The philosophy that is demonstrated in Ancient Chinese philosophy, as given in the way Lao Tzu characterizes the sage, is an ideal way man should ‘live’ again as an ‘example-man’ (sage) that adheres to the ruling of nature.
After finally re-fabricating the characteristics and values of the ‘example-man’ of nature, one must then be able to live again with such ideal character himself. This tells us that we ourselves, in living our lives, must be that of the ‘example-man’, or sage, that follows back the Way of Tao: which is to reallow the nature of things to prevail. In other words, after being able to frame up the right formula to solve the subsisting problem and to finally attain harmony, we must now experience and live with it (formula) ourselves as we are supposed to do so at the very first place. Now let us discover what are the “should be/have”s and “should be/have not”s in living as the example man (or the sage) which are made in accordance to the Way of Tao, and are signs of adherence to the ruling of nature.
It was given that the ‘example’ man, upon tracing the Way of Tao, is enforced to carry out no knowledge, nor desires with him. ‘No knowledge’: Well it’s like, along the Way of Tao (which is the Way of going back to the nature), the stroller, which is the ‘example’ man, is ordered to clear up all his/her baggages of knowledge. He/she must abandon the knowledge; all that he/she has been carrying out and all that he/she will be acquiring later on. He/she then must submit to ignorance and be ignorant himself. It is since because first, knowledge is not good because it is just a worldly thing that is left behind, and is therefore of no use once the one who has it is already dead. As how Chuang Tzu would say in his writings: “Duke Hwan and the Wheelwright”, that knowledge is just a “ dirt that is left behind” (Merton, 1965). Here, we can see that knowledge will just remain in the world, and as the world would pass away, knowledge will also come with it. It will not transcend and go beyond unto the heavens, and is therefore not Tao’s, and whatever that is not Tao’s is not good. Second, knowledge is not good because it just complicates things up, it will just allow the person who has it to go far out of the Way. It’s like when one acquires knowledge, he/she will be able to project and fabricate a new way in living his/her life (in accordance to such knowledge), giving him/her an ‘avenue’ to go out the real Way. Then another knowledge will be attained, which means another way, and another, and another; making it a series of complex expressways. Such convolution, aside from allowing the individual to go farther away of the nature, which means disallowing him/her to go back to the latter itself, it also veils up the reality that there is only one constant, stable and unchanging Way; the Way of Tao. It covers instead the truth that only the nature’s ruling is the only one that should persist. Lastly, knowledge is not good because it allows one to assume that he/she is the one who needs and matters most, and not the other people. When one knows, he/she becomes aware of his/her own life as the one that must be valued most. For him/her, nothing is more important than his/her own self-knowledge that elevates him/her above other people, which in fact, is not of the Tao. For the Tao affirms that it is not the self, but rather the other which has the bearing in one’s life. Aside from elevation, it will also create divisions among the human beings. Through knowledge, one will be able to categorize his/her fellow individuals in conformity to his/her realization, allowing separation to occur between them -thus, conflict! To sum it up all, knowledge is really not good, and should not be attained in living out the life of an example-man, for it leads one out of the Way of Tao, thus, does not acknowledge the ruling of nature.
While ‘no desires’ means to have no own-interests; no personal preferences. Same as to having no knowledge, ‘no desires’ signifies to put oneself before the others. Others must be primarily favored over the self. As how Lao Tzu would say: it is to “place oneself in the background...” (Wing Tsit Chan, Tao te Ching 7). Such non-preferences to the self though, doesn’t indicate a total isolation to that of the self. As said in the continuation of the statement above: “...but finds himself in the foreground” (Wing Tsit Chan, Tao te Ching 7). It means that in preferring others, one will be able to perceive what he/she is ought to prefer, which is the others. It is, in desiring for the good of others, one will be able to desire for his/her self, since it is the authentic desire he/she must carry out. Aside from formulating dangerous selfishness, it will also give one the idea of death. This is because, upon having such desires, one will struggle and “strive” (as Wing Tsit Chan would translate) in order to achieve such desires. I mean, there is no way one would desire for something, but will just sit on the corner and will wait for that thing he/she desires to come. One will indeed make an effort for it. And when we say “make an effort”, it signifies that that one will try to do everything in order to fulfill such desire. Now, try to consider this one, people, as we know, have different tastes and preferences (sometimes even opposite to each other), which justifies that they have different (or worse, opposite) desires in them. Well, some would say: de gustibus non est diputandum (In terms of tastes/preferences, no one shall dispute). But the truth is, nobody can just remain silent, stay on their bend and do their own businesses instead. The fact that they will do anything for their desires to be fulfilled justifies that somewhere, sometime, that difference or contradictory-ness of their desires will result to a conflict, which would lead to further implications, example of which could mean most likely the ending of the other’s, whose desire is of opposite, life. Without desires, one would be able to live freely without being reluctant that what if he/she will, intentionally or not, result for someone to feel challenged or opposed, or argued, which would then somehow result to an unpleasant thing to happen between them. All of the people will just live out their lives without desires or aims, or ambitions; just plain and natural living.
Clearly, the ‘example-man’ (or the sage) must submit to that of the nature’s course, must not carry out with him/her any knowledge nor desires, for the two will just detract the individual, making him/her lose his/her way in acknowledging back the nature. Now, we are done with the things what the ‘example-man’ should NOT have. How about the things he/she should have?
First, he/she must possess the idea of Wu-wei; action through non-action. He/she must execute by not executing, do without doing, -act without acting. This might sound absurd because how can one act without actually acting. But in fact, it is not; it doesn’t cancel out its essence and it clearly has a point. The point here is to let the nature do the action itself. By letting the nature act, there will be necessary an action, which to be clear, is a natural action; an action made by the nature. Non-action pertains to the non-intrusion of human beings (or any other else specific). Through no human intrusion, nature will prevail. On the other hand. if one will do something, one will end up doing nothing. But if one will not, one will actually have done something. For example, the idea of ‘yielding to overcome’. Let’s say in a war between states: if you will put up arms and fight for you nation, you will lose a lot of your fellow statesmen, thus making you a loser. But if you will succumb, give way to your rival countries, there will be no loss of lives, especially in your side. Thus, in this way, without doing anything, except surrendering, one can actually do something, which is to save lives. This is what Lao Tzu mean in saying: “Capturing the enemy without attacking”. Thus, upon living as the ‘example-man’, one should recognize the idea that he/she has nothing to do in order for something to be done. What he/she then should have, in living as an ‘example-man’, is a non-acting human system that allows the action to be done by the nature itself.
Such ‘action through non-action’ will then give us the idea that one, as the ‘example-man’ should be humble. Upon acknowledging the rule of nature, one is being able to lower oneself under the said rule. The ‘example-man’ then is indeed humble. Yes, he/she recognizes his/her self, but he/she does it by not bragging. He/she also values his/her character, but through being not conceited. The point is, he/she, as an example, identifies his/her nature to be worthy as an example, but by not showing off. Instead, what he/she shows off is the idea that nature rules out; that the nature must be the one to show off. I mean, as an example to others himself/herself, he/she will consider his/her self to be worthy enough to be followed, but only through recognizing that the nature is only the one that rules, not him/her. But again, it doesn’t mean that once he/she qualified, he/she will then boast up and promote his/her self. As how Lao Tzu would identify the ‘sea king’: “It is the king of the hundred streams, because it lies below them”. This is because by showing-off, advancing one’s self, and imposing his/her will forcefully, one, aside from exercising his/her desires, will also elevate oneself as if he/she is the one whose words are to be heard upon; as if he/she is the ‘one’, which will then cancel out the essence of the nature as the main authority that allows everything to subsist; as the ‘one’ that rules up the whole universe. Therefore, in living out as the ‘example-man’, one should be humble and unassuming, in order for which the nature is to rule out on things.
No comments:
Post a Comment