Life Doesn't Give a Damn, So Why The Hell Should We?

[Stigweard]

I am interested, can you share?

[Stigweard]

Personally, I don't believe that the Tao necessarily "cares" about humanity, to say nothing of the individual. I was drawn to Taoism primarily because I reject the concept of a God that is in any way human--benevolent or otherwise--which, for me, is synonymous with limited. For me, ascribing human feelings to something that extends far beyond our particular experience derives only from the human need to understand the mysteries of life, and also (regarding compassion) to feel cared for and looked-after. I think that's a veil over reality. I don't think that the Tao particularly cares if we live or die, or if we are happy or miserable. Regarding the former, the Tao wouldn't care because life and death are only temporary states, one evolving into and from the other. Neither is permanent or final. As yin and yang change into one another, so do death and life. And perhaps life and death are only perceptions, rather than realities as we perceive them. Like Chuang Chou and the butterfly allegory--how do we know that what we perceive as life and death are real? "The Way has never known boundaries," says Chuang Chou. So if life and death are boundaries, and the Way has never known them, why would either matter to the Tao? And regarding my latter statement, I don't think the Tao cares if we are happy or miserable because those, again, are temporary boundaries and the Tao is beyond them. Misery and happiness have nothing to do with the Tao. Most importantly, which emotional state we choose to live in is ultimately up to us. We are the only ones who affect our perceptions of our situations. The Tao does not make us miserable or happy--we do.

 

Well said And thank you for engaging the dialogue

 

Thus, my answers to your questions would be:

 

1. Our motivation to be "one with the Tao" is personal peace. To avoid bringing difficulties upon ourselves. Not necessarily for any ultimate goal of pleasing or appeasing the Tao, but for our own ease.

 

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.

 

2. The essence of Taoist virtue is to follow the path of least resistance. To go along with what is happening around us, or to get around obstacles in the most peaceful way possible. The Three Treasures coincide with this, as far as I'm concerned. A) Neutral, nonspecific compassion makes it possible for one to live in peace with any people in any situation--it's easier and allows for self-preservation, rather than letting the ego have its way and bring one into conflict. Moderation provides a financial safety net--if you don't overspend or overconsume, you can live without financial trouble. Again, while you have to keep your desires/ego in check, it's ultimately easier on the self to be frugal. Also, if you don't have a lot of shit, no one will want to take it from you. C) Not putting yourself first is also about self-preservation because of the basic Taoist belief in change--if you're at the top, you're going to fall, and fall hard; if you're at the bottom, all you can do is rise. Also, not insisting on being first prevents confrontation and conflict.

 

Ultimately, as terribly pragmatic and unmystical as it sounds, all of this is about self-preservation. While the Tao may not "want" us to preserve ourselves and avoid conflict, it's in our personal best interest to do so. Thus, the Three Treasures are not dogmatic commandments, but observations providing a practical course of living life peacefully and with as few obstacles as possible.

 

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.

 

3. Finally, I think the purpose of striving for spiritual betterment is not to gain points with or please the Tao. I think that's a very Western concept, very Judeo-Christian (which isn't bad, but limited in scope, I think). I don't think Heaven and Earth have any expectations of us. But I do think spiritual betterment is valuable because of the effect it has on the self. It makes life easier to live, in spite of perceived hardships. I don't know that anything has inherent meaning; I think we give the world and our existence meaning. Thus, the more "spiritually bettered" we are, the more at peace we are going to be, even in the worst conditions.

 

The Tao just is, and as a Taoist, that's my ultimate goal. One of my favorite quotations from the Chuang Tzu/Zhuangzi is this:

 

"The understanding of the men of ancient times went a long way. How far did it go? To the point where some of them believed that things have never existed--so far, to the end, where nothing can be added. Those at the next stage thought that things exist but recognized no boundaries among them. Those at the next stage thought there were boundaries but recognized no right and wrong. Because right and wrong appeared, the Way was injured, and because the Way was injured, love became complete. But do such things as completion and injury exist, or do they not?" (Burton Watson's translation)

 

If you look at reality the way that Chuang Chou says the ancients did, nothing really exists and so nothing really matters. That may be apathy, yes, but I don't know that apathy is necessarily a bad thing. It prevents wars and hardships. It allows for inner and interpersonal peace.

 

And then the question necessarily arises: well, if nothing matters, what's the point of preserving the self? What's the point of living? And the only viable answer I have ever been able to come up with is: Why not? Why not preserve the self? Why not live? If dying and living don't matter, why not just live and see what happens when the moment comes to die? I know that's not a satisfying answer, but that's all that makes sense to me, from having read the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang Tzu.

 

Nice I think Taoists are like good gardeners. A gardener will look closely at where a particular plant grows the healthiest and what nutrients optimise that health. Taoists are, to me, supreme observers of what conditions nurture the healthiest human being and, in the process of this deep observation, they observed that being emotionally engaged in people and other transitory things only serves to undermine human harmony and wholeness.

 

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter. I always second-guess posting anything because, as Chuang Chou wrote, "speech has no constancy." What I say rarely contains my full meaning and is always vulnerable to a different interpretation than what I intend. All I can say is, this is where my studies have taken me thus far and I hope I've been clear. And I'm sorry that this was so long.

 

Your thoughts and words have been greatly appreciated

[John Zen]

[Stigweard]

• So we would like to "evolve spiritually" so that we can increase good feelings and decrease bad feelings more efficiently, as Buddha. Evolving materially will generally lead to more desire which will generally lead to more of those bad feelings. We would like to "evolve spiritually" so that we could be like Buddha, who feels happiness so much more effortlessly than the spiritual amoebas (material hedonists).
  

LOL the old "more with less" scenario ... I think I like it

[gendao]

I think Taoists are like good gardeners. A gardener will look closely at where a particular plant grows the healthiest and what nutrients optimise that health. Taoists are, to me, supreme observers of what conditions nurture the healthiest human being and, in the process of this deep observation, they observed that being emotionally engaged in people and other transitory things only serves to undermine human harmony and wholeness.

But the key lies in the observation.

 

Humans - preconditioned to view phenomena at a certain resolution in a narrow band of the EM spectrum in our spacetime dimension, see this:

Whereas the "universe sees" this:

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.

Edited May 13, 2010 by vortex

[Stigweard]

But the key lies in the observation.

 

Humans - preconditioned to view phenomena at a certain resolution in a narrow band of the EM spectrum in our spacetime dimension, see this:

 

Whereas the "universe sees" this:

 

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.

Yes I agree with you And so Laozi is pointing us to regard life in the same manner as life regards itself

[forestofemptiness]

[the latest freed]

-->

• 
   
  
• 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.

[the latest freed]

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..."

[Stigweard]

Any examples you care to share? Sounds interesting.

Hahahah ... sure

 

A classic for me was when I asked about going "professional" with teaching Taiji. Ever since I started learning it had been a cherished dream of mine to teach Taiji as a profession. Of course I resisted asking the Yijing in case it gave me a negative response ... you can see the emotional attachments straight away can't you?

 

So sure was I that this was my "life path" that I was certain the Yijing would respond favorably. So you can imagine my emotional response when the response was basically that the ass would fall out of my life if I pursued teaching for profit. I hussed and cussed for ages, but then I sat quietly with the advice of the Yijing and sought the deeper implications and realized that my deep joy of practicing and sharing Taiji would be impaired if I became dependent on it for financial support.

 

On the flip-side there was one question where I was sure I was going to get negative response. All my life I have enjoyed strategy games, especially military strategy. I had felt however that it wasn't really resonating with my spiritual studies so I put them on my "black list". Not too long ago I had the opportunity to play a game and thought that I shouldn't play. But I decided, out of curiosity, to run it by the Yijing totally expecting it to say, "Stay away fool!"

 

So again I was surprised when the result was "Good fortune comes through the appropriate use of force," that having force but restraining its use leads to prosperity. Intrigued I did play and followed the Yijing's response and was pleasantly surprised that this was a lesson I really did need to learn. I tend to be very forceful and can be overly rough with people sometimes (lol you just have to scan through this thread to see that coming out hahahaha !!!). So this stands out as a classic case of don't prejudge anything, you never know what treasures are lying in amongst the manure

[mjjbecker]

[the latest freed]

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?

[the latest freed]

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.

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[trailmaker]

Wholeness - One for all and all for One...

 

Great thread, lots of good thought.

[Stigweard]

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[RyanO]

Hey that's a great idea! I'd like to say that I don't see Nature, here specifically the mother figure as an abstract digital signal set etc. When I look at the mother figure I have a vivid, "phenomenal consciousness" or what's called "direct sensory experience" (see "hard problem of consciousness" on Wiki). And I'm very glad for this rich experience of nature and the mother figure.

 

So I'd like to start with this Vision of the Mother Figure:

 

 

Haha not sure about you but 'mother' is not exactly the first thing to come to mind when I see this video!

[That Guy]

Haha not sure about you but 'mother' is not exactly the first thing to come to mind when I see this video!

I know, shes terrible at soccer and volleyball right!?

[lino]

D00d

 

42 = enjoy life

[Stigweard]

Hey that's a great idea! I'd like to say that I don't see Nature, here specifically the mother figure as an abstract digital signal set etc. When I look at the mother figure I have a vivid, "phenomenal consciousness" or what's called "direct sensory experience" (see "hard problem of consciousness" on Wiki). And I'm very glad for this rich experience of nature and the mother figure.

 

So I'd like to start with this Vision of the Mother Figure:

 

LOL my friend ... I suggest we discuss motherly love and you give us a titty parade O.o Now whilst I certainly agree that Reon Kadena is a splendid example of feminine beauty, I wonder how many mothers would like their daughters paraded and exploited like this ??

 

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[mjjbecker]

 

And to this comment: "Should you ever reach some meaningful level of cultivation, you may also come to realise the universe is anything but apathetic."

 

Hahahaha !!! I love how this assumes that you have reached "some meaningful level of cultivation" and are speaking down to poor old ignorant me.

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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. If we are attached and emotional, we end up burning and torturing people because they disagree with our knowing the world is flat. We shy away from travelling beyond 28 miles per hour because everyone knows you will suffocate if you go faster than this. We kill someone in a fight because they said some small thing that did not matter, but was clearly a challenge to our status within the pack.

 

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

 

While I may not agree with you, I do respect the fact you are here, and so like others here, myself included, you are actually seeking some insight into life. Be well and keep going. The more heated the debate, the more potential for getting something useful from it.

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99