The rules of arm wrestling

[lienshan]

High virtue or virtue?

The precise take is to have virtue.

Low virtue or lost virtue?

The precise take is to have no virtue.

 

High virtue has no action, and thus no motivation.

Low virtue is acted, yet has motivation.

High benevolence is acted, yet has no motivation.

High righteousness is acted, yet has motivation.

High propriety is acted, yet there is no reaction.

 

Arm wrestling is performed correspondingly,

and so is the inevitable cause of lost Dao,

and thus is virtue ending in lost virtue,

and thus is benevolence ending in lost benevolence,

and thus is righteousness ending in lost righteousness,

and thus is propriety ending in the thinness of sagely propriety,

that which is the evidence of faithfulness,

and thus in the beginning of confusion.

 

Preceding perception,

that which is Dao,

is ending in wonderfulness,

and thus in the beginning of foolishness.

 

The precise take is a ten feet high sage.

Is his thickness existing or is his thinness existing?

Is his greatness existing or is his wonderfulness existing?

Because to do away with that and thus choose this!

 

Dao De Jing chapter 38

[contrivedname!]

i like your rendition of

 

"High virtue has no action, and thus no motivation.

Low virtue is acted, yet has motivation.

High benevolence is acted, yet has no motivation.

High righteousness is acted, yet has motivation.

High propriety is acted, yet there is no reaction."

 

but when one correspondingly performs arm wrestling what is the underlying principle of that with which they wrestle?

[lienshan]

but when one correspondingly performs arm wrestling what is the underlying principle of that with which they wrestle?

The principle (The rule of arm wrestling) is the confucian "Golden Rule":

 

"treat your inferiors just as you would want your superiors to treat you"

 

The confucian concept of virtue consists of two sides, superior virtue and inferior virtue, acting like two opponants in an arm wrestling contest. Superior benevolence equals inferior benevolence. Superior righteousness equals inferior righteousness. But superior propriety has no reaction and inferior propriety has thus it's arm laid down so to speak and becomes lost propriety.

 

The chapter 38 is extremely difficult to read/understand/translate and I'm still working on it:

 

Upwardly virtue isn't virtue.

The precise take is to have virtue.

Downwardly virtue isn't lost virtue.

The precise take is to have no virtue.

 

Upwardly virtue has no action, yet no incentive for action?

Downwardly virtue is acted, yet has an incentive for action?

Upwardly benevolence is acted, yet has no incentive for action?

Upwardly righteousness is acted, yet has an incentive for action?

Upwardly propriety is acted, yet no one reacts to the rule of arm wrestling,

and so is the inevitable result lost Dao,

and so is virtue ending in lost virtue,

and so is benevolence ending in lost benevolence,

and so is righteousness ending in lost righteousness,

and so is propriety ending in the thinness of sagely propriety,

that which is the evidence of faithfulness,

and thus in the beginning of confusion.

 

Preceding perception,

that which is Dao,

is ending in magnificence,

and thus in the beginning of foolishness.

 

The precise take is a great ten feet high sage.

Is his thickness existing or is his thinness existing?

Is his greatness existing or is his magnificence existing?

Because to do away with that, and so receive this!

[contrivedname!]

The principle (The rule of arm wrestling) is the confucian "Golden Rule":

 

"treat your inferiors just as you would want your superiors to treat you"

 

The confucian concept of virtue consists of two sides, superior virtue and inferior virtue, acting like two opponants in an arm wrestling contest. Superior benevolence equals inferior benevolence. Superior righteousness equals inferior righteousness. But superior propriety has no reaction and inferior propriety has thus it's arm laid down so to speak and becomes lost propriety.

 

 

The precise take is a great ten feet high sage.

Is his thickness existing or is his thinness existing?

Is his greatness existing or is his magnificence existing?

Because to do away with that, and so receive this!

 

i can see what you mean by Treat your inferiors as you would want your superiors to treat you being a two sided concept of virtue hence ddj 24:

 

"ONE on tip-toe cannot stand.

One astride cannot walk.

One who displays himself does not shine.

One who justifies himself has no glory.

One who boasts of his own ability has no merit.

One who parades his own success will not endure.

In Tao these things are called "unwanted food and

extraneous growths,"

Which are loathed by all things.

 

Hence, a man of Tao does not set his heart upon them. " as translated by John C.H. Wu, this could be seen as "acted" virtue, in contrast to the description of a taoist sage in ddj 15:

 

"THE ancient adepts of the Tao were subtle and

flexible, profound and comprehensive.

Their minds were too deep to be fathomed.

 

Because they are unfathomable,

One can only describe them vaguely by their

appearance.

 

Hesitant like one wading a stream in winter;

Timid like one afraid of his neighbours on all sides;

Cautious and courteous like a guest;

Yielding like ice on the point of melting;

Simple like an uncarved block;

Hollow like a cave;

Confused like a muddy pool;

And yet who else could quietly and gradually evolve

from the muddy to the clear?

Who else could slowly but steadily move from the inert

to the living?

 

He who keeps the Tao does not want to be full.

But precisely because he is never full,

He can always remain like a hidden sprout,

And does not rush to early ripening." same translation, which could be seen as unacted virtue

 

but i am curious what you mean by your rendition of 38 in the lines:

"The precise take is a great ten feet high sage.

Is his thickness existing or is his thinness existing?

Is his greatness existing or is his magnificence existing?

Because to do away with that, and so receive this!" ?

[lienshan]

The last section is the philosophical conclusion of the chapter. It's more clear in my newest translation, because of the change in the two lines above. I now think, that the characters fu li zhe means "sacrifier", that'll say one who treat your inferiors, and the characters qian shi zhe means "soothsayer", that'll say one who just as you would want your superiors to treat you:

 

The sacrifier turns faithfulness into thinness, and so into the beginning of confusion.

The soothsayer turns Dao into highness, yet only then into foolishness.

 

The precise take is a great ten feet high sage.

Is his thickness existing or is his thinness existing?

Is his greatness existing or is his highness existing?

Because to do away with that, and so receive this!

 

The last line is so to speak "muddy" as indicated by your quoted chapters 24 and 15. Laozi is in my reading of the line using the confucian argument "treat your inferiors just as you would want your superiors to treat you" towards the argument itself: "do away with" refers to "treat" and "receive" refers to "would want".

[lienshan]

Confucius's Ren (benevolence) and Laozi's De (virtue) are both named "complementarity" in english;

the english word has two meanings:

 

Confucius Ren - complementarity - the interrelation of reciprocity whereby one thing supplements or depends on the other - reciprocality, reciprocity - a relation of mutual dependence or action or influence

 

Laozi De - complementarity - a relation between two opposite states or principles that together exhaust the possibilities - ungradable opposition - an opposition that has no intermediate grade; either one or the other

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/complementarity

 

Confucius defines Ren (benevolence) as a complementarity in The Analects 15:24

 

Zi Gong asked, saying, "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?"

The Master said, "Is not reciprocity such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."

 

http://chinese.dsturgeon.net/text.pl?node=1096&if=en

 

Laozi describes Confucius's reciprocity in Dao De Jing chapter 38:

 

The sacrifier turns faithfulness into thinness, and so into the beginning of confusion.

The soothsayer turns Dao into highness, yet only then into foolishness.

 

Laozi defines De (virtue) as a complementarity in chapter 38:

 

The precise take is to have no virtue.

The precise take is to have virtue.

Because to do away with that, and so experience this!

 

The last line is too defining the principle of wu wei:

To do away with to have no De is to experience to have De

 

My translation of Dao De Jing chapter 38 looks like this at the moment:

 

High virtue or virtue?

The precise take is to have virtue!

Low virtue or lost virtue?

The precise take is to have no virtue!

 

Upward virtue has no action, and so no motive for action.

Downward virtue is acted, and so has a motive for action.

 

The highest benevolence is acted, yet has no motive for action?

The highest righteousness is acted, yet has a motive for action?

The highest ritual is acted, yet no one reacts abide by the rules of arm wrestling,

and so is pinned down the reason for lost Dao,

and so is virtue ending in lost virtue,

and so is benevolence ending in lost benevolence,

and so is righteousness ending in lost righteousness,

and so is the ritual ending:

 

The sacrifier turns faithfulness into thinness, and so into the beginning of confusion.

The soothsayer turns Dao into highness, yet only then into foolishness.

 

The precise take is a large ten feet tall sage.

Is his thickness existing or is his thinness existing?

Is his greatness existing or is his highness existing?

Because to do away with that, and so experience this!

Edited April 30, 2009 by lienshan

[lienshan]

I read these two lines:

 

1. Upward virtue has no action, and so no motive for action.

2. Downward virtue is acted, and so has a motive for action.

 

as Laozi testing the confucian Golden Rule in both variations related to De (virtue):

 

1. "don't treat your superiors as you wouldn't want your inferiors to treat you"

2. "treat your inferiors just as you would want your superiors to treat you"

 

I read the next two "arm wrestling" lines:

 

The highest benevolence is acted, yet has no motive for action?

The highest righteousness is acted, yet has a motive for action?

 

as Laozi showing the nonsense, when The Highest (with no superior) acts benevolence (virtue):

 

The Master (Confucius) said, "... Now the man of perfect virtue, wishing to be established himself,

seeks also to establish others; wishing to be enlarged himself, he seeks also to enlarge others.

To be able to judge of others by what is nigh in ourselves - this may be called the art of virtue."

(the Analects 6:30)

 

The Highest is not "wishing to be enlarged himself" and has therefore no motive

[contrivedname!]

I read the next two "arm wrestling" lines:

as Laozi showing the nonsense, when The Highest (with no superior) acts benevolence (virtue):

The Highest is not "wishing to be enlarged himself" and has therefore no motive

 

hence the saying(s) of the so-called psuedo-daoist yang chu:

...As no one would do a favor for the world and no one would profit by it, the world was in a perfect state

 

if the ancients could've given a hair on their arm for the world they would not have done it [ie if they could give up a hair to rule the world]

 

you can do "good" without thinking about fame but fame will follow in its wake, fame makes no tryst with gain, yet gain will come all the same, gain makes no tryst with strife, yet strife will certainly ensue, therefore the "superior" person is very cautious about doing the "good"

 

what say you grand master poo?

[lienshan]

you can do "good" without thinking about fame but fame will follow in its wake, fame makes no tryst with gain, yet gain will come all the same, gain makes no tryst with strife, yet strife will certainly ensue, therefore the "superior" person is very cautious about doing the "good"

Why cautious? "Doing the good" is "To do away with to have no De"!

 

That's how I read Laozi's definition of De in chapter 38. De is a verb meaning "to do away with to have no De"

The character De is only a word-symbol, literal meaning virtue, like the character Dao is only a word-symbol,

literal meaning road. De meaning "to do away with to have no De" is the definition of the wu wei De principle.

Doing the "good" (benevolence) is the wei De principle.

 

Yang Chu seems to have had a different approach to De than Laozi

[contrivedname!]

Why cautious? "Doing the good" is "To do away with to have no De"!

 

ahh because what may seem good to a person's subjective view of the world may not in fact actually be good for the whole