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

[dawei]

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.

 

If there was ever a reason to not take Hendrick's translations too seriously, it would be this example. He is a good researcher but he has no insight.

 

This is about impartiality; Showing no fixed ambition or preference...

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Dawei, I think perhaps one major source of our disagreement or misunderstanding is that: when I say "De exemplifies virtue" I mean "De exemplifies virtue as it is presented in the Dao De Jing, ie., the virtue of the "Sage,""

 

Imo, Confucians, and other traditions, seek perfect virtue, but they don't necessarily know what that is. The Dao De Jing shows what true and perfect virtue is, and often corrects former ideas of what virtue is. So it is only the virtue, as presented in the Dao De Jing, that I am saying is connected with (Daoist) De.

 

Further, again, this "Daoist virtue" is ultimately the universal virtue of humanity, whether they have it or not, or know it or not.

 

Sure, Daoist virtue is not so much a contrived act as it seems to be other traditions, but there is a level where humans do the same as De in the same way as De, and what they do is virtuous, whether kind, courageous, honest, disciplined, natural, or whichever -- they're actions are like those of De.

[dawei]

Dawei, I think perhaps one major source of our disagreement or misunderstanding is that: when I say "De exemplifies virtue" I mean "De exemplifies virtue as it is presented in the Dao De Jing, ie., the virtue of the "Sage,""

 

Imo, Confucians, and other traditions, seek perfect virtue, but they don't necessarily know what that is. The Dao De Jing shows what true and perfect virtue is, and often corrects former ideas of what virtue is. So it is only the virtue, as presented in the Dao De Jing, that I am saying is connected with (Daoist) De.

 

Further, again, this "Daoist virtue" is ultimately the universal virtue of humanity, whether they have it or not, or know it or not.

 

Sure, Daoist virtue is not so much a contrived act as it seems to be other traditions, but there is a level where humans do the same as De in the same way as De, and what they do is virtuous, whether kind, courageous, honest, disciplined, natural, or whichever -- they're actions are like those of De.

 

We may have to simply disagree... or maybe we'll find we're closer than we think on some level...

 

While De may inspire, empower, enliven, embolden humans to virtuous (or virtuous acts, practices, ways of life), to me that does not mean De is virtue nor proper to translate as virtue.

 

And De is not only for humans to be affected by; the entire universe is affected by De... So if we're going to develop a theory of De from the DDJ, this can't be left out. JMO.

[ChiDragon]

Further, again, this "Daoist virtue" is ultimately the universal virtue of humanity, whether they have it or not, or know it or not.

 

Perhaps you have made a point which is valid to a certain degree which may be reached to the universal virtue of humanity as the final result. However, the whole idea about "te" in the Tao Te Ching was not mainly emphasized on that(virtue of humanity) but the Virtue of Tao. Indeed, those scholars who study the Tao Te Ching must have known the distinctive difference. It wouldn't be a waste of your valuable time and energy to continue with the endless notion about the "te", in the TTC, being the Confucian virtue of humanity.

Edited September 1, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

If there was ever a reason to not take Hendrick's translations too seriously, it would be this example. He is a good researcher but he has no insight.

 

This is about impartiality; Showing no fixed ambition or preference...

You do know that the arugement you put forth is rediculous, don't you? You argue against Henricks because of something I said (not what he said).

[dawei]

You do know that the arugement you put forth is rediculous, don't you? You argue against Henricks because of something I said (not what he said).

 

Sorry... between me, you and Hendricks... I still got the last laugh... I wasn't using his poor translation to make a misguided point.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

We may have to simply disagree... or maybe we'll find we're closer than we think on some level...

 

While De may inspire, empower, enliven, embolden humans to virtuous (or virtuous acts, practices, ways of life), to me that does not mean De is virtue nor proper to translate as virtue.

 

And De is not only for humans to be affected by; the entire universe is affected by De... So if we're going to develop a theory of De from the DDJ, this can't be left out. JMO.

 

As I see it, when De is in a person, it works through that person, sort of like a muse or what some musicians call "the pocket" where there is an internal guide that one allows to do the guiding rather than trying to guide things themselves with their knowledge and ideas.

 

De guides people to act according to De. This may not always be "virtuous" in the standardized sort of virtue laid out in treatises, but is virtuous as De works from a higher understanding of the way things work (not unlike, according to some stories in the Bible, following the will of God might lead someone to do something seemingly wrong but it is right because it was following the will of God who/which has a greater understanding of what is good or bad at a certain moment).

 

So this inner guide, to me, is the result of holding De within (see chapter 28). Holding this inner guide within is also to BE virtuous or HAVE virtue in the more common use of the word, but in a Daoist perspective of what it means to have virtue. What is the virtue that one HAS or IS? -- DE

 

So, yes, De is a power beyond simply knowing what to do, but it's character, however unfathomable, is ultimately the ultimate picture of what virtue is (whether it fits anyone's understanding of what virtue/morality means or not).

 

Again, it is beyond our understanding of morality and virtue, but that's because our understanding of morality and virtue is flawed or incomplete.

 

Like Dao, It ultimately completes things to the way they should be. This to me is virtue beyond morality. It is also power, but it is the power which brings things to completion and thus THEIR ultimate virtue. Whatever does this is only working towards virtue, and when it does this without even trying, like water being wet, then that is it's nature and character.

 

So wetness and water are distinguishable, but completely inseparable. De and virtue is like water and wetness.

We can look at water and it's density, chemical make up, it's laws in physics, but how can we TRULY know anything about water for ourselves in our actual personal existence, if we deny that water is wet and wetness is water?

 

 

This was the source of issue the other thread.. if I had the ability to look at the chemical make up of water, its density, it's laws in physics, and it's function in the world, I'd be happy to do so; but, if we start that with the premise that it's not wet and doesn't act in the world as wetness/moisture, then how does one actually examine water and say they've figured anything out about it?

 

 

sorry for the long post, I hope you'll have some breathing space to throw me a few uppercuts too

[Marblehead]

How about a slap aside the head?

 

Here is something to consider:

 

The word "te" is without any doubt one of the most mysterious in the Taoist vocabulary. It appears in the title of Lao-tzu's book: Tao-te ching . Legge translates this title as: The Classic about Tao and its Characteristics so "te" should be rendered as "characteristics" or "features". These characteristics are seen in relation with the Tao.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Just want to say before I respond -- don't miss my last post (from today), now hiding at the end of page 2

 

How about a slap aside the head?

 

I'd agree that this makes sense, though of course we can't define De with any single word... nor perhaps without certain words.

[Marblehead]

Sorry... between me, you and Hendricks... I still got the last laugh... I wasn't using his poor translation to make a misguided point.

Well, I am glad I was part of the opportunity for you to laugh.

 

Just want to say before I respond -- don't miss my last post (from today), now hiding at the end of page 2

 

 

I'd agree that this makes sense, though of course we can't define De with any single word... nor perhaps without certain words.

I had to go back and read it as I just scanned it earlier. Such a long post! Hehehe.

 

You know, Te (De), (Virtue) has so many connotations I think it would be far more effective to talk about Tzujan. At least we wouldn't have to consider the morality of individuals or the moral standards set by others.

 

Yea!!! My two posts were linked!!!

[ChiDragon]

I'd agree that this makes sense, though of course we can't define De with any single word... nor perhaps without certain words.

 

We can only define the word "de" within one philosophy but not two or more. "De" stands alone with its own definition in each individual philosophy. It cannot be defined with a blanket to cover all.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Had an interesting notion: De is the Yang of Dao. Dao is the more yin, wu wei, passive, from which all is born; De is that which forms them. So Dao would be yin, De yang.

 

!!?

[dawei]

Had an interesting notion: De is the Yang of Dao. Dao is the more yin, wu wei, passive, from which all is born; De is that which forms them. So Dao would be yin, De yang.

 

!!?

 

I see what you getting at but at this time, as you can see in my other thread, I am avoiding Yin-Yang associations too much in the Laozi right now.

 

One could look at DDJ51 to see how Dao and De are juxtaposed to dealing with the 10,000... although that chapter is not in the Guodian.

 

Wang Bi's notes show four stages for existence:

1. Dao > life

2. De > nourishment

3. Matter > form

4. Environment > Completeness

 

Wang Bi treats the last line as a meaning I often harp on: Xuan De as "original De"... not as mysterious De as so many translate. Once one starts using Xuan as 'original', other insight will follow in various chapters. Original is reminiscent of a meaning in the direction of Heng

[Marblehead]

Wang Bi's notes show four stages for existence:

1. Dao > life

2. De > nourishment

3. Matter > form

4. Environment > Completeness

I actually like that.

[Wu Ming Jen]

True virtue is not virtuous, it is spontaneous and un contrived the Tao De Ching gives examples from nature, the way is not written it is just observing the way things are.

 

If we try to be kind that is not considered True kindness even though it might seem like a good virtue it can go on too far and bring harm. Heaven is not kind but shows kindness to all things> The earth does not care if it is cheapened by pollution or torn apart by rivers but cares for all things. We can be companions of heaven and earth.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

True virtue is not virtuous, it is spontaneous and un contrived the Tao De Ching gives examples from nature, the way is not written it is just observing the way things are.

 

If we try to be kind that is not considered True kindness even though it might seem like a good virtue it can go on too far and bring harm. Heaven is not kind but shows kindness to all things> The earth does not care if it is cheapened by pollution or torn apart by rivers but cares for all things. We can be companions of heaven and earth.

 

Exactly. True virtue.... This is the point I'm trying to make -- that the Lao Tzu differentiates between false and true virtue (and to know De, one must know true virtue).

 

 

Thanks for your comment Wu Ming Jen!