How would you apply "creating while not owning" (生而不有) in Tao Te Ching chapters 2, 10 and 51?

[u/Selderij]

生 sheng: bring into existence, give birth, create, produce; live, life

而 er: while (also); and, but, yet

不 bu: no, not, non-, un-

有 you: to be; have, possess(ion), own(ership)

This line appears thrice in Lao Tzu's text as an apparent example of sagely or profoundly virtuous (玄德 xuan de) conduct. How do you understand it, and how do you think it can be applied in contrast to how someone not so virtuous or wise would do things?

For example, if you produce a work of art or skill, what is a virtuous attitude toward that work? Is it to give it away for free, or to be ready to part with it so that the parting does good by you and others? Is it to relinquish credit and intellectual rights, or to not personally identify with it in how it's treated and received or how it develops and lives on in the world?

[u/Thepluse]

It's of course very deep, but to me, one point is the recognition that ownership is an illusion.

You have things in your life that you need. Money, tools for cooking and cleaning, toys for entertainment. You claim ownership of these things, so that people won't take them, and if anyone does, society will help you get them back and punish the person who took them.

But recognise that this ownership is just a social construct. In reality, those things are just there. They are inaccessible to other people since your things are locked inside your house. You can use them and protect them, but if you think they inherently belong to you, you're creating an unnecessary attachment that will limit yourself.

Specifically regarding creations, I don't think it's wrong to take money for it or claim credit or protect your copyright. These are things one often needs to do in order to survive as an artist in this world. But again, recognise that your creation was made of elements of the world, and now it has become part of the world. You have no intrinsic ownership.

Once you recognise this insight, it is entirely up to you what you want to do with it.

[u/Taoist-Jedi → u/Thepluse]

Beautifully said.

[u/WillGilPhil]

You could even think of it like the text itself - the author(s) didn’t stamp their name in there to take credit for their part. They just did the work and left it at that and we’re still reading it over 2,500 years later

[u/just_Dao_it]

If you’re a parent, it has one obvious application. I fathered my children but I don’t own them — they are human beings in their own right and must be permitted to find their own Way.

The same concept carries over to ideas. Think of a guy who creates a useful app and patents it. Now he has control over its use. Versus someone else who creates an app but leaves it open for others to improve on it. He brought it into existence but he doesn’t try to retain control over its future development. And that’s a beautiful thing!

[u/ryokan1973 → u/just_Dao_it]

I believe the seemingly virtuous chapters in the DDJ are ultimately amoral. I interpret the Daoist sage as somebody who performs actions that work on both an individual and societal level without adding the additional baggage of "good" vs "bad" or finger-wagging virtue signalling.

The matter becomes even more complex when looking at the different recensions of the DDJ. I've only just recently started to study the Guodian manuscripts and what's quite telling is so many of the "seemingly" morality chapters and lines are missing from the Guodian DDJ with the most obvious omission being Chapter 67 which is the most seemingly "goodness based moral" chapter. I'm now wondering if these seemingly "moral" lines and chapters were added later on, though I must stress I'm still new to this subject matter and maybe I've got this entirely wrong and I'm waiting to be corrected. It'll probably take me months to figure this one out because my current reading progress is very slow.

It's also worth mentioning that in the chapters of the Zhuangzi that scholars often refer to as belonging to the "School of Zhuangzi", the sages don't concern themselves with "good" vs "bad" morality (in fact this type of Ruist based morality is parodied), and yet their actions work at an individual and societal level without imposing man-made contrived morality.

[u/TimewornTraveler → u/ryokan1973]

I think that's a reasonable thing to conclude, that Daoism is ultimately amoral (non-moral). But we also have to be willing to hold some tension between truths in this statement: morality/virtue originates from the actor. Sometimes people react to sentiments like the astute ones you presented here and argue that there is good and evil in the world and give heinous examples of crimes and whatnot. But what the DDJ teaches us is that good and evil only exist when someone judges them to be so.

That doesn't make those judgments false/not real! They are very real and they are very much as part of this world as you are. But they arise not from the Dao but from the De (aka, from you and me). So when the sages do not concern themselves with morality, really what that means is that they do not concern themselves with the moral imperatives that others have established for them, and instead they determine their own judgments. That's actually what just about all of us do! But whereas the common man might judge the judgments of others to be absolute, the sages see through it. They see the Dao for what it is and act accordingly.

[u/just_Dao_it → u/ryokan1973]

This information about the Guodian mss. is new to me, and very interesting.

When I read the Daoist texts, I am reminded of a line from the New Testament: “the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.” The “letter” is a moral code that has hardened and become inflexible. The “spirit” doesn’t signify lawlessness or licentiousness, but rather an ability to respond to a given situation flexibly and spontaneously, but also morally.

The “spirit” is concerned with moral principles rather than with rules as such. As Jesus once put it, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” When we make people captive to our moral conventions we have taken a step backwards.

In the words of the Daodejing, “When the great Dao declined, / The doctrine of humanity and righteousness arose” (ch. 18). It’s a return to the toddler stage of morality. As soon as a toddler learns a rule, they begin policing it, making sure their siblings obey the rule—with no room for exceptions.

I don’t know whether that carries over to developments within Daoism. But it wouldn’t shock me, since it seems to be a human pattern.

[u/Heliogabulus → u/ryokan1973]

Religions did not “invent” or define virtuous behavior, they co-opted it. Virtuous behavior was discovered and defined by society as a whole, after eons of trial and error. “Good” actions were those that promoted and/or sustained societal Order and growth. “Evil” actions were those that promoted Disorder, chaos, and decrease. It’s that simple. The knowledge of these was acquired from actual experience or by observing the experience of others. For various reasons, these “virtues” put into the mouths of gods and goddesses and enforced with threats, etc. Over time, people came to associate virtuous behaviors with the religions that promoted them and forgot the thousands of years of lessons learned leading up to the creation/definition of what was and wasn’t “good” (I.e. what actually promoted/maintained Order). Sadly, this means that when people had a falling out with a religion, they would throw out the virtues that the religion promoted as well, without ever bothering to look into why the virtues were deemed virtuous. It also doesn’t help that most religions cannot explain why a behavior they claim is virtuous is virtuous other than saying it’s because X or Y god or goddess said so (and it is written in X or Y book).

All of this is simply to say that virtue arises naturally from the functioning of the world being the world and is recognized as virtue because it “works” (successfully creates/maintains/sustains Order) and this makes it “good”. And “evil” also arises naturally in the world and is also recognized because it “doesn’t work” - it promotes chaos, Disorder, entropy, etc.).

The actual problem with morality/virtue is not what is or isn’t considered “virtuous” but rather the blind application of the same in every and all situations without consideration of the time, place or situation. Needless to say, even the most exemplary behavior can become a curse if misapplied (I.e. if it is performed at the wrong time, in the wrong place and/or under the wrong circumstances).

You are correct that Sages don’t deal with “good” and “evil” as people seem to like defining them. Instead Sages strive to understand WHY virtue is deemed virtuous (I..e what/why makes it promote/sustain Order) and under what circumstances, times, places and situations it does so. And then practice these when and where appropriate and only where appropriate (I.e. when the time, places and situation call for it and only then and only for as long the situation, time and place require and no longer).

But how does one go about learning what the actual virtues are (and avoid discarding behaviors that on the surface seem limiting/“evil” but are actually “good”) without having to re-experience the thousands of years it took to discover them in the first place? Why not start with the virtues/behaviors considered good by whichever religion suits your fancy? Keeping those that actually “work” (promote Order/Cohesion) and throwing out the rest. It’s as good a place as any to start…

[u/ryokan1973 → u/Heliogabulus]

I was very specific about the Guodian DDJ text and the chapters from the Zhuangzi that scholars think belong to "The School of Zhuangzi," which are very much of an amoral nature. Those chapters in the Zhuangzi are unambiguous regarding the actions of Sages who blatantly mock the actions of people fixated on Confucian morality of good vs. bad which are very similar to moral systems from other religions.

I wasn't expounding or promoting any personal views, and as a sceptic, I doubt such a sage ever existed, though those stories still have something of value to teach us and they're certainly entertaining.

I'll keep those views to myself as to what works or doesn't work at a personal or societal level.

[u/Top_Necessary4161]

Create first, ask questions later :)

[u/P_S_Lumapac]

I mostly read these as don't get a big head.

[u/jpipersson]

I was going to add a comment, but I think everybody else who’s responded has done a good enough job that I’m not needed.

[u/Lao_Tzoo]

The idea of not claiming ownership is to seek to avoid emotional attachment to phenomena.

This is because emotional attachment creates discontent.

If our overall goal is equanimity, then emotional attachment creates a hindrance to equanimity.

[u/Optimal-Scientist233]

The gift of art.

This is a deed or creation done intentionally for another, or for the greater good.

As an example I would say Benjamin Franklin and his gift of the lightning rod to the world fits this idea.

This was dubbed a great work in western traditions.

[u/Tiny_Fractures]

Id say its to bring the beauty into the world and then allow the beauty to do what it does without assigning it a role/way/path to do it.

For example, plant a tulip. When it grows think nothing if it. It is not yours. Don't bring attention to it. Just let it do its tulip thing.

Art is a little tougher. We have invented museums and shops and craft fairs in order to present it to the world. Some people make art for the purpose of money. These are "forced". But still...we can still allow the art to speak for itself and go so far as to allow a customer to offer what they think is a fair price (and accept regardless of that price) if we want to try and honor the art doing its own thing. In that way at least we don't own how the art speaks or the worth it'll have with its owner.

[u/hettuklaeddi]

let the 道flow thru you like an empty vessel

[u/ryokan1973]

Based on my reading of the DDJ, I think the most obvious option would be:-

"to not personally identify with it in how it's treated and received or how it develops and lives on in the world".

[u/OldDog47]

In your actions, have no expectation of exclusive benefit or control or domination over others. This verse should be presented with the one following that helps clarify the meaning. Actions should be selfless. It's like when giving a gift, there should be no expectation, even of gratitude. Otherwise, is it really a gift?

[u/TimewornTraveler]

I'm reminded of the dude who confronted his death anxiety by building playgrounds for children while never leaving his name on them. He wanted to do good for the world for the world's sake, not for his legacy or some kind of credit.

[u/lifeInquire]

For example, if you produce a work of art or skill, what is a virtuous attitude toward that work? Is it to give it away for free, or to be ready to part with it so that the parting does good by you and others? Is it to relinquish credit and intellectual rights, or to not personally identify with it in how it's treated and received or how it develops and lives on in the world?

It is to not think much about it, and be yourself. Do what you want to do, based on SOME PRACTICAL REASON, and not in the same habit that you have been doing yesterday(or probably since forever).

Be yourself, every situation is new in itself, and requires different way to deal with, different from what you did yesterday. You are different today, situation is different, the world is different.

This is my way to see it.

Based on other points from Taoism, The way that can be talked about is not the ultimate way. When you aim to do virtuous, you create a world in which there exist virtuous and non-virtuous. You have already lost yourself by then, and getting governed by some "concepts", you are not being a normal human person, and "trying" to be like a "machine" with some "intention".

How do children do it? How do singers do it? Do they fixate over some master piece they created or do they go on trying to create more and more(why?) or do they move on to live their life?

Dont make your life about some object, or some desire, or some aim/goal, be nothing, and be yourself.

When listening to music, listen to it in focus, enjoy it, but then move on with your life, don't make a home in that particular music only. Life consists of a million small things. Dont try to make it about one big thing.

[u/neidanman]

i think it goes to the perception of self and what it as as part of the whole. I.e. the actual self does not 'create'/own anything that comes from it. In the sense that all is already created and is reshaping and reforming all the time, so anything 'created by an individual', is really an aspect of the greater whole shifting its form. So to perceive this internally means to not see the core/deeper self as owning anything, more that something was created through the course of the evolution of the whole.

in practical terms in modern society, each person is part of an overall system that plays out. So if you are in a capitalist society, then it would be natural for things to play out through that system. Whereas if you were in a tribal village, then you may well just make a thing and pass it to whoever needs it.

[u/VargevMeNot]

I think a big part of this for me is that if you attach too much to your past creations, that holds you back from what's next. Also, there are factors larger than you that helped you create, therefore your creations are "not yours". Attaching ego to your past limits progression. Of course, it is okay to leverage your past pursuits towards your future, like building a resume or getting investment in an endeavor, but don't hang your hat on them for too long, or else you'll get stuck in "the good ol' days" which are an illusion.

[u/dvorakoa]

to paraphrase the Bhagavad Gita "we have a right to our labor, but not to the fruits of our labor.” This means that the process is its own reward. The only real reward.

Attachment/clinging to things that are impermanent only leads to suffering. This includes our identity/ego as we are so attached to it (and anything it produces) that we don't see it as yet another illusion.

Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. Allow the Divine to work through you as in the end even your skills/talents come from God. You're 'just' the conscious witness of the process.