Dalai Lama's 18 rules for living: Questions

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.highexistence.com/rules-for-living/

I have questions about the Dalai Lama's 18 rules for living and it is mainly for NTs. Aspies are welcome to answer as well. If children come across this or parents are using these rules children may become confused. Some of these rules are wise and excellent but some are confusing to me.

My questions:

a. What if one is not a risk taker and being a risk taker goes against who he is? Doesn't it go against the advice of be true to yourself?
b. Let's say a good chunk of the population separated themselves from the crowd and chose to do this? How would there be a crowd to separate from?
c. Would it be responsible of me to take a risk that could be potentially detremintal to me and those around me?




For the most part I do agree with this but what if failure leads to my detriment?

3. Follow the three Rs:



I have big problems with this. Confidence is an emotion that comes from an external stimulus. For example, in order to have confidence in one's driving ability one has to be able to have the knowledge and ability to do it. It takes practice and time to learn how to drive. Confidence comes from practice and time. It is not something that is instrinsic or can be turned on.

Adolph Hitler had plenty of confidence with his speaking ability. I believe he had Jewish blood running through his veins. Despite his lack of respect for himself and others through his final solution he had great success in a number of things he set out to do. How does respect for self and others correlate with success in all iterations?



The first two sentences contradict themselves. How does sentence 1 always hold up if sentence 2 implies the premise that there will be those who will not respect me. I'm so confused on this.



I don't follow this at all. How am I in complete control of my life if I am not independent of reality itself. Reality including society(laws and social veener) influences what choices I have? How do I have complete control over my life if I live in a society in which others supposedly have complete control over their lives as well. What if their complete control contradicts my complete control?



I agree, read the story of the Monkey's Paw. Be careful for what you wish for, it might just come true.



Agreed!






I do agree with this.





What if one doesn't think the mistake others accuse him of is truthfully a mistake?

Let's say I realize I made a mistake. What is the procedure to take full responsibility? What if he is in no position to take immediate steps but can do so at a later time like a month of 2 from now?





I agree except for one thing and that is the law of attraction. The law of attraction makes no sense. The basis is positive thoughts bring positive thoughts and negative thoughts bring negative results. Looking at it analytically, isn't positive taking the negative of the negative. This means positivity by the law of double negation is a form of negativity. If I put negative thoughts in the form of double negation then I should receive positive results back?

Looking at in a synthetic way has this law been submitted to double blind tests and the scientific method. I know I have had beliefs I could not do something but I stuck to it anyway and despite that I still succeed at some things. What is the logical and scientific basis for this law?




Here is the problem for me with change. First, it depends on the change. If something changes, there are times I don't know what the proper responses are that I am supposed to give? How do I deal with this?





Actually, I agree with this. Sometimes the best thing to do is to say nothing and do nothing.





Yes, one should live an honorable life but the last sentence is not true and it is not false either. There are those who do act with integrity and who are persecuted and murdered despite it. Looking at Jesus Christ from a historical point of view he was persecuted for what he was doing. He is considered as having integrity right?



It is true that one should demonstrate respect and love to one's family. It is not necessarily true that one will receive the respect and love back. This presumes that an individual has control over other people's thoughts, feelings and actions? If this is true then we all have control of other people's thoughts, feeling, and actions then which would lead to a contradiction? What if individual A's thoughts contradicts individual B's thoughts?



If one does not bring up the past then how can one analyze it to learn from it? What if there are aspects of the past that one does not grasp? Isn't it true that if one does not learn from his past that one is doomed to repeat it?

14. Share your knowledge. It’s a way to achieve immortality. One learns so much just from living a lifetime. Share that knowledge with the people you come across, it can only help them in their journeys. Even more important, share your failures so that others will not repeat them.

I actually know what this means. No, one won't gain biological immortality but one's words and thoughts can last over two-thousand years. Look at the great philosopher Socrates. Socrates won in the end. Ancient Athen's victory over him was pyrrhic. If it wasn't for Socrates that helped laid down the Socratic method I wouldn't be able to ask my questions that I ask here today. Socrates' soul is in the heart of western civilization. His soul lies within my heart as well. It yearns to seek truth for its own sake and to better society as a whole. It is why I ask people various questions at different websites. Like Socrates, people get pissed off at me for them. I and others are the living embodiment and testimony of this great man.

It is why I question, I question and I question. When someone says I must do this. I ask why. When one says life isn't fair I ask why isn't it fair and what is the essence of fairness. When one says one must conform to the social veneer I question the veneer itself in search of the greater truth. I simply want to know why behind things. What I have discovered is that there is a greater tapestry than all of us that has so many interwoven layers that things are very complex. There are so many layers upon layers of grey areas.

The more I learn the more I realize how truly ignorant I am because whenever I have an answer it leads to more questions. My Asperger soul wants things to be nice and neat but my soul yearns for the truth as well. The truth is things aren't always so nice and neat and some things do not have an easy answer to them.



True!



I agree, it will give you a wider perspective on things.



I agree.



Which is why I have to go on a different path than the average joe. My plan is to go into grant writing for our non-profit and use it for other endeavors. I do have excellent grant writing skills and my plan is to use these skills to both help myself and others at the same time. I have been able to get gift cards for our events. I have had some success with it. I plan to use my grant writing skills to obtain things like free social skills training so I can help those who are impoverished more specifically impoverished families with children under the age of 18. It would be done through the process of writing a grant. I am going to see if I can find organizations that will give certain monetary awards for daily living for those on the spectrum.

Besides, our society has gone in a direction that in my opinion is negative in nature. There are those who need help but won't get it because of our cultural values(USA). If I succeed and can get myself started then I will show other aspies that there is a better way than trying to fight or figure out the system.

Certain experiences in my life have made me contrite and made me question certain aspects of our culture(USA).

Rules Added By HighExistence






One has to understand the proper context to this. A lot of teens use these phrases to justifiy their anti-social behavior like boozing, doing drugs, vandalism, promiscuous sex, etc. I have to question them on this. How are they truthfully living life to the fullest and seizing the day if they're screwing up their own minds and bodies?

Tom me when one seizes the day or live life to the fullest one reads for increasing his own understanding of things. He reads for the pleasure of it. He keeps himself in shape. He eats right, has a healthy diet, and gets plenty of exercise. He challenges what he thinks he knows once in a while. He laughs and has fun with his friends. He has philosophical discussions as well. Sometimes one can just sit outside, enjoy a cool breeze and think about nothing. He is clearing his mind this way. He is able to support himself whenever he can. I guess I do need to seize the day more which is what I am trying to do.



I don't 100% agree with this. Sometimes you need people to give a contrary opinion to things.




To me, risk has to be rational as well. It has to have some sense to it. I do agree one does need to do a deep, deep contemplation and what I have found is this. We live in a business-oriented type society. I don't mesh with this whatsoever. I mesh more with the logical, philosophical and helping to uplift people. There are those who need help who won't receive help. I can't save the world but If I can help a few people then I will be okay. The business-oriented type society treats us all like a commodity. I do not vibe with this whatsoever. My soul completely shuts down to this and it shuts down when I am dealing with salespeople. For me, it would be like selling my soul.

I am not NT, but you said it was OK, so here I am.

There is a lot here, so I don't think I am going to cover it all at once, but I will start.

A philosophical approach does not have to be consistent with any other philosophical guidelines. It should be internally consistent, but does not have to conform to anything else.

In addition, I think any philosophic principles are best not treated as dogma. They should be subject to debate and interpretation because in real life people do not communicate completely or clearly and while being able to take things perfectly literally would be easier it probably would not work out better.

Think about the Bill of Rights, for example. These are not absolute. Rights conflict, sometimes courts expand their interpretations, sometimes they constrict them. Philosophy is even more vague because it can be, because it is not law.

1) Risk taking: I agree that it is not appropriate to assume everyone could or should love risk. Some people are risk loving. Some are risk neutral. Some are risk averse. Not everyone should have to magically become a risk loving person. Yes, the big winners (as defined by society, not necessarily by me) are risk takers, but I would venture that the biggest losers (same assumption) are also risk takers. Not everyone has to try to win big. Generally one has to take some risk, to function (the risk of rejection for example) but it is not up to someone else's philosophical listicle to tell you to love risk. I think you can individualize yourself without making yourself like everyone else who individualizes themselves. It is harder to do, though.

2) Respect: This is an idealized statement that identifies itself by letting you know it won't always work. It is poorly worded. Show respect to others and you are more likely to get it in return, but if they do not return it, they are not worth worrying about, I think is the point. It does help people function if they have self-respect. You can achieve without much self-esteem (think Marilyn Monroe, maybe) but you will not be able to defend yourself from users, and you will not be happy.

3) Responsibility: I think it is important to take responsibility for one's own choices and the things under ones own control. That does not mean blame yourself. That said you should not ruminate so much when wronged that you are paralyzed and cannot act in your own interest. Everyone likes to have complete control, but they don't. Some people feel empowered by this illusion. It is not true.


...

7)Mistakes: I think this is referring to genuine mistakes that you recognize as such. not that are labeled that by others. I think they mean to correct as soon as you can, as you cannot do things faster than what is theoretically possible. The procedure depends on the specific mistake.

Law of attraction/mediation I do not know of any scientific evidence of this but I believe there are studies about positive thinking, which what I think this means. I think what they mean is do not ruminate too much on the b=negative, and that if you think positively, people will react more positively to you, and good things are more likely to happen. There is some truth to this, but there are some things positivity is not going to fix, and it does not mean one ought to completely ignore negative things around him. How can you fight negativity if you ignore it?


9)Embracing Change - This is very unfriendly from an Aspie point of view. The truth is that the world changes, culture changes, societal values change, employment requirements change. In real life you have to adapt to a degree. The more power you have the less change will be required of you. it is unpleasant, but true. I think they are saying b/c it is necessary, you ought to try to enjoy it, but it is not so easy especially if the change is not for the better, in your mind.

11)Integrity and getting what you deserve: I presume the answer to this depends on your view of the afterlife and a if there is a benevolent deity. The phrasing would be wrong for this b/c even if one believes this, obviously people get punished on earth all the time for having integrity.

More, later.

Thanks for providing your responses.



Thank you for starting. What I have discovered which is confirmed by Kurt Gödel is that no system can be truthfully complete and consistent.



I agree with all that you say here. If one can develop better philosophical guidelines then why shouldn't we do that? Isn't there always room for improvement?



This is where I have massive issues and difficulties with this. How can our rights be inalienable if there are contradictions to them. The claim that one can have an inalienable right that comes from supposedly the laws of nature is false. It is logically impossible to have an inalienable right that can exist if inconsistencies exist and exceptions must be made. If my logic is erroneous on this then how is it erroneous? I have debated many conservative republicans on this and I can't obtain a straight answer from them. They will either curse me out or scream at me.



I never thought about it the way you thought about it especially that one does not have to risk big.



I understand.



Why do people assume one has complete control over his own life if it is not true? How do they derive this belief?




Actually, I do this. If I am shown where I am error then I am fast to correct. If I believe I am right and I don't grasp their reasoning then I will assume a bit of doubt and I will thoroughly question them and others. To me, there is an objective truth that transcends our wishes, hopes and dreams. This is why I am so pissed off with how your son's school treated. What they did was monstrous. They tried to mind rape him by trying to make him put down an utter lie. Unless they specifically asked for the unreduced for then the school is wrong. His school should've shown respect towards him and accepted the correct answer instead of trying to mind rape him to conform.



You're right, there is some truth to it. I do agree with it because I have had to self-reflect on things and it truthfully was my attitude. There are cases though in which it is not my attitude but my disability including the fact that I lack certain prerequisite skills. To me, attitude doesn't exist in a vacuum and even if having a positive attitude is necessary(It is) it is not sufficient.




You're right, it is not and it is not easy if one does not understand the change, how the change was derived and what the underlying assumptions are.



More, later.[/quote]

Yes, they do get punished for having integrity. It is why I did not grasp this claim. People keep treating the universe as though it is a sentient being. This is the underlying assumption people seem to have. How do they derive this assumption? What is the scientific evidence for this? Did they follow the guidelines of the scientific method with this hypothesis? I don't grasp this at all.

I agree that self-improvement is a noble and probably necessary goal. I think the problem with these lists is as you say from your quote from Kurt Gödel and that there is a danger of taking them too literally.

For example, most religions and some philosophies have some version of, "Do onto others as you would wish them to do onto you." Well, the general thought is good, but in application you run into problems pretty quickly once you get past universal ways to treat people. For example, let's say if event A happens (it doesn't matter what that event is) I would prefer to be alone, but my husband would want to talk with someone. If Event A happens to me, should my husband talk to me about it (as he would prefer, which the statement implies is the correct behavior) or give me time to myself as I actually would prefer? Yes, I could probably twist the statement in knots to make it account for Theory of Mind, but that takes away from it being a nice pithy saying, doesn't it?





People should not curse and scream at you. I assuming that this is mainly happening on the Internet?

I am a little pedantic, so I will explain it this way. Inalienable does not mean complete or not limited by anything. It is referring to the ability to give away or sell these rights to others or the rights of others to take these rights away from you. They are talking about this in the context of the social contract that they believed to be the foundation of rightful, legitimate government. This context is important because they would not have needed a revolution if in practical terms these rights could not be forcefully taken away.

So they were saying that these rights are rights that one should have based on personhood (which mind you only applied to those they thought of as actual people, which was a limitation in and of itself) They were using almost a True Scotsman logic in saying that a true, legitimate government must safeguard these rights to be defined as a true, legitimate government. (A little circular, right?) Nothing said those rights could not be limited or interpreted.




I think it makes some people feel better when they feel like they are not drifting around subject to the whims of others. It makes them feel empowered and in control. On the other hand, it can also make other people feel the bad things are all their own fault. In truth, life is somewhere in the middle, depending on specific circumstances. My son has very little autonomy (though a good deal for someone his age), I have more but not complete control of my life. I am subject to the laws and social conventions of my society and limited by my own strengths and weaknesses and personality. To say otherwise would be grossly inaccurate.






I believe in an objective notion of fairness, also.




More, later.[/quote]



Karma, or the equivalent, is believed in b/c there is something in the human brain that insists on fairness (to oneself, anyway) So it is almost a magical thinking thing where people will talk of the universe having justice or saying, "what goes around comes around." The brain wants it to be true. People tend to anthropomorphize things that do not make sense to them, or things that make them uncomfortable. The nature of the universe is therefore a perfect subject for this. Magical thinking does not work on the scientific method, and I do not know how one would even do this. I can't even imagine taking a representative random sampling of events to test.

Part II of my response to the initial post:

It is true that one should demonstrate respect and love to one's family. It is not necessarily true that one will receive the respect and love back. This presumes that an individual has control over other people's thoughts, feelings and actions? If this is true then we all have control of other people's thoughts, feeling, and actions then which would lead to a contradiction? What if individual A's thoughts contradicts individual B's thoughts?[/quote]

I think the quote starting with, "Your family dynamic will ultimately determine your home atmosphere..." alludes to the fact that you do not have total control and that it is also determined by others. The part that talks about having the least control over this directly tells you, that you do not have control over this and implies imperfect control over the other rules as well. I don't know that I would say one has less control over one's family dynamic than the other things talked aobut that involve society at large, but it does acknowledge imperfect control, which is true.





If one does not bring up the past then how can one analyze it to learn from it? What if there are aspects of the past that one does not grasp? Isn't it true that if one does not learn from his past that one is doomed to repeat it?[/quote]

The past informs the present. I think what is meant, but not clearly stated is that if you have already hashed something out with your spouse or whomever in your family, and dealt with it, forgiven what needed to be forgiven, and then moved on, that it is unfair to dredge it up again. Theoretically, if it was handled correctly the first time,t here would be no reason to bring it up.

The problem with this in real life is that sometimes things that have happened in the past change your opinion of that person for the worse, or have required that you think about that person, what they do, or that whatever it is has not been truly forgiven. Let us say that Spouse A has cheated on Spouse B. Spouse B may choose to stay with that person b/c they come from a culture that does not allow divorce, or some other practical reason, so Spouse B says he/she has forgiven Spouse A, but really has not. Even if that person thinks he/she has forgiven Spouse A, Spouse B does not trust Spouse A, and is now anxious and acts accordingly by monitoring Spouse A's behavior more closely. In addition if Spouse A and Spouse B have an argument about something else, this dredges up unhappy thoughts of the past, and Spouse B might very well bring up the affair in the course of this other argument because the bad feelings have not gone away.

So the question then becomes why are people told to forgive everything? It is supposed to clear the mind and make one happier to get rid of these bad thoughts, but is that even consistent with most people's nature?

Some people's religions also tell them to forgive everything, so they feel obliged to pretend they do to seem like "good people." I do not believe this. There are people I know who try to use this as a metaphorical "Get out of Jail Free Card" and will say and do egregious things to family members and then bleat that family must forgive them, and then continue with their hateful ways.

There are acts that are, by their nature, unforgivable, even when repentance is stated (and may or not be meant) . Sometimes people are stuck dealing with people who have wronged them, even (or maybe especially) in family situations. In a broader context, you cannot forgive and forget because you must learn from history so as not to repeat it.



Very true

...





it sounds like a good plan!



I don't like all these things that tell people to be risky. I don't think most people would apply this appropriately. One needs to be brave and if one is an introvert a lot of necessary contact involves a certain amount of risk. So many people are excessively risk loving and really do not need extra encouragement.

Deciding what you really want, is a good first step. Who wants to spend time and effort planning and executing a plan that will not really make you happy? It helps to be introspective. I agree with that.

Hi cubedmon6073 a

The HHDL (his holiness the Dalai Lama) is one of my very favorite people on the planet. I have heard him speak in person, and hope to again. There are a couple of things to remember when reading the Dalai Lama....

1: English is not his native language, so not what any of the explanations were written in. Through translation, nuance can be missed.

2: the Dalai Lama is funny IRL, so some of his nuance can include humor, which may make it even more difficult to see as black or white.

If you want more engaged answers, you may want to consider doing one rule at a time. I have about five minutes now, so will only address risk taking...

Risk-taking is for everyone. However, the same risk would not apply. For instance, for some people jumping out of a plane is their version of taking risk. For others, saying hello to a stranger is a bigger risk than jumping out of a plane. For everyone-you will only grow your life by taking some sort of risk. Whether that is financially, emotionally or physically - it is different for all people. This rule does not mean that all risk is appropriate for all people. It does not mean that all risk is good. It does mean that some risk is good for all people, you just must find the appropriate risk for you.