Wrong?

[wandelaar]

@ Marblehead

 

What advise from the Tao Te Ching do you consider nearly non-applicable in the modern world of today?

Edited August 11, 2018 by wandelaar

[Marblehead]

5 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

@ Marblehead

 

What advise from the Tao Te Ching do you consider nearly non-applicable in the modern world of today?

I was afraid you were going to do that to me.

 

Can't recall right off hand.  I would have to read through the whole thing word for word.  Do you want to put me through that labor?

 

 

[wandelaar]

8 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Can't recall right off hand.  I would have to read through the whole thing word for word.  Do you want to put me through that labor?

 

No. I think it highly likely that you are right. But to proceed with this topic we need some concrete examples. So let's just put the question out for others to answer:

 

Quote

What advise from the Tao Te Ching do you consider nearly non-applicable in the modern world of today?

 

Edited August 11, 2018 by wandelaar

[OldDog]

I do not understand this obsession to establish right or wrong, correct or incorrect. I think that most people are OK with the notion of uncertainty ... of the inconclusive nature of existence. It gives people room to speculate, imagine, explore.

 

I ran across this quote.

 

The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers. - Erich Fromm

 

I think one of the lessons of Daoism is that the sage (learned person) makes use of anything that comes his/her way without the need to label it. 

[Kar3n]

2 minutes ago, OldDog said:

I do not understand this obsession to establish right or wrong, correct or incorrect. I think that most people are OK with the notion of uncertainty ... of the inconclusive nature of existence. It gives people room to speculate, imagine, explore.

 

I ran across this quote.

 

The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers. - Erich Fromm

 

I think one of the lessons of Daoism is that the sage (learned person) makes use of anything that comes his/her way without the need to label it. 

I was just contemating this myself and kept going back to chapter one.

Quote

The tao that can be told 
is not the eternal Tao 
The name that can be named 
is not the eternal Name. The unnamable is the eternally real. 
Naming is the origin 
of all particular things. Free from desire, you realize the mystery. 
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations. Yet mystery and manifestations 
arise from the same source. 
This source is called darkness. Darkness within darkness. 
The gateway to all understanding. 

 

[wandelaar]

No obsession here, just asking some concrete and specific questions on the way of Lao tzu. We are on page 5 now, and most of the reactions do their best to not consider the questions posed. Of course I know chapter 1 of the Tao Te Ching, and when Lao tzu would have thought there was nothing more to say on his proposed way he would have stopped right there. As it is, the Tao Te Ching contains a lot of concrete advise on how to live (or rule a country) that's worth considering. But to get to that we should be able to seriously consider the advise from an old man of long ago without immediately jumping on the barricades to defend our personal freedom to choose our own way life. Our freedom is not at stake! Even when it should turn out that Lao tzu disapproves of (aspects of) our current way of life, it is still our choice whether or not to live so. But we will see whether we can get back on topic....

Edited August 11, 2018 by wandelaar

[Kar3n]

Right and wrong are so subjective that it is unlikely you are going to be happy with anything anyone has to say.

 

Your query, in my opinion, is a stumbling block rather than an avenue to deeper understanding and aligning with Tao.

[wandelaar]

Just now, Kar3n said:

Right and wrong are so subjective that it is unlikely you are going to be happy with anything anyone has to say.

 

Your query, in my opinion, is a stumbling block rather than an avenue to deeper understanding and aligning with Tao.

 

Is your opinion on this also subjective?

[Kar3n]

5 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

Is your opinion on this also subjective?

It is, however, I suspect that others will agree and are as puzzled as I am by your propensity to look for ways to disprove the Tao.

[Lost in Translation]

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

asking some concrete and specific questions on the way of Lao tzu

 

I think the difficulty with this question is before one can show where Lao Tzu is wrong one must first establish what is right. We have yet to establish what is right, hence it cannot be shown where Lao Tzu is wrong.

 

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Chapter 80, pp. 39 TTC by Mair.

 

Quote

Let there be a small state with few people,

   where military devices find no use;

Let the people look solemnly upon death,

   and banish the thought of moving elsewhere.

 

They may have carts and boats,

   but there is no reason to ride them;

They may have armor and weapons,

   but they have no reason to display them.

 

Let the people go back to tying knots

   to keep records.

Let their food be savory,

   their clothes beautiful,

   their customs pleasurable,

   their dwellings secure.

 

Though they may gaze across at a neighboring state,

   and hear the sounds of its dogs and chickens,

The people will never travel back and forth,

   till they die of old age.

 

Do we really think that Lao Tzu is advocating a country that eschews technological advancement (tying knots to keep records vs writing on parchment), or where the people never trade with neighbors (people never travel back and forth till they die of old age), or never train and prepare for warfare (they may have armor and weapons but they have no reason to display them)? I seriously doubt that! Rather it seems to me that this passage describes the ideal internal state of the people. In other words people are not boastful or egotistic (show no weapons), are content with their lot (never travel) and are simple in their needs (tie knots to keep records). So if we are looking for ways that Lao Tzu is wrong and we think this kind of passage is a "smoking gun" then we are missing the point of the TTC entirely, since it's not about external reality but internal.

 

 

Edited August 11, 2018 by Lost in Translation
spelling, always spelling

[flowing hands]

16 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

I think the difficulty with this question is before one can show where Lao Tzu is wrong one must first establish what is right. We have yet to establish what is right, hence it cannot be shown where Lao Tzu is wrong.

 

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Chapter 80, pp. 39 TTC by Mair.

 

 

Do we really think that Lao Tzu is advocating a country that eschews technological advancement (tying knots to keep records vs writing on parchment), or where the people never trade with neighbors (people never travel back and forth till they die of old age), or never train and prepare for warfare (they may have armor and weapons but they have no reason to display them)? I seriously doubt that! Rather it seems to me that this passage describes the ideal internal state of the people. In other words people are not boastful or egotistic (show no weapons), are content with their lot (never travel) and are simple in their needs (tie knots to keep records). So if we are looking for ways that Lao Tzu is wrong and we think this kind of passage is a "smoking gun" then we are missing the point of the TTC entirely, since it's not about external reality but internal.

 

 

CHAPTER 80
A small village has fewer people.
Within the village there are machines that can work ten
to a thousand times harder than man.
But they are not needed.
In a small village, the people work together.
They use their labour to sow and grow food.
Their time is spent naturally on this occupation.
They live in harmony with nature, and the Ten Thousand Things.
So being in harmony, they return to the state of the uncarved block of wood;
simple, honest and straightforward.
The people take death seriously and so they strengthen
their bodies, and do not travel great distances.
They remain at one.
Being at one they have no need for boats and carriages.
Being simple and possessing very little,
they have no need for weapons, so they don't display them.
They return to craft in place of writing.
Their food is plain but good, their clothes simple but strong and warm,
their houses safe and secure.
They are happy in their ways, for they live
without interference, and too many laws.
So they do not intrude upon their neighbours.
They live in peace and grow old and die in harmony with nature,
and the Ten Thousand Things.

 

 

Different translations can obscure what Li Erh was really intending to express. Here is my transmission of this verse; so he is saying that it is 'better' for people to live simply, in that way they have no need of many things that we think are necessary today. Of course today we see the world and humans spinning out of control and out of balance with the rest of the environment and other living things. When we now have children who no longer know where milk comes from or where their KFC comes from we know things have gone beyond redemption!

[rene]

10 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

Do we really think that Lao Tzu is advocating a country that eschews technological advancement (tying knots to keep records vs writing on parchment), or where the people never trade with neighbors (people never travel back and forth till they die of old age), or never train and prepare for warfare (they may have armor and weapons but they have no reason to display them)? I seriously doubt that! Rather it seems to me that this passage describes the ideal internal state of the people. In other words people are not boastful or egotistic (show no weapons), are content with their lot (never travel) and are simple in their needs (tie knots to keep records). So if we are looking for ways that Lao Tzu is wrong and we think this kind of passage is a "smoking gun" then we are missing the point of the TTC entirely, since it's not about external reality but internal.

 

 

 

LiT - right. And - here's where the difficulty lies between translations.

 

The chapter you quoted by Mair - has almost an "instructional" tone to it, i.e.,....Let them have... They may have ... it feels almost like LZ is giving them permission and/or instructions.

 

Where the Feng/English translation is different... and uses Though they have.... which feels more of an observation of how their ways affect their life. fwiw - imo -  the 'internals' of this passage are that simpler (not necessarily un-modern) ways can bring more peaceful times. Much to be said for the elegant simplicity of life.

 

F/E 80

A small country has fewer people.
Though there are machines that can work ten to a hundred times faster than man, they are not needed.
The people take death seriously and do not travel far.
Though they have boats and carriages, no one uses them.
Though they have armor and weapons, no one displays them.
Men return to the knotting of rope in place of writing.
Their food is plain and good, their clothes fine but simple, their homes secure;
They are happy in their ways.
Though they live within sight of their neighbors,
And crowing cocks and barking dogs are heard across the way,
Yet they leave each other in peace while they grow old and die.

********

 

@wandelaar - I understand what you are looking for. It will depend on the translation you pick, if there are any to be found.

 

IMO - any "errors" in the TTC would have arrived from the translator thinking s/he knew what Laozi was intending to say; and if s/he thought LZ was writing an instruction manual. Lot's of folks think the TTC is a how-to-do... instead of a 'how-to-be'.

 

 

 

[Wu Ming Jen]

I finally got it! the thing wrong with Tao and lao tzu is.....  he is describing something with no substance that flows through all that is inside and outside at the same time This no thing can not be wrong or right, heavy or light. all our mental cognition vanishes into thin air. Nothing for mind even to attach to in the first place.

 

 

Sooo long story short is that humans must resolve right and wrong for themselves. It is a very personal matter for ones own self to solve. The tao can shed a lot of light on self development, celebrating life and penetrating the mystery.

[wandelaar]

@ LiT

 

Thank you! That is the kind of answer I like to read. You think I am wrong, but I have no problem with that. Your reaction is on topic, and that's what matters (to me).

 

I personally think the Tao Te Ching is both on internal and on external affairs. A large part of the Tao Te Ching is about ruling a country and about warfare. I see no reason why Lao tzu wouldn't have actually advocated his agrarian ideal. It would solve the problems of the warring states period at one stroke. And there were similar primitivist currents of thought at the time.

 

On the other hand the solution wouldn't be practical for the modern world because of overpopulation and because most people wouldn't accept such a "step back" in terms of comfort and excitement. And that's why I think your interpretation is a good one, not as a representation of what Lau tzu probably had in mind but as an interpretation that's fruitful for modern people to consider.

[Lost in Translation]

36 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

the solution wouldn't be practical for the modern world because of overpopulation and because most people wouldn't accept such a "step back" in terms of comfort and excitement.

 

The solution wouldn't be practical 2,600 years ago either. All it takes is one village to decide they want war for there to be war. This is why I say Lao Tzu is advocating an individual, internal way of approaching life. The village still needs weapons of war, if not for aggression then for defense. The village still needs to trade with its neighbors. But individually the people can learn to soften themselves, to shrink, grow small and content. Such advise is applicable today as it was then, arguably more so.

[Lost in Translation]

53 minutes ago, flowing hands said:

Different translations can obscure what Li Erh was really intending to express.

 

Yes. Correct. It is difficult to know when the "translation" ends and the "commentary" begins. I think we must accept this as a fact of life since there is no definitive text. They are all copies of copies of copies, and - for better or worse - the translators, being ever so smart, can't help but insert their own understanding into the mix.

[wandelaar]

@ LiT

 

Quote

Though they have armor and weapons, no one displays them.

 

That's what it says, so Lao tzu is no pacifist even as it regards his agrarian utopia. War is acceptable to Lao tzu as a last resort. So I don't see how that invalidates the seriousness of his suggested small villages solution.

[Lost in Translation]

9 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

That's what it says, so Lao tzu is no pacifist even as it regards his agrarian utopia. War is acceptable to Lao tzu as a last resort. So I don't see how that invalidates the seriousness of his suggested small villages solution.

 

This may be a "cart before the horse" kind of moment.

 

I don't see Lao Tzu as having a "small village solution." Instead, I see him as having a "simple people solution." Simple people will naturally form small villages, but if the people are not simple then populating them in small villages will have no effect.

 

Edited August 11, 2018 by Lost in Translation

[wandelaar]

That's right. Lao tzu's proposed solution will involve both the simplicity of the people and the smallness of the villages. But it is mostly in larger political units (countries) that the idea of expanding its power and territory takes hold. So the simplicity of the (common) people is not the whole story.

Edited August 11, 2018 by wandelaar

[Lost in Translation]

1 minute ago, wandelaar said:

But it is mostly in larger political units (countries) that the idea of expanding its power and territory takes hold.

 

The more you have, the more you need...

 

I live in one of the biggest cities in the world (Los Angeles, home to 10+ million people [in the county]) and I spend most of my time in quiet solitude on a 6 thousand square foot (548 square meter) plot of land, surrounded by a cacophony of cars, dogs barking and neighbor's music. I withdraw into myself because I cannot withdraw into the nature around me. Such is life. This metropolis has motivated me to seek peace in a way that all the trees and brambles and bubbling brooks never could have. Oh, sorry - I'm wandering...

 

 

[wandelaar]

Well  - that's basically the same as what I wrote. One can give the chapter a non-political personal interpretation such as you did that makes it relevant to modern life. I have no problem with that, as long as it is presented as a modern reinterpretation.

[rene]

2 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

The more you have, the more you need...

 

I live in one of the biggest cities in the world (Los Angeles, home to 10+ million people [in the county]) and I spend most of my time in quiet solitude on a 6 thousand square foot (548 square meter) plot of land, surrounded by a cacophony of cars, dogs barking and neighbor's music. I withdraw into myself because I cannot withdraw into the nature around me. Such is life. This metropolis has motivated me to seek peace in a way that all the trees and brambles and bubbling brooks never could have. Oh, sorry - I'm wandering...

 

 

 

Not wandering at all, imo, and that shows a modern application of something found in Ch 8!

 

You know the line...In dwelling, live close to the land ?

When I was working with Dr Wang on his translation - his treatment of that line was:

In dwelling, best by adapting to the place.

 

Sounds like you've found a way.

 

 

 

Edited August 11, 2018 by rene
fix quote

[Lost in Translation]

18 minutes ago, rene said:

that shows a modern application of something found in Ch 8!

 

You know the line...In dwelling, live close to the land ?

 

Thank you.

 

I reached for my three copies of TTC. They list that line in very different ways!

 

Feng/English: "In dwelling, be close to the land"

Mair: "The quality of an abode is in its location"

Wang: "In dwelling, best by adapting to the place"

 

The Wang translation best expresses my current approach to sane living in an insane environment. Mair captures my desire and intention to relocate to the north western rain forests. Fend/English go in a different direction. They express the importance of being in contact with the soil itself, of getting your hands dirty, so to speak. Three translations. Three completely different points of view...

[rene]

3 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

Thank you.

 

I reached for my three copies of TTC. They list that line in very different ways!

 

Feng/English: "In dwelling, be close to the land"

Mair: "The quality of an abode is in its location"

Wang: "In dwelling, best by adapting to the place"

 

The Wang translation best expresses my current approach to sane living in an insane environment. Mair captures my desire and intention to relocate to the north western rain forests. Fend/English go in a different direction. They express the importance of being in contact with the soil itself, of getting your hands dirty, so to speak. Three translations. Three completely different points of view...

 

Something for everyone!

 

[flowing hands]

Feng and English agrees with what I was taught by Li Erh