"All CLAN AFFILIATIONS (not people) are treated like STRAW DOGS""

[dawei]

Well, yes, because the direct/common/first glance translation is grossly misleading.. and fails to account for so many other things in the text, and culturual history. It really wasn't even that difficult to see that he wasn't talking about people but "names." It really bewilders me to see how common the error is given how contrary it is to the "train of thought" that is running through these chapters.

I do think from a anciently and historically classical point of view, you are correct. To treat this as "people" is a more modern interpretation since it is now not common to understand the early tribal and clan formations which evolved to more and more segregated areas under a ruler. Soon, the use of surnames would evolve beyond a tribe or clan and become used a name for a family. This evolution is natural and expected. It is as the historian Sima Qian said of the 'house of dao (Dao Jia); They adapt to the changing times; this was the hallmark of a 'Daoist'.

 

 

A little more history:

In origin, the surname would come from nature or worship. Fu Xi's surname was 'Feng' (Wind) which sounds the same as the character for Phoenix. Nu Wa, his sister-wife also had the same surname. Interesting to note that intermarrying between those with the same clan-name was latter prohibited. Shennong's surname was Jiang, an underground herb. Huang Di grew up near the Ji River and adopted that (Ji) as his surname; his brother Yan Di took 'Jiang' for the 'Jiang' River. From Huang Di, 12 surnames were bestowed on his children. In most cases, these surnames were also clan-names.

 

So it seems the most ancient use was simply to designate a certain group/tribe/clan. And that the tribe rulers were the one's who held the surname (and power to bestow them). As these tribes consolidated (through war or alliance) they also grew in size and as territories grew, surnames were given according to the geographic locations. But up to this point, 'people' did not have surnames but rather people were understood as part of a group/tribe/clan/location/affiliation.

 

Even later generations show that a king would have concubines with surnames based on where they came from. Again, this was important to know since people with the same tribe/clan-name (surname) could not intermarry.

 

 

What is sometimes not considered is the the normal way of expressing 'people' would be Min (民) and Ren (人), even in the Lao ZI. So 'Bai Xing' should be looked at in context as it can have a few meanings all of which may be a distinction without a difference on some level... but it is clear that in some places it does not just mean people but probably more like the common people (as opposed to the Sage and probably as opposed to the nobility).

 

 

So, IMO, the more correct meaning of 'Bai Xing' (100 surnames) is to mean the combined tribes-turned clans-turned segregated areas under the same rulership. In today's thinking, we would more likely say 'the people' and in the process lose the original history and meaning.

 

 

So I guess this is my way of saying that I actually like what you proposed in the beginning title... it makes sense to me but I am willing to accept the more modern interpretation (not a translation) as 'the people' since some want to state it more simply and don't care to convey historical and classical correctness.

 

 

P.S. about: he wasn't talking about people but "names."

 

Even 'names' may not be really correct as it was more a designation for a tribe/clan/group, or the name of a consolidation of tribes/clans/groups...

Edited August 25, 2012 by dawei

[Harmonious Emptiness]

So I guess this is my way of saying that I actually like what you proposed in the beginning title... it makes sense to me but I am willing to accept the more modern interpretation (not a translation) as 'the people' since some want to state it more simply and don't care to convey historical and classical correctness.

 

 

P.S. about: he wasn't talking about people but "names."

 

Even 'names' may not be really correct as it was more a designation for a tribe/clan/group, or the name of a consolidation of tribes/clans/groups...

 

Thanks for your response and helpful history lesson Dawei!

 

I'm a bit unclear though on the last part here though:

So, you mean you are not averse to people translating the line as it is normally translated, but agree that it actually means as I put in the title??

 

I can see why people would translate it as normally done, so I don't really fault them for the error. It's sort of like if I said "Design your house with Oriental flavour." At one time that would have meant Persian. Now it means "Asian."

 

Also, yes, when I say "names" I mean "family names/clan names." I think this also extends to titles of superiority in a way too, as the family names were, largely, signifiers of this.

Edited August 25, 2012 by Harmonious Emptiness

[dawei]

I'm a bit unclear though on the last part here though:

So, you mean you are not averse to people translating the line as it is normally translated, but agree that it actually means as I put in the title??

Yes, that is my meaning. To say 'people' is very clear although it may not be really correct it does not need too much explanation or history lesson. If one says "Clan affiliations" then it may require some explanation.

 

I am sure professional translators, particularly if they are trying for a readable translation in print (and to be sold as a book) weight all these issues and decide upon what makes sense for their audience.

 

if this was a paper for a symposium of sinologist, then "clan affiliations" would be a catchy title and beg some explanation to the curious minds out there. So I think your original intent, to post this idea as a deeper explanation for discussion rather than as a simple translation to sell to the masses, is well received for me.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Yes, that is my meaning. To say 'people' is very clear although it may not be really correct it does not need too much explanation or history lesson. If one says "Clan affiliations" then it may require some explanation.

 

I am sure professional translators, particularly if they are trying for a readable translation in print (and to be sold as a book) weight all these issues and decide upon what makes sense for their audience.

 

if this was a paper for a symposium of sinologist, then "clan affiliations" would be a catchy title and beg some explanation to the curious minds out there. So I think your original intent, to post this idea as a deeper explanation for discussion rather than as a simple translation to sell to the masses, is well received for me.

 

Thanks for your support Dawei . As you obviously take a deep interest in these things, it is much appreciated.

 

I understand what you mean, as I also want to try to and create a translation for myself that keeps the original words and images (which are often left out via interpretation), but doing so often leads to incorrect meaning, even though the word for word could carry something relatively sensible. To me, things like "one resides in"(translation) rather than "one is"(interpretation) makes a significant difference of tone, and can help to show the flow of expression that gives away subtler meanings which appear/appeal to a Taoist sensibility of heart wisdom(if I may).

 

At the same time though, I have to disagree a bit as I think simply writing something like "this separation of clans\clan affiliations" would have done a lot of good towards not virtually reversing the meaning there. I can understand how people would have easily overlooked it, but if they see it, I'm not sure why they wouldn't have balanced the translation with some necessary interpretation to keep the meaning.

[ChiDragon]

1. Nowhere did I say 仁 = man.

 

2. "萬人 does not say "all people" but it means "ten thousand people"" Whatever, it mean 1000 thousand people. 人 means people.

 

Actually, the Classical Chinese character for all people/humanity is 人類 "human kind(category)." So, once again... why wouldn't he use that?

 

 

Also, Lao Tzu I think knew full well that his writing was important, and probably saw it outlasting this way of referring to humanity, also knowing that all of humanity is not merely these 100 families, no?

 

1. What is this mean...???

01 天地不仁,

tiān dì bù rén,

Heaven and Earth do not distinguish between one man and another

 

2. 人類 "human kind" is not a classical term. It is a modern term.

 

LaoTze talks about all people, what 100 families did you refer to....??? LaoTze had never mentioned the 100 families anywhere in the Tao Te Ching.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

1. What is this mean...???

01 天地不仁,

tiān dì bù rén,

Heaven and Earth do not distinguish between one man and another

 

2. 人類 "human kind" is not a classical term. It is a modern term.

 

LaoTze talks about all people, what 100 families did you refer to....??? LaoTze had never mentioned the 100 families anywhere in the Tao Te Ching.

 

1. This is not a direct translation of the word in this case, but an interpretation to fit the context. I explain why in post 21.

 

2. Again, I'm not using word for translation here. I think you may have said it best with:

 

Logical English:

聖人不仁

以百姓為芻狗.

A sage has no mercy,

Treating the people as straw dogs.

 

The two phrases are linked together by saying that:

A ruler(sage) is impartial because he treats everybody equally and shows no nepotism. Before the law, everybody treated equally because the law is impartial and has no mercy.

 

 

A better way for me to put it might be

"Heaven and Earth do not distinguish between the myriad creatures in matters of benevolence and punishment

The Sage does not distinguish between one clan and another in matters of benevolence and punishment"

 

Mind you, this means the same thing as I had it at first, though before might have been confusing for some as it looked more like it was supposed to be word for word, rather than an interpretation based on all the context mentioned throughout the topic.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Some more support on translating these differently:

 

[all translations mine]

 

Many say that the DDJ was written only for emperors and this is why there is advice to make people think less, that the emperor is the Sage, etc., and that this is why something appears like "treat all people like straw dogs."

 

 

However, how does this make sense when Lao Tze suggests that the ruler should also live beyond petty concerns and mere academic knowledge? The sage wants the same thing for the people that he wants for the emperor: Wisdom and Virtue.

 

Chapter Three, line 2 says: "so that (common) people don't cause disharmony by vying with one in competition, don't show off or make a big deal about being honoured and better than one another."

 

This sort of Wu Wei of Governance, whether of a nation or a community, is to bring wisdom to the people, increasing wisdom by not focusing on petty matters and petty knowledge. As this is the function of the Sage, and those whom the sage influences to become "wise people"/"sages" themselves.

 

 

Note that this idea of people being concerned with academic/petty knowledge is first mentioned in Chapter One, saying that people attempt to use petty knowledge to understand Dao, only ending up competing over terms and loosing the Way to Dao!

Chapter Three then says more about this foolish competitiveness!

 

Chapter Two also talked about competition and the unity of opposites. Then you have chapter Four about the balancing effect of The Dao, and then Chapter Five starts off with the lines in question:

 

"Heaven and Earth do not distinguish between the myriad creatures in matters of benevolence and punishment

The Sage does not distinguish between one clan and another in matters of benevolence and punishment"

 

Or

Heaven is not kind, treats all creatures like straw dogs

The Sage is not kind, treats all creatures like straw dogs

 

 

 

Consider this from Chapter 10 as well:

 

05 滌除玄覽,

dī chú xuán lǎn,

Wash, and eliminate, your profound introspections

 

06 能無疵乎?!

néng wú cī hū?!

Can you be without this disease?

 

07 愛民治國,

ài mín zhì guō,

Loving the less fortunate, govern the nation

 

08 能無知乎?!

néng wú zhī hū?!

Can you do this without academic knowledge?

 

 

 

[random note: Maybe ài mín zhì guō should become the mantra of "the people." (has a nice sound to it when said with right pitch! high to low, low to high, short high to low, high).]

[Harmonious Emptiness]

One more thing to add here:

 

For Chapter Three, about competition, reducing desire competition. Some translate this as reducing ambitions, but the subject here is about competition. The difference between them as shown in the way of the wheel spokes working together unselfishly towards the collective effort, is that Ambition of the Wise is to work together with people to create something advantageous and useful. The Competition of the Ignorant is to work against each other. Lao Tzu’s counsel is to show how people can work together, in mutual benefit, rather than letting ignorance rule and compete against each other.

[Marblehead]

I have never had a problem with his saying that we should not compete. I think there has been a lot of misunderstanding about his saying that we should "be without knowledge".

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Just wanted to re-post this as it might have been missed when my addition to it started a new page.

 

 

Some more support on translating these differently:

 

[all translations mine]

 

Many say that the DDJ was written only for emperors and this is why there is advice to make people think less, that the emperor is the Sage, etc., and that this is why something appears like "treat all people like straw dogs."

 

 

However, how does this make sense when Lao Tze suggests that the ruler should also live beyond petty concerns and mere academic knowledge? The sage wants the same thing for the people that he wants for the emperor: Wisdom and Virtue.

 

Chapter Three, line 2 says: "so that (common) people don't cause disharmony by vying with one in competition, don't show off or make a big deal about being honoured and better than one another."

 

This sort of Wu Wei of Governance, whether of a nation or a community, is to bring wisdom to the people, increasing wisdom by not focusing on petty matters and petty knowledge. As this is the function of the Sage, and those whom the sage influences to become "wise people"/"sages" themselves.

 

 

Note that this idea of people being concerned with academic/petty knowledge is first mentioned in Chapter One, saying that people attempt to use petty knowledge to understand Dao, only ending up competing over terms and loosing the Way to Dao!

Chapter Three then says more about this foolish competitiveness!

 

Chapter Two also talked about competition and the unity of opposites. Then you have chapter Four about the balancing effect of The Dao, and then Chapter Five starts off with the lines in question:

 

"Heaven and Earth do not distinguish between the myriad creatures in matters of benevolence and punishment

The Sage does not distinguish between one clan and another in matters of benevolence and punishment"

 

Or

Heaven is not kind, treats all creatures like straw dogs

The Sage is not kind, treats all creatures like straw dogs

 

 

 

Consider this from Chapter 10 as well:

 

05 滌除玄覽,

dī chú xuán lǎn,

Wash, and eliminate, your profound introspections

 

06 能無疵乎?!

néng wú cī hū?!

Can you be without this disease?

 

07 愛民治國,

ài mín zhì guō,

Loving the less fortunate, govern the nation

 

08 能無知乎?!

néng wú zhī hū?!

Can you do this without academic knowledge?

 

 

 

[random note: Maybe ài mín zhì guō should become the mantra of "the people." (has a nice sound to it when said with right pitch! high to low, low to high, short high to low, high).]

[dawei]

Can't say I recall this but worth some commments:

 

Many say that the DDJ was written only for emperors and this is why there is advice to make people think less, that the emperor is the Sage, etc., and that this is why something appears like "treat all people like straw dogs."

 

However, how does this make sense when Lao Tze suggests that the ruler should also live beyond petty concerns and mere academic knowledge? The sage wants the same thing for the people that he wants for the emperor: Wisdom and Virtue.

I do think parts are for the ruler in metaphor-talk but much is for people. But we should recall that the Confucians considered the 'ancient kings' as Sage-Kings so there may of been some prevailing feelings that a sage is meant to advise the King for how else did you get sagely himself?

 

 

 

Chapter Three, line 2 says: "so that (common) people don't cause disharmony by vying with one in competition, don't show off or make a big deal about being honoured and better than one another."

 

This sort of Wu Wei of Governance, whether of a nation or a community, is to bring wisdom to the people, increasing wisdom by not focusing on petty matters and petty knowledge. As this is the function of the Sage, and those whom the sage influences to become "wise people"/"sages" themselves.

All this non-competing and non-betterment is multi-dimensional in [theoretical] outcome:

Mankind - happy

Family - harmony

State - honorable

 

 

 

Note that this idea of people being concerned with academic/petty knowledge is first mentioned in Chapter One, saying that people attempt to use petty knowledge to understand Dao, only ending up competing over terms and loosing the Way to Dao!

Chapter Three then says more about this foolish competitiveness!

 

Chapter Two also talked about competition and the unity of opposites. Then you have chapter Four about the balancing effect of The Dao, and then Chapter Five starts off with the lines in question:

 

"Heaven and Earth do not distinguish between the myriad creatures in matters of benevolence and punishment

The Sage does not distinguish between one clan and another in matters of benevolence and punishment"

 

Or

Heaven is not kind, treats all creatures like straw dogs

The Sage is not kind, treats all creatures like straw dogs

 

Consider this from Chapter 10 as well:

 

IMO, your completely on the right track... the text as a whole contains themes and support for a point should be found in many chapters.

 

But I have said it before and I'll say it again... if one thinks they will understand Dao from the DDJ alone, it is like saying that one will understand God from the bible alone... The DDJ text was never meant to be that ambitious and we do well to know the history, culture, and philosophy before and after the Warring State period... but this is just book knowledge. As others have said, to really 'know' is to go beyond the physical, natural senses. This has many paths but it will require putting all books down as a start...

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Can't say I recall this but worth some commments:

 

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

I do think parts are for the ruler in metaphor-talk but much is for people. But we should recall that the Confucians considered the 'ancient kings' as Sage-Kings so there may of been some prevailing feelings that a sage is meant to advise the King for how else did you get sagely himself?

 

Consider too, that the I Ching was used by sages who counselled kings, rather than kings who counselled kings.

 

 

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

All this non-competing and non-betterment is multi-dimensional in [theoretical] outcome:

Mankind - happy

Family - harmony

State - honorable

 

 

 

IMO, your completely on the right track... the text as a whole contains themes and support for a point should be found in many chapters.

 

But I have said it before and I'll say it again... if one thinks they will understand Dao from the DDJ alone, it is like saying that one will understand God from the bible alone... The DDJ text was never meant to be that ambitious and we do well to know the history, culture, and philosophy before and after the Warring State period... but this is just book knowledge. As others have said, to really 'know' is to go beyond the physical, natural senses. This has many paths but it will require putting all books down as a start...

 

Yes, should be found throughout many chapters, and as self-evident in one's personal experience(s).

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Found some more proof for this so I put together a synopsis of what I had written here (especially in post #21) and added to it.

 

Aside from the translation by Stephen Mitchell, who likely got the same sense that I did based on Chapters leading up to it since he doesn't read classical or modern Mandarin, I am (a bit) proud to provide this information to the Dao De Jing reading community, possibly for the first time in quite a long time; and at a time when Daoism, as always, has much potential to lead people back to wisdom. Hopefully any damage caused, between Daoism and other faith communities, based on a misunderstanding or mis-quoting of this chapter, can now be repaired.

 

 

So,

 

from Chapter 5:

 

03 聖人不仁,

"sage, not, ren/humane"

shèng rén bù rén,

The wise do not show their favour

 

04 以百姓為芻狗。

yǐ bái xìng wéi chú gǒu。

"the 100 clan names and family names are treated like straw dogs”

the sage is not concerned with a person's titles, much as Heaven is not concerned itself with a status of humans being "above" the rest of living things.

(my translations)

 

“The 100百姓clans” was a term used to mean “all people” during the time the DDJ was written.

 

In this case though, it could just as easily be translated as “the hundred names are treated as straw dogs” since the 仁ren/humanity, which the sage does not have, is that based on family ties and hierarchies:

 

from: http://odip.webs.com/Ren.pdf

"In the Confucian tradition, 仁ren as interpersonal love and care, on the one hand, is love for all humans. On the other hand, it is love with distinction or graded love (ai-you-cha-deng 愛有差等) in view of relations of kinship with oneself, in contrast to universal love/care for each (jian-ai 兼愛) as advocated by Mohism."

 

 

Ren, 仁, is a picture of a man with two others, signifying "how people relate to one another." Ideally, people relate to one another with humanity, however people also related to one another based on family ties, a social custom existing before Confucianism, which Confucius found to be a virtue and upheld.

 

Therefore the way people related to one another, 仁ren, also meant the degree to which they distinguished the love they gave to their families from the love they gave to anyone else, in that it should always favour the family members at the exclusion of anyone else, first. For many the virtue of how people related to one another was in their self sacrifice to the family hierarchy. The benevolence and respect showed to family. The respect shown outside of the family maintained a similar perspective based on comparative levels of authority. This was also 仁ren before Confucius time. The Dao De Jing was also most likely written or compiled at some point during Confucius' lifetime, 551–479 BC, as it was already responding to the over-literal style of seeking Dao which Confucius' movement was often accused of (See Chapter One).

 

Mo Tzu (470 BC–c.391 BC) and Mohism later taught against this cultural norm, distinguishing his school from Confucianism especially by prescribing "united love 兼愛" in place of this other 仁ren which was upheld by Confucians.

 

 

 

as I was saying before (mostly in other posts here):

 

仁 can be seen as more than just kindness/humanity, as it shows one man relating to other people, referring to "the relationship between man and his fellow men" (post #4).

Concerning the time of Lao Tzu, it would have been considered very rude not to show appropriate respect based on the power of particular clans and families? So, "the sage does not worry about social interaction, and treats family names as straw dogs / ignores the expected courtesies to powerful clans and families."

"the sage is not concerned with a person's titles, much as Heaven is not concerned with status of humans being "above" the rest of living things. It was a colloquial phrase to say “100 families” to mean “all people” which results in the way this is usually perceived.

 

As Chuang Tzu says "though expected to bear gifts when meeting someone of great authority, the best gift you can bring them is Dao" ie., just being a real person, and not paying obsequious obeisance as customarily done by officials and peasants.

"Heaven is not "socially appropriate", and so treats all creatures the same (as straw dogs). The Sage is not concerned with a person’s titles, much as Heaven is not concerned with status of humans being "above" the rest of living things."

仁 means kindness, but signifies how man relates to other people. To relate to them according to "social conventions" would be considered virtuous and friendly by most, or insincere and beguiling by others. Generally, it is considered kind and perhaps self-sacrificing as the way to ensure social harmony.

So Heaven and Earth do not consider socially appropriate behavior,
"Heaven, Earth, not, 仁, Acts on all things as straw dogs"
"Wise, man, not, 仁, Acts on all people as straw dogs "

Chuang Tzu, who quite obviously gained much inspiration from the Dao De Jing or at least it's existing philosphies, wrote a lot about "being real" instead of just following conventions as expected by Confucianists.

 

Also, in DDJ Chapter 15

 

10 敦兮其若樸;

沌呵亓若樸

dūn xī qí ruò pǔ;

Candid and sincere! plain as wood! (Wang Bi manuscript)

Unpredictable [chaotic like water沌], ha ha! Plain as wood! (Ma Wang Dui manuscript)

[敦= esteem; honest, candid, sincere; 樸= wood + sound indicator = simple, honest; plain; rough]

(my translation)

 

Some people say that the DDJ was written for emperors and this is why there is advice to make people think less, or even that “Sage/Wise man” was only referring to someone with immense political power, and that this is why something appears like "treat all people like straw dogs."

However, Lao Tze suggests that the ruler should also live beyond petty concerns and mere academic knowledge. The sage wants the same thing for the people that he wants for the emperor: Wisdom and Virtue.

 

 

 

 

[edited March 21 to add "my translations" to first quote/translation]

Edited March 21, 2013 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Taomeow]

Here's one interesting thought I had, based on my discussions of Chinese history with a descendant of its makers who is a good friend.

 

What Laozi meant may be that the sage does not care about bloodlines.

 

This makes sense in the overall context of historic concerns. In China, a change of dynasty, which happened many times, often meant something different from a change of dynasty in Europe. In Europe, royal blood was spilled on occasion but this seldom if ever affected the whole bloodline -- the hapless king might be beheaded but more often than not by his own son or brother or nephew who would then proceed to rule -- so change of power players very seldom resulted in the change of the ruling bloodline.

 

Not so in China. A change of dynasty usually meant vendetta -- the war on the demoted emperor's bloodline. All its traces were exterminated by the newcomer with extreme prejudice -- all family members, all relatives down to the remotest ones, it was more the rule than the exception for a hundred families to be executed, in order to prevent any future claims to the throne by a stray member of the former emperor's bloodline.

 

Apparently this didn't shock the sage.

 

If you look at a larger picture, and take into consideration that here in the US, as well as in Europe, we are still ruled by the bloodlines of Charlemagne, Vlad the Impaler and the like, and there's never been a real shot at meritocracy anywhere to be had ("voting," "elections," that's circus, just like Roman emperors knew to give the people "bread and circus" to keep them pacified, the ruling bloodlines never had a reason to change that because it works... the only difference being that back then they gave the plebs a Nubian gladiator against a Thracian one and today it's a republican candidate against a democratic one... circus is still circus), looks like he did have a point.

[chenping]

What Laozi meant may be that the sage does not care about bloodlines.

 

How about looking at this from another angle?

 

What does caring suppose to mean?

 

Not so in China. A change of dynasty usually meant vendetta -- the war on the demoted emperor's bloodline. All its traces were exterminated by the newcomer with extreme prejudice -- all family members, all relatives down to the remotest ones, it was more the rule than the exception for a hundred families to be executed, in order to prevent any future claims to the throne by a stray member of the former emperor's bloodline.

 

Apparently this didn't shock the sage.

 

Neither does it shock lions who kill off all cubs when they take over a pride. Here again, there is this "do not care" situation. Seems cruel to those who care. Care about what? Does this have anything to do with sociopathy?

 

If you look at a larger picture, and take into consideration that here in the US, as well as in Europe, we are still ruled by the bloodlines of Charlemagne, Vlad the Impaler and the like, and there's never been a real shot at meritocracy anywhere to be had ("voting," "elections," that's circus, just like Roman emperors knew to give the people "bread and circus" to keep them pacified, the ruling bloodlines never had a reason to change that because it works... the only difference being that back then they gave the plebs a Nubian gladiator against a Thracian one and today it's a republican candidate against a democratic one... circus is still circus), looks like he did have a point.

 

You imply that this circus is being conducted. Is this really true? Occupiers believe that this is true. This belief provides the basis for class struggles.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I don't think these things would shock the sage, since the sage sees power lust for what it is in the same way he sees a lion for what it is. These are facts of life. If not for these facts of life, the path would not exist. In regards to this, and also the statement in the DDJ that "the sage is not ren," we should consider Chapter 38:

 

"A man of the highest virtue does not keep to virtue and that is why he has virtue.
A man of the lowest virtue never strays from virtue and that is why he is without virtue.
The former never acts yet leaves nothing undone.
The latter acts but there are things left undone.
A man of the highest benevolence acts, but from no ulterior motive.
A man of the highest rectitude acts, but from ulterior motive.
A man most conversant in the rites acts, but when no one responds rolls up his sleeves and resorts to persuasion by force.

 

Hence when the way was lost there was virtue;
When virtue was lost there was benevolence;
When benevolence was lost there was rectitude;
When rectitude was lost there were the rites.

 

The rites are the wearing thin of loyalty and good faith
And the beginning of disorder;
Foreknowledge is the flowery embellishment of the way
And the beginning of folly.

 

Hence the man of large mind abides in the thick not in the thin, in the fruit not in the flower.

 

Therefore he discards the one and takes the other."

 

In "A man of the highest virtue does not keep to virtue and that is why he has virtue.
A man of the lowest virtue never strays from virtue and that is why he is without virtue" I think he is talking about "德virtue/De" here in the same way he was talking about "humanity/ren" in Chapter 5, in that he was referring to the way these virtues are practiced with partiality, as in Confucian ren. The rest of the chapter seems to reflect this as well.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Harmonious Emptiness

[chenping]

When reading the Tao Te Ching, you must ask yourself. Am I going to read it in English thinking, Chinese thinking or read it as Classic...???

 

Obvious, the Tao Te Ching was written in Classic, then let's read it as Classic. There are certain rules one must follow in order to read it and interpret it correctly.

 

 

Thus, once again, it doesn't make sense (at least in English) of the meaning to merely say

"the people are treated as straw dogs."

 

Hey, do you think that make sense to a Chinese. Again, this is Classic Chinese. The Classics are written in a paradoxical way. Anyone can read it and doesn't make sense. That is the unique part of it. To understand it is a big challenge for someone who wants to learn to read it. Classic were written in metaphors just like a riddle.

 

In order to read it correctly, first of all, one must know the classic meaning of the terms and the punctuations at the right place. If 百姓 means "people", then it means "people", not "hundred names" even that's what the characters say. One just has to accept it as is. It you are treating it as "hundred names", then you might as well close the book and go copy somebody else mistranslation.

 

In order to interpret "the people are treated as straw dogs", one must know what are the characteristics of straw dogs. Why did LaoTze say such thing....??? We know LaoTze is a nice guy; but why did he say something that he didn't really mean it or it was meant something else ....??? It would be a big mistake to think what I want it to mean rather than what LaoTze meant. Therefore, please don't read it as modern Chinese nor English but Chinese Classic.

 

My brain "root" could be injured in making attempts to get your point across to western Philosophical Daoists what a classical Chinese verse means.

 

Western philosophical daoists never understood why the common Chinese Taoist has no understanding of the Tao Te Ching or care to understand the Tao Te Ching. Westerners assume that these common Chinese Taoist practitioners are uneducated and it would take a western Harvard-educated professor to lay bare the teachings of the Tao Te Ching for educated westerners to absorb and become adherents of Philsophical Daoism.

 

The reason why even Chinese educated at top Chinese universities in China cannot make sense of classical Chinese, not to mention the Tao Te Ching, is something to consider. Classical Chinese was written by the creme de la creme of Chinese scholars for the elite class in China. Words like vagina and penis cannot be found anywhere in classical Chinese literature. There are no direct statements and if you don't get it first time around, just forget it.

 

Has anyone here pondered why the classical Tao Te Ching meant for the elites of China is not accessible to the common Chinese (and this includes graduates from Tsinghua University) but is bedtime reading material for egalitarian westerners (and this includes 18 year-olds high school dropouts)? Do you think that a western brat is equivalent to the Son of Heaven of ancient China? What arrogance!

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Chenping, (Takakki I presume..) these claims are way off topic so I won't respond further to them, other than to say, I doubt you are an elite Chinese scholar, so I'm not sure how you would know one way or the other. Further, the Dao De Jing is said to have mostly likely been a compilation of sayings formerly passed down through oral tradition. Oral traditions are generally not tied to scholarly elites, especially those which advise against empty scholasticism in the first chapter when written down....

 

I suggest that you start a new thread if you wish to discuss these lines of debate.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Taomeow]

I don't think these things would shock the sage, since the sage sees power lust for what it is in the same way he sees a lion for what it is. These are facts of life. If not for these facts of life, the path would not exist. In regards to this, and also the statement in the DDJ that "the sage is not ren," we should consider Chapter 38:

 

"A man of the highest virtue does not keep to virtue and that is why he has virtue.

A man of the lowest virtue never strays from virtue and that is why he is without virtue.

The former never acts yet leaves nothing undone.

The latter acts but there are things left undone.

A man of the highest benevolence acts, but from no ulterior motive.

A man of the highest rectitude acts, but from ulterior motive.

A man most conversant in the rites acts, but when no one responds rolls up his sleeves and resorts to persuasion by force.

 

Hence when the way was lost there was virtue;

When virtue was lost there was benevolence;

When benevolence was lost there was rectitude;

When rectitude was lost there were the rites.

 

The rites are the wearing thin of loyalty and good faith

And the beginning of disorder;

Foreknowledge is the flowery embellishment of the way

And the beginning of folly.

 

Hence the man of large mind abides in the thick not in the thin, in the fruit not in the flower.

 

Therefore he discards the one and takes the other."

 

In "A man of the highest virtue does not keep to virtue and that is why he has virtue.

A man of the lowest virtue never strays from virtue and that is why he is without virtue" I think he is talking about "德virtue/De" here in the same way he was talking about "humanity/ren" in Chapter 5, in that he was referring to the way these virtues are practiced with partiality, as in Confucian ren. The rest of the chapter seems to reflect this as well.

One of my favorite chapters.

 

I like to play with words to uproot their unexpected layers of meaning -- often resonating across linguistic borders, involving seemingly unrelated languages... a ganying approach reveals that nothing is unrelated though. It has always been widely used by the Chinese, by the way, who, e.g., serve foods for the New Year whose names are word-play homophones for things like "long life," "great fortune," "abundance," or hang the character for "good luck" upside down over the door which turns it into the character for "arrived" -- so you can read it up to down or down to up and get "good luck arrived" out of it. Or they will skip number 4 when numbering houses in the street and go straight from number 2 to number 6, because "4" is a homophone for "death" and no one might want to ganying with that. But if you know a few languages, resonances of this kind get even more interesting. So, I was thrilled when I found an English concept that contains 德virtue/De(Te) and reflects it accurately: inTEgrity.

 

What a great word. "德/Te" right in the middle. "In" points to where to look for it. "Grit" is unyielding courage of mind and spirit. "Grity" is the urban slang for "a horrible place, full of crime and vice." Layers of stuff to in-TE-grate... Don't let it be said that English is powerless to render a complex Laozism!

[Harmonious Emptiness]

(reprinted from my Personal Practice Discussion)

 

The following is presented as scholarly evidence in support of my thesis, as outlined above, that DDJ Chapter Five is grossly and entirely mistranslated to say that "nature, and the Sage, are not humane."

 

 

The following is from Creativity and Taoism by Chang Chung-yuan, 1963 (fair use as part of my scholarly my thesis).

 

 

 

"The Confucian term Jen [Chinese: 仁; pinyin: rén; Wade–Giles: jen] is often translated as "love," "fellow-feeling," "man-to-man-ness," and many others. The word Jen embodies the central theme of Confucianist thought. This sympathy is based on rational discrimination and differentiation. Mencius, the Plato of China, claims that "Jen is the mind of man." What is this mind of man? It is the rational nature of man, the conscious ability of discrimination and determination of things. The entire system of Confucianism is based upon the premise of man's rational nature. The first step toward the achievement of this rational nature is the performance of one's moral duty. Such imperative, unconditioned action, which is beyond self-interest and ulterior motive, is called yi, or righteousness. If one does what he ought to do and does not do what he should not do, he is abiding by the virtue of righteousness. However, one's concept of duty is not without personal bias. One may act in one way, and another may act in another way. What would be the correct response to the same situation? To clarify this point the Confucianist set a standard of conduct to determine what righteousness is, which is called li, or propriety. This standard of conduct covers all types of interpersonal relations and all ceremonies of worship.

 

.... one cannot follow blindly the rules or li. What one must have is the ability of discrimination or chih [Wade-Giles.. pinyin?]. Confucius says: "The man of chih is free from confusion." Thus rational discrimination is the fundamental process leading to the achievement of Jen [Ren]. In it is implied the measuring out of one's love. How much love, the Confucianist asks, does one owe to relatives, other men, and all things?

 

...Mencius: "As to animals the gentleman is kind but not loving. As to persons generally he is loving but not affectionate. He is affectionate to his parents and lovingly disposed to people generally. He is lovingly disposed to people generally, and kind to animals."

 

.... Lao Tzu disregarded Jen and proclaimed that he had, instead, Tz'u [pinyin: cí], the first of his "three treasures." The word Tz'u is ordinarily translated as love, but it is not actually love itself but, rather, the primordial, immediate source of love, the secret root of all love and compassion. It is not based on rational principles or arrived at through discrimination and differentiation...."

 

 

 

 

My translation of chapter 5 (again):

 

01 天地不仁,

tiān dì bù rén,

["Heaven and Earth do not have humanity"]

Heaven and Earth do not distinguish between one man and another

 

02 以萬物為芻狗。

yǐ wàn wù wéi chú gǒu

Therefore, the myriad creatures are treated like straw dogs

 

03 聖人不仁,

shèng rén bù rén,

["The wise do not have humanity"]

The wise do not show their favour

 

04 以百姓為芻狗。

yǐ bái xìng wéi chú gǒu.

["Therefore hundred families (all people) treated as straw dogs"]

the sage is not concerned with a person's titles, much as Heaven is not concerned itself with a status of humans being "above" the rest of living things.

 

 

05 天地之間,

tiān dì zhī jiān,

The space between heaven and earth

 

06 其猶橐籥乎

qí yóu tuó yuè hū

Is like (the lungs, or) a bag-pipe

 

07 虛而不屈,

xū ér bù qū,

Empty without being finished

 

08 動而愈出。

dòng ér yù chū

["movement yet more produced"]

Rather than being exhausted by movement, the movement only generates more and more of what it produces

 

09 多言數窮,

duō yán shù qióng,

So many countless words…

 

10 不如守中。

bù rú shǒu zhōng。

Nothing like nurturing the center

 

 

I propose as well, when reading this chapter in light of the historical-philosophical context, that lines 05-10 refer to being "empty" of "logical humanity," which the sage does not need as he can be "empty without being finished." and does not need to rely on "so many countless words" but rather finds his humanity at the "center."

 

L&L,

 

Dan (Harmonious Emptiness)

Edited October 3, 2013 by Harmonious Emptiness

[dawei]

Interesting that we both were trying to make sense of this chapter at the same time...

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/16539-ttc-study-chapter-five-of-the-tao-teh-ching/page-15#entry482897

 

This is about ritual sacrifice of straw dogs and that is the key here... as it relates to ancestral rites and burial rites, one could look at the Zhaungzhi or Liji and how they reflect burial rites espoused by Laozi (Lan Dan)...

 

I did not mention it in my other post but it exists for those interested to research it.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I find there is something almost Buddhist in nature to it. Straw dogs were treated ceremoniously and honoured before they were destroyed. They were treated as sacred. People, too, should be treated as sacred, with honour and respect, as they will not be around forever, and also serve sacred purposes here on earth.

[dawei]

Everything is sacred.

 

DDJ29

天下神器

the world is a spiritual thing

 

But as I said in my opening post, the straw dog was destroyed because it was (after use) contaminated with evil [Qi]... It seems this is what destroys us too, in a way...

[Harmonious Emptiness]

[flyinghigh]

. It has always been widely used by the Chinese, by the way, who, e.g., serve foods for the New Year whose names are word-play homophones for things like "long life," "great fortune," "abundance," or hang the character for "good luck" upside down over the door which turns it into the character for "arrived" -- so you can read it up to down or down to up and get "good luck arrived" out of it.

Very interesting.

I'd just like to add that in my understanding it is not that the character fu can be read upside down to mean to read arrived.

It is more a play in that the sentences "luck has fallen down (up side down)" and "luck has arrived" are the same in Chinese pronunciationwise "fu dao le".