[TTC Study] Chapter 5 of the Tao Teh Ching

[Procurator]

Man "is" a one of the 10,000 things. In Qigong we might say, "focus on self before you focus on man". That is the essence.

 

Hi dawei

 

thanks for the answer but please forgive me for not understanding it. putting aside for now what observing means..

 

My question was about practical results. Observing the man who might be one of things - what concrete good will come out of it?

[dawei]

My question was about practical results. Observing the man who might be one of things - what concrete good will come out of it?

Man is part of the 10,000 things... so focusing on any of that is focusing on the manifestation of the generative process which we ascribe as Dao. To me, that is part of the 'return' or at least the connection.

 

Maybe you can give me your thoughts. Thanks!

[Marblehead]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just playin' with ya.

Looking forward to the conversation. (-:

 

Well, I expected to get some disagreement from my comment.

 

But let's remember, anytime something is said about the Sage or the Emperor we are talking about Te, not Tao. And even most things said about Tao are void of much use in 'our manifest life'.

 

Yes, it is true, "Tao gave birth to ...". But then Te takes over.

[Marblehead]

[Marblehead]

Agree. De is the efficacy found as Dao arises.

 

And I suggest that Te (rooted in Tzujan) is the driving force that causes the rising of Tao.

[Marblehead]

[Procurator]

Strangely, Wang Bi comments it as "straw" and "dogs" which seems grossly wrong.

Xiang'er too so may be he was on to something

[Procurator]

Man is part of the 10,000 things... so focusing on any of that is focusing on the manifestation of the generative process which we ascribe as Dao. To me, that is part of the 'return' or at least the connection.

 

Maybe you can give me your thoughts. Thanks!

 

Well let start with straw dogs

 

"Straw dogs were made by the Ancients before funerals. Straw was tied into shapes resembling dogs. The dog was considered to be a faithful animal who would fight to the death to protect its master, which was probably why it was chosen for the shape of these objects. The straw dogs were kept under a brocade cloth in the temple, where they were sanctified and cleansed. They were carried along with the corpse at the funeral parade, since it was believed that the straw dogs would attract and conquer any bad spirits which might try to inhabit the body of the dead person. After the procession, the straw dogs were burned in a bonfire, or were smashed and discarded as useless." - Your Dao De Jing, Nina Correa p.247

 

Here the key word is FUNERAL, for an archaic psyche it is always a rite of renewal, a cycle of life. The passage talks about cyclical action of bellows. WHY? To let us know how and why Heaven and Earth are inexhaustible. They are both CYCLICAL and EMPTY, that is how.

 

Now we can correctly understand the passage and translate it as it was meant - practical:

 

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。

Heaven and Earth do not have a kernel (REN) and use all things as straw dogs

The ruler is not humane (REN) and uses even nobility as straw dogs

Heaven and Earth space, is it not like bellows?

Empty but inexhaustible, cycles and evermore produces.

Rather than be exhausted by verbality, its better to guard your EMPTY centre.

 

So the passage ends with practical precept on emptiness within, while cyclicality within is left for another passage.

[majc]

Do you not find it odd that space and bellows have absolutely nothing to do with the idea of treating people like pieces of shit to be abused and discarded as the reader/psychofuhrer sees fit?

 

Straw dogs could mean something as simple as "they don't stand up of their own accord." And therefore, laying any judgment of superiority/inferiority on things (first part of sentence) is as dopey as judging a straw dog to be stupid or lazy.

 

Obviously that doesn't fit as neatly with a preconception of the TTC as a guide to ruthless dictatorship, but it does fit better with the rest of the chapter, and with the broader theme of the TTC as a whole. It's difficult to resist the pun of "grasping at straws" for the way your interpretation pivots almost entirely around the ambiguity of this single metaphor.

[dawei]

Xiang'er too so may be he was on to something

I had completely missed Wagner's notes (to Wang Bi's commentary) in the back which traces the various manuscripts handling of this phrase 'straw dogs'. It seems the Xiang'er, Heshang Gong, and Wang Bi all favor "grass and dogs". What becomes clear is that there are two different stories of it's origin:

1. The one is the ceremonial 'straw dog' as you relate in the next post by Nina, and which has it's origin in the Zhuang Zi.

2. The Xiang'er follows another more ancient story based on Huang Di placing 'straw dogs' above doorways as a symbol of something worthless; a reference to evil doers as opposed to those who are good. The Xiang'er apparently talks a bit about this distinction and how Heaven and Earth (and the Sage) treat such people.

 

Wagner also mentions Zun commentary to the Lao Zi and shows how all four basically interpret the passage differently. What is interesting is that the religious slant of Xiang'er and the metaphysical slant of Wang Bi use the same phrase, differently. But, according to Wagner and the Xiang'er commentary, the Xiang'er appears to suggest the first use as 'straw dogs' to reflect the good and the second as 'straw and dogs' to reflect the evil (those worthless, no better than straw and dogs), consistent with the Huang Di story.

 

I only know of (but do not own) the Early Daoist Scriptures by Bokenkamp to contain a translation of the Xiang'er. Are you aware of any others?

 

P.S. I have now put together why you said 'lao zi is a god'... your reference to the Xiang'er makes that clear (as well as your name).

Edited December 6, 2010 by dawei

[dawei]

Do you not find it odd that space and bellows have absolutely nothing to do with the idea of treating people like pieces of shit to be abused and discarded as the reader/psychofuhrer sees fit?

 

Straw dogs could mean something as simple as "they don't stand up of their own accord." And therefore, laying any judgment of superiority/inferiority on things (first part of sentence) is as dopey as judging a straw dog to be stupid or lazy.

To try to clarify the ceremonial use of straw dogs;

 

the straw dogs serve a purpose, a temporal one. From the quote one sees the idea of protection twice (protect the master; attract and conquer any bad spirits of the dead). Reading Zhuang Zi further reveals that the reason they are burned up is because if one were to keep them around, or dare to sleep under one, they would likely get bad (evil) dreams. To prevent the spread of this [evil], they are burned. He relates a story giving an example of bad things happening to a person as similar to this. It seems to me that there is a spiritual concept going on here (being a ritual ceremony). Whether spiritual or energy (possibly akin to how we say there is rebellious Qi), the straw dog seems to act a collection field for the evil [spirits or energy] and so must be discarded after they have served their purpose.

 

This is a picture of temporal existence. It also reminds me of an ancient phrase like to 'die and not decay'. Although I have never seen it used in relation to the straw dog story, I see that the straw dogs could be used to assist this.

 

I'm not trying to justify anyone's translation; just want to clarify some issues about my understanding and research into the straw dogs.

[rene]

Questions for the learned ones -

 

Is there a chinese character for Virtue? (the societal moralistic kind of virtue)

 

Is it a different character than the one used for De?

 

If it's the same character, is this (yet another) case of LZ choosing one (commonly used) character to point at something else? (like he did with Dao=path/method/way and Dao=Great Dao)

 

Thanks!

[Marblehead]

Questions for the learned ones -

 

Is there a chinese character for Virtue? (the societal moralistic kind of virtue)

 

Is it a different character than the one used for De?

 

If it's the same character, is this (yet another) case of LZ choosing one (commonly used) character to point at something else? (like he did with Dao=path/method/way and Dao=Great Dao)

 

Thanks!

 

Great question Rene. I too will be watching for a reply.

[Aaron]

Hello Rene,

 

I am not a learned one, I was actually looking forward to seeing who considered themselves to be one, alas no one took the bait.

 

Anyways after I did some research on the internet what I've found is that the concept of Te/De is defined differently dependent on the philosophy in which it's being discussed. In Taoism philosophy Te refers to inner power, integrity, and inherent character, while Confucians seemed to refer to it as moral character, virtue, and morality. To make it even more confusing Buddhists seemed to think of Te as either gunya (quality, virtue) or punya (merit, virtuous deeds).

 

When Lao Tzu refers to high and low Te, he could be referring to the High Te as the Taoist view and Low Te as the Confucian view. (Buddhism wasn't around china at that time, so I don't think it would've been discussed).

 

The thing to keep in mind is that Wang Bi, as a Confucian, was probably more concerned with integrating the two different philosophies, than he was expressing the ideas of the original texts.

 

I started a thread about this in the main area, if only because I think this is drifting well off of the topic of Chapter 5. I'm not telling anyone to stop talking about it here, obviously there's a need, but it might make it easier for those who come later and are trying to learn more about what Chapter 5 is saying, if we try to stick to what it's actually talking about.

 

Dawei,

 

I mentioned the "Straw Dogs" and "Straw and dogs" comment several pages ago, you must have missed it.

 

Aaron

[rene]

Hello Rene,

 

I am not a learned one, I was actually looking forward to seeing who considered themselves to be one, alas no one took the bait.

 

Aaron, it wasn't bait and they were genuine questions.

 

Surely you don't have a problem with someone being learned.

 

Most here have more knowledge than I do on these things; I rely on the kindness and generosity of others in sharing what they've learned - as you seem to be so freely doing.

[Aaron]

Aaron, it wasn't bait and they were genuine questions.

 

Surely you don't have a problem with someone being learned.

 

Most here have more knowledge than I do on these things; I rely on the kindness and generosity of others in sharing what they've learned - as you seem to be so freely doing.

 

 

I was only kidding around Rene... I was poking at the whole "be done with learning" thing, which most people take out of context.

 

I've talked about this with Dawei, which is one of the reasons I brought up the different views as they relate to different philosophies. In regards to discussing the character, I'll wait for him or Taishi to respond.

 

Wikipedia has a very detailed article regarding the topic of your question, including the problem with translating the word. The sources that are cited, seem reliable, so you might be able to find your answer there as well.

 

Aaron

Edited December 6, 2010 by Twinner

[dawei]

Questions for the learned ones -

 

Is there a chinese character for Virtue? (the societal moralistic kind of virtue)

 

Is it a different character than the one used for De?

 

If it's the same character, is this (yet another) case of LZ choosing one (commonly used) character to point at something else? (like he did with Dao=path/method/way and Dao=Great Dao)

How about us 'still learning one'

 

I think that 'De' is the most commonly accepted character. It was used by Confucius too.

 

As chinese depend on 'actions' to truly convey one's nature (Xing), there are other words which are frequently translated as virtue in context; Confucius relied heavily on the ideas of 'Ren' (human-heartedness), 'Yi' (righteousness), 'Li' (rituals) and these could be too. The 'virtuous man' is 'Jun Zi'.

 

Here is what wiki says about 'De': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_(Chinese)

 

De is a key concept in Chinese philosophy, usually translated

1. "inherent character; inner power; integrity" in Taoism,

2. "moral character; virtue; morality" in Confucianism and other contexts, and "quality; virtue" (guna) or

3. "merit; virtuous deeds" (punya) in Chinese Buddhism.

 

The oldest possible form seems to be an eye looking straight along a road; possibly intuit, and later a ten (perfect) was added above and a heart below, and later a 'one' is added (oneness or perfectly of one heart?).

 

Modern character: 德

 

 

I mentioned 'nature' (Xing) in regards to Confucius. I know you are chopping at the bit to read that PDF link I left yesterday , but in there Shen says that for Lao Zi 'De' is the replacement for 'Xing' (the nature of things); LZ never uses Xing. Xing is often tied to one's nature (Confucius said it was originally good; Xun Zi said it was bad). But for Confucius this can be (should be) perfected to become the 'Jun Zi'; only our emotions can get in the way of that. How perfected? Ren, Yi, Li (observing/embodying these actions or ways).

 

Note Chapter 38, Lao's construction is the other way around. Ren, Yi, and Li are not built up but come about by loss of Dao > Loss of De, etc:

Dao > De > Ren > Yi > Li.

Edited December 6, 2010 by dawei

[Brian]

Rene,

 

I was just pulling your leg, however the IE 9 Beta browser does not allow me to add in the emoticons.

 

Regards,

 

Allan

 

Sure it does!

[Procurator]

 

 

I only know of (but do not own) the Early Daoist Scriptures by Bokenkamp to contain a translation of the Xiang'er. Are you aware of any others?

 

no i dont but then again my POV is that DDJ is a quite clear text in itself if one understands its paradigm. unfortunately the translators dont, and that is why they they completely miss the narrative arc of each individual passage. which (due to contextuality of wenyan) in turn leads to inventing phrases that are not in the oroginal. there fore volumes r written on "acting without acting" - a nonexsistent notion in the original.

 

or "Heaven and Earth are not benevolent"- they r uuuhing and aahhing...man thats. like, deep man! except that is not what the te xt says. at all.

[Procurator]

Do you not find it odd that space and bellows have absolutely nothing to do with the idea of treating people like pieces of shit to be abused and discarded as the reader/psychofuhrer sees fit?

the passage is crystal clear on what the bellows has to do with ppl, so no i dont. u on the other hand present no supporting argument.also you together with Carrea are wrong on "discarding", what u think of as discarding is actually the most imoportant use - the rite of renewal both of the ruler's dynasty and the Heaven and Earth.

 

Straw dogs could mean

sorry Sir. i am not in business of could would or should. i am in business of the way things ARE.

[Marblehead]

Hello Rene,

 

I am not a learned one, ...

 

Aaron

 

Hi Aaron,

 

I already responded in the other thread but I just wanted to tell you here that I do agree with what you said in this post. I will make all future comments in the other thread.

[Apech]

 

 

Now we can correctly understand the passage and translate it as it was meant - practical:

 

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。

Heaven and Earth do not have a kernel (REN) and use all things as straw dogs

The ruler is not humane (REN) and uses even nobility as straw dogs

Heaven and Earth space, is it not like bellows?

Empty but inexhaustible, cycles and evermore produces.

Rather than be exhausted by verbality, its better to guard your EMPTY centre.

 

So the passage ends with practical precept on emptiness within, while cyclicality within is left for another passage.

 

I'm a bit confused and don't read Chinese. Are the two readings of REN justified by the text? i.e 'kernel' and 'humane'. If not why the difference? Why is it 'nobility' and not 'people' who are straw dogs?

[majc]

sorry Sir. i am not in business of could would or should. i am in business of the way things ARE.

And you've got the way things are all wrapped up, right?

 

Ok I believe you. In no uncertain terms then - forget the exact Chinese characters in Laozi's 2500 year old expression - please explain in plain English, pure and simple, the practical advice you believe this chapter is giving the reader.

[Marblehead]

Oh, My!! Is there an interpretation forthcoming?

[dawei]

I will clarify a few things but I'm not interpreting or justifying...

 

Here is a good translator to copy/paste any characters to (well, as good as it gets. Most often a single english word does not do justice to a single chinese character):

 

Translation of 仁

 

At most sites, you will find some combination of the following words for REN:

Benevolence, mercy, humaneness, humanity, sensitive, kernel

 

BAI XING: I mentioned in my opening post concerning this word. Throughout ancient history, only those in [a position of] power really had the right to a surname; common people were allowed them later. Therefore it divided how people translate it as 'common people' or 'nobility'. Certainly the modern use is as common people. Some opt out and use something very literal like the 100 Surnames or 100 Families.

Edited December 6, 2010 by dawei