| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
ivesjz
Banging On A Bit
75 Posts |
 Posted - 09/03/2006 : 14:29:47
|
I've been thinking recently about two concepts, both put forward, at various time and by various philosophies and doctrinal (and non-doctrinal) religions, as being the route to a 'good' life. These are 'overcoming' and 'resignation'.
Overcoming, simply, is the idea that to lead a good life one must strive to overcome both internal and external obsticles, in a continuious bid to become. To become more, to become better, to become greater, to 'Become who you are'.
Resignation, simply, is the idea that to lead a good life one should cease to struggle, and just accept what comes as it comes. To acknowledge the world as it is, and to learn to be content with what we are, who we are, and what the world is.
Both of these doctrines sound appealing - but they seem to be in tension. They seem to be in diametrical opposition to one another. I canot strive to overcome if I also have to accept what I am, and vice-versa.
This tension can be observed between Nietzschean and Schopenhaurian philosophy; between Judeo/Christian/Islamic religions and non-doctrinal 'buddhistic' faiths; between the Appollonian and the Dionysian.
Seeing as both of these doctrines seem to have a place in Ninpo - I wondered if any of you thought they are, in fact, in insurmountable tension, or if this conflict can be reconciled?
As always, I'd rather not say what I think until a few of you are already in the board!
=============================================
"Do you have the patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear? Can you remain unmoving till the right action
arises by itself?"
Lao Tzu (Dao De Ching)
|
|
|
Jo M
Newbie
9 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 15:46:18
|
Hey all,
'Tis my first post on this forum (yups, I found my way around it at last!), so apologies in advance for when I start typing without making any sense, and also for my wonderfully childlike (/childish?) views which - although largely optimistic - I acknowledge as being naive (although hopefully still worthwhile, at least to me!!!).
OK, disclaimer over. 
So, 'overcoming' vs 'resignation'. Whilst I understand that from an 'intellectual' viewpoint (at least a/my Western interpretation of one), these two ideas do appear opposite, when you compare them as such, something doesn't seem to fit, at least not to me. You guys understand the idea of 'non-opposites' better than most (yin-yang, dismissed as being opposites, but easier to look at as being complementary, interdependent etc) so applying those views to this should be fairly straightforward.
Water sees no conflict in these two ideas. It flows easily, it takes the shape of its container, it seems so accepting of its fate. Yet this classic 'resignation' is complemented by its ability to carve its way through a mountain, to meander, to build up pressure, to cut into the land, 'overcoming' 'obstacles'. The two ideas come together here too. Water allows life to flourish – in allowing this, it is passive and active, overcoming and resigning. Sit on the beach and watch the sea.
Rightly or wrongly, I take my cues from nature, from the world around me. Probably all of you understand the ninpo/Eastern views of the 'elements' far better than I ever will; perhaps that may lead to interesting discussions, I suspect you may discover more examples of harmony (more than a mere reconciliation), wherever you look. It is our split with nature that has forced us into seeing opposites where mutual acceptance should be sought. But I digress.
Something I am finding difficult is the terminology, particularly with regard to the idea of ‘Resignation’. In searching for “the route to a ‘good’ life” surely even ‘resignation’ becomes a way of ‘becoming’, and so a way of ‘dealing’ with (if not necessarily overcoming) obstacles. Deciding to accept and let it be does indeed seems to be a way to overcoming – discussions of elections always leads to people not voting as that becomes a way of drawing attention to problems within the ‘democratic’ system. Where does this fit in with the two philosophies? Perhaps in making the decision, the same act (for example not voting) moves from being passive to being active – and so from being an example of resignation to an example of overcoming. Does this make the initial question irrelevant in terms of wanting to lead a good life? Perhaps, if the mind cannot be altered, and/or the measurement of a ‘good’ life is in action and not thought.
 Any thoughts? Questions?
Take care, my friends.
Jo x
|
 |
|
|
ivesjz
Banging On A Bit
75 Posts |
 Posted - 17/03/2006 : 10:25:44
|
Hmm...I like what you've done here, though I'm unsure what you mean when you say that 'us guys' understand the idea of non-opposites more than most. Maybe understanding is a relative thing, but I doubt that any of us actually understand it...though a few of may have our own interpretations...
Can overcomming and acceptance be thought of as complemetary? It's a nice idea, but I think it's only possible if we redefine these terms, which you have already done, tacitly.
The point about water is interesting, but Im not convinced it's accurate. For a start, the fact that water does carve its way through mountains seems to be evidence that it does not simply resign itself to its fate, but pushes foward wherever it can, overcomming the obstacles in its path. Furthermore, the fact that it fits the shape of its container not not mean that it accepts its condition and incarceration, but only that it is unable to do anything about.
The problem with making analagies to 'non-thinking entities' when we talk about acceptance, is that things that do not think cannot 'accept' in the way that we are talking about. Water has no 'desires' or 'interests'. It moves as and when it is affected by forces that act upon it. It does not make its own ends and move in order to attain them.
When we talk about people resigning themselves to their 'fate' we so so within the context of them accepting what they are against a backdrop of what they wish they were or think they could be. We are taking about how to deal with dissatisfaction: whether to choose to strive to overcome and become, or to sit back and watch, accept, and learn to love what we are. Thus, the anlogy with water is imperfect, as water does not seem capable of being dissatisfied. It cannot 'want' or 'desire', and so it cannot have aims or ends.
What I liked very much was the idea that resignation might itself be a way of overcoming. If I might put words into your mouth, I imagined you were talking about choosing resignation as a means to overcome desire and the resulting dissatisfaction.
However, this might seem to be in direct opposition to a good life, the living of which seems to demand that we do more that sit back and watch. Even if we can learn to accept ourselves as we are, what of the rest of the world? I might be perfectly happy now that I have accepted the fact that I am never going to be a great musician, but does that make it right to stop striving? If I learn to love the world as it is, does that mean I do not need to bother trying to change it; trying to reduce poverty; trying to prevent injustice etc.
The problem is, if I cease to desire, and learn to accept things as they are, as they happen, that means that I lose my motivation to make any change. I lose my motivation to improve myaself, to develop new talents, to learn new skills.
The two may not be 'opposites' but they are incompatible. It does not seem possible to genuinely accept things as they are and cease to desire, and at the same same to be motivated to make any changes, to resist anything, to attain anything. Imagine if you are attacked. Might we be able to love that? To not resist it? to accept it, and observe the flow? It might be nicer. It might save us worry, and it might make the whole process less stressful, but is that kind of resignation indicative of a good life?
I think you are absolutley correct in saying that in not voting, 'for a purpose', we are infact doing something active and not something passive: but then that is no longer an act of resignation As soon as you make a decision (whether active or passive) you are not resigned to things as they are but are commiteed to making a change. So, 'directed passivity' is not resignation. One can be active by being passive but, as such, in being passive we are being active. Passivity is only a sign of 'resignation' and 'acceptance' when it is not directed towards any end.
So, I think the question stands. Is it possible to reconcile these two ideals? And, if it is not, which ideal better promotes those values which we think constitute a good life?
=============================================
"Do you have the patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear? Can you remain unmoving till the right action
arises by itself?"
Lao Tzu (Dao De Ching)
|
|
|
|
thekeeper
Waffler Extraordinaire
55 Posts |
Posted - 23/03/2006 : 19:50:12
|
I think that the way you are looking at the two concepts does make them incompatable. If you think of them as different religous philosophies then they are both telling you to lead your lives in different ways because they both have different view about what happens to ur "spirit" after you die. The overcoming religions are normally striving to prove themselves worthy of going to a heaven. This means that they are constantly trying to improve themselves in order to be worthy. Resignation philosophies normally have a different views about what happenes after death. This makes it up to the individual what they choose to believe and how they choose to base their lives.
I also feel that you view of resignation is warped. It seems (and i apologise if i'm worng) that you view of resignation is defeatest. You mentioned the example of being attacked. You may be resigned to accept the outcome of the fight but that does not mean you will not seek to win it. When in a sparaing match you accept the fact that you may get hit. you even prepare for the eventuallity but u still do all you can to avoid the strike last time.
I apologise if this doesnt make sense. i'll probably post again when i have my thoughts more it order.
It is not "I am doing this" but an inner realisation that "This is happening through me". |
|
|
|
ivesjz
Banging On A Bit
75 Posts |
Posted - 24/03/2006 : 10:45:07
|
I take your point about the relegious view, but I don't think I'm committed to thinking of these ideologies in a religious sense - actually I'm certain I am not. If I was, then you have a point.
Whether you beleive in a higher power or not, the two ideologies still seem to be inconsistent insofar as you cannot at the same time set ends (overcomming), and cease to set ends (resignation). A 'good life' can just as well be redefined as 'living well', which, hopefully, rids us of 'theistic' moral overtones.
However, I like your point about my characterisation of resignation being defeatest (if not 'warped'). It does make sense that resignation might simply involve accepting whatever does occur, in spite of your actions, rather than accepting things as they are without taking any action. However, if this is the case then we might find ourselves in a bit of a spiral.
Say I choose to defend myself, and I see that I am losing. Do I accept that or fight on? Let's say I decide to fight on, and just accept the outcome. I start to lose again. Do I accept it or fight on? If the goal is to accept the outcome, and yet I am committed to determining the outcome, at what point do I acknowledge what the outcome is and cease to try to atain my further ends? Unless we can define a point at which we 'accept' done;t we just become embroiled in an eternal fight?
Having just watched 'Two for the money' (a waste of two hours by the way), let's use a gamblig example. A gambler might think, 'I will make a bet and hope to overcome my losing streak, but I'll just resign myself to accepeting the outcome'. The gambler is then both seeking to win, but resigning himself to accepting the outcome. But, is the outcome he is resigned to to accept the outcome of that particulat bet? Why not keep going until he wins?
Why would the person defending themselves accpet as an an outcome a state of affirs he is not happy with if he can redefine the parameters of the fight and seek legal justice (for example). If I desire to win, and try to determine that end, then I am already committed to changing the world to suite my ends instead of changing my ends to suit the world. It seems that either the 'fight' is eternal or it never starts.
I think the point is that the ideological goal of resignation is to cease to desire. When we cease to desire we cease to feel 'want', and we feel at peace (this is what is meant by 'living well'). This state is, however, incompatible with setting goals, with trying to determine an outcome, with 'fighting back' (which is, in terms of the overcomming ideology, required if one is to live well). As soon as we 'want' something (to have a new barbie or to win a fight) we feel loss when we fail to satisfy that want. You might reasonably come back at me here, and say that the goal of resignation is to cease to feel loss at not attaining our ends, but I have severe doubts as to whether this is psychologically possible. Note that in any doctrine, philosophical or religious, that adopts 'resignation' as a goal, it is described in terms of ceasing to 'desire' and not in terms of 'accepting non-attaintement of desire. This is, no doubt, for a reason...
What you have forced me to do is be more accurate in my characterisation of 'resignation'- for which I'm grateful. But the original question, now slightly redefined, still stands (I think). Is overcomming compatable with 'resignation' (when this is defined as a state of being in which one ceases to desire and is able to accept what 'is', without being inclined to change the world in order to attain his own ends)? And, if they are not compatable, which ideology is most compatiable with a good life, or 'living well'?
(please excuse my typing - I have to write these in a rush!)
=============================================
"Do you have the patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear? Can you remain unmoving till the right action
arises by itself?"
Lao Tzu (Dao De Ching)
|
|
|
|
thekeeper
Waffler Extraordinaire
55 Posts |
Posted - 26/03/2006 : 19:57:20
|
The way that you discribe the idea's is very black and white. In this way it is not possible to combine the two idea's. I personally feel to live a happy life then it is important to balance the two idea's that it's very important to accept the things that HAVE happened whilst striving to do our best in the things that WILL happen.
In our society everyone is always being told how they need to improve themselves, to lose weight, get fitter, look better or earn more money. We live in a society where we are expected to strive. We are all at university so we've all had the pressure of exams. We strive to do our best because we want to and it's expected of us. Non of us can stop striving no matter how much we want to.
This can however lead to major upset. My best friend at college was not a happy person. He tried to kill himself a couple of times as he couldn't handle the pressures that he was put under. He had no way of releasing the pressure when he failed. After watching what happened to him and trying to help him through it (having your best freind try to kill himself and leaving u a note changes you) left me with the knowlege that acceptance is of vital importance to everyone. If you cant accept the outcome of what you strive for then you'll enter the same spiral that you would if you only accepted everything that happened and didnt strive for anything.
I feel that the best thing each person can do is to find a way of linking these ideas. It is up to the individual to balance these two philosophies. There has to be a grey area. Like i said earlier, accept what HAS happened and strive to improve what WIL happen.
Always remeber the prayer: Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people I had to kill today because they p****d me off.
=================================================================================================
It is not "I am doing this" but an inner realisation that "This is happening through me". |
|
|
|
ivesjz
Banging On A Bit
75 Posts |
Posted - 27/03/2006 : 08:39:27
|
Now we're getting somwhere! This is the synthethis I've been hoping for!
You've not made the two ideals compatible, but have given them their proper place. Acceptance (resignation) belongs to the past, whilst striving belongs to the future.
What is now interesting, perhaps, is what belongs to the present moment? Perhaps that is the grey area you spoke of?
=============================================
"Do you have the patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear? Can you remain unmoving till the right action
arises by itself?"
Lao Tzu (Dao De Ching)
|
|
|
|
PaulB
Overfiend
50 Posts |
Posted - 30/03/2006 : 17:09:08
|
How can there be a philosophy or approach for 'the moment', when whilst we are attempting to feel/create/hold on to that view/philosophy/approach we miss the very moment in question.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Although we may be meeting for the first time, I accept everyone as a friend.
In truth we already know one another, profoundly, as human beings who share the same goals:
We all seek happiness and do not want suffering"
-HH the Dalai Lama-
|
|
|
|
ivesjz
Banging On A Bit
75 Posts |
Posted - 31/03/2006 : 09:46:11
|
Good point but:
1) We need not be talking about an approach/philosophy to the monment. What I asked was 'if acceptance belongs to the past, and striving belongs to the future, what belongs to the present moment?'
2) It not seem to be necessary that any 'approach' or 'view' be present in the mind continuously. I use the rules of grammer - an approach to language - but I do not have them in mind continuously when I speak.
I was talking to Charlie about something related recently. He pointed out that we learn specific techniqus in training not so that we will be able to use those techniques in the future but so that we have access to the principles on which they are bases should need them. Surely an 'approach' to the preseent moment could be a similar thing? An internalised principle?
3) I suppose what I was getting at is that given that the present is just that, the present, it seems difficult to accept it as it is because we don't yet know what it is, and we cannot strive to change it because it already is what it is. Perhaps this is the point at which we should simply 'be' maybe this is this is the place that we should live? Where neither resignation nor striving is even applicable. This might be where the two collide and cancel eachother out? Perhaps we shouls not be thinking in terms of resignation/striving, past/present at all. Perhaps, insated, a,ll of this is contrary to a good life. All of it depends upon either learning to be satisfaied (in which we necesarilly wrestle with desire) or striving to change (in which wrestle with desire also). perhaps the present moment, where neither resignation nor striving is possible - is the ideal.
But again, this seems problematic for the same reason I have already stated. 'Dwelling in the moment' seems as inconsistant with the idea of making positive change as my previous (and I must now say flawed) characterisation of resignation. So, either they are consistent I can hold on to these two appealing ideals, or I have to discard one of them...or do I Seriously, that's not a trick question.
=============================================
"Do you have the patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear? Can you remain unmoving till the right action
arises by itself?"
Lao Tzu (Dao De Ching)
|
|
|
|
al_b
Stone broke...
21 Posts |
 Posted - 06/04/2006 : 06:25:57
|
hola amigos,
yes, i am still alive, and i'll be training after easter (well, i'll be there for a beating, my lame ninpo will suck big time).
ok, i think this is a pretty interesting topic here jon, and i'm not going to sit on the fence, i think that resignation (or as i prefer to think of it, acceptance) is the way forward. they're only words, but words are all i have (damn, i've got boyzone going through my head...  )
i think that thekeeper made some sound points - resignation sounds defeatist, whereas acceptance sounds more positive, a bit more proactive if you like.
i disagree with jo, mostly for the reasons jon stated - it is the nature of water to take the shape of its container, or to cut through mountains. since there is an apparent lack of consciousness, it appears to me that water isn't making a conscious decision about acceptance or striving.
the way i see things is that you don't have to strive to become old. it just happens. you can accept it or you can fight it, but it's just going to happen anyway. i think this can be extended to the rest of life too. and while it's tempting to think yin-yang on this one, in this case, i just don't agree. i need to think about that a bit more to be certain (or do i?? hmmm).
in a confrontational situation for instance, there is a confrontation. i could accept that, but i could therefore, as has already been pointed out, accept that i am going to (or perhaps not) defend myself. as for jon's point about if i began to lose would i keep fighting? i suppose that depends on the situation and how i felt moved at the time. oh, i don't know. it's confusing. i suppose the more perceived importance of the situation, the longer i'd be inclined to fight, and the harder to fight. but perhaps i'd have the detachment to think that in the end it's all just a game anyway. and anyway, it depends on that particular time surely. you can't plan how you'd respond, so how could you plan how long you'd respond for?
i'd like to point out that these are just my musings - not as any kind of 'disclaimer', but just so you are aware that i just don't claim (see what i've done?  ) to have any idea about, well if i'm perfectly honest, anything. but in a way that makes things easier since i don't have to defend these musings either. i don't normally like to think about things so much, but it's late and my mind is churning.
ok, another thing. we always think selfishly (pretty much). well, i do anyway.
when I get home, I WANT to get a job, and I WANT to find a guapa chica, and I WANT, I WANT, I, I, I, WANT, WANT, WANT, etc. get the picture? i am, or appear to be, totally selfish. by that i mean that there is always some perception that whatever action i perform, it will lead to a perceived improvement to the state of affairs for 'myself' (aka my ego). yet even when i appear to do something that doesn't seem to benefit 'myself', perhaps i'm just doing that to counter some of the selfish things i'm doing, and so am therefore striving indirectly to make myself feel better. thus it could be that even my apparently unselfish actions are in actual fact illusiory selfish acts? who knows. i suppose intention is everything. even if i'm unwittingly fooling myself, that's probably better than scheming and planning. but i don't like to believe that, it's just a thought that struck me today. i like to think that we are capable of acting selflessly.
so, what's the alternative? if we aren't going to think selfishly, perhaps we could just accept what happens? now without wanting to bring religion into this, i think using the G word is the easiest way here (just remember that "the tao by any other name would be just as great"). so then, 'god'. oh yeah, and 'energy'.
as i see it, these two go together. my understanding is that it becomes unneccessary to 'learn' to accept anything in the end (that is, upon gaining enlightenment). how about (ok, not how about, this is what i felt once, and it was good, so i'm trying to get back there) we get a feeling that what happens happens for a reason. yep, planes fall out of the sky, and wars occur, but what if it was all for a reason, and that reason was loving and to help us in whatever way we needed to grow? and we can call the guiding hand behind all of these occurrances, for the sake of discussion, god.
so, if you have this as a feeling, and that feeling is so strong that you don't need to become anything, and you don't have to learn to accept anything, and you just go with the flow, then it sounds like you're pretty set up for 'the good life' to me. you wouldn't need to strive to become anything because you'd feel that the big guy was doing a damned fine job, and in fact, you'd probably enjoy being along for the ride - only this time you'd realise who was really making the decisions (i don't even want to get on to the whole 'free will' debate). and you'd trust him enough not to want things any other way. so you'd have no desires, and a large helping of detachment to help you out if you needed it too (also partly due to increased levels of certain hormones/chemicals as a result of increased pineal and pituary gland activities - see, energy is intricately involved at every stage).
something i want to emphasise is the relationship between energy and having this feeling of god. i think that without the energy giving you this feeling, you run the risk of only having a flimsy intellectual construct, not the real deal (thus the reason why i don't normally bother thinking about all this, because where will it ultimately lead me? but thinking about these things has been helpful to some extent, i must admit). i consider that the energy would impart an unshakeable attribute to your being. i read that your ego is destroyed, so perhaps it is more correct to say that the energy doesn't impart that attribute to you, but rather allows you to see it.
with this in mind, it should come as little surprise to realise that i don't like the idea put forward here of 'accepting the past, while striving to change the future'. accept the past certainly. energy (physical, hormonal, spiritual, cosmic, whatever kind you can think of) and circumstance caused things to pan out a certain way. but also why plan for the future? sure, some kind of plans are necessary (got to start saving now for going travelling next year, etc), but i think plans should be just that - plans. not set in stone, and not something that you cling to and (unrealistically) expect will lead to a certain future. i think that is the main reason that leads to disappointment. if your plans are fluid however, no problemo. ok, so what, you get an offer you can't refuse and can't go travelling next year? c'est la vie. no disappointment.
i think that's just about everything that came to mind. i'll be interested to hear your responses to this. oh yeah, and of course, this is my idea of the ultimate. i'm not there yet though, but one day...
ciao for now, catch you after easter. and well done if you've stuck with me all the way through. |
|
|
|
al_b
Stone broke...
21 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2006 : 13:57:07
|
oh yeah, and another thing now i've had chance to think some more.
how else do you end up with these feelings resulting from enlightenment without striving to get there? i believe it's possible, but i am striving. but i think that i am not striving to 'become more', but simply striving to be what i am minus all the extraneous garbage i think is me. as long as you hold on to a desired outcome, you leave the door open for disappointment - and also with regards to meditation, will find it difficult to sink deeper into your subject. you may find yourself trying to change things ("i just need to straighten my back a bit more, now i need to change my breathing", etc). if you accept the perfection of everything however, you don't need to change anything - and this lets something happen to your energy when you meditate allowing you to sink deeper.
so i think that striving can be useful and perhaps necessary to a degree, but clinging to a desired outcome is the danger.
as for what 'belongs' to the present moment, i don't think anything does, just try to feel it. as soon as we say 'this belongs to the present' then as paul said, how are you in the present any longer? you don't need to intellectually accept the present, thus not knowing what it is isn't a problem. simply experience it, without judging it (like "this is enjoyable, i'm too hot, i don't like that", etc), and react spontaneously. again, this is, i believe, the ideal.
some of these ideas may be more applicable to the englightened, or during meditation. e.g. an enlightened person may be able to live without striving, but if i want to be enlightened, like i say, perhaps i need to strive to get there. but perhaps what i need to do to get there is do nothing - but actually nothing, not just a pretend version of it or an excuse to daydream, etc.
i think i have actually answered jon's questions now. |
|
|
|
PaulB
Overfiend
50 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2006 : 00:32:33
|
Lol! i love topics like this because they really get people thinking-its also amusing to see how we can contradict something which was said earlier, then end up expressing parallel or complimentary concepts or metaphors to that ourselves in a later post! i think we may have come to an empasse tho!
what i think I'm seeing overall is that unsurprisingly, different people have different approaches to this whole idea of overcoming, acceptance, striving and cessation of desire, and the one in which they will trust is largely due (as with most things)to their individual natures.
We are perhaps seeing (to generalise here) two groups, whose approaches to these issues express their personalities, or even, one might say, faith.
What i mean by this is that we have those of a philosophical or conceptual bent, whom explore these issues through logically intellectually examining and analysing them, for example, by comparing the implications of the striving and acceptance ideologies when applied to different circumstances. This group would appear to naturally gravitate to this approach as it has allowed them to resolve such things internally and perhaps to reach some conclusion.
Then we have those who approach these issues in a more subconcious fashion, speaking instead of trusting in how things 'feel' at the time, or of just letting go, in order to dictate their application of the tools of striving and acceptance. This may be because for this group, this is the approach which has most assisted them in life issues.
Of course, the REALLY interesting thing here, is that essentially these two groups themselves exemplify the very issues we have been talking about! We have those who approach lifes issues through striving to understand them conciously, and those whom utilse acceptance to lead to a subconcious resolution.
Like yin and yang, this is not clean cut, each individual utilises both striving and acceptance in different quantities, with one perhaps in majority. This is perhaps a predisposition which has arose due to their unique life experiences and personal nature, and as a result it is almost a matter of faith.
The 'thinker' will trust to their own experience of the power of conceptualisation, while the 'feeler' will trust to the benefits that subconciously flowing from one perspective to the other has manifested in their life.
So conciousness and unconciousness are involved. True internalised acceptance is dependant upon us flowing from one situation and approach to another like water(to borrow Jo's analogy)-without concious thought.Striving however, arises dependant upon concious thought- you cannot strive for anything without concious direction, otherwise you're merely drifting!
So, maybe what i've been trying to portray here *hope i've been successful- this whole conciously striving to achieve something thing is tricky ..... ) |
|
|
|
PaulB
Overfiend
50 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2006 : 00:46:24
|
Sorry! Just ignore the last question about balancing the ideas there-realised when reviewing previous posts that the compatability of apparently opposing ideas in balance has already been answered! Doh! 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Although we may be meeting for the first time, I accept everyone as a friend.
In truth we already know one another, profoundly, as human beings who share the same goals:
We all seek happiness and do not want suffering"
-HH the Dalai Lama-
|
|
|
|
splinter
Old Hand
19 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2006 : 21:00:00
|
One must look at the winning and Survival, they are not the same, we must understand this.
You need the light to find the shadow.
ksthomas |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
overcomming vs. resignation
