Today, I mow over another bit of the past. Removing pages that shouldn’t be around, and continually trimming things that I no longer want in this page.

Yesterday, I was on a set, and people were earnestly talking to me, yet I was completely detached. I gave minimally-required responses that were expected to make a conversation interactive, in hopes that maybe it would eventually blossom into a real conversation that I feel I could participate in.

Lately, I’ve been reading a lot into Mindfulness, and trying to be mindful with the current moment, and those around me. I obviously was not being mindful of where I was, and what I was doing. I wasn’t just disengaged from the conversation, but also from my actions as well. I was just doing my job automatically without thinking about the tasks at hand, I just did them. Meanwhile, my mind drifted away into other thoughts.

In fact, I’ve been doing this for so long, that it’s become my modus operandi. Then,
I got to thinking about this phenomenon: Even though I’m doing these things automatically because I’m familiar with them, I’m not in a “State of flow”.

In essence, the state of flow means that you are fully immersed in a specific activity, where you are fully focused and completely energized. Some call this “being in the zone”.

So when was the last time I actually had this feeling of total immersion? I can’t remember, but here are some ways to identify them:

• So focused on something that everything disappears.
• All action and awareness is dedicated to that one thing.
• Time can either speed up or slow. Self-consciousness disappears.

So how do I train for it? How do I achieve this?

1. Overload your brain with all sorts of information. (This starts with you being very uncomfortable.)
3. Stop thinking about the problem (release yourself from it).
4. Deep low. Recovery. (unpleasant).

“Hacking flow” means learning how to manage that recovery. Hm… This post went in a different direction from where I thought it’d go…

This isn’t the first time I’ve had to deal with difficult neighbours. First time I could remember having to deal with them, was in my childhood neighbourhood on the other side of the railroad tracks –literally. Kids two houses over thought it would be nice to come into our back yard and steal our lemons, because it was a family of four brothers, and they outnumbered me. Then, there was the crazy kid next door who would maniacally laugh at us, because he knew there wasn’t much that could be done when he would shovel dirt from his side, and fling it over to us.

Over the years, I’ve lived in “dorms”, had roommates, and while things have been great, and others not so much, they eventually worked out, but I still preferred to live on my own. Nothing like the freedom to do whatever you want, right? Then, there are the neighbours….

So as much as I’d love to live the “dream” and own a home, it’s unaffordable at the moment, and what if I deal with more shitty neighbours? So if I’m going to lead a semi-nomadic life of moving from affordable rent to affordable rent, how can I make this easier on me? What should I take with me, what should I throw away, and should I keep things in storage?

Then I started thinking: “Home: What it’s intended for, vs what we use it for?” I still don’t have an answer on that one. Even after reading this article on home preferences around the world. I mean, OK, yeah, I get it, we all prefer single-family homes, which simply means we’re all living in overcrowded areas. But really, what is a home intended for, and how does it differ from the way we use it?

Well, a home is supposed to be a shelter to the individual and his family. Whether it’s protecting against man-eating predators, the elements, or whatever. So it’s a little part of the world that you can control inside, while it protects you from the outside. Nothing wrong with that _{unless you live in an area that restricts what sort of modifications you have in your area, in which case, you’d be breaking the law}.

So how does it differ from how we use it? As an investment property. We buy houses, because we know OTHERS also have that need for basic shelter, then sell it at a higher price, or rent it out. Or, we take a section that we illegally modify, and rent that out at an exorbitant price. Is there something wrong with this? I can’t say, honestly.

Just some more unfinished thoughts, is all…

Despite my recent issues with my immediate environment, having read the 道德經, I’m still trying to find some inner-peace.

One of the things at contention, is simply: “Who Am I?” It’s such a simple question, but how can you answer succinctly? Some people immediately identify themselves by their race, others define themselves by what they are NOT. What’s common though, is that most people define themselves by what they do. This gets confusing for me, because what I was occupationally, I am no longer.

“In this line of work, the best thing is that you don’t have to think. Whoever needs to die, the time and place has already been determined by someone else. I’m a lazy person. I like someone else to lay things out for me. Lately, things have changed. I want to change this habit. I don’t know if this is right or wrong. But at least the person who has to make this decision is me.”

Well, when you switch careers, then naturally, you have a new identity. However, when you haven’t found that new career yet, what are you? Even if you have a job, it’s not a career. So how do you identify yourself?

Been thinking about this lately, and then I landed on Ken Sheppardson’s landing page. It’s pretty simple. There’s definitely a man who has his career straight. He’s a programmer. That’s that. Doesn’t help me in my career change, BUT it gives me an idea on how to reduce what elements make me the person I am.

I really don’t have any hard skills like he does. So what can I do? Or rather, what am I willing to do for hours on end, and not think anything of. I mean, the best I can say is I’m a consumer, but then, I can’t say that completely, because I’m not a consumer of material items. On this website, I’ve talked about food, music, movies, languages. So I’m a “consumer of culture”. How would I sum up my landing page then? For that matter, how can I sum up my career skills? Hm…

I’m on a 道德經 roll, damnit!
道生一，一生二，二生三，三生萬物。萬物負陰而抱陽，沖氣以為和。
“The Dao is born of one, which then gives birth to two, two thus gives birth to three. Three gives birth to 10,000 (multiple) items. Multiple items carry the Dark (Yin), and hold onto the Light (Yang), and it bursts with harmony”

道(Tao)=一(one)
二(Two)=陰陽(Yin & Yang)
三(three)=萬物 (10,000/multple items)=和 (harmony), that comes from the opposing forces of the 陰陽.

Thus,

三和(Sam Woo/Three Harmonies) gives birth to 萬物 (10,000/multple items) that taste very, very delicious!!!!

The following are the locations that are still open as of the writing of this post:
The first. (Chinatown)
The most well-known (San Gabriel, CA)
The other San Gabriel location
Alhambra <-Actually, the Alhambra location isn't as good as the San Gabriel location. Rosemead

Cerritos
Irvine
San Diego

Scarborough (Toronto area)
Mississauga (Toronto Area)

Still listening to the lecture on 道德經 (Tao Teh Ching). It really is the Classical Liberal’s manual. There is very little I would disagree with. Except for the following passage:
不出戶知天下；不闚牖見天道。其出彌遠，其知彌少。是以聖人不行而知，不見而明，不為而成。
“Don’t step out your door, one knows everything under heaven; without opening one’s window, one can see he Way of heaven. The further one goes, the let’s one knows. The sage doesn’t obtain knowledge by traveling, they understand without having seen, and accomplish ends without sending out to do so.”

OK, I get that this is a hyperbolic way of saying that you need to internalize information alone, so that you can figure out who you are as a person, but I think travel can help clear your mind as well, especially if your immediate surrounding isn’t peaceful, or shall I say, “Full of Tao”.

But then of course, the next line goes…
為學日益，為道日損 (“He who devotes himself to learning (seeks) from day to day to increase his knowledge; he who devotes himself to the Dao (seeks) from day to day to diminish his doing.”)

So learning something, I guess I can get from travel. However, when it comes to being enlightened and knowing the Tao, I have to really internalize information, and decrease the things that I do, to keep my mind sharp. Hm…

But then some people interpret “為學日益” to be a bad thing, in that you’re looking for a pragmatic approach towards learning to achieve a certain goal, rather than learning to improve yourself as a person （絕學無類）. Hm… DAMNIT!

Screw it, I’m gonna’ go for the positive interpretation of 為學日益, in that learning to learn, a bit every day, helps with getting to the Tao, while to help with 為道日損, I should reduce my other activities to facilitate my learning.

After all, 當其無，有器之用 (When it is empty, it is full of use), then if 其出彌遠，其知彌少(the more one travels, the less one knows), then 知者不博，博者不知 (Those who know [the Tao] are not extensively learned; the extensively learned do not know it). Then by traveling, I don’t learn much, thus am not extensively learned, I think I can reach the Tao pretty quickly. =P

I’ve been taking the lazy man’s approach to researching the 道德經 (Tao Teh Ching) by listening to this lecture found on youtube:

And this is where the dilemma with ancient texts begin…

You see, after years and years of hand-copying a classic like this, some inconsistent variations have come about.

故能蔽不新成 vs 故能蔽而新成

According to the lecturer 李中華, cited a passage as 「故能蔽而新成」(03:13:04).
But CText.org has it as 「故能蔽不新成」.

I did a quick search, and found these entries:
http://xuqing111.blogspot.com/2012/07/blog-post_16.html
http://www.daodejing.org/15.html

Both acknowledged the existence of the other passages, but didn’t exactly say why they think one is the definitive answer over the other. Very 道 of them to do.

不知有之 vs 下知有之

Then there are the other inconsistencies…
「下知有之」=The [common] people at the base know of him [the leader]
「不知有之」=They did not know of him [the leader]

http://www.chineseclassic.com/content/1687
Has it as 「下知有之」. However…
http://blog.xuite.net/erickhera.tw/nomore/209678743-徐培剛向老子請道，(道德經)第十七章心得】「太上，不知有之。其次，親而譽之。其次，畏之。其次，侮之。信不足焉，有不信焉。悠兮其貴言，功成事遂，百姓皆謂我自然。 has it as 「不知有之」, which matches what Mr. 李中華 said in his lecture. However, he also acknowledged in his lecture, of the former example. And, that site with a non-SEO-friendly URL also had a picture of the passage using 下 instead of 不.

---

故令有所屬：見素抱樸，少私寡欲。

絕學無憂，唯之與阿，相去幾何？ _CText
or
故令有所屬：見素抱樸，少私寡欲，絕學無憂。

唯之與阿，相去幾何？ _李中華

The other problem with the Chinese language, is the lack of punctuation and spacing. Until the 20th century, when language reform took place, there was none of that. Everybody understood the texts “in context”.

Which is why we’re not sure where that phrase 「絕學無憂」is supposed to go. Even those commas, periods, spaces and colons featured above are estimates to help modern scholars take in words better, but can basically be moved around to get another meaning.

我獨怕兮其未兆；如嬰兒之未孩… 沌沌兮，俗人昭昭，我獨若昏…衆人皆有以，而我獨頑似鄙 _CText
or
我獨泊兮其未兆；沌沌兮如嬰兒之未孩… ，俗人昭昭，我獨昏昏…衆人皆有以，而我獨頑似鄙 _李中華

Then, there’s the next line, where every line has one word different:
唯 _CText
or
惟 _李中華

I guess both can be used as “only”, but 唯 may also be used under certain contexts as an affirmative (which in this line, it doesn’t). 惟 can be used as a contrasting conjunction “but”, or can mean to “think” (as in 思維／思惟).

故道大，天大，地大，王亦大 _CText
or
故道大，天大，地大，人亦大 _李中華

Now at this point, this is where I start to question the copy that CText has. Because their passage has 王 (King) being of great importance, while 李中華 has 人 as one of the big elements. The latter would actually seem to be fitting of what everyone knows as 老子 (Lao Tau)‘s classical liberalism. So putting a 王 (King) –the symbol of hierarchy and power– as opposed to the common 人 (people) would go against this ideal.

And in this following passage…
重為輕根，靜為躁君。是以聖人終日行不離輜重。雖有榮觀，燕處超然。奈何萬乘之主，而以身輕天下？輕則失本，躁則失君。
The portion that’s crossed out is interesting. Because the origins of 老子 have been a mystery. No one knows for sure who this guy is or where he was born. However, within the crossed-out passage, there’s a reference to 萬乘 (10,000 chariots). This would have meant that he couldn’t have been an early 春秋 (Spring-Autumn) Period, which was the earlier half of the 東周 (Eastern Zhou) dynasty. To have as many as 萬乘 (10,000 chariots), would mean it couldn’t have been the early stages of that period, where there was a lot of little countries; it had to be the 戰國時代 (Warring States Period), where most of the small countries were defeated, and absorbed into other nations, where fighting was fierce and required that sort of manpower. UNLESS, you believe that the words that were struck out were actually from 韓非 (Han Fei)‘s 喻老 (Lao Tau Annotations) that somehow made it into the original.

知其白，守其黑 _CText
or
知其白，守其辱 _李中華

黑 辱 Even though one literally means “black” and the other literally means “to insult/disgrace”, in this case, the latter word carries connotations towards the color black, so the meaning is the same according to 李中華.

將欲取天下而為之，吾見其不得已。天下神器，不可為也，為者敗之，執者失之。故物或行或隨；或歔或吹；或強或羸；或挫或隳。是以聖人去甚，去奢，去泰。 _CText
or
將欲取天下而為之，吾見其不得已。天下神器，不可為也，[不可執也。]為者敗之，執者失之。[是以聖人無為，故無敗；無執，無失。 夫物或行或隨；或歔或吹；或強或羸；或挫或隳。是以聖人去甚，去奢，去泰。 _李中華

---

Now, we have the same passage, but back to the punctuation issue again…
大道汎兮，其可左右 _CText
or
大道氾兮，其可左右 _李中華

And here’s another one-word difference:
道常無名。樸雖小，天下莫能臣也。
萬物恃之而生而不辭，功成不名有。
衣養萬物而不為主，常無欲，可名於小 _CText
or
道常無名。樸。雖小，天下莫能臣也。
萬物恃之而生而不辭，功成不名有。
衣養萬物而不為主，可名於小 _李中華
李中華 actually places brackets around 常無欲，, because he believes it shouldn’t be in there, but people still include it. He believes this was added later on.

And here’s another one-word difference:
昔之得一者：天得一以清；地得一以寧；
神得一以靈；谷得一以盈；
萬物得一以生；侯王得一以為天下貞 _CText
or
昔之得一者：天得一以清；地得一以寧；
神得一以靈；谷得一以盈；
萬物得一以生；侯王得一以為天下正 _李中華

李中華 says the last word is 正 (Proper), but in this context, would mean to “set proper” or 安定(to settle things down). CText has it as 貞, which the original meaning was to 卜問 (request a divination), which is done in “purity” rituals, so it carries the connotation of “pure”. So it would be “to make pure”.

and it goes on with
地無以寧，將恐發 (If the earth isn’t calm, it will explode/go to waste)
Written as 發 “faat” (explode, shoot out), but most people believe that it was the precursor word to 廢 (cripple) as in 荒廢 (lay waste).

It then follows on with
侯王無以貴高將恐蹶。 _CText
or
侯王無以正高將恐蹶。 _李中華
Within the same section, 李中華 maintains that it is 正, while CText has it as 貴 (high value).

Then these two passages are in different orders…
上德若谷；太白若辱；廣德若不足；
建德若偷；質真若渝；大方無隅；
大器晚成；大音希聲；大象無形；
道隱無名。夫唯道，善貸且成。 _CText
and
上德若谷；廣德若不足；建德若偷；
質真若渝；太白若辱；大方無隅；
大器晚成；大音希聲；大象無形；
道隱無名。夫唯道，善貸且成。 _李中華
One passage goes out of place, and it throws the whole thing off.

Then, in the line that starts off on harmony, it goes on with the following phrase:
人之所惡，唯孤、寡、不穀，而王公以為稱。故物或損之而益，或益之而損。人之所教，我亦教之。強梁者不得其死，吾將以為教父。
However, it doesn’t seem to fit with the rest of that passage, and seems to fit more the passage before. So some people wonder if it was originally text from elsewhere, or false words inserted. Can’t be sure.

Then, a couple lines down, there’s this…
躁勝寒靜勝熱 _CText
and
靜勝躁，寒勝熱 _李中華
From “constant action overcoming cold, and quietness overcoming heat” to “quietness overcomes constant action, while the calm cold wins over the heat”

不見而名 (Without seeing, one can name the item) _CText
and
不見而明 (Without seeing, one can understand it) _李中華

無遺身殃；是為習常 _CText
and
無遺身殃；是為習常 _李中華

大道甚夷，而民好徑 _CText
and
大道甚夷，而人好徑 _李中華
According to 李中華, whenever 老子 referred to common folk, he used the term 民 (folk, citizens). When he was referring to rulers, he used 人 (person/people). 好徑=love to take shortcuts. He also makes a comment on this phrase in the same section:
服文綵，帶利劍，厭飲食，財貨有餘；是謂盜夸. (The magistrates wear ornamented robes, carry sharp swords, pamper themselves in eating and drinking, and have a superabundance of property and wealth; – such people may be called giant robbers)
Where some believe it’s not 夸 (great, big, exaggerated), but 竽 (a flute) can also fit the bill, because a flute is a musical device used to lead soldiers into battle, as such, you would be “leading people to become robbers” in the case of the above sentence.

Next line…
善建不拔，善抱者不脫，子孫以祭祀不輟 _CText
and
善建者不拔，善抱者不脫，子孫以祭祀不輟 _李中華

Then as it goes on…
修之於國，其德乃豐 … 故以身觀身，以家觀家，以鄉觀鄉，以國觀國 _CText
and
修之於邦，其德乃豐 … 故以身觀身，以家觀家，以鄉觀鄉，以邦觀邦 _李中華

---

大國者下流，天下之交，天下之牝 _CText
and
大邦者下流，天下之牝，天下之交 _李中華
邦 & 國 can be interchangeable in this context, but the other two phrases are switched. The rest of the section has the same differences in words.

知不知上；不知知病
夫唯病病，是以不病。
聖人不病，以其病病，是以不病。 _CText
and
知不知，上；不知知，病
聖人不病，以其病病，
夫唯病病，是以不病。 _李中華

In the very first line of the section, it’s the same, but the punctuation and emphasis changes the meaning. After that, there’s one portion that gets repeated twice above, and is put in a different order than what’s below.

和大怨，必有餘怨； {After reconciling animosity, some will still remain}
安可以為善？ (What’s the best course of action?)
是以聖人執左契^*，而不責於人。 (The sage keeps the left copy of an engagement contract, and doesn’t require the speedy repayment of the other party.)
有德司契，無德司徹^**。(If he has virtue, he would use a debt contract. If he has no virtue, he exacts taxes and rent.)
天道無親，常與善人。 (The heavenly way is not close/prejudice, it is always kind to everyone.) _CText
and
和大怨，必有餘怨；
抱怨以德，安可以為善？ (Repaying animosity with virtue, how could that be the best course of action?)
是以聖人執左契^*，而不責於人。
有德司契，無德司徹^**。
天道無親，常與善人。 _李中華

Professor 李中華 believes that 以德報怨 (which is in 第六十三章[Section 63]) should actually be in this section (第七十九章/Section 79), as per 陳鼓應’s version. Mr. 李中華 says it’s likely that it was later generations that misplaced that phrase in Section 63. He also says that “是以聖人執左契^*，而不責於人。” (issuing engagement contracts, and not asking for immediate repayment) is the way to avoid any hatred/animosity. I personally don’t think it will prevent animosity necessarily, but do think it’s a way to prevent further animosity from getting beyond anyone’s control.
^*契＝A contract. Originally with the terms and conditions carved in wood or bamboo, and cut in half. The right copy would remain with the issuer (expromissor), and the left copy is given to the creditor/borrower. The debt issued, will be paid at a later date, settled upon by both parties.
^**徹＝Is another taxation system the nobility has placed on farmers, with specific dates and deadlines that MUST be met, and are nowhere near as flexible as 契.
————-
契 & 徹: Collecting money with 契 is not as strict as taking payments under 徹. Although there is usually a payment date set with 契, 老子 is saying it doesn’t have to be strictly enforced. 徹 on the other hand, requires means the nobility will strictly come after you for rent, and for using the owner’s land to have the rights to farm (agricultural indentured servitude).