Without any effort we can enter the “wu wei” according to the ancient Chinese philosophers. A translation of the meaning of wu wei is apparently something like effortless action, which is more exact than “non-doing” or “no trying”, although they all allude to the same concept. Both Taoism and Confucius referred to this noble path thousands of years ago. I wonder if they still apply today?
Nowadays researchers call it “being in the zone”, where one is spontaneously able to be very creative or very effective with no apparent effort. When in the flow like that, tapping in, so to speak, one can be attractive in all senses of the word. We develop a charismatic power or virtue that is attractive to others and puts them at ease. It also attracts to us what we focus on and is the secret to success, according to the ancient philosophers.
Although humorous to me, the Chinese word used (I’m not sure if it’s Mandarin) to describe this power that one can cultivate, is “duh”. No-brainer right? Ironic coincidence over the thousands of years has inclined us today to use a vocal expletive like “duh” when it was always the very word used for the ideal of effortless power.
The obvious question to the novice follower or aspirant of the “wu wei” or the Way, might be, “how do you try to not try?” Well there are at least three schools of thought. The first is Confucius, who suggests the way of “carving and polishing the self”. He is very traditional and conservative in his philosophy compared to the rest. His process involves trying hard for a long time, training and applying structure and discipline to refining oneself, and then in the end it comes naturally and we no longer have to try too hard. I presume it is like developing mental muscle memory.
In the ancient Vedic tradition or yoga school of India, which was around the similar time to Confucius, over two thousand years ago, a similar path is recommended. It begins with the students applying themselves to a rigid daily training process, called “sadhana” or daily practice. Then after a lifetime of practice, one comes to the stage of “raghanuga” or spontaneous application. Some even say that at this late stage one may even forget about the rules and regulations, since one has internalized them, and by then may act accordingly anyway. Sometimes such folk are seen as eccentric or “avadhuta”, outside of normal social constructs.
And this concurs with the other Chinese philosophers of the same time, like Lao Tzu (Laozi), whose name sounds to us like “lazy”, which is an ironic name since his philosophy requires doing even less that Confucius. It’s almost the philosophy of doing nothing, which suits his Laozi name. Laozi’s approach is considered to be of the “primitivist” school of thought. Here the art is to “embrace the uncarved block”, “Pu” You might have seen the book called “The Tao of Pooh” about Winnie the Pooh and his nature being like that of the uncarved block – simple but sublime.
Laozi sees Confucius and his regulated approach as foolish. Rather he recommends literally becoming a dropout. Leave physical society, culture and learning behind, he says. In one sense the Vedic yoga culture also has the final stage of life, called “sanyassa” where the yogi does indeed drop out of family life, business and society, to become a renunciant and a beggar, so to speak. One may indeed retire to a cave or hermitage, or one may become a wandering “sadhu” or teacher in the guise of a beggar. S/he thus may have dropped out of the social norms, but still play a valuable role by rendering a service as a teacher in transcendence.
Laozi’s uncarved block philosophy suggests that we get rid of culture and learning because they can corrupt our natural preferences. For example modern advertising misleads us to think we are lacking or less than perfect if we don’t look like the models or have the gadgets on the market. This advertising propaganda to brainwash us into being permanent consumers is indeed morally corrupting and spiritually blinding. And since Confucius was more mainstream and about learning the so-called proper way of society, he is to be abandoned.
Where Laozi tells us to get off the treadmill and retire to nature and the simplest life, a middle way between the two extremes comes from a third thinker called Menicus. He suggests that we try...but not too hard. His motto is “cultivate the moral sprouts”. I personally like the attitude of “no need to over-endeavour”.
This is similar to another wu wei philosopher, named Zhuangzi, who teaches “go with the flow”. He says that both the Confucius and the Primitivist Laozi are misguided. His radical approach (although Laozi is also radical) is that we simply don’t know the truth, so therefore just empty your mind and let the Tao pull you along. Become receptive to the spirit of heavenly origin and it will guide you. The yogis of ancient India would call this meditating on the Supersoul within the heart for all the answers.
If we get in touch with the Supersoul (Paramatma), or access the wu wei, it will lead us, so we need to simply let go and forget all our materialistic layers imposed upon us by society. Just clear the mind. Wu wei may suggest that no one way is perfect for all people or all times in history. Vedanta, on the other hand, will agree that some laws change with time, but the essential truths are absolute and timeless. We are the same humans that we always were thousands of years ago, so the eternal spiritual truths always apply. One has to be discerning when investigating these philosophies, for we don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. Perhaps I am sounding like a Confucian now, although I like Laozi’s approach too.
Ultimately we are approaching “the action of non-action”, or action without intent. The Vedas might describe it as remaining detached from the outcome perhaps. And realizing that we are not the doer, and everything is going on by the action of nature through us. Wu wei differs slightly from the Vedas because it says don’t go against nature, don’t force something to happen, just go with the flow. Now this may be similar to walking away from artificially cultivated material life, as recommended for the yogi, but the Sanskrit Vedas of India do not call for consciousness to be left to nature. That would lead to a reversion to an animalistic way of life. Rather the yoga path recommends simplifying life, cutting away the illusory external social constructs and expectations, but to definitely cultivate the human qualities of compassion, cleanliness, respect, control of the senses and regulation.
There may be some “avadhuta” practices that a rare few end up involved in, like forgetting to eat, wash or whatever, but that is the exception, not the rule. The yogi is not aspiring to become like nature. Nature is generally about eating, sleeping, mating and defending, whereas the yoga path is to rise above all four of those habits. Knowledge and practice are indeed required, not the animal propensities of nature. So there is a difference in the varying schools of thought and one needs to adhere to the path that suits your ability best, I presume. Even in the yoga tradition there are several paths.
(image pixabay)