The Tao and Space

I have finished reading this book and I have yet the task to understand it.
At the end I figured out what most of it was about, or at least that is what my innocent and yet not fully developed mind thinks. It is all about not interfering and just going with the flow. If there was a perfect place for Lao Tsu, it would be small and simple, where there are all types of opportunities for progress and at the same time it is not needed so it does not take place.
In this perfect world, there would be no wars of government, and people would be humble. His perfect world is one that I know would and will never happen. It is like the far never accomplished and never found Utopia.
Regarding what the Tao is, I don`t have idea, it is something that cannot be explained and there should be no attempt to explain. It is a mystery. It is there, but we cannot see it, or know its power, or hear it, or feel it, like the universe. Yeah it may be that this connection to the universe is not very elaborate or makes not much sense, but I have the task to connect it to the space pictures of the NASA, and that is what I am doing. The Tao is like space, we know it is there, but we cannot quite explain it.

The Tao is described more and more as I move on in the book, and I am afraid to say, that I am not getting half of what is said.
TEWNTY NINE says that we cannot change the universe because it is not possible and that is how my reading today started. Sometimes we humans think we can change everything to make it better, but from what I have observed, we cannot and what we have changed has become worse. After this it is said that men with ambitions and proud are not good men and are defiantly not fit to be leaders, “Achieve results, but never be proud” (THIRTY).
Then I understood better what was being said, one should not be proud of victory in a battle, one never should be proud of death. He says victory should be seen as a funeral. The Tao refuses the use of weapons and refers to the ones that use them, as un-wise. I know it has nothing to do with it, or maybe it does, but I couldn`t help not thinking in the president of Venezuela, Chavez and the threats with weapons and war he has been making the past weeks towards Colombia. I found it really interesting how he relates the right with violence and the left with wisdom. He says that it takes much of a strong and smart person to control oneself than others.
Lao Tsu then writes what are the standards to know if a man is truly wise. Resuming what I understood, I would say a good man is one that is one that is good and doesn`t know it and one that is wise is one that is and is not bragging about it. It is like being humble and at the same naturally modest. I don`t know how to describe it.
I once again was captivated by the parts where Tsu talked about detachment. He says that people that are not attached to what they have don`t suffer when they lose them and so on. This time I what specially called my attention was that desire was called a sin, “There is no greater sin than desire” (FORTY-SIX). I still don`t understand this teaching or idea, so to say, very well. I don`t understand how one could have a good life without liking anything or disliking anything, it seems so plain and boring to me. I think attachment is sometimes worth the suffering that comes with it, because life needs a little of spice, I think.
Ying and the yang where mentioned in the scroll FOURTY-TWO, “The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang. They achieve harmony by combining these forces”. First I was surprised when I realized it is Yin not YING, and second I wasn`t expecting to find this words here.
This is all for today, I am extremely tired and I feel I cannot write anything smart in this state.

Don`t want any thing, conform with your misfortune, and beleive in what you can`t see, touch, or hear. Why? Just do it!!!

I am finding that the Tao Te Ching shows many ideas about aspects of life that I agree with but never really paid attention to.
In the scroll THIRTEEN, I found something very interesting. It said that one should accept disgrace as to accept being unimportant as well as avoiding being concerned with loss or gain. I was also intrigued as misfortune was described as something that happens to everyone and it is part of nature, “Misfortune comes from having a body”. The similarity to the Bhagavad-Gita is appearing repeatedly, it is clearly said in the scroll TWENTY-SIX, “He remains unattached and calm”. I find it really hard for this to happen. It is really hard to be unattached to what happens to you. Up to what I know, everybody has at least a little bit of selfishness and desires something or mourns a loss. It is also mentioned that peace is acquired when one is not waiting for a change and accepts the monotony of nature. This thing about having nothing for thieves to no t exist and all this sounds a little mediocre to me though.
I have also noted the importance of simplicity and humility in the Tao. It criticizes the people that make shows, are self righteous, who boasts, and brags, Lao Tsu says all those things are unnecessary and do not bring happiness.
Scroll SIXTEEN, I identified with a lot. “They grow and flourish and then return to the source”, as you may see, this teaching, if I could call it like that, told how life is a cycle and everyone is destined to die someday. I agree and know that as much as we try, we cannot change it. It is something that is hard to accept, but we all will die someday and it is natural that it happens. But nothing would make any sense without death anyway, life wouldn’t be as valuable. On the other hand I noticed a very interesting thing; one can be with the Tao and be eternal. Is this like an after life? To me it is similar to the ‘be with god’ idea, “And though the body dies, the Tao will never pass away”. So is this Tao like a spirit?
There where two more things that caught my attention in the scrolls from THIRTEEN to TWENTY-NINE. The first was the mention of ‘the way’ in TWENTY THREE, and the mention and explanation for ‘faith’ in TWENTY-ONE. It again supported the idea of the Tao existing but it being impossible to know it does by seeing, hearing, of touching, but it being faith that it exists what supports it. This is what happens in many religions, people don`t have any physical evidence that what they believe in exists, but they still know it is there and don`t doubt it, through faith.
At last I was surprised when in the scroll TWENTY, Tao Tsu writes in first person, and tells us how he is different from all the rest of the people. He says “Give up learning, and put an end to your troubles” (thing that Confucius wouldn`t agree with hu?). he says he was not clever and didn`t do what everyone else did, but at the same time he writes he is alone and depressed, “but I am alone and depressed”.
And that’s the end! Ta Tan!

So. The Tao. What is it?

In the first scroll of Tao Te Ching the only thing clear was that the Tao was an eternal mystery that is eternal because it cannot be named. I think this meant that things that cannot be pointed out and truly understood and recognized always remain a mystery and therefore they are eternal. This mystical description repeats as it is described, “The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled” (FOUR). What I understood is that it is a powerful thing that is hidden and that is the source, or the cause for other important things. However, it is mostly portrayed as something that cannot be explained, “Darkness within darkness. The gate to all mystery” (ONE), “I do not know from whence it comes. It is the father of the gods” (FOUR). Here I was a little surprised; In the other books that are written to teach the people something and to make them follow what is said, everything is explained in some way, but here, Lao Tsu writes that the Tao is a mystery, and clearly says that he doesn’t know where it comes from or what it really is (it does not need explanation).
A scroll I really found interesting was TWO. In my previous posts about the bible I was permanently questioning why God created evil, and this scroll gives a very good and convincing way of explaining it. It says that without evil one cannot see god, without ugly we would not tell if something was beautiful. Everything needs valance and everything has something to contrast it with. We measure small in contrast with big, and darkness when we compare it to something light. This is really familiar to me, the YING and YANG thing has similar foundations, or maybe this is the foundation, I don`t know. We know we are alive because we are not dead. So then if something is not born, then it is eternal and that is how heaven is described as endless later in SEVEN.
Other than this, I found many similarities to the Bhagavad-Gita regarding how impartiality and not desiring things resulted in peace and happiness, “Not seeing the desirable things prevents confusion of the heart” (THREE). On the other hand, they differ because the Tao Te Ching doesn`t find learning more and knowledge so important, on the contrary it is more about staying simple and avoiding doing more than what is needed. Until now I find that the Tao Te Ching has many ideas I would call conformist, where if nothing is done to have personal development and superiority everything will be well and even better. How I was raised I learned that I always had to strive to be the best that I could be.
I was interested by the mention of gods here in scroll FOUR when referring to the Tao, “It is the forefather of the gods”.
I was really intrigued by the whole scroll SIX, I don`t quite understand if it is saying something good to women or not. It is pricing our motherhood but the last part sounds like if we where a thing to use and find heaven as to have a good time. I am not sure if it that or that my twisted mind is taking the word wrongly.
“The valley spirit never dies;
It is the woman, primal mother.
Her gateway is the root of heaven and earth.
It is like a veil barely seen.
Use it; it will never fail.”

A Harsh Test

The next on God's chosen ones list is Job, and i would say he was by far the most unfortunate. It all starts when satan makes a bet with god that will eventually fall into the idea of testing Job's faith. This part, I found confusing and it initiated a great series of questions. First, it said something about satan being a son of God. Other thing that i really had a hard time understanding was why God listens to what satan has to say, Why does satan have a saying? Why does evil have a saying today?

Job suffers. His people are killed and after all he went through a seed of doubt starts to grow inside him. I am not a great beleiver of God. If he does exist then he is not perfect, powerfull, but i think he made mistakes. He made some bad choices as picking david further in the bible, and hey, he payed atention to what the live representation told him.

There are moments in life were beleivers start to doubt. When passing and struggling through an unfortunate event or enduring a terrible moment in life one may start wondering why this guy you are devoted to allows all this to happen, and wether he is with you for real. As many do, and with a really fair reason Job, doubts of God.

Job was passing through a difficult situation and ontop of everything he has crappy friends. They were causing more pain than what he already had. One said praclicly that he diserved it and other said he had to deal with it. Any how he had very bad friends. A friend is mainly someone you can trust, that will come to your aid and suport you when you need it. Even if they came unto him, the main part of suport was evidently lacking. With friends like Job's why have enemies.

David, Good or bad?

Once again God chooses a man, and once again I don´t understand why. I would think that the ones God directs his attention to are chosen because they are good and they have the merits for such important role. Maybe in the eyes of the bible they are good. It is hard to define what is good or not. This type of question´s answers are usually taken for granted, I thought my answer to what a good person is, was already clear and there. However when I was asked about It I realized that it is not so. Now after thinking it over I would say that a good person is one that has good wishes for others. It is someone that is fair and that has good actions towards others being authentic and because it is of ones nature to do it. With this I mean, have good intentions towards others and act to help others without any personal interest and being completely honest on why you are doing it. This was mentioned by the name of detachment in actions in the book of Bhagavad-Gita. Regarding David and how he acts according to the bible, I don´t think he is a good person.

David has proven to have many qualities as courage and many more as described in the following verse, “I have seen a son of Jesse the Beth-Lehemite, that is Cumming in playing, and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the LORD is with him”(I Samuel 16:18). Anyhow, are they enough for the lord to be with him? How about the bloodshed he has also demonstrated? David is shown to be violent and I would say cold blooded as you may see in the I Samuel: “This day will the lord deliver thee into mine hand, and I will smite thee; and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcasses of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air and to the wildest beasts of the earth”. Here god is pricing bloody slaughter. He has chosen to support a man like this? What criteria does this God have creating the tree and snake, listening to Satan, and backing a man who´s words are cold aggressive, violent, and represent slaughter?

I have always known about Moses. Nevertheless I was never aware of all the details regardless of his power to enchant snakes (which was not at all accurate), and his ability to open the sea in two.
Well for you that don`t know the story and are as uninformed as I was, this is what happened:
All his people are salves in Egypt and there are too many so the Pharaoh starts to stop babies from growing. Some mother puts her baby in a basket and sends him away in the Nile River. He is picked up by Egyptian royalty and raised as part of the family. he lives day by day witnessing how the slaves are treated and one day gets aggressive because of it. He runs and a bush talks to him. This actually reminds me of a friend I have who once told her mother that trees talked to her to get her nervous and experience more adrenaline rushes. Yeah, I have a schizophrenic friend, and what? Anyway, this is god telling him to free his people. I still don`t understand why he is the one chosen, God appears to choose people without any reason to be explained. To give him a hand God gives Moses some kind of paranormal skills so he can convince the Pharaoh to let his people free. I would defently freak out if I where the Pharaoh. Being a witness of water being turned into blood, a stampede of frogs, an invasion of insects, and the death of all the new born babies including the baby dearest to him, and seeing a man turn his staff into a snake, seems pretty scary and convincing to me. But I guess the Pharaoh thought very different, because, regardless all that Moses did, he refused to do as he desired and even when he did after the death of a member of his family, he went after him to continue the struggle.
Then comes my favorite part of the story. Moses divides the red sea in two creating a scenery similar to a modern aquarium. There are archeological records that there was actually a battle there and that it probably was this one, but there is still a vague idea of what really happened. Many may say that all that is written in the bible is not true, but considering the coincidences in different cultures and civilizations throughout the world and history I think many of what is said are interpretations of things that really happened.
You can find this same idea in my blog about Noah’s arch.
http://reflecting-on-it.blogspot.com/2010/04/many-generations-to-follow-and-new.html

A Quite Troubling Test

It was already time for Abraham to have a son; I mean he waited for a life time. No, I am not exaggerating. The point is, he had a son and he named him Isaac. I can imagine the happiness Abraham felt. Like when you really want to eat a piece of chocolate and you get it. Then God as unique as he is, asks him to kill him. Yeah, if I where Abraham I would also asked a simple and desperate question, what? By then, if I where Abraham, I would have killed God. O wait, he can`t. Your dad finally gets tired of you insisting and buys you the freaking chocolate. You have it in your hands, you waited so long to get it and it has a delicious smell, and you are so happy that your dad asks you to throw it away.
I still don`t understand it well, how did Abraham follow Gods orders. It’s his son for god sake! So, he takes his son uphill to sacrifice him, I could say, without a doubt or an insignificant moment of consternation of whether to kill his own son or not. What would God have done if he refused? Finally God sees he is actually faithful and loyal so he decides to stop him from killing Isaac, thanks God. But dear Abraham, I think you have some to explain. And it is not that easy as the pain ass task of answering the question, “Where do babies come from”?