because they threaten you with hell if you don't behave properly, or because you want to be admired.
 And you can think, you know, to yourself, well I don't have motivations like that.
 I really love other people. Under certain circumstances, yes, you do. But you could
 be put to the test, and certain circumstances might arise where you don't love other people at all.
 So, the attitude of the Taoist, as against the Confucians, was that all this discussion of
 righteousness and propriety and so on, was doing nothing but getting mankind deeper and deeper and
 deeper into trouble. So Lao Tzu says, when the great Tao lost, that is to say, when people no
 longer followed the natural way, the course of nature, there came duty to man and right conduct.
 When there were troubles in the state, we began to hear of loyal statesmen. When the family was
 deranged, we began to hear of filial sons and daughters. And so it seems to be said,
 in a very odd way, that it's the rules that make the trouble.
 And ordinary common sense tells us that the trouble comes first, and then thereafter the rules.
 Because things have gone astray, and the people, the elders say,
 "Oh, the young are going to the dogs, we have to lay down the law to them."
 But it is not as simple as that.
 You see, I saw a headline the other day, which said, "Cops riot and hate Ashbury."
 And there is a very curious thing, whereby, after a while, the law,
 that is to say, authority and crime, form an alliance with each other.
 And the more you attempt to suppress crime, the more you stir it up.
 So that, I just want to ask you to consider,
 what kind of person would volunteer for service on a vice squad?
 And you have a criminal, obviously. You have a very deranged person.
 And so, we tend, you see, as time goes on, that official types, people who are enforcement
 officers, begin to be the same kind of people as criminals.
 So that the law enforcement and crime reinforce each other all the time.
 They have an alliance. It's a symbiotic relationship.
 Because lots of symbiotic relationships are contests.
 And so, eventually, what happens is that the government is the most successful group of
 gangsters. And when we know, we only have to read the history of Europe to realize that places like
 France and England and Germany, and so on, particularly Italy, they were originally just
 bands of brigands. And certain brigands got stronger and stronger and stronger, and at last,
 he was the government. And it still goes on.
 So the Daoists were trying to say to governors, "Look, lay off. Please leave things alone."
 Their idea, you see, Lao Tzu wrote the Dao De Jing as a manual of advice to emperors.
 And he says, in other words, that the emperor,
 although he is above the people, they should not feel his weight.
 "Govern a great state as you cook a small fish."
 In other words, if you have a small fish like smelt in the frying pan, you don't keep jostling
 them with a pancake turner, because the fish will just fall apart. You have to cook it very gently.
 See, less cooking is better than more. That's how the Chinese produce such beautiful vegetables.
 They hardly cook them at all. They have a method of heating them through very quickly,
 and then serve it at once, so that they're very crisp. Less cooking is better than more.
 So, less law. When about 250 BC, a new dynasty came into power in China. It was called the Han
 Dynasty. And it followed the Qing Dynasty. The Qing Dynasty lasted for 15 years. The Han lasted
 for 500. The Qing Dynasty was a dictatorship. And this grandiose military emperor was going to found
 a dynasty that would last for a thousand years. And he legalized in every direction. He made laws
 and laws and laws, and caused only the right books to be allowed. Most of them were burned,
 and heaven only knows. When the Han Dynasty came in, they simply wrote all the laws off the books.
 They repealed everything. They kept about two laws against robbery and murder, or something like that.
 And that was it. They wrote them all off. And that was one of the most stable and creative epochs in
 Chinese culture. So, it was very close to anarchy. And you must understand what anarchy is, in the
 true sense. Anarchy is not someone with a grisly beard and a bomb running around, trying to blow
 up airplanes and stop the public functioning. Anarchy in the West was invented by Prince Kropotkin,
 who was a great Russian aristocrat, who had a theory about that the state is simply a nuisance.
 And that there simply should be no government in that sense at all. So that, in other words,
 if you're driving down the road and you see a rock on the road, you don't wait for the
 Department of Highways to get rid of it. You just stop your car and shove it over.
 And if everybody does things like that, you see, then things will go along and everybody
 will feel responsible because there's no government to say, "You do it." See?
 Now, when you start thinking about that, you realize this is probably something to be said for
 it. But you can't take it quite literally. Because of karma, that is to say, because once you've
 started to interfere with the course of events, you're stuck with it. It's like it's an awful
 sticky business for us to get ourselves out of Vietnam. Once we've interfered there, see,
 we're terribly involved in all sorts of ways. And sometimes, of course, it is better, you know?
 It's like a marriage where both husband and wife are trying desperately to make the marriage work.
 And as a result of that, they get more involved and more involved and more involved with each
 other until they're both living in a wall-to-wall trap and loathe each other.
 And the only thing is to simply go in and break it up
 at all costs, you know, just get out of it. Because when people get more and more involved,
 under the supposition that they're doing the right thing, and they try to love each other,
 they don't love each other. And when you pretend to love someone who you don't love,
 all you do is create hatred. Because you don't like what you're doing, and the person very well
 knows that you are loving them not because you really do, but because you think it's your duty.
 And so they feel guilty. And it's a mess all around. So it's completely absurd to be dishonest
 with your emotions, with your feelings. So people say, "Well, but what if nobody delivers the mail?
 What if nobody wants to be the milkman? What if there are no garbage collectors?
 Mustn't there be some people who do their duty every day and hate it?" Okay.
 Think ahead a little.
 All that resentment piles up and piles up and piles up. And one day it has to blow itself off.
 So you've had your mail delivered, your milk delivered, your garbage collected regularly,
 all these things have been done for you, and it goes on for about 20 years. See? Meanwhile,
 everybody's getting more and more bored and frustrated and whatnot, and suddenly the bombers
 are over you. And the whole life is blown to bits. Practical, eh? You know, we're out of our heads.
 Absolutely. We've been lucky in this country. The Swiss have been lucky for 100 years.
 The Swedes have done fairly well by minding their own business. And we were far enough
 away so that nobody could reach us. But all that's over, technologically.
 And even if we don't suffer the consequences from an external enemy,
 we've brewed up plenty of trouble back here at home. And nobody knows what the answer to it is.
 Oppenheimer, shortly before he died, said that it's quite clear that the world is going to hell.
 The only chance it might not is that we don't try to stop it doing so.
 [laughter]
 A beautiful Taoist remark. So, Zhuangzi has some things to say about this that are very,
 very interesting.
 Do you realize how one's character is lost and where knowledge leads?
 A man loses his character through the desire for fame, and knowledge leads to contention.
 In the struggle for fame, men crush each other while their knowledge is but an instrument for
 scheming and contention. These two are instruments of evil and lead one away from the moral life.
 Those who rely upon the arc, the line, compasses, and the square to make correct forms,
 injure the natural constitution of things. Those who use cords to bind and glue to piece together
 interfere with the natural character of things. Those who seek to satisfy the mind of man
 by hampering it with ceremonies and music and affecting humanity and justice
 have lost the original nature of man. There is an original nature in things.
 Things in their original nature are curved without the help of arcs, straight without lines,
 round without compasses, and rectangular without squares. They are joined together without glue
 and hold together without cords. In this manner, all things grow with abundant life,
 without knowing how they do so. They all have a place in the scheme of things without knowing how
 they come to have their proper place. From time immemorial this has been so,
 and it may not be tampered with. Why then should the doctrines of humanity and justice continue to
 remain like so much glue or cords in the domain of Tao and character to give rise to confusion
 and doubt among mankind? The lesser doubts change man's purpose, and the greater doubts
 change man's nature. How do we know this? Ever since the time when Shun made a bid for humanity
 and justice and threw the world into confusion, men have run about and exhausted themselves in
 the pursuit thereof. Is not then humanity and justice which have changed the nature of man?
 People with superfluous keenness of vision put into confusion the five colors,
 lose themselves in the forms and designs, in the distinctions of greens and yellows for
 sacrificial robes. Is this not so? Of such was Li Ju, the clear-sighted. People with
 superfluous keenness of hearing put into confusion the five notes, exaggerate the timbres of metal,
 stone, string, and bamboo, of the huangzhong and the tailu, which are ancient musical instruments,
 their standard pitch pipes. Is this not so? Of such was Xue Guang, the music master. People
 who abnormally develop humanity, exalt character and suppress nature in order to gain a reputation,
 make the world noisy with their discussions, and cause it to follow impractical doctrines.
 Is this not so? Of such, what some ensure, people who commit excess in arguments, like piling up
 bricks and tying knots, analyzing and inquiring into the distinctions of hard and white,
 identities and differences, wear themselves out over vain useless terms. Is this not so?
 Of such were Yang and Mo. All these are superfluous and devious growths of knowledge
 and are not the correct guide for the world. He who would be the ultimate guide of the world
 should take care to preserve the original nature of man. Therefore, with him, the united is not
 like joined toes, the separated is not like extra fingers. What is long is not considered a success,
 and what is short is not regarded as wanting. For duck's legs, though short, cannot be lengthened
 without dismay to the duck, and a crane's legs, though long, cannot be shortened without misery
 to the crane. That which is long in nature must not be cut off, and that which is short in nature
 must not be lengthened. One should not worry about changing them. It would seem that humanity and
 justice were not part of the nature of man. How worried these teachers of charity are!
 Now the charitable men of the present age go about with a look of concern,
 sorrowing over the ills of the age, while the non-charitable let loose the desires of their
 nature in their greed for position and wealth. Therefore, it would seem that humanity and
 justice were not a part of human nature. Yet from the time of the three dynasties downwards,
 what a commotion has been raised about them. There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone
 and tolerance. There has never been such a thing as governing mankind.
 Letting alone springs from the fear, lest men's natural dispositions be perverted,
 and tolerance springs from the fear, lest their character be corrupted.
 But if their natural dispositions be not perverted, nor their character corrupted,
 what need is there left for government? Of old, when Yao governed the empire, he made the people
 live happily. Consequently, the people struggled to be happy and became restless. When Chia governed
 the empire, he made the people live in misery. Consequently, the people regarded life as a burden
 and were discontented. Restlessness and discontent are subversive of man's character,
 and without character there never has been such a thing as stability.
 When man rejoices greatly, he gravitates towards yang, the positive pole. When he is in great anger,
 he gravitates toward yin, the negative pole. When the equilibrium of positive and negative is
 disturbed, the four seasons are upset, the balance of heat and cold is destroyed. Man himself suffers
 physically thereby. It causes men to rejoice and sorrow inordinately, to live disorderly lives,
 to be vexed in their thought, and lose their pattern and norm of conduct. When that happens,
 then the whole world seethes with revolt and discontent, and we have such men as the Robert
 Chia and the Confucian teachers, Sun and Chia. Offer the entire world as rewards for the good,
 or threaten the wicked with dire punishments of the entire world, and it is still insufficient
 to reform them. Consequently, with the entire world one cannot furnish sufficient inducements
 or deterrents to action. From the three dynasties downwards, the world has lived in a helter-skelter
 of promotions and punishments. What chance have the people left for fulfilling peacefully the
 natural instincts of their lives? Therefore, when a gentleman is unavoidably compelled to
 take charge of the government of the empire, there is nothing better than inaction, letting alone,
 wu-wei in Chinese. By means of inaction only can he allow the people to fulfill
 peacefully the natural instincts of their lives. Therefore, he who values the world as his own self
 may be entrusted with the government of the world, and he who loves the world as his own self may be
 entrusted with the care of the world. Therefore, if the gentleman can refrain from disturbing the
 internal economy of man and glorifying the powers of sight and hearing, he can sit still like a
 corpse or spring into action like a dragon, be silent as the deep, or talk with the voice of
 thunder, the movements of his spirit calling forth the natural mechanism of heaven. He can remain
 calm and leisurely, doing nothing, while all things are brought to maturity and thrive.
 What need then would have I to set about governing the world?
 You know, that was one thing that when Eisenhower was president of the United States,
 somebody had a slogan just before the next election,
 which was, "Let's keep the White House empty for another four years."
 And his reign was really rather peaceful. And what the point here is, you see, that
 rulers, if somebody has to be in charge of a social function, say like the district
 or the county sanitary inspector, that is a useful man. But he doesn't go riding around in
 splendor with escorts of police on motorcycles and reporters and cameras all over the place.
 And so in the same way, Lao Tzu and Zhuangzi are saying that anybody who governs should be very
 anonymous. There shouldn't be a fuss made over him. He's just like any other person going about
 his daily business. But the moment you start to make the central controller of everything,
 and you blow fanfares, and you make up a big thing and say, you know, "The United States,
 hooray, hooray, hooray," or whatever the country is, then you're in for trouble.
 So govern a great state as you cook a small fish.
 Now, let's go, let's look at that from the point of view not of the political
 state for the moment. I don't want to get into a long discussion of politics.
 But let's look at it from the point of view of the human being. Your organism is like a country,
 and do you have a boss in your body? There's a long passage in Zhuangzi about the organism,
 and it says that although it all seems to function together, which part of it do you prefer?
 Is there a kind of hierarchy of preferable parts of the organism?
 I've told some of you the argument between the head and the stomach.
 And the argument is that obviously the stomach is fundamental because
 it's the place where all food is digested and it supplies everything.
 And so therefore, the stomach is the really important organ. And the head is simply the
 manufacturer on the end of the alimentary canal which feeds the stomach of a seeking device,
 complicated seeking device for finding food. Now the other argument is the argument of the head.
 The head says, "No, not at all, although I evolved later than the stomach.
 The stomach was my forerunner like John the Baptist for Jesus Christ.
 And really the stomach is simply a gadget which serves the needs of the brain. The brain is
 culture and is the fine arts and is religion and music. And the stomach is just lower things,
 and you put food into your mouth, you know, and that's necessary. It's good for you.
 You're not supposed to enjoy it because you're supposed to enjoy higher things.
 So everybody's eating Wonder Bread and hot dogs and things, and saying that the plain living and
 high thinking, see? Well, in a way, you can argue both points of view with equal validity.
 Say, "Yes, the brain is the main thing about man that's important." Or you can say, "Oh,
 the brain is just an adjunct to the stomach, that's all it is." You can argue it both ways,
 because there is no final truth about the matter.
 The interesting thing about a human being is that all his organs are mutually necessary to each
 other. It's true, you can get around with an amputated leg. It's true, you can function if
 you're blind, but with severe limitations, because all the organs are in a relationship.
 This is what we mean by an organic relationship. Everything is dependent upon everything else.
 Everything goes with everything else. Just as you don't find anywhere in nature a
 creature which is just a head.
 See? Imagine human heads suddenly coming into existence and rolling down the street,
 being alive and talkative. See? It's absurd.
 Imagine just a pair of legs someday you meet, running along. It's ridiculous.
 So then, in the ordering of this marvellous thing, you do really have a democracy of a certain kind.
 It's not like a voting democracy. It doesn't elect a president.
 But it all works together if left to itself.
 Now, occasionally, of course, we do salvage somebody's life by surgery
 and make a very rough, abrasive interference.
 But we are nowhere near the situation where everybody in the world
 is surviving because surgically interfered with.
 And we run into a danger, incidentally, through medicine, that we are beginning to see
 coming into the world now, that if we patch people up
 all the time and don't let them die, we begin to get not only the population problem,
 but an enormous population of completely bored old people who are just vegetating.
 And who are, you know, they've brought up their families, and they've done all these things for
 them. They've raised their children, and that's great, and so on. Then, at the end of their term,
 they impoverish their families by having to be maintained on the end of tubes in hospitals for
 an unspeakably long time. I mean, where does the duty to one's children or duty to one's parents
 come in here, you see?
 Now, therefore, what is the practical outcome of this?
 That's what everybody's going to ask. What should you do about it?
 Now, let's examine that question. What do you mean, the practical issue?


{END}
Wait Time : 0.00 sec
Model Load: 0.64 sec
Decoding  : 0.98 sec
Transcribe: 2109.21 sec
Total Time: 2110.83 sec