BCT's Post of the Nanosecond

[beancurdturtle]

Disclaimer: This "sharing" of my thoughts is not meant to be a declaration of my rightness or anyone else's wrongness. It's only where my thoughts have evolved to from the path I've followed. So please don't be offended.

 

If your path is different I accept it - I fully believe that your path is not wrong (both in my view and in truth). No contention is intended. I will be pleased if you wish to share your response.

 

老子:「道德经」:第三十八章

上德不德，是以有德﹔

下德不失德，是以无德。

　　上德无为而无以为﹔

下德无为而有以为。

　　上仁为之而无以为﹔

上义为之而有以为。

　　上礼为之而莫之应，

则攘臂而扔之。

　　故失道而后德，失德而后仁，

失仁而后义，失义而后礼。

　　夫礼者，忠信之薄，而乱之首。

　　前识者，道之华，而愚之始。

是以大丈夫处其厚，不居其薄﹔

处其实，不居其华。故去彼取此。

 

Laozi: "Dao De Jing": 38th Chapter

Well established hierarchies are not easily uprooted;

Closely held beliefs are not easily released;

So ritual enthralls generation after generation.

 

Harmony does not care for harmony, and so is naturally attained;

But ritual is intent upon harmony, and so can not attain it.

 

Harmony neither acts nor reasons;

Love acts, but without reason;

Justice acts to serve reason;

But ritual acts to enforce reason.

 

When the Way is lost, there remains harmony;

When harmony is lost, there remains love;

When love is lost, there remains justice;

And when justice is lost, there remains ritual.

 

Ritual is the end of compassion and honesty,

The beginning of confusion;

Belief is a colourful hope or fear,

The beginning of folly.

 

The sage goes by harmony, not by hope;

He dwells in the fruit, not the flower;

He accepts substance, and ignores abstraction.

 

I was writing in a forum where the subject was originally "What is important in life?" and somehow ended up being a discussion about sex. Someone commented that I seemed to be enthusiastic about sex and I answered:

"I'm enthusiastic about all things sensual. Like music, good drink, good food, massage, lovemaking, and etc.

 

We are given the gifts of our senses of touch, hearing, sight, smell, taste - and the ability to blend them with aesthetics and emotion. So much opportunity.

 

It would be a shame to waste it. Wouldn't it?"

Then someone from China who likes to question my understanding of Chinese philosophy and literature challenged me with:

"Is this also philosophy of LaoZi's life?"

The challenge reminded me of the 38th chapter of the Dao de Jing. In this chapter Laozi directly addresses the subject of ritual, rules, and all the things that fascinate us humans - and distract us from our natural selves.

 

So, even though sensuality has little to do with ritual and rules, the false belief that we should deny ourselves sensual pleasures has everything to do with ritual and rules. Here is how I answered:

"Philosophical Daoism (the Daoism of Laozi as compared to Religious Daoism) acknowledges that we are human, that life should be enjoyed, and that we should live in the world rather than escape it.

 

Religious Daoism - the Daoism most people are familiar with - adds all the ritual and rules that Laozi thought were unnecessary and unnatural. Religious Daoism is also strongly influenced by the Buddhist's desire to separate themselves from the nature of humanity.

 

Remember that Laozi left the service of the court partly because the schools of Confucianism, Legalism, and etc. (all rules and ritual) were becoming popular and a pervasive influence. Daoist sages lived simple lives away from others to reduce the impact of unnatural laws, rules, and ritual on their lives. They did not do it to escape their humanity or sensuality - they did it to be in closer harmony with their nature.

 

We humans experience the world through our senses. To live naturally and with harmony, in the world, is the basic goal of philosophical Daoism. "Harmony" is the key here - not gluttony or excess. So, assuming we are not drowning in wine and having sex all day, enjoying sensual things is natural and in accordance with Laozi's philosophy. Simple interpretation of the Dao de Jing bears this out."

The goal is to live naturally and with harmony, in the world. We are born into this life as humans. To spend all of our lives attempting to escape this fact is unnatural and a huge waste of energy.

 

We don't need to deny ourselves sensual pleasure - or bind our behaviors to ritual and rules - to experience our own humanity and live balanced and rightly.

 

Does that make sense?

[soaring crane]

Hi BCT,

 

"We don't need to deny ourselves sensual pleasure"

 

"We" is a pretty big little word. "Deny" is twice as big in size and even bigger scope. One man's denial is another man's pleasure and there never existed a Laozi who ever worked in any court, rode any ox or wrote any book.

 

That's about all I can think of at the moment.

Edited June 30, 2007 by soaring crane

[zenbrook]

Does that make sense?

Yes.

 

God, how I wish I could just leave it at that.

 

I broadly agree with you. But I would have to disagree to the extent that any definition or characterization of a religious/spiritual/philosophical tradition becomes problematic when you consider the differences that come into play when we, with all our mixed up and juicy little ways, struggle to interpret them.

 

Hence principle and function. What are we trying to achieve or what is it we envision when we adopt one path or another? Take Buddhism: the monk may well be employing the principle of renunciation in order to achieve the function of a path that will lead to emptiness, whereas the Dzogchenpa may employ the principle of self-liberation in order to achieve her goal (function) of fully realized non-dual awareness - both Buddhist, both very different in terms of approach. I'd suggest the same can be said of Daoism.

 

So is it correct to say that 'assuming we are not drowning in wine and having sex all day, enjoying sensual things is natural and in accordance with Laozi's philosophy'? I'd suggest the disclaimer you started out with would be useful here - 'It's only where my thoughts have evolved to from the path I've followed.' There are bound to be other interpretations of his philosophy, because we're all ultimately following our own Dao.

 

For what it's worth, my interpretation would be pretty much in line with yours, I think - but I adore the fact that other interpretations flourish!

 

Gonna finish...... off for a beer and a shag. My kind of Daoism

 

Peace,

ZenB

[Celtic Dragon]

The goal is to live naturally and with harmony, in the world. We are born into this life as humans. To spend all of our lives attempting to escape this fact is unnatural and a huge waste of energy.

 

We don't need to deny ourselves sensual pleasure - or bind our behaviors to ritual and rules - to experience our own humanity and live balanced and rightly.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Perfect sense, I couldn't agree more... Well said!

 

So many doctrines preach denial of one's true self to achieve some future promise of reward and happiness.

 

To love, to embrace the simple pleasures of life, how can that be wrong?

Will enlightenment open our eyes to what we missed on the way there?

Edited June 30, 2007 by Celtic Dragon

[thelerner]

I'm in agreement. Too often Westerners get the enlightenment 'itch' and end up stinking of Zen. Hitting each movie stereotype and become insufferable.

 

 

Michael

[beancurdturtle]

Hi BCT,

 

"We don't need to deny ourselves sensual pleasure"

 

"We" is a pretty big little word. "Deny" is twice as big in size and even bigger scope. One man's denial is another man's pleasure and there never existed a Laozi who ever worked in any court, rode any ox or wrote any book.

 

That's about all I can think of at the moment.

"We" is what I imagine all of us to be in the universe between my ears. So you are exactly correct.

 

"Denial" is a matter of individual perception, so it is hugely more irrelevant than "we" by a factor of the number of sentient minds perceiving anything at any time. There's better odds of winning the lottery than defining denial. "Big and bigger" is an understatement at the very least.

 

Laozi is even thought to be a mythical person by some "scholars." And what he did or did not do is a matter of some contention, even for those who believe he lived.

 

But the context is less important than the message (abstract vs. substance) in everything. I feel like you understand my thoughts, and I feel like I understand yours. I appreciate your sharing.

 

And to everyone else that commented, I thank you as well.

[三江源]

I'm in agreement. Too often Westerners get the enlightenment 'itch' and end up stinking of Zen. Hitting each movie stereotype and become insufferable.

Michael

 

horribly true!