dawei

I looked up the original quote and it is not virtue but it is one of the Confucian virtues called Ren (benevolence): 唯 - Only, Yes 仁 - benevolence, human-kindness 者 - the person spoken of 能 - able, capable 好 - good 人，- person 能 - able, capable 惡 - hate, loath, fear, slander 人 - person Lau translates this as: The Master said, 'it is only the benevolent man who is capable of liking or disliking other men.' I will note that Laozi says that that Heaven and Earth, and the Sage is 不仁 (Not Benevolent) but treats all things as straw dogs. I take it as a more literal rebuke of Confucian thought as "Not REN". Ren-benevolence was one of the 3 key virtues of Confucianism.

I didn't see it a redundant but I now see your point; one's perspective is relative to themselves. As to things objectively true but our thoughts are not objective is a very pointed way of explaining these sections. I would not of brought in 'objective truth' as I find that very hard to objectively prove except that it is usually bound within its current system. Meaning: I would bet money the sun raises tomorrow in the east [as objective truth] but if it did not then how do I interpret this? Is this a problem in the orbit of the sun-earth, a problem in physics, a problem in gravity, or simply a problem in my rule-based-bound thinking on what we think is 'objective truth'. Your idea is quite interesting to ponder. If I look at the idea of 'standard' or 'rule', this is the word "Chang" which in the Laozi was used to replace "Heng". As a result, Chang took on meanings of Heng and lost its original meaning of standard. Your giving me good stuff to chew on.

I think we are seeing more relative perspectivism; Even the previous section (selling hats and Yao's visit to the mountain) are showing us that our perceptions bias our attitude towards useful vs useless. We make judgments based how we limit. In the case of the gourd, there were certain limits or standard uses which limited Hui to seeing beyond the limits he places on things. Hui and the man selling hats were caught in their own design. On the other hand, Yao overcame the limitations he was placing on himself.

If we get beyond word-for-word translations... we find there is research on such issues... The rites of li are not rites in the Western conception of religious custom. Rather, li embodies the entire spectrum of interaction with humans, nature, and even material objects. Confucius includes in his discussions of li such diverse topics as learning, tea drinking, titles, mourning, and governance. Xunzi cites "songs and laughter, weeping and lamentation...rice and millet, fish and meat...the wearing of ceremonial caps, embroidered robes, and patterned silks, or of fasting clothes and mourning clothes...spacious rooms and secluded halls, soft mats, couches and benches" (Watson 1969) as vital parts of the fabric of li. --- Duke Ai of Lu asked Confucius, saying, 'Is not the dress, Master, which you wear that of the scholar?' Confucius replied, 'When I was little, I lived in Lu, and wore the garment with large sleeves; when I was grown up, I lived in Song, and was then capped with the kang-fu cap. --- Confucius said: "To make ceremonial hats with hemp is in accordance with the rites. THese days, everyone has his ceremonial hats made of silk. --- Included in the idea of ceremony were the clothes that you were to wear, the insignias on the clothing or your carriage, the style of hat worn on special occasions, where you could and could not walk, and even the colors you were allowed to use in clothing and decoration.

I see what you getting at but at this time, as you can see in my other thread, I am avoiding Yin-Yang associations too much in the Laozi right now. One could look at DDJ51 to see how Dao and De are juxtaposed to dealing with the 10,000... although that chapter is not in the Guodian. Wang Bi's notes show four stages for existence: 1. Dao > life 2. De > nourishment 3. Matter > form 4. Environment > Completeness Wang Bi treats the last line as a meaning I often harp on: Xuan De as "original De"... not as mysterious De as so many translate. Once one starts using Xuan as 'original', other insight will follow in various chapters. Original is reminiscent of a meaning in the direction of Heng

We're finally at the transformation of Yao and nobody has any words to share... At least Stosh is honest... Useful Men without use of hats... a useless man without the use of a country to rule...

Sorry... between me, you and Hendricks... I still got the last laugh... I wasn't using his poor translation to make a misguided point.

We may have to simply disagree... or maybe we'll find we're closer than we think on some level... While De may inspire, empower, enliven, embolden humans to virtuous (or virtuous acts, practices, ways of life), to me that does not mean De is virtue nor proper to translate as virtue. And De is not only for humans to be affected by; the entire universe is affected by De... So if we're going to develop a theory of De from the DDJ, this can't be left out. JMO.

Nicely said Stosh ! Here is the brief if anyone wants it: http://www.daoistcenter.org/Daoism_Misconceptions.pdf

If there was ever a reason to not take Hendrick's translations too seriously, it would be this example. He is a good researcher but he has no insight. This is about impartiality; Showing no fixed ambition or preference...

I think three-peats and four-peats mean it is time to move on... or past that time...

I am rope-a-doping and not sure how much longer I will last The microcosm idea is as old as Fu Xi and the first act to 'raise one's head to observe the sky and lower one's head to observe the earth'. They didn't pen anything; they followed the cosmic cycles of the power of nature, and understood that this power is but a shadow of the source. Their experience is what others have come to experience. The source is within us, if we can get to it. Dao is a guide; De is a guide. That does not mean Dao is virtue. It is the blueprint; De is the power grid. We harness what we can. One doesn't need De to be moral... a puritanical parent can do it better. If De were responsible for morals then it should be responsible for skill, and knowledge and any human endeavor... but we don't consider all these aspects. Why? Because to Confucius the highest ideal is human-kindness; the Junzi (perfect man). He was a humanistic moralist through and through. (and i don't mean that disparagingly... it just is). I have lots of reservations about most DDJ chapters and tend to give more weight to the earlier text and other ancient texts; but in the end, it is all a wash to an inner knowing/seeing... Some things I cannot explain but others, like Deci Belle, can answer better. Is nature virtuous? Following nature is not an attempt to win the goal medal of morality or virtue, it is "bu ren" (Not human-kindness seeking). I don't disagree that the acts appear to not differ but, but that is the external view. The internal views are wholly different. This is an exercise is dropping the external to approach the internal... I would suggest as Deci said, of no-separation. (I may not be representing that view as stated). But, that is why I originally asked: If Dao is replaced with De, does that have the same result, feeling, response?

very powerful and nicely stated

I think part of the challenge in this thread is your making assertions to refute ideas that others appeared to make but that was not what was said... So it is hard to clear up the bits of confusion going on. You appear to say several times that there is a link between DE and moral virtue; there is probably a link between DE and EVERYTHING imaginable in human existence but that is not mean it is DE. I think the base issue (for me, maybe for Rene or MH and others possibly who hold this kind of position I will relate) is that De is the power of Dao doing its thing. As part of ancient chinese belief in not only cosmology but cosmogony, Dao doing its thing, means humans doing our thing. Now, from a Confucian or moral or ethical point of view, by analogy, this is as you said: De is to Dao as virtue is to Man. But just because Dao has an underlying power grid to effect the ten thousand arising and returning, I do not use that word to equate to a human trying to be morally better in life in order to energize himself; even if the goal is to 'practice to be morally good', it is a purely human endeavor without Dao. I can go to church if I want morals to connect to the spiritual. The issue for me (and maybe others) is whether this is the meaning of Laozi's De (and Dao). For me, it is not... and the explanation requires either an experience or maybe research into the idea. I don't think simply talking about it will convince someone. It is similar to a discussion on Qi. Someone with a cursory understanding of Qi (even pre-natal vs post-natal concepts) is vastly different than someone whose experience is in Qi healing or transmission. I provide Vincent Shen as an author. And references Ames's work "Putting Te back into Taoism". There is another by Ivanhoe in "Religious and Philosophical Aspects of Laozi". From this last I will comment. In the Laozi we see a related but significantly distinct consequence of de (related to Confucius, a section just covered). Ivanhoe goes on to explain how Confucius takes the moral high road; Laozi places himself below, like a valley (although Ivanhoe uses DDJ28 to support this, also see Guodian DDJ41 where De is compared to a low valley; later text changes the words and meaning). He also points out that for Confucius, virtue is for humans, but for Laozi, DE extends across the entire world; everything can be affected by DE. I will bring in another ancient text which has more similarities to Laozi then most realize... Shen Dao said: Heaven has light and does not care that men are in darkness; Earth is fruitful, and does not care that men are impoverished; the sage (聖) has DE (德) and does not care that men are imperiled. This sounds like DDJ5... DE is devoid of moral or ethical considerations on some level... as is the Great Way...

I think this is where we clearly disagree... from a Laoist perspective. I do agree that Confucians felt this way and used this analogy to there hijack the character for their own use and the common folks simply followed that formula; De as Virtue. But it is not the meaning used by LZ. JMO.

Like MH, I can't make the leap of De/Te of Tao to virtue of Man. My short reason is that if one replaces Dao with De, do we still feel that Dao equates to virtue? What we're missing is the third line which says: The circumstances of the moment complete them. That is the key; the environment and the human influence which manifests what capacity / power originates from the blueprint we call Dao. BTW: Ch. 8, 10, and 51 are not in the oldest, Guodian Text. So the development of thought has already changed similar to the insertion of Yin Yang and dualism grows stronger in each later text.

I thought you would. And I don't think they are that far off but their point of view is simply different about the same idea. it is almost like, at times LZ has a camera and explains the still frame; ZZ has a video and emphasizes the entire picture as a flowing whole.

I don't really disagree but it may be a matter it is not within his framework; maybe he simply puts it aside as not his point or the goal of the actor's in his stories. it may not be achievable to ZZ because there is no such place/thing to achieve. He doesn't even hold a difference between life and death; He keeps one foot in life and one foot in death and focuses on the whole body, so [immortality] 'to never die' would not make sense. His belief in constant transformation shows his focus on the whole and not any part/phase. What seems obvious is his lack of using Xian, the typical word for immortality. I think it only occurs in the Outer Chapters. Liezi who repeats the section just discussed uses the word Xian where Zhuangzi did not. Zhuangzi uses other words instead which shows a closer relationship to the real possibility of simultaneously having one foot in the physical and one foot in the spiritual [Dao].

I said that earlier... so your just agreeing with me and not the quote as much. thank you.

MH and Stosh have stated they don't believe in the immortal angle... Stosh said he was interested to 'find accord with other views'... meaning along that line of thinking. I provided an example towards their belief... they both acknowledged as much afterwards. Read more carefully. And re-read. Your the only one disagreeing here.

The word used by ZZ is Shen Ren and immortal is more often found as Xian Ren or Xian Sheng... but the attributes used are often common and blur the lines and the actual word may be less important on some level. Anyways, Holmes Welch may want to toss a bone to you and MH on this point: Holmes Welch (1957:88–97) analyzed the beginnings of Daoism, sometime around the 4th-3rd centuries BCE, from four separate streams: philosophical Daoism (Laozi, Zhuangzi, Liezi), a "hygiene school" that cultivated longevity through breathing exercises and yoga, Chinese alchemy and Five Elements philosophy, and those who sought Penglai and elixirs of "immortality". This is what he concludes about xian. It is my own opinion, therefore, that though the word hsien, or Immortal, is used by Chuang Tzu and Lieh Tzu, and though they attributed to their idealized individual the magic powers that were attributed to the hsien in later times, nonetheless the hsien ideal was something they did not believe in—either that it was possible or that it was good. The magic powers are allegories and hyperboles for the natural powers that come from identification with Tao. Spiritualized Man, P'eng-lai, and the rest are features of a genre which is meant to entertain, disturb, and exalt us, not to be taken as literal hagiography. Then and later, the philosophical Taoists were distinguished from all other schools of Taoism by their rejection of the pursuit of immortality. As we shall see, their books came to be adopted as scriptural authority by those who did practice magic and seek to become immortal. But it was their misunderstanding of philosophical Taoism that was the reason they adopted it. (Welch 1957:95)

Maybe 'immortals' is the wrong word... given the context... if one is reading it openly... go figure I think spirit-like or holy man is fine. We get enough physical references to know this is not an immortal being discussed... or at least it is something still in this realm.

I went back to read Stosh's comments... I do agree with what he is saying and it may not be whether 'compassion' exists in ZZ (as comparatively less than LZ or simply absence) but rather there is no need to focus on boundaries and limitations based on our perceptions. If one is thinking 'compasion' then one is dwelling on 'worldly affairs'; ZZ appears to want one to raise above this and that.

Ok... so you want a piece of the MMA fish now... I am not sure I follow MH as he seems to contradict himself saying ZZ is not talking about immortals but then ends with saying he is talking about immortals. But I don't see my point 4 as uniquely making a point but one of many attributes that ZZ about such a 'holy men' who could do this or that but simply do not concern himself with 'such affairs' of the world. The section mentions the 'defect in the intelligence'; Intelligence can be deaf and blind too... So went Lien Shu's chastisement. It closes with references to 'rectify the world' and occupying oneself with the world; The point is there is nothing to rectify nor occupy... For me... it is a continuation of transformation... ZZ continues to play this card as the whole idea of rectifying the world started with the mention of Yao... and Yao was brought back in directly and indirectly. ZZ still wants us to transform our own minds as the spirit-like man has done. "The perfect man is pure spirit. He does not feel the heat of the burning deserts nor the cold of the vast waters. He is not frightened by the lightning which can split open mountains, nor by the storms that can whip upon the seas. Such a person rides the clouds and mounts upon the sun and moon, and wanders across and beyond the four seas. Neither death nor life concern him, nor is he interested in what is good or bad!" —Chuang Tzu

Your stuck in singular words instead of the context of the paragraph. Get outside words and get to the whole section. You've twisted your point to nonsense at this point. I think all your angst about the english language would benefit from writing classes. I think you would actually find a lot useful towards your comprehensive and translation work.