the latest freed

I want to make a contribution to the consciousness debate - because I think a lot of the time we are really talking about how we can apply terms to things. Consciousness is always a difficult one because in some ways it is viewed as something that human beings and some animals have exclusively and at other times a kind of universal property of spirit or energy or the universe.

A7,

I think you found a great way to thoroughly and convincingly explain "consciousness" in a way that kind of marries what people have been saying on here. Maybe this should be a posted article? Unless it's already been tackled in that form, of course.

Hello MH,

 

I imagine many are glad to see some Taoist references and discussion... (after some of the goings on here )

 

My take: "The One" is the first and the last "thing". (or "born" thus related to change even though a person might ask how could there be change with or in "One"?)

 

"No thing" is not knowable by "thing" although they are connected... thus not only is no-thing a "mystery" but so is its connection to One!

 

I believe some Buddhists touch on this subject with the saying of, "when the many are reduced to one ,to what shall the one be reduced".

 

Om

Yes, I believe there's textual support for this in the Tao Te Ching. As Ch. 40 states: "The myriad creatures in the world are born from Something, and Something from Nothing." A thought: maybe the the One (aka "the named" and/or "the mother of the myriad creatures" in Ch. 1) is the collective "presence" of all the myriad creatures? A collective consciousness, like "Dust," if anyone is familiar with the His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman? Or maybe the One is a simple atom of hydrogen, with its one proton, which is thought to have been the initial element that made the universe and life in it possible. Ch. 41 states: "The way begets one; one begets two; two begets three; three begets the myriad creatures." This kind of expresses the multiplying nature of atoms from hydrogen, growing more complex and bonding together through time, that scientists believe brought about the creation of the universe and all of the life in it.

But, whatever the One is, I don't think that it's necessarily a separate thing from the No-thing. 3bob said that they're "connected," but I would venture to suggest that they're more than connected: they're the same thing. Ch. 1 of the TTC states, at the end, "These two [the nameless and the named] are the same, but diverge in name as they issue forth." So it's the act of naming that separates them--the observable, identifiable, categorical universe and the ultimate reality of the Way that cannot be defined. Even though they seem different/separate, one issuing from the other, they're really one and the same, which reinforces apepch7's idea that the Way is both constant and inconstant, or unnameable and nameable. Thoughts?

Oh please don't lurk! This whole place is about discussion and its great to hear your voice. Its not about being right or wrong but about putting your own ideas and seeing what others say. I learn every time I post because I find that although I think I have understood something I am (I hope) big enough to realize when I haven't or perhaps my understanding is limited. Your contributions have been great.

Thanks. It's the same way for me, actually. I can't say that I'm noble enough to like being wrong, but I do seem to learn more when I am and I think I've made great leaps in the short time I've been on here.

Back to the debate:

 

Do you think we are getting too hung up on 'constant', 'complete', 'unchanging' - with regard to the Tao then it is both constant (in a sense) and inconstant (in another sense) ... and so on. That is not to make it into a meaningless abstract but to say it is real but is too big for any concept we might like to throw at it. (?)

Actually, I really like that. I think that's true. After all, the way I've come to understand it, the Tao encompasses all and can't be defined in any concrete terms. "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao," and all that. So I think you're right to suppose that it's both constant and inconstant. It can't be categorized, and to try to do so is, possibly, to move further away from the truth of it.

The laws of physics ... I have a problem with because as formulated they are human constructs and also every generation they get completely turned on their head e.g quantum mechanics versus classical mechanics and so on. If you mean the real 'way' in which the universe works which these laws struggle to describe then I would go some way to agreeing.

 

John

Yes, I meant the real laws that the universe follows, not the "laws" as we currently understand them. I know that humanity doesn't understand the universe yet and new things are always being discovered, suggested and then thrown out. I think there's a case for chaos, too, though. Maybe it figures into the ultimate equation, maybe there's no equation, maybe there's no chaos. I dunno. My sure sense of the world always seems to be unraveling. Haha

Please, never fear about wasting space. I enjoy reading the input from everyone regarding these concepts.

 

I will confess that this constant that is spoken of in the TTC and in Chuang Tzu bothered me a lot in the early years of my searching. It was almost as if it was being said that some 'thing' existed on its own without changing - ever-constant.

 

But this was before I read Wayne L Wang's "Dynamic Tao".

 

After reading specifically "Part I - The Theory of Dynamic Tao", not so much his translation, I became convinced that this constant that was being spoken of was Tzujan, the Laws of Physics.

 

I cannot accept the thought that there is a 'thing' that is constant and never-changing because that would conflict with the thought that all things change. So it must be some non-thing that is constant. And we really can't say that it is Tao that is non-changing because Tao is all thing and all non-things.

 

But then I can't imagine saying that Tzujan is 'above' Tao either. So I am satisfied with understanding that Tzujan is the Nature of Tao. And one of the 'Natures' of Tao is to simultaneously create and destroy. And this leads back to the cycles throughout the universe.

 

Peace & Love!

I'll have to check out "Dynamic Tao." I'm intrigued, and a magpie when it comes to books. Thanks for the tip!

One question, though: if the "constant" is the Laws of Physics, isn't it kind of a "thing"? Not so much a God-like presence-thing, but a concept-thing, which I would lump into the "thingness" category. I don't think the constant has to have a conscious to be considered a "thing." But then, that may be nitpicking and boils down to semantics, which is completely inarguable because the relationship between words and meaning is never constant. Nonetheless, I had an idea one time (I may have gotten it from somewhere, but don't remember the source) that maybe God (in all its variations--maybe Thing would be better?) is really the perfect, elegant, foundational, yet-undiscovered equation that constitutes Einstein's Theory of Everything; a "presence" in that it's a law that forms the basis of everything in existence, that makes existence possible. That may be a little out there. I dunno. But it was an idea that I thought kind of fit in with the discussion.

Oh, and thanks about the "never fear" thing. I just never want to be that person that isn't really adding to the conversation and just tooting her horn to hear her own voice. Sometimes I wonder if it would be better for me to just lurk in the shadows. But then, if I have ideas or questions that haven't come up, who else will address them but me? And if they're not addressed, then I won't learn or grow...

In China there is only one Tao and only one book on it.

I would agree that there's one Tao, but not just one book on it. There have been different interpretations for thousands of years, even among the oldest of texts. I'm under the impression that even the oldest Taoists, Confucians, etc., had different understandings of the Tao (not that similarities don't exist among them, but different applications are evident). Otherwise, what would be the point of having different philosophies? You may only accept one understanding, but that doesn't mean that others don't exist and haven't existed for many, many years.

Chuang Tzu was only an echo of what he had listened to.

http://www.answers.com/topic/zhuang-zi

Yes, this is basically true, I think. He wasn't Lao Tzu; he came afterward and was a follower of the principles in the Tao Te Ching. But he had some interesting and valid ideas to contribute, I think, which is why his work is considered an essential part of the Taoist canon by Chinese and non-Chinese people alike. And, as far as I know, his text doesn't conflict with the Tao Te Ching. But I don't know everything; feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

To make a long story short - I've been in China, studying Chinese philosophy, for more years than most of you have education -from grade 1 to now. If you want to see the reality of Chinese philosophy read A Short History of Chinese Philosophy by Feng Youlan AKA: Fung Yu-Lan (simplified Chinese: 冯友兰; traditional Chinese: 馮友蘭; pinyin: Féng Yǒulán; Wade-Giles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feng_Youlan

To give you an idea, Dr. Feng Youlan was brought over from China, during the Japanese attacks on China, during WW1 & WW2 and given an honorary Doctorate degree from Princeton University, and a Professor position, simply to learn Chinese History from him.

My best friend here has a Masters Degree in Chinese Philosophy & History from the Chinese University, the top University in China for history/philosophy, that he taught in, after his return, she studied under him. I had the honnor to meet and talk to him.

I'll check out the text. Thanks. But I think it's important to note that education doesn't always equal wisdom, nor does nationality. Even the Tao Te Ching states this, which I think is why it values "the uncarved block" and returning to the childlike state over intellectualism. Education can sometimes cloud logic and truth because it often gives a person a false sense of authority and teaches them to reject other ideas, regardless of their validity. It can be a source of flawed pride. I'm not saying that education is worthless or useless; I'd be a hypocrite. I'm just saying that those with degrees shouldn't be the only ones considered fit to approach or discuss truth. As the Tao Te Ching states: "Drop wisdom, abandon cleverness, and the people will be benefited a hundredfold...These three [wisdom/cleverness, humanity/justice, shrewdness/sharpness] are the criss-cross of Tao, and are not sufficient in themselves. Therefore, they should be subordinated to a Higher Principle. See the Simple and embrace the Primal..." (Chapter 19, Wu translation). Simplicity is higher in principle than intellectualism gained by lots of education. I think that's important, though I don't think that willful ignorance is a virtue (or the definition of simplicity), either. Which is why I'm trying to learn by discussing these things on here and reading as many translations as I can and slowly learning to read Chinese.

Read the book.

You are in the field of Chinese culture and becoming an embarrassment to those that can read and reason.

I don't think this is a fair assumption. Innocence is not an embarrassment, and if I'm innocent in the field of Chinese culture (and I'm not entirely), then I'm at least willing to learn. I wouldn't be here if I wasn't. And a willingness to learn is certainly not an embarrassing thing. I've received quite a bit of formal education, actually, as I'm in my last year of graduate school, and I'm smart enough to realize that total education includes learning outside of an academic atmosphere. It includes world experience and reading lots of different things and thinking on one's own and with like-minded people. So I think I'm at least sort of adept at reading and reasoning. Anyway, if you have a greater understanding of Chinese culture and Taoism than I do, I'm more than happy to learn from you. But please don't call me an embarrassment for attempting to learn and understand. That's a waste of a good opportunity.

The cycles of life - birth, life, and death. All thing undergo this process. The processes of Nature are unavoidable. "Everything" changes. There are no static conditions.

 

Peace & Love!

I agree with you about the manifestations of Nature (or Nature itself, depending on the definition) always changing. But then underneath, or behind, or amongst all the layers of creation and change, isn't there a foundation/presence of some kind that is constant? This could be defined as the "processes of Nature" that you mention, or maybe it's even beyond that. The Chuang Tzu refers to "the constant" in Book 2, saying: "No thing is either complete or impaired, but all are made into one again. Only the man of far-reaching vision knows how to make them into one. So he has no use [for categories], but relegates all to the constant" (Burton Watson's Chuang Tzu: Basic Writings, p. 36). I'm aware that various translations choose words with different connotations, so my understanding of "the constant" may be incorrect, the meaning having been lost in translation. I'm handicapped in that, at present, I can only read a few characters of Chinese and therefore have to rely on translations.

Then again, several translations say something pretty consistent with Thomas Cleary's following translation of Book 2: "The knowledge of ancient people reached somewhere. Where did it reach? Some thought the ultimate is where nothing has ever existed. This is all--nothing can be added...Therefore the aim of sages is for diffused brilliance: they do not employ it for affirmation, but entrust it to the constant. This is called using clarity" (p. 60 of Vol. 1 of Cleary's Taoist Classics). And I'm thinking that that sense of "the ultimate...where nothing has ever existed" is the constant behind/underneath/among all of the changing things. And that constant could be the Tao, or the processes of the Tao, or the Singularity/chaos referred to earlier. Or, even further, the reality before/beyond Time where nothing existed (exists?)--not even the Singularity, if that's possible. And if everything is the same, "unified," at their most basic, then change would only be a perception. The first chapter of the Tao Te Ching also refers to the constant, as something that cannot be spoken of or named. So there does seem to be a recognition of a constant in Taoist thought; it just can't be defined in any way. I may be reiterating everything you've already said, but with different words; if so, sorry for wasting so much space and I'm glad we agree. If not, though, feel free to persuade me to think otherwise, if you still disagree.

either version the Tao comes before the creator.

TTC Ch. 4, right? Point proven. But now I'm wondering, and this extends to everyone reading, if the Tao "antecedes the Creator," who/what is the Creator it mentions? "The mother of the myriad creatures" from Ch. 1? Heaven/Earth? Or just the human belief in a Creator?

Also, I think it's interesting that the chapter says, "I do not know whose son it is," which leaves open the possibility that the Tao could have a predecessor, but refrains from making a definite claim. I'm not pointing it out to make any assertion, really. I just think it's an interesting line. For me, it's evidence of true wisdom in the TTC--not claiming to know for certain that the Tao is the ultimate antecedent, leaving room for a possible "something else." Still, it's hard to imagine anything coming before the Tao, since the Tao comes before God, the universe, and everything. But I think it adheres to what the Chuang Chou says about wisdom: "Understanding that rests in what it does not understand is the finest" (Book 2).

Anyway, just some rambling thoughts.

I figured I'd go ahead and cite these for the sake of discussion in this thread. Hope no one minds. I couldn't find the exact translations, but Marblehead's wording is similar enough to the various translations I own and others I found online.

My words are very easy to understand

And to put into practice,

Yet few in the world

Are capable of understanding them

And putting them into practice.

--TTC, Ch. 70 (beginning of the chapter)

While the crowd is feasting at a great sacrifice

Or going up to the terraces

For the springtime festivities,

I remain alone in impassive immobility,

Like an infant who has not yet learned how to smile;

I am like a homeless wretch.

 

While others have more than enough,

I alone seem to have lost everything.

 

How stupid I look!

How boorish!

How brilliant the people are!

I alone am dull.

How self-assured they are!

I alone am vacillating.

 

They all have some particular talent,

I alone am as ignorant as a churl.

 

Different from the others,

I alone prefer to suck my Mother’s breast.

--TTC, Ch. 20 (middle-ish to the end)

Therefore the Holy Man dresses in homespun

But hides a jade within his bosom.

--TTC, Ch. 70 (last two lines)

My Master said, “That which acts on all and meddles in none; that is Heaven. The Kingly Man realizes this, hides it in his heart, grows boundless, wide-minded, drawing all to himself. And so he lets the gold lie hidden in the mountain, leaves the pearl lying in the deep. Goods and possessions are no gain in his eyes, he stays far from wealth and honor. Long life is no ground for joy, nor early death for sorrow. Success is not for him to be proud of, failure is no shame. Had he all the world’s power he would not hold it as his own, if he conquered everything he would not take it to himself. His glory is in knowing all things come together in One and life and death are equal.”

--Chuang Tzu, Ch. 12 (see: "Wandering on the Way...", and 2. in another Chuang Tzu link)

Hey, just now joining the conversation. I personally like the idea of presenting concepts of Taoist philosophy by juxtaposing sections from the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang Tzu that have similar meanings/subjects. It categorizes the philosophy in an easier-to-swallow way, and I completely agree that there just isn't enough discussion in other threads on Taoist philosophical ideas and texts. While the practices are important and good to discuss, I think there should be a solid strain of philosophical talk to guide the practical discussions so they don't veer off course. Anyway, I, like apepch7, wish the translations/chapters from each text were cited, but I recognize the ideas enough to know that the text Marblehead refers to are there somewhere.

Marblehead, I'm wondering if you'd mind me doing some research now and then to cite those texts that you refer to, just to give it more textual authority (whatever that's worth)? It wouldn't be a full-time or complete endeavor, but if I'm able to find what you're referring to now and then, I'd be happy to help. I, strangely, enjoy research. But if my effort isn't wanted or would belabor the discussion, I'll be happy to just discuss the ideas and leave well-enough alone.

Read the book.

By "book," are you referring to the Tao Te Ching or the Chuang Tzu or both? If you could find the section(s) where it says that the Tao was created by/from something, I think that would clarify the discussion. I'll see if I can find anything. I seem to have a vague recollection of something that says that the Tao--that is, the Way (as a path, a guide to life, a general presence/force)--manifested from Chaos or the Nothing, though I can't claim that with any conviction at the moment. But I think that any claim requires narrowing down what is meant by Tao--as a guide, as nature; or as the Nothing that resides behind the veil of creation, of the myriad things. If it's both, then the Tao wasn't created, unless you consider self-creation a form of creation by/from something; if it's the Nothing, then it wasn't created; if it's the observable Way or "the Force" (to borrow from Star Wars terminology), then it may be. I'm all about citing text to validate a statement, so if it can be found and posted, then that would be good. If not, then it's hard to argue that the claim is Taoist and not a particular personal belief. Either way, citing some text would be good to contextualize what is being said. And, as I said, I'll see if what I remember can be found anywhere or if I'm just making things up.

The consideration here is that what is reincarnated is not a static self, as in one single flame that gets passed on endlessly, but merely conditions that allow re-existence to take place.

This resonates with me. I've been thinking for a while of the self's relation to the Tao as a kind of pinch of clay in relation to its original clay mound. There is the Tao-mound, and the self is pinched from it for life (never really disconnected, just pinched up), and then in death the self is pushed back into the clay mound, getting mixed in with the other returned pinched pieces (not just people, but everything), and then another piece gets pinched again and life continues. I have no real textual basis for this (unless I've picked these ideas up from something I've read, which is possible), but it seems to make sense from a Taoist perspective, where all things are expressions/parts/instruments of the Tao and everything is essentially connected and can never really be destroyed (because the Tao is limitless and endless, etc.).

That which some think they remember, the memories of lives past, are also conditions. When this is seen deeply enough, then one could arrive at the probable conclusion, as i have, that life neither gives a damn, which could also imply favoring some beings over others, or being selectively prejudiced in other words, nor is it operating at the other end of the scale. But when the notion of a solid 'Ren' (self) is held on to fervently, then it is quite impossible not to find oneself favoring one end, while seeing some others as favoring the other end. In this way, it is hard to lead a harmonious life. True harmony begins when preferences subside.

Yes! And, I'll add, I think true harmony can begin to begin when people consider that the true self may not be the limited self that we perceive, but a greater self that extends beyond a single entity to the entirety of creation (and the uncreated, even). That opens the way for preferences to subside because, if the self is everything (or nothing, or both), preferences become pointless. That's what I've come to think, at least. I may change my mind in the future, but right now it seems like a likely answer. I'm pretty fluid and open to solid, persuasive alternative ideas, though.

And then I'm also a supporter of the idea that the Tao is ultimately unknowable, at least in any sense other than what can be felt, and to try to talk about the mysteries of life and death and Tao is ultimately to veer away from the truth of it. Still, it's fun to ponder and hash out ideas.

I think there is no conflict and of course that comes from interpretation.

My belief is that the first refers to the emotional component and does not mean "to have no compassion". IN other words "attachment to the outcome" is detrimental so we should be "uncaring". But this IMO refers to the emotional or concerned attachment, not to having compassion to act IF we are walking in the Wu Wei and practicing what I call "Listening". If we are going with the flow and feel we should act - it is because of real compassion which of course differs from emotional attachment. One of the things we teach in medical qigong is that once INTENT is set and you have done the best you can do then one MUST remain detached from the outcome.

I like this idea of identifying the emotional "problem" as a strong "attachment to the outcome." That works for me. It somewhat resolves an issue I've been having with the "mother" concept that has been brought up a lot. The issue concerns the portrayal of "the mother" as an unequivocally devoted, self-sacrificing presence, and the claim that the Tao is--as a mother figure--also unequivocally devoted and self-sacrificing. The main defense of this has been citing animals, like lions or bears, that behave in a perceived "loving" way toward their young. But there are lots of animals that abandon their offspring soon after, or even before, birth--corn snakes, ball pythons, sea turtles, etc. They don't stay to nurture their young, and yet they are also "mothers." So I think the concept of the Tao as a devoted, self-sacrificing mother is incomplete because it only recognizes a part of Nature, rather than the whole thing. (And also, the Tao couldn't really be self-sacrificing because it is limitless--there's nothing to sacrifice.) However, and this ties into the quote below, these mothers DO nurture and protect their young in some way until "the outcome." They do what they can to ensure that as many young as possible survive by laying their eggs in protected areas (corn snakes and sea turtles) or guarding the eggs until they hatch (ball pythons). And then when their work is done, they move on and whatever happens to the young just happens. I'm not sure that this nurturing is done out of love or compassion, or just out of a desire for the continuation of the species. Either way, there is a nurturing aspect up to a certain point, and then there's the letting go.

Let's look a little closer at the concept of the 'straw dog'.

 

The 'straw dog' is very important as it is a representation of the ceremony and whatever honor is being placed on the ceremony. The 'straw dog' is formed (created) with much care, from its initial conception all the way to completion. After it is completed (created) it is still cared for until it has served its purpose in the ceremony.

 

When the ceremony is over and the 'straw dog' no longer has a purpose it is discarded. The reason it is discarded is because it would not last long enough to be used in another ceremony. (Afterall, it was made of straw and will, within a short period of time rot and decay.)

 

Same goes for people. Perple are formed (created) for a purpose. They are formed (created) with much care, from their initial conception all the way to completion. After completion (creation) they are still cared for until they have served their purpose.

 

When their purpose has been served there is no longer a purpose for their existence. They are discarded like 'straw dogs' because they will not last long enough to serve any other purpose. (Afterall, they too rot and decay.)

 

No, don't go looking for a purpose. That is one of those things that is beyond man's understanding. (Yes, I know, there are many who believe they know the purpose of man's creation and they are more than willing to express their belief.)

 

There is a time to be born, a time to live (serve our purpose), and a time to die. To go beyond that is nothing but guesswork.

 

Peace & Love!

I think this is brilliant. The whole thing.

Thanks mang. Appreciate that. I actually own a pocket copy of Tao Te Ching, and kinda know what you're talking about in regards to the calm thing. Don't think, feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel.

No problem. I also have a pocket copy--the John C. H. Wu translation published by Shambhala. Is that the same as the one you have? I think a pocket edition is great. I have four regular-sized editions, but I like having the smaller one to travel with.

No, but your ego seems pricked by the comment. You might want to try and follow your own interpretation of the sage's advice and attempt to look dispassionately and without taking sides. Look at what is being said, rather than look at it as a 'challenge' to your ego.

 

For the record, the observation is based on what people with some level of attainment have said. Nowhere do I state I have, or have not, reached some meaningful level. That you react in the way you do-seeing different viewpoints as a challenge-suggests you are finding it difficult to follow the advice laid out in this text.

If the comment you're referring to is this one: "Should you ever reach some meaningful level of cultivation, you may also come to realise the universe is anything but apathetic," then I think it was taken as a challenge because of how it was worded. The tone was a little insulting, I think. The statement could have been made in a less challenging, condescending way.

So we come back to the issue of experience vs book learning and the example I mentioned earlier of Wang Liping. One can read and intellectualise all one wants. It is not the same, or equal to, attaining real understanding-attainment-of the wisdom contained within. Reading and books alone will not do the job.

I agree. But I also think that a careful examination of the text (various texts, even) of a system of belief is necessary to understanding what is being taught. The two--experience and book learning--necessarily work together to germinate wisdom. Also, I think it's worth pointing out, experiences vary. And I'm not sure that there's one, true experience that dominates all.

Both Western and Eastern schools followed the practice of initiation, direct instruction and secret spoken guidance. The texts produced by such schools provide little insight if a person has not had the guidance and managed to get to the level where they can truly understand and appreciate the teachings. This applies to works such as 'The Book of Five Rings' or 'The Art of War' also. They may have sold millions of copies, but the vast majority of reads simply aren't grasping what the author was saying.

 

Or, to give a more contemporary example, millions of people bought Stephen Hawkin's book 'A Brief History of Time', but perhaps a mere handful truly grasp what he was saying in the book at his level. Not to say they may not have gained some useful insight, but their level of understanding is on a very different level.

 

The enthusiastic amateur may believe differently though. A true story. There was an eminent professor of physics sitting on a plane reading Hawkin's book. The person sitting next to him noticed this and, having read the book, asked if the professor was enjoying it. The professor responded that it was interesting but that he was having difficulty understanding a certain point. The other person then happily decided to explain this point to the professor, oblivious to the fact of who he was talking to. Also oblivious to the fact his grasp of the subject was nowhere near the level of the person he was trying to explain this to.

Agreed. There are various levels of understanding possible for any text. The greater the aptitude of the reader/student to understand, the deeper the level of understanding. Like in Section 1 (Burton Watson translation) of the Chuang Tzu where the parable of the salve is told--for the people of Sung, the salve was good for the silk bleachers to prevent chapped hands; for the king of Wu, it was used to defeat the state of Yueh. It's the same thing, but it offers various uses, depending on the need. But the text stops short of saying which use is better.

The advice of impartiality and being dispassionate is fundamental in learning. Why? Because it allows one to let go of attachment to viewpoints and the emotions that go with them. If learning and understanding is a fluid process, being attached to a viewpoint will hinder that learning.

Yes, absolutely.

So, I maintain this is not the same as 'not giving a shit'. You are free to disagree.

I think the phrase "not giving a shit" was casually chosen. Stig can correct me if I'm wrong. And I feel compelled to say that I think I still disagree with you about the word "apathy" being a definitely negative word. And with sincere respect for your opinion, I think an attachment to a single connotation of a word and a resolute unwillingness to accept that a word may be understood in any other way is a sign of lacking impartiality.

That being said, I think that the universe/Tao is "apathetic" because I have come to believe (through book learning and experience) that the universe/Tao is "without pathos" or "without feeling" (the essential root meaning of the word "apathy")--which includes desire, pity, sympathy, sorrow, emotion in general. I think that pathos is confined to members of the animal kingdom, which are expressions of the Tao but not the Tao in totality. (That is, I don't think plants are full of pathos, though they are sentient in their own way.) I don't think that the Tao is particularly emotionally attached to anything. I think a belief in a creator-being that is concerned with this is more along the lines of--but not limited to--Judeo-Christian beliefs, where prayer to God is a major component of faith because believers feel that God cares and is listening.

Conversely, I find lots of evidence for the belief in an apathetic (forgive me) Tao in the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu, several sections of which have been quoted in this thread. One being the "straw dogs" reference in the fifth chapter of the Tao Te Ching. Also, I think, if the Tao is eternal and all manner of existence springs from it and cannot be destroyed (like energy cannot be created or destroyed), there isn't much need for compassion. (But that's not to say that I think the Tao is cruel, either. It doesn't have to be either/or.) If things just change their shape after a time, then there's no point in pathos. Maybe pathos is, perhaps, one of those "piping of Heaven" in Sect. 2 of the Chuang Tzu: "Blowing on the ten thousand things in a different way, so that each can be itself...but who does the sounding?" Maybe pathos is the sound that comes from humans when the Tao "blows" on us.

However, a case has been made in this thread for motherly compassion in the Tao, and the Tao Te Ching does refer to the Tao as the "mother of all things." But then, in the same chapter (1), it says that this title--"the mother of all things"--is just a name. And "the name that can be named is not the constant name" (D.C. Lau translation).

And then I suddenly have a thought--and anyone can feel free to debate me on this--that the Tao is neither compassionate nor apathetic. After all, the essential quality of the Tao is that is cannot be named. And, I would venture to say, it is also--at the same time--both compassionate and apathetic. Both and neither. Which would render this entire thread a little ridiculous, as we try to limit it by saying that it can only be one of the two.

I presumed you posted your comments because you did indeed want a discussion. Such things can't always be circle jerks. Here of all places people like to express their viewpoints. That is all they are though. Viewpoints. No need to become attached to them, and if we find we have a particularly strong response to one, then it may be a good opportunity to examine ourselves and ask why.

Agreed about the circle jerks. But I always think that there can be disagreement without insults, personal attacks and sarcasm. I think fostering a peaceful environment comes first.

And I have some doubts about whether it's a bad thing to have attachments to viewpoints. The goal of this thread (and others here) is to get to the truth--not that there is always just one, of course. But if someone says something that is not particularly convincing, I think it's valid to still feel strongly about one's own beliefs and continue to argue them until one is given cause to doubt them. Having views that are not easily discarded and holding blindly to views that are clearly misguided are two different things, and shouldn't be confused. But I do agree with you that we should all be as impartial and open to new considerations as possible in order to reach the truth, whatever that means.

Anyway, those are my meandering thoughts, whatever they're worth.

I know Tao exists, and I would like nothing more than to do my part and go along with it. From what I've read and gathered, being at one with Tao is to just act naturally. Do without doing, think without thinking, but I can't seem to do that. I'm always worried I'm not doing it right, and that's what comes naturally to me. I'm not at peace, but I would like to be, perferably without yoga.

I think that's all natural, all part of the growth experience. I go through the same things. You're definitely on the right (Taoist) track by realizing the significance of "action through non-action." One thing that has been really helpful for me (in trying to worry less and achieve peace) is reading and re-reading the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang Tzu. Those two texts, more than any others, always give me a sense of profound calm. That's a type of non-yoga meditation--just reading and thinking about what I've read. Both texts are so dense that I find new meanings (or are reminded of meanings I've already taken in) every time I read them, and the truths that I find in them--and find while thinking of them--are pacifying and nourishing. Hope this helps, and hope to hear more from you in the forum.

I'm in the middle ground as far as this issue goes. I'm going to use the word "teacher" here because I realize that "guru" is a loaded term with various conflicting connotations. And I think it's worth mentioning that, for the sake of this response, "teacher" should be understood to include university teachers, elementary school teachers, gurus, martial arts instructors, parents, etc. That said...

I see the value of having a teacher because, as some have already stated, we aren't born knowing all the answers. Life is journey and sometimes we need guides to help us along. It's good to hear certain views and consider them, whether from a formal teacher or otherwise. But I don't think that completely soaking up everything one person says is the way to go, regardless of the teacher's purity.

Maybe the solution is not to have one teacher, but several with differing perspectives and experiences? Not all at once, of course--maybe one teacher for a period of time, and then another teacher, and then eventually the student goes off on his/her own path, sans teacher? That's similar to the university format, which I think is effective (at least in my experience). That way, the student is able to entrust himself to the teacher for a period of time and soak in that teacher's knowledge, but the student is then able to move on and get another opinion/perspective from another teacher to counter or supplement the previous teacher's teachings. In this way, the student doesn't need to worry as much about being misled or brainwashed because the contract between the student and teacher is recognized as temporary at the outset. Also, by receiving various teachings that may oppose one another, the student becomes equipped to discern truth from fiction on his/her own. I think the length of time needed before a student is ready to go off on his/her own differs from person to person, but I do think all students should eventually be able to move away from teachers and become self-sufficient thinkers and learners.

As the old saying goes, "The good teacher teaches the student that they already know the answer." The teacher is there to help the student learn how to find those answers on their own, not to feed them the answers. Because, I think we'll all agree (at least I hope so), true enlightenment/realization/fill-in-the-blank-with-your-preferred-word-here comes from reaching the truth using one's own faculties, with a teacher or without.

When I took a Chinese Literature course in undergrad, the professor had us use the Kerson and Rosemary Huang translation of the I-Ching. Kerson Huang is a Chinese-American physicist and Rosemary, his wife, is a poet (though I haven't read any of her work). This translation claims to strip away "more than two millenia of interpretive distortion and dogma superimposed on the text by successive generations of scholars." I don't know how valid that is, but I do find it to be a good text. The thing I like most about the book is that, before getting to the I-Ching itself, there are several chapters on the history and basic concepts of the book, and a pretty clear description of how to do a reading. The Huangs also provide a line-by-line interpretation of each hexagram beside their translations, along with a paragraph of commentary and summation of the hexagram in layman's terms. This makes it much easier for the beginning reader to begin to interpret the text. However, as you grow in your understanding of the nuances and various meanings of the text, another translation may be necessary. I already feel myself outgrowing it a little. While I still sometimes refer to the Huangs' interpretations, I have begun to find it more beneficial for me to derive the meaning of the hexagrams from the translations on my own. But, as I said, it's a very good, strong text for a beginner. Hope this helps!

I have no need 'to go a step further', because I can grasp the meaning of a word given its context and cultural use. Same in regards to a phrase. I do this for a living. Respectfully, if you can't move your thinking beyond the level of 'painting by numbers' using the English language, you have no hope of grasping the nuances of the Chinese language, never mind this text.

 

Apathy is a negative term. The significant part of the definition you provided is 'matters of general importance'.

 

From the Cambridge Dictionary:

 

apathy (noun)

 

when someone shows no interest or energy and is unwilling to take action, especially over something important. (my emphasis).

 

(Definition of apathy noun from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)

 

apathetic adjective

 

showing no interest or energy; unwilling to take action, especially over something important.

 

(Definition of apathetic adjective from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)

 

Apathy does not equate to dispassionate or impartial-it is clearly a negative term, as is 'not giving a shit'. Being impartial and not allowing emotions to influence judgement does not mean not caring. Clearly the sage does care, otherwise there would be no compassion. Should you ever reach some meaningful level of cultivation, you may also come to realise the universe is anything but apathetic.

I think this quibbling over dictionary definitions is a symptom of limited perspectives, futilely focusing on the details when it's the whole image that's more important. Clearly, apathy has different connotations for each person. That's the nature of language--I know that, as a writer. Personally, I don't think that apathy is a negative term. But I am aware that, in our "go-get-em" culture, it is often understood and used as such. The important thing to remember is that, no matter how many dictionaries try to define words, meaning in language is fluid. Dictionaries help to shape meaning into some cohesive form, but they are not perfect and they do fail. There is never a single, all-encompassing definition of a word, which is why there's more than one dictionary in existence. Each dictionary defines words in a different way, conforming to their culture's sense of the word. This is why the Tao Te Ching begins: "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao." Because language is limited and unstable, it cannot grasp something unlimited and constant. Chuang Chou says, "Name is only the guest of reality--will I be doing it so I can play the part of a guest?"

However, while language and naming is ultimately a flawed and incomplete endeavor, we still have to use it in order to communicate, in order to begin to understand each other and reality. I think the important thing is not to argue over dictionary definitions in this discussion, but to try to understand--through context--what the other person is trying to say.

Point being, what we see as dramatic phenomena being magnificently created & devastatingly destroyed...the "nonconceptual universe sees" merely as constantly-shifting sequences of binary yin/yang. Nothing to get worked up over.

Definitely. And your images are very effective in getting that point across, I think. Also, I think the "dramatic phenomena" that we see is also nothing to get worked up over because each instance is just a tiny grain in all of eternity. One life, or a thousand lives, lost is just a little speck in the vastness of the universe and infinity. We all (or at least I do) get so caught up in the importance of our few moments or observations that we think that *this* is all there is and all that matters.

But then again, nothing doesn't matter, right?

I am inclined to agree with you here as well. I mentioned in my OP that, from my observations, the only bias life has is "wholeness", though perhaps "integral harmony" would be a better phrase. Observe the following:

 

 

A perfectly straight line is unnatural, you need an artificial instrument to create it.

 

Most people's lives are like the center jagged line; they go from one extreme to the other creating disharmony and discordance along the way and ultimately shortening their own life.

 

The Taoist ideal is the smooth flowing line. By not attaching our emotions to the passing features of life we learn to stay closer to the center. Instead of wasting our energy and splintering our minds on the lures of transitory things, we conserve and nurture our precious life energy, discovering wholeness and peace.

I couldn't agree more. So many people think in black-and-white terms; it's a pandemic. Some people feel like they're not moral enough or intellectual enough if they don't have a strong, even vicious opinion about something, and they refuse to question their values or see another person's side. They don't realize that they're wearing themselves out and pitting themselves against each other unnecessarily. And, of course, there are so many people who are always searching for emotional extremes--super-high highs that lead to super-low lows. I admit I used to be just like both of those sets. Fortunately, my husband and Taoism have had a sedative effect on me. Still, I struggle, but I'm getting there. I've improved, at least, and am actively improving (I hope).

I like your point of view. I will extend on this by saying that, if we achieve the smooth and harmonious "ideal" then our interactions will be naturally smooth and harmonious. So the Taoist virtue is not a whole bunch of precepts and concepts, but is the natural emanation of a wholesome and harmonious consciousness.

Thank you. And I agree. I think that Taoist classics are more like ancient self-help manuals than the Bible. There is no "thou shalt not." Just a "hey, you know, this works out better."

Your "natural emanation of a wholesome and harmonious consciousness" phrase reminds me of Chapter 16 of the Tao Te Ching, particularly where it says: "He who knows the always-so has room in him for everything" (Arthur Waley translation). The biggest thing to realize, I think, is that the "I" is not confined to one's body or particular perspective--the true "I" is the "universal I," the Tao, and so everything is me. If everything is me, or if I am not me but everything, then there's really no sense in selfishness or bias or extreme thinking. There's no use for "particular compassion" because--as the "universal I"--you're only denying a part of yourself. Like preferring one's left arm to one's right arm, and cutting the right arm off.

I hope I'm making sense. It's been a long day and I can never really tell. Sometimes I feel like I've reached a point where all I'm saying is a version of: "There is a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning..."

-->

• 
   
  
• In other words, a rich man and a Buddha may feel the same amount of pleasure (or the same lack of suffering). The Buddha is greater because he has spent a fraction of the energy and feels the same pleasure.
   
  

I'm not sure that the rich man would feel the same pleasure or lack of suffering as the Buddha. As the B.I.G. said, "Mo' money, mo' problems." While there is pleasure in financial security and having things of quality, there is also--in having those things--the risk of losing it. So the rich man that acquires lots of goods, if he is attached to them and relies on them for feelings of security, is haunted by the danger of losing them. The Buddha, however, may have things but he is always prepared to watch them go and his happiness/pleasure/peace is not disturbed by it. So I think each figure's state and source of pleasure is fundamentally different. But I think you're right about the "fraction of energy" thing. Why expend so much energy and time acquiring and doing things when it's so much easier to just chill out? That's the essence of the Taoist "wei wu wei," at least in one aspect: "action through non-action," as it's commonly translated. Why struggle to acquire things to attain peace and security when you can be peaceful in any situation by "rewiring" your perspective? Effortless effort is key.

No problem! If you haven't watched "What the Bleep Do We Know?", you can find out about the study I mentioned in that documentary. You can also do a search on the "observer effect" and find lots of articles offering various opinions about it on the web. You might also want to do a search on the "double split experiment." Here's the Wikipedia article on it, where you can find links to various published papers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Also, Dr. Masaru Emoto wrote several compelling books on the effect of human observation on water molecules and crystallization: Messages from Water Vols. I, II, and III, among others. You can view his website here: http://www.masaru-emoto.net/

Hope this helps.