OldDog

Yesterdayi was talking with my grandchildren. They were telling me about their plans and aspirations. I told them that one thing was absolutly certain ... that life will always present circumstances that will derail your plans. How you fare when that happens is largely determined by how attached you are to the intent of your plans. On the other hand somehow life's interruptions and derailings are often opportunities that can lead you to great things .... iff you can just let go of your intentions. It's almost as if the dao consspires to bring you where you need to be ... as long as you can go with the flow.

This seems to sum it up pretty well. There are always going to be those who through the governing take advantage of the people. There.seems to be no end to the greed. The only thing people.can do is tolet go and live their lives as simply as possible.

Who was right? How can they be compared? I have always looked upon Laozi and Zhuangzi as instruction at the personal level.for.the most.part. Sure there was general advice.on how to govern but it seemed.it was typical that the ruler should conduct himself in a sage like manner and encourage the people to.do.the same. Confucius seemed to advocate a whole range of guidlines that prescribed a standard of conduct and proprietary that spanned a wide range of society including governing. The daoist development was focused inwardly. Confician development was focused on outward social interaction. It always seemed wrong to compare them directly.

For some reason, that Hank Williams song brought this to mind. There is a whole host of these homespun wisdom songs ... almost a genre of their own.

He who knows what it is that Heaven does, and knows what it is that man does, has reached the peak. Knowing what it is that Heaven does, he lives with Heaven. Knowing what it is that man does, he uses the knowledge of what he knows to help out the knowledge of what he doesn’t know and lives out the years that Heaven gave him without being cut off midway—this is the perfection of knowledge.

Wow, a lot to consider here. Indeed, we are human ... and we "inherit" much of what we are as individuals from those around us. If we were born of or into a society of the enlighted and realized, we might behave differently. But we all start out the same, as blank slates (hmm, that's going to get me into trouuble) to be molded by our circumstances. The Path is our life long journey of development. I think in general, we tend to have a overly restrictive notion of our finite-ness ... in the sense of what we are capable of doing or becoming. That notio. of finite-ness is like a burden the restricts potential. Part of realization seems to be shedding some of that burden. Humanity. Is it something to fear being lost ... overcome ... or ultimately realized? I would tend to be more open to potential and change. Confucius I have to admit I have struggled a lot with. Mostly, I have not given him much attention. Probably because he seems to be at odds with Daoist thought which is where I have spent most of my time. But there has always been this nagging sense that there is more to it than that. How could Confucius, who was a product of the same times as Laozi be so different. I have taken the view that Lao and Confucius are dealing with different things: Lao with individual personal development and Confucius with societal development. Lao and the Daoists suggest that if all lived in harmony with the Dao that everything would sort out. Confucius, being the more practical, sees need for structure. I don't see care and compassion as quantifiable in the sense of being able to measure how much there is at one time or another.. I see it as a state of being ... a way of living that determines how we view and interact the world. In that sense it has infinite capacity. So, can the infinite be expressed in the finite?

As you point out, there is a practicality to these considerstions. Not practical at all to seek out each and every one. But in ones wanderings, one encounters others and in doing so has a choice to regard them impartially ... without discrimination or prejudice ... or to judge them. The standard for judgement is typically one's self. If one responds to others based on judgements of inferiorty or superiority this can lead to difficulties. Do unto others ... Loved ones and partners occupy as special place in our regard. They are those for which we have special relationship to ... some type of affinity towards. This is part of the human condition. It might be biological. It might simply be recognition of a likeness to ourself. It's not that we threat them 'different', it is just that we form a bond and choose to spend a lot of time with them ... maybe a lifetime. But should we really be making a conscious decision to treat others less than we treat ourselves or our loved ones ... as if we only had so much care, compassion or love to give? Do we really want to adopt the view that some others are worth less?

All of these translations, with the exception of Flowing Hands, begin by pointing to some separste or outside force or authority that will wreak havoc on peoples lives if not heeded. This seems to make the statements about living, livelihood and imapct on peoples lives be seen as an externally caused affliction. Easily understood in the context of dominion ... by government or even god ... over people. Flowing Hands interpretation suggests that problems might be self-inflicted ... through their own attitudes and behaviours being out of harmony with the natural flow of life. The difference in interpretation is striking.

This chapter is speaking to certain mental processes as sick or diseased. But none of the above translations is quite getting to the point. That is, it is not knowledge itself that is what leads to sickness but how we regard knowledge. If we regard knowledge ... intellectual analysis and understanding ... which largely is based on making distinctions and judgements ...as the ultimate, then we are missing the understanding that comes from viewing existence as a whole. This would seem to be the sickness this chapter is pointing to. The sage would seem to recognize this and, while making use of intellectual knowledge, understands that there is more to knowledge than relying in the intellectual process. Thus, the sage empties his mind and heart and returns to a grounding/understanding found in quietude.

This is a great observation/realization. As I read this, a couple of things came to mind from Laozi. One was the passage Nature is unkind: It treats the creation like sacrificial straw-dogs. The Sage is unkind: He treats the people like sacrificial straw-dogs. I mentally substituted the word 'treats' with 'accepts' ... and the passage had new meaning. It seems to underscore the notion of impartiality. Not to be confused with indifference ... impartiality would seem to arise from not forming distinctions or judgements ... accepting the world, as you say, as it is. It followed that probably the greatest ... most consequential ... distinction there is, is the distinction of 'self' and 'others'. Overcoming this distinction would lead to what might be called a kind of natural morality. If one regards others as one does one's self, then one's actions will benefit all. The reason the universe is everlasting Is that it does not live for Self. And this would seem to shed light on the idea of wu wei ... not as 'no action' in a literal sense ... but as action that does not contend with the natural flow of existence. Thanks for the thought.

Yeah, who's gonna buy a book that leaves them feeling bad. The self-help industry (yes, they seem to get cranked out on an industrial scale) has really homed in on this. While many of them offer tips and quick fixes, most, sadly, do not address the idea of self-development over the long run.

Wuwei

... and we don't wanna forget old Tex.

This gal came to.mind this morning ...

What does "perfect" mean? I have always thought of it as well suited ... rather than correct or even complete. One of my martial arts masters used to say that a perfect form always has room for improvement. I have turned that notion over in my head for years before coming to understand what it involved. What I learned is that it is a natural impulse for people strive for perfection in the sense of correctness, completeness and all encompasing ... in so far as a human mind can conceive of such. It is an attempt to make the resukt conform to a predetermined notion of form. But in the finished product there needs to be room for adaptation and interpretation. Without such space the product risks being inflexable and unable to respond to real world conditions. In this sense a product or result can be over done. So, I have always tried to keep this in mind in any effortsi undertake to accomplish something.

... and you can't play Eddy Arnold without some Jim Reeves to go along

Yes, very nice. I have developed a real liking for piano jazz Here are two of my favorite jazz pianists.

Fell into a Neil Young groove this morning. Prolly be next week before I emerge. btw ... check out the band

Not much. I encountered the DDJ in my early 20s. Lets just say I have continued with it for a life time. As a young person I was frustrated with religion. So much of what I observed was at odds with what my Christian upbringing had taught. Seemed like every one was telling me what to think/believe without provideing much in the way of answers. I came to look upon religion as a social phenomena. People are drawn to religion for social reasons ... which is not a bad thing for most because people in general need moral guidance. The basic teachings of Jesus provide that ... all the rest ... dogma, ritual ... is mans invention. What I found in the DDJ is answers to a lot of the questions I had that make sense ... providing consistency and continuity. As for goals, I am satisfied with having a way to live the life I am given in a simple manner and in harmony (I prefer that word, as well) with time and nature, using the three treausres ... compassion, frugality and not being first ... as my standard. That can be considered a morality of a kind. My goals are not in salvation, heaven or even enlightnment. These, in common thinking, are goals that place one in a superior position or position of advantage relative to others. Hence, something to be desired ... competed for. They seem false in that regard. Rather, I take comfort in the unity of being, knowing that life has a beginning and an end. Regardless of whether my form continues to persist or not, it does so in the unity of existence. That can be considered an enlightenment of a kind. Just one man's opinion.

Well, not builder in a literal sense but he certainly had some degree of oversight ... sounded like it was his project.

Sure enough. As I read it, he was adept with people and recognized at an intuitive level the kinds of people he was soliciting from and was thus able to obtain the funding he needed. Sounds like a real politician. Able to grip and grin with the best of them.

What makes you think he might not have been? As I read it, he was both the collector of the funds and builder of the bell alter.

Could be. I sittin there eating a hamburger and they played a cover of this song ... and it wasn't even the Polish Prince. Felt obliged to get Bobby Helms out there.