[TTC Study] Chapter 25 of the Tao Teh Ching

[deci belle]

Yes, Marblehead!

[Bai Hu]

Tao is Great,

The Heaven is great,

The Earth is great,

The King is also great.

These are the Great Four in the universe,

And the King is one of them.

 

Man models himself after the Earth;

The Earth models itself after Heaven;

The Heaven models itself after Tao;

Tao models itself after Nature

 

Has anyone considered the possibility that Lao tzu was not a complete anarchist? That perhaps he saw that the king himself was indeed apart of humanity's nature? Consider the lines in this way :The king models himself after his people. His people model themselves after the earth, The earth models itself after heaven, the heavens model themselves after the tao, the tao models itself after nature.

In this way one can see that the King is at the lowest level of the way and to keep himself in power he must model himself after what gives him power: the people. Failure to model themselves after the people will result in unbalance or even death. The people being not as well off as the king must model themselves off of the land and earth in order to retain power. Failure to do so will cause an unbalance, infertile soil, famines, and unwisely allocated natural resources. The earth models itself after heaven. Failure to do so might cause unpredictable climate changes or a loss of harmony and an extreme exposure of sun light to certain geographical points if the earth does abide by the ways of the sun and moon. The heaven models itself after the tao. Failure to do so would result in a loss of life, in other words if the heavens did not abide by the path of least resistance then it would be incredibly difficult for life to flourish. Finally the tao must model itself after nature, failure to do so would result in stagnation. A completely non-resistant "way of everything" would result in the weakest forms of life, maybe even none at all! It is in this way the tao must abide by nature to complement complete passivity with struggle. The tao is the path of least resistance, however it is not the path of no resistance. Resistance is completely necessary to the tao, however the extreme of either resistance of passivity is unbalanced. I hope this helps.

[Marblehead]

 

Has anyone considered the possibility that Lao tzu was not a complete anarchist?

 

Yes I have and I do not believe that he was an anarchist by any stretch of the imagination.

 

I do like your observations and am in agreement with them.

[zerostao]

thomas jefferson was not an anarchist either ,BUT....

last night and this morning chp 25 has been on my mind.

so much so i was gonna put it on the pit bull thread (kinda)

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Hi Bai Hu,

 

You bring up some interesting points, however, I still disagree.

 

The fact that kings "arise" is about as natural as humans competing against each other. It just happens and always will. Even plants compete against each other. It was said that emperors ruled by divine right, but we all know they ruled by whatever means they had available, including all the unnaturally forced means of violence, fear, enforced scarcity, and on and on.

 

For a natural leader of the people to be elected to lead the people and follow their will (ie, keep peace and harmony between humanity and nature) is not what happens with monarchies (nor in corrupt democratic systems for that matter).

 

Also, the disorder of a country that leads to drought may be blamed on a king, but the king goes to the shaman to bring the rains back. From the perspective that one's harmony with the elements can influence a climate -- the king has never really been an adept at this, though he may have been conscious of it.

 

Could the translation "king" be just as easily replaced with "sage"?

 

Could someone explain the original term (by the way, would that be Mandarin, or just "Classical Chinese?")?

 

Thanks all..

 

(Deci, come on back Belle!)

[ChiDragon]

Bai Hu...

 

道法自然

"Tao models itself after Nature"

 

At one time, I had translated as such, but then I realized that Tao is above Nature. The only thing that I can come up with was

Tao follows its own nature. Tao models itself as being natural.

Edited February 2, 2012 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

HE...

Could someone explain the original term (by the way, would that be Mandarin, or just "Classical Chinese?")?

 

FYI The Chinese written language is almost the same, except some localities. By locality, I meant people speak different dialects in different regions.

 

There are two versions of the original:

1. 道大 天大 地大 人大(Man is great)

2. 道大 天大 地大 王大(King is great)

 

Number 1 is the consensus by the modern Chinese scholars.

Edited February 2, 2012 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

Tao follows its own nature.

 

I just wanted to repeat this.

 

("its own nature" is called Tzujan.)

[ChiDragon]

I just wanted to repeat this.

 

("its own nature" is called Tzujan.)

Yes, me too. 自然(Zi Ren)

[lienshan]

The Guodian chapter 25

 

 

There is a description of disorderly completed antecedents.

The heaven and the earth were born peacefully as separate singles.

The establishing not transforming one may be regarded as the mother of the universe.

I do not yet know her name.

The character is called Tao.

My powerful one becomes a name called a great one.

The great one is called a dam failure.

The dam failure is called a remoteness.

The remoteness is called a return.

The heaven is a great one.

The earth is a great one.

Tao is a great one.

The king is also a great one.

The empire has four great ones and the king is one of them.

Is the ground the attraction of the men?

Is the sky the attraction of the ground?

Is Tao the attraction of the sky?

Tao attracts itself.

 

 

 

The Zhou king was also great, because he had the title "Son of Heaven".

There were from 334 BC to 325 BC three more kings in the empire (Chu, Qi and Wei).

This dates the text and explains what is meant with the phrase "men" in the first rethorical question.

Edited May 16, 2013 by lienshan

[Marblehead]

The Zhou king was also great, because he had the title "Son of Heaven".

There were from 334 BC to 325 BC three more kings in the empire (Chu, Qi and Wei).

This dates the text and explains what is meant with the phrase "men" in the first rethorical question.

But then, it could be a later addition for the purpose of being politically correct.

 

Personally, I don't see any reason to be mentioning the king because that mention is out of context with the rest of the chapter.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Hey lienshen,

 

Not sure if you saw this already in my PPD, but here was my view on these lines

 

from link

 

 

"Going through cycles unending, able to be mother to the world."(Cleary)

"Reaching everywhere and in no danger (of being exhausted)! It may be regarded as the Mother of all things."(Legge)

 

The difference of "cycles" versus "reaching everywhere" here comes from 周 which means circle and encircling + 行running, then 而 不 殆 "however not dangerous."

 

So why would circling be dangerous? Well, look at the universe! What is it? Its a bunch of planets and stars orbiting around the pole star without colliding into each other! By this "Something (which) exists, random and chaotic, yet perfect and complete" not colliding all over the place, life is allowed to happen. 兮Alas! This is a pretty amazing feat!

 

周 行 而 不 殆

Traveling in circles, but not hazardous

可 以 為 天 地 母

So that it can serve as Heaven and Earth’s mother

(moé)

 

"I do not know its name; I label it the Way. Imposing on it a name, I call it Great." (Cleary)

"I do not know its name, and I give it the designation of the Tao (the Way or Course). Making an effort (further) to give it a name I call it The Great." (Legge)

 

Fairly straight forward.

 

吾 不 知 其 名

I do not know its name

字 之 曰 道

But write its name as Dao

強 為 之 名 曰 大

Impelled to name it, I call it Vast Greatness

(moé)

 

Next lines:

 

"Greatness means it goes; going means reaching afar; reaching afar means return." (Cleary)

"Great, it passes on (in constant flow). Passing on, it becomes remote. Having become remote, it returns." (Legge)

 

Seems Cleary especially got a bit stuck on 逝to pass. This character is a "hand with an axe, walking." So why does this character appear here? One has to read the poetry within the characters to grasp the meaning here. Vast Greatness is known as passing? No, Vast Greatness can never be stopped, like a man walking through the forest with an axe!

 

The the third part of this stanza says: "逝Passing is known as returning" but without knowing what passing really means here, it is difficult to makes sense of these "lyrics" if we may. However, knowing that passing really means "all penetrating" as in "Vast Greatness that goes beyond the edges of our universe" we can now see what is meant by "反 Returning/or to the contrary."

 

大 曰 逝 ，

Vast Greatness means all penetrating

逝 曰 遠 ，

All penetrating means spanning all distances

遠 曰 反

Spanning all distances includes that which is the most present and near

(moé)

 

 

"Therefore the Way is great, heaven is great, earth is great, and kingship is also great. Among domains are four greats, of which kingship is one." (Cleary)

"Therefore the Tao is great; Heaven is great; Earth is great; and the (sage) king is also great. In the universe there are four that are great, and the (sage) king is one of them." (Legge)

 

For some reason of which I'm unaware, there are some translators who take this as "the four greats, one of which is the king."

 

I don't see why they put it this way, as the characters seem to offer a beautiful and far more profound phrase:

 

故 道 大 ，

Therefore, Dao is Vast Greatness

天 大 ， 地 大 ，

Heaven is vast, Earth is vast

人 亦 大 。

Human kind is also vast

域 中 有 四 大 ，

From a nation’s center, the four directions are vast

而 人 居 其 一 焉 。
However, human kind envelops The One within

(moé)

 

Sounds far more enticing, but it is grammatically logical?

 

域 中 有 四 大

region, center, is, four, great

而 人 居 其 一 焉

however, man, house, the, One, therein

 

No other translation seems to illuminate these lyrics, yet they are beautiful. "Standing in the world, the four directions are vast, yet the vastness returns to the center which is One, unified, within each human being."

 

One must not neglect that this is following directly from the preceding lines (as I've translated):

 

"Vast Greatness means all penetrating

All penetrating means spanning all distances

Spanning all distances includes that which is the most present and near"

 

Seems translators were looking outwards for "四 大 four greats" from this four line stanza, and translated them accordingly, missing the inner meaning of those preceding three phrases

 

[lienshan]

But then, it could be a later addition for the purpose of being politically correct.

 

Personally, I don't see any reason to be mentioning the king because that mention is out of context with the rest of the chapter.

 

Laozi deals in the Guodian chapter 25 with four Shen Dao texts: the socalled Ta Yi Sheng Shui cosmology,

that wasn't included in the Zhouyi (I Ching) commentaries (the Ten Wings), and these three which were included:

 

http://ctext.org/book-of-changes/shuo-gua ( §1 §3 §6 are the Shen Dao texts; the others are confucian texts )

 

Laozi is critical to the heaven and the earth are established as singles; first the heaven and then the earth.

He pointes at the Zhou King, the Son of Heaven, as also being a great one like the earth is a great one,

because they are both born/established by the heaven, when following the Ta Yi Sheng Shui description.

 

But this is in conflict with the fact, that there were four with the title King, but three of them were ordinary men.

That'll say Laozi pointes at the Shen Dao paradox, that the Zhou king is both the Son of Heaven and a man.

The hidden pointe is ofcourse, that the Zhou king Xian paid Shen Dao for writing his Zhouyi commentaries.

 

The fourth last line of the chapter can be read both straight or as a rethorical question:

 

The man regulates the earth. or Is the earth the regulation of men?

 

The Guodian chapter 25 has another sequence (heaven-earth-Tao-king) than the later editted versions.

The Shuo Gua §3 says: Heaven 3 Earth 2 so the return means too to count backwards to the great 1

The hidden pointe is ofcourse, that Laozi considered the Zhou king as de facto being a great 0

[lienshan]

For some reason of which I'm unaware, there are some translators who take this as "the four greats, one of which is the king."

 

I don't see why they put it this way, as the characters seem to offer a beautiful and far more profound phrase:

 

You are translating/interpreting a later scholarly editted (made pleasing) version of chapter 25

I prefer to translate/interprete the original chapter 25

[dawei]

But then, it could be a later addition for the purpose of being politically correct.

 

Personally, I don't see any reason to be mentioning the king because that mention is out of context with the rest of the chapter.

 

But the kings came out of a lineage of Shaman-Kings; Eventually the kings were divining... thus they were the intercessors between heaven and earth. The oracle bones attest to this quite a bit.

[Marblehead]

But the kings came out of a lineage of Shaman-Kings; Eventually the kings were divining... thus they were the intercessors between heaven and earth. The oracle bones attest to this quite a bit.

Yes, I know my arguement is weak but still ... Hehehe. (Question everything.)

[flowing hands]

According to Li Erh the four great powers are:

 

Heaven

Earth,

The Dao

The ten thousand things

 

In comparison to these, no human or likewise sage king can compare in their greatness!

[lienshan]

Personally, I don't see any reason to be mentioning the king because that mention is out of context with the rest of the chapter.

 

The reason why must be, that Laozi wanted us to read the first four as the titles (heaven, earth, Tao, king)

and the last four as physical names (man, ground, sky, Tao). The title king differs from the physical name,

but the titles heaven and earth are in chinese the same as their physical names. Only the context shows,

how to read and understand the character. Laozi's use of king/man indicates the context:

 

The heaven is a great one.

The earth is a great one.

Tao is a great one.

The king is also a great one.

The empire has four great ones and the king is one of them.

Is the ground the attraction of man?

Is the sky the attraction of the ground?

Is Tao the attraction of the sky?

Tao attracts zi-ran.

 

I think that the three nextlast lines are rethorical questions. I've inspired by dawei translated 灋 (fa)

as "attraction" because physical objects are ruled by the law of graviation!

zi-ran in the last line isn't a noun and the line is maybe therefore meant to be read straight?

Edited May 15, 2013 by lienshan

[Marblehead]

I think that the three nextlast lines are rethorical questions. I've inspired by dawei translated 灋 (fa)

as "attraction" because physical objects are ruled by the law of graviation!

zi-ran in the last line isn't a noun and the line is maybe therefore meant to be read straight?

Line 15 uses "king" and line 17 uses "man".

 

Line 16 is an editorial comment to line 15.

 

If line 15 used "man" there would have been no need for line 16.

 

The Guodian Chapter 25 does the same thing.

 

I actually agree with Flowing Hands here. Then we would have: Tao, Heaven, Earth and The Ten Thousand Things (not just the king or man).

[lienshan]

Line 16 is an editorial comment to line 15.

 

My take is, that line 16 is an editorial comment to both line 15 and line 17.

 

I read the two different Guodian orders (heaven3, earth2, Tao1, king0) and (man, ground, sky, Tao) as referring to:

天兩地而 The heaven is 3. The earth is 2. (I Ching Shuo Gua §1)

數往者順知來者逆 One counts the past forewardly. One knows the future backwardly. (I Ching Shuo Gua §3)

 

The two orders are in all later versions (Tao, heaven, earth, king) and (man, ground, sky, Tao)

Maybe because those transmitting the text couldn't understand the first order and therefore changed it?

[Marblehead]

Yeah, Henricks had the king in there too. I can't argue what is an established work; I can only argue my understanding.

 

And true, unless we have "the original" all we can do is assume that what we have is true to the original.

 

But then, back in those days, those who spoke were speaking to the herd. And we know that a herd needs a shepard. Making the king one of the "greats" makes it easier for the shepard to control the herd.

[lienshan]

I actually agree with Flowing Hands here. Then we would have: Tao, Heaven, Earth and The Ten Thousand Things (not just the king or man).

 

I disagree, because I read/translate the lines 5 and 6 of the exavacated versions this way:

 

The character is called Tao.

My powerful one becomes a name called a great one.

 

吾 my (is commonly possessive and occurs only in front of the word on which it depends)

強 powerful (one) (one was unexpressed in classical chinese)

為之 becomes (a standard verbal phrase expressing future)

名 a name

曰 called

大 a great (one) (one was unexpressed in classical chinese)

 

The character 吾 is omitted in the Received version!

Edited May 16, 2013 by lienshan

[Marblehead]

You got too technical for me. Hehehe.

 

But then, I have never considered a king to be a great one. I also have problems with some presidents.

 

Anyhow, yeah, if we are going to stick with the Chinese words then I am at a loss. Understandings of the concepts we could likely discuss all day long.

[manitou]

According to Li Erh the four great powers are:

 

Heaven

Earth,

The Dao

The ten thousand things

 

In comparison to these, no human or likewise sage king can compare in their greatness!

 

 

LOL, Flowing Hands. I'll bite on this one. Are we not the All (Heaven, Earth, Dao, 10,000 things) when we finally get down to the Essence of self? I'd like to hear your distinction.

[lienshan]

You got too technical for me. Hehehe.

 

But then, I have never considered a king to be a great one. I also have problems with some presidents.

 

Okey less technical:

 

Everything that can be named "a great one" must obey the law of gravitiation.

 

That'll say the kings/men, the presidents/women, the heaven/sky, the earth/ground and the ten thousand things.

 

But Tao doesn't obey the law of gravitiation and can therefore not be called "a great one".