TAO UPANISHAD: THE EXISTENCE OF DUAL OPPOSITES

 

"When people see some things as beautiful, other things become ugly. When people see some things as good, other things become bad. Being and non-being create each other. Difficult and easy support each other. Long and short define each other. High and low depend on each other. Before and after following each other. Therefore, the Master acts without doing anything and teaches without saying anything. Things arise and she lets them come; things disappear, and she lets them go. She has but doesn’t possess, acts but doesn’t expect. When her work is done, she forgets it."

                ~ Chapter 2 Sutras

"To be or not to be" asks Shakespeare. It is not a good question to ask, Lao Tzu would have said. When Lao Tzu wrote, Being and non-being create each other, it is apparent that choosing one over the other will inevitably draw us near the other. 

He gives examples of all those dual opposites that create each other. The Beautiful and ugly, good and bad, being and non-being, difficult and easy, long and short, high and low, before and after. The chronology of these dual opposites is worth noticing. 

It begins by notions of Beauty and ugliness. Extremely perceptional and subjective. Even a layman can understand that "Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder". But difficult is to outgrow the tendencies of the mind to create an objective perception of beauty and ugliness. This gives rise to a notion of the "Hermeneutic temptation". 

I think, in our situations of sanity, we accept the fact that beauty and ugliness are products of what "we find beautiful" and what "we find ugly" rather than what "actually is". But then, Why the mind tries to make it sound like an objective truth? Why does the mind construct a logical paradigm, a sort of rationalization to justify our perceptions? For this, we might need to understand this nuance between a fact and an opinion. 

The nature of facts and opinions seem mutually exclusive. What is a fact can derive opinions but is not itself an opinion and what is an opinion can be supported by facts but is not itself a fact. But wait, no opinionated person ever speaks apriori that "this is my opinion", rather, just speaks as if it is a fact. This phenomenon is based on the rationale that every opinion in the head of the opinion maker stays like a fact as long as it does not come in conflict with reality or comes in conflict with other contrary opinions. This paradoxical nature of opinion makes things dicey. What is a fact and what is an opinion? 

Let us take an example. When the church said that the sun revolves around the earth, we can say it was their opinion. But their opinion was that time backed by narrow looking evidence in their heads. It seemed like sun revolves. Only when we found the ability to look beyond the geocentric perspective or gaze did we realize that the Earth revolves around the sun. But is it a fact? This is also an opinion based on the reference frame of observation. If we take seemingly stationary far stars as our reference frame, it seems that the sun is stationery and Earth revolves. But if there is not an absolute rest frame possible, everything is moving with respect to every other thing in this universe, what wrong were the churchmen who used to say that Sun revolves. They were not, were they? 

It so happens, that Objectivity or factfulness, arises out of the common background which provides us with the platform of scientific and logical verification. To say that there is something universal, in the true sense of the word universal, about facts of the universe, is a fallacy. 

Then comes the question, if everything is an opinion, then why the illusion of objectivity arises? This in my opinion, is due to Hermeneutic temptation. This temptation to explain each perceptionary observation by a logic. Human beings are never seen saying, "I am such a person that I find that person attractive". They always say, "She is attractive". 

And they can enlist a number of reasons, physical features, emotional quotient etc. The thing is, we need to justify it through reason. It is as if we have a philosophical necessity to explain our desires. When Jesus was asked, why are you suffering? He replied with silence. Who is suffering? Are you really sure that I am suffering? How did you arrive at this decision in such a small span of time? In long runs, pain and pleasure change into each other. Jesus became God. 

The thing is, we like to categorize. We like to classify. We like to make categories that creates out of it a logical structure comprehensible to our head. The birth of any discipline involves two steps: Building a logically coherent structure by selective inclusion of nuance and then legitimization through limited number of observations and illegitimizing all other counter-supporting arguments and facts.

When we identify beauty as beauty, it is implicit in our mind a background voice asking, then what is ugly? Just for reference, we identify that as ugly. Now, if we say, Life is beautiful, imagine how inaccurate that statement is. Is not what you consider ugly part of life? Why don't you say, "I am such a person that I find Life beautiful"? Because you do not understand to what extent your own desires and perceptions shape your view of reality. Whatever comes out of your mind is not objective truth. 

The nomenclature of beauty involves a number of artificially created reference points of beauty and in comparison, to those references, we deem other things beautiful or ugly. But understand that the references of beauty in our heads are not axiomatically correct, they are not self-evident truths. They are just either fed to us as common sense or we create a common sense suitable to our desires.

Our desires play such a crucial role in how we see the world that to even know objectively without biases, ourselves, requires shedding of our preferences and desires. 

As we progress, we find, the opposite duals that Lao tzu mentions, keep on becoming so called "Factual". Like: Good and bad, being nonbeing, difficult easy, long short, high low, before after. It can easily be shown through some deductive arguments that like beauty and ugliness, these duals are also subjective. So, we will not go in that. 

Interesting is the word, "Therefore". "Therefore, the Master acts without doing anything and teaches without saying anything."

What a genius of him! How can you act without doing? How can you teach without saying anything? How can you act first of all if everything is a perception of your own desires and objectivity is a self-constructed mechanism to feel at ease with existence. How do you speak if whatever you speak, nothing describes the universe but talks instead about us. Like if someone says, The Earth revolves around the sun, all it tells is not about the motion of earth, rather about reference frame, that we find that the earth revolves. 

So, we have two primary questions here. If objectivity is an agreed upon myth which on large scales of space and time proves wrong, then what is there to act upon or say? This is our first predicament. 

Secondly, how does the master manage to act without doing or teach without saying anything?

This is for sure that I am not the master. 😅

Maybe I am, but I am explaining with the already understood realization that whatever I say will not be the truth as language itself is an ultimate hider. 

It seems like the Master has left reason. Master is free from the obligations of explanations. Master does not need to explain the world and how things work. He observes them as them and does not utter a word. He does not judge the universe and its actions. He sees phenomenon as phenomenon as does not bother about the noumena. He lets the Universe has its secret. 

Gradually, The Master knows the secret, which is inexpressible in any language. He abstains speaking it, but keeps it in his soul, in his heart. His body language speaks it, his eyes blink it, his heart pumps the secret. That is how he acts without doing.

Doing is when you try to exist. You strive to be. How did you decide that you already are not? Once you try to exist, you certify that you don't. That is why, anyone who tries to love, scares the other person and the other person thinks he hates. Anyone who tries to become an IAS, verifies that he is not. How do you know, you already are not? What makes an IAS? a certification of the Indian State? How does that certification help an IAS officer's day to day life? Nothing as such. You have to deal with administrative works when you are an aspirant and after you became IAS. So just exist as an aspirant or an IAS. Do not strive. 

He teaches without saying anything. Saying is for those who cannot show. Their presence is mute. That is why they speak. Most of us speak not to express but to conceal our real selves. 

Truth is something that you do not say. You be it. A woman becomes love in the face of it, when she is in one. Her smile, her happiness, her dance, everything reminds of love. A very happy man does not tell you that he is very happy. His laughter is the evidence. Act without doing. Teach without words. 

Children are better. They learn from parent's deed rather parent's sayings. Then Parents' wonder why my ward does not listen to me. Because listening is not natural. Language is not natural to man. action is much more instinctual. If you want your child to become a reader of books, and you do not read any, I do not know what to tell you, he is not going to read any. 

Even when we grow up, we tend to learn from deeds only. Language and opinions are just concealers. Someone says, I study for 12 hours a day. How will it inspire someone who is lazy? It will not. If the lazy man lives with the attentive one, now is the inspiration. Inspiration, learning, etc. does not require language and opinions. It is hard wired in us to learn. To express the learning is a modern educational phenomenon. 

She does not possess, but she has it. Like a Train blanket. You have it, you use it, and you return it after you use it, and you leave the train. If you are a nice person, you will return it by folding it and keeping it as it is as it was before the usage. 

"Jyun ki tyun" is the Sutra of the Master. He does not own resources given by nature. He takes care of it whatever comes under his trusteeship but never owns. He does not even own his own body. But he takes care of it, nurtures it, eats what is necessary, does not judge it when it has sexual urges, takes care like a caretaker and then returns it to the almighty. 

Remember you have to return the Blanket to the authorities the next day you leave the train of life. Do not tear it. Do not wear it so that it gets crumbled. How will you do it? Take care of it. Be at ease with it. 

Act without doing. Your existence should become your deed. Your breath should say your deed. Your heartbeat should reflect your deed. You become that deed. But not by doing, do not force. Act, as if in a play. And do not get attached to the social conditioning much. You are not a son, or a man, or anything for that matter. You are acting in a play. Do not show anger when actually angry. Go home, express it, see your own wrath, when it passes away, come back, and act out anger. This has two benefits, 

This act of anger does not harm you. 

Your work will get done, which you wanted to achieve through anger. 

Is it actually necessary to be angry when you need to be angry? No, acting is sufficient. But it is that you cannot control. Come home. See your own acting it private, take a pillow. Cut it in half. eat it. Destroy it. Show its wrath to it. And then you will feel, you will see the thoughtless state, the state, which comes after the act is over. The backstage. You find it was not you. It might scare you. Is this you? Yes and no. It is your ego. not you. You are awareness of this ego. 

That is why, people get scandalized when they see themselves masturbating in private and the rage with which they touch themselves, a ruthless animal. Is this who I am? Yes and no. This is your body reacting to a lot of retention of sexual urges. A fully satisfied man is never an animal. He is what a civilized man is. But the dilemma is we want the ends without the means. We want a civilized man without the process of civilization, freedom to be an animal is the means to civilization, this paradox is how you explain most of our psychoanalytic problems. The freedom to fall in an attempt to fly is the reason why a man in his adulthood does not just jump out of a building. 

When the work is done, she forgets it. Do not classify, do not try to make a study out of life. Do not do distinctions. Do not try to remember it. 

That leads us to the paradox of knowledge. The paradox of knowledge is, whatever is we understand fully, we forget it. Like, its form not its content. And Knowledge manifests itself as memory in this world, you are called knowledgeable when you remember it. Now, whatever you remember, remains in your head like an unresolved complex, a sort of psychological issue. Like mother issues, most of us have knowledge issues. The education system forced us to be memory machines. We are not allowed to forget. 

Forget, Forgive. Forgetting is part of returning the blanket. Do you want to live with the memory of life when you are dead? When you turn into a stone and will not be able to move, do you want to keep on thinking how was it like to be alive? Move on! Moving on is the way in life. 

Hope I have been clear. But if I have been clear, you will practice this. Non-action, Non-saying, Not classifying, not rationalizing. And it will require a lot of unlearning. 

Mai aapke bheeter baithe paramatma ko pranaam karta hun! (I bow down to the god sitting within you!).