Secondary New Wu Wei Thread

[Marblehead]

PPS...

Chapter 2 defines Wu Wei; and Chapter 3 referenced to it by stating the reason why it was FOR Wu Wei Wu(Wei Wu Wei).

You have me at a point of ignorance here so I am unable to discuss that.

[Stosh]

From what you have written , I figure we both might

take exception , to the idea that Lao..

 

advised that leaders of the day ..

To subjugate the people of their own country

by promoting ignorance and encouraging fear.

I think,,,

We also dont care for the idea that he suggested that ..

The people would be better off one hundred fold

if they did nothing and knew nothing.

So there is certainly precedent for our agreement.

 

Keeping that in mind ,,

I have two translations of the ttc at home

I attempted to compare them

They dont look very similar at all

I understand that the classical Chinese writing system

did not have the same structure that English does.

It appears to be much less definite,( or more broad ),

in the meaning that can be construed to parts taken

out of context.

This would imply-allow flexibility-uncertainty in translations

done thousands of years later.

 

Keeping this in mind I address directly your counter-questions.

 

 

Don't you think that "Trailing to a natural path"

implies the meaning of "the attitude of Wu Wei"....???

 

Yes it could , but the context you gave was that Lao already addresses

what it means , and I see no reason to get 'flexible' at that point in the

translation , by narrowing it down.

He said what he wanted to say about it, and though I personally LIKE

the smoothness of this other phrase,, I see the meaning getting more vague.

I do not however , consider this to be a big issue here.

 

You had earlier said

Isn't what lines 14 through 18 are, the hidden messages

which are suggesting that Wu Wei is "let Nature take its course"

 

This is the main issue I am more concerned about.

 

My answer is NO , that is not what 'let nature take its course' means

to western readers (who are unable to read the classical chinese) ,

It is OUR idiom , it has OUR connotations, it is colloquial speech

it is not an obscure phrase, amenable to re-definition.

Using this term does nothing to cure the "DO NOTHING" interpretation

of wu wei which you decry as 'misunderstanding' on our part.

It reitterates underlines condones supports that very misunderstanding!

Because the term boils several lines of that chapter down to only one.

 

"Mind your own business" isnt a great phrase but its better than "DO NOTHING"

Or it could be "do not act obstructively"

or it could be "cause no undue disturbance"

 

Or you can JUST pick something else that will suffice when referring

only to the definition that Lao delineated himself.

 

My whole point here is that , if you want to fix the misunderstanding

you have to find some other phrase that doesnt have Lao suggesting

that folks shouldnt do anything about anything!

(unless that is what you feel it truly means)

Stosh

[ChiDragon]

From what you have written , I figure we both might

take exception , to the idea that Lao..

 

advised that leaders of the day ..

To subjugate the people of their own country

by promoting ignorance and encouraging fear.

 

I think,,,

We also dont care for the idea that he suggested that ..

The people would be better off one hundred fold

if they did nothing and knew nothing.

So there is certainly precedent for our agreement.

 

12. Always keeping the people innocent without desire,

13. Presumptuous people cannot commit their acts.

 

"by promoting ignorance and encouraging fear."

Most people misunderstood this phrase, in line 12, I said most people which include the modern native Chinese also.

 

Keeping the people innocent without desire is simply means:

1. Innocent was meant not to be full of malice thoughts in cunning others.

2. Without desire was meant to be more self contained.

 

 

[ChiDragon]

You had earlier said

Isn't what lines 14 through 18 are, the hidden messages

which are suggesting that Wu Wei is "let Nature take its course"

 

This is the main issue I am more concerned about.

 

My answer is NO , that is not what 'let nature take its course' means

to western readers (who are unable to read the classical chinese) ,

It is OUR idiom , it has OUR connotations, it is colloquial speech

it is not an obscure phrase, amenable to re-definition.

Using this term does nothing to cure the "DO NOTHING" interpretation

of wu wei which you decry as 'misunderstanding' on our part.

It reitterates underlines condones supports that very misunderstanding!

Because the term boils several lines of that chapter down to only one.

 

15.Let things be with no interference;

16.Grown without possession.

17.Sustain without domination.

18.Success without dwelling.

 

To you...

Line 15 is not "let Nature take its course".......???

Line 16 is not "let Nature take its course"............???

Line 17 is not "let Nature take its course"............???

Line 18 is not "let Nature take its course"............???

 

BTW You are reading the Chinese Classic, not English. The TTC is given you all the definitions but not for you to create your own definition to cause yourself to misunderstand the meaning of the TTC. Please do not apply your English thinking into to TTC thinking.

[ChiDragon]

"Mind your own business" isnt a great phrase but its better than "DO NOTHING"

Or it could be "do not act obstructively"

or it could be "cause no undue disturbance"

 

It was not "Mind your own business" but "Mind my own business".

 

It was not "DO NOTHING" but "NOT DO UNNATURAL THING"

[Stosh]

Not doing things unnatural, seems like decent advice.

 

You said...

"Please do not apply your English thinking into to TTC thinking."

 

 

Thinking is thinking Sir.

I stand by the idea that what one man can construe ,another can too.

I am trying to reconcile the two.

Thats all.

 

Stosh

[Marblehead]

Let's look at the next usage. Chapter 5.

 

 

Pinyin, Chapter 5, Lines 1 - 4

 

tian di bu ren,

yi wan wu wei chu gou;

sheng ren bu ren,

yi bai xing wei chu gou.

 

 

Henricks, Lines 1 - 4

 

Heaven and Earth are not humane;

They regard the thousand things as straw dogs.

The Sage is not humane;

He regards the common people as straw dogs.

 

 

J Wu, Lines 1 - 4

 

Heaven-and-Earth is not sentimental;

It treats all things as straw-dogs.

The Sage is not sentimental;

He treats all his people as straw-dogs.

 

 

Wang, Lines 1 - 4

 

Heaven and earth showing no benevolence

 

treat all beings as straw-dogs.

 

The Sage showing no benevolence

 

treats all people as straw-dogs.

 

 

So what happened to wu wei in the translations?

[ChiDragon]

Let's look at the next usage. Chapter 5.

 

Pinyin, Chapter 5, Lines 1 - 4

1. tian di bu ren,

2. yi wan wu wei chu gou;

3. sheng ren bu ren,

4. yi bai xing wei chu gou.

 

So what happened to wu wei in the translations?

 

Chapter 5

1. 天地不仁，

2. 以萬物為芻狗。

3. 聖人不仁，

4. 以百姓為芻狗。

 

Chapter 5

1. Heaven and Earth have no mercy,

2. Treat all things as straw dogs.

3. Sages have no mercy,

4. Treat people as straw dogs.

 

Wu Wei was hidden in these classic text. BTW The Chinese classic were written in codes like a riddle. In this Chapter, Wu Wei was implying the notion of "being impartial". There are two things here which are given the clues about Wu Wei. The two clues are "no mercy" and "straw dogs".

 

不仁(bu ren): The 仁(ren2) here is 仁慈(ren2 ci2) mercy. Thus "bu ren" is no mercy.

 

芻狗(chu gou): straw dog

In the ancient, a straw dog was used just as a sacred item for sacrificial offering. It was valueable only when it was placed at the altar. Otherwise, people just toss it in a filthy strorage, stepped on or even burnt it.

 

Lines 1 and 2 set an example that Nature has no mercy which was being impartial.

Line4 3 and 4 show that an able person(sage) shall follow the principle of Nature by ruling the people impartially.

 

Hence, these four lines had given us a hidden message about Wu Wei.

Edited August 13, 2012 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

 

Wu Wei was hidden ...

Nice response - Thanks.

[Stosh]

And folks worry whether I care about bears or not!

Stosh

[Marblehead]

But we do need be aware of the bears in the woods.

 

Yes, we should care about the bears in the woods; they are living beings too.

 

Should we fear the bears? I think that as long as we are aware there is no need for fear.

[Stosh]

Focusing on the word SHOULD ,why should one give a darn

about bears if people are to be considered straw dogs?

Is it natural to care about bears?

Folks have warred with bears forever.

Do the bears care about us?

They like our garbage ,but they dont seem to like us.

Does the eternal Tao at large care about us?

No, it doesnt, thats a human thing.

Does it bring us to personal peace, acceptance

and dispassion to extend concern to living things

that we cant control?

Heck no.

Being AWARE of bears is sufficient to protect us?

Heck no again.

Youre a soldier ,you know well enough its not

sufficient to be AWARE of bad actors.

 

You can take exception when I say it

DO you want to take exception to it in Ch 5 as well?

 

Chapter 5

1. Heaven and Earth have no mercy,

2. Treat all things as straw dogs.

3. Sages have no mercy,

4. Treat people as straw dogs.

 

 

 

Stosh

Edited August 13, 2012 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Yes, I will take exception. Let's see ...

 

From a slodier's point of view: Know your enemies. (Know your friends too, they might be one and the same.) Be aware of where your enemy is. Do we need go forward to engage the enemy or do we prepare an effective defense?

 

From a naturalist's point of view: Know when you are in bear country. Be aware of where the bears are. Do we engage the bears? I would hope we would leave the poor things alone.

 

Tao does not "treat" the people. Tao does only what Tao does. If people get in the way that is their fault.

 

The Sage does not "treat" the people.

 

The Sage minds his/her own affairs and interacts with others only when necessary. It is not the Sage's fault if others get in his way.

 

Yes, bears are opportunists. If they are hungry they will eat whatever they can find. Bears have the right, just as all other animals have, to protect themselves. If they feel threatened they will either turn and run or they will attack. Condition will determine what they will do.

 

A bear does not go out hunting humans for the purpose of killing them. We cannot say the same thing for all humans.

 

Leave the freakin' bears alone!!!

[Stosh]

If it was as easy as agreeing with the bears not to

interfere with one another that would be terriffic.

But say you live in New Jersey and you have to worry

every day that some bear

is going to maul your child on the way to school..

Just saying they are dumb animals doesnt say that I have a debt of care

for bears.

 

If both Sages and Tao dont make exception for me

why would it be that I have to coddle bears?

 

Again ,You know darn well that knowing there are bad actors just aint enough

 

and again If I treat people as straw dogs ,, youre fine with that?

"It is not the Sage's fault if others get in his way."

 

 

 

Stosh

Edited August 13, 2012 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Fair counter arguement.

 

Bears: So why did people expand their dwellings into bear territory? Why weren't allowance made when the developments were first planned? Why haven't the bears been relocated to a more remote area? How many school children have been eaten by bears? Compare this to how many school children have been killed by automobiles, either of their own family or by someone else. I am sure you will find no comparison. Leave the bears alone!

 

Straw Dogs: We all are straw dogs. All existence is straw dogs. One day Earth will no longer be able to support life. All life on Earth will be dead. Do you think the universe cares about that? It is the processes of the universe that will cause it to happen.

 

But we humans have determined that it is better to be nice to other humans. The why doesn't matter. So we be nice and hopefully others will be nice to us. Of course, we know that it doesn't always work that way but still.

 

Would it be my fault if another person ran a red light and I collided with that person's vehicle? No. They would be at fault. The Sage does not interfer with the life of others. (S)he is 'wu wei'. But let's face it - shit happens. Do you think the Sage would just stand there and allow someone to abuse or even kill him/her? I think not. The assailant would become a straw dog.

 

We all are straw dogs. Should we care? Sure. Should we help when we can? Of course. Should we destroy one for the behefit of another? Conditional, I think.

[rene]

Marblehead, hi

 

I know this is a bit off-topic but just wanted to applaud this:

 

"Straw Dogs: We all are straw dogs. All existence is straw dogs. One day Earth will no longer be able to support life. All life on Earth will be dead. Do you think the universe cares about that? It is the processes of the universe that will cause it to happen.

 

But we humans have determined that it is better to be nice to other humans. The why doesn't matter. So we be nice and hopefully others will be nice to us. Of course, we know that it doesn't always work that way but still."

 

This, imo, reflects the blended perspective - that which is beyond "either/or" thinking. It's not that we have to choose between the "either/or" of caring or not caring; it's both at the same time. Yes, straw dogs, AND yes, we can prefer kindness over cruelty.

 

warm regards

[Marblehead]

AND yes, we can prefer kindness over cruelty.

 

warm regards

Yeah, we went way off topic but will likely return tomorrow.

 

Yes, we humans have evolved such that we are able to make these distinctions. And, as I am a believer in free will we can choose between kindness or cruelty.

[Stosh]

To that Mh and to rene's applause I agree well

But

and I agree its a big but

Please let me explain

Remember ,I am not trying to emulate a sage

I think it is a literary device anyhow ..

 

I am contending that it is the being nice stuff

that doesnt jive with sageliness.

The mode of behavior being described by the TTC, IMO

is not the same as that of Chrisitianity, or Buddhism etc

 

The other systems rely on arbitrary codes of morality

A person strives to be GOOD , kind ,nice ,just ,etc

with the intent that it yeild them benefit, usually in the afterlife

(because we all can see justice isnt reliable in this one)

One can also try to get the good blessings of folks around them

to be validated accepted etc,

This system however doesnt rely on either the boons of afterlife

nor does it rely on the whims of those around us to validate our

behaviors , but it still can yeild harmonious results.

 

Nature is harmonius in its own way without our artificial morality!

and without artificial constucts of heaven either!

 

You would give because you wanted someone to have

You would help because you wanted that person to prosper

not because you wanted to be thanked or liked or to get

preferred treatment from a god.

 

The ancients were digging around at the foundations of why

folks make themselves unhappy and suggesting cures in the

form of perspectives to relieve the burdens placed on us

BY US.

If I or you believe there is no such thing as justice

we cannot become bent out of shape over a percieved injustice!

If we do not believe in right and wrong we cant feel ourselves

unduly burdened.

If we do not respect conventions of beauty and ugliness

we cant be envious or ashamed.

 

Not being envious , ashamed , angry , resentful etc

we are then freed of our "negative" responses which

have plagued mankind.

But once you construe niceness and justice and beauty etc

You get it all back again.

 

And thats why a Sage wouldnt entertain these things

but would still benefit himself and society.

 

Stosh

Edited August 13, 2012 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Nice post Stosh. I have no problem with what you said. And I agree, a Sage does not strive to be nice. (But I would suggest that (s)he generally is.)

[et-thoughts]

Stosh,

 

If we look at the first lines in the second posts on this thread from an abstract position:

First we observe construes in the form of 'what be' be 'what be' (beauty as beauty, kindness as kindness)

followed by some opposite "what isn't". Further down the dualistic approach becomes quite evident to me. Then it talks about the how the sage handles matter in a natural manner and proceeds to juxtapose opposites in a singular integration. The point I wanted to raise focuses precisely on the notion of how humans tend towards that dualistic position rather than a singular encompassing understanding that transcends the limitations. The fact one construes niceness, justice and beauty etc hardly implies the construes of the opposing notions. That is done by those who seek to cultivate such stuff for whatever reason...

[Stosh]

Stosh,

 

If we look at the first lines in the second posts on this thread from an abstract position:

First we observe construes in the form of 'what be' be 'what be' (beauty as beauty, kindness as kindness)

followed by some opposite "what isn't". Further down the dualistic approach becomes quite evident to me. Then it talks about the how the sage handles matter in a natural manner and proceeds to juxtapose opposites in a singular integration. The point I wanted to raise focuses precisely on the notion of how humans tend towards that dualistic position rather than a singular encompassing understanding that transcends the limitations. The fact one construes niceness, justice and beauty etc hardly implies the construes of the opposing notions. That is done by those who seek to cultivate such stuff for whatever reason...

Sorry, I dont understand what the first half of your post means.As far as the consrtual of the inverse adjectives giving meaning to their inversesfor instance (good construes evil.... or a man abstracts the inverse of these things )well It is my understanding that it is a very basic Tao principle.As in 'from the one there becomes two' resulting in the TaijiiThats why its Yin and Yang ,, not 'Yin and more Yin'If your perception is more in line with universal one-ness of everything...(which I think is the case)I have no response that would not just be blanket negation of your position.That peception of reality is just one I do not share.I am not searching to find it , nor do I want to remove that view from you.I would prefer to just let you be as you are ,regarding that point.Stosh

[et-thoughts]

Sorry, I dont understand what the first half of your post means.As far as the consrtual of the inverse adjectives giving meaning to their inversesfor instance (good construes evil.... or a man abstracts the inverse of these things )well It is my understanding that it is a very basic Tao principle.As in 'from the one there becomes two' resulting in the TaijiiThats why its Yin and Yang ,, not 'Yin and more Yin'If your perception is more in line with universal one-ness of everything...(which I think is the case)I have no response that would not just be blanket negation of your position.That peception of reality is just one I do not share.I am not searching to find it , nor do I want to remove that view from you.I would prefer to just let you be as you are ,regarding that point.Stosh

 

Stosh,

 

From what you wrote i do perceive you focus on the core of the point I sought to convey... and focus on... I wonder if the sage sought to convey a dualistic natural manner(Wu Wei)? Maybe the sage sought to convey a singularity natural manner(Wu Wei) to those with dualistic perceptions. in Chapeter two "12.Always the same. 13.Sage handles matters in a natural manner(Wu Wei)" Note the absence of the construe inverse... say .- Sage handles matters in an unnatural manner(Wu Wei)... I realize that a very basic Tao principle involves the notions of 'Wu Wei' and that 'Yin and Yang' is also a fundamental one. I also am aware that the constitution of certain concepts come to be together with each other... say the arch, arrow and archer. Of course there are other underlying dynamics going on. I am curious and set on an adventurer that has brought me here and now. My singular perception is a bit quirky, on the one hand I am NOT in line with universal one-ness of everything for I am in line with individual singularities; while on the other hand I am sort of in line with the notion considering that our individual uniqueness makes us equal. Imagine a ladder with infinite steps and each being at one point in the latter, now each step is uniquely different from the other (there is a particular level for each); and each level is equal to the others (there are infinite levels above and below). I realize that the blanket negation of my position, stems from choosing to embrace the negative... well it could also be dew to a defense mechanisms to keep from considering a position that changes what one holds to be (because what I state negates the negative well what I state cultivates the positive by focusing on the positive). One may or may not search to find Tao and still one finds Tao. I am on a quest as you are on a quest I would prefer each to be enriched from every encounter...

 

The notion that 'from the one there becomes two' can lead to infinite possibilities many positive ones... To sum up what I was pointing out I wonder if the sage sought to convey a dualistic natural manner(Wu Wei) maybe the sage sought to convey a singularity natural manner(Wu Wei)...

[Marblehead]

... I wonder if the sage sought to convey a dualistic natural manner(Wu Wei) maybe the sage sought to convey a singularity natural manner(Wu Wei)...

That's an interesting wonderment. Perhaps we can talk about it some time.

[Marblehead]

I think my point has been made that "wu wei" truely is a Taoist concept and that it is an important one at that.

 

However, I think the study of this concept is of value so I will continue posting Lines of Chapters where the term appears in the TTC.

 

(Research time.)

[Marblehead]

Chapter 10

 

 

Pinyin (Lines 1 - 12)

 

zai ying po bao yi,

neng wu li hu?

tuan qi zhi rou,

neng ru ying er hu?

di chu xuan lan,

neng wu ci hu?

ai min zhi guo,

neng wu wei hu?

tian men kai he,

neng wei ci hu?

ming bai si da,

neng wu zhi hu?

 

 

Henricks (Lines 1 - 6)

 

In nourishing the soul and embracing the One—

can you do it without letting them leave?

In concentrating your breath and making it soft—

can you [make it like that of] a child?

In cultivating and cleaning your profound mirror—

can you do it so that it has no blemish?

In loving the people and giving life to the state—

can you do it without using knowledge?

In opening and closing the gates of Heaven—

can you play the part of the female?

In understanding all within the four reaches—

can you do it without using knowledge?

 

 

J. Wu (Lines 1 - 12)

 

In keeping the spirit and the vital soul together,

Are you able to maintain their perfect harmony?

In gathering your vital energy to attain suppleness,

Have you reached the state of a new-born babe?

In washing and clearing your inner vision,

Have you purified it of all dross?

In loving your people and governing your state,

Are you able to dispense with cleverness?

In the opening and shutting of heaven's gate,

Are you able to play the feminine part?

Enlightened and seeing far into all directions,

Can you at the same time remain detached and non-active?

 

 

Wang (Lines 1 - 6)

 

Embracing Oneness with body and soul,

can they be kept un-separated?

Focusing Chi to its softest state,

can we reach infancy?

Cleansing our minds,

can we become spotless?

Caring for people and ruling a state,

can we rely not on our knowledge?

Keeping our senses attentive to outside,

can we submit to nature?

After attaining extensive knowledge,

can we rely on our wisdom of Wu?

 

 

 

Of course, Line 8 is where "wu wei" appears but there are a lot of "wu"s in there that I feel are worthy of mention, as well as the one stand-alone "wei".

Edited August 14, 2012 by Marblehead