heart.samadhi wrote:"No will of his own" points to surrender. Surrender isn't about gaining power from a higher source by giving up your own power. That is bargaining, not surrender.
We choose to apply different interpretations to the words then. I'm sure that yours is more akin to what was intended, but I prefer mine.samadhi wrote:Dwelling in reality has nothing to do with "making the world a better place." That is simply a platitude. It has to do with knowing what you are. The same with letting go of illusion, the illusion of ego.
I have a pretty conventional understanding of what I am, and that includes the possibility that I have a soul, and I don't see any reason to doubt or to challenge my understanding. It's tricky to express clearly, but roughly speaking I am an agglomeration of parts and processes roughly bounded by my skin, and there are parts that are more "me" than others - in particular my mind is more "me" than my body, and if my soul is a reality then it would be more "me" than my mind.samadhi wrote:Seeing what isn't within duality is about discovering what you are. Are you an ego? The question isn't meant to get an answer, yes, no, maybe. It is meant to get your attention. What are you really? Are you interested in looking?
In my books, to "give up" is to "stop trying". It's not a third alternative, it's one of the two. So what happened when I reached that point is that I chose to "not try" anymore.samadhi wrote:The whole thing is a paradox. Try or not try is all the ego understands. That's what its got, that's where you and me start. Is it where it ends? Have you ever hit a brick wall? Have you ever had that experience? You've tried as hard as you could but it just ain't working. At that point, it isn't that you can just turn around and say, "okay, now I'm just not going to do anything, maybe that will work." You simply give up, not only trying but not trying, as a strategy. Nothing works, period. Tell me what happened when you reached that point.
Cool, that's all fair enough.Laird: Your point seemed to be though to "trust in your nature", which seems to me to ignore the possibilities for learning new things that aren't in one's original nature.
samadhi: If it is your nature to learn, you will learn. My point was that enlightenment is not about learning something so well it becomes effortless. That is a skill. You can learn to do that. Nor is it about any innate ability. I am not saying kick back and let it come to you. Unless that's what you really believe. Whatever is working for you, do that. That is obviously where your heart will be.
Exactly, except that I can offer myself a literal brand of enlightenment. You on the other hand seem to be looking for something to put your faith and hope into.samadhi: I don’t think you see what I'm pointing to.
Laird: Apparently not. Perhaps you need to spell it out in more detail, because it seems contradictory/ineffable to me.
samadhi: The ineffable nature of what we're discussing I'm sure comes as no surprise to you. If enlightenment could be taught like mathematics, people would be out there getting enlightened every day. Doesn't happen like that, does it? Yet some are still interested. From what you've said, it's hard to tell if enlightenment is really interesting to you. You may be looking for something more literal than anyone can actually offer.
I'm happy to recognise a distinction if you can explain exactly what that distinction is.Laird: You acknowledge that actions can be "rationalised" but on the other hand you assert that the enlightened person has no motive. What in the world is the basis of his/her behaviour then? "He/she is simply expressing his/her nature" just doesn't cut it for me, because as I've already explained, when you analyse it, "one's nature" is as much a source of motivation as anything else.
samadhi: The source will always be a mystery, whatever enlightenment happens to appear. If you want to call the source a motive, I guess you can do that but my problem with it is that it muddies the water between how an ordinary individual decides and acts and someone who is enlightened. If you don't want to recognize a distinction, okay. I just think it is valuable to do so.
Nothing whatsoever? So there's no way to recognise Taoists other than asking them to identify themselves?samadhi wrote:The Tao doesn't say how you as a person should act, nor can it.
And the Bible says that foolish people go to hell.samadhi wrote:In fact it plainly says, a foolish man laughs when he hears it.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I do find some value in it. The poetry is quite contemplative too. I was a little harsh on it earlier. It's just not a source that I can guide my life by because to me it doesn't have enough meaning.samadhi wrote:It is not understandable on that level. It is pointing to another level where most people do not care to venture. The question is, are you interested? You don't have to be. But I would assume since you've come this far, there must be something in it that has got your attention.
I don't believe that the argument that true spontaneity has "no agenda" is in any way a rebuttal to my argument that spontaneous actions can quite easily be the wrong ones, and that serious actions demand serious consideration. True spontaneity might have "no agenda", but it will have consequences. What convinces you that we can automatically trust that the consequences of true spontaneity are positive ones?samadhi: Okay. You have your own experience. You can describe it any way you want. From my standpoint, spontaneity is about letting go. You can't try to do that, nor can you learn it. As soon as you attach a motivation or reason to spontaneity, it is no longer spontaneous. Funny how that works, isn’t it?
Laird: Hey, I like spontaneity. It's a great way to manifest and express the joy of life to other people. It definitely has its place. I just question whether it should be the sole mode of one's actions. For example, I wouldn't be too impressed if George Bush decided to "spontaneously" let the nukes go at some random nation. I think that responsible people consider serious actions seriously, rather than acting spontaneously.
samadhi: When egos "try" spontaneity, problems arise. That's because the ego is using it as an agenda, not to think, not to care, not to be responsible. True spontaneity has no agenda, that's why you can trust it.
