Talk:Wu wei

June/July 2005

I'm stumped by the following statement: "As a person diminishes his doing—by 'doing', the Taoist means all those actions we commit purely to benefit us..." Can you elaborate on what this means? Sunray 04:26, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Here's what I've got so far: "As a person diminishes his doing—by 'doing', by which the Taoist means those actions we commit purely to benefit us..." This sentence needs more work, but I'm not at all sure I have got the sense of it. Thoughts? Sunray 04:34, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

O.K. that's better. I will continue editing. Sunray 14:54, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the meaning intended here: "... to effect a proper calendar in time and his country will be well governed" (first sentence in the second paragraph). A calendar is usually "a system of calculating the days and months of the year." It can also be a chart, a timetable or a list relating to time. Do you mean a structure of time or an event, an outcome, or... Sunray 00:45, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

One possible meaning could be: to effect a proper outcome in time so that his country will be well governed. Sunray 01:15, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Stumped here too. I think the sentence works quite well within the paragraph without that phrase. The sentences following provide the necessary elaboration. I have edited accordingly. Hope no one objects. Excellent entry! -Jmh123 06:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk: Origins

"Some philosophers, for example Wang Chong, have questioned this theory. However, it has proven curiously prophetic in certain modern research such as fractal theory."

Can anyone please explain what fractal theory has to do with wu wei? Otherwise, I propose we delete this text.

--PiKeeper 03:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance. No problem deleting the sentence, IMO. Sunray 06:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

"According to the theory, ordering the Emperor's palace is governing the country well: the palace is an homothetic reproduction of the country." I'm just a casual reader, but this part confused me.. i think you should change the word "ordering" to something more obvious like "tidying up" since ordering has connations similar to governing.. basically my point is that i didnt get that ordering meant cleaning/tidying, and thus that whole section was confusing.

Headings

I've added some headings in an attempt to begin to structure the article. I'm not at all confident that they are the right headings, so please feel free to adust them as you see fit. Sunray 01:07, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

No Monkeying Around

Benjamin Hoff in The Tao of Pooh suggests that "Wei" means monkey/claw, and translates "Wu Wei" as "No Monkeying Around". This suggestion is reproduced all over the Internet, but doesn't seem to have any support from real Chinese scholars. And yet even if it's not true, it's a nice story (si non è vero, è molto ben trovato) - so is it worth mentioning here? --RichardVeryard 21:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Added under "Trivia". Besides being clever, I think Hoff's idea is notable, given its wide currency, even if it does lack support from Chinese scholars. The Tao of Pooh is a very well-known book. --RichardVeryard 09:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone reference this with a page number, i don't recall reading this ever in the tao of pooh. --130.113.109.183 (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Immortality

Article says: "Zhuang Zi proposed an illustration of this idea: a tree with a twisted trunk will not be cut by any lumberjack and will live its whole life in peace, thanks to its uselessness." This, I could argue, is an allegory for not cutting your life short through meddling, and has little if anything to do with immortality. This theme runs throughout both sources; cf. TTC: "The forceful do not choose their place of death." If we have a consensus, we could replace this with an appropriate parable from Chuang Tzu, where the Heaven might fall and the whole world may come to an end, but the sage will not be harmed because he is not attached to anything.

Not cutting your life short has much do do with immortality. See the great sage Woody Allen's quote on the subject. -Toptomcat 03:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding action?

Would "avoiding action" be a better translation of "wu wei"? --Jbergquist 17:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really; there's no verb involved. "Wu" means ~ "without" and "wei" is "action" or, when it is used as a verb, "to do". So Wuwei is not an activity, as implied by "avoiding", but a means. siafu 21:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A "Phantasy Based on the Philosophy of Lao-Tse"

The anonymous contributor who restored this large quote, stated: "restore per citation; please take it to the talk page to discuss why you think that a book on "Wu Wei" is not appropriate to this article on "Wu Wei"". As usually seems to happen with these sorts of issues, the burden of proof isn't on me, but I think I can clear this up rather quickly. The book is available for reading on Google Books, and it is clearly a work of fiction. Let me quote rather briefly from the preface:

The following study on Lao-Tse's "Wu-Wei" should by no means be regarded as a translation or even as a free rendering of the actual work of that philosopher.

And later:

None of my metaphorical comparisons, such as that with the landscape, with the sea, with the clouds, are anywhere to be found in Lao-Tse's work. Neither has he anywhere spoken of Art, nor specially of Love. In writing of all this I have spoken aloud the thoughts and feelings instinctively induced by the perusal of Lao-Tse's deep-felt philosophy. Thus it may be that my work contains far more of myself than I am conscious of...

So not only is this not an actual book of philosophy (it's a "Phantasy"), but it's not even keeping true or close to actual Taoist work. So no, this is not an appropriate source for this article. siafu 21:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You should discuss before deletion...it's more appropriate. Had you consulted me even once before deleting/reverting twice, I would have pointed out (as I am now) that the fact that it is a work of fiction does not mean that it does not carry apropos meaning...which it certainly does. You're being inappropriately judgemental ("not keeping true or close to actual Taoist work"...huh??), and so I do not agree with your course of action, much less the obviously disdainful attitude you're pushing. --71.42.142.238 21:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being inappropriately judgemental, the author states very clearly that the work is produced by him and his philosophy and not by Laozi or actual Daoist teaching. It's a fictional story by a westerner influenced by the Dao De Jing. If I seem disdainful, it is only in response to your claim that the responsibility is mine to show that this work is not acceptable as a reliable source-- the burden of proof is on you to show that it is. This is not a primary source, and it's not even a scholarly discussion or investigation of Daoism, it's a work of fiction. A work of fiction could, theoretically, be apropos, but it would take some extra reinforcement; for example if scholars referred to the book as a valid presentation or realistic interpretation of wu wei. I see no such reinforcement. siafu 01:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

at best, the could be mentioned in the "Trivia" section. it has no other relevance. --Cwiddofer 23:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please add pronunciation for Wu Wei

Could someone please add pronunciation for Wu Wei —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.41.104 (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Could somebody please take a look at the link at the beginning of the article to http://www.edepot.com/taoism_wu-wei.html as this appears to be an advertisement as opposed to useful information. I'd just fix it but a previous revert was removed, so it appears there is a more formal way to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.246.193 (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This metaphore at beginning...isn't it like sun and planet *have relation* of orbiting (orbiting each other simultaneously). Do i understand it from those thing you've written correctly :

Either - Neither planet nor the sun is cause of it (both are causes of it - like Force A == -Force B from newtonian physics)?

Or maybe one can be looked as cause of it anyway. For you can just have different observatory. You can say sun rotates, while my planet is still, which is what i am taking as assumption. By that i mean coordinate system you take (both rotate - you are in space, sun rotates - you are on planet, planet rotate - you are on sun) 84.16.123.194 (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

For it might be like meaning off this wu wei ??? maybe 84.16.123.194 (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there an opposite?

Does Daoist philosophy discuss the concept of action for action's sake but precisely at the most inappropriate time (i.e. where inaction will let the good end result naturally, effortlessly)? An attempt to do good which results in doing evil, because it cares too much about "doing"? (For the politically left-leaning - how would a Daoist have described the Bush presidency?) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Title Wú wéi or Wu Wei?

Please refer me to a reason why this page's title isn't spelled with the same as the pinyin spelling, rather than the dumbed down Wu Wei plain characters? --Jase 12:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Because no one's created a redirect for it until now. The page was created in 2004, before Unicode became ubiquitous. However, pages are named after the most common way of referring to the subject in English. So, Yijing is named I Ching, for example. Personally, I think it's good to have diacritics. (You can forget trying to look up the meaning of a word without them.) But they won't become any more convenient to type on standard English keyboards, so they should probably just be redirects rather than page names.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm thanks for the informative explanation.--Jase 23:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with the logic of Machine Elf 1735. Good approach for handling it via redirect and standard-English keyboard compatibility does seem to be the general WP approach. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wu Wei equals Flow?

To my understanding Wu Wei can be directly translated as flow, or flow in tao, in the sense programmers use the term "coders flow". This is not based in theory but personal insight so I don't want to edit the page directly. What do you think? It feels to me this addition could be valuable to many readers. Ipelkonen (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Inaction, without action... In the context of wu wei, action should be "second nature", it should just flow. I think it's the code that's said to flow, programmers tend to be a bit twitchy.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wu wei is a circle?

The article states that in Zen calligraphy, the symbol used to represent this principle is a circle, which links to the ensō article. Does the ensō actually refer to wu wei? I thought the ensō simply serves as a visualization for the "void" concept. Atypicaloracle (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Taoism section note

The sourced Taoism section I've started includes passages taken from the Guanzi and Neiye pages.FourLights (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Coming to this article for the first time, I am greatly puzzled. I know of wu wei from its Taoist usage, and this usage dominates much of the article. Yet the main sections on this and Confucianism take the view that Confucius got there first. No sources in support of this understanding are cited. Since all the early sources appeared in the historical record at much the same time, and there is a long history of Confucian suppression of Daoism, why does the article take this unverified view? It makes no sense to me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The argument is from Creel, after coming back to the article I wrote it with more uncertain tone and added a little NPOV.FourLights (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Savoir-faire

Suggestion to replace the term savoir-faire. This will not be in the common lexicon of most readers. --1000Faces (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

David H. Li reference in Modern section

At the end of the Modern section, the bit about David H. Li feels like it doesn’t quite belong in this spot as it discusses ”Tao” rather than “Wu Wei”. That said, it does have some relevance in terms of describing the difficulties involved with translation, but I’m not sure it’s in the right place. Perhaps there is a more appropriate placement?

The difficulty in translation is fascinating—would it be appropriate to create its own section? Either in this article on Wu Wei or perhaps in the article on Tao?

The section could be expanded by suggesting that multiple translations can sometimes be helpful, and as an example discussing the first verse of Lao-Tzu’s Tao Te Ching, which reads, “The Tao that can Tao is not Tao” and then offering various translations, such as: The name that can be named is not the Name The path that can be walked is not the Path The word that can be spoken is not the Word

This verse, in addition to providing a prime example of nuances in translation, speaks directly to what Li is quoted as saying. As soon as one has named (or even conceptualized) “Tao”, that name (or concept) is not actually Tao; rather, the name is a symbol (and the concept a convention, both) used to point at—to represent—Tao. The word and the concept are not in and of themselves the Tao they represent. Likewise in Li’s example, Tao is more aptly translated as “direction” rather than “way” as it leaves the possibility of flowing with the Tao open to many paths instead of only one “way” which, once expressed, is not the Way but rather one possible way of flowing in the Direction that is the Tao. 2604:2D80:6E04:8100:4150:664E:58A0:EA09 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't comment on the Modern section. I put together most of the article but I probably merely consigned some of the material there. Alan Watts isn't exactly a Sinologist but he could be taken as a modern commentator. I can't affirm that he necessarily belongs here if people want it removed. If I get to writing more I wouldn't be focused on Watts, I would be utilizing Edward Slingerland's Effortless Action. I'm not sure the material you are talking about is there anymore unless I dig it up, and for the most part I don't know what you are talking about, as I merely imported what I was already familiar with. I'm not a Wu Wei scholar yet, I write the Legalism page.FourLights (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Warrantless confucianization

The article states that Wu wei comes "from confucianism" and seems part to be of some kind of shady effort to remove it from its actually Daoist roots. Basically all other wiki languages specify this is a Taoist concept. According to received Chinese tradition Laozi is older than Confucius. Thus, the Tao Te Ching of Laozi is older than the confucian Analects. this may be historically doubtful but all chronology of this period is speculative. As a student and scholar of the topic I strongly vote to remove the gratuitous, unsourced references that the term of wu wei "comes" from Confucianism and it only "went on" to become important in Taoism, when both logic and tradition dictate otherwise. The term is known through Taoism first not "confucianism". Furthermore, if there is any academic work that advances the opposite, it is surely a minority view and should be contrasted with the more widespread Taoist interpretation. The article itself has a whole section dedicated to Taoist philosophy in the "definition" while nothing is given to the Confucian supposed (fictive) "invention". --190.195.146.6 (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that Wu Wei is often time associated with the Taoist philosophy. Nevertheless, the reference of "Wu Wei" in statecrafts was also found in Confucius texts the Analects, quoted below:

Wei Ling Gong:

The Master said, "May not Shun be instanced as having governed efficiently without exertion? What did he do? He did nothing but gravely and reverently occupy his royal seat." 《论语·卫灵公》中记载，孔子曰：“无为而治者，其舜也与？夫何为哉？恭己正南面而已矣。 TheIntrospectorsfacts (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Early certainty is mental defect on my part. Although I am not at this time getting around to expanding the article I've added some nuance of uncertaintly and less assertion regarding the speculative nature of the Confucian derivation and threw in Roger T Ames statement as early NPOV. To give more Daoism would require additional writing and sourcing. If I write more I would reference more Edward Slingerland - Effortless Action. Unfortuanately I am not yet a wu wei scholar, I merely added what I was familiar with, and for the most part that was Creel since I use him as an early (1970/1974) but critical base source for the Legalism article.FourLights (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

As to the origins of the Laozi, it's essentially a later relativist variation on the earlier language discussions the Mohists, per the language relativism of the later the school of names. The Mohists sought objective language standards, the school of names and subsequent Daoists make relativist arguments. Hence all the discussion of "Knowing the beautiful by the ugly" etc etc. Laozi can no more precede Confucius than Mozi can, because there wouldn't be anything to talk about. Mozi is a reaction to Confucius, and Laozi is a reaction to Mozi. The Zhuangzi even says as much.FourLights (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The earliest reference to Laozi is in the Lushi Chunqui. If if I can find the reference again I'll throw it into the Laozi article together with a mention of the Han Feizi's posthumous Laozi commentary.FourLights (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Typo?

"... it is the not the way to rule." Hmmm... 198.90.81.190 (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It may well be a typo, but it is in a direct quote and the quote isn't visible in the citation tag, so it's unclear whether the editor who added it made a typo or the person being quoted made a grammatical error. So I marked it with the [sic?] template. Thanks for spotting it. Good catch. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I am capable of typos.FourLights (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

reduction

I would intend to ultimately reduce the details of this article, in particular in relation to Legalism, but it's details would essentially be consolidated for the Legalism page first. One can request a priority for this article as desired. Then there are other practical commentaries that could be added. In terms of other materials, I have less thought of at the moment.FourLights (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I put an earlier origin for it as an idea in the classic of poetry, I'm sure that will make everyone happy, let me know if you'd like me to prioritize anything over my own normal activities, or put more effort into dating the Laozi or something like that, which I had already put in the Laozi page, it's not like I didn't already talk about that to some extent. There is always work to be done.FourLights (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Although I am an active worker, which can include the considerably more intensive work of reorganizing and simplifying this page, I should at least be able to put together a brief section on the classic of poetry before that is done; I am not actually sure I would have much commentary for it as this time. Otherwise, I should also put together a section on the Laozi and Zhuangzi.FourLights (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

If you'd like help particularly with the Zhuangzi part, that's definitely an article where I feel like I can almost approach your level of diligent research. :) Remsense诉 14:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I will prioritize that, but it will mean less work on reducing the rest.FourLights (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, take your time! Just poke me when you get around to it, I've got plenty of plates in the air myself. Remsense诉 16:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I will be busy with work the next couple days, but I will still write this. How quickly I would find additional source commentaries on the wuwei of the Zhuangzi is another question.FourLights (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You're just looking for sources about the treatment of wu wei in the Zhuangzi? I can put together a list for you if you'd like/ Remsense诉 19:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That would be helpful, since that is what you requested a project on to start.FourLights (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Edward Stringerland has some material on a parable from the Zhuangzi I can use to write about Wu Wei. It will be very difficult.FourLights (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

laozi dating

I'll try to locate commentary on the content of the excavated Laozi for prominent discussion, but it won't actually effect the other texts since they don't appear to make use of it.FourLights (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Based on research, although the Han Feizi does not appear to make much usage of it, Han Fei may still have been aware of the Laozi, and the Laozi suitably be put before it. When I can rewrite more, I will keep that in mind.FourLights (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)