Contrary to the Dao?
Not Dao? Not in harmony with the Dao? Is it possible? Here’s some of the things we find:
Zhongyong
道也者，不可須臾離也，可離非道也。
“The Dao cannot be left for an instant; If it could be left, it would not be Dao.”
Daodejing, Robert Henricks translations:
Daodejing 1
As for the Dao, the Dao that can be spoken of is not the constant Dao 非常道.
DDJ 8
The highest good is like water;
Water is good at benefiting the ten thousand things and yet it [does not] compete [with them].
It dwells in places the masses of people detest,
Therefore it is close to the Dao.
In dwelling, the good thing is the land;
In the mind, the good thing is depth;
In giving, the good thing is [being like] Heaven;
In speaking, the good thing is sincerity;
In governing, the good thing is order;
In affairs, the good thing is ability;
In activity, the good thing is timeliness.
It is only because it does not compete, that therefore it is without fault.
–therefore, the opposite behaviour and attributes are “far from the Dao”?
DDJ 9
To hold it upright and fill it,
Is not so good as stopping [in time].
When you pound it out and give it a point,
It won’t be preserved very long.
When gold and jade fill your rooms,
You’ll never be able to protect them.
Arrogance and pride with wealth and rank,
On their own bring on disaster.
When the deed is accomplished you retire;
Such is Heaven’s Dao!
– Thus the morals being: sustain some level of emptiness within, do not over-self-cultivate/ carve your Uncarved Wood (pu), do not burden yourself with luxuries, a humble attitude lessens one’s suffering, do what is needed - no more. Doing the opposite is not Nature’s Dao - it is the Human Dao - and is not in accord with the Dao?
DDJ 14
– The Dao is invisible, inaudible, intangible, boundless, formless. The opposites are Not-Dao? –
(Also Zhuangzi 22: The Dao cannot be heard; heard, it is not the Dao 非(道). The Dao cannot be seen; seen, it is not the Dao. The Dao cannot be described; described, it is not the Dao. That which gives form to the formed is itself formless - can you understand that? There is no name that fits the Dao.)
DDJ 18
When the Great Dao is rejected, it is then that we have the virtues of humanity and righteousness.
– Thus ” the virtues of humanity and righteousness” are Not Dao?
(Also ZZ 9: If the Dao and its Virtue had not been cast aside 道德不廢, how would there be any call for benevolence and righteousness?… That the Dao and its Virtue were destroyed 毀道德 in order to create benevolence and righteousness - this was the fault of the [Confucian?] sage. - Watson)
DDJ 24
One who boasts is not established;
One who shows himself off does not become prominent;
One who puts himself on display does not brightly shine;
One who brags about himself gests no credit;
One who praises himself does not long endure.
In the Dao, such things are called:
“Surplus food and redundant action.”
And with things-there are those who hate them.
Therefore, the one with the Dao in them does not dwell.
– Therefore, “surplus food and redundant action” are Not Dao?
DDJ 30
When things reach their primes, they get old;
We called this “not the Dao.”
What is not the Dao 不道 will come to an early end.
(since Bu is used only with verbs, this should probably be translated “what does not follow the Dao will come to an early end.”)
DDJ 31
As for weapons-they are instruments of ill omen.
And among things there are those that hate them.
Therefore, the one who has the Dao, with them does not dwell.
– Therefore one who “dwells with weapons” is not in accord with the Dao?
DDJ 34
The Dao floats and drifts;
It can go left or right.
It accomplishes its tasks and completes its affairs, and yet for this it is not given a name [fame].
The ten thousand things entrust their lives to it, and yet it does not act as their master.
Thus it is constantly without desires.
It can be named with the things that are small.
The ten thousand things entrust their lives to it, and yet it does not act as their master.
It can be named with the things that are great.
– Thus what acquires fame, acts as a master over others, has desires, is Not Dao?
DDJ 38
Therefore, when the Dao is lost, only then do we have virtue;
When virtue is lost, only then do we have humanity;
When humanity is lost, only then do we have righteousness;
And when righteousness is lost, only then do we have propriety.
As for propriety, it’s but the thin edge of loyalty and sincerity, and the beginning of disorder.
And foreknowledge is but the flower of the Dao, and the beginning of stupidity.
Therefore the Great Person
Dwells in the thick and doesn’t dwell in the thin;
Dwells in the fruit and doesn’t dwell in the flower.
Therefore, he rejects that and takes this.
– Therefore there is is a path which leads away from the Dao? - is not in accord with the Dao?
(Also ZZ 22: So it is said, When the Dao was lost 失道, then there was virtue; when virtue was lost, then there was benevolence; when benevolence was lost, then there was righteousness; when righteousness was lost, then there were rites. Rites are the frills of the Dao and the forerunners of disorder.)
DDJ 46
When the world has the Dao, ambling horses are retired to fertilize [fields].
When the world lacks the Dao 無道, war horses are reared in the suburbs.
DDJ 51
The Dao gives birth to them, nourishes them, matures them, completes them, rests them, rears them, supports them, and protects them.
It gives birth to them but doesn’t try to own them;
It acts on their behalf but doesn’t make them dependent;
It matures them but doesn’t rule them.
– Thus, what tries to own others, makes them dependent, and tries to rule them, is Not Dao?
DDJ 53
The Great Dao is very level;
But people greatly delight in tortuous paths.
The courts are swept very clean;
While the fields are full of weeds;
And the granaries are all empty.
Their clothing-richly embroidered and colored;
While at their waists they carry sharp swords.
They gorge themselves on food, and of possessions and goods they have plenty.
This is called thievery!
And thievery certainly isn’t the Dao! 非道
– Therefore, following the tortuous and unlevel paths are Not Dao? Living in luxury at the expense of the people is thievery = Not Dao?
DDJ 55
When things reach their prime they get old;
This is called “not the Dao.” 不道
What is not the Dao will come to an early end.
See chapter 30 above
DDJ 73
The Dao of Heaven is not to fight yet to be good at winning-
Not to speak yet skillfully respond-
– What fights/competes is Not Dao?
DDJ 77
Therefore the Dao of Heaven-
Is to reduce the excessive and increase the insufficient;
The Dao of Humanity-
Is to reduce the insufficient and offer more to the excessive.
– Thus the Dao of Humanity is Not Dao? The Dao of humanity does not accord with the Dao of Heaven.
(Also ZZ 11: What is this thing called the Dao? There is the Dao of Heaven, and the Dao of Humanity. To rest in inaction, and command respect - this is the Dao of Heaven. To engage in action and become entangled in it - this is the Dao of Humanity. The ruler is the Dao of Heaven; his subjects are the Dao of Humanity. The Dao of Heaven and the Dao of Humanity are far apart. This is something to consider carefully!)
DDJ 81
Therefore, the Dao of Heaven is to benefit and not cause any harm.
– What causes harm is Not Dao?
ZZ 2
The Great Dao is not praised …
The Dao that displays itself is not the Dao 不道.
(since Bu is used only with verbs, perhaps it should be translated: “Daos that display themselves do not dao-guide.”
ZZ 4
The Dao gathers in emptiness alone.
– Thus, fullness is Not Dao? To be full is to have no access to the Dao?
ZZ 4
When the world has the Dao, the sage succeeds; when the world is without the Dao 無道, the sage [merely] survives.
ZZ 6
The True Person of ancient times knew nothing of loving life, knew nothing of hating death. He emerged without delight; he went back in without a fuss. He came briskly, he went briskly, and that was all. He didn’t forget where he began; he didn’t try to find out where he would end. He received something and took pleasure in it; he forgot about it and handed it back again. This is what I call not using the mind to repel the Dao 損道, not using man to help out Heaven. This is what I call the True Person.
ZZ 6
The Dao has its reality and its signs but is without action or form.
– Therefore what has a form and acts is Not Dao?
ZZ 10
As long as men in high places covet knowledge and are without the Dao 無道, the world will be in great confusion.
ZZ 12
Without the Dao 非道 the body can have no life, and without Virtue, life can have no clarity. To preserve the body and live out life, to establish Virtue and make clear the Dao - is this not kingly Virtue?
ZZ 12
When the world has the Dao, he joins in the chorus with all other things. When the world is without the Dao 無道, he nurses his Virtue and retires in leisure.
ZZ 14
It is the Dao alone that never varies.
– Therefore, what varies is Not Dao?
ZZ 14
Lao Zi: “If the Dao could be presented, there is no man who would not present it to his ruler. If the Dao could be offered, there is no man who would not offer it to his parents. If the Dao could be reported, there is no man who would not report it to his brothers. If the Dao could be bequeathed, there is no man who would not bequeath it to his heirs. But it cannot - and for none other than the following reason. If there is no host on the inside to receive it, it will not stay; if there is no mark on the outside to guide it, it will not go. If what is brought forth from the inside is not received on the outside, then the sage will not bring it forth. If what is taken in from the outside is not received by a host on the inside, the sage will not entrust it.”
ZZ 14
Lao Zi: “… Get hold of the Dao and there’s nothing that can’t be done; lose it and there’s nothing that can be done.”
ZZ 16
From this we may see that the world has lost the Dao, and the Dao has lost the world; the world and the Dao have lost each other.
ZZ 17
From the point of view of the Dao, what is noble or what is mean? These are merely what are called endless changes. Do not hobble your will, or you will be departing far from the Dao!
ZZ 21
If men do not have the Way (無道), he has only to put on a straight face and they are enlightened.
ZZ 22
Look for it but it has no form, listen but it has no voice. Those who discourse upon it with other men speak of it as dark and mysterious. The Dao that is discoursed upon is not the Dao at all!
ZZ 31
The stranger then laughed and turned to go, saying as he walked away, “As far as benevolence goes, he is benevolent all right. But I’m afraid he will not escape unharmed. To weary the mind and wear out the body, putting the Truth in peril like this - alas, I’m afraid he is separated from the Great Dao by a vast distance indeed!”
ZZ 31
The Dao is the path by which the ten thousand things proceed. All things that lose it, die; all that get it, live. To go against it 逆 in one’s undertakings is to fail; to comply with it is to succeed.
ZZ 32
To dispense favors to men without ever forgetting that you are doing so - this is not Heaven’s Dao of giving.
HNZ (Huainanzi) 6
The Dao of Heaven is devoid of partiality in choosing and devoid of partiality in rejecting. Those who are capable have more than enough whilst the inept fall short of enough. Followers of Dao flourish whilst rebels [against it] come to grief.
– Thus what is partial is Not Dao?
HNZ 6
To fail to obtain Dao is like watching minnows. The Sage therefore is like a mirror, neither sending [things] away nor welcoming [things], responding but not storing. Thus, he undergoes Ten Thousand Changes without the slightest injury. He who [stops to think he] has obtained it (Dao) has just lost it; but he who [thinks he] has lost it, has he not just obtained it?
Guanzi: Nei Ye
Now the Dao is what fills the mind’s gestalt, but men cannot hold it in place.
Going, it may not return; coming, it may not stay.
…
That which is the Dao,
The mouth cannot express, the eye cannot see, and the ear cannot hear.
It is the means to cultivate the mind and rectify its gestalt.
Losing it, men die; having it, they live.
Losing it, undertakings fail; having it, they succeed.
…
That the Dao will naturally come
Is something you can count on and plan for.
If you are quiescent, you will obtain it.
If you move hastily, you will lose it.
Liezi 4
物自違道，道不違物。
“Things make themselves go counter to the Way, the Way does not go counter to things.” (Graham p. 91)
And here’s one more, from the Wenzi, chapter 5:
夫失道者，奢泰驕佚，慢倨矜傲，見餘自顯自明，執雄堅強，作難結怨，為兵主，為亂首
which Thomas Cleary translates as:
“Examples of losing the Way are extravagance, indulgence, complacency, pride, attention to the extraneous, self-display, self-glorification, competitiveness, forcefulness, making trouble, forming grudges, becoming commanders of armies, and becoming leaders of rebellions.” (p. 204)
November 11th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Hm. The central idea of “dao” could be the predominant direction of things. And then there could be different daos at different levels. The predominant direction of this stream is east, but here we see a recurring eddy, in which water temporarily moves west. Between that rock and the shore the predominant direction is west; the dao at that level is westward, though there are tiny eddies within …
“Predominant” is a matter of degree. Consistent with this conception of “dao” is the idea that some dao at some level is an exceptionless direction of things.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
One might think “If there’s an exceptionless dao, it must be at the most local level, not the most universal level. For if things move in more than one direction in a locality, they must also move in more than one direction within every broader region encompassing that locality. And exceptionless local daos are not very interesting. Therefore the claim that the central idea of ‘dao’ is the predominant direction of things doesn’t promise to allow for any interesting exceptionless dao.”
To that one might respond, “The movement involved in a broader dao could be in a different kind of direction from the movement in a narrower dao.”
But to that one might respond, “If the movement in the broader dao is in a certain kind of direction, wouldn’t the movement in its sub-daos all also be in that kind of direction?”
To that one might respond, “Yes, but that might not be the most salient direction. Objects around the earth all follow the broad dao of obeying the law of gravity, while locally some of them are predominantly similar in respect of some more salient kind of motion, as the pebbles you just threw are mostly following a certain kind of arc.”
How about that?
November 21st, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Hi Bill,
I’m sorta following you.
It seems that along with the idea that one can not be in harmony or accord with the Way that this entails being in the wrong somehow. Just to pick one example, in Zhuangzi 6, it is implied that one can use one’s mind to diminish/lose the Dao (Sun Dao 損道), seemingly by being too deliberate in one’s actions. And this is portrayed as not ideal. This agrees with Laozi’s concept of Wuwei: ch. 37 says that the Dao is always Wuwei (道常無為), but humans are not.
In my view, early Daoists used natural phenomena as their guides and models of effective or “right” behaviour. Going “counter to the Dao” or “against Dao” could mean going counter to the models found in Nature - in the natural world - and instead following human-created (artificial) and intellectually-devised methods and models. Daoists saw these as often quite ineffective and observed that human inventions often caused more trouble than they fixed. Moreover, in the case of living things, all naturally strive to live, to be healthy and survive, to get along with others (if social), and to be “happy.” To act in ways which hinder this natural disposition can be viewed as going against our nature, and since our nature is an expression of the “Greater Nature” of the world - the universe - one might say that it is going against Dao.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Randall Peerenboom has written:
“If humans are part of Dao the natural order – as is the case for Needham and all naturalists who attribute all-inclusiveness to Dao – the normative exhortation to comply with Dao (to obey the laws of Nature, to act naturally) is unnecessary. What else could one do? … Humans must inevitably conform to laws of Nature and the natural order; they cannot not obey them. It is just as impossible for humans to avoid undergoing the physical, chemical, and biological processes governed by natural laws as it is for any nonhuman thing in the universe. To instruct one ‘has to’ obey in a normative sense is therefore useless advice: one need not tell a person jumping off the Empire State Building to obey the law of gravity*.
* “Further, a corollary of this and indeed all naturalist interpretations is that humans realize the way-Dao by being ‘natural.’ Expressed in Daoist terms, one is to Wuwei. In that Wuwei for the naturalist means to do what is natural, which in turn means to comply with Dao, one must inevitably Wuwei. Since one cannot possibly Youwei [the opposite] the term is meaningless: it has no possible referent. Because Youwei is meaningless, the distinction between Youwei and Wuwei collapses. Yet this distinction is widely acknowledged to be a cornerstone of Lao Zi’s philosophy.
“Proponents of this interpretation could salvage their theory by drawing a distinction between Dao the descriptive and Dao the normative natural order. Dao as the descriptive totality, the cosmic order that does in fact attain at any given moment, is all-embracing. However, there is also a normative Dao, a normative natural order, that is not necessarily attained. To Wuwei is to comply with Dao the normative natural order.”
Yet Peerenboom argues that only the Huang Di Sijing puts forth a normative Dao and that it “does not square with the spontaneous, open-ended, and nonteleological evolutionary character of Lao Zi’s emergent order [Dao].” I’m not sure I entirely agree with him. It’s been awhile since I delved into all of this.
December 6th, 2008 at 6:33 am
Words point.
At the top, a quest ion is charged.
It poses and asks if there are things
which might be contrary to, -the- Dao.
Is there a -the-? Might there be more than one?
Could there be a their?
Playing with words.
For something to gather (Zz 4)
there needs to be an emptiness, naturally.
If something is full, or if someone is full,
there might be access but no more may gather.
To make a point, distinct ions may be drawn.
Cook Ding had a form and acted (re, Zz 6 above).
The reality and the signs may point to Dao
but to say Ding was Dao might be to go a bit far.
The Zz 14 point toward an invariable Dao
may be to look at an essence. While individual instances
always vary, the essence of a thing never does.
Wheelwright Bian et al can be said to be instances
used to illustrate something meant by the word, Dao.
Deriving an essence from all the stories and sayings
may lead one to a type of, chang-dao.
Each excerpt, taken at times out of context, may
be pointing toward a facet, an aspect, and has meaning
which is quite possibly context dependent. Context
tends to be king.
Taken all together, ancient texts could be seen by sum
to be revolving around a sort of core from which a kind
of doctrine or dao emerges which could be called, their
Dao in particular. What is contrary to their Dao might
or might not be contrary to some other more basic or
cosmic or ontological Dao. Each level of writing, speaking,
pointing and communicating may be subtle at times.
Thanks for the opportunity to respond!
December 7th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Hi Jay,
Yes, for sure there are numerous daos, in addition to that-which-is-nicknamed “Dao.” This distinction helps to understand many of these examples, like for instance Laozi 53 “thievery certainly isn’t the Dao” and, the newly added quote from the Wenzi at the end. And yes, context is very important.
Regarding Zhuangzi 4’s mention of the Dao gathering in emptiness, I just read an excellent paper written by Chris Fraser where he argues that the passage should read something like “Only follow as your dao concentrating emptiness.”
re: “Taken all together, ancient texts could be seen by sum to be revolving around a sort of core from which a kind
of doctrine or dao emerges which could be called, their Dao in particular. What is contrary to their Dao might or might not be contrary to some other more basic or cosmic or ontological Dao.”
– What do you think is going on when a writer makes a claim that something is not in accord with the cosmic Dao? Since that-which-is-nicknamed-Dao cannot be described by words without excluding something, is nothing one can say accord with Dao? In Laozi 77, which claims that the Dao of Nature and the Dao of humanity are not in accord, is the author in error? Is the Dao of humanity really going against Nature, or going against what the author observes happening elsewhere in Nature, by which he then implicitly is making a plea to change our way of doing things, not to accord with nature perse, but to live better?
December 8th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Hi Bao Pu,
I wouldn’t be sure what to think about a writer making a claim
that something isn’t in accord with the, “cosmic Dao.” I’d guess
probably that his or her meaning of terminology would vary
from those who would ascribe another meaning or meanings
such that it is given as being impossible, etc..
There is a point at which to speak is to differentiate.
Those that know this, realize it, and would make the point
might use goblet words, or know better than to speak at all.
Birds however, dew chirp. Ultimately they may care less.
Not to mention less and less, until, finally, … … … .
In Lz 77, without taking a close look at it, I’d guess that the
author is setting a stage to argue, given some definitions,
that there is something about being artificial or cultural
which somehow in some ways can trouble the heart-mind.
Without computers, there’d be no computer problems.
Wihout cars there’d be no car troubles.
Understanding how these things are, pointing, letting go,
putting things into perspective, for me at least, can help
to alleviate some of the angst which day to day involvements
often evoke in the psyche. Just as five notes deafen and five
colours blind, so to with technology and the ways of people.
Our things and our cultures can induce systemic problematic
sorts of all kinds of sorts within sorts. If that makes any sense.
“Only follow as your dao concentrating emptiness.”
That makes a whole lot of sense beyond differentiating sense.
It can open the way from a parking lot to paradise.
-on the Road
December 15th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Here’s something I re-read recently which seems relevant. It’s an excerpt from the March/April 1998 issue of The Humanist, of an article by Anselm Atkins.
“In truth, we are not kings over anything. How poorly do we govern ourselves! … Do humans makes the rules on this planet? What rules are we talking about? My essay on cats got snarled when I started thinking about the laws of physics and chemistry and what might be called laws in biology. I couldn’t see humans having a hand in any of them. We didn’t become lawmakers until we got to things like incest, red lights, and tax exemptions. Human laws concern only human social institutions - the froth on the top of the wave of life.
We don’t make the rules of the physical or chemical worlds. These rule us. Ditto in the biological world, the level at which we live and breathe and have our being. We have no say in it.
Take, for example, medicine and all its inventive, manipulative wonders. We transplant kidneys and make artificial hearts. It looks like we’re imposing our rule upon nature but actually we’re not. Researchers toil to discover the deep and hidden rules of nature. They learn how to work within these rules. Only a profound and detailed knowledge of how human biology “really works” enables us to transplant kidneys. Nothing good happens in medicine without an understanding of how things “really are.” Let Protagoras measure kidneys any way he wants-and hope he never needs one. Meanwhile, medicine advances as biology dictates, minus the musings of Protagoras.
Beyond the obvious biological facts-such as the fact that red blood cells transport oxygen-there are biological realities which reach right up into our social lives, our mental and cultural lives. Biology affects even our culture, so say the sociobiologists. This is because we are social primates descended from certain definite other social primates. Much of our behavior comes from these dim biological depths. We do what we do, in part, because we are animals of this particular sort. Other animals do otherwise.
I had to conclude from these considerations that, far from being rule makers, we look more like rule breakers. We’re not always good at going with nature’s flow. Homo sapiens seems both able and willing to buck the rules that nature has been laying down for eons. Not infrequently these are rules of life and death.
Consider another example. It is one of the many small rules of nature that. the floodplain of a river is a place where many things are achieved: flooding is slowed and ameliorated, underground aquifers are replenished, chemicals are reprocessed, waste products are recycled, aquatic life is given a nursery, and plants and animals of certain kinds are supplied their unique habitat. This arrangement was working long before the appearance of humans. It was a reality awaiting our discovery.
Humans, however, are powerful-if not law-abiding. We come to a floodplain and do what we want. We build roads, bridges, dikes, farms, car dealerships, condominiums. But think about it: are we making or breaking rules of nature?
Humans haven’t made a single rule regarding nature, but we’ve broken plenty. Competent as we are, there’s much we can do. But we can’t make the rules of biology. All we can do, it seems, is break them.
All this is not to say that nature provides a norm for ethics or that is determines ought. Neither is there any comfort here for what Catholic theology calls “natural law. ” No, ethics is one of our artifacts. The facts of biology, on the other hand, represent discovery.
Protagoras responds, “You say these things, but others say other things.” That’s fine, Protagoras. You and the others say other things until you perish. Biology will take care of you. It will have the last word.
But this discussion should not end as a Humpty Dumpty power struggle. There’s a philosophical point to be made. Why can’t we say that discovery is one of our powers, just as invention is?
Protagoras abruptly declares that invention is all and rests his case. May we not declare, with greater reason, that discovery is also a part of things? What we discover is that discovery itself is a window to reality. We discover biology and, with it, the limits of Protagorean thinking.
The key to this reality is not any philosophical system or fancy argument. In fact, it lies outside philosophy altogether. The key is biology-in its contemporary, Darwinian version. Philosophy has always lacked this essential understanding of our condition, and for this reason has always been lame.
Dear Protagoras! You are great in helping us understand the works of our human days and hands. You got it right: humans are the measure of all things human. But (let us help you a bit) certain things preceded humanity which humanity does not and cannot measure. Though understanding and formulating of such things is a certain kind of human measurement prone to error as are all human measurements don’t let this deceive you. You, the measurer, are embedded in a biological matrix over which you have no control and no command. It is not yours to criticize or construct. It made you a measurer in the first place, and it measures you now. Step outside its boundaries as you please, but know that you will pay the consequences. You are not king and you do not make the rules.
About cats. Along with all the other living forms with which we are embedded in the web of life, cats have exactly as much value as we care to bestow on them. Same as anything else. Cat, butterfly, snail darter, fetus, felon-their fates are in our hands. As good Protagoreans, we measure them.
And yet our well-being, our very existence, depends on the web of life in ways we only dimly understand even as we measure it. If we mismeasure this web, break its rules, and destroy it, we perish with it.
In the Protagorean world, there is no such thing as ‘mismeasurement.’ But that is a mistake. We have arrived at the conclusion that, if we wish to live and live well, we must bring our measurements into harmony with the measurements already existing out there in the real biological world. We evolved doing this. let’s keep doing it.
This description puts humans in their place in nature yet leaves all values still ultimately relative. Values are relative to humans. Indeed, even human life and well-being are not absolute values. What is valuable to us is not thereby valuable in itself. Nature is not here to serve us. Neither is nature here to serve even life in general, for planet Earth does not care whether or not it supports life. Ultimately, the sun will grow big and red, and life here will fail.”
December 15th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Obviously, what caught my eye was Atkins’ mention of breaking Nature’s rules. He hasn’t spelled it out too clearly, but it might not be difficult to see what he’s pointing to.
There’s things on the world which work well without any human involvement/interference. When humans come along and interfere, things stop working well. This isn’t breaking a law of Nature, but perhaps a ‘rule,’ depending on how we define that. Could this be what the Daoists were talking about?
December 31st, 2008 at 8:24 am
Hi Bao Pu,
Nice essay, after which you wrote and asked:
“There’s things on the world which work well without any human involvement/interference. When humans come along and interfere, things stop working well. This isn’t breaking a law of Nature, but perhaps a ‘rule,’ depending on how we define that. Could this be what the Daoists were talking about?”
I think that’s very much was was being written of in places.
My impression at times is that Daoism hearkens back, looking
to a time when things were, “natural for people.” Zz may say
it’s natural to farm and eat well, to wear cool clothes, etc..
If the area\state was small, eco-balance was maintained.
As agriculture provided ample food and populations grew,
tribes, territories, larger states and empires resulted. Daoists
may have tended to see this as not a good idea. Have carts
and boats but don’t go shipping goods all over the place.
Don’t burn the town down, simply scale it down.
-along those lines
January 1st, 2009 at 9:04 pm
I totally agree Jay
February 21st, 2009 at 9:13 am
I had a discussion about these issues on a discussion forum called Tao Speaks!. One might find it here:
http://members.boardhost.com/Zentao00/msg/1234722281.html
One point we hit upon was that “dao” often meant “the way to prosper.” This figurative use of “dao” explains some of the problems with struggling to understand what it means to not be in harmony with the Dao.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I just stumbled upon a place in Alan Watts’ Tao: The Watercourse Way where he addresses this issue. He begins with the passage which heads this blog post.
“This sentence from the Zhongyong, or ‘Doctrine of the Mean,’ suggests that there is no analogy between Dao and the Western ideas of God and of divine or natural law, which can be obeyed or disobeyed. The saying is a hard one, because both Laozi and Zhuangzi speak of forced actions which are at variance with the Dao. The paradox is resolved in a dialogue which occurred centuries later between Chan masters Nanquan and Zhaozhou:
Zhaozhou asked, ‘What is the Dao?’
The master (Nanquan) replied, ‘Your ordinary consciousness [心] is the Dao.’
‘How can one return into accord with it?’
‘By intending to accord you immediately deviate.’
‘But without intention, how can one know the Dao?’
‘The Dao,’ said the master, ‘belongs neither to knowing nor to not knowing. Knowing is false understanding; not knowing is blind ignorance. If you really understand the Dao beyond doubt, it’s like the empty sky. Why drag in right and wrong?’
“In other words, people try to force issues only when not realizing that it can’t be done - that there is no way of deviating from the watercourse of nature. You may imagine that you are outside, or separate from, the Dao and thus be able to follow it or not follow, but this very imagination is itself within the stream, for there is no way other than the Way. Willy-nilly, we are it and go with it. From a strictly logical point of view, this means nothing and gives us no information. Dao is just a name for whatever happens, or, as Laozi put it, ‘The Dao principle is what happens of itself (Ziran).” (p. 37-8)
Again, it seems like there are different way to use the word “Dao” and things get confusing when we mix them up.