topher: I do believe that dogs have some level of the spiritual because I believe they are also spiritual creatures.
So why not cats, or fish, or birds, or ants? I think that all living creatures are tied together by just that, we are all alive. I believe that an intrinsic property of being alive is having emotion, if not simply for survival. Every being can feel hungry, can feel cold, can feel the need to reproduce. Life would not continue to thrive without basic emotion.
[cite] sleepydave:[/cite]So why not cats, or fish, or birds, or ants?
I believe they are created spiritually too but with a distinct purpose. I was just using dogs as an example.
For our purpose, we need language. Language is the tool of creation and we are designed to be creators. Our purpose is to master that tool until what we do is in perfect alignment with what we say (and think) and in perfect alignment with spiritual principles. (I am far from this, by the way.)
From what I have seen so far, the ideas and principles of taoism are to communicate certain things about how it is possible to have that happen. I realize they may not even agree with me about the why but that is what I believe in my search to be so. Use it or lose it, Makes no difference to me. I may find out later that I was off base anyway.
[cite] Carl:[/cite][chref=2]Therefore the sage keeps to the deed that consists in taking no action and practices the teaching that uses no words.[/chref] For once something without [chref=18]hypocrisy[/chref]. Now that is [chref=11]Something[/chref] I can aspire to.
I can appreciate how the pervasive hypocrisy in humans has you considering it. I am trying to acknowledge this "concurrence" without characterizing it for you. As for me, I have found it, especially my own, vexing most of my life.
But not talking is only stuffing the problem, not solving it. And, as far as I am concerned, like killing the patient to cure him. It is like people who retreat from life and then claim themselves (or are claimed by others) to be triumphant over life. That is crap grandma; don't eat it. They have only killed themselves while they still live.
My feeling is that I need to seek to understand spiritual principles, have my language (thought and word) be in harmony with them, and have my actions be given by my language. This will lead to no hypocrisy. I may not achieve this in this life. I may have no other. I cannot defeat hypocrisy while claiming I have none. I must acknowledge my hypocrisy to triumph over it.
I sincerely wish you good luck with that approach, Topher.
I know myself too well to even atempt it. I would get all tripped up in my own words and thoughts to "to understand spiritual principles, have my language (thought and word) be in harmony with them, and have my actions be given by my language."
I tried for many years to "figure it all out": life, God, the universe. Then the happy day came when I realized how small and insignificant I am and how much of a megalomaniac I was to think I could do it. I was able to just live the best I could, accepting as much as I could about what life dealt me. I continued my practice of meditation and words fell away.
Have you ever experienced spirituality that goes beyond (under?) words and language? I have; only because of my practice. So although words are useful, they are not the end-all to me. "There is more to heaven and earth than is dreamed of in" my philosophy.
Look up at the stars or see a picture of the Milky Way. We are so very small and not as superior as we are cracked up to be.
[cite] Lynn Cornish:[/cite]I sincerely wish you good luck with that approach
Thanks. I get what you are trying to say.
There is no luck involved. This is, in fact the easiest part of it; you automatically are aligned with whatever you create (language, thought and speech). The hard part is to have what you create be aligned with spiritual principles such that all you create is "true".
I mean first you have to discover for yourself (we each discover what is already there) these principles and then to become them such that what you create is created from them. Us talking about it doesn't achieve this though it can be an important part of the journey. I won't see it until my mind is opened to it no matter what you say. This is human.
I actually believe in something similar to reincarnation because I believe more than this lifetime is required to develop this. I am not really sure the exact nature of where we have come from and where we are going. It could be the same kind of world but I rather think that it doesn't make sense to take the same class over again once you have gotten what there is to get from it. I also don't think knowing this will make any difference here.
And it is not a strenuous task. People get frustrated and give up because they make it a strenuous task or they resist life. It is just living life and being who you are that will lead you there. Don't make it a strenuous task and don't resist life. Life is going to happen anyway. (This is good advice for me.) When you get stopped by what doesn't work, you will seek another way.
I do see some very powerful ideas in taoism that I would consider essential to this journey. I have yet to find a philosophy or religion that I didn't take something from but my studies are rather scattered and only scratching the surface.
The trick is to understand the essence of an idea and not focus to much on the exact words.
One final note: the reason I brought up this whole language thing is that, true or not, what I have found is that where ever I am stuck or troubled in life, the source of it has always been revealed in my language, thoughts and speech. What I am creating for myself in life, is always revealed in my language. I believe that my language is actually the source of it (which is why my language reveals it) but whether that is true or not, doesn't matter.
What I mean is that when I have come out from trouble and looked back, I could see how what I kept creating for my life was in my language. When I created something new (a paradigm shift), I was able to get beyond that point in life. Often this has happened when someone else spoke something and my mind was opened to it and I began creating myself newly from it. It has also happened from the events in life where a new idea came to me from apparently no where and I began crreating myself from it.
Both of these has actually happened both for the better and the worse. That is why it is important to recognize "true" principles. If you follow incorrect ones, they will lead you to trouble. Fortunately, you will recognize trouble when you find it (even if it takes you years) and you will begin to seek another way. There is no harm in this process. It is there for this very purpose.
Topher: Thank you for explaining so clearly what you believe to be true. I understand what you are saying and appreciate the thought and reflection that went into it.
I can see that through our senses, perception and judgements we interpret the world around us, and you might call that creating our own reality. But that we can transcend our survival instincts, our needs and fears as Carl puts it, our basic animal nature and create a reality aligned with spiritual principles sounds a little...umm...unlikely.
I find hard it to believe that we were put here for a purpose--I think we feel that way because of our egos, our own self-importance. Our egos are good, they help us survive, but they get a little carried away. I myself am striving to be more like my labrador retriever.
I sincerely wish you good luck with that approach, Lynn.
I said that exactly as you said it to me because I mean exactly what I think you meant which is that is sounds like it works for you and it doesn't work for me. Mostly, I am not attracted to what the end is.
But the proof is in the pudding and I am willing to risk being wrong on a very big idea. If I come to trouble over it, I will seek another way.
I was just thinking that maybe striving to be more like my labrador retriever and following spiritual principles (especially The Tao) are the same thing. So then, we can celebrate concurrence. I mean, why not?
[cite] Lynn Cornish:[/cite]I was just thinking that maybe striving to be more like my labrador retriever and following spiritual principles (especially The Tao) are the same thing. So then, we can celebrate concurrence. I mean, why not?
Sure. Why not? Most likely we have more in common than not. And our approach to life might be more similiar than we think; our way of "attempting" to describe it may be where the difference is. Or we may just be focusing on a particular aspect of our own development right now to the exclusion of others, equally important but already fully impacting us or yet undiscovered.
I don't think there is anything special about the tao as opposed to any other wisdom that has been captured for us to benefit from. My concern would be that somone only look one place for answers. I think the answers are all around us. From the little I have studied it, I esteem it worth studying. It is only an attempt to communicate the way as understood by those who wrote it (whether it be one or many people). I think the bible is similar in that respect despite the claims of some who suggest that it was written by god himself.
I actually think we should all keep journals and write the "aha!" moments of our life. That bit of inspiration might be valuable and useful to someone some day. I think all inspiriation comes from the same source regardless of where it is written and regardless of who wrote it.
[cite] Topher:[/cite]I actually think we should all keep journals and write the "aha!" moments of our life. That bit of inspiration might be valuable and useful to someone some day. I think all inspiriation comes from the same source regardless of where it is written and regardless of who wrote it.
It is almost impossible to say everything in your head on any given subject.
I should not have limited this to the "aha!" moments. It should include our successes, failures, and general details of our journey through life. That way if our "aha!" turns into an "uh oh!", our posterity will be able to see that as well.
[cite] Topher:[/cite]I could be full of crap and there is no way for me to know for sure.
Are you sure? How about, if life looks or feels like "crap", then a "crappy" paradigm (world view) may be the cause. Let me paraphrase our friend Jesus, "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a crappy tree bringeth forth crappy fruit." The "tree" here being our paradigm.
[cite] Topher also:[/cite] ...But not talking is only stuffing the problem, not solving it... It is like people who retreat from life...
Perhaps you misunderstand what [chref=2]keeps to the deed that consists in taking no action and practices the teaching that uses no words[/chref] is driving at? Taoist thought burrows under the 'paradigm of the day' by questioning the 'truth' we ascribe to the [chref=32]names[/chref] and [chref=23]words[/chref] we use to sustain that paradigm.
This process will only appeal to those for whom the current paradigm (or any for that matter) [chref=45]seems empty[/chref]. Ironically, perhaps the only path left is [chref=16]doing our utmost to attain emptiness[/chref] and [chref=19]embrace the uncarved block[/chref]. Perhaps Taoism is a 'faith of last resort'. Meaning that if nothing else works, then [chref=11]Nothing[/chref], [chref=48]nothing[/chref], [chref=67]nothing[/chref] is worth pondering before jumping off that bridge.
[cite] And then Lynn Cornish:[/cite] I myself am striving to be more like my Labrador retriever.
This returns us to this thread's topic, "Who Am I?" In that post I ran down a list of 'things' that I was not until I ended up at no-thing - [chref=40]Nothing[/chref]. The benefit of being [chref=15]tentative and murky[/chref] about who we are frees us up to be all-in-One, so to speak. The more [chref=21]indistinct and shadowy[/chref] we define who we are, the closer to [chref=39]the One[/chref] we can feel. As that elegant Vedic statement put it, 'That Thou Art' (Tat Tvam Asi).
Observing the [chref=56]mysterious sameness[/chref] that exists between another species, whether a dog or a flea upon a dog, and ourselves is impossible if we view differences as 'true'. Our 'bottom line' beliefs determine the path our thoughts take. The usefulness of correlations lies in testing and challenging that 'bottom line'.
Through correlations I proved to my satisfaction that similarities correlate to 'real & true' and differences to 'illusionary & false'. Settling that fundamental question allows me to be 'a dog or a flea on a dog', or anything else. With [chref=23]enough faith[/chref] in sameness (i.e.,[chref=1]these two are the same[/chref]) it is easy.
The quest to discover similarities lies at the heart of science as well. True, science uses reduction to differentiate the smallest components of larger phenomenon. But I see this as the first stage in the Taoist maxim, [chref=36]If you would take from a thing, you must first give to it.[/chref] In the end, the theory that wins the day is the simplest and most elegant. It is the one that includes and unifies all previous disparate 'answers'. Of course science is limited to testing observable phenomenon. Taoist thought, on the other hand, is handy for testing that which [chref=41]has no shape[/chref].
[cite] Carl:[/cite]The "tree" here being our paradigm.
I agree. And what is a paradigm? It is a conversation. It is language. It is what we say about ourself, others, and life.
[cite] Carl:[/cite]Perhaps you misunderstand what [chref=2]keeps to the deed that consists in taking no action and practices the teaching that uses no words[/chref] is driving at? Taoist thought burrows under the 'paradigm of the day' by questioning the 'truth' we ascribe to the [chref=32]names[/chref] and [chref=23]words[/chref] we use to sustain that paradigm.
I probably did misunderstand. The way you explain it sounds much like what I feel but we aren't saying it the same way.
[cite] Carl:[/cite]This process will only appeal to those for whom the current paradigm (or any for that matter) [chref=45]seems empty[/chref].
I am only interested in creating a new paradigm in the areas of my life that aren't working.
[cite] Carl:[/cite]This returns us to this thread's topic, "Who Am I?" In that post I ran down a list of 'things' that I was not until I ended up at no-thing - [chref=40]Nothing[/chref]. The benefit of being [chref=15]tentative and murky[/chref] about who we are frees us up to be all-in-One, so to speak. The more [chref=21]indistinct and shadowy[/chref] we define who we are, the closer to [chref=39]the One[/chref] we can feel.
Well, this is where I piped in. I say we are language. We are a paradigm (a view built on a conversation). I think getting murkey (giving up being right about it) allows us to see our conversations (paradigms) and explore them and even replace them with new ones.
I think we are after the same thing just saying it differently. I mean, I am calling it language and you are calling it names and words. What is the difference?
[cite] Topher:[/cite]... And what is a paradigm? It is a conversation. It is language. ... I am only interested in creating a new paradigm in the areas of my life that aren't working.
Do you believe that if we have a 'good' paradigm, a 'good' life will follow? Hmm,... that's a touchy endeavor. To paraphrase: [chref=2]the whole world recognizes the good paradigm as good, yet this is only the bad paradigm[/chref]. Or put another way, [chref=2]the good paradigm and the bad paradigm produce each other...[/chref]. They are entangled, so the only way 'out' of this vicious circle lies in [chref=2]the teaching that uses no words[/chref]. I'd tell you all about it, but I'm at a loss for words...
Our "conversation" is always colored (if not created outright) by subconscious emotion (primal visceral needs and fears). The more we trust the conversation, the more it reinforces the emotion from which it sprang. Distrusting the conversation, i.e., [chref=71]to know yet to think that one does not know[/chref], helps to [chref=4]blunt the sharpness[/chref] of the conversation, untangle the knots and soften the glare of difference, e.g., 'good' vs. 'bad', 'new' vs. 'old', and so on. This helps returns us to Nature - to [chref=52]use the light, but give up the discernment[/chref]. Discernment of good, bad, old, new, right, wrong, life, death, beautiful, ugly, etc., is conjured up via language and energized with emotion. Are these distinctions, e.g., 'good & bad', 'beauty & ugly', recognized by Nature? No! Alas, language, rooted in visceral emotion, makes a mountainous mirage out of reality's mole hill. Nature is simply a stream of 'now-ness'. And there is nothing more soothing than wading in that stream.
Our "conversation's" effect on emotional equilibrium is a balancing act. For example, when walking on a rail, [chref=64]it is easy to maintain the situation while it is still secure[/chref]. Once we start to fall, momentum builds quickly and... opps! Not trusting the "conversation" helps [chref=56]shut the door[/chref] between it and underlying visceral emotion. We end up 'wilder', more spontaneous, alert, [chref=15]tentative and hesitant[/chref], which as with any animal makes us more likely to [chref=64]be as careful at the end as at the beginning[/chref] of each and every moment.
[cite] Topher:[/cite]I think we are after the same thing just saying it differently. I mean, I am calling it language and you are calling it names and words. What is the difference?
I'm sure "we are after the same thing"! If there is a difference, it lies in whether or not you trust language (the conversation, the paradigm). In my view, language 'advertises' an agenda without full disclosure, i.e., our conversations are driven by our needs and fears, but they are passed off as rational objective truth. Ha! Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a language abolitionist / hater - obviously I love it. I just see us as being profoundly gullible in trusting its stories as naively as we do.
The 'bottom line': Language is built on an illusion of differences embodied in [chref=32]names[/chref] and [chref=23]words[/chref]. Thus, I don't trust them, and the illusion they perpetuate, e.g., paradigm, language, conversation, etc.
How about you?
PS...Ain't it ironic how I use language to refute language. And gads, I always end up using so many word to say the obvious. I should be out there hunting and gathering like my forefathers. But, brrrr... it's too cold today. Oh well...
Seems to me like you are saying don't trust in language and get away from it as much as possible. I can see that maybe that approach would work to some extent. The downfall as I see it is that you will always be having a conversation. You can't get away from it (not completely). To me this approach seeks to avoid the problem.
I am saying trust in language. It is powerful. Be skillful. Be aware. Your language (your conversation) is the root of who you are and your experience of life. Don't say crap and then wonder why you get crap.
Topher - It's interesting to me that you place so much stock in language, "the root of who we are", and I am so at the other extreme.
I think (using language, I conceed) that because I've been meditating most of my adult life, I have spent time watching my thoughts (in language) and see how discursive and useless almost all of my thoughts are. (I'm assured by others that I'm not the only one 8) ) Also, the experience of meditation makes it real clear how limited language is.
Language was formed to describe our perceptions and meditation creates experiences beyond perception. To make language our ruler, our end-all, limits us as human beings, I believe.
[cite] Lynn Cornish:[/cite]Language was formed to describe our perceptions and meditation creates experiences beyond perception. To make language our ruler, our end-all, limits us as human beings, I believe.
This is your paradigm for language. It describes how you view language (maybe not completely but for sure some aspect of your view). It also describes how you think I or others view language. How you answer what I say and how you think about what I say is shaped by it. Who you are about language is controlled largely by this view. I do not know how you could have this view without language. Without language and your paradigm about it, you would be nothing in relation to language.
I can appreciate that there are limitations to our language. It seems to be your view that the known languages are the only languages (though it would be silly to "insist" otherwise) and that the limitations we face with language are to do with language itself, and not us.
I think anyone that doesn't meditate is missing a great pleasure and a great opportunity of being a live.
I think anyone that doesn't use language to its fullest, that doesn't seek to master its potential and its pitfalls, is missing a great pleasure and a great opportunity of being a live.
A lawn mower is a marvellous tool with great potential but I wouldn't want to shave with it.
I agree that language is a tool, I can't imagine thinking without it, but that's a lot different than saying that language is "the root of who we are." We are probably defining "what we are" differently. If you mean our personalities, then maybe. But that's not who I am, my personality or my attitude. In fact, I am no one when I get right down to it.
The word paradigm kind of knocks me for a loop, which, admittedly, isn't hard to do. It's the sort of word with long and convoluted definitions (I looked it up on Wikipedia) and it doesn't really clarify anything for me. I guess it means something to you.
Language is fun and of course, I couldn't describe how I view language without it, and I like words okay, but I spend a lot of time with creatures who don't talk and let me tell you, their roots are rock solid!
I'm aware this is only my projection, but what worries me is that your thinking reflects the way human beings assume they are the most important beings in the world, if not the universe. We are just so taken with outselves and our thoughts and philosophies. I think we need a lot more humility and to become "right-sized." We are actually very very small and insignificant. Like Carl says, we are just animals with big brains. Let's not get carried away with ourselves.
[cite] Lynn Cornish:[/cite]I agree that language is a tool, I can't imagine thinking without it, but that's a lot different than saying that language is "the root of who we are."
You will find power in seeing how what I say is so. Not that it is so in the absolute way we usually think about the "truth". If that is not what you want, then don't bother; it won't provide anything for you.
[cite] Lynn Cornish:[/cite]I'm aware this is only my projection, but what worries me is that your thinking reflects the way human beings assume they are the most important beings in the world, if not the universe. We are just so taken with outselves and our thoughts and philosophies. I think we need a lot more humility and to become "right-sized." We are actually very very small and insignificant. Like Carl says, we are just animals with big brains. Let's not get carried away with ourselves.
That is certainly something to consider and I am not talking about that. What I am talking about is something else.
[cite] Lynn Cornish:[/cite]Language is fun and of course, I couldn't describe how I view language without it, and I like words okay, but I spend a lot of time with creatures who don't talk and let me tell you, their roots are rock solid!
They are rock solid. You are not a dog. (or a cat or whatever "creatures who don't talk" you are referring to.) I am not saying that living like one of those creatures is wrong. It is not right or wrong. If that is what you want for your life, please feel free and don't let anything I say dissuade you.
I would point out that you could never be exactly as your dog any more than your dog could be exactly as you. Where ever your nature and your dogs nature are the same, you could be your dog. I think we could learn a lot from seeing how we are like the "creatures who don't talk".
I always find power in seeing how things are "true". In seeing how it is not "true", I find no power. I do find a new place to look for something else.
I'm not looking for power. Tell me: what does power mean to you? I feel pretty powerless over most things; no, I should say: I AM powerless over most things.
When I say I'm striving to be more like my dog Alex (not *just* like my dog), I mean his qualities of being in the moment--on the spot!--and his trusting and generous nature. He doesn't regret the past or fear the future. He find happiness very easily. He accepts his circumstances to the point of being overjoyed by them. He doesn't fear death (unless it were to stare him in the face, I expect.) I could go on and on. Who wouldn't want to be more like that? Therer are many other creatures here too, though: cats, a parrot, a fish, llamas and goats. Did I leave anyone out? Oh, sometimes my husband hardly talks at all!
I have always loved silence. People who never stop talking drive me crazy. Maybe that is the source of my ambivalence about language.
You are not persuading me or dissuading me and I trust I am not you either. This is just a friendly exchange of ideas, right? If I'm completely misunderstanding you, please forgive me. I too gravitate towards what sounds true to me. Our sound-true's are quite different, huh? So that's interesting.
[cite] Lynn Cornish:[/cite]
1)I'm not looking for power. Tell me: what does power mean to you? I feel pretty powerless over most things; no, I should say: I AM powerless over most things.
2)You are not persuading me or dissuading me and I trust I am not you either. This is just a friendly exchange of ideas, right? If I'm completely misunderstanding you, please forgive me.
3)I too gravitate towards what sounds true to me. Our sound-true's are quite different, huh? So that's interesting.
1) I believe you because you said it.
PS: power to me is "being" and mastering your own "being". Jesus said: "be" ye, therefore, perfect. Not "do" perfect; "be" perfect. Being exists only in language. I have experienced my own being shifting by my word alone. Oh, what it would be to master my speaking and therefore master who I am being.
2) I didn't mean to say I thought I was persuading or dissuading you; it was actually my way of saying that I was not trying to do either. Yep. Friendly.
3) Well, truth is relative.
Paradigm = Point-of-View
Think of a person standing in front of and facing an elephant and another standing behind of and facing the same elephant. The elephant paradigm of the two people is quite different even though they are looking at the same thing.
This is why I say truth is relative. It is not that it is. It just appears that way to you and me, or at least, we could never say for sure one way or the other. We could walk around the elephant and see it from all points of view but ideas are not that way. They are much harder to view from all possible points of view.
I have an gut experience of sounds true. That experience includes a feeling that whatever it is is just a piece of something bigger, a piece in the puzzle. I accept it for what it is and that is enough for me. It's a finger pointing towards the moon (or the leg of an elephant works too). There is a deep contentment that there is a moon to point at and that also is part of the experience. And when Carl says: yes, but moon and no moon produce each other, I am okay with that too.
Your experience is quite different. You experience your consciousness as language. I don't. I perceive being without language, although that "being-ness" is without self. But I also perceive myself as wierd.
[cite] Lynn Cornish:[/cite]Your experience is quite different. You experience your consciousness as language. I don't. I perceive being without language, although that "being-ness" is without self. But I also perceive myself as wierd.
Heads and tails are different sides of the same coin. I don't fully understand what you are describing but I think I have a sense of it. That alone, I don't feel, is the whole picture and it is an important aspect of who we are.
I don't mean to say that language is the whole picture or any more or less important part of the picture. We need to be careful not to make either aspect more or less than it is.
I don't think you are wierd. You are a point of view and I could learn a lot by seeing that point of view.
[cite] Topher:[/cite]I think anyone that doesn't use language to its fullest, that doesn't seek to master its potential and its pitfalls, is missing a great pleasure and a great opportunity of being alive.
Human history suggests that we are far more likely to "seek to master its potential" than face "its pitfalls". Humanity's bias is definitely 'pro-language'. Nevertheless, my intent is not to debate the pros and cons of language - really! Debating pros and cons is like discussing which political party is best. There are good and bad apples on both sides. The pros and cons of language probably [chref=2]offset[/chref] each other. I'm after full disclosure of the "pitfalls".
Language, like a knife, is a superb tool. But, like a knife, cuts both ways. Unlike a knife, 'the pen is mightier than the sword'. The trouble is, we aren't aware of the danger. Language 'owns' our mind - it is the foundation upon which much of our awareness sits. It is like we are sitting on our 'mighty sword'... ouch.
Being more circumspect in our relationship with language might help us avoid falling on our 'sword'. My advice is to trust language like you would a pet cobra - trust, but verify. Is it where it belongs, or is it running loose? Language is dangerous. Thus, [chref=32]as soon as there are names, one ought to know that it is time to stop.[/chref] Stop trusting perhaps?
Language is a linear process. We proceed from baby babble to [chref=32]names[/chref] and [chref=23]words[/chref] (language's axiomatic foundation), to Shakespear and beyond. On the other hand, Taoist thought (and the like) is a circular process receding from language backward, dropping the axiomatic authority of names and words (and popping preconceptions if we can). This helps us, however briefly, [chref=28]again return to being a babe[/chref] - our original 'self'. :P
[cite] Carl:[/cite]The trouble is, we aren't aware of the danger. Language 'owns' our mind - it is the foundation upon which much of our awareness sits. It is like we are sitting on our 'mighty sword'... ouch.
This is not unlike what I think even if the words are not the same.
My approach to life is to look where this is causing a problem in my life and to generate new words to own my mind. It is a constant process of re-creation. I am not looking for the right way. I am looking for the way that has me being myself in life. To be inspired by being in life. To be a source of inspiration to myself and others. To own the rare moments in life when it seems that I have found the pinnacle of peace, contentment, & satisfaction.
One thing I am finally dealing with in my own life is that high and low are two sides of the same coin.
I take a hot bath after I wake to loosen my arthritic joints for their yoga ahead. As I 'cook', thoughts invariably bubble up. Anticipating this, I decided today to just listen to my senses. So for a few minutes the morning sun, the duck's quack, and the steam rising off the water washed over my mind.... but sure enough... thoughts percolating below popped into mind.... (and I think I know why, but that's another story.)
[cite] Topher:[/cite]I do think that the world works in a certain way and that we as humans work in a certain way. Learning what that is and how to work with it to have the kind of life I want is my pursuit.
Ostensibly, we yearn to "learn" how to solve life's 'problem'. What if the 'problem' is an eternal reality, and the 'solution' is a transitory illusion? To paraphrase: [chref=2]The eternal 'problem' and the transitory 'solution' produce each other[/chref]. Ironically, embracing the 'problem' may be the easiest way [chref=7]to accomplish our private ends[/chref], i.e., "to have the kind of life I want".
Embrace the 'problem' rather than the 'solution'? To paraphrase again: [chref=11]Thus what we gain is 'the solution', yet it is by virtue of 'the problem' that this can be put to use[/chref]. By chasing and embracing 'the solution', there is no end, no stillness, no [chref=16]returning to one's destiny[/chref]. Round and round she go, where she stops nobody knows - as you'd expect chasing an illusion.
[cite] Topher:[/cite] I am not trying to convince or be convinced. I am not looking for the "right" way nor the "truth"
But what does "right" or "true" really mean ? Language is odd. People use it to "convince" others, but I don't think that actually works. In practice, we only "convince" ourselves and those within our like minded tribe. So for example, I'm not trying to "convince" anyone. Rather, I'm just vocalizing what a few others may feel already and possibly find useful.
I suspect that we are only "convinced" about that which we already intuitively feel to be so. That is why it is foolish to trust language as much as we do. Moreover, language is a linear process that requires a belief in polar reality, which flip flops.
Comments
So why not cats, or fish, or birds, or ants? I think that all living creatures are tied together by just that, we are all alive. I believe that an intrinsic property of being alive is having emotion, if not simply for survival. Every being can feel hungry, can feel cold, can feel the need to reproduce. Life would not continue to thrive without basic emotion.
I believe they are created spiritually too but with a distinct purpose. I was just using dogs as an example.
For our purpose, we need language. Language is the tool of creation and we are designed to be creators. Our purpose is to master that tool until what we do is in perfect alignment with what we say (and think) and in perfect alignment with spiritual principles. (I am far from this, by the way.)
From what I have seen so far, the ideas and principles of taoism are to communicate certain things about how it is possible to have that happen. I realize they may not even agree with me about the why but that is what I believe in my search to be so. Use it or lose it, Makes no difference to me. I may find out later that I was off base anyway.
I can appreciate how the pervasive hypocrisy in humans has you considering it. I am trying to acknowledge this "concurrence" without characterizing it for you. As for me, I have found it, especially my own, vexing most of my life.
But not talking is only stuffing the problem, not solving it. And, as far as I am concerned, like killing the patient to cure him. It is like people who retreat from life and then claim themselves (or are claimed by others) to be triumphant over life. That is crap grandma; don't eat it. They have only killed themselves while they still live.
My feeling is that I need to seek to understand spiritual principles, have my language (thought and word) be in harmony with them, and have my actions be given by my language. This will lead to no hypocrisy. I may not achieve this in this life. I may have no other. I cannot defeat hypocrisy while claiming I have none. I must acknowledge my hypocrisy to triumph over it.
I know myself too well to even atempt it. I would get all tripped up in my own words and thoughts to "to understand spiritual principles, have my language (thought and word) be in harmony with them, and have my actions be given by my language."
I tried for many years to "figure it all out": life, God, the universe. Then the happy day came when I realized how small and insignificant I am and how much of a megalomaniac I was to think I could do it. I was able to just live the best I could, accepting as much as I could about what life dealt me. I continued my practice of meditation and words fell away.
Have you ever experienced spirituality that goes beyond (under?) words and language? I have; only because of my practice. So although words are useful, they are not the end-all to me. "There is more to heaven and earth than is dreamed of in" my philosophy.
Look up at the stars or see a picture of the Milky Way. We are so very small and not as superior as we are cracked up to be.
Peace.
Thanks. I get what you are trying to say.
There is no luck involved. This is, in fact the easiest part of it; you automatically are aligned with whatever you create (language, thought and speech). The hard part is to have what you create be aligned with spiritual principles such that all you create is "true".
I mean first you have to discover for yourself (we each discover what is already there) these principles and then to become them such that what you create is created from them. Us talking about it doesn't achieve this though it can be an important part of the journey. I won't see it until my mind is opened to it no matter what you say. This is human.
I actually believe in something similar to reincarnation because I believe more than this lifetime is required to develop this. I am not really sure the exact nature of where we have come from and where we are going. It could be the same kind of world but I rather think that it doesn't make sense to take the same class over again once you have gotten what there is to get from it. I also don't think knowing this will make any difference here.
And it is not a strenuous task. People get frustrated and give up because they make it a strenuous task or they resist life. It is just living life and being who you are that will lead you there. Don't make it a strenuous task and don't resist life. Life is going to happen anyway. (This is good advice for me.) When you get stopped by what doesn't work, you will seek another way.
I do see some very powerful ideas in taoism that I would consider essential to this journey. I have yet to find a philosophy or religion that I didn't take something from but my studies are rather scattered and only scratching the surface.
The trick is to understand the essence of an idea and not focus to much on the exact words.
What I mean is that when I have come out from trouble and looked back, I could see how what I kept creating for my life was in my language. When I created something new (a paradigm shift), I was able to get beyond that point in life. Often this has happened when someone else spoke something and my mind was opened to it and I began creating myself newly from it. It has also happened from the events in life where a new idea came to me from apparently no where and I began crreating myself from it.
Both of these has actually happened both for the better and the worse. That is why it is important to recognize "true" principles. If you follow incorrect ones, they will lead you to trouble. Fortunately, you will recognize trouble when you find it (even if it takes you years) and you will begin to seek another way. There is no harm in this process. It is there for this very purpose.
I can see that through our senses, perception and judgements we interpret the world around us, and you might call that creating our own reality. But that we can transcend our survival instincts, our needs and fears as Carl puts it, our basic animal nature and create a reality aligned with spiritual principles sounds a little...umm...unlikely.
I find hard it to believe that we were put here for a purpose--I think we feel that way because of our egos, our own self-importance. Our egos are good, they help us survive, but they get a little carried away. I myself am striving to be more like my labrador retriever.
I said that exactly as you said it to me because I mean exactly what I think you meant which is that is sounds like it works for you and it doesn't work for me. Mostly, I am not attracted to what the end is.
But the proof is in the pudding and I am willing to risk being wrong on a very big idea. If I come to trouble over it, I will seek another way.
Sure. Why not? Most likely we have more in common than not. And our approach to life might be more similiar than we think; our way of "attempting" to describe it may be where the difference is. Or we may just be focusing on a particular aspect of our own development right now to the exclusion of others, equally important but already fully impacting us or yet undiscovered.
I don't think there is anything special about the tao as opposed to any other wisdom that has been captured for us to benefit from. My concern would be that somone only look one place for answers. I think the answers are all around us. From the little I have studied it, I esteem it worth studying. It is only an attempt to communicate the way as understood by those who wrote it (whether it be one or many people). I think the bible is similar in that respect despite the claims of some who suggest that it was written by god himself.
I actually think we should all keep journals and write the "aha!" moments of our life. That bit of inspiration might be valuable and useful to someone some day. I think all inspiriation comes from the same source regardless of where it is written and regardless of who wrote it.
It is almost impossible to say everything in your head on any given subject.
I should not have limited this to the "aha!" moments. It should include our successes, failures, and general details of our journey through life. That way if our "aha!" turns into an "uh oh!", our posterity will be able to see that as well.
Perhaps you misunderstand what [chref=2]keeps to the deed that consists in taking no action and practices the teaching that uses no words[/chref] is driving at? Taoist thought burrows under the 'paradigm of the day' by questioning the 'truth' we ascribe to the [chref=32]names[/chref] and [chref=23]words[/chref] we use to sustain that paradigm.
This process will only appeal to those for whom the current paradigm (or any for that matter) [chref=45]seems empty[/chref]. Ironically, perhaps the only path left is [chref=16]doing our utmost to attain emptiness[/chref] and [chref=19]embrace the uncarved block[/chref]. Perhaps Taoism is a 'faith of last resort'. Meaning that if nothing else works, then [chref=11]Nothing[/chref], [chref=48]nothing[/chref], [chref=67]nothing[/chref] is worth pondering before jumping off that bridge.
This returns us to this thread's topic, "Who Am I?" In that post I ran down a list of 'things' that I was not until I ended up at no-thing - [chref=40]Nothing[/chref]. The benefit of being [chref=15]tentative and murky[/chref] about who we are frees us up to be all-in-One, so to speak. The more [chref=21]indistinct and shadowy[/chref] we define who we are, the closer to [chref=39]the One[/chref] we can feel. As that elegant Vedic statement put it, 'That Thou Art' (Tat Tvam Asi).
Observing the [chref=56]mysterious sameness[/chref] that exists between another species, whether a dog or a flea upon a dog, and ourselves is impossible if we view differences as 'true'. Our 'bottom line' beliefs determine the path our thoughts take. The usefulness of correlations lies in testing and challenging that 'bottom line'.
Through correlations I proved to my satisfaction that similarities correlate to 'real & true' and differences to 'illusionary & false'. Settling that fundamental question allows me to be 'a dog or a flea on a dog', or anything else. With [chref=23]enough faith[/chref] in sameness (i.e.,[chref=1]these two are the same[/chref]) it is easy.
The quest to discover similarities lies at the heart of science as well. True, science uses reduction to differentiate the smallest components of larger phenomenon. But I see this as the first stage in the Taoist maxim, [chref=36]If you would take from a thing, you must first give to it.[/chref] In the end, the theory that wins the day is the simplest and most elegant. It is the one that includes and unifies all previous disparate 'answers'. Of course science is limited to testing observable phenomenon. Taoist thought, on the other hand, is handy for testing that which [chref=41]has no shape[/chref].
I agree. And what is a paradigm? It is a conversation. It is language. It is what we say about ourself, others, and life.
I probably did misunderstand. The way you explain it sounds much like what I feel but we aren't saying it the same way.
I am only interested in creating a new paradigm in the areas of my life that aren't working.
Well, this is where I piped in. I say we are language. We are a paradigm (a view built on a conversation). I think getting murkey (giving up being right about it) allows us to see our conversations (paradigms) and explore them and even replace them with new ones.
I think we are after the same thing just saying it differently. I mean, I am calling it language and you are calling it names and words. What is the difference?
Our "conversation" is always colored (if not created outright) by subconscious emotion (primal visceral needs and fears). The more we trust the conversation, the more it reinforces the emotion from which it sprang. Distrusting the conversation, i.e., [chref=71]to know yet to think that one does not know[/chref], helps to [chref=4]blunt the sharpness[/chref] of the conversation, untangle the knots and soften the glare of difference, e.g., 'good' vs. 'bad', 'new' vs. 'old', and so on. This helps returns us to Nature - to [chref=52]use the light, but give up the discernment[/chref]. Discernment of good, bad, old, new, right, wrong, life, death, beautiful, ugly, etc., is conjured up via language and energized with emotion. Are these distinctions, e.g., 'good & bad', 'beauty & ugly', recognized by Nature? No! Alas, language, rooted in visceral emotion, makes a mountainous mirage out of reality's mole hill. Nature is simply a stream of 'now-ness'. And there is nothing more soothing than wading in that stream.
Our "conversation's" effect on emotional equilibrium is a balancing act. For example, when walking on a rail, [chref=64]it is easy to maintain the situation while it is still secure[/chref]. Once we start to fall, momentum builds quickly and... opps! Not trusting the "conversation" helps [chref=56]shut the door[/chref] between it and underlying visceral emotion. We end up 'wilder', more spontaneous, alert, [chref=15]tentative and hesitant[/chref], which as with any animal makes us more likely to [chref=64]be as careful at the end as at the beginning[/chref] of each and every moment.
I'm sure "we are after the same thing"! If there is a difference, it lies in whether or not you trust language (the conversation, the paradigm). In my view, language 'advertises' an agenda without full disclosure, i.e., our conversations are driven by our needs and fears, but they are passed off as rational objective truth. Ha! Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a language abolitionist / hater - obviously I love it.
The 'bottom line': Language is built on an illusion of differences embodied in [chref=32]names[/chref] and [chref=23]words[/chref]. Thus, I don't trust them, and the illusion they perpetuate, e.g., paradigm, language, conversation, etc.
How about you?
PS...Ain't it ironic how I use language to refute language. And gads, I always end up using so many word to say the obvious. I should be out there hunting and gathering like my forefathers. But, brrrr... it's too cold today. Oh well...
I am saying trust in language. It is powerful. Be skillful. Be aware. Your language (your conversation) is the root of who you are and your experience of life. Don't say crap and then wonder why you get crap.
I think (using language, I conceed) that because I've been meditating most of my adult life, I have spent time watching my thoughts (in language) and see how discursive and useless almost all of my thoughts are. (I'm assured by others that I'm not the only one 8) ) Also, the experience of meditation makes it real clear how limited language is.
Language was formed to describe our perceptions and meditation creates experiences beyond perception. To make language our ruler, our end-all, limits us as human beings, I believe.
This is your paradigm for language. It describes how you view language (maybe not completely but for sure some aspect of your view). It also describes how you think I or others view language. How you answer what I say and how you think about what I say is shaped by it. Who you are about language is controlled largely by this view. I do not know how you could have this view without language. Without language and your paradigm about it, you would be nothing in relation to language.
I can appreciate that there are limitations to our language. It seems to be your view that the known languages are the only languages (though it would be silly to "insist" otherwise) and that the limitations we face with language are to do with language itself, and not us.
I think anyone that doesn't meditate is missing a great pleasure and a great opportunity of being a live.
I think anyone that doesn't use language to its fullest, that doesn't seek to master its potential and its pitfalls, is missing a great pleasure and a great opportunity of being a live.
A lawn mower is a marvellous tool with great potential but I wouldn't want to shave with it.
The word paradigm kind of knocks me for a loop, which, admittedly, isn't hard to do. It's the sort of word with long and convoluted definitions (I looked it up on Wikipedia) and it doesn't really clarify anything for me. I guess it means something to you.
Language is fun and of course, I couldn't describe how I view language without it, and I like words okay, but I spend a lot of time with creatures who don't talk and let me tell you, their roots are rock solid!
I'm aware this is only my projection, but what worries me is that your thinking reflects the way human beings assume they are the most important beings in the world, if not the universe. We are just so taken with outselves and our thoughts and philosophies. I think we need a lot more humility and to become "right-sized." We are actually very very small and insignificant. Like Carl says, we are just animals with big brains. Let's not get carried away with ourselves.
That is certainly something to consider and I am not talking about that. What I am talking about is something else.
They are rock solid. You are not a dog. (or a cat or whatever "creatures who don't talk" you are referring to.) I am not saying that living like one of those creatures is wrong. It is not right or wrong. If that is what you want for your life, please feel free and don't let anything I say dissuade you.
I would point out that you could never be exactly as your dog any more than your dog could be exactly as you. Where ever your nature and your dogs nature are the same, you could be your dog. I think we could learn a lot from seeing how we are like the "creatures who don't talk".
I always find power in seeing how things are "true". In seeing how it is not "true", I find no power. I do find a new place to look for something else.
When I say I'm striving to be more like my dog Alex (not *just* like my dog), I mean his qualities of being in the moment--on the spot!--and his trusting and generous nature. He doesn't regret the past or fear the future. He find happiness very easily. He accepts his circumstances to the point of being overjoyed by them. He doesn't fear death (unless it were to stare him in the face, I expect.) I could go on and on. Who wouldn't want to be more like that? Therer are many other creatures here too, though: cats, a parrot, a fish, llamas and goats. Did I leave anyone out? Oh, sometimes my husband hardly talks at all!
I have always loved silence. People who never stop talking drive me crazy. Maybe that is the source of my ambivalence about language.
You are not persuading me or dissuading me and I trust I am not you either. This is just a friendly exchange of ideas, right? If I'm completely misunderstanding you, please forgive me. I too gravitate towards what sounds true to me. Our sound-true's are quite different, huh? So that's interesting.
1) I believe you because you said it.
PS: power to me is "being" and mastering your own "being". Jesus said: "be" ye, therefore, perfect. Not "do" perfect; "be" perfect. Being exists only in language. I have experienced my own being shifting by my word alone. Oh, what it would be to master my speaking and therefore master who I am being.
2) I didn't mean to say I thought I was persuading or dissuading you; it was actually my way of saying that I was not trying to do either. Yep. Friendly.
3) Well, truth is relative.
Paradigm = Point-of-View
Think of a person standing in front of and facing an elephant and another standing behind of and facing the same elephant. The elephant paradigm of the two people is quite different even though they are looking at the same thing.
This is why I say truth is relative. It is not that it is. It just appears that way to you and me, or at least, we could never say for sure one way or the other. We could walk around the elephant and see it from all points of view but ideas are not that way. They are much harder to view from all possible points of view.
Your experience is quite different. You experience your consciousness as language. I don't. I perceive being without language, although that "being-ness" is without self. But I also perceive myself as wierd.
Heads and tails are different sides of the same coin. I don't fully understand what you are describing but I think I have a sense of it. That alone, I don't feel, is the whole picture and it is an important aspect of who we are.
I don't mean to say that language is the whole picture or any more or less important part of the picture. We need to be careful not to make either aspect more or less than it is.
I don't think you are wierd. You are a point of view and I could learn a lot by seeing that point of view.
Language, like a knife, is a superb tool. But, like a knife, cuts both ways. Unlike a knife, 'the pen is mightier than the sword'. The trouble is, we aren't aware of the danger. Language 'owns' our mind - it is the foundation upon which much of our awareness sits. It is like we are sitting on our 'mighty sword'... ouch.
Being more circumspect in our relationship with language might help us avoid falling on our 'sword'. My advice is to trust language like you would a pet cobra - trust, but verify. Is it where it belongs, or is it running loose? Language is dangerous. Thus, [chref=32]as soon as there are names, one ought to know that it is time to stop.[/chref] Stop trusting perhaps?
Language is a linear process. We proceed from baby babble to [chref=32]names[/chref] and [chref=23]words[/chref] (language's axiomatic foundation), to Shakespear and beyond. On the other hand, Taoist thought (and the like) is a circular process receding from language backward, dropping the axiomatic authority of names and words (and popping preconceptions if we can). This helps us, however briefly, [chref=28]again return to being a babe[/chref] - our original 'self'. :P
This is not unlike what I think even if the words are not the same.
My approach to life is to look where this is causing a problem in my life and to generate new words to own my mind. It is a constant process of re-creation. I am not looking for the right way. I am looking for the way that has me being myself in life. To be inspired by being in life. To be a source of inspiration to myself and others. To own the rare moments in life when it seems that I have found the pinnacle of peace, contentment, & satisfaction.
One thing I am finally dealing with in my own life is that high and low are two sides of the same coin.
Ostensibly, we yearn to "learn" how to solve life's 'problem'. What if the 'problem' is an eternal reality, and the 'solution' is a transitory illusion? To paraphrase: [chref=2]The eternal 'problem' and the transitory 'solution' produce each other[/chref]. Ironically, embracing the 'problem' may be the easiest way [chref=7]to accomplish our private ends[/chref], i.e., "to have the kind of life I want".
Embrace the 'problem' rather than the 'solution'? To paraphrase again: [chref=11]Thus what we gain is 'the solution', yet it is by virtue of 'the problem' that this can be put to use[/chref]. By chasing and embracing 'the solution', there is no end, no stillness, no [chref=16]returning to one's destiny[/chref]. Round and round she go, where she stops nobody knows - as you'd expect chasing an illusion.
But what does "right" or "true" really mean ? Language is odd. People use it to "convince" others, but I don't think that actually works. In practice, we only "convince" ourselves and those within our like minded tribe. So for example, I'm not trying to "convince" anyone. Rather, I'm just vocalizing what a few others may feel already and possibly find useful.
I suspect that we are only "convinced" about that which we already intuitively feel to be so. That is why it is foolish to trust language as much as we do. Moreover, language is a linear process that requires a belief in polar reality, which flip flops.
Hmm, perhaps we've reached a point where it is time to examine a wider question: Which Point of View is True, Circular or Linear?