This Week:
- Consider this principle in light of the past
-Play the game of Ask About It!
Last week we considered the principle in general terms, we also looked at a traditional story related to the idea of acceptance. We considered its implications, whether it might be useful, and in what ways.
Here are some of the things I’ll be thinking about:
General Considerations and Personal Reflections:
These are personal reflections. I offer them in the spirit of dialogue and exchange, and look forward to hearing your thoughts about, and experiences with, this principle.
It strikes me that this principle stands out from the others since it is so explicitly proposed as an “indicator”, a sign, like location map that tells you where you are.
This week we will look at how I applied it, or at least how I could have applied it in the past. Did I, or could I, have used it as a kind of reminder to help evaluate my position.
For those of you familiar with this principle, you might try to see it from new perspectives. For example, if I usually consider a principle in light of relationships, I might question how I see it in relation specifically to my internal world. That is, in my relations with myself, if I can put it that way. For example, perhaps I was ill or in pain. How would I apply this principle? Or how did I, or should I have applied it to this vegetative situation? Perhaps I am (or might be) overwhelmed by powerful climates. Did this principle apply? How might it help me? Or the reverse, if I tend to think about it in relation to my internal states, I could try and understand it in terms of external events.
As soon as I begin considering this stuff I think something like: how can I accept both summer and winter as things that are both well? How can I possibly see day and night as the same? At first it didn’t strike me as reasonable, possible, or even desirable. What could it mean to see these opposites as the same — not in the sense of identical but somehow as complementary rather than contradictory?
These ideas and questions seem to be present in very different cultures and different times.
For example, in chapter 13 of the Dao de Jing of Laozi — or the Tao Te Ching of Lao Tzu as we used to write it — the old master tells us:
Accept disgrace willingly.
Accept misfortune as the human condition.
What do you mean by "Accept disgrace willingly"?
Accept being unimportant.
Do not be concerned with loss and gain.
This is called "accepting disgrace willingly."
What do you mean by "Accept misfortune as the human condition"?
Misfortune comes from having a body.
Without a body, how could there be misfortune?
Surrender yourself humbly; then you can be trusted to care for all things.
Love the world as your own self; then you can truly care for all things.
Living around the same time as Laozi, but half a world away, (Greece as opposed to China) was Heraclitus of Ephesia. He’s often remembered for his saying about how you cannot step into the same river twice. I suppose because each moment the river flows on and its different water you step in. He’s also called Heraclitus the Dark, Heraclitus the Obscure, and even the Weeping Philosopher — but don’t let any of that scare you off!
Here’s some of what he said long ago, so similar and so different from how Silo put it:
“God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, surfeit and hunger; but he takes various shapes, just as fire, when it is mingled with spices, is named according to the savour of each.
Cold things become warm, and what is warm cools; what is wet dries, and the parched is moistened.”
But, for me the phrase of his that most comes to mind for me in this context is:
“They do not understand how that which differs with itself is in agreement: harmony consists of opposing tension, like that of the bow and the lyre.”
Somehow, I’ve found that these, perhaps somewhat enigmatic, phrases seem to illuminate my considerations of this month’s principle. I hope you will also find them useful, or at least of interest.
This Week’s Game
What could be difficult about a game where you have almost nothing to do beyond listening? Why is it often so hard? Don’t avoid giving yourself a real answer to this question.
The idea is simple: turn to someone and ask them what these words might mean.
This will likely, include the difficult task of taking a little risk and overcoming your self-censorship. Why so inhibited? What’s at stake?
Try it out. Simply say to a friend, your neighbour, family member, or some stranger on the street: “I’ve been discussing this saying with some friends, and everyone had a different take on it. What’s yours?”
Obviously, you don’t need to use those words. The point is to solicit their opinion, and then the hard part. You need to listen — even when they say, “I think that’s stupid”.
Remember, there’s four parts to the game. Each is important:
Ask. Shut up. Listen. Say Thanks.
There's much to said for an exchange of points of view but first, try to really listen
Perhaps most importantly, if you find yourself with “no one to ask” it might be worthwhile considering how to help reweave the social fabric, beginning in your immediate environment.
In that context you might try an experiment. Seek out non-virtual situations where you are in contact with others. Organize “a meet your neighbours” or street party.
Volunteer for a cause you support. Re-build or deepen your relationships. Give someone a hand. Open yourself up. Take a Chance. Do something you like, but do it with others.
Enjoy.
Coming up:
Next week we’ll look continue with principle 5, also known as the principle of acceptance. We will be focusing on the present and what the impact of applying it might mean.
Remember:
What was at first an unrelenting struggle driven by the necessities of life
became a struggle driven by fear and desire. And two roads opened: the road of Yes and the road of No. At that point, all thought, all emotion, and all action became torn by doubt over whether to choose the Yes or the No. “Yes” created everything that allowed humankind to surpass suffering. “No” added suffering to pain. There was no person, no relationship, no organization free of its internal Yes and its internal No. Then the separate peoples and nations began to connect one to another, until at last the civilizations came together, and the Yes and the No of every language was heard simultaneously in the farthest corners of the Earth. How will human beings ever triumph over their shadow? By fleeing it? By confronting it in
incoherent struggle? If the motor of history is rebellion against death, I say to you now: Rebel against frustration and revenge!
Silo Madrid 1981
Note:
Gloria has agreed to host our next meeting.
These notes have been posted on Facebook and sent to our email list, and, on my website www.dzuckerbrot.com
