Chapter of the Week: #43 [Archive]

Comments

• Luke Abbott

  May 2006 edited June 2006

  Each week we address one chapter of the Tao Te Ching. 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 43
  The most submissive thing in the world can ride roughshod over the hardest in
  the world-that which is without substance entering that which has no crevices.
  
  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.
  
  Read commentary previously posted for this chapter.
• Carl

  May 2006 edited December 1969

  [Note: I italicize phrases I borrow from the chapter, and link to phrases I borrow from other chapters to help tie chapters together. While making it more tedious to read, :? the Tao Te Ching is best pondered in the context of the whole.
  
  The benefit of resorting to no action is also translated as taking no action and the advantage of non-action. To some this comes off as saying we should avoid action which is nonsense, of course. Our problem is not action, but rather, [chref=16]wilful[/chref] re-action! The key here is the benefit, which often lies hidden from our view like the base of an iceberg. The reason why the benefit of resorting to no action, [is] beyond the understanding of all but a very few in the world is that we instinctively take the obvious and tangible 'tip' of Nature more seriously and react. The 'base', [chref=14]indistinct and shadowy image that is without substance[/chref], doesn't command our attention. However, like the iceberg, that side of Nature is the driving 'force' of existence. A deep moment to moment awareness of the benefit of resorting to no action helps counteract our reactive instincts. This [chref=63]is why in the end no difficulties can get the better of [us][/chref]. The benefit cannot be overstated, and yet doing so is useless because...
  
  The same principle applies to true teaching and knowing. Only as our [chref=10]discernment penetrates the four quarters, are [we] capable of not knowing anything[/chref]. In a way, we really use words to get beyond [chref=23]words[/chref], i.e., [chref=36]If [we] would have a thing laid aside, [we] must first set it up.[/chref] How can a teaching that uses words teach something that lies beyond words? Words just allow us to go through the motions until we 'get there' - and where is 'there', but 'here'. There real benefit of words lies in socially connecting us to each other. [chref=17]Words[/chref] convey no truth; the truth lies in the mind of the 'listener' (observer). Words actually play a large role in anchoring our awareness to the obvious, the describable,... the tip of the iceberg. Rather than 'enlighten' human consciousness, words are the ball and chain in human awareness.
  
  The Tao Te Ching uses words to point to the folly of words which probably [chref=78]seems paradoxical[/chref]. Naturally, it is the use of words that turns it into a paradox. We can only experience (feel) its straightforward truth as its truth bubbles up through our awareness. And this takes time, given our mind's ability to hold onto 'external objects' of awareness (words and the emotion they shadow). Nevertheless, when we feel all words boil down to simply two sides of the same coin, what else can we do but [chref=71]think that [we] do not know[/chref]. Knowing is simpler than words and [chref=32]names[/chref] can model or teach.
• Strange Days

  May 2006 edited December 1969

  It is very interesting passage. I do tend to think that there is a possibility that non action goes further than negating wilful reaction however. I just read a very interesting article by Russell Kirkland ... http://www.arches.uga.edu/~kirkland/rk/pdf/pubs/ECO.pdf
  in which he argues, quite successfully i believe, that nonaction is also not taking action to save endangered species or a child from drowning. It is certainly worth the read. I cannot even pretend to do it any justice here, but to highlight a little ... what if the child that is saved from drowning was a future Hitler? ... anyway, for those interested in what I believe to be a profound modern interpretation of non action and the Tao it is worth checking out. If the link above doesn't work the title of the article is
  '"Responsible non-action" in a natural world: perspectives from the Nei-Yeh, Chuang-Tzu, and Tao-Te Ching'
  cheers
• Carl

  June 2006 edited December 1969

  Welcome Strange Days,
  
  I read some of Russell's article, enough to make a hopefully informed comment, so here goes...
  

  [cite] Strange Days:[/cite]... he [Russel] argues, quite successfully I believe, that nonaction is also not taking action to save endangered species or a child from drowning.

  
  Basically, this is nonsense. It sounds Taoist, but it ignores a crucial reality. We are natural, we are animals! For example, when referring species extinction, he says "The only logical answer to this situation is that the Taoist sees no action to be required, for he trusts that the world is already operating as it is supposed to be operating, and all human activity ? no matter how well-intentioned ? can add nothing of value to such operation, and can logically only interfere with the course of nature as it is already unfolding."
  
  Certainly, "no action is required". But to say that "action can logically only interfere with the course of nature" is shallow of three counts. (1) Life is action. It is [chref=16]willful innovation [in action] while ignorant of the constant[/chref] that causes the woe - not woe to nature, but woe to the innovator! After all, [chref=5]heaven and earth are ruthless[/chref]. (2) Neither [chref=2]Something [or] Nothing[/chref] can "interfere with the course of nature". The idea that humanity "interferes with the course of nature" is just another symptom of our arrogance - and our sense of disconnection which causes that. Also, "interfere" with who's agenda anyway? The only agenda I notice is humanity's. And true enough, we are always shooting ourselves in the foot. Nevertheless, we are nature even though we feel disconnected in our psyche from nature. We can thank the mind and its "logic" for that. (3) "Logic" is the shallow ripples of thought... [chref=32]names[/chref] and [chref=23]words[/chref] from which our great [chref=18]cleverness emerges[/chref]. Need I say more? No... please... no! :shock:
  
  Forgive me for being so blunt. If I was responding directly to Russell I'd probably be a little more couth. In my view he gets it half right. He ignores the fact that we, as animals, respond to saving the child floating down river or the species from extinction not because we 'choose' to, but because we feel the need to. Life's action - all life, all action - is driven by emotion (instinct). Curiously, the first thing that 'spiritual' thinkers seem to do is attempt to separate man from animal. You know, God created man in his image, and all that (when in truth the reverse seems the more likely). To top it all off, Russell's view is loaded down with that ubiquitous implied free will we see everywhere, East or West, North or South.
  
  Again, welcome to this space. The points I raise might be a little 'raw', but we might as well get that out of the way, eh mate? By the way, I emigrated to Australia in 1963. Loved it... but itchy feet drove me onward...
• Lynn Cornish

  June 2006 edited December 1969

  Thank you once again, Carl, for articulating what I cannot. I know what feels true and what doesn't, but I never know why. :oops: Then you go and explain it to me.
  
  Yes, of course, it's not the action that's the problem, it's the clinging to the results of the action, it's the inability to *be* in the acting, expecting nothing, being "aware of the constant" in every moment.
  
  Your understanding is awsome.
• Strange Days

  June 2006 edited December 1969

  Hi Carl .... Hi Lyn ... *waves hello*
  
  Thanks for the replies. I find this stuff oh so interesting.
  
  I can certainly see your point Carl. I managed to make it thru the article and once all the rhetoric is stripped away there are certainly some interesting points to be made. It is probably written a little more emotive than what I would like, however, the thing that appeals to me in that article is the sense of arrogance we as a species seem to have about being 'saviours'.
  Afterall, Bush did condone the Iraq shaninigans through the rhetoric of 'it is for their own good, we can save them from themselves etc etc'
  I guess it appears (to me) that much of the conflict in the world is from the righteous attitude of 'we know what's best for them' mentality. This is the part of the article I like.
  However, yes, if a child was drowning in a river i would, of course, feel impelled to jump in. Spontaneous self expression is perhaps the action that the Tao would condone?
  
  Awesome to have stumbled upon this forum and I enjoyed reading your response
  
  I am new to Taoism (last couple of months) and have enjoyed learning about it immensely.
• Carl

  June 2006 edited December 1969

  [cite] Strange Days:[/cite]... Thanks for the replies.
  
  (1) I managed to make it thru the article...
  
  (2)....the thing that appeals to me in that article is the sense of arrogance we as a species seem to have about being 'saviors'.
  
  (3) I guess it appears (to me) that much of the conflict in the world is from the righteous attitude of 'we know what's best for them' mentality.
  
  (4) I am new to Taoism (last couple of months) and have enjoyed learning about it immensely.

  
  No, no, no... Thank you for stirring the pot some!
  
  (1) Anything important is best said as briefly as possible - a page or less hopefully. More [chref=23]words[/chref] only serve to obfuscate. The brevity, yet depth, of both Buddha's Four Truths and the Tao Te Ching exemplify how 'less is more'.
  
  (2) I used to feel that way. However, by regarding what a 'think' I see as a symptom of something deeper, I look deeper until I find a balanced view. This approach allows me to [chref=73]overcome without contending[/chref]. For example, I notice that arrogance seems to be a symptom of insecurity and fear. The more insecure the more arrogant, i.e., the biology of a strong front counterbalancing inner weakness. Thus, "we" are a [chref=39]hapless[/chref] insecure species, lost in our mind's words and therefore disconnected from nature. A conscious (or subconscious) awareness of past and future loss ('mini' deaths if not Death) haunts us, and pushes us to over re-action. We didn't 'choose' to be ourselves. No fault. No blame. As Jesus said, "forgive them for they know not what they do". We are the blind leading the blind. How can "we" fault such a handicap as "we" have? Is not pity a more fitting emotion? Ignorance is not blissful in the long run. I suspect that if we could ever let go of our self proclaimed superiority on one hand, yet avoid the 'original sinner' label on the other, we could simply see ourselves more honestly. Such self knowledge would help us all manage our situation better. Oh well, maybe 'tomorrow', eh?
  
  (3) Well, this is symptomatic of the fact that 'we' don't [chref=47]know[/chref]. We are simply children compensating for our shortcomings. Also, the tribal instinct pushes us to enlist others in our paradigm. Strength in numbers you know. The self "righteous attitude" you notice is simply a sign of personal insecurity, if not fear. The question to ask... why does this surface "arrogance", or the underlying weakness from which it springs, bother you? Is it not that we harbor unrealistic expectations of ourselves (of course, all expectations are unrealistic, by definition). Our judgements reflect our expectations. Our expectations reflect our needs and fears. Needs and fears drive life, all life. Once you accept that, it becomes much easier to [chref=61]take the lower position[/chref].
  
  (4) It is really quite a [chref=64]journey[/chref] for anyone [chref=20]foolish and uncouth[/chref] enough to head this [chref=21]way[/chref]. :yy:
• Strange Days

  June 2006 edited December 1969

  [More words only serve to obfuscate. The brevity, yet depth, of both Buddha's Four Truths and the Tao Te Ching exemplify how 'less is more'.]
  
  True. However, this doesn't seem to deter me. I am not sure why. I do enjoy reading. I just like words.
  
  [Is not pity a more fitting emotion?]
  
  I suspect compassion might be useful.
  
  [Well, this is symptomatic of the fact that 'we' don't know. We are simply children compensating for our shortcomings.]
  
  Yes. But our politicians would have us believe otherwise.
  
  [The self "righteous attitude" you notice is simply a sign of personal insecurity, if not fear. The question to ask... why does this surface "arrogance", or the underlying weakness from which it springs, bother you?]
  
  That is a good question and one worth pondering.
  
  Personally, I cannot think of anything worse than someone wanting to help me out the way they want to help me out. To me, it is a violation of rights and respect. There's my expectations.
  I like helping people out, if that's what they want. I do not expect that they should help me out in return. I also expect that if a person wants help, they will ask.
  
  [Needs and fears drive life, all life.]
  
  Perhaps this is the 'underlying weakness' from which it springs. So why does this bother me.
  It is a rather pertinent point. One I had not considered so bluntly. I like it. The simplicity.
  
  Is it possible, do you think, to use the Tao as a basis for ethical policy development in systems of government?[/quote]
• TheNowSeeker

  June 2006 edited December 1969

  *peeps head round the corner* hello
  

  Is it possible, do you think, to use the Tao as a basis for ethical policy development in systems of government?

  
  I cant wait to hear what Carl has to say about this... so many a paradox! (and i can almost hear the hearty laughter of Chuang Tzu rolling across the hills )
  
  The Tao Te Ching has much to say that seems to be instructional in regards to ruling the people, which is reflective of the state of action-less action born from a balanced heart where bias or preferences dissapear and where things are allowed to be as they are.
  It has been said that the way to govern a people is the way you would cook a small fish. With a very light touch.
  
  I darent say anymore cos It sounds like I think im "right" or that I "think" I know what Im talking about...
  b-but... did you say "use the Tao" ? oops!
  
  All i WILL say is something that has been day by day slowly, slowly, sinking deeper and deeper in as the clock spins:
  
  We cannot "use" the Tao in seeking results.
  Better to seek the Tao and let the results take care of them self.
• Lynn Cornish

  June 2006 edited December 1969

  I suspect that if we could ever let go of our self proclaimed superiority on one hand, yet avoid the 'original sinner' label on the other, we could simply see ourselves more honestly.

  
  Just one quickie. I heard this expressed quite succinctly at an AA meeting. The fellow said he when he first came to AA he "felt like the piece of s__t at the center of the universe." I could so relate to that!
• Carl

  June 2006 edited December 1969

  [cite] Strange Days:[/cite]
  1) I just like words.
  2) I suspect compassion might be useful.
  3) Yes. But our politicians would have us believe otherwise.
  4) There's my expectations.
  5) One I had not considered so bluntly. I like it. The simplicity.
  6) Is it possible, do you think, to use the Tao as a basis for ethical policy development in systems of government?

  1) I must too... kind of a love hate relationship I guess...
  
  2) compassion = pity (essentially)
  
  3) politicians are children too. The 'fault' lies with the believer, no?
  
  4) The expectation you have are different in 'direction' than those who expect you to conform to their way. Well, only different on the surface. Deeper down you may find profound similarity. Look!
  
  5) Yes, simplicity feels very comfortable. It is ironic that we tend to complicate everything. Our brain has a mind of own. :idea:
  
  6) I could rationalize a '[chref=18]clever[/chref]' scenarios for such. Alas, a government is simply a reflection of those governed. If the people were simple and ethical, the government would be simple and ethical. Ah, shucks.
  
  I look at government as simply an extension of the tribe, and the tribe as a simply an extension of the family. At the family level (head there of), the way 'works' as a governing policy of the family. Maybe at the tribal level too, if the tribe is intimate (less than a few dozen people I suppose). Post agricultural revolution societies lack that primordial intimacy and thus hold themselves together through myth (paradigms). 'Experts' (i.e., preachers, priest, teachers, politicians, 'experts', scientists, generals, artists, writers, farmers, plumbers...) become the 'heads of the family' in such societies (virtually all now). And we all rush around in circles, no one is in charge, no one knows what they are doing (really) because everyone is attempting to reconcile the paradigm with reality. All paradigms are illusionary fabrications built upon ideals which are based on needs and fears - beginning with the paradigm of 'I', the illusion of self.
  
  Oh my, too many words. Maybe not so far, but where I could go with this - just don't get me started! :roll: Let me just end with a few relevant quotes:
  
  [chref=80]
  * Reduce the size and population of the state. ...
  * Even when they have ships and carts, they will have no use for them...
  * Bring it about that the people will return to the use of the knotted rope...
  * Will be content in their abode...
  * And happy in the way they live...
  * Though adjoining states are within sight of one another, and the sound of dogs
  barking and cocks crowing in one state can be heard in another, yet the people
  of one state will grow old and die without having had any dealings with those of another. [/chref]
  
  [chref=7]Is it not because he is without thought of self that he is able to accomplish
  his private ends? [/chref]
  
  [chref=19]Exhibit the unadorned and embrace the uncarved block,
  Have little thought of self and as few desires as possible. [/chref]
  
  Well, we can see why 'government policy' has nothing to do with the way. This lies within each of us. As each of us, the governed become [chref=37]transformed[/chref], the government will reflect that transformation. Speaking of transformed...
  
  [chref=57]Hence the sage says,
  I take no action and the people are transformed of themselves;
  I prefer stillness and the people are rectified of themselves;
  I am not meddlesome and the people prosper of themselves;
  I am free from desire and the people of themselves become simple like the uncarved block.
  [/chref]
  
  There is light at the end of this tunnel. We are just not going to get there today. I speculated a little on this 'light' at the bottom of Ethics: Do They Work Anymore?. So far this is the only circumstance that I see that might actually influence humanity's approach to life.
• Carl

  June 2006 edited December 1969

  [cite] TheNowSeeker:[/cite]
  1)... I can almost hear the hearty laughter of Chuang Tzu rolling across the hills
  2)... The Tao Te Ching has much to say that seems to be instructional in regards to ruling the people,
  3)... did you say "use the Tao" ?

  1)
  
  2) Ruling (governing) the people begins with 'governing' oneself. Thus, I personalize such references. Also, I interpret what the Tao Te Ching says as more of a comment on how things are, than a proscription for what I 'should' do. Having no free will, 'should' becomes a meaningless fantasy. It is more than enough just [chref=71]to know[/chref] and remember that I know. whew!
  
  3) The beauty of the word "tao", the basis of the Taoist point of view, is that it translates to: road, way, path; channel, course; way, path. We don't "use" a path to do something, we 'walk' a path to get somewhere... in the end, [chref=33]contentment[/chref].
• Carl

  June 2006 edited December 1969

  [cite] Lynn Cornish:[/cite]...the fellow said he when he first came to AA he "felt like the piece of s__t at the center of the universe."

  This is why I find the Taoist point of view so restful. It 'frees' me to be no more than I am, i.e., to be natural. In being natural I can [chref=44]know contentment and will suffer no disgrace[/chref]. This is impossible as long as we 'buy' into the illusion of the self and its free will, and all that civilization attaches to these myths.
  
  If we [chref=71]think that[/chref] we are, we are asleep to who we are.