[TTC Study] Chapter 5 of the Tao Teh Ching

[Marblehead]

Ok. I am outvoted. I'll third the silent treatment approach

 

Hehehe.

[sree]

Chapter 5

天地不仁，

以萬物為芻狗。

聖人不仁，

以百姓為芻狗。

天地之間，

其猶橐籥乎﹖

虛而不屈，

動而愈出。

多言數窮，

不如守中。

 

Chapter 5

01. Heaven and Earth have no mercy,

02. Treating all things as straw dogs.

03. Sages have no mercy,

04. Treating people as straw dogs.

05. In-between-Heaven-and-Earth

06. Is like a wind box,

07. Vacuous but inexhaustible,

08. When in motion, it produces more yet.

09. Excessive words accelerate failure.

10. Prefer to stay with vacuous quietness.

 

Mr Chi, you said that the first four lines above tell us to be impartial. Leave it alone, let it be the way the photographer did instead of saving the calf. Take life as is, the way the video is taken as is. Is this what you mean?

 

[ChiDragon]

No, this is not what I mean. I have already stated that human is an entity separated from Nature as far as how Lao Tze defined. Animals are part of nature. Humans have to deal with Nature. Thus human dealing with animals is dealing with part of Nature.

 

Please do not compare human to animals. Maybe some people in some societies are animals.

Edited December 18, 2012 by ChiDragon

[sree]

Please do not compare human to animals. Maybe some people in some societies are animals.

 

Mr Chi, what is the meaning of 不仁 as you see it in the following lines?

 

1. 天地不仁，

2. 以萬物為芻狗。

3. 聖人不仁，

4. 以百姓為芻狗。

 

Humans and animals are part of the 萬物.

And we people are the 百姓.

All are the 芻狗.

The Tao Te Ching makes no distinction between people and other animals.

Non-inteference has universal impartial application.

Why do you let the calf die and save the child?

[Marblehead]

The Tao Te Ching makes no distinction between people and other animals.

Non-inteference has universal impartial application.

 

I just wanted to repeat this. Yes, it is a difficult concept to understand and some will refuse it and argue against it.

 

Why do you let the calf die and save the child?

 

What a question!

 

Save the calf and the lion may die of starvation.

 

Save the child and that child may grow up to be a Hitler.

 

Is there a "right" thing to do?

[XieJia]

Yet, one could;

Save the calf, feed the child to the lion.

Save the child, feed the calf to the lion.

Kill the lion and save the child and the calf.

Sacrifice oneself to the lion and save the child and the calf.

 

Like Mr. MH said is there a "right" thing to do?

 

The fact is that eventually;

The calf dies, the child dies and the lion dies

 

What dies first or later and what does what is the workings of the Dao.

[sree]

Yet, one could;

Save the calf, feed the child to the lion.

Save the child, feed the calf to the lion.

Kill the lion and save the child and the calf.

Sacrifice oneself to the lion and save the child and the calf.

 

Why do you limit yourself to these outcomes?

 

Like Mr. MH said is there a "right" thing to do?

 

A short answer would be yes. But you need to think out of the box.

 

The fact is that eventually;

The calf dies, the child dies and the lion dies

 

True but without being brutalized.

 

What dies first or later and what does what is the workings of the Dao.

 

You get a "D" for this answer.

[sree]

I just wanted to repeat this. Yes, it is a difficult concept to understand and some will refuse it and argue against it.

 

I think the difficulty comes from our notion of non-interference. We just can't seem to get this right.

 

When I saw the picture of that cop kneeling down to help that barefooted homeless guy in Times Square, New York, I would have "let the calf die". Same goes for the killing in Syria: let the calves die". You don't agree? Then let's argue for or against it. Let's find out how out of whack we are in the wisdom department.

 

What a question!

 

Save the calf and the lion may die of starvation.

 

Save the child and that child may grow up to be a Hitler.

 

Is there a "right" thing to do?

 

Of course, there is; otherwise, we won't be studying the Tao Te Ching, this road map out of Hell.

 

I don't think it is a question saving the calf or child.

I think it is a question of the set up.

Why is life or nature set up this way?

I don't think this is an unanswerable question.

[ChiDragon]

Mr Chi, what is the meaning of 不仁 as you see it in the following lines?

 

1. 天地不仁，

2. 以萬物為芻狗。

3. 聖人不仁，

4. 以百姓為芻狗。

 

Humans and animals are part of the 萬物.

And we people are the 百姓.

All are the 芻狗.

The Tao Te Ching makes no distinction between people and other animals.

Non-inteference has universal impartial application.

Why do you let the calf die and save the child?

 

1. 不仁: no mercy; have no mercy

 

2. Humans and animals are part of the 萬物......????

If that is the case, then why did Lao Tze separated them in lines 2 and 4. In line 4, he could have said the same as in line 2; but why did he separated the 百姓 from 萬物. As I had said before, please keep this in mind. The TaoTe Ching has four entities: Human, Earth, Heaven, and Tao. With this indication, I don't thinking human was included in the 萬物.

 

As far as the TTC was concern, Human was treated as an outsider looking into the universe, so, human can follow the principles of Nature. Lao Tze was setting up examples by the observations of Nature and using those examples as basic principles for Human to be followed. There is a phrase somewhere in the TTC suggesting that human to be blended in with Nature. 天人合一, Heave and Human are to be integrated as one. Isn't this suggesting that Human is not part of Nature, to begin with, in Lao Tze's thinking.

 

3. Why do you let the calf die and save the child?

Humans have their own way to deal with themselves. Human did not let the calf die; but the lion ate the calf was beyond human control. By definition, anything that is beyond human control was considered to be a "natural cause" or " the course of Nature".

 

BTW We are not straw dogs but only was treated impartially as straw dogs.

Edited December 18, 2012 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

True but without being brutalized.

And you get a "D" for this answer.

 

[Marblehead]

Why is life or nature set up this way?

I don't think this is an unanswerable question.

Please let me know if you find an answer to the question, Okay?

[Protector]

But I... oh screw you guys, I'll go watch ponies or something

[XieJia]

lol, we'll see Sree.

 

One ways in which we could change the world;

is to change ourselves.

To try to change everything without

changing oneself is like lifting ones' hand against the skies.

Same goes with trying to change something's nature without seeing one's own.

It will only bring that one, more suffering.

 

The Dao is already impartial and will always remains that way.

 

Goodluck

[sree]

1. 不仁: no mercy; have no mercy

 

Mercy refers to forgiveness or compassion on the part of those in power over victims in an ethical context.

天地 (Heaven and Earth) is not an entity exercising control over 萬物 (the ten thousand things).

Therefore, 不仁 in this regard may not refer to a lack of mercy because it is inapplicable to 天地, a non-person.

 

2. Humans and animals are part of the 萬物......????

If that is the case, then why did Lao Tze separated them in lines 2 and 4. In line 4, he could have said the same as in line 2; but why did he separated the 百姓 from 萬物. As I had said before, please keep this in mind. The TaoTe Ching has four entities: Human, Earth, Heaven, and Tao. With this indication, I don't thinking human was included in the 萬物.

 

Ok, I agree that your argument has merit. Man is not included in 萬物 (ten thousand things) because Man is more than that. This only holds true when Man is life itself and not manifesting as a human individual called Gia Fu-Feng living out a personal life in California.

 

As far as the TTC was concern, Human was treated as an outsider looking into the universe, so, human can follow the principles of Nature. Lao Tze was setting up examples by the observations of Nature and using those examples as basic principles for Human to be followed. There is a phrase somewhere in the TTC suggesting that human to be blended in with Nature. 天人合一, Heave and Human are to be integrated as one. Isn't this suggesting that Human is not part of Nature, to begin with, in Lao Tze's thinking.

 

This is pretty heavy stuff. I am impressed with the reach of your scholastic grasp. Jesus did say, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". Here was not an individual human person but Man and Heaven integrated as one.

 

But Mr Chi, how come we are not integrated as one but broken up into bits and pieces?

 

3. Why do you let the calf die and save the child?

Humans have their own way to deal with themselves. Human did not let the calf die; but the lion ate the calf was beyond human control. By definition, anything that is beyond human control was considered to be a "natural cause" or " the course of Nature".

 

Actualy, it is not beyond human control. If we want to do it, we could capture all lions and feed them vegetarian pellets. But I get what you mean. And I still have issue with the way life or nature is set up. The brutality and selfishness in society stem from that set up. Accepting the brutal way of life of the lion as natural and rejecting the brutality in society as something to be stamped out doesn't seem right.

 

BTW We are not straw dogs but only was treated impartially as straw dogs.

 

What is your interpretation of 芻狗 (straw dog)? Is it an effigy like the kind burned at Chinese funerals?

[sree]

Please let me know if you find an answer to the question, Okay?

 

Chinese philosophical inquiry is not a western scientific quest for knowledge that culminates in the publication of verifiable proof for peer review. This is why there was only one Buddha. The rest are just monks.

[flowing hands]

Chinese philosophical inquiry is not a western scientific quest for knowledge that culminates in the publication of verifiable proof for peer review. This is why there was only one Buddha. The rest are just monks.

 

No there are many buddha's, one of my teachers is one (Chi Tien Da Shen)!

[Marblehead]

Chinese philosophical inquiry is not a western scientific quest for knowledge that culminates in the publication of verifiable proof for peer review. This is why there was only one Buddha. The rest are just monks.

But there will ever be only one me as well (thank goodness!).

 

It is my opinion that the TTC teaches the importance of observing 'cause and effect'. That is what Western science is all about. No differences.

 

When we see an event (effect) we oftentimes wonder why (cause) this event happened.

 

I think that this idea that Western and Eastern thought is somehow two opposites of a duality is seriously flawed. We all are humans with the same questions. It is only that our various cultures lead uw toward different answers. Is one answer better than another? I suppose that would depend on the question.

 

Personally, I think that Chuang Tzu was in line with Western inquiry. He was always looking at 'cause and effect'. Sure, many of his answers (he didn't always establish an answer) were different than what a Western scientist working for NASA would have found. But if we consider both answers, find a medium, and form a generalized answer I think we would be pretty close to the truth.

[Marblehead]

No there are many buddha's, one of my teachers is one (Chi Tien Da Shen)!

Hehehe. Yeah, those guys get to reincarnate.

[ChiDragon]

Mercy refers to forgiveness or compassion on the part of those in power over victims in an ethical context.

天地 (Heaven and Earth) is not an entity exercising control over 萬物 (the ten thousand things).

Therefore, 不仁 in this regard may not refer to a lack of mercy because it is inapplicable to 天地, a non-person.

 

Heaven provide sun shine and rain for all things(萬物); and Earth provide shelter for all things. Earth rotates to provide the four seasons for farming to help humans to survive. Thus Heaven and Earth are exercising control the existence over all things.

 

This is pretty heavy stuff. I am impressed with the reach of your scholastic grasp. Jesus did say, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". Here was not an individual human person but Man and Heaven integrated as one.

 

But Mr Chi, how come we are not integrated as one but broken up into bits and pieces?

 

That was only the way suggested by LaoTze. However, people have the right not to follow his advice.

 

 

Actually, it is not beyond human control. If we want to do it, we could capture all lions and feed them vegetarian pellets. But I get what you mean. And I still have issue with the way life or nature is set up. The brutality and selfishness in society stem from that set up. Accepting the brutal way of life of the lion as natural and rejecting the brutality in society as something to be stamped out doesn't seem right.

 

We must look into this issue philosophically without any personal bias. If you read Chapter Five closely, then you probably would have second thought on this. LaoTze asked us to be Wu Wei by following the course of Nature with no interruption. Therefore, lions are wild animals was born free to be roamed in the wilderness. Besides, lions are scavengers rather than vegetarians, don't you think you have violated their natural habitat and interfered with Nature....???

 

What is your interpretation of 芻狗 (straw dog)? Is it an effigy like the kind burned at Chinese funerals?

 

LaoTze picked the straw dogs as impartial for a specific reason. The ancients use straw dogs to worship their deities. The straw dogs are only significant to them, at the time, when they were placed on the altar for worshiping. After that, it will be stored in storage, discarded, stepped on, or burnt. What LaoTze was suggesting is to let things be the way they are suppose to be and offer no special favor.

 

Let's go back to the first four lines.

1. 天地不仁，

2. 以萬物為芻狗。

 

1. Heaven and Earth have no mercy.

2. Treats all things as straw dogs.

 

The metaphor here was:

When heaven strikes with lightning, it strikes whenever and wherever to whatever. It will not pick a specific place nor a specific person to strike. When it rains, heaven will drop it wherever randomly.

 

When there was a flood on Earth, the flood will go through anything. Nature does not care who or what was in its path. Everything will be destroyed in her path. Indeed, the term 不仁(no mercy) reveals its true meaning, here, as being impartial.

 

3. 聖人不仁，

4. 以百姓為芻狗。

 

3. Sage(ruler) has no mercy.

4. Treats all people as straw dogs.

 

The sage here was referred to someone who has the ability to serve the people with impartial justice. Let the people live the way that they wanted to be. Do not restrict their freedom. Do not levy heavy tax to burden them. Do not place them in a hard labor camp if they were good at farming.

 

The first two lines was an example of the way of Nature which was sat up by LoaTze for human to follow. Lines 3 and 4 are what the human was doing exactly as the example was suggested in lines 1 and 2.

Edited December 19, 2012 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

I don't view man as separate from nature; nor simply one of four entities. This makes it a bit arbitrary to the reading as if reading a story alone.

 

Man is a microcosm of the universe; Heaven and Earth are a microcosm for polar energies (Yin and Yang). Everything in the manifest world is but a transformation of the unmanifest through the process of Dao.

 

if one views these issues more from a transformation point of view then they are like saying there are many animals but they are all animals. They manifest differently in shape, ability, habitat, etc.

 

From a micro point of view, we can dissect some issues and talk about man specifically but I don't think the macro point of view is they are separate.

 

As to "Straw Dogs": The Xiang'er manuscript reveals that this originates with the Yellow emperor (Huang Di) and was nothing to do with ritual / burial issues... only later did some change it's meaning and use to that. Bokenhamp deals with this in his translation in Early Daoist Scriptures.

[sree]

LaoTze picked the straw dogs as impartial for a specific reason. The ancients use straw dogs to worship their deities. The straw dogs are only significant to them, at the time, when they were placed on the altar for worshiping. After that, it will be stored in storage, discarded, stepped on, or burnt. What LaoTze was suggesting is to let things be the way they are suppose to be and offer no special favor.

 

Mr Chi, what do you think of this:

 

Su Ch'e commentary on this verse explains: "Heaven and Earth are not partial. They do not kill living things out of cruelty or give them birth out of kindness. We do the same when we make straw dogs to use in sacrifices. We dress them up and put them on the altar, but not because we love them. And when the ceremony is over, we throw them into the street, but not because we hate them. (Wikipedia)

 

Let's go back to the first four lines.

1. 天地不仁，

2. 以萬物為芻狗。

 

1. Heaven and Earth have no mercy.

2. Treats all things as straw dogs.

 

The metaphor here was:

When heaven strikes with lightning, it strikes whenever and wherever to whatever. It will not pick a specific place nor a specific person to strike. When it rains, heaven will drop it wherever randomly.

 

When there was a flood on Earth, the flood will go through anything. Nature does not care who or what was in its path. Everything will be destroyed in her path. Indeed, the term 不仁(no mercy) reveals its true meaning, here, as being impartial.

 

3. 聖人不仁，

4. 以百姓為芻狗。

 

3. Sage(ruler) has no mercy.

4. Treats all people as straw dogs.

 

The sage here was referred to someone who has the ability to serve the people with impartial justice. Let the people live the way that they wanted to be. Do not restrict their freedom. Do not levy heavy tax to burden them. Do not place them in a hard labor camp if they were good at farming.

 

The first two lines was an example of the way of Nature which was sat up by LoaTze for human to follow. Lines 3 and 4 are what the human was doing exactly as the example was suggested in lines 1 and 2.

 

Chapter 5 seems to be pointing to our sentimental delusions. They shape our perceptions to our detriment in social relationships.

 

I agree that there is question of disaffection on the part of the lion in attacking the calf but the act is still cruel. My objection to the way nature is set up is on account of the pain and terror that the calf has to suffer. What is the point to this?

 

Protecting ourselves from pain and terror is a reasonable impulse. There is no sentiment here. We have bodies vulnerable to disease and injury. We are subject to random and deadly lightning strikes not to mention earthquakes and hurricanes. What is the point to that?

[Stosh]

In Su Ch'e

most of the response to your post , you already have

Id be surprised if Su Ch'e could align words well enough to somehow 'explain into impartiality'

the answer you might be trying to render.

because

The expectation of a 'point' is yours

the idea that there is 'cruelty' is yours

and though you are entitled to have them

they arent the province of the great Tao

In my opinion , Its more a Buddhist or Christian perspective

 

You and I can see cruelty thats part of our nature- understanding -perspective

and various personages can lend a view as to where people stand regarding

stuff like that , because we can have empathy or sympathy , and cruelty can feed back

into our selves in what may be a negative manner ( as we may see it )

But the existance of the sentiments is in the tao of men , not the stars.

 

To ask what the point of cruelty and suffering is , one should consider

what is the meaning of having a point ?

Edited December 20, 2012 by Stosh

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Seems I never linked an earlier discussion about the lines regarding straw dogs to this thread. Some analysis of the sinograms there which took sort of an indirect route to the original post that the lines meant that the Sage sees through hierarchical titles or lack thereof when considering appropriate action.

[dawei]

To ask what the point of cruelty and suffering is , one should consider

what is the meaning of having a point ?

Good point

 

And I would take it one step further and ask: What is the meaning of having a point of view?

 

As our point of view is limited so we only see a part and not the whole when we ask such questions.

 

Every system has some 'vulnerability', so why would anything manifest be an exception to this rule... otherwise all we are really seeking is some sort of perfection. Then we would have to ask, what is the point of having perfection?

 

IMO, this is the cycle and trap of dualistic thought/thinking.

[sree]

To ask what the point of cruelty and suffering is , one should consider

what is the meaning of having a point ?

 

If you look at the state of our dog-eat-dog society, it consistently reflects Mother Nature's law of survival of the fittest.

There is no meaning in having a point in either case. You shoot your mother and you sell your daughter in order to survive.

I have no problem with that if we embrace this honestly.

 

My criticism is directed at your hypocrisy, your pre-occupation with the Tao Te Ching.

What is the point to that?

Lions have no qualms about cruelty and they don't study the Tao Te Ching.

Why do you?