[TTC Study] Chapter 5 of the Tao Teh Ching

[ChiDragon]

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)

 

 

 

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?

 

The main point of Chapter Five was to be impartial and do away with sentiments; and accept the way it is. That's NATURE. Period.

 

If you are reading this Chapter with your sentimental feeling, then you are trying not to understand nor accepting the concept of Wu Wei.

 

"Heaven and Earth are not partial. They do not kill living things out of cruelty or give them birth out of kindness."

 

Do you see this is a man made statement. The words "cruelty" and "kindness" are human descriptive words. However, Nature has no such words, so to speak. Nature do give birth and kill for no reason. But, hey, that's Nature; let's accept it as is.

Edited December 20, 2012 by ChiDragon

[sree]

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

 

You and I have different worldviews which I am trying to reconcile.

I am sure there are many buddhas in your world which is as fascinating as the worlds of other spiritualistic belief systems.

It is strange that you and I have derived such fundamentally diverse understanding of the Tao Te Ching.

While you see a realm of buddhas and immortals, I see nothing more than a scholastic commentary on practical life.

 

Actually, I don't believe that there ever was a Buddha or a Jesus. They are the stuff of compelling stories that argue for a meaning in life. Chapter 5 says there is no meaning at all. No Buddha, no Jesus, Nothing.

[sree]

The main point of Chapter Five was to be impartial and do away with sentiments; and accept the way it is. That's NATURE. Period.

 

I hear you, Mr Chi. But why do people who study the Tao Te Ching cling to sentiments?

 

If you are reading this Chapter with your sentimental feeling, then you are trying not to understand nor accepting the concept of Wu Wei.

 

Do we apply Wu Wei only to animals in the wild but not to how we conduct ourselves in society and with family?

 

"Heaven and Earth are not partial. They do not kill living things out of cruelty or give them birth out of kindness."

 

Do you see this is a man made statement. The words "cruelty" and "kindness" are human descriptive words. However, Nature has no such words, so to speak. Nature do give birth and kill for no reason. But, hey, that's Nature; let's accept it as is.

 

Ok, I accept it as it is because you say that is the Way (Tao) for Nature.

What about us in society? What is our Way (Tao) as 天人合一 ?

Edited December 20, 2012 by sree

[ChiDragon]

I hear you, Mr Chi. But why do people who study the Tao Te Ching cling to sentiments?

 

It is because they are still humans which they did not read deeply into the Tao Te Ching. They cannot unlearn or unprogram themselves from what they had learnt before.

 

 

Do we apply Wu Wei only to animals in the wild but not to how we conduct ourselves in society and with family?

 

No, the whole concept of Wu Wei was learnt from Nature and apply to ourselves in society. That was the whole purpose of the Tao Te Ching. Thus that is why Lao Tze wrote the TTC.

 

 

Ok, I accept it as it is because you say that is the Way (Tao) for Nature.

What about us in society? What is our Way (Tao) as 天人合一 ?

 

Our way as 天人合一 are dealing with the four seasons, eating the foods and breathing the air that Nature provides.

Edited December 20, 2012 by ChiDragon

[sree]

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

 

That was the Buddha story which is like a fairy tale. To be one of a kind has a narcissitic appeal that incites us to ape the ideal which is a blueprint. Consequently, we all inevitably end up as identical monks. It is therefore not surprising that you believe that you are unique. Individualism is also a fairy tale. It inspires you to be special just because your nose is not as fat as mine.

 

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.

 

Where in the Tao Te Ching teaches the importance of observing 'cause and effect'?

 

I think that this idea that Western and Eastern thought is somehow two opposites of a duality is seriously flawed.

 

Chinese philosophy is not the opposite pole of western science. The two are fundamentally different approaches in the understanding of life. Additonally, Chinese philosophy is not Eastern thought. It is a class by itself and cannot be lumped together with the philosophy of India and the Middle East.

 

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.

 

At the cultural level of practical living, people are nothing more than cattle in separate pens. Their cultural differences have no fundamental significance. Philosophical wisdom is something else. Just because we are all apes doesn't mean that the answers chimps come up with are merely because they can't ask the same questions as us. Western science has also inquired into the origin of life. It's the same question dealt with in the Tao Te Ching. One peered into the heavens through powerful telescopes for his answer while the other looked within.

 

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.

 

You think so? Which western medical doctor would ever think of dealing with an ailing kidney by pricking the patient's toe?

Do you think US hospitals will ever staff up their emergency rooms with Taoist shamans?

Edited December 20, 2012 by sree

[Marblehead]

Decided to get frisky with me, did you? Hehehe. Let's see how I do.

 

That was the Buddha story which is like a fairy tale. To be one of a kind has a narcissitic appeal that incites us to ape the ideal which is a blueprint. Consequently, we all inevitably end up as identical monks. It is therefore not surprising that you believe that you are unique. Individualism is also a fairy tale. It inspires you to be special just because your nose is not as fat as mine.

 

No, the fact that there will ever be only one me did not come from the Buddha. It is my understanding of how the universe works. Just like there are never two identical snow flakes. It is impossible (Yes I will brave using this word) for two identical births to have identical experiences; different mothers or at least different birth dates or times. Yes, even nose size is one of the things that make people different. Even identical twins are different by many degrees.

 

Where in the Tao Te Ching teaches the importance of observing 'cause and effect'?

 

Robert Henricks' translation, Chapter 1

 

5. Therefore, those constantly without desires, by this means will perceive its subtlety.

6. Those constantly with desires, by this means will see only that which they yearn for and seek.

 

That, Sir, is 'cause and effect'. Need I post more examples?

 

Chinese philosophy is not the opposite pole of western science. The two are fundamentally different approaches in the understanding of life. Additonally, Chinese philosophy is not Eastern thought. It is a class by itself and cannot be lumped together with the philosophy of India and the Middle East.

 

I will accept that although that wasn't my argument.

 

At the cultural level of practical living, people are nothing more than cattle in separate pens. Their cultural differences have no fundamental significance. Philosophical wisdom is something else. Just because we are all apes doesn't mean that the answers chimps come up with are merely because they can't ask the same questions as us. Western science has also inquired into the origin of life. It's the same question dealt with in the Tao Te Ching. One peered into the heavens through powerful telescopes for his answer while the other looked within.

 

Don't you be trying to put me in a pen! I am not a herd animal.

 

And I look to nature to understand the orgin of life.

 

And I will still suggest that after our basic needs are satisfied we will look for answers to metaphysical questions and this is the beginning of philosophy and religion. I doubt if a chimp ever wonders if it should become a Christian or a Buddhist.

 

You think so? Which western medical doctor would ever think of dealing with an ailing kidney by pricking the patient's toe?

Do you think US hospitals will ever staff up their emergency rooms with Taoist shamans?

 

Well, a good friend of mine was referred to an acupuncturist to deal with leg pain that Western medicine could do nothing for here in my small town in Northeast Florida. And she said that it helped a lot.

 

And I know that a lot of hospitals are involved in whole-body healing techniques and they will use whatever resource they believe will help the patient. I am sure that if a patient in one of those facilities requested a Taoist Shaman they would do their best to find one.

 

How'd I do?

[Brian]

<snip>

How'd I do?

 

<thumbs-up>

[sree]

Mr Chi, could you be kind enough to post, in your usual manner you do with the Tao Te Ching, the Chuang Tze Chapter that Marblehead cited as Chapter 1? I am not familiar with the format of western translations. My Chinese version has Inner and Outer Chapters.

 

Thank you for your help.

[Stosh]

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?

 

Im not promoting what I or you consider cruelty as a thing to promote

, all Im saying is that such sentiment is in the minds of men

you me etc

It doesnt mean that you cant be nice to calves anyway

It doesnt mean you cant eat meat

It doesnt mean that you cant judge others as cruel

it doesnt mean that you cant judge yourself as cruel

It just means, that to my view ,there is no cosmic beneficiary to bestow validation on any particular point of view.

The Tao could be considered as the perspective of all perpectives and therefore -with no partiality to having any one thing happen or be -over another... it is impartial.

You and I have a single point perspective , we have 'druthers' and we are therefore partial,

being partial, we supply the beneficiary required ,for there to be a point -in having things be a certain way.

 

Some look at Laos work and see it as discussing 'virtue' in a traditional sense which assumes that there is a standpoint to say what is good and bad with some validating perspective. And so one digs and digs and all that one can find is that the view is self serving OR one ends up with a God that has opinions and desires like we do.

For example one "should" let nature take a course of its own.

You can if you want to

but there is no spanking to expect ,(other than the ramifications which follow the action).

 

Seriously , lets say you spend your life doing all the lousiest things you can imagine.

The sun won't stop shining on you , gravity won't let go ,( but your neigbors may either hang you or make you King)

 

I believe you have seen hypocricy in the way some folks approach tao

that to avoid such I would either embrace that I 'should' shrive myself of values or embrace the values that are traditionally considered to be 'good' ones.

I see that too sometimes in some views, but the virtues in the TTC ( I believe) work despite not being the same as say Christian ones. I can save the drowning child because I want to bring about that occurrance , I dont have to do it to satisfy some heavenly dictate so I can reap a reward later.

I'd do it because I have empathy and sympathy to extend , Id do it because its basic human contract.

And a Christian may actually do it for the same reasons as me ,, ironically Christians can consider such an unrewarded behavior as the highest of spiritual actions as well.

Different philosophy, yes , similar motivations and behaviors though.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Stosh

[ChiDragon]

sree....

 

Chuang Tze was written in a different format(parables) than the Tao Te Ching(simple phrases). It would be very difficult to do per your request. The simplest way is to translate its interpreted meaning for a better comprehension. Sorry, I cannot fulfill your request.

[sree]

sree....

 

Chuang Tze was written in a different format(parables) than the Tao Te Ching(simple phrases). It would be very difficult to do per your request. The simplest way is to translate its interpreted meaning for a better comprehension. Sorry, I cannot fulfill your request.

 

You are right, Mr Chi. Thanks anyway.

 

I made a wrong request. Marblehead was referring to the Tao Te Ching.

Edited December 21, 2012 by sree

[sree]

Robert Henricks' translation, Chapter 1

 

5. Therefore, those constantly without desires, by this means will perceive its subtlety.

6. Those constantly with desires, by this means will see only that which they yearn for and seek.

 

That, Sir, is 'cause and effect'. Need I post more examples?

 

 

Let's look at Mr Chi's translation, with accompanying Chinese text, for comparison.

 

5. Hence, when Tao is always invisible, one would grok its quale.

6. When Tao is always visible, one would observe its boundary.

 

5. 故常無,欲以觀其妙。

6. 常有,欲以觀其徼。

 

"Cause and effect" comes from the western concept of causality whereby an action/event will cause another action/event.

 

Regardless of disparity in meaning between Hendrick's translation and the Chinese text, can you tell me how you justify your claim that Lines 5 and 6 have something to do with causality? Are you saying that desire is the cause and the materialization of the object of desire is the effect? How does it work? Can you explain - in a rational manner of western science - how one causes the other?

 

(Please note that we are discussing Hendrick's personal viewpoint.)

Edited December 21, 2012 by sree

[Marblehead]

Hi Sree,

 

I place great value on Henricks' translation of the TTC. Based on reviews I have read his is the most technically correct translation currently available. Granted that he may not have considered language connotations or the culture of the people at the time of Lao Tzu but those were not his intentions. His intention was to make a technically correct translation. Reviews indicate that he did a pretty darned good job doing that.

 

Getting to your statements/question, I must first set the stage through a short discription of my understanding.

 

This universe is a sub-set of Tao. This universe consists of Chi (energy) Mystery (potential) and Manifest (the physical).

 

So I will paraphrase the two line above from Chapter 1.

 

5. Therefore those constantly without desires will perceive Mystery.

6. Those constantly with desires will see only the Manifest.

 

5. Cause: without desires. Effect: perceive Mystery (and acknowledge Manifest).

6. Cause: with desires. Effect: perception limited to only Manifest.

 

It is not my intention to discuss the differences between Henricks and ChiDragons translations. I have already done that elsewhere.

 

So yes, if we spend our entire life chasing after material things so that we may add to our possessions we will never have the rest, the free time, to observe the connectedness of all things of the universe and therefore of Tao. And this thought would give credence to later discussions of Chi (energy), the dualities of Yin/Yang; Rest/Action.

[dawei]

MB: You might find this an interesting read.

 

http://worldreligionsjourney.com/taoism/lao_tzu_on_changes.pdf

 

P.S. I don't expect you to respond to the paper

[Marblehead]

P.S. I don't expect you to respond to the paper

But you knew I would like it. Hehehe. Short comments:

 

I was delighted that he place the importance of Tzu-jan in the discussion.

 

I was happy to see his definition of "te" as the "power of Tao".

 

I was disappointed that he place so much negativity on unspontaneous change.

 

A very good read. Thanks for sharing.

[sree]

Hi Sree,

 

I place great value on Henricks' translation of the TTC. Based on reviews I have read his is the most technically correct translation currently available. Granted that he may not have considered language connotations or the culture of the people at the time of Lao Tzu but those were not his intentions. His intention was to make a technically correct translation. Reviews indicate that he did a pretty darned good job doing that.

 

 

You have no idea how unconnected Chinese philosophical thought is to western thinking. Please don’t confuse this with the comparison between the mind of the Chinese intellectual and that of the likes of Henricks, who presumably is not Chinese. These two are in the same bullpen.

 

Western thinking is basically deductive in nature and applicable to discernment of the superficial. It is like a rake that cannot be used for digging through the rocky crust to the center of the Earth. It is a tool accessible to anyone with an intelligent quotient (IQ). Some of the greatest western thinkers and visionaries have criminal minds.

 

On the other hand, Chinese philosophical thought is not for the taking just because you can think. You cannot have it, no matter how clever, if you are corruptible. The Chinese intellectual is not incorruptible. Corruption and wisdom (of the Chinese kind) are mutually exclusive. So, just because one is Chinese doesn’t mean one has the key to unlock the door of the Tao Te Ching. One also has to be incorruptible.

 

By comparing Mr Chi’s English translation with that of Henrick’s, my intention is to show the stark difference between the two. The Chinese text has yet another meaning. So, we are talking, not about the Tao Te Ching. We are talking about Henrick’s perception of the Tao Te Ching. It is his own personal opinion, that’s all. Let’s say we are talking about the Henrick Ching.

 

Getting to your statements/question, I must first set the stage through a short discription of my understanding.

 

 

Excellent! This set the bases for your argument. I hope you will allow me to question your premises which are your presuppositions taken for granted to be true. And they are as follows:

 

This universe is a sub-set of Tao. This universe consists of Chi (energy) Mystery (potential) and Manifest (the physical).

 

 

I hope you realize you are making a leap of faith that is as impressive as Flowing Hand’s for someone who has left that basket.

 

What you call your understanding is a codification of beliefs, a doctrine that marries the universe (which is a western concept of the totality of existence) to Taoist nonsense. I am not using the word “nonsense” in a derogatory manner but to point out that it is non-sensical in a scientific context. To assert that this universe is a sub-set of Tao is similar to asserting that this universe is a subset of God and that the universe consists of the Holy Spirit and Jesus who lived among man.

 

So I will paraphrase the two line above from Chapter 1.

 

5. Therefore those constantly without desires will perceive Mystery.

6. Those constantly with desires will see only the Manifest.

 

5. Cause: without desires. Effect: perceive Mystery (and acknowledge Manifest).

6. Cause: with desires. Effect: perception limited to only Manifest.

 

 

Do you have any scientific proof of the connection between the cause and the effect? What you have stated here are propositions. You still have to provide verifiable proof if you are a scientist and not a shaman.

 

It is not my intention to discuss the differences between Henricks and ChiDragons translations. I have already done that elsewhere.

 

I am not suggesting that one translation is better than the other. Each translation conjures a picture quite different from another. And Heaven knows what scenario the Chinese text depicts.

 

So yes, if we spend our entire life chasing after material things so that we may add to our possessions we will never have the rest, the free time, to observe the connectedness of all things of the universe and therefore of Tao. And this thought would give credence to later discussions of Chi (energy), the dualities of Yin/Yang; Rest/Action.

 

 

And this is the teaching you have derived from your understanding of The Henrick Ching. This is fine.

 

Has our argument been resolved? Do you now agree that the Tao you are talking about is not the eternal Tao?

[Marblehead]

Has our argument been resolved? Do you now agree that the Tao you are talking about is not the eternal Tao?

I have no argument with you. But you are blowing smoke in this post and I will clear the air in the next few posts because you are misrepresenting far too many things and people for me to allow your post to remain unchallenged.

[Marblehead]

You have no idea how unconnected Chinese philosophical thought is to western thinking. Please don’t confuse this with the comparison between the mind of the Chinese intellectual and that of the likes of Henricks, who presumably is not Chinese. These two are in the same bullpen.

 

You don't know what I know. You don't know how much I know. You don't know if what I know is true or false. All you know is what you know and it may well all be false.

 

Please don't present yourself as an all-seer because it won't work with me.

 

You cannot disqualify a Westerner from knowing how to translate Chinese into English just because he has a British family name. And no, I will not take your words as evidence that Henricks is unqualified to translate the TTC. Are you going to disqualify Lin Yutang just because he moved to the US before he published his translation of the TTC?

 

Western thinking is basically deductive in nature and applicable to discernment of the superficial. It is like a rake that cannot be used for digging through the rocky crust to the center of the Earth. It is a tool accessible to anyone with an intelligent quotient (IQ). Some of the greatest western thinkers and visionaries have criminal minds.

 

But the Chinese are going to rake the soil in preparation of planting with a shovel? One of the greatest Chinese philosophers of recent times had a criminal mind. Mao Zedong. How many Chinese free thinkers did he kill or have killes? 15 million, wasn't it?

 

On the other hand, Chinese philosophical thought is not for the taking just because you can think. You cannot have it, no matter how clever, if you are corruptible. The Chinese intellectual is not incorruptible. Corruption and wisdom (of the Chinese kind) are mutually exclusive. So, just because one is Chinese doesn’t mean one has the key to unlock the door of the Tao Te Ching. One also has to be incorruptible.

 

So what's the point? Are you trying to say that there are more uncorruptable Chinese than there are, say, Swiss? Human nature is what it is. People are the same no matter where one goes. No better, no worse. We here in the US just had a school killing. China just had a school killing about a week prior. The ability to translate a text from one language to another has nothing to do with your mother's skin color or any other insignificant attribute.

 

By comparing Mr Chi’s English translation with that of Henrick’s, my intention is to show the stark difference between the two. The Chinese text has yet another meaning. So, we are talking, not about the Tao Te Ching. We are talking about Henrick’s perception of the Tao Te Ching. It is his own personal opinion, that’s all. Let’s say we are talking about the Henrick Ching.

I was not comparing. It is you who is trying to compare. And as a matter of fact, there is no reason to compare.

 

So, are you telling me that you want to present a translation of an unspoken and unwritten TTC? Do whatever you feel is right. I do not read Chinese so I have no way judge what you do. However, if you think you have something better than anything currently available for we non-Chinese readers you should publish!

 

No, you have it wrong. It is not Henricks' personal opinion. Henricks never presented an interpretation of the TTC. He presented only a translation. The best, according to many critics.

[Marblehead]

Marble Quote

Getting to your statements/question, I must first set the stage through a short discription of my understanding.

 

Your Quote

Excellent! This set the bases for your argument. I hope you will allow me to question your premises which are your presuppositions taken for granted to be true. And they are as follows:

 

 

Marble Quote

This universe is a sub-set of Tao. This universe consists of Chi (energy) Mystery (potential) and Manifest (the physical).

 

Your Quote

I hope you realize you are making a leap of faith that is as impressive as Flowing Hand’s for someone who has left that basket.

 

What you call your understanding is a codification of beliefs, a doctrine that marries the universe (which is a western concept of the totality of existence) to Taoist nonsense. I am not using the word “nonsense” in a derogatory manner but to point out that it is non-sensical in a scientific context. To assert that this universe is a sub-set of Tao is similar to asserting that this universe is a subset of God and that the universe consists of the Holy Spirit and Jesus who lived among man.

 

The above is based on my understanding of the TTC.

 

I accept the theory of a Big Bang (Western science). I only try to rationalize my Western knowledge with what I read in the TTC. At this point in time what I presented above is the best I can come up with and no one has yet presented anything better for me to consider.

 

Regardless of what you or I believe, there was a beginning of this universe and there is an excellent chance that there will be an end. How it started really doesn't matter. But as we are talking about the TTC I have presented my understanding of the TTC in a manner that is consistent with Western scientific knowledge and theory.

 

If you want to create your own universe then go ahead on. But I have to live in this one as it is the only one I have.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

Marble Quote

 

So I will paraphrase the two line above from Chapter 1.

 

5. Therefore those constantly without desires will perceive Mystery.

6. Those constantly with desires will see only the Manifest.

 

5. Cause: without desires. Effect: perceive Mystery (and acknowledge Manifest).

6. Cause: with desires. Effect: perception limited to only Manifest.

 

Your Quote

Do you have any scientific proof of the connection between the cause and the effect? What you have stated here are propositions. You still have to provide verifiable proof if you are a scientist and not a shaman.

 

I slap Vmarco aside the face. Vmarco's face stings in pain. That is cause and effect. The above quote is cause and effect. If you cannot see it you should go back to school.

 

Marble Quote

 

It is not my intention to discuss the differences between Henricks and ChiDragons translations. I have already done that elsewhere.

 

Your Quote

I am not suggesting that one translation is better than the other. Each translation conjures a picture quite different from another. And Heaven knows what scenario the Chinese text depicts.

 

Finally a response that is non-aggressive. So the reader has a choice. That is better than no choice.

 

Marble Quote

 

So yes, if we spend our entire life chasing after material things so that we may add to our possessions we will never have the rest, the free time, to observe the connectedness of all things of the universe and therefore of Tao. And this thought would give credence to later discussions of Chi (energy), the dualities of Yin/Yang; Rest/Action.

 

Your Quote

And this is the teaching you have derived from your understanding of The Henrick Ching. This is fine.

 

It is my understanding of one of hundreds of concepts presented in the TTC. And yes, it is truely fine indeed. My beliefs have brought me peace and contentment. Have yours done the same for you?

[dawei]

MB: You don't have the pedigree to be called 'Sir'... you are a simple follower of faith like enlightened masters

 

How many times have we seen this game and one can connect the dots fairly easy.

 

While I respect Hendricks work and what he did for the oldest texts (Guodian, Mawandui) I do feel he lacks the higher realm understanding... but to be fair, although there are several chinese translators that I read and like, they also lack it. Although chinese may have the historical and inner sense, if one lacks the higher realm then it is simply missing part of the whole, IMO.

 

Those westerner's which have some energetic or spiritual background seem to get closer, so I don't think pedigree is enough of an excuse to disqualify them... but again, we have heard this before here and will again in the future I am sure...

[ChiDragon]

sree.....

 

This is not the place to argue somebody else's translation. It is only a matter of what one wants to believe what the Tao Te Ching says, personally, with a different approach. If you want to study the TTC, please just read into it the way you think it is. In order to keep it to the purest thought, read it scholastically. If you can read Chinese, use the native sources. However, they are not all the best but there are some that are very reliable. Happy studying......

 

 

PS....

Using the native sources, then one does not have to deal with any mistranslation with misunderstanding. So, nothing will get lost in the translation but maybe misinterpretation. At least, you have less errors to deal with. BTW, nowadays, the native sources are pretty unanimous. To the best of my knowledge, at least, Chapters 1 and 5 are unanimous.

 

I do tend to agree that the translations of Lin Yutang and Hendrick are done personally rather done in a scholastic manner.

Edited December 22, 2012 by ChiDragon

[Aaron]

If we're giving grades for accuracy of interpretating this text, I would have to give everyone involved in this most recent debate a C at best. The problem that most of you are having is that you're not looking at this as Lao Tzu wrote it, but rather as you want to believe it was written.

 

The first thing you're missing is that the Sage Lao Tzu was referring to was the Sage-King or ruler, not the sage as you view him to be. With that in mind he is reminding the rulers of the day that they should make their decisions, not based on sentimentality, but rather what is best for their kingdom as whole. He is not advocating an absence of desires or absolution of attachments, but rather objectively analyzing what is going on.

 

The second thing you are missing is that there is no reference to "Tzu Jan" or spontaniety in this passage, but rather that if we choose to understand the process of Tao, then we need to practice introspection and understand where our own thoughts derive from, for that is how we will understand how those things that are created come to be.

 

Too much of what is taught as "Taoism" today has little to nothing to do with Lao Tzu, but rather it is simply a desire to attribute these practices to Lao Tzu. Lao Tzu did not advocate Qigong, Niegong, or any other martial art, and he made only passing comments regarding the I-Ching. My suggestion, read a bit more of the Tao Te Ching and less of the other texts and your understanding will come from yourself, rather than that of these supposed "masters".

 

In regards to the current debate, Lao Tzu warns against trying to find answers to these kinds of things, simply because they can never be answered to our satisfaction. Worry about what you are doing and to whom, rather than how you should be doing it or even more rediculously, think about doing it.

 

Aaron

Edited December 22, 2012 by Aaron

[sree]

You don't know what I know. You don't know how much I know. You don't know if what I know is true or false. All you know is what you know and it may well all be false.

 

 

True. This is what debate is for: to find out whether or not what you and I know is either true or false. And you are right, I don’t know what you know. I only know what you say which is what I am examining. I am not making speculations on the rest of the stuff you keep in your head unsaid.

 

Please don't present yourself as an all-seer because it won't work with me.

 

 

I wouldn’t do that because I am not a shaman.

 

You cannot disqualify a Westerner from knowing how to translate Chinese into English just because he has a British family name.

 

I am sure a westerner with the education can translate Chinese into English better than Chinese intellectuals. But I am not talking about the Chinese language even at the classical level. I am talking about Chinese philosophical thought. Only an incorruptible Chinese can grasp that.

 

And no, I will not take your words as evidence that Henricks is unqualified to translate the TTC. Are you going to disqualify Lin Yutang just because he moved to the US before he published his translation of the TTC?

 

 

I would even disqualify Lao Tze himself if he was foolish enough to attempt it. I reiterate again that I am not talking about the Chinese language but Chinese philosophical thought. Forget about wisdom, even at the literary level, translation injures the poetic grace of classical Chinese; word-for-word metaphrasing yields no meaning; and paraphrasing is interpretation, not translation.

 

The Tao Te Ching is inaccessible to non-Chinese and the corrupt. Take it or leave it.

 

 

But the Chinese are going to rake the soil in preparation of planting with a shovel? One of the greatest Chinese philosophers of recent times had a criminal mind. Mao Zedong. How many Chinese free thinkers did he kill or have killes? 15 million, wasn't it?

 

Mao Zedong was not a Chinese philosopher. He was at best a Chinese intellectual and at worst a common thug. Confucius was a Chinese philosopher. Lin Yutang was not a Chinese philosopher. Gia Fu-Feng, like Lin Yutang, was a Chinese intellectual.

 

The primary qualification of a Chinese philosopher is incorruptibility. I told you that being smart is not enough although this attribute seems to be the only thing that counts in western cultures. Mao Zedong’s large bed was littered with books and young female sexual companions. To lump this ass together with Confucius is offensive to me.

 

So what's the point? Are you trying to say that there are more uncorruptable Chinese than there are, say, Swiss?

 

 

All things being equal, I would say so on account of there being more Chinese than Swiss. Right now it is about 1.3 billion mainland Chinese (not counting 50 million Overseas Chinese and 23 million Chinese in Taiwan) to about 8 million Swiss. I don’t know how many Chinese there were when the Tao Te Ching took shape some 2,600 years ago but there were no Swiss back then.

 

Human nature is what it is. People are the same no matter where one goes. No better, no worse. We here in the US just had a school killing. China just had a school killing about a week prior. The ability to translate a text from one language to another has nothing to do with your mother's skin color or any other insignificant attribute.

 

 

This is not a matter of ethnic superiority. I am merely pointing out a fundamental difference between Chinese philosophical thought and western thinking. At the practical level, as you said, people are more or less the same; although, I would give the edge to westerners judging from their superior ability in building better lifestyles and more equitable societies. I wish this were enough but as Jesus said, “man cannot live on bread alone”; especially, when he is living under the threat of nuclear annihilation.

 

I was not comparing. It is you who is trying to compare. And as a matter of fact, there is no reason to compare.

 

 

There is a reason to compare, and I did so to show no two translations are the same. They are like blind men’s testimonies of what the elephant is like.

 

So, are you telling me that you want to present a translation of an unspoken and unwritten TTC? Do whatever you feel is right. I do not read Chinese so I have no way judge what you do. However, if you think you have something better than anything currently available for we non-Chinese readers you should publish!

 

 

I am telling you no such thing. I stand by my opinion that the Tao Te Ching cannot be translated and any motive to do so is suspect.

 

No, you have it wrong. It is not Henricks' personal opinion. Henricks never presented an interpretation of the TTC. He presented only a translation. The best, according to many critics.

 

 

Ok, whatever you say, my friend.

Edited December 22, 2012 by sree

[Marblehead]

MB: You don't have the pedigree to be called 'Sir'... you are a simple follower of faith like enlightened masters

Hehehe. I claim no pedigree. I am just a hard-headed German proud to have been born in the USofA.

 

Until someone who is qualified claims that Henricks' translation is invalid I will continue to accept it as the most valid translation available.

 

Again, his intention was never to interpret the TTC, only to translate it scholasticly and he has received much acclaim for having done that very well.

 

I know, other like the more poetic translations. No problem. But whenever I need quote something from the TTC I will use the Henricks translation.