WU WEI the guodian way

[lienshan]

When the task is accomplished, retire.

 

(I retired. Hehehe.)

Is Marblehead's "I retired" equivalent to wu wei?

Is Marblehead's sleeping the day away doing nothing equivalent to wu wei?

 

Let's hear, what Lao Tzu has to say about that subject:

 

There are two versions of chapter 64 in the Guodian Tao Teh Ching.

The A version written by a young, immature but still deep Lao Tzu.

The C version editted by an old, mature and now deep deep Lao Tzu.

 

64b A line 1: He who is will lose it.

64b A line 2: He who holds will lose it.

64b A line 3: So the sage will lose doing it.

64b A line 4: Therefore disappear to lose not lost.

 

64b C line 1: He who is will lose it.

64b C line 2: He who holds will lose it.

64b C line 3: The sage has no being.

64b C line 4: Therefore no loss no lose.

 

The important difference between the two versions occurs in line 3; technically:

 

64b A line 3: 是以聖人亡為 (the 以 omits 之 "it" and 為 is thus the verbal "to do it")

64b C line 3: 聖人無為 (without a omitted 之 is 為 the verb "to be")

 

That "The sage has no being" means that "sage" is a name not a being.

The one named "sage" is a being. Is Marblehead named "sage"?

[Marblehead]

Is Marblehead's "I retired" equivalent to wu wei?

 

Pretty close, I think.

 

Is Marblehead's sleeping the day away doing nothing equivalent to wu wei?

 

That's not Marblehead's wu wei. I spend most of my mornings doing what needs be done - not so much wu wei. In the afternoon I am mostly wu wei. I do on occasion spring into action when inspired. Basically, the first half of my day is Nietzschian and the second half is Taoist.

 

That "The sage has no being" means that "sage" is a name not a being.

The one named "sage" is a being. Is Marblehead named "sage"?

 

No. Marblehead is named Marblehead. A rose is a rose. Can't change that. Can't change either. Hehehe. Some women have tried - didn't work.

 

But then, what is in a name? Only a thought relationship. No essential reality whatever.

 

I wonder ... is it true the Sage has no being? I think that is not true. I would accept "The Sage has no self." That is, the Sage has no ego. But s/he has an essence, a Self.

 

Words are tricky sometimes. Beware.

[lienshan]

Words are tricky sometimes. Beware.

無 wu is either a negative not/no or a verb to not have/to have no

為 wei is either a noun doing or a noun being or a verb to do or a verb to be

 

There was in classical chinese thus 2 x 4 = 8 ways to express 無為 wu wei:

 

To express the 4 negation terms were e.g. used 故 and 是以 both meaning "therefore".

以 omits the pronoun 之 which is between the negative and its subject by rule.

之 before 為 defined 為 as to do/doing and 之 after 為 defined 為 as to be/being.

也 was a grammatical particle used to nomilize noun or verb clauses.

 

1: 是以無為 (negative - (之) - verb) = to not do

2: 是以無為也 (negative - (之) - verb) = no doing

3: 故無為 (negative - verb) = to not be

4: 故無為也 (negative - noun) = no being

5: 無之為也 (verb - verb) = has not done it

6: 無之為 (verb - noun) = has no doing

7: 無為也 (verb - verb) = has not been

8: 無為 (verb - noun) = has no being

 

 

I wonder ... is it true the Sage has no being? I think that is not true. I would accept "The Sage has no self." That is, the Sage has no ego. But s/he has an essence, a Self.

The name (the title) sage has no being. I suppose that sagely is doing?

 

How can I discriminate two persons sleeping in a bed, a woman and a sage?

[ChiDragon]

無為(Wu Wei) is Laotze's philosophy: Be natural, let Nature take its course.

 

lienshan...

You are translating the characters but not reading into the philosophy of Wu Wei.

 

Please do not judge the contents by the jacket of the book.

Edited July 21, 2011 by ChiDragon

[Otis]

I don't think that wu wei necessarily means to do nothing.

 

However, I think that Marblehead's post was pointing at something important. That we need to be willing to do nothing, in order to access wu wei. As long as I (the ego) insists on making something happen, then wu wei is not available to me. If I can quiet me/the ego down, then there is room for wu wei to act on its own.

 

In dance, this is represented by my willingness to go with the flow. Inevitably, thoughts crop up, which urge me to do something in particular, to make my dance "cool" or "impressive". If I attach and become obedient to these thoughts, then I end up forcing my body, causing internal resistance and strain, and achieving the opposite of what the thought was seeking. But if I am willing to surrender that need to be obedient to the thought, or appear a certain way, and just accept whatever my body wants me to be, then I am rewarded, by my body finding its own path, effortlessly.

 

But I have to be willing first, to do nothing.

[lienshan]

無為(Wu Wei) is Laotze's philosophy: Be natural, let Nature take its course.

But if I am willing to surrender that need to be obedient to the thought, or appear a certain way, and just accept whatever my body wants me to be, then I am rewarded, by my body finding its own path, effortlessly.

You are both saying the same, yet different words, in the way I read your posts, and I do in fact not disagree, because an existent sage would be unnatural according to how I understand Lao Tzu. Nobody are born sages. What naturally exist are sagely persons. That's how I understand "sheng ren wu wei" "sages have no being".

[Marblehead]

Name (the title) sage has no being. I suppose that sagely is doing?

 

Well, I will agree to that.

 

Names, tags, titles are only what they are - words.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

To my understanding, Wu Wei is doing by not doing. Winning a fight by walking away from a fool. Having wisdom by not following inherited dogma. Gaining freedom by not following. Being creative by flowing with the source of creation rather than forcing things to do what you want them to do. Correcting by leading something to correct itself.

[lienshan]

8: 無為 (verb - noun) = has no being

Wu Wei is doing by not doing.

Winning a fight by walking away from a fool.

Losing a fight by walking away from a fool; what's the difference?

 

To me there is no difference but in the brain, so how can "winning a fight" be "doing"?

"winning a fight" has no being!

[ChiDragon]

Losing a fight by walking away from a fool; what's the difference?

 

To me there is no difference but in the brain, so how can "winning a fight" be "doing"?

"winning a fight" has no being!

Losing a fight by walking away from a fool was considered not to be Wu Wei because a fight had been taken place.

 

Prevented a fight by not fighting was Wu Wei because no fight was taken place.

[Aaron]

My simplest definition of Wu Wei (and I believe the Guodian definition to be) is not interfering, allowing things to take their natural course. So the sage accomplishes much by doing nothing, because he has not interfered and hence nature has done it of it's own accord.

 

In that light, doing nothing isn't necessarily Wu Wei, if doing nothing prevents the natural course from occurring. There was a debate once in another forum where someone asked if allowing a baby to drown in a river was Wu Wei. Some believed the Sage would allow the baby to drown, others believed he wouldn't. The fact of the matter is it's not as simple as that. The Sage understands his environment and his own place within that environment, hence he is not separate from the world, but a part of it. As a result he has a role to play within that environment, but in his ability to understand his place, he can interact with that environment in a way that does not interfere with it.

 

The Sage waits for the fruit to ripen, the water to become still, and his home to present itself. In such a way he does not take anything that is not given or disturb anything that does not need to be disturbed.

 

Aaron

Edited July 22, 2011 by Twinner

[ChiDragon]

My simplest definition of Wu Wei (and I believe the Guodian definition to be) is not interfering, allowing things to take their natural course. So the sage accomplishes much by doing nothing, because he has not interfered and hence nature has done it of it's own accord.

 

In that light, doing nothing isn't necessarily Wu Wei, if doing nothing prevents the natural course from occurring. There was a debate once in another forum where someone asked if allowing a baby to drown in a river was Wu Wei. Some believed the Sage would allow the baby to drown, others believed he wouldn't. The fact of the matter is it's not as simple as that. The Sage understands his environment and his own place within that environment, hence he is not separate from the world, but a part of it. As a result he has a role to play within that environment, but in his ability to understand his place, he can interact with that environment in a way that does not interfere with it.

 

The Sage waits for the fruit to ripen, the water to become still, and his home to present itself. In such a way he does not take anything that is not given or disturb anything that does not need to be disturbed.

 

Aaron

WU WEI is not DOING NOTHING.

 

The TTC definition of Wu Wei is:

Do nothing to cause harm or interference was considered to be Wu Wei.

 

BTW There is no such thing as "Guodian definition of Wu Wei". Wu Wei has only one definition, the LaoTze definition. There is no need to create any more confusion than what it is now.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Losing a fight by walking away from a fool was considered not to be Wu Wei because a fight had been taken place.

 

Prevented a fight by not fighting was Wu Wei because no fight was taken place.

 

Basically a fool wants to prove dominance to show he is better.

If you don't fight a fool, he is still a fool and you are not, so you walk away with whatever there was to gain out of it, ie. superiority, which you never lost nor gained.

 

That said, the fight is also prevented while walking away with what the fool wanted to get out of it.

[ChiDragon]

Basically a fool wants to prove dominance to show he is better.

If you don't fight a fool, he is still a fool and you are not, so you walk away with whatever there was to gain out of it, ie. superiority, which you never lost nor gained.

 

That said, the fight is also prevented while walking away with what the fool wanted to get out of it.

Then, a fool is a fool after all.....

[Marblehead]

My simplest definition of Wu Wei (and I believe the Guodian definition to be) is not interfering, allowing things to take their natural course. So the sage accomplishes much by doing nothing, because he has not interfered and hence nature has done it of it's own accord.

 

In that light, doing nothing isn't necessarily Wu Wei, if doing nothing prevents the natural course from occurring. There was a debate once in another forum where someone asked if allowing a baby to drown in a river was Wu Wei. Some believed the Sage would allow the baby to drown, others believed he wouldn't. The fact of the matter is it's not as simple as that. The Sage understands his environment and his own place within that environment, hence he is not separate from the world, but a part of it. As a result he has a role to play within that environment, but in his ability to understand his place, he can interact with that environment in a way that does not interfere with it.

 

The Sage waits for the fruit to ripen, the water to become still, and his home to present itself. In such a way he does not take anything that is not given or disturb anything that does not need to be disturbed.

 

Aaron

 

Okay Aaron. You did good. But let us remember that the Sage is a thing of natural processes too. When the Sage is inspired to spring into action for whatever he does not hesitate and ask all different types of questions before acting. He does what needs be done and then lets it go.

 

Wu wei is not only not-doing but it is also doing when doing needs be done as in saving the child from drowning. The Sage does not consider what the child has been nor what the child may become but responds only to the "now" moment. The child is drowning - the child needs be saved - the Sage saves the child. No matter if one day that child becomes a Hitler.

 

Wanted to add: That child may also become a Mother Teresa.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Marblehead

[Jetsun]

My understanding of Wu Wei is just when you do something in a state of flow, so you continue doing things but they become effortless and the right action is self evident there is no mind weighing up this or that, you take the only practical path open to you to remain in the flow of life. Everyone has moments like this, you even see it in world class sportsmen at times for example Michael Jordan often got in a flow state and others like Zinadine Zidane would enter it at times. Wu Wei isn't doing nothing, just look at nature it is never doing nothing, it is following the way of the Tao always moving always changing and if you follow this flow you enter flow yourself, so it's like being carried downstream there is a doing as you are moving but you aren't really doing it.

[Marblehead]

My understanding of Wu Wei ...

 

Nice.

[Simple_Jack]

Is Marblehead's "I retired" equivalent to wu wei?

Is Marblehead's sleeping the day away doing nothing equivalent to wu wei?

 

Let's hear, what Lao Tzu has to say about that subject:

 

There are two versions of chapter 64 in the Guodian Tao Teh Ching.

The A version written by a young, immature but still deep Lao Tzu.

The C version editted by an old, mature and now deep deep Lao Tzu.

 

64b A line 1: He who is will lose it.

64b A line 2: He who holds will lose it.

64b A line 3: So the sage will lose doing it.

64b A line 4: Therefore disappear to lose not lost.

 

64b C line 1: He who is will lose it.

64b C line 2: He who holds will lose it.

64b C line 3: The sage has no being.

64b C line 4: Therefore no loss no lose.

 

The important difference between the two versions occurs in line 3; technically:

 

64b A line 3: 是以聖人亡為 (the 以 omits 之 "it" and 為 is thus the verbal "to do it")

64b C line 3: 聖人無為 (without a omitted 之 is 為 the verb "to be")

 

That "The sage has no being" means that "sage" is a name not a being.

The one named "sage" is a being. Is Marblehead named "sage"?

 

It's quite simple really....

 

It's the absence of a "self;" or a "doer," "action," and "doing." Hence, "The sage has no being. Therefore no loss no lose."

 

So there's just responding according to each circumstance, scenario, or occassion. Like some you have been saying: This could mean rising to the occasion to save someone, or whatever; there's just spontaniety when reacting to a situation.

 

Here's some stuff on the Tao te Ching from Nan Huai Chins The Story of Chinese Taoism: "However, in reality, the tao (way) and te (virtue) were originally separated. The "tao" is the substance while the "te" is the function."

"The original text was burned during the Ch'in Dynasty, and therefore later the order of the chapters could not be determined....However the division of the substance and the function were very clear and so we should understand that the focus of Lao Tzu's political thought involves the concept of "virtue." He employs the term "Way" as the central philosophy for internal self-cultivation, and the term "virtue" as the emphasis for external handling of political and social affairs. Moreover, the meaning of "virtue" in ancient times also embodied the idea of "attaining," equivalent to effects and attainments in modern terms."

"Lao Tzu said: "High virtue is non-virtuous, therefore it has virtue. Low virtue never frees itself from being virtuous, therefore it has no virtue." This refers to the highest virtue, that is, even if one performs a virtuous deed of the highest order yet he does not consider gain and loss of such action. This is equivalent to to the "non-action" and "not non-action" related to the concept of Tao as discussed by Lao Tzu."

 

"

[Simple_Jack]

To post other stuff talking about what the sage should embody according to Lao-Tzu: "That is, Heaven and earth nourish the myriad things and people, but they do so without any selfish aims or preconditions. The myriad things derive life from them as well as meet their ends, a completely natural phenomenon. Heaven earth give life without any resentment over the toil, and take no credit for their deeds. Therefore, people should emulate the great spirit of unselfishness, benevolence, and compassion embodied by Heaven and earth. This is an ethical standard, the realm of the metaphysical Tao and the natural law of the physical world."

"When Lao Tzu spoke of "non-action," he was referring to the very essence of Heaven and the Tao. "Not non-action" refers to the fact that although the substance of the Tao is "non-action," yet it still possesses the functions and effects of living things going on without end. Therefore, there are theories of the "mutual production of existence and non-existence" and "emergence from movement" for the functions of the substance of Tao. His proposing of "non-action" and "not non-action" for Heaven and the Tao also explains that people should emulate Heaven and earth, act when it is appropriate, stop at the proper time, and realize the standard of true-selflessness and impartiality.This is the firmness of Heaven."

"However, Lao Tzu also brought forth the principle of the true sage, that is, the true sage should emulate the nourishing of the myriad things in the world and be spontaneous like Heaven and earth without aims or conditions. Lao Tzu felt it was wrong to think that Heaven and earth were predisposed with benevolence, as was maintained by many of his contemporaries. He stated that Heaven and earth gave birth to the myriad things without any discrimination, treating equally the myriad things and straw dogs."

"Lao Tzu felt that the true sage should also maintain such equality and selflessness in saving and aiding the world, being deviod of any aims or conditions. Lao Tzu said: "Heaven and earth are not benevolent, It treats the myriad things as straw dogs. The sage is not benevolent, and he treats all people as straw dogs." Those of later generations employed these lines to satirize the sage as well as Heaven and earth, [but they simply did not understand Lao Tzu and the conditions he was writing about.]"

 

"The Great Man spoken of in the Book of Changes is equivalent to the true sage mentioned by Lao Tzu. "Harmonize his virtue with Heaven and earth" is very similar to the idea that of Heaven and Earth, "The myriad things depend on it and it denies nothing to anyone. It does its work but makes no claim for itself." Is not "Harmonizes his brightness with the sun and moon" The same meaning as "Heaven and earth are not benevolent, it treats the myriad things as straw dogs?" The sun and moon illuminate Heaven and earth without discriminating the pure and the impure, but show equal compassion to the highest level of purity and to the filthiest cesspool. The remaining "Harmonizes his sequence with the four seasons, and harmonizes his good and bad fortunes with ghosts and spirits" Can be explained the same way."

[Marblehead]

Nice additions to the topic at hand. Thanks!

[ChiDragon]

Wu Wei: Let Nature take its course.

 

In the drowning baby scenario. Is that a natural thing for the baby to drown in the river...???

By doing nothing to save the baby, was that considered to be "let Nature take its course"...???

IMO To let the baby live is a natural course of Nature. How can we say that doing nothing to save the baby was considered to be Wu Wei...???

[doc benway]

Much of what is said and written about Wu Wei in the classics seems to me to be a very lofty aspiration but how many of us actually achieve a total evaporation of self and pure being in complete accordance with Dao and nature? Call it abiding in heartmind or choiceless awareness or unconditioned awareness or buddha mind or whatever. Perhaps one or two people in a generation? Maybe none? We can all express our opinions on that. But even the "sages" or at least those authors who are remembered as Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi (where is the proof of Lao Zi's human existence?) must have known that the vast majority of mere mortals never achieve this lofty goal...

 

So what I think is worthy of consideration is what are we to do as average humans to live in a manner that is "going with" rather than "going against" Dao? One approach I've taken is to look at Dao as my own true nature, rather than trying to project my abstract image of what "Dao" is on the world around me. It is in my nature to think and feel and desire and choose. Much of this is heavily influenced, maybe even completely created, by social and cultural conditioning as well as physiological and environmental factors. We can certainly argue whether there exists a pure state of humanity where all of that conditioning is absent and we are purely a reflection of Dao and nature with no cloudiness on a permanent basis - I'm not yet convinced this does or ever has existed but that's beside the point.

 

So I am a thinking, feeling, choosing, desiring being. Is it Wu Wei to deny this, to fight this? Perhaps. To the extent that I can let go of the conditioning and the preferences, I will do just that although the irony is that this is, in itself, a choice and a desire and, therefore, a departure from what is currently. Anyway, to the extent that there is residual conditioning, can I work with that in a skillful way to approach something that may be considered Wu Wei? I believe it is possible.

 

I advocate that each of us conduct an ongoing and profound examination of our selves. Our motivations, behavior, choices, reactions, and so forth. How do I react to situations and relationships with others? What makes me angry or afraid and where does that come from? And on and on - it's a long and arduous undertaking. And the more I understand myself, the more I can understand my core values - those things that are at the root of my conditioned (and non-conditioned) being. Do I value integrity (that's a big one for me). Honesty? Compassion? Loyalty? Once I am able to get directly in touch with this, I can approach Wu Wei. If I am able to make choices that support my desire to live in accordance with my own core values, that is living in a manner of Wu Wei. I am going with rather than against my own nature as best I can understand and experience it. Then I am much more likely to be comfortable with who I am and where I am going in life. After some time spent doing this work I found that love and compassion tend to arise very naturally.

 

If I can combine this approach with developing skill in acceptance, I am even closer to Wu Wei. When I can be in the present and accept my condition and understand that I need absolutely nothing to change to be here and now and totally complete in this "experience" then I don't need to make choices and the desires take less hold of me. Can I dwell in this state forever and at all times? Not by a long shot. Can anyone? Perhaps, it may be worth a try. But until this state becomes permanent, these other two attitudes of living in accordance with my core values and abiding whenever possible in a state of awareness without preference or choice is a way to approach a life of Wu Wei.

[Marblehead]

Hi Steve,

 

I think you hit on an important consideration here. That is, the connection between our 'natural state' and wu wei.

 

The state of wu wei must come to us naturally. If we force it it is nothing more than all the other illusions and delusions we have in our life.

 

To me, wu wei is a harmonious state somewhere between wu and yo, between Mystery and Manifest, between the physical and the spiritual.

 

We are not 'lost in space' when in the condition of wu wei but rather we are in harmony with our true nature at a particular time of our life.

 

When we are young we are more active, as we age we become more retired. As we age fewer things matter to us so we have fewer things to concern ourself with. This is natural too.

[unmike]

Using the same words as we are wont to do, the linguistic delicacy necessary to suss out the meaning often evades.

 

Action without acting.

[Aaron]

Hello Chi and Marblehead,

 

I have to laugh because I read your posts and I what I read was exactly what I posted, but somehow it was missed, or maybe not expressed clearly.

 

Wu-wei is not no-action, but rather not interfering. That doesn't mean that one doesn't save the baby drowning in the river, but it may mean that you don't step in the middle of fight between two bears. As Steve mentioned, the concept of Wu-Wei is beyond most peoples ability to attain, simply because it requires that one be aware of their true self, or heartmind as it's being described elsewhere. I'm not so certain about the one or two in a generation, remember there are many more people on the Earth now than there were, so maybe several hundred in a generation.

 

With all of this said, like much of what Lao Tzu wrote, it is always expressed metaphorically, in a way that prompts the reader to endeavor to experience it themselves, so perhaps, rather than argue about the definition of Wu-Wei, we should aspire to allow it to arise within us.

 

Aaron

Edited July 24, 2011 by Twinner