How to Avoid Crippling Passivity in Taosim

[topaz]

I am finding in my reading of Taoist passages that they can be interpreted to do nothing. 

 

This is I think what wuwei means.  

 

Also the idea of wanting nothing means one has less desire to do anything because activity is motivated by desire. 

 

If we let go of the world, what reason is there to do anything?  Why strive for anything? 

 

I would like to find a way out of this dilemma because it tends toward boredom and lack of fulfillment, giving up on life.  A kind of living suicide. 

 

Do we become like the "Fool on the Hill" or "Nowhere Man" from the Beatles' songs?

 

Is this is a temporary stage or misunderstanding on the road to understanding the Tao? 

[Marblehead]

I must first say that you are holding to, in the first part, a misunderstanding of wu wei.

 

It does not mean "do nothing".  It means to do nothing that is against the natural flow of Tao.  There are processes throughout the universe,  The important thing about wu wei is doing as little as possible that is contrary to the natural flow of things.

 

I also think you may have a misunderstanding of the concept of desires.

 

We are going to have desires.  It's part of human nature.  But reducing our desires is helpful.  Yes, Lao Tzu speaks of being without desires.  But he also speaks of dealing with problems while they are small.  We must have the desire to eliminate our problems.

 

To lessen our desires is more accurate, I think.  This also speaks to the ego.  Lessen the ego if it is too strong.  But not so much that you don't take proper care of yourself.

[Brian]

Rays of light radiate from a tree. Some fall on a convex lens, bend as they pass through and form an image. Of the infinite paths a ray could take, how does it "know" which one forms the proper image?

 

Turns out that light follows wu wei...

 

(See Fermat's principle.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QM pedants and relativistic sticklers should take a chill pill.

[Brian]

Oops! I accidentally locked the thread for a few minutes. (Stupid smartphone...)

[Marblehead]

Oops! I accidentally locked the thread for a few minutes. (Stupid smartphone...)

Hehehe.  And I even spoke to it.  Good reaction Brian!

[hod]

It does seem like a lot of people misinterpret wuwei as doing nothing. But really it seems to be what Marblehead said. Another way I've heard it put is doing things without desires or ego attached to it. This just means to be aware of the reasons you are doing things; and if the reason has to do with desires, ego or negative emotions, then it's probabably not something you should do.

 

Daosim is not Buddhism, Daoist don't denounce actions and the world, they just just try to understand it and live in harmony with it - which involves doing a lot of things actaully. A Daoist day is a full day - not boring at all.

[thelerner]

Tiny little bird flitting around outside my window.  A wren?? 

 

Anyway.. I tend to think of the way as downgrading desires into preferences.  You can prefer one thing to another, but no big deal or disturbance if you don't get it, its all good; or most of it is. 

 

Similarly you can still strive in an art, profession or skill, yet it is approached in a relaxed fashion.  Taking the long road.  Find the right rhythm, when in accord with the nature of a thing, the path is easier.  

Edited August 24, 2015 by thelerner

[Marblehead]

Anyway.. I tend to think of the way as downgrading desires into preferences.  You can prefer one thing to another, but no big deal or disturbance if you don't get it, its all good; or most of it is. 

Sounds like a good system.  Desires connotate attachments.  And even Taoism speaks about attachments.

 

I still use:

 

Needs

Wants

Desires

 

while trying to stay away from desires.

[Aeran]

I know it isn't a Daoist text, but I've been reading the Bhagavad Gita lately and it seems to offer a lot of advice on the same problem - how to act in the world without attaching desire or aversion to the outcomes of your actions. Can't hurt to check it out at the least

Edited August 24, 2015 by Aeran

[dawei]

It does seem like a lot of people misinterpret wuwei as doing nothing. But really it seems to be what Marblehead said. Another way I've heard it put is doing things without desires or ego attached to it. This just means to be aware of the reasons you are doing things; and if the reason has to do with desires, ego or negative emotions, then it's probabably not something you should do.

 

I think over the years, I've had about 10 ways of trying to explain it... here goes number 11

 

It's not just without desires or ego; it's that Wu Wei is the desire or ego; there is no separation between them.

 

There is a kind of attuned sense of Oneness... not just going with the flow but you are the flow.

[nestentrie]

 

I would look at this from a 3 treasures perspective. Like has already been said, WuWei is more about harmony than non-action; it's about taking the appropriate action, not no action at all.

  67

All the world says that, while my Tao is great, it yet appears

to be inferior (to other systems of teaching). Now it is just its

greatness that makes it seem to be inferior. If it were like any

other (system), for long would its smallness have been known!

 

But I have three precious things which I prize and hold fast. The

first is gentleness; the second is economy; and the third is shrinking

from taking precedence of others.

 

With that gentleness I can be bold; with that economy I can be

liberal; shrinking from taking precedence of others, I can become a

vessel of the highest honour. Now-a-days they give up gentleness and

are all for being bold; economy, and are all for being liberal; the

hindmost place, and seek only to be foremost;--(of all which the end

is) death.

 

Gentleness is sure to be victorious even in battle, and firmly to

maintain its ground. Heaven will save its possessor, by his (very)

gentleness protecting him.

 

 

In the first instance, the stressing of no desire you're talking about, is the question: can I act (or should I)? If gentleness can be trusted in battle to do the right thing, what could it not be trusted with? Having the desire to be gentle would be ok i think here.

 

In the second instance it's about moderation. Admittedly, this one seems tough to decode if you're thinking WuWei is doing nothing. It's just about measure and not going too far. Discordance is too many beats to a bar, going faster than the set tempo, or just plain playing the wrong note at the wrong time. Being liberal on the other hand is just knowing that these things are true, and that there is a time and place for eagerness and exuberance. Desire here is fine as long as you know the context.

 

Lastly, it's just not trying to be the master of everything and taking control of what's not yours to control. If economy is about time, then coming last is about place. Master your own lot, your own space, your own self. Again, I think there's plenty of room for desire here, it's just about keeping it to the proper locale. It's about keeping it to your own votive and provision. "I will do what's best for me, and no more"

 

I think this is the way Sage's operate. It's the way the God of Futurama works.

 

 

It's just harmony.

[Michael Sternbach]

Oops! I accidentally locked the thread for a few minutes. (Stupid smartphone...)

 

Also known as 'dumbphone'.

 

In the psychiatric practice I was working as a counsellor, there was a sticker attached to the reception desk saying: "With us, it's ALWAYS the computer's mistake!"

[Michael Sternbach]

While I fully agree with others on this thread that wu wei doesn't really mean avoiding action, there is in fact a discrepancy between the very spontaneous way of life suggested especially by Chuang Tzu, and the purposeful planning that Sun Tzu recommends. Alright, the latter in a war manual - which, however, is a Daoist text nevertheless and supposedly of use for all kinds of situations. I'm sure there is a way to bridge that gap - if you know the secret, do share it with me, please.

[Geof Nanto]

It’s been said many times before, but worth repeating…..

 

Life is the best practice, nature is the best teacher, and if you’re not making mistakes you’re not learning.

 

It’s through full immersion in the complexities of real life that principles such as wu wei and ziran slowly transform themselves from intellectual concepts and grow into lived reality arising from the depths of one’s being. Otherwise these teachings risk degeneration into yet another form of behavioural control based on externally derived principles.  

 

For me that means following my desires and learning from the consequences. I relate to Jung when he says "A man who has not passed through the inferno of his passions has never overcome them. They then dwell in the house next door, and at any moment a flame may dart out and set fire to his own house. Whenever we give up, leave behind, and forget too much, there is always the danger that the things we have neglected will return with added force."

[Rocky Lionmouth]

God from Futurama seemed of Taoist leanings to me too, thanks for reminding me to watch that episode again!

 

If it seems as letting go of the world and wanting nothing points to a complete lack of motivation and just waiting around to die, maybe you need to see that road through? As a thought experiment i mean

Say all ambition and striving to achieve whatever is worth achieving is left to rot somewhere behind you on a road and boredom and demotivation sets in, what happens after that? What arises in you after that?

Is wishing for more stuff or better positions and situations the only thing keeping you alive and in motion?

 

Wasnt it Zizek who said something about desires being perverted conceptions of what we really want? (Albeit in another context but the point is valid here also i think)

If one can strip desire and reconnect with our original nature perhaps our desires will dissolve into seeing what we want on one hand and in the other you can see all the concepts and thingamajingys we project that "true" wanting on?

Edited August 25, 2015 by Rocky Lionmouth

[Geof Nanto]

 I'm sure there is a way to bridge that gap - if you know the secret, do share it with me, please.

 

No way is the Way!  

 

“Oddly enough the paradox is one of our most valuable spiritual possessions, while uniformity of meaning is a sign of weakness. Hence a religion becomes inwardly impoverished when it loses or waters down its paradoxes; but their multiplication enriches because only the paradox comes anywhere near comprehending the fullness of life. Non-ambiguity and non-contradiction are one-sided and thus unsuitable to express the incomprehensible.”  Carl  Jung

 

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald

[Rocky Lionmouth]

I'm sure there is a way to bridge that gap - if you know the secret, do share it with me, please.

 

I dont know the secret but i keep thinking a lot about how one can put oneself in relationship with various things around oneself and know the strenght and weakness of the acting parties in the relationship. Like Chuang Tzu's Butcher, he knew how to follow the terrain in an appropriate way for his purpose right?

Sorry for the derail, just had to throw a thought out there

[Brian]

I wasn't just being silly, you know. It is worthwhile to contemplate Fermat's principle, Hamilton's principle, the principle of least, time, the principle of least action, etc. It becomes quite evident that the Daoist principle of wu wei is merely an observation of one of the fundamental principles of nature in action. To understand how we reflect that principle in our own behavior, we should look not to tomes of men but to the heavens & the earth.

[Geof Nanto]

I wasn't just being silly, you know. It is worthwhile to contemplate Fermat's principle, Hamilton's principle, the principle of least, time, the principle of least action, etc. It becomes quite evident that the Daoist principle of wu wei is merely an observation of one of the fundamental principles of nature in action. To understand how we reflect that principle in our own behavior, we should look not to tomes of men but to the heavens & the earth.

 

I looked up Fermat's principle on Wikipedia but it doesn't speak to me in the special way it obviously does for you. I understand your frustration though that other people don't also find it especially insightful. I suspect such experience is a deeply personal affair in that it involves mysterious resonances within our psyche. I feel the same way about Niklas Luhmann's social systems theory, but no one I know shares my delight in his work.

 

However I certainly agree with you that wu wei is an observation of one of the fundamental principles of nature in action (I've deliberately removed 'merely' because to my mind there's nothing 'merely' about that), and that "To understand how we reflect that principle in our own behavior, we should look not to tomes of men but to the heavens & the earth." Or perhaps simply to a flower....

 

"Among adherents of Zen, the origin of Zen Buddhism is ascribed to a story, known in English as the Flower Sermon, in which Śākyamuni Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) transmits direct prajñā (wisdom) to the disciple Mahākāśyapa. In the original Sino-Japanese, the story is called nengemishō (拈花微笑, literally "pick up flower, subtle smile"). In the story, Śākyamuni gives a wordless sermon to his disciples (sangha) by holding up a white flower. No one in the audience understands the Flower Sermon except Mahākāśyapa, who smiles. Within Zen, the Flower Sermon communicates the ineffable nature of tathātā (suchness) and Mahākāśyapa's smile signifies the direct transmission of wisdom without words."

 

(from Wikipedia  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_Sermon)

Edited August 25, 2015 by Yueya

[Rocky Lionmouth]

I wasn't just being silly, you know. It is worthwhile to contemplate Fermat's principle, Hamilton's principle, the principle of least, time, the principle of least action, etc. It becomes quite evident that the Daoist principle of wu wei is merely an observation of one of the fundamental principles of nature in action. To understand how we reflect that principle in our own behavior, we should look not to tomes of men but to the heavens & the earth.

 

Had to go back to se where you wrote it, totally missed it at first, will check monsieur Fermats principle!

[Karl]

Light takes the route which takes the least time. A bit of calculus and the angle of incidence = the angle of reflection. As I read it. The calculus is a bit daunting, if like me you are not a very good mathematician it can be hard to follow, but it just boils down to sin i = sin r, which wouldn't make a mathematician very happy to just cancel out the trig function, but it works.

 

I think Brian might be trying to add some quantum effect here ?

[Rocky Lionmouth]

Ok i read a little about just now and i am no physicist nor mathematician, but the principle described isnt far off from a manifestation of wu wei in my book, i clearly dont understand the science but roughly: light adapts to the quickest possible road then it conserves its energy and carries on its business. Am i getting it right?

[Brian]

Ok i read a little about just now and i am no physicist nor mathematician, but the principle described isnt far off from a manifestation of wu wei in my book, i clearly dont understand the science but roughly: light adapts to the quickest possible road then it conserves its energy and carries on its business. Am i getting it right?

Spot on, Rocky. That particular principle applied to light but the roster of similar principles demonstrate this fundamental concept is more broadly in play in nature.

 

Not "no action" but conservative action -- not always and not in all things but this is a theme which echoes throughout the universe(s).

 

EDIT: Maupertuis actually gave a very concise statement of wu wei, I think, when he said, "Nature is thrifty in all its actions." Richard Feynman offered a particularly nice lecture on the topic: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html

[Karl]

Thrifty ?

[Brian]

Thrifty ?

For about the umpteenth time, I suggest reading Feynman...