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

[Birch]

"Reading and books alone will not do the job."

 

Hear hear.

 

Why? because you're the one reading.

 

To learn more, read this: http://www.amazon.com/Proust-Squid-Story-Science-Reading/dp/0060186399

 

or listen to the teacher at www.chineseshamanism.com concerning "consciouness" - Apech said it the other day on here too.

[the latest freed]

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.

Edited May 17, 2010 by the latest freed

[Stigweard]

[thelerner]

[C T]

Among Chinese Buddhists, 'Bu Ren' is also understood as 'empty of an independent self', that the notion of a 'self-existing self' is incorrect, and that the 'self' is merely made-up of non-self elements, or a collection of aggregates. In this regard, they would sometimes integrate the state of 'dispassion' with 'ease towards attaining equanimous compassion' - seeing it this way, without an independent self, passion and dispassion have nowhere to get stuck on, so its natural for one to then find the middle ground, treating all things equally. In this middle ground, beyond all biases, compassion arises spontaneously, just like the way a loving mother regards all her children, without favoring any one in particular, and often sacrificing her own needs to put the children's first. Quite Tao, actually.

Edited May 19, 2010 by CowTao

[Ya Mu]

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[rookie]

Well this is a late entry into this discussion and I have not read the entire thread, but I think there is something fundamental here, so I will add a point to it.

 

First, this is one of the biggest questions one could ask, and what real headway will be made on a free for all discussion board? well, probably not a lot, but consider this.

 

Fundamental to the question is the assumption that there is a thing, intelligence, force, sentience or "something" called "life" that may or may not care about another thing, ..., called "you".

 

Now most people will not give this a second thought, but that shows just how invisible this belief system is. Any logical conclusions made with this assumption in place will be a product of it, and dare I say untrue. If one is truely after truth, starting by examining your assumptions about "life" and "you" is essential. When you run into conflicts that cannot be resolved there is no way to proceed but to examine what you have assumed to be true, or give up and remain befuddled or in delusion.

 

So I would first ask, what is this called "life"? What is this called "me"?

But if you do not ask this now, just keep going and you will have to ask it sooner or later.

 

Really, this is the fundamental illusion of all time. And this is probably a life long inquiry if it is taken up. SO have fun! LOL

[Marblehead]

Now, in cultural relevance, a straw dog was a ceremonial "doll" made for specific ceremonial purpose and then discarded once its utility was expired. So we have, again, a sense of an uncaring detachment (hence impartiality).

 

So, according to Laozi, Heaven and Earth (Life) doesn't care for you one way or another. It doesn't care if you live or die, it doesn't care if you practice qigong 3 hours a day or whether you sit on your fat ass and play video games all day.

 

In short, life really doesn't G.A.S. about you or what you do.

 

That's not really true, you know.

 

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!

[Guest paul walter]

Dude, it's just a bikini on an adult. Chill out! Welcome to the bikini revolution.

 

Reon Kadena is a "supermodel" in Japan, and is super rich from this, her chosen profession and job. Why do you jump to the conclusion of exploitation? tsk. tsk.

 

 

 

You obviously know nothing about socially created sex roles, let alone self-exploitation arising from such. You obviously have a thing for her, this is the second (compulsive) time you've posted this.

To me she just seems like a person with poor mind/body co-ordination who needs a bigger bra and seems to have some kind of nutritional malformation in her legs (jelly legs)--but then I suppose the Venus of Willendorf would fit the same bill. Paul

Edited May 21, 2010 by paul walter

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[Apech]

Hey how are ya? That was one of the clearest descriptions of the straw dogs of the chapter of the TTC under consideration, I've ever read. Me, i'm supposed to be on permanent retreat. What the heck's gone wrong??

 

I agree - that was spot on Marblehead.

[Marblehead]

Me, i'm supposed to be on permanent retreat. What the heck's gone wrong??

 

Hehehe. Wu wei will get you every time.

 

Thanks for the kind words. You too Apepch7.

 

Peace & Love!

Edited May 21, 2010 by Marblehead

[the latest freed]

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.

[C T]

see post below.

Edited May 22, 2010 by CowTao

[C T]

Among Chinese Taoists, there's a practice that is actually for realization of the self - the indestructible, diamond body, self-spirit. Reincarnation lends feasibility to this point of view (Only a static self could remember this life [it] has, AND that life [it] had 1000 years ago.)

 

Of course it is what it is regardless of our metaphysical views of it, and it does not impact the central message of nature's way. Some may wear the red glasses of no-self, and some may wear the blue glasses of self. But it doesn't change what IS. It (Nature) is what it is, whether we know it or not. So not a huge deal made about it in Taoism or Chan. So in both Tao and some Chinese Zen, IMO it's kind of optional along the way, as far as I can see.

Life, as we understand it, is fluid. If it was static there could not be any reincarnation. As an analogy, think of the candle-flame being passed on from one candle to another. If the flame was static transference would not be possible. Even though each flame on the surface looks the exact same, in essence they are neither the same, nor are they different. Even the original flame is going thru change at each moment, and as long as the conditions are present (in this case the wax which sustains the flame) ideally the flame will exist. 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.

 

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.

 

The Way, which is a path that is fully open to fluid change, where extremes do not exist as a true view, and that which is Real is embraced wholeheartedly, is without any preferences or emotional attachment to want to make things different than what they are. Only the gift of being human provides the ability to discern in this way, which some regard as seeds that when planted with the correct insight, would blossom into equanimous empathy and compassion. It is a precious human legacy, not present in any other sentient realms.

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[C T]

not really. Taoists will remain Taoist. Maybe we should just try to get along instead of converting the other. Whatever. I really don't care about it. And I don't try to badger people into converting. 'When the one is attained nothing else to be done.' You made your point the last post. now it's seems brow beating. This is a taoist thread you know; pls don't ruin it with a Biddhist ambush. How about we just go our separate ways. now that would be 'equanimous empathy'.

My o my... buddhist ambush? Where in the post above did you find any Buddhist reference or hints at conversion? In the previous post i inferred the term 'Bu Ren' as i understood it from the Chinese Buddhist perspective, as something to reflect upon. Did i say that it was a more superior view? For the record, not once have i quoted scripture in all my exchanges with other posters here, regardless of their path, preferring instead to draw from my own reflections and thoughts. You engaged, and i replied... and now you say its brow-beating - amazing! Btw, my mother is Taoist, (not that you really care) and she certainly was not 'badgered' into becoming a Buddhist before or after marrying my dad. To this day, even after 54 years of marriage, she still remains a Taoist. So please dont jump too quickly to assumptions Tao99, and learn to be less patronizing, for the sake of your 'retreat' - and btw, may it go well for you.

 

Enough said. In future, if you are unhappy with my posts, just ignore them, cos if you make quoted replies, then please have the courtesy to refrain from jumping to baseless assumptions and/or accusations when the exchanges becomes a wee bit drawn out for you liking.

 

Not sure where you really stand, but i am all for getting along.

[the latest freed]

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.

[Stigweard]

[C T]

Hi Stig,

 

Cool pics! Them tools are a waste of time and money. They do not make 'em like they used to, like every modern apparatus and machine nowadays, which is designed to malfunction within a short span. I find this traditional Chinese farm tool (A048C) http://www.bossgoo.com/photo/product/173554/garden-tools.jpg to be indispensable - it literally does the job of all other garden tools, which saves time, effort, money and blisters! They come in 2 or 3 different sizes, and you might be able to pick one up in your local chinese provision shop. Ideally get one with the shaft included, otherwise it might be a bit of a hassle to find and fit one.

 

I was told in by-gone days this tool used to be passed on from farmer to son and so on, with some remaining in the same family for generations. Its like a kind of reverential immortality thing among the farming community. Symbolically that is. You get the drift.

 

Anyway, Happy gardening! Have fun... May the fruits of your labor be abundantly sweet!

Edited May 28, 2010 by CowTao

[Guest paul walter]

and my practice muse for understanding the Mother.

 

 

PS sent you a Private Message because I want that private. So keep that private. Thanks.

 

 

Without that first line I might have let your reply slide. I bet a lot of guys use her for "practice" of one kind or another .

 

Privacy-is that like when a girl flaunts her stuff on youtube and it gets all over the internet mistaken for the incarnation of the archetypal Mother for all to worship. Get used to the concept of self-abuse and lack of conscious choice, it helps us understand the world we were born into. You're a Taoist aren't you?-then you'll know all our lives are simply inherited problems and illusion til we do the cleaning. Paul.

Edited May 28, 2010 by paul walter

[Marblehead]

Nice garden Stig!

 

May it be fruitful.

 

Peace & Love!

[Apech]

I dig your garden (ha ha get it?).

 

Mattocks are the best for digging and hoeing I find. I agree about modern tools they don't last.

 

Enjoy your veggies nothing tastes as good as something grown yourself.

 

Cheers

 

John

Edited May 28, 2010 by apepch7