The Useless Tree

Birthday Thoughts

     Today is Aidan’s birthday.
 
     He would have been sixteen.

     As I think about his life, and what he gave to me, a passage from Chuang Tzu comes to mind.  Without him, I would not have the understanding of this passage that I now have.  It is his gift to me and, so, I post it here as a birthday present for all.

Sufficient because "sufficient."  Insufficient because "insufficient."  Traveling the Way makes it Tao.  Naming things makes them real.  Why real?  Real because "real." Why nonreal? Nonreal because "nonreal."  So the real is originally there  in things, and the sufficient is originally there in things.  There’s nothing that is not real, and nothing that is not sufficient.

Hence, the blade of grass and the pillar, the leper and the ravishing Hsi Shih, the noble, the sniveling, the disingenuous, the strange – in Tao they all move as one and the same.  In difference is the whole; in wholeness is the broken.  Once they are neither whole nor broken, all things move freely as one and the same again.

Only one who has seen through things understands moving freely as one and the same.  In this way, rather than relying on your own distinctions, you dwell in the ordinary.  To be ordinary is to be self-reliant; to be self-reliant is to move freely; to move freely is to arrive.  That’s almost it, because to arrive is to be complete.  But to be complete without understanding how – that is called Tao.

Sam Crane Avatar

Published by

Sam Crane
I have moved The Useless Tree to WordPress. Hope this works!
Categories: ,

5 responses to “Birthday Thoughts”

  1. Han FeiZi Avatar
    Han FeiZi

    Why did your experience caring for you son lead you to Taoist philosophy? Did you consider Christian theology?

    Like

    Reply
  2. justsomeguy Avatar
    justsomeguy

    As someone who thinks that the self is ultimately a relational concept, I think you’ve done something beautiful with Aiden. It is undeniably true that both men like Robber Zhi and Duke Wen are ontologically equally dead, but from an existential point of view their legacies are diametrically opposed. And both of them exist in strong opposition to the litany of nobodies that litter history. Aiden had a powerful lesson to teach and, through your efforts, others are aware of that condition. I mean, if the self is truly relational, those who are remembered are, quite simply, not truly dead. Every person who significantly touches us and, through us, others persists throughout the entirety of history.
    That is, perhaps, where I am uncertain when it comes to the lesson of the crooked tree: it survived, but in surviving, it was neither affected by nor affected others. Far from doing that, Aiden has affected the hearts of far more people than I think you’ll ever realize.
    But that’s just my two cents.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Sam Avatar
    Sam

    Han,
    I turned to Chinese philosophy, Taoism in particular, because I did not want the complications that arise when God is invoked. I wanted to avoid the variations of theodicy that come along with such a difficult and painful experience (i.e. how can a good God let such bad things happen? etc.). Taoism and Confucianism just don’t go there, and that makes them more comfortable for me.
    Guy,
    From my reading, Chuang Tzu uses the useless tree image to make several points. One is that the apparently useless really can be useful. At the end of Chapter 4, he writes: “Everyone knows that to be useful is useful, but who knows how useful it is to be useless?” From this, the useless tree notion fits into the relational notion of the self that you mention: Aidan appeared, to some, to be “useless” but through his relations with others, through his effect on others, he was beautifully “useful.” But a bit earlier in Chapter 4, Chuang Tzu also uses the useless tree metaphor to make a more powerful claim about transcending, or rejecting, utility altogether: “Look it [the tree] isn’t like the rest of us: it’s harboring something utterly different. If we praise its practicality, we’ll miss the point altogether, won’t we?” This, to me, is a more profound point. What Aidan challenged us to do was to give up our assumptions of utility. By the way, the op-ed I wrote for the NYT some years ago, which they gave the title “Productive in his own way” (a link is on the right sidebar), was originally titled by me, “Against Productivity.” That was Aidan’s message.

    Like

    Reply
  4. CP Avatar
    CP

    Sam,
    I agree with Just here — I have read some of your pieces on Aidan and I’ve been touched myself by your writing about how this has impacted your notion of relationships. It really brings home to me, anyway, what Confucian thought (relational identity) is all about. It is extremely difficult, I think, to not see others as vessels, or as utility machines. Not impossible, but difficult. And sometimes we are put into situations where we are forced to come to grips with our typical (and unfortunate) way of seeing others. In this sense, not everyone is blessed with such a life, as I think you have been.
    Chris
    P.S. Thanks for your birthday wishes to me as well. I’ve reached forty, so I’m supposed to have no doubts at this point. I’m close. Maybe it will take until fifty for me, I’m not as quick as the Master.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Metta Avatar
    Metta

    My thoughts are with you.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Sam Cancel reply