Episode Two - Chapter 62 of Daodejing
Updated: Aug 31, 2022
This is a transcript of Episode Two of Walking the Timeless Way, a Daoist podcast. We discuss chapter 62 which explores themes of virtuous and non-virtuous people. What does a Daoist approach to the presidency look like?
Welcome to Gu Dao Jin Xing, Walking the Timeless Way, a podcast that digs deeply into the ancient text of Daodejing to uncover its timeless wisdom and discuss how to apply it to today's chaotic world. I'm David Wang, executive coach and consultant. I'm joined by my co-host, Ian Felton, practicing psychotherapist and coder. Hi. Good morning, Ian.
Good to see you.
Yeah, it's good to see you, too. Here we are for our second episode of Gu Dao Jin Xing, Walking the Timeless Way in our first episode, where we're actually going to dig into the meat of the text like we talked about in our first episode, just since you and I have been studying this for quite a long time. The first chapter we're going to look at is actually chapter 62. If anyone out there wants to kind of get their copy of Daodejing and follow along, chapter 62 is what we're going to focus on today.
Yes. In this chapter, you know, actually the main topic of this chapter is about Dao. And in this chapter, Laozi talks about the Dao and why Dao matters more than anything else. And throughout the ages, Dao has been valued by all people. So maybe we can dive into it.
That sounds wonderful. So here we go. The first sentence.
dào zhě wàn wù zhī ào，shàn rén zhī bǎo，bú shàn rén zhī suǒ bǎo。
This sentence can be thought of as the thousand things or things take refuge in it. Sort of the virtuous person treasures it. The non virtuous person is protected by it.
měi yán kě yǐ shì ，zūn xíng kě yǐ jiā rén。
So mei 美 in Chinese means beautiful. And just like in the United States of America, in Chinese is Mei Guo 美国, the beautiful country. So here it means fine words can win the respect of others, honorable deeds can set yourself apart from others. So that's what it means. So it talks about the words and deeds of a person.
So continuing on.
rén zhī bú shàn， hé qì zhī yǒu？
Even though there's bad people, it includes them.
gù lì tiān zǐ zhì sān gōng , suī yǒu gǒng bì yǐ xiān sì mǎ，bù rú zuò jìn cǐ dào。
on the day the emperor is crowned or the three ministers of the state installed, do not send them a gift of jade or a bunch of horses, but just remain still and offer them Dao as a gift instead.
gǔ zhī suǒ yǐ guì cǐ dào zhě hé？bù yuē yǐ qiú dé，yǒu zuì yǐ miǎn xié？gù wéi tiān xià guì 。
Why did the ancients prize Dao? Didn't they say, look for guilty people and pardon them? Therefore, Dao is the treasure of the whole world, of everything under heaven?
Ian: And I know when we were talking about this, you were saying you really liked this chapter. There was something that was really resonated with you, really meaningful for you in this chapter, and I want to hear more about what that was.
David: Yeah, I think in Tao te ching, we often see Tao as kind of a natural force, right. Without any emotions. It's not like a personified god in a religious sense. But in here, when I read it, I'm also moved because it does have a characteristics that's very inclusive in the sense that it doesn't polarize people and say, this is bad apples. These are really good people. I think in some way I think, according to doubts here has a certain grace. It's kind of giving and forgiving and it has a saving nature no matter how you interact with doubt. And some people, the Sheng Ren (sage), they may really try to align their behaviors to doubt so then they can benefit from that. But even with the bu Sheng Ren (non-sages), those who probably more selfish or self centered but then in their doing things, still Dao is in operation. So it end up like a protection, serve as a protection for them so that they don't go too far and then get into trouble or even die.
Taoism doesn't really get into too much morality. It certainly talks about things like if you're a Sheng Ren 圣人, being humble, kind of putting yourselves lower than others, sort of being accepting and embracing. But it doesn't really get into a moral code too much, except really when it comes to leaders. It really emphasizes the responsibility of leaders far more than the average person that it almost focuses so much on the qualities and characteristics of people who are supposedly more responsible for others than the common man. In this case, what you're saying in this chapter, it sounds like that when I think about doing psychotherapy, we don't kind of say, oh, well, we do psychotherapy for people that don't have a criminal record. But if you've had a criminal record, then we're not going to do psychotherapy with you. And certainly there's some therapists that won't work with certain people and sometimes for good reason because it might be traumatizing for them as an individual depending upon what material is being covered, but in a nonjudgmental way that makes sense. But the whole point is that being open to showing compassion to everyone is sort of the ethical imperative of psychotherapists. And so I find this chapter very much aligned with the ethical code of counseling and that we want to embrace all people, even the people who have done quote unquote wrong or have harmed others. And that making space and accepting them is actually what heals them. And if they're open to that, of course that person has to be wanting to receive that sort of gift of therapy. And this chapter reminds me a lot of that in that personal nature of the Dao.
As I'm listening to you, I'm wondering two keywords come to mind. One is just being just. The other one is kind of a judgmental. I find that sometimes in the society, how can people without being judgmental, they can still be just; without being judgmental, they can do the right thing. I sort of feel like that's the nature of Dao because you can't say Dao has no principle, right? It certainly has its kind of a natural law. But maybe that law is very broad, I think. But that law never leads to a situation that has kind of become a polarizing force or a weapon and that divides people. It's always something that's in operation. But I was wondering in the human society why it's hard to kind of manifest or demonstrate that. You see more often that people in their pursuit for goodness, whatever, how they define it, they end up becoming more judgmental or self-righteous or more dividing as opposed to more uniting.
Yeah, I think it's an excellent point. And I kind of wonder before religion, obviously the written word and the spoken word is why religion existed. I don't know how people would have interacted with each other before that kind of advanced language, but I imagine it would have looked a lot more like monkey troops because we're primates. And essentially the rules and morality and judging typically came down to territory and kind of access to mating and things like that. And I think to some extent we still have a lot of that that operates in our society, in our legal system. But we've sort of taken that and refined it to an extent that is really ridiculous and absurd. We can judge someone because of their hair cut or we can judge someone because their name or whatever. And that's sort of the arbitrary nature of our language is that we can associate things with anything. And so we can take something like judgmentalness and we can apply it to really anything: clothing, the way you talk, what color your skin is, how you do something, your laugh, your smile. And so it really is this completely arbitrary thing that people do because of language and the power of it. So I think then we have to really look at what's the function of being judgmental? What does it function to do for people?
I think at some level, to navigate the world, certain judgment is needed. Right? We have to kind of sometimes like yes or no or in other words, we have to make choices or make decisions. So to that extent, I think it serves a positive purpose. You can't just be totally organic and wishy-washy, right? You have to take action. But as you describe when we are getting into a situation, that judgment becomes very excessive. I guess what you're describing to me in terms of the haircut and use the power of language, it feels more to me like more like a pettiness, right? I don't know. It may serve a social function to make somebody who does that feel more superior. Right?
I'm better than this person that I'm judging.
Yeah, but also you can predict that if that thing starts to happen, there will be counteraction because the fact you are trying to show you are dominating your superior, then the other people will feel that way too. And no matter what the circumstance is, I think the kind of the natural reaction is I'm going to fight back, I'm going to dominate in one way or the other. If I cannot do it in a very obvious way, like through some of the institutions or societies, I will find other hidden ways. So that starts to perpetuate.
Yeah. And so what I'm hearing there again is this kind of pointing back to status, that the judgments kind of relate to status and trying to create status and obviously completely artificially and arbitrarily and obviously religions want to do that. Our religion is better than that religion. Ours is the one that's superior. And this is why, because we do this and they don't do that. And it's written here that it's this and all this kind of stuff, a lot of it comes down to status and trying to create status through these judgments and even kind of going back a little bit to what you're saying, we kind of had judgments to navigate the world and the environment. And I want to use there because I think you're really onto something, which is that we do have to be discerning. We do have to discern our environment and we do have to evaluate it. But then judgment is almost like discernment tied up in power and insecurity and all this kind of stuff all wrapped up together in a way that kind of perverts things. And when we think about the Dao, especially kind of tying it back to this chapter, that what Dao says is I'm not concerned with status. I'm not concerned with that sort of judgment and status. That doesn't interest me.
Can you elaborate a little bit more by what you mean by status? I imagine since the beginning of the human civilization, somewhere back in history, right, there this need, maybe a craving for status. I don't know, because we didn't live in that period of time. But by reading history, you sort of see very early on, like, I remember in some of the museums, right? I remember visiting one of the ancient kind of Chinese history museum. You see that the tombs of the poor people and rich people. For the rich people, you see all the jewelry. I mean, definitely the way they are buried. What's different so from that, you can see when they live, they have a different position in society. So I would imagine since Laozi's time, this consciousness of status. But I think now I see maybe status express in different kinds. And also I see that for somehow it's on a larger scale or magnified maybe by social media, magnified by the interconnectivity of our world.
Well, I think obviously status is a thing and it's a cultural aspect that we can measure and we can study. And obviously in our society, it's based upon wealth and more and more on fame. How many followers do I have? How many likes did I get? But we see the common theme in Dao is that the broader Dao isn't concerned with status. And so the metaphor that I'll use is how much Laozi writes about being like water, that water goes to the low places that other people won't go. That's an example of Dao saying, "I don't care about sitting in some high position of status. I want to go to the low places where other people won't go." The idea of the ocean being the most like Dao because it will allow thousands of rivers to flow into it and it doesn't restrict which ones can which ones can't. If there's kind of toxins in a river, the ocean still receives that river because it's depth and equanimity and all that just allows everything to flow into it. This isn't in the Daodejing, but I'll use the metaphor of a watering hole. You have a watering hole. And using water as this consistent metaphor for Dao and how unconcerned it is about status, a watering hole in Africa, there's going to be birds there and lions and elephants and hyenas and every animal there. That watering hole allows it to take from it. It doesn't care if you're the most powerful lion that can kill every other animal there or if you're a wounded vulture. It's available to you. It doesn't reject any of them. And this text has said over and over again how much it sees Dao as being like that. And so while status certainly exists in human nature, that's an aspect of human culture and something that doesn't represent this sort of status-free nature of Dao.
Right. So that leads to a question in the human culture, is it possible to free ourselves from status and live a life of the Dao? Is there maybe a deeper incentive to embrace the Dao mindset as opposed to a status-obsessed mindset?
Well, I think psychologically, for sure, I mean, just the way that people who are obsessed with status must be completely preoccupied with all kinds of things that would keep them from maybe living a more enjoyable existence. But I even just think about the history of humanity when we think about things like white supremacy or any kind of oppression. I mean, certainly white race isn't the only race that has a history of enslaving others and subjugating women. All people around the world and in all places throughout history, obviously African kings had slaves that they would sell to Europeans. And so it's not about a particular type of person. But what we can see is that throughout history, as we've worked toward more and more equality, equality for women, equality for everyone that benefits society, that oppression and kind of lording over other people hurts the oppressors and the oppressed. And so I think that from that perspective alone, that how can you genuinely have love in your heart if you have a slave or if you want to have all this power over people? And don't get me wrong, power in and of itself is not good or bad because even in Daodejing, it talks about there are going to be sort of dukes and princes and people who do have more status. But how is that power used? Is it used from a place of humility? Or is it used in a way again, does it put itself lower than the people that it has that power bestowed with that power or does it use it to kind of press down on them?
Well, I guess it depends on who has that power and how that person exercise the power. I was wondering the power or status it certainly has all these over the years or throughout history the negative consequences of misusing it. You can find a lot of examples right, throughout history. But I was wondering whether the fact that the power or the status gives certain individuals some kind of highs just like the biological chemical highs in some way help perpetuate. If it's all very negative and bad then people by their own nature should shy from it.
Yeah. If there wasn't some reward.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying is we certainly see the bad consequences of going too far but we also cannot deny the fact that a lot of people are pursuing it. Even maybe at the end of it, they start to realize the emptiness of it. But still a lot of people are pursuing it, are fighting for it. So how can we reconcile these two? Would that lead to a situation that maybe some people are more in tune with Dao and they see early on so these people, when they see early on, let's say if they see the real see the suffering of owning slaves right. Because they are in tune with that Dao they spontaneously and intuitively say that's not the way to go. But we just cannot demand everybody being the same. Because I feel like just like in nature, people who have different variety or even in their journey to their realization enlightenment some people are ahead of others, some people are maybe behind. But you cannot orchestrate and say we all should be the same in pursuit of that justice as an idea.
Right. Because that's its own type of coercion.
Yes. And hypocrisy sometimes.
And the Dao says that it doesn't assert itself that way that it doesn't seek its way of doing things. That it sort of follows something else.
It sort of feels like you cannot mandate behavior. Right. Let's all behave that same. It does allow people the space and the time to cultivate from the deep depth of their consciousness and let that conscious guide them toward a certain journey. It's much more freeing. But the fact that it's freeing and liberating doesn't mean it doesn't have a direction. Everybody can choose to do whatever they want.
And this is the part kind of going back to again not deciding this is a good person and this is a bad person.
Yeah. Like toward the end of this chapter, I think Laozi raised a good question. It seems like the ancients I would imagine he included the good people and bad people. Right. So the answer is because when you actively seek that Dao, you will be something good will happen. But if you sometimes you deviate from that Dao, you will be corrected so that you won't be adding to harm.
And what does that correction look like? What would be an example of that kind of showing up if we were going to ground that in an example of human existence? What might that look like?
Pains, sufferings, failures. That has different, I guess, faces. But that person who is in the middle of it know the best: dead end, loss. It just can be manifested in different things. It's something different than what that individual want to expect. They expect it will be different, something different. It will be against the person. I think that's the kind of process and then that person either can go even further or that person will mend his own or her own way for the benefit of its own survival or its own needs.
And for some reason this is where kind of that Daoist concept of moderation, which is sort of again, going back to where it doesn't necessarily have a moralistic code in Daoism there are these principles to kind of follow and then Daoism moderation is one of those. And so kind of going back to status and judgment, maybe status and judgment and discernment again, in moderation, kind of everything is okay, but it's just when things go to an extreme that Dao is going to correct us. Yeah. If I'm pursuing wealth well, obviously to a moderate extent, yeah, of course I need food and then I need a warm place. But if pursuing wealth becomes my singular focus and it's taken to an extreme, then that's where Dao will correct us. Maybe we get exhausted and we get sick because we're working 80 hours a week or our relationship with our partner and our children suffers because we're not there for them anymore and they don't know who we are and we don't know who they are and so they don't want to have anything to do with us.
Yeah, I think the sensitivity to that kind of situation probably varies from one person to the other. In other words, maybe some individuals see that lots of warning signs, they just rationalize it and justify what they are doing until they get another bigger signal. Right? But some people may misread a signal. They could be too cautious.
Yeah, well, yes. That's also not being moderate.
For example. That's their potential. They have a potential to make a lot of money. Right. They see the first sign of conflicts and they're uncomfortable with that conflict and they misread it as something like, say, oh, maybe Dao tells me, don't go ahead, don't go ahead. I guess that possibility exists. So we need to be guarded against that tendency, too. But I think more often is the other tendency. It's like there are many warning signs around us. We just decide to ignore them until there's no way out. I guess there's no how would you say you are on a point of no return. You can't recover. There's always a danger like that.
And this is where it becomes so confusing and trying to figure out how to make sense out of it. So the example that I'm thinking of during the Dark Ages when science and all these things were completely repressed and the church was very oppressive and told people how to think and people were very paranoid and superstitious and calling out the Blasphemers. If you're someone who makes the discovery that, hey, the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, and you start telling people and you start getting all these reactions, and people start beating you up and burning down your house, if we have this kind of framework of Dao kind of giving us signs, wouldn't we be saying, like, oh, Dao is telling me I'm wrong and I should stop doing this? I shouldn't be pursuing this anymore. Even though it's those type of discoveries and people being willing to ignore everything that society is telling them because society was wrong. That has led to us as a species gaining all of this understanding about the universe and people's place in it and subsequently medicine and all these things. If we use societal feedback as part of Dao giving us a message, then society's been wrong over and over and over and over and over again and obviously has done horrible things because of a mob mentality. And so that can't be Dao, right? Like we can't use the mob as our barometer of the Dao giving us signals. And so, really, where do these signals come from? We can't base it upon what society is telling us because society has been wrong over and over again.
Yeah. History has shown again and again those instances that you just mentioned. That's a great question. So a lot of times in the society, some institutional power or authorities, they may wear the coat of Dao, right? And they say I'm speaking for Dao. So you are not following Dao. So I think that requires discernment. At least I think now we have history references that happened before. I think we have the benefits if we really, like, pay attention to those history. At the same time, I would say we cannot exclude the possibility that some of the feedback from the Dao comes from society. So this is a very delicate situation to the extent we cannot blindly follow. If somebody say, hey, I'm Dao. And you cannot just say, oh, I give my power to whoever that person is. Right. So that's the one end. Because as I just said, historically, there are a lot of instances like that. But I would also say that we cannot let our selfish consciousness dominate that. So, in other words, in order to be discerning, we have also kind of look at ourselves and say, if our intent aligns with Dao. So I think it's almost like a combination, like external and internal. If we have a very noisy we sometimes we say, hey, I'm rebellious against society, I'm rebellious against the establishment. But if in you, in ourselves, there's that kind of internalized, let's say the shadow or using Jung, we will never truly, no Dao, if we do not recognize our own shadow, bring that together. But sadly. A lot of the people. Including the ones who are saying let's say we need to change our society fundamentally because some of the challengers or disruptors that we see today. Even at the apex of the power. I think he himself doesn't have that inner part to really discern what needs to be changed and to be a serving force or leading force of that and his own or her own shadow. That's the problem. I think the fact that many people follow that person, I think says something that that person at least to give voice to something, but it's incomplete because that person itself came from the current system. Right,
Sure. Yeah. Going back to what we were talking about,
I'm totally like sent by Dao to do that. No, he lived in a society, he lived in New York and with the riches he has a lot of unconsciousness or even collective unconsciousness that stands his own way of serving that role of correcting things.
And that's where we're kind of now playing in that realm of light and dark and Daoism in that the dark is in the light, the light is in the dark. Nothing is purely one thing or another, which ties into this chapter of there's nothing purely good or purely bad and there's good in bad people, there's bad in good people. And so let's treat them all. Let's not reject any of them. But at the same time, we're trying to speak to that part of them that isn't the shadow. We don't want to be driven by our shadow selves. And so obviously the person you're talking about is the current President. And if you're driven by your shadow self and you're using it for selfish purposes, you certainly can get people sort of in a mob mentality and kind of inflamed and get them to do things like the things that have happened in history, whether it's genocide or the Salem witch trials or again, sort of systemic racist laws suppressing the votes of people who aren't the dominant culture. And the key thing though is kind of when you're blind to your own shadow self. When you're blind to your own shadow self and haven't done that work. Which is obviously something that we do in therapy that we try to help people kind of identify because everyone's shadow self is a little different because it's based upon our own developmental history and the things that happen to us. But when you haven't done that work, when you haven't reflected inside and sort of sought to find out like, yeah, there's this part of me that's like a hurt little kid. And what will that hurt little kid do to try to get its needs met? But not in a way that's in harmony with everyone else who's around, who has a hurt little kid or a shadow self. And then you just have this sort of, like, very selfish, kind of dark way of manipulating the situation, manipulating people. And when you're talking about this person's psyche, Donald Trump psyche, kind of being a product of our culture in society I mean, a billionaire raised around the wealthy, raised around the rich. And also, at the same time, this deep, deep need to be kind of adored and coddled. And that when all of that is kind of present, that it's sort of then like darkness feeding on darkness or shadow selves that are all kind of like intermingling rather than that sort of integrated self coming out. So it's incomplete. We have incomplete selves sort of feeding on each other.
Yeah. I think let's give this person the benefit of doubt about the nobility of his cause. Right. I think his cause just because of so many people supporting him or voting for him. I think it's a popular one. It's a popular one. Let's just say it this way. And also it's a popular one, and it's also very huge undertaking. It requires a big surgery of the structure or infrastructure of this nation and society. Okay. The sad truth is, as you just mentioned, that his life hasn't prepared him. His life has prepared him maybe for some part of it. Part of it to be serving as that vocal voice. Right, as a challenger. But unfortunately, his life hasn't given him the sufficient preparation for this big undertaking. How do we know that over the three or four years, pretty much from that fight, that interaction, it's shown that he doesn't have, I think, some fundamentals, let's say the humility, the empathy. I think for such an undertaking, it needs a very radical change of behavior of that person. Right. Just think about Socrates. Think about Jesus. If they want to fundamentally change the paradigm of thinking, they themselves have to be willing to serve as a kind of, yield to the Dao and serve as a sacrifice. I don't think he's ready to do that. He's not willing to do that. That's why he can only achieve that much and then let history, let new forces come out and to find that people find that people and we don't know whether it's the next president if he is elected. I think even for that president, I think it's not perfect. But history is searching, is crying for leaders to do that. And that process is very painful.
And it makes sense. Then why this book of Daoism that has 81 chapters that such a significant portion of it is focused on government leaders and people who lead.
Yeah, because that time. Laozi, he lived in almost similar in parallel, if that person really existed. See, such a chaotic time period when everybody's fighting, and I think he's trying to search some kind of order, but the order not in a Confucius way, because his mind that Confucius way can be regimented and kind of become qualified to restrain everybody. Yeah. Dynamic power, but at the same time create order and peace for common people.
Just to spell out a little bit that the Confucian way has a lot more predefined roles and relationships, and how you behave is based upon your relationship to someone else, based upon their title or whether you're, like, older or younger. And it's very regimented that way.
Right. It's like an orange chart in the boxes. Okay, here's the submissive wife. Here is the loyal minister. I'm exaggerating, but I think that's kind of a solution to put everybody in a little box. Don't move too far.
This is who you can talk to. This is who you can't talk to, right?
Yeah, exactly. And I think that the fascinating part that we're studying. It is kind of a different way of thinking or different way of helping us understand how the universe is working well.
And that's where some of these questions come from, where it can be so confusing that's the appeal of Confucianism, all of the answers are within it. Like, what do I do? Well, are you the son? Well, then if you're the son, then this is what you do. Are you the father? If you're the father, this is what you do. prescripted. All the answers are within the.org chart. Where Daoism is more like it's flat. There isn't a hierarchy. There's not silos. It's more like a commune where everyone's trying to make this thing work, but no one person really has the answer or the authority and wisdom can kind of come from anywhere. It doesn't just come from this predefined role or relationship. And so it can be a lot more confusing. And searching for the answers can require a lot more. I think the word that I think is most appropriate sensitivity.
Yeah. Or intuition. I feel like some people will first reaction, they will say, oh, this thing is very mystical compared with the straight-forwardness of Confucius doctrine, this thing is very mystical. But I would say intuitive. And that intuition also say that in our society as a human species, different people have their intuition, are different. So there's a variation to that. But somehow, if the leader can sell, if we are fortunate enough to have a more intuitive leader like Sheng Ren (sage) and set some good example for the people, I think the collective consciousness may be able to evolve a little bit.
And this is where I have to throw this out there, because I think it entered my mind for some reason. But when the Charlottesville thing kind of happened, and there was obviously lots of anger and people died and all this was like a terrible moment in history. And Donald Trump came out and said there's good and bad people on both sides. He got so much I mean, he's still criticized for that. He's still sort of demonized for saying that. But isn't that actually sort of like when we think about this chapter and talking about trying to embrace everyone that there's not really good or bad people? Isn't what he said kind of like completely in line with this chapter?
I think in that instance, consciously or unconsciously, he may have uttered something that close to the reality. Right. I think how that saying is evolved in the total dynamics later on, get to the question why that observation wasn't embraced or said by other people. Do you see what I mean?
On the surface it sounds unifying, but because of the sensitive nature, it really wasn't a unifying message that something else needed to be said.
Or people, he doesn't have enough of a trust of the other side for people to see that as you see it as a more objective observation of things. I don't think he has gained the trust through his words and behavior yet. So people on the other side say what you are really saying. So the interpretation is like you are still defending
The white supremacist.
Yeah, that's what I see the problem. But if he is perceived and trusted by the other side even before he has worked, that earned him that trust, I think that saying would have been interpreted differently.
So basically it's because he hadn't been modest and humble and from that position of real servant leadership where he was sort of treating people on the left in a nice way. Obviously he would say such awful things about anyone who disagreed with him and used such vile language that it was hard to see that phrase, even though it's sort of aligned with this chapter, as sincere. And so it was the lack of sincerity that made it not work.
That can be one of the explanations. Yes.
Yeah, that makes sense. So there again, it's not just kind of saying I accept you, that it has to be sincere and that depth to it. Like, again, the ocean metaphor
Or like this chapter, say two things. You almost have to sit and be one with this. Right? You can send the wrong messages of all these horses, the jades. And at the same time you're saying like I'm embracing this style. If you are truly with this style, you have to sit quiet and be with it all the time. And I don't think he has the capacity to do that and other people don't interpret it that way. That's the kind of the sad part.
Yeah. The Twitter feed betrays sitting quietly with Dao.
Yeah. That congruence is what people, intuitively or consciously or unconsciously what they are looking for in the leader. He definitely has certain traits and bits and pieces in him that kind of give voice to a lot of the issues or even solutions. But again, the only thing we can pray is he is more in tune with the Dao, whatever he may not see, read this. But I guess, hopefully there's a star, a north star. He realizes,
Whoever is the president, whether it's Donald Trump for three months or four years and three months, or Joe Biden, that this chapter is if any of you are listening to our podcast that hasn't even been released yet, this chapter can be really important for your leadership. Well, David, again, just loved our time today. Appreciate that we were able to have our discussion.
Same here. See you next time.