An Open Letter From Laozi to CPAC

Trey Smith

To the members of CPAC,

I recently have noted that it has become a badge of honor amongst conservative politicians never to compromise. No matter the circumstances and regardless of the issues at hand, you take a stand and then refuse to budge even a smidge. You view this rigid inflexibility as a strength without realizing that, in a strong storm, the tree that refuses to bend eventually breaks.

In my writings, I have written about taking the middle road, the path that avoids the extreme edges on either side. The reason for this avoidance is commonsense. People who live their lives on the edge frequently fall off! With no buffer between them and the ditch along the side of the road, one misstep and they find themselves face down in the mud.

As with all things in life, politics is about compromise. You start with two or more extreme perspectives and then try to meet in the middle. Neither side gets everything they want, but all sides get some of what they want. This process allows the common people to spend their days knotting rope. When their leaders are not demanding too much tribute, the people go about their routine lives in a state of contentment and peace will rule the land.

Do you see where I am going with this? Your intransigence leads to unrest and causes the people to distrust everyone around them. This distrust is the engine for the fracturing of the sense of community and the people fighting amongst themselves. They do things that are injurious to their own bodies and minds. A seething anger begins to build and no one can be sure how it will manifest itself.

While it is true that we each want what we want, the sages of old learned that the tempering of egoic desire was the best mechanism for leading a productive life. When we temper our own desires, it unclouds our vision and allows us to see the needs of others. As we each originate from the same source, we are each a manifestation of the One. Consequently, as an extension of each other, if we want to find contentment in our own individual lives, we will seek to provide that same opportunity to everyone else.

In the common vernacular, the "secret" to life is to walk the middle path. You will be unable to keep to the center line IF you steadfastly refuse to budge from the edge.

Respectfully,

Laozi

Why we Speak

Scott Bradley

Those who speak do not know; those who know do not speak.

~ Laozi

Why do I speak? Because I do not know. Why do you read? Because you do not know. Why do you comment — agree or disagree? Because you do not know.

I have spoken to this before and do so again now because I think it lies at the heart of the spiritual endeavor as envisioned by philosophical Taoism. This statement in the Tao Te Ching is generally taken as an admonition against speaking unless one knows and against speaking if one does know. The net result is that no one worth listening to speaks. If, on the other hand, it is understood that no one knows, then everyone can speak and it is our task to weigh the value of their words.

Taken as an admonition against speaking, this aphorism assumes there are those who know. Where are they? Let them step forward and teach us the wordless teaching. But there is no one who knows. Let us all then speak.

But let us not speak as if we know. This is the meaning of this statement as I take it.

"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao." We cannot know it to speak of it. It is best, therefore, that we do not speak of it. Let us rather speak of "the named", the actual realities of our necessarily contingent existence. Let us speak of truth that is innocent of Truth.

Let us take this idea that we can know the unknowable, uproot it from our minds, and bury it deep. Can you imagine such a way of being in the world? Can you imagine a spiritual journey which has no goal other than the journey itself? Can you follow a path of "drift and doubt" which is only and always simply that?

There is a kind of liberation here. There is freedom here. But it has a price. Yet Pascal's dictum comes to mind: "He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."

There is comfort in belief and in believing that one can find something sure in which to believe. Why would we want to disabuse anyone of such a belief? This way of philosophical Taoism is not for everyone; it knows no Truth to which it feels all the world must subscribe. It is for those who fail of belief. It is an affirmation of their existential reality; it is a path of spirituality which is their existential reality.

I may very well have stood Laozi's original intent on its head, but what did he know? For me, this statement, so often used as a cudgel to beat those who speak, is an invitation to speak to my heart's content. Only one must be careful not to drop anchor on any supposedly fixed and solid ground. In the real world of the human there is no sure 'holding ground'; one can only drift with the current of one's existential reality and use the environmental winds to make one's way.

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.

Following Two Taos

Scott Bradley

The Laozi begins by telling us there are two Taos. There is the Nameless. And there is the Named. The former is "darker than Mystery", it cannot be imagined and thus cannot be named. This 'Tao' is thus a formal name; it stands for what cannot be named and does not in any way identify anything. Only things can be named, and Tao is no thing.

The 'Named' is the mother of all the things which can be named. It is the world of things. In this world the human abides, assigns names and establishes its moral compass.

The Laozi also tells us that these Taos are "the same". There is really but one Tao, but all we can perceive is Tao manifest, the Named. There is Wholeness and there is division. There is Oneness and there is not-oneness. We abide in not-oneness. Thus we discuss Tao.

The Taoist vision is the re-integration of Tao in the human experience. To "return to the root" is to have the Nameless inform and transform the named, namely 'me'. This is necessarily a mystical endeavor since the Nameless is "darker than Mystery" and can in no way be understood or articulated.

The two Taos are reflected in the human experience; there is this 'me' of self-awareness and mediated experience, the named, and there is the utter mystery at the heart of the human experience, the Nameless. We experience this latter as 'emptiness'. We experience ourselves as hollow because, as namers and named, we find no ultimate ground as things. The Taoist vision is the rediscovery of that ground, that is, returning to the root.

The Nameless is thus not experienced as external from oneself, but as the most fundamental reality of oneself. Tao is found within, not without. It is re-connecting with the mystery which is you; and that mystery is the Mystery.

I am Tao, named and Nameless. You are Tao, named and Nameless. There is only one Tao.

The named informed by the Nameless realizes its own namelessness. Only the nameless walk in the Nameless.

How one realizes this re-integration with the Nameless that one is, is a matter for personal exploration. The way one chooses is one's tao. There are as many taos as there are feet to walk them.

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.

Making a Wheel

Scott Bradley

Thirty spokes converge on a hub / but it's the emptiness / that makes the wheel work...
existence makes a thing useful / but non-existence makes it work.
(Tao Te Ching, 11; Red Pine)

We are very much like this wheel. All existence depends on the non-existence from which it arises. We are thus as much non-existent as we are existent. We share this with all things. But we also experience non-existence in an apparently unique way; it is the condition of our self-consciousness. It is because of a gap, an emptiness, that we are able to reflect upon ourselves. This mind is the origin of all dualism, because dualism is the condition of thought.

There are other ways in which to experience the world. Perhaps all dualism can somehow be transcended. But let us not disparage the uniquely human gift of reflective consciousness. There was no Fall. Let us rather embrace the totality of our human potential. Our problem with the 'understanding consciousness' is only a problem when we 'make it our [only] teacher'.

There is existence and there is non-existence, and, of course, there are no such things. Without existence there is no non-existence and...well, you know. These are only concepts; they are not reality. Red Pine (Bill Porter) tells us that these are "tantamount to yang and yin". Okay. But however helpful these concepts might be in understanding the nature of reality, they are not themselves reality. They are not things; nor are they principles if principles are construed as metaphysical realities. So I disbelieve.

We understand that we exist and consequentially that we also do not exist. Our thirty spokes meet in an empty hub and thus we think. We exist in such a way as to realize that at heart we do not exist. Wholeness requires that we discover and embrace our non-existence as well as our existence. This is essentially the Taoist vision.

This non-existence is the emptiness we feel. Existence typically flees this emptiness. Wholeness embraces it and discovers freedom therein. The egoic-self-identity is essentially this clinging to existence to the exclusion of non-existence, for it rightfully realizes that to cease to do so is its demise.

Death might be equated with non-existence, but if so, then it is also existence, for neither is without the other, though neither is, in any case. If death and life are equated with non-existence and existence, then both pairs are a 'single thread'. A single thread lies beyond what the mind can imagine, beyond life and death, beyond existence and non-existence. For want of a better word, we call it Tao.

Our conscious being in the world is typically skewed. Thus have we evolved. The 'spiritual' endeavor is an attempt to see if we can move toward a greater wholeness. It requires no metaphysics; no redemption; no golden age, past or future; no purpose; no Truth; no understanding of Reality; no god; no tao. We need only become ourselves.

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.

They Are the Same

Scott Bradley

The incredible ambiguity and consequent malleability of the Tao te Ching can be off-putting — or it can be instructive. Rather than being a static enunciation of 'truths', it becomes a kaleidoscopic mirror. As we interact with it, it reflects back meanings which neither it, nor we would have otherwise imagined.

Here is a translation of Chapter 1 with an emphasis I have not before seen. It is found in Sources of Chinese Tradition, Vol. 1 (de Bary, Chan, and Watson).

The Tao that can be told of is not the eternal Tao;
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
Nameless, it is the origin of Heaven and Earth;
Named it is the mother of all things.

Always nonexistent, that we may apprehend its inner secret;
Always existent, that we may discern its outer manifestations.
These two are the same;
Only as they manifest themselves they receive different names.

That they are the same is the mystery.
Mystery of all mysteries!
The door of all subtleties!

I am probably sharing this because it says what I decided some time ago is what it intends to say. It speaks of two, but always in the context of One. The great mystery is that these two are the same. The two are Nameless Tao and all its named manifestations, the non-existent and the existent. Yet these are One and the same.

This can be an interesting speculative metaphysics, or it can be a 'door'. How it can be the latter, I am hesitant to opine. Surely, it is not a question of faith. It can only be a door when it is something felt in the guts; when it is experienced. They are words, and somehow we have to find what gave them birth, and this cannot be done through words.

There is the mystical here. By mystical I mean these words suggest an experience of mystery and are not simply a pronunciation upon it. "Always non-existent, that we might apprehend its inner secret." (I have struck what seems to imply purpose.) Where might we experience this? We know. It is our innermost secret.

Experiencing our own non-existence we discover how existence and non-existence are the same. And thus we discover how wonderful and real existence really is, even when it is not.

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.

Shall We Dance?

Shawn Tedrow

We work with being, but non-being is what we use.
Tao Te Ching, chapter 11

Does the realization of non-being negate, being? Lao Tzu, a proponent of non-being, says it doesn't negate, but rather we still work and live with being.

Absolute reality does not cancel out relative reality.

The realization of no-self doesn't eliminate our “self”- living. It brings balance and harmony to it.

We spontaneously utilize the consciousness of the realization of non-being, while working with being.

We surrender into non-being, and that is expressed, in being.

Can the flute be heard without the blowing of wind sensed?
Non-being and being, dancing together, freely and unfenced.

You can check out Shawn's other musings here.

Tao in the News

It's certainly not everyday that you crack open a newspaper or scan internet news sites and find the word, Tao, in a headline. A few days ago, however, that's exactly what I found! In fact, this story involves not only the word Tao but also the words Te and Ching.

Unfortunately, it's not a story that places these words necessarily in a positive light. On May 24, author Stephen Mitchell filed suit against Dr. Wayne Dyer.

In a copyright infringement lawsuit filed today in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, author Stephen Mitchell says Dyer "copied verbatim a significant portion" of his interpretation of the ancient Taoist scripture Tao Te Ching in two separate books.

Dyer, an internationally known author, TV and radio personality, has published at least 30 books espousing his popular mix of self-actualization and spirituality.

Mitchell is a well-known scholar and author, noted for his translations of ancient classics. He's also written interpretations of existing translations, including one called "Tao Te Ching: A New English Version." Mitchell claims in the lawsuit that Dyer copied "at least 200 lines" directly from his Tao Te Ching book to create "Living the Wisdom of the Tao" and "Change Your Thoughts -- Change Your Life," as well as their digital spinoffs.

Tao and the Internet

In a recent email I received, the sender suggested that Lao Tzu "would love the internet." I thought this was an interesting comment and I've spent a bit of time pondering it.

Since we have no way of knowing IF Lao Tzu ever existed and, even if he did, we know next to nothing about him personally, my guess is that he would view the internet in an ambivalent manner. On the one hand, "he" often wrote in the Tao Te Ching about unlearning knowledge and approaching life like a child. On the other hand, he believed it was important to master a discipline or craft and the internet often can aid in this area.

While I'm not altogether certain how Lao Tzu would approach this topic, I feel a bit more confident that Zhuangzi would not be impressed in the least! When offered an important position in a far off big city, he was content to stay where he was and to do what he typically did. While he may have had no problem with others experiencing the internet experience -- following their own path -- I think Zhuangzi would much preferred the inner world wide web of nature over sitting in his hut staring at a monitor.

What do you think?

Them Daoists

I've mentioned before that, when I first became interested in Taoism, the brief chronologies I read painted a somewhat inaccurate picture. Some sources show the I Ching as coming first, followed by Lao Tzu and then later by Chuang Tzu. The idea presented is that the I Ching was utilized as a source that Lao Tzu transformed into the Taoist philosophy and then Chuang Tzu came along and further refined it.

While the I Ching does appear to be the oldest of the classic texts, many scholars don't necessarily tie it to the philosophy that later became known as Taoism. Many schools of thought drew upon it and no one school can really claim it.

Of the two legendary figures of Taoism, the historical record points to Chuang Tzu preceding Lao Tzu, not the other way around. The first rendition of the Tao Te Ching doesn't show up until 250 BC and Chuang Chou (Chuang Tzu) lived about 100 years before that. In addition, it's not altogether clear if the schools of Chuang Tzu and Lao Tzu were clearly connected thematically or if they represented two independent schools of thought that were later brought together because they shared some themes in common.

One thing we do know is that, if any of us could travel back in time to sit with Chuang Chou or the mythic Lao Tzu, a lot of people might be shocked to learn that neither man considered himself a Taoist/Daoist. The word, Taoism, wasn't attached to this generalized and conjoined school of thought until the second or third century CE.

So what we have today as philosophical Taoism (in regards to the foundational texts) are works by two men or schools of thought that discuss the mysterious unknown -- the Way -- in compatible, though at times, dissimilar terms. The school of Lao Tzu seemed far more concerned with how people can utilize the Way in governance, while the school of Chuang Tzu seemed to pay little heed to practical politics.

There are other key differences in emphasis as well and I will highlight some of those later this year when we commence with the series on the Chuang Tzu.

Lao Who?

I've spent the better part of the last 6 months or so sharing passages and offering commentary -- both my own and from others -- of the mythic father of philosophical Taoism, Lao Tzu. I've also shared with you all my opinion that Lao Tzu probably never existed. In response to a recent post, The Crow had this to say on this overall subject:

Can you see the absurdity, though, of dedicating an entire blog to the writings of a man who you believe never existed, and who probably didn't write them?

Absurdity isn't quite the right word.
Python-esque might be better.
The very nature of the blog is an exercise in abstraction...

"The man we are here to discuss, didn't actually exist, and so the words we are discussing don't exist either. But we will discuss them anyway, as if he did exist, and as if he did write them."

To my way of thinking, it's really immaterial who wrote most or all of the Tao Te Ching, Hua Hu Ching and Wen Tzu! Supposedly, each represents the thoughts of a man named Lao Tzu. However, that moniker doesn't tell us much of anything since it often is translated to mean "Old Master Lao". That's about as nondescript as suggesting some ancient work was written by someone named John, James or Bartholomew.

What is far more likely is that the works attributed to this legendary figure represent a generalized school of thought developed by many people over many generations. As is not uncommon in the annals of history, a myth was created to merge these congruent ideas together into a belief system. As more information was added to the overall school of thought, it provided the authors with a better sense of legitimacy by ascribing it to the mythic founder.

Consequently, whenever I write I believe that Lao Tzu's point is this or his main focus is that, I don't mean so literally. If nothing else, it's a form of shorthand. I'm merely trying to highlight a specific idea that I feel is congruent with this overall school of thought.

For me, deciding whether Lao Tzu ever walked the earth or he is solely a mythic figure is silly. The point cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt one way or the other. What matters to me are the ideas that congealed over several centuries in antiquity and still find much resonance today.

So, I will continue over the next month or two to focus on the words ascribed to Lao Tzu -- whether or not a solitary person by that name ever existed at all.

More Than Lao Tzu

When exploring Taoist thought, it's very important not to become overly fixated on the writings attributed to Lao Tzu. While many have theorized that "his" philosophy forms the basis of what came to be called Taoism, his writings are neither sacred nor divine. They merely represent one strand of a school of thought.

Equally as important are the writings attributed to the other two "founders" of philosophical Taoism: Chuang Tzu and Lieh-Tzü.

It is interesting to note that of the big three only Chuang Tzu definitely is known to have been a real person and historians have a fairly good idea of when he lived. Though not all of the writings attributed to him came from his own pen, many of the chapters from his book are thought to be his original words.

As the series on the TTC comes to a close, I will shift my attention to Chuang Tzu. I think I've read all of his book -- it's far longer than the TTC -- but, like many Taoists, I haven't really focused on his take on Tao and life. I do know that, while there are many common strands between Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, the latter's approach is far different. He can be quite hilarious and argumentative in the same breath!

As I reread the Book of Chuang Tzu, I'm sure many of the themes he touches on (as well as the manner of his delivery) will become fodder for future blog posts. That said, I make no promises of how frequent this new direction will rear its head. Understanding Chuang Tzu -- chiefly because of its shamanic influences -- is often no walk in the park.

Besides that, Chuang Tzu doesn't want you to get it easily. He defies conventional thinking at every turn and laughs about it uproariously along the path.

The Clogged Stream

As I continue to post the daily verses and analysis of the Tao Te Ching, two of the recurrent themes are to flow like water and to lead a life of simplicity. Unfortunately, when we look at America's antiquated and inefficient health care system, it looks like a raging river strewn with boulders, submerged logs and mysterious undercurrents -- the very antithesis of a peaceful stream!

If an individual or family is lucky enough to have health insurance, they must wend their way through a labyrinth of exclusionary rules, complicated procedures, and forms to receive proper care. If the doctor indicates the patient needs a particular procedure, test or operation, this information often must be reviewed by the insurance company before being given the go ahead. If a person becomes seriously ill, some insurance companies deny particular forms of care or, even worse, decide to bump the person from coverage altogether!

If a person or family is not lucky enough to have health insurance and is not impoverished enough to qualify for Medicaid, then needed medical care is an iffy proposition, at best. Because the cost of medical care in this country has shot through the roof, it is not infrequent that the working poor and middle class simply forgo preventive and necessary care or go into bankruptcy securing it. Even worse, some clinics and facilities will turn you away if you don't have health insurance!

If Lao Tzu was in charge of revamping this nation's health care system, I have no doubt that he would favor some form of universal cradle-to-grave coverage. He would create a system that engendered an easy flow and simplicity, a system that held down administrative costs and favored preventive care.

But Lao Tzu isn't in charge; instead, it's the clever men who runs things and they run things as if we are stuck in a clogged stream with no way to get to shore.

Sagacious U

My mother used to say, "If you put your mind to it, you can become anything you want". To a point, that statement is true. If provided with the needed resources and opportunities, most people can become doctors, lawyers, academics, air traffic controllers, etc., etc. Yes, if a person desires to become an expert in almost any field, they can achieve success IF they discipline themselves to do the necessary work to make it happen.

There's only one exception I can think of -- No amount of training or study will make any of us a wise person, a sage.

I don't know about you, but I've known quite a few geniuses in my day who seemed bereft of even a lick of commonsense. Such a person could dazzle you with all kinds of complicated calculus and theoretical formulations, yet, at the same time, make some of the dumbest everyday decisions imaginable.

Obviously, IQ and wisdom don't necessarily go hand in hand. This certainly is not to suggest that smarts don't make wisdom possible, but book smarts and life smarts are two completely different animals.

Further, none of us can really plot out a course to wisdom. In fact, I dare say, if a person sets wisdom as their goal, they probably will never find it!! Wisdom is borne when we least expect it. We tend to gain more of it when we screw up. Unfortunately, if we decide to screw up in order to gain valuable wisdom, it will probably evade us completely.

As Lao Tzu pointed out on more than one occasion, the truly wise person isn't even aware of his/her own wisdom. Such a person is too busy living their life than to stop and pin a label on themselves. Such a person knows that, if a person trumpets their supposed wisdom to others, then that person isn't half as wise as she/he thinks.

When we get down to brass tacks, the wisdom label is something that is bestowed on a person by others and that label will dematerialize the moment the supposed wise person becomes full of themselves. So, if you want to be wise, don't try to be and maybe -- just maybe -- you will be.

Politics as Usual

Over and over again, people keep telling me that this new president is different from the previous one. I will grant he's smarter, more charismatic and his skin is darker. However, as we near the end of his first six months in office, there seem to be more similarities to the Bush administration than dissimilarities. Take the following article posted on Common Dreams as but one example.

Obama Blocks List of Visitors to White House
Taking Bush's position, administration denies msnbc.com request for logs
by Bill Dedman

The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn't have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions.

Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com's request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies.

CREW says it will file a lawsuit Tuesday against the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service.

"We are deeply disappointed," said CREW attorney Anne L. Weismann, "that the Obama administration is following the same anti-transparency policy as the Bush administration when it comes to White House visitor records. Refusing to let the public know who visits the White House is not the action of a pro-transparency, pro-accountability administration."

Groups that advocate open government have argued that it's vital to know the names of White House visitors, who may have an outsized influence on policy matters. The visitor logs have been released in only a few isolated cases, most notably records of visits by lobbyist Jack Abramoff to the Bush White House, and in the "filegate" investigation of the Clinton White House.

The Obama administration is arguing that the White House visitor logs are presidential records - not Secret Service agency records, which would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act...

Lao Tzu would not be pleased. In verse fifty-eight he stated,

Happiness is rooted in misery.
Misery lurks beneath happiness.
Who knows what the future holds?
There is no honesty.
Honesty becomes dishonest.
Goodness becomes witchcraft.
(emphasis added)

From my perspective, the problem with the tact taken by both the Bush and Obama administrations is that each is attempting to place themselves above the law. A chief executive above the law is dangerous, regardless of how erudite or good-looking he may be.

Such a position also permeates society in a negative way. Following the president's lead, others will want to climb to the top of their industry, social club, local power structure or family so they too can invoke the "above the law" argument. Within a short period of time, it becomes accepted practice and the reward that too many people will desire. Such people will employ whatever methods -- ethical or not -- to win this coveted prize.

Lao Tzu Foresaw This

As a followup to the previous post re Chris Hedges' prediction that the American empire is at its end, Lao Tzu foresaw this inevitable conclusion thousands of years ago. No, I'm not suggesting that the Taoist sage was akin to Nostradamus; Lao Tzu was merely making some general observations. He wasn't speaking of this or any specific empire -- he merely spoke of all empires who did not follow the way.

Yet, as one reads the simple book, The Tao Te Ching, verse after verse jumps out at the reader. It aptly describes why we find ourselves in this predicament today. To wit,

From Verse Eight
In dwelling, be close to the land.
In meditation, go deep in the heart.
In dealing with others, be gentle and kind.
In speech, be true.
In ruling, be just.
In daily life, be competent.
In action, be aware of the time and the season.

From Verse Nine
Better stop short than fill to the brim.
Oversharpen the blade, and the edge will soon blunt.
Amass a store of gold and jade, and no one can protect it.
Claim wealth and titles, and disaster will follow.

From Verse Twenty-Two
Yield and overcome;
Bend and be straight;
Empty and be full;
Wear out and be new;
Have little and gain;
Have much and be confused.

From Verse Twenty-Four
He who stands on tiptoe is not steady.
He who strides cannot maintain the peace.
He who makes a show is not enlightened.
He who is self-righteous is not respected.
He who boasts achieves nothing.
He who brags will not endure.

The leaders of the American experiment have not heeded these words. In fact, in most cases, they have behaved in an opposite manner. Our day of reckoning is coming and we will reap what our domestic and foreign policies have wrought.

Control

Ancients did not instruct in wisdom
They did not enlighten by their word
They did not know they were enlightened
They did not know they were ignorant

Kings came and taught right and wrong
People became confused and thieves came forth
Making the masters continually change the rules
To maintain control
~ Tao Te Ching, portion of Sixty-Five (Stephen Kaufman version) ~

The problem with rules is that, as soon as each is enacted, some people will always try to figure out a way around them. It doesn't matter what kind of rule it is -- political, religious, social, organizational or personal.

Where someone stands in the hierarchy of the society helps to determine how each will try to skirt the rules. People low on the totem pole will try to cheat under the cover of darkness. They don't want anyone to know what they are doing and will most likely deny it, if confronted. People on the top rungs cheat out in the open because they tend to believe (and it's often a correct belief, unfortunately) that they exist above the law. The laws are meant for the peons, NOT them.

We each view the crimes of others more harshly than our own. If we break the rules, laws or mores, we create ready justifications. If, on the other hand, others outside of ourselves, family or group break the same rules, laws or mores, we become indignant and demand justice.

For some, the answer out of this quagmire is no government -- anarchy. The people who support this idea believe the, left to their own devises, people will do the right thing. I wish I believed this to be true! I do believe that it is true for most of the people, but there is always an element within any society or group that desires to overpower and exploit others. There is always an element that wants more of the pie than they need.

Because of this element, government becomes a necessary evil. And yet, as we see taking place in this nation right now, that element still finds ways -- often "legal" ones -- to skirt the rules and to live above the "law".

In many ways, I don't think there is any way out of the quagmire. As long as we humans exist in societies, every kind of political system we create will benefit some, not others. And every kind of rule or regulation that is created will be observed by some and flaunted by others. It is something that we will continue to struggle with.

Everything Great and Small

A small country has fewer people.
Though there are machines that can work ten to one hundred times faster than man, they are not needed.
The people take death seriously and do not travel far.
Though they have boats and carriages, no one uses them.
Though they armor and weapons, no one displays them.
Men return to the knotting of rope in place of writing.
The food is plain and good, their clothes fine but simple, their homes secure;
They are happy in their ways.
~ Tao Te Ching, portion of Eighty ~

As the economic crisis deepens here in the US (and around the world), one of the cost-cutting strategies being applied all over the place is consolidation -- of resources and power. Here in Washington State, there are continuing reports of neighborhood centers and satellite medical offices being closed with services being shifted to the "main branch".

While I can certainly understand this movement from a strictly economic perspective, the logic flies in the face of what we each know to be true -- Community services are best administered within the community itself. To put it another way, smaller is often better than bigger!

If each community in this nation were self-contained (i.e., possessed all necessary services), people would not have the need to travel great distances. We would each work, learn, shop and go to the doctor in close proximity to where we live. This would not only benefit the health of the planet, but it would benefit the mental health of each person.

One, Two, Three

The Tao begot one.
One begot Two.
Two begot three.
And three begot the ten thousand things.

The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang.
They achieve harmony by combining forces.
~ Tao Te Ching, portion of Forty-Two ~

One of the central themes of Taoism is harmony, the balancing of yin (contemplation) with yang (action). Neither one is above nor below the other. One isn't something to strive for, while the other is something to avoid. To lead a healthy and enlightened life, we need both qualities.

Which is worse? The person who mulls things over endlessly, yet never seems to act or the person who eschews consideration and boldly moves forward? In the eyes of Taoism, both are equally out of balance. A harmonization of the two are needed for successful living.

There are no self-help books to teach us how to accomplish this harmonization. It is something we must each learn on our own time. If you ever discover a book that claims to provide you with a sure-fire 5 or 10-step protocol for achieving inner harmony, burn it, then scatter the ashes to the wind.

Unborn

Heaven and earth last forever.
Why do heaven and earth last forever?
They are unborn,
so ever living.
The sage stays behind, thus he is ahead.
He is detached, thus at one with all.
Through selfless action, he attains fulfillment.
~ Tao Te Ching, Seven ~

This verse underscores one the key concepts of Taoism -- opposites. Life goes hand in hand with death. High walks with low. Left is nothing without right. Yin cannot exist without yang.

Words can only be understand in relation to their opposite. Sour would hold no meaning if we didn't understand sweet. Passion would not grip us so if we had never experienced apathy.

It is because we are born that we must die. This is as true for humans as it is for bumblebees, mulberry bushes, viruses, stars and boulders. It's a destiny we cannot escape.

But the ultimate source, Tao, will never die because it has never been born. It just is. It escapes the world of opposites because it exists above them.

Enough is Enough

Better stop short than fill to the brim.
Oversharpen the blade, and the edge will soon blunt.
Amass a store of gold and jade, and no one can protect it.
Claim wealth and titles, and disaster will follow.
Retire when the work is done.
This is the way of heaven.
~ Tao Te Ching, Nine ~

The underlying message of this verse is clear -- don't overdo; stop when you have enough. When you have more than enough things, you create stress in your life. You must protect them from being coveted or stolen. You must be ever on guard for those who envy you. More importantly, in our thing-based society, someone will always have more than you do and this causes most people to want to generate and possess even more stuff.

Of course, there IS one inherent problem within this simple passage: What constitutes enough? Is enough just what you need for today or today AND tomorrow or today, tomorrow and who knows when?

There is no singular answer. There is no absolute measure of enough. For some souls it will be quite a lot; for others it will be very little. It's something each of us must figure out for ourselves.

In trying to figure out what is enough, we must separate what we need from what we want. Therein lies the key. Too often we define enough by the latter when, in fact, it should be determined by the former. The reason for this is obvious. Want is insatiable. Need is based on what is sufficient.

'Nough said.