Is food a user error?

In conclusion of Ramadan, I would like to take a moment to invest some Taoist interest:

The Buddhist idea of eliminating material things in the world: when you are surrounded by the material things there are temptations that create a desire. Especially if someone you envy or admire has a piece of “happiness”. When you think about it, the reason for this is so that an attachment does not let you down and you feel the pain of loss. Such as, “it would be so much easier to have a car”. Until, of course, your car breaks down and the Buddhist walks by wondering what possessed them to attach themselves to such a burden. But flipside, if you never hang around people who have cars, and you walk or ride the bus, you get used to that. You don’t need a car because you are not dependent.

I think a lot about food and how that relates to material things. Lately, due to a lack of income, I have been woefully deprived of excess food. While I love food very much, I have gotten past that hungry stage. I eat once or twice a day and even though I am technically malnourished, I do not feel hunger. That could be medical, shrinking of the stomach, i.e., the spiritual side comes in when I DO eat. Even those times I do eat I am unsatisfied by the food I eat. I don’t like the contaminated feeling. It is like I bought a car for the first time and it keeps running out of gas. User error?

My friend spoke to me about having an “addiction” to food. This seems odd. But because we NEED food, it is true. I was surprised to hear she was trying to break this habit. And yet, I shouldn’t be surprised. Considering what I discussed about material dependencies, why wouldn’t she want to eliminate that from her life? But then how do we break free and independent from something that keeps us alive? Can we still enjoy it?

The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (great reference tool for anyone who studies religion) breaks the concept of food down into four ideas:
1.Rejection of some foods: vegans and vegetarians fall here as well as the Jewish (against pig products) and Hindu (against eating cow).
2.Asceticism, abstinence: a diet to separate from the material world, or rejection of bodily needs.
3.Fasting: like temporary asceticism, a ritual or practice of giving up food for either designated periods of time.
4.Certain foods during ceremonies: Celebrations, such as Passover.

For this entry we are most interested in the correlation between two and three. Here we see the total recluse from food, and often times other bodily pleasures. And in conjunction we can ration to the point of designated fasting times. So is fasting the moderate recognition of asceticism?

Now how does this perspective on food relate to me as a Taoist?

It would make the most sense to understand and yet ignore those signs of hunger. Participate in the natural act of eating, as it is part of nature and the Taoist encourages nature, but put little thought into the frequency of eating. Simply do not look for food and do not avoid it. Dieting it would seem, would be an active participation of changing your natural routine.

Self Evident

Generally speaking, my favorite chapter from the Tao Te Ching is number sixteen. This stems from the linear connections that thus lead to total bliss, and I feel as if I am passing the qualifications to reach the end goal: being one with the Tao. I suppose I by pass the qualifications because I can, when I read. And with every translation I read I find more ways to lead me to the Tao. There are certain translations I love more, purely for poetic reason.

However, I have not read all words of Lao Tzu, and I find something revealing and contradictory every time. On Wednesday I read chapter twenty. This was a wonderful piece for me because the first and last lines speak of things I am unfamiliar with. I love the Tao because of the comfort supplied from the knowledge I have in knowing it is there. But this was more of a thrill that something contrary to what I knew was permeating the leaves of my doctrine.

The first line starts with “Have done with learning,” (trans. John C.H. Wu). This startled me into defensive posturing. I began to justify my differences of educational needs and the relation of the Tao in my life with that. I got in a panicked fury because I did not want the philosophy of my resignation to make a statement that either one, I disagreed with, or two, I could not live up to. Then I read the second part of the first line. “And you will have no more vexation.” Well. I guess if I believed the first line I would not even worry about my connection to the Tao. But the second half I do agree with. I believe in letting things be to create peace. I was just forgetting to apply it to everything. So I can do one of two things… three, I suppose. The first solution is that I drop school and submit to my reading’s literal examinations. Next solution is that I warp my interpretation of this line and translate its meaning to match that of my own current conjectures. Finally, I could abort my investment in the Tao.

The last line of the chapter goes as such: “but wherein I am most different from others is in knowing to take sustenance from my mother!” I keep looking at this sentence and a blank look crosses my face. There is little obvious transition from the previous statement. I question its meaning. So to begin to understand I must break down the sentence into tangible segments. I think I will work backwards, beginning with “Mother!”

Mother has held much symbolic relevance in this world. Simple examples include the fact that everyone has a mother, to the idea of ‘mother earth’. To go further, however, the feminine plays a strong counterpart role. We can see, in history the power of the goddess, or the divine mother Mary. Despite advances of the west to establish a patriarchic institution, there is a constant reminder from 52% of the population of a presence that must be addressed. The outcry of feminism attempting to return to the roots of the goddess in relation of the god has shifted the balance once off kilter in the world. But in Taoism this inequality is non-existent as the Tao offered the yin-yang to help elaborate the natural balance between the feminine and masculine. Perhaps Lao Tzu’s tribute to Mother was an attempt to balance a patriarchic society. This could not be true for two-fold, so allow me to refute. First, Lao Tzu lived in a time when religion was not primarily patriarchic (600BCE). Secondly, Lao Tzu, being a Taoist, could see nothing else but the balance, so there would be no need for change. Then the question remains: Why mother instead of father or both? Perhaps he addresses Mother because of what he is referring to is that of the duty or possession of the feminine. In order to see what that identity of her is we must continue backwards.

“To take sustenance from.” This explains her role blatantly. She provides sustenance. Based on this, it is unearthed that he chose mother because of her sustenance that presumably only she can supply. But what kind of sustenance is this? Is this a physical sustenance? Mothers do provide breastmilk. But a 60 year old man suckling a tit? Could it be emotional? Receiving comfort from the feminine, being from earth or woman. Perhaps it is economical, pulling wheat from the earth. Or it could be that Lao Tzu, being a man, has found sustenance in himself, and now must find that in a mate, a yin? Perhaps the genealogy of having a mother then branches to his honor of his ancestors. Unlike American society, Asian cultures hold a great amount of respect for their elders, as we as their deceased family. This can be best depicted from shrines or alters placed outside, inside or near a home. Based on this we could infer that “taking sustenance from my mother!” is a proclamation of his lineage and how that is a part of history ingrained in him.

To conclude in the simplest way, the remainder of the last statement is as such: “but wherein I am most different from others is in knowing…” There is very little room for analysis on this one. Piecing the two together creates a profound, if not slightly cheeky sentiment that he alone has this grasp on where to receive relief, that being sustenance from his mother.

The important connection here, between these two lines, first and last, is that a question is first created, and at the end an answer is subtly applied. The first line has us relinquishing any ability to ascertain a higher level of understanding. This leaves people daft and intolerably curious about themselves and/or the world surrounding. (Side note: the previous statement leaves me open to the criticism of whether people are naturally curious, as well as the approach that Taoism would be the very philosophy to let go of curiosity. Both very good points. Congratulations. However, this leads to a fairly extensive tangent, and while I am willing to delve into this, I am choosing to do so at another time. Don’t start with me about time!) So the question here would be, where else, in what other venue might one express diligent study? And Lao Tzu answers this with his last sentence. So now we know where to look. I would speculate that the answer Lao Tzu is really trying to sell us on would be that we may look through books, read excerpts from widely known scholars and yet we would not comprehend at the same level as if we just looked inside ourselves and at what we already know. What is a born, natural part of us? Self discover.

And so there is chapter twenty.

I would like to take a moment to proudly exclaim that the previous analysis was written in one day and without the use of interpretive translations or guides on understanding the Tao Te Ching. The powerful part about that is, when I started writing this interpretation, I was at a total loss. I honestly did not know the meaning behind his words. As it was revealed, I did not utilize outside resources, or ‘learning’ and listened to what I already knew in my heart to decipher his words.

Just like he said!

--Twenty--
Have done with learning,
And you will have no more vexation.

How great is the difference between "eh" and "o"?
What is the distinction between "good" and "evil"?
Must I fear what others fear?
What abysmal nonsense this is!

All men are joyous and beaming,
As though feasting upon a sacrificial ox,
As though mounting the Spring Terrace;
I alone am placid and give no sign,
Like a babe which has not yet smiled.
I alone am forlorn as one who has no home to retum to.

All men have enough and to spare:
I alone appear to possess nothing.
What a fool I am!
What a muddled mind I have!
All men are bright, bright:
I alone am dim, dim.
All men are sharp, sharp:
I alone am mum, mum!
Bland like the ocean,
Aimless like the wafting gale.

All men settle down in their grooves:
I alone am stubborn and remain outside.
But wherein I am most different from others is
In knowing to take sustenance from my Mother!

The Tao is Silent

From The Tao is Silent:
"Perhaps one of my favorite definitions [of the Tao] is the reason things are as they are."

I have been debating whether the word God and Tao are inter-exchangeable. To me they both seem all inclusive. All that is everywhere as well as one's mind. The difference is, as Raymond M Smullyan points out in his book The Tao is Silent, the Tao does not talk. I hear from God, but if god does not talk, being that they are exchangeable, then I could not be hearing from god or Tao. But if they are different, then I could hear God. However, if they are different, then that could question our all inclusive definition of the Tao, because the Tao, as we know it contains all, including us. Again, in contrary, we are not to define the Tao because Lao Tzu puts no words to it. So we therefore have no definition to question of the Tao, because there is no definition. And if there is no definition how can we truly be sure that the Tao and God are not the same? Perhaps the definition of the Tao is nothing but God?

But take this, for example. Smullyan says that if the Tao is all inclusive, then "when I talk about talking to the Tao... I am really talking to myself." So, would it be fair to say that if God and the Tao are the same, then when I talk to God I talk to me? Sure it would be. Because despite my intentions, if no one else hears me (for we have no physical evidence that God/Tao are 'listening' per se) than I am naturally talking with myself.

But what of the response that I receive? Such as God telling me to shelter a cat? In this case I might use Smullyan's second point, which is to deny talking to one's self but rather, "the Tao talking to itself." This makes sense considering I am one with the Tao. And yet, the paradox that the author points out is that the Tao is silent.

I would say, from the information before me, that myself and the Tao being one in he same, could have, if not exactly the number two minds, than two minds potential, being that what I do not consciously think of can still be brought to my forward attention through the influence of my well guided* Tao.

*the term well guided is used to imply that while I do not believe the Tao has an omniscient presence, that Karma can steer the world to act favorably or unfavorable in your direction.

That is to say at those moments when an image/thought comes to me, perhaps my subconscious is making an effort to inform me.

Or perhaps, the Tao is talking to itself... and I have nothing to do with it. I am its subconscious. I am giving the Tao information that I observe.

Then again, the Tao is Silent.

Final Thoughts

Taoism is a very solitary and independent practice. It is most successfully handled within the individual. Lao Tzu made a running attempt to leave China for good when he became too fed up with all its confused haste and those unwilling to follow goodness. Before he left the gates of his home, into Tibet, he was stopped by a guard (Yin Xi) and asked to write down all of his teachings or else he was not permitted to pass. Thus was created the Tao Te Ching. While Lao Tzu tediously labored on the manuscript, his thoughts were probably as such: "You want me to share all this in a massive scale of religion and blind faith? You don't get it do you?"

Terminating Life

The value of life has really come down to what the life in question has accomplished. It may be determined based on how much that life provides for other lives. It is, after all, the other lives who determine the value, right? We cannot say "God put such and such a value on so and so" because we don't know. It is US who decide if a celebrity should have a star on the boardwalk. We decide if someone is guilty enough to deserve capital punishment. We choose who our saints are and who are our heros. They don't make that decision. God doesn't either in the tangible world. We do, because here we are in control.

We chose the destiny of lives. Sometimes we make unpopular decisions, like sentencing someone to death. And we try to justify this to ourselves by saying: They killed someone. When a gang member shoots someone down they justify by saying "he did me wrong". When you pull the plug on a debilitated grandmother, or shoot a rabid dog, you say "they were suffering".

But what do we say when an abortion has occurred? "I wasn't ready" "the child would be unhappy" "It wasn't even a baby yet"? Let me define that this is not an abortion: right or wrong discussion. This entry is merely a discussion to figure out what a Taoist would say about it.

A Taoist might say that if it were in your nature to have an abortion, than it would be the logical response. If you grew up knowing that would be an option available to you, and planned on not having kids yet, then yes, it would be natural and thus Taoist approved. But is it only natural if that is your constant decision? If it were a one time choice, does that constitute a part of you?

What about if you just were not ready? If having a child would bear a hardship than it would not be a Taoist quality to put yourself in a position of resistance.

Ultimately I think it comes down to, are you rejecting the very natural act of conception? Is it visible to you that the sheer biological miracle has opted to take place within a mother? The answer would depend on if the family believed in conception as a random act or divine intervention. And that is what I want to know as a Taoist:

Who conceives?

Do the parents conceive? Do the sperm and the egg conceive independently? Or does god make a bond based on god's own factors of who is valuable?

I Am Sorry

What does the word "sorry" mean?

How does one become sorry? What makes a person want to appologize for something? Is it the fact that in order to make amends with humans to make thing socially comfortable with each other that there is this "standard" on how to fix a situation?

The emotion of sorry is most likely the emotion of regret. As far as the linking the words. Regretting something is what I understand as when you do something that you wish you had not done in your life based on the consequences of your actions.

So when you are sorry, does that mean you wish you had not done something?

I guess under those circumstances an appology would be a recognition that you did something that you wish you had not done. Based on the circumstances.

But does a person feel sorry because of the way they made another person feel. Because how do we really know how another person feels? How can we experience what happened in that person?

When you expect someone to appologize to you, you want them to know how what they did made you feel. You are expecting more than an appology. You are expecting a connection between two souls so that they can feel and sympathize. Or else how is the appology sincere? "That made me really upset". Well, that is a little vague. So the recipient of that comments hears "They were sad" when what the person meant is they were mad. Totally different connotations. Sad would imply that they may have been disappointed, distraught, overcome, emotionally unstable, crying perhaps. If they were actually mad they would have been perhaps furious, outlashing, revenging, yelling. The actions that the upset person may have taken, or the way they now felt about the person who did them wrong, could potentially been totally different. So how does the accused know how to be sincere with their appology.

Also, if they are expected to appologize without being given an explanation as to how your actions damaged the emotions of another (which is often times the case) what do you base your response off of. You know you are suppose to say you are sorry because you did something considered immoral, illegal, or in poor taste by the other person or even yourself. (Note: when I say you are "suppose" to appologize I mean this in typical social standards or if, of course, you even want to.) You have to put yourself in the shoes of the person you wronged. You say to yourself "I just cheated on my girlfriend, how would I feel if I were her?" The problem with this narrative is that, while at least you are somewhat thinking of the other person, you are in fact, not the other person. So the simple answer to that could potentially be "If I were my girlfriend I would not care, therefore she should not care." Hence, a more productive, although not entirely foolproof method would be "How would my girlfriend feel?" From this tactic you begin to draw information from what you know about your girlfriend. You say "well, she mentioned before she hates cheaters" or "she once said she would leave me if I cheated" or "it would be okay only if she joined in" and then you work from there. The details would begin by involving the quote you remember her making, what was her tone of voice? Had she ever been cheated on before? What did she do in that situation? How did it previously make her feel?

Now, most of this has been under the idea that there is no true way to totally tell how another person might feel. I don't believe that. I think that if you are connected to a person well enough, know them well enough or even believe that you have found your soulmate (perfectly logical in a taoist world... the yin needs its yang and vice versa) that you can very well sympathize on an accurate level. Because at that point you know.

eCo-dependency

I have been silently pondering a comment left on my blog in response to rejecting the universe as a way to undermine the matrix and see the true reality. The comment asks if people do not create the matrix themselves as a way of security, or more specifically, if a disregard for time could be damaging to those relying on the matrix. I admit this comment puzzled me because it would make the most sense that one cannot see anything they are either not looking for, or don't want to see. It is as simple as turning off the TV when the subject matter is uncomfortable. America calls this freedom, most call it options, I call it ignorance. At the same time, if one is not trying to see or not see anything, what is their reality? If I am trying so hard to see reality what am I really seeing?

Could denying the perceived fabric of the universe be destructive for the individual? I know that when I first began to accept an alternative divinity beyond myself it caused me to break down, leaving me feeling insecure, alone, forsaken for I was no longer intimately connected to my higher power. I would like to say it is a phase, and that for those who make it through..., but the truth is this: When you are first exposed to the idea that what you know isn't the complete truth, and you let that idea occupy your thoughts, there is no turning back. One of two things will happen.
1) You accept what you have learned and embrace your new beliefs or
2) You spend your remaining days questioning your existence, never able to create answers, become a crack addict and die, godless and alone.

Of course this happens to only a select few.

Besides the blind comfort a person enjoys, what are the benefits of some people remaining in the dark? There is the obvious, 'well, maybe they won't get it wrong' answer. Then the more considerate 'then they won't hurt us because they get it wrong' answer.