[TTC Study] Chapter 65 of the Tao Teh Ching

[Marblehead]

Edited August 30, 2011 by Marblehead

[Jeff]

A slightly different spin... Trying to put the words in context...

 

In the beginning [the rulers & priests] who knew of Tao did not use it

And also kept the knowledge from the people.

Why is it so hard for [rulers & priests] to rule?

Because [rulers & priests] operate from the Mind/Ego.

Rulers who try to use cleverness [of the Mind/Ego]

Cheat the country.

Those who rule from the natural flow of Tao

Are a blessing to the land.

These are the two alternatives.

Understanding this is the Primal Virtue [Truth].

Primal Virtue is everything.

It leads all things back

Toward the great oneness [of Tao].

 

 

Drop the mind/ego... Feel the flow...

 

[Marblehead]

A slightly different spin... Trying to put the words in context...

 

Fully acceptable Jeff.

 

I don't think the Chinese had a problem with priests but the inclusion is applicable to most other parts of the world.

[Jeff]

I don't think the Chinese had a problem with priests but the inclusion is applicable to most other parts of the world.

 

 

Fair point. The "Priests" part would probably would come more from Jesus's perspective. Or "Brahmin" in Hindu.

 

The key point is that the passage is about the "establishment" knowing of the truth, but not "sharing" or helping with understanding, for their personal gain. Established society is a product of the Mind/Ego, not oneness with Tao.

 

[lienshan]

A slightly different spin... Trying to put the words in context...

 

In the beginning [the rulers & priests] who knew of Tao did not use it

 

 

Drop the mind/ego... Feel the flow...

 

I do not want to drop my 'mind/ego' because someone hapless might pick it up

 

But I feel the flow of your 'spin' when reading the Mawangdui version my way:

 

The deceased forebear's wanderers are not the leader's enlightened people.

The stupidity of an ahead leader, the made difficult ruling of the people,

is their knowledge of leadership.

To know the nation is the treason of knowing the nation.

To not know the nation is the beneficence of knowing the nation.

Common knowledge, that which pairs additional examination and rules,

is the examinated rule of common knowledge.

This is called to deepen the helpful depth of deep helpfulness indeed!

Remoteness and indeed is the opposition of connected things

and then the arrival at the obedience of the great.

 

`

Edited August 30, 2011 by lienshan

[ChiDragon]

Chapter 65 - The methods of ruling a country.

1. In antiquity, those who were good in observing the principles of Tao.

2. It was not intended to make the people cunning.

3. But to keep them simple.

4. The people are difficult to be ruled,

5. It was because they are full of trickery.

6. Therefore, if one was using crafty cleverness to rule a country,

7. He would be considered as a bandit of the country.

8. By not using crafty cleverness to rule a country,

9. Then, it would be very fortunate for the country.

10. Understanding the difference between these two ruling methods,

11. Then, it would be recognized as a great principle.

13. Always knowing the great principle,

14. It was considered to be a deep virtue.

15. The deep virtue is profound and remote indeed!

16. With things are returned to the state of simplicity,

17. Thus they will attain the ultimate natural state by following the course of Nature.

 

Chapter 65 - How to rule a country.

1. 古 之 善 為 道 者,

2. 非 以 明 民,

3. 將 以 愚 之。

4. 民 之 難 治,

5. 以 其 智 多。

6. 故 以 智 治 國,

7. 國 之 賊。

8. 不 以 智 治 國,

9. 國 之 福。

10.知 此 兩 者,

11.亦 稽 式。

12.常 知 稽 式，

14.是 謂 玄 德。

15.玄 德 深 矣 、遠 矣 !

16.與 物 反 矣。

17.然 後 乃 至 大 順。

Edited August 30, 2011 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

Established society is a product of the Mind/Ego, not oneness with Tao.

 

 

Good point. Personally, I enjoy playing by my own rules. And I generally make up the rules as I go along.

[Marblehead]

How to rule a country.

 

How to rule yourself.

[ChiDragon]

How to rule yourself.

 

Applying the principles to oneself, yes.

[GOOWDAY]

65 (mawangdui)

 

故曰:

 

为道者, 非以明民也, 将以愚之也.

 

民之难治也, 以其知也.

故以知知邦, 邦之贼也;

以不知知邦 ,邦之德也.

......

 

 

So it can say:

 

As a taoist,The ruler don't think he is clear than people,and going to foolish them.

 

The people hard to be ruled,Cause of the ruler's know.

 

So with his know to know the nation,It will be the thievery of the nation;

 

With his not know to know the nation, It will be the DE of the nation.

 

......

Edited August 31, 2011 by GOOWDAY

[lienshan]

65 (mawangdui)

 

故曰:

 

为道者, 非以明民也, 将以愚之也.

 

民之难治也, 以其知也.

故以知知邦, 邦之贼也;

以不知知邦 ,邦之德也.

......

The author of the Mawangdui A version, the characters above, changed several original characters into his own characters, so I am always sceptical to a character in this version, that is different to all the other versions.

Here 曰 instead of 之 and 邦 instead of 國 so I prefer to read the B version:

 

故之为道者非以明民 也

将以愚之 也 民之难治 也 以其知 也

故以知國知國之贼 也

以不知國知國之德 也

 

The advantage of reading the exavacated texts compared to the Received versions are the grammatical 也 characters, because they tell how the other characters are structured in the syntax. The 也 characters do primary indicate noun clauses. I've indicated the noun clauses by () in the four sentences below:

 

sentence 1: (故之为道者) 非以明民

sentence 2: (将以愚之) (民之难治) (以其知)

sentence 3: (故以知國) 知國之贼

sentence 4: (以不知國) 知國之德

 

That'll say all characters in () are nouns or adjectives to the nouns!

The sentences 1, 3, 4 have a preceeding subject noun clause,

which verbs are the following characters 非, 知, 知

 

Sentence 2 is one of Laozi's many litteral pearls.

I read the noun clause in the middle as a subordinate noun clause.

Noun clauses are bound together by an implicit 'is' when put into english.

 

I hope that you find something useful in the above. Good luck with your translation

[GOOWDAY]

The author of the Mawangdui A version, the characters above, changed several original characters into his own characters, so I am always sceptical to a character in this version, that is different to all the other versions.

 

.............

 

I hope that you find something useful in the above. Good luck with your translation

 

thanks.

 

 

The first king of Han dynasty,His name is 刘邦,The name of the third king is 刘恒.

刘恒 is very famous for his ruling with the theory of laozi, and he made a great success.

For showing respect to them,Some characters in ddj was changed.

邦 was instead of 国,恒 was instead by 常.

 

So can use it to find out which version is earlier than the other,and the modified is less than the other .

 

In chapter 65 of mawangdui 帛书甲 version, 邦 and 恒 weren't changed.

 

（64）......

是以圣人欲不欲, 而不贵难得之;

学不学, 而复众人之所过.

能辅万物之自然, 而弗敢为 .

 

（65）

 

故曰:

为道者,非以明民也, 将以愚之也.

 

民之难治也, 以其知也 .

故以知知邦, 邦之贼也;

以不知知邦, 邦之德也.

恒知此两者亦稽式也 ,恒知稽式, 此谓玄德.

玄德深矣, 远矣 ,与物反矣 ,乃至大顺 .

[lienshan]

These two lines are to me the most difficult to understand:

 

John Wu:

Therefore, he who governs his state with cleverness is its malefactor;

But he who governs his state without resorting to cleverness is its benefactor.

 

English/Feng:

Rulers who try to use cleverness

Cheat the country.

Those who rule without cleverness

Are a blessing to the land.

 

Robert Henricks:

As a result, to use knowledge to rule the state

Is thievery of the state;

To use ignorance to rule the state

Is kindness to the state.

 

ChiDragon:

Therefore, if one was using crafty cleverness to rule a country,

He would be considered as a bandit of the country.

By not using crafty cleverness to rule a country,

Then, it would be very fortunate for the country.

 

GOOWDAY:

So with his know to know the nation,It will be the thievery of the nation;

With his not know to know the nation, It will be the DE of the nation.

 

Laozi is sarchastic in own reading:

To know the nation is the treason of knowing the nation.

To not know the nation is the beneficence of knowing the nation.

 

Because how is it possible to rule a nation that the ruler doesn't know?

[Marblehead]

These two lines are to me the most difficult to understand:

 

Because how is it possible to rule a nation that the ruler doesn't know?

 

Yes, that is a tough one. I'll wait for our Chinese reading members to respond.

[Jeff]

You need to remember that "cleverness" or "knowledge" is associated with the Ego/Mind. It is perceived as part of the problem in reconnecting with the oneness of Tao.

 

Ruling based on the Ego/Mind leads the people away from "feeling the flow" of Tao. Worrying about a strong economy, does not help one with a deeper connection with Tao. The choice is a materialistic and organized society or a bunch of people trying to connect with God/Tao.

 

[ChiDragon]

The first king of Han dynasty,His name is 刘邦,The name of the third king is 刘恒.

刘恒 is very famous for his ruling with the theory of laozi, and he made a great success.

For showing respect to them,Some characters in ddj was changed.

邦 was instead of 国,恒 was instead by 常.

 

It was the opposite showing respect of the kings. Thus it was a taboo to use their names in any document. That was why the characters were changed.

[ChiDragon]

The proper translation to have the logic flow:

6. Therefore, if one was using crafty cleverness to rule a country,

7. He would be considered as a bandit of the country.

 

8. By not using crafty cleverness to rule a country,

9. Then, it would be very fortunate for the country.

 

6. 故 以 智 治 國,

7. 國 之 賊。

8. 不 以 智 治 國,

9. 國 之 福。

 

The direct paradoxical translation:

6. Therefore, if one was using his wisdom to rule a country,

7. He would be considered as a bandit of the country.

 

8. By not using his wisdom to rule a country,

9. Then, it would be very fortunate for the country.

 

With a direct translation of these lines, they are very paradoxically. It doesn't make any sense. In order to make it sound logical and make sense, lines 6 and 8 should be interpreted with reverse logic. To keep the logic flow with lines 7 and 9.

Edited August 31, 2011 by ChiDragon

[lienshan]

6. 故 以 智 治 國,

7. 國 之 賊。

8. 不 以 智 治 國,

9. 國 之 福。

I found a solution to the mystery, that too works with your Received version

The character 以 did always (omit) a 之 character in pre-Qin classical chinese:

 

故以知(之)國 知國之贼也

以不知(之)國 知國之德也

 

之國 meant the objective meaning of 國 that'll say: country, territory

國 meant the subjective meaning of 國 that'll say: nation, state, people

 

I do still think, that Laozi was sarchastic to the confucian wanderers,

the political situation had changed since he deceased, so my new shot is:

 

Therefore, is it treason of the state knowledge to know the countries?

Is it beneficence of the state knowledge to not know the countries?

[ChiDragon]

I found a solution to the mystery, that too works with your Received version

The character 以 did always (omit) a 之 character in pre-Qin classical chinese:

 

故以知(之)國 知國之贼也

以不知(之)國 知國之德也

 

之國 meant the objective meaning of 國 that'll say: country, territory

國 meant the subjective meaning of 國 that'll say: nation, state, people

 

I do still think, that Laozi was sarchastic to the confucian wanderers,

the political situation had changed since he deceased, so my new shot is:

 

Therefore, is it treason of the state knowledge to know the countries?

Is it beneficence of the state knowledge to not know the countries?

 

國: small country

邦: big country; nation

 

Laozi was sarchastic to the Confucian wanderers.....???

Please reread the Tao Te Ching and reevaluate LaoTze again.

 

A sage treats all people like straw dogs(Chapter 5).

Don't you know about LaoTze's Wu Wei concept...???

Where have you been...???

[lienshan]

Laozi was sarchastic to the Confucian wanderers.....???

Please reread the Tao Te Ching and reevaluate LaoTze again.

If Laozi did use sarchasm and you translate it as a cookbook of leadership

then you do arrive at:

With a direct translation of these lines, they are very paradoxically. It doesn't make any sense.

[Marblehead]

You guys keep on. Y'all have already answered my question. No, I'm not going to tell you what my question was nor am I going to tell you the answer. Hehehe.

[Jeff]

Heard a story that might help the discussion...

 

Buddha, Confucius, and Lao Zi decide to get out of the hot sun and go into a bar to talk. A beautiful waitress comes and offers them all free drinks. Buddha declines stating that it is a distraction and wrong and sits quietly. Confucius says it is rude not to take the drink. He takes a little taste and then spends the rest of the day trying to comment about the drink to everyone in the room and never finishes the drink. Lao Zi takes the drink and chugs it. Asks for more and gets drunk while leading everyone in the bar in song.

 

Hope that helps to explain the difference to everyone...

[Marblehead]

Heard a story that might help the discussion...

 

Buddha, Confucius, and Lao Zi decide to get out of the hot sun and go into a bar to talk. A beautiful waitress comes and offers them all free drinks. Buddha declines stating that it is a distraction and wrong and sits quietly. Confucius says it is rude not to take the drink. He takes a little taste and then spends the rest of the day trying to comment about the drink to everyone in the room and never finishes the drink. Lao Zi takes the drink and chugs it. Asks for more and gets drunk while leading everyone in the bar in song.

 

Hope that helps to explain the difference to everyone...

 

I'll bet Lao Zi took the waitress home when the bar closed too.

[ChiDragon]

I'll bet Lao Zi took the waitress home when the bar closed too.

 

Sorry, there was only male waitress at the time...

[Marblehead]

Sorry, there was only male waitress at the time...

 

Darn!