the latest freed

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.

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?

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. 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. 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

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...

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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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. --TTC, Ch. 70 (beginning of the chapter) --TTC, Ch. 20 (middle-ish to the end) --TTC, Ch. 70 (last two lines) --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. 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.

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.). 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 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. I think this is brilliant. The whole thing.

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.

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. 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. 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. Yes, absolutely. 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. 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 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!