[TTC Study] Chapter 66 of the Tao Teh Ching

[lienshan]

But that is your thought; not the ancient chinese... Otherwise they would not have a saying like:

 

"All within the Four Seas are related (brothers)."

 

Water and mountains are often used to denote that which makes up the land or surrounds the land.

JiangShan (Rivers and Mountains) and SiHai (Four Seas).

I came across 'Four Seas' used in an very interesting way here: go to page 6 of 34

 

Within the four seas, (everyone's) xing is the same.

That they use their minds differently is caused by teaching.

 

xing = moral conduct

[XieJia]

I came across 'Four Seas' used in an very interesting way here: go to page 6 of 34

 

Within the four seas, (everyone's) xing is the same.

That they use their minds differently is caused by teaching.

 

xing = moral conduct

 

nice!

so to say

from Chinese school of Thoughts

is the De 德 subjective or objective?

Edited September 16, 2011 by XieJia

[Marblehead]

so to say

from Chinese school of Thoughts

is the De 德 subjective or objective?

 

What a question! I will await an answer.

[dawei]

I came across 'Four Seas' used in an very interesting way here: go to page 6 of 34

 

Within the four seas, (everyone's) xing is the same.

That they use their minds differently is caused by teaching.

 

xing = moral conduct

Interesting, thanks for sharing that.

 

I would like to point out that the Laozi "De" (德) which many like to translate as "Virtue" is the counterpart to Confucius "Xing" (性, which is the nature of things). This is why I (and I think others) object to translating De as Virtue; it is of Dao and it's not virtue in the sense of human virtue/morality. And if it takes too many words to explain that then another word may be better... IMO.

 

Here is is as a PDF download:

My link

[XieJia]

Interesting, thanks for sharing that.

 

I would like to point out that the Laozi "De" (德) which many like to translate as "Virtue" is the counterpart to Confucius "Xing" (性, which is the nature of things). This is why I (and I think others) object to translating De as Virtue; it is of Dao and it's not virtue in the sense of human virtue/morality. And if it takes too many words to explain that then another word may be better... IMO.

 

Here is is as a PDF download:

My link

 

So Laozi's De is the function in according to the Dao?

 

Confucius's Xing is the heaven's allotted nature?

 

Would Confucius's 仁心ren xin (Human-heartedness) be along the same line? As to be in accord with the Xing?

[Marblehead]

Interesting.

 

Although I do talk about the "V"irtue of Tao and the "v"itrue of man, there really is no "virtue" of Tao. That is because Tao does not discriminate between virtue and vice. But there is Tzujan. Tao just is. It follows its own nature without prejudice.

 

Man, on the other hand, ..., well, you know.

[dawei]

So Laozi's De is the function in according to the Dao?

 

Confucius's Xing is the heaven's allotted nature?

 

Would Confucius's 仁心ren xin (Human-heartedness) be along the same line? As to be in accord with the Xing?

Have you seen the bloated discussion we had on "De" here?

 

LaoZi's "De" - as compared to the Confucian "De", and (moral) "Virtue

 

IMO and briefly, "De" is Dao in you. That is not a virtue as much as a capacity/power/efficacy to generate and live; This is how and why we can 'be'.

 

The Confucian Xing has two schools of thought:

1. Confucius and Mencius - It was a 'natural course of development'.

2. Xunzi - 'What is so by birth'

 

I think both are right, in a Confucian ideal... what was given and developed.

 

Xing - Human-ness; what makes us human (objective)

Ren - Essence of developing human-ness (subjective)

 

Thus I see the Confucian virtues as in accordance with Xing.

 

As Lienshan first quoted:

四海之內其性一也。其用心各異，教使然也。

"Within the four seas, [everyone’s] xing is the same.

That they use their minds differently is caused by teaching."

 

and:

仁生於人，義生於道。或生於內，或生於外。

"Humanity is born in human beings; morality is born of the Way.

Some things are born inside [us]; some things are born outside [us]."

 

仁，內也。義，外也。

Humanity is internal. Morality is external.

 

Confucius said in the Analects:

性相近也，習相遠也.

"By nature men are similar; by practice men are wide apart"

 

or as the Three Character Classic says in the opening lines:

人之初 - People at birth,

性本善 - Are naturally good (kind-hearted).

性相近 - Their natures are similar,

習相遠 - (But) their habits make them different (from each other).

Edited September 16, 2011 by dawei

[XieJia]

Thanks Dawei,

 

direct to the point ,

imho

Laozi and Zhuangzi viewed it from the Dao.

Kungzi, Menzi, Xunzi viewed it from the Human within Heaven and Earth.

 

Sounds to me that all is accord to the Nature,

problems addressed in Zhuangzi is when people mistaken virtue

and tries to apply others nature against their own.

[ion]

Interesting.

 

Although I do talk about the "V"irtue of Tao and the "v"itrue of man, there really is no "virtue" of Tao. That is because Tao does not discriminate between virtue and vice. But there is Tzujan. Tao just is. It follows its own nature without prejudice.

 

Man, on the other hand, ..., well, you know.

 

True virtue is objective. Virtue is a label, but what we label as virtuous is the complex acts, responses etc that are dependent on a selflessness nature, that spontaneously happen in an immediate situation.

 

Selflessness and its dependants are objectively "great" in all situations they are applied to.

 

Contrived,virtue, literally acting out virtue- when people "do" acts of kindness because of a moral code, or for the sake of religion is no better then anyother ritual.

 

Imatations of virtue vs. spontaneous emulations of Tao.

[ion]

Interesting.

 

Although I do talk about the "V"irtue of Tao and the "v"itrue of man, there really is no "virtue" of Tao. That is because Tao does not discriminate between virtue and vice. But there is Tzujan. Tao just is. It follows its own nature without prejudice.

 

Man, on the other hand, ..., well, you know.

 

There no discriminations between good habits and bad habits I agree.

 

People discriminate Te, and call it good. Then they emulate what they label as good.

 

Immitations of virtuous acts vs. emmulations of Tao.

 

Virtue in the sense of Te are the uncontrived, spontaneous actions of a selfless nature.

 

The more selflessness is succesfully cultivated, the more potential for exhibiting "virtue" is gained. Right action naturaly unfolds from a selfless nature.

 

Te derived from selflessness is objectively great in any situation it is applied. Compared to any move that can be made the selfless act is always the greatest.

[ChiDragon]

Interesting.

 

Although I do talk about the "V"irtue of Tao and the "v"itrue of man, there really is no "virtue" of Tao. That is because Tao does not discriminate between virtue and vice. But there is Tzujan. Tao just is. It follows its own nature without prejudice.

 

Man, on the other hand, ..., well, you know.

 

I think we have gone over this once before. We should not mix the Confucius' virtue with the Virtue of Tao to avoid confusion.

 

1. Virtue of Tao: Those who follow the natural course of Nature was considered to have the virtue of Tao

 

2. Virtue of human: Those who follow the moral conducts of human was considered to have the virtue of morality.

 

PS...

I think Marblehead did agree with me that when we interpret the Tao Te Ching, we must exclude Confucian and all other philosophies. The Tao Te Ching is a piece of stand alone document. All its definitions are well defined in the TTC.

[Marblehead]

I think we have gone over this once before. We should not mix the Confucius' virtue with the Virtue of Tao to avoid confusion.

 

1. Virtue of Tao: Those who follow the natural course of Nature was considered to have the virtue of Tao

 

2. Virtue of human: Those who follow the moral conducts of human was considered to have the virtue of morality.

 

PS...

I think Marblehead did agree with me that when we interpret the Tao Te Ching, we must exclude Confucian and all other philosophies. The Tao Te Ching is a piece of stand alone document. All its definitions are well defined in the TTC.

 

Yep. We have talked about it before and I am sure I will talk about it again numerous times. Hehehe. It is one of my favorite discussions.

 

Yes, we have agreed on this before and what you said is totally valid, especially what I bolded above.

[lienshan]

The Tao Te Ching is a piece of stand alone document.

Yes, we have agreed on this before and what you said is totally valid, especially what I bolded above.

How do you two explain Tao Teh Ching as a stand alone document, when the last line of chapter 32

cannot stand alone without knowledge of the first three lines of chapter 66

 

Why did the author write a stand alone document line referring to something written later on in the document ???

Something that the author had not written yet ??? Something that a reader has not yet read ???

 

Chapter 32

 

John Wu

 

The Tao is to the world what a great river or an ocean is to the streams and brooks.

 

English/Feng

 

Tao in the world is like a river flowing home to the sea.

 

Robert Henricks

 

Is like the relationship of small valley [streams] to rivers and seas.

Edited September 17, 2011 by lienshan

[Marblehead]

How do you two explain Tao Teh Ching as a stand alone document, when the last line of chapter 32

cannot stand alone without knowledge of the first three lines of chapter 66

 

Why did the author write a stand alone document line referring to something written later on in the document ???

Something that the author had not written yet ??? Something that a reader has not yet read ???

 

You are tempting me again to say that I believe that various words were added to an original form of the TTC. This is the only way I can explain the existence of woards and sentences that appear to be secondary thoughts.

 

I would even question that its original form was 81 Chapters but rather suggest that there really no chapters at all in the original but rather one total collection of thoughts in the original form. The breaks not being chapter breaks but rather concept thought breaks.

 

If each concept were separated I doubt that there would be 81 "chapters" and I would further bet that there would be a few statements left over that really don't fit in anywhere in the concept collection.

 

But I have no proof to support my doubts. I can only read what others have translated and they can translate only what is available. Was there even an original that was written down by the gatekeeper as recited by Lao Tzu? Even this is questionable.

 

But y'all know me. For my own practical use, I simply ignore those words or sentences that I think shouldn't be there. This is my personal preferrence and I will never suggest that anyone else should ever do the same.

 

When I disregard what I think doesn't belong there I find the TTC to be an excellent, stand alone document and I do use it in my everyday life.

[ChiDragon]

How do you two explain Tao Teh Ching as a stand alone document, when the last line of chapter 32

cannot stand alone without knowledge of the first three lines of chapter 66

 

Thank you for asking an illogical question and giving me room to answer it logically. The TTC is a stand alone document because the thoughts are supported by the inter-chapters. According to your scenario, Chapter 66 is supporting Chapter 32 within the TTC. Thus Chapter 33 is not a stand alone document but the TTC was since Ch 33 is within a stand alone document like the TTC....

Edited September 17, 2011 by ChiDragon

[lienshan]

nice!

so to say

from Chinese school of Thoughts

is the De 德 subjective or objective?

My approach to 'subjective' or 'objective' has something to do with this:

 

於 is one of the most requently used functional words in old Chinese. Semantically, 於 can be seen as a marker of "non-patient" roles, and it can introduce various nominal elements related to the verb except for typical patient. Syntactically, 於 can be seen as a marker of "non-object" constituents, and all the nominal elements introduced by 於 can not be analyzed as objects. The existence of 於 shows that the distinction between objects and non-objects was critical in old Chinese.

Edited September 21, 2011 by lienshan

[dust]

This is, I think, the only chapter I've attempted so far that hasn't given me grief...until I get to the last lines of the 郭店 version!

 

As straightforward as it is to comprehend the intent/overall meaning, the Chinese at the end of the GD -- in exactly the same way as chapter 8 of the MWD -- uses 静 where other versions use 争.

 

So... 静 is 争. To accept that makes life easier. No questions from me. Just continuing to post my own translations as I do them.

 

 

江海所以為百谷王 The rivers and oceans are lords of the hundred valleys;

以亓能為百谷下 By being below the hundred valleys,

是以能為百谷王 So are they able to rule them.

聖人 The wise man

之在民前也 以身後之 Stands ahead of the people by putting himself behind them,

亓在民上也 以言下之 Above them by speaking as from below;

亓在民上也 民弗厚也 Above them, yet the people feel not his presence,

亓在民前也 民弗害也 Ahead of them, yet the people come not to harm,

天下樂進而弗詀 And all proceed happily without a fuss;

以亓不靜也 By not contending,

古天下莫能與之靜 None under heaven can contend with him

[Marblehead]

Nice translation.

[dust]

Nice translation.

Thank ye