Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Wen Tzu - Verse 94, Part II
from Verse Ninety-FourNo one uses flowing water for a mirror, still water is used for a mirror. By keeping thus inwardly, you become still and are not scattered outwardly.~ Wen-tzu: Understanding the Mysteries ~
No, the only thing we can hope to control is our own mind and that can be a tall order! This is why meditation is an important part of Taoist philosophy. It is only when we are able to still our own fast flowing waters that we can experience clarity.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Wen Tzu - Verse 94, Part I
from Verse Ninety-FourThe substance of the Way is nonbeing: you cannot see its form when you look at it, you cannot hear its sound when you listen for it. This is called the mysterious unknown. The "mysterious unknown" is a way of talking about the Way, it is not the Way itself.~ Wen-tzu: Understanding the Mysteries ~
So begins the longest verse of the Wen Tzu; in the book I have, it spans eight and one-half pages!! Due to its length, this verse will be presented in many parts over the course of the next day or two.In some ways, it's a quasi-midpoint summarization of the themes discussed to this point. The passage shown above is merely a rephrasing of the first lines from the Tao Te Ching. Its central thesis is that all of our talk, writings and conceptualizations about this unknown quantity called life neither define nor describe the mystery itself.
We can give the mystery any name we desire and we can describe the manifestations of it in a multitude of ways, but that's about as far as we can venture. Anything beyond that point is pure folly because it is too broad, expansive and encompassing for a feeble human brain to comprehend.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Wen Tzu - Verse 93
from Verse Ninety-ThreeA ringing chime ruins itself giving sound, a tallow candle burns itself out giving light. The patterns of tigers and leopards bring hunters, the quickness of monkeys brings trappers.~ Wen-tzu: Understanding the Mysteries ~
Thus brave warriors die because of their strength, intellectuals are stymied because of their knowledge; they are able to use knowledge to know, but they are unable to use knowledge not to know.
In western society, we are taught that it's a good trait to stand out from the crowd, to maximize our talents to be the best we can be. While the Taoist sages certainly believe we must each maximize our talents (internal nature) to the fullest, they concurrently warn that standing out has one unintended consequence -- it makes us a target for others to want to knock down.
In a world beset with competition, no one can be number one for long. People will either try to surpass or dethrone the person seen as the pinnacle. Just take a look at the recent travails of golfer Tiger Woods. The media has gone to great lengths to expose his every character flaw and peccadillo.
Of course, one of the prime reasons the media has been so fervent in its reporting is that Woods and his team of advisers have spent the past decade creating a ubiquitous image and, now that it's been discovered that the real person and that image are at great odds, the media and public has reacted gleefully by knocking Woods off of his public relations throne.
If the current revelations about Woods and his many infidelities had been about fellow golfer Steve Stricker instead, I can't imagine there would have been near the public firestorm. Though Stricker is ranked as the third best golfer in the world, he is relatively anonymous to people outside of the golfing world.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Wen Tzu - Verse 92
from Verse Ninety-TwoThe ruler is the heart of the nation. When the heart is well, the whole body is comfortable; when the heart is anxious, the whole body is disturbed.~ Wen-tzu: Understanding the Mysteries ~
The message in this passage is a continuation from the previous verse, but in Lao Tzu's voice. However, this time around the imagery is, I think, much easier for us to see that it applies to each of us as well as to nations.When our heart/spirit is troubled or tense, it affects the function of our body. Physical ailments appear out of nowhere or ones that we're already aware of become magnified.
The reverse is true as well. When our heart/spirit is not troubled and we do not feel tense, our body feels healthier. Sometimes the body can be very sick (e.g., cancer), yet an uncluttered mind can see the beauty of life beyond the sickness in the body.
For me, this helps to explain why some people can be in the throes of a horrendous illness or injury and yet they possess good humor and a bright outlook. Many know death is imminent, but they continue to embrace all things like a newborn child.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Wen Tzu - Verse 91
from Verse Ninety-OneWhen virtue is reborn, the world is at peace. The pivot is the leader, who is the guide for the people. Those above are models for those below. What those above like, those below will consume. If those above have the virtue of the Way, those below will have humanity and justice.~ Wen-tzu: Understanding the Mysteries ~
Here we are 91 verses into this text and this is the first passage that originates with Wen Tzu, not Lao Tzu. Almost every verse up to this point begins with the words "Lao-tzu said" or something similar. In the present case, however, Wen Tzu is addressing King P'ing.While there is no question that much of the emphasis for living a life in balance with the Way is the responsibility of each of us as individuals, as social beings we also look to our leaders -- legal, governmental, religious, civic, philosophic -- to provide guidance. It should also be noted that, since each of us serves in the roles of follower and leader to others, the message contained above applies to everybody.
If enough people modeled the virtues of humanity and justice, society would begin to turn in that direction as well. If nothing else, there would be peer pressure to be fair, peaceful and simple. Peer pressure would morph into societal mores and, in time, these mores would be better reflected in our laws.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Lady and the Dog
I'm sitting by my lonesome in the little waiting area when a lady and her dachshund came in. The little doggie made a direct beeline for me. However, as the dog approached, his human companion warned me, "Be careful. He growls at strangers."
The dog didn't growl. In fact, he immediately stood on his back legs and placed his front paws on my leg. As I started to pet him, his human companion warned me, "Be careful. He nips and bites."
The dog neither nipped nor bit me. He allowed me to pet his head and rub his ears. And then he did something that caught both of us humans off guard -- He jumped into my lap!
By now, his human companion was dumbfounded. "He's acting very strange," she said. She apologized for him jumping on me, but I told her it was not a big deal; I'm a dog person. He curled up on my lap and allowed me to pet and rub him at will.
After awhile, the lady made him get down and put him in her own lap. He only stayed for a minute or two, then he jumped out of her lap and jumped back into mine. And that's where he stayed until it was time for me to leave.
I share this, not because there is some philosophic lesson, but more because it was sort of weird in a really nice way. It was a sweet dog and we seemed to bond instantly. Interestingly enough, when two other people came into the waiting area, the dog growled at them.
Go figure.
Labels: potpourri
Post a Comment
Does a dog have Taoist nature?
Although I think you're not into celebrations, just acknowledging the Winter Solstice! Yang about to make a comeback.
Cheers!
Yes, it is weird. But it does seem to show that animals have that sixth sense, or instinct, to connect with folks who love them.
They always growl at me, as if they knew that I am terrified of them and have no interest in petting them.
Not so strange. Dogs, like most animals are more in tune with the flow of the Tao. It sensed a kindred spirit and gravitated to it. I hope you took it as the compliment it was though I am pretty sure you did.
There's another element to this story that I didn't mention in the post. Initially, when the dog jumped on my lap, it was shaking like a leaf -- a sort of discombobulated tremble. Within about 5 minutes on my lap, the shaking stopped.
However, when the pet "owner" put the dog on her lap, the shaking started all over again and it didn't stop until doggie had returned to my lap and another 10 minutes had elapsed.
The woman told me she had rescued this dog from a drunk, but she seemed to be a bit drunk or something herself. I think the dog merely was looking for a safe haven.
Wen Tzu - Verse 90
from Verse NinetyWhen it fights repeated wars and wins repeated victories, a country will perish. When it fights repeated wars, the people are wearied; when it wins repeated victories, the rulership becomes haughty. Let a haughty rulership employ a weary people, and few countries would not perish.~ Wen-tzu: Understanding the Mysteries ~
When rulers are haughty, they become indulgent, and when they become indulgent they use things up. When people are weary they become resentful, and when they become resentful they reach the end of their wits. When rulers and ruled have both gone to such extremes, destruction is inevitable.
One of the problems with success -- whether speaking of nations at war or each of us in our routine lives -- is that it becomes an insatiable desire. Being successful or victorious makes us feel good about ourselves and so we want to feel it stronger and more often. Not only that, but a lack of success or defeat can be excruciating and may well cause us to ensure -- by any means possible -- that we don't suffer those negative feelings again.
And so, we're ever striving to be the best or to avoid being the worst. Whichever we focus on at any given moment, it creates stress and tension because we're always one step away from the other. No matter how successful we are, we know in the deepest recesses of our mind that we could fall in an instant.
Of course, another problem with success is that we become too full of ourselves. We think we can do anything and so we tend to cease being careful. We leave the middle path and skate on the very edges in the unrealistic belief that we can avert from falling off the path all together.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Post a Comment
Wen Tzu - Verse 89, Part II
from Verse Eighty-NineIf you want to be in emptiness, then you cannot be empty. When you do not contrive emptiness but are spontaneously empty, this is what is desired, and it brings everything. So communion with the Way is like the axle of a carriage, which does not move itself yet enables the carriage to travel thousands of miles, turning in an inexhaustible basis.~ Wen-tzu: Understanding the Mysteries ~
I understand the above passage through the many years I tried in vainly to mediate. I would find a quiet place in our house, sit on the floor and say to myself over and over again, "Don't think about anything." Of course, thinking that sentence over and over again was thinking of something!After awhile, it dawned on me that thinking not to think was thinking. So, as stated in the passage, I tried to concentrate on being empty. But that didn't work either because fixating on emptiness was still fixating on something and that something wasn't empty.
Another problem I frequently ran into was the random thought. There I would sit emptily and, then all of a sudden, a thought would inadvertently cross my mind. "Get out of there!" I'd scream. "You're messing this whole process up." Then I'd think about how the random thought needed to vamoose and this tended to cause another random thought to present itself!! Arghh!!
In time, I simply gave up on the whole endeavor. I figured it wasn't meant to be for a guy like me -- someone whose mind ran at one million miles per second. And so, I forgot about trying to meditate...
...and then one day I realized that I had been meditating for the previous few minutes. I now meditate (of sorts) a few times each day. It happened because I quit trying to do it and simply did it.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Post a Comment
Sounds like you stumbled across an important lesson. A technique I've employed is to let the thoughts exist but not to entertain their existance. To let them flare up and then die as they come and go. To proactivly "attack" thoughts are probably not advicable at all though.
Wen Tzu - Verse 89, Part I
from Verse Eighty-NineThere are no fixed judgments of right and wrong in the world. People each judge as right whatever they consider pleasant and judge as wrong whatever they consider unpleasant. Thus the search for right is not search for truth, but search for those who agree with oneself; it is not a departure from wrong, but a departure from those who disagree with one's feelings and ideas.~ Wen-tzu: Understanding the Mysteries ~
How different this is from those who hold that morality and absolute truth exist!One of the aspects of morality that continuously puzzles me is that, on the one hand, it is supposed to be fixed and universal, yet, on the other hand, there always are loopholes that believers drive trucks through.
For example, one major precept of Christianity is to love thy neighbor as thyself. That seems very clear and straightforward. However, its application tends to leave a lot to be desired. Church leaders and believers alike supported the institution of slavery as well as traveling to distant lands to murder "heathens". That doesn't sound to me like loving one's neighbor, but, according to Christendom, it was somehow a-ok.
In the present time, some of the most avid supporters of the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan are those who identify themselves as religious fundamentalists. Their motto seems to be "Kill for Jesus," yet, as far as I know, Jesus never advocated killing anybody.
So, what gives?
As the passage above indicates, right and wrong aren't absolutes; we define them based on our own subjective opinions. More often than not, we consider what we each support to be right and what we don't support to be wrong. If we later change our minds, then right and wrong flip-flop.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Post a Comment
You say that right and wrong are not absolutes. What's right for one may be wrong for another, and vice-versa. I could see how this would be true for some things, particularly small matters, like your personal preferences, subject to personality or cultural differences.
But can it ever really be right to commit random acts of violence, rape, or murder, for pleasure? Even if it seems right to the perpetrator, isn't it still wrong? It's a destructive act committed solely out of selfishness, and lack of love and respect for another, isn't that wrong when viewed from a higher and wiser perspective?
How could it ever be right?
Aren't there certain qualities and actions that are universally right? Like kindness, compassion, and selfless love? Is compassion ever wrong? To me I see these qualities as being universally right. But would you say these are just my personal preferences, and that things like hatred and cruelty could be just as right?
To me kindness is right, cruelty is wrong. To take delight in hurting others is wrong, to take delight in helping others is right. When you hurt people, all you get are enemies. When you help people, you get friends. The path of destruction is self-destructive. When you help people you often help yourself, by gaining their friendship, when you hurt people you often hurt yourself, by gaining enemies.
Maybe the problem is with the terminology. Instead of right and wrong, how about wiser and less wise?
I'm not just addressing these questions to you, and you don't even have to answer, but just putting this out as food for thought.
My mother used to tell me the Ten Commandments were useful, practical guidelines to live by, not exactly laws for which you would be punished if you slip up. But I can't see how anyone, and any civilized system, could argue that not killing, not stealing, not cheating, not honoring your ancestors, not being sexually malevolent, are not good and proper behaviors.
Taoist philosophy sometimes appears to be sort of morally situational, relativistic. This may be okay if you can completely withdraw from the world in a monastery or cave. For most of us, in the real samsara world, Red Dust and all, a little Confucianism goes a long way. We should act as if those things (not killing, etc.) are absolutes. I think this is sort of Kantian.
The WT passage also reminds me of Crowe T. Robot's (MST3K) comment; "People think they're thinking when all they're really doing is rearranging their prejudices."
Slavery was overcome with the help of a great many "believers." Not that there isn't still a long way to go.
Cym & Baroness,
It might be one thing if everyone agreed on what compassion or cruelty entails. That's the problem. The definitions of these things are different based on one's culture, religion/philosophy and the situation.
For example, let's look at the prohibition against killing others. It's not absolute in any sense of the word. Christian extremists think it's okay to kill Muslims and Muslim extremists think it's okay to Christians and Jews. Many people agree that it's okay for the state to kill people. In many US states, if you kill someone who has broken into your house, that's deemed okay. In some cases, if you accidentally kill someone, there's no punishment whatsoever. And many people consider it more than okay to kill non-human life forms.
This is a very complex topic, that whole books could be written about, and there still would be much disagreement, and little resolution. But the fact is, right or wrong, death is rarely pleasant, no matter what its cause. And so our primary imperative in life is survival, self-preservation and the preservation of our loved one's.
I'm neither a hunter or a meat eater, however, I see a big difference between 1) someone who kills in self-defense because they are in a kill or be killed situation, or someone who kills for survival when the only choice is to either hunt or perish, and 2) someone who kills entirely unnecessarily for pleasure or out of hatred or revenge. That's premeditated murder. Big difference. The difference between the two is intention. The intention underlying the action, is just as much important, if not more important then the action itself.
And you're right Rambling Taoist, different people and culture's disagree on what is right and wrong, and so, people will disagree just as much on what is wise or unwise.
If one person's definition of good differs from another, there's bound to be some misunderstanding and disagreement. So until people can agree on the meaning of words, there can be little constructive communication.
But what about the forces of destruction and construction? Or between that which heals and that which harms. Can there be some universal agreement on these things? A broken leg is still a broken leg, regardless of what religion or country you live in. If you're dying from some deadly disease and have horrible symptoms all over your body, only a crazy person would insist that they are in the best health of their life. Most people in this situation would agree that this is not good, certainly not right.
I see that which heals and enhances life, as being equal to that which is good and right. And that which harms and reduces the quality of life, as being equal to that which is evil and wrong. Although destruction does have its place two, like compost that breaks down to fertilize the soil. In this particular case, destruction actually enhances life, so its a positive form of destruction, there is no malicious intent. When a hawk kills a rabbit, it's not doing it out of hatred, or as some religious crusade, it's acting entirely on a survival instinct. It's killing because it's hungry, not because its angry.
Right and wrong applies to people, because we are thinking animals, we have the ability to make choices based on reason. I think this Taoist text that you are quoting from here, applies to nature only, the purely instinctual reactive world of plants and animals. Humans are part of nature too, but our ability to think and reason and make independent choices not based on instinct makes us different, not necessarily above nature, but just different, unique in our own right.
Sorry for this long comment, I got carried away. But as someone who experiences recurrent periods of writer's block, whenever I feel compelled to write, I'm gonna go with it. So thanks for being my muse for the day.
Oh by the way, my comments here were more so a response to what you wrote in your post, rather then the verse itself. After rereading Verse 89, Part 1 again, I see that I may have misinterpreted it. My first impression of it was that by denying right and wrong, it was also denying truth and falsehood. Basically nihilism, that everything is relative, and nothing matters. And my response was mostly questioning that perspective. But nowhere does it actually say there is no such thing as right or wrong, true or false, just that people tend to disagree on these matters to such an extent, that there is no universal agreement, and thus no absolute fixed judgment, at least not from a human perspective, can be made.
So again, sorry for my long winded comment.
Long-winded comments are quite alright. This space is provided without strings attached!!
In one of your paragraphs, you wrote, "If you're dying from some deadly disease and have horrible symptoms all over your body, only a crazy person would insist that they are in the best health of their life. Most people in this situation would agree that this is not good, certainly not right."
My response is that it all depends on one's perspective. Some people who become very sick see life in a whole new way and feel that their heart/soul/essence is healthier when sick than it was when their body was "well".
Conversely, there are some whose body is the picture of fitness, yet their heart/soul/essence is very sick. So, which condition is healthier?
My point is really that if you do these "prohibited" things -- killing, lying, cheating, stealing, etc., shit happens. I think Lao Tzu/WenTzu/Jesus/Buddhawould agree.
What extremists (or governments) think is right isn't the point. KIlling (and I'm talking about people killing each other, killing to eat is another issue) is wrong. Period. You know it and I know it. But people kill each other and persuade themselves they are right to do it. They are wrong. But sometimes wrong things happen and are accepted. It is the nature of this "post-heaven state."
Precepts and their applications are different things.
Funny, you are having this conversation with two female Sagittarians.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Wen Tzu - Verse 88
from Verse Eighty-EightWhen rulers like benevolence, people are rewarded without having achieved anything of worth, and people are allowed to go free even if they have committed crimes. When rulers like punishment, worthy people are neglected and innocent people are charged.~ Wen-tzu: Understanding the Mysteries ~
While I understand the philosophic thrust of this passage -- that the middle path through life is the safest and most just -- I see both of the elements Lao Tzu mentions above playing out in the world today!Particularly in my country, the well-to-do are granted a lot of benevolence by the powers-that-be, while the average person sees more punishment than reward. For example, within the last 18 months, those who have laid waste to our economic system have been treated with kid's gloves; billions upon billions of public dollars have been showered upon them and few have been held responsible for the mess they created.
On the other hand, average folks have lost their jobs, pensions, health care, homes and self-respect. More people are on the Food Stamp program than ever before. Bankruptcy laws have become more stringent and, when Congress had the opportunity to reign in the credit card sharks, they yawned.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Post a Comment
As I understand it:
The entire west has been subverted by marxist saboteurs.
The messiah obama is one.
How to tear down the capitalist system in order to rebuild it into the communist utopia?
Destroy all the wealth!
The economic meltdown was orchestrated.
That made a fine excuse for the economic bailout.
Medicare is a late cherry-on-top.
Gordon Brown, under Blair, sold off all the gold in the UK at fire-sale prices.
Nothing of value in the UK is owned by the UK any more.
Both UK and US are far beyond bankrupt.
Do I care?
No I don't.
As Lao Tzu maybe didn't say:
The world is perfect.
And as I say:
It's only the human parasites that often are not.
Wen Tzu - Verse 87, Part II
from Verse Eighty-SevenTo let concerns produce concerns, and then take concern to stop concerns, is like brandishing fire and trying not to burn anything. To let knowledge produce troubles, and then use knowledge to prepare against them, is like stirring water in hopes of making it clear.~ Wen-tzu: Understanding the Mysteries ~
We're also one of the few so-called civilized nations which still employs the death penalty. The ostensible reason for the death penalty is to hold down the crime rate because, when people consider committing heinous crimes, they supposedly should think twice, knowing they could be put to death.
But, viz-a-viz Lao Tzu's logic stated above, using violence to quell violence makes no sense and our high murder rate seems to prove this point out.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Post a Comment
Why not let concerns produce concerns, and then be concerned about these concerns?
One day, Tony Blair exclaimed:
"I have a great idea!
Let us introduce millions of barbarians into England!"
There was no particular reason, or need, for him to proclaim this.
"Then", he went on, "let us crimilalize any manifestation of english culture in case these barbarians are offended!
Then let us employ as many of these non-english-speaking barbarians as possible in positions of authority over the english!
And then let us crimilalize any englishman who notices!"
He wore a permanent smile, while saying these things, so any onlooker could be certain that he was a "nice" person, as he handed out seven-year jail terms to anyone appearing to be too interested in being english.
And desiring to be "nice" themselves, most of the englishmen went along with it all. Not that anybody ever asked them what their views were.
I am sure it all seemed like a terribly good idea at the time.
But ask any of the millions of englishmen who have now permanently fled their homeland...
There are a good many folks, from all over the place, who woke up - a little late - to realize that pretty words, and high-sounding ideals, can soon turn out to be a disaster for all. Even for the barbarians.
Soon? In only fifteen years, the entire racial and cultural identity of the english, resulting from a thousand years of progressing towards being civilized, was eliminated.
In a nutshell, that is why I may seem a little biased against the notion of "leftism".
That said: "rightism" seems not that much better.
If one really needs to be an extremist, then I advocate the extreme center.
I'm really puzzled by your litany here because Blair was a crony of George W. Bush and Bush is about as far away from being a leftist as humanly possible. So, the man you say destroyed England, was a right winger, not a left winger. Yet, you're biased more so against the left wing position! I'm sorry, but it doesn't compute.
Hehe.
I am happy that you are puzzled.
If I were you, I probably would be puzzled too.
Blair is an ex-card-carrying communist. As are many members of his "Nu-Labour Party". A marxist, posing as a harmless socialist.
Hence the permanent smile.
As to the details of just why he would be the first leader in history to deliberately set out to destroy his own people, is a bit beyond me, and I have become something of an expert on this.
But if you think Blair was a rightist, you might want to research it a little more. Leftists often think that Hitler was a rightist, too. But again: he was a socialist: that's where the term nazi comes from.
National Socialism.
But no matter: the litany was a parable to illuminate the words of the non-existent Lao Tzu.
Oh - while we speak of being puzzled - please do explain what on earth you meant by Lao Tzu probably never existing, and the tao te ching not being written by him. For all I know, you may be right, but I would be interested to hear your views on this.
Too often we accept things as fact without ever investigating them.
This can make real fools out of us later on.
I used to be as guilty as anyone of this.
I am far more careful now.
I contend that maybe 1% of leftists are truly evil. The Hitlers, the Stalins, the Pol Pots, the Maos the Blairs...
The other 99% are careless idealist dupes that failed to read the fine print.
Again: I may be wrong.
Examine and discover.
Actually, I think you need to do more research. Hitler was not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination. What the Nazis did is what the radical right is doing in this country today -- misappropriating words to confuse the public.
You see, socialism was gaining ground in Germany, so the Nazis appropriated the word to fool the masses. Their ideology was not socialist but fascist. By the time most people figured out they had been hoodwinked, it was far too late.
To show his disdain for bona fide socialists, he rounded them all up and sent them to the gas chambers.
Hitler was not a socialist. However, he was also nothing like the radical right in this country today (I assume by "radical right" you mean the right-wing of the Republican Party, not Pat Buchanan and David Duke).
The radical right of the Republican Party is bent on waging wars in favour of spreading democracy and of free market capitalism that requires an ongoing influx of immigrants. In general, they are not really committed to immigration reform. They are also committed to the ideals of 1776, which alone makes them far removed from Hitler.
Hitler was economically a corporatist, which is generally the economic ideal of fascists. Mussolini and Peron were also corporatists. Corporatism tries to resolve the worker-owner class struggle by organising society around vertical trade unions, within each of which workers and owners have a say. Production is also no longer supposed to be profit-driven. However, there is still private ownership of property, which makes this system un-socialist and un-capitalist.
Hitler was an anti-humanist and anti-internationalist, which alone makes him quite different from Marxism-Leninism (although how genuinely socialist Stalin was is questionable).
One can see how corporatism can be construed as being similar to socialism, since they are both anti-free-market. In fact, Peron and Fidel Castro were close friends, and Fidel Castro openly mourned Peron's death--notwithstanding that Peron once said something to the effect that Mussolini was the greatest statesman of the twentieth century.
Wen Tzu - Verse 87, Part I
from Verse Eighty-SevenWhen laws are intricate and punishments severe, then the people become devious. When those above have many interests, those below do a lot of posturing. When much is sought, little is gained. When prohibitions are many, little gets done.~ Wen-tzu: Understanding the Mysteries ~
Hand in hand with the mammoth size of legislation is a new industry -- people who are hired to figure out all the ways to get around the wording in new laws. These lobbyists and lawyers are tasked with finding or creating loopholes which, if successful, render the new laws rather moot. So, the next time someone contemplates new laws to fix the loopholes, the legislation becomes even more wordy in the attempt to guard against the further bastardization of the legislative intent.
It's a symbiotic relationship at its worst! Both sides reinforce the others' existence and each causes the opposite side to work harder to try thwart each other. And so, what should be a simple and straightforward process becomes a convoluted nightmare!
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Post a Comment
This is an accurate description of the state England finds itself in.
The marxist Nu-Labour government has created one new law for every day it has been in office.
Government is not only in one's bedroom, but everywhere else too, up to and including one's garbage can.
They chatter on and on, while saying nothing.
Big government is the end of people.
All your comment leads me to believe is that you don't have the foggiest notion as to what Marxism entails.
I don't know enough about the current state of British politics to comment as to whether the Labour Party is Marxist today in any sense. They were once committed to the overthrow of the capitalist system, but I believe they backed off from this commitment at some point shortly after the end of the Cold War.
I think in general Marxism--although its ideal is a withering-away of the State--entails big government. Any time that an ideology proposes to change the world from what it is into what (we think) it should be, there will have to be constant policing of human beings to make sure they will be and think as they should be and think.
This aspect of the Labour Party might well be reminiscent of Marxism, although I don't think they are strictly speaking committed to the Marxist program for society and economic life--although again I may be wrong.
Wen Tzu - Verse 86, Part II
from Verse Eighty-SixEven the ignorant do not harm those they love. If you could truly have all people in the world embosom a heart of human love, where would calamity come from?~ Wen-tzu: Understanding the Mysteries ~
If every rock, tree, butterfly and person is in kinship with each other and everything else, then there is no them apart from us. So, if we love those of our "kind" and our kind is everything this world contains, it would greatly alter the manner in which we relate to anything and everything.
War would be obsolete.
Discrimination would evaporate.
Poverty would be blotted out.
Justice would be commonplace.
Love would rule.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Post a Comment
The American Taoist would like to add to the list. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF ONE TYPES IN ALL CAPS OR not.
Peace and Love. poppop@lifetrax.com
writes @ 12/20/2009 02:16:00 AM #If indeed Lao Tzu (who you claim never existed) wrote this, it must have been when he was about nine years old.
It is a wonderful vision, one can not deny.
But we are not dealing with "If"...
We must deal with the reality of living among real people.
And most real people are not much like this at all.
They could be. They might be. But they certainly are not, yet.
There is - too - this small problem of mental illness, which causes even those who are not "ignorant", to harm those they "love".
To wit: the many vitriolic and often violent confontations between the far left and the far right.
They engage in this behaviour because they hold differing viewpoints. Extreme ones.
So perhaps being far-anything is probably not a good idea, if peace and love is the desired outcome.
The message of taoism, if there is any message at all, is that being neither right nor left is the desired state.
This balance, once acheived, is rather easy to maintain, while being far from easy to achieve in the first place.
Wings: right or left, exist only to enable flight.
To favour the one over the other is to never touch the sky.
Oh! Too funny!!!
My verification word is:
wingless
Well, well...
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Wen Tzu - Verse 86, Part I
from Verse Eighty-SixWhen the Way and virtue are present, there is vigilance and diligence, a constant alert for danger and destruction. When the Way and virtue are absent, there is indulgence and sloth, so destruction can come at any time.~ Wen-tzu: Understanding the Mysteries ~
I think it's less important which team sport someone refers to, be it football, baseball, basketball, soccer, hockey, rugby or lacrosse. The teams that tend to win frequently are those who stress defense.
The problem with stressing offense is that every team has off days. It could be because of the weather, the field, being out-of-sync or a myriad of other reasons. If your team is built on the premise of outscoring the other team and your team isn't scoring, you're in big trouble!
However, if your team stresses defense, then you're in every game or match. Yes, your team may not score many points, but if you can keep the other team from scoring at all or scoring very little, then you always have a chance to win.
I think the same kind of strategy is important to our everyday lives. If you're prone to always skate on the edge, there will be times when you will trip and fall right off the map. It's as if you're almost daring calamity and tragedy to visit you.
If, on the other hand, you focus on the internal and stay to the middle of the road, you will be less likely to be blindsided by events and circumstances. When ruts do appear in the road, you will have the time and foresight to step around them.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Post a Comment
I am not sure that verse was about football.
My wife says I miss nothing.
She is right. Always alert.
A life filled with threats and dangers has done that for me.
A life filled with tao has put it in perspective.
Certain political outlooks wish to disarm and make unready. To throw open the gates and let mortal enemies inside the walls.
This will be fine, they say, because all those outsiders, once inside, will be just like us.
Fortunately, an open gate works both ways.
I will serenely walk - arm in arm with my wife - off into the sunset.
Knowing that the mess I left behind me was beyond my remit, or my ability, to avert.
I'm certain the verse, when written, wasn't about football in the least. My point here, re this series, is NOT an attempt to tell you what was on the writer's mind. No, I'm writing about themes that jump out at me when I read the passages. No more. No less.
P.S. I believe your wife is incorrect. We ALL miss things. There is far too much information and stimuli afoot for ANY person to account for it all. Even IF a person could account for it all, it still would be filtered through the subjective lens of the ego which would, therefore, distort it.
While it is possible my wife may be incorrect, it seems not your place to say so.
You may well miss things.
I may not.
You may well filter everything through the subjective lens of ego.
I may not.
You may be content with a distorted view of things.
I may not.
One thing I have often observed about consciousness:
If one does not have it, one can not know what it is.
One may use the word, while never grasping its meaning.
We do agree, that all are one and one is all. Even though the majority are unaware of this. Shall we make a point of focusing on that?
That might serve.
If you are human -- maybe you think you aren't? -- you miss things. It comes with the territory. To suggest otherwise is pompous and arrogant -- two things Lao Tzu & Chuang Tzu warn against.
Interestingly, my wife was just reading your words.
She described them as:
Pompous. And arrogant.
I think it is not your intention to so appear.
But somehow that is what comes across.
Possibly, in your view of things, we are all identical. So we all view things as you do. Maybe nobody can achieve what you, yourself, have not achieved.
Consider this: You are only where you are, what you are, when you are.
Each is on their own unique journey. None travel at the same pace. None may necessarily arrive at the same destination.
Each knows what they know, when they know it.
The reason I keep coming back to your blog, even though I often find it rather unpleasant, is that I gain new insights with each visit.
I am not your adversary, even though you may choose to believe that I am.
I am one of the readers of your words. And what is a writer, in the absence of readers?
You're not my adversary? Fooled me. Almost every comment you leave is an attack of some sort.
Iktomi, the Baroness and Donna (to name three) often disagree with things I write -- which is perfectly fine -- but they don't attack in their disagreement.
From reading one of your blogs, I see that you often have trouble getting along with people. Of course, in your eyes, it's always the other person's fault. Might I suggest you take a look in the mirror? Maybe it has something to do with the way you choose to engage others.
I repeat: I am not your adversary.
Thank you for reading one of my blogs.
Yes I often have trouble getting along with others.
It leads me to investigate why that is.
Might I also suggest that you, too, look in a mirror?
I engage others like I engage with others: just as you do.
Only our reasons for doing so differ.
Please write a post outlining why you are interested in taoism. And what you gain from that interest.
I suspect that both our reasons and results are quite different.
My view is that any philosophy is worthless without some practical application of that philosophy.
You appear to preach it without manifesting it. To pontificate without understanding. To point with eyes closed.
You might think I am attacking you because my honesty does not mesh with your script. But I have no issue with you: only with what you write.
If you tried to see what I am doing here, you might get a feeling that I probably am much more interested in your well-being than you are, yourself.
Either now, or later, you may see that I am - at the least - a catalyst, to encourage a reaction to take place. That is the very reason I often have trouble "getting along" with others.
I make them uncomfortable.
I cause them to take a look at the baggage of many years. I horrify them by daring to suggest it might be useless.
If you truly believe that we are "one", then stand up for what you believe. Accept that, uncomfortable as I may make you feel, I am no different than you: I am a part of the whole.
Is it "them and us"? Or is it just "us"?
I will not engage you in conflict.
But I will happily dance rings around you until you, yourself, descend from your taoist podium, and join the dance.
Crow,
Where you and I differ, in my estimation, is that you think you're better than others (you've got everything figured out) and I admit that I have the same faults and foibles that everyone else suffers from -- I am not better nor worse.
Your position, in and of itself, reeks of arrogance. It's like you carry a big neon sign around that has an arrow that points at you and says "Sage here!"
I don't pretend to be a sage and I have written several posts stating that I am not a sage. I'm just a guy in Southwest Washington who is interested in the philosophy of Taoism and who tries to utilize it imperfectly in my own life.
I've written tomes about my shortcomings and blemishes.
Well: fair enough.
You are not the only one to read me like that.
You are wrong, but I concede your point.
You do not accept that I could actually be what you refer to as a sage. Sages are not supposed to behave as I do.
Whatever.
Being a sage means nothing to me.
Knowing that I know what I know does.
And knowing that very few people know much of anything also does.
Did you know: an Indian Guru used to visit my website for years. I told him he was nuts: he had it all backwards. Gurus don't live in London. He figured he knew better.
No: I don't act humble.
No: I don't act like a sage.
No: I don't act like people expect me to act.
In fact I don't act at all.
And that is what this is all about.
What I had hoped to convey to you was simply this:
You just can't be a taoist and a leftist. You will never get anywhere.
But that is for you to discover.
What I can say, from true, real experience is this:
Taoist meditation can transport the adept from life to afterlife to between-life and back, at will.
One can see all. Know all. Be all.
One can exist outside of time. Inside any creature, on any world, and be anything.
One can know god and know one is god.
Take it or leave it.
Believe what you want to believe.
That's the way it is.
My final response on this thread is a paraphrase of a verse in the TTC: Those who think they know, don't. Those who know, know they don't know half as much as they think.
May I just add that in my opinion, getting along with people in today's world is no virtue. I've alienated lots of people by not agreeing with their dogmatic leftist points of view (I am not implying you, RT, are like them, since you've always been amenable to discussion with me). And since they are the ones whose ideas are deemed acceptable, it's I who don't get along with them rather than vice versa.
Wen Tzu - Verse 85
from Verse Eighty-FiveWhen you pray you utter taboo names, if you are drowning you will grab unto anyone, because the force and momentum of events makes you that way.~ Wen-tzu: Understanding the Mysteries ~
Since there is so much we can't comprehend about life and existence, many feel as if they are drowning in a sea of uncertainty. They are desperate to find something to latch onto to keep them afloat. The idea that there is some supernatural being looking out for them and preparing a new home for them to live in forever more serves as a reachable buoy. So, to keep from being swept away in the current of the unknown, they latch onto it with all their might.
Like many, I once clung to that same life preserver too. However, little by little, I've come to see that, just because existence is filled with uncertainty, this doesn't mean I'm drowning. So, once I quit flailing around consciously trying to stay afloat, I didn't need a buoy after all.
The concept of wu wei had a real impact.
When a person starts to panic in a river, they expend much energy kicking and swinging their arms around wildly. Often, they fight against the current and, in short order, wear themselves out. If they would move with the current -- like turning in the direction of a skid on ice -- and simply try to float, they can make their way to the shore without assistance.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Post a Comment
i definitely like this analogy. when i was a christian, i imagined myself holding for dear life to a rocky ledge, to keep myself from falling. i thought i would fall, but when i let go, the truth is i could fly.
Very interesting perspective of yours. I will certainly read more of your take on the philosophy of the Tao.
One thing I have consistently noticed about leftists is that they take their own survival for granted.
Most live in cities, and can make as many fatal errors as they like without those errors ever actually being fatal.
In a more natural, hands-on setting, a fatal mistake often is fatal.
One learns from these events or one is no more.
Life preservers can be useful things.
Because one's inattention to one's own survival did not prove fatal this time, does not mean it never will.
It might not be so very wise to make a religion out of being careless.
Forunately, the river analogy featured a river that was not rushing headlong over Niagara Falls.
In such a case, thrashing wildly about might have some value.
Better to be worn out than smashed to pieces on the rocks.
Crow,
I see the river analogy as being very apropos to the one that goes over Niagara Falls. If you fall into the drink and the current is moving you toward the falls, it's important to get to shore rather quickly. If you thrash about wildly, you will wear yourself out and make little progress getting to one side or the other.
If, on the other hand, you patiently work with the current and diagonal to the nearest side calmly, you will have a good chance of averting disaster.
In addition, since you don't know that much about my history, I have lived in big cities, small towns and in rural areas throughout my life. In my late 20s, I lived on the side of a mountain in the Ozarks. My nearest neighbor was about 1.5 miles away on foot and about 2 miles by vehicle.
Wen Tzu - Verse 84
from Verse Eighty-FourWhen the people are estranged and alienated, the strength of the nation wanes. When the people rebel, the leadership has no authority. When people are contentious, they easily do wrong. When those below resent those above, then rank is dangerous.~ Wen-tzu: Understanding the Mysteries ~
Where do leaders come from? They come from the people and if the people, as individuals, do not live a Tao life, then there is little chance that those chosen to be leaders will be any different.
In one of his routines, the late George Carlin liked to point out that the main reason the US government was so screwed up is that, by and large, American society is screwed up. He made the astute point that the best way to remedy the situation was to fix the public and its leadership would follow suit.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Post a Comment
Friday, December 18, 2009
One in One Hundred
One in every 100 children in the United States may have some form of autism spectrum disorder, far more than previously believed, and the rate appears to be worsening quickly, especially among boys, new figures from the CDC show.I agree. If 1 in 100 people was catching the swine flu, the media would be all over it!
Researchers with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at the 2006 medical and school records of 308,000 children in 11 communities, including Miami. They found rates of autism much higher than a similar study done in 2002, said Catherine Rice, of the CDC's National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.
The 2000 data had suggested one in 150 children were affected.
It was a stunning run-up of 59 percent in four years, and the increase could not be explained just by better awareness or an expanded diagnosis, researchers found. The findings were published Friday in the CDC journal Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
The findings should be treated as a national emergency, autism activists said.
At The Scripps Research Institute in Jupiter, neuroscientist Dr. Claes Wahlestedt is studying the genetics of Fragile X syndrome, which is often accompanied by autism.
"The dilemma with autism is that they are probably a bunch of different disorders. As we understand more, we will be able to subdivide the disease, and that will lead to better treatments down the line," Wahlestedt said. "What it is in the environment that is changing so dramatically I cannot understand. But the genetics are arguably little changed."
Labels: Health
Post a Comment
"Before the 1990s only 1 in every 10,000 children was diagnosed with autism. Nowadays over 1 in every 150 children born in America comes down with autism, and each time it’s those children who have been “immunized” who begin having seizures or start mentally going downhill right after vaccinations. The Amish, numbering around 200,000 who religiously oppose vaccinations, have never had a case of autism. Based on sheer statistics, they should have well over 100 autistic among their numbers right now, but they do not. They are mixed right into the Pennsylvania population with a rapidly increasing ratio of autistic kids, yet remain unaffected." from here
Vaccines are undoubtedly the cause. The Amish don't vaccinate, they don't have autism. Before vaccines were invented, autism was virtually unknown to the world. Now as childhood vaccines are increasing (most American children have more than 30 before the age of 2) the autism rate is sky-rocketing. And more times than not, the on-set of autism is seen within days/weeks of major inoculations.
Vaccines and Autism
Peace,
~Eric
www.atlanteanconspiracy.com
www.ericdubay.blogspot.com
You don't have autism, TRT, and it is not vaccines that cause it. Jesus fucking christ, you gullible idiot.
writes @ 12/19/2009 08:38:00 AM #It would seem that the majority here believe that vaccines are the culprit. I am not thoroughly convinced one way or the other simply because millions of people have been vaccinated through the years and only a small percentage develop something on the autism spectrum. So, while vaccines may have a role, there has to be something else at play.
Anon,
It would help to bolster your position if you offered rationale rather than making flat declarations. Unsupported statements are in no way convincing and make you look like a reactionary person.
Maybe anon is not interested in bolstering his position.
Maybe he feels rationale is wasted on a leftist.
Unsupported statements are the habitual fare of the internet intelligentsia. Nobody is likely to be convinced of anything if they are not interested in listening and considering.
Looking like a reactionary person might not bother anon either.
Perhaps he is unconcerned by what he may look like...
His post was rude, but as valid as anything else I have read here.
And what I read here is nothing but opinion, anyway.
What TRT does to taoism is very similar to what the anglican church is doing to christianity.
Start out by believing there is no god, and lay waste to all tradition, history and social mores.
Why bother calling yourself christian anyway? Or taoist?
Anon's comment was - if nothing else - a welcome change from the usual.
THE AMERICAN TAOIST IS NOT THE ANONYMOUS ABOVE, I AGREE WITH THE LATEST INFORMATION EVEN THOUGH NONE OF MY CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN ARE AFFECTED. LUCKY THEY HAVE NOT BEEN INFECTED BY IGNORANCE AND STILL HAVE AN OPEN MIND.
i will now sign with my name.
lol my mother in law types in all caps. because she can't see very well. i type in all lowercase because i have a baby in one hand which makes capitalization hard :) i make an exception for smileys.
whether or not vaccines cause autism is a huge debate and i seriously doubt if any know the answer, currently. my opinion is that it's not the only thing that is causing autism rates to skyrocket, but it might be a factor. (it is known that vaccines cause other autoimmune disease as an occasional side effect) my son is not vaccinated- he doesn't go to daycare and won't go to public school (at least initially) so he has very little chance of contracting a vaccine-preventable disease, but when he is 1 year old i'll start vaccinating him.
Wen Tzu - Verse 83, Part II
from Verse Eighty-ThreeThe laws and measures of ancient rulers were dissimilar, not because they purposely contradicted one another, but because the tasks of their times were different. Therefore they did not take established laws for rules, but took for their rules the reasons why laws were laws, progressively changing along with the development of civilization.~ Wen-tzu: Understanding the Mysteries ~
No belief system in and of itself is left or right, conservative or liberal, right or wrong. It simply is. Where these socio-political labels come to the fore is when either we apply the belief system to the world or we discuss the concepts of each against the concepts of other belief systems. Each system then can be viewed upon the continuum of ideas.From this particular vantage point, philosophical Taoism is radical left.
Conservatism, which owes much to orthodox Christian thought, posits that people are inherently evil, the commoners need to be ruled and controlled, and private property is an inherent basis of the human experience.
Liberals, on the other hand, view people as inherently good and should participate in their own governance. They too hold that private property is important, but also feel that community rights exist as well.
Taoists view the concepts of right and wrong as purely human constructs and that each of us, in our natural state, is neither. While we understand the need for government in some form, the prime focus is on cultivating the inward away from a focus on the external. Compared to conservatism and liberalism, such ideas are off the charts or radical.
In my view, phrased in western socio-political terminology, Taoism is a mixture of socialist, libertarian and anarchic ideals -- all three are considered radical formulations in today's world. This probably explains why Taoism has not been embraced in the US and other industrialized nations. It runs so counter to the established ideas of this day.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Post a Comment
Taoism is one of the religious traditions I know less about, and assuredly you know more about it than I do, so I can't really dispute your characterisation of Taoism as radical left with any kind of solidity. HOwever, conservatism is not purely an orthodox Christian viewpoint. Islam and Hinduism in their orthodox forms are also quite conservative--see, for example, the caste system in Hinduism. As for Buddhism, I think that the sacred Buddhist state of Tibet, before the Chinese invasion, would be characterised as conservative by most people.
If Taoism is leftist, I don't think this reflects some sort of inherent correctness of leftism. I think rather that it reflects that Taoism developed in a different social climate than did the other religious traditions, especially the very young ones (Christianity and Islam). Taoism, as the oldest of the major revealed traditions, developed at a time when evil was not as far developed as it was at the time of the Upanishads, Jesus, or Mohammed. In such a state, leftism might work--but not otherwise. I found this statement on another blog worthwhile:
"in order for anarchy to work, one must be a responsible sovereign individual, possessing the ability to rule thyself, rather than be ruled by others."
http://adventurescout.blogspot.com/2009/08/circle-anarchy-symbol.html
Anarchy can work, but only in certain circumstances.
And by "evil" (which should be used carefully since it's such a loaded term) I mean departing from the principle, or essence of reality--which all manifestation is subject to. I don't mean it in a moral sense.
Hmmm...
I googled "Taoism as leftist" and the first hit I came up with was "The Rambling Taoist" --this very post.
I wondered if one could be a right-wing Taoist...
A couple of citations down, I found that Mantak Chia (not my favorite of contemporary Tao practitioners) says the following:
"Traditionally, the right-wing or conservative Taoists in China tended to isolate themselves in the mountains, where they struggled to attain spiritual clarity and balance (that is, connection with the universal Tao) primarily by using moving and seated meditation teachniques. The right-wingers attempted to achieve wisdom and peach (sic, I think he means peace) through a highly regulated, moderate, and often celibate lifestyle that was fairly quiet. In this way, they gradually disengaged from the distractions of worldly life. They often lived in small, secluded mountain communities, either alone or in groups of three to five. Lone hermits or small groups sometimes resided inside a cave or mountain hermitage, perhaps not emerging for fifty years. Less often, they banded togeher in monasteries, which were not nearly as big as the hugely populated monasteries one can find in the history of Buddhism and Christainity.
In stark contrast, the wandering left-wing Taoists were known for being outrageous in their lifestyles and sexual behavior. There was nothing a leftist Taoist would not do. Taoists of the left frequently scorned or ignored social conventions and expectations outright. But while they often repudiated many specific aspects and values of society, they (and this is an important point) adhered to awareness in all they did, avoided casing harm, and attempted to balance all they came in contact with."
No wonder you call youself the "Rambling" Taoist. (Although I suspect you live more like the hermits.)
But I also note, in yet another reference, that the leftist policies of Mao were disastrous to the religious Taoist (right wing) communities.
My only point here is that being a Taoist does not make you left wing...how you express your Taoism may put you on either side.
In the end, as I said earlier, there is no right or left.
Words, words, words.
I think the difference here is between religion and philosophy. I would agree that religious Taoism is conservative. (By and large, religion itself is conservative.) The very idea of hiding away in the mountains and not engaging the world would make Lao Tzu's and Chuang Tzu's heads explode.
The philosophic arm -- the one that engages the world and the one this blog deals with -- is the part I view as naturally leftist.
The one to whom nothing is sacred is the one who is deserving of the most sympathy.
While bearing in mind that the one to whom nothing is sacred is the enemy of all.
Even himself.
i somewhat disagree with your definitions of conservative and liberal, and also disagree that "liberal" equates to "leftist" and "conservative" equates to "rightist". left vs. right is ever-changing as the years go by... the definition of republican and democrat have also shifted definition as this country has grown older.
conservative, by rough definition, is "resistant to change, (non-tao) avoiding excess, (tao) conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class (whatever that means.)" liberal, by rough definition, is "a political philosophy of progress and reform (questionably tao) and the protection of civil liberties. (tao)"
while tao is for liberties, it does not necessarily share the conviction of progress. i have yet to read a taoist passage the even implies that people are inherently good- in fact i have yet to hear the tao speak much of "goodness" at all! while humans are certainly capable of "good" they are also equally capable of "bad" (whatever those terms mean) and i think saying that "people are inherently good" would be projecting your own ideas on to the tao.
simply, i think that the tao is neither left nor right, but centered. :)
Tao Te Ching Verse 29 is the antithesis of all leftism. Compare with Marx's 11 thesis on Feuerbach.
Crow--excellent comment.
Crow,
Agreed. In my book, everything is sacred.
Iktomi,
I would definitely disagree that conservatism today is equated with "avoiding excess". The GOP is the party of the mega-wealthy, the very definition of excess.
Cloudberry,
I suppose it depends on how one interprets Verse 29. Far from being the antithesis of leftist emphasis, I think it serves as a buttress for that point of view.
Interpreting something carries the responsibility to look at the whole thing and weigh it in context.
Noticing one word and fleshing it out into an interpretation is no interpretation at all.
But I see a lot of that.
Verse 29 is one of my favorites, and one of only two verses that gave me trouble for a long time.
"Do you think the world is perfect?"
What? Was Lao Tzu out of his mind???
No he wasn't. He was right.
The world is completely perfect.
It's human parasites often are not.
But then again: I am told by TRT himself that Lao Tzu didn't even exist, and probably didn't write the tao te ching.
How very perplexing...
Crow--I'm not sure if you were referring to me, but I don't think I was basing an interpretation on one word.
RT--I liked your interpretation of Verse 29. However, I didn't really see that it was leftist. It was environmentalist, true, but as Garrett Hardin points out environmentalism is fundamentally conservative. I think if you look at movements generally considered to be leftist in the modern sense--starting with the Jacobins down to the Bolsheviks--they tend to be people who try to *change* the world to make it fit how they think it *should* be: they think all people *should* be equal, they think all people *should* have the same access to property, they think ethnic/sex differences *shouldn't* matter, etc., and they mandate these shoulds into law, resulting either in doublethink or in purges of the incorrectly-thinking.
When I say conservative, incidentally, I don't mean the US Republican Party. I can't think of a genuine conservative movement that has existed in a long time.
Cloudberry: I was assuredly not referring to you.
Excellent treatise on the usual modus operandi of leftist governments.
It seems often like creating DOS batchfiles: IF*** / THEN***
If only... Then surely...
But reality is nowhere in sight.
There is a conservative party still extant: in the UK. The British National Party.
Successive governments and the media have painted them as nazi facist swine for years and years.
Strangely, their popularity is at an all time high, lately.
That may be due to the UK becoming unrecognizable as the UK.
Life in the UK unhinged me somewhat. Now, away from all that, the tao calms and reassures me.
Difficult to walk the middle path when the very law of the land rams you into the far left corner.
Crow,
You wrote, "the tao calms and reassures me." I find this to be an odd statement because you seem like a very angry person. I think it would be difficult to be filled with a lot of angst and simultaneously to be calm.
Calmness (or centeredness) comes from not taking sides, yet you seem to favor a particular side in almost every discussion.
I've never described myself as being a calm person. I tend to be very passionate about many issues and, I believe, my passion comes through loud and clear in my writings.
We have nothing like the BNP in the United States, unfortunately. Closest thing is Pat Buchanan, and he didn't create an enduring political party of any sort.
Taking sides becomes necessary with the decay of society. The true spiritual warrior is one who can achieve calmness and centredness whilst trying to restore the sacred order. I think Mishima in particular achieved this.
Indeed: I favour sanity over insanity.
But having explored the extreme right, I find it has as little to recommend it as the extreme left.
Extremism of any sort is a pathology. A mental aberration.
We have an epidemic on our hands.
Angry? Me? You bet.
My capacity for anything is limitless.
When anger is appropriate, thats just exactly what I manifest.
When it is not, the Buddha and I have a lot in common.
Honesty is the quality that makes this so.
And moments come and go:
It turns out I have an allergy to wheat.
A symptom of this is a proneness to anger and irritation.
And an excruciatingly sharp mind from being unable to absorb any food, no matter how much I eat.
Mystics starve themselves.
I don't eat wheat now: expect, over time, the crow to become just another "normal" character.
Wen Tzu - Verse 83, Part I
from Verse Eighty-ThreeTo cling to the laws of one generation and thereby repudiate customs transmitted through the ages is like trying to tune a lute with the movable tuning bridge glued down. Sages adapt to the changes of the times, taking appropriate measures on seeing how things form.~ Wen-tzu: Understanding the Mysteries ~
Different ages have different concerns; when times change, customs change. Laws are set up in consideration of the age, works are undertaken according to the time.
I'm fairly certain the above passage was aimed at the Confucians because that philosophy is about honoring the customs and mores of old. Lao Tzu recognized that times change and, for progress to occur, human society must change too.The Crow, among others, has accused me from time to time of presenting Taoist thought from a leftist perspective. In terms of socio-political labels, I don't deny the charge. Regardless of the age, conservatives are those who believe we should cling to the ways of old and, in this verse, Lao Tzu warns against this. Consequently, I firmly believe that, if Lao Tzu were writing his works today, he too would be branded as a left-leaning philosopher!
Mind you, as indicated above, left (or right) merely is a label. In my own mind, I don't view my philosophy nor that of the Taoist sages as occupying any specific side or direction. For me, Taoism is the most ethical collection of observations and beliefs that I know. It is mainstream society which has bestowed the "leftist" designation on philosophies of this nature and that's the primary reason I use the term myself.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Wen Tzu - Verse 82
from Verse Eighty-TwoThose who wish to be above others should lower themselves to them in their speech; those who wish to precede others should follow them. Then the world will emulate their love and promote their humaneness and justice, so there will be no cruelty.~ Wen-tzu: Understanding the Mysteries ~
Too often, both our leaders and each of us wants to lead by words. It's the do as I say not necessarily what I do mentality. The problem with this kind of strategy is that it doesn't work! People pay more attention to what other people do than to what they say, particularly when the two don't intersect.
So, if I want others to treat me with kindness and respect, it's incumbent on me to treat them with kindness and respect. And I don't need to announce that I'm doing it; I just need to do it.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Post a Comment