the latest freed

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.

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 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). 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..."

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.

I made the phrase that I'm going to address bold, just for the sake of clarity. Anyway, it's been a while since I've read the Tao of Pooh, but I do love it for all the reasons already mentioned in the thread. But I think the "use of everything" phrase is inaccurate and should be modified, maybe, to "value of everything." There is a passage in the Chuang Tzu/Zhuangzi that mentions a tree that had grown to be very large and old. This was because the tree was "useless"--that is, it was so twisted and knotted that it couldn't be cut down to be used for anything. It couldn't be made into furniture, or arrows, or anything else that trees are used for. It is because of its uselessness that it was able to survive and grow so large. This, according to Chuang Chou, was a very good thing; according to his classic, one should strive to be useless, rather than useful, for the sake of self-preservation. Then again, the "useless" tree was used for shade, so in some ways, it was still useful. Just in an unconventional way that permitted self-preservation. But there is a general suspicion about "usefulness" in the Chuang Tzu, so I thought I would note it, again for clarity's sake. I can't remember if this is mentioned in any way in the Tao of Pooh, as I can't seem to find my copy at the moment, so maybe someone can help me out. But anyway, thought I'd add that thought to the discussion.

Hi Kate! I think your argument is valid. I haven't read the book that is the subject of the topic (so I probably shouldn't even make a comment here...), but from what little I do know about this subject--the universe and consciousness and the power of observation and quantum mechanics--mostly drawn from the film What the Bleep Do We Know? and the preview I just saw for Quantum Activist, they're not so much arguing that consciousness creates reality as much as consciousness influences reality to narrow the possibilities of what could happen, what could exist. I remember from What the Bleep... that there was a scientific study done with electrons fired at a screen of some sort and filmed on a camera; when no conscious observer was present, the electrons were scattered and disordered (which they observed later with the camera, I believe). However, when an observer was present, the electrons fired onto the screen were well-organized and formed straight lines. The observer didn't manifest the electrons or the screen or the camera, but s/he did change the way that the electrons were fired onto the screen. So I guess what I'm suggesting is that the observer (us) doesn't create reality, but shapes it. As Steve F said, quantum mechanics is about all of the possiblities that could take place. The consciousness, according to some studies, narrows those possibilities to a single action, a single path. But as for the formations of black holes and other unobservable creations, I wouldn't be able to comment. I know this isn't an entirely satisfactory--or even complete--response, but it's something I considered in response to your questions and thought I'd share. Cheers!

Hi there! I hope I'm not coming into this too late. I agree with Marblehead about just recommending the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang Tzu for people who are new to Taoism, as those are the most foundational texts of the Taoist canon (and the oldest, I believe--correct me if I'm wrong). But after you've read those, I'd also recommend the I Ching, which, while often used as a divination text, can also be considered a Taoist work of poetry because of its emphasis on the changing of opposites. I've also read The Tao of Pooh, which is adorable and easy to read and covers the basics of Taoist philosophy in a contemporary format. Those are the ones that I know best. As for translations, I prefer Arthur Waley's translation of the Tao Te Ching, mostly because my Chinese Lit professor in college preferred it and said that it was the most accurate translation in his opinion, but also because of the beauty of the translation. It blends, IMO, the clarity and the mystical aspects of the text, so that it's mysterious and thought-provoking, but not inscrutable, and the writing is elegant. However, I have five other copies of the Tao Te Ching by four different translators. I like the variety and being able to compare them. My translations are by D.C. Lau (my first), Thomas Cleary, John C. H. Wu, and Stephen Mitchell (whose Tao Te Ching I don't recommend for a first-time reader because it's not a translation, but an inspiration-driven text, where he read various translations and derived his text from those rather than going to the source). As for the Chuang Tzu, I have two copies by two different translators--Thomas Cleary (came in the same book as his translation of the Tao Te Ching) and Burton Watson, both of which I enjoy. But I haven't read other translations to compare them to. Hope this helps!

Hi everyone. I've been following the Way for about three or four years, since I took a World Humanities course in undergrad and was assigned to read portions of the Chuang Tzu. Since then, I've read all of the interior chapters of the Chuang Tzu (and some of the other chapters) and all of the Tao Te Ching, and also some of the Wen Tzu. Needless to say, my experience with and practice of Taoism has been chiefly literary and internal, and in occasional discussions with my husband. I joined this forum mostly to meet other people who follow the Way. I live in the American South, where Taoists are hard to come by, though I've recently discovered a small Tai Chi center in town (I've recently relocated) and may go there, in order to unite the intellectual with the physical to spur on further growth. I'm very much into Tao-chia--keeping it simple, reading the oldest classics of the canon, questioning everything I know, making it more of a life philosophy than a religion. I do know how to consult the I Ching at a basic level and I do feel energy. I've read in some of these forum posts that others "feel" the trees, and that really resonates with me. I'm fairly skittish about getting too New Age-y (part of me is very pragmatic and skeptical), but I am open to (and have some experience with) the less-recognized aspects of reality. I've been sensing trees for a while, since I was a little girl. I don't really "talk" to them, as such, because speaking is superfluous. Still, their "voices"--for lack of a better word--seem to come to me in barely inaudible whispers, like the sound is just out of my hearing frequency. Probably the largest factor in my life experience that led me to Taoism has been my sense of self, or lack thereof. As a child, of course, I didn't have existential concerns; I didn't worry about who I was, what made me singular among everyone else. But once I hit 10 or 12, all of those questions became my biggest concerns. I struggled to find something that was unique to me, and of course I couldn't pinpoint it. A childhood friend of mine told me that what "made" me was the combination of things I liked, i.e. my favorite color, my favorite sport, my favorite animal, etc. But I never felt that any of that defined me--it was more so "window dressing" than anything else, or like the clothing I put on and could take off at any time. This caused a lot of problems for me during my teenage years because I felt like I was the only one who felt that way, who didn't "know" who I was. And then, of course, in college I read parts of the Chuang Tzu--the butterfly allegory in particular--and felt absolutely ecstatic because I realized that I wasn't a freak, or abnormally hollow. My recognition that the "me"--the essential part of myself--is indefinable is a positive step along the Way. I finally accepted that no words can encompass my true self, but it can be felt in the silences; that my true self is not just the body and mind that I inhabit, but everything in reality. I love Tao-chia's lack of dogma, its resistance to defining what cannot be defined and the creation of rules and traditions and formulas out of thin air. Well, I feel that I've said too much for an introduction. I tend to wax verbose because I never feel that what I say about myself, or Taoism, or my general feelings and beliefs and sense of the world, is ever sufficient. I am always transforming, moving from caterpillar to butterfly only to find that I'm still, comparatively, a caterpillar (if a modified one), so, like Prufrock, I can never say what it is I really mean. Other basics about me can be found on my profile. Anyway, all this has been to say: I'm happy to be here, looking forward to getting to know all of you, and am making my Way along the path as best I can. Cheers!

Thanks for the advice! What you describe sounds similar in approach to a writing journal that writers keep to study the world, get ideas for stories, and reflect in general. I think your idea to keep a journal of Yijing questions and answers, as well as dates and locations, is very useful for lots of reasons. Thanks again for the tip!

Thanks for the warm welcome! I haven't really checked out the Taiji school yet, so I wouldn't be able to say just yet. From their website, they seem to be somewhat/fairly focused on the Tao (i.e. they mention it specifically and stress that students will learn about "Asian culture and philosophies" as well as the martial art). But I'm not sure of the extent. I'll let you know after I take the time to attend a class. Anyway, thanks again for the welcome!