Above lies the inspiration.
What’s the question? How do we see things? And the meaning of things. What’s under discussion? Connecting the concept and the word. What’s the hypothesis? Words have power. Consider, what context mud might you be stuck in with your words. I suggest we live in a (part of) the world where words are used primarily to convert/sell/commodify and monetise our actions. (In my view) I ask then, Can you embrace (or at least consider) different perspectives? When you think you need more (money) perhaps consider a different perspective: Perhaps you need to learn to be content with less (money) If that’s all too wordy or political, how about I offer a more natural approach. Perhaps even a poem? The trees shed their leaves. Do they discard? Or are they giving their leaves to the fungi In a symbiotic relationship The fungi feed the earth the earth feeds the trees The trees feed the fungi the fungi feed the…
0 Comments
A discourse on 'discarding'
I explored my thoughts regarding actions of discarding and eliminating (verbs currently being offered in a Dao context) on my morning mindful walk. Here’s what came out: DISCARD: 1. To get rid of (someone or something) as no longer useful or desirable. 2. a thing rejected as no longer useful or desirable. I guess for me the problem is there’s a sense of rejection (which is negative) in the meaning of this word. And thus the action will contain a sense of negativity. Similarly, eliminate has an ‘undesirable’ element to it. It’s an extreme (and extremely emotive) word which makes me think of Daleks and ‘exterminate’ (that may just be me!) Whereas GIVE is a much friendlier verb. 1. freely transfer the possession of (something) to (someone). 2. cause or allow (someone or something) to have or experience (something); provide with. And (as a noun) capacity to bend or alter in shape under pressure. Similarly LET GO 1.allow someone or something to escape or go free. 2. relinquish one's grip on someone or something. I feel this is framing the actions one might be looking to take on a dao path in a more positive way. * This definition evokes a sense of freedom (for me) and redressing power imbalance is embodied in it. Does it matter? If we are trying to integrate our actions into our value system it seems to me that using words which embody our value system is a fruitful and positive thing to do. Not least, it gets one to think about the concepts behind the words we use. And from another perspective. If one seeks/follows/embraces the Dao one may be careful about what they put into their body in terms of food and drink and careful in how they use their body in terms of exercise and careful in terms of their mind by meditation. So surely being careful about how we use what comes out of our mouth/mind in terms of words is allied to these practices? Behind all this wondering are the words of Zhuangzi chapter 2 (line 85/6) The most common translation I've come across is: Words are not just wind, words have something to say also translated as But human speech is not just a blowing of air. Speech has something of which it seems, something it refers to. (though he then continues to explore the paradox of communication and meaningfulness in terms of the paradox of right/wrong. ) I see this as a soundbite from a larger discourse on philosophy of language which is what I find when I read Zhuangzi in this part of my dao moment. Other interpretations are (of course) available! And hopefully no other interpretations were hurt in the current portrayal of this one. Just words (pause. think.) * interestingly long obfuscating sentence in an attempt to 'justify' without placing value judgement. Work in Progress. (emoji smiley face rather than exclamation point. Or not) First in a series co-authored by my pals Yinyang and Humbug... sharing thoughts about all things relating to Dao. From a different perspective. A recent (written) conversation brought this to my mind:
He who lives out his days has had a long life. This is something of an interpretative leap from the actual characters, however, it’s one that really speaks to me. It the D.C Lau Translation. It wan nice to revisit, since I’ve been spending a lot of time with Zhuangzi this year. I interpret this to mean that immortality is living in the present. That not expecting or demanding more from life than this day, right now, is more than ‘enough’. I see this every day in my dogs. We live together, they truly live in the moment. Having no concept of death they are immortal. I’m not too bothered about immortality now I appreciate that I am part of the Dao and that as it changes so too will I. The key for me is that I’ve let go of the past (by the time you are nearly 60 that’s a lot of past to let go of) and I have the choice moment by moment. [quick digress] The Chinese see the past in front and the future behind. This seems odd to Western ways but when you think on it, we KNOW the past, so we can see it (look at it – stretching out in front of us – where we have been) but we can’t KNOW the future (so we can’t ‘look’ at it, thus placing it (spatially) behind us makes a sense) So my choice – moment by moment - is: look at my past (in front of me into memory) or look at the world I am in (my immediate present). One looks into the past with the mind and one looks at the present with the eye. Embodying the present Dao using the eye (for me) gives a much closer appreciation. Don’t think, see, is key to staying in the present. And not just ‘see’ but embody. BE HERE. [quick digress] There’s a part in DDJ which talks of see with ears and hear with eyes – I think that gives a good sense of the value of ‘see’ – that its beyond words and our standard concepts - mental note to self to search this out again. So it doesn’t matter how much past we’ve had, or what that past contains. We are here now, in this moment and that’s all that is real. There is nowhere else to be. Nowhere to go. Nothing to follow. Nothing to reach out for or strive for because its all here. Everything you are is here, right now, in this moment. Ho hopes, no regrets, no fears, no joys (as such) Just life. And as that chapter suggests – living life is enough. Of course there are many translations of this chapter, and I’ve found many where I’d ‘miss’ the bit I find most insightful in Lau’s. Here, for example, is Jeff Pepper/ xiao Hui Wang’s: Know people and you are clever Know yourself and you have insight Triumph over other people and you have influence Triumph over yourself and you are strong Know you have enough and you are rich Be determined and you will have a strong will Don’t lose your place and you will endure Die but don’t be destroyed and you will live forever. [This is a ‘clear English’ with step by step translation. It’s still an interpretation, but it helps one get closer to the characters – I’m deeply into Old Chinese syntax now, it’s my gift to myself on ‘retirement’] Set Pepper/Wang alongside DC Lau’s Translation and there’s proof that individual perspectives differ, but that all come towards the core of the wordless words. I’ve bolded the bits that jump out at me. He who knows others is clever; He who knows himself has discernment. He who overcomes others has force; He who overcomes himself is strong. He who knows contentment is rich; He who perseveres is a man of purpose; He who does not lose his station will endure; He who lives out his days has had a long life. The 'bolding' might be seen as a kind of ‘cherry picking’ of translations, which used to worry me, but the more I look into Old Chinese the more I realise that ANY translation is going to be an interpretation and so each person will interpret differently. This is one reason why I favour personal translation/interpretation (from source – though even finding ‘source’ is difficult) or at least, I guess I’ve come to a ‘let go’ attitude to it and allow the bits that speak to me immediately to speak, then I go looking for depth across a range of interpretations. If you want a ‘journey’ then take one through the depth of meaning in DDJ! I certainly find it more fulfilling than any ‘real’ journey in our modern world. Accepting the ‘journey’ into meaning means going beyond concepts such as ‘cherry picking’ and definitely beyond the sceptical doubters argument of paradox. Gaining an understanding of paradox (which is laid out bare in the very first chapter) is (in my understanding) essential if one is to make any personal sense and therefore ‘find’ (in the sense of embody) one place in the Dao. Or one’s personal dao in the Dao. Zhuangzi has something to say about it (of course) which is that you use a fishing rod to catch a fish. Once you have the fish you don’t need the rod. So you need words to find meaning, once you find meaning you don’t need the words. I guess very early on my own experience with Dao I came across a story, words, about fishing which have stuck with me as THE story of my life - in a paradoxical way. To understand my relationship to this story I’ll just say ‘of my’ is not as obvious as it seems in that sentence. It’s a story which has featured in the background of several of my own novels, and underpins my belief system. It was a story given to me by a friend and I have shared my version of it whenever I can. If you want to find out more about A Fishing Line, click and you'll be taken to another place entirely... Not the same thing.
A series of personal reflections on Buddhism and Daoism. As I see it there are many flavours of Buddhism. Chan, Zen, Tantric, Tibetan etc. It can be tempting to think of Daoism as another version. But though Daoism is a close relation of Buddhism, I’d say Buddhism is a ‘child’ of the Dao, they have some quite significant differences and for those seeking to embody Dao it can be useful to think about what these are. I fully appreciate that others have their own paths and am not challenging anyone’s right to follow Buddhism. I also appreciate that Daoism has the longest of histories and so develops along with people up to the present day (though I have to say, I feel that a lot of the issues people may find with Daoism can be resolved if they don’t try to shoehorn it together with Buddhism) In short, Buddhism, Daoism: not the same thing. For me there are several key differences between Buddhism and Daoism. I think these differences reveal that the two philosophies (I’m definitely not straying into ‘religious’ Buddhism or Daoism here as I think religion is itself a corrupt form) come from fundamentally different perspectives. Following or adopting one will NOT lead to the other. Difference #1. Who’s in charge? Who do I follow? Daoism has no key figure/leader/God. Buddhism has the Buddha. Yes there is Laozi, but (literal trans ‘old master’) he may not even have existed. And in Daoism ‘the way’ is not the way of Laozi, but the way of the Dao. This is important because it reveals that Buddhism is human centred while Daoism is nature centred For Daoism this is also significant in terms of Confucius. Confucianism (like Buddhism) is NOT fundamentally the same as Daoism. Confucius is definitely human centred, with the emphasis on society and rules and hierarchies. Why does this even matter? I think that as long as we focus on man as being important we step far from Dao. We are not striving for Dao, we are part of Dao. Difference # 2. The meaning of life Buddhism says life is suffering. Dao says life just is. We choose how to respond or interpret it. The vinegar tasters story reveals this. Personally, I believe that life is a precious gift and that living every day ‘present’ is the most fulfilling way to embody Dao. But my belief is insignificant (except to myself). Dao doesn’t care what I believe (any more than you may do!) I’ve read and heard lots about how ‘pain is real but suffering is a choice’ and yet Buddhism fundamentally sees life as a form of suffering (as I understand it) from which we should strive to liberate ourselves. Daoists are already liberated. Or rather – free – there is nothing to be liberated FROM in Daoism. There is just Dao and our choice to accept our part in it. Difference #3. The path to/of Enlightenment. Buddhism strives towards this state. Daoism says enlightenment is ever present in the Dao. Again we choose how to experience it. Thus we might see that Buddhism has a goal or aspiration whereas Daoism favours wandering. Purposelessness. A lot of modern people have no issue with ‘goals’ and ‘aspiration’ and many have real problems with ‘wandering’ or ‘purposeless’ action (wu wei). Zhuangzi’s useless tree story addresses this issue. Useless, like every other value judgement is a creation of man’s mind/perspective. Nothing is useful or useless in the Dao. It just IS. We need to talk about Buddhism?!
I suggest that one reason Buddhism is more popular than Daoism is that it gives a framework to follow and a set of stickers for success which plays to our misconceived needs to feel good about ourselves and feeds our aspirational temperament. It is happy with the language of improvement, progress and self-development. In base terms, for me, Buddhism offers the gameification of life. Daoism has none of this. No rules, no prizes, nothing to strive for. It's much more radical. And it’s definitely not human-centred. I suspect that Buddhism is more popular as a spiritual ‘path’ because it plays to human desires and vanities. I find that ironic since it purports to strive to get rid of desire. (If I understand it correctly, I may well not. I am only responding to Buddhism as I’ve experienced it second hand). Contentiously provocative, I know.
For me, Buddhism has an inbuilt problem. I find it systemically rather akin to capitalism – it is aspirational. Of course, many people have no problem with capitalism. Especially those above the lowest tiers of the hierarchy. Which is pretty much anyone reading this! I know that many people feel capitalism and aspirationalism is our human natural state but Daoism suggests striving and goals are not natural. That what we see as ‘natural’ is in fact socially constructed. I reflect that it is our failure to accept the socially constructed nature of the world we live in that keeps us far from the Dao. And that stops us from either wanting or being able to effect positive change in the world – we are too partisan, too tied up in what’s best for humans. Our confusion regarding climate change cannot be resolved while we still see humanity as ‘special’ or more important. Even the phrase climate ‘justice’ is problematic, reinforcing our value judgement view of the world. Perhaps if we think more in terms of rebalancing (and not heavily in favour of humans) we’d stand more chance. The planet does not need humans to ‘save’ it. But for the planet to remain a ‘home’ for humans (and pretty much anything else) we ‘need’ to stop destroying it by placing our own needs/desires/perspectives above everything else. It’s simple. But not simple to effect the change because the change is one of the most basic way we comprehend ourselves as individuals and species.
The Dao is not there for us to achieve or strive for. We are not aiming for a perfect state. We are not the centre of anything, or important or the most intelligent species. I find ‘man as the most intelligent species’ a dangerous argument. Actually, it’s a version of the master race theory. And so, when we see ourselves as ‘more’ than the rest of nature, we remain inconsistent to our desire to ‘save’ the planet. It’s not for us to ‘save’ it’s for us to recognise our place – to stop putting ourselves at the top of a hierarchy and to start realising we are part of an organism, a network and, ooops, NOT the most important part.
Daoism includes everything and is in constant change so that we may all experience it uniquely but our ‘experience’ is not important from any other perspective. For me, accepting Dao is a process of learning how to step beyond a belief in the importance of man. Learning not to value the creations of man more than nature.
For me embodiment of Dao means letting go of the importance of the self, of man made structures and relationships and losing these beliefs in favour of accepting the Dao is unknown to us because of our limited understanding. These are not just words or ideological positions, it's how to actually live life. It’s a constantly changing reflection on how one may be walking off the path at every minute of daily life. It’s not theory it’s life and this includes, for example, concepts like 'I’m having a bad day' or 'I need a holiday' etc etc. Embracing Dao requires a constant and constantly changing perceptions of one's place in the world and ones experience. All comparisons good/bad proud/humble beautiful/ugly etc are irrelevant in Dao. They are all value judgments. And they manifest in real world scenarios. Challenges to our daily thoughts, exchanges and social interactions. They present real questions: What is the purpose of money? Do we have to compete or compare with others? I suggest that Needs (desires) competition (aspiration) and comparison with others are irrelevant to Dao, they’re like weeds encroaching on the side of the path - the path which each of us creates as we walk. Our own individual path IN Dao. |
Wanderingsin the Dao, virtually. Places to explore. Archives
October 2022
Categories
All
|