A lot of Taoism of late, here at The Useless Tree.  That’s because I am wrapping up a month-long class on it, centering on the Tao Te Ching and the Inner Chapters of Chuang Tzu, for the Summer Humanities and Social Science program here at Williams.

     So, think for a moment about this passage from the Tao Te Ching, number 53:

Understanding
sparse and sparser still

I travel the great Way,
nothing
to fear unless I stray.

The great Way is open and smooth,

but people adore twisty paths:

Government in ruins,
fields overgrown

and granaries bare,

they indulge in elegant robes

and sharp swords,

lavish food and drink,

all those trappings of luxury.

It’s vainglorious thievery –

not the Way, not the Way at all.

     This passage expresses a paradox of
human nature. One the one hand, it is
natural for humans to exercise their free will in ways that are hurtful of
others. “People adore twisty paths”
which lead to inequality and injustice. Yet on the other hand, this natural tendency produces unnatural
outcomes, which are “not the Way, not the Way at all.” If Way encompasses everything – good and bad
alike– then it should follow that the bad effects of willful human behavior are
in keeping with Way. But this passage
suggests that through our free will we can choose to violate Way and that some
portion of our bad behavior is “not the Way.” This does not mean that humans are somehow outside of Way; but, rather,
that the human condition, unlike perhaps anything else in Way, can uniquely defy
the natural unfolding of Way.

     It further suggests two kinds of bad occurrences in the world: 1) Those "bad" things that happen as a part of the natural unfolding of Way.  This would include most "natural disasters," and other things that happen regardless of human intentions.  2) Those bad things that result from willful selfishness and hurtfulness on the part of humans, things that are "not the Way."

     If we accept this distinction (I know: Taoists are supposed to avoid analytic distinctions because, following Chuang Tzu, those who divide things cannot see; but I am going to make this point in any event…), then we might push one step more to say that this would provide a basis for a positive ethics of Taoism, one that can invoke a standard of "good" versus "bad".  The latter would not include some of the conventional understandings of the term: there is much "bad" that is a natural result of Way.  But it would include intentional, humanly-created "bad" that is not in keeping with Way.  Of course, we will face a continuing debate about how we can know what is or is not "naturally" consonant with Way.  But it is a starting place.

     Thoughts?

Sam Crane Avatar

Published by

Categories:

13 responses to “Two Kinds of Bad”

  1. Tyler Blalock Avatar
    Tyler Blalock

    What would a Taoist, in keeping with that standard of morals, think of inequality of income and wealth? It results in large part from the different choices made by the free will of human beings, perhaps going along with the Way, but such inequality has deleterious results. Those bad results would seem to be an example of human-created “bad”, which is not the Way, but would result from humans following their own free will, and are often created by differences in human ability and intelligence and luck, which would perhaps be in keeping with the Way (especially the luck part!)

    Like

  2. Sam Avatar

    I think that inequality that was born of greed and the desire for possessions beyond a fairly basic minimum would, as passage 53 above suggests, be considered “not the Way.” Indeed, if you look at passage 80 of the TTJ, it suggests a utopia of sorts where people are satisfied with little and, thus, little separates them. Perhaps that seems unrealistic to us in the here and now, but I think it is how the text would answer your question…

    Like

  3. chriswaugh_bj Avatar

    Thanks for that, Sam. Somehow you reminded me of something raised in classes on Voltaire back in my student days. It was a long time ago, so my memory is probably a bit faulty, but the way I remember it is one of the problems Voltaire wrestled with was the existence of “natural evil” like earthquakes and tsunami. Remember, this was roughly the time of the great Lisbon quake and tsunami. Anyway, the discussion, as I remember it, went along the lines of “If God is so great and mighty and all-loving, why does he allow this “natural evil” to kill and maim the creatures he’s supposed to love so much?” I think in this post you hit smack bang right on an answer that has been slowly fermenting in the back of my mind ever since, reinforced by experience and observation, and bolstered by my reading of the Dao De Jing: This “natural evil” is not in any sense evil. From a Christian standpoint you could say that God created us as a part of nature, and as such we are subject to all the laws of nature. Our illnesses, injuries and death are a natural and necessary unfolding of the natural world that God set in motion. From a Taoist standpoint: It’s not evil. It is simply the unfolding of Dao. From both standpoints: This is the way things are. Just run with it. Basically, Voltaire’s problem, which seems to be a common problem in Enlightenment thinkers and their intellectual descendents, is that he placed humanity on too high a pedestal, then demanded, like a petulant, spoilt child, to know why he didn’t get things his own way and he had to cope with things he didn’t like.

    Like

  4. JustSomeGuy Avatar
    JustSomeGuy

    YEN-PING-CHUNG asked Kuan-Yi-Wu1 as to cherishing life.
    Kuan-Yi-Wu replied:
    “It suffices to give it its free course, neither checking nor obstructing it.”
    Yen-Ping-Chung said: “And as to details?”
    Kuan-Yi-Wu replied: “Allow the ear to hear what it likes, the eye to see what it likes, the nose to smell what it likes, the mouth to say what it likes, the body to enjoy the comforts it likes to have, and the mind to do what it likes.
    “Now what the ear likes to hear is music, and the prohibition of it is what I call obstruction to the ear.
    “What the eye likes to look at is beauty; and its not being permitted to regard this beauty I call obstruction of sight.
    “What the nose likes to smell is perfume; and its not being permitted to smell I call obstruction to scent.
    “What the mouth likes to talk about is right and wrong; and if it is not permitted to speak I call it obstruction of the understanding.
    “The comforts the body enjoys to have are rich food and fine clothing; and if it is not permitted, p. 44 then I call that obstruction of the senses of the body.
    “What the mind likes is to be at peace; and its not being permitted rest I call obstruction of the mind’s nature.
    “All these obstructions are a source of the most painful vexation.
    “Morbidly to cultivate this cause of vexation, unable to get rid of it, and so have a long but very sad life of a hundred, a thousand, or ten thousand years, is not what I call cherishing life.
    “But to check this source of obstruction and with calm enjoyment to await death for a day, a month, or a year or ten years, is what I understand by enjoying life.”
    Kuan-Yi-Wu said:
    “Since I have told you about cherishing life, please tell me how it is with the burial of the dead.”
    Yen-Ping-Chung said:
    “Burying the dead is but of very little importance. What shall I tell you about it?”
    Kuan-Yi-Wu replied:
    “I really wish to hear it.”
    Yen-Ping-Chung answered:
    “What can I do when I am dead? They may burn my body, or cast it into deep water, or inter it, or leave it uninterred, or throw it wrapped up in a mat into some ditch, or cover it with princely apparel and embroidered garments and rest it in p. 45 a stone sarcophagus. All that depends on mere chance.”
    Kuan-Yi-Wu looked round at Pao-Shu-huang-tse and said to him:
    “Both of us have made some progress in the doctrine of life and death.”

    Like

  5. Sam Avatar

    Guy,
    Would you count Yang Chu as a Taoist?

    Like

  6. JustSomeGuy Avatar
    JustSomeGuy

    I would, yes. Since his works can be found in the Liezi, I think it would be reasonable to simply take that as a given! Furthermore, I don’t think it is too far a step from Daoist notions of equivalence in everything to more specific notions of moral equivalence, such as Yang advocated. After all, isn’t Yang a perfect example of a moral cripple?

    Like

  7. Sam Avatar

    Interesting. I have not gone very far with Yang, but notice how some (Graham for instance) want to distinguish his thought from Chuang Tzu’s. I am not interested in defending any particular definitions or boundaries of “Taoism” and am happy to see Yang as working within that field. But I would note how the passage you cite above seems to push against Chuang Tzu’s line on acceptance of death, which also entails not cherishing life. And how it also seems to run counter to passage 12 of the TTJ (“the five colors blind eyes…”) Of course, logical consistency is not something any “Taoist” anywhere should really care about….

    Like

  8. JustSomeGuy Avatar
    JustSomeGuy

    Well, modern scholarship has pretty conclusively demonstrated that many of the old texts we look back on (like the Analects, Xunzi, DDJ, ZZ, ect.) don’t even have that much internal consistency, so it should hardly come as a surprise that consistency that occurs across these texts is almost certainly as much due to the imagination of the reader as it is to the intent of the author(s). So, when it comes to linking “good” philosophers like Lao Zi and Zhaung Zi, the comparisons come very easily. Likewise, when it comes to comparing “bad” philosophers, like Shen Dao and Han Fei Zi, people will leap from their seats to demonstrate how similar they are.
    But when it comes to demonstrating the cross-pollination of the “good” and the “bad” people tend to be a little bit more reserved. Sure, Han Fei Zi took inspiration from the Laozi, they will mumble under their breath, but that is due to the fetid imagination of Han Fei Zi, surely there is nothing inherently proto-fascist about the Daodejing! When they dig up a text of the Daodejing with its order reversed, they are very quick to file it away in the “legalist” bin. Interesting due to its advanced age, but surely a historical oddity — ‘de’ would never come before “dao” in a proper cosmology, right?
    I mean, look at the Zhuangzi. The text we have has been reformulated by thousands of commentators and had to be completely reformed after the Qin book-burning. Here is where it gets interesting, in my uneducated opinion: when recreating the Zhuangzi the people of the time thought that the philosophy of Yang Zhu was close enough to Zhuangzi’s that they could be included in the same work! Now, from our modern view, we want to separate the treasured thought of Zhuangzi from the kindling-fodder that is Yang but it would seem that people closer to the time thought they were more similar than different. I think there is a good deal of truth to such a position. After all, the crippled man enjoyed great longevity due to his unique position, avoiding the draft and receiving a larger share of rations during times of trouble! Likewise, the useless tree was able to sit unmolested while its seemingly “more perfect” brethren were chopped down.
    Compare:
    Zhuangzi replied:
    “Sir, haven’t you ever watched a lone bobcat or weasel? It stays low to the ground, crouching down, waiting for something to unwittingly stroll by. Jumping up high in all directions, not being able to avoid what is above or below, preoccupied with a sense of invulnerability, it then gets snared and dies in a hunter’s net. Then there’s the adult yak, which seems to be as big as a cloud in the sky. It’s really huge! Yet it can’t even catch a mouse. You, sir, have a large tree, and are worried that it’s useless. Why not transplant the tree from your own neighborhood into the vast wilderness. There you could pace back and forth next to it while doing nothing. Without a care in the world, you could lie down under it and go to sleep. Neither an ax nor hatchet would threaten its existence. It would be out of harm’s way. What’s truly useless should be able to get some peace and quiet!”
    With
    YANG CHU said:
    “Yuan Hsie lived in mean circumstances in Lu, while Tse Kung1 amassed wealth in Wei.
    “Poverty galled the one, and riches caused uneasiness to the other.
    “So poverty will not do nor wealth either.”
    “But what then will do?”
    “I answer enjoy life and take one’s ease, for those who know how to enjoy life are not poor, and he that lives at ease requires no riches.”

    Like

  9. Sam Avatar

    Your opinions are obviously not “uneducated.” To me, the use of the Tao Te Ching in Han Fei Tzu suggests not some “misuse” of Taoism by Legalists but, rather, something in the TTJ that allows it to be used in such ways. Weapons may be tools of misfortune (passage 31) they should be kept well hidden from the people (passage 36), not destroyed altogether… And I take your point on the overlaps, and tensions, between Taoism and Yangism – if we can name it as such…

    Like

  10. JustSomeGuy Avatar
    JustSomeGuy

    Well, I meant more ‘amateur’ — I regretted the use of ‘uneducated’ as soon as I had typed it, but aside from spelling mistakes, I generally view revision of on-line comments dilutes their sincerity to the point of irrelevance. I’d rather recognize my pivot’s wobblings and seek to rectify it rather than suggesting that I am on the level when you, me, the pope, and anybody else paying attention has a pretty clear notion that this particular Driedel is about to fall right over 😉
    As for your comment about weapons, well, death has always been with us, but I think that the Onion provides the best rebuttal to such a stance:

    8-Year-Old Accidentally Exercises Second Amendment Rights

    .onion_embed {background: rgb(256, 256, 256) !important;border: 4px solid rgb(65, 160, 65);border-width: 4px 0 1px 0;margin: 10px 30px !important;padding: 5px;overflow: hidden !important;zoom: 1;}.onion_embed img {border: 0 !important;}.onion_embed a {display: inline;}.onion_embed a.img {float: left !important;margin: 0 5px 0 0 !important;width: 66px;display: block;overflow: hidden !important;}.onion_embed a.img img {border: 1px solid #222 !important;;width: 64px;;padding: 0 !important;;}.onion_embed h2 {line-height: 2px;;clear: none;;margin: 0 !important;padding: 0 !important;}.onion_embed h3 {line-height: 16px;font: bold 16px arial, sans-serif !important;margin: 3px 0 0 0 !important;padding: 0 !important;}.onion_embed h3 a {line-height: 16px !important;;color: rgb(0, 51, 102) !important;font: bold 16px arial, sans-serif !important;text-decoration: none !important;display: inline !important;;float: none !important;;text-transform: capitalize !important;}.onion_embed h3 a:hover {text-decoration: underline !important;color: rgb(204, 51, 51) !important;}.onion_embed p {color: #000 !important;;font: normal 11px/ 11px arial, sans-serif !important;;margin: 2px 0 0 0 !important;;padding: 0 !important;}.onion_embed a {display: inline !important;;float: none !important;}
    I have endeavored for the past ten minutes to make the above less garish. You are free to edit it, but I have to say that I clearly do not understand blog posting, otherwise my action here would have been much cleaner . . .

    Like

  11. Sam Avatar

    Not sure that the Onion link/post worked… But by the title leads me to believe that Chuang Tzu would be laughing….

    Like

  12. JustSomeGuy Avatar
    JustSomeGuy

    Sorry about that. Sometime after I’m done eating my children, waiting for people to die so I can cash in on their funeral, neglecting my wife, studying with the exclusive intent of passing the state exam, and doing my best to prevent anything resembling the Protestant Work Ethic from arising in Asia, I should probably learn how to properly use a computer.
    Does this work: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29467

    Like

  13. Allan Lian Avatar

    Instead of posting some comments here and at Tao Speaks on the links between the TTC and the Zhouyi, I decided to write the latest entry – Tao and the Zhouyi. Some of it is to address what modern scholars tend to think is impossible.
    In the main it is to encourage Daoist and Yi students to earnestly study and to be thorough and talk less.
    Cheerio!

    Like

Leave a comment