Following the Tao and flexibility

[wandelaar]

I don't have such a "make or break question?" I am only trying to fill in some gaps in my understanding. Even if everything I learn here on Taoism would turn out to be of no use to me personally, the things I already know about Taoism would still be enough for me to like it.

[Stosh]

9 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

I don't have such a "make or break question?" I am only trying to fill in some gaps in my understanding. Even if everything I learn here on Taoism would turn out to be of no use to me personally, the things I already know about Taoism would still be enough for me to like it.

I suppose liking it , is a type of use . Carry on.   

[Lost in Translation]

2 hours ago, wandelaar said:

I doubt you would be convinced. It rather looks like you are arguing against the very possibility of "going against the grain". If that is so I would like to know whether you also think a non-Taoist way of life is impossible.

 

This is a very good observation! Is a non-Taoist way of life possible?

 

A fundamental aspect of Taoism is discernment. Once learns to see the various paths one can take. One learns to see when effort should be applied to affect change, and when effort must be conserved. Easy to say. Hard to do. A "Taoist way of life" follows this pattern. But this describes the "how", not the "what", and certainly not the "why" of life. One could just as easily apply this to waging war as to planting crops, or to chaste charity as hedonistic gluttony!

 

So let's say a society is "going against the grain." Presumably this society is applying effort when it should be conserving energy, and failing to apply effort when it should. This society will wear itself out, stagnate, collapse, and eventually a new society will take its place. This is certainly unpleasant for those living in the society but it is perfectly in accordance with Tao.

 

But is that what is happening? Society is changing. Perhaps it is collapsing. Perhaps it is not. I cannot tell. My position is simply that I do not know what the "direction of the grain" of society looks like. That question is too big for me. I can only answer to the grain in my own life, and to my knowledge that limitation is true for everyone.

[wandelaar]

1 hour ago, Lost in Translation said:

So let's say a society is "going against the grain." Presumably this society is applying effort when it should be conserving energy, and failing to apply effort when it should. This society will wear itself out, stagnate, collapse, and eventually a new society will take its place. This is certainly unpleasant for those living in the society but it is perfectly in accordance with Tao.

 

I can follow most of your post, but I think the last sentence of the above citation goes wrong. It is certainly in accordance with Tao that going against the grain will turn out to be counterproductive, but that doesn't make going against the grain itself into an approach Taoists should follow. The two possible meanings of "in accordance with Tao" (as applied to the world and as applied to the behavior of man) are getting mixed up here.

[Lost in Translation]

4 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

The two possible meanings of "in accordance with Tao" (as applied to the world and as applied to the behavior of man) are getting mixed up here.

 

Agreed.

[dawei]

Laozi gets the last laugh on using words to explain life...  once we talk of going with the grain or against the grain... we are talking words and explaining our actions, etc.

 

When his main point is action-without-action... less is best... etc.

 

For the record;  There is action and there is best or most action taken.

 

What matters is, what is the intention, motivation, and purpose of that action...  and where does all of that originate...

 

 

[wandelaar]

1 minute ago, dawei said:

What matters is, what is the intention, motivation, and purpose of that action...  and where does all of that originate...

 

Best intentions, motivations, etc. can go awfully wrong when applied in a way that does not consider the processes at work.

 

And ways that do consider the processes at work, may be directed by immoral motivations.

 

So I think both aspects are relevant. 

[dawei]

5 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

Best intentions, motivations, etc. can go awfully wrong when applied in a way that does not consider the processes at work.

 

And ways that do consider the processes at work, may be directed by immoral motivations.

 

So I think both aspects are relevant. 

 

and why I ended my line with,  and where does all of that originate

 

My implication was that there is an inner beacon call... of Following Dao.... ergo, the Light in the distance is Dao beckoning and showing us the Way. 

 

For me, it is more about instinctual action... call it Wuwei or Ziran... or whatever.

[wandelaar]

I don't see why instinctive actions will automatically be well intentioned.

[Lost in Translation]

50 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

I don't see why instinctive actions will automatically be well intentioned.

 

Good question!

 

In my own life, if I intend to do something then I will think about it, then begin. Perhaps I'll pause, think some more, then continue. It's a messy process. However, if something just happens and I am forced to respond  - without the luxury of time to think - then quite often it works out. For example, while driving at highway speeds when suddenly an obstacle appears in the road. The car moves to avoid it almost before I even realize there is something there! That's instinct. If I had planned to drive like that I am sure I would crash my car.

[wandelaar]

That is right! You can't always afford to think about it. But even when you can it's still a messy process. In time it will become easier to follow what you consider your best intentions, and the right responses will (hopefully) become sort of automatic. I'm probably more of a Confucianist on this point than a Taoist.

[Starjumper]

On 4/11/2018 at 7:20 AM, wandelaar said:

In that case the many encouragements in the Tao Te Ching to be soft and flexible could be meant to counteract our general tendency to err in the direction of being too rigid and demanding?

 

I'm not so sure that is a general tendency in human nature as much as it is a tendency in mechanized society.  

 

Also, it appears that Lao Tzu was a chi kung master and lo and behold the Tao Te Ching contains commentary on chi kung.  It goes kind of like this: any chi kung master that knows his ass from a hole in the ground will tell you to be as soft and relaxed as possible  while practicing, physically, of course.  That's what leads to cultivating longevity via chi kung.  Now, the fake masters who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground promote high stress and strain types of exercises, the wages of death.  They have their ever so slight use in combat, but all the practitioners die young, relatively speaking.  

 

[wandelaar]

3 minutes ago, Starjumper said:

I'm not so sure that is a general tendency in human nature as much as it is a tendency in mechanized society. 

 

I don't know where the tendency comes from. Perhaps a comparison of people from different societies could give an indication.

 

I don't know enough about chi gong to comment on the rest of your post.

[Marblehead]

4 hours ago, Stosh said:

I suppose liking it , is a type of use . Carry on.   

Yes, if it is useful we would likely like it (for its usefulness).

 

[Marblehead]

22 minutes ago, Starjumper said:

...  It goes kind of like this: any chi kung master that knows his ass from a hole in the ground will tell you to be as soft and relaxed as possible  while practicing, physically, of course.  That's what leads to cultivating longevity via chi kung.  Now, the fake masters who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground promote high stress and strain types of exercises, the wages of death.  They have their ever so slight use in combat, but all the practitioners die young, relatively speaking.  

 

I so much dislike the phrase "No pain, no gain."  I even got in trouble once because someone said it and I responded. "That's stupid."

 

[idquest]

2 hours ago, wandelaar said:

I don't see why instinctive actions will automatically be well intentioned.

 

I'm not sure that being well intended is a daoist concept at all. You can't even say that in terms of reference for humanity because there are so many ideas what they are.

[Marblehead]

3 minutes ago, idquest said:

 

I'm not sure that being well intended is a daoist concept at all. You can't even say that in terms of reference for humanity because there are so many ideas what they are.

I had a hard time dealing with that concept for the longest time.  Chuang Tzu actually clarified it for me even though it took a while to sink in.

 

[wandelaar]

It may well be that "well intentioned" is not a Taoist concept, but I am not prepared to give it up. I think even very yong children at times show hateful attitudes so we have to educate them and ourselves to become socially acceptable individuals. That's why I wrote that I'm probably more of a Confucianist on this point than a Taoist.

[silent thunder]

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

I had a hard time dealing with that concept for the longest time.  Chuang Tzu actually clarified it for me even though it took a while to sink in.

 

I would deeply appreciate you sharing any more details about this further, or pointing to where you've already discussed it, if so...

[Boundlesscostfairy]

Hmm, I think a great question is if a person or society can actually tell if they are going against the grain in any way..

 

If you think they can, can you site some examples?

[wandelaar]

It's like the concept of "well intentioned", I can't exactly define its meaning and there are lots of grey area's where you can not possibly say whether something is well intentioned or not. But that doesn't mean the concept is total gibberish.

 

Going against the grain means acting in a way that grossly neglects (or better goes against) the inner dynamics of the situation. When you are very strong you might still succeed in this way, but it will take lots of extra effort and will cause unnecessary reactions. Sometimes (in case of an emergency) there might be no other option than going against the grain, but a Taoist should preferably act in a way that hardly interferes with the processes active in the situation, and act on a moment where there is hardly any action necessary to achieve a desired purpose.

 

The same applies to acting or non-acting as it relates to ourselves. We too have an inner dynamics, and we will generally get the better results when we get to know ourselves better and take that knowledge into consideration.

 

Basically it's just a question of common sense or practical wisdom that is also found in Aristotle. But an inappropriate sense of our own importance often tends to cloud our perception of the situation, of our own possibilities, and of the most effective way to proceed.

Edited April 14, 2018 by wandelaar

[Marblehead]

7 hours ago, silent thunder said:

I would deeply appreciate you sharing any more details about this further, or pointing to where you've already discussed it, if so...

I'm not sure where or when this has been discussed here but I have had this discussion a number of times.  And in the end I had to change my understanding.

 

Thing is, if something happened, no matter what, it was within the flow of Dao.  That is, only the physically impossible is against the flow of Dao.  But remember, and this is important, we must remove all subjective valuations.  And that's not easy.

 

So we can say that Hitler was acting within the limits of the flow of Dao.  In other words, what he did was a physical possibility.

 

Now, after saying that I can add my personal subjective valuation.  What he did was one of the cruelest things to ever be done to fellow humans.  What he instructed his managers to do was horrific.  Humanity should remember what was done and be watchful so that nothing like this ever happens again.

 

But it does continue to happen, doesn't it?  Why?  Because of the varied nature of man.  Our true nature is not equal to all other men.  Some are passive, others are aggressive.  Some are loving, others are hateful.

 

Now, the argument has been made that those with evil traits have learned these traits and at heart they are really nice people who just need some help.  But records show that re-training and re-habilitation has only partially worked.  Perhaps it worked with those who were not being their true self?  After training and rehab they become a nicer person.  We hear these stories now and then.

 

But then we hear the stories where a person who has done evil has been re-trained and finished rehab, been released back into society and within a short time repeats their evil ways.

 

Consider the man who rapes a woman or worse, a child.  Why did they do this evil thing?  It is because for that person there was no other alternative for attaining a goal.  The man's thoughts were only about his own pleasure no matter what it required.  Was he following his true nature?  We can't determine this.  But was it in accord with the flow of Dao?  Again I state that if it was physically possible then it was in accord with the flow of Dao.

 

No, I don't like this any more than I am sure you won't like it either.  But remember, we have to set aside our personal subjective valuations.

 

So are today's societies moving against the (grain) flow of Dao?  I suggest that the answer is:  No.

 

Do I like it?  No.  Will I be a part of it?  No.  But that doesn't change anything.

 

 

 

[silent thunder]

2 hours ago, Marblehead said:

I'm not sure where or when this has been discussed here but I have had this discussion a number of times.  And in the end I had to change my understanding.

 

Thing is, if something happened, no matter what, it was within the flow of Dao.  That is, only the physically impossible is against the flow of Dao.  But remember, and this is important, we must remove all subjective valuations.  And that's not easy.

 

So we can say that Hitler was acting within the limits of the flow of Dao.  In other words, what he did was a physical possibility.

 

Now, after saying that I can add my personal subjective valuation.  What he did was one of the cruelest things to ever be done to fellow humans.  What he instructed his managers to do was horrific.  Humanity should remember what was done and be watchful so that nothing like this ever happens again.

 

But it does continue to happen, doesn't it?  Why?  Because of the varied nature of man.  Our true nature is not equal to all other men.  Some are passive, others are aggressive.  Some are loving, others are hateful.

 

Now, the argument has been made that those with evil traits have learned these traits and at heart they are really nice people who just need some help.  But records show that re-training and re-habilitation has only partially worked.  Perhaps it worked with those who were not being their true self?  After training and rehab they become a nicer person.  We hear these stories now and then.

 

But then we hear the stories where a person who has done evil has been re-trained and finished rehab, been released back into society and within a short time repeats their evil ways.

 

Consider the man who rapes a woman or worse, a child.  Why did they do this evil thing?  It is because for that person there was no other alternative for attaining a goal.  The man's thoughts were only about his own pleasure no matter what it required.  Was he following his true nature?  We can't determine this.  But was it in accord with the flow of Dao?  Again I state that if it was physically possible then it was in accord with the flow of Dao.

 

No, I don't like this any more than I am sure you won't like it either.  But remember, we have to set aside our personal subjective valuations.

 

So are today's societies moving against the (grain) flow of Dao?  I suggest that the answer is:  No.

 

Do I like it?  No.  Will I be a part of it?  No.  But that doesn't change anything.

 

 

 

*deep bow*

 

Thanks Marblehead, I knew you were on to something potent here.  That is a well worded sharing of some keen insights about rather difficult realizations.  Those insights are certainly not easy ones to hold in mind and not reject outright due to subjectivity and personal feelings.  It took many years for me... decades even, to be able to ingest and process some aspects of the DDJ.  This being one of the most sticky/potent sections.

 

I happen to share your views on this to the letter it would seem.   Some time ago it settled in me, that there are no 'supernatural', or 'unnatural' occurences and that nothing that occurs in the manifest is out of accord with dao.  Those things I used to consider out of accord with dao, or unnatural, are things that occur that do not match my own personal understanding of life and don't match my own personal sense of right and wrong.  Supernatural is no longer a functional concept to me either... as anything that manifests and occurs in nature, by definition, is natural, not above it, or beyond it.  We may refer to things as supernatural because we don't understand them, but this is a personal distinction, not a universal truth.

 

Cities and plastic in particular, used to seem unnatural to me.  No longer.  Cities are what human beings do naturally.  If there had only been one city in the history of the planet, perhaps it would seem like an anomoly to me, but it is evident to me now, that cities, plastic and all other human pursuits, are utterly natural to the process of humans... 

 

now that has no bearing on whether I find them personally acceptable, or tolerable at all.  In the personal feeling department, I accept that I would fight against Hitler and any like him, every time I encountered them, because it seems unnatural to me, abhorrent.  Yet both types of humans manifest from dao in nature and thus are both natural. 

 

A deeper understanding of this settled on me one day, walking in the rain.  Something that had eluded me for decades with the teachings of Dao.  Rain falls on the healer and the murderer, without distinction... it takes no sides.  Yet in the deserts rain grows thorns and in the garden... vegetables and flowers.  Sun shines on all equally. 

 

The Dao takes no sides.  All are treated like straw dogs.  Straw Dogs are venerated and carried around with honor in their time of the festival (they are fashioned and carried around, venerated through the day and worshipped, played with and held up with joy), then at the end of the festival, they were dropped unceremoniously to the ground and went back to being just the straw that was strewn daily to help keep the mud at bay.  My own body is like this... fashioned and venerated by those who care for and love me, personally, but at the end of my festival, my body will without delay, begin to break down again and release back into its basic parts... without distinction or the least worry by natural process.  There is nothing personal but what we make it.

 

Some time after really getting the neutrality of the manifestation and breaking down of forms in nature, this next thought pile drove through my old paradigm and blessedly and painfully reworked my sense of right and wrong.

 

Everything I Love... and everything i despise... manifest from one source.  So the difference between the two, must lie in me.

 

Murderers act naturally.  To me, their actions are utterly abhorrent and I will use every breath and ounce of my skill to fight against them, yet in my center, I know, murderers are as Natural as a flood, or a forest fire... or a family of lions tearing out the belly of a mother and calf Wildebeast. 

 

I accept they are natural, and I also accept that it is my nature, to resist that which is abhorrent to my own sense of acceptable.

 

Not an easy place to occupy mentally.  Not often I can sit with these concepts long enough to put words to them this way.

 

Again, thank you Marble... I consider you a good friend and you have broadened my understanding many times here with your perspective and sharing.  You give much of yourself here and it is deeply appreciated.

[wandelaar]

@ Marblehead

 

As Tao lies at the foundation of all that is happening, everything that happens is "in accordance with Tao". For the foundation of all that is happening is the foundation of all that is happening. That's so by definition!

 

But it's quite a different matter what we ought to do when we want to act in the spirit of Taoism. You can not fall back on the above meaning of "in accordance with Tao" because than anything that we actually chose to do will (in the above sense) be in accordance with Tao. That would make Taoism a useless concept because then anybody would be a (conscious or unconscious) Taoist. Now it happens that there is another meaning of "in accordance with Tao" that does make sense when applied to the way we chose to live. And that is the way recommended  by Lao tse and Chuang tse, among others.  In accordance with Tao in this case means in a way that takes note of the inner dynamics of the situation and of ourselves and tries to reach it's goal with a minimum of interference and effort. So far so good, but we have only talked about the method for reaching the goal not about the goal itself. And here we can only say that a life "in accordance with Tao" as recommended by Lao tse and Chuang tse is only possible for people who's inner nature is kind of similar to that of Lao tse and Chuang tse. Also it seems more appropriate for older persons who have already seen something of the world and the doings of man. Taoism isn't the "one true religion" but a way you can chose to go or not.

 

Further you wrote:

 

Quote

 But remember, we have to set aside our personal subjective valuations.

 

But that is a subjective valuation itself! In my opinion the whole idea of somehow circumventing subjective valuations, feelings, emotions,  etc. is misconceived. As conscious living people we just have to make (subjective) choices, there is no escape. 

 

[Marblehead]

Thanks you Silent Thunder and Wandelaar.

 

Please understand that my above post was written with a sense of regret because I had to mention things that involve my inner essence.

 

Again, first acknowledge that shit happens.  People do evil things.  If we are involved we should try to stop the evil actions.  And really, nearly all people are capable of determining if an act is evil or not.

 

So we acknowledge absolute reality.  Okay.  The rose bush not only has beautiful flowers that please us but it also has thorns that will do us harm.  So we look at and smell the rose flower but we don't grab the rose stem.

 

And I agree that after we acknowledge the basic facts of reality it is up to us, individually, to determine if we want to be a part of the problem, a part of the solution, or an observer without judgement or action.

 

And I agree that Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu have given us many great examples regarding the processes of life and great examples of the concept of "if, then".  That is, when we behave in a certain manner such and such is likely to happen to/with us.

 

And yes, most philosophical and religious theories/practices teach helping others rather than harming others.  I prefer Taoism for my own personal needs.

 

And Wandelaar, please know that I am a free will kind of guy.  That is, I make conscious choices.  Many of them are based on my emotions.  (I don't always have the time to think things out rationally before I make a choice.)  And yes, most of my life is lived subjectively.  I choose this over that.

 

But as Silent Thunder pointed out above, Dao does not discriminate.  Equal rain for all as long as we are where it is raining.  Some places very rarely get rain but all those in those areas get no rain equally.

 

And then we die.