Kung fu bread

[David Jamieson]

A few thoughts for your consideration and feedback.

In context to Kung Fu and it's practice, consider this...

1. You cannot be master of another, only yourself

2. attachment in all its forms will be what holds you back from self actualization.

3. all knowledge has at its base a supposition of one person.

4. you can be friendly without "having" friends (attachment).

5.Once you say or do anything, it is out there for all the world who heard or seen it to judge and discard, or to make use of to their own ends.

6. everything you do is neither right nor wrong, it simply "is".

7.you can't "own" any material thing.

8.you can't "own" any person.


thoughts?

peace

[Braden]

Dunno what kind of feedback you're looking for, but I would strongly agree with all but #6, with which I would strongly disagree.

[guohuen]

#6 "For every season, turn turn turn, there is a reason, turn turn turn..." Oh, excuse me while I turn on my lava lamp.
I didn't understand #3, someone please explain.

[TjD]

as to #6... true at a deep level an action is just an action

but most of us are not enlightened, so all our actions have positive and/or negative consequences for ourselves and those around us

so while an action is just an action, and its consequences are just consequences; for those of us living in samsara they can be enjoyable, unenjoyable or neither :)

peace
travis

[awakenwired]

Is #6 as true. And I am not an enlightened person by any means. Right and wrong are different than positive and negative. A right action could yeild either result. Some people have some pretty strange ideas of what is right and wrong, those concepts are merely opinions, from certain points of view. And has nothing to do with positive or negativity. For example if I Kill my wife for sleeping with my Neighbor, in my Country thats pretty wrong, in others it's perfectly justifiable. It's not the action that makes it wrong, it's our decision that it is. I don't know I think I'm rambling now.

[Cody]

#3 not clear to me either.

1. is self-evident. But, there is the choice of Surrender, and that can change the ball game.

Governments, community structures, some of what we encounter in everyday life, reflects the attempts (successful or otherwise) of people who would be masters or dominators of individuals, groups or more. One excuse given is that it is for the good of the many, etc. Indeed, not every leader would seek to undermine self-mastery. And self-mastery can be compatible with, and not comprised by, cooperative efforts. Organization is an alternative to chaos. However, there is a fine line between organzing or leading, and attempting to master others by whatever means are applicable to a given situation.

While there is truth to the statement you provide, the practical application can be lacking when a person surrenders self-mastery; in effect another is master to the degree that can be accomplished with that person at that time. Self-mastery of the individual can be short-circuited, tampered with, tainted, and, for all intensive purposes, destroyed. This is especially unfortunate when a person so treated was trying to do the right thing, i.e. obedience to a person or ideal, and lost themselves in the process. It can be the result of mental pathology, or a normal progression of going with the flow (whose?), or lacking experience or insight to make self-mastery an ongoing process. Some might say the person is a failure then; I would not be so harsh. It's a choice. That choice is colored by how the mind and heart were conditioned by the past. No choice might be perceived. A lot can go wrong. However, the heart and mind can be taken if they are given, and hence, there comes to be a master other than the self.

2. If I do not wish to be attached, I am not. If I do, I am. My self unfolds regardless. My external options might be mildly or severely affected, and that could change the course of my life. What occurs outside might be disaster; within, the beginning of wisdom. I don't need to exist in a bubble room in order to know and be who I am. Success or failure of one's endeavors can be had with either path if you've got the smarts to do it.

4. It is good to be friendly, and not need to get involved to do so. Just good will and what goes with it. It is good not to hold to group opinions when in disagreement. Yet, to not hold close to some friends, to not care that much, I think that is a sterile way. I know it is. I've done it.
Sure, the more attached one is, the more pain there is, for Separation cannot be felt in full force unless there has been attachment. Yet, a loving attachment, even if is a painful one, can yield growth in self and maturity that might not have been had by holding the world at arm's length. And then, there is the loving friendship, for its own sake, without working for any "higher" aims.
I saw a movie, Marvin's Room. I think that was the title. A lady and her son visit her sister, and ailing father. At one point the lady says how lucky the sister is that someone (the father) loves her so much. The sister disagrees. She feels privileged to have been able to love someone to the degree she has (a strong attachment). I agree with this.
Family is a form of friendship, as is membership in a kwoon, love between friends (be they lovers or family or someone who rescues you and is then not part of your life). Friends, being friendly, and having friends as well, is important, imo.

5. Yes. It is also there to be misunderstood. To have good intentions is not enough; one must take into account how the contribution will be received and take precautions. If one is aware of this, there is responsibility which I don't think should be ignored. easier said than done.

6. Objectively speaking (without a reference point), yes.
Much of the world seems to run on a more judgmental framework, because in trying to define rightness or wrongness, there arise rules to suit the individual or common opinion or need. This statement might mirror the opposite of these rules. It's a jolt, and I think, a necessary one. Yet, one must decide what is right and wrong (sometimes situation by situation) for yourself and others (in terms of how what you decide will affect others). I think the statement is but a beginning, not an endpoint.

7. Real ownership is impossible. But, lots of people are taking second best. When division of land, and other materials is necessary in large populations of people, ownership of a sort generally results. Staking claim to something economically desirable, or for mere privacy. It can turn out that one can be owned by one's possessions as well. A matter of degree in a practical sense, in this world.

8. That goes back to #1. It is questionable in terms of human relationships. One can own another person to varying degrees, unless the person says "No." When the person loses the power to say No and/or to think it clearly (with disagreement which is present, drowned out; or the ways of another made part of the self), that person is owned to a lesser or greater degree. Not speaking in absolutes, but coming pretty close in certain cases.

These are my opinions. How I feel. I'm not advocating my ways of thought for others. And, these ways are evolving, especially over recent years. They will continue to do so.

Cody

[Merryprankster]

Strongly disagree with 6 and 2

[Braden]

Cody

"While there is truth to the statement you provide, the practical application can be lacking when a person surrenders self-mastery..."

I don't understand your criticism in this paragraph.

KL said you cannot master another, only yourself. You said you disagreed, and then gave examples of how things get messed up when people try to control one another. It seems like everything you said just supports what KL put forth, rather than refuting it.

"Yet, to not hold close to some friends, to not care that much, I think that is a sterile way...Sure, the more attached one is, the more pain there is...Yet, a loving attachment, even if is a painful one, can yield growth in self and maturity...And then, there is the loving friendship, for its own sake, without working for any 'higher' aims."

I think you're confusing what KL meant to say. You can love someone absolutely without any attachment. Buddhists texts go on at length about this.

Regarding #6

All I can say is that if being enlightened means I can stare into the eyes of a child that starved to death, or perhaps a rape victim and truly believe there's nothing wrong then I have absolutely no interest in being enlightened.

IMHO, the seeming conflict which arises here is solved with the same reasoning which describes absolute love without attachment.

Regarding #3

At first I thought KL was making a remarkable metaphysical statement about separation/distinction/dissociation; looking over it, I'm guessing now I was wrong and he's making a statement about the origins and absolute truth, or lack thereof, of knowledge. In which case I change my mind - I disagree. ;p

[Serpent]

Why is this thread called Kung Fu Bread?

[Cody]

Braden.
I think we are reading with very different eyes, and there is possibly a misunderstanding which I'm having difficulty figuring. Bottom line is that #1 states "You cannot be master of another, only yourself."
I am saying that it is possible to exercise partial, or what amounts to near total mastery over another human being, in terms of how that person eventually "chooses" to think, feel, and act. The person essentially loses himself/herself, so that the choice amounts to what begins as a sort of obedience to something/someone held higher than the self, or feared, and goes on from there. The fear may or may not be there. To varying degrees, this is not unusual in the human condition. I was thinking of extreme conditions when I wrote what I did.
Hence, I do not agree with the statement, which might assume a certain sacred separateness which I suspect is not as solid as #1 makes it appear.

I realize that the Buddhist way is to love without attachment. While that is a type of love, that one can have for one's fellows. I would not want it for myself in All my interactions. Closeness, involvement, and subsequent attachment can lead to inner shifts which brings the self into clearer focus. It is also something wonderful.
I'm not debating whether what is suggested is good or not good for other people. For me, it is not so at all times, nor do I wish it to be. Needless to say, I am not Buddhist. And I do not seek enlightenment. I do not read Buddhist texts. I answer what is presented here in terms of the words given and my experience. I find exercises of this nature useful and interesting, up to a point.

Danny Sainty.
In the state of no-mind there is a clarity from which the intent of another (who is throwing the punch) can be grasped like a bird from the air. The punch merely Is, but the faster- than- thought evaluation by That Which Moves In Stillness Within, re the state of mind and intent of the puncher is not simply that it is, at least not in my experience. One's physical response needs to be tempered by the emotional intent of the opponent. Then you deal with that, and the physical realities as well, without thought. A most dangerous opponent is one who can hide emotional intent as well as the energies which are mobilized to express it, on a level greater than yours. One way to hide is not to feel, but just do. Yet one's intent to do, what one does under different circumstances, can be decided in advance, and there are feelings and personal standards of behavior involved. It is a way of setting limits. What appears to Just Be has a history in the person, in mankind. I cannot say everything just Is, just. I can say that one needs to examine one's value judgments to make sure they are truly one's own, and to combine them with compassion for one's own feelings and those of others. That has become my way.

To continue. I think that #6 appears to dispatch the excessive labelling applied to just about everything. It seems to seek a freedom from it, which I applaud. Yet, at some point personal judgments need to be made. At least that's how I feel. I think that to be free of the labelling and errors which result from it, one must substitute free choice via experience/observation for doctrine and social mores. Maybe that might be considered too much for the common man to do. I have no idea, but if that is the case, I don't agree with that either.

Cody

[anton]

To me this entails a view of morality as being inherently subjective, and entirely so - a classically existential concept. I agree with the statement and would say it has little to do with enlightenment, or rather one does not have to be enlightened to hold that view.
When I see a starving child (for example) I can say that I think it is "wrong" - in the sense that it contradicts the principles that I choose to have, the fact that many of these principles may be enshrined in statute or religion and also shared by the majority of the society that has surrounded me since childhood, probably swayed my choice but in the end the choice is mine. Because morality is inherently subjective, there is no person or book that can tell me what is objectively "right" or "wrong", I am forced to choose a set of principles of my own and bear the sole responsibility for any outcomes of actions based on those principles - I am, as Sartre might have put it - Condemned to choose.
If, for example, in order to prevent the rape of many women I decide to kill the serial rapist, or somehow deprive him of his liberty, I bear the sole responsibility for that action - I can not say that since my set of principles are objectively superior I had no choice but to do what I did. Similarly if, based on my chosen set of principles, I decide to crash a plane into a skyscraper killing many people, I cannot say that the Qur'an told me to do it. In the end it is [i][b]I and I alone[i][b] that bears the sole responsibility for my actions and the effects they have on society.
The common misconception is that existentialism is a philosophy of pessimistic indifference - on the contrary it is the only way one can take total responsibility for one's actions. I can call certain things "wrong", and act to prevent such things as long as I recognise that there is nothing particularly superior about a choice to consider them "wrong" and that someone else's decision to consider these things "right" is, objectively speaking, no better or worse.

[Braden]

Moral relativism is far from being a given fact about reality. Moreover, it does not necessarily follow from 'all I am is the actions which I take' that 'the actions that I take have no meaningfull morality.' In other words, Sartre's is not the only viable interpretation of existentialism.

[dubj]

It means we are just a bunch of chemicals floating around in thought, so no need to worry about it.

[anton]

Originally posted by Braden
Moral relativism is far from being a given fact about reality. Moreover, it does not necessarily follow from 'all I am is the actions which I take' that 'the actions that I take have no meaningfull morality.' In other words, Sartre's is not the only viable interpretation of existentialism.

Of course, I agree.
The views expresed in my previous post are simply the filter through which I find the world makes the most sense to me.

[Gabriel]

wow what fun :D

1. Hmm. In an ideal world, this would be true. And I certainly can't be the master of anyone cept maybe my cat (though i get the impression its the other way around). But in the sad history of the human race many people have been subjugated to others' will.

2. So basically, with no attachments, you can realize yourself better it says. Well, I think this is true in a way. Simply because you'll have a lot more time to yourself, not as many distractions, in which to explore yourself. But, I don't really practice this, id be pretty lonely if I did.

3. heh. This is saying that all knowledge starts with the thoughts of one man. True, i would say. Although I would clarify that one man alone didn't think up all thoughts, but a single thought has a singe source, imho.

4. Hm..this i take issue with. One way a person models how to be "friendly" is through family and friend interaction. I don't see how one could be genuinely friendly if they approach everyone from an awkward standpoint, sort of as an outsider.

5. Very true, as has been proven to me on this very forum.

6.Hmm.. Well morality is an aspect of religion and society, and good and bad are ambiguous terms. One man's good may be another man's bad. So in this respect I partially agree. However, I strongly support most of the morals that hold society together.

7. *Holds up his dirty sock* who else owns this? This sock is mine. Although, if the writer meant "own" in a continual sense, then I suppose I agree, after all, the sock wont come with me when I die (I hope :eek: )

8. Again, back to number 1.. and to number 7. People HAVE been subjugated against their will throughout the course of history. But the writer probably meant this in a broad continual sense.

Bread Indeed. :) Good post KL

Gabriel

[scotty1]

In context to Kung Fu and it's practice, consider this...

1. You cannot be master of another, only yourself

Obviously you can never control another entirely but you can subjugate someone enough for it to be said that you are their master.

Ultimately however the final choice rests with the person who is 'mastered' so no, you can never truly master another.

2. attachment in all its forms will be what holds you back from self actualization.

What exactly is self actualizing? If you're referring to 'finding yourself' I think attachments can help you to do so.

3. all knowledge has at its base a supposition of one person.

Yeah, well someobdy had to think of it first, and decide to share, so yeah I would say so.

4. you can be friendly without "having" friends (attachment).

You could be pleasant and ameniable without "having friends" (present) but I don't know if you could be friendly and ameniable without having had friends (past).

5.Once you say or do anything, it is out there for all the world who heard or seen it to judge and discard, or to make use of to their own ends.

Isn't that obvious? If someone sees you do something they're going to do something with it, even if it is only to discard it.

6. everything you do is neither right nor wrong, it simply "is".

Depends. The action itself "just is", but we judge it to be "right or wrong", looking through the filter that is our morals.

7.you can't "own" any material thing.

Disagree. I own all my belongings, nobody else owns them, and they don't own themselves.

8.you can't "own" any person.

Disagree. It could be said that black slaves were owned in the 1800s.

I don't see what some of this has to do with Kungfu.

[David Jamieson]

some excellent and very thoughtful responses! wow! :)

i called it "bread" because it's food for thought.

peace

[Serpent]

Aha! Then I'll have an existential sandwich please.

I fully disagree with #6. It's all open to perception, of course, but I believe something can be right, it can be wrong and it can be both right and wrong (depending on your viewpoint), but it's never none of these things.