"Just one small positive thought in the morning can change your whole day."
Below is a famous quote from a world ... - Positive Wellbein...
Positive Wellbeing During Self-Isolation
9,738 posts •
Below is a famous quote from a world renowned leader. What is the flaw in this philosophy?
Written by
ZazenRiver345
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
The ability to reply to this post has been turned off.
59 Replies
•
You are right and it is certainly worth considering.
You can’t change what hasn’t happened!
If you can change your day in this way you can’t change the WHOLE day; the part of the morning which precedes the thought has already occurred.
That is interesting. I saw it more as encouraging a little step on the dharma path rather that a philosophy that needs analysing so you given me food for thought, thank you. I guess we all see things from different perspectives😊
Is that from the Dalai Lama? I guess it depends on what that small positive thought is but I don’t see a flaw per se
Good morning Gb1 😁☀️ Great spin on your post today as we can raise our awareness how valid a quote is even if it’s written by someone famous. 😅 I can destroy this quote completely how it goes against all Eastern philosophy. 😂😂😂 He supposes to relieve suffering, not add on. I’ll share you my concrete reply at the end. 👍
ZazenRiver345 in reply to
Yes, we cant accept a quote just because someone famous says it😁. It is a misery formula for humanity.😂🤣 I'll be patiently waiting for you to destroy this quote later on. 🙏😁😂🤣
I see a flaw in finding flaws in other people's philosophies,(unless they are potentially harmful in the sense of safeguarding.)
The joy of any philosophy is that we can explore different interpretations and take what resonates with us. As Socrates said, the only thing I know is that I know nothing😊
hi alb-
i have a problem with your statement. while the idea of exploring different interpretations, and taking what resonates with us - sounds like a good thing - and even can be - i think, more often this is very dangerous.
this idea encourages people to take only what they like or agree with without consideration of the context of the whole!!!
what do i mean? this is like when people take bible verses out of context and use those verses to support whatever idea is their opinion. in my experience - these opinions are based in nothing more than sheer desire to be RIGHT and NOT a genuine interest in discovering the truth.
furthermore - the idea that you state, also encourages people to justify their opinions as truth, without provable fact. my above example illustrates this because using a literary book (the bible) as the basis for supporting an opinion as fact - is a completely specious argument!! it's a non-starter!
socrates would agree with me on this point. the problem with most people is - they don't know that they know nothing!!!!!
this is another reason i object to that statement. taking only the bits and pieces of something that resonates for us - encourages and deludes us into thinking - that we know far more than we really do !!
hi marnie;
you see a flaw in finding flaws...
i wonder if you can explain that ... what exactly is the flaw in finding flaws?
is that not exactly how we improve things? by finding flaws, and correcting them? isn't that the exact thing that our country is founded upon??
help me to undrstand this better....
TX!
There are many reasons, but one fundamental thing to consider is that this is reductive thinking in the extreme.
P.S. I hope your country is founded upon a more complex way of thinking about things.
tx for your reply, marnie...
i'm confused by your statement about reductive thinking. your statement seems to imply that reductive thinking is a bad thing - when in fact, reductive thinking is a commonly used method in breaking down more complex ideas into simpler pieces that are easier to understand, thus making the whole easier to understand.
as for our country... it really was founded on a very simple - but highly expandable document. in fact, a 5th grader could read the original founding document, and have no difficulty in understanding it. the original doc wasn't even very lengthy.
i think that's a dali llama quote... ??
the fault in the post - lies in your question!!!! the fault dear zaz, lies in you!! (i think that's shakespeare)
.
since you ask that in relation to philosophy - i suspect there's some fault - which would be likely debatable....
but in my present state of mind - i fail so see it... except, possibly - rewriting it thusly:
"Just one small positive thought in the morning can change the rest of your day."
- but that's if you really want to start picking at nits!! 
in reply to 13ga
Hi Rob, Ofcourse we will dig deep into philosophy, can’t just go by the surface, sounds good but is it realistic? We need to destroy the illusion and stay closed to our existence. 😂😂😂
You are a skilled nit picker🙏😂🤣
zaz - that was probably one of the nicest ways someone's called me really anal!!! 
13ga Koko has a list of flaws for you below 👌🤣
in reply to ZazenRiver345
Can’t wait for Rob nitpicking my reply, he likes creating many interesting spins on many of mine and then accepting defeats. Good sport!😂😂
ZazenRiver345 in reply to
Its difficult to nitpick the truth☝️🙏😁. Sooner or later you just have to accept.
Some people sleep in the morning after working all nite.😁😁😁
Yes that is a flaw, he didnt consider gb2 who likes to sleep in👍😁
It's a gift of sleep.💤💤💤
Thinking too deeply could change the meaning of any simple but positive meaning words.I still think it nicer to consider thinking in a positive way as its uplifting and healthier. The alternative could be depressing.
I dont mean you have to be pessimistic. That wouldnt help either. You can just be realistic.
You are a definite thinker, me thinks!
Let’s go back to Lao Tzhu, Tao: the Pathless Path - “Life is a series of natural and spontaneous changes. Don’t resist them; that only creates sorrow. Let reality be reality. Let things flow naturally forward in whatever way they like.” ❤️So it introduces us 3 major concepts here that expose all flaws of that quote.
1. Lao Tzhu teaching approach is very well-balanced. Life is a series of events, things happen, there’s nothing good or bad. It’s the balance of positive and negative, yin-yang ☯️ Be cool, that calmness which is true bliss. Don’t focus either positive or negative, keep things neutral as they are.
2. Resist reality creates more misery, more sorrow. A false positive created by our subconscious mind will get us nowhere. Practicing acceptance and gratitude in our life will give us a more solid foundation to our core being.
3. Live in the Now. Buddha also said: “The past is already gone, the future is not yet here. There’s only one moment for you to live, and that is the present moment.” He teaches us to live in the moment and show gratitude towards our own existence. It’s the same as Lao Tzhu teaches us let things flow naturally forward and be harmonious with the universe.
*I say practicing acceptance and gratitude towards all things in life and live consciously each moment will keep you more balanced, grounded and inner peace is within our own hands. 😊🙏❤️
ZazenRiver345 in reply to
Thank you Koko for exposing this nonsense 🙏❤
in reply to ZazenRiver345
Always be a truth seeker Gb1, raise your awareness what is true enlightenment. I looked into many of his teaching, he either states the obvious or just contradicts to the original Eastern philosophy. 😅 For instance, another of his quote: “The purpose of our lives is to be happy.” when Buddha spoke up when the woman came to him asked: I want happiness. He said take the “I” out, that’s your ego; and then take the “want” out, there you go, happiness. 😂😂😂
ZazenRiver345 in reply to
Always a truth seeker☝️🙏❤
13ga in reply to
of course, Koko... it's hard to argue with any that you said... on a philosophical level.
but there is the difference between philosophy and reality.
as i said - i think the lama made that org quote... and i think he was speaking from a place closer to experiential reality.
philosophical "goals" (if you can call them that) are ideals - and rarely reachable in real life; for 'real people'.
in a very real way then - that quote is absolutely accurate.
what that quote does is this - it sets up the unconscious mind to look for positives thru-out the day. it doesn't make positives happen - it helps us to see the positives already there.
simple as that!
so -again - i argue the statement is valid in a very pragmatic way.
🤗🤗💜💜💜
in reply to 13ga
Hi Rob 😁, I reject your statement “there’s difference between philosophy and reality” because there is true and real philosophy:
1. True: according to many philosophers, definition of truth as what is empirical and logical. It can be studied, observed, verified through experiences and can be scientifically proved. For instance: if I go out in the rain unprotected, I will get wet. This is something we'd say is true. We can prove it.
2. Real: according to many philosophers would assert that something is real if it has actual existence and substance. For instance, as I play the piano, I am sitting on a real chair and my fingers touch the piano. I can see them both and I can touch them both. They are real.
Lama quote is NOT valid in any pragmatic way, here’s the reason:
Lama quote is still emphasizing positive thinking which makes people delusional, not pragmatic as we can’t control our thoughts but we can manage our actions as we raise our awareness each moment of life event happens.
Let’s go along with what you stated “Lama set up the unconscious mind to look for positives throughout the day, it doesn’t make positives happen”; hence, the unconscious mind will focus on what's positive and ignore the negative. This also leads to delusion. Just by looking at positivity isn’t enough for inner transformation.
Oops forgot some emojis here: 😂🤗🤗❤️❤️
13ga in reply to
hi Koko;
TY for rejecting my statement, and explaining why you reject it!
as i read thru your reply - i find myself wondering if we have a differnce in definition - more than we have a difference in position.
i accept and agree with your definition of truth.
i understand and mostly agree with your definition of real. though, i'll skip debating the fine points.
where i'm a little confused, is the context in your comparison btn true and real. we live in a real world, with plenty of things we can touch, and agree that there's substance and existence. within this real world, there are also provable truths. as well as un-provable beliefs, and outright falsities that are positioned as truth. i think we're both on the same page here. but i'm not sure how these ideas support or contradict the quote in question.
as i write this reply - i'm starting to think that maybe where you and i are struggling, is in the definition of 'positive thinking'.
i understand what your saying when you call that delusional. that, for me - pushes into philosophy.
but i'm talking about a psychological impact. and maybe you would argue that psychology is neither truth, nor real - because we can't wrap our hands around it. i'm not sure where it would lie within the definitions you've supplied.
but psychology IS real in a pragmatic way! (i grant you eastern and western approaches on this subject differ greatly - but i don't think this is an E/W issue). please also understand - i'm not implying that 'positive thinking' blinds us to negative realities. my definition of 'positive thinking' allows us to cope better with the negative things. my def of + thinking - doesn't ignore bad things; it just helps us get thru the bad things by trying to find "the silver lining".
that's what i mean when i say the quote has a pragmatic purpose.
i also wonder if you're differentiating between real philosophy and philosophical?? philosophy ... i'm not even sure what i just said...
maybe we're talking about the difference between the kind of happiness that comes from being an 'empty observer' vs the delusional kind of happiness that comes from buying a new car....
is this making any sense?
and... no emojis were needed... you and i always speak from love. 🤗🤗❤️❤️ (unless and until you start rejecting me instead of my ideas ! 
)
in reply to 13ga
Okay Rob, a good quote will cover all aspects of philosophy, psychology, and sociology; therefore only Osho quotes can work for my understanding. Let’s put positive thinking into real life practice. Do you notice how much positive validation you can give someone and they still end up with nonstop chaos? You can stand in front of the mirror and tell yourself I’m so pretty, I’m so smart but deep down if you know you are none of that then after reciting all those mantras, you still end up being empty and lost. Does that show it is working? The most important thing is a transformation of your inner space. Like GB1’s answer below that the real problem is arising out of your being, the thought is just a symptom of the problem. I myself don’t believe in neither positive philosophy nor negative philosophy. Positive and negative are two sides of the same coin. The only solution is to drop that coin off your hand so you can have a realistic approach to the inevitable events in your life. Yes we do speak out of love and understanding my dear friend Rob 🤗🙏❤️
13ga in reply to
Koko-
i hear you - and i think we are far more in agreement than not.
i too - would not encourage false positive reinforcement. this is a setup for missed expectations and failure.
this IS what i referred to as being 2 different + thinking paths.
1 uses unproductive positivity based in delusion.
1 uses productive positivity based in truth.
i encourage the latter.
in reply to 13ga
Ofc Rob, after every debate, we always end with either you get defeated 😂 or we come to a mutual agreement. 🤗 Thank you for your interesting spin on every subject and I feel so delighted to have with you. 😊🙏❤️
One small negative thought could also change your whole day
It's not the negative thought that changes the whole day. The problem is arising out of the being, the thought is just a symptom of the problem. I dont endorse "think positive" philosophy nor repressing negative thinking.
in reply to ZazenRiver345
Perfect example of a famous dictum of a Western philosopher Rene Descartes: “I think, therefore I am.” It means that thinking is primary and being is secondary. Absolutely absurd!😅Being is first and thinking is secondary. Being is existential. 😁
Marnie22 in reply to
That is a misinterpretation of the meaning.
Try this:
'I am able to think, therefore I exist. A philosophical proof of existence based on the fact that someone capable of any form of thought necessarily exists.'
in reply to Marnie22
There is NO misinterpretation of the meaning.
TRY THIS:
“I AM, THEREFORE I DO NOT THINK”
A philosophical proof of suffer-free: A happy man is a no-mind man! Life is good!!!👍😁🌸
Marnie22 in reply to
You have misunderstood the quote I posted. Your understanding of the Descartes quote is incorrect. He was saying that being able to think is proof that a person exists. It is about proving existence as someone cannot think if they do not exist. It is not about judging whether thinking is good or bad. You introduced that element. The quote is simply about proving existence, nothing more or less.
If you want a more in depth explanation of what Descartes meant, take a look at any basic guide to his work.
in reply to Marnie22
I have not misunderstood the quote u posted. My understanding of the Descartes quote is correct. In the West, everything goes through thinking, even being goes through thinking. Being is not a simple fact that you have to think about it first, then you are, as if it is a logical conclusion. It is existential and it is not logical. Therefore, stop thinking, just know it because knowing is direct. Just how you know if you are a woman or a man without any doubt, without anyone thinks whether you are a woman or a man. 👍😁🌸
Marnie22 in reply to
He was saying that the fact that a person can think is proof that they exist. That is all. He wasn't saying that a person has to think before they can be. You have taken that meaning where it wasn't intended.
“I think; therefore I am” was the end of the search Descartes conducted for a statement that could not be doubted. He found that he could not doubt that he himself existed, as he was the one doing the doubting in the first place.'
in reply to Marnie22
And I disagree with him as I said it is absurd to say “I think, therefore I am.”
As Descartes confesses about this version of the cogito argument, although “I exist” is necessarily true each time he thinks it, the certainty he gets from it lasts only as long as the moment that he thinks it. The moment he turns his attention to something else, he must start all over again in uncertainty.
My proof of existence does not require thinking. I just know. 👍😁🌸
Marnie22 in reply to
He didn't say it required thinking. You have got it round the wrong way. He was saying that the fact that he COULD think proved that he existed. It's just a way to prove existence. I can't help it if you can't understand the distinction,
in reply to Marnie22
He could prove whichever way he existed was up to him. I stand firmly on my disagreement with his statement: “I think, therefore I am.” 👍😁🌸
There is no flaw in being positive 😊
Grammatically, it is correct.
I love grammatically correct stuff!
focused1Reading Rabbits
I have a job where I can't predict the afternoon . The day could be lazy , crazy or hazy - even amaze me . Working with young children and hey ...just wake up and think 'oh what a wonderful morning ' and it maybe / not .
The ability to reply to this post has been turned off.