[TTC Study] Chapter 8 of the Tao Teh Ching

[xHSG]

I agree to a degree: The bigger parallel I see is that, water follows it's nature thus so should man [follow HIS nature, not necessarily must follow the nature of water]. Each of the ten thousand things have their nature and they follow their nature; although being interconnected on some level their may be parallel's followed but to me the general rule in the DDJ is following one's nature; and Nature is provided in many examples in order to show how it is done.

 

 

The divergence here drives to a common debate over whether the ziran of things means to follow their own "nature" or to follow the Dao. More specifically for people, do we properly to follow human nature, sometimes described as ren dao (the way of humanity) or a more universal nature tian Dao (The Way of Heaven/Cosmos/Natural World). I tend to fall in the later camp, where people should model themselves on the qualities of the subtle order of the Cosmos, the Dao (tian dao). Water is then a metaphor that reveals the qualities of the Dao, one of which is to follow its nature, but it also shows the primacy of humility, clear reflection, adaptability while following the natural cycles like freezing and thawing, selfless giving, purity, non-striving (its movements on controlled by its surroundings). This is not as individualistic of a reading, but since one of the qualities of the Dao is emptiness and limitless potential it does not necessarily reject the role of individuals, though a mystical reading of this leads us to the dissolution of the self into the Dao. Thus to follow HIS nature is to lose himself to the Dao.

[Marblehead]

Nice post xHSG.

 

I am sure we will be talking more about this concept.

 

Thanks for the input.

[dawei]

The divergence here drives to a common debate over whether the ziran of things means to follow their own "nature" or to follow the Dao. More specifically for people, do we properly to follow human nature, sometimes described as ren dao (the way of humanity) or a more universal nature tian Dao (The Way of Heaven/Cosmos/Natural World). I tend to fall in the later camp, where people should model themselves on the qualities of the subtle order of the Cosmos, the Dao (tian dao). Water is then a metaphor that reveals the qualities of the Dao, one of which is to follow its nature, but it also shows the primacy of humility, clear reflection, adaptability while following the natural cycles like freezing and thawing, selfless giving, purity, non-striving (its movements on controlled by its surroundings). This is not as individualistic of a reading, but since one of the qualities of the Dao is emptiness and limitless potential it does not necessarily reject the role of individuals, though a mystical reading of this leads us to the dissolution of the self into the Dao. Thus to follow HIS nature is to lose himself to the Dao.

I see concentric circles; so BOTH exist. I did not setup separate camps in my meaning. A higher parallel means there can be higher parallels too. It is not One or the Other, I see many concentric circles.

 

But when the verse says that 'water clings to the ground', I do not take that to mean that I need to cling to the ground (not that circle). This is an example of the nature of water (one circle) and a metaphor for man on how to follow his nature (another circle) or dao (yet another circle) but not literally 'get on the ground'.

Edited December 24, 2010 by dawei

[Procurator]

The divergence here drives to a common debate over whether the ziran of things means to follow their own "nature" or to follow the Dao. More specifically for people, do we properly to follow human nature, sometimes described as ren dao (the way of humanity) or a more universal nature tian Dao (The Way of Heaven/Cosmos/Natural World).

This is a false dichotomy since it is based on a false assumption that "following" is good for some reason. I do not intend to talk in detail about this issue since it is outside of common frame of reference, but for the record point out that the message of DDJ is directly opposite to following.

[Marblehead]

Excellent points both, Dawei and Tianshi.

 

I will have more to say in later chapters.

[majc]

The divergence here drives to a common debate over whether the ziran of things means to follow their own "nature" or to follow the Dao.

What's the difference?

 

 

 

edit: I should've read TianShi's post. He makes the same point with more words:

 

This is a false dichotomy since it is based on a false assumption that "following" is good for some reason. I do not intend to talk in detail about this issue since it is outside of common frame of reference, but for the record point out that the message of DDJ is directly opposite to following.

edit again: Agreed. Except you make it sound complicated. There's nothing profound here... except to say that 'following' automatically implies some kind of separation between you and that-which-is-followed.

 

And like you said, that is precisely the misperception which the TTC addresses.

Edited December 24, 2010 by majc

[Procurator]

 

 

 

edit: I should've read TianShi's post. He makes the same point with more words:

 

majc u seem to start celebrating early:))Merry Xmas!

 

i expressly disagree with xHSG so no i dont make the same point.

 

he says DDJ is about following either Dao or ziran.

 

i say it aint so. its neither and there is no following in DDJ message.

 

so i make a different point.

 

but its all good.)

[Marblehead]

 

he says DDJ is about following either Dao or ziran.

 

i say it aint so. its neither and there is no following in DDJ message.

 

so i make a different point.

 

Yep. You made a different point. Hehehe. And a valid one no less. Especially to the word "follow" in that some translations of Chapter 25 use that word.

 

Perhaps this question will return when we discuss that chapter.

[dawei]

Yep. You made a different point. Hehehe. And a valid one no less. Especially to the word "follow" in that some translations of Chapter 25 use that word.

 

Perhaps this question will return when we discuss that chapter.

Personally, I do not like the translation of "follow" in DDJ25. The word there is "law" and I once spent some time researching it but has a very old and fabled aspect to it. I've not completely settled on the right way to describe it. But in general, I don't like to simply say 'follow'. I do prefer something closer to 'in accordance with' or 'by nature of' (more like instinct or innate) but that probably sounds like 'following'. Interesting how difficult it is to convey a thought.

[Marblehead]

Personally, I do not like the translation of "follow" in DDJ25. The word there is "law" and I once spent some time researching it but has a very old and fabled aspect to it. I've not completely settled on the right way to describe it. But in general, I don't like to simply say 'follow'. I do prefer something closer to 'in accordance with' or 'by nature of' (more like instinct or innate) but that probably sounds like 'following'. Interesting how difficult it is to convey a thought.

 

Your last sentence gave me a chuckle. Hehehe. Indeed, language is so inefficient sometimes.

 

Anyhow, yes, and this is why I use the word "processes" of nature instead of "laws".

 

But then for chapter 25 the word "law" would be just as inefficient as the word "follow".

 

I will go no further with this until we get to that chapter in this sub-forum. I'm sure we are going to have fun with it.

[xHSG]

I see concentric circles; so BOTH exist. I did not setup separate camps in my meaning. A higher parallel means there can be higher parallels too. It is not One or the Other, I see many concentric circles.

 

But when the verse says that 'water clings to the ground', I do not take that to mean that I need to cling to the ground (not that circle). This is an example of the nature of water (one circle) and a metaphor for man on how to follow his nature (another circle) or dao (yet another circle) but not literally 'get on the ground'.

 

 

Yes, I agree about the concentric circles. My point was to critique the overly individualistic interpretation of the DDJ that boils down to do what you feel (your ziran). The DDJ, as I see it is about relinquishing the self, a structure build up by learning about distinctions, to then realize pure communion with the Dao. To describe such a realization we must contrast it with normal human life because most people distance themselves from the Dao because of their individual desires.

 

I also hoped to address a contrast sometimes used to explain differences between Daoism and Confucianism. The first focuses on attaining the Dao, modeling oneself on the cosmic order (to model is a good translation of 法 in Ch 25), while the second focuses on the human order of family and social relations, which are ziran to humans but contrast with the universalism of the cosmic order.

 

 

As for the "water clings to the ground" problem. We agree it is a metaphor for humans, the question is how to read the metaphor. You read it as an example of ziran, either individual or cosmic. I was reading it as a metaphor for a quality of the cosmic order to model in ones life: humility. Taken a little farther this also indicates submission to the greater order of things, the Dao. Both are possible, though concerning the question of emphasis in your reading either individual nature or dao, I would side with Dao.

[xHSG]

This is a false dichotomy since it is based on a false assumption that "following" is good for some reason. I do not intend to talk in detail about this issue since it is outside of common frame of reference, but for the record point out that the message of DDJ is directly opposite to following.

 

 

Yes, ideally there is no distinction, but in practice it does exist. If not why then say "reject the Sages/ Discard Knowledge." This implies that people have lost something by engaging with worldly learning, or even just socialization (this later one is debatable). Thus one must "realign" with the cosmic Dao.

 

(perhaps a better word choice than follow, though that term becomes importantly in Daoism quite quickly to explain the meaning of the DDJ, and similar writings. Most simply following ziran is to follow the natural order, in an agrarian society that is structured around planting an harvest to order all things according to such natural cycles. While this might not be explicit in the DDJ, as little is, the line in Ch. 8 "In Action, excel at timeliness," "timeliness" 時 most likely refers to seasons, as this is the main meaning in that early period.)

 

align, works a bit better with the term wuwei, though if the dao is like water is does "flow" also not explicitly stated in the DDJ, then we want to flow with it. i.e. go with the flow. (ha ha)

[xHSG]

majc u seem to start celebrating early:))Merry Xmas!

 

i expressly disagree with xHSG so no i dont make the same point.

 

he says DDJ is about following either Dao or ziran.

 

i say it aint so. its neither and there is no following in DDJ message.

 

so i make a different point.

 

but its all good.)

 

 

Based on this, it seems I haven't been clear enough. The division is not between Dao and ziran, but the ziran of Dao or the ziran of the individual. If we embody our own ziran, our points may remain different, but if we embody the ziran of the Dao they would be the same.

[Marblehead]

Based on this, it seems I haven't been clear enough. The division is not between Dao and ziran, but the ziran of Dao or the ziran of the individual. If we embody our own ziran, our points may remain different, but if we embody the ziran of the Dao they would be the same.

 

Yes, that was expressed a bit better. I think that the problem word is "follow".

 

Do we actually follow something or do we just 'be'?

[xHSG]

Personally, I do not like the translation of "follow" in DDJ25. The word there is "law" and I once spent some time researching it but has a very old and fabled aspect to it. I've not completely settled on the right way to describe it. But in general, I don't like to simply say 'follow'. I do prefer something closer to 'in accordance with' or 'by nature of' (more like instinct or innate) but that probably sounds like 'following'. Interesting how difficult it is to convey a thought.

 

 

I like "in accordance with" as a general phrase vs. follow, but I am curious why no one likes the word follow? Is it because it smacks of conformity, or obedience to authority?

 

As for the word "law" 法 fa, I would say it is neither law or follow in Ch 25. My preferred translation is "to emulate," which comes from a basic meaning of 法 as "to model." I might also translate it as "follow the order of" (what I think is implied by some translators who use follow) which then captures both meaning of law and model, but then we have the bugaboo term "follow." In this case accord with is also strong.

Edited December 26, 2010 by xHSG

[Apech]

Yes, that was expressed a bit better. I think that the problem word is "follow".

 

Do we actually follow something or do we just 'be'?

 

I kind of assumed that translators use 'follow' because the Tao is 'the Way' - so you could follow the way ... like a path or road without it being authoritarian etc. Also the word follow can mean 'be aligned to' or 'in accord with' ... I don't see the problem. People seem to have a problem with hierarchies when we live in universe which is naturally structured and has inherent grading and hierarchy (for instance the electron shells in the atom ... lots of other examples.)

 

So you could say that a hydrogen atom follows the way of hydrogen in its chemistry for instance ... it does not behave like Calcium or Argon. However they all follow the natural laws of chemistry in their actions and reactions with one another.

 

As human beings we are not all the same ... we have differing constitutions and personal history ... we each have to find our own way ... but this does not mean that there is no Way ... which we are all involved in.

[Marblehead]

I kind of assumed ...

 

I'm glad you are at peace with the word 'follow'. Hehehe.

 

Reading your post reminded me of an Albert Camus quote. I may be paraphrasing:

 

"Don't follow me for I may not lead. Don't try to lead for I may not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend."

[Procurator]

 

(perhaps a better word choice than follow, though that term becomes importantly in Daoism quite quickly to explain the meaning of the DDJ, and similar writings. Most simply following ziran is to follow the natural order, in an agrarian society that is structured around planting an harvest to order all things according to such natural cycles. While this might not be explicit in the DDJ, as little is, the line in Ch. 8 "In Action, excel at timeliness," "timeliness" 時 most likely refers to seasons, as this is the main meaning in that early period.)

 

very true regarding 時 . however ziran remains a very misunderstood term, perhaps it was meant that way

 

.. but in practice it does exist. If not why then say "reject the Sages/ Discard Knowledge." This implies that people have lost something by engaging with worldly learning, or even just socialization (this later one is debatable). Thus one must "realign" with the cosmic Dao.

stated like that- absolutely correct. from here it is just a couple of steps to get to the true meaning of ziran. but those are hard steps to make.

[Procurator]

I kind of assumed that translators use 'follow' because the Tao is 'the Way' - so you could follow the way ... like a path or road

 

not quite. they use follow because they are commoners. and as such they dont realise that the way is a two way street.

[dawei]

xHSG, thanks for offering more comments as they are thought-provoking

 

The DDJ, as I see it is about relinquishing the self, a structure build up by learning about distinctions, to then realize pure communion with the Dao. To describe such a realization we must contrast it with normal human life because most people distance themselves from the Dao because of their individual desires.

I used to hold to the 'relinquish the self' idea, but "Zi Ran" embodies 'self' in it's meaning, so I moved a bit away from that idea but maybe I cannot articulate it yet because I see it like a square dance with Dao & De & Wuwei. The 'individual desires' are not all bad. Maybe the acquired ones which are purely self-seeking (thus, breaking away from the dance) but again, not sure how to state it. We may agree more than disagree but just pushing the idea further.

 

I also hoped to address a contrast sometimes used to explain differences between Daoism and Confucianism. The first focuses on attaining the Dao, modeling oneself on the cosmic order (to model is a good translation of 法 in Ch 25), while the second focuses on the human order of family and social relations, which are ziran to humans but contrast with the universalism of the cosmic order.

Yes, I see 'model' used; I also like patterned. This actually begins to tie closer to your point about 'timeliness' below since they are both really conveying patterns or regularity (whether for warfare or agriculture, the importances of an established pattern shows up in many areas).

 

 

As for the "water clings to the ground" problem. We agree it is a metaphor for humans, the question is how to read the metaphor. You read it as an example of ziran, either individual or cosmic. I was reading it as a metaphor for a quality of the cosmic order to model in ones life: humility. Taken a little farther this also indicates submission to the greater order of things, the Dao. Both are possible, though concerning the question of emphasis in your reading either individual nature or dao, I would side with Dao.

One thing that may be unfair, even by my own useage, is to use the word "ziran" without explanation; but it's not easy to do since it's complicated IMO and cannot be separated so easily from Dao, De, and Wuwei.

 

I am not sure if I read you wrong but I read strands of making Dao an entity or thing at times. Here is a lacking explanation; don't take 'passive' too literally, it's more a complementary relationship:

- Dao (passive) is not a 'greater order' per se it is just the underlying generative principle for the 10,000 things;

- De (active) is the inscribed 'force' so that each has Dao in them (ie: in order to generate).

- Wu Wei (passive) is action which doesn't seek to interfere with other generative forces (although it may naturally do so).

- Zi Ran (active) is self-becoming (ie: generating) because of Dao through De in cooperation with Wu Wei.

 

I like looking at Chapter 51 for Dao, De, and Ziran; and 64 for Wuwei and Ziran.

 

 

If we embody our own ziran, our points may remain different, but if we embody the ziran of the Dao they would be the same.

Since Dao is the source principle of all things, including 'ziran', not sure we need to make this distinction. Maybe your equating 'our own ziran' as individual desires? Edited December 27, 2010 by dawei

[dawei]

I like "in accordance with" as a general phrase vs. follow, but I am curious why no one likes the word follow? Is it because it smacks of conformity, or obedience to authority?

 

As for the word "law" 法 fa, I would say it is neither law or follow in Ch 25. My preferred translation is "to emulate," which comes from a basic meaning of 法 as "to model." I might also translate it as "follow the order of" (what I think is implied by some translators who use follow) which then captures both meaning of law and model, but then we have the bugaboo term "follow." In this case accord with is also strong.

If Dao is the underlying generative principle [of what I also call patterns], then, for me, the 10,000 things are those patterns in action. Because I see Dao as the source for all generative patterns, it stands to reason that they share commonality; but that does not mean that my patterns MUST follow another's patterns; my patterns inherently self-become, not by 'following' or 'emulating' but by 'patterning' itself.

 

For me, the basic meaning of 法 is a standard way [of doing something]. So instead of modeling or emulating something else, it has it's own standard [way]. To me, that sync's to Ziran nicely, particularly in DDJ 25: 道法自然, Dao Fa Ziran.

 

The use of BingFa 兵法 seems closer to this; standard ways [methods] of warfare. Although I know that it also carries a history of use as follows/models and [legal] punishment.

 

I could share a lot more on the original character but will save that.

Edited December 27, 2010 by dawei

[majc]

majc u seem to start celebrating early:))Merry Xmas!

Thanks. Same to you.

 

 

i expressly disagree with xHSG ...

So do I.

 

 

... so no i dont make the same point.

 

he says DDJ is about following either Dao or ziran.

 

i say it aint so. its neither and there is no following in DDJ message.

 

so i make a different point.

Well you're going a different way with it, yeah. But it's not wrong to say water 'follows' a course... it does.

 

It doesn't take aim at a destination, it doesn't follow the route which it believes is going to require the least effort, it doesn't follow the most nourishing path, it doesn't follow its heart, it doesn't think about what other water that came before it did and decide its route based on that analysis. Water follows no thing.

 

That's what needed to be said. But instead, you wanted to use words which effect the idea that you, TianShi the Authoritative, possess a profound, deep and enigmatic understanding of ziran which I, xHSG and "other commoners" as you put it don't. I don't doubt that you possess some understanding of ziran, but (yet again) the authoritarian airy bullshit which you attach to everything is unnecessary.

[Marblehead]

Oh, oh. Majc is getting frisky. Hehehe.

 

Well, I am a commoner and very proud of it.

 

But it doesn't matter if we are talking about the word "ziran" or "tzujan" when we refer to the natural flow of any of the ten thousand things. Do we follow? Only in that we follow our own nature. If a thing's nature is different from all other things then there really isn't any other thing it can follow.

 

Like water, yes, all things flow their own course in the now moment.

 

But yes, there is a difference between the flow of Tao and the flow of man. We think too freaking much trying to determine the best route and we end up wasting half our life thinking instead of living, going with the flow.

 

I do agree the the word "follow" is a tricky word when speaking to this concept. But many translators use it for lack of a better word.

[Apech]

Oh, oh. Majc is getting frisky. Hehehe.

 

Well, I am a commoner and very proud of it.

 

But it doesn't matter if we are talking about the word "ziran" or "tzujan" when we refer to the natural flow of any of the ten thousand things. Do we follow? Only in that we follow our own nature. If a thing's nature is different from all other things then there really isn't any other thing it can follow.

 

Like water, yes, all things flow their own course in the now moment.

 

But yes, there is a difference between the flow of Tao and the flow of man. We think too freaking much trying to determine the best route and we end up wasting half our life thinking instead of living, going with the flow.

 

I do agree the the word "follow" is a tricky word when speaking to this concept. But many translators use it for lack of a better word.

 

Maybe 'go with' their own nature (?) ... something like that ... would have the right meaning.

 

I'm a commoner as well ... in fact commoner than most people ... that's why I just spat on the carpet .....

[Marblehead]

Maybe 'go with' their own nature (?) ... something like that ... would have the right meaning.

 

I'm a commoner as well ... in fact commoner than most people ... that's why I just spat on the carpet .....

 

 

Yuck! My cat just did that on a rug. She can be excused though as she is sick.

 

Yeah, "'go with' their own nature" is valid, I think. The biggest problem I have with the word 'follow' is that it connotes some form of dogma that one is 'following'. Too close to religion for my pleasure.