Engaged Dudeism?

[DigitalBuddha]

Could it not be said that engaging dudeism is as simple as recognizing and embracing the inner dude in us all? It is not something to strive for, achieve or "learn," but rather it is becoming aware. In fact, striving to engage dudeism is an oxymoron in that striving itself is not an act of slacking and more or less anti-dude. There is "dude" in us all waiting to express itself, one only needs to discover it IMHO. We are the inner dude. It could be stated thus; I am dude, therefore I am, or; there is dudeness, I am that dude.

Am I wrong?

[Andrea Da Fino]

Rev. Al, you're fucking correct. Mark it 8. Probably a lot has to do with how people see things, our personal point of view, or judgement. For me organization doesn't mean something necessarily bad, and I understand that, at least most of the times, to reach a goal a bit of organization is needed otherwise we risk to wander like a child in the middle of a movie, no real effect outside the net. As an example, there is the kiva lending thing going on, there is a difference if every ordained dudeist priest lends 1 buck per month or some sometimes lend 5 bucks when it happens. In the first example the kiva lending thing would have 100.000 bucks per month, in the second it can have 1.000 bucks, or none. An organized effort always wins; I'm using the word effort because I don't know a better one, not for its exhausting meaning. 

Dudeism embraces almost everything so everything can be seen as part of Dudeism. But the Church of the Latter-Day Dude is another thing, imdo. Being a Dudeist is one thing and being a Dudeist Priest is another one. The certificate isn't the only difference, again imdo. As you correctly say this is Olly and Dwayne business though. 

For some of us only the idea of having someone else ""above"" sounds uncomfortable but I personally don't find that organization and having a dudely llama or the archdudeship mines my freedom. Actually "too much openness" would sooner or later take us to get a dude cannibal, or a dude rapist. We, as laid down taoists just need to find the correct balance, which means not no organization at all, and means not being totally organized and uptights. Balance means balance, that is both of them like a white russian, half total freedom and half organization shaked well. 

That's Taoism and that's Dudeism: balance and harmony, not just what we like and nothing else. There is a different point of view between those who see Dudeism as a bunch of "self-centered" priests and those who see it as a loosely organized religion, both points of view are right and both points of view have the same "right" to be part of Dudeism. Or are we gonna take the same uptight trail of other religions in the future in any direction where some people tells the others what is right and what is wrong? One of the reasons why so many dudes leave the forum after a while, imdo.

Anyway, I've lost a bit my train of thought, but as you say there are just two in the world who can say what belongs to the Dudeist Church and whatsnot, than we can agree or disagree and even decide to be a freelance dude, which is cool anyway.

I think there is a difference between Dudeism and the church, Dudeism is the spiritual philosophy and the church is the church. Not all buddist become monks, and not all buddist monks are organized in the same way, yet they are all buddists. And in any case probably everyone misses the point of Buddha. Does it all make sense?

DB, you're right and correct. But, forgive me I can't resist, what if looking inside I find also Walter?     

[DigitalBuddha]

DB, you're right and correct. But, forgive me I can't resist, what if looking inside I find also Walter?     

You will find some Walter inside, we all do, that is part of us that also defines being human and a dude. You see, I think that "dude" consists of the Dude, Walter and Donny. All of that is in us. We become dude-like when we understand all that is within us. As one dude said; "know thyself." Or, as we would say "know thy inner dude." All of our inner dude.

[meekon5]

No, I believe the best way to "engage" is simply to "be".  You can't convince most people that their way of life is wrong and that your way of life is right any more than they could convince you the opposite is true (besides, that goes back to the control issues I wrote about above).  Be an influence.  Let them come to their own realizations in their own time.  Let them ask the questions before you tell them the answers.  Don't make it happen, let it happen.

Could it not be said that engaging dudeism is as simple as recognizing and embracing the inner dude in us all? It is not something to strive for, achieve or "learn," but rather it is becoming aware. In fact, striving to engage dudeism is an oxymoron in that striving itself is not an act of slacking and more or less anti-dude. There is "dude" in us all waiting to express itself, one only needs to discover it IMHO. We are the inner dude. It could be stated thus; I am dude, therefore I am, or; there is dudeness, I am that dude.

The Dude is, the Dude does not do.

The Dude abides, the Dude does not engage.

One does not become the Dude, one realises one is the Dude.

(teeshirt from the daily mash)

[Rev. Ed C]

In fact, striving to engage dudeism is an oxymoron in that striving itself is not an act of slacking and more or less anti-dude.

I kinda think that depends on your point of view.  I'd say that engaging Dudeism is fully part of it, and that Dudeism is not about slacking off to the extreme.

My view has been that a Dude is nice and conscientious and a part of the world around them.  If a Dude idolising idling above all, aren't they in danger of sitting at home and ignoring the world around them and the needs of others, which to me smacks more of selfish arsehole than Dude.  Surely, those are the real bums, and us Dudes rise above the ideal of nogoodnicks.  We're the ones who take it easy for ourselves and others, but don't just take, we give back too.

I can see what you're saying that to actively engage does sound like an effort, but surely without effort the world stops turning.  Who grows the food, who even picks the apples, or picks the fallen ones up and eats them if sloth is the prime objective.  This was one of my points in the old Dudeciples article of mine, where I point out that the world needs to be Dude, but not THE Dude, because if we all sat down and shut off, we'd die out before you could watch every Coens movie, one a day, every night on the trot.

Surely we're not promoting a slacker culture, we're promoting a laid-back culture of personal wellbeing and happiness, good-naturedness, social bonding and charity.  We're about a oneness that will benefit mankind, starting with individuals and filtering through the world as it makes its subtle karmic ripples.

A lot of religions tie in acts of charity into their credo.  Sikhism and Islam feel a duty to their fellow men at a core, actively adding in tenets about it.  Christianity and Buddhism are built upon such notions as well, although more in the philosophical sense than the direct rulings.

Surely what we are is not defined by our imitation of The Dude, but our own way of being which The Dude would also follow.  Even if we were imitating, The Dude actively gives to Marty when he goes to his performance.  That's passive or selfish, it's The Dude engaging.  That's a lesson even Lebowskiists can follow

The Dude is, the Dude does not do.

The Dude abides, the Dude does not engage.

One does not become the Dude, one realises one is the Dude.

I bow to your zenlike in-tao-pretation, but I still say that engaging is part of being.  Not for one's self, but for the world we live in.  Dude is a state of being, but being a Dude in the world require engaging with the world as a Dude.

That is... you don't need to engage to be a Dude, but, I think Dudeism should be apart more than personal Dudeliness.

What you are is key, but whatever you are defines your impact on the world as you engage it, so you can't avoid the issue of engaging unless you're a hermit, so for most of us (in fact all of us, if you're reading this you're engaging ) we have to consider how Dudeism works on more than just a personal level.

[Andrea Da Fino]

DB, m5, Rev. Ed, far out and mark it 8. That's why I like this beach community, deep thinking, different points of view, laid-back/easy attitude. Isn't it great to talk in this way? About such interesting issues? I dig your style dudes. 

[Hominid]

One thing to add is that when we discuss these various interpretations of what Dudeism is, we sometimes make the assumption that was DB is saying, or Rev. Ed is saying, or what m5 is saying is that THEIR interpretation and opinion is THE take on Dudeism. Rev. Ed's is more proactive, engaging, and socially responsible. We do indeed need people to produce. Then we need the slackers who buy what is produced. It's a rainbow; a combination of the various colours of Dudeism is what's needed, not a single interpretation that is THE only interpretation. Of course, all within the bounds of agreed upon principles and practices of a zen approach to life...

Make sense?

[DigitalBuddha]

For sure, my input is just like my opinion, man.

[Reverend Al]

Andrea Da Fino:  You are truly enlightened; I have much to learn.  And yes, the thoughtful and respectful conversations are one of the reasons I dig this forum's style.

Rev. Ed C:  Right on.  In TBL The Dude may be a slacker and is certainly a master of the art of relaxation, but he is not immobile.  To the contrary, he engages quite often--he engages in his discussions with Walter, Donny, Maude, the other Jeffrey Lebowski, and everyone else he meets; he most definitely engages with Maude, whether discussing the case or enjoying zesty coitus; he even engages with Gary when ordering oat sodas or Caucasians.  It's how he engages that sets him apart.  He approaches people with no agenda other than the occasional need to set things right--seek recompense for his soiled rug, recover his stolen car--to restore balance.  And, of course, bowling, driving around, and the occasional acid flashback (which, admittedly, is a delayed effect of previous engagements).

Hominid:  Also right on.  Even in Dudeism there is balance--those who feel we should be proactive and engaging, and those who are willing to allow others to be so while reaping the benefits; the producers and consumers.  Neither is right or wrong, merely parts of the whole, yin and yang.  Fabulous stuff, man.

[Rev. Ed C]

One thing to add is that when we discuss these various interpretations of what Dudeism is, we sometimes make the assumption that was DB is saying, or Rev. Ed is saying, or what m5 is saying is that THEIR interpretation and opinion is THE take on Dudeism. Rev. Ed's is more proactive, engaging, and socially responsible. We do indeed need people to produce. Then we need the slackers who buy what is produced. It's a rainbow; a combination of the various colours of Dudeism is what's needed, not a single interpretation that is THE only interpretation. Of course, all within the bounds of agreed upon principles and practices of a zen approach to life...

Make sense?

Damn straight, H-man!  One thing I've always said about Dudeism is that it's a fantastic philosophical melting pot.  Whenever I write an article for the DP I much prefer people to respond and chip in, because either there's something I missed, or something I never considered and it enriches the whole point.

Dudeism is not about one man's vision, or copying the life of one man, it's about people throwing in opinions and ideas around the spirit of Dudeism.  Listening to others and sounding out our own ideas and opinions can only enrich ourselves and each other.  As long as we're not shooting wide of the goal and bouncing off the realm of the undude, it's all good

[meekon5]

One thing to add is that when we discuss these various interpretations of what Dudeism is, we sometimes make the assumption that was DB is saying, or Rev. Ed is saying, or what m5 is saying is that THEIR interpretation and opinion is THE take on Dudeism. Rev. Ed's is more proactive, engaging, and socially responsible. We do indeed need people to produce. Then we need the slackers who buy what is produced. It's a rainbow; a combination of the various colours of Dudeism is what's needed, not a single interpretation that is THE only interpretation. Of course, all within the bounds of agreed upon principles and practices of a zen approach to life...

Make sense?

very much in line with what DB and ED have said, I'm not laying down my opinion as the law here, this is me testing other aspects and looking for ideas and comments on what I'm saying.

[Rev. Ed C]

If you don't bat the ball around occasionally, it makes for a really dull game of cricket

[Hominid]

If you don't bat the ball around occasionally, it makes for a really dull game of cricket

Good thread dudes. Now that we've solved the world's problems, all we need is another flame war. Where's the fundies when you need them?  ;-)

[meekon5]

If you don't bat the ball around occasionally, it makes for a really dull game of cricket

Good thread dudes. Now that we've solved the world's problems, all we need is another flame war. Where's the fundies when you need them?  ;-)

Careful what you wish for!

[Andrea Da Fino]

Hominid you're right, but, at the end, water remains water, whatever you call it and whatever minerals it contains. Water is water and it will never be wine. But the DL is working on this.     

Reverend Al, thanks for your kind words but as everyone around knows I'm just a fucking amateur.  Also it seems to me that you already have the right frame of reference.

DB, Rev. Ed, m5 far out as usual. As I've said above a bunch of deep thinkers.