A Brief Commentary on Lao Tzu's intentions...

[Aaron]

I've been thinking a lot about this lately, who the target audience for Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching was, and apparently my difference of opinion has caused a bit of a stir. I expected some people to disagree, so I wanted to point out why I feel the way I do and support my argument by presenting evidence from the Tao Te Ching.

 

My argument is, if you missed it, that the Tao Te Ching was intended to be a book for rulers on how to govern their people humanely. If one reads the Tao Te Ching they will find that the majority of the references have to deal with rulers and sages and how they behave and should behave.

 

You find numerous references to how to keep the people happy and content. The one that comes to mind is the passage that says the root cause of dissent is knowledge, so the best way to keep people in a state of contentment is to prevent them from learning.

 

You also find numerous references to the structure of society, in which Lao Tzu states that an ideal society is not one based on morality, social status, or ceremony, but one that arises from natural action, or Te. People tend to forget that this passage (Chapter 38) follows a passage directed at rulers (Chapter 37), but it makes sense, since the only practical way someone could identify and solve these issues was if the person who instituted these changes had the kind of power to do so.

 

Again, this doesn't mean that we can't apply the lessons found in the Tao Te Ching to our own lives and practices, but at the same time we shouldn't be so hard headed to ignore the facts before us. I could continue to list numerous references regarding this, but I really don't have the time. Instead I want to take the time to address why so many people have an issue with this opinion.

 

Most people like to think that the Tao Te Ching was written for them, it makes it personal and approachable. The notion that Lao Tzu might have believed that these kinds of changes needed to made at the top is disturbing, because it means that he may not have believed that just any man could make a difference. I believe that Lao Tzu was a pragmatist. He understood the realities of the world better than most of us do. He was an administrator in the government, saw how the government worked, and eventually became so disillusioned that he left. If we are to believe the myths about Lao Tzu, then the story about his departure should ring especially true.

 

When he was leaving, he was stopped by a border guard who refused to let him leave until he had recorded his teachings for posterity. What most people fail to recognize is that Lao Tzu spent the time he had, not writing a discourse on how to raise an army, manage your financial accounts, or become wealthy, but that true peace arises from a government allowing it's people to live a simple and content life, that the more the government intrudes on the people's lives, the more disharmony arises. He taught that victory in war should not be celebrated, but mourned, because everyone, enemy and friend alike, have value. He taught that one should not measure their life by their achievements, but rather by the sacrifices they were willing to make for others. He taught that the compassionate ruler was the only ruler worthy of ruling.

 

Sadly, most of these lessons fell on deaf ears. Most rulers lacked the humility and understanding to put these lessons into practice, but fortunately for us, some people understood that the wisdom he shared was not just useful for the ruler of a country, but for everyone who could understand them.

 

Did Lao Tzu intend his teachings for the common man? Most academics would disagree, but does that mean they lack value, simply because they weren't intended for you and me? Not at all, in fact Lao Tzu's teachings are a testament to the wisdom he held, how managing one's life was not that different from managing a country. They both required frugality, compassion, and remembering never to strive to be first in the world.

 

In a nutshell Lao Tzu's teachings are this, be content with what you have, be kind to those you meet, and don't compete with others, because the value you hold as a person, does not arise from being the best at something, but rather from being a kind, compassionate, and understanding person.

 

Aaron

Edited August 26, 2012 by Aaron

[Protector]

Agree, another thing I would like to add is that everyone should become like a leader

Not that everyone will but it's possible to be a leader by not being one and so on, I remember there's a chapter about that

Also, it's hard to talk about Tao without applying it to something else so using a ruler example is a good idea

People who can see past illusions can dissemble the book and apply it to simpler things

It's good that it's about sages, kings, and nature because when applied no normal everyday life, normal problems are nothing in comparison

[ChiDragon]

You find numerous references to how to keep the people happy and content. The one that comes to mind is the passage that says the root cause of dissent is knowledge, so the best way to keep people in a state of contentment is to prevent them from learning something evil to be harmful to society.

Aaron

 

Very good, I agreed to all with the minor correction in bold.

[Boy]

...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Boy

[mrtiger]

Whilst it's not unreasonable to consider the Dao De Ching's appeal to the educated classes, I think two important questions precede and perhaps nullify this line of thought.

 

1. Did Lao Tzu actually exist? There is no written account of him till 100bc, several hundred years after his death. If we can't even be sure about who wrote it, then we can only ever guess as to why they wrote it and for whom.

 

2. Is the Dao De Ching one book or several? As parts of the dao are often found in isolation and missing the rest of the text, it's thought that the book is simply a compilation. In which case it may have multiple authors with varying aims.

[Boy]

...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Boy

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Agree, another thing I would like to add is that everyone should become like a leader

Not that everyone will but it's possible to be a leader by not being one and so on, I remember there's a chapter about that

Also, it's hard to talk about Tao without applying it to something else so using a ruler example is a good idea

People who can see past illusions can dissemble the book and apply it to simpler things

It's good that it's about sages, kings, and nature because when applied no normal everyday life, normal problems are nothing in comparison

 

This was well put, though the first word seems to be out of place from the rest of it.

 

As for "keep people ignorant so they don't dissent," this is the way some will read it, sometimes merely to suit their purposes. Ancient Taoist writing, like the 5 elements, applies to many different aspects of life, both creative and destructive as the situation requires.

 

Should I even make the effort to explain other beneficial understandings that can be learned from this? As far as I can see, the cup is well full and not much interested in more than superficial understandings, so I'm not sure it's worth making a mess.

[mrtiger]

Very good points, mrtiger. Personally, I like the backstory, and I think the text does a very good job at turning your attention to the truth, which it (!) calls the Tao*. If you don't get it*, you can start and/or participate in threads like this. If you get it, however, you won't post more than twice in such a thread, should you choose to participate. Prove me wrong.

 

I get the impression you're trying to communicate something very clever. Sadly it is lost on a simple person like me.

 

Furthermore your point is also lost among bad grammar and unusual punctuation.

 

So you "like the backstory". How jolly that must be for you.

 

I sugest you let go of these delusions and come to the center.

 

 

 

 

[The Observer]

With regards to the DDJ being written only for rulers* of countries: Are we not all ruler's, at least of our own body? Perhaps the principles of the DDJ may be applied to the microcosm of the body, then the family, eventually reaching out towards infinity.

 

*Perhaps like a literal ruler (measuring stick), the ruler should be the bar by which everything else is measured by. Just a thought that crossed my mind.

Edited August 26, 2012 by The Observer

[Aaron]

Whilst it's not unreasonable to consider the Dao De Ching's appeal to the educated classes, I think two important questions precede and perhaps nullify this line of thought.

 

1. Did Lao Tzu actually exist? There is no written account of him till 100bc, several hundred years after his death. If we can't even be sure about who wrote it, then we can only ever guess as to why they wrote it and for whom.

 

2. Is the Dao De Ching one book or several? As parts of the dao are often found in isolation and missing the rest of the text, it's thought that the book is simply a compilation. In which case it may have multiple authors with varying aims.

 

Actually there are accounts of Lao Tzu written prior to 100 BC, but it's nice that you've read the Wikipedia page and become an expert. Chaung Tzu mentioned Lao Tzu and he lived in the 4th century BC, unless of course, you don't believe Chuang Tzu was real either.

 

Regardless, if Lao Tzu was real or wasn't, the intention of the Tao Te Ching, whether written by one author or many, is still consistent and, in my opinion, the same, to teach the ruler how to lead his country. Of course you're welcome to your detraction, but it's really nit picking and not necessary when it comes to examining the Tao Te Ching in relation to the politics of its day.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

This was well put, though the first word seems to be out of place from the rest of it.

 

As for "keep people ignorant so they don't dissent," this is the way some will read it, sometimes merely to suit their purposes. Ancient Taoist writing, like the 5 elements, applies to many different aspects of life, both creative and destructive as the situation requires.

 

Should I even make the effort to explain other beneficial understandings that can be learned from this? As far as I can see, the cup is well full and not much interested in more than superficial understandings, so I'm not sure it's worth making a mess.

 

I look forward to your response. If you can provide evidence to support your argument, that's even better. I'm always ready to change my mind.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

I get the impression you're trying to communicate something very clever. Sadly it is lost on a simple person like me.

 

Furthermore your point is also lost among bad grammar and unusual punctuation.

 

So you "like the backstory". How jolly that must be for you.

 

I sugest you let go of these delusions and come to the center.

 

Oh I think there are plenty of people with delusions around here, no reason to tell anyone to let go of them, until we've let go of our own.

 

Aaron

[mrtiger]

 

 

Oh I think there are plenty of people with delusions around here, no reason to tell anyone to let go of them, until we've let go of our own.

 

Aaron

 

If you're going to ridicule me, let's have some dates. Which texts? And what's wrong with Wikipedia? What are your sources? Are they better? Show them! I'm happy to be wrong.

[mrtiger]

Ok guys. Did Lao Tzu exist?

 

Maybe.

 

Did he write his books for rulers?

 

Maybe.

 

What difference does it make?

 

Just do your job.

[konchog uma]

i've read the chuang-tzu ten times and don't remember any historical record or factual accounts of lao-tzu.

 

which doesn't mean its not so, but chuang tzu also mentioned the peng bird which was thousands of fathoms in wingspan, and that doesn't make him so. So....

 

im not really sure of the authenticity of the old longeared sage who was the imperial librarian until he rode off on an ox to the mountains... as far as i understand that stories does indeed have holes in it. Like a lack of imperial records to support it (the chinese kept impeccable imperial records too)

 

So... the premise that lao was an elite and writing for the ruling classes seems unverified. I mean if his identity is in question, everything about him is unverified.

 

Can any chinese speakers say what word is commonly translated as "ruler" because i have seen versions of the DDJ (which i much prefer presonally) that translate that same word as "sage" for example. If anyone can shed light on this i would appreciate it. Thanks!

[mrtiger]

i've read the chuang-tzu ten times and don't remember any historical record or factual accounts of lao-tzu.

 

which doesn't mean its not so, but chuang tzu also mentioned the peng bird which was thousands of fathoms in wingspan, and that doesn't make him so. So....

 

im not really sure of the authenticity of the old longeared sage who was the imperial librarian until he rode off on an ox to the mountains... as far as i understand that stories does indeed have holes in it. Like a lack of imperial records to support it (the chinese kept impeccable imperial records too)

 

So... the premise that lao was an elite and writing for the ruling classes seems unverified. I mean if his identity is in question, everything about him is unverified.

 

Can any chinese speakers say what word is commonly translated as "ruler" because i have seen versions of the DDJ (which i much prefer presonally) that translate that same word as "sage" for example. If anyone can shed light on this i would appreciate it. Thanks!

 

 

If I could humanize him, I'd put him way back - thousands of years before the warring states, perhaps at the end of the golden age.

 

The idea of the empire in decline of which Lao Tzu is fleeing has parallels with the cycles of the yugas in Hindu texts (is it the Vedas or the Gita, I'm not an expert).

 

 

 

 

[ChiDragon]

Whilst it's not unreasonable to consider the Dao De Ching's appeal to the educated classes, I think two important questions precede and perhaps nullify this line of thought.

 

1. Did Lao Tzu actually exist? There is no written account of him till 100bc, several hundred years after his death. If we can't even be sure about who wrote it, then we can only ever guess as to why they wrote it and for whom.

 

2. Is the Dao De Ching one book or several? As parts of the dao are often found in isolation and missing the rest of the text, it's thought that the book is simply a compilation. In which case it may have multiple authors with varying aims.

 

1. If you follow the TTC closely, LaoTze was suggesting to live a simple life in a low profile. BTW That's was exactly what he did by isolating himself from history. He wrote it for the rulers by suggesting them to rule with the principle of Wu Wei.

 

2. I think the DDC is one book but there were many copies of it. Originally, it was written on bamboo slips which made it hared to carry. So people recite them orally. However, when the text was passed by the word of mouth, thoughts so get lost during the translation. Sometimes, when people tried to write it down, they were not sure what are some of the characters should be. Thus they use phonetics which it will create some errors.

 

It seems to be that the DDC was not written by many authors because it was written in first person. LoaTze used "I" alot in the text. Besides, there was no other literature has been written in the same way and style which was similar to the wisdom of LaoTze.

Edited August 26, 2012 by ChiDragon

[mrtiger]

1. If you follow the TTC closely, LaoTze was suggesting to live a simple life in a low profile. BTW That's was exactly what he did by isolating himself from history. He wrote it for the rulers by suggesting them to rule with the principle of Wu Wei.

 

2. I think the DDC is one book but there were many copies of it. Originally, it was written on bamboo slips which made it hared to carry. So people recite them orally. However, when the text was passed by the word of mouth, thoughts so get lost during the translation. Sometimes, when people tried to write it down, they were not sure what are some of the characters should be. Thus they use phonetics which it will create some errors.

 

It seems to be that the DDC was not written by many authors because it was written in first person. LoaTze used "I" alot in the text. Besides, there was no other literature has been written in the same way and style which was similar to the wisdom of LaoTze.

 

What is I in Chinese. How would his express that?

[ChiDragon]

1. What is I in Chinese.

 

2. How would his express that?

 

1. "I" in Chinese are

吾(wu) and

我(wo).

 

2. How would his express that?

Chapter 25

吾不知其名

I don't know its name.

 

 

Chapter 53

使我介然有知

1. If I have a little bit of knowledge,

Edited August 26, 2012 by ChiDragon

[mrtiger]

 

 

1. "I" in Chinese are

吾(wu) and

我(wo).

 

2. How would his express that?

Chapter 25

吾不知其名

I don't know its name.

 

 

Chapter 53

使我介然有知

1. If I have a little bit of knowledge,

 

Very good.

 

 

[Aaron]

i've read the chuang-tzu ten times and don't remember any historical record or factual accounts of lao-tzu.

 

 

I'd suggest finding a different copy and reading it again.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

If you're going to ridicule me, let's have some dates. Which texts? And what's wrong with Wikipedia? What are your sources? Are they better? Show them! I'm happy to be wrong.

 

Ahem... Chuang Tzu only wrote one text to the best of my knowledge, so can we just say, the Chuang Tzu?

 

Aaron

[mrtiger]

 

 

Ahem... Chuang Tzu only wrote one text to the best of my knowledge, so can we just say, the Chuang Tzu?

 

Aaron

 

Ok Aaron that's a fail.

 

Dates please or you concede...

[Aaron]

 

 

Ok Aaron that's a fail.

 

Dates please or you concede...

 

oh so I concede because you say so? Could you please say I'm a millionaire? Oh, wait, I think just because you say something, doesn't make it so. And really, fail? What are we in middle school? Really, if you don't believe me the onus is on you. Anyone who's read the text knows Lao Tzu is mentioned numerous times. Get over yourself, you're not being that clever.

 

Aaron

Edited August 26, 2012 by Aaron

[mrtiger]

 

 

oh so I concede because you say so? Could you please say I'm a millionaire? Oh, wait, I think just because you say something, doesn't make it so. And really, fail? What are we in middle school? Really, if you don't believe me the onus is on you. Anyone who's read the text knows Lao Tzu is mentioned numerous times. Get over yourself, you're not being that clever.

 

Aaron

 

 

You're say I'm incorrect but you fail to give a source to back anything up.

 

Put your money where your mouth is Aaron...