[DDJ Meaning] Chapter 5

[Marblehead]

Well, going back to the translations I find that Legge's translation of the first section feels very nice to me.

 

 

Heaven and earth do not act from (the impulse of) any wish to be 

benevolent; they deal with all things as the dogs of grass are dealt 

with. The sages do not act from (any wish to be) benevolent; they 

deal with the people as the dogs of grass are dealt with.

 

 

We still have the "straw dogs" but if we view this concept from a strictly materialistic perspective we can see the straw dogs being nourished while alive (useful) but returning to the earth upon death (end of usefulness).

Edited March 30, 2017 by Marblehead

[Stosh]

Well, going back to the translations I find that Legge's translation of the first section feels very nice to me.

 

 

Heaven and earth do not act from (the impulse of) any wish to be 

benevolent; they deal with all things as the dogs of grass are dealt 

with. The sages do not act from (any wish to be) benevolent; they 

deal with the people as the dogs of grass are dealt with.

 

 

We still have the "straw dogs" but if we view this concept from a strictly materialistic perspective we can see the straw dogs being nourished while alive (useful) but returning to the earth upon death (end of usefulness).

May I add , that with the usual irony , the life of the dog may equally be considered the useless ( self serving aspect) ,, and the death-burnt dog, could be construed as the useful ( serving the other - next life with fertilizer)  ?

[Gerry]

I agree...and yet it is kind of interesting that Gerry's point seems to be that we have a better understanding of what 'nothingness' is now, compared to before, which we might, but... what does that have to do with Tao or our unboundaried nature with Tao? Unless one thinks ->.

The point was, I hope, that how we express as emptiness and what that meant to one 2500 years ago can not be compared.  It influences that language one uses to express their meaning, understandings.  As I read "straw dogs" I have no idea what the that implied to an ancient.  Likewise for "void" or "emptiness".

 

If the author of the Tao Te Ching was composing today, his idiomatic and idiosyncratic choice of language and imagery would differ greatly from that 2500 years ago.  Today we read various translation, most translations with several degrees of separation, and try to understand their meaning while lacking any temporal relationship to the source.

 

I also tried to say that even if we struggle with ancient expressions, or we try to use a modern understanding of the Universe, we are still trying to express exactly the same thing, Tao, and that is not different. 

Edited March 30, 2017 by Gerry

[flowing hands]

Hi Gerry

 

For some reason my browsers does not let me quote peoples words.

This is one of the reasons why I started the thread about translating the DDJ right as Lao Tzu intended. If we look at what he taught me of his chapters there is no straw dogs for instance. I have a feeling that perhaps straw dogs were not used in his time or locality perhaps.

 

Verse 5

 

Heaven and Earth are ruthless

they see the ten thousand things (that's all life and material objects) as part of one whole

The wise are therefore ruthless, for they see people as part of the same structure

 

The space between Heaven and Earth is formless,

but it has a form; for the ten thousand things all depend upon it.

Like this space, the sage can use its formless qualities,

for it yields to whatever or whoever uses it.

 

Hold fast to this and remain at one.

[Jeff]

Hi Gerry

 

For some reason my browsers does not let me quote peoples words.

This is one of the reasons why I started the thread about translating the DDJ right as Lao Tzu intended. If we look at what he taught me of his chapters there is no straw dogs for instance. I have a feeling that perhaps straw dogs were not used in his time or locality perhaps.

 

Verse 5

 

Heaven and Earth are ruthless

they see the ten thousand things (that's all life and material objects) as part of one whole

The wise are therefore ruthless, for they see people as part of the same structure

 

The space between Heaven and Earth is formless,

but it has a form; for the ten thousand things all depend upon it.

Like this space, the sage can use its formless qualities,

for it yields to whatever or whoever uses it.

 

Hold fast to this and remain at one.

To me, being part of the overall structure would have the same meaning as a straw dog. A straw dog is not a real dog and something that one "sees through" as having no separate or independent status.

[Gerry]

My personal choice is:

 

5

The Tao doesn't take sides;
it gives birth to both good and evil.
The Master doesn't take sides;
she welcomes both saints and sinners. The Tao is like a bellows:
it is empty yet infinitely capable.
The more you use it, the more it produces;
the more you talk of it, the less you understand. Hold on to the center.

 

P.S. edit.  For much the same reason I like your choice.

Edited March 30, 2017 by Gerry

[Jeff]

My personal choice is:

 

5

The Tao doesn't take sides;

it gives birth to both good and evil.

The Master doesn't take sides;

she welcomes both saints and sinners. The Tao is like a bellows:

it is empty yet infinitely capable.

The more you use it, the more it produces;

the more you talk of it, the less you understand. Hold on to the center.

 

P.S. edit.  For much the same reason I like your choice.

I think the meaning fits, but hard to see him actually using a phrase like saints and sinners. Sort of like translating it within a Christian framework.

[flowing hands]

In this analogy, which I have read before, unfortunately the bellows do have a limit and are limited, so the analogy is a bit wayward in its meaning. Many translators are very much influenced by Christian teachings and so this creeps in to their own take of the verses. We must remember if anything, the DDJ will be heavily influenced by indigenous shamanism and nothing else.

[rene]

The point was, I hope, that how we express as emptiness and what that meant to one 2500 years ago can not be compared. It influences that language one uses to express their meaning, understandings. As I read "straw dogs" I have no idea what the that implied to an ancient. Likewise for "void" or "emptiness".

 

If the author of the Tao Te Ching was composing today, his idiomatic and idiosyncratic choice of language and imagery would differ greatly from that 2500 years ago. Today we read various translation, most translations with several degrees of separation, and try to understand their meaning while lacking any temporal relationship to the source.

 

I also tried to say that even if we struggle with ancient expressions, or we try to use a modern understanding of the Universe, we are still trying to express exactly the same thing, Tao, and that is not different.

Hi Gerry,

 

You know the expression re 'fingers pointing to the moon', yes?

 

The ideas you're expressing are valid; all the translations are but varities of fingers, some ancient some new, some point closer to the ideas, some in the opposite direction, and some are so obscure it's like the pointer is wearing mittens!

 

For me, the fingers that point clearest are the ones unadorned, the simplest, undecorated with ideology or bias - with nothing extraneous that would encumber the resonance of the essence - which comes through the words, and works with the words, to convey the understanding, and the shared perspective of LiEhr.

 

Or so it seems to me.

 

I yield to others to discuss fingers, gloves & mittens. (-:

 

warm regards

 

 

.

Edited March 30, 2017 by rene

[rene]

Verse 5

 

Heaven and Earth are ruthless

they see the ten thousand things (that's all life and material objects) as part of one whole

The wise are therefore ruthless, for they see people as part of the same structure

 

The space between Heaven and Earth is formless,

but it has a form; for the ten thousand things all depend upon it.

Like this space, the sage can use its formless qualities,

for it yields to whatever or whoever uses it.

 

Hold fast to this and remain at one.

 

Very nice, conveys well (-:

 

warm greetings

[Gerry]

Very nice, conveys well (-:

 

warm greetings

I am going to try to be less of the skunk at this party.

[Gerry]

I think the meaning fits, but hard to see him actually using a phrase like saints and sinners. Sort of like translating it within a Christian framework.

I read that as in "all kinds of people" in contrast to " good and evil".  I did not think of Christian slant.

 

But I have said enough for now.

[Jeff]

I read that as in "all kinds of people" in contrast to " good and evil".  I did not think of Christian slant.

 

But I have said enough for now.

 

 

Yes.  Like I said above, I would agree that the concept works with the phrase.

[Stosh]

If one remembers the sage or Tao is being impartial , then wicked and the just are mirror images anyway and therefore the Christian slant is being provided by the judgement of the reader- if by anyone.

The idea being conveyed , is the same regardless of your perspective who is right or wrong in any given real life scenario.

The Tao and the sage don't  share the bias that you are having.

In not being judgemental , rain falls and sun shines on everyone similarly,  

presenting anyone with the same opportunities ( universally good)

Many attempt to corral the sage into choosing the side that they agree with , to essentially validate the socialization which they were raised by, or came to understand as an exclusive truth independent of themselves.

This is often where the confusion arises as to the meaning of the passage being presented.

To understand any passage its my opinion that one should check if the inverse opinion can also be seen to have validity , and if it cant be found , then the translation is a biased presentation , of the original unbiased stance of the author.  

[rene]

Stosh, agree and very well put. (-:

[Wu Ming Jen]

Good and bad, the apple is good then it rots and it  is bad then the seeds create a new tree with lots of apples and it is good then it all starts all over again.

 

Evil is not present in the natural world. In the world of men being mis directed, lead to believe mental contrived thoughts and removed from the natural world creates evil.

 

The reason the Chinese refer to western people as foreign devils is because they studied the bible and thought westerners worshiped a devil. Man against nature is also a very weird mental concept that is just not found in the real living world.

 

Translating Chinese classics with a western mind is a mistake. 

 

I guess it is just easier to have something like a God responsible then we do not have to be responsible for all the ten thousand things and each other.

Edited March 30, 2017 by Wu Ming Jen

[Marblehead]

Yep.  I think we need go beyond dualistic thinking for a clearer understanding here.

[Taoist Texts]

This is one of the most misunderstood paragraphs of TTC, which does not  say much, since the entire text is a simulacrum in the western reader’s mind.

 

DDJ5 天地不仁，以万物为刍狗；圣人不仁，以百姓为刍狗。天地之间，其犹橐龠乎？虚而不屈，动而愈出。多言数穷，不如守中。

 

Unfortunately, the translators do not understand the technical terms used in the political discourse at the time; they do not even know that TTC is a political polemic, hence they miss the meaning by a mile and a half.

 

First, a brief glossary:

 

仁  ren humane-ness. It is not humanitarianism and has little to do with love or kindness. Humane-ness means treating a select, limited group of humans as  own peers.

 

“天地不仁 Tiāndì bùrén. Heaven …is not humane”. It is not an independent statement. It is a retort in a polemic with the Confucians who clamed that 天，仁也。i.e “Heaven is humane” meaning that Heaven treats humans as his peers, therefore the king shall do the same.

 

“刍狗 Chú gǒu straw dogs. “This is a technical term meaning ‘an object without own volition’ 刍狗能立而不能行 “Straw dogs can only be put in a desirable place, they can not walk on their own”

 

“百姓 bǎixìng hundred surnames”. This is not a designation for all people, let alone the entire humanity. In TTC times it meant the aristocracy, the ruling class.

 

So much for the accuracy of the translations.

 

The entire phrase reads:

“(1. An obvious observation.) Heaven does not treat all things as his peers. Instead it manipulates them as objects without own volition.

(2. A reasonable conclusion.) Therefore, the king shall imitate Heaven and not treat the aristocracy as own peers. He shall manipulate them regardless of their own volition, as if straw dogs.”

 

Now you know.)

[Marblehead]

Doesn't that contradict the over-all theme of the TTC in that Lao Tzu is telling government to leave the people alone and stop trying to manipulate them?

[Taoist Texts]

Thas a very good question.

The ancient society was three-tiered: the king, the nobles and the commoners. LZ says that it is best to leave the commoners alone as much as possible (wu-wei), but since the king still had to exercise governance over his nation, the said governance had to be done through the use of the nobles and not by the king personally (wu-wei again). Since he had to use the nobles, it figures that they must  not be his peers but his straw dogs.

 

The same situation arose in europe with the absolute monarchy vs. the feudal one.

[Stosh]

Dismiss the word humane , not use it , and use an appropriate one , OR use the word humane as it is used in English.

Its not Chinese, and you don't get to reassign what it means in English. Just like , suffering is an English word , and either suffering is what is meant in its basic connotations ..or it is not. Just go ahead and pick a term which matches the sentiment in Chinese and you are actually doing translation ,, as compared to perpetuating a bad translation and replacing the definitions that the word has. 

 

But as you've rendered this ',,, The sentiment is to treat everyone as pawns since the universe doesn't give a crap about you either. That this is in fact wisdom. The sage does this???

This is what you think is wise , and its the attitude of a spiritually advanced person, and this is worthy of passing on to the next generation ? 

IMO its the attitude of a despot or dictator, and though I am sure you have spent some quality effort coming to this , I don't think that its what the author was getting at., but maybe he Was indeed  a Machiavellian prick. I dunno. But as I've said before, often these things can be read with two opposing sentiments , so yours may in fact be a very well done interp. as long as you correct the word humane to something else. 

One could go with much of your translation and figure the meaning to be that heaven doesn't act for the benefit of particular individuals , but is egalitarian.

You couldn't leave the aristocracy to do the work themselves , delegate , to keep your hands clean, if you think they have no volition and can only do what they are told. So bringing this back to a comparison with the Heavens , the king would have no volition , and this advice could not be followed if it were the correct view. 

The reverse sentiment , that the universe is egalitarian , and doesn't favor particular individuals -cronyism, means that the king could also act impartially ,should or could follow rule of law , and can follow the advice which should work. Also the populace , can follow this advice treat folks with general respect rather than only respect and concern for some , effecting a public unifying sense of commonly held concern fate and patriotism , and downplaying the tendency for warlords and internal strife constantly cropping up. 

This lays the foundation for the modern nation-state, civil society , meritocracy , human rights , rule of law and so forth.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Stosh

[dawei]

I will thank you for the indepth comment to this very troublesome chapter... but will quickly share my thoughts without any research at the moment.

 

This is one of the most misunderstood paragraphs of TTC, which does not  say much, since the entire text is a simulacrum in the western reader’s mind.

 

DDJ5 天地不仁，以万物为刍狗；圣人不仁，以百姓为刍狗。天地之间，其犹橐龠乎？虚而不屈，动而愈出。多言数穷，不如守中。

 

Unfortunately, the translators do not understand the technical terms used in the political discourse at the time; they do not even know that TTC is a political polemic, hence they miss the meaning by a mile and a half.

 

First, a brief glossary:

 

仁  ren humane-ness. It is not humanitarianism and has little to do with love or kindness. Humane-ness means treating a select, limited group of humans as  own peers.

 

“天地不仁 Tiāndì bùrén. Heaven …is not humane”. It is not an independent statement. It is a retort in a polemic with the Confucians who clamed that 天，仁也。i.e “Heaven is humane” meaning that Heaven treats humans as his peers, therefore the king shall do the same.

 

To not treat as peers can also be a kind of cosmological obvious statement of mass/objects and cosmogony of unfolding.  To refute Confucius on a phrase might cause LZ to laugh quite a bit... to be very far off the mark anyways.  

 

“刍狗 Chú gǒu straw dogs. “This is a technical term meaning ‘an object without own volition’ 刍狗能立而不能行 “Straw dogs can only be put in a desirable place, they can not walk on their own”

 

The Straw Dogs thing originates with the Yellow Emperor.  I've never seen someone argue from this point of view but from later ones.  I'm still waiting for someone to understand the Yellow Emperor originated the straw dogs and how it might relate to LZ.

 

I can accept the idea that they are without volition; they are without life, after all.  They are ceremonial toys, in ZZ version.

 

“百姓 bǎixìng hundred surnames”. This is not a designation for all people, let alone the entire humanity. In TTC times it meant the aristocracy, the ruling class.

 

I agree with this.

 

So much for the accuracy of the translations.

 

The entire phrase reads:

“(1. An obvious observation.) Heaven does not treat all things as his peers. Instead it manipulates them as objects without own volition.

(2. A reasonable conclusion.) Therefore, the king shall imitate Heaven and not treat the aristocracy as own peers. He shall manipulate them regardless of their own volition, as if straw dogs.”

 

Now you know.)

 

If LZ is a polemic here... it could be:   Heaven does not view all things as objects to manipulate...   which would otherwise imply an intention within Heaven to steer a course.  That creates a separation of subject and object with Heaven which I think the chapter rejects.

 

Maybe more like;  

 

Heaven and Earth pay no heed to the Confucian concept of Ren (Bu Ren)

They view the ten thousand as even with the lowest function of the straw dog ;  [all things arise and fall in their Way]

 

Heaven, Earth, Sage are without partiality as to arising and returning.  It is all a straw dog... 

[rene]

Heaven, Earth, Sage are without partiality as to arising and returning. It is all a straw dog...

 

Yes, finally, thank you.

[Taoist Texts]

Heaven, Earth, Sage are without partiality as to arising and returning.  It is all a straw dog... 

That may be but it begs the question: what does the sage want?

 

 

The Straw Dogs thing originates with the Yellow Emperor. 

Could you please explain?

 

Edited April 25, 2017 by Taoist Texts

[Stosh]

He wants things to be as they are , and to be what they will be.

Comparatively, im not a Sage and want the answer to the diect question I asked because I didnt ask it for my health but to force you to deal with the ugly ramifications of what you were saying, that the advice was to treat everyone as stupid pawns. And while that is gracefully sidestepped , I havent fogot it and cant help but take it badly, so Im bowing out.