[TTC Study] Chapter 64 of the Tao Teh Ching

[Marblehead]

My own reading (Guodian C)

 

The sage has not a doing.

Therefore no loss no losing.

 

 

But Lienshan,

 

'doing' is an action verb. How can one have or not have an action verb? There is no logic. That's what I am talking about.

 

The Sage does nothing (wu wei),

Therefore he spoils nothing.

 

or better perhaps

 

The Sage does not act (against the processes of nature) (wu wei)

Therefore he interfers with nothing.

 

 

Now, I realize that one must use the words of the original text. But still, after the preferred words are selected the composed sentence must make logical sense.

[dawei]

But still, after the preferred words are selected the composed sentence must make logical sense.

Otherwise there is nothing to discuss and one has to wonder if discussion is even a goal or is it just self-promotion of nonsensical, non-grammatical gibberish.

[Marblehead]

Otherwise there is nothing to discuss and one has to wonder if discussion is even a goal or is it just self-promotion of nonsensical, non-grammatical gibberish.

 

Hey! You be nice. Hehehe.

[dawei]

Hey! You be nice. Hehehe.

I guess you prefer false kindness over honesty... or at least you don't see the kindness in honesty... the consistent false pretense of just wanting to be PC is getting quite old... sorry... maybe we should withhold such honesty for the sake of kindness.

[lienshan]

'doing' is an action verb. How can one have or not have an action verb?

There is no logic. That's what I am talking about.

 

The Sage does nothing (wu wei),

Therefore he spoils nothing.

 

or better perhaps

 

The Sage does not act (against the processes of nature) (wu wei)

Therefore he interfers with nothing.

'doing' being an action verb is preceeded by the negative bu and not the negative wu;

that'll say bu wei means 'not doing' while wu wei means 'not a doing'.

 

That a sage 'does nothing' or 'does not act' is not logic; even a 5 years old child is sceptical:

Who buy his food in the shop? Doesn't a sage clip his nails? And why doesn't he drop his 3-in-1?

 

A sage has not a doing might mean a sage isn't a job?

Edited August 28, 2011 by lienshan

[Marblehead]

'doing' being an action verb is preceeded by the negative bu and not the negative wu;

that'll say bu wei means 'not doing' while wu wei means 'not a doing'.

 

That a sage 'does nothing' or 'does not act' is not logic; even a 5 years old child is sceptical:

Who buy his food in the shop? Doesn't a sage clip his nails? And why doesn't he drop his 3-in-1?

 

A sage has not a doing might mean a sage isn't a job?

 

Hehehe. It is your challenge to work out the translation. I can't do that.

 

But yes, 'does nothing' or 'does not act' is very logical if one understands the concept of 'wu wei'. "Does not act" does not mean that the Sage 'does nothing' but rather that the Sage does nothing with alterior motive. S/he does what needs be done. It means the Sage clips his/her fingernails 'before' the go to the shop to prepare food for others to eat.

 

I think that even "a sage isn't a job" is still inadequate.

[lienshan]

Hehehe. It is your challenge to work out the translation.

I know, but I haven't yet figured out exactly why Laozi changed the Guodian A-version to the C-version?

 

But yes, 'does nothing' or 'does not act' is very logical if one understands the concept of 'wu wei'.

"Does not act" does not mean that the Sage 'does nothing' but rather that the Sage does nothing with alterior motive.

S/he does what needs be done.

Thanks for your explanation. I respect it (not synonymous with an agreement)

[Marblehead]

I know, but I haven't yet figured out exactly why Laozi changed the Guodian A-version to the C-version?

 

Thanks for your explanation. I respect it (not synonymous with an agreement)

 

We are doing just fine. You wanted my opinions - I am offering them. I never promised they all would be nice. Hehehe.

[ion]

Reading this passage, a lot of relative concepts come to mind. This passage makes an excellent back drop to illustrate many principles.

 

I get a sense of the cardinal principle being expressed is that of the symmetry between action and activity.

 

That what goes in is precisely what comes out.

 

Example, a person picks up a stone and with a target in mind, takes aim and throws it. The thrown ball is in a state of passivity, its trajectory and velocity were determined by the action of throwing it. It will remain on course unless something of a greater velocituy overcomes its vector.

 

Most of the energy required to make a journey is taken when the simple initiative is acted on when a person gets up and leaves.

 

The initiative force is activated and puts into activity the whole journey.

 

Also this is another example of approaching the easy as difficult, to pour your whole self into everything you do, align your focus and attention, compose yourself and become devoted to its fullfillment then initiate the activity. All of the care you put into the first few steps of any project will eforletleesly echo throughout its totality.

 

The entire continuim that unfolds out of any action bares the imprint of the original action that initiated the activity.

[Marblehead]

That what goes in is precisely what comes out.

 

In computer programming this is called: Garbage in - garbage out.

[dust]

From the Guodian A7 (slips 10-13)

I don't think there's anything particularly contentious here. Cool chapter.

 

 

 

爲之者敗之執之者遠之 Those who act, err; those who grasp, lose;

是以聖人 As the wise man

亡爲古亡敗亡執古亡遠 Acts not, he errs not; grasps not, he loses not;

臨事之紀訢冬奴怡 When anticipating affairs, be as cautious at the end as at the beginning,

此亡敗事矣 And you will not err;

聖人谷不谷 The wise man desires not to desire,

不貴難㝵之貨 And does not covet rare things;

學不學 Learns not to learn,

復眾之所過 And returns to the beginning;

是古聖人能甫萬勿之自然 The wise man is good at tending to life,

而弗能爲 But not at forcing it

[Taoist Texts]

From the Guodian A7 (slips 10-13)

I don't think there's anything particularly contentious here.

 

contention stems only from inquiring what does it actually mean in practical terms.

[dust]

contention stems only from inquiring what does it actually mean in practical terms.

 

Ah..well..

 

聖人谷不谷 The wise man desires not to desire,

不貴難㝵之貨 And does not covet rare things;

學不學 Learns not to learn,

復眾之所過 And returns to the beginning;

 

Practically (and linguistically), does this make sense?

 

Learn not to learn / undo one's learning / not hold onto ideas, and one goes back (mentally) to the beginning, whence everyone else has come (but no longer resides) -- i.e. like a newborn, no preconceptions

[Marblehead]

Interesting, you guys.

 

Practicality. Is it useful (to me)? I really have grown into this mentality.

 

So yes, reduce our desires; don't seek (so many) rare things.

 

Learn how to unlearn. (Question everything.) But after all the unlearning we still have to chop wood and carry water so don't be unlearning too much; only that which is useless.

[Taoist Texts]

Funny story:

 

 

孔子不聽，顏回為御，子貢為右，往見盜跖。盜跖乃方休卒徒太山之陽，膾人肝而餔之。孔子下車而前，見謁者曰：「魯人孔丘，聞將軍高義，敬再拜謁者。」謁者入通，盜跖聞之大怒，目如明星，髮上指冠，曰：「此夫魯國之巧偽人孔丘非邪？為我告之：『爾作言造語，妄稱文、武，冠枝木之冠，帶死牛之脅，多辭繆說，不耕而食，不織而衣，搖脣鼓舌，擅生是非，以迷天下之主，使天下學士不反其本，妄作孝弟而儌倖於封侯富貴者也。子之罪大極重，疾走歸！不然，我將以子肝益晝餔之膳。』」

Confucius, however, did not attend to this advice. With Yan Hui as his charioteer, and Zi-gong seated on the right, he went to see Dao Zhi, whom he found with his followers halted on the south of Tai-shan, and mincing men's livers, which he gave them to eat. Confucius alighted from his carriage, and went forward, till he saw the usher, to whom he said, 'I, Kong Qiu of Lu, have heard of the general's lofty righteousness,' bowing twice respectfully to the man as he said so. The usher went in and announced the visitor. But when Dao Zhi heard of the arrival, he flew into a great rage; his eyes became like blazing stars, and his hair rose up and touched his cap. 'Is not this fellow,' said he, 'Kong Qiu, that artful hypocrite of Lu? Tell him from me, "You invent speeches and babble away, appealing without ground to (the examples of) Wen and Wu. The ornaments on your cap are as many as the branches of a tree, and your girdle is (a piece of skin) from the ribs of a dead ox, The more you talk, the more nonsense you utter. You get your food without (the labour of) ploughing, and your clothes without (that of) weaving. You wag your lips and make your tongue a drum-stick. You arbitrarily decide what is right and what is wrong, thereby leading astray the princes throughout the kingdom, and making its learned scholars not occupy their thoughts with their proper business. You recklessly set up your filial piety and fraternal duty, and curry favour with the feudal princes, the wealthy and the noble. Your offence is great; your crime is very heavy. Take yourself off home at once. If you do not do so, I will take your liver, and add it to the provision for to-day's food."' Edited October 19, 2014 by Taoist Texts

[Michael Sternbach]

 

Learn how to unlearn. (Question everything.) But after all the unlearning we still have to chop wood and carry water so don't be unlearning too much; only that which is useless.

 

Unlearn wrong beliefs. Many of them we have learnt a long time ago (i.e. in our childhood). Yet it's always possible to unlearn them.

 

You find this all the way from early Buddhists to Seth (Jane Robert's trance personality). Looks like Daoism teaches it, too.

[Michael Sternbach]

What is at rest is easy to hold;
What has not yet given a sign is easy to plan for;
The brittle is easily shattered;
The minute is easily scattered;
Act on it before it comes into being;
Order it before it turns into chaos.

 

I particularly like this part. It's wisdom to take care of the seeds for damage before they unfold. However, it takes wisdom to recognize them... and to know what can be done.

[Marblehead]

Yep. I pretty much have always tried to live according to these standards.

 

And you are right. It requires a lot of wisdom to know what one should act on and what can be left alone.

[Taoist Texts]

Ah..well..

 

聖人谷不谷 The wise man desires not to desire,

不貴難㝵之貨 And does not covet rare things;

學不學 Learns not to learn,

復眾之所過 And returns to the beginning;

 

Practically (and linguistically), does this make sense?

 

Learn not to learn / undo one's learning / not hold onto ideas, and one goes back (mentally) to the beginning, whence everyone else has come (but no longer resides) -- i.e. like a newborn, no preconceptions

Well yes it does make sense. A very metaphorical, Taoist, benign sense.

 

 

To me, the reality looks way darker:

 

《群書治要•德經》:

為者敗之，執者失之，those who act get vanquished, those who cling - lose

聖人無為故無敗，the sages do not act and therefore do not get vanquished

民之從事，常於幾成而敗之，In ruling over the commoners, (the rulers) always wait till (insurgency) come to a head before vanquishing it,

慎終如始，則無敗事，but if (the ruler) would take same care in the beginning (of the uprising) as he did at the maturity of it – then he would vanquish it with non-action

是以聖人 therefore the sages (make) the commoners

欲不欲，不貴難得之貨，what is desirable – not to desire, so (masses) do not value the hard to get goods,

學不學，復衆人之所過，what is teachable – not to learn, to check (復) the transgressions of masses

以輔萬物之自然，而不敢為焉。 in these way all things are guided naturally never daring to act up.

[Marblehead]

Yes, that is darker, but not inconsistent.

[dust]

Well yes it does make sense. A very metaphorical, Taoist, benign sense.

 

 

To me, the reality looks way darker:

 

So, the "more Taoist" way is perhaps less realistic?

 

 

《群書治要•德經》:

為者敗之，執者失之，those who act get vanquished, those who cling - lose

聖人無為故無敗，the sages do not act and therefore do not get vanquished

民之從事，常於幾成而敗之，In ruling over the commoners, (the rulers) always wait till (insurgency) come to a head before vanquishing it,

慎終如始，則無敗事，but if (the ruler) would take same care in the beginning (of the uprising) as he did at the maturity of it – then he would vanquish it with non-action

是以聖人 therefore the sages (make) the commoners

欲不欲，不貴難得之貨，what is desirable – not to desire, so (masses) do not value the hard to get goods,

學不學，復衆人之所過，what is teachable – not to learn, to check (復) the transgressions of masses

以輔萬物之自然，而不敢為焉。 in these way all things are guided naturally never daring to act up.

 

Makes sense. Suddenly reads a lot more like the Art of War.

 

Not dark, really -- or at least, no darker than chapters 19, 30, 46, all of which are in the Guodian.

Rule with a cotton fist; keep the masses fed and stupid.

 

Can this part in the GD be interpreted in such a manner, though?

 

聖人谷不谷 -- referring to the sage himself, and not the people, not wanting to desire

[Taoist Texts]

So, the "more Taoist" way is perhaps less realistic?

 

To me, yes, i always poke gentle fun at modern taoists, but even by the time TTC was first written down sometime before 300 BC it has lost its practicall meaning becoming a sacred text whose meaning ranges from abstract philosophy to intenal alchemy to self-cultivation. Its existence in many variants hints that it was not properly understood, being twisted to suit a scribe's world view.

 

 

 

The Guodian Laozi consists of only about two thousand characters, or 40 percent

of the received version, covering in their entirety or in part only thirty—one

of the received text's stanzas. The order of the stanzas is utterly different

from any later versions. Moreover, it is yet to be determined whether the

Guodian Laozi represents a sample taken from a larger Laozi or is the nucleus of

a later five—thousand—character Laozi. A current working hypothesis is that the

Guodian Laozi should be attributed to Laozi, also called Lao Dan, a contemporary

of Confucius who may have outlived him, and that the remainder, the non—Guodian

text, was the work of an archivist and dates from around 375 B.C (Robert)

 

 

 

Can this part in the GD be interpreted in such a manner, though?

 

聖人谷不谷 -- referring to the sage himself, and not the people, not wanting to desire

Thats certainly how the scribe undertstood it, but I think the scribe omitted the reference to the people becouse it made no sense to him . Same with the next line 學不學 where the reference to the populace is retained but is still read as a reference to the sage not the populace.

 

Now when i see 'not to teach' and 'populace' in the same sentence i can not but recall Confucious'

 

泰伯:

子曰：「民可使由之，不可使知之。」Tai Bo:

The Master said, "The people may be made to follow a path of action, but they may not be made to understand it."

 

 

 

so i infer that 'not teaching' referes to the people, and project that on the preceding line as well.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Taoist Texts

[Taoist Texts]

Interesting, you guys.

 

Practicality. Is it useful (to me)?

It coulld have been in your CO days;)

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Well yes it does make sense. A very metaphorical, Taoist, benign sense.

 

 

To me, the reality looks way darker:

 

《群書治要•德經》:

為者敗之，執者失之，those who act get vanquished, those who cling - lose

聖人無為故無敗，the sages do not act and therefore do not get vanquished

民之從事，常於幾成而敗之，In ruling over the commoners, (the rulers) always wait till

(insurgency) come to a head before vanquishing it,

 

With interference there is failure. By forceful grasping there is loss.

The sages are not forceful, thereby they are without failure.

In attending to the commoners, it's 常always 於the case that 幾many things 成end 而in 敗failure.

 

note that 從事 is a compound character meaning "attending to." It's perhaps intentionally less strong than "ruling over." Keep in mind that much of the Taoist advice is very anarchistic.

 

慎終如始，則無敗事，but if (the ruler) would take same care in the beginning (of the uprising) as he did at the maturity of it – then he would vanquish it with non-action

 

If the caution taken at the end was the same in the beginning, it would be followed by no failure in affairs.

 

 

It's very general advice. Sure it could be applied to government, as it could to cooking rice without burning it.

 

是以聖人 therefore the sages ((make) the commoners)

 

Therefore the sages

 

欲不欲，

 

Desire not desiring

 

不貴難得之貨，what is desirable – not to desire, so (masses) do not value the hard to get goods,

 

Do not put high value on rare commodities which are difficult to obtain

 

學不學，復衆人之所過，what is teachable – not to learn, to check (復) the transgressions of masses

 

Teach by not teaching, returning the masses to the place where

 

以輔萬物之自然，而不敢為焉。 in these way all things are guided naturally never daring to act up.

 

the all myriad things are assisted (in returning to) their nature. In this way they do not fail, no?

 

 

 

 

I think "egotistical action" is really the best definition of wei here, as it is also in earlier chapters.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Taoist Texts]

Hi HE;)

敗failure.

note that 從事 is a compound character meaning "attending to." It's perhaps intentionally less strong than "ruling over."

this is an excellent note. Yes it is an euphemism, much in the same vein as a military expedition to vanquish a neigbouring tribe, to sacrifice the prisoners was called 'pacifying' in those times.

I would just add that 敗failure is a derivative sense. its original meaning was specifically 'to defeat' or 'a defeat'


(1) To fail, usu. 失敗：事情，計劃失敗了.
(2) (AC) to defeat: 敗秦師 defeated the [qin2] army;
(modn.) 把敵打敗 defeat the enemy, also 擊敗.
(3) To break (alliance, treaty 敗盟，敗約).
(4) To spoil (good name of family 敗家風). Adj. (1) Defeated: 敗兵，敗軍 defeated troops;
打敗仗 defeated in battle;
敗不成軍 army is completely routed.
http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Lindict/

 

the all myriad things are assisted (in returning to) their nature. In this way they do not fail, no?

Hmmm..i dont know, did they want to return to their nature? Have they been asked what they want? Is their nature to be used and discarded as that of the straw dogs? If yes then they have not fail for sure.

 

Edited October 20, 2014 by Taoist Texts