The Laozi as a Manual of Manipulation and Control

[thelerner]

Anyone who gets started off with a book like The Tao of Pooh is introduced to Laozi with the Vinegar Tasters, depicting Laozi as… well, a wise little elderly fellow sitting under a tree, drinking vinegar and grinning merrily.

Re-reading the OP, this occurred to me.

 

Right off the bat, my understanding is they're not drinking vinegar, they're sampling .. life;  one finds it bitter, one finds it sour, Laozi find its sweet.  While its kinda taoist propaganda, it points to the taoist principle to be at peace/harmony with life/nature, and grow and thrive where you're planted. 

 

Maybe at times the difference between skillful means and manipulation shrinks, especially when setting up situations to avoid unpleasant outcomes with people.  Small pushes early on soothe the way. 

Edited March 18, 2015 by thelerner

[multiarms]

To OP: It's an interesting post, and good research. It's helpful to disrupt the romanticized cultural picture of Lao as either a godlike figure or a wise little old man. So for a change you can picture him as a chinese Machiavelli twirling his fu manchu moustache.

 

I prefer to think of "him" as not a discrete person at all with a plan for how his writings will guide others, wether they be in the palace, or disciples in future generations. I am quite content to admit that the daodejing was cobbled together by multiple people over a period of time, and is more like semi-connected musings on ancient life, happiness, spirituality, politics, etc.

 

As far as the political character of the work as a whole, I read it rather more as metaphor, rather than a manual for ancient warlords. I mean, this is a book which talks all about the miraculous charactersitics of water, ancient sages, valley spirits, nourishing from the mother, the "mysterious pass" (whatever you think that might be, haha), etc. Presumably we all understand this as mostly metaphorical, or at the very least not 100% literal.

 

So why should we consider all of the talk about rulership, war, and the people to be 100% literal? Couldn't it be that the advice to a king on the ruling of the people is meant as advice for any individual's personal, moral, and/or spiritual conduct? Or even providing clues as to a specifc method of introspection or meditation? Aren't we all fighting a war within, and attempting to bring our own internal kingdom into a state of peace and harmony?

 

Just a thought.

[Stosh]

Hasnt anyone else ever tasted vinegar? its sour. I like it , but its sour.

I also like pickled peppers and green apples, but thats besides the point.

So I pose to thou bright minds, why would Lao be considering it sweet? If its not a judgement on the actual taste of vinegar , and the opinion of the protagonist isnt exactly correct nor deluded. ( since he is actually tasting it )

Im thinking it says something about the philosophy of lao.

Principles, are supposed to hold true ,regardless of circumstance, so id say multiarms , that extrapolation or application of yours would hold water... and indicates that what was being discussed is a principle..to a reader that wishes to learn the principles applicable over a broad spectrum of situations. To others it may be presenting other considerations.

Which is how one ends up with 2500 years of argument

Edited March 18, 2015 by Stosh

[Michael Sternbach]

I have a wonderful little self-help manual written in German. It's actually borrowing plenty from Eastern philosophies. It's teaching how to live in peace and contentment. Part of this is to understand how people always try to manipulate you to their own advantage, and how to do it to them if the need arises.

 

The TTK may have been something similar originally. It's confusing us nowadays because we like to think of it as the lofty teaching of a "saint" (whatever that may be) elevated over the concerns of daily life. When in fact it was meant as a self-help manual offering all  kinds of advice to ensure that the reader (whoever they may be) lives as happily as possible. "Use whatever you see fit!"

Edited March 19, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[dust]

Re-reading the OP, this occurred to me.

 

Right off the bat, my understanding is they're not drinking vinegar, they're sampling .. life;  one finds it bitter, one finds it sour, Laozi find its sweet.  While its kinda taoist propaganda, it points to the taoist principle to be at peace/harmony with life/nature, and grow and thrive where you're planted. 

 

Maybe at times the difference between skillful means and manipulation shrinks, especially when setting up situations to avoid unpleasant outcomes with people.  Small pushes early on soothe the way.

 

What has being at peace with nature got to do with setting up situations to manipulate people?

 

To be at peace, truly at peace, one must accept and adapt. Zhuangzi knew this.

 

 

 

 

I prefer to think of "him" as not a discrete person at all with a plan for how his writings will guide others, wether they be in the palace, or disciples in future generations. I am quite content to admit that the daodejing was cobbled together by multiple people over a period of time, and is more like semi-connected musings on ancient life, happiness, spirituality, politics, etc.

 

Yes, this is how I see it. In my opinion though, if one is presuming Laozi to be one man with one opinion, a reality of multiple authors only increases the likelihood that certain chapters are misinterpreted.

 

 

 

As far as the political character of the work as a whole, I read it rather more as metaphor, rather than a manual for ancient warlords. I mean, this is a book which talks all about the miraculous charactersitics of water, ancient sages, valley spirits, nourishing from the mother, the "mysterious pass" (whatever you think that might be, haha), etc. Presumably we all understand this as mostly metaphorical, or at the very least not 100% literal.

 

Ah. Well, yes and no. Things are translated as mystical when people don't fully grasp context or content. Many translators have been lax in their historical and etymological research, in my opinion...

 

 

 

So why should we consider all of the talk about rulership, war, and the people to be 100% literal? Couldn't it be that the advice to a king on the ruling of the people is meant as advice for any individual's personal, moral, and/or spiritual conduct? Or even providing clues as to a specifc method of introspection or meditation? Aren't we all fighting a war within, and attempting to bring our own internal kingdom into a state of peace and harmony?

 

It's possible.

 

One can make an allegory out of anything...

 

 

 

Hasnt anyone else ever tasted vinegar? its sour. I like it , but its sour.

I also like pickled peppers and green apples, but thats besides the point.

So I pose to thou bright minds, why would Lao be considering it sweet? If its not a judgement on the actual taste of vinegar , and the opinion of the protagonist isnt exactly correct nor deluded. ( since he is actually tasting it )

Im thinking it says something about the philosophy of lao.

 

Yes, as I understand it the story is intended to show that Laozi's philosophy, as opposed to those of Buddha and Confucius, is one of acceptance, harmony, finding joy in the sour bits of life as well as the sweet...etc..

 

The question is, is the Laozi philosophy actually 100% happy-go-lucky, find-the-joy-in-everything, live in harmony with nature, or are there major elements in he text that in fact contradict this idea? Chapters where he talks of the benefit of the state having a professional executioner, for example, or where he suggests that a ruler fill his subjects with rice until they can barely move so that the kingdom will be easier to rule.

 

Aside: Shanxi vinegar is hardly sour at all. Really delicious.

[Marblehead]

To be at peace, truly at peace, one must accept and adapt. Zhuangzi knew this.

Accept, adapt or change the rules.

[thelerner]

What has being at peace with nature got to do with setting up situations to manipulate people?

 

To be at peace, truly at peace, one must accept and adapt. Zhuangzi knew this.

hmmn, I wrote nature/life.  I was thinking more in terms of life.   So for me being at peace with life means finding ways to be on the good side of (at times) troublesome people.  If I have to be around them much I will scheme and consider ways to make them or the situation more pleasant.  Nothing too drastic(haven't killed anyone yet), but finding out what they like and hitting them with a quick questions that flatters there expertise puts me on there good side.   Heck I don't even know if thats scheming or an expression of my own curiousity but it does put me on people's good side. 

 

I think accepting and adapting to someone else's poor behavior is less skillful then being able to subtly shift them to a favorable mode.  If someone's dog poops on my lawn, why accept and adapt when I can find them and befriend and change there behavior?  Likewise better (at times) to light a candle then adapt to the dark.

[Stosh]

Yes, as I understand it the story is intended to show that Laozi's philosophy, as opposed to those of Buddha and Confucius, is one of acceptance, harmony, finding joy in the sour bits of life as well as the sweet...etc..

 

The question is, is the Laozi philosophy actually 100% happy-go-lucky, find-the-joy-in-everything, live in harmony with nature, or are there major elements in he text that in fact contradict this idea? Chapters where he talks of the benefit of the state having a professional executioner, for example, or where he suggests that a ruler fill his subjects with rice until they can barely move so that the kingdom will be easier to rule.

 

Aside: Shanxi vinegar is hardly sour at all. Really delicious.

Shanxi vinegar ,, hmmm ,  so is there some reason to consider the painting to be of this specialty vinegar?

 

I assume something about the vat or process suggests vinegar, but , 

The people however , may or may not be the personages of Lao , Confucious , Buddha. 

The reactions to the vinegar, may or may not be the flavors described. 

And the meaning of the painting may or may not be the one that was told to me. 

Examine the painting , the 'conventional' explanation provided,

is not the only explanation that one could arrive at.

If the guys depict who its said they depict, well the painter could think that Lao was biased, that he was presenting a skewed view. ANd so,  the one who felt it was sour would be the 'right view'

[Stosh]

hmmn, I wrote nature/life.  I was thinking more in terms of life.   So for me being at peace with life means finding ways to be on the good side of (at times) troublesome people.  If I have to be around them much I will scheme and consider ways to make them or the situation more pleasant.  Nothing too drastic(haven't killed anyone yet), but finding out what they like and hitting them with a quick questions that flatters there expertise puts me on there good side.   Heck I don't even know if thats scheming or an expression of my own curiousity but it does put me on people's good side. 

 

I think accepting and adapting to someone else's poor behavior is less skillful then being able to subtly shift them to a favorable mode.  If someone's dog poops on my lawn, why accept and adapt when I can find them and befriend and change there behavior?  Likewise better (at times) to light a candle then adapt to the dark.

I may stand alone in this,, but to me , if you pretend (without sharing the  understanding that its play ), even for the purpose of shifting the dynamic for the better, I still consider it scheming. Its still manipulating the presentation by depriving me of a true understanding of the situation.

 I personally don't particularly care for someone to snow me with flattery or to falsely insult me to get a psychological leg up. Its an insult either way really. 

The label of 'good' or 'bad' , regarding this kind of manipulation is up to you.

I was raised to see this kind of thing in a highly negative light , and say it was the actions of a bullshit artist.

I know folks who think this is really slick , they are proud of it , and think they are being highly effective. 

My personal experience is that I am going to be spanked, karmically perhaps, if I don't play the game.

Sometimes I do bend on the issue, but, unbent its just not up for questioning.

 

Considering oneself Forced into being manipulative, being equated to lighting a candle,, excuses a more complicated situation. Maybe the dark could've been fine too. Would you innately be more proud to stand on the principle of honesty , or on the principle of adaptation ( lighting a candle being an adaptation as well) ?

Or , does some of the teachings folks present make a stand on this? which you feel supports your choice?

Edited March 19, 2015 by Stosh

[dust]

I'm going to suggest that much of this discussion has actually moved considerably away from the intent of the OP.

 

My motive was originally, (I think!?), to examine both:

 

  --  popular ideas of TTC-based Taoism and

  --  less-mentioned but still popular themes within the Laozi itself

 

and see how they fit with each other.

 

 

 

The TTC/Laozi is popularly (i.e. by a majority of the population) thought of as representative of Taoism, yes?

 

It is by far the most frequently-translated text, and the focus of a large percentage of discussions of Taoism, both in Taoist and non-Taoist circles.

 

So my question is, does the popular idea of Taoism actually fit in with what is said in the TTC?

 

 

 

The Vinegar Tasters is a popular Taoist meme; in this conversation, it gives us a simple way of coming to a common understanding of what the popular perception of Laozi is; as I said in the OP, a wizened little man sitting under a tree, sipping vinegar and grinning merrily. Someone at harmony with life, adept at enjoying himself in any situation.

 

If you disagree that this is the popular perception of Laozi, we need to clear that up, but... I don't for a second believe that the popular idea of Laozi is that of a manipulative government official, silently playing puppeteer as he advises kings to do things like: plan for the future by storing grain; kill enemies ruthlessly before they cause trouble; keep the population fat and stupid so they don't get out of hand...

 

 

 

Shanxi vinegar ,, hmmm ,  so is there some reason to consider the painting to be of this specialty vinegar?

 

Oh, no, I just mentioned it because it's delicious. I'm sure the Vinegar Tasters depicts sour vinegar.

 

 

 

If the guys depict who its said they depict, well the painter could think that Lao was biased, that he was presenting a skewed view. ANd so,  the one who felt it was sour would be the 'right view'

 

I think the Vinegars Tasters pictures are attempting to convey that Laozi was a happy little old man who enjoyed what others didn't -- someone more in harmony with nature and with life than Buddha or Confucius. I don't know what the original painter meant by it, but this is the popular interpretation, right?
 

 

 

hmmn, I wrote nature/life.  I was thinking more in terms of life.   So for me being at peace with life means finding ways to be on the good side of (at times) troublesome people.  If I have to be around them much I will scheme and consider ways to make them or the situation more pleasant.  Nothing too drastic(haven't killed anyone yet), but finding out what they like and hitting them with a quick questions that flatters there expertise puts me on there good side.   Heck I don't even know if thats scheming or an expression of my own curiousity but it does put me on people's good side. 

 

I think accepting and adapting to someone else's poor behavior is less skillful then being able to subtly shift them to a favorable mode.  If someone's dog poops on my lawn, why accept and adapt when I can find them and befriend and change there behavior?  Likewise better (at times) to light a candle then adapt to the dark.

 

OK, yeah... I don't disagree that manipulation might be an easier way of dealing with people much of the time, and I don't disagree that this is part of what is said in the TTC. But,

 

is it the same as being at harmony with nature/life?

 

And, with direct regard to the original argument, is it one of the first things people think of when they bring up the TTC?

[Stosh]

I'm going to suggest that much of this discussion has actually moved considerably away from the intent of the OP.

We're hovering around the op and taking some side paths. IMO

 

My motive was originally, (I think!?), to examine both:

 

  --  popular ideas of TTC-based Taoism and

  --  less-mentioned but still popular themes within the Laozi itself

 

and see how they fit with each other.

 

 

 

The TTC/Laozi is popularly (i.e. by a majority of the population) thought of as representative of Taoism, yes?

 

It is by far the most frequently-translated text, and the focus of a large percentage of discussions of Taoism, both in Taoist and non-Taoist circles.

 

So my question is, does the popular idea of Taoism actually fit in with what is said in the TTC?

IMO NO ! the popular view has very very little to do what is described in TTC, incredibly way off the mark , sez I

 , I know others who feel I am wrong about this. 

 

 

The Vinegar Tasters is a popular Taoist meme; in this conversation, it gives us a simple way of coming to a common understanding of what the popular perception of Laozi is; as I said in the OP, a wizened little man sitting under a tree, sipping vinegar and grinning merrily. Someone at harmony with life, adept at enjoying himself in any situation.

 

If you disagree that this is the popular perception of Laozi, we need to clear that up, but...

Oh no,   I do agree that the popular view is what you feel it is.  

 

I don't for a second believe that the popular idea of Laozi is that of a manipulative government official, silently playing puppeteer as he advises kings to do things like: plan for the future by storing grain; kill enemies ruthlessly before they cause trouble; keep the population fat and stupid so they don't get out of hand...

Again , no its not the popular view, this is also an oversimplification , an unkind and polemic view. 

 

Oh, no, I just mentioned it because it's delicious. I'm sure the Vinegar Tasters depicts sour vinegar.

Cool. 

I think the Vinegars Tasters pictures are attempting to convey that Laozi was a happy little old man who enjoyed what others didn't -- someone more in harmony with nature and with life than Buddha or Confucius. I don't know what the original painter meant by it, but this is the popular interpretation, right?

Yeah , but so what, the foundation for the view , is highly speculative. One should not correctly have any strongly held assertive attitude regarding it.  IMO  , the guy who thought the vinegar was sour, is me.  

Which one is supposed to be Buddha again ? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OK, yeah... I don't disagree that manipulation might be an easier way of dealing with people much of the time, and I don't disagree that this is part of what is said in the TTC. But,

 

is it the same as being at harmony with nature/life?

 

And, with direct regard to the original argument, is it one of the first things people think of when they bring up the TTC?

Im thinking theLearner is accord with the correct reading of the Laozi regarding manipulation. His intent is subtle , is functional , possibly harmonious , and may bring out the best in his peers. He isnt standing on a lofty principle generating friction for himself , like I do. 

But hearing this from me, he should be able to believe that I really do think this,

and thats why I remain on this chilly peak.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Well, sure, if we talk about ruling the people we are in fact talking about manipulating them.  That should be a given.

 

The Warring States period was full of rulers and would-be rulers.  I think that Lao Tzu was speaking to the would-be rulers more than to the current rulers of his day.  I think he put forth some great ideas about how the people could be ruled with them feeling oppressed.

[dust]

Well, sure, if we talk about ruling the people we are in fact talking about manipulating them.  That should be a given.

 

Let me put it another way.

 

If Laozi and Zhuangzi were alive now, what would they think about modern methods of rule / governance?

 

dictatorships, democracies, oligarchies, hunter-gatherer societies...?

 

 

The sage is self-effacing and scanty of words.

When his task is accomplished and things have been completed,

All the people say, "We ourselves have achieved it!"

 

 

OK...but why not actually let the people themselves achieve it? (!)

[thelerner]

Im thinking theLearner is accord with the correct reading of the Laozi regarding manipulation. His intent is subtle , is functional , possibly harmonious , and may bring out the best in his peers. He isnt standing on a lofty principle generating friction for himself , like I do. 

But hearing this from me, he should be able to believe that I really do think this,

and thats why I remain on this chilly peak.

, well said.  Spending years in sales, and having a norm of keeping little candies in my pocket to give to people, particularly receptionists and buyers has blurred my lines between kindness and manipulation...

 

back to OP

I know the story, more then the picture.  I like it, but it always felt a bit heavy handed in the way its told.  Maybe thats where the criticism comes from in the case of the picture and DDC.  Get heavy handed and you come off looking manipulative  cross the line into manipulation from what might be skillful means. 

 

Quoting (either Laotsi, Musashi or Futurama)  when you've ruled/done well, no one knows who did it and assumes it happened naturally.   

 

Edited March 19, 2015 by thelerner

[thelerner]

If Laozi and Zhuangzi were alive now, what would they think about modern methods of rule / governance?

 

dictatorships, democracies, oligarchies, hunter-gatherer societies...?

 

The sage is self-effacing and scanty of words.

When his task is accomplished and things have been completed,

All the people say, "We ourselves have achieved it!"

 

OK...but why not actually let the people themselves achieve it? (!)

hmnn, just as individuals can be self serving idiots, so can the people. 

 

I'd say that Laozi may not judge by type, ie capitalist, communist, dictatorship as much as by how happy, productive and free the specific system makes the people. 

 

later edit> and I'm not so sure about free

Edited April 13, 2015 by thelerner

[Marblehead]

Let me put it another way.

 

If Laozi and Zhuangzi were alive now, what would they think about modern methods of rule / governance?

I am sure they both would be very disappointed.  It almost looks like we have gone backward from their time.

 

dictatorships, democracies, oligarchies, hunter-gatherer societies...?

 

 

The sage is self-effacing and scanty of words.

When his task is accomplished and things have been completed,

All the people say, "We ourselves have achieved it!"

 

 

OK...but why not actually let the people themselves achieve it? (!)

Because the (majority of) people want to have someone to blame the bad things on.  That is why there is some form of devil in almost all religions.

 

If we did it ourself we would have to take the blame whenever things didn't go well.  Most people can't handle that.  Blame the government.

[dust]

I am sure they both would be very disappointed.  It almost looks like we have gone backward from their time.

 

Hmm...almost. We haven't gone forwards much, anyway! Leaders are as corrupt and maniacal as they always have been; the populace is as stupid and easily manipulated as it always has been.

 

 

 

Because the (majority of) people want to have someone to blame the bad things on.  That is why there is some form of devil in almost all religions.

 

If we did it ourself we would have to take the blame whenever things didn't go well.  Most people can't handle that.  Blame the government.

 

Sure, people need to blame bad things on anyone but themselves. Which is one of the reasons they need a leader. But Laozi's ruler is behind the scenes, making everyone think they're doing it themselves. So the people cannot then blame the government, can they?

 

And let's not pretend that there's such a thing as a perfect ruler who can prevent anything bad from happening! Things will go wrong at some point, whoever is in charge.

Edited March 24, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Marblehead]

Hmm...almost. We haven't gone forwards much, anyway! Leaders are as corrupt and maniacal as they always have been; the populace is as stupid and easily manipulated as it always has been.

I guess that just goes to show the the human animal is what it is, with its own nature (no value judgements).

 

Sure, people need to blame bad things on anyone but themselves. Which is one of the reasons they need a leader. But Laozi's ruler is behind the scenes, making everyone think they're doing it themselves. So the people cannot then blame the government, can they?

Hehehe.  So man will create religions and gods to blame it on.  We can always imagine someone else being at fault to pass blame upon.

 

Reminded me of the Zoroasterian religion.  When first conceived, there was only God, and he created man with free will but with bearing the responsibility for all his thoughts, words, and deeds.  After Zarathustra die his followers created a devil to blame bad things on because they couldn't handle the responsibility for the own bad-doings.

 

And let's not pretend that there's such a thing as a perfect ruler who can prevent anything bad from happening! Things will go wrong at some point, whoever is in charge.

No, I don't pretend.  I'm a Realist.  Hehehe.

[sillybearhappyhoneyeater]

a few points:

The Dao De Jing did not start and stop with Laozi; it has to be interpreted, since the language he used is far to unclear (on purpose) to be taken literally.  consider that Laozi worked in the library of a palace, and when he spoke, had to be very good at getting his point out ambiguously and without stirring up trouble for himself.  Consider that Qian Sima had his testicles chopped off for saying something direct to the emperor.  At that time in history, you couldn't have written a book telling the boss what to do, or he would have killed you, or worse.

Laozi's basic premise is quite obviously political, but it isn't legalism.  Legalists, although they did borrow heavily from Laozi's ideas, do away with his concept of acting with kindness.  Remember that although Laozi is about controlling society, he is not about manipulating people to do evil deeds.  He says that the emperor has to embrace the three treasures and act with the best wishes of the people before his own.  He says that the masses should be left natural and allowed to regulate themselves.  The small fish strategy is an obvious example.

We should not make the mistake on thinking that Laozi is about doing some action to alter the way of people, but instead, that the bai xing do their best work of their own volition.   The entire  book is written in this light.

Consider that at the time when Zhang Daoling created the Daoist state in Sichuan, he applied Daoist governance principles to an entire nation, and as such also gave birth to the religion of Daoism.  On the other hand, around the same time the Xuan Xue school emerged and interpreted Daoism as a philosophy of emptiness.  only a few hundred years later, Lv Dongbin viewed Daoism as the way of cultivating Jin Dan.  People have had their own understanding about Laozi for as long as the book has existed. 

consider:

 

信言不美，美言不信。   honest speech is not beautiful, beautiful speech is not honest

善者不辯，辯者不善。good people don't dispute, disputing people aren't good

知者不博，博者不知。 people who know don't gamble, gamblers don't know

聖人不積，既以為人己愈有，既以與人己愈多。  the sage does not amass, he knows how to cause the people to benefit in abundance

天之道，利而不害；聖人之道，為而不爭。the way of heaven, benefits and does not injure, the way of the sage, has motive, but does not fight.

 

The first and the last chapters are the key.

[dust]

sillybear, a few things..

 

1. Yes, people have interpreted the text in many ways. My interpretations of certain chapters, as found in the OP, while by no means claimed to be "correct", are more honest than many, I would say.

 

2. In my opinion, it is better not to unconditionally presume that Laozi was a single man with particular background. This can only lead to presumptions about his intent based not just on what he wrote but also on what and why you think he should have been writing. I wish only to look at the text, not attempting to force unity among chapters that might well have been written by a number of different people.

 

3. When discussing a text, every chapter must be taken into account. I won't cherry-pick the chapters that fit with my preferred view. If you go back to the OP, you'll see a bunch of stuff that is about altering things, that isn't just about going with the flow and leaving the people to do their thing -- and if you disagree, if you think that I have misinterpreted all these particular chapters, please let me know!

 

4. The very concept of a hidden ruler, pulling strings and not saying things, negates the concept of a free people, in my opinion.

[sillybearhappyhoneyeater]

Laozi's message should be viewed as a whole, otherwise it would have been issued as multiple texts, rather than one document.

In the end, there are historical records showing that there was a person in the Zhou dynasty who was a state librarian and was said to have compiled the DDJ,  this has a number of historical sources confirming it.

If we want to take the other tack though and assume that the DDJ was written by multiple people, or at least was altered throughout many generations (which is obviously true, given that there are at least five common interpretations of the book from the Mawangdui onward), then we should look for all commonalities.  Most importantly, historical commonality of interpretation.

It is not possible to ignore the fact that Laozi was followed by zhuang, Yu, Li Zi and so on, all of whom advocated a way of government non interference as a way of administering a peaceful nation.   There are no parts of the Dao De jing which recommend supression of truth, but instead, they advocate supression of speech.   I would reference you again to

 

絕聖棄智，民利百倍；絕仁棄義，民復孝慈；絕巧棄利，盜賊無有。此三者以為文不足。故令有所屬：見素抱樸，少私寡欲。

 

which is not about teaching the baixing, but about the way that the governer adminsters his own actions.

"discard sageosity, abandon wisdom, people benefit 100 fold.  discard compassion (clearly a reference to Confucius hao ren zheng qi), abandon righteousness (Confucius again), the people will return to viewing you as a father (Xiao Ci: fillial/maternal love),  discard cleverness abandon benefit, no thieves or fraudsters exist.  these three in words are not enough.  consider how many decrees are issued.  meet simplicity, embrace plainness, less personal goals, fewer desires."

 

So we are talking about an already developed system based on confucian values which was established before Laozi.  This order of things views relationships as being proscribed rather than natural.  Laozi views relationships as returning to nature and thus improving.   another example of this is

 

 

大道廢，有仁義；智慧出，有大偽；六親不和，有孝慈；國家昏亂，有忠臣。

 

when the way is gone, compassion and righteousness rule, there is great hypocracy.  when the six family members are out of accord, there will be filial piety (liu qin, father mother son daughter, grandfather, grandmother), when the country is in turbid violence, there will be loyal ministers.

 

again, the king should follow nature and not his own desire to be benevolent.  You can't pretend to have familial love, you either have it or you don't.   the sharp toothed ministers and governors all emerge to give advise when the country is in its worst state (everything is done for their own beenfit).

 

Laozi was writing about the human condition.  the easiest way to see this is simply to observe how things work today.

It is all  exactly the same as it was during the late Zhou dynasty.   Simply switch the characters and some aspects of the story, you still have the same plot.

[dust]

I'm honestly not quite sure what your post has to do with the topic at hand.
 
 

Laozi's message should be viewed as a whole

 
Yes...but this is difficult when the message is consistently contradictory. So people pick out the bits they like... just like they do with the Bible.
 
 

 絕聖棄智，民利百倍；絕仁棄義，民復孝慈；絕巧棄利，盜賊無有。此三者以為文不足。故令有所屬：見素抱樸，少私寡欲。
 
which is not about teaching the baixing, but about the way that the governer adminsters his own actions.
"discard sageosity, abandon wisdom, people benefit 100 fold.

 
Benefit, yes. I've never argued that the author didn't want to benefit people. I have argued that this suppression of speech is not something people think about when they talk of the Dao De Jing. Suppression (of expression, or other things) is not usually considered to be a hallmark of Daoism, or of Laozi, is it?

 

So we are talking about an already developed system based on confucian values which was established before Laozi.  This order of things views relationships as being proscribed rather than natural.  Laozi views relationships as returning to nature and thus improving.

 

Yes...in some chapters, we can interpret it like this. Not in others.

 

 

another example of this is
 
 大道廢，有仁義；智慧出，有大偽；六親不和，有孝慈；國家昏亂，有忠臣。
 
when the way is gone, compassion and righteousness rule, there is great hypocracy.  when the six family members are out of accord, there will be filial piety (liu qin, father mother son daughter, grandfather, grandmother), when the country is in turbid violence, there will be loyal ministers.
 
again, the king should follow nature and not his own desire to be benevolent.  You can't pretend to have familial love, you either have it or you don't.   the sharp toothed ministers and governors all emerge to give advise when the country is in its worst state (everything is done for their own beenfit).

 
Again, I'd ask you to look at a number of chapters where the king is not advised to simply follow nature, but to manipulate people.

[dawei]

look at a number of chapters where the king is not advised to simply follow nature, but to manipulate people.

 

Given the recent thread on Legalism...  Do you see a connection?

[Michael Sternbach]

Again, I'd ask you to look at a number of chapters where the king is not advised to simply follow nature, but to manipulate people.

 

Perhaps Laotzu doesn't see that as a contradiction. I imagine he might say that the king is following (his) nature by manipulating people.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Marblehead]

Perhaps Laotzu doesn't see that as a contradiction. I imagine he might say that the king is following (his) nature by manipulating people.

Yeah, I too would hide behind the mask if I said something like that.