What is the tao? (Part 3)
I wrote in "What is the tao? (Part 2)" of the Taoist attitude of present-tense-hopefulness-in the here and now — in contrast to the future-tense-hoping-for an idealized hereafter which is the habit of us Westerners, since we tend to be heirs of Platonic thought that has been filtered through our principal religions. The Taoist insight, I said then, is that things in our world are not fundamentally "broken" and do not need to be "fixed."Does that mean absolutely nothing is ever wrong in this world? Not by a long shot.
Does it mean that we should always run around with beatific smiles on our faces? Only if we have cultivated the right mindset, in which case smiles are superfluous. One who is truly tranquil smiles only when the occasion calls for it.
Does it mean we don't need to change a thing? Just the opposite. The Taoist assumption is that we tend to have a wrong mindset, from which proceeds all those unfortunate things in our world which could have been avoided. We need to cultivate the right mindset again. Though, paradoxically, it is the most natural way of being in the world, we have lost the trick of it. Taoist theory and practice is a way of reclaiming the trick.
In order to convey to us the nature of the right mindset, the Lao-tzu speaks of the "uncarved block." Chapter 37 (see this page at the CenterTao website) reads:
The way never acts yet nothing is left undone.
Should lords and princes be able to hold fast to it,
The myriad creatures will be transformed of their own accord.
After they are transformed, should desire raise its head,
I shall press it down with the weight of the nameless uncarved block.
The nameless uncarved block
Is but freedom from desire,
And if I cease to desire and remain still,
The empire will be at peace of its own accord.
So the thing which we most need is to get back to being a "nameless uncarved block," like the true Taoist sage who alone is eligible to be "lord" over the "myriad creatures."
But what does that mean?
According to D.C Lau
in the introduction to his Penguin Classics translation of the Lao-tzu, shown at right:
[T]he uncarved block is in a state as yet untouched by the artificial interference of human ingenuity and so is a symbol for the original state of man before desire is produced in him by artificial means. (p. xxxii)
We see that, in a sense, the "nameless uncarved block" represents a natural, even Edenic, state, prior to the onset of "artificial" desires. But why must the natural "uncarved block" be called "nameless"? Lau continues:
The nameless uncarved block is nameless because it has not shattered and become vessels. (p. xxxiii)
Chapter 28 of the Lao-tzu says:
When the uncarved block shatters it becomes vessels.
The sage makes use of these and becomes the lord over the officials.
Here, the relationship of "vessels" to the "uncarved block" is the same as the relationship of all the minor officials/specialized functionaries/department heads to the ruler. The department heads or "vessels" have names indicating their specific functions. So only its very namelessness saves the uncarved block from the differentiation and consequent appropriateness of giving names that goes along with diverse specialization and competing "departmental" interests. This "namelessness" of the ruler, because it does not limit or pigeonhole him, is what qualifies him alone to be "lord over the officials."
One way to look at it is this: the "namelessness" of the ruler signifies his essential centeredness. Any "name" — any specific function or special interest, such as that of a "vessel" or department head — pulls the "govenrnment" this way or that, and therefore off-center.
Of course, we are free to take all this talk of rulers, vessels, government, and so forth as a metaphor for the psyche or personality — in which case, the idea would seem to be that the "whole" person is one who is properly centered by virtue of having a "lord" or ruler that is not one of the competing "vessels" or special interests.
So to be "in touch with the tao," we need to be like the sage, and not like the officials. We need to be "whole" persons. We need to cultivate in ourselves that original, natural state and the "freedom from desire" which the uncarved block symbolizes.
This original, natural, "uncarved" state is not, repeat not, some sort of Platonic ideal, serene, immaterial, on a higher metaphysical plane, perfect. It is rough, not smooth — though it is also smooth. It is, in its namelessness, not the embodiment of any particular attribute in total exclusion of the opposite attribute: rough vs. smooth, round vs. not round, good vs. evil, strong vs. weak. It is an incipience, not a goal; a spontaneous thing, not a plan; an evolutionary source, not an ultimate ideal.
Because the "uncarved" state, free of "artificial desires," is not a serene Platonic Ideal, we should not make the mistake of thinking that the "desires" we are to be free of include such basic things as the need for food, shelter, warmth, health, and (I suppose) that old topic of theological controversy, sex. Only a Platonic Ideal is that unsullied. Only a Platonic Form is that single-minded. From the Taoist persepctive, it is downright unnatural not to want these things. Self-flagellators need not apply to the School of Taoism.
So if we interpret the phrase "needs fixing" as implying "deviating from a Platonic Form or Ideal," we don't "need fixing" at all. In the Taoist view, there are no Platonic Forms "out there" somewhere, to which the world to its detriment must be compared and found lacking. There are only — right here, right now — the "uncarved block" and the "artificial desires" which break it into "vessels." All that is required is the we cultivate letting the "vessels" be "ruled" once again by the "uncarved block."
posted by eric @ 8:28 AM
<< Home