The Significance of Taoist Virtue

[Stigweard]

The Significance of Virtue

 

The Daoist concept of 'Virtue'1 is rich in meaning. Generally speaking, Virtue and Dao are reciprocal concepts. In the fifty-first chapter of the Laozi, it is said that "Dao begets all things, and Virtue fosters them." Dao is the fundamental origin of all beings, while Virtue is the reflection of Dao in all beings. Dao is formless and imageless; Virtue, as the manifestation of Dao in all concrete things, is also formless. Therefore Daoists often refer to Dao and Virtue as a single concept, and consider them to be absolutely void and still, and the ultimate abstruse Ancestor of all beings.

 

Virtue is the attainment of Dao

 

As the reflection of Dao in all beings, Virtue can be said to be each concrete being's attainment of Dao. In the Pivotal Meaning of the Daoist Doctrine2 by Meng Anpai of the Tang dynasty, it is said that Virtue is attainment, and is the opposite of loss of Dao. For this reason, Virtue and the sometimes-used concept of 'Dao-Nature'3 are identical. Dao is omnipresent and all creatures have Dao-Nature. In the Book of Master Zhuang4, it is said that Dao is 'omnipresent', and can be found in mole crickets and ants, in bricks and tiles, in stools and urine. Whether it be the most spiritual of men or the most debased of things, everything has Dao. In the Book of Western Ascension5, it is said that "Dao is not only in me; all beings have it". This Dao-Nature reflected by all beings is Virtue.

 

Virtue is the effect of Dao

 

Virtue is the reflection of Dao, and Dao is the root of Virtue. From this perspective, we can say that the effect of Dao on the nurturing and ordering of all beings is played out through Virtue. Dao is Emptiness6 and governs Non-Being7, while Virtue exists in all concrete things and governs Being8. Of course, we are here not separating Dao and Virtue into two separate things, but merely reflecting on different situations and functions. Fundamentally speaking, Virtue and Dao are but two aspects of a single category. Hence, the first scroll of the Pivotal Meaning of the Daoist Doctrine quotes Master Xuanqing as saying that "Dao and Virtue are two significances of a single reality. They are one but not one, two but not two." Looking at their functions and effects, they are different and thus two, but as different expressions of the same reality, they are not two. In the same way, they are both one, but owing to their different functions, they are not one.

 

 

Zhongyu, Liu. Translator: David Palmer. Taoist Culture and Information Centre. Accessed 17 March 2009. <http://eng.taoism.org.hk/daoist-beliefs/gr...o/pg2-1-2-1.htm>

 

So the options for discussion:

 

What does everyone think of the comments:

 

~ "Dao begets all things, and Virtue fosters them."

~ "Virtue is the reflection of Dao, and Dao is the root of Virtue."

 

Can the virtue of Dao and the virtue of man be one and the same? Or is there a irreconcilable difference between the virtue of Dao and the virtue of man?

 

Are humans intrinsically virtuous but we have been conditioned otherwise OR are we intrinsically immoral and require codes of ethics or morals taught to us?

 

Can human behavior ever be considered "natural"?

 

If a human is acting according to their acquired world view and conditioned beliefs, is this acting according to their nature?

 

Is there such a thing as the True Nature of an individual? And if so what is the relationship between True Nature and conditioned nature?

 

Dig in folks ... tallyho!

 

Edited March 25, 2011 by Stigweard

[Marblehead]

Nice read.

 

I have seen translations where the translator has used "V" when speaking to the virtue of Tao and "v" when speaking to the virtue of man.

 

The article above speaks primarily to Virtue - the "Te" part of the Tao Te Ching.

 

I have seen translations of 'Tao Te Ching' to read "The Way And Its Power" but I think that it would be more descriptive to say "The Way And Its Virtue".

 

Thanks for sharing that.

 

Be well!

[Stigweard]

[Marblehead]

[Stigweard]

I envy you. I say that as a compliment to your ability. Sad that I had such a horrible start in my early education process.

I shan't allow you to develop wrong impressions of me my friend My ability in this case extends no further than being able to use a mouse and knowing where to look on the internet.

 

Grab any Chinese character and bounce it through these two sites and you will undoubtedly have the same 'ability' as me.

 

http://www.internationalscientific.org/Cha...tton1=Etymology

 

http://www.yellowbridge.com/chinese/chinese-dictionary.php

 

 

I totally agree but this is exactly where the arguements begin when the evil actions of man are considered.

And central to this argument is the discussion over whether humans are intrinsically virtuous but we have been conditioned otherwise OR we are intrinsically immoral and require codes of ethics or morals taught to us.

 

What say you?

 

[Marblehead]

I shan't allow you to develop wrong impressions of me my friend My ability in this case extends no further than being able to use a mouse and knowing where to look on the internet.

 

Grab any Chinese character and bounce it through these two sites and you will undoubtedly have the same 'ability' as me.

 

http://www.internationalscientific.org/Cha...tton1=Etymology

 

http://www.yellowbridge.com/chinese/chinese-dictionary.php

 

 

 

Okay. I will stop stroking you. Hehehe.

 

And central to this argument is the discussion over whether humans are intrinsically virtuous but we have been conditioned otherwise OR we are intrinsically immoral and require codes of ethics or morals taught to us.

 

What say you?

 

 

Somehow I missed this post until just now. I enjoy discussing this subject so here goes.

 

So the root question here, I think, is "What is the true nature of man?"

 

I think that if this question were posed to Lao Tzu he would say that man is intrinsically good and that it is our later egos and desires as we mature that have led us away from our natural state (being content with 'enough').

 

On the other hand, I think that Chuang Tzu would suggest that there is no natural state (collectively) But that we each have our own individual capacities and capabilities and we grow and mature according to these limiting factors. (I know that this can be easily argued.)

 

Personally, I lean toward John Locke's theory of the "Blank Slate" concept of the nature of man. That is, we are born with an empty mind (brain) and we learn everything from our environment, especially our parents and peers.

 

So when a 'bad' person does 'evil' things it is because this kind of behavior is what the person has learned and they have not questioned the rightness or wrongness of the behavior.

 

It is only after we have considered the rightness or wrongness of our behavior and have made a conscious choice to behave in any given manner can it be said that the person is behaving according to their own conscious (and subconscious) nature.

 

But, regardless, however a person behaves, they are being true to their nature at that very point in time. (Nature follows Tao and man follows [his] nature.) So, the 'good' person is naturally 'good' and the 'bad' person is naturally 'bad' but they both are being their natural self.

 

Disagreements are very welcome.

 

Be well!

[Stigweard]

Okay. I will stop stroking you. Hehehe.

 

 

 

Somehow I missed this post until just now. I enjoy discussing this subject so here goes.

 

So the root question here, I think, is "What is the true nature of man?"

 

I think that if this question were posed to Lao Tzu he would say that man is intrinsically good and that it is our later egos and desires as we mature that have led us away from our natural state (being content with 'enough').

 

On the other hand, I think that Chuang Tzu would suggest that there is no natural state (collectively) But that we each have our own individual capacities and capabilities and we grow and mature according to these limiting factors. (I know that this can be easily argued.)

 

Personally, I lean toward John Locke's theory of the "Blank Slate" concept of the nature of man. That is, we are born with an empty mind (brain) and we learn everything from our environment, especially our parents and peers.

 

So when a 'bad' person does 'evil' things it is because this kind of behavior is what the person has learned and they have not questioned the rightness or wrongness of the behavior.

 

It is only after we have considered the rightness or wrongness of our behavior and have made a conscious choice to behave in any given manner can it be said that the person is behaving according to their own conscious (and subconscious) nature.

 

But, regardless, however a person behaves, they are being true to their nature at that very point in time. (Nature follows Tao and man follows [his] nature.) So, the 'good' person is naturally 'good' and the 'bad' person is naturally 'bad' but they both are being their natural self.

 

Disagreements are very welcome.

 

Be well!

Haha! Just what the doctor ordered! Look what I found in the closet Mr Marbles

 

So the options for discussion:

 

What does everyone think of the comments:

 

~ "Dao begets all things, and Virtue fosters them."

~ "Virtue is the reflection of Dao, and Dao is the root of Virtue."

 

Can the virtue of Dao and the virtue of man be one and the same? Or is there a irreconcilable difference between the virtue of Dao and the virtue of man?

 

Are humans intrinsically virtuous but we have been conditioned otherwise OR are we intrinsically immoral and require codes of ethics or morals taught to us?

 

Can human behavior ever be considered "natural"?

 

If a human is acting according to their acquired world view and conditioned beliefs, is this acting according to their nature?

 

Is there such a thing as the True Nature of an individual? And if so what is the relationship between True Nature and conditioned nature?

 

Dig in folks ... tallyho!

 

Edited March 25, 2011 by Stigweard

[Marblehead]

Wow! You have resurrected a dead topic!!! What powers!!!

 

Or is this a reincarnation of a previous being???

 

Whatever it might be, there are some really great questions in that post.

 

I will allow time for others to view and hopefuly respond to your questions but I will speak briefly to this:

 

Can human behavior ever be considered "natural"?

 

I hold to the concept that there is nothing that is supernatural or unnatural anywhere in the universe. Therefore, denying any judgement of any kind, I would suggest that all behavior of "everything" in the universe is natural.

 

Join in the discussion Y'all!!!

[Encephalon]

And central to this argument is the discussion over whether humans are intrinsically virtuous but we have been conditioned otherwise OR we are intrinsically immoral and require codes of ethics or morals taught to us.

 

What say you?

 

I also believe this is central to the argument. While we should maintain our indebtedness to Maslow for taking the radical course of studying highly successful, or self-actualized, beings, I think we still have a lot to learn about human nature by studying our most wounded brethren. Dr. Gabor Mate has some very interesting and enlightening observations about human nature through his work with people suffering from addiction. Heritable traits and moral and ethical education aside, the way human beings are treated in their young and formative years is proving to be a more important factor, insofar as early childhood experience affects brain tissue still in development.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Blasto

[The Way Is Virtue]

[Otis]

Ultimately the Virtue of Tao and the virtue of man are one and the same.

This is my take on Te/De.

 

Human concepts of virtue/morality are usually rule-based, because we have the parental fallacy which says "if I don't tell you how to behave, then you will go off and do something horrible".

 

Whereas I think that the Taoist Te has nothing to do with rules or human concepts. It is merely the act of "courageously caring".

 

Courage is the yang virtue, because we are frozen, imprisoned, if we cannot step beyond our fear.

 

Of course, "caring", the yin virtue, is a term with many meanings, so I'll try to specify.

 

The way that we are with an newborn: gentle, listening, aware, loving, curious, care-full, unhurried, utterly devoid of judgment or hostility, that is what I mean by "caring". IMO, if we took that kind of care with all facets of our lives, then we would not run into hard or sharp edges, nor cause damage to others (i.e. we avoid karma).

 

That is how I interpret "Te".

Edited March 25, 2011 by Otis

[Marblehead]

Hi Blasto,

 

Just wanted to say that I admire people like Dr. Gabor Mate. Thanks for the video.

[Stigweard]

Hi Stig. Which reference are you using for this information? Looks like something that could be very helpful...

My online translation resources are listed here: Resources

[The Way Is Virtue]

My online translation resources are listed here: Resources

 

Hi Stigweard. Thanks. I meant which specific reference are you using that breaks the characters into their root characters and describes the pictograph meaning?

Edited March 25, 2011 by The Way Is Virtue

[Stigweard]

Hi Stigweard. Thanks. I meant which specific reference are you using that breaks the characters into their root characters and describes the pictograph meaning?

Heya matey, I have hammered a "How To" instruction over here for you:

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/16490-resources/page__view__findpost__p__251036

 

[The Way Is Virtue]

Heya matey, I have hammered a "How To" instruction over here for you:

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/16490-resources/page__view__findpost__p__251036

 

Much obliged sir!

BTW, my opinion on the significance of taoist virtue is expressed in my posting name and in my tag line.

[manitou]

 

What does everyone think of the comments:

 

~ "Dao begets all things, and Virtue fosters them."

~ "Virtue is the reflection of Dao, and Dao is the root of Virtue."

 

Dao is the idea, the latency. Te, virtue, is the very dynamic that brings them to life. A man who has internalized the Tao within his character will reflect the Te naturally; there is no choice between right and wrong any longer; it seems to follow a loving course toward the light, the decisions are made for him when he submits his ego to the Dao force. When wu-wei is achieved the sage has the eyes to see it unfolding as it happens.

 

Can the virtue of Dao and the virtue of man be one and the same? Or is there a irreconcilable difference between the virtue of Dao and the virtue of man?

 

I think they're one and the same.

[Marblehead]

BTW, my opinion on the significance of taoist virtue is expressed in my posting name and in my tag line.

 

Cute addition to the discussion. Hehehe.

[Mr. T]

hey folks!

 

way to bring this back to life! what a good topic!

 

thanks for the links and info on the characters. i haven't really investigated the character of te. i assume the character de translated above is the same character that's in the title of the tao te ching? i really like the translation of the title as "the book of the way and virtue", or "the way and virtue classic". those versions are much different than the ones that say "the way and its power", or "the way and its virtue". those versions ascribe the virtue being described to the tao, instead of representing both tao and te as "separate but equal" (for lack of a better term, i apologize to anyone for any offense). now, this is where i'm gonna stop, because i really have no idea what to make of the differences, similarities, combined relations or any of the interworkings of tao and te.

 

and the bit about the nature of man...that's really interesting. it seems as though humans follow nature just like tao, but we can make that process really ugly because of the means we have developed. nature is survival of the fittest, efficiency, repeated cycles...we do all these things except we do them with weapons and hatred, religion, money, etc. so it would seem as though we are following the laws of nature, but are we?? i dunno, good question!

Edited March 25, 2011 by Mr. T

[Marblehead]

~ "Dao begets all things, and Virtue fosters them."

 

This is what I understand. (Do we yet have an acceptable definition of the "Virtue" of Tao?

 

~ "Virtue is the reflection of Dao, and Dao is the root of Virtue."

 

This doesn't say anything. Even if it did say something I would probably disagree with it.

 

Dao is the idea, the latency. Te, virtue, is the very dynamic that brings them to life. A man who has internalized the Tao within his character will reflect the Te naturally; there is no choice between right and wrong any longer; it seems to follow a loving course toward the light, the decisions are made for him when he submits his ego to the Dao force. When wu-wei is achieved the sage has the eyes to see it unfolding as it happens.

 

Taoist philosophy; Lao Tzu & Chuang Tzu, says nothing about submitting our ego. That is a Buddhist concept, not a Taoist concept.

 

The first sentence is defining what Tao is. That is an error.

 

Can the virtue of Dao and the virtue of man be one and the same? Or is there a irreconcilable difference between the virtue of Dao and the virtue of man?

 

First question: Yes, I believe this is so. But be careful of how you view the Virtue of Tao. It is not what it seems to be.

[Marblehead]

and the bit about the nature of man...that's really interesting. it seems as though humans follow nature just like tao, but we can make that process really ugly because of the means we have developed. nature is survival of the fittest, efficiency, repeated cycles...we do all these things except we do them with weapons and hatred, religion, money, etc. so it would seem as though we are following the laws of nature, but are we?? i dunno, good question!

 

Hehehe. Let me know when you think you have an answer. I had one some time ago but I didn't like it.

[z00se]

What i find strange is that most of the people with good virtues, and therefore according to the information here, those who live close to the tao die younger than those with worse virtue. I'm 28 and only 2 friends i know have died that were around my age but they are 2 people with good virtues. The people they hung around could be classified as having very few good virtues but they were like shining stars amongst them. Why have they been forsaken by the tao when they act in accordance with the tao.

 

The tao is beyond words and beyond understanding for just about everyone. We might think we have an understanding but it's only a fragment of the tao. Sometimes i think worrying and thinking about the tao is fruitless, it's best to just do what you want, and that will be tao.

[Stigweard]

[Marblehead]

What i find strange is ...

 

Your post and thoughts present a paradox, doesn't it?

 

Why?

 

Damned if I know.

 

But still, I do believe that if we live a life that causes no conflicts with our outer world we will live a more peaceful life. How long that life will be is beyond answering.

[Marblehead]

In reference to the content of the OP, ...

 

Great post Stig.

 

This perhaps is what Mr Marbles is saying is the Virtue of Dao.

 

Ah! What am I perhaps saying regarding Virtue and virtue? Hehehe. That is still a work in progress.

 

I am an optimist so I am constantly looking for the bright side of life. Reality slaps me aside the head every now and then so I am oftentimes forced to view what isn't the bright side of life.

 

An example for you:

 

The new-born babe - 'the innocence of infants'. They pee and poop wherever and whenever they want to. We can't do that when we grow up - we have to control ourselves.

 

The new-born babe is content as long as its needs are satisfied. But what happens when we done feed it when it is hungry? It screams and hollers. Same thing when we done give it attention when it wants attention. Now, the parents have a great responsibility here. If they feed the child enough, on a regular basis, the child might not scream and holler for that reason. But the parents are conditioning the infant to be fed in such a manner. If the parents give the infant constant attention so that it feels secure they are conditioning the child to seek attention and security from others.

 

You can see what I am pointing at, can't you?

 

The infant, from day one, is being conditioned to depend on others for all its needs. At some point all these conditionings need be reversed so that the maturing child learns how to depend on itself to attain its needs. But even here this requires more conditioning. Some means of attaining one's needs are acceptable and others are not. So we praise and blame. More conditioning.

 

It is not until the infant becomes old enough to fend for itself and is capable of rational thought that it might be able to escape this cycle of conditioning. But it has been conditioned for so long it is very difficult, and impossible for some, to escape this cycle.

 

And when we do try to 'do our own thing' we oftentime come into conflict with others. Afterall, at this point in our life we are trying to secure our own means of support and others are doing the same. So a question arises: What is yours and what is mine? And how do I attain this whatever that I wish to claim as "mine"?

 

All our earlier conditioning and unconditioning will play a part in determining who we are going to be seeking those things we feel we "need". And how others respond to our actions will also play a part in our future actions.

 

At this point in our life how is it possible to actually determine what is 'natural' for us?

 

I suggest that whatever actions we take become actions toward seeking contentment. That is, if we are at peace with our Self, regardless of our action, we will continue to act in this manner. Most considerations of others will be ignored.

 

I think that it is not until we have lessened our desires and lessened our ego and lessened our conflicts with others that we will have a chance to find contentment. Once we are content we have the capacity and capability to be 'natural'.

 

Now, the Virtue of Tao is a different situation altogether and a totally different story so for now ...

 

The End