[TTC Study] Chapter 67 of the Tao Teh Ching

[Marblehead]

Chapter 67

 

John Wu

 

All the world says that my Tao is great, but seems queer, like nothing on earth.

But it is just because my Tao is great that it is like nothing on earth!

If it were like anything on earth, how small it would have been from the very beginning!

I have Three Treasures, which I hold fast and watch over closely.

The first is Mercy.

The second is Frugality.

The third is Not Daring to Be First in the World.

Because I am merciful, therefore I can be brave.

Because I am frugal, therefore I can be generous.

Because I dare not be first, therefore I can be the chief of all vessels.

If a man wants to be brave without first being merciful, generous without first being frugal, a leader without first wishing to follow, he is only courting death!

Mercy alone can help you to win a war.

Mercy alone can help you to defend your state.

For Heaven will come to the rescue of the merciful, and protect him with its Mercy.

 

 

English/Feng

 

Everyone under heaven says that my Tao is great and beyond compare.

Because it is great, it seems different.

If it were not different, it would have vanished long ago.

I have three treasures which I hold and keep.

The first is mercy; the second is economy;

The third is daring not to be ahead of others.

From mercy comes courage; from economy comes generosity;

From humility comes leadership.

Nowadays men shun mercy, but try to be brave;

They abandon economy, but try to be generous;

They do not believe in humility, but always try to be first.

This is certain death.

Mercy brings victory in battle and strength in defense.

It is the means by which heaven saves and guards.

 

 

Robert Henricks

 

The whole world says, I'm Great;

Great, yet unlike [everyone else],

But it's precisely because I'm unlike [everyone else], that I'm therefore able to be Great.

Were I like [everyone else], for a long time now I'd have seemed insignificant and small.

I constantly have three treasures;

Hold on to them and treasure them.

The first is compassion;

The second is frugality;

And the third is not presuming to be at the forefront in the world.

Now, it's because I'm compassionate that I therefore can be courageous;

And it's because I'm frugal that I therefore can be magnanimous;

And it's because I don't presume to be at the forefront in the world that I therefore can be the head of those with complete talent.

Now, if you abandon this compassion and yet try to be courageous,

And if you abandon this frugality and yet try to be magnanimous,

And if you abandon this staying behind and yet go to the fore,

Then you will die.

If with compassion you attack, then you'll win;

If you defend, then you'll stand firm.

When Heaven's about to establish him,

It's as though he surrounds him with the protective wall of compassion.

 

 

 

Oops! I forgot to ask for questions and comments.

 

 

Questions? Comments?

Edited September 7, 2011 by Marblehead

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

My comments:

Individuality can be considered great, but it can also bring about great demise; from these interpretations of open heartedness, the greatness is surely beneficial [to the individual and all else], and can be just as rewarding alike. This greatness, however, sounds like something "different" of a past generation (or 10), and might be more commonplace today than when this was first (re)written and (re)interpreted.

 

My questions:

Were there any comments or questions you were fishing for?

[Marblehead]

My comments:

Individuality can be considered great, but it can also bring about great demise; from these interpretations of open heartedness, the greatness is surely beneficial [to the individual and all else], and can be just as rewarding alike. This greatness, however, sounds like something "different" of a past generation (or 10), and might be more commonplace today than when this was first (re)written and (re)interpreted.

 

My questions:

Were there any comments or questions you were fishing for?

 

Good comments. I would agree that much of what is in the TTC is likely more applicable to current times than they were during Lao Tzu's time.

 

No, wasn't looking for anything in particular. We try to discuss the chapters. Sometimes we compare the three presented translations, sometimes not. Often others will present their own translation of comparison.

 

Personally, I enjoy discussing the concepts within each chapter and how they apply to our everyday life and how we can use the teachings as guides in our own life.

[ChiDragon]

Chapter 67 - The Three Treasures

1. I have three treasures.

3. I'll hold on to and well keep it.

3. The first is mercy.

4. The second is cultivation.

5. The third is not dare to dwell before the people.

6. Mercy will able one to be bold.

7. Cultivation will able one to be broaden.

8. If one is not dare to dwell before the people, then one is able to lead all things.

9. Now, one who disregard mercy to replace with boldness,

10. And disregard cultivation to replace with broadness,

12. One who disregard to stay behind instead striving to lead in the front,

12. Therefore, one is going toward demise indeed!

13. If one uses mercy in a war, then one will win.

14. If one uses defensive strategy, then one will be stable.

15. Whoever Heaven is willing to help,

16. It will protect them with mercy.

 

The Received version

第六十七章 三 寶.

1. 我 有 三 寶.

2. 持 而 保 之:

3. 一 曰 慈.

4. 二 曰 儉.

5. 三 曰 不 敢 為 天 下 先。

6. 慈 故 能 勇,

7. 儉 故 能 廣,

8. 不 敢 為 天 下 先 故 能 成 器 長。

9. 今 舍 慈 且 勇,

10. 舍 儉 且 廣,

11. 舍 後 且 先,

12. 死 矣 !

13. 夫 慈 以 戰 則 勝 ,

14. 以 守 則 固 。

15. 天 將 救 之

16. 以 慈 衛 之 。

Edited September 8, 2011 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

Chapter 67 - The Three Treasures

 

Pretty good. I would question line 10 though.

 

Shouldn't 'narrowness' be better than 'broadness'?

 

(We are working with opposites here again.)

[ChiDragon]

Pretty good. I would question line 10 though.

 

Shouldn't 'narrowness' be better than 'broadness'?

 

(We are working with opposites here again.)

 

10. And disregard cultivation to replace with broadness,

 

Good thinking. Cultivation is narrowness which is opposite of broadness. Line 10 is a stand alone phrase. Thus there was no other phrase that dictates it to mean the opposite. Anyway, the character 廣(quang3) is a direct translation for broadness.

Edited September 9, 2011 by ChiDragon

[Jeff]

10. And disregard cultivation to replace with broadness,

 

Good thinking. Cultivation is narrowness which is opposite of broadness. Line 10 is a stand alone phrase. Thus there was no other phrase that dictates it to mean the opposite. Anyway, the character 廣(quang3) is a direct translation for broadness.

 

In the context, I think by Cultivation it is meant "refined judgement". With broadness, the message of the line is basically, "Don't judge".

 

[ChiDragon]

In the context, I think by Cultivation it is meant "refined judgement". With broadness, the message of the line is basically, "Don't judge".

 

 

Here is my finally interpretation based on your definition.

 

"Refined judgement" is to make a judgment by narrowing it down to a particular philosophy. Broadness is basically "don't judge" or make no judgment at all. If one doesn't have any judgement at all, then one is not cultivating.

[dawei]

10. And disregard cultivation to replace with broadness,

 

Good thinking. Cultivation is narrowness which is opposite of broadness. Line 10 is a stand alone phrase. Thus there was no other phrase that dictates it to mean the opposite. Anyway, the character 廣(quang3) is a direct translation for broadness.

It is not stand-alone; it is very clear it is a group of three sayings based on the THREE.

 

3. 一 曰 慈.

4. 二 曰 儉.

5. 三 曰 不 敢 為 天 下 先。

 

9. 今 舍 慈 且 勇,

10.[ ] 舍 儉且 廣,

11.[ ] 舍 後 且 先,

 

And 'cultivation' is the wrong english word to choose. Frugality or thrift or economy seem more appropriate. And the last two appear paired in general opposites so that seems enough internal evidence.

Edited September 9, 2011 by dawei

[ChiDragon]

It is not stand-alone; it is very clear it is a group of three sayings based on the THREE.

 

3. 一 曰 慈.

4. 二 曰 儉.

5. 三 曰 不 敢 為 天 下 先。

 

9. 今 舍 慈 且 勇,

10.[ ] 舍 儉且 廣,

11.[ ] 舍 後 且 先,

 

And 'cultivation' is the wrong english word to choose. Frugality or thrift or economy seem more appropriate. And the last two appear paired in general opposites so that seems enough internal evidence.

 

Yes, it seems to be the wrong English word to choose, but the thought behind the character is correct. Frugality or thrift means to save. Philosophically, it was saving or keeping the mercy. In a way, it was cultivating the principles of Tao.

Edited September 9, 2011 by ChiDragon

[Jeff]

Here is my finally interpretation based on your definition.

 

"Refined judgement" is to make a judgment by narrowing it down to a particular philosophy. Broadness is basically "don't judge" or make no judgment at all. If one doesn't have any judgement at all, then one is not cultivating.

 

Or possibly... "Broadness" is openness or going with the flow of Tao. My description of "don't judge" was for the complete line, not just a definition of Broadness.

 

Also, thank you for the gift of the translations. It is very helpful to not be dependent on the generic interpretations. Without perspective, much of the meaning can be lost.

 

[ChiDragon]

Or possibly... "Broadness" is openness or going with the flow of Tao. My description of "don't judge" was for the complete line, not just a definition of Broadness.

 

Also, thank you for the gift of the translations. It is very helpful to not be dependent on the generic interpretations. Without perspective, much of the meaning can be lost.

 

 

Thank you Jeff...!!! I know where you are getting at. Interpreting the Tao Te Ching, we have to follow LaoTze's pattern of thinking. In every phrase or Chapter, he always use a dyad to have a distinction between two opposite things. If one interpreted one as a Yin, then the other has to be the opposite as a Yang but not both.

[dawei]

Yes, it seems to be the wrong English word to choose, but the thought behind the character is correct. Frugality or thrift means to save. Philosophically, it was saving or keeping the mercy. In a way, it was cultivating the principles of Tao.

I think I understand your point but I disagree; this is about implementation not cultivation. The former is action, the latter is trying to get to the point of action.

 

I can appreciate the idea you want to present here (ie: cultivation) but I think this is a chapter of actions in motion.

 

I will add that this chapter is absent from the Guodian; the earliest work. The Mawangdui-A is missing big chunks but the -B may fill that in.

 

It is interesting to note that none of these three has Dao in the opening lines as neither does FuYi have Dao. Only when we get to the Heshang Gong version is Dao inserted and Wang Bi simply follows him.

 

Now, it could be argued that Dao is what the author is talking about (ie: Hendricks says "I'm Great"; later versions add in Dao to imply "My Tao is Great"... so choose to just ignore the opening lines as if they never existed. Maybe that is the easy way out to just delete lines.

 

The problem is basing a concept of 'cultivating dao' when one removes the only lines which contain the added character of dao...

 

It's not about cultivation; it's about action. JMO.

Edited September 9, 2011 by dawei

[dawei]

Thank you Jeff...!!! I know where you are getting at. Interpreting the Tao Te Ching, we have to follow LaoTze's pattern of thinking. In every phrase or Chapter, he always use a dyad to have a distinction between two opposite things. If one interpreted one as a Yin, then the other has to be the opposite as a Yang but not both.

MB argued opposites but you pushed it aside... now you argue opposites... As I said before...Rope-a-dope at its best...

[dawei]

15. Whoever Heaven is willing to help,

16. It will protect them with mercy.

This reads like the Xiang'er manuscript commentary of DDJ5:

"Heaven and Earth model themselves on the Way. They are humane to those who do good, and inhumane to those who do bad."

 

Heaven decides who to help?

[Marblehead]

Hi Guys,

 

I'm reading. I just have nothing to add at the moment.

[ChiDragon]

67

1. 天下皆謂我道大

2. 似不肖。

3. 夫唯大故似不肖。

4. 若肖，久矣！其細也夫。

 

1. Everybody tells me that Tao is broad;

2. It was not like anything else,

3. It was broad, only because, it was not like anything else.

4. If it was like something else, it would have had been become small already then.

 

These lines are irrelevant to this chapter. It has nothing to do with the three treasures. It was determined that they were mistakenly copied over by the the native scholars.

Edited September 11, 2011 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

67

1. 天下皆謂我道大

2. 似不肖。

3. 夫唯大故似不肖。

4. 若肖，久矣！其細也夫。

 

1. Everybody tells me that Tao is broad;

2. It was not like anything else,

3. It's was broad, only because, it was not like anything else.

4. If it was like something else, it would have had been become small already then.

 

These lines are irrelevant to this chapter. It has nothing to do with the three treasures. It was determined that they were mistakenly copied over by the the native scholars.

Of course... we just delete any sections we don't agree with as relevant... re-invent Laozi in our own image... Glad to at least see the confessional aspect.

[Marblehead]

67

1. 天下皆謂我道大

2. 似不肖。

3. 夫唯大故似不肖。

4. 若肖，久矣！其細也夫。

 

1. Everybody tells me that Tao is broad;

2. It was not like anything else,

3. It's was broad, only because, it was not like anything else.

4. If it was like something else, it would have had been become small already then.

 

These lines are irrelevant to this chapter. It has nothing to do with the three treasures. It was determined that they were mistakenly copied over by the the native scholars.

 

Yes, I understand that it can be fairly argued that the first for lines (or three) are an add-on to the first original. But we don't have that so it can never be proven.

 

And yet, these lines have nothing to do with the concept that is being presentd. And really, the last four lines (Henricks' translation) are likely add-ons as well because they just don't speak to the concept (the three treasures).

[dawei]

Yes, I understand that it can be fairly argued that the first for lines (or three) are an add-on to the first original. But we don't have that so it can never be proven.

 

And yet, these lines have nothing to do with the concept that is being presentd. And really, the last four lines (Henricks' translation) are likely add-ons as well because they just don't speak to the concept (the three treasures).

The problem is that the MWD-B has the opening lines complete; The MWD-A has them corrupted at points. ALL the manuscripts have the ending. We cannot just re-invent LZ according to our western conceits.

 

The pedantic focus on the "Three Treasures" is by far the worse culprit to this chapter's misunderstanding. Maybe that is a function of wanting to see cultivation and philosophical implications to it's understanding instead of seeing the entire chapter. Happy very selective reading...

[ChiDragon]

13. 夫 慈 以 戰 則 勝 ,

14. 以 守 則 固 。

15. 天 將 救 之

16. 以 慈 衛 之 。

 

13. If one uses mercy in a war, then one will win.

14. If one uses defensive strategy, then one will be stable.

15. Whoever Heaven is willing to help,

16. It will protect them with mercy.

 

Robert Henricks

13. If with compassion you attack, then you'll win;

14. If you defend, then you'll stand firm.

15. When Heaven's about to establish him,

16. It's as though he surrounds him with the protective wall of compassion.

 

I can see that the choice of words by Henricks will have a slight twist in the original meaning.

 

Lines 13 and 16 do talk about the first treasure 慈(mercy/compassion).

Edited September 10, 2011 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

Line 13 do talk about the first treasure 慈(mercy/compassion).

 

True but I would still likely agree that it was an add-on.

 

Besides, the statement is not always true. In fact, it is more often incorrect.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Marblehead

[dawei]

True but I would still likely agree that it was an add-on.

 

Besides, the statement is not always true. In fact, it is more often incorrect.

Because you don't like Hendricks or anothers' translation... we need to drop the lines as add-ons? Again, the two earliest manuscripts agree, word for word... there are changes in the later manuscripts. It seems as we reach the end, this study has reached a new low... sorry to say...

[Marblehead]

Because you don't like Hendricks or anothers' translation... we need to drop the lines as add-ons? Again, the two earliest manuscripts agree, word for word... there are changes in the later manuscripts. It seems as we reach the end, this study has reached a new low... sorry to say...

 

Why so hostile? All I was doing was expressing my thoughts. I never said that they should be removed by anyone.

 

And I has said a number of times before that I generally ignore those parts of the TTC that do not seem to be correct or logical if applied to 'real life'.

 

I am not trying to rewrite anything.

 

So if you think that we have reached a new low in this study of the TTC I thonk that you are missing the entire point of the study. It was not established for the purpose of determining whether a certain Chinese character should be considered as a noun or a verb but more at what significance the chapters have in our life.

 

Don't jump on me because I am able to think for myself and that I am able to express my thoughts.

 

If I say something sounds out of place to me that is exactly what I mean. If I say I think that the first and last four lines were add-ons to the original that is exactly what I think. I never said that anyone should disregard them. I never even said that I disregard them.

 

So if you think that voicing one's opinions is a disgrace then you might want to question why you think that way.

 

I am sure you could have found a much better way to challenge that post of mine other than the way you did.

[dawei]

Why so hostile?

When you take it as hostile then I know I am somewhat right... Where is there any emotionalism in my writing or excessive exclamations? I stated my justification as the oldest manuscripts have those lines... That is FACT. Where are your facts?

 

Your opinion is that the ending does not speak to the Three Treasures... chapters generally have three parts:

1. Opening

2. Remarks

3. Closing

 

You think if the closing does not make sense then it is an add-on?

 

Your welcome to that opinion, of course... I worry that you don't see the danger in it seeing your repeated confession of not knowing chinese and inability to research the original writings.

 

Before you accuse someone of jumping, see how high your jumping your own opinions which have no textual support. If you have textual support, then offer it; this is a "study"... or so I thought.

 

And your not really reading carefully enough... I said the "STUDY" has reached a new low... operative word is (or was) "study".... it has turned into a game of opinions and self-promoting translations; people claiming they are translating directly to english but whom have some of the most awkward grammar seen on this site... that is our "study" at this stage. Compare the opening chapters discussion to now...

 

Do you see now as "lower or higher"? My opinion is that it is much lower. JMO.

Edited September 10, 2011 by dawei