The Laozi as a Manual of Manipulation and Control

[dust]

What follows is not a popular way of looking at the Laozi, but it’s not a revelation, and it’s a view that there is quite a bit of evidence for – as we’ll see below. When I started looking deeper into the Laozi – beyond reading a couple of randomly-chosen English translations – I had no idea I’d find anything like this, and certainly had no prior intention of writing what I’m about to write.

 

I realize that many people – including myself – have spent many years reading certain translations and interpretations of Laozi the book and picturing Laozi the man as a wise little elderly fellow sitting under a tree, birds flitting to and fro around him, living in pure harmony with nature; communing with spirits, meditating, practicing qigong, and writing his text in hope of guiding others towards living a more harmonious life.

 

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.

 

And for those of us who see Laozi in this (or a similar) way, there’s a huge reluctance to give up any long-standing ideas about the text when we’ve based our own behaviour on those ideas.

 

And these ideas about him are true, to an extent. He was surely intent on guiding some people towards living more in line with “Dao”, and guiding the masses towards a more harmonious society. He certainly advocated simplicity and flexibility, and appears to have rejected ritual and bureaucracy. But there’s a thread running through the text that many neglect to examine, or just willfully ignore, and I think this has led to many unfounded beliefs about its content and intent.

 

For myself, after some months of study of the both the Guodian and more recent versions of the text, I have decided to remove the rose-tinted specs and look at what we know the text consisted of before centuries of willful misinterpretation and mistranslation. Much of what I’m going to suggest I have come to believe based on information gleaned from discussions on this forum, and as anyone will know who follows this subforum, discussions have benefitted greatly in recent weeks from regular contributions by Marblehead, dawei, and Taoist Texts. So if you don’t like what I have to say you can blame them too! (joke..blame me..)

 

You don’t have to agree with me, by any means, but I, for one, won’t live life based on advice from a text that I haven’t fully examined and understood.

 

So… to begin.

 

It is important to understand that the text is directed at rulers. Not half of the text, or parts of the text; the text itself. Regardless of content, think about the type of person in antiquity who would have been able to comprehend writing (let alone such obscurely written writing) and where the extant versions of the text have been discovered (clue: not written by farmers and left in an ancient shack).

 

It’s a manual. There are so many chapters that talk directly of ruling and governing that it astounds me how few people seem to take this into account when talking of the text, instead focusing almost solely on ideas about balance and personal cultivation, and abstract notions of wuwei that don’t really fit in with what’s written.

 

So let’s look at some instances of direct advice to kings (chapters will be taken from the Guodian, unless otherwise noted, with the Wangbi chapter number in brackets):

 

 

1 (WB 19)

 

絕智弃偏 Refute wisdom, abandon discussion,

民利百伓 And the people will profit a hundredfold;

絕巧弃利 Refute skill, abandon profit,

賊盜亡又 And there will be no more thievery;

絕𢡺弃慮 Refute falseness, abandon scheming,

民復季子 And the people will return to innocence;

三言以為吏不足 But just to say these three is not enough,

或命之 Order them,

或唬𣅋 Command them:

見素保樸 Cherish simplicity,

少厶寡欲 Lessen selfishness and desire

 

 

The Guodian text jumps right in talking about ordering min – “the people”. Make no mistake, this is not talking about humans generally, but is a term used for the masses. Originally, way back when, min meant slave. It is, in the Guodian, still recognizable as a pictograph of a weapon piercing an eye – blinding a prisoner so they can’t escape. Later, it came to mean the ignorant masses of society.

 

民，氓也 —— 《广雅》

 

In the Guangya, it is defined using the character meng – another word for slave, or those on the lowest rung of society’s ladder. The Guangya is a dictionary compiled as late as the 3^rd Century AD, much later than Laozi was writing. The meaning had only softened by then.

 

Laozi is telling the ruler to keep the masses simple, to keep them from discussion and profit. It’s great advice, and not harmful to anyone, in my opinion, as long as the ruler has good intentions. But does every ruler who takes this advice have good intentions? And is it directly applicable to any individual? And, importantly, do we, as followers of the modern idea of Taoism, ever actually endeavour to govern people? Surely this doesn’t fit in with modern Taoist ideas of trying to be softer, practicing qigong, and living in harmony with nature?

 

 

2 (WB 66)

 

江海所以為百浴王 The rivers and oceans are lords of the hundred valleys;

以丌能為百浴下 By being below the hundred valleys,

是以能為百浴王 So are they able to rule them.

聖人 The wise man

之才民前也以身後之 Stands ahead of the people by putting himself behind them,

丌才民上也以言下之 Above them by speaking as from below;

丌才民上也民弗厚也 Above them, yet the people feel not his presence,

丌才民前也民弗害也 Ahead of them, yet the people come not to harm,

天下樂進而弗詀 And all proceed happily without a fuss;

以丌不靜也 By not contending,

古天下莫能與之靜 None under heaven can contend with him

 

 

The text moves straight on to the Hundred Valley chapter. We’re still talking about “the people” or “the masses” here. However we translate shengren – sage, wise man, holy man – this person is being advised in the coercion or manipulation of the masses. Again, it’s quite probably great advice, but is it the kind of thing you expect to find in a book about personal cultivation and living a harmonious life?

 

We’ll jump ahead just a little, to the GD’s 4^th section. There is some disagreement on the exact translation of some bits in the Guodian, so we’ll include the received version (chapter 30) as well.

 

 

4 (WB 30)

 

以衜差人今者 Those who conquer with the Way,

不谷以兵强於天下 Are without desire to wage war;

善者果而已不以取强 The good man achieves without force;

果而弗癹 Achieving and not destroying,

果而弗喬 Achieving and not being arrogant,

果而弗矝 Achieving and not boasting,

是胃果而不强 Is called achievement without force;

丌事好 This is good

 

And translated from the received by Feng:

 

以道佐人主者 Whenever you advise a ruler in the way of Tao,
不以兵強天下 Counsel him not to use force to conquer the universe.
其事好還 For this would only cause resistance.
師之所處荊棘生焉 Thorn bushes spring up wherever the army has passed.
大軍之後必有凶年 Lean years follow in the wake of a great war.
善有果而已 Just do what needs to be done.
不敢以取強 Never take advantage of power.
果而勿矜 Achieve results, but never glory in them.
果而勿伐 Achieve results, but never boast.
果而勿驕 Achieve results, but never be proud.
果而不得已 Achieve results, because this is the natural way.
果而勿強 Achieve results, but not through violence.

物壯則老 Force is followed by loss of strength.
是謂不道 This is not the way of Tao.
不道早已 That which goes against the Tao comes to an early end.

 

 

Even considering some disagreement over characters / translation, the 2 versions are not far from each other. They both counsel against force, against war; but they still talk of conquering. They counsel achievement without arrogance or violence; but they still talk of achievement. Who is it that’s conquering, achieving? Not the people, certainly. They might benefit from such advice should a ruler heed it, but the masses are regarded as in one’s control; at best, under one’s protection.

 

We’ll jump forward once more, to what I have marked as chapter 7 of the Guodian.

 

 

7 (WB 37)

 

衜恒亡爲也 The Way is eternally effortless;

侯王能支之 A ruler can lean on it,

而萬勿將自𢡺 And life will take care of itself,

𢡺而欲作 Doing as it will;

將貞之以亡名之僕 Pure like a nameless servant,

夫亦將智足 And this will be enough;

智足以朿 Enough to have peace,

萬勿將自定 Life will steady itself

 

 

This sounds great. Advice for a ruler, but the advice is nice: do nothing. No bad intent, no means of manipulation.

 

Why, then, do we need advice? Counseling rulers not to rule is like counseling fish not to swim. They’re going to do it, and he knows that. He knows that most rulers will not be able to “govern” with wuwei, because by the very nature of government we need an acting leader. In every governed society, people need someone to tell them what to do. That’s what governed society is.

 

Later on, we’ll get another idea of the notion of wuwei in relation to governance. For now, let’s look at an almost-answer in GD 10:

 

 

10 (WB 32)

 

道恒亡名 The Way is unidentifiable;

僕唯妻 It serves all,

天地弗敢臣 Yet Heaven and Earth daren’t tame it;

侯王女能獸之 If rulers could maintain it,

萬物將自賓 Life would submit to them;

天地相合也 Heaven and Earth merge

以逾甘露 To form sweet dew;

民莫之命 The people don’t command it,

而自均咹 Yet does it not fall evenly?

詒制又名 With beginning, names arise;

名亦既又 To have a name is to have an ending;

夫亦將智止 Know when to stop,

智止所以不詒 Knowing when to stop is as not beginning;

卑道之才天下也 Following the Way in this world

猷少浴之與江海 Is like little streams following rivers and oceans

 

 

The character 女, or 如, might be significant. If. If rulers can/could maintain it, life will/would submit to them. But can they?

 

Now, there’s a bit in there which I’m unsure about, and I’ll offer what is perhaps a more practical interpretation:

 

天地相合也 Heaven and Earth merge

以逾甘露 To form sweet dew;

民莫之命 The people are not commanded,

而自均咹 Yet do they not distribute evenly among themselves?

 

Because, again, we’re talking about the masses. We leave them to distribute what they have among themselves, and they’re OK. They self-correct. So why, again, do we even need a leader?

 

OK. So we’ve found a bunch of direct references to “the people” (and, if you’ve been paying attention, they come with references to rulers or governance, too). And… it sounds a bit fishy, but it’s not all that sinister, perhaps. What else do we have?

 

 

14 (WB 64)

 

丌安也易困也 Something at peace is easy to control,

丌未垗也易悔也 Something still growing is easy to develop,

丌雮也易畔也 Something weak is easy to break down,

丌幾也易踐也 Something lesser is easy to scatter;

為之於丌亡又也 Act when something doesn’t exist yet,

紿之於丌未亂 Govern it before it turns to disorder;

合抱之木生於毫末 A great tree grows from a tiny shoot,

九成之臺乍於羸土 A nine-story tower is made from dust,

百千之高怡於足下 A momentous task starts from where one stands

 

 

A grand ending to this chapter, and in the received version, the last line (A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step) is the inspiration for countless tattoos and inspirational quotes. But what is this chapter actually saying?

 

Well, firstly, what is the “something” that we’re referring to? Look at the verbs that we’re doing to it: control, develop, break down, scatter. We do these things before “it” has grown from something peaceful and weak into something chaotic and powerful. The use of 紿, govern, tells us all we need to know: we’re talking, again, about the masses. About civil unrest. About keeping them quiet.

 

 

16 (WB 57)

 

以正之邦 Build a nation with laws,

以奇用兵 Wage war with the element of surprise,

以亡事取天下 But gain everything by doing nothing;

吾可以智亓然也 How do I know this is so?

夫天多旡韋而民爾叛 The less they are allowed to do, the more the people will revolt,

民多利器而邦滋昏 The more weapons the people have, the harder it is to build the nation,

人多智而奇勿滋起 The more the people know, the more oddities will appear,

灋勿滋章賊盜多又 The more laws there are, the more thieves there will be;

是以聖人之言曰 So the wise man says:

我無事而民自富 I serve nothing and the people prosper of themselves,

我亡爲而民自蔿 I force nothing and the people flourish by themselves,

我好青而民自正 I am quiet and the people correct themselves,

我谷不谷而民自樸 I desire no desire and the people simplify of themselves

 

 

I like this passage a lot. Essentially, we’re talking about lifting restrictions on behaviour whilst increasing restrictions on arms, laws, and knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Sounds like something many of us agree with – I’m all for fewer laws, fewer guns, and less absolute importance placed on science and tech.

 

But remember that this is all in the context of governance by manipulation. This is among a number of other passages urging manipulation and suppression of the masses. What we’re suggesting is that the ruler keeps quiet, stays behind the scenes, and makes sure that nothing ever happens. In the passage above (WB 64), we’re talking about controlling unrest before it turns to disorder. Below, we’re getting into other territory:

 

 

21 (WB 59)

 

紿人事天莫若嗇 In governing people and serving Heaven there is nothing like storing grain;

夫唯嗇是以早穫 As storing grain is managed with a timely harvest;

早服是胃重積惪 A timely harvest is known as the virtue of a heavy crop;

重積惪則亡不克 The virtue of a heavy crop is undefeatable;

亡不克則莫智丌恒 Being undefeatable, none knows its extent;

莫智丌恒可以又域 None knowing its extent, one can have the realm;

又域之母可以長舊 Having the mother of the realm, one can last long;

是胃深槿固氐 This is called the Way of having deep roots, a solid foundation,

長生舊見之道也 Long life, and lasting vision

 

 

There is no consensus on the meaning of this chapter, but I think there’s a pretty good argument for my translation. Either way, there’s almost no doubt that we’re talking about “governing people”, “being undefeatable”, and having the “mother of the realm” – now, whatever we believe that is, it sounds pretty impressive, and it’s almost certainly about control.

 

And, in my opinion, it’s about holding power by controlling agriculture.

 

 

26 (WB 52)

 

閟丌門 Shut their gates,

賽丌兌 Encourage their religion,

冬身不嵍 And you shall live easily;

啟丌兌 Awaken them from religion,

賽丌事 Encourage them to action,

冬身不逨 And you will never rest

 

 

29 (WB 17)

 

大上下智又之 A great ruler is one of whom the people are aware;

丌卽新譽之 Next is one who is loved;

丌卽畏之 Next is one who is feared;

丌卽婺之 Next is one who is ridiculed;

信不足咹又不信 When one is distrustful? He will be mistrusted,

猷唬丌貴言也 His most treasured words will be lost;

成事述功 But if he does what he’s supposed to,

而百省曰我自然也 The hundred names will say, “We did it ourselves”

 

 

26 (52) is, again, a chapter on which there is no consensus of any kind, so I don’t want to place too much emphasis on it; suffice to say that I think it’s talking, again, about keeping the people enclosed and ignorant.

 

29 (17) is a fairly well-known chapter, pretty self-explanatory; stay behind the scenes, let the people think they’re living their own lives.

 

But they’re not, are they? They’re being controlled through agriculture, manipulated into farming and eating a lot of rice and never learning, never moving outside the bounds of their village.

 

It sounds like a fairly sad state of affairs to me.

 

 

 

I write all this not to discourage people from reading the Laozi, or imagining that I’m going to turn people’s understanding of the text on its head. There is a general understanding of one side of the text, and it’s quite beautiful.

 

But there’s another side to it, a thread that widens and thins along the way, but that is always present. Whoever wrote the Laozi, whoever was first responsible for it, was not a wizened old man sitting under a tree. He was an advisor, a man of power, advocating a specific type of governance and very much appearing to look down upon the masses as the straw dogs we know so well from chapter 5:

 

天地不仁以萬物為芻狗 Heaven and Earth are not ren, treating all things as straw dogs;

聖人不仁以百姓為芻狗 The sage is not ren, treating the hundred names as straw dogs

 

and encouraging their timely and satisfactory feeding and mollification (chapter 12):

 

是以聖人為腹不為目 The sage acts on the belly and not the eye

 

And last but by no means least, in case we think my selective use of the Guodian and a couple of excerpts of the Wangbi has served to misrepresent the overall meaning of the text, let’s take a look at chapter 3 of the received version. Chapter 3: the third chapter. Right after chapter 2. Nobody can have missed this, but I think many misunderstand it.

 

It sums things up pretty well:

 

 

不尚賢使民不爭 Not exalting the gifted prevents quarreling among the people,

不貴難得之貨使民不為盜 Not treasuring rare goods prevents stealing,

不見可欲使心不亂 Not seeing desirable things prevents confusion of the mind;

是以聖人之治虛其心實其腹 The wise therefore rule by emptying hearts and stuffing bellies,

弱其志強其骨 by weakening ambitions and strengthening bones;

常使民無知無欲 If the people lack knowledge and desire,

使夫知者不敢為也 then those with knowledge will not try to interfere;

為無為則無不治 Practicing wuwei, nothing is left ungoverned

 

 

(translation based on Feng’s, edited by me [italics] to correct some misleading mistranslation)

 

I don’t know about you, but I see wuwei meaning something slightly different than just “non-interference” based on this…

[rene]

dustybeijing - Bravo. Oh..this is going to be fun. (-: Small request? Please do not remove sections of your OP. It's gold and will take some time to reply to a lot of it. Might surprise you (or likely not) but I am in full agreement with your premise; and I've been waiting for this to arrive.

Edit: Sorry. I had to add the content of the OP. Too good to disappear.

 

What follows is not a popular way of looking at the Laozi, but it’s not a revelation, and it’s a view that there is quite a bit of evidence for – as we’ll see below. When I started looking deeper into the Laozi – beyond reading a couple of randomly-chosen English translations – I had no idea I’d find anything like this, and certainly had no prior intention of writing what I’m about to write.
I realize that many people – including myself – have spent many years reading certain translations and interpretations of Laozi the book and picturing Laozi the man as a wise little elderly fellow sitting under a tree, birds flitting to and fro around him, living in pure harmony with nature; communing with spirits, meditating, practicing qigong, and writing his text in hope of guiding others towards living a more harmonious life.
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.
And for those of us who see Laozi in this (or a similar) way, there’s a huge reluctance to give up any long-standing ideas about the text when we’ve based our own behaviour on those ideas.
And these ideas about him are true, to an extent. He was surely intent on guiding some people towards living more in line with “Dao”, and guiding the masses towards a more harmonious society. He certainly advocated simplicity and flexibility, and appears to have rejected ritual and bureaucracy. But there’s a thread running through the text that many neglect to examine, or just willfully ignore, and I think this has led to many unfounded beliefs about its content and intent.
For myself, after some months of study of the both the Guodian and more recent versions of the text, I have decided to remove the rose-tinted specs and look at what we know the text consisted of before centuries of willful misinterpretation and mistranslation. Much of what I’m going to suggest I have come to believe based on information gleaned from discussions on this forum, and as anyone will know who follows this subforum, discussions have benefitted greatly in recent weeks from regular contributions by Marblehead, dawei, and Taoist Texts. So if you don’t like what I have to say you can blame them too! (joke..blame me..)
You don’t have to agree with me, by any means, but I, for one, won’t live life based on advice from a text that I haven’t fully examined and understood.
So… to begin.
It is important to understand that the text is directed at rulers. Not half of the text, or parts of the text; the text itself. Regardless of content, think about the type of person in antiquity who would have been able to comprehend writing (let alone such obscurely written writing) and where the extant versions of the text have been discovered (clue: not written by farmers and left in an ancient shack).
It’s a manual. There are so many chapters that talk directly of ruling and governing that it astounds me how few people seem to take this into account when talking of the text, instead focusing almost solely on ideas about balance and personal cultivation, and abstract notions of wuwei that don’t really fit in with what’s written.
So let’s look at some instances of direct advice to kings (chapters will be taken from the Guodian, unless otherwise noted, with the Wangbi chapter number in brackets):
1 (WB 19)
絕智弃偏 Refute wisdom, abandon discussion,
民利百伓 And the people will profit a hundredfold;
絕巧弃利 Refute skill, abandon profit,
賊盜亡又 And there will be no more thievery;
絕𢡺弃慮 Refute falseness, abandon scheming,
民復季子 And the people will return to innocence;
三言以為吏不足 But just to say these three is not enough,
或命之 Order them,
或唬𣅋 Command them:
見素保樸 Cherish simplicity,
少厶寡欲 Lessen selfishness and desire
The Guodian text jumps right in talking about ordering min – “the people”. Make no mistake, this is not talking about humans generally, but is a term used for the masses. Originally, way back when, min meant slave. It is, in the Guodian, still recognizable as a pictograph of a weapon piercing an eye – blinding a prisoner so they can’t escape. Later, it came to mean the ignorant masses of society.
民，氓也 —— 《广雅》
In the Guangya, it is defined using the character meng – another word for slave, or those on the lowest rung of society’s ladder. The Guangya is a dictionary compiled as late as the 3^rd Century AD, much later than Laozi was writing. The meaning had only softened by then.
Laozi is telling the ruler to keep the masses simple, to keep them from discussion and profit. It’s great advice, and not harmful to anyone, in my opinion, as long as the ruler has good intentions. But does every ruler who takes this advice have good intentions? And is it directly applicable to any individual? And, importantly, do we, as followers of the modern idea of Taoism, ever actually endeavour to govern people? Surely this doesn’t fit in with modern Taoist ideas of trying to be softer, practicing qigong, and living in harmony with nature?
2 (WB 66)
江海所以為百浴王 The rivers and oceans are lords of the hundred valleys;
以丌能為百浴下 By being below the hundred valleys,
是以能為百浴王 So are they able to rule them.
聖人 The wise man
之才民前也以身後之 Stands ahead of the people by putting himself behind them,
丌才民上也以言下之 Above them by speaking as from below;
丌才民上也民弗厚也 Above them, yet the people feel not his presence,
丌才民前也民弗害也 Ahead of them, yet the people come not to harm,
天下樂進而弗詀 And all proceed happily without a fuss;
以丌不靜也 By not contending,
古天下莫能與之靜 None under heaven can contend with him
The text moves straight on to the Hundred Valley chapter. We’re still talking about “the people” or “the masses” here. However we translate shengren – sage, wise man, holy man – this person is being advised in the coercion or manipulation of the masses. Again, it’s quite probably great advice, but is it the kind of thing you expect to find in a book about personal cultivation and living a harmonious life?
We’ll jump ahead just a little, to the GD’s 4^th section. There is some disagreement on the exact translation of some bits in the Guodian, so we’ll include the received version (chapter 30) as well.
4 (WB 30)
以衜差人今者 Those who conquer with the Way,
不谷以兵强於天下 Are without desire to wage war;
善者果而已不以取强 The good man achieves without force;
果而弗癹 Achieving and not destroying,
果而弗喬 Achieving and not being arrogant,
果而弗矝 Achieving and not boasting,
是胃果而不强 Is called achievement without force;
丌事好 This is good
And translated from the received by Feng:
以道佐人主者 Whenever you advise a ruler in the way of Tao,
不以兵強天下 Counsel him not to use force to conquer the universe.
其事好還 For this would only cause resistance.
師之所處荊棘生焉 Thorn bushes spring up wherever the army has passed.
大軍之後必有凶年 Lean years follow in the wake of a great war.
善有果而已 Just do what needs to be done.
不敢以取強 Never take advantage of power.
果而勿矜 Achieve results, but never glory in them.
果而勿伐 Achieve results, but never boast.
果而勿驕 Achieve results, but never be proud.
果而不得已 Achieve results, because this is the natural way.
果而勿強 Achieve results, but not through violence.
物壯則老 Force is followed by loss of strength.
是謂不道 This is not the way of Tao.
不道早已 That which goes against the Tao comes to an early end.
Even considering some disagreement over characters / translation, the 2 versions are not far from each other. They both counsel against force, against war; but they still talk of conquering. They counsel achievement without arrogance or violence; but they still talk of achievement. Who is it that’s conquering, achieving? Not the people, certainly. They might benefit from such advice should a ruler heed it, but the masses are regarded as in one’s control; at best, under one’s protection.
We’ll jump forward once more, to what I have marked as chapter 7 of the Guodian.
7 (WB 37)
衜恒亡爲也 The Way is eternally effortless;
侯王能支之 A ruler can lean on it,
而萬勿將自𢡺 And life will take care of itself,
𢡺而欲作 Doing as it will;
將貞之以亡名之僕 Pure like a nameless servant,
夫亦將智足 And this will be enough;
智足以朿 Enough to have peace,
萬勿將自定 Life will steady itself
This sounds great. Advice for a ruler, but the advice is nice: do nothing. No bad intent, no means of manipulation.
Why, then, do we need advice? Counseling rulers not to rule is like counseling fish not to swim. They’re going to do it, and he knows that. He knows that most rulers will not be able to “govern” with wuwei, because by the very nature of government we need an acting leader. In every governed society, people need someone to tell them what to do. That’s what governed society is.
Later on, we’ll get another idea of the notion of wuwei in relation to governance. For now, let’s look at an almost-answer in GD 10:
10 (WB 32)
道恒亡名 The Way is unidentifiable;
僕唯妻 It serves all,
天地弗敢臣 Yet Heaven and Earth daren’t tame it;
侯王女能獸之 If rulers could maintain it,
萬物將自賓 Life would submit to them;
天地相合也 Heaven and Earth merge
以逾甘露 To form sweet dew;
民莫之命 The people don’t command it,
而自均咹 Yet does it not fall evenly?
詒制又名 With beginning, names arise;
名亦既又 To have a name is to have an ending;
夫亦將智止 Know when to stop,
智止所以不詒 Knowing when to stop is as not beginning;
卑道之才天下也 Following the Way in this world
猷少浴之與江海 Is like little streams following rivers and oceans
The character 女, or 如, might be significant. If. If rulers can/could maintain it, life will/would submit to them. But can they?
Now, there’s a bit in there which I’m unsure about, and I’ll offer what is perhaps a more practical interpretation:
天地相合也 Heaven and Earth merge
以逾甘露 To form sweet dew;
民莫之命 The people are not commanded,
而自均咹 Yet do they not distribute evenly among themselves?
Because, again, we’re talking about the masses. We leave them to distribute what they have among themselves, and they’re OK. They self-correct. So why, again, do we even need a leader?
OK. So we’ve found a bunch of direct references to “the people” (and, if you’ve been paying attention, they come with references to rulers or governance, too). And… it sounds a bit fishy, but it’s not all that sinister, perhaps. What else do we have?
14 (WB 64)
丌安也易困也 Something at peace is easy to control,
丌未垗也易悔也 Something still growing is easy to develop,
丌雮也易畔也 Something weak is easy to break down,
丌幾也易踐也 Something lesser is easy to scatter;
為之於丌亡又也 Act when something doesn’t exist yet,
紿之於丌未亂 Govern it before it turns to disorder;
合抱之木生於毫末 A great tree grows from a tiny shoot,
九成之臺乍於羸土 A nine-story tower is made from dust,
百千之高怡於足下 A momentous task starts from where one stands
A grand ending to this chapter, and in the received version, the last line (A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step) is the inspiration for countless tattoos and inspirational quotes. But what is this chapter actually saying?
Well, firstly, what is the “something” that we’re referring to? Look at the verbs that we’re doing to it: control, develop, break down, scatter. We do these things before “it” has grown from something peaceful and weak into something chaotic and powerful. The use of 紿, govern, tells us all we need to know: we’re talking, again, about the masses. About civil unrest. About keeping them quiet.
16 (WB 57)
以正之邦 Build a nation with laws,
以奇用兵 Wage war with the element of surprise,
以亡事取天下 But gain everything by doing nothing;
吾可以智亓然也 How do I know this is so?
夫天多旡韋而民爾叛 The less they are allowed to do, the more the people will revolt,
民多利器而邦滋昏 The more weapons the people have, the harder it is to build the nation,
人多智而奇勿滋起 The more the people know, the more oddities will appear,
灋勿滋章賊盜多又 The more laws there are, the more thieves there will be;
是以聖人之言曰 So the wise man says:
我無事而民自富 I serve nothing and the people prosper of themselves,
我亡爲而民自蔿 I force nothing and the people flourish by themselves,
我好青而民自正 I am quiet and the people correct themselves,
我谷不谷而民自樸 I desire no desire and the people simplify of themselves
I like this passage a lot. Essentially, we’re talking about lifting restrictions on behaviour whilst increasing restrictions on arms, laws, and knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Sounds like something many of us agree with – I’m all for fewer laws, fewer guns, and less absolute importance placed on science and tech.
But remember that this is all in the context of governance by manipulation. This is among a number of other passages urging manipulation and suppression of the masses. What we’re suggesting is that the ruler keeps quiet, stays behind the scenes, and makes sure that nothing ever happens. In the passage above (WB 64), we’re talking about controlling unrest before it turns to disorder. Below, we’re getting into other territory:
21 (WB 59)
紿人事天莫若嗇 In governing people and serving Heaven there is nothing like storing grain;
夫唯嗇是以早穫 As storing grain is managed with a timely harvest;
早服是胃重積惪 A timely harvest is known as the virtue of a heavy crop;
重積惪則亡不克 The virtue of a heavy crop is undefeatable;
亡不克則莫智丌恒 Being undefeatable, none knows its extent;
莫智丌恒可以又域 None knowing its extent, one can have the realm;
又域之母可以長舊 Having the mother of the realm, one can last long;
是胃深槿固氐 This is called the Way of having deep roots, a solid foundation,
長生舊見之道也 Long life, and lasting vision
There is no consensus on the meaning of this chapter, but I think there’s a pretty good argument for my translation. Either way, there’s almost no doubt that we’re talking about “governing people”, “being undefeatable”, and having the “mother of the realm” – now, whatever we believe that is, it sounds pretty impressive, and it’s almost certainly about control.
And, in my opinion, it’s about holding power by controlling agriculture.
26 (WB 52)
閟丌門 Shut their gates,
賽丌兌 Encourage their religion,
冬身不嵍 And you shall live easily;
啟丌兌 Awaken them from religion,
賽丌事 Encourage them to action,
冬身不逨 And you will never rest
29 (WB 17)
大上下智又之 A great ruler is one of whom the people are aware;
丌卽新譽之 Next is one who is loved;
丌卽畏之 Next is one who is feared;
丌卽婺之 Next is one who is ridiculed;
信不足咹又不信 When one is distrustful? He will be mistrusted,
猷唬丌貴言也 His most treasured words will be lost;
成事述功 But if he does what he’s supposed to,
而百省曰我自然也 The hundred names will say, “We did it ourselves”
26 (52) is, again, a chapter on which there is no consensus of any kind, so I don’t want to place too much emphasis on it; suffice to say that I think it’s talking, again, about keeping the people enclosed and ignorant.
29 (17) is a fairly well-known chapter, pretty self-explanatory; stay behind the scenes, let the people think they’re living their own lives.
But they’re not, are they? They’re being controlled through agriculture, manipulated into farming and eating a lot of rice and never learning, never moving outside the bounds of their village.
It sounds like a fairly sad state of affairs to me.
I write all this not to discourage people from reading the Laozi, or imagining that I’m going to turn people’s understanding of the text on its head. There is a general understanding of one side of the text, and it’s quite beautiful.
But there’s another side to it, a thread that widens and thins along the way, but that is always present. Whoever wrote the Laozi, whoever was first responsible for it, was not a wizened old man sitting under a tree. He was an advisor, a man of power, advocating a specific type of governance and very much appearing to look down upon the masses as the straw dogs we know so well from chapter 5:
天地不仁以萬物為芻狗 Heaven and Earth are not ren, treating all things as straw dogs;
聖人不仁以百姓為芻狗 The sage is not ren, treating the hundred names as straw dogs
and encouraging their timely and satisfactory feeding and mollification (chapter 12):
是以聖人為腹不為目 The sage acts on the belly and not the eye
And last but by no means least, in case we think my selective use of the Guodian and a couple of excerpts of the Wangbi has served to misrepresent the overall meaning of the text, let’s take a look at chapter 3 of the received version. Chapter 3: the third chapter. Right after chapter 2. Nobody can have missed this, but I think many misunderstand it.
It sums things up pretty well:
不尚賢使民不爭 Not exalting the gifted prevents quarreling among the people,
不貴難得之貨使民不為盜 Not treasuring rare goods prevents stealing,
不見可欲使心不亂 Not seeing desirable things prevents confusion of the mind;
是以聖人之治虛其心實其腹 The wise therefore rule by emptying hearts and stuffing bellies,
弱其志強其骨 by weakening ambitions and strengthening bones;
常使民無知無欲 If the people lack knowledge and desire,
使夫知者不敢為也 then those with knowledge will not try to interfere;
為無為則無不治 Practicing wuwei, nothing is left ungoverned
(translation based on Feng’s, edited by me [italics] to correct some misleading mistranslation)
I don’t know about you, but I see wuwei meaning something slightly different than just “non-interference” based on this…

Edited December 31, 2014 by rene

[子泰]

Hmmm, it was under my assumption that Laozi wrote this during a time when the monarchy was starting to become corrupt, and he was writing about it

[rene]

hi

regarding:

 

It’s a manual. There are so many chapters that talk directly of ruling and governing that it astounds me how few people seem to take this into account when talking of the text, instead focusing almost solely on ideas about balance and personal cultivation, and abstract notions of wuwei that don’t really fit in with what’s written.

 

I'm surprised at your astonishment, lol. Those who pick up the LZ to read are unlikely rulers...yet the underlying resonance in the ideas seem to be something many relate to - even if the rendition is lousy. The point of it being a manual for rulers, could easily be overlooked or dismissed as not germane to their life. No? But this is not the topic at hand... and I really look forward to this thread.

 

Warm regards

 

[Marblehead]

And so we see why Lao Tzu is sometimes referred to as the Father of paradox writing.

[ChiDragon]

It is important to understand that the text is directed at rulers.

Yes, this is not many people had read it this way but you are right on.

 

 

 

I don’t know about you, but I see wuwei meaning something slightly different than just “non-interference” based on

this…

I can justify that “non-interference” is the patented philosophy of Lao Zi.

 

 

 

Edited as shown in red.

Edited December 31, 2014 by ChiDragon

[rene]

And so we see why Lao Tzu is sometimes referred to as the Father of paradox writing.

 

MH - that sounds like you are saying that if you disagreed with something you really wanted to agree with - then the speaker must have just been being joking/sarcastic/ironic/etc - and actually really meant just the opposite of what he/she said. Is that what you were trying to convey?

 

Thanks!

[rene]

I can justify that “non-interference” is the patented philosophy of Lao Zi.

 

Patented by whom?

 

Thanks!

[dust]

I'm surprised at your astonishment, lol. Those who pick up the LZ to read are unlikely rulers...yet the underlying resonance in the ideas seem to be something many relate to - even if the rendition is lousy. The point of it being a manual for rulers, could easily be overlooked or dismissed as not germane to their life. No? But this is not the topic at hand... and I really look forward to this thread

 

Firstly, thanks for the 'bravo' -- I didn't think this would get a positive response from many (if any).

 

Secondly... well, take everything I've said with a grain of salt. I'm not trying to turn thousands of years of thought on its head, or presuming to be able to. That being said, I'm certainly not planning on editing the OP. As far as my current understanding of the text goes, I stand by what I've said, and will stand by it as my past understanding in the future.

 

Thirdly, yes: most people who read LZ these days are not rulers! But we're reading a text that was written, at least in part, for rulers... surely we need to take that into account before applying advice to everyday situations?

 

It's certainly not something I've always taken into account, as it's something I've previously overlooked, and so many translators mistranslate certain words and ideas, and end up misinterpreting a large portion of the text. Compare Feng's original translation with my edited version at the end of the OP. Small differences combine to paint quite a different picture.

 

And when the average reader reads a nice homogenized translation of an obscure ancient Chinese text, they say, "Well, this chapter seems to be geared towards a ruler of ancient China, but it seems pretty innocuous... and maybe it's applicable to my working life or home life."

 

Well, maybe it is... maybe everything in the text is useful for every person... maybe...

[Michael Sternbach]

Hmm... Interesting topic, to be sure.

 

Just a couple of quick speculative thoughts (with no particular order or coherence intended), as I don't have the time for more right know (it's nearly time to cheer to the New Year here now).

 

Surely Daoism is a beautiful philosophy teaching Man to live in harmony with nature and his fellows. It was not invented by Lau Tzu, but his book became something like its 'Bible'. If he was grossly misunderstood than this must have occurred already a long time ago.

 

It may have been contributed to by several authors over a period of time, to my knowledge.

 

It's also possible that Lao Tzu incorporated (as we would say) contradictory perspectives without seeing them as contradictory himself. As the Dao embraces everything. Maybe, in a sense, he was 'beyond good and evil'.

 

I could also imagine that under the circumstances of his time and place clever manipulation was indeed a more humane alternative for a ruler to open brutal dictatorship.

 

Last but not least, I think it's totally acceptable even if we (perhaps) project any wisdom into the TTC's ambiguous words as long as it helps us to live more at peace. We can't ascertain what was really on Lao Tzu's mind anyway.

 

I certainly look forward to further exchange on this topic.

[thelerner]

Hmnn, guess i've always taken myself to be the ruler and king. and thus have profited from my readings. as have my minions.

[ChiDragon]

Patented by whom?

 

Thanks!

Let say "Wu Wei" was only used Lao Zi to meant "Let Nature take its course" or "non-interference". Hence, if this is not his patent, then, who else is there....??? So to speak.

[Taoist Texts]

The Laozi as a Manual of Manipulation and Control

 

Yes it is and its a good thing. Jia you Dusty!

[ChiDragon]

The Lao Zi as a Manual advised to rule with less Manipulation and Control. That is what Lao Zi's "Wu Wei" was all about.

Edited December 31, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

MH - that sounds like you are saying that if you disagreed with something you really wanted to agree with - then the speaker must have just been being joking/sarcastic/ironic/etc - and actually really meant just the opposite of what he/she said. Is that what you were trying to convey?

 

Thanks!

Close but not quite. It is rather hard to explain but it is more at the speaker (writer) presents their information so that it sounds like it can't be true but when we look deeper we see the truth in what is said (written).

 

When Lao Tzu says to fill their bellies and empty their heads that is exactly what he is saying. Keep the people happy and stupid. The Catholic Church did the for many hundreds of years. (Except they didn't let the people get too big a belly cause they kept taking resources from the people.

[Marblehead]

And when the average reader reads a nice homogenized translation of an obscure ancient Chinese text, they say, "Well, this chapter seems to be geared towards a ruler of ancient China, but it seems pretty innocuous... and maybe it's applicable to my working life or home life."

 

Well, maybe it is... maybe everything in the text is useful for every person... maybe...

That was my initial response and I still hold to that understanding. I try to apply the teachings to my everyday living. And no, I have no intention of trying to rule anyone.

[Marblehead]

The Lao Zi as a Manual advised to rule with less Manipulation and Control. That is what Lao Zi's "Wu Wei" was all about.

That's one of the paradoxes, isn't it?

[rene]

It's certainly not something I've always taken into account, as it's something I've previously overlooked, and so many translators mistranslate certain words and ideas, and end up misinterpreting a large portion of the text. Compare Feng's original translation with my edited version at the end of the OP. Small differences combine to paint quite a different picture.

 

...maybe everything in the text is useful for every person... maybe...

 

I like to think there's something for everyone.

 

I love the Feng rendition from the 70's with the B&W photos. It was my first, and I still have the book. That said - Feng was heavily edited by Toinette Lippe for the publication. LOLOL

[dawei]

Let say "Wu Wei" was only used Lao Zi to meant "Let Nature take its course" or "non-interference". Hence, if this is not his patent, then, who else is there....??? So to speak.

 

Shen Dao first employed the idea as 無事... Laozi seems to borrow this idea.

[rene]

CD hi

 

You originally posted:

 

 

I can justify that “non-interference” is the patented philosophy of Lao Zi.

 

I asked "Patented by whom"?

 

You replied:

 

Let say "Wu Wei" was only used Lao Zi to meant "Let Nature take its course" or "non-interference". Hence, if this is not his patent, then, who else is there....??? So to speak.

 

You added the idea of "Wu Wei" into your original statement. There is a difference between "let nature take its course" and "non-interference".

 

Lots of "reading into" and "adding onto" occurs all the time; no one is immune.

 

What I try to do - is to see if the underlying essense comes through, informing the nei xin, and if it resonates ~~ regardless of any differences between renditions.

 

Thanks for your reply. (-:

[rene]

Close but not quite. It is rather hard to explain but it is more at the speaker (writer) presents their information so that it sounds like it can't be true but when we look deeper we see the truth in what is said (written).

 

Thanks for elaborating!

 

warm regards

[dawei]

Nice work

 

It is important to understand that the text is directed at rulers. Not half of the text, or parts of the text; the text itself. Regardless of content, think about the type of person in antiquity who would have been able to comprehend writing (let alone such obscurely written writing) and where the extant versions of the text have been discovered (clue: not written by farmers and left in an ancient shack).

 

It’s a manual. There are so many chapters that talk directly of ruling and governing that it astounds me how few people seem to take this into account when talking of the text, instead focusing almost solely on ideas about balance and personal cultivation, and abstract notions of wuwei that don’t really fit in with what’s written.

 

I am not sure if you have seen this link else where:

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE GUODIAN LAOZI

by Jennifer Lundin Ritchie

https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/23748/ubc_2010_spring_lundin_ritchie_jennifer.pdf?sequence=3

 

The Guodian edition is the oldest known copy of the text, and it is surprisingly different from the received edition. It is ostensibly ‗incomplete‘ and confusingly ‗disordered.‘ Many ‗characteristic‘ themes are absent. The majority of the material is focused on rulership, but it is not discussed in traditional terms or sequence.

 

This thesis ties together archeology, philosophy, history, and cognitive science to support the idea that the Guodian Laozi was meant to be a tool for rulership, and specifically used for instructing the crown prince Qingxiang of Chu, who was preparing to assume the throne near the end of the Warring States. Since the dominant theme of the Guodian Laozi appears to be rulership, I developed a new lens through which to read it, based on the embodied experience of Verticality, which includes the entailments of power and authority.

 

 

There was another thread about this text and the supposed 'tutor' who was buried with the Guodian books. It seems logical to me that the tutor picked those chapters as used for teaching... not to teach farmers

 

 

I don’t know about you, but I see wuwei meaning something slightly different than just “non-interference” based on this…

 

I think translating as 'non-interference' is not useful in some cases... it is a relative idea. I liked how Flowing Hands has stated it in a few other threads:

 

"Remember wu wei is active intent not non action"

 

"the world is ruled by not interfering"
But the world is brought back to balance by interfering. This is why Li Erh tells us not to hold onto a set concept of what 'wayism' is and is not. The way that I tread is not the way that someone else may tread and so taking 'noaction' is not the taking of no action that someone else may not take. It is therefore futile for anyone with even a modicum of real understanding to try and define and pin down an exact definition of the suggested 'wu wei'. I think it is important to remember that Li Erh talked about the 'way' as his personal observation of the natural laws that cover both matter and spirit, of the cultivation of wisdom and spiritual perfection and within this, is cultural understandings. But the 'way' is certainly not limited by culture or race and is easily understood by simple observation without concepts that are tied up in culture.

 

Active intention/awareness. When one is aware of the interaction between all life and this is what is happening, then there is no reason to act. When the world is out of balance then wu wei would mean to act with balance to correct the imbalance. Taking 'no action' would not make any sense considering everything else.

[dawei]

I would probably say it is a Manual for Simplicity.

[ChiDragon]

 

CD hi

 

You added the idea of "Wu Wei" into your original statement. There is a difference between "let nature take its course" and "non-interference".

Hi, rene

"Non-interference" means do not interfere with Nature and let it take its course. No.....???

Edited January 1, 2015 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

That's one of the paradoxes, isn't it?

 

Perhaps only in the eyes of the beholder. A sage would not read it as paradox.