[TTC Study] Chapter 5 of the Tao Teh Ching

[majc]

Actually I don't like that ending I'm changing it:

 

But words for this are useless...

They are better kept inside.

 

Thank you Tian****!

 

****Mod Action ****

 

Removed personal insult in accordance with Mod rules. Please avoid attacking other posters.

 

Thanks.

 

Mod Apech

 

**** Mod action ****

Edited December 8, 2010 by Apech
Removed offensive term

[Procurator]

I don't care about your explanations to do with funerals and needing to believe in afterlives and eternities. That's religious bullshit.

 

"The Chinese premodern state was built upon sacrifice," said Plutschow, "and no theory of Chinese statehood could ever be proposed without reference to sacrifice and sacrificial ideology."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080129-china-tomb_2.html

[Procurator]

 

And then 'Heaven and Earth use all things as straw dogs'? Could you try and force that to sound any more sinister?

At one complex of tombs in Henan Province, excavations have uncovered more than 1,200 sacrificial pits, most of which contain human victims. An archaeologist once told me that he had counted 60 different ways a person could be killed during a Shang ceremony. But he also reminded me that these were rituals, not murder and mayhem. From the Shang perspective, human sacrifice was simply part of a remarkably well organized system

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/01/chinese-afterlife/hessler-text/3

[majc]

bla bla bla, the world is evil etc. *identification of fucked up human behaviour from roughly the same time period*, *attempted connection of cherry picked historical example to the TTC via the ambiguity of straw dog metaphor*. Rinse, repeat.

 

Yeah because I mean, the world works like that... Lao Tzu writes a few words down and the whole country just gets to burnin' people.

 

Are you serious?

[majc]

And are we just going to brush over how bent out of shape and obviously forced your translation is? Government is one part of life. No matter how obsessive you are about it personally, that's not going to change.

Edited December 8, 2010 by majc

[Procurator]

 

You say your version contains practical advice? And yet you end on 'guard your empty center'... Even allowing for your translator-addition of the word empty, this weighs in at a solid 6 or 7 out of 10 on my supersonically-unclear-instruction-o-meter.

http://mdcc.com.tw/html/english/html04/page07.htm

 

024. The key to practicing Dao is to hold the "center," which is the same as the teaching in the Doctrine of the Mean, which states: "When the feelings of joy, anger, sorrow, and delight are perceived but not displayed, it is called the 'center'."

 

324. Uphold your true self and empty your mind, and the power of karma will not affect you.

[Marblehead]

Hi All,

 

Just stopping by to state that I believe that 'holding to the center' (this includes the concept of moderation) is a very important concept and worthy of much discussion.

 

I'm outa' here.

[majc]

http://mdcc.com.tw/html/english/html04/page07.htm

 

024. The key to practicing Dao is to hold the "center," which is the same as the teaching in the Doctrine of the Mean, which states: "When the feelings of joy, anger, sorrow, and delight are perceived but not displayed, it is called the 'center'."

 

324. Uphold your true self and empty your mind, and the power of karma will not affect you.

Stop hiding behind links and just address the conversation directly. Who are those people? What on earth makes them an authority? And more than that, a doctrinal authority? Really?

 

 

002. Becoming a Buddha is the goal of our practice of the Dao, so establish a strong will when you practice Dao. If ever your ambition should deviate from this goal, your results will fall off the mark.

 

003. To attain the perfect enlightenment is the goal of Dao practice. Therefore you must not have many ambitions or interests when you go forward toward this goal.

 

004. To practice Dao is to keep a tranquil mind at all times. If you do so, then wherever you go, you are the Buddha himself because a Buddha can make himself at easy in any situation. When you free yourself from worldly cares, release comes instantly.

lol, lol and lol.

 

Following the Tao is following the Tao. It is not obeying some Buddhist-infused doctrinal system of instructions you found on the internet. It is not exclusively "aiming for the mean", "aiming at being easy", "aiming at being a buddha", "aiming at freeing yourself from worldly cares".

 

Read line #1.

 

Your link looks an awful lot like a Tao that is being told. And it looks an awful lot like a (for some reason Buddhist?) doctrine of "correct practice".

 

So instead of distracting with (yet another) link to some rubbish which seems ominous and therefore makes it seem like you have a point, how about just answering straight?

[majc]

Okay, let's allow that "guarding your center" is correct and is really Lao Tzu's doctrine of the mean or Middle Way. It's an uncharacteristically imprecise definition, but fine. What about the rest? You have deviated from the original text in key areas without explanation. So why the warped translation?

 

So far your answer has been "because I just know. Only a very select few can understand. It's not for everyone. *additional generic appeal to intrigue over apparently mysterious and privileged information*"

 

Someone like you with such a profound understanding of the way things are can surely see why I find this transparent audience-persuading technique about as convincing as the Jesus I saw burned into that midwestern American housewife's toast.

[Marblehead]

Someone like you with such a profound understanding of the way things are can surely see why I find this transparent audience-persuading technique about as convincing as the Jesus I saw burned into that midwestern American housewife's toast.

 

Hehehe. You get funny when you get serious.

[majc]

Hehehe. You get funny when you get serious.

I find it very difficult to stay serious for any extended period of time. I think it's a birth defect.

[Marblehead]

I find it very difficult to stay serious for any extended period of time. I think it's a birth defect.

 

That's great. It's very healthy, both physical & mental, to laugh.

[Procurator]

Okay, let's allow that "guarding your center" is correct and is really Lao Tzu's doctrine of the mean or Middle Way. It's an uncharacteristically imprecise definition, but fine. What about the rest? You have deviated from the original text in key areas without explanation. So why the warped translation?

 

 

if by the " original text" you mean translators groupthink then yes:))

 

i have made myself clear on the rest above.

 

please re-read my explanation of the 3partite story arc above and why REN in one sentence means kernel and in other- humane-ness.

 

your tenacity is admirable but for this chapter i have provided a comprehensive explanation already and nothing will be gained from reapeating it. if you need explanations on other chapters u r welcome to post yr questions to me in those threads and i will reply cause this discussion amuses me.

 

u just mentioned Line 1. Tao that cant be told...again that is not what is in the original. just sayin')

Edited December 8, 2010 by TianShi

[dawei]

Hi Majc,

 

I would like to comment on some of these points since I think you raise some good issues. So sharing from my point of view.

 

First of all, how do you justify the invention of a dual meaning for 仁? 'Not having a kernel' and 'not humane'. Two different meanings are not suggested by the text at all. Either nature is not humane, or the 'ruler' doesn't have a kernel. (And where exactly does 'ruler' come from anyway?)

I prefer to keep parallel where Lao Zi is, but once in a rare moment I find the context calls for dual meaning. 仁 carries both meanings (whether I would personally use the dual here, I am not sure but both words are permissible although I am not saying contextual).

 

Where does "ruler" come from? Where 'Sheng Ren' exists (Sage) is understood by some as "Sage-Ruler". Since in ancient china one did NOT write explicitly against the ruler for death was a ready response, there was some innuendo approaches used.

 

And then 'Heaven and Earth use all things as straw dogs'? Could you try and force that to sound any more sinister? It's not sinister, it's neutral - 'use' would be 用 not 為.

Wei is action, as you know. But this is often better defined by the action in context. If the action is one of "use", then I am all for saying "use". Not that I agree or not here, just a general principle I apply.

 

This sentence actually reads: 天地 Heaven and Earth 不 do not 仁 prefer*. 以 As if 萬物 the 10,000 things 為 exist as 芻狗 straw dogs.

And the next line reads: 聖人 The wise man 不 does not 仁 prefer. 以 As if 百姓 the 100 [distinctions] 為 exist as 芻狗 straw dogs.

 

*this character is literally a human picking one over another.

Can you provide a link for 仁 as "prefer"?

 

The difficulty for me is not seeing this in reproach of Confucian ideas; 仁 is the KERNEL (seems a self-imposed pun) of the Confucian virtues; This is the mother of all virtues. SO it would be quite playful to use the word "Kernel", IMO.

 

Personally, I am re-thinking this opening because of our discussions...

Heaven and earth are not [for institutionalized virtues called] benevolent

 

This would be a direct opposition to Confucius core virtue, 仁.

 

 

You say your version contains practical advice? And yet you end on 'guard your empty center'... Even allowing for your translator-addition of the word empty, this weighs in at a solid 6 or 7 out of 10 on my supersonically-unclear-instruction-o-meter.

 

多 Many 言 words 數 add up to 窮 poorness [of understanding]. 不如 Better to 守 keep [it] 中 inside.

 

Or, in better English: "But words for this are useless. No amount of words here could present a balanced view."

I see the personally application as not focusing on the mouth (many words) but the inside (stomach of empty space); ergo, Dao Yin practice (or Qigong in modern day). I think a sage of old would know this.

 

Hey, we don't have to agree but I like the issues you raise.

Edited December 9, 2010 by dawei

[majc]

u just mentioned Line 1. Tao that cant be told...again that is not what is in the original. just sayin')

Obviously not. I know that. It's a convenient English rendering, and you know that too... Clearly you're set on just finding more and more ways to stall and appeal to the gallery in order to make it seem like you have some sort of profound understanding - instead of simply being direct and discussing it.

 

But if you prefer: 道 A Tao 可 which can be/has been 道 [condensed into some structured abstraction/conceptual form and pointed to as "Tao"] 非 is not 常 [THE] 道 Tao. (Which simplifies into the much more readable: The Tao that can be told is not the Tao.)

 

So anyway... you're defending this Buddhist "correct" way of "Doing Daoism" link you pointed to, yeah...? You stand by it?

[Procurator]

[majc]

HA! Awesome post. There's no need to take this discussion any further.

[Marblehead]

yes, you see buddhism IS daoism IS confucianism.

 

I must butt in here and state that the three are different philosophies. Taoism is Taoism, Confucianism is Confusianism, and Buddhism is Buddhism.

 

They are different because their roots are in different soil.

 

Yes, they are similar as they each suggest paths to walk during one's journey through life. The journey is the same, the paths are different.

 

Let's please not confuse the philosophies.

[majc]

No further... except to respond to dawei.

 

I prefer to keep parallel where Lao Zi is, but once in a rare moment I find the context calls for dual meaning.

Me too. But I don't see a need for dual meaning!

 

It seems pretty damn obvious that the bit which is changing in the parallel comparison is not 仁. What changes - i.e. what is being compared - is {Nature} / {the 10,000 things} and {wise man} / {100 "families"}. The relationship between these two pairs of things is being compared in parallel - both are said to be non-REN.

 

I'm suggesting that this makes sense if REN is rendered into English as precisely what the character looks like - a human picking (or even just viewing) one over another (one). A man choosing between two. So non-REN = non-preferring. Nature doesn't contrast different scenarios and imagine that one is better and therefore "pick" that one as its course of action. Division of reality into good and bad events and outcomes does not happen. Nature is entirely devoid of this kind of cognitive activity.

 

... and so is the wise man when it comes to the 100 "families".

 

I am suggesting a deviation from the literal here: from "families" to distinctions/delineations. Note: families are both delineations (i.e. ancestral/family lines) and distinctions (i.e. the Smith family) so this is not a massive stretch.

 

 

Where does "ruler" come from? Where 'Sheng Ren' exists (Sage) is understood by some as "Sage-Ruler". Since in ancient china one did NOT write explicitly against the ruler for death was a ready response, there was some innuendo approaches used.

Well yeah, I know we can search out and find a reason why. But that's working backwards. That's working from an assumption: (The TTC is about govt., therefore it must mean 'ruler'), to a historical explanation for why that's true (because you were only allowed to write nice things about the ruler).

 

This way of reasoning works like horoscopes. It's way too open to false positives.

 

And on a side note, would someone wise enough to write the TTC really fear an emperor? Or even care about dying that much? (Especially if the world was as terrible as it's being described... frankly, it almost sounds like death would be welcome.)

 

 

Wei is action, as you know. But this is often better defined by the action in context. If the action is one of "use", then I am all for saying "use". Not that I agree or not here, just a general principle I apply.

I take wei as action (noun) too, i.e. activity.

 

 

Can you provide a link for 仁 as "prefer"?

Nope.

 

 

The difficulty for me is not seeing this in reproach of Confucian ideas; 仁 is the KERNEL (seems a self-imposed pun) of the Confucian virtues; This is the mother of all virtues. SO it would be quite playful to use the word "Kernel", IMO.

It would be much more playful to completely demystify it and turn it into something so normal, so literal and so plain as "preferring one thing over another".

 

 

^^^ This would be a direct opposition to Confucius core virtue, 仁.

Yes it would.

 

 

I see the personally application as not focusing on the mouth (many words) but the inside (stomach of empty space); ergo, Dao Yin practice (or Qigong in modern day). I think a sage of old would know this.

"Guarding the center" is suggestive imagery, for sure.

Edited December 9, 2010 by majc

[majc]

..its not that simple dear majc..no siree, its just not.

It never is when someone has a point to prove.

 

And one last thing: Lao Tzu wasn't a Taoist. He was a monkey with a language, just like me and you.

[rene]

deep bows to all three of you and the next time i suggest you guys hush or move plz tell me to stfu. thanks!

[dawei]

It seems pretty damn obvious that the bit which is changing in the parallel comparison is not 仁. What changes - i.e. what is being compared - is {Nature} / {the 10,000 things} and {wise man} / {100 "families"}. The relationship between these two pairs of things is being compared in parallel - both are said to be non-REN.

 

I'm suggesting that this makes sense if REN is rendered into English as precisely what the character looks like - a human picking (or even just viewing) one over another (one). A man choosing between two. So non-REN = non-preferring. Nature doesn't contrast different scenarios and imagine that one is better and therefore "pick" that one as its course of action. Division of reality into good and bad events and outcomes does not happen. Nature is entirely devoid of this kind of cognitive activity.

I see the character simply as it's two parts suggest, to me: People & 2. Not in terms of picking, but togetherness, like 'two heads are better than one'. Anyways, thanks for the explanation, now I understand your use.

[Mal]

Heaven and Earth could not be called benevolent,

letting all things emerge or perish by themselves;

Sages could not be named benevolent,

letting all people live and die by themselves.

Does it not resemble a bellows for the space between Heaven and Earth?

While vast and vacuous, it is inexhaustible,

The more it is in motion, the more things it gives rise to.

Much talk is doomed to fall short of perfection.

It is not better than cherishing the emptiness in the Dantian

.

[rene]

 

 

Heaven and Earth could not be called benevolent,

letting all things emerge or perish by themselves;

Sages could not be named benevolent,

letting all people live and die by themselves.

Does it not resemble a bellows for the space between Heaven and Earth?

While vast and vacuous, it is inexhaustible,

The more it is in motion, the more things it gives rise to.

Much talk is doomed to fall short of perfection.

It is not better than cherishing the emptiness in the Dantian

 

 

Isn't this the same fella you put up in the translators thread? Nice!

[Mal]

Yes, I quite like his perspective/slant on the TTC