Not damaging the body

[Wu Ming Jen]

Its interesting to me that we are all in the garden of eden  food, remedies for illness, natural resources for basic survival are all present yet the undertow of man's concept of not being part of nature removes the reality of having respect the for the earth as well as each other.

 

Had to edit posted before I was done whoops

Edited October 15, 2015 by Wu Ming Jen

[leth]

I genuinely have no idea what 'naturalness' you're talking about now.

 

Naturalness can be shaped? Naturalness is not about natural behaviour? So what exactly does 'natural' mean?

 

Now that is the question, the idea of naturalness in Daoist thought is not easy to define or to understand.

There is still debate on this subject as there have been for thousands of years. I can but give a small contribution of my view on the subject, you must make your own conclusions.

 

Naturalness is a central concept in Daoist thought and it can be said that a person that obtains (if that is ever possible) a state of naturalness can be considered enlightened and in harmony with the Dao. Naturalness is the principle that Dao itself follows, and in turn so does Heaven and Earth and People to lesser degrees. We are however fully capable of being unnatural, we make choices and they are not always aligned with the Dao. And so it is for Earth and Heaven aswell, just less so. And by looking at Earth and Heaven we will see the path towards naturalness. By "studying hard" and developing De we can take the path towards Naturalness and thus come closer to Dao. I would dare to say that we are to alter our behaviour or form habits so that a moral and correct behaviour comes natural to us, we should not need to put effort inbehaving virtuously, it should just come natural to us.

 

Aside from this being my interpretion it is but a small part of the concept of Naturalness and hasn't really explain De which is a central concept that in my view is as important to understand Naturalness.

 

To say that vanity is a 'genetic trait' is imprecise. I would say that it is a natural human tendency -- that is, something humans tend toward because of certain circumstances in our development/evolution -- to consider our appearance. Not all humans are vain, but almost all have, at least in a public environment, a preference for behaving and smelling and looking a certain way.

 

It sure is a tendency amongst humans but it does not seem to be something all humans do. IMHO it is not however a natural behaviour, but rather a cultural construct that is not aligned with Dao.

 

I don't believe that if a man grows up all alone, with no human contact or language, he will make any effort each day to look 'nice'; but if he sees his reflection in a mirror or pool of water, he will become curious and experiment with his appearance.

 

It is unnatural for humans to isolate themselves completly from the rest of the world, we are earthly beings aswell as heavenly beings. So it can't be said to be normal for a person to grow up alone, or with no contact with other humans. What is the definition of looking nice for a person that has never been observed by someone else, to whom does that person want to look nice? To make ones apperance only for oneself or to make it for others is a different thing.

What is beauty, and how much of it is cultural?

Likewise how much of or cognition is natural, or our language for that matter?

Is the concept of beauty even natural, or how does or concept of beauty differe from natural beauty?

[dawei]

We are however fully capable of being unnatural, we make choices and they are not always aligned with the Dao. And so it is for Earth and Heaven aswell, just less so. And by looking at Earth and Heaven we will see the path towards naturalness. By "studying hard" and developing De we can take the path towards Naturalness and thus come closer to Dao. I would dare to say that we are to alter our behaviour or form habits so that a moral and correct behaviour comes natural to us, we should not need to put effort inbehaving virtuously, it should just come natural to us.

 

IMO, this misunderstanding seems common.  

 

You don't study or practice to be natural but to 'know' how to act. This is an active side of responding to external stimulus.. called Ziran which is the foundation for the manifest world; the natural, active action of the [insert self or any species] based on external stimulus.  

 

Naturalness is not meant to be contrasted with unnatural but to be paired with its negative compliment, Wuwei.    

 

They are layers of the same issue; One positive and one negative.  One reacts and responds to stimulus in the natural world and the other rests in, and nevertheless is acting based on, the source.  

[Daeluin]

Water is highly sensitive to momentum... the water needs to flow, and the pattern of the flowing comes from the shape of earth, the intention. Using the intention to form stable flowing for patterns is what can provide the foundation of momentum for slipping into wuwei. IMO.

[leth]

IMO, this misunderstanding seems common.  

 

What misunderstanding are you refereing too?

 

You don't study or practice to be natural but to 'know' how to act. This is an active side of responding to external stimulus.. called Ziran which is the foundation for the manifest world; the natural, active action of the [insert self or any species] based on external stimulus.  

 

Yes you do study to know how to act, but you need to know how to act to be able to be natural, so in a sense you are studying to be(come) natural. In general you study to accomplish De, which is an important part in attaining naturalness.

 

Naturalness is not meant to be contrasted with unnatural but to be paired with its negative compliment, Wuwei.    

 

While wuwei is a compliment to naturalness I don't necesarilty think it is wrong to contrast naturallness with being unnatural. Just as you can contrast wuewei with effort/work/struggle. And both are in essence the same practice, one of being natural; to act without acting.

 

They are layers of the same issue; One positive and one negative.  One reacts and responds to stimulus in the natural world and the other rests in, and nevertheless is acting based on, the source.  

 

Sure, wuwei and naturalness complements eachother. Both are descriptions of behaviour in harmony with Dao. I speculate that there is no difference in them, they are the same. One of them explains the same concept from the perspective of habits, impulses and following what comes natural for one, the other explains the concept from the idea of effort or work put into behaviour and our cognitive struggle of puting our mind into something. This all points to the idea that we have to study and alter our natural behaviour to reach this state.

[dawei]

What misunderstanding are you refereing too?

 

 

While wuwei is a compliment to naturalness I don't necesarilty think it is wrong to contrast naturallness with being unnatural. 

[leth]

I thank you for trying to clear this up, but my cognition still seems to fail me and I still find it unclear what the misunderstanding is that you are refering too. You mean that that the contrast of naturalness with being unnatural is a misunderstanding or misconception? That there is no such contrast?

[dawei]

I thank you for trying to clear this up, but my cognition still seems to fail me and I still find it unclear what the misunderstanding is that you are refering too. You mean that that the contrast of naturalness with being unnatural is a misunderstanding or misconception? That there is no such contrast?

 

IMO, naturalness does not contrast with unnatural... if by naturalness we are referring to Ziran.  

 

DDJ25 tells us that Dao is modeled after Ziran and Dao being formless thus even Ziran is... which means that the manifest world experiences a manifest version and understanding of Ziran.   So whatever we try to call it, contrast it with is usually a local understanding.   If one can break outside of the local aspect, then Ziran is seen to not contrast with anything but be the very foundation of Dao, balanced by wu wei.

 

Imbalances produce disharmony but I don't contrast that as unnatural.   Weeds arise as naturally as flowers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

One reference I agree with:

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwjjytC1lsjIAhVKVj4KHTN5C_0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.confuchina.com%2F05%2520zongjiao%2FLao%2520Zi%27s%2520Concept%2520of%2520Zi%2520Ran.htm&usg=AFQjCNHrSFoCVu3UTQ-NyoxBbeSOqHHmBg

[ilumairen]

Weeds arise as naturally as flowers.

 

Yes.

[rene]

IMO, this misunderstanding seems common.  

 

You don't study or practice to be natural but to 'know' how to act. This is an active side of responding to external stimulus.. called Ziran which is the foundation for the manifest world; the natural, active action of the [insert self or any species] based on external stimulus.  

 

Naturalness is not meant to be contrasted with unnatural but to be paired with its negative compliment, Wuwei.    

 

They are layers of the same issue; One positive and one negative.  One reacts and responds to stimulus in the natural world and the other rests in, and nevertheless is acting based on, the source.  

 

Hi dawei, nice post! I want to change the last line though, lol, to "One reacts and responds to stimulus in the natural world and the other spontaneously responds while resting in, and recognizing, the source."  Whatcha think?

[dawei]

Hi dawei, nice post! I want to change the last line though, lol, to "One reacts and responds to stimulus in the natural world and the other spontaneously responds while resting in, and recognizing, the source."  Whatcha think?

 

Yes... I later thought that I should of compared one as a response to external stimulus and the other to an internal stimulus... but they are really in fact one and the same if we get beyond the pendantic contrasts even I get caught up in

[leth]

IMO, naturalness does not contrast with unnatural... if by naturalness we are referring to Ziran.  

 

DDJ25 tells us that Dao is modeled after Ziran and Dao being formless thus even Ziran is... which means that the manifest world experiences a manifest version and understanding of Ziran.

 

I agree with this.

 

So whatever we try to call it, contrast it with is usually a local understanding.   If one can break outside of the local aspect, then Ziran is seen to not contrast with anything but be the very foundation of Dao, balanced by wu wei.

 

You mean that there is no contrast to Dao, or to Ziran, then does that not mean that everything and thus everyone is already in the state of Ziran?

 

Imbalances produce disharmony but I don't contrast that as unnatural.   Weeds arise as naturally as flowers.

 

Sure Imbalances produce disharmonies.

 

 

But i guess my argument is mainly a semantic one. If we are to regard Dao as Nature, and Ziran ar Natural, then would not unnaturall be defined as being in  contrast of Ziran? That is to say that unnaturallnes is by definition being out of sync with Dao.

 

One reference I agree with:

"It-self-so-ing" and "Other-ing" in Lao Zi's Concept of Zi Ran

 

Nice link, i had to fix the URL though, but that might just be me rather non-standard computer.

[dawei]

You mean that there is no contrast to Dao, or to Ziran, then does that not mean that everything and thus everyone is already in the state of Ziran?

 

That does seem to be my point; everything follows 'it-self-so-ing'. We are all in a state of Ziran; the ultimate imprint of Dao.

 

But i guess my argument is mainly a semantic one. If we are to regard Dao as Nature, and Ziran ar Natural, then would not unnaturall be defined as being in  contrast of Ziran? That is to say that unnaturallnes is by definition being out of sync with Dao.

 

I understand that line of thinking and point but I disagree with the associations being made.   I think this is not so uncommon an explanation but is a central misunderstanding.   Nothing can be out of sync with Dao; Dao allows any and all possible arisings or else it would not exist.  Thus, by arising, it is following Dao... weeds or flowers. 

 

When Laozi talks of 'losing Dao', this is really the idea to lose focus on Dao and to follow human impulses rather than the source impulses.  

 

Nice link, i had to fix the URL though, but that might just be me rather non-standard computer.

 

Thanks... I fixed my link

[rene]

Yes... I later thought that I should of compared one as a response to external stimulus and the other to an internal stimulus... but they are really in fact one and the same if we get beyond the pendantic contrasts even I get caught up in

 

Ohhhh I understand about getting caught up, lol, like Pavlov's pup to the bell I am when it comes to some things... like 'both'. As in - they /\ are simultaneously different and one and the same. See?? There I go again. Ding ding!! LOLOL

 

This is very good, btw: "Nothing can be out of sync with Dao; Dao allows any and all possible arisings or else it would not exist.  Thus, by arising, it is following Dao... weeds or flowers. When Laozi talks of 'losing Dao', this is really the idea to lose focus on Dao and to follow human impulses rather than the source impulses."  Well put.

[dawei]

Ding ding!! 

 

[Daeluin]

The water in the river is not just where the current flows the strongest.

[Astral Monk]

I do suspect many here who feel that tattooing is perverse are complicit in other acts of modifying nature, and are not necessarily aware of it.

 

 

Right. There is no ultimate distinction between our bodies and the body of the universe. We are a nexus of a continuous energy exchange. Damaging 'our' body and the rest of the universe is principally the same.

 

We cant move a single inch without destroying life. We are constantly creating and destroying. 'Damage' is a matter of scale. Scale is a matter of perspective. Perspective is a matter of value. Value is a matter of choice.

 

Dust to dust afterall. How can dust harm dust?

 

8)

[leth]

That does seem to be my point; everything follows 'it-self-so-ing'. We are all in a state of Ziran; the ultimate imprint of Dao.

 

 

I understand that line of thinking and point but I disagree with the associations being made.   I think this is not so uncommon an explanation but is a central misunderstanding.   Nothing can be out of sync with Dao; Dao allows any and all possible arisings or else it would not exist.  Thus, by arising, it is following Dao... weeds or flowers. 

 

So we can't really attain Ziran?

 

Everyone is a sage, and aspiring to one is pointless because we are already sages?

 

When Laozi talks of 'losing Dao', this is really the idea to lose focus on Dao and to follow human impulses rather than the source impulses.  

 

But even if one is 'losing Dao' one is still Ziran.

 

In fact the idea that Ziran is an attribute that everyone has and cannot possible be without deconstructs the whole word Ziran, it makes no sense to talk about Ziran if it doesn't mean anything. So why sould does the laozi mention Ziran?

[ilumairen]

Hi leth,

 

The idea seems to be there is nothing to achieve. We're already there. We just forget. Some people are more forgetful than others. Sages are less forgetful, or perhaps not forgetful at all. I don't know. I still forget sometimes.

[dawei]

So we can't really attain Ziran?

 

We are Ziran  

 

 

Everyone is a sage, and aspiring to one is pointless because we are already sages?

 

Some more than others

 

But even if one is 'losing Dao' one is still Ziran.

 

Yes, that is my point... maybe I was too cryptic along the Way...

 

In fact the idea that Ziran is an attribute that everyone has and cannot possible be without deconstructs the whole word Ziran, it makes no sense to talk about Ziran if it doesn't mean anything. So why sould does the laozi mention Ziran?

 

Very appropriate and profound question...  it is a deconstruction of self...  It-self-so-ing... 

 

replace self with Dao...   [it-]Dao-so-ing  

[leth]

We are Ziran  

 

I don't agree with this interpretion, but i guess that can be considered axiomatic in this discussin.

 

Some more than others

 

I have a hard time accepting that you can be more or less of something without that thing having an opposite.

 

Yes, that is my point... maybe I was too cryptic along the Way...

 

Cryptic isn't really bad, i just wanted to clarify for discussion so i don't incorrectly assume something about yout statements or views.

 

Very appropriate and profound question...  it is a deconstruction of self...  It-self-so-ing... 

 

I don't agree that it deconstructs the self, only the idea or concept of ziran.

 

replace self with Dao...   [it-]Dao-so-ing  

 

Then it also deconstructs Dao, and why would laozi mention Dao?

[leth]

Hi leth, The idea seems to be there is nothing to achieve. We're already there. We just forget. Some people are more forgetful than others. Sages are less forgetful, or perhaps not forgetful at all. I don't know. I still forget sometimes.

 

But if we're always ziran it doesn't matter that we forget we are ziran, and nor could we have more or less of the quality associated with ziran. and then why would it matter to even speak, or think about ziran, it holds not value.

[dawei]

I have a hard time accepting that you can be more or less of something without that thing having an opposite.

 

Laozi said form comes from the formless... and stops there.  So where does the formless come from?

 

I don't agree that it deconstructs the self, only the idea or concept of ziran.

 

 

Then it also deconstructs Dao, and why would laozi mention Dao?

 

Where does Dao come from?

[leth]

Laozi said form comes from the formless... and stops there.  So where does the formless come from?

 

That is a complex subject. It can be interpreted to point out codependant emergency of dualistic mental constructs and the relationship between mental constructs with ontology or even other related topics.

None the less it does not answer the quesiton since i am talking about the purpose of the mental construct as a mean to communicate ideas.

 

Where does Dao come from?

 

Is it going somewhere?

But it doesn't really answer the question, we can agree it's a mental construct. But i'm not really talking about the signified here, i'm talking about the purpose of the signifier, it must have a point in being used.

 

Where the signified comes from I am not interested in knowing and can't answer, But where the signifier comes from is a relevant question. And it's part of what I am asking you, because if we deconstruct it then we are saying that this signifier is pointless and serves no purpose, which in a way is saying that more or less half of laozi is a worthless work which has no point or wisdom, or serves any purpose what so ever.

[ilumairen]

But if we're always ziran it doesn't matter that we forget we are ziran, and nor could we have more or less of the quality associated with ziran. and then why would it matter to even speak, or think about ziran, it holds not value.

 

We can be more in tune with others when we remember. Remembering makes navigating the manifest easier and more peaceful.