Dao within the Dao

[Stigweard]

[unmike]

Spot on, as per usual. Great insight!

[Otis]

I like very much the analogy of the gardener, because he is the one who cultivates, but never forces, the direction of the plant. He may help to support the tomato plant with stakes, but he will never ask it to produce a different fruit.

 

I think it's also worth keeping in mind that we are not just the gardeners, but the plants themselves. As the plants, we do need some humility in our conceptions of what the "right" gardening is. Thankfully, other wise gardeners have written books on the subject, but the individual plant is not an academic exercise. I can take good advice, and see how it fits, but I still need to let life itself be my principle guide, not method. I need to be willing to make mistakes, or I will only be dwelling within the confines of someone else's philosophy. I need to learn to trust my own guidance, or I will always live a second-hand life.

 

As a plant, there is, within me, all the instructions on how to grow. It's built into the system. It's important not to let the concepts of "right" overwhelm the internal guidance, which is the path that nature has designed for me to grow by. Trust that nature knows better, than my thoughts ever will.

[Stigweard]

Spot on, as per usual. Great insight!

 

I like very much the analogy of the gardener, because he is the one who cultivates, but never forces, the direction of the plant. He may help to support the tomato plant with stakes, but he will never ask it to produce a different fruit.

 

I think it's also worth keeping in mind that we are not just the gardeners, but the plants themselves. As the plants, we do need some humility in our conceptions of what the "right" gardening is. Thankfully, other wise gardeners have written books on the subject, but the individual plant is not an academic exercise. I can take good advice, and see how it fits, but I still need to let life itself be my principle guide, not method. I need to be willing to make mistakes, or I will only be dwelling within the confines of someone else's philosophy. I need to learn to trust my own guidance, or I will always live a second-hand life.

 

As a plant, there is, within me, all the instructions on how to grow. It's built into the system. It's important not to let the concepts of "right" overwhelm the internal guidance, which is the path that nature has designed for me to grow by. Trust that nature knows better, than my thoughts ever will.

I very much like this

[Marblehead]

Very nice thoughts Y'all. Being a gardener myself I can see the connection between a plant growing to its maximum potential with a human developing to its fullest potential.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Marblehead

[Apech]

Nice post Stig.

 

I've been growing potatoes, beans, onions and other stuff this year ... well I do the donkey work under direction of wiser minds to be honest but your comments ring true to me.

 

I'm thinking that all nature is Dao but cultivation is specifically the cultivation of Te. So you could say the wilderness is as much Dao as the garden but the garden has this specific thing added - the wisdom of the gardener who enhances what nature provides. Similarly we could live and die ... and that would still be Dao is some sense ... but if we cultivate ourselves (and I include philosophy as well as energy work by the way) then we are like the gardener.

[doc benway]

Nice post Stig.

 

I've been growing potatoes, beans, onions and other stuff this year ... well I do the donkey work under direction of wiser minds to be honest but your comments ring true to me.

 

I'm thinking that all nature is Dao but cultivation is specifically the cultivation of Te. So you could say the wilderness is as much Dao as the garden but the garden has this specific thing added - the wisdom of the gardener who enhances what nature provides. Similarly we could live and die ... and that would still be Dao is some sense ... but if we cultivate ourselves (and I include philosophy as well as energy work by the way) then we are like the gardener.

Very nice post Stig. Something occurred to me that Apech touches upon here which is the nature of cultivation. Certainly cultivation is contained within Dao, as is intravenous drug addiction. Both are part of the human condition but not all aspects of Dao and not all aspects of the human condition can be considered cultivation. And yet, if the attitude, the mental approach, are correct, nearly all human activity can be considered cultivation because one thing we are cultivating is the skill of the mental approach itself. And this boils down to intent and awareness. If I am full aware of what I am doing and harness my 'mind of intent' as my teacher likes to say, then I am practicing cultivation of a sort.

 

The difficult arises with respect to the nature of the activity in question. And this can be a challenging question. So if the murderer uses his full awareness and mind of intent in his chosen activity, is that not cultivation? When harming or exploiting oneself or others comes into play, the nature of the game changes. And what about farming animals for food? What about eating meat? Is it OK to kill an animal for my survival? What about fishing for entertainment if I practice catch and release? Where to draw the line? Certainly nature kills indiscriminately. Every living thing on this planet lives at the expense of other life, that is the way of things.

 

What are we cultivating and why? The majority of posts I see on this forum relative to Daoist cultivation refer to the process of cultivating Qi and Shen for very selfish and trivial purposes. People looking for power. Why? Generally to have power over others. This is not Wu Wei. People looking to prolong life. Why? Isn't death a natural and integral part of the Dao? Why fight it? This is not Wu Wei. Total misinterpretations of concepts like immortality and reincarnation.

 

One component of cultivation that is often lacking is the heart - compassion, love, community, and so on. I think this is most often seen with those who don't have the benefit of a teacher and are stuck with finding exercises in a book or videotape. They don't get the personal interaction and communication that is so critical in guiding someone along this type of path. They don't get the moderation of desire and drive for personal gain. The don't really get a sense of Wu Wei. Perhaps the answer to this conundrum is what Apech suggests = De 德. De has many translations and this has been discussed on this forum enough but most would agree on some variant of virtue. Similarly, we can look at the compound word Dao De 道德 which generally connotes ethics or morality. Hence the interpretation of the Dao De Jing as the Classic on Morality or Ethics.

 

Each of us has a choice in what we cultivate. Personal power, martial excellence, economic power, sexual power, compassion, loving-kindness, drug addiction, and so on. Who gets to decide what is meaningful cultivation and what is not? We do - each and every one of us. And the character of our lives and the character of our world is reflected by those choices we make. This is why no government or religion can ever change the world. Ultimately political and religious leaders don't matter, the individual matters. I see this as the reason for the very potent Daoist message that the individual is so important. Not so much that the intention is one of personal power over others or a selfish approach to life. Rather, that the future of humankind rests on the individual choices each of us makes. I am the universe. If I change, the universe will change. If I expect change to come from government or religious leaders or any outside source - HAH! They've had 40,000 years to make a difference in our lives and here we are facing the same problems humanity has always struggled with.

[Apech]

Steve,

 

I think that maybe at least part of the 'answer' is that ultimately cultivation of all sorts if done properly i.e. completely, will inevitably lead to a realisation about the nature of reality. This could be true even of the murderer ... if he/she studies the art of murdering to the nth degree, to fully comprehend the nature of the art and its consequences then I wonder how many people they would actually murder. I know this sounds an amoral argument and, unless you are a ninja I suppose (?) not one that I would recommend for anyone but its an interesting thought study. There is a concept of prodigality in Christian thinking which almost leads you to say that those that go down these dark paths are somehow more blessed when they return.

 

Ultimately you could say that any path, if followed properly leads to the Tao, no matter what it is. However out of choice you would choose a path with heart or perhaps being a gentle gardener.

[doc benway]

Steve,

 

I think that maybe at least part of the 'answer' is that ultimately cultivation of all sorts if done properly i.e. completely, will inevitably lead to a realisation about the nature of reality. This could be true even of the murderer ... if he/she studies the art of murdering to the nth degree, to fully comprehend the nature of the art and its consequences then I wonder how many people they would actually murder. I know this sounds an amoral argument and, unless you are a ninja I suppose (?) not one that I would recommend for anyone but its an interesting thought study. There is a concept of prodigality in Christian thinking which almost leads you to say that those that go down these dark paths are somehow more blessed when they return.

 

Ultimately you could say that any path, if followed properly leads to the Tao, no matter what it is. However out of choice you would choose a path with heart or perhaps being a gentle gardener.

Excellent point - I think we are considering similar ironies regarding cultivation. I also think your point: "This could be true even of the murderer ... if he/she studies the art of murdering to the nth degree, to fully comprehend the nature of the art and its consequences then I wonder how many people they would actually murder. "

is extremely insightful. Perhaps it is exactly because we are unable to see the full impact of our decisions that we make mistakes and hurt others. This is why the sage, Buddha, Jesus, are said to have been able to do no wrong - because they were/are fully awake, fully aware of their action and its potential consequences. This is why it is only when we wake up to the fundamental sameness and connection of all living things that we truly experience love and true compassion.

[Stigweard]

[manitou]

The difficult arises with respect to the nature of the activity in question. And this can be a challenging question. So if the murderer uses his full awareness and mind of intent in his chosen activity, is that not cultivation?

 

 

The murderer is often just playing out the hand he was dealt. (My thoughts here are really radical). In essence, the murderer is the Dao as well, and I don't think the Dao gives a hoot about who is murdered and who is not. The murdered spirit will be just fine and return to the collective where its comfort zone is anyway. It's the murderer himself that is the focus of the Tao at this point.

 

As luck would have it, I live with one who did years behind bars for this very action. At that point in his life, that was his Tao, the barfight he doesn't remember and the crowbar he doesn't remember hitting anyone with, due to an alcoholic stupor. His Te started the day he found Alcoholics Anonymous, 30 years ago. Today the man practices impeccability in his actions to the best of his ability, a la Castaneda.

 

Step 11 is the ongoing step where you take a daily inventory; who did you harm, did you say something unkind, is an apology due? Did I wrong someone, was I too selfish, am I arrogant? Was I judgmental today? Could I have thrown more Love into a situation?

 

Great posts on this thread...

[Aaron]

Reflecting on other threads and posts, there seems to be some confusion over whether there is any "Modus Operandi" within Daoist ontology given that "Dao is all-encompassing".

 

Firstly, just to be picky with semantics, Dao is not "all-encompassing" because that phraseology implies a duality of "something" being encompassed by "something else". Perhaps better wordage would be "all-pervasive" ... perhaps.

 

Tzujanli spoke well in another thread: "tao is the process, and that which it produces".

 

However this semantic nit-picking isn't the main point of the discussion.

 

The pivot is that, if Dao is all and therefore all manifestations are Dao, then shooting drugs up your arm would be a cultivation practice on equal footing as neidan practice. Do you think this is truth?

 

The sages maintain a simple question: What is the state of one who has achieved naturalness (自然 zìrán)?

 

In nature if certain conditions are met then life is fertile and harmonious. What conditions are required for a human being to be fertile and harmonious?

 

Nourishing life (養生 yǎngshēng) is therefore the Daoist "Modus Operandi".

 

Interesting that Daoism has such a Agrarian cadence within its ontology. "Cultivation" is the essence of Daoist practice, therefore we are obliged to think in agrarian terms.

 

To produce abundant, healthy vegetables from a garden what must we do? Do we just allow everything to grow in the garden? Do we offer it no care and attention at all?

 

No.

 

We must carefully nourish the soil using our understanding of nature's biology. We must understand the cycles of the sun and the moon so we only plant when it is right for a particular plant. We must ensure the plants are provided with the right amount of water and sunshine. We must pair the right plants up with each other so they help and assist each others development. We must understand how the death of one plant may be recycled to help the life of another. We must know when is the right time to harvest. And we must remove those plants that detract from the healthy development of the garden.

 

So yes, the process of Dao is "all-pervasive", but let us be guided by the elements and processes that nourish our life and the lives of others.

 

 

I think that the true sage does not interfere with other's actions, so he does not give a man a fish, he teaches them to fish. He does not plant the vegetables in a garden, rather he finds them in the wild and harvests what he needs. The true Sage does not endeavor to just nourish, because that alone is not the process, but also the process involves deprivation as well. The true sage endeavors to allow what is natural to happen, to act without acting, to do without doing. He is invested in life, by understanding the nature of death. If he knows a child will die from a sickness, he will not attempt to prolong his life anymore than he will a deer being stalked by a tiger.

 

The Tao is the process, but a Taoist does not cultivate that process, rather he works within that process. Not everything is of Tao, but not all cultivation is Taoist either.

 

Aaron

Edited May 23, 2011 by Twinner

[Otis]

[Stigweard]

[Aaron]

[Stigweard]

[manitou]

Laozi guides us to be dispassionate, not emotionally attached, but he also guides us to have the loving-kindness of a mother to a child. In my experience gardening is a wonderful way to discover how to reconcile these almost contradictory principles.

 

As I said earlier, the gardener understands that life is nourished through the intercourse of Yin and Yang, growth and decay, death and birth. It is through these changes that Dao nourishes life.

 

A seed is planted and cared for with utmost love and care. The seedling is tended and nourished. The plant is protected and cultivated. The fruit is gratefully harvested and enjoyed.

 

But once the plants use has expired then, without attachment or emotion (except maybe for deep gratitude), it is uprooted and tossed into the compost heap where it decays and rots. But even in this rot and disgust Dao reveals its propensity to nourish life because this compost becomes the richest source of vitality for the planting of the new seed.

 

 

 

This is beautiful, Stig! I've never seen it this beautifully put. There is such an incredible analogy between gardening and living within the Dao. No wonder so many of us seem to be gardeners! I even followed Marbles' lead and stopped using gardening gloves. The feel of the earth is exquisite.

 

I also recall in one of my many rereadings of the TTC that the Sage will look at things in either one of two ways: dispassionately, transcending emotion, so that the totality of the situation can be Seen: or passionately and immersed in the situation, so the situation can be Felt. Perhaps one of the things that makes him a sage is that he is capable of either at the drop of a hat.

Edited May 26, 2011 by manitou

[Aaron]

Hiya Aaron,

 

Thanks once again for your response.

 

You are no doubt an insightful gentleman. I agree with you wholeheartedly that true teaching is to teach by example and that one should not insist another person learn anything if they are not asking for it.

 

In regards to what “true sage” may or may not believe or do, I also doubt very much that such an achieved one would regard gardening as “not Tao” or in some way “unnatural”.

 

Were you aware that the most ancient and esteemed of Taoist sages, Fu Xi 伏羲, is regarded as the inventor of fishing nets, breeding of silk worms, and the domestication of animals?

 

Or that another of the treasured sages, Huang Di 皇帝, or the Yellow Emperor, taught people how to build shelters, further developed animal domestication and also invented carts, boats and clothing.

 

Or that Shennong神農, the final member of the Sanhuang 三皇五帝, or the Three Sovereigns, is known as “the Divine Farmer” because he taught his people how to cultivate grain as food.

 

I guess these sages don’t match up to your idealism and thus they aren’t “true sages” after all.

 

A challenge for you Aaron: Plant and maintain a garden for at least three years and come back and tell me whether or not it has brought you to a closer affinity with nature and its processes; closer to Dao.

 

In regards to our suffering, dying child, you were quite clear that a “true sage” would not interfere. Even easing their suffering is interfering with their experience, isn’t it?

 

So if you saw a child crying in pain and anguish on the street, what would you do Aaron? Be honest now, would try and help or wouldn’t you? If you tried to help them you are interfering with their experience, aren’t you?

 

So are you saying that, because this “true sage” is your emulation, that you would stand back and not help?

 

Laozi guides us to be dispassionate, not emotionally attached, but he also guides us to have the loving-kindness of a mother to a child. In my experience gardening is a wonderful way to discover how to reconcile these almost contradictory principles.

 

As I said earlier, the gardener understands that life is nourished through the intercourse of Yin and Yang, growth and decay, death and birth. It is through these changes that Dao nourishes life.

 

A seed is planted and cared for with utmost love and care. The seedling is tended and nourished. The plant is protected and cultivated. The fruit is gratefully harvested and enjoyed.

 

But once the plant’s use has expired then, without attachment or emotion (except maybe for deep gratitude), it is uprooted and tossed into the compost heap where it decays and rots. But even in this rot and disgust Dao reveals its propensity to nourish life because this compost becomes the richest source of vitality for the planting of the new seed.

 

Please tell me Aaron how this can in any way be “unnatural” or not called Dao?

 

And in regards to what is and is not in the Daodejing, perhaps your memory is failing you because after rereading Laozi upon your request I failed to find the verse that says, or even implies, “the easiest way to describe the Tao is by describing what the Tao isn't”. I know I am not the brightest candle on the cake and my Daoist knowledge is barely a speck of dung on a horse’s ass, so could you please point me to the specific chapter and line that says as you claim.

 

Thanks again for your contributions Aaron. I always enjoy the stimulus your thoughts and posts bring.

 

 

 

Hello Stig,

 

First the people you mentioned, in my opinion, probably weren't true sages. Second, I'm not a Taoist, I'm merely explaining how I view the Tao. Third, I believe that everything is simply "It", so I would show compassion to a child in pain, just as I would an old man on his death bed. My point is that you apparently know much more about the Tao than I do, but then again, perhaps your Tao isn't mine.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Also, it never says that it's easier to describe the Tao by what it isn't, I just thought certain passages alluded to it, in particular the fact that the Tao is nameless, so simply by naming it, defining it, you've proved it isn't the Tao, but rather a tao. That's how I see it these days.

 

Again, not a Taoist, just my understanding of it all.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Twinner

[Stigweard]

Hiya Aaron,

 

I most certainly respect your right to your own opinion, and I can understand why you have chosen to fixate on your definition of a "true sage".

 

But don't you think it's a little bit limiting and overly exclusive to say "this is what a true sage does and does not do"? You are basically saying that your "true sage" is a wilderness survival expert, someone who can sustain themselves in the wild and if they can't then, in your books, they don't qualify as a true sage.

 

Do you mind giving me some real life examples of people who do qualify as a "true sage"?

 

And if this is your ideal, have you started your wilderness survival training? Is this just a abstract ideal for you, or have you taken practical steps to fulfill what you emulate?

 

Perhaps I could recommend the texts by Tom Brown Jr. He was taught as a child in the ways of the native scout by an Lipan Apache elder named Stalking Wolf. These days he runs regular classes which you can find here: http://www.trackerschool.com/ If ever I come to the US this will be one of my engagements.

 

I remember one of Tom's statements which advocates the maintaining of the "Wilderness Mind"; that by learning wilderness survival you develop natural-mindedness. Tom makes a clear point that you should take the Wilderness Mind with you wherever you go, whether that's in the wilderness or in the middle of the city.

 

So yes Aaron I also see wilderness survival as a personal goal as well, and yes I enthusiastically say that this is an excellent path to attune oneself with Dao. But never ever would I advocate that this is the "only way" to achieve sagehood in the way that you are.

 

I mentioned earlier that it is impractical advice to modern students to say that, if they want to discover Dao, they must learn wilderness survival. I have students who physically would not be capable for such an endeavor, does that mean that sagehood is out of their reach? Would you really look an elderly lady with bad hips in the eye and tell her that true spiritual attainment is beyond her reach because she can't survive in the wilderness?

 

This is why I call your "true sage" an example of extreme and very impractical idealism.

 

What I believe Laozi is saying when he uses the term Ziran is that we should develop the Wilderness Mind that Tom Brown Jr advocates and to maintain that wherever you are. Yes wilderness survival is a way to achieve Ziran, but in no way is it the "only way" because I can attest quite practically that activities like gardening and Taijiquan also develop natural mindedness.

 

On another practical level, there is no way that the world's population could return to the hunter/gatherer existence that you seem to extoll, the natural world could simply not support it. And so we need to think creatively about finding the balance between rediscovering natural living and the practicality of the human population and the resources available.

 

Personally I believe Dao is to be found in each and every ordinary moment of life. We must be practical and moderate in our approach to cultivation. For the modern student in today's world I truly think that growing your own vege garden is a superb way to get a bit more Dao into your life. But yes this is just my humble and not so intelligent opinion.

 

 

PS Seeing that we are post scripting, my OP was precisely saying that my suggestion of "nourishing life" is a dao within the the Dao.

[Marblehead]

PS Seeing that we are post scripting, my OP was precisely saying that my suggestion of "nourishing life" is a dao within the the Dao.

 

Trick question for you Stig:

 

Is it Dao that "nourishes life" or is it De?

[Aaron]

Hello Stig,

 

I'm not advocating anything actually, just making a point. The true sage doesn't exist, rather it was a archetype created within Chinese society to emulate the perfect man, the savior archetype you could say. The fact that many people are attributed to this archetype isn't mysterious at all, just look at the apostles and saints in modern Christianity.

 

Second if we're talking about the true sage in the archetypal sense, which is what I've been doing, then he would not necessarily be a wilderness survival guy, he may very well live in the city and live off the generosity of others. My point is that the true sage would probably identify the folly of gardening or harvesting being seen as natural or part of the Tao. (After all the True Sage is all wise and knowing, hence he can see the connection between things on an intimate level.)

 

Another point I've been trying to make is that the Tao that is talked about within the Tao Te Ching is not simply one Tao, but rather the Tao that can be talked about and the Tao that can't. In that sense the Tao can be nameless, but the Tao can be described. I think before you begin a conversation about the Tao you make it clear which Tao you are talking about. At times you seem to allude to the former, where as other times the latter.

 

Marblehead, In response to your question for Stig, I believe the Tao is nourishing. Te comes from the nourishing nature of Tao. It is the fruit of Tao per se.

 

Peace be with you,

 

Aaron

Edited May 27, 2011 by Twinner

[Otis]

According to the "Idiot's Guide to Taoism", the literal translation of chapter 1 is:

"tao can tao not constant tao".

 

In other words, the way that can be seen as a way, is not the eternal way. Or alternately: once you try to break it down, you are in the realm of delusion.

 

The "constant Tao" is the way of the entire Universe (or even multiverse). It is utterly unknowable, because we are but tiny specks. So anything that we can break down and analyze is just a small portion, a "local" tao. We shouldn't mistake our experience of these taos as being the "constant Tao"; that is delusion.

 

I am like a musical instrument; I can be played in many ways, but I am always limited by the type of instrument I am. You can put your lips to a piano and blow, but it will never sound like a trumpet. Therefore, if I experience "tao", then I am really just experiencing myself, in a certain state. I do not, cannot, experience the "actual world", because I am always experiencing as a piano, and never as a trumpet. Nothing non-piano gets through.

 

In other words, the capital-T Tao points only towards "I don't know". As soon as we say "I know", then we are mistaking ourselves, for the Universe. We are mistaking the simulacrum, for the actual.

[Marblehead]

Or alternately: once you try to break it down, you are in the realm of delusion.

 

 

I just wanted to repeat this. It is an important understanding.

[gendao]

The murderer is often just playing out the hand he was dealt. (My thoughts here are really radical). In essence, the murderer is the Dao as well, and I don't think the Dao gives a hoot about who is murdered and who is not. The murdered spirit will be just fine and return to the collective where its comfort zone is anyway. It's the murderer himself that is the focus of the Tao at this point.

Our consciousness is just a tiny sliver of perception in the broad spectrum of reality. Even a supercomputer couldn't run our bodies for a minute - yet we do so unconsciously for decades on end. But if we are so unaware of what's going on inside of our very own bodies - then what makes people think we (our conscious selves here) have much control over what happens in our lives???

 

Anything destroyed in the Dao could always be recreated if "desired" anyways. I just have the sneaking suspicion that life here is all basically a VR video game..

Edited May 28, 2011 by vortex

[Stigweard]

Trick question for you Stig:

 

Is it Dao that "nourishes life" or is it De?

Heheheh ... tricksie little hobbitses you are

 

Chapter 51

 

道生之，

德畜之，

物形之，

勢成之。

是以萬物莫不尊道而貴德。

 

Tao gives life to all creatures;

de [teh] nourishes them;

materiality shapes them;

energy completes them.

Therefore among all things there is none

that does not honor Dao and esteem de [teh].