Chapter of the Week: #78 [Archive]

Luke Abbott · July 2005

I've never been to Hawaii, Lava Rock, but I plan to soon. My husband and I turn 50 in three more years, so I figured a trip to Hawaii, our 50th state, would be fun. I like theme parties...can you tell?

Luke Abbott · July 2005

Each week we address one chapter of the Tao Te Ching. Chapter 78 was originally featured on the 2nd week in July.

Note: The Tao Te Ching can be obscure, especially if you think you're supposed to understand what it's saying! We find it easier and more instructive to simply contemplate how the chapter resonates with your personal experience. Becoming more aware at this fundamental level simplifies life. This approach conforms to the view that true knowing lies within ourselves. Thus, when a passage in the scripture resonates, you've found your inner truth. The same applies for when it evokes a question; questions are the grist for self realization.

Chapter 78
In the world there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for
attacking that which is hard and strong nothing can surpass it. This is because
there is nothing that can take its place.

That the weak overcomes the strong,
And the submissive overcomes the hard,
Everyone in the world knows yet no one can put this knowledge into practice.

Therefore the sage says,
One who takes on himself the humiliation of the state,
Is called a ruler worthy of offering sacrifices to the gods of earth and millet;
One who takes on himself the calamity of the state,
Is called a king worthy of dominion over the entire empire.

Straightforward words
Seem paradoxical.

Carl · July 2005

[Note: I italicize phrases I borrow from the chapter, and link to phrases I borrow from other chapters to help tie chapters together. Some say that this makes reading it tedious at times... oh well

]

Why can no one put this knowledge into practice? It is no mystery really; our biology has us by the you know what! This stirs an unending sense of humiliation in us. Rather than take on the humiliation, we desire to rise above it, to conquer it and realize our 'true' potential... the Christian's 'original sin' notwithstanding.

Yet we always get bogged down by our nature, don't we? So we hide behind a facade of stuff: clothes, ideas, titles, skills, friends, self rightousness,... and pretend we are in control. Or, if we aren't in control, then those whom we idolize must be, and thus some of that 'glow' reflects back onto us. There's hope for us too, we feel.

We believe we are in generally in control of our lives. Of course, we say, "Anyone can be president if they try". Surely, all we need to do is apply our self properly and we can put this knowledge into practice? We project this notion of free choice onto each other, and then scurrying about passing the buck by judging other's shortcomings. The more fault we can find in other people's shortcomings, the less we notice our own absence of free will. That's handy don't you think? Human children are so cute!

Straight forward words, seem paradoxical because our ideals are out of sync with how nature actually works. We expect reality to proceed this way... or that way... and wham! The paradox experience reflects a world view inconsistent with reality. Why? Our 'common' world view is based in our biology. We haven't evolved biologically to see nature as it is; we evolved to see nature in a way that boosts our ability to survive. That the weak overcomes the strong, runs completely opposite to what our gut instinct tells us. We all 'know' strong and hard bring survival and success - a crucial priority of life. We want nothing to do with failure, mistakes and [chref=40]weakness[/chref]. It is no wonder that Taoism does not attract [chref=20]the multitude[/chref]. And what's that about "the meek shall inherit the earth"?

Am I being sarcastic?

zenjew · July 2005

Interesting discussion. To me, it seems as if a bit of self-righteousness slips into your post, as in "Taoism is for the select few who see the light" so to speak. Surely that was not your intent (and can I call you "Surely"?

), and the whole idea of trying to promote Taoism sounds a bit funny. People come to Taosim or Taoist-like attitudes to life simply by accident or philosophical inclinations (the latter for me).
I'm enjoying your commentaries and the whole web site.
Speaking of failure, the writer William Gaddis has a wonderful essay on failure in America, called "The Rush for Second Place." Worth checking out. Oh, while I'm on the subject of books, Raymond Smullyan's excellent "The Tao is Silent" is one of my faves!

Carl · July 2005

[cite] zenjew:[/cite]
(1)..."Taoism is for the select few who see the light" .... Surely that was not your intent.
(2)... the whole idea of trying to promote Taoism sounds a bit funny.

Two good points, which I'll tackle straight away...

(1) Taoism is for anyone for whom a Taoist world 'clicks'. Taoism (or what ever we want to call 'it') doesn't claim it's the 'true' view, i.e., the [chref=1]name that can be named... [/chref], unlike most other religions, I guess. In that regard, it's hard to even say that Taoist thought is a religion as such. As far as a "select few": that is indeed the situation. Only a few folks are drawn to the Taoist viewpoint. It runs counter to much of our 'common sense'. This quote sums it up well:

[chref=43]That is why I know the benefit of resorting to no action.
The teaching that uses no words, the benefit of resorting to no action,
these are beyond the understanding of all but a very few in the world. [/chref]

Is this Taoist view the 'light', as you put it, and the 'common sense' view false? Well, only a 'select few' still think the earth is flat. So,...? Wouldn't most folks find many Taoist views as crazy as the flat earth view. Who's crazy? Who's right? Who cares? We see what we believe, and believe what we see. It is up to the individual to kick the tires.

(2) Ha! Evangelize the Taoism? Essentially this site reflects my pathetic attempt to participate socially with like minded 'crazy Taoist minded' folks. And, what do I mean by 'Taoist minded'. Let's just fall back on chapter one... To paraphrase: 'The Taoist mind [chref=1]that can be spoken of...' [/chref] Why is it pathetic? Because anything that passes for a 'Taoist view' is so far outside the mainstream that I (we) would have a better chance finding community participation by joining a tribe of cannibals.... but, I'm cutting back on red meat.

Seriously, this site is an extension of our Sunday Taoist meeting. We've always thought of this meeting place as a kind of social watering hole for Taoist minded and curious folks to stop by on their way through life. So, welcome! Come on in and sit a spell.

Allandnone · July 2005

I am not a cannibal, but I do eat my share of meat.

I think I am attracted to Taoism because I believe in an "impersonnel God". It must be a belief, there is no way I can prove it. I attempt to understand this "impersonnel God" by way of knowledge instead of worship. I am not saying one way is better than another. So, I read the Tao Te Ching, Upanishads, The Bhagavad Gita, The Dhammapada, Tao of Physics etc. to understand this "impersonnal god". I know this is a fruitless endeavor, but it seems to be my heart path.

A moment of small enlightenment seems to come when I let it all go!

PS: What I enjoy about this web site is that I can reflect upon others insights that have a similar bent towards Taoism, and perhaps they too belive in an "impersonnel God". There are not a lot of people like me in the Bible Belt of Tennessee (ha ha).

Jlynn · July 2005

Your post sparked my interest. I have recently come to terms with the fact that I am deeply disturbed by the personification of "God". I'm not sure if this would be the correct thread to jump into, to have this discussion, but I'd really like to talk with you more on your views of "God". It seems to me that we may have quite similar veiws.

J-lynn

Allandnone · July 2005

It is very difficult to explain in words, but I will do the best I can. By an "impersonnel God", I mean for example some form of "energy", perhaps even conscious energy. For example some people believe that a personnel God, via Jesus Christ, Allah etc. creates the energy. I look at it as the personnel God is coming from the energy instead of vice versa. The "energy" is the source not the "personnel God". And if I have offended anyone please accept my appologies in advance. Am I making any sense? And of course, there is always someone to ask, where does this energy come from? Who created it? Why does it have to be a WHO?

I think the ultimate challenge for us all is to get beyond the sybollism of a personnel or impersonnel God. I think it is our own symbollism which becomes the ultimate barrier to our UNDERSTANDING of what is all around us right at this very moment.

What do you think? :yy:

Lynn Cornish · July 2005

I totally agree with you Allandnone. In fact, it might make more sense for God to be a verb.

Jlynn · July 2005

You have said just what I had hoped you would say, Allandnone.

Here is the way that I usually try to explain my views on this:

I don't believe in "God" as a persona. What I think is that this "being", if you will, that people refer to as god is just a big ball of energy. This energy can be found everywhere around us. After all, everything is made up of energy, is it not? This "ball of energy" is the core of all that is, was, or ever will be. This energy is also known as the "collective conscience" or "collective unconscience". It binds us all together. I don't think that this energy has a conscience of it's own, per se, but rather that it is the "collective conscience" that controls all aspects of life, in general. Everything is "born" from this central energy, and all energy returns there eventually.

Does any of this make sense?
I hope I explained it well enough...
Anyway, I believe we would mostly agree on this viewpoint. I am so glad to find others who agree with me on this.. I'm always being told I'm a weirdo, so I mostly keep my opinions of "God" to myself. It will be very nice to discuss this with people who will not only NOT think I'm cooky, but will (hopefully) also offer information to prove, disprove, or otherwise challange me to think on this a little harder...
I have thought this for quite a while, yet I was never able to find others who thought this way. Granted, I only recently tried looking on the internet.

J-lynn

Jlynn · July 2005

Oh, and one other thing..
I don't think anyone created the energy. It just IS. It cannot be created or destroyed, therefore it couldn't have been created...
Why can't people just accept things for being what they are and not question where they came from? Of course, I am guilty of this as well... I like to know why things are the way they are.. but I think I would be much happier about things the more I learn to just accept them and not "overthink" about it.
Do I just sound confused or what? I really am not confused, but the more I type, the more I feel like I'm talking in circles... :?

J-lynn

Allandnone · July 2005

Hi Jlynn,
I think you are not a weirdo at all. Perhaps living in a Western Culture gives you that feedback. The other side of the world basically believes in an "impersonnel God", for example places like China, Japan, and Thailand. With regards to "but will (hopefully) also offer information to prove, disprove, or otherwise challange me to think on this a little harder..." there are excellent books on Modern Physics for layman entitled Tao of Physics and Dancing Wu Li Masters. Believe it or not Modern Physics is pointing in the same direction that you believe in intuitively. Of course not all Physicists will agree with this statement. The works of Fritjof Capra, a Physicist, do. If you are interested in more please email me and I would be glad to refer you to all the stuff I have been using the last few years. And of course, this is an excellent web site to have our dialogue.
Cheers,

Carl · July 2005

[cite] Jlynn:[/cite]1)...Why can't people just accept things for being what they are and not question where they came from?

2)....but I think I would be much happier about things the more I learn to just accept them and not "overthink" about it. ...the more I type, the more I feel like I'm talking in circles...

J-lynn

1) Two basic animal drives account for this:

The first is curiosity, an survival asset which drives an animal to drive look 'over there' on the chance it'll find food. In our big brain with it's 'objective' mind this drive us to wonder about origins, speculate and come up with theories - answers (food for thought).

Then comes fear, a survival asset which keeps an animal alive to the unknown; there might be a tiger lurking there. In humans, this fear also drives us to cling to those speculative answers we conjure up, until, after generations, these theories become 'fact'. Fear drives us to hold on to these 'facts' so we don't have to face the unknown - the 'tiger' lurking in the void.

2) It sounds like your ready to face the 'tiger', and thus Taoism should fit you like a glove. Welcome home!

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Chapter of the Week: #78 [Archive]

Comments