Now join in! Refer to the your copy of Word for Word, online Word for Word and/or to D.C. Lau’s translation as needed.

Issues: Midway through this chapter were a few missing periods. Did I say how ancient Chinese doesn’t have punctuation marks? Modern Chinese does, but I don’t know when they adopted this; it truly helps comprehension, doesn’t it.

Line 6 and 7 need clarification. First, line 6 of the literal reads hard to come by. This should instead read the difficult (hard; troublesome; put somebody into a difficult position; hardly possible; bad; unpleasant). I don’t know why I put ‘hard to come by’ other than the fact that ‘hard’ and ‘difficult’ are synonyms. D.C. Lau uses that phrase in a number of chapters, so perhaps it was his subliminal influence on me.

Next, let’s examine the from in both line 6 and 7: Plan difficulty from its easy. Do the great from its small. This may convey an overly and misleadingly linear point of view. The quantum view of non-locality may fit better (but not be any easier to understand). These existences are interlinked, yet we notice them as separate conditions, separate in time. The key word here is 于 (yú)  at, in, out from. Here are some other combination words that use 于 (yú), and may shed light.

处于 (chǔyú) be (in a certain condition).  (处 chǔ = get along, be situated in, manage <formal> dwell, live)
利于 (lìyú) be beneficial; be good for. (利 lì = sharp; favorable; advantage; profit)
在于 (zàiyú) lie in; rest with; be determined by; depend on. (在 zài = exist, be living, rest with, depend on)

Perhaps adding “out” helps make it feel less linear…  three dimensional rather than two. Plan difficulty out from its easy. Do the great out from its small.

Another sticking point, akin, comes in line 14: Accordingly, the wise man, akin of difficulty. Here again, some other uses of the character 犹 (yóu) may help. 犹 translates formally as: just as, like, still… which led me to use the word akin. I’ve bolded the other uses that stand out for me. I especially favor “still ringing (or reverberating) in one’s ears”.

犹豫不决 (yóuyùbùjué) shilly-shally.
犹豫 (yóuyù) hesitate; be irresolute. 犹疑 (yóuyi) hesitate.
记忆犹新 (jìyìyóuxīn) remain fresh in one’s memory.
言犹在耳 (yányóuzài’ěr) the words are still ringing (or reverberating) in one’s ears.

Commentary: Hmm, there is a fuzzy line separating Issues from Commentary. Oh well. First, notice how this chapter can be read as a prescription for ‘right action’, i.e., what one should do. Being a skeptic of free will, I find it more useful to interpret this as a description of how nature works. When I truly know how nature works, I find that I can’t help but reach great conformity.

Conversely, when my ideals (desires and worries) hold sway I contend with the way things are… and constantly shoot myself in the foot. Life is only so long; why spend it going around in circles? It just make one dizzy! Now a few thoughts on what stood out for me today…

Taste without tasting: Discriminating tastes lead to difficulty, especially when linked to an ideal expectation (thinking it is ‘good’, ‘bad’, could be ‘better’, why is it ’so awful’?). Discernment can increase understanding or misunderstanding. How do you know which is which?  Simple, when understanding reaches its full extent, can you know nothing?

Respond to resentment using kindness: When you expect kindness, you set yourself up for feeling resentment. This line is a hint at how to look at the world, and how that approach determines your reaction. The original Chinese conveys this better than I’m able to do in English. In English is comes off as more of a ‘turn the other cheek’ view.

The man that lightly promises, certainly few trust: Initially, this brings to mind, “words are cheap, actions speak louder than words, the proof is in the pudding”. Perhaps, because ‘lightly‘ conveys to me an especially unconscious (plus frivolous, careless, flaky) connotation. However, the words lightly promises can easily convey something entirely different. Lightly promises is from 轻诺 (qīngnuò). This breaks down as: qīng = light; small in number; not important; gently; softly; belittle, and nuò = promise; yes.

Now, consider this in light of what chapter 41 says about promises: Truthful promises seem capricious (also mull over the rest of chapter 41). This begs the question, what are promises, why do we make them and what are our expectations around them. I’ve always had difficulty with promises; they feel futuristic and forced. Not finding any parallel in nature makes promising anything look even more like a symptom of underlying forces: expectation, desire and ideals—all of which are potentially poisonous to natural spontaneity. Certainly, I understand their social utility; I just find it too often hollow.

This makes ‘certainly few trust’ instead come across as virtuous—a ‘taoist positive’ when consider in light of this view from chapter 20:

Crowd of people bustle about
Like enjoying excessive sacrifice,
Like ascending a springtime terrace,
I alone am anchored without anticipation,
Like an infant, not a child;

SUGGESTED REVISION:

Do without doing,
Be involved without being involved.
Taste without tasting.
Make the great small and the many few,
Respond to resentment using kindness.
Plan difficulty out from its easy.
Do the great out from its small.
All difficulties under heaven must arise from the easy.
All that is great under heaven must arise from the small.
Accordingly, the wise man, in the end, doesn’t support greatness,
For this reason he is able to accomplish greatness.
The man that softly promises, certainly few trust.
The excessively easy, certainly excessively difficult.
Accordingly, the wise man, still of difficulty,
For this reason, in the end, without difficulty.

#6 hard to come by à  difficult (hard; troublesome; put somebody into a difficult position; hardly possible; bad)

]]> http://www.centertao.org/blog/2012/05/17/chapter-63/feed/ 0 http://www.centertao.org/blog/2012/05/10/what-follows-loss-of-the-way/ http://www.centertao.org/blog/2012/05/10/what-follows-loss-of-the-way/#comments Thu, 10 May 2012 21:12:11 +0000 carl http://www.centertao.org/?p=7342 Trying to understand how any situation came to be is confusing and misleading. Much of one’s own biases can easily shape your rational. I find chapter 38 of the Tao Te Ching very useful in considering the ‘why’, and still avoid much of the bias trap.

The evolution of society and beliefs over time offers an example of this dynamic. First, the relevant excerpt…

Hence, virtue follows loss of the way.
Benevolence follows loss of virtue.
Justice follow loss of benevolence.
Ritual follows loss of justice.
Ways of chaos follow loss of loyalty and a thinning faith in ritual.

Now, to put these relationships in a loosely physical / historical context…

Hence, the pharaoh follows loss of primal tribal security.
Gods follow loss of the pharaoh.
One God follows loss of gods.
Favorite politicians follow loss of One God.
Rock idols and movie stars follow loss of favorite politicians.

Now, to indulge in a bit of ‘foreknowledge’:  Interestingly, it is just possible that the modern “miracle” of media and internet (Facebook etc.) may foreshadow (and facilitate) at least a virtual return to a more emotionally tangible way of feeling some aspects of primal tribal security.

Nature abhors a vacuum is another way to put this dynamic. Empty space is ready to fill. Changing circumstance led us to where we are, and will lead us to where we will end up. The most helpful element in this view is that we are not in control of anything really, despite what we think or wish. Hence, ‘taoist’ say, the wise person manages without doing anything.

I know, it is a hard pill to swallow. We so desperately desire to control outcomes. If you can swallow this pill, life will flow much smoother despite the inevitable bumps along the way.

Is this not just another way of saying, “by the grace of God” or “Insha’Allah” (”if God wills”). The deeper we look, the less difference we see, until eventually, we know what is called profound sameness.

Yep, each advantage we inherit is paid for by some shortcoming. The singular advantage that sets humans apart from animals is how we are able to imagine all the positives we would like to have, and imagine all the negatives we would like to be rid off. We excel at imagining better ways of living.

Now, it sounds like I’m getting off message here. What does this have to do with the placebo effect? First, consider that the placebo effect doesn’t work on animals (as far as I know, or if it does, it does so only minimally). I’m guessing that the placebo effect is actually an intuitive process that helps link us back toward our primal animal nature. That sounds a little far-fetched I suppose, so let me explain this if I can…

The cognitive processes that make thinking possible keep us on edge constantly relative to ‘dumb’ animals. Thought enables us to worry about what may never happen, desire that which is impossible to obtain, plan for the un-planable. The result being, we just can’t help but make mountains out of molehills. Nature abhors a vacuum and so it naturally fills the mind’s immense inner space (trillions of synaptic possibilities) with anything available, be it fact or imagination’s fiction.

Now, if these were actual physical mountains we were making from molehills we would be grounded in reality… tentative and hesitant as we ford the river of life. Our mind keeps us ‘high strung’, and that interferes with an ability found in other animals to respond spontaneously with problematic situations they encounter. Our responses seem to swing from one extreme to the other. Yes, we are very creative and accomplish much more, but at what cost? Are we as successful as we think we are—truly?

We are so anxious to answer that question in the affirmative that we actually fail to ask it, or ask it in a self righteous and hypocritical way (e.g., “We are all sinners and those who fail to take Jesus as their savior go to hell”). Maybe the self-doubt that naturally compliments an idealized self image, forces that (i.e., Hence existence and nothing give birth to each other).

I’m afraid I ended up saying more about the dis-ease that the placebo effect assists us with, than the effect itself. Of course, viewed from a symptoms point of view, that makes sense, i.e., the placebo effect is more a symptom of underlying causes than anything real in its own right. This is why I say the placebo effect is the process at work in religion. Oh well… No wonder I lament not being a better writer, and capable of putting the whole picture I see into words. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but alas, the more words I write, the more bored you’d become. Ah yes, this is what makes a skilled writer; they can write thousands of words and keep it interesting!

Now join in! Refer to the your copy of Word for Word, online Word for Word and/or to D.C. Lau’s translation as needed.

Issues: What is “oersted” (Line 1) you ask? Oersteds are used to measure magnetizing field strength. That has nothing to do with this chapter, other than also being related to something difficult to understand. I am tempted to change myriad to the more literal ‘all’ or ‘infinite’.

The words here, wànwù (万物) are normally tranlated as  all things on earth.  Wàn (万) means: ten thousand; a very great number; myriad; absolutely. Wù (物) means: thing; matter; the outside world as distinct from oneself; other people; content; substance. Together I see this saying all things… period. Others on Sunday liked myriad more as they thought it gives a real sense of truly all.

Hmm… Words are fragile evanescent little things aren’t they? No wonder ‘taoists’ don’t place too much faith in their meaning. Next, I am tempted to change not good person to simply ‘bad’ person. But, that also looses subtler meanings. Oops, I think I’m shifting even more into the commentary side of this chapter now…

Commentary: Consider this: bùshàn (不善) translates together as: bad; ill; not good at. Now, contrast this with bùliáng (不良) which translates together as: bad; harmful; unhealthy. The former (bùshàn) are the characters for chapter 61. The later (bùliáng) also mean bad, but in a more malicious sense of the word. The former conveys a gentler, more circumspect point-of-view. The later conveys a more gut level emotion.

Let’s take a closer look at these two. The fist character, bù, (不) is the same for both sets, bùshàn and bùliáng, and means ‘no, not’. That is followed by shàn (善) in the former, and liáng (良) in the later. These translate respectively as:

shàn: (善) good; satisfactory; good; make a success of; perfect; kind; friendly; be good at; be expert in; be adept in; properly; be apt to.

liáng: (良) good; fine; very; very much.

Well, I’m probably digging deeper in this than anyone wishes to descend ⁽¹⁾. Still, pondering the qualities each conveys, both similarities and differences, and then inserting bù, (不) before them can make this more thought provoking. I’ve tentatively decided to put it this way: For the perfect person it is precious, for the imperfect person it is protective. This actually feels more balanced. I feel most perfect when I am feeling ‘it’ precious; when I’m outside that enchanted zone, ‘it’ still protects (even if under my radar).

Hence, the son of heaven (emperor) establishes three commonalities, is curious. What three commonalities? One one hand, I think of the three treasures mentioned in chapter 67, i.e., I have three treasures of which I hold and protect: The first I call kindness, The second I call thrift, The third I call not daring to act before all below heaven.  On the other hand, the three pairs of lines below this three commonalities’ statement can also fit the bill. Indeed, I see in them three parallels to the Christian story. Here goes. Forgive any inaccuracy in quoting the Biblical references.

Even though surrounded by jade and presented with horses, Not equal to receiving the way corresponds to “Lay not your treasures upon earth where rust doth corrupt; lay them in heaven…”

Of old, why was this way so valued? Wasn’t it said that by using it one got what one sought corresponds to “Seek and ye shall find.”

By using it, one avoids the evils of hardship. Hence it is valued by all under heaven corresponds to the last words Christ reportedly said on the cross, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

SUGGESTED REVISION:

The way of all things is profound and difficult to understand.
Of the perfect person, it is precious; of the imperfect person, it is protective.
Beautiful speech can bring worldly honor.
Beautiful behavior can augment people.
For people not good, why abandon them?
Hence, the son of heaven (emperor) establishes three commonalities,
Even though surrounded by jade and presented with horses,
Not equal to receiving the way.
Of old, why was this way so valued?
Was it not said that by using it one got what one sought.
By using it, one avoids the evils of hardship.
Hence, all under heaven value it.

⁽¹⁾ On the chance anyone wants more, I offer various translations below of the moral connotation easily ascribed to the word bad, in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic West.  不善 (bùshàn: bad; ill; not good at; <dialect> not to be pooh-poohed; quite impressive) doesn’t really fit those, so translating it as bad, as D.C. Lau and other do, feels very misleading. Notice the <dialect> meaning for bùshàn. In English we’d say something like, “Not bad, eh.”

Evil

恶 wù:   loathe; dislike; hate.
恶 è:   evil; vice; wickedness; fierce; ferocious.
害 hài:   evil; harm; calamity; do harm to; impair; kill; suffer from; feel (afraid, etc.).
孽 niè:   evil; sin.
歹 dǎi:   bad; evil; vicious.
否 pǐ:   bad; wicked; evil; censure.
奸 jiān:   wicked; evil; traitor; self-seeking

Bad

不良 bùliáng:   bad; harmful; unhealthy.
坏 huài:   bad; go bad; spoil; ruin; badly; awfully; very; evil idea; dirty trick.
劣 liè:   bad; inferior; of low quality.
错 cuò:   interlocked and jagged; intricate; rub; stagger; wrong; fault; bad.
难 nàn:   calamity; disaster; adversity; take to task; blame.
窳 yǔ:   <formal> corrupt; bad.

We can imagine ‘better’ so we expect better. Animals feel the same emotions that drives imagination in us, but only momentarily, and mostly just connected to current external stimulus. In addition to external stimuli, we fabricate self-stimuli from remembered past and imagined future images tied ultimately to deep-seated needs and fears.

From there, our imagined scenarios feed into our emotions, triggering their energetic response and we soon find ourselves chomping-at-the-bit because reality isn’t conforming to our imagined ideal of what ‘should be‘.  We then begin contending with how ‘it’ is and push to make ‘it’ how we want ‘it’ to be. Sure, sometimes that works just fine, especially when the ideal and the real are practically (meanings both practical and practically) aligned with one another. Yet, even then, success is fleeting and off we go imagining a more perfect world to be. Our hunter-gatherer nature is always pulling the strings through the ever present “more is better” instinct. Imagining a more perfect world leads us to actions that bring unintended consequence. So indeed, not knowing the constant, rash actions lead to ominous results.

The pains of life are inevitable—natural. Cognitively resisting what is natural adds suffering to life’s pain. This is something from which non-thinking animals are spared. They can’t think and so can’t imagine a better way. Does this mean humans suffer more? Yes. Imagined gains and losses (need and fear + thought) create our desires and worries. These do seem to add a degree of discomfort beyond what other animals experience. The next question is, how large is the difference?

Any judgment on degree of difference will always be a projection of the observer’s (the judge’s) needs and fears as well. The clever human mind has great difficulty seeing, realizing, knowing, and finally accepting the fallibility of itself. In addition, it generally doesn’t appreciate its fallibility pointed out. A couple of Taoist core observations speak to this:  Knower not speak; speaker not know (I think of thought as the internal aspect of speaking, or visa versa). Realizing I don’t know is superior, not knowing this realization is a defect. And finally topped off with When understanding reaches its full extent, can you know nothing?

Memory Poisons Consciousness’s Well

I suppose it is heretical to say, but human memory is another destructive and sorrow causing aspect of our superior cognitive ability. As we know, a blade cuts both ways. First a ‘good’ side of the memory coin: it is one of humanity’s premier survival tools, and it offers us the sweet (and bitter sweet) joy of nostalgia. Now, the other side of the coin…

For example, I’m sure we’ve all experienced how hearing ‘negative’ gossip about people leaves us with a mountain of preconceptions to overcome when meeting them… and sincerely wanting to judge them impartiality. (Knowing the constant allows, allowing therefore impartial, Impartial therefore whole, whole therefore natural.)

Another pernicious side to memory is favoritism. As Lau puts it, it is the way of heaven to show no favoritism. Just as we tend to see and hear what we want; we also then tend to form and store away a version of memory that support our point-of-view. Memory then becomes profoundly more unreliable (i.e., a biased memory is worse than neutral non memory).

Being more actively aware of this tendency to use memory as ammunition to push an ideal or action,  whether an offensive attack or defensive, helps me take the certainty out of the thought and the steam out of the push. Honestly seeing this bio-hoodwink for what it is, has so far turned out to be my weapon of choice against my own delusion and folly.

Click Tao Te Ching, Word for Word for information about a print-on-demand ‘final’ draft copy of my translation.

(Refer to the online translation or to your copy as needed)

Issues: I completely dropped ‘country’ ( 国) from my poetry, i.e.,  大国 小国, and instead just use the adjectives:  The larger (大) and The smaller (小). The character for ‘country’ ( 国) is found about ten times in the Tao Te Ching. D.C. Lau usually translates it as empire or state. I shift back and forth throughout my translation, either omitting it, or translating it as country, empire, state or nation, all of which can apply. Thinking of this character and its meaning a deeper and more personal way, country make sense, as would ‘native home’. Nations, states, empires are all recent cultural adaptations… emergent properties arising from our primal tribal instinct. What is the most useful way to interpret this for common people (not kings, presidents)? Sometimes just leaving it silent and implied may work best. Anyway, that was what I’ve done here. The dynamics of The larger (大) and The smaller (小) apply universally, not just to country or state. On the other hand, using country or state as an example of the process can help illuminate it.

Line 3 is curious. Using stillness she serves the lower position. The character 为 has two pronunciations / meanings. Wéi with a rising tone means: do; act; act as; serve as; become; be; mean. Wèi with a falling tone is a preposition, or has a <formal> meaning: stand for, support. Squinting my nitpicking eye, I see the similar (if blurry) meaning both these share. Perhaps it would read a little better saying, Using stillness she supports the lower position.

I’d like to change For this reason to the simpler Hence or Therefore. I don’t know what came over me. The rest of the sentence is also awkward: the low as well as taking in, the low yet taken in. Another way to say this could be: Hence, either the low takes in, or the low yet taken in. The character 或 (huò) means perhaps; maybe; probably; or; either…or…; <formal> someone. Fortunately as this is Taoism and not rocket science, we can also try Hence, perhaps the low takes in, perhaps the low yet taken in.

The larger only wishes to concurrently raise the people. Opps, split infinitive, so this is better restated: The larger only wishes concurrently to raise the people. Next, concurrently raise the people (兼畜人) is a little odd. The middle character xu is normally used when referring to domestic animals. In fact, the same character spoken as chu means domestic animal, livestock. Yet here the context refers to people. I like to think that is an early recognition that humans are simply animals, that the distinctions drawn are due to a kind of universal cultural myopia, i.e., Humans are special.

Next, there is concurrently: 兼 (jiān) double; twice; simultaneously; concurrently; hold two or more jobs concurrently. This is more easily understood if you’ve been a parent. The experience of being fulfilling two roles simultaneously, where as the child is fully occupied with being a child. As a parent, one is both still a child and a steward (parent). Well, at least that is one way to look at it.

On the last line I’ll add the missing ’s’, i.e., The larger fittingly serves the lower position.

Finally, I’d reconsider using both wish and want, where as the character is 欲 (yù) which means desire; wish; want; about to. It may help to use one or the other, but not desire due to my view that desire is need + thought. Of course, the same can be said for wish and want. If only they had instead used the character 需 (xū): need; want; require; necessaries; needs. Oh good grief… semantics! Am I not a glutton for punishment.

Commentary: This  chapter was a doozy, issues-wise, so I’ll keep this short. This chapter was a very useful model / reminder for me in raising my kids… the ‘animal people’. Stillness really is the most powerful ‘weapon’ an adult has in dealing with kids… or animals, which really means anybody. But, it is easier to notice its effect in the more intuitive as they notice the stillness more readily, perhaps.

Advocacy and praise is mostly a projection of one’s own beliefs. Either that or just a cynical attempt to sell us something. That aside, sincere belief is really, and quite naturally, blind. (Nature needs to have it just that way.)

We simply believe what we desire; And we desire what we believe will make us happy. Criticism, on the other hand, is usually (if not always) a projection of ignorance. Ignorance being a kind of negative blindness. In either case, the blind-spot rules. Obviously, it is problematic trusting either advocate or critic, so again, who or what can we trust?

As Buddha said, we must experience ‘it’ (what ever ‘it’ may be) to truly know⁽¹⁾. Alas, we can’t test out everything, so what shall we do?  I find it is helpful to be as impartial as possible, like a judge, and examine why I am being drawn to either the positive or negative story I hear. If I haven’t actually experienced the circumstance, then I’m being swayed by some underlying bias, which is influenced by deeper needs and fears. That said, experience alone is no panacea by any means.

To truly experience something external, I must become ‘it’. I must internalize ‘it’ to the point where I cease to exist… only ‘it’ remains. Well, no, it is more like a merging of I and other, until there is neither an ‘I’ nor other ‘it’. Yes, it is a tall order, and one not really necessary to execute. Indeed, to do that would be unnatural!

In summary, my approach to this question, “who do you trust”, precipitates (settles out) like this:

(1) passionately taking the issue at face value, and with choose sides;

(2) calmly withholding judgment until gaining some personal first hand experience with the issue;

(3) sincerely leaving the ‘I’ behind and becoming that issue. This parallels the Hindu, “You are that” (Tat Tvam Asi).

(4) realizing that is just another ideal that gets in the way of being natural.

(5) smile (or frown depending on the mood at the moment)

__________________________________________________________________

⁽¹⁾ That is my interpretation. Buddha was apparently very diplomatic! Here are some other interpretations…

[From Wikipedia:] According to the scriptures, during his lifetime the Buddha remained silent when asked several metaphysical questions. These regarded issues such as whether the universe is eternal or non-eternal (or whether it is finite or infinite), the unity or separation of the body and the self, the complete inexistence of a person after nirvana and death, and others. One explanation for this silence is that such questions distract from activity that is practical to realizing enlightenment and bring about the danger of substituting the experience of liberation by conceptual understanding of the doctrine or by religious faith. Another explanation is that both affirmative and negative positions regarding these questions are based on attachment to and misunderstanding of the aggregates and senses. That is, when one sees these things for what they are, the idea of forming positions on such metaphysical questions simply does not occur to one. Another closely related explanation is that reality is devoid of designations, or empty, and therefore language itself is a priori inadequate.

The last ‘explanation’ is right in line with the Taoist point of view. When one ‘becomes that’, designation becomes impossible. Objective reality vanishes, as does any ability be either a critic or an advocate. This is one reason Taoist points of view are not very popular. People like to get excited about something and choose sides. Taoist impartiality, even in small measures, impedes that trill. Fittingly, during the 80’s and 90’s when we were having weekly Taoist meeting someone came up with the motto for the group: “be bored again”. To be sure, “be born again” sounds a lot more fun and exciting.

Click Tao Te Ching, Word for Word for information about a print-on-demand ‘final’ draft copy of my translation.

(Refer to the online translation or to your copy as needed)

Issues: There was a suggestion to change line #4 to read, Not only is its spirit not magical, Its magic does not hinder the people. This flows off the tongue better, and uses one less word to boot! It is a win win. Punctuation switch also seems in order: Govern a big country as if boiling a small fish,
So that the way is present for all under heaven.

Commentary: This presents an odd picture; how many who govern countries also boil small fish? Perhaps if they did, and appreciated the parallel they would serve better… but that is just silly fantasy speaking.

One needs to take great care when boiling a small fish otherwise it easily dis-integrates. The promise of the way is a feeling of integration with the whole (self, family, nation, world, universe, eternity…). This is how even the greatest control never cuts or as Lau puts it, Therefore the greatest cutting does not sever. Govern as if boiling a small fish means action that maintains (or at least is coming from one’s sense of) integration (even though, in another persons eyes that may look and feel like dis-integration).

The difference in whether governance is integrating or dis-integrating is extremely subtle and so the idea of magic suits. That said, magic also conveys something much deeper than what we interpret as magic generally (tricks, magicians, Houdini).  Consider the range of meanings for the character 神 (shén):  god; divinity; supernatural; magical; spirit; mind; expression; look; clever.

When I reconsider this, I’m tempted to change magic to clever, although that is so far down the meaning ladder from the usual usage… or maybe not. It also means God, but what does God mean?

Everyone argues about that, which means God’s meaning is in the eye of the beholder and nowhere else. Of course, true believers will see it otherwise… meaning absolute and external to their point of view. The same applies to true non-believers of course. Oh my, the odd tricks our minds play on us.

Well, I’ve done enough damage for one day. The last point I’ll make: Try rereading chapter 60 replacing the word magic for the other meanings of 神  God; divinity; supernatural; magical; spirit; mind; expression; look; clever.  Which word do you vote for?

It’s been 50 years now since I began yoga. This, along with my daily reflection of Buddha’s Noble Truths, has been far and away the best thing I’ve ever done in my life, for my life.

Of course, a lot of life had to pass by before I truly knew this. For decades it was just faith that carried me, I guess.

Yoga as a vehicle takes you to unimaginable places, depending on you, the driver of course.

Begin by doing just one posture a day to get the ball rolling. Next year (or sooner if you like) add one more… and so on. Doing this one posture ‘religiously’ every day without fail is sufficient. That constancy will do the rest over time, naturally.

This book (see below) covers over 100 postures showing the dynamics (see right) for which to aim. Also, I’ve posted free PDF downloads for the most important beginning yoga postures. Begin now—what’s to loose but a couple of minutes a day.

Download the PDFs : Hatha Yoga: The Essential Dynamics.

I was thinking of doing a short video to cover the beginning postures. Then I thought, perhaps there is something already online. Ha! Obviously, I don’t get out online much! The following four videos, when taken together, shed light on the ‘big picture’ as well as on fundamentals important right from the beginning.

The easiest approach is to just Google the title. The first title, “Yoga GURU…”, has 6 segments. After watching 1/6, simply change the 1/6 in the search window to 2/6 and search again. Continue on up to 6/6. The second title, “…Yoga Demonstration, Sydney…” covers the basics nicely for 90 minutes. The last two videos are interesting for various reasons.

Yoga GURU — B. K. S. Iyengar – The Ultimate Freedom Yoga [1976] 1/6

B.K.S. Iyengar – Yoga Demonstration, Sydney, 1983

B.K.S. Iyengar 1938 newsreel Part 1 (there is also part 2 and 3)

BKS Iyengar in 1977

A print-on-demand copy of my book is available from Lulu.com for $9.99^*.

<– Click this icon below to see a full screen preview.

^* I’m selling this near cost. Even so, print-on-demand is an expensive means of distribution. Why print-on-demand? I don’t see enough demand to print in quantity. Why at near cost? First, all I require is enough profit to cover direct expenses. Second, although very useful as it stands, I still regard this as somewhat of a work in progress. While a long time in the making (1980-2012), I assume it has room to ripen further, which is another way saying that I sincerely invite any suggestions, comments and criticisms.

Update

If you buy it from CreateSpace ( https://www.createspace.com/3786157 ) where I will actually make a little profit. 

Such primal devotion is the only healthy escape I know; I’ve found all the others, alcohol, drugs, sex, rock and roll, work, shopping, eating, etc., have adverse consequences. Especially problematic were those to which I devoted myself fully. Devoting myself to sensual pleasures always promises escape, but never truly delivers. Ironically, devoting myself to the moment makes escape easy. Of course, there are no sensual promises being made in the later, which explains why it is not so very easy to put into practice. Given the choice, we usually choose the promise of pleasure. Rather, the promise of pleasure chooses for us. We are such push-overs. What is pleasurable about pleasure anyway? Is it the lack of stress; a sense of peace; a sense of balance?  Not really; it is more like the promise of those which pleasure makes ⁽¹⁾. A promise quickly broken.

Take drugs for example.

Alcohol is the drug of choice the world over, where it’s allowed anyway. Why? Essentially, it gives one the easiest way to experience the moment-to-moment, albeit through a fuzzy veil. Alcohol gives the mind a sense of ’space’. We dearly love worry-free moments-to-moment stillness, silence, and simplicity, yet we are driven to fill-up on the opposites. Only the space which moment-to-moment awareness brings is enough to reverse that rush forward into the future, caused naturally enough by our ability to think that one knows the future ⁽²⁾.

I imagine this is all the truer now that our technology enables a life style that can speed forward at full tilt. It was different when the only way to get somewhere else was to walk there, the only way to communicate with others was to be with them, the only way to eat was to hunt-and-gather up your daily vittles. Life and moment-to-moment went more hand-in-hand before we developed the use of the knotted rope (i.e., a way of keeping track of things?). Still, I suspect our difficulties began long before the use of the knotted rope. We seek to escape from the toll that the dominance of thought exacts on life.

Civilization, through ‘thought-full education’, presses down on spontaneous emotions and individual idiosyncrasies in order to smooth over social divisions. Essentially, we’re ’strangers’ under the skin. Such social disconnection was an inevitable outcome of the now long-lost-intimacy of a hunter-gatherer tribal life style. Alcohol releases us (esp. those who need to escape from contrived conformity) by helping us tap into deeper emotional realms. Interestingly, Islam seems to compensate for this disconnection somewhat better than other religions. (However, as always, there is a price to pay.)

⁽¹⁾ Pleasure is a kind of biological  hoodwink to get us to live life through making ‘pleasurable’ choices. It works great in the wild because there are natural limits on the outcome. Much of civilization has been a clever stacking of the ‘pleasure deck’ in our favor. That is why religions view desire for pleasure as a core problem. Buddha’s Fourth Noble Truths say, “let your sole desire be the performance of your duty” and the Tao Te Ching, says “he who holds fast to this way desires not to be full” and “the sage desires not to desire”

⁽²⁾ And even if an animal would drink alcohol until it is fall down drunk, it won’t! They don’t have access. After all, cows given unlimited access to highly concentrated rated nutritious food will eat themselves to death. In the wild, they don’t have access. We are similar, as we can see by the epidemic of obesity and the diseases to which it leads. Civilization offers great benefit for humans paid for by the unintended consequences of great global suffering for us and countless other animals.