![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
So anyhow, for the 83,998th time I tried to talk about stuff like ... well, like indulging cruel bullies, like being an enabler, like sucking up to people, like being dishonest for personal gain ... that sorta stuff.
And, for the 103,999th time I didn't really do a convincing job of it. *shrug* (There is data ... and there is information ... but meaning? Meaning is a social construct. So, really, what's the chance of establishing truth?!)
But this morning I came across 2 things that moved me to come back here and write something.
1st, 1 of Buddha's first 4 lines: "Whoever I explain it ... no-one will understand it." see the MP3) and 2nd, this bit from "Self-Liberation through seeing with naked awareness" (a short Dzogchen text):
"Kye-Ho!Now I'm not saying that I shudda pontificated about primordial purity and instantaneous perfection (which I didn't) ... but why should I suck up and indulge an a**hole just to indulge the superficial clap-trap of yet another party? I don't want that kinda karma ... I'd rather loose false friends. *shrug* Even if that means not meeting new true ones. Really.
Even thought that whic is usually called "mind" is widely esteemed and much discussed,
Still it is not understood or is wrongly understood or it is understood in a one-sided manner only.
Since it is not understood correctly just as it is in itself,
There come into existence [...] philosophical ideas and assertions.
Furthermore, [...] ordinary individuals [...] continue to wander among the six destinies (of rebirth) within the three worlds and thus experience suffering.
Therefore, not understanding your own mind is a very grievous fault.
Like the only time I encountered "sin" in Taoism: interfering with the development of another.
I ain't gonna let the affection of yuppies' kidz coerce me into saying that something false is true.
Now it ain't likely that I'll do things well.
But I won't intentionally do the wrong thing.
That would be wrong.
Been there / done that / replay the movie frequently. *G*
Afterthought: Anybody remember "Disiderata"? Anyhow, if memory serves, one line is something like "As much as possible be on good terms with everyone." If someone asks a person to, well, to eat shit ... well, I say we each of us gotta play it by ear from there on.
August 30 2009, 23:30:52 UTC 2 years ago
Welcome! You must be new, lol.
August 31 2009, 01:07:19 UTC 2 years ago
... I shudna wrote "heh".
I shudda done ;-p
huh huh
August 31 2009, 17:19:05 UTC 2 years ago
August 31 2009, 15:31:22 UTC 2 years ago
August 31 2009, 21:26:47 UTC 2 years ago
Which precedes the situation I describe.
Given what you wrote as the base for what comes next ...... what comes next?
The Hinayana is simple: withdraw and live in serene retreat. Which, really, is a great foundation.
But if one doesn't settle for the rhino existence? (In my tradition getting hung up on nirvana is heh mebbe only the very finest of hangups, but hang up it is.)
August 31 2009, 17:28:16 UTC 2 years ago
One of the definitions of Skillful Speech is not only that something is truthful, but that the listener is prepared to hear it. If you tell this person a truth he is not equipped to handle, either because it would hurt his ego or because he's not at a point that he can really use the information, saying the truth in this context would be as unskillful as telling a lie, or speaking harshly, or speaking idly.
It's not just that you must speak the truth, but that who you speak to is ready to hear it. That is Skillful Speech.
August 31 2009, 21:24:16 UTC 2 years ago
But you start writing with the assumption that this is about argument. Which it ain't. (Not saying what you've written here is off or wrong or anything like that. Just, well, beside the point ... quite literally.)
"That the listener is prepared to hear it" ... just so. And, by that dynamic, step 1 of the typical in-group/out-group top/bottm exchange has to be getting the "top dog" into listening mode ... which is where sucking up comes in.
The point of what I wrote is that authenticity is likely to lead to locked horns / conflict / friction in situations where rank has been ritualized. Like Socrates with Thrasymachus at the party (where no doubt all were quite drunk): the old bummer couldn't possibly get away with insulting Thrasy the way the aristocrat insulted him ... but neither did he bend over. Which, true to the mechanics, left him looking the ill-behaved instigator.
Did you listen to the MP3? It makes complete sense to me that the Buddha's first statement was something like, "No freakin' way anybody's going to buy into this."
August 31 2009, 22:26:01 UTC 2 years ago
September 1 2009, 00:19:07 UTC 2 years ago
But do bookmark it. Can't recall where I got it, but it's worth a listen.
August 31 2009, 21:49:37 UTC 2 years ago
Often I find that debates are just big ego wars, and at the end of the day, do we really help someone by shitting on their views and ramming our down their throats? You can have all the right views and still feel like shit, while the completely ignorance guy is quite chilled out.
In my opinion, whatever the thought we have, it's probably bullshit, whether we know it or not.
August 31 2009, 21:58:48 UTC 2 years ago
Debate? No debate. Just the rich stuff that passes for simple pleasantries when everybody accepts to play their role.
But, to dip into dharma, even "it's probably bullshit" is too much taking thoughts as real. I'm big on "just don't believe them" ... not bullshit, not trash, not truth, not gems ... just thoughts.
Middle-way, ehh whot?
September 1 2009, 13:38:05 UTC 2 years ago
When I say "thoughts are bullshit" that's the same to me as saying "just don't believe them". When something is bullshit, it's not true, and when I know something's not true, I just don't believe it.
If I had said these thoughts are "shit", instead of "bullshit", then that would be different, as "shit" implies they are bad thoughts, whereas "bullshit" implies they are not true.
September 1 2009, 16:35:15 UTC 2 years ago
Well ... no, it isn't.
"I didn't like the book" isn't the same as "I didn't bother reading it".
Anyhow, I think you missed what I tried to say.
(Ok, let me try to qualify my way out of yet.another conflict. This is
The point of buddhadharma is precisely the difference between "I'm not going to treat that as real" and "that's bullshit / fabulous / boring / ________".
If I lay a judgment on something, it's already hooked me.
"Not true" is the usual way of saying "not true".
"Bullshit" is similar to but not identical to "not true".
Looks to me like you're saying they're identical.
Sorry huh huh I won't agree.
Now, given the original post, if we had gotten into this at a CD release party with folk who self-identify as social activists and engaged artists and community organizers I would, at this point, be painted as a pain in the ass instigator (or whatever) ... and that would cue the biggets cracker to get in my face. Is the point.
heh
September 1 2009, 17:08:35 UTC 2 years ago
September 2 2009, 16:18:28 UTC 2 years ago
Lemme explore something: maybe that clear / to the point way of talking is the way folk express anger? the way you did in those other comments? So, when I'm clear and to the point, folk see that as a signal of antagonism? I dunno ... but it sure would explain things!
"I don't think I should enter debates because I get pissed off. Maybe others can do it calmly, I don't know."
That's very interesting. I get an adrenaline rush, but only because I very reasonably anticipate aggression.
BTW, again, my post wasn't about debate or argument ... it was more about just chatting / shooting the breeze.
"when you engage in debate is that really what you do? Do you observe the thoughts without judgement, or do you hold tightly to your views on what is correct and proceed to convince the other person that you're right?"
To tell the truth I mentally check what I consider "fact" and see if there's any way that can fit in with what the other person is saying. My main interest (see my "GroundPlane 101" on WordPress is in how a shared set of facts can support a variety of opinions.
But usually I find that the other person is quite willing to stand on fiction ... like Wiley Coyote in mid-air. That, for me, is the foundation of fascism, where one person is pressured by a group to agree with what's not true ... as a show of loyalty.
"and since when aren't thoughts real?"
Did I say that thoughts aren't real? I shudna, if I did.
They're real ... just like the mirage is "real". Or heh at least the mirage is more real than the water.
Point was that we shouldn't get sucked into them ... they're a fiction. A real fiction.
"isn't regarding something as not true also a judgement?"
Sure it is. But at the level of relative truth we need to do that. I think I put gas in the car. But I have to apply a low-grade version of "discriminating awareness" to figure out if that's actually true or not. Or forget about interacting with phenomenal world, which just ain't buddhadharma at all.
My point was kinda like yours: saying that thoughts are "bullshit" is already getting caught up in them. Heck, picking through our thoughts and classifying them is a great way of avoiding the moment!
"Do not cling; do not push away" ... is whot.
"this conversation right now is bullshit and pointless."
I'm guessing that when you feel yourself uncomfortable you call bullshit. Just guessing. ;-p
September 2 2009, 20:01:28 UTC 2 years ago
September 3 2009, 00:13:51 UTC 2 years ago
"At the time it seems so important to get the point across, but in retrospect it was pointless."
heh you're bound and determined to go there, aren't you ... this is bullshit, that's crap, that there is spew, that stuff over there is garbage ... and never a moment of abhidharma to be found.
FWIW "All sounds, music; all movement, dance" is Buddhadharma. "Bullshit / crap" etc etc etc is just ego talk. However polite.
But sometimes I feel you're right. So after decades of writing I once again give up.
Maybe some day in a moment of foolish optimism I'll come back and write again.
In anticipation that a) 89% of people will say nothing, b) 10% will find some pretext to argue, and c) the last 1% will say it's just pointless bullshit.
what a f'n bummer
September 3 2009, 00:45:03 UTC 2 years ago
To take another run at it
Chatting with a near total stranger in a typically crypto-fascist setting I would be not at all surprised to hear something like "That's bullshit" ... the communicative gesture being "It's all non-sense. It's all pointless. The only thing to do is get one over on others." ... life as one long pissing contest.So when I say something like, "Oh, hee, I don't think it's like that" I know I'm laying a trap ... is the other person going to act even half-asses sensible? (Note: I didn't write "Is the other person capable of acting ...", cuz I know they are. Part of Buddhism 101, no?)
So the other person (likely a guy swinging his prick around over his head) will likely get offended ... cuz I'm not displaying loyalty to "Be a cracker and eat shit or else eat shit and die". You know, "You're with us or you're agin' us" sorta stuff.
So fine ... this is pointless, that's bullshit, life is worthless, people are garbage, and on and on and on.
But don't dispute any of this ... that's just rude.
September 1 2009, 16:37:05 UTC 2 years ago
p.s. qualification
"When I say 'That's bullshit' I mean something different from when I say 'That's shit'." ... talking about our intentions and meanings and motives is perfectly good discourse.But when you say "This is that" then you're laying down the law for others.
So longs as that's actually true, I'll ride along.
But if it ain't literally true then *shrug* I'm gonna quibble.
August 31 2009, 22:01:03 UTC 2 years ago
p.s.
One of the first Buddhist thoughts that really rang my bell ... I think I was 14 and it was a skinny little book of dharma (Wey more good material now) was something like "Only cease to cherish opinions, else heaven and earth are separated by a million miles".Neither cling nor push away ...
... never not meditating. ;-)
September 1 2009, 04:28:54 UTC 2 years ago
what can one do? whatever is true.
September 1 2009, 16:42:51 UTC 2 years ago
heehee
"Sterling lucidity off the starboard bow!"Yaa, something like ...
... which, me thinks, is what the cracker uses to fire his rage and hatred: he's working to be at once right clever and deniably aggressive. I've got the easier role, just talking what seems to me based on common sense and honesty. Which, in effect, shines at least a teenie double-A LED penlight on his pathetic reality. Which (No shit!) he resents.
Like that famous party scene between Socrates and Thrasymachus (Ayup, Chapter I of "The Republic") where Thrasy was busting a gut at once trying to make Socrates look bad while trying to argue his (basically fascistic) view of justice. He had to run around, working hard, while Socrates was having fun with one-hand back-hands and drop shots. Breeds the sort of resentment that lasts a lifetime, is whot.