Is there De (Te) without It's virtue?

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Some would like to say that there is no connection between virtue and De (德, often translated as "inner power" or virtue) in the Dao De Jing, and that reading it as such is merely forcing a Christian or Confucian worldview on the text. Other's, such as myself, would like to show that De is very much connected to virtue in the Confucian sense, and even in the Christian sense of the word as "moral virtue," as it is both virtuous, the numinous embodiment of Virtue Itself, and humanity's corresponding quality in nature, of virtue.

 

 

Perhaps there are also language barriers which lead to such confusion about the virtue (power) of using the word "virtue" to describe De, so below are some definitions (bold mine) of virtue to help show the applicability of the term to De. Please note that the word "virtue" in English also has the synonyms of "moral excellence," "efficacity," and "force or power," as the character 德 De has in Classical Chinese.

 

1.

a. Moral excellence and righteousness; goodness.

b. An example or kind of moral excellence: the virtue of patience.

2. Chastity, especially in a woman.

3. A particularly efficacious, good, or beneficial quality; advantage: a plan with the virtue of being practical.

4. Effective force or power: believed in the virtue of prayer.

5. virtues Christianity The fifth of the nine orders of angels in medieval angelology.

6. Obsolete Manly courage; valor.

 

 

 

We can look at chapter 51 and see how De is a numinous power, yes, but is there no virtue in this power? Is the power not the macro version of virtue itself? And if one wishes to be in accord with this power, can they do so without "virtue" in the Confucian and/or Christian sense?

 

Chapter 51 (Yutang trans.)

Tao gives them birth,
Teh (character) fosters them.
The material world gives them form.
The circumstances of the moment complete them.
Therefore all things of the universe worship Tao and exalt Teh.
Tao is worshipped and Teh is exalted
Without anyone's order but is so of its own accord.

Therefore Tao gives them birth,
Teh fosters them,
Makes them grow, develops them,
Gives them a harbor, a place to dwell in peace,
Feeds them and shelter them.
It gives them birth and does not own them,
Acts (helps) and does not appropriate them,
Is superior, and does not control them.
- This is the Mystic Virtue.

 

 

So then we have the question, does the Dao De Jing completely separate the power of De and virtuous behaviour? Does one need to behave virtuously in order to have De?

 

 

It would help to take a look at Chapters 10 and 28, the only Chapters where De appears in the first volume (ch. 1-37):

 

 

Chapter Ten (Feng/English trans.)

 

Carrying body and soul and embracing the one,
Can you avoid separation?
Attending fully and becoming supple,
Can you be as a newborn babe?
Washing and cleansing the primal vision,
Can you be without stain?
Loving all men and ruling the country,
Can you be without cleverness?
Opening and closing the gates of heaven,
Can you play the role of woman?
Understanding and being open to all things,
Are you able to do nothing?
Giving birth and nourishing,
Bearing yet not possessing,
Working yet not taking credit,
Leading yet not dominating,
This is the Primal Virtue.

[last line, 是謂玄德, literally, "This is called profound/deep De"]

 

 

Chapter 28 (Lin Yutang trans.)

He who is aware of the Male
But keeps to the Female
Becomes the ravine of the world.
Being the ravine of the world,
He has the original character (teh) which is not cut up.
And returns again to the (innocence of the) babe.

He who is conscious of the white (bright)
But keeps to the black (dark)
Becomes the model for the world.
Being the model for the world,
He has the eternal power which never errs,
And returns again to the Primordial Nothingness.

He who is familiar with honor and glory
But keeps to obscurity
Becomes the valley of the world.
Being the valley of the world,
He has an eternal power which always suffices,
And returns again to the natural integrity of uncarved wood.

Break up this uncarved wood
And it is shaped into vessel
In the hands of the Sage
They become the officials and magistrates.
Therefore the great ruler does not cut up.

 

 

Both of these chapters show that De is related to modesty, not being boastful, and similar qualities. This virtue of modesty and unselfishness is probably the most prevalent instruction throughout the Dao De Jing, and is at the base of virtuous behaviour/unselfish behaviour. As you can see in Chapter 28, this virtue leads to the inherent power of virtue: Virtue.

 

It's also easy enough to see that Chapter 28 is repeating the same message three times using different poetically descriptive means: male vs. female; white vs. black = honour and glory vs. obscurity. Sure there are innumerable things to be learned via these verses, but they also show what sorts of "virtue" one requires to maintain or realize De.

 

This sort of "virtue" is also very prevalent in Confucian teachings, as well as Christian teachings (not to mention every other wisdom teachings passed down by elders of true wisdom).

 

 

We can see that this is also the same virtuous quality of Sages, in Chapter Seven:

 

Chapter Seven (Yutang trans.)

The universe is everlasting.
The reason the universe is everlasting
Is that it does not life for Self.
Therefore it can long endure.

Therefore the Sage puts himself last,
And finds himself in the foremost place;
Regards his body as accidental,
And his body is thereby preserved.
Is it not because he does not live for Self
That his Self is realized?

 

 

So this way of the universe and that allows it to be everlasting, is that it does not think of itself first. This is exactly the same quality that describes De.

 

We can also see this quality in the teachings of water, as illustrated in Chapter Eight:

 

Chapter Eight (Yutang trans.)

The best of men is like water;
Water benefits all things
And does not compete with them.
It dwells in (the lowly) places that all disdain -
Wherein it comes near to the Tao.

In his dwelling, (the Sage) loves the (lowly) earth;
In his heart, he loves what is profound;
In his relations with others, he loves kindness;
In his words, he loves sincerity;
In government, he loves peace;
In business affairs, he loves ability;
In his actions, he loves choosing the right time.
It is because he does not contend
That he is without reproach.

 

 

So if we are to speak about De as the counterpart to Dao as it appears in Chapter 51, can we not reasonably state that this power is all or either a.) virtuous, b.) the ultimate power of Virtue Itself, or c.) the corresponding quality in nature to human virtue?

 

Yes, De fosters creation, but is this fostering of creation not the same selfless propensity to serve others which Confucianism and Christianity would say makes a person virtuous? Does this not mean that De is very much the numinous embodiment of Virtue?

[Marblehead]

Hi Harmonious,

 

I think you are in error trying to equate Taoist "Te" with the Confucian and Christian concepts of virtue.

 

Yes, there are some similarities. For example, one of the Three Treasures is Compassion > Christian.

 

Another example, another of the Treasures is Frugality > Confucianissm.

 

But the Virtue of Tao has nothing to do with what the human animal does - it is about how the universe works.

 

And yes, Lao Tzu does speak to how a person should conduct themself. And moreso, how a ruler or would-be ruler should conduct themself. But these things he says are most time contra Christianity and Confucianism.

 

I have spoken to this set of concepts many times before. And somewhere along the line I distinguish between "Virtue", the Te of Tao and "virtue", the te of man.

 

There is a great difference between the two.

 

I think it is proper, when talking about virtue from the Taoist perspective, to state whether we are talking about the Te of Tao or the te of man. And still, this will end up still being confusing.

 

A hurricane, tornado, or volcano that kills many people is not virtuous from man's point of view but it is virtuous from Tao's point of view.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Thanks for sharing your view Marblehead, however, I think your argument is missing the fact that the word virtue refers on a whole to the basic universal principle of goodness/kindness/uprightness.

 

I don't think acts of nature, such as hurricanes or tornados, are usually ascribed levels of virtue by people, but even when they are, it is usually considered an "act of God" to carry out "His" "virtuous" plan. This would correspond to the necessity of accepting the existence of a conflict and making the difficult decisions to rectify it, accepting the immediate and difficult consequences of doing so. This still corresponds to common notions of "someone who does what needs to be done, regardless of difficulty" as "virtuous."

 

edit:

 

a couple of other points, I'll move to this discussion

 

1)

 

The Virtue of Christianity (following the will of the Almighty) might be different than the Virtue of Dao, but "virtue" is universal(ly human).

 

Unselfishness, doing things willfully without expectation of reward/benevolence (benévole = voluteer, en français), and goodwill towards humanity. This virtue is central in the Daoist path as well as in Christianity, Confucianism, and every other ancient wisdom tradition, and writing.

 

2)

 

I think a lot of people don't realize how much of what they consider "uniquely Taoist" also exists in Confucian philosophy.

 

Combine that with an incomplete view of Daoist philosophy as being entirely and only mystical, and the criticisms, in Chuang Tzu and Lie Tzu, of Confucian "practice (not necessarily theory)" being entirely superficial, and you have a lot of mis-understandings about what's what and what's not what.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Harmonious Emptiness

[dawei]

Like MH, I can't make the leap of De/Te of Tao to virtue of Man.

 

My short reason is that if one replaces Dao with De, do we still feel that Dao equates to virtue?

 

What we're missing is the third line which says:

The circumstances of the moment complete them.

 

That is the key; the environment and the human influence which manifests what capacity / power originates from the blueprint we call Dao.

 

BTW: Ch. 8, 10, and 51 are not in the oldest, Guodian Text. So the development of thought has already changed similar to the insertion of Yin Yang and dualism grows stronger in each later text.

[ion]

Te is something different then virtue itself, but te has what we call virtue, they are an aspect of te. Te is an "energy" closely associated with life force but is different then that too. Maybe more of a life givving force, or a life force givving force, tthat is relative to others, so it is definitely not "soul" or anything like that, more of a creative force or energy that is designed to emmenate from one to another.

 

In a way, it is like what the Hawaiians call aloha. Aloha is used as a greeting, but is definitely lost in translation to english if you think it means hi/bye.

 

The Hawaiins believe in chi, but they call it mana. Everything is mana, breathes mana, and mana flows in every thing.

 

Aloha is a phrase made up of three words- Alo- which means to share in the present be face to face with and also to be present with family or descendents. Oha-which means joyous affection, or joy,it also means to spread like vines and to grow lush. Ha-which means life enrgy as in life breath, (or mana).

 

In Hawaii, you'll here people use the term Aloha in lots of situations besides as a greeting. "show some aloha" "that person has aloha" or "That person needs some aloha" or in reference to a real sterile gentrified social environment, "this place has no aloha"

 

Its associated with spirit and sharing/being with others, and being in the moment.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Like MH, I can't make the leap of De/Te of Tao to virtue of Man.

 

My short reason is that if one replaces Dao with De, do we still feel that Dao equates to virtue?

No not at all, because virtue in humanity is also a power, a feeling. Perhaps Love is the best multi-meaning word for it.

De is to Dao what virtue is to humanity.

 

What we're missing is the third line which says:

The circumstances of the moment complete them.

 

That is the key; the environment and the human influence which manifests what capacity / power originates from the blueprint we call Dao.

I think it's safe to say that there was a similar notion of fatherhood in ancient China, that while the mother loves unconditionally, the father provides unconditionally.

 

If we read Chapter 51, this seems to be the suggestion, that Dao gives birth (female) and then De raises them (disciplines, provides shelter and food, etc.). Of course, for humanity, both mother and father play a part in the birth of a child, and both have a role in forming that child (nourishing, teaching, etc.).

 

Now, male/female comparisons aside, the Dao simply gives birth - this is just an action regardless of action or inaction.. it just happens as a matter of course. De then exhibits the universal qualities of virtue in fostering:

 

Teh fosters them,

Makes them grow, develops them,

Gives them a harbor, a place to dwell in peace,

Feeds them and shelter them.

It gives them birth and does not own them,

Acts (helps) and does not appropriate them,

Is superior, and does not control them.

 

If people want to twist words, they might say "parents act out of innate love, it is wu wei, a matter of course, not virtue," but I don't think I need to explain why that's not the case.

 

Further, it is the same characteristics of parental love which describe the actions of De, and also of a Sage acting with sagely virtue on humanity, unselfishly, as though all humanity were his children.

 

 

BTW: Ch. 8, 10, and 51 are not in the oldest, Guodian Text. So the development of thought has already changed similar to the insertion of Yin Yang and dualism grows stronger in each later text.

 

Interesting point, though we could argue that the compiled texts which made up the later Dao De Jing were from the same community of people, and written around the same time, and thus all definitive of early Daoist knowledge.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Thanks for sharing that ion, and Aloha!

[dawei]

De is to Dao what virtue is to humanity.

 

I think this is where we clearly disagree... from a Laoist perspective.

 

I do agree that Confucians felt this way and used this analogy to there hijack the character for their own use and the common folks simply followed that formula; De as Virtue. But it is not the meaning used by LZ. JMO.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I think this is where we clearly disagree... from a Laoist perspective.

 

I do agree that Confucians felt this way and used this analogy to there hijack the character for their own use and the common folks simply followed that formula; De as Virtue. But it is not the meaning used by LZ. JMO.

 

Can you provide me with some source material type of textual basis to show that this is the Laoist perspective? We can state opinions all day but if we're saying "this is what it says" then we need to back that with some actual passages and a discussion on said passages.

[Marblehead]

Thanks for sharing your view Marblehead, however, I think your argument is missing the fact that the word virtue refers on a whole to the basic universal principle of goodness/kindness/uprightness.

But there is no universal principle of goodness,kindness, or uprightness.

 

Ture, many people have these thoughts in common but they are by no means universal.

[deci belle]

For starters, mr Marbles is in error assuming that Te is taoist. Power is.

 

No culture, knowledge, teaching tradition, person or god created power. Universal Good (the embodiment of Virtue as personified in the Avatsakam Sutra), does not abide in a country. It is itself the source of civilization.

 

For those who may reel from the inclusion of a buddhist text in this discussion, realize that ANYTHING you can think of or use your mind to conjure is not it. That is not the same as the philosopher's conceptual triviality which sugar-coats the TTC's opening statement. I say this because it is you yourself right now~ not a concept to sniff and roll like a cork.

 

Therefore Power is not within the realm of any view one can entertain (in this discussion). Therefore it is not a Taoist, Buddhist, or any other tradition's possession, creation, or dependent identity.

 

People who attain this mind by clarifying and stilling the human mentality (the intellectual apparatus), arrive at this understanding of reality by virtue of the Way in residence. How else would one come to know the source of the knowledge of the ancients who were thus acquainted (in order to create the classics in the first place) and who wrote from the perspective of enlightened mind itself. Lesser minds have come up with methods of interpretation which depend on a tradition; not the source itself.

 

May I humbly support the view that Power is the immaterial manifestation of the Way which has no possible function of separation. The essence of the Way is Unity. It is the human mentality which can only view things in relation to its own splintered capacity whereby it organizes reality in its own image. Those who refine themselves become a capacitor of the Way by clarity and stillness whereby the Way naturally resides.

 

One then activates the Virtue of the Receptive, which is how Power effects its influence. It is not that the Way is separate~ its impersonality is the knowledge of potential. Those who get this act outside of creation, not subject to Change.

 

One's relationship with Power is by degree relative to the residence of the Way in terms of one's self-refinement. Those who must view Virtue as conceptually separate (in any respect) must endeavor to develop a real, personal loss of ego-identity to arrive at a mind with capacitance of the Way's Power of enlightening being.

[3bob]

a true Sage follows universal principles, and thus fulfills chapter 49 of the TTC.

(thus not fulfilling the counterparts such as madness)

[dawei]

I think part of the challenge in this thread is your making assertions to refute ideas that others appeared to make but that was not what was said... So it is hard to clear up the bits of confusion going on.

 

You appear to say several times that there is a link between DE and moral virtue; there is probably a link between DE and EVERYTHING imaginable in human existence but that is not mean it is DE.

 

I think the base issue (for me, maybe for Rene or MH and others possibly who hold this kind of position I will relate) is that De is the power of Dao doing its thing. As part of ancient chinese belief in not only cosmology but cosmogony, Dao doing its thing, means humans doing our thing.

 

Now, from a Confucian or moral or ethical point of view, by analogy, this is as you said: De is to Dao as virtue is to Man. But just because Dao has an underlying power grid to effect the ten thousand arising and returning, I do not use that word to equate to a human trying to be morally better in life in order to energize himself; even if the goal is to 'practice to be morally good', it is a purely human endeavor without Dao. I can go to church if I want morals to connect to the spiritual.

 

The issue for me (and maybe others) is whether this is the meaning of Laozi's De (and Dao).

 

For me, it is not... and the explanation requires either an experience or maybe research into the idea. I don't think simply talking about it will convince someone. It is similar to a discussion on Qi. Someone with a cursory understanding of Qi (even pre-natal vs post-natal concepts) is vastly different than someone whose experience is in Qi healing or transmission.

 

I provide Vincent Shen as an author. And references Ames's work "Putting Te back into Taoism". There is another by Ivanhoe in "Religious and Philosophical Aspects of Laozi". From this last I will comment.

 

In the Laozi we see a related but significantly distinct consequence of de (related to Confucius, a section just covered).

 

Ivanhoe goes on to explain how Confucius takes the moral high road; Laozi places himself below, like a valley (although Ivanhoe uses DDJ28 to support this, also see Guodian DDJ41 where De is compared to a low valley; later text changes the words and meaning).

 

He also points out that for Confucius, virtue is for humans, but for Laozi, DE extends across the entire world; everything can be affected by DE.

 

I will bring in another ancient text which has more similarities to Laozi then most realize... Shen Dao said:

Heaven has light and does not care that men are in darkness; Earth is fruitful, and does not care that men are impoverished; the sage (聖) has DE (德) and does not care that men are imperiled.

 

This sounds like DDJ5... DE is devoid of moral or ethical considerations on some level... as is the Great Way...

[Marblehead]

Duh!

Edited September 1, 2013 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

Duh!

Edited September 1, 2013 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

Duh!

Edited September 1, 2013 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

I will bring in another ancient text which has more similarities to Laozi then most realize... Shen Dao said:

Heaven has light and does not care that men are in darkness; Earth is fruitful, and does not care that men are impoverished; the sage (聖) has DE (德) and does not care that men are imperiled.

That works well for me. Again emphasizing that the Te of Tao is not concerned with the te of man.

[Marblehead]

Duh!

Edited September 1, 2013 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

a true Sage follows universal principles, and thus fulfills chapter 49 of the TTC.

(thus not fulfilling the counterparts such as madness)

Henrick's translation of line 8 reads:

 

8. [in this way] he gets their trust.

 

I think it is more fitting that it should read:

 

8. [in this way] he gets taken advantage of.

 

Try it some time.

[3bob]

MH,

 

I don't read it that way namely "gets taken advantage of" which gives the connotation of the "Sage" as being foolish or maybe being big of heart yet weak in wisdom...

 

Anyway a Sage gets "their trust" by uncovering the possibility of trust within them and then helping make it a reality for them. (that is if they do not turn away)

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I think the base issue (for me, maybe for Rene or MH and others possibly who hold this kind of position I will relate) is that De is the power of Dao doing its thing. As part of ancient chinese belief in not only cosmology but cosmogony, Dao doing its thing, means humans doing our thing.

I'll need a source for this. Sounds more like zi-ran, iyam, though I would consider zi-ran a part of De, or positive characteristic of De (to avoid the V word).

 

Now, from a Confucian or moral or ethical point of view, by analogy, this is as you said: De is to Dao as virtue is to Man. But just because Dao has an underlying power grid to effect the ten thousand arising and returning, I do not use that word to equate to a human trying to be morally better in life in order to energize himself; even if the goal is to 'practice to be morally good', it is a purely human endeavor without Dao. I can go to church if I want morals to connect to the spiritual.

 

The issue for me (and maybe others) is whether this is the meaning of Laozi's De (and Dao).

 

But then how does one say that the qualities of De do not apply to the guidance for human (sagely) behaviour as presented in the Dao De Jing? Just about every time a quality of Dao or De or 善 goodness is described in the Dao De Jing, the description is followed by saying that a Sage has the same qualities.

 

For me, it is not... and the explanation requires either an experience or maybe research into the idea. I don't think simply talking about it will convince someone. It is similar to a discussion on Qi. Someone with a cursory understanding of Qi (even pre-natal vs post-natal concepts) is vastly different than someone whose experience is in Qi healing or transmission.

 

This is why I'm using quotes from the DDJ. We can have our ideas of what Laozi meant (which some say is all I have), but without connecting these ideas to what Laozi wrote, what basis do we have to say that is what he meant?

 

I provide Vincent Shen as an author. And references Ames's work "Putting Te back into Taoism". There is another by Ivanhoe in "Religious and Philosophical Aspects of Laozi". From this last I will comment.

 

In the Laozi we see a related but significantly distinct consequence of de (related to Confucius, a section just covered).

 

Ivanhoe goes on to explain how Confucius takes the moral high road; Laozi places himself below, like a valley (although Ivanhoe uses DDJ28 to support this, also see Guodian DDJ41 where De is compared to a low valley; later text changes the words and meaning).

 

This "placing himself below" is virtuous action. It is shown over and over again as something that both nature and Sages do, in the Dao De Jing. Putting one's self last is also a virtue in Confucianism, which is part of why I say the separation between the idea of "what is good" "what is virtuous" does not differ much between Daoism and Confucianism.

 

There are some differences, such as "frankness" in Daoism, but this is still considered a "virtue" of the Sage.

 

 

He also points out that for Confucius, virtue is for humans, but for Laozi, DE extends across the entire world; everything can be affected by DE.

 

Well, we might have to get into a discussion Xing in Confucianism, as this concept also extends the idea of virtue across nature.

 

I will bring in another ancient text which has more similarities to Laozi then most realize... Shen Dao said:

Heaven has light and does not care that men are in darkness; Earth is fruitful, and does not care that men are impoverished; the sage (聖) has DE (德) and does not care that men are imperiled.

 

This sounds like DDJ5... DE is devoid of moral or ethical considerations on some level... as is the Great Way...

 

Okay, but we are talking about what Laozi said. Quite a bit of the old ways of thinking were sort of "revised" via DDJ.

 

 

edit: a few words in 4th paragraph

Edited August 31, 2013 by Harmonious Emptiness

[dawei]

May I humbly support the view that Power is the immaterial manifestation of the Way which has no possible function of separation. The essence of the Way is Unity. It is the human mentality which can only view things in relation to its own splintered capacity whereby it organizes reality in its own image. Those who refine themselves become a capacitor of the Way by clarity and stillness whereby the Way naturally resides.

 

One then activates the Virtue of the Receptive, which is how Power effects its influence. It is not that the Way is separate~ its impersonality is the knowledge of potential. Those who get this act outside of creation, not subject to Change.

 

One's relationship with Power is by degree relative to the residence of the Way in terms of one's self-refinement. Those who must view Virtue as conceptually separate (in any respect) must endeavor to develop a real, personal loss of ego-identity to arrive at a mind with capacitance of the Way's Power of enlightening being.

 

very powerful and nicely stated

[dawei]

I am rope-a-doping and not sure how much longer I will last

 

I'll need a source for this. Sounds more like zi-ran, iyam, though I would consider zi-ran a part of De, or positive characteristic of De (to avoid the V word).

 

The microcosm idea is as old as Fu Xi and the first act to 'raise one's head to observe the sky and lower one's head to observe the earth'. They didn't pen anything; they followed the cosmic cycles of the power of nature, and understood that this power is but a shadow of the source. Their experience is what others have come to experience. The source is within us, if we can get to it.

 

 

 

 

But then how does one say that the qualities of De do not apply to the guidance for human (sagely) behaviour as presented in the Dao De Jing? Just about every time a quality of Dao or De or 善 goodness is described in the Dao De Jing, the description is followed by saying that a Sage has the same qualities.

 

Dao is a guide; De is a guide. That does not mean Dao is virtue. It is the blueprint; De is the power grid. We harness what we can. One doesn't need De to be moral... a puritanical parent can do it better. If De were responsible for morals then it should be responsible for skill, and knowledge and any human endeavor... but we don't consider all these aspects. Why? Because to Confucius the highest ideal is human-kindness; the Junzi (perfect man). He was a humanistic moralist through and through. (and i don't mean that disparagingly... it just is).

 

 

This is why I'm using quotes from the DDJ. We can have our ideas of what Laozi meant (which some say is all I have), but without connecting these ideas to what Laozi wrote, what basis do we have to say that is what he meant?

 

I have lots of reservations about most DDJ chapters and tend to give more weight to the earlier text and other ancient texts; but in the end, it is all a wash to an inner knowing/seeing... Some things I cannot explain but others, like Deci Belle, can answer better.

 

 

This "placing himself below" is virtuous action. It is shown over and over again as something that both nature and Sages do, in the Dao De Jing. Putting one's self last is also a virtue in Confucianism, which is part of why I say the separation between the idea of "what is good" "what is virtuous" does not differ much between Daoism and Confucianism.

 

Is nature virtuous? Following nature is not an attempt to win the goal medal of morality or virtue, it is "bu ren" (Not human-kindness seeking).

 

I don't disagree that the acts appear to not differ but, but that is the external view. The internal views are wholly different.

 

This is an exercise is dropping the external to approach the internal... I would suggest as Deci said, of no-separation. (I may not be representing that view as stated).

 

But, that is why I originally asked: If Dao is replaced with De, does that have the same result, feeling, response?

[Marblehead]

MH,

 

I don't read it that way namely "gets taken advantage of" which gives the connotation of the "Sage" as being foolish or maybe being big of heart yet weak in wisdom...

 

Anyway a Sage gets "their trust" by uncovering the possibility of trust within them and then helping make it a reality for them. (that is if they do not turn away)

I won't discuss this further. You are right.

[3bob]

ok MH