Ain’t Got Nowhere To Go
The marquis said, “I have wished to see you for a long time.
I want to love my people and with the practice of righteousness
put an end to war. Will that be adequate?”
“Certainly not replied,” Replied Xu Wugui, “Loving the people is
the start of hurting the people. Practicing righteousness to put
and end to war is the root of continued war. If you take these
approaches you are unlikely to prevail. All attempts to enforce
what we consider good are flawed contrivances. Although you
aim at practicing benevolence and righteousness, the result
would be no better than hypocrisy. You may be able to establish
a certain form of benevolence and righteousness, but success
leads to contention and contention to aggression.
You must not amass columns of soldiers in your forts, nor have
cavalry parading in the palace in front of the altars. Do not conceal
harmful intentions in your mind…
The best plan would be for you to relinquish your purpose. If you
would cultivate sincerity in yourself and be receptive to the
true nature of heaven and earth, then your people are already
free from death.
What need is there for you to seek an end to war?
Zhuangzi trans. by Hyun Höchsmann and Yang Guorong, Book 24, Xu Wugui
The quotation is a segment of an encounter between Xu Wugui and the Marquis of Wu. Surely a great gap of wealth, prominence, and political/military power obtained between the men. Xu Wugui had lived in solitude to develop his thought and character in line with taoist tradition. The marquis on the other hand benefited personally from the best of cuisine and drink, himself being the center of attention, having life and death influence upon his people.
However the marquis wishes to “do good” even to eliminate the scourge of war among his people. We must keep in mind that during the Warring States period of Chinese history one war hardly ended when another began. I also read that ceremonies of mourning for family members slaughtered could take months. So the marquis expresses his intention to “do good” for his people to the “phd” advisor who has come to his office.
Have you sometimes felt unease, even a repulsion when hearing someone speak about “giving back”? Working class members, individuals of meager resources do not use the terminology. How could they? What is the mechanism that some have more than enough (time and financial assets) and others are fated to always have just enough, or perhaps less than enough? Can I lay the class divide simply to random chance? Some are lucky to get a head start, and plenty of help as they come to maturity… And the rest are unlucky, – they get bupkus, absolutely nothing. And what about a politico-economic system contrived to favor those who already “have” and to dis-advantage those on the far side of that line?
We are betrayed by the language that we use, the hypocrisy game-we-play is unmasked!
The marquis is a do-gooder with an army!
The old taoist counselor brushes aside the picture painted by the marquis’ language. Your solicitude, your intention to “love” is going to have opposite effect. You need to lay aside your high sounding purpose to eliminate war. Pacify your own inner demons… You will be surprised at the consequences that will accrue to your people. Quieting one’s own inner demons allows one to hear the birds sing, to receive satisfaction in the day to day change of the seasons! The true nature of heaven and earth!
This, perhaps is too much comment. A song by lyric-smith Bruce Springsteen says it better: Born in the USA.
4 thoughts on “Ain’t Got Nowhere To Go”
I’m not sure about the moral of today’s story. I certainly understand the admonition of the Marquis in terms of the futility of building an army to create a lasting peace. The LGM-118 “Peacemaker” Missile was created and build under the watchful eyes of Ronald Regan. Even then, many people viewed this as an oxymoronic name. So I get that part.
What I’m not certain about is spending one’s days meditating on an inner sense of well-being in order to build the world you would like to have happen. As an example, if you were adrift at sea with only a raft between you and bottom of the ocean when a violent storm approached (a metaphor for our current political crisis). Would it be best to make sure that all of the bindings on your raft were secure and to do whatever you could to batten down your dwindling supplies, or would you rather sit cross legged in the middle of your raft contemplating a better world? At least in my estimation, there are times when action is required in order to both survive and potentially find land.
Again, I feel strongly that we must balance the notion of inner peace compared to the welfare of both ourselves and our fellow members of the human race.
Who would disagree with you? Any man or woman who does not take obvious measures to improve the chances of survival with a view to adverse circumstances is obtuse, misunderstanding the dynamic of cause and effect.
In the story the taoist counselor offers to the noble overlord advice which is counter intuitive. In effect attending to the conflicted impulses, impassioned urges that arise with regularity in the psyche of most of us, – would have the effect of reducing the conflict in the external world. This is counter to the received wisdom that controlling external circumstances (an ounce of prevention, etc., etc.) is the reasonable measure to insure safety. The marquis is oblivious to understand how this attitude easily changes into naked aggression, or preventive war as we term it today.
Solitude in itself is not a remedy for inner conflict, especially when the “noise” is severe. But the taoist principle of aspiring to live as an aspect of nature, seems to be a move in the right direction.
Thoughts?
The elements of this discussion are difficult to decipher within the context of our overtly subjective nature. In other words, the concepts of good and evil, or right from wrong are placed upon scenarios by people who have preconceived notions of how to interpret various actions. Ultimately these musings boils down to whether or not a person fully understands both their own motivations and the complexity of the issue at hand. When we look at the reactions of most people to solving a problem the vast majority will make decisions based on what “feels” right. A gut reaction that may have little to do with offering a salient perspective. I believe that is Xu’s point unless I missed something.
I see it that way as well.