Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
How to Follow What Can't be Followed?
[chref=1]The Way that can be spoken of
Is not the constant Way;
The Name that can be named
Is not the constant Name.[/chref]
Over the past year, I've buried my nose in a few Taoist books. I've heard them describe so many things -- "how" Taoists are Taoists, what kind of people they are, and so forth.
For example, I've heard the analogy that those who follow the Tao are like cats falling from trees -- they relax themselves in the face of whatever they're experiencing. "Be like water; never resist," they say.
And yet, are they not trying to speak of the Way which cannot be spoken? Everything I've read I hold against those very first verses, and sometimes it seems contradictory. To say that we must always "relax" and never "resist" sounds like too rigid of a rule -- very un-Tao-like to me. If there is non-resistance, than there must be resistance, because they create each other and sticking to either one is unhealthy.
I have my own ideas about the "solution" to this dilemma, but I want to hear what yours are first.
Comments
Oddly enough, such keeping to the role of the female actually make any 'resistance' we engage in work better. Things are not as they seem.
By the way, like you, I find such advice as "Be like water; never resist," without depth of understanding, especially the "never resist" part. However, many people seek simplistic shallow answer to life, and so these cliche's fill a purpose in their own right.
Like you said, I think those descriptions, to "take the lower position" and "don't resist," are like advice. But before I explain what I mean by "advice," I'll explain my personal idea, first.
I've read that the Tao is that great something that is responsible for the "appropriate" arrangement of all things. Everything is a part of the Tao, and thus everything's inner nature is what it needs to be. Water flows, rocks sit, and animals do what they do, because you could say they're "inwardly instructed" to do such. Water doesn't say "I should flow" and birds don't say "I should fly south for the winter." They just do.
But we humans, having put our brains on a pedestal, have allowed our brains to dictate to us what is appropriate, rather than listening to our inner nature. So we follow rules and "shoulds," always following a set path (no matter how complex), assuming this will lead us where we want to go.
From self-examination I've discovered there's some part of myself, seemingly separate from my "mind" (I assume this is what others call the "ego" or the "self" ) that "I" can't control. It's that invisible something that tells me how I feel and, often, what I feel compelled to do. Some people might call it emotion, "gut instinct," or mere impulse, but I find it hard to put my finger on -- it's something too deep for me to define. I don't know why it makes me feel the way I do, or compel me to do what I do. I can't see it "think," I don't see the reasoning that it goes through before making a decision -- the answer just appears seemingly out of nowhere.
Frequently, my "mind" argues with this other part of myself. My "mind" says I should follow these rules or this method, but this "Something" twists up my guts and gives me this awful feeling that I think of as rusty cogs grinding together. To put it more simply, often when my mind says "Should," this Something says "No." (Sometimes it agrees, but more often not.)
If any part of me is my "inner nature," I suppose it's this Something. (And yet, the fact that I've so easily "identified" my "inner nature" bothers me... as if it should be more elusive. But I won't get into that.) Not that my mind is bad -- they seem to get along quite well sometimes, such as when I'm programming computers.
But let me get back to my original topic. What I find curious about those first verses is that, apparently, the Way cannot be followed, but it does exist. I suspect that we don't so much follow the Way, but let it lead us. The mind can't lead us, because it's too limited to conceptualize the Way and where it "goes," but this Something seems to know. And that's why I brought this topic up -- because frequently I feel compelled to do things that don't seem "right." Sometimes I feel compelled to resist rather than relax. But, perhaps, what we are not meant to resist is our inner nature (that Something) and what it tells us, rather than simply "don't resist the World"? (But this, to me, also feels too simple, like "never resist." )
And about the "advice," I think once we come to truly realize the benefits of such things, it becomes easier for us to comply with them. For example, I used to be a huge (excuse my language) attention whore. One day I played with the idea of not being the center of attention, and found that to be quite pleasant. Understanding it now, I find it easier to "comply" with that idea.
I hope any of that makes sense. Maybe I'm over-analyzing. Maybe I'm just crazy.
--
There's one more thing I feel I must mention, although I know this post is long enough. I've heard many people suggest that "emotions are bad" and therefore you should "control" them, and in my post I've basically said that "forceful thoughts (Shoulds) are bad (if they disagree with emotion, instinct, whatever)" and therefore you should "ignore" them.
What bothers me about ALL of this is... BOTH thoughts and emotions are a part of our nature as human beings. And I'm compelled to think that since we have them, they must be there for a good reason, whatever it might be. So is it even appropriate to reject one over the other? But then the problems becomes what to do when they disagree, as we tear our hair out.
And this is the point at which my mind gives up thinking altogether.
What I've learned so far is that relaxation and breathing and merely tools to help us become increasingly aware of our body-mind connection. Whether or not we attempt to reject emotions or hold onto them - is still a process of the mind. The point of mediation and yoga is to cultivate this awareness of self and body and to not try to change it, just watch it come and go, passing like clouds. If your mind attempts to resist emotions, you should just observe this. If it attempts to hold onto emotions or thoughts, you should just observe this too. This practice is called non-action, doing by not doing. You just let yourself go, watching but not being affected. Even when you become affected, for better or worse, well you just kind of watch that go by too. Almost like being in third person, watching your sense of self as an actor on a stage.
It is in this state that we realize the mind is simply trying to validate and hold onto itself. From this we realize that the rationalizations and answers we seek are only more mental constructs. I too often come out of a meditative state to think I've finally figured "it" out. But that's just another concept, right?
I like your thinking. You say, "I hope any of that makes sense. Maybe I'm over-analyzing. Maybe I'm just crazy." Well, certainly it makes sense. But, as I'm sure you've discovered few journey this deeply into this subject. You're not crazy, but resolving it out can drive one crazy, if either humor or tears fail to relieve the pressure. Anyway, here are a few observations on your analysis. Perhaps they will help?…
This issue is simplified greatly by first accepting that we are animals, regardless of what we 'think' we are (born again, enlightened, created in god's image, the chosen, evil, etc.). Knowing we are just animals makes is easier to accept that emotion drives thought. And then of course, thought feed back onto emotion. Sometimes this becomes a vicious circle. Perhaps more often than not, which makes us a kind of 'nutty species' (yes, we're all "crazy"). Principally because we can't avoid actually believing (gut emotion) what we think. The main role of Taoist thought is to downplay the importance and reality of words, names, and thought, which if it works, decouples that link somewhat. The first chapter starts right out with that theme "The way that can be spoken of is not the constant way" and continues right to the end "Truthful words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not truthful. Good words are not persuasive; persuasive words are not good".
Moreover we happen to be an extremely social species. That probably accounts for why we are so successful at survival. The "shoulds" are simple social pressures to conform to the group. All social animal have the "shoulds", they just don't have a word to symbolize the emotion, i.e., the impact of "should" lies in feeling the emotional imperative, not the word.
Let's just say your "inner nature" is the emotion side of your nature. Calling it the emotion side does not make it less elusive, just as calling that big ball of fire in the sky "the sun"! Word meaning is really the emotion felt (connected to) the word. Words, without emotion, are meaningless sounds. Emotion is like the air we breath, unseen, intangible, taken for granted, and yet the foundation of life.
Conflicting emotion is common in all animals. Like 'fight' or 'flight', 'stay' or 'leave', conflicting needs (and fears) pulls us in two directions at once. This struggle is an essential life work of survival and natural selection. "Right" versus "wrong" is no different from 'fight' versus 'flight'.
I find it more helpful to think of thought as the smoke caused by the fire of emotion. Where there is fire there is smoke, where there is smoke there is fire. But the origin, the cause, is the fire. No fire, no smoke. The 'thought' we experience is simply a product of a brain wired to think. The fuel that drive the thinking is emotion. The objective nature of thought, along with our opposable thumb and intense social nature, give us a real survival advantage. The disadvantage, for us, is that we experience an 'objective illusion' which has a disconnecting influence on perception. The quantum reality of 'we' becomes a disconnects feeling of 'I am' versus 'that is'. You can see this disconnect by how we phrase the issue of consciousness, e.g., the very notion that one could "reject one over the other?"
Howdy mr.minor,
You say,
Seen from the point of view I outlined above, I'd say your thought simple reflects the emotion of 'ah ha!'. Seeing something new evokes a sense of awe followed by 'ah ha', which drives the thought "I figured it out". If we journey down the road of life with less preconception of what lies ahead, we naturally see something new around every bend in the path, and feel 'ah ha!'. It is the feeling that is notable. If you actually believe you have "figured it out", then you are holding onto the feeling by turning it into a preconception. If you drag that preconception along with you, the sense of awe wanes. This is what happens to children as they start actually believing the paradigm (the cultural forms taught to them).
I suppose you could say that if one takes the Taoist view seriously it will lead one back toward having the mind's-eye of a child, or rather of their childhood. Then you are returning to who you truly are, not contending with who you think you are, or "should" be. Of course, one will always find something to contend with, for that is life.
Well, all that's left to do now is go to bed and rest the brain. Good night all... :-)