NotTheConstant Name and I have been knocking about in ‘what is the tao‘ a little, which is always great fun. I woke up following a pleasant Saturday afternoon siesta reflecting on the best ‘way’ (road, principle, speak, think) to approach life.
Why this endless debate over the best way to approach life – what to do, and how to do it? The first thing I notice is how it draws those of like-mind together and pushes those of unlike-mind apart. It seems we are driven to project our own preferences and inclinations onto others. This keeps the social pot stirred, so to speak. No doubt our social-tribal instinct is pulling off this bio-hoodwink(1)
I only began to come to gripes with this hoodwink when I studied astrology. That opened me up to the idea that people might be fundamentally different! Fundamentally? Not really, yet it can feel fundamental thanks to the bio-hoodwink. In truth, people are the same the world over at the deepest level. They just take different paths to reach the ‘Rome’.
This egalitarian view corresponds to the major branches of yoga: Raja (meditation), Karma (action), Jnana (science in the broadest sense from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”), Bhakti (devotion), and Hatha (forceful). Yoga literally means yoking, merging, joining. The ‘Rome’ we are attempting to reach is the yoking, merging and joining with (?). This (?) is known by various names: God, Spirit, Tao, Enlightenment… It doesn’t matter what name you give ‘Rome’. ‘Rome’ by any other name is still ‘Rome’. We all want to get to ‘Rome’. However, each person is drawn to ways that suit their nature and cultural conditioning(2).
Now, when I view nature on its terms, I fail to see any good or bad (or better, best, worse, worst). That tells me that good and bad are simply projections of personal preference. Being a tribal species, seeing with such impartiality doesn’t come easily, but boy is it ever peaceful when it does! Indeed, it is the way of heaven to show no favoritism.
(1) bio-hoodwink: I coined this term for the trick biology plays on perception. Chapter 65 says: Of old those who excelled in the pursuit of the way did not use it to enlighten the people but to hoodwink them. The oldest ‘of old’, when it comes to living things in nature, is the biological process of life, ‘hoodwinks’ and all.
For example, a bio-hoodwink tells the brain that the richer the food (and the more you eat) the better. This was the case in the wild before we cleverly devised ways around natural limitations to make food as rich and plentiful as we wished. Alas, the bio-hoodwink is inherited and out of sync with human willful innovation.
As far as ‘enlighten the people goes’, what natural need is there for such a thing? As I see it, nature simply ‘needs’ to drive interaction between living things, and uses bio-hoodwinking as a means to that end. Again, when I view nature on its terms, I fail to see any enlightenment or ignorance there as well. Aren’t these projections of personal preference also? Don’t these ideals reflect our wish to escape the tension we feel? Ironically, the uniquely human tension we experience is a result of trusting the good, bad, beauty, ugly, enlightenment, ignorance paradigm in the first place.
(2) Personally, I am drawn to all the yoga paths except devotional yoga. I just inherited a thicker less social skin than ‘normal’. And of these paths, I am most drawn to Jnana, which explains my respect for Buddha. Buddha laid out the dynamics of the bio-hoodwink in his second truth: The cause of suffering is lust. The surrounding world affects sensation and begets a craving thirst that clamors for immediate satisfaction. The illusion of self originates and manifests itself in a cleaving to things. The desire to live for the enjoyment of self entangles us in a net of sorrows. Pleasures are the bait and the result is pain. It doesn’t get any more straightforward than that.
The search for, and the belief in, the “one best way” is as timeless as it is false. Over the millennia there have been innumerable voices that would require their faithful to believe that while all roads lead to Rome, only “their” road is the correct path to follow. Perhaps this stems from the primordial notion, and fear, of “the other.” The other is exactly what its name implies – that which is not like me. Therefore, it is a lot easier for me to continue my belief in the epistemology of my clan if the clan members can all agree that any outside knowledge or influence is heretical, primitive, and most importantly, dangerous.
It is extremely important to understand that these concepts and beliefs are not innate. They are learned responses taught to anyone who has the misfortune of being in a group or tribe that foists these ideologies on the unsuspecting, the young, the weak, and the vulnerable.
I had a math teacher in college who wore shirts with sayings silk screened onto the back. This was his clever way of making sure that we all got the message when he turned his back to us at the blackboard. My favorite shirt had a very simple, and profoundly true, statement written for all to see: “No one is born a racist!”. Like racism, the fear of the other and the prosecution and persecution of those who follow a different “way” is learned and can therefore, be unlearned.
In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle wrote that the path to correct action lies on the golden mean between the excessive and the deficient (I paraphrase here) – in what could be seen as an ancient Greek manifestation of yin and yang. Perhaps if we spent more time contemplating the correctness of our own path and less time discrediting the paths of others, we would not only find our way an easier journey, but would be ready to embrace “the other” and their journey when we all finally get to Rome.
Hi Friar Tuck, I am generally in agreement. One part stood out however…
While “no one is born a racist”, per se, being a tribal species, we are all born with the group instinct: our group versus the ‘other’ group. Many social species have this kind of innate push apart::pull together dynamic that helps them as a social species not all amass together as one humongous ‘happy family’. There needs to be a push away ‘the other’ drive to keep groups spread apart enough so as to utilize resources effectively. Just imagine how unworkable it would be if a social species had only the pull together instinct. All individuals would crowd together in one spot.
So in fact, we are all really born ‘racists’. Only the particulars are learned, i.e., the particular object of ‘racist’ instinct. Of course, this instinct need not play out in racial ways. There is politics, religion, gender, age, occupation, education, clothes, etc., with which to judge and push away others.
Hi Friar Tuck, I am generally in agreement. One part stood out however…
While “no one is born a racist”, per se, being a tribal species, we are all born with the group instinct: our group versus the 'other' group. Many social species have this kind of innate push apart::pull together dynamic that helps them as a social species not all amass together as one humongous 'happy family'. There needs to be a push away 'the other' drive to keep groups spread apart enough so as to utilize resources effectively. Just imagine how unworkable it would be if a social species had only the pull together instinct. All individuals would crowd together in one spot.
So in fact, we are all really born 'racists'. Only the particulars are learned, i.e., the particular object of 'racist' instinct. Of course, this instinct need not play out in racial ways. There is politics, religion, gender, age, occupation, education, clothes, etc., with which to judge and push away others.