What is Wu Wei?

[dawei]

"always reacting in an appropriate way to the situation" means skillful application of intent.

I always liked how Prof. Qingjie James Wang explained Wu Wei in relation to Zi Ran, it is consist with what you are saying:

 

Lao Zi's concept of fu indicates that the key to understanding wu wei consists neither in "doing something" nor "doing nothing," neither in "doing with intention/desire" nor "doing without intention/desire." Rather, the point is how to do things so as to fit or support the "it-self-so-ing" of the thing.[42] In some situations I ought not to do anything because that is the best way to support (fu) "it-self-so-ing" of things. But in some other situations I may need to do something because that is the best way. [43] Therefore, wu wei as either one of above mentioned senses is only a means toward zi ran (it-self-so-ing) while zi ran should be the end of wu wei. That is to say, zi ran might call for "having-no-activity," but "having-no-activity" is neither necessary nor sufficient for leading to zi ran (it-self-so-ing). The basis for us to judge an action as wu wei or not is to see whether it is to support/help (fu) a thing's zi ran (it-self-so-ing).

. . .

It is rather a question how "I" can behave in such a way that the other's "it-self-so-ing" will have a maximum room of growing and realization.

[dawei]

This does deal or explain it in relation to man. The whole idea about Wu Wei was written for man to be natural. Wu Wei for being "let Nature take its course" is a principle for man to follow. It was LaoTze's way of saying to the rulers not to interfere with the people's life. He was suggesting rule with Wu Wei which means do not use excessive force or high taxation to burden the people. That was the hidden code in the Tao Te Ching.

 

but the simple solution for you would be to say:

Take no abusive action to interfere with Nature or man.

 

IMO, It should be understood in the sense that it is a direct understanding of the ten thousand things (Ch. 2 and 64 for example). The DDJ can show how it is found in nature as an example or guide but that does not imply the concept was developed ONLY to mean man does not interfere with nature. His action in regards to everything should be that way. I don't see why nature is separated out in meaning.

 

How it gets applied may have some hidden code or metaphorical meaning.

[ChiDragon]

Lao Zi's concept of fu indicates that the key to understanding wu wei consists neither in "doing something" nor "doing nothing," neither in "doing with intention/desire" nor "doing without intention/desire."

 

Well, I think in LoaTze's thinking, he was more concern with the abusive action rather than the enhanced action. The enhancement does no harm but the abusive action does. Adversely, LaoTze likes to place his emphasis on the negative sense in every aspect.

Edited January 16, 2012 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

but the simple solution for you would be to say:

Take no abusive action to interfere with Nature or man.

 

IMO, It should be understood in the sense that it is a direct understanding of the ten thousand things (Ch. 2 and 64 for example). The DDJ can show how it is found in nature as an example or guide but that does not imply the concept was developed ONLY to mean man does not interfere with nature. His action in regards to everything should be that way. I don't see why nature is separated out in meaning.

 

How it gets applied may have some hidden code or metaphorical meaning.

If I understand you correctly, yes, it does apply to all in all applications. Nature was not excluded. However, nature is above all. Man should not harm Nature as primary and man is secondary. If Nature was harmed, consequently, harm will come the man.

Edited January 16, 2012 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

However, nature is above all. Man should not harm Nature as primary and man is secondary.

I don't get the hierarchy? Can you explain but also a chapter example or two would be helpful. I know that some suggest DDJ 25.

 

Added '25'. Forget to type that.

Edited January 16, 2012 by dawei

[dawei]

Well, I think in LoaTze's thinking, he was more concern with the abusive action rather than the enhanced action. The enhancement does no harm but the abusive action does. Adversely, LaoTze likes to place his emphasis on the negative sense in every aspect.

Again, ch. 2 and 64 don't appear to support that; they show the positive side.

[ChiDragon]

I don't get the hierarchy? Can you explain but also a chapter example or two would be helpful. I know that some suggest DDJ.

Ok...

Wu Wei is "let Nature take its course". Actually, it was saying not to harm interfere with Nature which was self explanatory.

 

Marblehead summarized the secondary part very clearly. At least to me.

But suppose that someone intentionally rolled the boulder into the stream for the purpose of diverting the water so that You would have no water to water your crops but that other person now would get all the water for their crops. True, the boulder and the stream would still not care.

 

But I am pretty sure you would care and I am pretty sure you would take action against such an event.

 

BTW Marblehead and I are in resonance with the concept of Wu Wei.

 

 

PS....

"Can you explain but also a chapter example or two would be helpful. I know that some suggest DDJ."

 

I think I know what you are asking, but can you be little more explicit about this....??? So, I'll know what exactly that you are asking...!!!

Edited January 16, 2012 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

Again, ch. 2 and 64 don't appear to support that; they show the positive side.

I don't know what to say. If it doesn't apply to some, does it mean it doesn't apply to all...???

Edited January 16, 2012 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

Wu Wei is "let Nature take its course". Actually, it was saying not to harm interfere with Nature which was self explanatory.

Again... you leave man out of the definition of Wu Wei. You only apply it in secret code.

 

I don't see any reason that Wu Wei is not directly explained in relation to nature and man. Ergo, let the "ten thousand things take its course"... nature and man.

 

Unless "Nature" includes man in your definition.

 

If nature is separated from man in regards to Wu Wei, where in the DDJ do you find that?

 

added:

Ch. 2 and 64 emphasis the 'ten thousand things' in relation to the Sage and Wu Wei. That is why I said nature and man, or the ten thousand things are a better way to express it... which makes going against 'nature' wrong unless it includes man.

Edited January 16, 2012 by dawei

[dawei]

I don't know what to say. If it doesn't apply some, does it mean it doesn't apply all...???

You said:

"he was more concern with the abusive action rather than the enhanced action."

 

and

 

"Adversely, LaoTze likes to place his emphasis on the negative sense in every aspect."

 

I simply said that CH. 2 and 64 do not support the idea (a 'negative sense in every aspect'). your comment is categorical without exception. I pointed out at least two exceptions. So there is something faulty in the explanation.

[Mark Foote]

It is possible to act without intent, and to do so in the course of daily life. This is wu wei to me, even if I'm not so impeccable about it. As soon as there's intent, there's discrimination of good and bad, and there's nothing natural about that.

 

I think the best is to accept falling asleep with waking up, and waking up with falling asleep; too much emphasis on waking up, and we can't sleep. Too much emphasis on falling asleep, and we can't wake up.

 

"The empty hand grasps the hoe handle

Walking along I ride the ox

The ox crosses the wooden bridge

The bridge is flowing, the water is still"

(Fuxi, around 5th century C.E.)

 

 

The place associated with the occurrence of consciousness flows waking up and falling asleep, the impact of place generates an ability to feel, the feeling informs the occurrence of consciousness and the habitual activity of perception and sensation ceases. Really, there's nothing we can do to wake up or fall asleep, and that leaves us right where we are.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Mark Foote

[ChiDragon]

You said:

"he was more concern with the abusive action rather than the enhanced action."

 

and

 

"Adversely, LaoTze likes to place his emphasis on the negative sense in every aspect."

 

I simply said that CH. 2 and 64 do not support the idea (a 'negative sense in every aspect'). your comment is categorical without exception. I pointed out at least two exceptions. So there is something faulty in the explanation.

 

Before we get carried away. Let me clarify something. What I mean by 'negative sense in every aspect' was how LaoTze view things.

 

1. In chapter 11, he puts emphasis on the space of the cup rather than the wall of a cup. He looks at the space of the window instead of the solid portion of the window. He looks at the space of a room was actually useful rather than the room itself.

 

2. He puts emphasis on "Wu Wei" rather than its complement "You Wei". "You Wei" is the doing and the Wu Wei is the not doing.

 

Wu Wei was being negative of not doing, but in his philosophy he had changed it to positive by saying:

Take no abusive action to interfere with Nature.

 

This is what I meant. The negative aspect was being the opposite of what people ordinary referred. Thus LoaTze has a tendency to look at the opposite view of the normal people.

Edited January 16, 2012 by ChiDragon

[3bob]

The hunger of evil would do harm to the good mother to sate its malice, only blind sons do not see that while they dally about with high thoughts.

[lienshan]

Before we get carried away. Let me clarify something. What I mean by 'negative sense in every aspect' was how LaoTze view things.

 

2. He puts emphasis on "Wu Wei" rather than its complement "You Wei". "You Wei" is the doing and the Wu Wei is the not doing.

Your "You Wei" is not Laozi's complement to "Wu Wei" according to this chapter 48 passage:

 

損之又損 以至於無為

無為而無不為

 

They decrease and decrease, until they reach the point where they do nothing at all.

They do nothing, yet there is nothing left undone. (Henricks)

 

Laozi's complement to "Wu Wei" (無為) is "Wu Bu Wei" (無不為)

[Marblehead]

I might but Zhuang Zi would not...

 

Hehehe. I might too. Well, actually, I would. But then I have never tried to compare myself with Chuang Tzu.

[Marblehead]

Intent is a natural manifestation of Dao.

 

What a statement! I want to disagree with it but there is truth in it so I must beware.

 

I think I will remain silent.

[Marblehead]

... since I believe you hold that man is separate from nature.

 

It would be an error to separate man from nature.

[Marblehead]

It is rather a question how "I" can behave in such a way that the other's "it-self-so-ing" will have a maximum room of growing and realization.[/i]

 

This is a very important consideration, IMO. And very troublesome if looked into very deeply.

[Marblehead]

It is possible to act without intent, and to do so in the course of daily life. This is wu wei to me, even if I'm not so impeccable about it. As soon as there's intent, there's discrimination of good and bad, and there's nothing natural about that.

 

Damn!!!

 

I will suggest that this is an absolute truth as soon as we can define what "natural" is.

[steve]

It is possible to act without intent, and to do so in the course of daily life. This is wu wei to me, even if I'm not so impeccable about it. As soon as there's intent, there's discrimination of good and bad, and there's nothing natural about that.

Be careful here.

What about the intention to act without intent?

In choosing to follow Wu Wei, are you not already discriminating?

And if it required impeccability to maintain that, are you already struggling against something?

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Be careful here.

What about the intention to act without intent?

In choosing to follow Wu Wei, are you not already discriminating?

And if it required impeccability to maintain that, are you already struggling against something?

 

I hope I'm not just repeating myself here, but: (now, I don't think it is your intent here to say that one should not have intent, though this could be read as such) I don't think wu wei is about non-intent but just about selfish intent and overly calculated intent, following the kidneys and the heart might be a good way to explain the level of self involvement. I think the level of intent in doing so is just the intent to keep the "methodical mind" from interfering with perception, intuition, and adaptation.

 

Not to say that methods should not be learned, but only to enable and strengthen the body, mind, and spirit, removing restrictions to ability and movement..

[steve]

I hope I'm not just repeating myself here, but: (now, I don't think it is your intent here to say that one should not have intent, though this could be read as such) I don't think wu wei is about non-intent but just about selfish intent and overly calculated intent, following the kidneys and the heart might be a good way to explain the level of self involvement. I think the level of intent in doing so is just the intent to keep the "methodical mind" from interfering with perception, intuition, and adaptation.

 

Not to say that methods should not be learned, but only to enable and strengthen the body, mind, and spirit, removing restrictions to ability and movement..

It was definitely not my intention to say in the post you quoted that one should not have intent. In fact, I was pointing up and challenging what I read as Mark Foote's comment that one could/should act without intent.

 

As I mentioned earlier I think intent is a natural manifestation that is a part of the nature of consciousness. And it's quite tricky to peel away the layers of intent particularly as we get to the deeper, hidden, and more subtle layers of ourselves.

 

That said, I do think it is possible to act without intent and I also think that it is not possible to act without intent...

 

How do you like them apples?

 

[ChiDragon]

LoaTze was only worried about the bad intentions. The good ones are always turned out to be good. Therefore, there was no need for one to worry about it...

Edited January 16, 2012 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

Damn!!!

 

I will suggest that this is an absolute truth as soon as we can define what "natural" is.

Wu Wei is natural, 自然(Zi Ren).

 

Natural is anything that can happen which man cannot intervene.

Edited January 16, 2012 by ChiDragon

[Harmonious Emptiness]

It was definitely not my intention to say in the post you quoted that one should not have intent. In fact, I was pointing up and challenging what I read as Mark Foote's comment that one could/should act without intent.

 

As I mentioned earlier I think intent is a natural manifestation that is a part of the nature of consciousness. And it's quite tricky to peel away the layers of intent particularly as we get to the deeper, hidden, and more subtle layers of ourselves.

 

That said, I do think it is possible to act without intent and I also think that it is not possible to act without intent...

 

How do you like them apples?

 

 

can't have non-duality without duality?